§ Mr. LANSBURY(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before proceeding to Stresa, he can make any statement on the recent visits to European capitals?
§ Sir J. SIMONIf my answer is rather longer than is usual, I hope that in the circumstances I may be excused. The House will appreciate that just as the visits paid by British Ministers to Berlin, Moscow, Warsaw and Prague arose out of the London Declaration issued on 3rd February after the Anglo-French meeting here, so these visits, which were for the purpose of providing material as to the views of other Governments, are connected with the meeting at Stresa between His Majesty's Government, the French Government and the Italian Government which is to begin next Thursday 984 In these circumstances, I can to-day only make a summarised statement of what we have ascertained as to the views of other States, and it would not be possible to use the present occasion for a pronouncement of Government policy.
As regards the so-called Eastern Pact which was first suggested by the late M. Barthou last summer and which was the subject of a debate in the House of Commons on 13th July, Herr Hitler made it plain that Germany was not prepared to sign an Eastern Pact under which Germany would be bound to mutual assistance. In particular, Germany is not prepared to enter into a pact of mutual assistance between herself and Russia. On the other hand, Germany was stated to be in favour of a non-aggression pact between Powers interested in East European questions, together with provisions for consultation if aggression was threatened. Herr Hitler was not prepared in present conditions to contemplate the inclusion of Lithuania in any pact of non-aggression. The Germans also suggested that if, in spite of this pact of non-aggression and consultation, hostilities should break out between any two contracting Powers, the other contracting Powers should engage not to support the aggressor in any way. In another connection however Herr Hitler dwelt on the difficulty of identifying the aggressor. Asked as to his view if some of the other parties to such a pact entered into an agreement of mutual assistance as amongst themselves, Herr Hitler stated that he considered this idea was dangerous and objectionable as in his opinion it would tend to create especial interests in a group within the wider system.
In Moscow the Lord Privy Seal learned that the Soviet Government considered that the present international situation made it more than ever necessary to pursue the endeavour to promote the building up of a security system in Europe as contemplated in the London Communiqué and in conformity with the principles of the League. The Soviet Government emphasised that in its view the proposed Eastern Pact did not aim at the isolation or encirclement of any State but at the creation of equal security for all participants, and they felt that the participation of both Germany and Poland in the pact would afford the best solution of the problem.
985 In Warsaw, the Lord Privy Seal learned the view of the Polish Government on this question. M. Beck, the Polish Foreign Minister, explained that Poland had by her existing agreements with the Soviet Union on the one hand and with Germany on the other, established tranquil conditions upon her two frontiers, and the question Poland was bound to ask herself was whether any new proposals would improve or trouble the good atmosphere established by those two agreements.
What I have said will give the House some insight into the general attitude of the three Governments named towards the Eastern Pact, and the subject was also briefly reviewed in the short interview which the Lord Privy Seal had with M. Benes at Prague.
As regards the idea of a Central European Pact which was more particularly a topic of the Franco-Italian meeting at Rome, we understood in Berlin that the German Government did not reject the idea of such an arrangement. on grounds of principle, but did not see its necessity and saw great difficulty in defining "non-interference" in relation to Austria. Herr Hitler intimated, however, that if the other Governments who should wish to conclude a Central European Pact, could agree upon a text, the German Government would consider it. In Warsaw M. Beck told my right hon. Friend that Poland was prepared to adopt a friendly attitude to a Central European Pact and considered that the proposed arrangement might lead to appeasement and to the growth of confidence in that region. M. Benes, in Prague, expressed the hope that further progress might be made on this subject at Stresa.
In regard to land armaments, Herr Hitler stated that Germany required 36 divisions, representing a maximum of 550,000 soldiers of all arms, including a division of the S.S. and militarised police troops. He asserted that there were no para-military formations in Germany. Germany, he said, claimed to possess all types of arms possessed by other countries and was not prepared to refrain from constructing certain types until other countries ceased to possess them. If other countries would abandon certain types, Germany, he said, would do the same. As regards naval armaments, 986 Germany claimed with certain reserves 35 per cent. of British tonnage, and in the air parity between Great Britain, France and Germany, provided that the development of the Soviet Air Force was not such that revision of these figures would become necessary. If any general agreement as to arms limitation could be reached, Germany would be prepared to accept and work a system of permanent and automatic supervision, on the understanding that such supervision applied to all Powers equally. Herr Hitler said that the German Government favoured the suggestion contained in the London Communique of an air pact between the Locarno Powers.
