Now that Cabinet and War Council meetings have concluded you
should know the atmosphere here, particularly in relation to the
Pacific situation.

Despite anything you may have read on recent developments I would
like you to know there is no need for concern. Any difficulties
will be ironed out with the ready co-operation of Mr. Curtin [1]
and others. When the War Council issued its warning a fortnight
ago [2] we were faced not only with a delicate overseas position,
but a dangerous situation at home. Pin-pricking strikes, overtime
bans and go-slow tactics were having a serious effect.

Following the War Council's declaration, which was given wide
publicity, I had several secret discussions with Union officials
and Parliamentary members. Mr. Curtin also called meetings of his
members and of officials at the Trades Halls. Mr. Beasley [3] also
worked along similar lines.

These efforts have had a marked effect industrially. The overtime
ban which was slowing up shipbuilding and munitions production has
been removed while a series of strikes in munitions plants has
been settled. The Miners' Federation issued a no strike pledge
because of the gravity of the War situation.

While some people may have felt that the War Council's warning
went too far, nevertheless no one came out publicly in opposition
and no one disputed the need for the utmost preparation against
possible aggression.

During visits to Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and
Newcastle I was given quite definite evidence that people more
than ever were looking to our own defences and the defences of our
near North.

The arrival of our troops in Malaya following quickly upon the War
Council's declaration provided concrete evidence of our
preparations. It had a consolidating effect upon the atmosphere
that had been developed. Preparations for the meeting of
Parliament were based upon this atmosphere.

A new situation has been created as a result of the interpretation
placed upon your speech by a section of the newspapers and Labour
members on Advisory Council that it advocated appeasement and was
a policy essentially different from that on which the War
Council's declaration was based.

An indication of the conflicting viewpoints being expressed is
provided in the following-'Age' leader 6th March:

Inconsistency with the recent grave statement by the Advisory War
Council is also charged against the Prime Minister. Many citizens,
fully impressed at the time with this warning, and accepting its
implications, have since concluded that it was issued in a mood of
hysteria, or perhaps for undisclosed diplomatic reasons.

'Sydney Morning Herald' leader 7th March:

Everything that has happened abroad, both in Europe and the Far
East, since the Advisory War Council issued its grave warning to
the nation on February 13, goes to reinforce the warning and
strengthen the appeal which the party leaders then made for the
greatest effort of preparedness. At that time there were several
strikes in progress which were seriously impeding war production,
and it was gratifying to observe, during the following week, signs
that the War Council's admonitions had been heeded by sections of
workers who, in the preoccupation of trying to enforce their
demands, had been turning a blind eye to dangers approaching their
homeland. The climax to this welcome development in industry was
the pledge given by the leaders of the Miners' Federation [Messrs.

Nelson and Kellock], of '100 per cent. coal production while the
present grave war situation continued.' [4]

In discussion at War Council Meeting yesterday Beasley, Forde [5]
and Makin [6] expressed fears of repercussions industrially apart
from developments in their own caucus. This view seems also to be
held by Curtin who was not at the Council Meetings, but who stated
at Canberra:

I must emphasise that the War Council's views were unanimous and
were made as a result of official communications placed before the
Council. For myself, I say that nobody, not even the Prime
Minister, can escape the fact that an aggressor is on the move in
regions affecting Pacific countries. Until the aggressor stops
moving, it would be a major blunder for any Australian to
disregard the strategic potentialities of the position.

New Zealand newspaper opinion is also being published here,
displaying a conflict of views.

Your explanation dated London, 6th March [7], setting out your
views in nine points, is accepted here as assisting to clarify the
earlier newspaper and Labour interpretations.

Our purpose now is to remove any misapprehensions created by the
newspapers. This might take some time unless some overseas
incident comes to our assistance.

I have refrained from commenting, but should it be felt necessary
to make some declaration on this matter I will seek your views. I
reiterate that there is no need for concern and am confident that
the position will speedily be adjusted.

FADDEN