AUSTRIA (CARINTHIAN FRONTIER) (Hansard, 3 March 1947)

§ Mr. Platts-Mills (Finsbury)
I apologise for—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)
Order. I think the House should now allow the hon. Member to continue his speech.

§ Major Bruce (Portsmouth, North)
On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in Order for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to make the proceedings entirely inaudible to the rest of the House?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I am glad that I have not to decide from which side the most noise was coming. There seems to be vexation on one side and regret on the other. All I can say is, I think it would be more seemly now if the House allowed the hon. Member to continue.

§ Mr. Harold Macmillan (Bromley)
Nothing could be seemly now.

§ Major Bruce
On a point of Order. Is it in Order for a right hon. Gentleman opposite to, by implication, question your Ruling?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I did not hear the hon. Member's point of Order. Would he mind repeating it?

§ Major Bruce
Is it in Order for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to question your Ruling, by implication?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I had not gathered that the right hon. Gentleman had questioned it.

§ Mr. Anthony Nutting (Melton)
Further to that point of Order. Is it in Order for right hon. Gentlemen opposite, by Motions before this House, to make the Business of the House impossible?

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
By way of introduction may I draw attention to the recent action in—[Interruption.] There are families, children, who are faced with starvation This has been known for some time. But within two days of the Minister of that Government in this country making a public statement about the danger in his own country—

§ Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox (Henley)
On a point of Order.

Hon. Members
Sit down.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Is the hon. and gallant Member raising a point of Order?

§ Sir G. Fox
Is it in Order for the hon. Member to read his speech?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I had not observed that the hon. Member was so doing.

§ Sir G. Fox
He is. You watch him.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. and gallant Member must not direct me what to do.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
The Government made a generous, active and moving gesture in releasing from our food reserves a very substantial tonnage for shipment to Rumania, and I am informed that that gesture has not passed unnoticed in Eastern Europe. I am not sure whether it is possible to draw any conclusion from this one act, as to whether the well-known prejudice that resides in some quarters against the Eastern European countries has tended to evaporate.
Let me turn to Carinthia. The world has had its attention drawn to Carinthia by a notable observation, even more notable than some of those that have fallen from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite tonight. The noble Lord, the Under-Secretary of State for War, on 28th January is reported to have said that Yugoslavia's claims were completely valueless, were not worth the paper they were written on, but that they had to be carefully investigated as coming from a Government with whom we had friendly relations. Even against the background of the passionate devotion the Foreign Secretary has for these States in Eastern Europe, it seemed to me that, probably, this particular statement was veering slightly towards partiality. In olden times Ministers lost their jobs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] As hon. Members rightly discern, they were always Ministers from that side of the House. In these days, in these more temperate times—

Hon. Members
Oh!

§ Colonel Wigg (Dudley)
On a point of Order. My hon. Friend is referring to temperate times. Surely, he was not remembering the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers).

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That is not a point of Order.

§ Sir Waldron Smithers (Orpington)
On a point of Order. May I ask—if I am in Order—the hon. and gallant Member opposite to repeat his remark? I caught only the last word "Orpington," and I think, in fairness to myself, I should know what rude word he used about me.

§ Colonel Wigg
I said my hon. Friend was referring to temperate times and that I thought he was making some allusion to the hon. Member for Orpington.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
My hon. and gallant Friend is confusing the meaning of "temperate" and "temperance." [Interruption]Let them go away. This is a serious matter, and the rest can hear me. I am not asking the Government to reverse their decision on the question of the Carinthian border of Austria. We are not asking them to do that, because they are not supposed to have reached one yet.

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor (Eastbourne)
On a point of Order. As we could not hear the hon. Member at all, because of the noise that is coming from the Benches opposite [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—would it be in Order to ask the hon. Member to start reading his speech again?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That is not a point of Order.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
What I am asking is that if the question of the Carinthian frontier arises, as it will in Moscow, consideration which, at least, appears to be impartial will be given to it, and that it will not be dismissed with the same gestures of contempt that it has received in the past.
The problem of the Carinthian frontier is not new. Many hon. Members are aware of the extreme state of exacerbation of temper that has existed on both sides for some time past. Some hon. Members have had experience of it themselves. The frontier is a difficult and mountainous one, and minor infringements of the frontier have unfortunately reached a stage where soldiers who trespass across the frontier, instead of being stopped, warned and sent home, as is normal on such frontiers, are halted, arrested and detained, and even fired on without warning. This has happened on both sides. We have kept members of the Yugoslav forces, we have handed one at least over to the Italian Civil authorities, and some we show every intention of keeping indefinitely. The Yugoslavs have kept some of ours. We are all aware of the four men, one of whom was Lance-Corporal Watts, who were detained for six months. Our Ambassador persevered, and it was his intervention that led to the liberation of the four men. As to one of them, I can say that although he was on a lawful errand he bore on him substantial evidence that he was not engaged upon a normal errand. He was a field security policeman, he was sent on 205 a special assignment, and there was very real reason for suspicion on the part of those who did not know the whole of the facts that he might have been engaged in spying.