On the subject of the League of Nations Herr Hitler referred to the assertion he had made in May, 1933, that Germany would not continue to participate in the League of Nations if she was to remain what he described as a country of inferior right and alleged, by way of example, that she was in a position of inferiority if she had no colonies.
I have confined myself to an account of what was said by others, but it must not be supposed that British Ministers did not indicate strong disagreement on certain points, and indeed at the end of the Berlin interviews I expressed our disappointment at the difficulties disclosed in the way of agreement.
There were of course other observations on the different topics, but I have endeavoured to communicate to the House with complete fairness and candour the salient matters ascertained in this series of visits. It will be understood that my statement is purely objective, and in view of the fact that comments of leading newspapers in this country are sometimes supposed on the Continent to represent Government opinion, it is desirable to state that His Majesty's Government, faithful to their assurance that they would take part at Stresa without previously reaching defined conclusions, have not yet formulated their attitude to these interviews and I trust that opinion abroad will await the official utterance of the Government before drawing inferences from any unauthorised comments and pronouncements.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he does not propose, and the Government do not 987 desire, that we should press for a statement of the Government's own attitude towards the questions raised. I should like to know whether that is correct or not.
§ The PRIME MINISTERindicated assent.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThat being the case, I should like to say, on behalf of my hon. Friends, and I think on behalf of a considerable body of opinion in the country, that it is a great pity we could not have had a statement, at least with reference to Herr Hitler's declarations, before to-day, so that we might have had time to consider them, and also because the British Press and the Foreign Press have been full of categorical statements of what the Foreign Secretary said during the discussions and what was said by other people. I should like, on behalf of my hon. Friends, to say that we hope that at the very earliest moment possible after the Stresa conversations an official statement, as full as possible, will be given to the House on what has taken place. I am asked also to say this, and I think I am expressing the view of a very considerable body of opinion outside, that we hope the Government are going to carry out the policy, or are going to stand by the policy, at Stresa of collective security through the League of Nations, based, not on the piling up of bayonets, or poison gas or armaments, but on disarmament. That is all that I desire to say at the moment.
§ Sir H. SAMUELMay I ask the Foreign Secretary whether in regard to the Stresa conversations we may assume, as in the case of previous conversations, that no definite commitment will be entered into on behalf of this country without previous discussion in Parliament?
§ Sir J. SIMONAs regards the last question that assurance can be given at once. My right hon. Friend will recollect that I have been asked a similar question before, and I have already stated that our freedom of action will not be prejudiced in any way by what passes at Stresa. After Stresa there will be a meeting at Geneva. In regard to the observations made by the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps I may remind him that the question which he put to me 988 to-day was originally put on Thursday, desire, that we should press for a state when I could only answer that it was impossible to give information as to what had passed in Moscow or Warsaw—
§ Mr. LANSBURYNo. In regard to Germany.
§ Sir J. SIMONThe question which was put to me on Thursday was whether I could make a statement on what had passed in Berlin, Moscow and Warsaw. I replied that I could not make any statement as the Lord Privy Seal had not reached this country. We are all sorry that he returned to this country in such a bad shape. I think the House will agree that I have made a fair statement in the circumstances.
§ Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIn view of the fact that after the meeting at Stresa, there will be a meeting of the League of Nations, I should like to know whether His Majesty's Government contemplate that there will be a further statement made to this House after Stresa and before the meeting of the Council of the League, and whether there will be any opportunity for this House to discuss the appropriate attitude of this country before the meeting of the Council at Geneva.
§ Sir J. SIMONThe actual dates as at present arranged are these. My right hon. Friend will recollect that it was the French Government that asked some time ago for an immediate meeting of the Council following Stresa. Following upon that application, the President of the Council fixed next Monday, which follows so soon that I am afraid the discussions at Stresa are likely to run very close to that date. I do not myself anticipate that at the Council of the League matters will reach a final stage at all. I am afraid that the meeting of the Council is fixed to follow immediately after the meeting at Stresa.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINMay I ask the Prime Minister, if it be impossible to have a full statement in this House from His Majesty's Government and a discussion before Easter, whether he will arrange that such a statement shall be made and occasion for discussion provided as early as possible after our resumption of business after the Easter holidays?
