GERMANY (WAR CRIMINALS) (Hansard, 10 November 1944)

§ Mr. G. Strauss (Lambeth, North)
Opinions differ greatly about many aspects of the problems of post-war Germany and our treatment of the German people, but there is, I believe, almost complete agreement on three points. The first is that Germany should be completely demilitarised; the second is that we must see that there is complete elimination of the Nazi party and all Nazi laws and manifestations; and the third is that there should be fit and proper punishment for all those responsible for the appalling and almost incredible crimes committed by the Nazis in their attempt at the world conquest.
What I want to do to-day, is to ask the Government to enter immediately into consultations with our Allies with the object of widening the category of war criminals. At present, war criminals are considered, I believe, both in the public mind and in the plans of the Allied 1715 Governments, to consist of those who have been responsible for the mass executions in Russia, Poland, South Europe, France and elsewhere, those responsible for the death and torture of Allied nationals in any part of Europe, contrary to the provisions of international law and to the recognised standards of decent behaviour. There is no doubt at all that literally millions of people in Europe have been the victims of bestial and foul treatment at the hands of Nazi sadists, and although I do not believe every atrocity story which I read in the newspapers, I am convinced that, generally speaking, so far from there being any exaggeration of the war crimes. of the Nazis, they have, in fact, been understated. The people of this country in particular, and the world in general, do not appreciate to the full, even yet, either the degree, character, or number of the crimes which have been committed by the Nazis in their attempt to conquer Europe.
But it is not only Allied nationals who have been the victims of these crimes. There are others, equally innocent and equally worthy, who have been victims. There are German nationals who, through their love of freedom and democracy and hatred of the Nazis, have been tortured, imprisoned and killed by the Nazis not by the tens of thousands but by the hundreds of thousands, or even, possibly, by the million. Outside Russia and Poland, there are probably more anti-Nazis in Germany who have suffered at the hands of the Nazis than in any other country in Europe. These people have suffered because they have supported our cause. Many of them have fought as heroically for that cause and as selflessly as any citizen of any one of the Allied countries. The murder of these anti-Nazis, most of whom have not been able to take up arms and whose sole crime has been that they have expressed anti-Nazi sentiments, have spoken up boldly in favour of freedom, democracy and the decencies of life, and have been considered to be dangerous people who might help to upset the Nazi régime, is every bit as vile a crime as the murder of people in France, Belgium or Yugoslavia, who have done exactly the same thing, and no more. The guilt of the persecutors of these innocent people is equally great and the retribution to be meted out to those persecutors is equally necessary.
1716 I do not hold the view, the ridiculous view—and I hope nobody in this House holds it either—that the German people as a whole are responsible for these crimes. To start with, a vast majority of the German people know nothing about them. There is no word of them in the German Press, or on their radio, and they are not able to read the Press of any foreign country. It is, therefore, impossible for them to know about them. Indeed, when any such crime is committed which may possibly filter through to the German people, Dr. Goebbels takes great care that the story is so distorted that the German people shall not know the truth about it, because, presumably, he fears that they might adopt some form of anti-Nazi action if they do hear about it. When the last major crime of the Nazis was committed, the killing of all those interned in the Buchenwald concentration camp, the Nazi Government stated that those people had been killed as the result of bombs dropped by Allied airmen. They feel it necessary, in case the German people should hear about what they were doing, either to hide the accounts of their crimes or to colour them out of all recognition. Indeed, if the German people did get to know about them, there is nothing they could do. As the Prime Minister said the other day, the efficiency of the Gestapo is such that any individual in Germany, trying to take action against the German Government, is immediately shot by the authorities.
Moreover, if one accepts the doctrine that the German people as a whole have to be punished, then one must ask how that is to be carried out. So far as I can see there are only two possible ways. One is by the complete dismemberment of Germany, and the other is by keeping the German people in perpetual impoverishment. If Germany is to be dismembered there will be created in Europe such permanent and deep feelings of injustice and grievance and discontent that there will never be any peace in Europe. If Germany is to be completely impoverished, including the children who are not yet born, that means impoverishment of Europe as a whole, including this country. It is impossible to have a prosperous Europe if, in the centre of Europe, there are vast populations who are suffering unemployment and starvation. The only sane policy is to seek out those who 1717 have been responsible for these crimes—it may not be easy—and punish them certainly and swiftly. As I have said, it may be difficult to find many of these criminals, but I hope that the same thing will not happen as at the end of the last war, when so much public attention was diverted to the question of the punishment of the Kaiser that attention was diverted from much more important social problems.
I referred just now to the shooting at Buchenwald. We know about it from German sources, because the German Government announced that all the inhabitants there had been killed as a result of an Allied air raid. In fact, there was no raid near Buchenwald, as we have been told by our Government. What happened was that Socialists, Liberals, Jews and anti-Nazis of all sorts in that camp were deliberately shot because the German Government thought that many of them were potential leaders of democratic Germany, and that they should be put out of the way. Many of the individuals in that camp—there were about 7,000 there, I believe—were among the distinguished fighters for democracy. They were people whose names are famous throughout Europe for the struggle which they made, both before and during the war, for the principles in which we believe. There was for instance Herr Breitscheid, a man whose name was honoured throughout Europe for his democratic principles.
Are the perpetrators of this mass murder to go free? Will the Allied Governments say, "We shall wash our hands of this because the victims happened to be German nationals and not French, Belgian or Polish nationals?" Are not these crimes every bit as vile, whether they are perpetrated in German territory or in any other territory, or whether the victims are German nationals or the nationals of any other country? There is no distinction at all between the vileness of the crimes, either on territorial or national grounds. These victims were just as much friends of our cause as the victims of German sadism in other parts of Europe.
This is not a national war; it transcends frontiers and national conceptions. It is essentially a war of ideas. On the one side there is the idea of the Herrenvolk conquering, or attempting to conquer, the 1718 world, trampling ruthlessly on minorities, ruling by tyranny and lies, and destroying those principles of decent behaviour and individual freedom which we believe are the essence of civilisation. On the other hand, there is the idea of the equality of all peoples, the right to live their lives and develop their cultures according to their own ways and feelings, the establishment of the rights of man and the sanctity of the human being. In this bloody battle of ideas which is raging in Europe and throughout the world, nationals of most countries are fighting on both sides. There are tens of thousands of Allied nationals, who believe in the Nazi doctrine and who have been either fighting with the Nazis or helping them.
In most countries of Europe there have been quislings with thousands of supporters who, it may be honestly, have believed in the Nazi principles. On the other side, there have been tens of thousands of Germans who believe that the Nazi doctrine is so vile that they will take up arms and risk their lives to destroy it. Thousands are fighting with the Allied Armies, doing most courageous work, in order that the ideas in which they believe may be victorious, and that the ideas held by the Nazis may be destroyed. Therefore I say again that the crimes committed by the Nazis against individuals who oppose them, are equally vile and merit equal punishment wherever they may be committed and whoever the victims may be, irrespective of their national origin.
There are, moreover, apart from these general considerations, two specific and practical reasons why the Allies should quickly take action in this matter and make some public pronouncement. One is drat there is a possibility—I will not put it higher—that if a statement were made by the Allied Governments, to the effect that they will consider crimes committed in Germany against innocent victims as being as serious and as worthy of punishment as those committed outside Germany, some of those crimes might be abated or moderated. I know that in the past threats of punishment against German criminals have had little effect, but now that the war is drawing to a close and the outcome is certain, there may be doubts and hesitations in the minds of many Nazi leaders and their supporters and, if a firm declaration along these lines were made, it might, possibly, make many 1719 of those who may have ordered, or who may even be given orders for these mass executions hesitate two or three times before they carry them out. Even if there is a reasonable possibility that these people might be deterred by fear of the consequences and the certainty of punishment by some public court after the war, it would surely be well worth while making such a pronouncement, because you would be saving it may be the lives of tens of thousands of our friends and our allies, the very people who one day may be able to build up a democratic Germany again.
There is a second practical and specific reason why these people who have committed crimes inside Germany, on German nationals, should be tried and punished after the war. It is essential, in the post-war period, immediate and long-distance, that these criminals should be totally eliminated from the European scene. These men have had their minds distorted by the Nazi creed and by Nazi training and it will be impossible to build up a peaceful Europe as long as they remain in it. Therefore I ask the Government to consider whether from that angle—of the necessity for eliminating these evil minds completely from Germany and from Europe—it is not most important that steps should be taken to see that these men are brought to trial as quickly as possible, and given the punishment which they merit if they are found guilty.
I know it will be argued that there are technical difficulties. It may be said that these men are not, technically, war criminals in the sense that they have committed crimes outside Germany; that up to now the Allies have considered this class but that we have no evidence about their guilt. But surely the difficulties can easily be overcome, if the Governments of the Allied Nations desire to overcome them. We may not have the evidence now of who are guilty, but it will surely be forthcoming—or much of it will—at a later stage. We shall have ample to start with, in order to try many of the worst criminals. We may not be able to catch the lot but if we get the majority of them, it will be better than nothing at all. I cannot see that the technicalities are very difficult and I cannot see why these crimes committed on German soil should be considered in any different category from those com- 1720 mitted elsewhere. But, whatever the difficulties, I plead with the Government to do all they can to get into consultation as quickly as possible with our Allies, and to say to them, "These crimes have been and are being committed and are likely to be committed even on a bigger scale than ever before. Let us, therefore, declare to the world our firm intention that those responsible for crimes inside Germany, on German nationals, shall be treated in the same way as those responsible for crimes outside Germany; and let the German people be warned, and potential criminals be warned, that it is the firm and resolute determination of the Allied Governments that those responsible for these crimes shall surely meet swift trial and certain punishment as soon as the war is over."

