67
III
[Mr. Adams.]
International Situation
J
[12
113
International Situation HOUSE OF COMMONS
even the Times asserted two or three days ago that the Czech fortifications surrendered to Germany were impreg- nable to shell-fire; when to-day Hitler, whom many of us regard as the enemy of civilisation, controls the finest arma- ment works in Europe,
might not have pursued the course of suicidal indecision which they, in fact, pursued. I believe we might have arrested the shameful retreat started by the Times," which has recently acted like an English edition of the Angriff." I only wish to mention the past in so far as it may enable us to apprehend the future. I ask leave to quote from three letters from a Czech friend who fought on our side under General Sirovy against the Germans and then against the Until lately Bolshevists across Siberia.
this man,
a fine scholar, and an ex- soldier, has regarded England with some- thing like idolatry. Here are two or three sentences from a letter of 19th September last:
r
Shall we be let down as in 1618? How criminal even to think of disrupting the old Kingdom of Bohemia! It would place us at the mercy of the darkest reactionaries in history. But your Empire is equally threatened."
Here is a sentence from another letter dated 2nd October, after the Agreement:
·
England, the cradle of democracy, the promoter and helpmate of brown Fascism. It seems a nightmare!
This is the
bitterest day of my life. On my birthday my native Bohemian forest was presented to Germany by that England that I have loved all my life so much."
Here is an extract from a letter dated roth October:
Danube
which had
"To-day also the other bank of the never belonged to Germany was occupied by German forces. One can see the swastika flags from side. The last outpost of democracy is no more, destroyed a paradox of history-by
allies and friends."'
our
No wonder that the message from the Czechoslovak Parliament to the House of Commons and the French Chamber of Deputies, which was not read to us, ended:
"We bequeath our sorrows to the French and English people."
The House will understand that, since having that last letter from my friend, I have been too ashamed to write to him. This then, is peace with honour," when Munich exceeds Godesburg; when young women Jewish refugees are, I am told, lying exposed to pneumonia on the damp ground between Sudetenland and the new unfortified Czechoslovakia, and I do not know from the Prime Minister's speech whether the Government intend to guarantee the new Czechoslovakia; when
The Prime Minister said he was sure the alternative to his action was war. It is, surely, open to us to ask whether we are always to submit to injustice when force is threatened; because we shall soon be faced with fresh dilemmas and new alternatives. I wonder if it can really be said that the alternatives since March have been war and surrender. I am virtually quoting from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's Division of Westminster (Mr. Cooper) when I say I believe that the alternatives since March were sur- render and firmness. Or it may be, of course, that the Government always in- tended to bewilder our friends and to strengthen shall Say to encourage- our enemies. I feel somewhat fortified in that conjecture by certain memories. One of them was a rare smile which crossed the face of the Prime Minister when I had the hardihood to refer to Czechoslovakia during Question Time as
CC
was
a bastion of democracy." I am the last to grudge the Prime Minister his little joke. In all conscience the life of a Prime Minister to-day must be bleak enough. But I do not think that phrase about Czechoslovakia
very grossly in- accurate. She was a self-governing com- munity, resolute, determined to defend herself and well-armed for the purpose. Another memory which unfortunately con- firms me in this conjecture is the Biggleswade speech of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. There was, again, the elaborate vagueness of the Prime Minister's speech in March, which now seems to have been so two-faced that it might have been drafted
Chancellor by the
of the Exchequer.
But suppose that theory is wrong and that the Prime Minister regrets what has happened. His action can then only be explained by knowledge which he had that we were too weak to win or not powerful enough to deter. Whose fault is that? For three years the Govern- ment have been pouring out our treasure on rearmament. [Interruption.]
As
I NOVEMBER 1938
International Situation there are only two Members of the Cabinet present I wonder if I might have the attention of both of them.
In our policy there is absolutely nothing to show for it. [Interruption.] Does anyone deny that, although we have spent so much on rearmament in the last three years, during that period matters in the international sphere have steadily de- teriorated? We were not even able to call the bluff of the most evil Government in Europe although that Government had been successfully isolated by the mobilisa- tion of the British Fleet. [Interruption.] If we do not at some moment stand firm we have only before us a procession of surrenders until we finally reach a posi- tion where we are faced not only with war but by inevitable defeat as well. I believe, too, that there is abundant evi- dence that the German confusion during the crisis greatly exceeded our own. The same excuse that we were unprepared was made for our behaviour towards Mussolini at the end of 1935. It was then studiously whispered that the Navy had only enough ammunition for one first-class battle in the Mediterranean. Since that day we have voted upon rearmament hundreds of millions of pounds. Where has the money gone? The House and the country are entitled to know.
I feel that we have not only been diplomatically defeated but that we are impoverished and weakened as well. If, as the Government must think-because there could not be any other motive for our rearmament that we are in danger from contemporary Germany I should have thought that it was the policy of common sense to have on our side all the friends we can possibly muster. But the Chancellor of the Duchy lately chose to criticise the alleged weakness of Russia which is by land by far the greatest single deterrent factor against German aggres- sion.
I can only say how glad Dr. Goebbels must be when his work is so faithfully done for him by an Irish peer.
"
Having successively peeled off our outer coverings, the Government say their future policy is one of appeasement. I listened with great attention to the Prime Minister for a clear definition of what appease- I wanted it in might mean. terms of practical politics. What exactly does it mean? Does it, for example, mean more concessions of other people's territory? Does it mean the permanent exclusion from our Government of our
ment
International Situation
I14
most courageous and competent states- men? I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour need mind that implied comparison between himself and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). Does it mean our accepting a condition in the air of enduring inferiority to the Nazis? Or, most probable of all, I suppose it may mean colonies. For this reason more than any other I am heartily glad that Parliament is
When together. separated in July I feared that a colonial surrender was in the air. Instead we have been made parties to the parcelling out of other people's property. But no doubt Hitler, who is nothing if not cunning, will now begin to sustain his demand for colonies by this kind of argu- ment- "You have given us Czechoslo- vakia, which never belonged to you or to
us.
we
Now hand over something that you are entitled to dispose of." If we are minded to use his own language we are able to retort that, if we can dispose of something we are also entitled to keep it; and hope we shall make that the
answer.
But if it is now the purpose of the Gov- ernment to begin the dismemberment of the British Empire because that is, I believe, what colonial concessions will eventually mean-why were not colonies given to Stresemann or Bruning? Why not give colonies to Russia or the United States or to Poland, which, I understand, has lately uttered a desire for colonial territories? Why was not this whole policy of appeasement adopted before the bully in Germany jumped into the saddle? Colonial concessions will not make things a jot better. They will only make things worse. Before the War the same Germany which is now threatening civilisation had 3,000,000 square miles of African territory and yet she went to war. No one is going to say that Germany was guiltless of what happened in 1914, although I understand it has become rather unfashionable to say that she was wholly to blame; but at least she bears a pretty heavy portion of the blame for that catastrophe. And does the House really imagine that if Germany gets one single token colony she is going to rest content? I believe that if she gets one she will immediately proceed to a de- mand for parity of colonies, and why should she not, so strengthened, demand parity at sea with ourselves? I earnestly
68
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.