HC Deb 28 January 1985 vol 72 cc125-32

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]

10.57 pm
Mr. John Cartwright (Woolwich)

I am glad of this opportunity to discuss in more detail than has hitherto been possible the celebration of the 40th anniversary of VE day.

I welcome the fact that the Government appear to have changed their earlier attitude. I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in November last year, asking about the details of the anniversary celebrations. I was shocked to get a curt and peremptory reply from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, which ran: We have no present plans for any official British celebration of this anniversary."—[Official Report, 27 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 453.] That struck me as unacceptable, so I pursued the matter by letter with the Foreign Secretary and eventually received a reply from the noble Lady, the Minister of State, which caused some consternation when it was published a couple of weeks ago. The most surprising and, to me, disappointing comment in that letter was her conclusion that the celebration of the 40th Anniversary of VE day, such as I had suggested, would be at best nostalgic and at worst anti-German". It may be my advancing years, but I cannot see much wrong with nostalgia, especially nostalgia for a momentous event in the lives of many people. It has become clear that many of our colleagues in the Federal Republic of Germany are not opposed to the idea of celebrating the 40th anniversary of VE day. Many of my friends there have made it clear that they are as anxious as any one else to celebrate the end of the Nazi regime. They point out,. with considerable justification, that the first victims of the regime were Germans. They are glad to celebrate the sort of things which we have in mind.

I endorse what the Prime Minister has said and share her objectives in commemorating the 40th anniversary of VE day. As I understand it, she is saying that we should first pay tribute to those who gave their lives during the war. That is absolutely right. It is also right to emphasise the reconciliation that has taken place between ourselves and the nations that were our traditional enemies in Europe. We should celebrate 40 years of peace in Europe. We should give thanks for the new Europe which emerged from the old at the end of the war and in which nations which were for generations at each other's throats are now close allies. All those matters are worth celebrating.

I also wish to refer to VJ Day. I have received many letters from people who say, "We were the forgotten army in the far east. Do not let us be the forgotten army again at any celebrations". That is a fair point. I do not know whether it would be better to combine celebrations of the end of the war in the far east with celebrations of the end of war in Europe, or to have a simple, separate and wholly appropriate celebration at the appropriate time. Whatever we do, we must not give the impression that everything finished with the war in Europe and overlook the contribution of our countrymen who fought in the far east.

I wish to urge some aims and motives on the Government and to make some sensible suggestions. First, I wish to see the broadest possible celebrations and commemorations in the United Kingdom. Secondly, I hope that whatever we organise will be genuinely international in character and involve both our former enemies and allies.

The events should involve ordinary people. Ordinary families bore the brunt of the war and made the sacrifices demanded by it. Celebrations should not, therefore, be limited to national leaders, to the great and the good, but should involve a broad cross-section of ordinary people. We should seek the participation of the veterans of the war to whom we owe so much.

I hope, however, that we shall also try to involve young people. They have benefited from the peace, and our future depends on them. They sometimes fail to understand what the war was about, and how much we owe to those who fought it on our behalf. I hope that celebrations will not be limited to a national event at Westminster abbey or the Cenotaph, important though such a function may be. It would be a tragedy if the commemoration were London dominated. There must be local events, such as church services, which make clear the contributions of all communities, towns and villages, to the war effort.

I hope that the commemoration will be seen not simply as a solemn and serious occasion. It should undoubtedly have its solemn and serious content. However, my abiding recollection of VE day in 1945 is of street parties. I still feel the great sense of relief that the war was over. Street parties are part of our folklore. The ability to organise them passes from generation to generation. We do not do that often enough. We tend to do it on great occasions, such as coronations and jubilees. The 40th anniversary of VE day is a good basis on which to organise street parties. I know from my postbag that much work is being done in many communities, and I hope that the Government and local authorities will do all they can to encourage such a popular celebration.

This was not just a national war; it was a war that involved several of our allies. I have already mentioned the need for reconciliation and the need for the involvement of the Federal Republic of Germany and, indeed, the German Democratic Republic, if it wishes to be involved. We must also involve our allies, and the Americans will be an important element in the celebrations. I say that with self-interest, because I grew up in Lincoln during the war and I remember that Lincoln was surrounded by Royal Air Force and United States Air Force bases. Many Americans gave their lives, not only in the air force but in other forces, for our future in Europe. Clearly, Commonwealth nations should also have the opportunity to take part.

Perhaps the most controversial suggestion is that we should seek to involve the Soviet Union in the celebrations. There has been a suspicion that the Soviet Union will be restricted to ambassadorial involvement. I would not support such an approach, which would be a cold and formal involvement. I was interested to see the letter of 12 December from Lord Carrington to Mr. Martin Dent of the University of Keele, in which he endorsed the idea of an international celebration. He said: I have much sympathy with the view that it would be right to plan the celebrations in a way which emphasises the reconciliation between those combatants who are now partners in the Atlantic Alliance and the hopes which we all have for a more constructive relationship with the Soviet Union. We should aim to achieve that in our commemoration of the 40th anniversary of VE day.

