§ 46. Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister in view of references in the Report on Defence, 1960, to the Communist military threat and the many and changing forms of the threat of war, if he will circulate to all Departments and publish as a White Paper the texts of his speeches in Moscow last year on this subject, so as to clarify Her Majesty's Government's policy.
§ The Prime MinisterMy speeches in Moscow were fully reported at the time. Although I am flattered by the proposal of the hon. Member, I see no advantage in publishing a collection of them now, though, so far as is within my power, I would reserve the copyright.
§ Mr. SwinglerDoes the Prime Minister still believe what he said in Moscow last year? If so, how does he reconcile it with the first page of the Defence White Paper, 1960? Does the Prime Minister recall that when he confronted the leaders in the Kremlin he said,
It is not that we fear acts of calculated aggression, and I hope that you do not. At the same time, it is impossible to hide from ourselves the dangers of a war by miscalculation or by muddle.Since the Prime Minister said that we did not fear a war from calculated aggression, how does he reconcile that statement with the Defence White Paper?
§ The Prime MinisterWe have to take the broad view of our responsibilities. While I personally do not believe that either the West or the East would on purpose set about an act of aggressive war, because of what one might call the stalemate of strength, I do not think that that is any good reason for removing unilaterally our guard and so taking away from this very stalemate of strength which is one of the protections of peace.
§ Mr. SwinglerIs the Prime Minister aware that the White Paper speaks of "a continuing threat of aggression"? These are the words which are used. 192 He has just said from the Box that he does not believe that any of the Great Powers will commit calculated acts of aggression.
§ The Prime MinisterYes, but they may calculate acts which, as we all know from the tragic history of the past, might by confusion or muddle—or they might not be absolutely thought out to the last stage of what will happen—make a very dangerous situation. We know that. Surely it is our duty to protect ourselves against it.
§ Mrs. HartIf the Prime Minister believes that calculated aggression is not the threat but that there may at any time be an act of muddle creating war, will he explain what hope there can ever be of disarmament and peace?
§ The Prime MinisterThese are very difficult things with which to deal by question and answer. I once said—and I believe it to be true—that the first war might have been avoided had the means of communication, the habit of meeting and the conferences which we try to make part of our international life, been generally then in existence. I do not think that the second war was the same. I think that it was planned by a wicked, diabolical man. All I am saying is that that does not mean that we shall help peace by unilaterally disarming.
§ Mr. F. M. BennettIs it not a fact that one insures one's house against fire but that that does not necessarily mean that one expects that it will be burned down during the coming year?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir, and unless you are a very dishonourable man, you certainly do not set fire to it.
§ Mr. W. R. WilliamsIs the Prime Minister aware that some of us are beginning to think that he makes his best speeches outside this country? Will he do us the favour of re-reading those speeches when he comes home, with a view to suitable consistent action?
§ The Prime MinisterI will re-read my speeches, and for purposes of greater accuracy I will obtain a copy.