1 On 10 February 1938 Prime Minister Lyons acknowledged receipt of
this letter in a letter to Bruce saying that he proposed 'to go
very fully into the matter' with H.V. C. Thorby (Minister for
Defence) and F. Shedden (Secretary of Defence Department). See AA
: AA1976/556, item 6(1). On 11 February copies of Bruce's letter,
with the enclosure, were sent to Thorby, Sir Earle Page (Minister
for Commerce) and R. G. Menzies (Attomey-General).

2 Neville Chamberlain.

3 14 December 1937.

4 Not printed; see AA : A463, 57/1535.

5 U.K. Prime Minister June 1935-May 1937.

6 R. G. Casey, Treasurer and Minister in charge of Development.

Enclosure

Note by Mr S. M. Bruce, High Commissioner in London, of
Conversation with Mr N. Chamberlain, U.K. Prime Minister

LONDON, 14 December 1937

Saw the Prime Minister [1] and told him that I was very disturbed
at what, I had been able to gather as to the progress of
rearmament in this country. That while the matter had been in my
mind for some time I had waited to approach him until the
Elections in Australia were over. That obviously how far Australia
could stress its point of view was dependent upon whether the
Australian Government was prepared to co-operate with the British
Government to the maximum extent or not.

Now that the Election was over, however, it seemed to me
imperative that I should put the position to him as I saw it, as
the time had now arrived when I must communicate with my
Government and place the facts before them as I saw them.

Before doing this I naturally wished to be either reassured that
the position was better than I saw it, or if not, to be in a
position to give to my Government some indication of what steps
were being taken by the British Government to remedy the
situation.

I told him that I of course appreciated that the matter was one
for the determination of the British Government but that at the
same time recognising as we do that our safety is wrapped up with
the safety of these islands, we had a very definite interest in
what happened here. I added that I further felt we were entitled
to express our views as if my understanding was correct, the
Australian Government were prepared to co-operate in regard to
Defence to the maximum extent within its power. That it would be
quite prepared to sit down and discuss with the British Government
whether what Australia was doing was a reasonable and proper
contribution to the problem of mutual defence, having regard to
the financial and economic position of the two countries, and in
particular to the great accumulated wealth of the United Kingdom.

I told him that I had deliberately not discussed the question with
his Service Ministers or any other Member of his Government until
I had placed my views before him.

I also stressed to him that the information which I proposed to
put before him might not be in all respects correct as I had taken
no special steps to obtain information, but what I would put to
him was merely the result of my observations through attending
some C.I.D. meetings, and from perusing the various papers that
had come before me and from enquiries I had made and facts I had
gleaned outside official sources.

I warned him I was afraid I would have to talk to him at great
length but it seemed essential that I should put the position to
him as I saw it.

He acquiesced in my doing this and I talked at him for about half
an hour without any interruption from him at all, save when I was
dealing with the pledge that Baldwin gave about the Air. [2] He
pointed out that Baldwin's statement had been equality with any
other Power and not a combination of Powers. The story as I put it
to him was as follows. That there were three angles from which the
Defence problem could be regarded.

The first was the defence of the Empire.

With regard to this my view was that the Navy was probably in as
strong a position as it had ever been. It was true that none of us
knew at the present moment exactly what was the potential danger
from the Air to surface ships. That I anticipated in the next war
we should get some rude shocks as to the possibilities of air
offence against ships but that that would probably be confined to
the narrow waters in which I would include the Mediterranean. I
felt, however, that this menace was not a serious one in the wide
oceans and in view of that fact and the strength of the Navy I
thought we could look with considerable equanimity at the position
so far as the protection of the territories of the Empire and the
trade routes of the world were concerned.

With regard to the Army, I felt that if we could ignore the
problem of the defence of the British Isles we either were or very
soon could place ourselves in a position where the Army could meet
all the obligations which would fall upon it for the defence of
the Empire. I added that I thought similar conditions applied to
the Air Force as applied to the Army.

In the summing up of the first of the problems of Defence, namely
defence of the Empire, I indicated that in my view the position
was satisfactory.

