1. The Chief of the General Staff understands that, when Field Marshal Montgomery2 sees you in Ottawa on Monday, he will raise the question of standardizing equipment and weapons as between British, Canadian and United States forces.

2. This morning, the Chiefs of Staff Committee, with Robertson, Pearson, Wrong and myself, considered a paper on this question approved by the U.K. Cabinet Defence Committee and forwarded to External Affairs through Earnscliffe. The paper, which is in the form of a report by the U.K. Chiefs of Staff, recognizes the desirability of standardizing equipment between the Armed Forces of the three countries, outlines the difficulties which the implementing of such a policy involves and concludes by recommending the joint approach to the U.S. Government on the part of the United Kingdom and Canada. The object would be to persuade U.S. authorities to adopt a policy of immediate cooperation with a view to eventual adoption of weapons and equipment of common types.

Canadian military authorities have, for some time, recognized that the adoption of standard equipment as between the United Kingdom and the United States would be directly in the interest of Canada. Our industrial standards are for the most part North American; on the other hand, traditionally, our Navy, Army and Air Force have been equipped on the British model, though the recent war modified this to a considerable degree. As in so many other fields, our objective, it is felt, should be to bring the British and Americans together.

Field Marshal Montgomery discuss this subject informally not only with General Eisenhower, but 'apparently with the President. If you agree, we thought that theme would be no harm in your saying to the Field Marshal that he might intimate in-Washington that he had approached the Canadian authorities informally and had learned that they were in general agreement with the U.K.'s views.

On the other hand, we did not think that the, objective could best be achieved by a formal approach by the U.K. government on the political level; nor did we feel that the Canadian government should be a party to a joint approach as is suggested in the U.K. paper. It was our view that a less formal initiative by the U.K. staff to their opposite numbers in the United States would not be so likely to encounter political difficulty. So far as Canada is concerned, the joint planning now being carried on under the auspices of the Permanent Joint Board on Defence has already given an opportunity to our officers to express a view favourable to standardization. Any further initiative which might be taken on our part might, we felt, remain on the Service level.

It was thought that you might wish to have our views on this subject before you see Field Marshal Montgomery and I have, therefore, prepared this note rather hurriedly in order that you may have it in good time. It has been seen by Robertson and Foulkes, both of whom concur.

General Foulkes tells me that he is to have a word with you privately before you see Field Marshal Montgomery.

A. D. P. H[EENEY]

P.S. I have just been informed that the U.K. government now feel that any "joint approach" be left in abeyance until the results of Montgomery's informal discussions are known.