§ Earl Winterton (Horsham and Worthing)
The hon. Member is fully entitled to put the view that he has put, but it would be most undesirable that in an Adjournment Debate like this no one should speak from this Box in support of the Government's policy. The result of the Under-Secretary replying, and the Debate being otherwise left in the hands of those who differ from the Government's policy, would be to give the impression abroad that there was a serious difference of opinion with the Government. I stand here as a whole-hearted supporter of the Government, and I should like to give my reasons for differing from the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss). I think the first and most important point to be made is that we are not discussing this matter in vacuo. It is not merely the Government who are responsible for Allied policy. The Government, in circumstances of great difficulty—this equally applies to the position of the other great Allied Governments—have to try to devise, in consonance with the Allied Governments, a common policy, and I think the Foreign Secretary is greatly to be congratulated on the measure of agreement that has been reached in this matter. Above all, we have to remember the position of our other great European Ally, Soviet Russia. I do not think the views the hon. Member has enunciated are at all in accord with those put forward by Premier Stalin. They are indeed in almost complete disaccord. 1721 Let me deal with his first point, that responsibility does not rest on the German people as a whole. That is a matter that cannot be stated in a blunt way. I think it is subject to very considerable qualifications. Certainly Premier Stalin has made it clear that the German people cannot be absolved from complicity in the crimes that have been committed. This is not a question, as some of the rather sentimental friends of the German people suggest, of a handful of Gestapo carrying out crimes. It is a matter of literally millions of German soldiers and police, not only in Germany but in every country in Europe, committing crimes, the bestiality of which has never been equalled. Can it be said that, in all those millions, there are none who have the moral courage to say, "I will not stand by and see people having their finger nails torn out, or their tongues impaled, or being placed on red-hot bricks"?

§ Mr. G. Strauss
What evidence has the Noble Lord that these crimes have been committed by millions of people? All the evidence I can get is that most of them have been committed in concentration camps by a small number of people, and often there has been violent opposition. That is clear from many declarations by prisoners of war.

§ Earl Winterton
The hon. Member is like many sentimental people during the last war, who did not believe it when they heard of crimes committed by German soldiers, which they were often not even ordered to commit—brutal and horrible crimes which only brutal and horrible people were capable of committing. I have French friends who have been tortured by German soldiers, and then it is said, "It is not the dear, kind German people, but a handful of the Gestapo." I cannot accept that aspect of the case, and it is certainly not accepted by the Russian Government, or by Premier Stalin, or by millions of Russian citizens. I am only arguing that it is not a fair assessment of the situation to say that the German people as a whole bear no complicity for the crimes that have been committed. That is certainly not the point of view of any of the Allied leaders. Another thing the hon. Member said was that the crimes committed upon individual German citizens before the war by the Gestapo and police did 1722 not meet with the approval of the German people. I knew only one Nazi, in the person of Herr Ribbentrop when he was their Ambassador here, but I knew a great many Germans. Again and again, they said to me in a half-ashamed way, looking over their shoulders, "We are not Nazis; we do not like all that the Nazis do, but the Jews thoroughly deserve the way they are treated." That was said by hundreds of thousands of Germans. I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Member; I am afraid there is a sadistic trait in a great number of Germans.
The hon. Member's next point was that this was not a national war. I agree that in the first instance it was of a rather different character from what it is now. I think the Prime Minister used very wise words when he said the war was beginning to take on a less ideological character than it had some time ago. The fact is that to-day with rare exceptions, all Germany is fighting against the Allies, and the Allies are fighting against all Germany. It has always seemed to me highly infructuous to discuss whether we can exterminate Germany. Literally, we cannot exterminate 80,000,000 people, but Germany is having and is going to have increasingly in the next few months, one of the roughest forms of treatment, the most severe punishment that any country has had in history. Let the House face the situation as it is to-day. I think the Germans have brought it on themselves. Millions of Germans are being rendered homeless and hundreds of thousands are being killed. Germany is going to have this winter the greatest punishment that has ever been inflicted on any nation. In these circumstances, for us to repeat that we have no quarrel with the German people is to say something which is hypocritical. If we have no quarrel with them, we ought to make peace with them to-morrow. It is hypocritical to say that we have no quarrel with the German people, and it will certainly be greatly resented in Russia, and by all our Western European Allies.

§ Mr. G. Strauss
I think that the Noble Lord is really rather distorting what I said. My sole argument in this respect was that it was ridiculous to suggest that we should punish the whole German people for the war crimes which have been committed in Germany or outside, 1723 both on moral grounds and because it would be impossible.

§ Earl Winterton
If that is so, why are we doing what we are doing? We are now punishing the whole German people in our bombing. If we destroy hundreds of thousands of people, and make them do without gas, electricity and transport, and cause them to tramp out into the snow, that is punishing them. If it is not punishment, what is it? If the hon. Member and other people do not want to punish the whole German people, it is their duty to oppose the Government's policy.

§ Mr. G. Strauss
The Noble Lord is distorting my argument completely. I am talking about post-war punishment. I do not suggest, nor does anybody else, that we should stop fighting until victory is won. My whole argument was in regard to the procedure for post-war punishment of war crimes.

§ Earl Winterton
Then the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that Germany is now suffering the greatest punishment that any nation has ever had, that it is right in war-time, but that it would be wrong in peace-time.

§ Mr. Montague (Islington, West)
Not as punishment.

§ Earl Winterton
I agree in the sense that we shall not after the war carry out the same sort of treatment that is being carried out now, or even carry out the treatment advocated by some people who hold a more extreme view on this question. Here again we have to be careful not to give a wrong impression. It seems to be as certain as anything can be—and the process I am suggesting will come within the description of punishment—that Poland is going to have, with the support of Soviet Russia, a large portion of East Prussia. It seems to be equally certain that Holland will have portions of Germany in retribution or recompense for the damage done to Holland by flooding. It seems to be certain, too, that Alsace-Lorraine will be taken away. Let me give a friendly piece of advice to my hon. Friend without appearing to be presumptuous. If he and others say that we must not punish the German people after the war, he will be asked by the good, kind Germans of the sort he has 1724 described why, if that is so, large portions of German territory are being taken away. That is the dilemma in which my hon. Friends will find themselves. They want to be extremely careful, because public opinion in this country, on both the Left and the Right, is going to be very stern after the war. The Left are not going to take upon themselves the responsibility of opposing what are obviously the views of the U.S.S.R. Therefore, we want to be careful when we say that there is to be no punishment, because if huge chunks of territory are to be taken from Germany there will be punishment.

§ Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly)
If I understood my hon. Friend rightly, I think that the Noble Lord is arguing at cross purposes. I thought that my hon. Friend was putting the point that it is a right policy to make a list of German war criminals who have committed crimes in countries outside their own, and he was suggesting that there should be added to that list a list of Germans who committed crimes against their own nationals. I hope that will be so. I knew the President of the first International which I ever attended, and he was brutally murdered, and I should like to see those responsible for that crime punished.

§ Earl Winterton
I am not speaking on the question of the punishment of war criminals. I am talking on the point that there must be no punishment of the German people as a whole after the war, and I am suggesting that it is most dangerous to say that, because exactly the opposite is going to happen. Undoubtedly Poland, with the support of Soviet Russia, is going to take large chunks of East Prussia, Holland is going to have part of Southern Germany, and Alsace Lorraine will be returned. I think that we shall find that the policy of the Soviet Government will be much more in favour of drastic action against Germany after the war than some Members of the Labour Party seem to think, and that this policy is more in accord with that of some prominent members of the Trades Union Congress. It is very dangerous that it should go out from this House that there will be no punishment of Germany after the war. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those who have committed crimes against humanity within Germany, should be brought to book, as 1725 well as the people who have committed crimes outside Germany. That is not the only point, however, because I think I sometimes detect in the opinions of some who speak on these matters a greater regard for the minority Germans who have been tortured, than for the Frenchmen, Russians, Poles and others. I hope that that is not so, because a crime is just as great whether it is committed against German nationals or against people outside. I do not think anyone differs upon that.

§ Mr. Chater (Bethnal Green, North-East)
Will not the Noble Lord admit that the punishment for crimes against German nationals is the business of Germany itself, and that it is not our responsibility? When peace is concluded and the Nazis are exterminated, we shall see whether the Germans have supported Hitler or not, by whether they rise and punish the criminals who have been responsible for crimes against their own nationals.

§ Earl Winterton
That is exactly the opposite position taken by the hon. Member for North Lambeth. I agree with him that if possible, we should also punish crimes against German nationals. I agree that many people take the opposite view and say that that is the duty of the Germans themselves.
I only rose for the purpose of saying that it is not fair to charge the British Government at this moment with weakness or instability on this question. In a very difficult situation they are endeavouring to find accommodation between the different views of the Allies. I would once again, with great respect, repeat the warning that we want to be extremely careful at this moment, to avoid giving the impression that we intend to be lenient, either to Germany or to the German people. Such a view is most unpopular throughout the Soviet Union, and it is certainly not popular in America. I would go so far as to say that it would be greatly resented by thousands of people in this country. who know the appalling crimes that Germany, in two wars, has, by her own volition, brought upon Europe.

§ Miss Rathbone (Combined English Universities)
Like my right hon. Friend who has just spoken, I was not aware 1726 that this subject was to be raised to-day, but as it has been raised I cannot keep silent because it is a subject on which I have thought long and, so far as I am capable of doing so, deeply. I really rather wonder what the difference of view is between the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss), who started the discussion, and the Government, and I think perhaps some rather unnecessary heat has been brought into the controversy by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton).

§ Earl Winterton
The hon. Lady is one of those who if a person in expressing his views puts his points directly, immediately say that he is introducing heat. I resent that suggestion. I put my point of view, which is different from the hon. Lady's, and there are people outside this House who deeply resent her attitude on this matter.