The second problem I put to him was our obligations outside the
Empire, in particular in the Near East and I stressed the problem
that Egypt, Palestine and the neighbouring Arab countries
presented.

With regard to this problem I said that in my view the naval
position was satisfactory although there was something of a
problem with regard to a base at the eastern end of the
Mediterranean and in the Red Sea, now that Italy was established
in Northern Africa.

With regard to the Army and the Air in connection with these
obligations outside the Empire I felt that if we could ignore the
problem of defence of the British Isles we could without great
difficulty take all the steps necessary to place us in a position
of meeting any obligations that were likely to fall upon us.

I then dealt with the third problem, namely the defence of the
United Kingdom.

I told him that that seemed to me to be serious and that it would
not be exaggerating to say that it was alarming. It seemed to me
to be a problem of the Air, and that the story of what had
happened during the last three years was certainly a very sorry
one.

Baldwin, when Prime Minister, in March 1934 [3] had made an
unqualified statement that if Britain's suggestion with regard to
disarmament were not accepted then any Government in this country,
above all a National Government, had the obligation to ensure that
Britain was as strong in the Air as any country within striking
distance of her. Notwithstanding this specific undertaking,
however, and many statements that had been made during the
currency of the past three years the position in January 1938
would be one that must cause the most extreme anxiety.

I said that the problem had to be divided into two halves, one,
the actual Air Force which we have and which we could put in the
air, and two-the steps that we had taken to safeguard our
communications, supplies, and vital services internally.

With regard to 1.-I said that we were in a position of marked
inferiority to Germany and of appalling inferiority if we took
Germany and Italy together and added to our figures those of the
French.

I then dealt with the different types of Aircraft.

With regard to long range bombers, I said that our position was
appalling and that taking Germany and Italy together their figures
were nearly three times ours. In this particular case I quoted the
actual figures. I also gave the figures with regard to the Bomb
lifting powers of ourselves plus France as against Germany and
Italy.

At this stage the Prime Minister made his only interruption, which
was to say that Baldwin's undertaking was not in respect of two
Powers but in respect of our position as against any individual
Power.

I said I quite agreed and that I had not been quoting the figures
with regard to long range bombers as evidence that Baldwin's
promise had not been lived up to, but to show the actual
seriousness of the position.

With regard to short range bombers, I told him that this was the
one place where we had a superiority of something like three to
one over Germany and Italy.

With regard to fighting planes I pointed out that the position was
relatively satisfactory in that France and ourselves could muster
within a hundred of the numbers that Germany and Italy would have
at their disposal.

With regard to general purposes and Army co-operation planes, I
pointed out that Germany and Italy had a superiority of something
like two to one.

In the Near East, I indicated that the position was most
unsatisfactory in that Italy was the only country which had any
long range bombers or fighting machines. That neither France nor
Britain had any in these categories.

I then dealt with the productive capacity in January 1938 and gave
him the actual figures of the estimated monthly production of the
United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy. I told him that I was
inclined to think that this last factor was the most serious of
all. That while I had never considered, having regard to her
industrial capacity and to the fact that Germany was quite
ruthlessly dislocating her industrial position in order to
strengthen her armaments, that it would be possible for us to keep
pace with her production even if we adopted drastic steps to
accelerate the defence production at the expense of our industrial
and economic needs. It was, however somewhat appalling to see the
position that Italy had reached, having regard to the latest
statistics in connection with production capacity of the countries
concerned as in the latest figures they were shown on the basis of
Germany 120
United Kingdom 100
Italy 35
With regard to France I said that my figure which I had given him
of production capacity was very uncertain but it was well known
that the position there was unsatisfactory owing to the industrial
turmoil that had followed upon the actions of the Front Populaire
Government,
I then summarised the position with regard to strength in planes
and our offensive power as being nothing less than appalling.

I then dealt with the question of Air Defence. I pointed out that
there were three principal types of guns which were used for this
purpose: 3 inch; 3.7 and 4.5. That the efficiency of these guns
was estimated in the ratio:-

1 to the 3 inch
3 3.7
4.5 4.5.

Of the 3.7 and 4.5's at the moment we had none. I had heard a
figure given that Germany had 1500 of these guns, but I had no
certainty as to this figure at all.

