§ LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether, seeing that the broadcasts of the Chief Diplomatic Adviser to the Government now published in pamphlet form must help to unite the German people and strengthen their determination to prolong the war so as to avoid the dismemberment of their country by a dictated peace, stricter supervision may henceforth be exercised over all official broadcasts which do not reflect the considered policy of His Majesty's Government.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put this Motion on the Paper because I think that at the present juncture anything which tends to strengthen the enemy is a matter of very grave importance. I should like to say what I have said before in your Lordships' House, that no one detests more than I do the Nazi system of government. I have met no one who has denounced it more strongly than I have except, perhaps, some Germans whom I knew before the war, who were suffering under it and who particularly resented, as they all do, the activities of the Gestapo and the tight grip which it had on their private lives. I am calling attention, not to some speech or broadcast by an unknown individual, but to the broadcasts made and the pamphlet written by a very prominent official. My criticism is not directed against the Foreign Office—and as I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cecil, is to reply, I want to make that quite clear—nor is it particularly directed against Sir Robert Vansittart, because no one wants to interfere with his holding what views he likes. My criticism is directed against the Government for the system which allows high officials to declare extreme views which, so far as I can understand, are not in harmony with the considered policy of His Majesty's Government. Sir Robert Vansittart is a high official. He is Chief Diplomatic Adviser to the Government, a post which I have criticised in your Lordships' House before now, and a post created for him. He is also a distinguished literary light, and he has had a long and excellent diplomatic career. For those very reasons what he says is of 389 importance; for those very reasons he obtains a publicity which no one who was unknown could obtain. That is why one ought to look at what Sir Robert says rather carefully and understand how it may be used against us.
§ I rather suspect that the particular line of argument adopted by Sir Robert in his broadcasts and in his pamphlet was more or less started or instigated by Mr. Duff Cooper, now Minister of Information. When he was deputising for the First Lord of the Admiralty in April, 1940, Mr. Duff Cooper, not yet Minister of Information, took the same line which is taken in this pamphlet, when he talked about the crimes of the whole nation—of all Germans—and declared that the indictment would be much heavier against them when the next treaty came to be written. Subsequently, since he has been placed in the position of Minister of Information, I think he has used rather more guarded language.
§ But to come to this document—which is very nicely printed and got up, and considering Sir Robert Vansittart's high office one almost expected to see the Royal Arms on it, but it is only the Swastika—Sir Robert seems to adopt Hitler's theory of the completeness and continuity of all Germans, racially speaking. I always thought that was nonsense, and I still think so. He refers to that, and he says you must always speak of Germans in the plural. He calls them the Brazen Horde "who have" remained savages at heart," "a breed which from the dawn of history has been predatory and bellicose," "cold-blooded barbarians, congenially incapable of peace," and "moved by snarling and bloodthirsty resentment." Well now, that is Sir Robert's opinion of all Germans. It seems to be a little bit unfortunate, and, if I may say so, foolish, to indict a whole nation, and support the indictment by selected passages. He says nothing in commendation of any German who has ever lived; he says that would be quite irrelevant.
§ The book is written with a sort of superior erudition, some humour, and just the right dash of religion. He quotes Tacitus who, your Lordships' remember, died in the year 120, and talks about Tacitus's description of the numberless tribes which existed in Germany at that time, though Tacitus's remarks apply just 390 as much to the Batavi who were the ancestors of the Dutch and to the Angles and the Jutes and Saxons who came over here. But that is not far enough back for him. He goes back to a man called Hermann. I am sorry I did not know who Hermann was, so I looked him up and found he was a leader of a German tribe and he was known as Arminius; but he was brought in in order that a joke could be made about Hermann Goering being a descendant of his. I wonder that he did not go further back. Why did not he go back to the Heidelberg man? Your Lordships will remember that the Heidelberg man lived 300,000 years ago, and Sir Robert would certainly have classed him as a German, because he was found at Heidelberg. And he was hardly human. He was an awful brute; he would have been a very good starting point for this indictment.