§ Major Bruce
Does my hon. Friend realise that he has made a most serious accusation?

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
I have not made any such accusation. I have merely said that this particular soldier, engaged on a lawful errand, in fact carried on him substantial evidence that he might have been engaged on an unlawful one. [HON. MEMBERS: "What was the evidence?"] Many people, and my hon. Friends know perfectly well what the circumstances were, and it is not necessary to go into detail. What is quite clear is this. When Tito released that man and the others unconditionally, he did so with the most sincere expressions of regret that there should be any unhappiness on the Yugoslav borders, particularly on the borders where British troops were concerned, and with the most earnest expressions of hope that this unconditional release would give the occasion for a new approach to the problem of local frontier relations. I hope the Under-Secretary will use his influence to see that this frontier bickering is ended.

Hon. Members
Order.

§ Mr. Langford-Holt
On a point of Order. In view of the fact that hon. Members on this side of the House did not hear the name of the soldier to whom the hon. Member referred, would he kindly repeat it?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That is not a point of Order, that is a request for information.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
The hon. Member will certainly see it in the—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor
Further to that point of Order—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
It was not a point of Order, therefore there is nothing further to it.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time.

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor
On a point of Order. We on this side of the House did not hear to whom these accusations referred. We did hear very serious accusations made against a certain soldier, and I think it is only right that we should know to whom they referred.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Again, that is not a point of Order, it is a request for information.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
There is a marked failure to understand on the opposite side. The hon. Member can rest assured that no accusation was made against the soldier at all. It was a very simple statement of the facts. If the hon. Member had bothered to listen he could not possibly have objected as he did. Let him be patient and quiet and he will hear. The Carinthian question is not purely a local question. The British people by and large have great sympathy with Austria. We remember with pride the valiant struggle of Red Vienna against the Fascists Dolfus and Starhemberg in 1944. Austria was the first victim, and we tend to say she was not responsible for the final part she played in support of the Nazis. A lot of the sympathy we have for Austria is misplaced in recent years. It is worth remembering that Austria vied with Germany to be the centre of German hegemony over Europe.

§ Mr. Gerald Williams: (Tonbridge)
On a genuine point of Order. Are you now satisfied, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the hon. Member is reading his speech?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I do not know whether the hon. Member is questioning the conduct of the Chair. If the hon. Member was breaking the Rules, I should stop him.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
As the centre of an Empire, Austria developed a tradition of hatred of the Slavs. Even progressive Austrians cannot get used to the idea of an independent Slav state. Even today the President of the Provincial Council of Carinthia is a minor collaborator who was selected and appointed by Hitler's outgoing Gauleiter just before the Allies arrived. With this background Austria is capable of becoming again a centre of Pan-Germanism and reaction.

§ Colonel Wigg
Is it in Order for the hon. Member to describe his point of 207 Order as genuine, because that implies other points of Order are not genuine?

§ Sir G. Fox
Can we solve this problem by the hon. Member putting his notes behind him?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
If the hon. and gallant Member would allow me to conduct the Business of the House it would be an advantage to the House.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to make my own case. In view of the lateness of the hour, I pass on to the case the Austrians may have for retaining a number of Slovenes within their borders. I am informed that, in the discussions in London, the Austrian representatives did not need to make their case because it was made for them by the two impartial judges namely the deputies for the Foreign Secretaries of Great Britain and the United States. What is said in the first place is that the Slovenes have never demonstrated their desire to return to Yugoslavia. The answer I put forward for consideration is why this onus should be put on the Slovenes to demonstrate their desire to return. The information I have from hon. Members who have been there recently, is that throughout the villages the Slovenes express, in the strongest terms, their desire to belong to Yugoslavia. Until 1919 they had never been separated from their brother Slovenes. It is quite clear that the Slovenes, during the time of the Nazis, carried on a ruthless struggle for liberation. They were virtually the only people to carry on an organised struggle against the Nazis. By May, 1944, a British military mission was attached to the Carinthian Slovene partisans. But what is said by our Foreign Office is that when they did have an opportunity of voting in the plebiscite of 1920, they voted not to go to Yugoslavia, but to remain with Austria. That plebiscite has to be seen in the light of the situation at the time. It is perfectly clear that the Slovenes, many of whom were Socialists, preferred to take a chance in an Austria whose empire had just been abolished, rather than go to the newly formed monarchist Yugoslavia, with all the risk of coming under Serbian domination; moreover the frontier of Yugoslavia had just been fixed along the 208 Karawanken Alps in an arbitrary manner so as to give Austria the strongest frontier against Yugoslavia.

§ Mr. William Teeling (Brighton)
Is it not true that in Adjournment Debates a certain amount of time should be allowed for the Government to reply, and is not the hon. Member deliberately preventing this from happening?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Member can take up all or as much time as he likes on the Adjournment, but in so doing he deprives himself, and other hon. Members, of any reply.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
The situation has a close parallel with that existing in Trieste today. In Trieste, the Italian workers prefer to be cut off from Italy; to risk their chances with the new Yugoslavia, with all its prospects of democratic advancement, rather than to continue to be attached to Italy, where they have had such an appalling experience of Fascism and where under British domination Fascism is re-emerging.

