- ... Which is the first institution that victorious fascism wipes out? It is the trade union movement... We saw our Movement go in Germany... Our men shed their blood in Austria.[1]
He then argued for a firm policy toward the dictators, saying:
- If ever there was a time when, whether it is popular or unpopular, we have got to tell our own people the truth, it is now and we must do it fearlessly, whatever the consequences may be... The International Movement are [sic!] wondering what we are going to do in Britain. Czechoslovakia, one of the ost glorious little democratic countries, hedged in all round, is in danger of being sacrificed tomorrow.[2]... You cannot save Czechoslovakia with speeches. We are not in office but I want to drive this Government to defend democracy against its will, if I can... I want to say to Mussolini and Hitler: "If you are banking on being able to attack in the East and the West, and you are going to treat the British Socialist Movement as being weak and are going to rely on that at the critical moment, you are taking us too cheaply."[3]
Bevin concluded his unequivocal speech saying:
- I believe that if this great Movement says to Hitler: "If you are going to rely on force... we will stand up four-square to it." It is the best thing that can be done for peace... With the philosophy of Fascism in the world, I feel that unless it is checked it will be inevitable.[4]
Clement Attlee ended the debate with a speech of moderation and compromise. He maintained that to support the Government's rearmament policy would "... lead you to demand after demand that you shall accept Fascism practically [at home], in order to conquer Fascism [abroad]. We shall be no party to that." [5]
Although it upset Bevin and other supporters of the change, Attlee's position was perhaps the most practical policy for the Party in 1936. Attlee's main fear was that [Dr. Hugh] Dalton's and Bevin's proposal [to change the Party's stance on rearmament] would be too sudden a change for the Party. He was concerned that the Party would split if the proposal was approved, giving member's "pacifist" feelings and their distrust of the National Government. [6] A change in policy would have to come from the P.L.P. [Parliamentary Labour Party], not from Conference.