§
But just fancy if anybody were to use as an argument the hideous massacre of the Danes in 1002—that is comparatively recently—by Ethelred the Unready as a proof that we were brutal, savage barbarians still ! There is an element of ridicule in this thing which makes me perfectly sure that before long Dr. Goebbels will be translating it. Sir Robert Vansittart gives a sort of impression by these quotations from Tacitus, and of course Gibbon, that he is omniscient. In fact, on page 49 he tells us:
When I was a child of four I remember saying to an inconveniently questioning visitor: 'I know everything in the world '.
But he adds that alter that he remarked: "Please don't tell my governess." Well, I do not say Sir Robert knows everything in the world, and I am going to tell his governess, who is represented by the noble Lord, Lord Cecil, here to-day. Frederick the Great of course is brought in. Your Lordships will remember that in 1756 we had a treaty of alliance with Frederick the Great. The brutal partitions of Poland are brought in. Well, over the 150 years that those partitions lasted we never made any protest against the elimination of Poland as a kingdom from Europe. Then there are smaller mistranslations like "Deutschland über Alles," which does not mean 'Germany over everywhere" and "Weltmacht," which he translates as "world dominion." It does not mean anything of the sort; it means a
391
world Power, that is to say, one of the great Powers. And of course there is not a word about Germany having helped us to defeat Napoleon.
§ I think this indictment of a whole nation without any exception for hundreds of years past is hardly complimentary to the Hanoverian dynasty who have been ruling over this country for the last 200 years, and I do not think it is complimentary to the numberless citizens of German origin in the United States, including our very popular visitor recently, Mr. Wendell Willkie. But this sort of foolish indictment of a whole nation, supported by the flimsiest and most inaccurate arguments, weakens our case against the Nazis, and at the same time unites the Germans in thinking that if that is what we believe and what the Government believe, the fate that is in store for them if we are victorious will be something which, as Mr. Duff Cooper said originally, will be very much more severe than the Treaty of Versailles, because if we have got this horde of incorrigible barbarians to deal with it must not only involve their defeat in the field in the military sense, but if must involve unilateral disarmament; and, as no Government can be formed that can be trusted if it is formed with Germans then there must be an alien Government set up and the establishment of an army of occupation for years to come.
§ If the matter were not so dangerous because of Sir Robert Vansittart's position, it would be simply ludicrous and might be dismissed. A question was asked recently in the House of Commons, and the Prime Minister at the end of his reply said that this production "does not express any opinion except that of the very able public servant who was responsible for it." It is quite certain it does not express the considered opinion of the Government. When the Prime Minister says it does not express any opinion, I wish I could think that was trae. I have come across some people who really do envisage the occupation of Germany by our forces for years to come if not, I have heard them say, for a whole century, in order to keep these barbarians in order. That sort of foolish talk, which seems to sensible people absolutely ridiculous, has this dangerous element about it that the Germans hear of it, will be told of it, and seeing what is in store for them will rally again to the 392 Leader who has had this unfortunate influence over them. I myself do not believe in that sort of doctrine, and I do no think there are many people who do, but in the pamphlet there is a sort of indication of what it is to be, although he is careful not to lay down anything precise in the way of war aims. He says that this unbroken record of evil-doing must go through a spiritual cure, and that such an achievement is not inconceivable, but it will at the very best be extremely difficult. Curing 80,000,000 criminals will certainly be a very difficult war aim, and it can only be done or attempted by the maddest possible ideas—well, it is inconceivable.
