§ 6. Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the Government's policy on the subject 360 of Germany is still guided by the declaration of the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Sir Anthony Eden, on 17th November, 1954, to the effect that the real choice lay between anchoring Germany to the West through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or leaving her to drift, with the certainty that she would sooner or later be sucked into the Soviet system.
§ Mr. Selwyn LloydHer Majesty's Government still subscribe to the general views on Germany expressed by Sir Anthony Eden during the debate referred to by the hon. Member.
§ Mr. ZilliacusIf the right hon. and learned Gentleman really believes that Germany would be sucked into the Soviet system if not anchored to the West through N.A.T.O., how does he explain the independence of Austria which, after all, did not join N.A.T.O., is neutral and far smaller than Germany? Does not that make nonsense of Sir Anthony Eden's statement?
§ Mr. LloydThe two countries are completely different in their nature, geography, and attitude to world affairs. If the hon. Member would read again the speech of Sir Anthony Eden, even he would derive some benefit.
§ 7. Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the development of Soviet nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, the Government will now abandon the policy, stated by the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on 12th December, 1955, of using Anglo-American atomic power through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to exert pressure in order to force the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to give ground in East Germany.
§ Mr. Selwyn LloydIf the hon. Member will re-read the statement to which he refers he will see that my right hon. Friend did not suggest that Anglo-American atomic power should be used to exert pressure on the Soviet Government to give ground in East Germany The point which my right hon. Friend was making was that it was the resistance organised through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation under the cover of the "protecting shield of American atomic power" which had halted the westward march of Communism.
§ Mr. ZilliacusHas not the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgotten part of what the then Foreign Secretary—the present Prime Minister—said? It is true that according to HANSARD he began by stating that the military alliance of N.A.T.O. had halted the westward march of Communism under
…the protecting shield of American atomic power. Now the Soviets are halted in the West.… We believe that they may, with steady pressure upon them, be forced sooner or later to give ground in Eastern Germany.Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman repudiate those atomic power politics to make Eastern Germany safe for Dr. Adenauer?
§ Mr. LloydWhat I can do is to read an accurate record of what my right hon. Friend said. He said:
…the westward march of Communism seemed likely to over-run the whole of Europe. This was prevented by the courage and foresight of those statesmen who called a halt and began to organise resistance. This salvage operation was covered by the protecting shield of American atomic power. Now the Soviets are halted in the West. They have even had to give ground in Austria. We believe that they may, with steady pressure upon them, he forced sooner or later to give ground in Eastern Germany. But this temporary stability—for that is what we have in the West—is not the outcome of the bomb alone. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is, of course, primarily a military alliance, but it is more. It has equal political significance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1955; Vol. 547, c. 827.]I stand by what my right hon. Friend said.