Your cablegram 164. [1] I appreciate the report of the action
being taken by you to support our case on the lines requested in
cablegram No. 38 [2] and the outline of the counter-arguments with
which you are being confronted.

2. In regard to the first point that our request involves a
departure from the agreed strategic policy of beating Hitler
first, in which Australia has acquiesced, War Cabinet strongly
disagrees with the view that the Australian Government has
expressed any such agreement. [3] As you know, the Government was
not aware of the agreement reached on grand strategy between
President Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill in January 1942 until the
text of the document was communicated to us by Dr. Evatt on 28th
May [4], during his visit to London immediately after a copy of
the document became available to him. The strategy was determined
without reference to the Commonwealth Government and the decisions
were taken before Singapore fell.

3. You will remember that the situation and needs of the South-
West Pacific Area and their relation to global strategy was the
subject of messages exchanged between myself, Mr. Churchill and
the President in August and September 1942. [5] The answers to our
representations were governed by the decisions on basic strategy,
which had been taken by Mr. Churchill and President Roosevelt in
January 1942, and in my statement in the House of Representatives
on 10th December 1942, I outlined the position in the following
terms:-

'I explained in some detail at the last secret session the
exchanges of views that had passed between Mr. Churchill,
President Roosevelt and myself on Pacific strategy and the needs
of the South-West Pacific Area in particular. Mr. Churchill and
President Roosevelt were unable to fully accept the views of the
Australian Government on Pacific strategy and the provision of the
forces and supplies sought. However, they gave certain assurances
and practical support, for which the Government is deeply
grateful, and it felt bound to accept their conclusions in a
spirit of united comradeship.'

4. In the House of Representatives on 24th March, 1943, I
reiterated the purport of my previous remarks in the following
terms:-

'This is not the first time that it has been declared that what is
called the global strategy means the defeat of Hitler first. I
have previously intimated to the House that that has become the
accepted policy of the major powers and I have said that though
this is not comforting to us, in the circumstances there is no
other course for countries like China and Australia to take than
to play their part in the broad global strategy by fulfilling to
the utmost of their capacities the roles assigned to them.'

5. In my message to the President of 16th November 1942, which was
repeated to you, I also made the following observations [6]:-

'The decisions on global strategy have been taken by Mr. Churchill
and yourself The Commonwealth Government has shown a ready
willingness to co-operate in other theatres at considerable risk
to the security of Australia. This has been demonstrated by the
service overseas of our naval, land and air forces and our
continued participation in the Empire Air Training Scheme. The
Government considers that the contributions it has made to other
theatres entitle it to the assurance that the fullest possible
support will be given to the situation in the Pacific. You will
recall that the Military Advisers of the Australian Government
consider that three further divisions are necessary in the South-
West Pacific Area.'

6. I think, therefore, that in expressing our attitude towards the
decisions on global strategy, you should negate any implication of
acquiescence. The simple fact is that we had no voice in the
decision. We were confronted with a fait accompli and we had no
alternative but to accept the decisions, much as we disliked them.

7. As my cablegram of 19th January [7] had been based on General
MacArthur's statement of the lessons of the New Guinea campaign, I
furnished him with a paraphrase of your cablegram. He agreed with
your presentation of the case and made the following observations,
which I am quoting for your most secret and personal information
[8]:-

'Referring to item (f), strategic plan has been prepared and
presented to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which is the only channel
permitted to me by the Governments concerned. It embodies new
tactical conceptions and I personally have the fullest confidence
in its success if means are given to me for its application.

The situation as a whole represents one of the most common and
destructive mistakes prevalent in the handling of military
operations-namely speculative estimates by officers thousands of
miles away from the scene of action, in preference to actual facts
obtained and assessed by experienced soldiers actually on the
spot. The present instance has all the appearance of the defence
of a predetermined answer which had been decided upon without
fully knowing or accurately weighing the realities.

In this connection it might be well to draw attention to the fact
that the constant public reiteration of a strategic policy
deprecating one of the theatres of war cannot be regarded as other
than deplorable. It not only exposes to the enemy the grand
strategy which has been determined, but it tends to depress almost
to demoralisation the military forces and even the peoples in such
an area. History will be the inexorable judge of the soundness or
lack of soundness of strategical concepts and can be relied upon
to make an accurate assay of responsibilities, but during the
operational period of the war, strategic plans should be regarded
as a military secret and not expounded in debate.'

8. We cannot but deplore the rigidity with which a decision taken
before the fall of Singapore and the Japanese advance further
southwards is being applied without regard to the realities of the
situation that has since developed. This also is apparently
considered a sound reason for brushing aside the opinions of all
experienced Commanders on the spot It all savours very much of the
attitude adopted towards Australia's representations regarding the
defence of Malaya before the outbreak of war with Japan.

9. We also fully endorse the views of General MacArthur that soft-
pedalling in regard to ultimate offensive action against Japan,
and the time that will elapse before this can be taken, is giving
the Japanese an all clear signal that they can concentrate their
forces in the South-West Pacific Area to the point of risk in
other theatres. They know our strength in this region and that the
proclaimed intention is not to increase it. Consequently, they can
calculate the margin which they must provide to obtain a superior
concentration of force. The statement in Mr. Churchill's broadcast
of 21st March about partial demobilization of British and American
Forces before Japan is crushed [9] cannot but arouse public
misgivings in view of the contributions we have made in other
theatres at the risk of our own security. A despatch from Sir
Frederic Eggleston reveals that the reaction in Chungking is
disturbing and even resentful. [10]

10. With regard to (d), latest Intelligence reports show that, up
to the middle of March 1942, the Japanese have concentrated 634
land-based aircraft to the northern arc of islands, extending from
Timor and the Celebes to New Guinea, New Britain and the Solomons.

The comparative figure at the end of December 1942 was 438 and at
the end of February was 561. The enemy is developing 67 airfields
in the arc of islands outside the mainland of Australia, and when
these are completed, he would be able to use them for the purpose
of operating air forces of a strength of 1,500 to 2,000 aircraft.

It is imperative that we should be able to build up a strength in
the South-West Pacific Area sufficient to meet the enemy's growing
strength arising from his increasing concentrations.

11. As Dr. Evatt will be leaving for Washington on 5th April, he
will be able to support our case in person and by reference to
documents. I am informing Mr. Churchill and President Roosevelt
that he will be in a position to present Australia's view point on
the needs of the South-West Pacific Area. [11]

CURTIN