Orders of the Day — Foreign Affairs and Rearmament.

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at on 24 March 1938.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr James Milner Mr James Milner , Leeds South East

We shall all agree with the last words of the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert). We all hope for appeasement. The rest of his speech appeared to me to be an unjustified attack on the League of Nations which, as the right hon. Gentleman must know, is like all human institutions, governed by the action or inaction of those nations which are members of the League. The right hon. Gentleman said that he is for absolute safety, that is his reason for rearming, although he does not expect any attack from any quarter. I should have thought it was safer to be associated with 54 nations who are at present in the League of Nations than to stand alone, as may well be our fate. The right hon. Gentleman also misrepresented the manifesto which was issued by the British Labour movement. This is what it said—the right hon. Gentleman did not read the whole of it: The British Labour movement reaffirms its uncompromising opposition to any agreement with either Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany on the basis indicated by the Prime Minister in his statement to Parliament. This is not the time for concessions to dictators. We need a clear declaration that Britain stands for the enforcement of treaties against lawless force and against aggressive interference in the internal affairs of independent States. What we require, what the late Foreign Secretary required, is some guarantee by way of action that any conclusions arrived at by such negotiations will be carried out. When I heard the Prime Minister this afternoon I was irresistibly reminded of a portion of Hamlet's soliloquy: Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;And thus the native hue of resolutionIs sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought;And enterprises of great pith and moment,With this regard, their currents turn away,And lose the name of action. The Prime Minister to me appeared to "lose the name of action." His speech was wholly negative, except in one particular, the provision of arms, increased arms, and yet more arms. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of reviving the League of Nations, but he did not indicate in any shape or form that he was intending to take or had the slightest idea how to take any steps towards reviving the League. He spoke of the necessity for a sense of confidence, but he gave us no indication of any step or action on the part of the Government to create greater confidence, except the provision of arms. He paid lip service to the League and endeavoured to retrieve his past mistakes on that subject, but refused point-blank to accept the invitation of the Russian Government to do something to reconstruct some league or alliance to resist aggression. He confined himself to giving us long lists of instances where this country is under an obligation, but also indicated that we should feel ourselves under an obligation to fight when our vital interests are affected.

In my submission our vital interests are affected to-day, and the question of Spain is the acid test in this regard. If we are to form an opinion as to the present situation we must look a little wider than we have done hitherto. We should look, for instance, to what Herr Hitler is aiming at. What does he say is his aim? It is set out remorselessly item by item in "Mein Kampf." You will find that the one and over-riding principle in that testimony is the occupation of new territories if necessary by force. On page I we are told: The sword is our plough, and out of the tears of war is raised the daily bread of our descendants. On the same page the absorption and occupation of Austria are also set out. He-also says: An essential requirement of territorial expansion is the destruction of France. Is there any Member of the House who will not agree that the destruction of France is of vital moment to us? Lord Baldwin said that our frontiers are on the Rhine, and if it is agreed that the existence of a democratic and independent France is vital to this country then I submit that that country is threatened to-day if the control of Spain falls into Fascist hands. Surely I do not need to labour that point. In that event France would have three boundaries instead of two. Frankly, I cannot understand why or how, or on what grounds, His Majesty's Government can possibly suggest, as the Prime Minister did a few days ago, that a Franco victory in Spain would not matter to this country. It is the duty of the Government to tell us the reasons for their belief that such a victory would not be prejudicial to many vital interests of this country. In his book Herr Hitler makes clear the course of events he intends to further, if possible. He proposes to absorb Austria first, as he has; then Spain, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania and Bulgaria and no doubt Danzig. When he has succeeded he will have every requisite for a successful war against France and Great Britain; many more requisites for war than Germany and Austria had in the last War. He will have oil and access to the Mediterranean, so that the blockade, which in my view was the real decisive factor in the last War, will not be as effective as it was in that War. He will have a vast army of 150,000,000 people to draw upon. He will command Spain, if it is under the control of Italy or Franco and be in command of the routes to Africa and Morocco and in control of the Straits of Gibraltar.

