8.91
159
International Situation HOUSE OF COMMONS International Situation
[Mr. Astor.] sanctions. During sanctions it was a straight conflict in which both sides under- stood each other. Afterwards the Italians got the idea that we in a period of weak- ness had taken a setback and that we were going to build up arms for a revenge. Ill-feeling got much worse until the Prime Minister took decisive measures to end it. Let us not make the same mistake with the Germans. I was interested to hear what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said about Germany. He said they were on a starvation level. One did not see signs of that. Their standard of living is not so high as in this country, but if you met, say, people who had been in work camps and so on, one found their physical condition on the whole good. They have done away with unemployment but at great cost of liberty. People who say that Germany should be an example to us in that respect should remember what it means. One hears talk about an economic general staff and planning, but it is no good having a general staff unless you have a disciplined army which you can order about. I was outside Vienna on Friday and met a couple of young men from a village who had been sent to the other end of Germany to work on some fortifications. They had been unemployed before and were rather pleased but whether we would be prepared to try and abolish unemployment in this country by methods of that sort, is an entirely different question.
Mr. McGovern: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us their wage? Is he aware that it is 2d. per day?
Mr. Astor: I only know that these people were a good deal better off than when they were unemployed. I made it clear that the standard of wages and living in Germany taken on the average is a good deal lower than in this country. The workers get many non-financial benefits such as cheap tickets, cheap holidays and holidays with pay, but to pretend that the employed worker there is on the same level as here is absurd.
Mr. McGovern: I was in the labour camps and I was told the wage is 2d, a day and that each man is given a quarter of a lb. of white lard and no butter.
Mr. Astor: That may be true. But I am not arguing in favour of that system. I am only trying to point out that the
160
people who want to abolish unemploy- ment by German methods must realise the universal conscription which those methods mean. The feeling that one gets from being in Germany is, first, one of relief and the desire for peace; secondly, that we must be strong; thirdly, that we must make it clear to the Germans that the one touch-stone in negotiations is willingness to end the armed race. Up to now they have had every cause to feel that the only way in which they can get anything is by the use or the threat of arms. If we can show that it is possible to get them, not by the increase in arms, but by the decrease in arms, then there will be a chance of getting proper appease- ment in Europe. Going through the Sudeten areas as I did, I could not feel any humiliation or regret because it was perfectly clear that most of the people in those areas are pleased with the change in their conditions.
9.53 p.m.
Mr. Shinwell: In the course of a. challenging speech this afternoon my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked certain questions of the Govern- ment. So far there has been no satis- factory response, and on certain im- portant issues which were raised during the Debate we are still far from enlighten- ment.
Nor can we say that the mists of confusion which surround the Govern- ment's foreign policy have been removed. Certainly the Prime Minister's speech has thrown little light on that subject. Beyond a few generalisations about appeasement we have had no elucidation. The lead which the country is entitled to expect from the Government is not forth- coming. The Government have aban- doned collective security if, indeed, they ever believed in that principle. They no longer rely upon the League of Nations, which lies scattered because of the insincerity of the Tory party and the folly of successive Foreign Secretaries. They now take refuge in vague talk of appeasement and place themselves un- reservedly in the hands of the Prime Minister in whose head lurks the quaint conviction that the promise of enduring peace resides in the assurances of Herr Hitler, ignoring the fact that the head of the German Government has betrayed every promise he ever made to our nation.
One thing is abundantly clear to us after hearing the Prime Minister. While
161
International Situation I NOVEMBER 1938 International Situation
the Munich Agreement went far beyond Godesberg, the present revision of frontiers, assisted by an International Commission who seem to have been more concerned to placate Germany than to act justly, has gone further than the Anglo- French plan, Godesberg and Munich combined. The fact is that Herr Hitler has obtained more than he could ever have hoped to get. It is, therefore, a misuse of language to speak of peace as the Prime Minister has ventured to do this afternoon, in face of the treatment accorded to Czechoslovakia, the fate of thousands of Czechs and others and the existence of profound minority problems in the territory ceded to the German Reich. The dispute arose over an alleged minority problem, but a minority problem still remains. When the Prime Minister flatters himself that peace exists we re- mind him of the unhappy fate of the Social Democrats, the Jews, and of the spectacle of thousands of refugees driven from pillar to post. This is not the Labour party's conception of peace. one thing we can be sure, that morals in international relations have completely disappeared. Whose word can we trust, and who trusts our word? That is what Munich has done.
Of
The Prime Minister expressed himself strong language upon the statement of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that Munich constituted a defeat for this country and the rule of law and order. That, apparently, is not the view of the Prime Minister. Then what is it? A victory? If it is not defeat what does it represent? Surely it will not be denied that a vast change has occurred. The situation differs considerably from that which existed prior to the Munich Agreement. How the Prime Minister can maintain that this is not in the nature of a defeat is really beyond my compre- hension. Anyhow, it is not the view of the Czechs. Moreover, it is not the view of Herr Hitler himself. Apparently there is but one person who believes that Munich represents no defeat, and that is the Prime Minister. Further the Prime Minister claims that the Munich Agree- ment was carried through in a peaceful manner, but he ignores what led up to the dispute. He overlooks the threats, the intimidation the bullying methods of the German Reich. Though in the end the Agreement, for what it is worth, was
162
consummated in an apparently peaceful fashion, it was not based primarily on peace but on force.
