83
143
International Situation HOUSE OF COMMONS
[Mr. Lewis.] to-night that in my opinion, for whatever it may be worth, the real key to the peace of Europe is a prosperous Germany.
8.53 p.m.
Mr. McGovern: I cannot help feeling, in relation to this Debate, which is a con- tinuation of the previous one of a few weeks ago, that it reminds me of a settle- ment in relation to an industrial dispute. During the period of a strike which has gone on for a long period men become financially exhausted and those within the home and the industry are keen on some form of settlement, until the position reaches a stage when almost any settle- ment would be welcome in order that people might get the economic means to purchase the necessities of life. In these circumstances the leader of the men finds himself in a position where he has not only to bargain but almost to accept the dictation of the employing class.
When
he has concluded a settlement which everybody is glad to have, an inquest begins and the workers discover, after the strike has been brought to an end, that they could have made a much better settlement. They then condemn the leader and for a period he is subject to attack because of the settlement which everybody had welcomed.
In relation to the peace which was made at Munich, I should like to say that I never consider that any peace is a per- fect, satisfactory peace, and I never con- sider that any war is a justifiable war, because I have come to the conclusion that within the realms of capitalism war is a product of rivalry between groups. In the situation that developed a few weeks ago, when war seemed imminent, people said to me at meetings and in different parts of the country that if we had stood up to Hitler he would have succumbed. I am quite prepared, as I have always been, to reason that out. I believe that war would have taken place. If Hitler did not cower before the threat but shook his fist in return and said that he was going to invade Czecho- slovakia come what may, then I want to know what the situation would have been. Were we to gamble with the lives of millions of human beings, were we to throw them into the struggle? I put that question to a Member of this House when he said that our attitude to this question was wrong. I asked him whether in those
International Situation
"
144
circumstances he was prepared to join up and help to push Hitler's armies out of Czechoslovakia. He said: You are asking me a very pertinent question. have views that a public representative ought to be immune from service of that kind." He was a member of the Labour
♫
party. I said, It is a new philosophy
to me that we have to order men on the means test, in the mines and factories to go on to the battlefield and sacrifice their lives in a struggle of our making.'
Co
"
The Prime Minister was faced with a situation fraught with the possibility of grave disaster. I believe that war would have taken place, and, further, I believe that France and Great Britain would have been defeated in that war. Hitler has so mobilised his forces in Germany the in the way of labour service,
movement, strength through joy labour camps and military service, that he can put into the field 9,000,000 to 10,000,000 men. From the evidence I heard on the Continent I believe that he has at least 8,000 front-line bombers with a 20,000 striking force, and if war had taken place we should not have been debating this Agreement except under the threat and terror of bombing raids con- ducted by hundreds of aeroplanes. That war would have been one of the greatest terrors that mankind has ever known. It would have been conducted with the utmost terrorism in every way in order to bring the population to plead for an end of the war. The Prime Minister knew this. Whatever may be my views, I say frankly that the Prime Minister knew that the planes were not in this country; he knew that we were not prepared for war. He knew that the arms and guns to con- duct that war were not there. He was faced with the possibility of losing his Empire, the Empire of the ruling classes. Therefore, because of these three reasons, first the unpreparedness of the country to meet an attack, secondly the danger of the loss of the Empire, and, thirdly, the terrifying prospect of war itself, he con- cluded an agreement with Hitler.
I have all I am opposed to Hitler. the antagonism which any man can have who believes in being allowed to use his mind in an intelligent way and who sees all the cultural, intellectual and spiritual desires of the people of Germany put into cold storage and subordinated to the will of the Fuhrer. I object to Hitler and to the rule of Hitler, but the Peace Treaties
145
International Situation
I NOVEMBER 1938
which were forced upon a Germany on her knees at the end of the last War were unjust and imposed in the same way as Germany has imposed her will on Czecho- slovakia within the last few weeks. It has been argued on almost every Labour platform in this country that the Peace Treaties were wrong and that modifica- tions should have taken place. It has been said that hundreds and thousands of Sudeten Germans who were in Czecho- slovakia ought never to have been incor- porated in the mixture of a State which was set up. The only argument to-day against a modification and rectification of boundaries is that Hitler is in power, not that it is unjust to hand over certain tracts of land to Germany, but that Hitler being a dictator, being brutal and not allowing freedom of thought or expres- sion of opinion, we should prevent his getting any modification of boundaries.
That is the attitude which created Hitler. It is the attitude which refused to modify and rectify the wrongs of the Peace Treaties. It is the attitude which refused the hand of friendship when Ger- many was pleading for a reconsideration of the Peace Treaties. It is the attitude which said that we must keep our feet on the neck of the German people; they must stand and deliver coal and war reparations, and must endure the Peace Treaties which they were terrorised into agreeing with in 1918. Therefore we come to a situation in which we ask our- selves this question: Are we going to war with Germany to smash Germany as is in the minds of a large number of people? A man, a Communist, said to me, in the City Hall, Glasgow, about a week ago,
Why should we not have gone to war with Germany so that there might be a hope of the Jews and Socialists and Communists emancipating themselves from the rule of Hitler by world revolution?" I said, We have it nakedly now," although it has been kept in
the the background throughout campaign to stand by Czechoslovakia. For ulterior motives we must gamble with the lives of 20,000,000 workers. The philosophy to-day is that in order to free German workers we must murder German workers.
4
Are we going to gamble with the lives of the people? An hon. Member has
referred to the aid of Russia. If Russia is able to give such tremendous aid why is she not defeating Japan? Why is she
International Situation
am
not
146
not defeating Franco? Is the struggle in Spain less a working-class struggle than the struggle of Czechoslovakia against Germany? I am not prepared to gamble with the lives of 2,000,000, 3,000,000 or even 5,000,000 of the work- There are men on these ing classes. benches who came into political power because of their denunciation of war. They were conscientious objectors. Although I
a conscientious objector, never having been a pacifist, I have the greatest admiration for every man who is a pacifist and who refuses to kill human beings at the behest of the employing class. To-day, these men are enunciating a doctrine and philosophy that clamours for war and makes them a warmongering party in this country. It is a shocking state of affairs when Labour men tell me that if there were a General Election they would vote for the Tories rather than for the Labour party, because the Labour party would have led us into
war.
That is a shocking state of affairs for the working-class movement to get into.
"
Hon. Members opposite professed to have faith in the League of Nations, but when the League was broken they passed it on to the Labour party, and left them with it. After they had got the country into a mess, the Conservatives began to say, They are the people who want war; we are the people who want peace.' The Government did not go to war, but I am under no delusions. They hand over Czechoslovakia. In fact, one hon. Member suggested that we should give Germany, not the colonies which she wants, but some composite tract of land, and one hon. Member near me said, "Give her France." That is the outlook of the ruling class of this country. They would sell their grandmothers. They will give away everybody else's property, but If it they will not give away their own.
showdown," if Hitler comes to a final
Stand and de- in his aggression says, liver part of your own territory," the dogs of war will be out, and the peace party of to-day will be the war party in defence of their own investments in India, Africa, and elsewhere.
fr
I am told that a blush of shame comes to the cheeks because of the way poor little Czechoslovakia was surrendered. A blush of shame comes to my cheeks when I know that Indians are plundered by the people of this country, when I know that
84