§ This whole doctrine of the ruin of one nation leading to the prosperity of other nations has, I really think, disappeared from men's minds. Nations nowadays are so closely knit together that the ruin or destruction of one affects all other nations, and the only way to get the world straight again is to get some possible method of co-operation and reconstruction. I am not one who believes that Europe is a sort of jigsaw puzzle which has been disturbed and that all we have to do at the end of the war is to put the little pieces back in their places and then they will all be tidy again, leaving for Sir Robert Vansittart a blank where Germany is, or pounding that piece up in order that it cannot exist again as a nation. The future that lies before us is a most terribly serious one, with gigantic problems such as have never confronted statesmen before in the history of the world. I cannot help agreeing with a learned philosopher who has written a remarkable book when he says, "It almost seems as if our earth had during the last fifty years passed through a zone of cosmic disturbance "—the dislocation not of frontiers, the conflicts not of armies, but the waves of new, disturbing, upsetting, and, in some cases, horrifying ideas that possess men's minds. These days present to the world and to the statesmen a task in future in which we all want to help and not to hinder them.
§ These people who produce this sort of cheap stuff, who seem to be trying to imitate Goebbels and stir up more hatred so as to make the task of those who have to tackle post-war problems beyond human capacity to deal with, ought to be restrained. It can easily be done. The 393 Foreign Office cannot restrain them. The Foreign Office has no sort of responsibility in this matter. It is a matter for the Government, it is a matter for the Cabinet, it is a matter for the Prime Minister. I am asking that the Government should sternly prevent these purveyors of balderdash from approaching the microphone, and I would add that they should be no longer retained in high offices where wisdom, foresight and caution are necessary. I would not have taken up your Lordships' time with a question of this character had it not been that I found there was much indignation, especially on the part of scholars and historians, that this should go out as any semblance of what the official view was. I felt it was a danger that ought to be countered. Our war aims must remain, as the Prime Minister has said, undeclared until he considers the moment appropriate. I am not here to demand anything beyond what he says, but I am here to ask that, pending the official pronouncement of the Prime Minister, the pitch should not be queered by foolish exhibitions of opinion held by very few people as exemplified in the broadcast and the pamphlet issued by Sir Robert Vansittart.
§ VISCOUNT STONEHAVENMy Lords, the noble Lord has given us, as always, a very thoughtful speech, but I cannot help feeling he got off the track by mixing up opinion and policy. I see nothing to justify this pamphlet; which is a collection of the broadcasts of Sir Robert Vansittart, being described as a statement of policy. It is a collection of facts with regard to Germany, very well put together, I venture to think, and a very useful contribution. What is Sir Robert's aim? On page 15 he says this:
At all costs the world must never again be dragged by Germany into a, war—merely because it fails to undertand how Germany has behaved in the past and how it will behave again in the future, unless the German people undergo a deep, spiritual regeneration.That seems to me a very proper thing to do, and I am bound to say that this pamphlet, containing so many facts which are apt to be forgotten, taken in conjunction with another pamphlet published by my noble friend Lord Maugham, in which he has taken the trouble to collect Hitler's lies, seems to me to constitute what night be called a very useful Ruff's Guide and a good collection of 394 form which, I think my noble friend will agree, we have neglected in the past when we have dealt with Germany.I cannot make out why the noble Lord and others who think with him are so ready to forget the undeniable barbarities of the Germans, and when the noble Lord expressed some indignation at the idea that our present enemies are being held out as a horde of incorrigible barbarians, I cannot help asking, what else are they What other opinion would their actions in Poland, in Belgium, in Holland, in Czecho-Slovakia, and here if they dared and could come to this countiy, create? What other opinion can one hold of these people, and what other expression could rightly describe them? So far from this pamphlet doing a disservice to peace, or indeed from its achieving the result—this is a point which the noble Lord did not elaborate—suggested by him, of helping to unite the German people and strengthening their determination to prolong the war so as to avoid the dismemberment of their country by a dictated peace, I think it will have the opposite effect. I honestly cannot see how the noble Lord can have read that result into this pamphlet.