§ Miss Rathbone
I need look no further than my own heart for a justification of my views on this matter, and I do not think it is an accusation of a crime to accuse an hon. Member of introducing controversy in his speeches. I am thinking of the merits of the question. I begin within the narrow issue that was raised originally, and I would remind the House of the reply given by the Secretary of State, to a Question by the hon. Member for North Lambeth. It was: The crimes committed by Germans against Germans are in a different category from war crimes and cannot be dealt with under the same procedure. His Majesty's Government have this matter under consideration, but I am not in a position to make any further statement at present. I agree with that, as I do not think that the crimes of Germans against Germans can be dealt with under the same procedure as crimes of Germans against members of the Allied Nations. There are reasons, which ought to commend themselves to the hon. Member for North Lambeth. Obviously, war crimes in the ordinary sense can be dealt with only by the victorious Powers, and by the law courts they set up. Would he not agree that crimes of Germans against Germans ought to be dealt with by a different kind of court, because, as far as possible, Germans ought to be used in the procedure? What I envisage is different courts. I do not think there is anything in the Secretary of State's reply which rules out that 1727 a separate kind of court will be called into existence to deal with crimes such as that of Buechenwald. I think it would be a mistake if such courts are not set up. We know there is a department considering the future of Allied control of Germany. When I heard the Noble Lord say that we should let the Germans themselves punish criminals, I could not help wondering when that is going to be possible. I believe that the school of thought to which he belongs contemplates a very long occupation of Germany. When is he going to allow this to take place? I would like to see it.

§ Earl Winterton
I said I was inclined to agree with the hon. Member for North Lambeth that it should be done, if possible, by a different process. Of course, crimes committed by Germans against Germans should be punished by the Allies. I said that specifically I agree with the hon. Lady. I do not think it should be done by the Germans. It may be desirable, but I think it would be very difficult.

§ Miss Rathbone
I feel myself in the most unusual position of actually agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing. There is growing testimony that a large number of people of German origin will be able to give very valuable help in this matter. Only the other day I had a copy of an anonymous article, sent to me by the author who is doing distinguished academic work at Oxford. In it, he analyses very closely the characteristics and the background of the men who took part in the attack on Hitler's life on 20th July. He showed, contrary to what some people have tried to maintain in this country, that they were an extraordinarily mixed bag. They included Junkers, distinguished generals, fervent Catholics, members of the professional army, Prussians, South Germans, trade union leaders and a good many Jews. It went to show that the attempt had been planned very carefully, for a very long time, not by a few people who felt that Hitler had managed the war badly but by a group of people who had, probably, been working and planning together for some years because they disapproved of the whole of Nazidom. I hope we shall be able, in those post-war trials, to use Germans of that type, who 1728 really know the kind of people with whom they are dealing.
I want to go on to rather broader issues which were raised in the subsequent part of the discussion. There, I confess, my views are almost entirely similar to those put forward by the hon. Member for North Lambeth. First, I want to protest against those who, like the Noble Lord, represent me, of all people, as one of those sentimentalists who want to pardon the Germans for their crimes and who underestimate the strength and extent of those crimes. Why, my principal occupation, outside my constituency duties, for the last five years, or longer, has been to try to save the victims of German cruelty and to help them to escape. Every night for an hour or so, it is my painful duty to read almost unreadable accounts of the brutal cruelties committed by Nazis against innocent victims, Jewish and others. I under-rate their crimes? If anyone underrates them it is not myself.
I want two things. First, I want justice. One must be just, even to enemies with whom we are at war. The second thing I want is to bring this war to a conclusion as soon as possible, and to make it as unlikely as possible that there will be another war. As an advocate of justice, even towards our enemies, and as an Englishwoman who is proud of her nationality and loves it better than all other nationalities put together, I often ask myself this question: What would you feel, if you were a German, passionately anti-Nazi, but at the same time, a patriotic German, and who could not help remembering that Germany has produced some of the greatest philosophers, musicians, scientists and soldiers that the world has ever seen? What would I feel, in spite of all the crimes committed—and which I should be the last to belittle—and in spite of the deep feeling of shame and horror at the disgrace that had been brought upon my nation to-day, if I were still a lover of my native land, and wanted nothing so much as to cleanse its name for ever, from the stain that had been put upon it by Hitler and all his gangsters?
Would I not feel a dividing line? Should I not be torn asunder if I thought that, as a result of Allied victory in this war, not only were those who had committed crimes to be punished, not only was Hitlerism to be destroyed and its 1729 repetition made impossible, not only were the German people to be re-educated into a very different mentality, but Germany was to be torn into fragments, permanently ruined and deeply humiliated? If I felt that that was going to be the result of the war, should I not feel: "I cannot fight for Hitler; in a sense I must welcome the victory of the Allies, even if it means the ruin of my beloved country; but neither can I fight for the Allies." I should feel deeply divided. Through the kind of attitude represented by Lord Vansittart—to whom I have a right to refer not as a Member of the Upper House but in reference to his published writings—I believe we have lost a splendid opportunity of creating in Germany a great fifth column of the right kind, a column that would be fighting for us all the time. One of the earliest and best books on this subject was written in the spring of 1941, when the blitz was at its height. It was written by a pure Prussian, an Aryan Prussian called Sebastian Haffner, and its title was "Offensive Against Germany." It concluded with these words: I long for a British victory"— we then had no other Allies, we stood alone— because I see in that the only hope for the reconstruction and regeneration of my own people. As I said before, how can these people fight for us with a good heart if their country is to be torn into fragments, if they are to be humiliated and kept down for generations? There is another aspect of the matter.

§ Captain Cunningham-Reid (St. Marylebone)
Before the hon. Lady leaves that point, I would like to ask her how she proposes to prevent the Germans from starting another war. Surely that is our main consideration?

§ Miss Rathbone
I was about to deal with that point. I can only do so very briefly or I should detain the House far too long. The point is really this: Will it make for permanent peace, if that kind of a peace follows? There may have to be transfers of territory. A great deal is due to Holland, a great deal is due to Poland, especially if large parts of Poland are to be annexed by the U.S.S.R. There are many claims, but I aim not at all sure that, in the long run, we might not be creating a Germania 1730 Irredenta, which will fight against us for generations, if we first tear off huge fragments of the old German Reich, and then plunge into the shrunken Reich, millions of people. I will take only one of the results. It is proposed by many that the Sudetenland should be kept, as I think it should be, as part of Czechoslovakia, because it is necessary for their strategic frontier. But if 2,500,000 Sudetenland people, pure Germans by origin who have lived in the Sudetenland for generations, are to be dumped into a shrunken Germany, what an economic problem will be created. I doubt whether great transfers of territory, accompanied as they must be by great transfers of German population into a shrunken country, will make for permanent peace.
My last argument deals with those who claim that there are no signs that any considerable part of the German people are anti-Nazi. Here, again, I often ask myself this question. Suppose I am a strongly anti-Nazi German and from 1933 onwards I had protested in quite a different way from that in which I did protest. Suppose you were in the position that existed in the early years after 1933. There was not nearly enough courage among the Germans about protesting then. I know that a good many clung on and did not protest openly against the Nazi machine, because they felt they could do more from inside than outside. I have often longed to ask Lord Vansittart, whom in many respects I admire, whether he never had same kind of scruples when he remained in the Foreign Office year after year, knowing that he deeply disapproved of the policy of the Government as it then was. No one can suspect him of any unworthy motive. If ever there was a disinterested man it is he. Did he not think, "I can do more to modify this policy, and perhaps help towards getting it changed, as Permanent Head of the Foreign Office than if I went outside"?
It may be that millions of Germans felt similarly that if they did not become open enemies of Nazidom in the early years they would have a better chance of opposing Hitler. Then as Hitler became stronger and stronger, there was another consideration. I ask myself this question. Suppose you passionately believed that Hitler was bringing disgrace 1731 and ruin on your country, but you knew that if you got up and said so, if you protested, if you even communicated your plans for resistance to someone who was a Nazi spy, you would die and die by torture, and your wife would be thrown into a concentration camp, perhaps tortured, and that your children would be ruined; am I or are any of us quite sure we should have been quite as courageous in open opposition as we now feel ought to have been the case?
One can always use the argument that if one speaks too soon, one will destroy the chance of successful resistance later. Do let us show a little imagination. Let us ask ourselves what the Germans must have felt, who hate Nazism but who were always torn asunder between their desire to oppose it and the fear of terrible consequences for themselves and their people. That is an excuse for which there was much justification for those who said, "Let us wait; the time has not yet come, but the time will come when we can overthrow Hitler, and if we attack too soon, we shall destroy our own chance." I beg the House and the British public to bear all these considerations in mind when they give free vent to their detestation of German crimes, because I am so afraid, knowing my own people, knowing how kind-hearted they are, that the same thing may happen as happened at the end of the last war. There was then the cry of "Hang the Kaiser." One great friend of mine told me, "I would not hang the Kaiser. Hanging is too good for him." Two or three years after the war all that had gone, and we became ashamed of the heavy reparations which had been demanded from Germany, and gradually we gave way to sentimentality, which manifested itself in pacifism. I never found myself so unpopular in my constituency as when I told them they were sentimental fools if they joined the pacifists. I say no more except that I feel that this is a question which deserves a much bigger attendance in the House, and a much more carefully thought-out Debate than is possible in a discussion on the Adjournment.

