Tag: world war II

In the tumultuous era of World War II, with nations embroiled in conflict, two key leaders emerged to steer their respective nations through the storm. Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States, would come to symbolize the alliance that played a pivotal role in the ultimate victory over the Axis powers.

The Casablanca Conference was a meeting of Allied leaders held in Casablanca, a city in (then) French Morocco, from January 14 to January 24, 1943, under the code name “SYMBOL.” It is regarded as the most controversial conference of World War II.

At the conference, on the leadership level, participants included American President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Joseph Stalin was absent; he had been invited but declined to attend, citing the impending Battle of Stalingrad. Their top military commanders and significant military figures were with both leaders. Also present were French rival generals Charles de Gaulle and Henri Giraud.

Before the Conference

On November 8, 1942, the Allies landed on the shores of (then) French North Africa, executing an operation codenamed Operation Torch. The decision for this operation was made despite initial skepticism from the Americans and under pressure from Stalin, who demanded that the Anglo-Americans open a front in Western Europe as quickly as possible to relieve the Red Army on the Eastern Front. Indeed, “Operation Sledgehammer” was planned to target the ports of Brest and Cherbourg, aiming to establish a small bridgehead on European soil.

The Americans initially favored the plan, but the British strongly opposed it, correctly asserting that they lacked sufficient landing craft and the capability to support such an undertaking from air and sea. Thus, the implementation of Operation Torch commenced, with strong reluctance from the Americans, who did not consider “the road to Berlin passing through North Africa.”

By the beginning of 1943, it was already evident that the outcome of the operation was as expected: German and Italian forces would be definitively expelled from North Africa. Some issues remained to be clarified, such as addressing the problem posed by Admiral Karl Dönitz’s submarines in the Atlantic (Battle of the Atlantic), the allocation of forces on various war fronts, determining the next steps for the Allies, and, finally, Churchill raising the question of how to reconcile the conflicting French commanders.

The British desired the continuation of operations in the Mediterranean. Churchill had even referred to Italy as the “soft underbelly of Europe.” In contrast, the Americans wanted an invasion through the English Channel, knowing that in such a scenario, the main burden would fall on the British, allowing them to conserve resources for the immense effort they were undertaking in the Pacific against Japan.

Preparation

The conference took place in the Anfa neighborhood of Casablanca, and the discussions were held at the eponymous hotel (Anfa Hotel). Two mansions were provided for the accommodation of the leaders; another two were allocated for the chiefs of staff; and the entire neighborhood was surrounded by barbed wire, with armed guards stationed behind the wire perimeter.

Essentially, the conference did not have a serious objective. Without the presence of Stalin, it lost a significant part of its significance. All its issues could have been resolved without it. However, according to presidential advisor Harry Hopkins, President Roosevelt “wanted to take a trip.” Moreover, as he did not desire much formality, he asked Churchill “not to burden his foreign minister,” as he would do the same. In reality, Roosevelt circled half the globe before reaching Casablanca, even passing through Trinidad. This unnecessary move almost cost the Allied leadership dearly: the aircraft carrying Churchill caught fire, and Eisenhower’s plane lost two engines in flight, causing the Supreme Commander to land with a parachute on his back and suffer a knee injury from the impact.

On the other hand, Churchill had premeditated what he would request from the Americans, which was nothing but the expansion of hostilities in the Mediterranean. He loaded a ship with documents (referred to as a “floating staff” by Cartier) and brought all his chiefs of staff with him, just like Roosevelt did. He also asked De Gaulle to accompany him without informing him beforehand. He justified the lack of information by arguing that if the conference had been announced, it would have required extensive security measures.

The stubborn Frenchman, aware that his opponent’s headquarters were precisely there, initially issued a categorical “no,” and Churchill left on his own. He then called both Giraud and De Gaulle “on behalf of the American president and the British prime minister.” Giraud arrived immediately, while De Gaulle continued to refuse, claiming it was purely a French matter and did not require foreign intervention. The irritable Churchill became so annoyed that he threatened De Gaulle, sending him a stern telegram stating that he would withdraw his support and sideline him. Under this intense pressure, De Gaulle yielded, although he attended the conference only on the ninth day.