He rightly said that, much as he detests Nazism and everything connected with the Nazi policy, there are people who hate it more, and those are the Germans who are opposed to it. But the unfortunate thing is that though those Germans undoubtedly exist they have never been in sufficient strength or in sufficient numbers to hold their own, and we all of, us know, or have known before the war, men who loathed and detested the whole Nazi policy as much as we possibly could have done. This pamphlet, I think, will be welcomed by them. I venture to take the opposite view to that of my noble friend, because the pamphlet will, I believe, lead them to hope that the true character of their enemies and ours, the Nazis who are at present disgracing the German name, will be realised and appreciated by us, and that the Nazis and their principles will not be allowed to be held up as representing the real views of our friends.
But, as to strengthening the enemy, in what way can this pamphlet strengthen the enemy? It is not written for the enemy; it is written for us, and I venture to suggest that it will bring home to a great many people very many things they 395 did not know, which are facts and which they ought to know and which ought to influence us in our determination to avoid a premature peace. Nobody wants to prolong the war. Nobody could agree more completely than I do in that, but surely a premature peace—a peace which undoubtedly the Nazis will endeavour to get directly things begin to go badly with them, as they will—is the one thing that has to be avoided so that we do not have to start all over again, as we have had to do, because we have not defeated them properly. Is not the whole problem very much simpler? Is peace really going to depend on anything which any of us say or any of us write? It is going to depend, surely, on the time arriving when the Nazis find that they are beaten. There was a phrase in that perfectly delightful second article in The Times by General Wavell which I think puts the whole thing in a nutshell. Your Lordships will forgive me for reminding you of it. It was this:
A man does not flee because he is fighting in an unrighteous cause, he does not attack because his cause is just; he flees because he is the weaker, he conquers because he is the stronger, or because his leader has made him feel the stronger.The Nazis are beginning for the first time, to have a taste of our being the stronger. They are finding themselves up against people from whom they have fled for the one reason why anybody flees, because we are the stronger.This pamphlet is not going to have any effect at all, so far as the Germans are concerned, except delight those Germans who hate Nazidom as much as we do. To think otherwise I believe to be very far from the mark. If the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, I do not think that he made that point good or justified that section of his Motion. I think that it is going to be an extremely useful thing for our own people in this country. The noble Lord did not controvert one single item, so far as I recollect, that appears in this very brightly written pamphlet. It starts off with an extraordinarily good analogy. The pamphlet starts by a story about the butcher-bird—the butcher-bird sitting in the rigging of a boat crossing the Black Sea, picking off one by one the other birds that were sitting beside him. Is that not exactly what the Germans have done, and is that not exactly what 396 they will continue to do so long as they have the power to do it?
One final word. I remember this kind of controversy well before the last war, and I am rather surprised at my noble friend adopting the attitude he does, because I think we must have both been in the diplomatic service at the same time at the beginning of this century. In the early years of this century, I remember well, all over the world, German diplomatists made no secret of the fact that just as the nineteenth century had been the British century, the twentieth century was to be German. Great Britain had extended and created a marvellous Empire such as had never been seen before, yet in the process of doing so the British, said the Germans, had got fat and idle and lazy and careless, they had no discipline and so forth and were becoming degenerate. Just as the nineteenth century was the British century, so, they said, was the twentieth century to be the German century. I heard that story myself in Egypt from a German diplomatist about 1902. At the same time a colleague heard that story almost in the same words from a German diplomatist in Tokyo. It was common form and that was the idea with which the war was started by the Germans in 1914. It was the toast that everybody toasted all through Germany.
When anybody came back to this country—and I happened to be a member of the other place at the time—from Germany in October, 1913, and mentioned this fact, he was laughed and jeered at as somebody who was afraid of his own shadow and who did not realise what splendid people the Germans really are. I venture to suggest that this pamphlet, which I hope will be very, very widely read, is a corrective to that kind of dangerous view. The Germans do feel, and have felt for a very long time, that they are a Herrenvolk, and that it is their right to dominate the world. If the world is to be fit to live in then that idea must be defeated. I venture to think that this pamphlet is likely to help in that very desirable thing. Though it is unusual for a civil servant to launch out into this kind of controversy, I am very glad to think that we have got one able enough and courageous enough to do it and that the Government have had the good sense to approve of it.