§ Mr. Teeling
On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Can it be made clear to this House that the hon. Gentleman, in making all these statements, is deliberately seeking to prevent the Government from replying, and putting, probably, a very different point of view?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The fewer the points of Order, the more chance there will be of a reply from the Minister.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
The future of Austria rests on her being associated intimately with the Danube Powers. The other nations of the Danube will manage the question of their unity pretty successfully. If we encourage Austria in the anti-Slav attitude, which they are adopting today, we shall only succeed in harming her by isolating her from the rest of the Danube powers. I want the Government to consider whether the lands of the Carinthian Slovenes should not be allowed to return to their brother Slovenes. The name of the capital of Carinthia, Klagenfurt, in the past has had to be translated as the "Citadel of Mourning." I hope that can be changed.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew)
I regret that some of the opening remarks of the 209 hon. Member were somewhat inaudible. Apart from the parts of his speech which were inaudible, there is very little left to which to reply. Those parts of the speech which I heard were certainly highly tendentious, and mostly highly inaccurate. It was only in the last moments of his speech, in which he referred to the capital of Carinthia, Klagenfurt, that I felt whole-heartedly in support of his remarks. There is absolutely no case whatever for allowing and encouraging the cession of Carinthia to Yugoslavia—absolutely none whatever. This matter was the subject, in the first place, of a plebiscite in 1920, conducted by an international commission in a way which was regarded as a model for plebiscites at that time. Until then, the area concerned had been in Yugoslav occupation. The drawing of the plebiscite line was done impartially by the Supreme Council, and even in the most favourable southern part of Carinthia, 59 per cent. of the people voted in favour of a return to Austria. The population figures produced by Yugoslavia in connection with this question are wildly inaccurate, and frequently contradict themselves. They claim 120,000 Slovenes in Carinthia—and that was their claim before the deputies of the Foreign Members—and 200,000 in Austria altogether. But in March, 1946, Marshal Tito, in a speech to Parliament, said that there were still 80,000 Yugoslavs in Austria, and Dr. Petek, Leader of the Slovenes in Carinthia, has never claimed more than 90,000 Slovenes in the country. Our own information, which is based on accurate administrative returns, supplied by the British representative in Vienna, suggests that 50,000 to 55,000 people are of Slovene descent, whether or not they profess to be of Slovene descent, and of these 20,000 to 25,000, it is thought, would decide to call themselves Slovenes if an international census was held; and of these only 5,000 would vote for the incorporation of Carinthia in Yugoslavia.
In these circumstances we feel that there is no case on ethnical or popular grounds for supporting the incorporation of this part of Austria in Yugoslavia. We fully endorse the statement made by my noble Friend in another place that this claim was not worth the paper on which it was written. The acknowledged leaders of this movement of Carinthian Slovenes are 210 Franz Petek and Dr. Tischler and I will quote an extract from a newspaper of 1938 published in Carinthia, which stated: The leader of the Kaerntner Slovenes and former member of Diet Franz Petek and the chairman of the cultural association of Kaerntner Slovenes Dr. Tischler called at the office of the Reichsstatthalter in order to express their loyalty towards the Fuehrer and the Reich. Having submitted some wishes they expressed their confidence that National Socialism would protect their national rights as it lays stress on blood and soil. A similar extract from the same paper in the course—

§ Major Bruce
Could my hon. Friend quote the name of the newspaper?

§ Mr. Mayhew
The newspaper is published in Carinthia and is called the "Kaerntner Tagblatt." The facts are not in dispute.

§ Colonel Wigg
In 1938 hon. Members opposite were almost engaged paying courtesy calls on Herr Hitler.

§ Mr. Mayhew
I am only referring to Carinthia and if I had to address my remarks to the Benches opposite—

§ Colonel Wigg
My hon. Friend should do so.

§ Mr. Mayhew
I have been trying to answer the case that we should support the claims of the Carinthia Slovenes for incorporation in Yugoslavia, and in this connection I think it is right to draw the attention of the House to the leadership of the Carinthian Slovenes. I think that that is a perfecly fair point to make.

§ Mr. Platts-Mills
Would my hon. Friend deal with what the leaders of this movement were doing in the time of the struggle during the Nazi occupation instead of what they were doing in 1937 and 1938?

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor
Could the hon. Gentleman tell us the name of the soldier?

§ Mr. Mayhew
I have no details of the soldier's name and I am unable to reply to the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised without notice.

§ Mr. Taylor
Is he English?

§ Sir G. Fox
May we have his nationality?

§ Mr. Mayhew
As I have already explained, I have no details of this particular incident and I cannot reply on it without notice.
Finally, the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) referred to the treatment by the Austrians of the Slovenes who are a minority. We cannot accept that as a criticism of the Austrian Government on that account. In fact, the present Austrian Government have treated the Slovene minority with sympathy. Im- 212 portant concessions have been made on educational reform, and on resettlement and indemnification of Slovenes expropriated by the Nazis.