Participants of the Casablanca Conference

British Side

• Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
• Admiral Sir Dudley Pound (Sir Alfred Dudley Pickman Rogers Pound)
• Air Chief Marshal Charles Portal (Charles Frederick Algernon Portal)
• Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Tedder
• General Sir Alan Brooke (Sir Alan Francis Brooke)
• General Sir John Dill
• Air Chief Marshal Sir Harold Alexander, head of British forces in the Middle East
• Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten
• General Sir Hastings Ismay

American Side

• Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States
• General of the Army and Air Force Henry Arnold (Henry Harley “Hap” Arnold)
• Admiral Ernest King, head of the U.S. fleet
• General George Marshall, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army
• General Dwight Eisenhower, head of “Operation Torch”
• Averell Harriman, presidential advisor
• Harry Hopkins, presidential advisor
• Robert Murphy, special representative of the president on Eisenhower’s staff
• Brigadier General Elliot Roosevelt, son of the president

French Side

• General Charles de Gaulle, leader of the “Free French”
• General Henri Giraud, the military commander of French North Africa

Results of the Casablanca Conference

The fundamental decision of the conference was that the Allies’ struggle should continue until what is termed the “bitter end,” meaning until Nazi Germany unconditional surrender. This unconditional surrender requirement was applied to both Italy and Japan. It was also agreed that none of the Allies would accept a separate surrender from any Axis power; for example, Italy had to surrender to the Allies and not to Britain or the United States.

Winston Churchill opposed the proposal for unconditional surrender. He did not believe that a vengeful approach toward Germany was necessary. Later, he clarified that “The term ‘unconditional surrender’ does not mean that the German people will be enslaved or destroyed.” Churchill rightly feared, as events proved, that these two words would undermine any internal opposition in Germany, providing the Nazis with the rallying point they needed to fight to the death. Joseph Goebbels, in his propaganda, effectively exploited these two words. The opponents of the Adolf Hitler regime had no choice but to halt their actions.

The British presented strong arguments, and Churchill personally opposed Marshal’s proposal for a “small” invasion of the northern French coast in the summer of the same year. He argued that such an operation, given the Luftwaffe’s air superiority in the region, would result in an easy victory for Hitler. Additionally, the available landing craft at that time were numerically insufficient to transport the required troops, and the presence of German submarines was particularly worrisome.

Instead, Churchill approved providing strong support to the Americans from Australia and New Zealand, Commonwealth members, in the Pacific theater. He also assured the expansion of British operations in Burma to strengthen Chiang Kai-shek in China. In return for these gestures, Roosevelt agreed to the Allied invasion of Sicily. It was also agreed to initiate and intensify air raids on German territory from British airfields, involving both the RAF and the U.S. Air Force.

This conference marked the last occasion where Churchill could dictate the goals of the Allied effort. After this meeting, the Americans realized that, due to their strength, they were the primary driving force of the Alliance and would start acting accordingly.

Resolution of the French Crisis

Initially, the two French leaders, though strong opponents of the Vichy France, had developed an atmosphere of intense coldness, if not hostility, in their relations. These “reservations” had worn out both Churchill and Roosevelt. The American president, on the other hand, viewed De Gaulle as a representative of the “old” France, with tendencies toward colonialism and autocracy, while also considering him influenced. Conversely, Giraud believed that De Gaulle had been involved in the assassination of Admiral Darlan (to be precise, he believed that De Gaulle had sent Darlan’s assassin).

On Sunday, January 24, the last day of the conference, Churchill and De Gaulle have yet another stormy discussion, during which De Gaulle insists on not committing to anything. Later, the two men meet with Roosevelt, who, after unsuccessful attempts to draft a joint communiqué, decides to adopt a different approach with De Gaulle.

He engages in a calm conversation, asking him if he would agree to shake hands with Giraud. De Gaulle responds with a “yes.” “And will you do this in front of the photographers?” “I shall do it for you,” replies the Frenchman. Journalists are called into the room, capturing a photograph of the two men exchanging the handshake, symbolizing reconciliation. Giraud even agrees to send a representative to organize direct contact between French Africa and London (De Gaulle’s headquarters). From this perspective, the conference held great significance for France. The BBC reported: “the two Frenchmen became the joint chairmen of the French Committee for National Liberation.”

