HC Deb 26 October 1939 vol 352 cc1614-22

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Margesson.]

3.54 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain)

During the past week there have been no operations of importance on the Western Front. Minor adjustments in the positions occupied have been made and the general result is that the French and German forces are now on the line of the common frontier. The steady stream of reinforcements and reserves of material for the British Expeditionary Force continues, and the defences in the British sector are being continually strengthened.

In the air, aircraft of the Fighter Command have again been in action. The House is already aware of the attempted attacks by German bombers on the East Coast convoy on 21st October. In the morning attack, delivered by six bombers, it is probable that two of the enemy aircraft were destroyed, and in the afternoon attempt, made by two formations of nine and 12 bombers respectively, it is certain that four and probable that five were destroyed. On the following day, one of two bombers was shot down into the sea near a convoy off St. Abbs Head. None of the ships or escorts in the convoys suffered hurt, nor did any of the Royal Air Force aircraft engaged. The work of the units of the Coastal Command is almost continuous. Occasionally it is spectacular and attracts attention, but more often it is of a routine kind and, though no less effective, passes unnoticed.

This week there are certain successes to report. Mines in the path of convoys have been detected from the air in time to save the ships in the convoy from danger, and seven U-boats have been sighted. Of those sighted, four have been attacked. There is good reason to believe that at least one of those attacked was severely damaged, and that another was destroyed by naval vessels directed to the scene by the attacking aircraft.

I should like also to mention the admirable work of the anti-aircraft gunners, who have been continuously at their posts from a date before the war began. It is now known that in the raids on Rosyth and Scapa Flow they brought down two German bombers, and there is reason to think that they caused such damage to others as to prevent their reaching home.

In the war at sea there has been an intensification of the German submarine campaign. This intensification we have always expected; but I can assure the House with confidence that the situation is well in hand. In spite of one or two strokes of good fortune, the enemy have not been able to attain the rate of sinking which they attained at the beginning of the war. Their submarines have been driven to operate further and further from their bases and further and further from the focal points where trade is bound to congregate. Finally, the destruction of enemy submarines is being maintained at a sufficiently high rate to encourage us to believe that this menace to our trade will eventually be overcome.

Hon. Members may, indeed, have seen that during the last few days the sinking of five British ships has been announced. One of these ships, "Stonegate," was sunk by the German raider "Deutsch-land" some time ago, but information of this loss has only just reached us. Together these ships aggregated 22,715 tons. On the other hand, a number of enemy ships have been arrested and brought in by our blockading squadrons for adjudication in the regular way. These ships are the "Phoebus," of 8,863 tons the "Gloria," of 5,896 tons, the "Bianca," of 1,375 tons, the "Poseidon," of 5,864 tons and the "Biscaya," of 6,369 tons, all of which are now in our control, totalling 28,367 tons. In addition to these the "Gon-zeinheim," of 4,574 tons, was intercepted and scuttled herself to avoid capture. There is, therefore, a loss to the enemy of some 33,000 tons and a net gain to us of nearly 6,000 tons. These figures are, however, subject to the decision of the Prize Court.

One feature of the enemy's U-boat campaign to which I must call attention is their growing lawlessness. It seems now to have become the rule for merchant ships to be sunk without warning. Frequently, passengers and crew have been turned adrift in small open boats in stormy seas to suffer from cold and exposure. In the case of the steamship "Yorkshire" in particular there was a deplorable loss of life amongst the wives and children of soldiers returning home from the East. Another flagrant instance was the sinking of the French ship "Bretagne" carrying a large number of women and children. This ship was sunk miles from land by gunfire and torpedo without warning. Fourteen of those on board are missing. No words are strong enough to express our detestation of this cowardly form of warfare.

The outstanding event in foreign affairs since my last statement to the House was made, has been the signature of the Treaty with Turkey. The Treaty has been received with profound satisfaction throughout the Empire and in France, and it is a great encouragement to us to know that it has been widely welcomed in many other parts of the world. That is doubtless because the world sees in it a guarantee for the maintenance of peace in at least one region of the world. It is a purely defensive instrument, threatening no one and designed only to oppose resistance to aggression. We are proud to feel that, under its provisions, we now share mutual responsibilities with the Turkish people, for whose patriotism, probity and valour we have long cherished a high regard.

