I listened with great pleasure to the speech
of the Member for Sparkbrook Amery]. I found myself
ready to respond to the appeal which he made
that we should pool our opinions and efface differences
as far as possible. Above all, I agree with
him in his statement that the policy to be declared, within a
reasonably short time, by this country must
be clear and precise, so that it can be understood, for good
or ill, countries and all parties. Everyone
remembers the controversy, which has dragged on for many
years, about whether we could have stopped
the Great War in 1914 if Sir Edward Grey had made plain
declarations a week beforehand. I myself am
of opinion that he did all that it was possible for him to do
in the circumstances, and I doubt very much
whether the event would have been averted even if he had
made such a declaration. But still there is
a weight of historic judgment piling up that in all these
matters of international strife and danger
it is most necessary that nations should declare plainly where
they stand, and of all the nations which should
so declare itself our country, with her insular
characteristics still partially remaining
to her, has an obligation to give a perfectly plain statement of
what she will or will not do in certain contingencies
when those contingencies approach the threshold of
reality. Long delay would be harmful. Why
should we assume that time is on our side? I know of
nothing to convince me that if the evil forces
now at work are suffered to feed upon their successes and
upon their victims our task will be easier
when finally we are all united. Not only do we need a clear
declaration of the Government's policy, but
we require to set to work to rally the whole country behind
that declared policy, in order that there
may not be shifts and changes, as well as that there may not be
any doubt or hesitation. It will certainly
be no easier for us to face the problems with which we are
confronted a year hence than it is today.
Indeed, we might easily delay resistance to a point where
continued resistance and true collective security
would become impossible.
The gravity of the event of the 11th of March
cannot be exaggerated. Europe is confronted with a
program of aggression, nicely calculated and
timed, unfolding stage by stage, and there is only one
choice open, not only to us, but to other
countries who are unfortunately concerned-either to submit,
like Austria, or else to take effective measures
while time remains to ward off the danger and, if it
cannot be warded off, to cope with it. Resistance
will be hard, yet I am persuaded--and the Prime
Minister's speech confirms me--that it is
to this conclusion of resistance to overweening encroachment
that His Majesty's Government will come, and
the House of Commons will certainly sustain them in
playing a great part in the effort to preserve
the peace of Europe, and, if it cannot be preserved, to
preserve the freedom of the nations of Europe.
If we were to delay, if we were to go on waiting upon
events for a considerable period, how much
should we throw away of resources which are now available
for our security and for the maintenance of
peace? How many friends would be alienated, how many
potential allies should we see go, one by
one, down the grisly gulf, how many times would bluff succeed,
until behind bluff ever-gathering forces had
accumulated reality? Where shall we be two years hence,
for instance, when the German Army will certainly
be much larger than the French Army, and when all
the small nations will have fled from Geneva
to pay homage to the ever-waxing power of the Nazi
system, and to make the best terms they can
for themselves?
We cannot leave the Austrian question where
it is. We await the further statement of the Government,
but it is quite clear that we cannot accept
as a final solution of the problem of Central Europe the event
which occurred on March 11. The public mind
has been concentrated upon the moral and sentimental
aspects of the Nazi conquest of Austria-a
small country brutally struck down, its Government scattered
to the winds, the oppression of the Nazi party
doctrine imposed upon a Catholic population and upon
the working-classes of Austria and of Vienna,
the hard ill-usage of persecution which indeed will
ensue-which is probably in progress at the
moment-of those who, this time last week, were exercising
their undoubted political rights, discharging
their duties faithfully to their own country. All this we see
very clearly, but there are some things which
I have not seen brought out in the public Press and which
do not seem to be present in the public mind,
and they are practical consideration of the utmost
significance.
Vienna is the center of all the communications
of all the countries which formed the old
Austro-Hungarian Empire, and of all the countries
lying to the southeast of Europe. A long stretch of
the Danube is now in German hands. This mastery
of Vienna to Nazi Germany military and economic
control of the whole of the communication
of south-eastern Europe, by road, by river, and by rail. What
is the effect of it what is called the balance
of power, such as it is, and upon what is called the a word
about this group of Powers called the Little
Entente. Taken singly, the three countries of the Little
Entente may be called Powers of the rank,
but they are very vigorous States, and united they are a
Great Power. They have hitherto been, and
are still, united by the closest military agreement. Together
they make the complement of a Great Power
and of the military machinery of a Great Power. Rumania
has the oil; Yugoslavia has the minerals and
raw materials. Both have large armies; both are mainly
supplied with munitions from Czechoslovakia.
To English ears, the name of Czechoslovakia sounds
outlandish. No doubt they are small democratic
State, no doubt they have an army only two or three
times as large as ours, no doubt they have
a munitions supply only three times as great as that of Italy,
but still they are a virile people; they have
their treaty rights, they have a line of fortresses, and they
have a strongly manifested will to live freely.
Czechoslovakia is at this moment isolated,
both in the economic and in the military sense. Her trade
outlet through Hamburg, which is based upon
the Peace Treaty, can, of course, be closed at any
moment. Now her communications by rail and
river to the south, and after the south to the southeast,
are liable to be severed at any moment. Her
trade may be subjected to tolls of an absolutely strangling
character.
Here is a country which was once the greatest
manufacturing area in the old Austro-Hungarian Empire.
