Reference is made to cablegram No.72 dated 4th April, from the
Prime Minister of New Zealand, asking that steps be taken
immediately to secure the agreement of the Government of the
United States to the reduction of the New Zealand army component
in Japan from a brigade group of 4,239 personnel approximately to
a brigade on a reduced basis of a total of approximately 2,400 all
ranks.

2. The intention of the New Zealand Government to reduce its army
component in Japan, as previously conveyed in cablegrams Nos. 29
and 43, has been considered by the Defence Committee (augmented to
include representatives of the United Kingdom, India and New
Zealand), which noted with regret the New Zealand proposal but
felt there was no alternative but to accept it. The Minister for
Defence is in agreement with this view, having regard to New
Zealand's stated manpower difficulties, and, unless your
Department wishes to raise any special aspect, it is asked that
the following cablegram be despatched now to the Australian
Ambassador, Washington (repeated to Wellington, London and New
Delhi with reference to New Zealand cablegram of 4th April):-

It is desired that a communication in the following terms be
transmitted to the
United States Government immediately:-

'The Government of New Zealand proposes, in view of the difficulty
of securing personnel to serve overseas, to reduce the New Zealand
army component in the British Commonwealth Occupation Force in
Japan from a brigade group of 4,239 personnel approximately to a
brigade on a reduced basis of a total of approximately 2,400 all
ranks. The Royal New Zealand Air Force Squadron now in Japan will
be maintained there. In accordance with paragraph 3(b) of the
MacArthur-Northcott agreement, the Australian Government submits
the request of the New Zealand Government for the reduction of its
army component for the agreement of the United States Government.

As all New Zealand personnel in Japan were recruited for a period
of twelve months service, and arrangements must be made for the
relief of the army component in May (3,310) and July (646), the
New Zealand Government proposes, subject to the concurrence of the
United States Government and the availability of shipping, to
effect the reduction between June and September of this year.' [1]

3. In regard to the second question raised in cablegram No.29 from
the Prime Minister of New Zealand, namely the value of continued
British participation in the occupation of Japan, this matter was
referred to the Joint Planning Staffs for the preparation of an
appreciation of the military aspects, but it has not yet been
considered by the Defence Committee. However, in regard to the
draft telegram forwarded with your letter of 28th February, the
following is a summary of the views of this Department against the
withdrawal of the British Commonwealth Occupation Forces:-

'Australia formed a close bond with the United States during the
war, particularly when, in the early stages, the Forces in the
Southwest Pacific Area were predominantly Australian and were
unreservedly placed under an American Commander.

Later we supplied the United States Forces with extensive
Reciprocal Lend-Lease Aid.

We expressed a desire to be in the final campaign against the
Japanese Home Islands notwithstanding pressure to assign our
Forces for operations elsewhere.

It is imperative to stay with the United States to the end even if
the United Kingdom, India and New Zealand withdraw, for United
States co-operation is of vital importance to future defence
arrangements in the Pacific. It is also essential for an effective
voice in the Japanese Peace Treaty.

Also in order to prevent the resurgence of Japan, it is essential
that the occupation should continue until a peace treaty has been
concluded, satisfactory guarantees for its fulfilment established,
and assurances exist that she will not become an easy mark for
Russian exploitation. If this should occur, the future threat to
the security of the Pacific will be even greater than it was
previously from Japan alone.

It is therefore imperative for Australia to continue in the
British Commonwealth Occupation Force, even if all other parts of
the Empire withdraw, though the extent of our commitment might
have to be reviewed if reductions by others continue.'

The main factor relating to the Kobe-Osaka area, which is also
referred to in your draft cablegram, is the strength of the
British Commonwealth Occupation Forces which will be greatly
reduced by the United Kingdom, Indian and New Zealand withdrawals.

4. It is not thought that consideration of the broader and more
long-term question referred to in paragraph 3 above should delay
the immediate despatch to Washington of the cablegram set out in
paragraph 2, particularly in view of New Zealand's intention to
commence the reduction of its army component in June of this year,
and the fact that reductions are not to be made to the extent
originally contemplated.