After the Cabinet I had about 3/4 hour's talk with the Prime
Minister. He was quite cordial and friendly when we started and
neither he nor I made any reference at that stage to the somewhat
crisp correspondence we had been indulging in. [1]

I told him that concurrently with the cablegrams that had been
sent to him [2] and the two messages to the President [3], I had
received telegrams from my Prime Minister urging me to stress
Australia's case with him [4], as he, the Prime Minister, was the
only man who could really do anything to help them.

I told him I was sorry that owing to his throat trouble it had not
been possible for me to see him sooner as I understood the
President had now sent his reply to Australia.

The Prime Minister said he had no knowledge that the reply had
gone, and asked me if I knew what was in it. I said as far as I
had been able to ascertain the President, in dealing with the
question of Naval reinforcements, had referred to his, Winston's,

telegram and endorsed it. [5]

With regard to the AIR I gathered he had urged that the provision
of 71 Squadrons by April of next year was adequate to meet the
position and that with regard to the three additional American
Divisions he had taken the line that shipping could not be
provided for their transport. The main idea running through the
telegram was that Australia's fears were unfounded owing to the
strength of the U.S.A. Naval forces in the Pacific and the lack of
the necessary shipping to Japan for the purpose of a full scale
invasion of Australia.

I said to the Prime. Minister that I gathered the views that I had
outlined as being embodied in the President's telegram were shared
by him and by the Chiefs of Staff both here and in Washington, as
well as by the Combined Chiefs of Staff.

In view of this, I said, I recognised the difficulty of altering
the decision that had been taken but it was my duty to put the
case as we saw it and then I put the position to the Prime
Minister down the lines of Curtin's various telegrams and
messages.

All this the Prime Minister listened to with, for him, surprising
patience and attention. When I had put our case, I told the Prime
Minister quite frankly the lines I had cabled to Australia both in
giving the background to the Prime Minister [6] and in my reply to
Page's telegram. [7] I told him that I had grave doubts as to
whether the decisions arrived at in Washington last December as to
our basic strategy [8] had not been wrong in making so little
provision for the offensive in the Pacific. I said, however, that
the decision having been taken and the stage being set for 'Torch'
[9], it was at the moment impossible to get anything further done
with regard to the South-west Pacific. I told him that we would
keep on plugging away both here and in Washington to get a greater
realisation of the possibilities of the Pacific, and I stressed
that immediately the present contemplated operations were over it
was essential that the position in the Pacific should be
strengthened.

The Prime Minister said that he recognised our anxieties and our
right to put our case with all the force we could. He personally,
however, could not feel that there was an immediate danger of a
full scale operation by the Japanese against Australia and this
being the case it was vital we should proceed with our plans
against the primary enemy-Germany.

I told the Prime Minister that I had made my case -that I had put
the whole position before him and nothing was to be gained by
pursuing the argument at this stage, but I emphasised that I would
have to continue to press him upon the question.

I then told the Prime Minister that there was another matter about
which I wanted to talk to him, and that was that I feared he had
an impression that I was in some way antagonistic towards him and
opposed to many of his views.

The Prime Minister replied somewhat halfheartedly that he
certainly had no such views, but it was pretty clear to me that
what I had said did in fact more or less represent what he had in
mind.

I then said that I wanted to remove from his mind any such
thought. I emphasised to the Prime Minister that my position was a
somewhat difficult one but that my whole desire was to be of the
maximum help and assistance to him that I could be. I said that
this assistance I could best render by expressing to him fully and
frankly my views. In doing so I would inevitably at times express
opinions that were not very acceptable to him. What I wanted him
to understand was that in anything I might say I was not showing
any hostility to him. I was convinced that he was absolutely vital
to us all in the war. In America and in the U.S.S.R. his prestige
and position was such that he really was the British Empire to
those countries. I told him frankly that strong as his position
was before he went to Russia it was conceivably assailable. That
since he had been to Russia and since Stalin now regarded him as
the embodiment of Britain, it was unthinkable that he should go. I
told him that with regard to his Russian visit I had cabled to my
Government saying that I regarded it as a great personal triumph
for him and that no other man could have carried out the mission
with the same success. [10] I told him that I now wanted to repeat
that to him personally as an expression of my own opinion.

I then put it to him that having those feelings I was determined
to go on trying to help him even if he ignored all my advice and
even if he was discourteous to me personally.

The Prime Minister, again somewhat halfheartedly, said he would
never be that, but I think in his own heart he knew perfectly well
that he had got very close to extending such treatment to me.