I should like to take this opportunity of informing the House that His Majesty's Government and the French and Turkish Governments have been discussing for some time the question of financial and economic assistance for Turkey. The assistance to be given relates particularly to the supply of war material. Conversations on this subject have been taking place in London with a Turkish Military Mission, and it has been a great pleasure to us to welcome the Mission and its distinguished leader, General Orbay, to this country. The conversations have been conducted in a spirit of frankness and cordiality and are now nearing completion. I am confident that they will lead to useful and practical results.

A week ago I informed the House that there had been no indication from Berlin of the views of the German Government upon the issues which I sought to define in my statement of 12th October. In the last few days reports have come from Berlin of lengthy consultations among the Nazi leaders. It may be that the speech made at Danzig on 24th October by the German Foreign Minister is the result of these consultations.

I do not propose to waste the time of the House by commenting on the many details of this performance. No one in this country will be deceived by its distortions of the truth, and there is already abundant evidence that Herr von Ribbentrop has been no more successful in his attempt to mislead impartial observers in other parts of the world. Indeed I even cherish the hope that despite all suppressions and falsifications there are still some in Germany itself who see where the real truth lies.

The main thesis of the speech is that it was England and not Germany who desired and plotted for war. The whole world knows that this is not true. The whole world knows that no Government ever sought more ardently to avoid war or took greater risks to preserve peace than did the Government of this country. We have already published with Complete frankness all the essential documents relating to the causes of the war. We are content to be judged by the facts and to know that the verdict of the great majority of neutral observers is in our favour.

In his final report on his mission to Berlin, Sir Nevile Henderson referred to the encouragement given to Herr Hitler in his designs on Poland by Herr von Ribbentrop, who apparently advised him up to the last moment that Britain would not fight. Yet this is the man who now asserts that the whole object of British policy since 1933 has been to concert war against Germany. One of the questions which the historians of the future will have to consider is how far the great tragedy of our times was due to the failure of Herr von Ribbentrop to comprehend either the policy or the character of the British people.

I will make one other comment upon the German Foreign Minister's speech. He desires, it seems, to invite the Soviet Union to join in a crusade against the British Empire. Why, what a change is here. Let me read two sentences from Herr von Ribbentrop's address to the Press when he first came to England in 1936—

Mr. Gallacher

He was your favourite then.

Mr. McGovern

Now he is yours.

Mr. Gallacher

No, he is not.

The Prime Minister

This is the quotation: Germany wants to be friends with Great Britain and I think the British people also wish for German friendship. The Fuhrer is convinced that there is only one real danger to Europe and to the British Empire as well, that is the spreading further of Communism, this most terrible of all diseases—terrible because people generally seem to realise its danger only when it is too late. The positive conclusion which we are, apparently, asked to draw from the German Foreign Minister's speech is that the German Government have made the choice which, as I stated on 12th October, lay before them. He has announced their intention of seeing the struggle through with all their energy and strength. If that is, indeed, their decision there can be but one reply, and we are prepared to give it. But it is not England that has challenged Germany. It is the German Government who, by their persistent acts of aggression, pursued in face of our repeated warnings, have forced us at last reluctantly to take up arms. It is the German Government who, by their reckless disregard of their pledged word and of the rights and liberties of other peoples, must bear the responsibility for this war and for all its consequences.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Attlee

The House will have heard with interest the Prime Minister's account of the events of the past week and will have been particularly pleased that he paid a tribute to some of those men who are often forgotten because they are not specially in the limelight—those people who are standing up all the time and attacking in the very necessary defence of this country. I was glad, too, to hear something of the figures with regard to the U-boat campaign. The ruthless attacks are such as we had only at the later stages of the last war, and it is quite clear that the present intention is to carry on the submarine campaign without any regard whatever to any of the considerations that civilised people observe. I was glad to hear that we are grappling with this. It would be a mistake to crow too soon, but I think at the present stage we are entitled to say that we are holding this menace.

In regard to the speech of Herr von Ribbentrop, it does not seem to me that it is worth while in this House to follow a statement of that kind. What exactly its importance may be in Germany, I do not know. How far it is designed to be an expression of the German Government's opinion I do not know, but it struck me as a very complete exposure of Herr von Ribbentrop himself, and it is not worth while following up. If this is to be the end of the peace suggestions that we have heard from Germany, well, we shall have to maintain our position, we shall have to face it, and we shall not be deterred from doing our duty by any threats. We stand, as we have always stood, ready for peace, but it must be a real peace, a peace based on principles. Whether there is peace or not rests with the German people, and I hope they will tell Herr von Ribbentrop and the rest that they want peace. I do not desire to keep the House any longer, because we wish to raise a very important and very vital point with regard to the war, and that is the relationship with our Indian fellow-subjects, a matter which deserves the full attention of every Member of this House.