§ Captain Cunningham-Reid (St. Marylebone)
I have listened to the hon. Lady with the greatest interest, and I must say that I admire her for the 1732 manner in which she comes to this House and champions minorities on all occasions. But on this particular occasion, I feel that we cannot consider German minorities too much at the expense of future world security. That, I think, must be our primary consideration. The hon. Lady had something to say about the dismemberment of Germany. She rightly pointed out to the House that a certain amount of dismemberment would take place anyhow. We were told yesterday by the Government that, in all probability, a large portion of Germany is to go to Holland to compensate that country for the devastation that has been created by the Germans. Again we have heard the Prime Minister state that France may have to go to the Rhine. Already the Allies have stated that Austria is no longer to be a part of Germany. It has been accepted that the Poles will have to move West, right into Germany, taking a considerable part of that country, up to the River Oder. I expect, and I think that most Members would agree, that after this war Schleswig-Holstein will have to go back to the Danes. It was Danish before, and there is a demand for it by the Danes.
So it all comes down to this. Whatever the sentimentalists, or idealists, in this House like to say, Germany will be partially dismembered anyhow. Therefore, those of us who consider ourselves, rightly or wrongly, to be realists say that it is far more humane, if you dismember a body, to do away with the trunk as well. What is to happen if we leave just a small portion of Germany? We shall create a centre where Germans will be free to get together, to think about the revenge that they will have in the next war, and to plan for it. There are a few of us in this House, and there are many in the country, who say that the only real solution that presents itself for preventing another war in the near future with Germany is that Germany should be divided up between all the States around. When I have put forward that point of view to some people they have said, "We cannot do that: it is far too extreme a solution." I have replied, "What do you then suggest?" The usual reply is, "We must have a military occupation of Germany until such time as we feel that they can be trusted." What a dangerous proposal. Our memories are apt to be so short. 1733 Look at what happened after the last war. We had military occupation then. It was not very long before we and the Americans drew out. What is to happen if we have military occupation of Germany after this war? Suppose that we get in this country, in years to come, a weak, "forgive and forget" Government—can we ensure that we shall not?—a Government who will say, "After all, the Germans are human beings like ourselves; why should we hold them down any longer?" Out comes our army of occupation. I believe that, long before that, the isolationists in America will see that their army of occupation comes out of Europe. "Get our boys away from European entanglements" will be a very popular cry. Then, what will happen? It may mean that the Russians will be left in control, which will lead to the Russians controlling the whole of Europe. If that is wanted by hon. Members who put forward the proposition that there shall be military occupation of Germany after the war, well and good; but I think that that it a most dangerous suggestion and is not calculated to prevent future wars but I know that that is very likely to be the plan that is adopted after this war.
I see the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his place. I would ask him to give us an assurance that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will not come down to this House to announce a fait accompli—in other words, to say, "This is what the leaders of the great Powers have decided to do with Germany after the war." This House, comprising the representatives of the people, has a right to be consulted first on such a vital matter. It seems to me, as things are now that this House is not going to be consulted until the leaders have made up their minds. An assurance from the right hon. Gentleman on that point would be something.
I have mentioned one of the solutions which are put forward for preventing Germany from waging war again. There are others, and we have heard something of them to-day. My hon Friend the Member for North Lambeth (Mr G. Strauss) has intimated that after this war we should educate the Germans.

§ Mr. G. Strauss
I never said anything of the sort. I do not believe it is possible for one nation to educate another. The 1734 education must be left to Germans, as soon as we find people capable of doing it.

§ Captain Cunningham-Reid
I am very glad to have elicited that. I am sorry to have misunderstood my hon. Friend. I was going to say that that was one of the most absurd suggestions I had ever heard. You might just as well try to educate 80,000,000 baboons into giving up their baboon habits. I feel strongly that we should deal with the Germans in a realistic way, not in an idealistic way. So many people are putting forward plans, hoping for the best, but knowing perfectly well in their heart of hearts that these plans will not work. Therefore, I trust that on some future occasion, as has been suggested by the Noble Lord, there will be a full Debate on this subject, in which Members of Parliament can put forward their views and say what they think their constituents believe should be done as far as the future Germany is concerned. That would be some indication to our leaders of what the country wants when they go to discuss this matter with the leaders of other countries.

§ Mr. Petherick (Penryn and Falmouth)
I did not think, earlier to-day, that I should find myself in agreement with so much of what the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) would have to say, but, in the main, I would prefer to support what he has said, rather than what the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) put forward with so much passionate sincerity. I thought that the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) was quite right in his thesis. May I, in passing, congratulate him on the 40th anniversary, to-morrow, of his entry into this House? I think that those who feel as we do have very much more solid grounds for the view they take than the hon. Lady has for her view.
The hon. Lady has for many years put forward the view which she holds with such earnestness, but she completely ignores one very important thing—that is, the lesson which history teaches. We need not go further back than the 18th century. From that time we can follow the rise of the Prussian military spirit in Germany, which has been the cause of not one war, but five, wars in 80 years. In the 18th 1735 century, the petty princes of Germany used to sell their men to be soldiers. From that moment, the rise of the Prussian element in Germany was traceable, even if you do not go back into the dim Middle Ages. During the 19th century, with the immense economic power which Germany gained by the industrial revolution, it was perfectly plain that that power was going to be used by the dominating spirit in Germany for purely military motives.
Let us take the recent history of Germany. I remember, not so very long ago, in my home in Cornwall, picking up a book called "Degenerate Germany" by a German. It was not a very good book; it was exaggerated in many respects. But it had a very curious introduction. It was dedicated—I cannot remember the exact words, but, broadly, it ran like this—"To those lessening members of the British public, who still retain the curious idea that Germans are misguided, music-loving people, only misled by a vicious Government." That was published, not during this war, but in 1915. We had exactly the same views put forward to-day and after the last war, by certain kind, friendly, liberal people in this country, who had the idea that there was a sufficiently large number of kindly Germans actuated by the purest principles of democracy, and who were anxious to press, push and mould their country into becoming a good citizen of Europe and a good neighbour.

§ Mr. G. Strauss
The anti-Kaiser Germany.

§ Mr. Petherick
Yes, the anti-Kaiser Germany. What happened after the last war? We had an incredible weakness shown towards Germany. Some people maintained that the Treaty of Versailles was stern and hard. It was not stern and hard; on the contrary, I believe that it was due to the weaknesses of that Treaty, to a large degree, that the rise of the Prussian military caste occurred in the 20 years after 1918.
We have always been told, and we were told aft the beginning of this war, that there was a large body, largely mythical, I think, of good Germans anxious to rise, and that we ought to give every form of encouragement to these people. Why? The hon. Lady said that, from 1933 to 1939, it was too dangerous, because they might take the view that 1736 their wives and families might be subjected to persecution. But where were they from 1918 to 1933? Did Scheidemann and Ebert, and the succession of Governments and Reich Chancellors, show any particular enthusiasm for trying to bring Germany back into being as a respectable member of the nations of Europe? There was not a sign of it. On the contrary, all those Governments, one after the other, and the prominent members in those Governments, made it possible, in conjunction with the Junker class and big business in Germany—the cannon lords of the Ruhr and other places—for Hitler to come in once again. They may not have known what they were doing, but the effect was inescapable, and, in the whole of this war, there has been no sign of any change of heart at all.

§ Miss Rathbone
May I ask the hon. Member a question? It is perfectly true, as he says, that the period of the Weimar Republic was a period when those in control in Germany did their best to strengthen Germany. But can my hon. Friend imagine that our country, or any other country in Europe, would not have done the same after a frightful defeat? There is no proof that the Weimar Republic was aiming at a policy of aggression; but they did want to be able to hold up their end of the stick.

§ Mr. Petherick
There was no doubt about it, of course, and we can well understand that they wanted to hold up their end of the stick. When they did hold up the stick, for what purpose was the stick going to be used? To my mind, the Germans have not changed. I remember that, at the end of the last war, I was in a regiment which happened to be part of the advance guard which was pursuing the German Army, and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) was the doctor in that regiment. We heard rumours of an armistice in the early part of November, and every one of the officers in our mess said unanimously, "We hope there will be no armistice, but that we shall be able to go on into Germany and that terms of peace will be dictated from Berlin; and, furthermore, that Prussia will be split up from the rest of Germany." I cannot think for one moment that, if that had been the policy—which millions of people in the Allied countries supported—which 1737 had been carried out then, this war would ever have happened.
These people are dangerous, and it is unwise to put into the hands of any Germans these dangerous toys. Therefore, without any savagery or any injustice, at the end of this war, we must see to it that it is really impossible for war to happen again. There is, at least, one measure we could take, by splitting off Prussia from the rest of Germany. The hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities will say that this will only encourage them to come together again, but even so, it would make a further stage in the resurrection of Germany before they could build up their Army again. Further, when that step is taken, supposing that Prussia wishes to join up with the rest of Germany, the red light goes up at once for Europe, and we can take, if we have the sense to keep ourselves militarily strong, all the steps that we believe to be necessary. This is an extremely important thing that must be done at the end of this war.
I do not wish to suggest other measures which many of us think will be vitally necessary in order to see that this terrible world conflagration does not occur again, and that it does not, at any rate, start in that very dangerous cauldron which we call Germany. At least, I think, this is the first measure we can take. The second—and here I disagree with the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone—is obviously the military occupation of Germany for several years. That is absolutely necessary so that, not only may we in the Allied countries feel assured of our safety during that difficult period, but so that we may see to it that the measures which should have been taken after the last war are, in tact, taken after this one. These are the first measures—the splitting of Prussia from the rest of Germany and seeing that the disarmament of Germany is so complete that she has not got a ship, a man or a gun in any of the three services.

§ Captain Cunningham-Reid
Will my hon. Friend allow me? He says that he thinks it is essential that there should be a military occupation of Germany, but he has not answered the question what would happen if, in a short time, a few years, that occupation finishes because those troops are withdrawn on the instructions of a weak Government over here.

§ Mr. Petherick
I am glad my hon. and gallant Friend interrupted me on that point, because I was in danger of forgetting to deal with it. I can see that, after the war, there may be a dangerous possibility that, in this country and in America, we may have what you call a "sob-sister Government," which will say: "Oh, well, Germany is coming back into the fold. There are nice Germans. Look how they talk about Goethe, and the rest of it. Then look at the cost of the Army of Occupation." This may lead the country, as well as the Government, into taking that extremely unwise step of withdrawing the Army of Occupation. But, even if we keep an occupation army there for only five years, what an immense gain that will have been.
Why was it that Germany was able, within a short space of time, to build up an army, a navy and an air force at the end of the last war? It was because under the Versailles Peace Treaty she was allowed to have an army of 100,000 men, and she simply kept all her best officers and N.C.Os. and was able to build up the gigantic structure from the effects of which the world has been suffering for the last five years. If you at once took away those 100,000 men, if you did not allow one man, if you broke the German general staff from top to bottom and saw to it that she was not allowed any army, navy or air force and then if, even at the end of five years, Germany should wish to start again, how incredible it would be for her to do it. Anyone who has organised a new army knows how hard it is if there is no nucleus upon which to build and work. That is the real answer to the danger, rightly pointed out by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone, that in future years, after the war, at the end, say, of five years or ten years, the Allied Governments may be so weak as to allow the military recrudescence of Germany and to take away the army of occupation.
We are very wise in this House to consider these matters in time and to ventilate them as openly and as fully as possible. Although the (Government have their own ideas on these matters, they may conceivably be divided, as this House is divided, and therefore it is essential that in this House, the forum of the nation, it should be possible now to exchange views to endeavour to destroy each other's arguments and to endeavour, 1739 if you like, to understand each other so that we can come as far as possible to a common conclusion which will be of material benefit to the world.

