LONDON December 1, 1949
PERSONAL AND PRIVATE
Dear Dean:
Sir William Strang, Permanent Under-Secretary, Foreign Office, asked to see me today. When I called upon him I found the subject to be discussed was the question of the air bases (in the UK.).
It seems that Louis Johnson when he was having breakfast with Sir Stafford Cripps Tuesday morning, November 29, according to Sir Stafford, had said that Mr. Bevin thought we contemplated a program in Britain amounting to £24,000,000 but that I had subsequently been able to clear this matter up with Mr. Bevin by talking with Lord Tedder, and that it was quite clearly understood that what we were seeking would cost £8,000,000 of which, according to Sir Stafford's account of his conversation with Louis Johnson, the British burden would amount to £3,800,000, with the balance left for us to meet. Strang said that Mr. Bevin, having read Sir Stafford's account of his conversation with Louis Johnson, said that it was not exactly in conformity with what had happened. Strang, speaking for Mr. Bevin, wanted the matter satisfactorily cleared up.
I then showed Strang the substance of my cable (Embtel 4715, November 26) and amplified it by telling him that in my conversation with Tedder, which took place before I saw Bevin, it had appeared that in the Defense Ministry here the figure of £24,000,000 had somehow or other insinuated itself into the proposition and that this very much larger figure was related to a very much larger program. I told Sir William that I had immediately in the presence of Lord Tedder gotten in touch with General Johnson, who as you know is in command of our Air Forces in England, and had discovered, through him, that the £24,000,000 figure had its origin in a discussion in Washington between an American military planner and a British military planner. This figure I found out was not based on any accepted program of our government but merely on one which was being bandied about. This larger program, with which the £24,000,000 figure was associated, has subsequently been rejected by our government. I therefore could assure Lord Tedder that all we sought consisted of the four bases at a cost of £8,000,000, which included a dollar expenditure of $3,700,000 which we ourselves would meet. Tedder thereupon assured me that he would remove whatever confusion might exist in Mr. Bevin's mind about our total program and its cost. This, I told Sir William, Lord Tedder had done before I saw Mr. Bevin the following morning, Saturday, November 26.
Sir William then showed me Mr. Bevin's record of our meeting. It was completely consistent with and conformed wholly with the substance of my cable (Embtel 4715, November 26) to you, except in the following respects.
1. Mr. Bevin had elaborated a little bit on the context in which the question of permanent bases could best be presented to the Cabinet and House of Commons and referred to the Atlantic Pact and our commitments under it as probably being the best medium. The record of his conversation also disclosed it was important to find a good context not only because of political considerations here but also because Canada had firmly opposed granting the United States permanent bases. This elaboration in Mr. Bevin's account of our conversation is quite correct. I did not make reference to the Atlantic Pact as a possible context in my cable to you nor did I refer to the Canadian position with reference to granting us permanent bases. The only difference between Mr. Bevin's record and my cable is that he elaborates and I left the elaborations out.
2. The second difference is that in Mr. Bevin's record of his conversation he said that he saw no reason for not favorably acting upon the proposal that we be given four bases; whereas in paragraph 4(a) of my cable I stated that Bevin had said "That there was no doubt of HMG's approving the project and putting it into effect". Thus there is a slight difference in emphasis in my report and Bevin's record. I think that I am correct, but I don't think that the difference is sufficiently great to cause us any worry.
I had told Louis Johnson on his arrival in London the complete story as I recited it to Strang. Either he had garbled it in his talk with Cripps, at which I was not present, or Cripps had garbled it on hearing it from Johnson.
I did of course imply that the question of expenditure was a matter which remained to be reviewed.
I pass this all on to you very privately and personally for your information. You will know best to treat it.