It is now cut off, or may be cut off at once
unless, out of these discussions which must follow,
arrangements are made securing the communications
of Czechoslovakia. You may be cut off at once
from the sources of her raw material in Yugoslavia,
and from the natural markets which she has
established there. The economic life of this
small State may be practically destroyed as a result of the
act of violence which was perpetrated last
Friday night. A wedge has been driven into the heart of what
is called the Little Entente, this group of
countries which have as much right to live in Europe
unmolested as any of us have the right to
live unmolested in our native land.
It would be too complicated to pursue the economic,
military, and material reactions, apart from moral
sentiments altogether, into the other countries.
It would take too long, but the effects of what has
happened now upon Rumania, upon Hungary, upon
Bulgaria, upon Turkey, must be the subject of the
closest possible study, not only by His Majesty's
Government, but by all who aspire to take part in the
public discussion of these matters. By what
has happened it is not too much to say that Nazi Germany,
in its present mood, if matters are left as
they are, is in a position to dominate the whole of South-east
Europe. Over an area inhabited perhaps by
200,000,000 of people Nazidom and all that it involves is
moving on to absolute control. Therefore,
I venture to submit to the House that this Nazi conquest of
Austria cannot remain where it is, and that
a patient, determined, persevering discussion of it ought to
take place and to be pushed forward, first
of all, no doubt, through the Chanceries and by the
diplomatic channels, but also and ultimately
it should be pushed forward in the natural place for such
discussions at Geneva-under the League of
Nations. We are not in a position to say tonight, "The past
is the past." We cannot say, 'the past is
the past," without surrendering the future. Therefore, we await
further statements from His Majesty's Government
with the greatest possible interest.
The serious nature of our affairs is realized
and apprehended in all parts of the House. I have often
been called an alarmist in the past, yet I
affirm tonight that there is still, in my belief, an honorable path
to safety and, I hope, to peace. What ought
we to do? The Prime Minister today has made a
declaration upon the subject of defense. There
is to be a new effort of national rearmament and
national service. We shall have to lay aside
our easy habits and methods. We shall have to concentrate
on securing our safety with something like
the intensity that has been practiced in other countries
whose excesses we may desire to restrain.
I think the House will be grateful to the Prime Minister for
that declaration, and I am certain that he
may rely upon all those strong forces in every party
throughout the country to second the efforts
of the Government to place us in a position where we shall
not feel ourselves liable to be blackmailed
out of our duties, out of our interests and out of our rights.
It seems to me quite clear that we cannot possibly
confine ourselves only to a renewed effort at
rearmament. I know that some of ~ hon. Friends
on this side of the House will laugh when I offer them
this advice. I say, "Laugh, but listen." I
affirm that the Government should express in the strongest
terms our adherence to the Covenant of the
League of Nations and our resolve to procure by
international action the reign of law in Europe.
I agree entirely with what has been said by the Leaders
of the two Opposition parties upon that subject;
and I was extremely glad to notice that at the beginning
and in the very forefront of his speech the
Prime Minister referred to
the League of Nations and made that one of
the bases of our right to intervene and to be consulted
upon affairs in Central Europe. The matter
has an importance in this country. There must be a moral
basis for British rearmament and British foreign
policy. We must have that basis if we are to unite and
inspire our people and procure their wholehearted
action, and if we are to stir the English-speaking
people throughout the world.
Our affairs have come to such a pass that there
is no escape without running risks. On every ground of
prudence as well as of duty I urge His Majesty's
Government to proclaim a renewed, revivified,
unflinching adherence to the Covenant of the
League of Nations. What is there ridiculous about
collective security? The only thing that is
ridiculous about it is that we have not got it. Let us see
whether we cannot do something to procure
a strong element of collective security for ourselves and
for others. We have been urged to make common
cause in self-defense with the French Republic. What
is that but the beginning of collective security?
I agree with that. Not so lightly will the two great liberal
democracies of the West be challenged, and
not so easily, if challenged, will they be subjugated. That is
the beginning of collective security. But
why stop there? Why be edged and pushed farther down the
slope in a disorderly expostulating crowd
of embarrassed States. Why not make a stand while there is
still a good company of united, very powerful
countries that share our dangers and aspirations? Why
should we delay until we are confronted with
a general landslide of those small countries passing over,
because they have no other choice, to the
overwhelming power of the Nazi regime?
If a number of States were assembled around
Great Britain and France in a solemn treaty for mutual
defense against aggression; if they had their
forces marshaled in what you may call a Grand Alliance; if
they had their Staff arrangements concerted;
if all this rested, as it can honorably rest, upon the
Covenant of the League of Nations, in pursuance
of all the purposes and ideals of the League of
Nations; if that were sustained, as it would
be, by the moral sense of the world; and if it were done in
the year 1938-and, believe me, it may be the
last chance there will be for doing it-then I say that you
might even now arrest this approaching war.
Then perhaps the curse which overhangs Europe would
pass away. Then perhaps the ferocious passions
which now grip a great people would turn inwards and
not outwards in an internal rather than an
external explosion, and mankind would be spared the deadly
ordeal towards which we have been sagging
and sliding month by month. I have ventured to indicate a
positive conception, a practical and realistic
conception, and one which I am convinced will unite all the
forces of this country without whose help
your armies cannot be filled or your munitions made. Before
we cast away this hope, this cause and this
plan, which I do not at all disguise has an element of risk, let
those who wish to reject it ponder well and
earnestly upon what will happen to us if, when all else has
been thrown to the wolves, we are left to
face our fate alone.
|