§ LORD ARNOLDMy Lords, whatever differences of opinion there may be about this question which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has raised, I think it will be agreed that it does bring up a problem of great constitutional importance and I want to emphasize that a little more. The noble Lord and my noble friend Viscount Stonehaven—I am sorry to find myself not in agreement with him to-day because I have often found myself in agreement with him on matters of foreign affairs—say it is unusual for a civil servant to publish a pamphlet of this kind. I should have thought it was almost unknown. I would like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Cecil, whether there is any precedent for a pamphlet of this kind being published by a civil servant. Again and again we have been told in your Lordships' House and in another place that we must not criticise civil servants. We have been told that to do that in Parliament is unfair because if a civil servant is attacked he cannot defend himself. We all know the doctrine. Thus it is for the Government—in this case it is the noble Lord, Lord Cecil, who has this task placed upon him—to do what can be done in the difficult position which has arisen.
Either the noble Lord must defend Sir Robert Vansittart, and as what he has said is in conflict in certain respects with Government policy he can hardly be defended, or Sir Robert Vansittart can be disavowed—the Government practically never do that in the case of a high civil servant—or the noble Lord can fall back as the Prime Minister did, on what, if I may say so, is the extremely feeble position that Sir Robert Vansittart was speaking for himself, that is to say, that he was speaking in his private capacity. I must say I think that is very thin. Altogether this is an extraordinary state of things and quite untenable. Will the people of Germany think that when the Chief Diplomatic Adviser made these statements he was speaking for himself? Will the people of France think he was speaking for himself? Will the people of England think he was speaking for himself? With all respect to Sir Robert Vansittart I do not think people arc particularly interested in what he thinks in his private capacity. No, things cannot both be and not be at the same time. I submit that the Chief Diplomatic Adviser 398 to the British Government cannot go to the microphone and speak as a private individual.
At any rate if that is the position which the Government take up—and I admit it is all they can do in the circumstances—I would like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Cecil, a question, so that the position may be made clear. Did Sir Robert Vansittart when he began these broadcast talks state definitely that he was speaking for himself? That is very important. We know that in your Lordships' House or in another place if a member of a Party is uttering views which are not those held by his Party as a whole he always makes it quite clear that he is speaking for himself. Did Sir Robert Vansittart do that? This pamphlet with which the Motion deals reproduces statements which are not the only public utterances at the micro phone of the Chief Diplomatic Adviser. Still more recently—after the broadcast talks now reproduced in this pamphlet—he made a broadcast to the French people which contained various statements which were open to much argument, not to say criticism, and one of which was historically incorrect. I do not think I am putting it too strongly when I say that this broadcast to the French Nation contained words and phrases of envenomed abuse which ought not to have received public utterance from a man in the position of Chief Diplomatic Adviser to the British Government.
Language was used which showed, in my view, a complete lack of dignity, not to say lack of restraint. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has quoted certain phrases from the pamphlet now published incorporating the broadcasts to the German people. Let me quote to your Lordships some sentences from the broadcast to the French nation. In his broadcast to the French nation, near the beginning. Sir Robert Vansittart said: "The German lies as he always does." As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby points out that is a general statement. It appears to be a general statement applying to all Germans, not to Hitler or Goebbels or Goering, not to the Nazi leaders, but to all Germans. Another phrase used is "professional robbers and murderers." Then there is the phrase which the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, quoted, and such words as "criminals" and then, near the end, 399 Herr Abetz, the German representative in Paris, is called "an arch liar." Whatever justification there may or may not be for language of this kind, can your Lordships imagine the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax—who apparently gave permission for these German broadcasts—using language like that? He gets his effect much more surely with a very different kind of language. I think we may assume that no one in Great Britain holds a brief for Hitler or for the Nazi régime, but that does not mean that we need use such coarse language as that of the Chief Diplomatic Adviser of the British Government—I call that coarse language, to use no stronger adjective.