§ Mr. John Dugdale (West Bromwich)
I think that the House will be interested to see the new Penryn-Marylebone combination. It is one that we have not seen before and it is always interesting to see new combinations in this House. In dealing with the speech of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) first, I would ask him if he has ever thought who did rebuild Germany after the last war. It was not the Members on this side of the House who rebuilt Germany; it was not the trade union movement in this country. It was Vickers and other armament works that rebuilt Germany. It was the money given from the banks of this country.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvingrove)
Is the hon. Member really going to deny that the two loans—the Dawes and the Young—were raised under the aegis of the League of Nations; and does he not admit that he and his friends, in common with everybody in the House, backed this up?

§ Mr. Dugdale
Certainly, they may have had a great deal to do with it, but does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that the banks in this country were only too willing to lend all the money possible to Germany provided they got interest and security?

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
If they had refused to do so, would not they have been denounced on every platform by the Socialist Party?

§ Mr. Dugdale
That is purely a hypothetical question. The fact is that they lent the money and were only too willing to lend it. But here is a point which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot deny. Under the Treaty of Versailles Germany was forbidden to have tanks and that is a policy which I am sure would meet with the approval of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth. But if one looked at the advertisements in those days in the German papers he would see advertisements of British tanks inserted by Vickers Works. That has nothing to do with the Dawes loan.

§ Captain Cunningham-Reid
Is the hon. Member talking about help as far as armaments are concerned, or other forms of assistance?

§ Mr. Dugdale
I am talking about assistance which enabled Germany to start another war, something we are all anxious to prevent happening again.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
Is the hon. Member suggesting that any arms could be exported from this country without a licence from the Government of this country, and was any question ever raised in any part of the House that licences were improperly issued for arms in Germany, which, under the Treaty, was allowed to have arms?

§ Mr. Dugdale
All I am suggesting is that the firm of Vickers-Armstrong, a very important firm, with wide ramifications, inserted these advertisements and I fully believe that Vickers-Armstrong do not insert the advertisements for amusement. They hoped that in the end the Treaty of Versailles would be modified and they would be able to sell those tanks.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
I understand the hon. Member to say that there were advertisements inserted in German newspapers and if that is all the argument to be brought against us let us know. It is a very different thing from tearing passions to tatters as has been done for so many years.

§ Mr. Dugdale
I am interested to see how the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's passion is torn to tatters. He has reacted strongly and one does not get a strong reaction unless one has touched a chord. I would ask this too. There were visits to this country from time to time by eminent Germans and there was, of course, always present the German Ambassador, Von Ribbentrop. I have never heard of the German Ambassador finding friends among Members on this side of the House but I have heard of him finding plenty of friends from Members opposite. For hon. Members to stand up, as did the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth, and talk about the need for stem measures and blame people on this side of the House for the German resurgence is absurd when the facts all point to Members opposite in helping to supply Germany with arms.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
The hon. Member said that they were advertisements.

§ Mr. Petherick
The hon. Member says that Members on this side of the House were supplying Germany with armaments, but how are we to know whether the board of Vickers, which I think he has quite unjustly attacked, are Conservative, Liberal or Labour? There are Labour directors of big companies as well as Conservative and Liberal directors.

§ Mr. Dugdale
I would like to continue my speech and it is difficult with so many interruptions. The policy pursued by Governments in power in the 20 years between the two wars, which were Conservative Governments, with only three years of Labour government, did in fact contribute much towards the rebuilding of Germany's armed strength. The friends of Fascism in this country have never come from the Left; with very few exceptions they have come from the Right.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite
Has the hon. Member ever heard of Sir Oswald Mosley?

§ Mr. Dugdale
Oswald Mosley went out by way of the Tory Party.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite
He was a Labour Minister.

§ Mr. Dugdale
He was a Tory too. I would ask hon. Members whether they want to envisage a Germany completely destroyed, with every one of the 80,000,000 people killed, or a Germany with which we can live after the war? Let me say this, and here I shall get the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) and no doubt of others. I am in favour of a stern peace, make no mistake about that, and I am in favour of a peace which will give just retribution to Germany, even if it means taking off large slices of Germany and giving them to Holland and to Poland, and I am not afraid to say so. However, that is not the real issue to-day—at least it is the issue brought into the Debate but it is not the original issue. The original issue was that protection should be given not to those men whom the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham has denounced so rightly as torturers but that it should be given to the tortured. That is all that 1742 the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) is asking.

§ Earl Winterton
I do not think the hon. Member appreciated the argument of the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss). It was diametrically the opposite. His argument, obviously, was that we must not impose a peace upon Germany which involved the dismemberment of Germany, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we cannot help it.

§ Mr. G. Strauss
My argument was nothing of the sort. I brought a simple and narrow issue on the Adjournment, which was that it was desirable for the United Nations to declare their policy, that among the war criminals, to be tried and punished would be those responsible for crimes in Germany as well as outside Germany. In my argument, I mentioned, in parenthesis, that it was ridiculous to suggest that all Germans should be punished for the crimes—we must concentrate on those we find to be guilty—but my point was merely the limited one of including the war criminals responsible for crimes on Germans amongst the others. That was the matter I raised on the Adjournment.

§ Mr. Dugdale
If I may be allowed to interrupt here, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would like to come to what I consider to be the radical question raised. The issue is that there are a certain number of Germans—maybe a very small number—who have been so brave as to stand out against Nazi tyranny, and that is a very hard thing to do. Let us suppose, first of all, that the number is small. Hon. Members will ask what evidence there is that there are any at all. I will give such evidence as I have though I admit it is difficult to prove conclusively. Much of the evidence comes from the German wireless, but nobody will say that the Germans themselves are deliberately going to say that they have traitors, and to describe non-existent traitors, because there is no point in doing so, particularly if they are mentioned by name.
The first is the case of Leuchner, a social democrat who was previously a Minister in the Baden Government. Whatever his record may have been when he was a social democrat Minister, whatever he may have done or left undone to prevent Hitler coming into power, the 1743 fact remains that when Hitler came into power he continued to fight agaiinst him. He was executed not very long ago for trying to make contact with the Allies through neutrals. Is that a crime for which we consider a man should be deserving of execution? Do we want to afford any protection for men who want to do this, or do we not?

§ Earl Winterton
It is an offence in this country under Regulation 18B.

§ Mr. Dugdale
The Noble Lord says it is an offence in this country. Certainly it is, but surely we are only too glad to have the Germans themselves commit that offence as often as possible. Surely that is an argument with which no hon. Gentleman on any side can conceivably disagree?

§ Earl Winterton
But how can you punish a person—

§ Mr. Dugdale
May I be allowed to continue, because it is really getting rather difficult with such a large number of interruptions? I will continue with one or two more people. Friedrich Lübel, Albert Brust and Heinrich Hase were executed for listening to broadcasts from London and for helping foreign workers in Germany to listen to those same broadcasts. Are those people not worthy of some praise, that they dared to listen to broadcasts from London, that they dared to help foreigners in Germany to listen to those same broadcasts? What is the use of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Information giving these broadcasts if we give no support to the people who listen to them?
There are others as well. There is the case of a Catholic priest, Dr. Karl Renner, who was sentenced to three and a half years' imprisonment for what the Germans call "black listening." Finally, I would give the case of the brothers and sisters Scholl from Dusseldorf. They studied in Munich and were betrayed by the university in Munich. Their father, who was a doctor, shot himself from grief. What happened to these people? Their case went before the People's Court and the chairman called the 21 year old girl to attention, whereupon the girl answered that she would not stand to attention, she was not interested in the proceedings because she said, "In the same place that I am standing here, my judges will be 1744 standing in future." That is a brave girl, that is the kind of girl we want to protect, and, quite apart from the question which has been introduced into this Debate as to what our treatment of Germany shall be after the war—and I have made my position on this quite clear—I maintain that these people are deserving of our protection on two grounds.
The first is the ground of practical common sense, because these people are helping us and it is up to us if we can, to give them some assistance so that they will continue to help us. The Prime Minister once said that the best thing that could happen to the Germans would be that they should tear one another asunder—I think that was his phrase. Well, the best way we could help them to do that would be to help those who are trying to tear the Nazi party asunder, and those are the people I have described to-day. More than that, I believe that we who are fighting for democracy and for humanity and for the four freedoms, should support the cause of humanity by showing what support we can to these people who are dying in the cause of freedom and humanity just as bravely as many of our own men are dying to-day.

§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, Southern)
I only rise because a number of hon. Members have spoken about the future treatment of Germany and related it directly to the policy of this country. I think we ought constantly to bear in mind the fact that we shall not be responsible for the whole of Germany. So far as one can understand the statements which have been made already by Members of the Government, and Press forecasts, we shall only be responsible for the North-Western section of Germany, the Russians for Germany east of a line roughly through Berlin and, at any rate to commence with, the United States for the South-West of Germany. In all these problems concerning the future treatment of Germany, we ought to direct our attention from now on principally to the part of Germany for which we shall ourselves be concerned. Then, having laid down our plan and considered our policy in that direction, we ought to do our utmost to see that the other members of the United Nations are agreed with us as to our own solution and are prepared to carry it out in the parts for which they 1745 are respectively responsible. If we have differences as between one Ally and another as to the treatment of occupied Germany, that will be a very fruitful cause of disunion between the United Nations arising immediately at the conclusion of hostilities.