4.12 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair

The Prime Minister dealt more than adequately with the speech of Herr von Ribbentrop, and my hon. Friends and I support the attitude which he adopted; but I should like to refer to the mention which he made of the Turkish Treaty. My hon. Friends and I fully share the satisfaction which the Prime Minister expressed at the signature and ratification of that Treaty, and if I do not say more about it on this occasion it is because our feelings were so well and fully expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) last week. I should like, however, to mention one subject which is not without its relationship to the Turkish Treaty, for as long ago as the early part of last June I drew attention in a Debate in this House to the essential relationship between our policy towards Turkey and our policy towards Russia. I pointed out then that unless our policy towards Russia could be harmonised with our Turkish policy we should be unable to reap the full benefits of our agreement with Turkey.

I am not going into the history of our negotiations with the Russian Government. That I disagree with the handling of those negotiations by His Majesty's Government is well known to hon. Members; but we ought not to allow our relations with the Russian Government to stagnate in their present unsatisfactory and dangerous position, erupting from time to time in fresh disagreements, like that which is reported in this morning's newspapers on the question of contraband. Particularly in the commercial field do I consider that progress ought to be made. The agreement for the mutual exchange of timber, rubber and tin was all to the good, but we ought to press on, and if there are surpluses of oil and manganese in Russia, we ought to secure them. Are His Majesty's Government taking steps to expand this trade with Russia? That barter agreement was all very well but—particularly now that our export trade is, like the Russian export trade, entirely State-controlled—are we going to content ourselves with advancing step by step by means of barter agreements, each import having to be matched by an export of equivalent value? Could not a clearing agreement be negotiated under which sales and purchasers could be separately authorised within fairly wide limits?

Then consider the obstacle which the conflict of Departmental policies offers to Russian trade, the Ministry of Economic Warfare willing to buy large quantities of Russian exports but suspicious of large British exports, for fear they might find their way to Germany; the Board of Trade anxious to increase British exports; but the Ministry of Supply, while anxious to obtain certain imports, being at the same time concerned to prevent the export of any raw materials or manufactured goods which might possibly or at any time be required for the fighting services. If we mean business and if His Majesty's Government intend vigorously to develop Russo-British trade, there ought to be a special department to coordinate Departmental policies and to foster this trade—a Russo-British trading organisation. In this way we might be able to make a new approach to that political understanding which we have so far failed to achieve and which, if it could be reached without the sacrifice of principles which are essential to the maintenance of order and peace in the world, would be so greatly to the advantage of the peoples of both countries.

It would be a great mistake to suppose that Russia can be cajoled into following a British policy, and I do not for one moment believe that M. Stalin has been cajoled by Herr von Ribbentrop into following a German policy. The Soviet Government is, I believe, following, and will continue to follow, an opportunist policy, realistically conceived to promote the interests of Russia, and it would be a gross dereliction of duty on the part of His Majesty's Government if they were, out of disappointment or, if they like, out of disgust with past developments of Russian policy, to leave the Russian field completely to the Germans. If Russia is compelled to work out her own destiny in collaboration with the Germans, no doubt she will be able to do so; but my contention is that His Majesty's Government ought by vigorous initiatives, first in the commercial field and, secondly, in the diplomatic field, to convince the Soviet Government that the interest of Russia and the general interest of mankind, in order and peace and in the reconstruction of Europe, will best be served by the earliest possible achievement of understanding and collaboration between the Governments of Russia and those of Great Britain and France.

Now I do not want to stand between the House and the important discussion on India which is to be introduced from the Front Opposition Bench, and I do not intend to speak on that subject, because my hon. Friend the Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) will do so; but I should like to express briefly the sense of obligation—indeed of moral compulsion—which we feel to ensure that if India shares in the efforts which are required to gain victory, she will also share in its fruits, and at the same time to express our confident hope that the Viceroy, who deserves the sympathy and support of every Member of the House, in the discharge of his heavy responsibilities, will find a means of reconciling the divergent opinions of the leaders of the Indian peoples and of setting India on the march towards the goal of freedom at home and the destruction of tyranny abroad.