I say that ambassadorial involvement will not be sufficient, because there was, and still is, an understanding in Britain of the extraordinary contribution of the Russian people to the winning of the second world war, and there is a case for a much more imaginative involvement of the Soviet people in the commemoration of the peace. It has been suggested that the sword of Stalingrad, which was forged in Britain as a token of the respect and admiration of the British people for the defence of Stalingrad, should return to Britain for display. That would be worth pursuing.

The most obvious example of British and American co-operation with the Soviet Union during the war were the Arctic convoys of British and United States merchant ships carrying desperately needed war materials to the Soviet Union between 1941 and 1943. Those convoys were concentrated in the winter months to take advantage of the bad weather and the darkness of the Arctic night in order to hamper Nazi attacks on the ships. The conditions must have been appalling, and many British and American lives were lost in the effort to supply the Soviet Union. By the end of 1942, 219 ships had reached Murmansk, but no fewer than 64 had been sunk. The convoy operation was a heavy burden on Britain. The responsibility of defending the ships against German aircraft and U-boats fell on Britain, and there was also the problem of providing the desperately needed equipment. By the end of 1942, Britain had provided no fewer than 1,793 tanks and 1,988 aircraft —far more than even the United States provided—and Britain's resources were clearly strained.

Sir Winston Churchill, in his history of the second world war, said: We gave our heart's blood resolutely to our valiant, suffering ally. That episode in British-Soviet relations is worth recalling when we commemorate VE day. A reunion of survivors from all three nations would be a fitting part of any celebration, and perhaps one could organise a naval exchange, with ships from all three nations visiting each other's ports.

Another aspect of Anglo-Soviet co-operation that is worth recalling is the Aid to Russia Fund, launched in 1941 by the Red Cross and the Order of St. John. Mrs. Churchill, as she then was, the wife of the Prime Minister, accepted an invitation to head the organisation. Her first appeal was issued in October 1941. It was a very moving appeal. In that appeal Mrs. Churchill said: There is no one in this country whose heart has not been deeply stirred by the appalling drama now going on in Russia. We are amazed at the power of the Russian defence and at the skill with which it is conducted. We have been moved to profound admiration for the valour, the tenacity and the patriotic self-sacrifice of the Russian people. And above all, perhaps, we have been shaken with horrow and pity at the vast scale of human suffering. That appeal, which was targeted to launch £1 million, was much more successful than that. Contributions came in from all sources. Lord Nuffield gave £50,000 to the appeal. The King and the Queen gave £1,000 specifically to assist the Russians. In fact, nearly £8 million was raised, the bulk of it in weekly subscriptions from ordinary people. To quote again from Sir Winston Churchill's official history: Thus through the powerful organisation of the Red Cross and St. John's and in spite of heavy losses in the Arctic convoys medical and surgical supplies and all kinds of comforts and special appliances found their way in unbroken flow through the icy and deadly seas to the valiant Russian armies and people. That kind of achievement is worth recalling, perhaps by a reunion of those who helped to raise the money and organise the assistance with those in the Soviet Union who benefited from it.

Perhaps one might be more positive and suggest that we could commemorate the Aid to Russia fund by trying to found a new Anglo-Soviet fund to finance much needed medical projects in the Third world. Whatever we do, we should not lose this opportunity which the commemoration of VE day gives us to try to improve relations with the Soviet Union. That is very much of a motivating force now in British foreign policy. I suggest that there could be no better way to improve relationships than by trying to rekindle that spirit of co-operation that existed 40 years ago.

These suggestions are by no means intended to be exclusive. They represent some of the ideas that have been put to me by people in various parts of the country from all political persuasions. I perfectly understand that there may be many other ideas that are well worth pursuing, but if the 40th anniversary of VE day is to be commemorated it should certainly not be a half-hearted operation. It really should be in keeping with the momentous impact of the second world war and the personal sacrifice that that war demanded. It is in that sense that I commend these ideas to the Government and look forward with great interest to the Minister's reaction.

11.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee)

I welcome the opportunity presented by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) in initiating this debate to explain a little more fully the Government's thinking on this very important issue. I know of his early and genuine interest in VE day—it is perhaps fitting that the hon. Member's constituency has such an historic military connection. I visited Woolwich myself last September and I know that during the second world war the royal ordnance factory at Woolwich suffered 25 separate air raids. Despite this, the factory produced 11,000 artillery pieces, 14 million shells and no fewer than 1,350 million rounds of small arms ammunition—a truly remarkable achievement.

We have stated on a number of occasions that we have decided that the 40th anniversary of the end of the second world war should be marked by a national commemoration. We are particularly conscious of the high degree of public interest that there has been on this question and understand and sympathise with the feelings that have been expressed.

We are still considering the form that the commemoration should take and a number of options are being closely studied: I am sorry, therefore, that I cannot be specific tonight. A service of thanksgiving is one option that has been widely canvassed and we are sympathetic to the opportunity this would give for those who gave their lives to be honoured and for the spirit of peace and reconciliation to be stressed.