Moreover, as was the case with the German broadcasts, there are parts of the broadcast to the French nation which are at variance with the policy of the Government. If, as Sir Robert Vansittart implies, the Germans are all liars and if the statements which he made about them in his German broadcast, as quoted by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, are true of them all, both Nazis and anti-Nazis, what has been the object of the Government in trying to divide the German people and in appealing to the anti-Nazi element? If the whole German nation is as Sir Robert Vansittart describes it, what is the good of ever trying to make peace with any German Government at any time? If Germans are all liars, and if through centuries they always have been as Sir Robert Vansittart said, with whom are the Government going to make peace? Sir Robert Vansittart says:
No peace, no understanding, no arrangement with Germany is possible until she has been decisively beaten.That is what was said in the last war. That was the reason for the policy of the knock-out blow which was finally achieved at the sacrifice of so much blood and treasure. Germany was decisively beaten. She was completely beaten. And what happened? Did the knock-out blow settle the German problem, and were the Germans taught such a lesson that the idea of another war was driven out of their minds? Did the knock-out blow—to take a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven—bring about that spiritual regeneration of which he spoke? Not at all. A little over twenty years have passed and we are engaged in a bigger war than ever.400 So much for history. I mean true history, not the history of Sir Robert Vansittart. In his broadcast to the French nation Sir Robert Vansittart described the French as the most intelligent nation in the world. For my part I do not agree with that. I think the British people are the most intelligent people in the world; but let that pass. If the Chief Diplomatic Adviser is right, and the French are the most intelligent nation in the world, they need something better to convince them than the kind of things said by Sir Robert Vansittart. After all, those 80,000,000 Germans are there in the centre of Europe. God made them and there they will remain. Somehow or other we shall have to live with them just as we have to live with other nations. It is no good trying to drive some of us, like my noble friend and myself, into a corner and to suggest that we, in any way, approve of the cruelties and barbarities of the Nazi régime. Nothing could be more untrue; the whole thing is horrible beyond words, and no language which can describe it can overstate it. But it is much better when this is done by people in high and responsible positions if they measure their words and do not indulge in these—if I may so describe them—coarse crudities. We are not going to exterminate people by using violent, abusive and incontinent language. As was said in a recent leading article in the Manchester Guardian, the practical difficulties of treating Germany as though she were composed of 80,000,000 malefactors are enough to make it impossible.
One final point. If broadcasts of this kind are to be given, could not they be given by somebody else and not by the Chief Diplomatic Adviser? There are plenty of prominent people—people even more notable than Sir Robert Vansittart—who are available to do this kind of thing, and they are people who are not civil servants. If we are to have this kind of thing again should it not be done by somebody else, and not by someone in the very heart and centre of the Foreign Office? It really is a profound mistake, I hope that in the reply the noble Lord will not seek to belittle this matter, which is a very serious matter, and that he will indicate that broadcasts of this kind by civil servants are to cease.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYMy Lords, I understand that my noble friend Lord Cecil will reply to this debate and I should like to take this, the first opportunity I have had, of congratulating him on sitting in this House. Arrivals of this description are, in usual circumstances, accompanied by a sense of loss, but I am glad to think that there is no sense of that sort now, nor I hope will there be any for years to come, so we can welcome the noble Lord with complete satisfaction. This debate, in my judgment, was certain to arise. There has been a question already in the House of Commons, and it was very probable and natural that the question should be raised in your Lordships' House. The speeches which we have heard from noble Lords opposite are speeches which, if I may say so, should really have been made in the future—I hope in a comparatively short time in the future. But the speech which really touches the matter that is in our minds at the present moment has been delivered by my noble friend who sits beside me (Lord Stonehaven). That is really the spirit which actuates the people of this country and the people of this Empire.