With regard to the prospects of production of 3.7 and 4.5 guns in
this country it was anticipated that it would commence on a small
scale early in 1938. By the end of 1938 it would possibly be a
reasonable estimate to say that we might have 400. The number that
were required I was not quite certain of, but I would be inclined
to put it at not less than 1,000. I felt that if we took into
account the needs abroad for bases such as Singapore etc. that the
figure of 1,000 would be a modest one. I then went on to deal with
the present position.

I said that I understood that we were dependent upon new or
converted 3 inch guns. That the Regulars had 96 of these guns but
that it was necessary to send 24 of the 96 to Egypt immediately. I
added that I understood that the personnel position was so
unsatisfactory that the Members of the Unit that were going to
Egypt would have to be withdrawn and replaced by Egyptians who
would have been trained in the interval so that the permanent
personnel could return to this country in the Spring to man the
new type of A.A. guns as they came to hand.

With regard to guns for Units other than the Regulars I understood
that a limited number of converted 3 inch A.A. guns would be
available in January and that these would be slowly supplemented
up to the end of 1939, but that the figure even by that date was a
relatively small one. I also understood that the Admiralty were
making available a certain number of guns of this calibre, but
even with these reinforcements the position was quite
unsatisfactory.

I said that I also understood that there were a certain number of
2 pounders being obtained, some of them from Sweden, but that the
numbers were small and the deliveries unsatisfactory. I emphasised
that the position with regard to Anti-Aircraft guns was deplorable
and in my view this was probably the most unsatisfactory feature
of the whole situation.

I then dealt with the question of Air precautions in this country,
and said that I had no doubt the Prime Minister had considered
Ogilvie-Forbes's despatch [4] and the comparison which he gave
between the situation in Germany and the position here. I gave him
one or two figures but not the full details. I told him that I had
heard it suggested that we could rely upon the character of the
British people to face any damage that might be done by air raids.

I indicated I had some doubts as to whether the British character
could be relied upon with what modern bombing might mean, but I
stressed that even if it could be relied upon surely that could
not be the basis of our defence, namely, the powers of endurance
and the fortitude of the people of this country. I strongly urged
that the most definite steps had to be taken immediately to
accelerate the air raid precaution machine organisation.

I then put it to the Prime Minister that it was obvious there were
great dangers in the situation, that it was impossible for anyone
to predict when those dangers would have to be met. I made it
clear to him that in my view it was impossible to take any action
which would enable us by ourselves to meet what might be ahead of
us as for instance a combination of Germany, Italy and Japan. At
the same time we had to consider what was the maximum that we
could do and in which direction our efforts should be
concentrated. I said that in my opinion the imperative outstanding
and overwhelming need was the strengthening of our Air Defences.

I then said I would try and show why I took that view.

I suggested that if the danger from the Air could be eliminated in
the sense of removing the vulnerability of the United Kingdom our
position at the moment would be a relatively happy one,
notwithstanding all the turmoil that was going on in the world.

With regard to the Navy our position was probably better than it
had ever been before. That even if there was a danger from the Air
against our food supplies and raw material supplies in the narrow
seas that could be met by a convoy system and by air protection,
I, of course, having visualised a very strong Air Arm which would
be available for patrol and convoy purposes, its task with regard
to protection of. the vulnerable British Isles having been
removed.

With regard to the Army the position would also be relatively
satisfactory, particularly in view of the modern trend of thought
that in the first instance it would not be essential that we
should send an expeditionary force to Europe. I stressed that the
point I wanted to make in putting the position in this way was
that if through a new and effective ray it was not possible to
screen against, or by some other means, we could remove the air
menace from Britain, our position would be a comparatively happy
one. If the achievement of the apparently impossible, namely, the
complete elimination of the air danger would have so great an
effect, did not this point to our task being to concentrate upon
air defence in priority to any other requirements of the Services.

I had deliberately used the expression Air Defence and by it I
meant our power to deal with any offensive action against us by
the provision of fighting planes, A.A. guns, and a complete and
efficiently organised system of air precautions.