In planning the commemorations we are also carefully considering the nature and extent of representation from other countries. We shall, of course, take into account the views that have been expressed to us from various quarters, including those of the hon. Gentleman, before taking any decisions.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already announced that there will be many representatives of foreign and Commonwealth Governments to whom we shall extend invitations to take part in the commemoration, either as high commissioners or as ambassadors, including those from the Federal Republic of Germany and the Soviet Union.

We shall, of course, wish to ensure that this does not become a divisive issue, or give grounds for offence to our allies, past or present. As the Prime Minister has said, we shall need to consult widely before determining the form of the occasion and before making final decisions.

We shall, as always, remember the contribution made by our allies in the second world war and our joint victory over tyranny — not least immense Soviet achievement and sacrifice. The USSR, we must remember, lost over 20 million dead in the second world war.

However, as the Prime Minister said in the House on 15 January, we shall aim in the commemoration to focus not only on the anniversaries but on the achievements of the last 40 years in preserving peace with freedom. We shall, of course, have very much in mind the reconstruction and reconciliation that has been achieved in this time. As we approach this 40th anniversary of the end of the second world war we are mindful that our adversaries at that time are now our allies, and are conscious of the considerable efforts that have been made to build constructively on the sacrifices of the war years and the achievement of reconciliation.

Concern has been expressed as to what the attitude of our close ally the Federal Republic of Germany will be to our holding VE day commemorations.

I should like to set out Chancellor Kohl's approach as spelt out at the press conference following the Prime Minister's recent meeting with him. I quote: I explained to the Prime Minister the specific psychological situation in the Federal Republic and I explained to her that two thirds of the population alive in the Federal Republic today do not, from their own experience, remember the terrible things that happened under the Hitler regime, because they were born after it, and it is important, therefore, for us to commemorate this day in being aware of the history of our people and remembering the terrible things that were done in the name of Germany, but is also—in this sense for us a day of liberation and at the same time we must remember all the suffering and all the dead, and so when we commemorate this we commemorate this date by turning inwards and thinking about our past and our future. It is also important in remembering this zero hour in German history, we should remember the fact that the chance which was offered us at that time was used. We built up the Federal Republic and we have contributed to maintaining peace and freedom and progress for 40 years, and that is the very great achievement of the generation before us, and of course, in all this we must always think back to the by now almost legendary speech of Winston Churchill which he delivered in Zurich, which helped to lay the foundation for this future development. Those were Chancellor Kohl's words.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear after her discussions with Chancellor Kohl, we see 1945 as a year which saw a new rebirth of freedom; a freedom which we must preserve for future generations.

I should also stress, and this will be reflected in the tone of the occasion, that VE day did not mark the end of the second world war and our commemorations will focus on the ending of the war both in Europe and in the far east and on the heroic sacrifice of the allied forces in all theatres.

Hon. Members have expressed the view in this House that those who fought in the far east should not be forgotten. I can reassure them that the gallantry those men displayed and the suffering and privations that they underwent are not forgotten; and that they will be equally honoured in our commemorations.

However, the hon. Gentleman has specifically referred in this short debate to Victory in Europe day, and I believe it would be appropriate to spend a few moments considering the events that have followed that victory.

In 1945 Europe had been torn apart by the devastating conflict that had embroiled its nations for six years. This year we are able to celebrate 40 years of continuous peace in Europe. It is not by chance that the longest period of peace in Europe this century has coincided with the existence of the Atlantic Alliance.

The overriding purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is the preservation of the principles of freedom and democracy. Its strength lies in the determination of its signatories to do all in their power to safeguard peace and international security, and in their willingness to work together in a wholly defensive alliance. It is a measure of the remarkable success that NATO has had in meeting its objectives that the 35 years of its existence have been marked by an unbroken period of peace in Europe. This has been at a time when we have been faced with the advent of weapons of unprecedented power. There has been conflict and unrest in one or more parts of the world more or less throughout the entire period, and there has been no weakening, indeed the opposite, in the challenge posed by the Soviet Union and her Warsaw Pact allies.

What, then, has been the key to the continued effectiveness of our transatlantic Alliance? There have, of course been difficulties and differences of opinion—this is natural in an alliance of independent nations. But it is the main strength of NATO that its members, with common aims and interests, can discuss and resolve their problems together. NATO is an association of free states, joined together to preserve their security by collective self-defence, and to strengthen peace by means of constructive dialogue. Our solidarity does not conflict with the ability of each country to pursue its own policies. We are a partnership of equals, with none dominant and none dominated, but we are committed to close consultation and co-operation in pursuit of our successful aims.

In addition to guaranteeing our security, we of course see the need to build the foundations of lasting peace, to develop balanced East-West relations and to contribute to peaceful progress worldwide. We shall continue to pursue these ends with our allies in NATO.

Probably three fifths of our population were born after the end of the Second World War, including many hon. Members of this House. I myself was born midway through the war in 1942. It is as easy for my own and following generations to forget the tyranny, the inhumanity, the bloodshed, the destruction and the suffering of the conflict as it is to be unaware of the fortitude, the courage and the bravery demonstrated by our forces and civilians and by those of our allies.

The peace and freedom which we in the West enjoy was not won easily and must never be taken for granted. We in this country have so much to be thankful for.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Eleven o'clock.