§ Captain Cunningham-Reid
Why does the Noble Lord take it for granted that we are only to be concerned with one part of Germany? Surely no official policy has been put out to that effect?

§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke
I am doing no more than making certain assumptions from what one has seen in the Press. It seems to be tacitly accepted by hon. Members that this country will be responsible for the whole of Germany, that we shall impose certain terms upon the whole of Germany. The more correct view in my opinion is that we shall be directly concerned with a part of Germany and jointly with the United Nations with a policy towards the whole of Germany.

§ Miss Rathbone
It is quite clear that we are only going to be directly responsible for one part of Germany, but if Germany is to be divided into three parts control will have to be unified. I cannot imagine one policy prevailing in one part, and a different policy in another part. Is it not important that we should stand up for justice and say to our American and Russian friends, whether they like it or not, "We go this far and no further. What you are proposing would not be just"?

§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke
I appreciate the hon. Lady's point. It is intended that there should be a unified policy, and that was given effect to in the Anglo-Soviet Treaty of friendship, but at the same time one cannot help noticing that the policy of the Russian Government at the moment is to encourage a German officers' league in Moscow, while our policy at the moment is to secure that there shall be no kind of German military control in the part of Germany for which we shall be responsible after the war. I use that illustration to indicate the sort of difference in treatment which might arise, and I urge the Under-Secretary to give his full attention—as I am sure he does from day to day—to this kind of problem, in the hope that we can arrive, at an early stage, at some joint solution as between ourselves, the United States 1746 and Russia of the problem of military control of Germany after the war.

§ Captain Cunningham-Reid
Before the Noble Lord sits down—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams)
I think it would be better if we allowed some of the speeches to stop.

§ Captain Cunningham-Reid
The Noble Lord has been rather negative in his remarks. Would he enlighten the House as to what he thinks should happen to Germany after the war?

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvingrove)
I want to intervene in this Debate for only a short time mainly because I interrupted the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) in a way which led him to indicate that I was unnecessarily heated about it. If that is so, I regret it very much, but it seemed to me that when he spoke I was listening to an argument which was fundamentally fallacious, and that he was doing his utmost to destroy his own case. People speak as though Hitler came into power immediately after the Treaty of Versailles, and that he has been ruling that country ever since. What came into existence then was the Weimar Republic, which received the utmost support and sympathy from the progressive as well as the reactionary Members of this House, and from supporters of the Left who did not hesitate to denounce France in the most unmeasured terms because she was at that time adopting methods of security which seemed to them to bear too close a resemblance to the methods she is advocating now.

§ Mr. Dugdale
As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman interrupted me perhaps he will allow me to interrupt him to ask him whether he seriously maintains that the assistance that Germany received stopped immediately Hitler came into power?

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
I shall come to that in a moment. What I am talking about now is the building up of Germany, about which the hon. Member brought an accusation, particularly against Members on this side, in an extremely wounding way. I would like to point out that Hitler seized a going concern when he came into power. That going concern is exactly what the hon. Member for West 1747 Bromwich wishes to see re-established after this war. I would like to say, agreeing so far with the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone), that it will be very difficult to withstand the argument that a shrunk and impoverished Germany, as she called it, should be denied all possibility of being built up again after the war.
The difficulty this House, this country and the world is in is that that was the way things started last time. It was in this way that Germany was supported and built up. The hon. Member for West Bromwich spoke about the loans make by bankers of this country to Germany, and I interrupted to point out that the big loans made to Germany were the Dawes and the Young Loans which, although I do not want specially to refer to it now, were made under the auspices of a Socialist Government.

§ Mr. Cove (Aberavon)
It was a carry-over.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
Does the hon. Member denounce it now? I challenge him.

§ Mr. Cove
No.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
The hon. Member supports it now, as he supported it then. Does he suggest that the League of Nations was a carry-over? Is it suggested that nobody on this side of the House or on that ever supported an attempt to bring Germany into the European comity of nations, or make her a member of the League of Nations? Really, hon. Members' memories are too short. Let them not delude themselves. They will have to meet this argument, not from us, but from themselves, the moment the Peace Treaty is signed. Do they hold with the building up of Germany or not? Some reconstruction of Germany will certainly take place. The hon. Member for West Bromwich brought forward instances of high-minded individuals whom he wished to support. The hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities indicated that in her view there was some case for building up Germany after the war. When I heard the argument—not only fallacious but, in my view, intellectually dishonest—that the whole of the building up of Germany 1748 after the last war was done by the Tory Party it seemed to me an argument which should be challenged forthwith. The Dawes and the Young Loans received a wholehearted support of the Socialist Party.

§ Mr. Cove
British and American capitalism.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
I challenged the hon. Member before, and I challenge him again. Did he protest then, and would he protest now? That is a fair challenge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The hon. Member dare not get up. I am advancing a logical case before the House and I have not been challenged by a Member on any side, or even by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove): The building up of the Weimar Republic was done with the good will of the vast majority of all people of this country, from whatever party they were drawn. Nobody can deny that. The hon. Member for Aberavon does not deny it now. When you have a going concern the danger arises of a sudden surge from below of the people who have been waiting their chance. For that I do not yet see any answer. That is why I think that these matters should be discussed on the Floor of the House. I do not think any Member can yet give an honest and conclusive answer to that great problem. It is a serious matter. I can only give an interim answer, which is an unpalatable answer. It is that we must be strong after the war as we have been during the war, and as we were not before the war; that we must preserve arms; that we must maintain conscription. These are conclusions most unpalatable to the people of our country, and especially to me, because they mean a diversion of great sums of money which I would otherwise hope to spend on social reforms, housing and health. Before the war I ached to see sums of money going into armaments which I should have liked to see devoted to progress. If we have to face that frightful dilemma again after the war we shall have to give the answer that we did not give after the last war.

§ Mr. Martin (Southwark, Central)
Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman make clear whether he thinks this very important matter is one to be decided vis-à-vis this country and Germany or vis-à-vis Germany and the world as a whole outside? That is a very important 1749 distinction. When he talks of the necessity of conscription and of being strong, everyone would admit it in some circumstances, but those circumstances would involve a conflict between us and Germany. Some of us hope to see Germany on a different level. Which of those two points of view would he support?

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
While I should hope to act in co-operation with others, there is also a responsibility which this country will need to take on itself. I think one of the difficulties before the war was that we tended too much to refer all these matters to a committee. There is no escape, when there is a million pounds to spend, from saying "We will spend a large proportion of this upon arms," and whatever proportion we spend upon arms we are diverting from peaceful tasks to which all in the country are so deeply committed and which we all so passionately desire to promote. A larger proportion than we should desire of the resources of the country will have to be diverted to arms. That is the conclusion to which I am continually driven by every line of argument that I have tried to follow out.
Of course, we hope to act in conjunction with other countries, but other countries look to us, and will look to us all the more on the conclusion of the war. They will say, "You stood alone, you broke Germany, you are the head and front of the Coalition. We look to you for leadership. Where are your divisions, your squadrons, your battleships?" We must have Allies. We must attempt to rally to ourselves the progressive communities of Western Europe, Scandinavia, Belgium, Holland, France. They will say to us, "Where are your men? You won the last war. Four thousand bridges were blown down in the interior of France before you could clear the country. Holland has been devastated and broken up from end to end. If you are going to ask us to stand in with you, we are on the front line. We are next to these people. We are living there." Holland says, "We must have territory to restore our economic prosperity." That may well be; but does anyone suppose that the Dutch single handed can hold the line against the might of the Germans?
These people are there, they will be there after the war. No devices that we can produce will eradicate Germany from 1750 the centre of Europe. It is there and it will be there. If we are to take any part in Europe we must be prepared to take our share in caging the beast and keeping up the bars of the cage. But for how long? That is what I fear—how far the kind, easy going people of this country will be willing to do that. I am sure not indefinitely, and I am sure that even to keep it up long enough to give Europe a chance to resettle on the lines that we hope to see we shall need to abandon many of the pleasant games of trying to attribute everything that happened, even between the wars, to the faults of one party or another. I do not want to see the Right denouncing the Left or the Left the Right in these matters. Many serious and wounding things will be said with truth and I do not want to hear them said.
How can we prevent this frightful disaster coming again on the peoples of the world? The rest of the world is not aggressive at present. It is a problem of Germany, and certainly it will be so at the end of the war. "Be strong." That is the only lasting phrase that we can give to those who come after us in this House and those to whom we can give advice in the country. We cannot by any device make the world safe for democracy or anything else. You cannot make the world as you will. Only the Almighty can do that. We can only do the best we can with the means at our disposal, and that is to see that as far as possible our kindly view of life prevails and that we are ready to do our utmost and weigh in and support that view of life when it is threatened. Our great weakness is that in all the years between the wars we did not recognise our enormous responsibility. It is a responsibility that falls both on the Left and on the Right. I do not deny that the Right was to blame. It may be said that we could have used our majority and over-ridden all opposition. It may be so, but things are not done permanently in this country by one party over-riding views of the rest of the nation or even of powerful minorities. Things are done by agreement here if they are to last. Similarly I ask my friends of the Left to beware of using the argument that all the building up of friendship with Germany was done by big business. Those arguments will not stand full 1751 examination. They are not historically true.

§ Mr. Driberg (Maldon)
The Anglo-German Fellowship was full of Left-wingers, I suppose?

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
I am talking of general friendship towards Germany between the wars, which no one opposite would suggest came solely from one side of the House.

§ Mr. John Dugdale
If I may be allowed to interrupt, I would suggest that before Hitler came into power people on this side did do a great deal to support Germany. After Hitler came to power, the other side began to form organisations like the Link, which were designed to help Germany.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
The hon. Member will not be able to sustain that contention. The whole of opinion in this country was profoundly shocked by the advent of Hitler to power.

