81
139
International Situation HOUSE OF COMMONS International Situation
[Brigadier-General Spears.] Prime Minister that our armaments were growing in such a measure that, in his own words-and they are the words he used to-day they were sufficient to sup- port our diplomacy. It seems to me that in view of the deficiencies revealed last month this House would be failing in its duty if it did not institute an inquiry into what has been happening in armaments. I look upon this as a very serious matter. I have told my constituents that I am going to do my best to obtain such an inquiry, and I think that the House of Commons would be failing in its duty if it did not do so.
My last plea to the Government would be this, and it has been echoed in many quarters this afternoon. Great efforts are to be asked of the country. It seems to be impossible to ask those efforts of the country unless, at the head of affairs in the Government, all parties are repre- sented. I hope that, as soon as possible, steps will be taken to enlarge the Govern- ment as a first step for dealing with that international effort which we know is absolutely essential for our safety.
[
Sir Robert Tasker: May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend what he meant by saying,
the unjust claims of Hun- gary
Is he not aware that 62,000 square kilometres were taken from Hun- gary and given to the Czechs?
Brigadier-General Spears: I am fully aware of the position in Hungary. I know that some of the demands by Hun- gary are justified, whereas some others are not justified, but I do not think that it is fair to the House at this time to start a long controversy on matters of detail.
8.39 p.m.
Mr. Lewis: It may be that a few very well-informed people were aware of what was going to happen in the closing days of September, but certainly, as far as the general public were concerned, the realisa- tion that we stood on the brink of war came as a very profound shock. Not un- naturally, once the crisis was passed, the first feeling, I think, of most ordinary people was one of great relief that there was to be no war after all, and of great thankfulness to the man who was most responsible for the peace being kept the British Prime Minister. Then, in a little while, all over the country, people began to ask themselves and ask each other what
140
steps could be taken here in this country by ourselves to ensure that some similar crisis should not arise again. I believe that that question is being asked with in- creasing insistence all over the country. We in this House last month spent four days principally debating that very ques- tion, and I think that those of us who heard most of the speeches will agree that during those four days there were really only three alternatives that were put before us as a means of the prevention of some similar crisis in the future.
The first was the suggestion that we should rely upon the League of Nations. However bitter the disappointment may be to those of us who, like myself, thought that the League of Nations was one of the very few good things that came out of the last War, nothing is to be gained by hiding from ourselves the fact that at the present time, as far as security is con- cerned, all that the League can offer to its members is a form of collective in- security. I really cannot see how more, in present circumstances, can be expected, with four out of the seven great Powers in the world not members of the League. Therefore, however good a case is made out and a very good case can be made out for endeavouring to strengthen the League in future, or endeavouring in the meantime to get for the world such benefit as we can from the League, even with its limited membership, it is really hiding our heads in the sand to suppose
that we can prevent the occurrence of other crises like the one at the end of September by relying for security upon the League of Nations.
The second alternative that was put forward was that we should rely upon armaments, our own armaments and the armaments of such other countries as we could bind to ourselves in alliances or some friendly understanding. There again there must be very few in this House who would not to-day say that it is not obviously and urgently necessary that we should strengthen our armaments. I use the term armaments in the widest sense, for just as a modern war- ship requires armourplate as well as big guns, so a modern State requires refuge against attack from the air as well as aeroplanes. In that wide sense, including air-raid precautions, there must be hardly any in this House who would deny the urgency of the need for the extension of our armament. I cannot for the life of
"
JJ
141
International Situation I NOVEMBER 1938 International Situation
me regard armament, however strong, for this country, as being more than a palliative. I cannot see how it can ever be a cure for the disturbed state of Europe out of which the risk of another similar crisis arises. Moreover, we must pay some regard to the terrible burden of rearmament on the scale that is en- visaged to-day. A worldwide race in armaments on the modern scale would be, in its effect, so terrible as to be only a less evil than war itself. Therefore, while I regard it as abundantly plain that now, immediately, whether we like it or not, we must endeavour to strengthen ourselves in the face of possible foes, we would be most unwise to regard that in- crease in our armaments as being a possible cure for the troubles of Europe and a protection for ourselves from a situation such as that in which we found ourselves in September.
It seems to me that the other alter native which has been suggested, and which was referred to by the Prime Minis- ter to-day, is the only one that really holds out any hope of, shall I say, com- plete immunity from crises such as that of last September. It is that we should succeed again in establishing really friendly relations between this country and those other great Powers in the world with whom we are now at variance. I know that for many reasons that is a course which is exceedingly distasteful to many hon. Members in this House. For my own part I can see no other alterna- tive between that and war, and war in the not very far distant future. It may be asked, how can we do it? How can we improve relations between ourselves and, most important of all, Germany? I suggest that it can be done only if we are really willing to live and let live.
Take, for example, the very vital ques- tion of trade. If we are to have a peaceful and contented Germany with whom it is possible to hope for stable and peaceful relations, it must be possible for Germany to trade abroad. Whatever benefits we may have gained from the introduction of Protection in this country and Imperial preference in the Empire, we must realise that these things have not made it easier for countries like Germany to trade abroad. They have restricted their trade to about one quarter of the world. have been told recently, in connection with events in Czechoslovakia, that Ger- many has now much greater opportunity
We
82
142
of trading in Central and Eastern Europe, and we are told what a dangerous thing it is. It seems to me that, far from being alarmed or angry, we ought to be very glad. We ought to welcome any oppor- tunity for Germany to extend her trade abroad and to become prosperous.
The question of colonies, which has been touched upon to-day, should be approached in the same spirit. I cannot help having a certain sympathy with the idea expressed by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and, in a more restricted form, by the last speaker. I know that it is distasteful to cause some- one else to pass under a government under which we would not care to live our- selves, but we are dealing with a very great issue peace not only for this coun- try but probably for the greater part of Europe and possibly for many other parts of the world. We must face the un- pleasant necessity of being active partners in transferring other people to a govern- I cannot see ment we none of us like.
establish really how we can hope to friendly relations with Germany unless we are prepared to give up the equivalent of what we took from them at the end of the last War. I would remind hon. Mem- bers that we did not want the added territory; we did not go to war for it. It was there at the end of the War. Why did we take it? Principally to punish Germany. There might be some dis- advantage in handing back precisely the same territory that was then taken. It is very likely that in negotiation with Germany she might prefer to have other territories elsewhere, possibly collected in one area rather than scattered about. We should make an offer in some such terms If we to Germany, and make it now. do not do that, I cannot see how we can hope to re-establish really friendly relations with the Germans.
If we are to grudge the Germans every trade advantage they can get, if we are to be jealous of them and obstructive of them in their external trade, then we shall most certainly bring the calamity of war upon ourselves. If I might sum up, it would be in this way: The best hope for the future peace of the world lies in the horror and destructiveness of modern war- fare. That makes even the strongest nations pause. But desperate men can be driven to desperate courses, and as it is with individuals so it is with nations. Therefore, I would say to the House
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.