I pointed out that our objective in the Air had been equality with
any Power within striking distance and our strategy had been that
this equal air force should have such a power of retaliation as to
deter any country we were at war with from bombing Great Britain
out of fear of retaliation. I suggested that that basis of
strategy had gone because there was no hope of our over-taking
Germany in numbers and because Germany in addition to being less
vulnerable to attack from the air had by her complete organisation
of air defence minimised the danger of any retaliatory action
against her. I said I doubted the wisdom of attempting to chase
Germany in mere numbers. But that we should concentrate upon a
large Air Force and I stressed the fact of the largeness, but that
its whole basis should be efficient equipment and personnel and
not mere numbers. In support of this argument I put the point that
it seemed to me we had to recognise that retaliatory measures by
way of bombing would not be effective in preventing the Germans
continuing Air raids over Britain. Our object must be to so
strengthen our defences as to bring about a position where the
damage that could be done would be so limited that it would become
clear air raids did not pay.

I suggested to the Prime Minister that possibly in the end the
present position might turn out to our advantage. Germany during
the last three years, that is the years 1935-38 had, it appeared
quite clear, expended upon her armaments programme and public
works which were linked up with that programme something like
3,000 million pounds, or 1,000 million pounds a year. While I
recognised that experience had shown us that the monetary factor
was not the potent one we all imagined it would be in modern
warfare, there must be some limit to this sort of thing and that
Germany would find the burden she had created for herself an
impossible one to bear. On the other hand we who had incomparably
superior resources had hardly started upon our armament
expenditures. Was it not possible that if we could get over the
danger period that lay just ahead of us that in the end we should
find ourselves in the position of being able to sustain the strain
of maintaining a large and efficient air force with the terrific
expenditures involved in the ruthless and immediate scrapping of
types as and when science rendered them obsolete.

I then reverted to the immediate position and said I wanted to put
to the Prime Minister what I had in mind should be the course that
should be pursued.

I told him that my view was that there should be an immediate
concentration upon and acceleration in regard to the Air. I
reminded him that Inskip [5] had at the moment issued no formal
priority lists between the different Services and that he had not
even gone into the question of compulsory priority for Government
orders. I said that I thought there should be an immediate formal
priority given to the Air particularly in respect of Air Defence
and that that should be ruthlessly carried through notwithstanding
the howls of rage which would go up from the Navy. That wherever
necessary and wherever it could be done advantageously, compulsory
priority for air requirements should be given over private orders.

I said if necessary I would go to the point of applying compulsion
with regard to skilled labour to ensure the requirements of the
factories dealing with orders for the Air could be met.

With regard to Air precautions, I said that I thought it was
essential that an intensive nation wide campaign should now be
undertaken. I told him that I had read very carefully Phillip
Swinton's [6] speech on behalf of the Government in the House of
Lords. I pointed out that in that speech he had claimed that a
great deal had been done but that anyone with a knowledge of the
subject knew that while a great deal had been done, in the way of
experimenting, the result of those experiments had not yet been
put into practice. That the actual position was that we had done
practically nothing with regard to Air precautions and that it was
imperative that we should now make a tremendous effort. I said
that it seemed to me that the present moment was a heaven-given
opportunity for the Government. Their Bill dealing with the
financial costs of Air Raid precautions was just through
Parliament. If the Government now came out with a great campaign
it need not be on any basis of alarm but on the basis that the
Bill now being through the Government was going ahead to put into
operation all the plans that they had been maturing over the last
few years.

I stressed that in my view such action was absolutely imperative
not only in the interests of the country but also of the
Government.

To the whole of this somewhat interminable dissertation the Prime
Minister listened with only the one interruption. When I had
finished he said that he had never agreed with Baldwin's
statement-that he had not been consulted about it but that if he
had he would certainly have suggested that it should have been
modified. He said that he entirely agreed that to attempt to
compete in numbers with Germany was probably an impossible task
but that in any case it would be a futile one and he entirely
agreed with my view as to what our objective in regard to an Air
Force should be. He then dealt with the general position that I
had put up. He said that the conclusions which I had arrived at he
also had arrived at and he said that steps were now being taken to
give effect to them. He said that the Air had now been given an
absolute priority over the other Services.