Economist Jean Fourastié used the phrase “Trente Glorieuses” (the Glorious Thirty) to describe the prosperous years after the Liberation and continuing into the 1970s. France was in shambles by the time World War II ended. Cities had to be rebuilt and, as part of the Marshall Plan, the United States provided financial aid to help kickstart the country’s flagging economy. And these changes included heavy governmental intervention in the productive sector. This period was a veritable economic miracle for France. The period saw both a rise in GDP and a general improvement in living conditions in France.

The period from the Liberation to the 1970s was a period of prosperity referred to as the “Trente Glorieuses” by the economist Jean Fourastié. At the end of World War II, France was devastated, with many cities completely destroyed and in need of reconstruction. To revive the struggling economy, significant reforms were undertaken with massive state intervention in the productive sector, funded by American assistance through the Marshall Plan. This era is often referred to as an economic miracle, during which France experienced significant growth and an improvement in the standard of living.

France On Its Way to The Trente Glorieuses

After World War II, France emerged from the conflict in dire straits, with nearly 600,000 casualties. The country had suffered significant destruction, including a severely damaged railway network and a devastated economy. Due to a lack of financial reserves, France was in a weakened state.

Upon Liberation, the economic situation was disastrous, with entire cities in ruins, a significantly reduced railway network, destroyed bridges, and cut telephone lines. This catastrophe also affected the French production apparatus. For instance, coal production fell from 67 to 40 million tons. France had regressed by fifty years. This situation, understandably, led to a thriving black market and inflation.

To address this problem, one of the first major decisions after Liberation was to increase wages. The entire French population was encouraged to participate in the production effort. This was referred to as the “third battle of France,” where terms like “reconstruction soldiers” and “rolling up one’s sleeves” were used. The economic approach during the Liberation and the Fourth Republic was characterized by a certain level of economic dirigisme, or government control and planning.

In response to persistent inflation, the government couldn’t help but intervene to rebuild and reform the country. The U.S. Marshall Plan was instrumental in providing financial support for the reconstruction of Europe. This plan distributed nearly 13 billion dollars to 13 European countries. Despite being a victim of World War II, the USSR turned down American aid, which hinted at the coming Cold War.

Reforms Leading to Progress

At the end of the war, as part of the profound economic reform, two fundamental innovations benefiting the French population were introduced. The first was the creation of the Social Security system. While it built on existing foundations, this measure went beyond mere technical reorganization.

It aimed to establish real safeguards against risks and create a fairer society. Pierre Laroque initiated this reform, which addressed the principles of solidarity and human dignity. Workers were hence protected from work-related risks such as illness, unemployment, old age, and workplace accidents, in addition to family allowances. Furthermore, the February 22, 1945, ordinance allowed the creation of committees in companies with more than fifty employees to involve workers closely in the company’s affairs.

Both of these reforms aimed to strengthen social cohesion as the country needed to rebuild its economy. However, this economic overhaul required a different level of state intervention.

What Tools Were Needed for This Transformation?

It quickly became evident that to jumpstart and rebuild the economy, several reforms and tools needed to be put in place. Thus, organizations responsible for monitoring economic developments were established. In 1945 and 1946, the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE) and the General Planning Commission (Commissariat général au Plan) were founded, initially to address shortages and later to reconstruct and modernize France.

Simultaneously, a wave of nationalizations provided the government with new means of intervention. One well-known example of nationalization was the Renault factory. This measure was taken due to Louis Renault’s collaboration with the Third Reich. After Liberation, the factories were placed under sequestration, and the state, after seizing all assets, dissolved the old company and created a National Renault Factories Agency under the authority of the Minister of Industrial Production.

The state also nationalized energy production. Coal mines in France, EDF (Électricité de France), and GDF (Gaz de France) were established, and a significant portion of the banking system came under political control (Crédit Lyonnais, Société Générale).

