Following for the Prime Minister. [1]

Halifax [2] has telegraphed that the Secretary of State for the
Navy, Knox, on 29th April summoned the British Naval Mission to
the Navy Department and stated that he wished to consult them as
to the views of the United Kingdom Government in the following
proposition:-

What would be our views of the result if the United States were
now to move the greater part of their Pacific Fleet into the
Atlantic, leaving in the Pacific forces of the order of three or
four battleships, nine cruisers and thirty to forty destroyers?
It appeared from subsequent discussion with Colonel Knox that this
proposition was made on the hypothesis that the United States
would remain non-belligerent for the time being, and that the
forces thus transferred to the Atlantic would not act more
belligerently than those now employed on the Atlantic patrol.

Mr. Stimson [3], who was present at the discussion, raised
considerations on a wider plane than the purely naval one and
urged that such a move would produce a tremendous effect.

He suggested that the Japanese would take a long-range view and
would interpret the movement of the United States Pacific Fleet to
mean that the United States must be shortly about to enter the war
and that, in consequence, the addition of the whole weight of her
navy to a decisive theatre of the Atlantic would definitely
foreshadow entry into the 'Battle of the Atlantic', and the defeat
of the Axis powers.

Mr. Stimson suggested that, in these circumstances, the Japanese
would refrain from any action for fear of being on the losing side
in the long run, and he also stressed the psychological effect
which the proposed move would have in encouraging the United
Kingdom and her Allies, and correspondingly impressing the Axis
powers and the heartening effect which this would have on the
American people, owing to the importance of such a move.

At the close of the discussion, it was suggested by Colonel Knox
and Mr. Stimson that the matter should be referred to higher
authority in the United Kingdom.

The matter has been considered by the Defence Committee of
Cabinet, who, for their part, heartily welcomed the proposal.

We are anxious to send very early reply to Halifax as to what line
he should take. We feel, however, that it is of great consequence
that, before any answer is given, the Governments of Australia and
New Zealand, whose position is directly affected, should be
consulted.

From the standpoint of naval strategy, it has always been
considered by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom that
the United States Pacific Fleet was unduly strong for the tasks
which it was intended to fulfil in case of war with Japan.

The Admiralty therefore would welcome a strong reinforcement of
the United States Atlantic Fleet from the Pacific Fleet.

On the other hand, they regard it as important that whatever part
of the United States Fleet remains in the Pacific should be of
sufficient strength and of the right composition to exercise the
necessary deterrent influence on the Japanese. In particular, they
consider that aircraft carriers are specially important for this
purpose, as they are the only means of threatening the Japanese
mainland and thus detaining Japanese Naval Forces in home waters.

This being so, the size of the Fleet which, under this new
proposition, would be left in the Pacific seems to the Admiralty
unduly small and they consider that, while the proposal should
generally be heartily welcomed, the suggestion should be made that
the desired effect in the Atlantic would be produced if the size
of reinforcements proposed were slightly reduced.

Provided that the Fleet remaining at Hawaii is sufficient for the
purpose, immediate movement of reinforcements to the Atlantic
would, in the view of the Admiralty, have very great advantage,
anticipating the opening moves of the war plan agreed upon in
Washington, and Singapore discussions, of which you will be aware.

The arrival of a British Fleet at Singapore in the event of a war
with Japan would thus be similarly advanced.

As regards the effect on Japan of such a step, we recognise that
it might be held that the movement of large reinforcements from
the Pacific to the Atlantic would be taken by the Japanese as the
signal for them to undertake adventures to the southward. But,
after careful considerations, we do not subscribe to this view. On
the contrary, our opinion, like that of Mr. Stimson, is that any
marked advance by the United States Navy into the Atlantic is more
likely to deter Japan from entering the war than the presence of
an unnecessarily large United States Fleet at Hawaii.

On weighing up all considerations, we feel strongly that the over-
riding consideration is that the movement proposed should exercise
a profound influence on the present critical situation in Spain,
Turkey and in Vichy France, and might well transform the whole
strategic picture in Western Europe, quite apart from the fact
that it would clearly imply a definite advance by the United
States towards direct participation in war.

On these grounds, we propose to reply to Halifax that he should
strongly encourage United States action in this sense and that, at
the same time, he should suggest that whatever force is left
behind at Hawaii should be calculated to impose the greatest
possible deterrent effect on Japan, and that aircraft carriers are
specially important from this aspect.

We very much hope that we shall have the concurrence of your
Government in taking this line. You will realize the vital
importance to us all of not chilling America and making things
harder for our friends in the States who are pressing for more
forward action.

Of course, the question of what the United States do with their
Fleet does not rest with us.

Grateful for earliest possible reply.