This
The Prime Minister asked my right hon. Friend a question, which he had not the opportunity of dealing with, which was whether we supposed that the frontiers arising out of the Versailles Treaty would never be changed. It is, I admit, a per- tinent question, but he ought not to have put it to my right hon. Friend, he ought to have replied to it himself. It is a question which ought to be put to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite benches. What was their view? party has consistently declared that a revision of frontiers was rendered neces- sary by the course of events, but every time a demand was made along those lines it was resisted by the right hon. Gentle- man and his Friends. Of course we agree that frontiers must be revised, but if they are to be revised it ought to be by peace- ful means and not under duress. Has this occurred? No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman himself that that is not the case.
We have been reminded frequently in the weeks following upon the crisis of what was the alternative to the Munich Agreement. We were informed, and are still informed, that it meant war. The right hon. Gentleman shields himself be- hind that claim; but at one point he was ready himself to advise drastic action. He declared that Godesberg was not acceptable, and we all recall his declara- tion that if he thought there was a nation ready to dominate the world by force he would be ready to resist; and over and above all there was the mobilisation of the Navy. Apparently there was in the minds of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends the thought of the alternative of war. Therefore, how he can claim that all along he was concerned primarily with peace and never contemplated the alter- native is beyond my comprehension.
I venture to ask the right hon. Gentle- man, When do we reach the point when action should be taken? Surely that is a question which ought to evoke some response. Or do we never take action in any circumstances whatever the in- sult? Suppose Russia had been involved. We almost went to war with Russia in the palmy days of a particular Home Secretary, now unhappily deceased, on
Page 50Page 51
8793
163
International Situation HOUSE OF COMMONS [Mr. Shinwell.]
the mere question of a trading organisa- tion representing the Soviet in London, and we all recall what happened when certain British engineers were prosecuted in Russia. It is surely time that the Prime Minister, as the head of the Government, told the country exactly what we are prepared to fight for, and where we make our stand. What have we learned in the course of this Debate about the international guarantee of which the Prime Minister has made so much? After all, Czechoslovakia suf- fered, she was sacrificed, she was betrayed; but there was to be an inter- national guarantee and all was to be for the better. After the consummation of the Munich Agreement and the revision of frontiers, her integrity was not in any way to be interfered with. Very well, but the Prime Minister has now informed us that the international guarantee is to be invoked only when there is unpro- voked aggression. Surely that calls for clarification. Is a threat of mobilisation aggression? Where a Government in- spires terrorist bands to operate upon a frontier, is that unprovoked aggression? The Prime Minister might very well have amplified what he said on that matter.
I pass from that subject to a further important consideration which has arisen in the course of this dispute. When Gov- ernment spokesmen are in difficulties they adopt a familiar technique. They chal- lenge the Labour party to produce its alternative policy. Several speeches have been made by Government spokesmen in the past few weeks indicating a desire to hear what the Labour party have to offer as an alternative policy. I read in the Sunday Times," a newspaper devoted to the interests of the Government, in a leading article last Sunday, the follow- ing:
Opposition leaders will be under the necessity as elsewhere too often they are not of stating precisely what alternative policies they would follow if they stood in the Gov- ernment's shoes. There lies their difficulty. For while it is easy enough to dilate on the problems and dangers by which the country is beset, it is another matter to indicate any immediate way out of them other than that which the Government are pursuing."
I admit that there are difficulties, but why do these difficulties exist? Because of the foreign policy pursued by the Gov-
ernment.
There was a time when a solution was possible, when the League of Nations was
International Situation
164
stronger than it now is. Will it be unfair to suggest that when this Government went to the country with an election manifesto based upon the principle of collective security, was the appropriate time to present a constructive policy in support of peace? Of course, there are difficulties, and they are greater than they ever were before. I would not contend otherwise, but we have suggested certain alternatives to the policy of the Govern- ment. My right hon. Friend in the speech which he delivered a few weeks ago from this Box, advocated, on behalf of this party, the conception of a world confer- ence. That conception has been rejected by the Prime Minister, although there is support for the idea throughout the world. The speeches of President Roosevelt, perhaps the greatest moral force in the world, indicate support for it. Russia and France would come into it. There is little doubt that if the United States of America joined in, the confidence of the smaller nations would be restored. It was shocked by the policy that we pursued. Such a conference would have a greater chance of success before than after the conclusion of the Four Power Pact. After such a Pact we should be dominated by Germany and that hope would be gone.
I ask a further question. Are the Government ready to form an alliance with Russia? There has so far been no reply to that question. The Prime Minister was presented with an oppor- tunity on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in respect of the amazing utterance of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It would be interesting to know the views of the Government upon that speech. We ought to know. Does truth reside in the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as to the military position and the intentions of Russia during the recent crisis? If so, we ought to be informed. I dare the opinion that, on the question of a possible alliance with Russia, there are Tories, and possibly Members of the Government, who would rather lose the Empire than enter into relations with Russia.
some
I take leave to doubt whether much is to be gained by debating these matters with the Prime Minister because he appears to have made up his mind. Therefore I think I had better leave the point.
We must face the fact that Czecho- slovakia is now disrupted and that her
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.