§ Mr. Driberg
Big business was delighted.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
I was merely saying that it will not stand historical examination. I say again that the whole of the opinion of this country was profoundly shocked by the advent of Hitler to power.

§ Mr. Driberg
Except big business.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
The hon. Member will have a chance if he wishes to put his opinions, either in this House or in those columns to which, under one name or another, he contributes. I am a close student of his works, and I say that whether under the incognito of "William Hickey," or when he subsequently took the name—

§ Mr. Driberg
Since the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is making this extraordinary personal attack on me, I would inform him that I have not written under that name for nearly 18 months; so please do not drag that in.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
I read "Tom Driberg's Column" and I am not making any personal attack on the hon. Member. I do my best in a humble way, which is not to be compared with the skill of the hon. Member, to write from time to time 1752 in the papers, and if the hon. Gentleman told me that he read my writings I would not consider it a personal attack.

§ Mr. Driberg
I do not accuse the right hon. and gallant Gentleman of writing something he does not write.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
Surely, the hon. Member does not deny that he has contributed extensively to the Press of this country. I have not for a moment suggested that he wrote something he did not write. I took great care to praise him, as I thought, but if my praise was clumsily expressed, I regret it. I am a constant student of his remarks, and if that is to be taken as rudeness, I will do my best to conceal my admiration for his works when I mention them. I shall go on reading them because I consider him one of the best columnists of the day.

§ Mr. Driberg
Thank you.

§ Captain Cunningham-Reid
May I bring the right hon. and gallant Gentleman back to the main discussion and ask him a question? He has frequently reiterated the hope that we shall be strong after the war. He has not come to bedrock and told us how he will ensure that future Governments of this country will be strong. That is the whole point.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
I thought I had done my utmost to make it clear that nobody in this House can ensure the action of future Governments, and my argument was closely directed to the discussion how we are to avoid a recurrence of these disasters in the future.

§ Captain Cunningham-Reid
We can practically ensure that Germany will not rise again.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
The hon. and gallant Gentleman is a great optimist. If he thinks he can ensure that Germany will not rise again, he is advancing a thesis which history and reason do not support and which, I believe, no other human being in this House supports.

§ Captain Cunningham-Reid
You can do away with Germany as a nation.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
The hon. and gallant Gentleman talks about doing away with Germany as a nation, as though it were as easy as talking out an Adjournment Motion in this House. It would mean doing away with 80,000,000 self- 1753 conscious people, and that cannot be dismissed in such an airy manner. We are trying to be realists in this matter and trying to find out how we can avoid such a fearful disaster as we have had happening again. I was advancing the general thesis that we cannot foresee the future sufficiently to do away with the necessity of being strong, and being stronger than we wish, in this country. I was advancing the contention to my hon. Friends opposite that I do not believe that the other side of the House should dismiss the difficulties which others had felt in the years between the wars; in particular, that the Germany of the post-war years, of the Weimar Republic, was more closely allied to Hitlerite Germany than any of us thought at the time. That is the real danger. I hoped that it would not lead to adverse comment in any part of the House. I said that I studied with great care the writings of Members in all parts of the House on this matter, which I greatly admire and am greatly interested in because I think it is the most important matter before us just now. I am giving my own personal impression of the difficulty we are in, a difficulty which has as yet received no solution, and I say that we must insure, and over-insure, against the recurrence of the danger, because I do not believe that by any such steps as have been suggested this afternoon we shall conjure it away so that it will never happen again.

§ Mr. Mack (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) spoke with great sincerity, but he cannot absolve himself from all complicity with his party in the events which led up to the rise of Germany. I would remind him that from 1931 to the present time the party of which he is a respected member had a tremendous majority in this House and directed the policy towards Germany, irrespective of what any other party might have done. Several organisations in this country sought before the war to ally themselves ideologically with Germany and created the impression that there was nothing fundamentally different between us and Germany. They tried to show that, by meeting together and by understanding one another, we would discover that Hitler was not, after all, such a bad fellow. By permitting the 1754 promotion of a type of propaganda of racial discrimination and hatred and also by tolerating Mosley and his gang the party to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman belongs has a great measure of responsibility.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
When my hon. Friend refers to Mosley and his gang, I think it is right to remember that Mosley came from his side of the House and that it was a Conservative Home Secretary who passed the Act by which the Mosley movement was practically suppressed and uniforms were made illegal.

§ Mr. Mack
Whatever Act was passed, it was not full-blooded and it was passed very belatedly. Before Mosley came to this side of the Houe he was nurtured and fed on that side. His mental makeup was certainly more in accord with the precepts preached by hon. Members opposite.

§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke
He did not become a Fascist until after he was on the Labour benches.

§ Mr. Mack
The hon. and gallant Gentleman can take cold comfort from the fact that the Government of the day must accept a major responsibility for events. Coming to the present situation, we have to face what might conceivably be a grave danger in future. We have 80,000,000 Germans who will shortly go down in defeat, as they deserve to do. I am not going to be mealy mouthed about it, or be dragged into the specious controversy about what constitutes a hard peace or a soft peace. Just as the devil can quote Scripture when it suits his purpose, so politicians can adopt slogans when it suits them. I would say to my right hon. Friend and Members of his party that there will be very little chance of success for them in their postwar dealings with Germany unless we work in the closest accord with Russia and with the United States of America. The attitude of Russia to Germany has been to differentiate between the prime perpetrators of these outrages, and support those Germans who, by their past record of fighting, in a very limited degree admittedly, but in some cases by a very honourable fight against Hitler, have shown that they are prepared to take risks.
How many Germans there are in that category I would not like to say, hut it 1755 is significant that the Russians have questioned very closely the prisoners that have fallen into their hands and have utilised Field Marshal von Paulus to disseminate propaganda inside Germany—defeat may have chastened this General to some little extent—to tell the German people they must realise that their doom is near and that they can hope for emancipation only by overthrowing Hitler or by helping the invading armies of the Allied nations.
I hope the House will not forget what it is very relevant to point out, that in 1935 we gave moral support to Hitler by our action in Spain. I may say that we have not yet learned the full implication of the Spanish scene. We have paid conditioned tributes, but none the less tributes, to Franco, who is fundamentally no less criminal than Hitler. That statement may not please hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they have sought to propitiate this Spanish Fascist leader. Later on, our attitude in Abyssinia, when we were prepared to parley with Mussolini, on the specious pretext that we were not sufficiently armed, showed the temper and the mind of the Government of the day. Later, we had the spectacle of Czechoslovakia. All of that gave Hitler to believe that we should remain unmindful of his territorial depredations, provided that he stopped short at a certain point. However, the situation became so bad that it became clear that this man Hitler would stop at nothing, and so this country was compelled to take some sort of action.
I would ask bon. Members, Was it known at the time to which I am referring, seven years before the war, that Germany was armed to the extent that she was? I venture to say that it was known in certain quarters, and was deliberately concealed from the nation. I think that is history, and true history, and if that is so, the people responsible should be arraigned as traitors.

§ Mr. Petherick
The hon. Member will be interested to hear that it was known in this country since 1920, and that at least two Labour Governments must have known about it, just as much as any other Governments.

§ Mr. Mack
That interruption merely shows the poverty of knowledge of the 1756 hon. Member. At the time to which he refers the potential armed might of Germany was relatively small. It was only in the 1930's that it leapt forward with gigantic strides.

Mr. McKie (Galloway)
The hon. Member will no doubt remember, when he is making very heavy weather about the sins of omission of the Tory Party, that his own party strenuously resisted in this House, most—I might say almost all—efforts towards putting ourselves into a position in which we could have resisted Germany.

§ Mr. Mack
The implication of that remark is that there was a party with an enormous majority desirous of taking a very strong and firm step with Germany, and that a small, pusillanimous minority constituted by the Labour Party were obstructing them successfully. Surely that is not the point of view of my hon. Friend.

Mr. McKie
May I remind my hon. Friend of what the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said a few moments ago, that we do not govern in this country by steam-rollering and that government is by common consent, especially in foreign policy?

§ Mr. Mack
Surely my hon. Friend does not suggest that we must have complete unanimity in this House before a Government with a preponderating majority can carry its will into effect. Surely he does not mean that. He said that a Government with a majority of four or five to one were really anxious—

Mr. McKie
My point is that we carried out our limited rearmament in the teeth of very strong opposition by hon. Members on that side of the House. If the hon. Member will look back and refresh his memory by reading—he was not here at that time—he will see that what I say is correct.

§ Mr. Mack
The hon. Member's position is somewhat altered by what he now says. He claims that the Government carried out its policy in the teeth of our opposition, a policy of rearmament—the terrifying rearmament to which the late Prime Minister referred. If that was the limit that could be done by a Government with so huge a majority, it was a very poor effort and was one—

Mr. McKie
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)
We are not in Commitee, and it would be better to allow the hon. Member to make his speech without frequent interruption.

§ Mr. Mack
I recognise that the hon. Gentleman wishes to dissociate himself from the sins of omission and commission of his party, and I do not blame him. I probably would do the same if I had been a member of that guilty party. The fact remains that the Government of that day must accept responsibility. As to policy for the future, I quite agree that it is not easy to decide what that should be. It will be decided, I believe, by the march of events, but there are certain principles which must guide us. One must be that we shall have to be a powerful unit of armed strength, but more important than that will be that we should work in the closest possible unity with Russia, the United States of America, China and all nations who have played a yeoman part in this fight against oppression. We must see to it that we lay the foundation in Europe of an ordered system. We may have to reeducate the Germans on very thorough lines. I am in complete agreement with that, but I am told that we have to build up enormous armaments after the war. If so, we can have them only for two purposes. The first would be to clamp down a rising Germany, who in the space of a few years would probably rise again if we did not take steps to extract her potential power to fight. The second is to meet the, situation, which might conceivably arise, in which the Government of this country would find itself differing in opinion with some Power other than Germany, a formidable Power. That would be a most deplorable and lamentable situation. It would mean that whatever armed strength we had would not be enough. We have to ensure the peace of the world. I am all in favour of trying to seek that end, but I am not going to be deluded about it. If we haw evidence of any elements' in Germany that are prepared to fight conscientiously and sincerely against Hitler and all he stands for, surely we do not weaken our case but encourage it, if we give all the support we can to them, particularly if, on the other hand, additional support is given them by Russia and 1758 America. I would not like to say more on that specific point now for the good reason that after all we are largely speaking conjecturally. No one knows precisely what may happen in Germany. I am hopeful, as are some of my hon. Friends, that there will be a great number of people in Germany with a sincere attempt to build up a truly democratic State, and exorcise for all time the Hitler elements and all those who have supported the Fascist régime.