(I did not challenge this statement but it is somewhat difficult
to reconcile it with the C.I.D. Paper 271 A. [7] which is being
considered by the C.I.D. tomorrow in which Inskip says dealing
with this very question-'It is I think undesirable to issue formal
priority lists' and also says 'I have gone into the question of
giving Government orders compulsory priority over commercial
orders'. This, however, does not very much matter. The main point
is that whether or not the priority has yet actually been given, I
am quite certain, as a result of my conversation with the Prime
Minister it will be given immediately.)
He went on to say that he shared my view as to the impossibility
of continuing a strategy based upon the prevention of Air Raids
over Britain by the fear of retaliatory raids by the British Air
Force. He indicated that we had to concentrate upon Defence and so
strengthen it as to ensure that air raids would not pay and in
that way eliminate them as a serious factor from the war problem.

He admitted, without definitely saying so, that the A.A. gun
position was not satisfactory, but that it was necessary to make
the best use of what you had and that that was being done. He
indicated that he thought that as that was being done it met the
position as he said all the information he had showed that there
was no probability of anyone starting trouble immediately.

Broadly his attitude was that the position at the moment was not
satisfactory, but that while he was not satisfied he was not
alarmed because he considered we were progressively improving the
position and that it probably would be satisfactory before the
trouble arose. He did not in so many words admit that the
necessity for speeding up was essential but by implication he did,
particularly by telling me of the Government's decision to give
priority to Air requirements.

He agreed as to the importance of Air Precautions but in no way
committed himself as to the urgency which I had stressed so
strongly.

I equally when he was talking did not interrupt in any way but was
proposing to press him with regard to certain points when he had
finished. Unfortunately this was not possible as the Foreign
Office and Navy people were waiting to see him with regard to the
Japanese last outburst against British and American ships. [8] I
therefore confined myself to saying before I left that I was
relieved to learn the views he held with regard to the situation
and the line that should be taken. I, however, indicated that I
felt the matter was far more urgent than what the Prime Minister
had said led me to believe he thought it was. That in my view it
was not safe to rely upon any period to get ready, as while I
agreed nobody at the moment wanted to precipitate trouble,
something might occur which would bring it about.

I said that with regard to both aspects of Air Defence, I was so
convinced of the necessity for the utmost acceleration of our
efforts that I would again urge on him the 'necessity for every
step being taken to accelerate the guns and other defence material
and that I would also again stress the vital necessity of a great
campaign to get on with the air precaution provisions.

My view of the position is that everything I said sank into the
Prime Minister's mind and that he will take quite definite steps
to find out exactly what is being done by Inskip and Whitehall
Gardens. The position for the moment had better be left to see
exactly what develops. I am fairly satisfied on the question of
Air defence guns etc. the Prime Minister's mind will probably move
in the right direction. On the question of a National campaign and
real acceleration with regard to Air precautions I have some
doubts, but this also will have to be left for the moment to see
what develops over the next month or so. In talking to the Prime
Minister I did not give him all the figures that are included in
the Notes attached. [9] In some cases I gave him percentages.

S. M. B[RUCE]

[AA : A463, 57/1535]

1 Neville Chamberlain.

2 Stanley Baldwin, then Lord President and Lord Privy Seat, made a
statement in the House of Commons on 8 March 1934 that if air
armaments were not equalised by agreement the U.K. Government
would 'see to it that in air strength and air power this country
shall no longer be in a position inferior to any country within
striking distance of our shores' (House of Commons, Parliamentary
Debates, fifth series, vol. 286, Col. 2078).

3 Baldwin was not Prime Minister in 1934. See note 2.

4 Not printed. Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes was Counsellor and Charge
d'Affaires, U.K. Embassy in Berlin.

5 Sir Thomas Inskip, U.K. Minister for Co-ordination of Defence.

6 Viscount Swinton, U.K. Secretary of State for Air.

7 Not printed.

8 On 12 December 1937 Japanese attacks were made on British and
American warships on the Yangtse River, resulting in a
considerable number of casualties, damage to several British
vessels and the loss of the U.S. vessel Panay.

9 Not printed.