If that happens Italian submarines could raid the Mediterranean with impunity, Italian troops could occupy or threaten Egypt; and Malta and Cyprus could not survive. He would be able to have naval bases at Corunna and Vigo, threatening our western sea routes, and the result would be that France and ourselves would be completely isolated. If that happens and if France goes, where should we be in this small island of ours? London would be within five minutes of myriads of raiding aeroplanes, our vital lines of communication could be easily cut, and we should have nothing left but to fight and die, or submit ourselves to an alien domination. For these reasons I submit that the question of Spain is of vital interest to this country.

For some hundreds of years we have favoured what is known as the balance of power, and in its time and generation that policy has served us well. I mean the policy enunciated by Fox, the policy that no Power should be allowed to become dominant and a danger to the liberty of Europe. For 200 years we have never permitted any Power or Powers to dominate the Mediterranean. Why should we at this stage depart from a policy which has served us so well? I submit that to-day this country should enter into a defensive alliance with all who would join us in guaranteeing mutual security against aggression, that in particular we should state in precise and definite terms that we will not countenance foreign occupation or control of Spain, and that, failing compliance with the Non-intervention Agreement by other nations within 14 days, the British Government will agree to the restoration to the Spanish Government of the right to obtain arms.

The Under-Secretary of State admitted yesterday that no complaint had been made of any breach of the agreement by the Fascist Powers for over a year, although breaches have been public knowledge throughout the whole of that time. In spite of that, we are to-day without any guarantee in any shape or form, sitting round a table with those who have repeatedly dishonoured pledges and broken promises. Surely, it is time to end that farce, and I hope that even now the Government, if only out of a sense of outraged dignity, will withdraw from the Non-intervention Agreement and permit the Spanish Government to obtain arms where it can. If such a declaration were made, if we made efforts to obtain allies—there are still 54 nations in the League of Nations—if we made it clear that we were prepared to uphold the Covenant of the League and to resist aggression shoulder to shoulder with other nations, the world would know where we stood.