§ Mr. Austin Hopkinson (Mossley)
I intervene to give one or two footnotes to history. I refrained from interrupting the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken because I wanted him to get on with his speech, so that I should have an opportunity of reminding him of a few facts of history, particularly in the last 12 or 20 years. It was my business to know a good deal about the rearmament of Germany, and I have made a study of it ever since. I can say that the rearmament of Germany under the Weimar Republic had gone to lengths far beyond what hon. Gentlemen opposite believed. The German Army system was built up already and a very large amount of the necessary material for war was already in existence, not only in Germany itself, but war material in Russia on German account. So far as the German Air Force is concerned, for two years the Nazis positively delayed matters, they made such an utter mess of the whole job. The real foundation of the Luftwaffe started immediately after the last war, the foundation of the personnel being pilots of the last war who were determined that the Luftwaffe should come to life again in due course. Further, as regards material, aircraft works in Germany were building up their production for years before the Nazis came into power, and prototypes were already in very big production. If the Weimar Republic had been in existence in 1933, 1935 or 1936 the German Luftwaffe would probably have been a much more powerful force than we found it.
So far as the hon. Member's argument is concerned let him understand that as soon as the R.A.F. came up against the Luftwaffe in real battle the Luftwaffe went under, and has never recovered since. The hon. Member has said that we did not re-arm effectively. He is absolutely incorrect. We did re-arm 1759 effectively. We met them and beat them in the air when the time came.

§ Mr. Mack
With great respect, while it is quite true to say that by the capacity and the heroism and the efficiency of our airmen we defeated the Germans in the Battle for Britain, that is not an argument to prove that our armaments were sufficiently large to be effective; otherwise this struggle would not have gone on for as long as it has done.

§ Mr. Hopkinson
I cannot understand the hon. Member's argument. I was speaking of the strength of the Air Force compared with the Luftwaffe. What I said is perfectly true. I repeat it, that as soon as the Air Force came up against it the Luftwaffe went under, and it has never since recovered. For a long while we suffered a great deal from the submarine campaign, but the Navy was ready, the Navy took the thing in hand and the Navy beat the submarine campaign. When we had built up our Army our Army was ready and it is now as good as any this country has ever had. To say, in that off-hand sort of fashion, that the Conservative Party did nothing and left us unarmed and naked to our enemies, is just talking nonsense.

§ Mr. G. Strauss
Has the hon. Member read Lord Gort's despatches describing the appalling lack of armament of our Expeditionary Force in France, and the facts given by the Government as to the number of tanks we had in this country at the time?

§ Mr. Hopkinson
Because of all the nonsense about the League of Nations, we depended upon the French so much that our present Prime Minister on one occasion said "Thank God for the French Army." We knew, and Mr. Baldwin knew when he was Prime Minister, that when the day came to fight for the League, and to fulfil our obligations under the Covenant, we should support the League alone, as we did in 1940. That was what we were doing, carrying out our obligations under the Covenant of the League when we stood alone against the enemy, unsupported by any other member of the League. At the time of the Abyssinia business, when Mr. Baldwin realised that we should have to fight alone, he put forward his proposals in the early part of 1936 for 1760 unlimited rearmament, armament up to the limit of the capacity of our industries. The whole of the Labour Party, the whole of the Liberal Party, including some 20 Members of the present Government, moved a Vote of Censure against him.

§ Mr. Guy (Poplar, South)
Might I ask the hon. Member, who failed to support China when that country was attacked by Japan?

§ Mr. Hopkinson
I will explain that. I will give the hon. Member a little more history. Members of the League, including France, egged us on to take action. Any effective action would have been taken against Japan by our Pacific Squadron, in the form of blockade which would have at once involved us in insuperable difficulties with the United States, and also meant the complete wiping out of that squadron of the Navy, which was insufficient to deal with the Japanese Navy single handed.

§ Mr. Guy
Were we not in the same position in 1939?

§ Mr. Hopkinson
The Manchukuo business was the first signal we got that we were not to be supported by other Members of the League, who were prepared to put us in the cart, to put us in a position of extreme danger, but were not prepared to help us at all. We got confirmation in 1935, at the time of the Hoare-Laval incident, when we were almost on the verge of war with Italy in the Mediterranean. Not a single member of the League moved a man, a ship or a gun to help us. They let us down, just as they let us down when real trouble came in 1939–40. If England intends to have collective security in the future as in the past she must re-arm to such an extent that she can carry out those obligations which every other nation has shirked before, and will very probably shirk again.
But now to come to the question. I have given a little bit of history, over which I hope hon. Members opposite will ponder. Will they please remember this, that until the decision was made in the General Election of 1935 there was a very grave risk in the critical years. When we knew that war was upon us, as we knew from 1935 onwards, the leader of the Labour Party, now the Deputy Prime Minister in the War Government, said, 1761 "We are unalterably opposed to anything in the nature of re-armament." They voted for a Vote of Censure against the Government in March, 1936, because the Government proposed to re-arm on an adequate scale to carry out our obligations under the League of Nations. I hope they will ponder these things well and look up past copies of HANSARD, and possibly even refer to the files of the newspapers. They will see that every word I have said is literally true. Will hon. Members opposite challenge any assertion I have made? [HON MEMBERS: "Certainly."]

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I hope that hon. Members will not take up that challenge or interrupt the hon. Gentleman, or there will not be time left for the Government to reply.

§ Mr. Hopkinson
I beg your pardon. I did not know that the Government wanted to reply, But I do not think that the challenge was accepted with any enthusiasm. [HON. MEMBERS "Yes, it was."] Well, we have to accept the Ruling of the Chair; but I am sorry that hon. Members opposite have not an opportunity of plunging still deeper into the mud they have stirred for themselves. I turn to the question of the punishment of German war criminals. I have never concealed my view that our own war criminals are much more important, and that the sooner we deal with them the better. But there are all sorts of difficulties, which I do not think hon. Members opposite have realised. Take the case of some German citizens who, in the early days of the war, supported Russia very strongly—quite rightly, because Russia was on the side of Germany. Subsequently a change took place, and the same German went on supporting Russia. He is now an enemy. Is he a war criminal, or is he not? That is a question which will arise. Suppose he had taken the opposite view, and still maintained it after the Russians had changed their view. Is that a defence against the charge that he opposed Russia at the end of the war for him to say that he opposed Russia at the beginning of the war?
We can see the difficulty in France. A Communist Member of the French Parliament was under sentence of death, for desertion in the face of the enemy. He ran away to Russia. That gentleman has had to be reprieved by the present French Government, because circumstances 1762 turned out in such a way that what was a capital crime at one period has now become an extremely virtuous action. Some of the unfortunate people who are going to be guillotined now are people who took the opposite view, and were perfect patriots at the beginning of the war but are now traitors of the first degree. Suppose that, in the development of world history, we find that the next enemy we are up against is not Germany but somebody else. What is to be the position of hon. Gentlemen opposite? We have heard a lot about such performances as that of the "Link." A lot of silly, half-witted creatures formed themselves into all sorts of organisations—

§ Mr. Driberg
On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. Member to refer to a lot of hon. Members of this House—Conservative Members—as half-witted creatures?

§ Mr. Hopkinson
It is a common term used to describe Conservatives, and in some cases it is fully justified. However, there are our difficulties. I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite, before they get so bloodthirsty about war criminals, had better consider what may be their own position in the matter in time to come.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Hall)
We have had a very free and easy House of Commons afternoon, on a very wide Debate—much wider than was expected, because it was initiated as a result of notice given by my hon. Friend the Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss), on the basis of a reply which he received from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as far back as 4th October. My hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) referred to the reply. Let me say at once that the policy of His Majesty's Government is unchanged since that reply was given. That does not mean that there is any lack of sympathy with the victims of the Nazi terror. Whatever may be the views of hon. Members on both sides, we all share the horror of the hon. Member for North Lambeth at the bestiality of the Germans and their inhuman treatment of persons in the German-occupied countries and of those Germans living in Germany who did not agree with the Nazi régime. At the outbreak of war the 1763 Nazis not only carried the record of their doings in Germany for the period since Hitler took over control, but they carried their devilish system with them into all the countries which they occupied. This has resulted in millions of men, women and children being slaughtered, scientifically and with cold-blooded brutality. They were Jews, Russians, Poles, French, and many others. All have been similarly butchered.
My hon. Friend suggested that a declaration by the United Nations to the Government of Germany concerning the intention of the Governments with regard to the treatment of those persons who were responsible for the atrocities, in Germany and outside, might help. I would remind him that declaration after declaration has already been made by the Allies, by some neutrals, and by others, summoning Germany to cease this inhuman treatment and these massacres; 1764 but, unfortunately, they still continue. I think my hon. Friend was justified in calling attention to these atrocities, and pressing for steps to ensure that the perpetrators shall be punished. He referred to the many difficulties, practical, technical, and legal, which would have to be overcome before we could carry out his wishes. I would very briefly point out some of those difficulties.

§ Captain Cunningham-Reid
On a, point of Order. I want to draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that this is a very important reply, that more hon. Members ought to hear it, and in order to get them here I beg to draw your attention to the fact that there is not a quorum present.
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and, 40 Members not being present, the House was adjourned at Four Minutes before Five o'Clock, till Tuesday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.