§ The PRIME MINISTERMy right hon. Friend will remember that I have already answered a question to that effect. I am sorry that before Easter, on account of the Budget, it is impossible to have a Debate, but I can assure him that I am very anxious that no delay should take place and that I do contemplate giving the House an opportunity as soon after the resumption as we possibly can arrange it.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINWhile thanking the Prime Minister for his reply, may I say that my only object is that the Government should know in these critical times that they speak with the authority of the House of Commons?
§ Mr. MAXTONAm I to understand from the last answer of the Foreign Secretary that the two representatives of this country, when they leave to-morrow for Stresa, will go from Stresa to Geneva and will enter into discussions and make commitments in the name of this House without this House having the faintest indication—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that before any final commitments the matter would be made a subject for discussion in this House. I originally understood that the two representatives were going to Stresa, and I have only just now learned that they are going from Stresa to Geneva. I am not asking that we should know their final conclusions, but I think it is wrong that this House should be asked to send two of its most important delegates abroad without having the faintest idea of the general line they are going to pursue. I for one, as a Member of this House, enter my dissent that an opportunity has not been given for a full discussion of this trip to the Continent and what is to be said on behalf of Great Britain. I have heard where Germany stands and where Russia stands, and where Warsaw stands, but I do not know where my own country stands.
§ Sir J. SIMONThe hon. Member may be completely assured that nobody contemplates that commitments will be entered into at the meeting at Geneva next Monday. It is surely right that there should be a meeting of the Council of the League, and I have no reason to suppose that any single representative sitting at the Council will be in a position to make commitments on behalf of 990 his country then and there. I hope the House will approve of the view that we should take our place at the Council of the League at Geneva.
§ Mr. MANDERMay I ask whether there is any reason why a debate on foreign affairs should not take place?
§ Captain McEWENCan the Foreign Secretary say whether this meeting at Stresa is going to he of a, merely exploratory character?
§ Captain STRICKLANDMay I ask whether it is possible for the Foreign Secretary to explain to the House any reason given by Germany for the exclusion of Lithuania?
§ Sir J. SIMONI do not think there is any objection to answering that question. The reason given, as I have stated in my original answer, which was confined to the present circumstances, was because of the difficulties which have arisen in connection with Memel.
§ Mr. LANSBURYMay I ask whether there is any possibility of the right hon. Gentleman or whoever goes to Geneva being back in time to have a discussion on the Motion for the Easter Adjournment on Thursday of next week?
§ Sir J. SIMONIt is not for me to apportion the time of the House. I have made inquiries as to the probable length of the meeting at Geneva. If it was confined to this subject, important as it is, I think it would be likely that I should be back, but I think that notice has now been given by the Abyssinian Government that they wish to raise questions between themselves and Italy at a special meeting of the Council of the League.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIs it possible for us to know what is happening at Geneva? Would it be possible for an official statement to be made on Thursday without debate, or on any other occasion?
§ Mr. BERNAYSMay I ask whether the Foreign Secretary gathered from Herr Hitler that there is no chance of Germany returning to the League of Nations in the present circumstances?
§ Sir J. SIMONThat is apparent from my original statement.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINMay I ask whether the question of Memel is on the agenda for discussion at the League and 991 whether His Majesty's Government have considered whether they themselves should not place that question on the agenda. It may be too late now.
§ Sir J. SIMONHis Majesty's Government have not waited until now. We have taken up this matter and pressed it on several occasions, and on the last occasion, on the 30th of last month, we communicated with the French and Italian Governments on the subject. I am sorry to say that up to the present we have not got a clear indication of what the views of these Governments may be, but I certainly expect at the meeting at Geneva to learn more closely their views. The three Governments have especial interest in the Memel question.
§ Sir EDWARD GRIGGMay I ask for an assurance that, while our representatives at Stresa and Geneva will enter into no fresh commitments on behalf of this country without consulting this House, they will, nevertheless, make it perfectly clear that we stand by our existing commitments?
§ Mr. MANDERIf it is not possible for the Government to state what their policy is before they go, may I ask for an assurance that on this occasion they really have got a policy?