Certainly, the world does not know today any more than it did yesterday where the Government stand, because the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has reserved to the Government, in all cases except, I assume, where we are bound by treaty, discretion to decide whether we shall or shall not resist aggression. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] My submission is that it is that very uncertainty which means war, and which almost invariably in our history has resulted in war. Certainty as to the action we shall or shall not take would give the greatest probability of peace. I have been reading the life of Lord Beaconsfield. I hope that hon. Members opposite will cheer when I read a quotation from one of Lord Beaconsfield's speeches. Lord Beacons-field informed the Russian Government, as I suggest other governments should be informed to-day, that His Majesty's Government were not prepared to witness with indifference the passing of Constantinople into other hands than those of its then possessors. Lord Beaconsfield went to the Berlin Congress, and on his return, it was found that this country had entered into an agreement with Turkey to defend Turkey's Asiatic dominions against any form of aggression from Russia. What was the explanation which Lord Beacons-field gave for the assumption of that responsibility; a responsibility more serious, I think, than that which we are inviting the Government to undertake to-day? The quotation is a long one, but I hope the House will permit me to read it, as I think it is very appropriate to the present situation. On 27th July, 1878, Lord Beaconsfield said: It is said that we have increased, and dangerously increased, our responsibilities as a nation by that convention. In the first place, I deny that we have increased our responsibilities by that convention. I maintain that by that convention we have lessened our responsibilities. Suppose now, for example, the settlement of Europe had not included the convention of Constantinople and the occupation of the Isle of Cyprus; suppose it had been limited to the mere Treaty of Berlin, what under all probable circumstances might then have occurred? In 10, 15, it might be in 20 years, the power and resources of Russia having revived, some quarrel would again have occurred, Bulgarian or otherwise, and in all probability the armies of Russia would have been assailing the Ottoman dominions both in Europe and Asia, and enveloping and enclosing the city of Constantinople and its all-powerful position. He went on: Well, what would be the probable conduct, under these circumstances, of the Government of this country, whoever the Ministers might be, whatever party might be in power? I fear there might be hesitation for a time, a want of decision, a want of firmness; but no one doubts"— any more than anyone doubts to-day— that ultimately England would have said, This will never do; we must prevent the conquest of Asia Minor; we must interfere in this matter and arrest the course of Russia.' Well, that being the case, I say it is extremely important that this country should take a step beforehand which should indicate what the policy of England would be; that you should not have your Ministers meeting in a council chamber, hesitating and doubting, and considering contingencies, and then acting at last, but acting perhaps too late. I say. therefore, that the responsibilities of this country have not been increased; the responsibilities already existed. Though I, for one, would never shrink from increasing the responsibilities of this country if they are responsibilities which ought to be under- taken the responsibilities of this country are practically diminished by the course we have taken. Concluding, Lord Beaconsfield said: My lords and gentlemen, one of the results of my attending the Congress of Berlin has been to prove, what I always suspected to be an absolute fact, that neither the Crimean War nor this horrible devastating war which has just terminated would have taken place if England had spoken with the necessary firmness. In my submission, war would be less likely if the Government of this country to-day would speak with the necessary firmness. The position which arises to-day, and the difficulty with which the Government are faced, has frequently occurred in our history. I would remind the House that it is now the considered opinion of the great majority of authorities that the Great War itself would not have occurred if the Government of this country had stated its position with firmness. In a recent book written by a German historian, who went through the whole of the documents and facts relating to the commencement of the War, the following conclusion is stated: Great Britain was the dominant factor on both sides and was in control of the situation. Had she immediately and clearly stated her position, world peace would have been saved. I submit that, as stated by that great German authority and as stated by Lord Beaconsfield, the right course for us to follow in the present situation is to state precisely where this country will stand in certain eventualities. Our responsibilities already exist, and they would not be increased by stating our position, by marshalling our friends and by saying, in appropriate cases, "Thus far and no farther." That attitude is a defensive one, and not an offensive one, as hon. Members opposite may try to make out. Hon. Members on this side, like hon. Members in all parts of the House, I am sure, do not desire war. We do not intend or desire to fight anyone, but if we are attacked, surely it is better to stand shoulder to shoulder with others against the aggressor, so that his blood may be upon his own head.

That is not a warlike policy, but a policy which gives the greatest likelihood of peace. It is a policy which, among other things, is directed, I believe, to bring peace-loving nations such as the United States of America to our help. I was told the other day that the American people always trust the British people, but never a British Government. I think that there is a great deal of truth in that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Particularly this Government."] My hon. Friend says "Particularly this Government," but I do not want to be too hard on the Government in present circumstances. I could say some very hard things about them, but this is not the appropriate occasion on which to do so. I believe that if this country would stand on principle, instead of leaving our hands free so that we might adopt an opportunist attitude when the occasion arose, the American people would certainly sympathise with us, and that little by little, as in the last War, they might, in certain eventualities, be brought into our orbit and to our assistance if we required such assistance.

Many hon. Members fought in the last War—the war to end war, the war to save democracy. Let us not, 20 years later, have it on our souls that we, in our time and generation, were not willing to play our part, that those who died and suffered did so in vain, and that we learned nothing from the Great War. Let us in our time, prepared or unprepared, stand for right, for principles and for justice to small nations. Do not let us—as I feel the Government are doing to-day—evade, shuffle and wriggle out of our plain responsibilities. Let us, while standing with other nations against aggressors, take the lead by taking active steps to remedy the grievances and injustices of the nations wherever they may exist. Let us set an example in that respect. Let us, with other nations, hold in one hand the sword of Damocles against those who attack us or our friends, while holding—and using—the scales of justice fairly in the other hand. Above all, do not let us sacrifice the future to the present. The people of this country want peace, but not peace at any price. They prefer to keep liberty even at the price of peace, and not merely to put off the evil day when our last state will, in all human probability, be worse than our first. I submit that it is the bounden duty of the Government at the present time to interpret the spirit of our people. I believe I have stated it correctly. It is the Government's duty, in that spirit, to seek peace and to ensue it.