§ 12. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any of His Majesty's ships and aircraft have been in action against towns and villages in the south of Russia during the last two months or with Russian forces; if so, what were the circumstances; and whether there have been any casualties or damage to material during the operations.
§ The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long)On 10th March, with a view to delaying the advance on Novorossisk, His Majesty's Ship "Sikh" supported a Russian volunteer army expedition against a Green encampment about four miles west of Novorossisk with 4-inch gunfire. The volunteer army attack did not develop. No houses or villages were fired at.
During the evacuation of the British military mission from Novorossisk on 26th March, His Majesty's ships " Emperor of India " and " Calypso " fired a few rounds in the neighbourhood of Borisovka which had the effect of preventing an expected Bolshevik attack from developing.
On the morning of 27th March, as His Majesty's Ship "Emperor of India" was 1192 leaving Novorossisk, several shrapnel burst near the ship. Fire was not returned.
On 16th April, His Majesty's Ship "Steadfast" fired on the Bolsheviks advancing south along the coast road from Tuapse. A Red battery fired on the ship.
There have been no casualties— and no damage has been reported
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYAre His Majesty's ships supporting General Wrangel in his attacks in the Crimea?
§ Mr. LONGI do not think my hon. and gallant Friend is justified in describing General Wrangel's action as attacks. He is holding the Crimea in order that the refugees there may be protected and saved. His Majesty's ships have orders to support General Wrangel in what is considered as nothing more nor less than a humane act.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYHas the. right hon. Gentleman seen recent Reuter cables in the papers to the effect that Wrangel's forces have been attacking and hope to advance out of the Crimea? Are our ships to be used for this purpose while we are opening up negotiations with the Soviet Government?
§ Mr. LONGIt is quite obvious, surely, to my hon. and gallant Friend that if this information derived from Reuter's telegrams—which I have not seen—is correct, His Majesty's ships are not called upon to take any part in a campaign which apparently, if he is rightly informed, intends to proceed inland. That is a campaign in which the ships could take no part. But I have had no such information, and I am very doubtful whether it is correct.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODHas not the British Government approached the Soviet Government with a view to helping these refugees in the Crimea and making peace with them? Are we to see negotiations carried on for peace, and at the same time be bombarding the Bolsheviks in their works and on their roads?
§ Mr. LONGThe description given by the hon. and gallant Member is quite incorrect. As to any negotiations, it is obvious that any question of that kind must be addressed to the head of the 1193 Government in his House, and not to me. That is not part of the duty of the Admiralty. When he suggests that our action in supporting General Wrangel in preventing an advance along the coast to Batoum is inconsistent with our other action, he appears to indicate, in the first place, that we are to desert the refugees in the Crimea and leave them to their fate, and, in the second place, that we are not to pursue the policy deliberately marked out, namely, to defend Batoum, which is occupied by British forces.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODSurely the right hon. Gentleman sees the distinction between protecting people in the Crimea and definitely attacking Bolsheviks between Goritza and Atom? If we are to protect the refugees—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat appears to be an argumentative statement.