Through this Fourth Republic, the economy was rejuvenated through state interventionism, laying the foundation for what Jean Fourastié would later call “the Trente Glorieuses.”

A Period of Economic Prosperity

France lost a lot of money due to the Great Depression of the early 20th century and the two world wars (World War I, World War II and Vichy France) that followed it. France had an extended period of exceptional development from 1945 until the 1970s.

Prosperity is measured by gross national product (GNP), but global GNP per capita went from around $2,110 in 1950 to around $4,090 in 1970 (the Maddison Method). During these “Trente Glorieuses,” the country saw rapid industrialization. The consumer goods and transportation industries reaped the most benefits. In contrast, growth was more sluggish in the core sectors of iron and steel, textiles, and basic chemicals. Increased energy mobilization was a byproduct of this expansion. As a result of its low price and high energy content, oil was quickly becoming the world’s primary growth fuel.

Another element of this economic vigor was the profound shift in the distribution of employment across the three sectors of activity. The primary sector required fewer workers, while the secondary sector experienced an increase in employment, albeit with limited benefits from the growth. In contrast, there was a significant expansion of the tertiary sector and “white-collar” jobs.

Towards a Consumer Society

The Trente Glorieuses marked France’s transition into a consumer society, mirroring the American way of life. Starting in the 1950s, the French population began acquiring consumer goods such as televisions, refrigerators, washing machines, and automobiles. Access to these consumer goods became increasingly convenient, especially through the emergence of supermarkets.

Consumption in the 1950s and 1960s was not just about meeting individual needs but also about asserting one’s social status. During this period of prosperity, daily life underwent profound changes. Families were transformed with the advent of household appliances. “Moulinex liberates women,” as the refrigerator made women “happy and fulfilled.” This family transformation allowed for more time dedicated to child-rearing, leisure activities, and, for women, the possibility of entering the workforce.

Households entered the modern world, resulting in changes in family budgets. More money was allocated to equipment, healthcare, and leisure.

The Reason for The Growth

One of the primary reasons for this economic growth lies in the supply-demand equation. During these thirty years, there was an increase in demand and, consequently, an increase in supply. This evolution was also the result of production methods such as Taylorism, Fordism, and assembly line work, where skilled workers gradually gave way to specialized labor, saving time and money. These elements allowed for increased production at lower costs. Additionally, another explanation for this growth likely lies in the extended duration of education. For instance, in 1970, there were four times as many high school graduates as in 1946.

Economic growth occurred because there was an increase in demand. Consumption increased because there were more consumers. Moreover, purchasing power continued to rise. For example, in 1948, it took more than 2,600 hours of work to buy a Citroën 2CV, while in 1974, only 1,000 hours were needed.

Finally, it’s worth noting that this period was characterized by full employment, and a significant salary reform occurred: workers began receiving monthly salaries instead of weekly pay, allowing them to allocate more substantial sums for consumption.

Economic Prosperity That Didn’t Benefit Everyone

During this period, the term “third world,” referring to countries not benefiting from this growth, emerged. However, even within the driving countries of the Trente Glorieuses, there were movements of rejection. Precarity persisted in France, stemming from poorly-paid jobs. As a result, there were individuals left behind by the growth, and shantytowns existed until the early 1970s. A “fourth world” emerged during this era of prosperity.

Some individuals also questioned this growth. They objected to the idea of an economy-controlled way of life and rejected the “work, commute, sleep” routine. Left-wing movements emerged, offering an alternative to the consumer-oriented world. They proposed renouncing the modern world and returning to rural life, as seen on the Larzac plateau, for example.

The End of the Trente Glorieuses (Glorious Thirty)

The notion that growth came to an abrupt halt solely due to the first oil shock is unfounded. Signs of an economic downturn were present in the early 1970s, and the energy crises of 1975 and 1979 only exacerbated the situation.

However, compared to the economic and social climate of the late 1990s, the Trente Glorieuses era, with its somewhat mythical name, continues to be the time when our nation experienced the strongest growth. In thirty years, it outperformed the growth France had seen between 1830 and 1914.