I told the Prime Minister I believed I could render the best
service to him by telling him frankly what I thought and felt. But
I emphasised to him that however he received whatever I tried to
do, it would make no difference to me in attempting to go on
helping him unless he made the position absolutely intolerable.

The Prime Minister again took this part of my observations with
far less interruption than I have ever experienced from him in the
past, and while he did not admit it, I think he was rather
surprised to find this was my attitude, because I think he has it
in the back of his mind I was very critical of him and rather out
to make trouble.

I then said to the Prime Minister that I wanted to talk to him
about one specific thing, and that was the question of the AIR in
relation to our SEA communications. I told him that I thought the
whole question was being looked at from a wrong angle by the
Services. As amplifying this I told him I had sat next to Portal

at dinner recently and had taken advantage of the opportunity to
have a real heart to heart talk with him on this matter. [11]
During the conversation Portal had said to me that the Navy wanted
to wrest some of his Lancaster Bombers from him to send to the
Indian Ocean-they were not being fitted with A.S.V. [12] and would
be useless.

I said that this seemed to me to be an entirely wrong conception
because it implied that Portal was regarding Sea communications as
if they were a matter primarily of responsibility to the Navy. I
said that my view was that the Air was the new and vital weapon
and that in a sense both the Army and Navy had got to be made
subsidiary to it. If that were the position it meant that there
was no question of Navy or Air Force in relation to our sea
communications, but solely a question of how best our sea
communications could be safeguarded.

The Prime Minister rather demurred at this statement but it was
fairly clear that it had not quite struck him in that light
before.

We then had some discussion on the question of the Bomber
offensive against Germany and the necessity of increasing its
intensity, in the course of which discussion the Prime Minister
indicated that there were another 10 Bomber Squadrons being formed
at the moment, and he hoped to get an additional 10 by the end of
the year.

During the conversation I think I made it clear to the Prime
Minister that my view is that the Air is the primary weapon and
that we have got to proceed with its development to the maximum
possible extent. This, I think, was to the Prime Minister a new
view on my attitude. I stressed very much that the whole problem
should be looked at an the basis of what are the vital things we
have got to do, e.g. protect our sea communications and then
concentrate all our efforts on the creation of the Air Force,
which by its offensive action is going to enable us to win the
war.

I stressed to the Prime Minister that it did not seem to me it was
a question of making the necessary provision for our sea
communications that was going to hurt our air strength, but the
creation of terrific air co-operation for our land forces, such as
was visualised by the talk of 10 million armed men in the U.S.A.

We had some talk about the way production was uncoordinated in the
U.S.A. and from a remark the Prime Minister made I think he is
incubating the thought of another trip to Washington.

The discussion we had on this air question was, I think, very
useful and my impression is that it sowed a few seeds in the Prime
Minister's mind.

During the talk both Trenchard's and Harris' Memoranda [13] came
up and I reiterated to the Prime Minister that I welcomed
Trenchard's as raising vital issues that had got to be decided.

The Prime Minister again expressed his admiration for Harris'
Memorandum, while disassociating himself from all his views, and
once more showing a slightly guilty conscience, he referred to the
Note to the Cabinet indicating why he had circulated Harris'
Memorandum.

In this connection the Prime Minister said he thought he had been
a little 'testy' in his letter to me, which gave me the impression
I referred to earlier that perhaps his conscience is not
completely clear on the question of discourtesy.

Towards the end of the conversation I said to the Prime Minister
that I thought I had shown that I was reasonably reliable and
discreet, and that if he felt that, it was most desirable that I
should be given the fullest information.

The Prime Minister said that he quite agreed that I was discreet
and said that I had sent a number of most helpful telegrams to
Australia. This clearly referred to the one I showed him with
regard to 'Torch' [14] and it was interesting to find that that
had stuck in his mind.

At the end of our talk the Prime Minister was most cordial and
said he was very grateful to me for what I had said. Just as I was
going out of the door I said to him 'Prime Minister, you quite
understand that this conversation will in no way restrain me in
the frankest expression of my views on any question.' To which he
smilingly replied 'Certainly I do.' On the whole I think the
conversation was most useful and may progressively bear fruit as a
result of my having removed from the Prime Minister's mind the
impression that I was hostile and out to be troublesome.

One interesting comment on the conversation is that I have never
previously known the Prime Minister to restrain himself so well
and listen so attentively.

S.M.B.