Sir Robert Vansittart is an old personal friend of mine, and it is not likely that I should make any attack on him, either from the personal or from the public point of view. fully concur in what is the spirit of the address which he has delivered though I certainly disagree on many of the points to which he has alluded. We all desire to condemn the Nazi doctrine, all it stands for, and all it has been allowed to develop. But I am not sure, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, says, that the historical appreciation to which Sir Robert Vansittart has given utterance is correct.
I have said that this is a matter which we will be dealing with, I hope, in a few-months, but certainly not at the present moment. It seems to me that there are really two points which we should consider and to which the noble Lord will undoubtedly address himself. One is whether it is proper and right that a civil servant should come out into the open and express opinions which, one must admit, have an atmosphere of controversy about them. There is a long-established custom—I think it is a custom not a rule—that a civil servant remains in the background, that he is immune 402 from attack, that his name cannot be mentioned in either House of Parliament, and that anyone is infringing the proper rules of procedure who ventures to attack a civil servant. Attacks are concentrated on the chiefs, who answer for the policies of their Departments even though, perhaps, the civil servant may have been the moving spirit in the promotion of those policies. It does seem to me that there really is a grave infringement of what we look upon as a very proper and time-honoured tradition, that a civil servant should remain in the background as long as he is a civil servant and not come out into the open either by way of broadcasting or of publishing his views on political matters which can come, in certain circumstances, in the realm of controversy.
I do not know whether the noble Lord will tell us that our opinions are so properly fixed at this moment that there really is no controversy over what Sir Robert Vansittart has said, but I still think, on the question of principle, that the element of controversy which does exist seems to preclude a civil servant from giving utterance to opinions such as Sir Robert Vansittart has expressed. As Sir Robert Vansittart has come out into the open and has uttered these broadcasts, I would venture to ask a question as to whether he is actually the right man to do so. We are privileged to listen from time to time to the finest broadcasts which any of us have ever heard, from the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister expresses in remarkable phraseology exactly what is in the mind of this nation and of this Empire, and in the most measured and, I would say, the most temperate sentences deals with the great problems with which we are confronted and with the very difficult situation in which we find ourselves.
Mr. Churchill has been consistent from the beginning. If we read his speeches, as we are privileged to be able to do, we see that he has followed a consistent line from the very beginning. He made up his mind that this war was inevitable, that sooner or later this terrible war would come about. We can congratulate ourselves that at this time we have at the head of affairs the man who can best lead us all by virtue of his training, of his convictions, and of his courage, which has always been his foremost characteristic. I had hoped to achieve the same end as the victory which I trust we shall 403 achieve in a comparatively short space of time, but by other methods; I believed that by the reduction and limitation of armaments we could have controlled and restricted the warlike activities of Germany. That, however, is of the past, and I do not propose to dwell upon it.
What I do say is this. As Sir Robert Vansittart has come out into the open and has thought fit to give us his views on the situation, I would say that in my opinion he is not the person who should have taken this rôle upon himself; nor do I think that the Government were well advised in suggesting that he should do so, if they did suggest it, or in allowing him to do so, if he made the request himself. Sir Robert Vansittart has been an official of the Foreign Office for the last ten years. He has been a civil servant, and naturally he has not been the dominating or controlling influence. I was associated with the Foreign Office until 1935, when the Germans were comparatively weak. We were well aware of their preparations, which began on a war basis in 1933 and which went on continuously until 1939, when war was declared; but it does seem to me very surprising that, although the Germans were weak in 1935, notwithstanding the policy of the Government and of the Foreign Office, of which Sir Robert Vansittart was a leading member (it is true as a civil servant), in 1939 the Germans should be in a position to challenge the world and to give effect to those doctrines of which Sir Robert Vansittart tells us he knew a long time ago, but which I presume he was unable by his policy to prevent the Germans carrying into effect. My first point is that Sir Robert Vansittart, as a civil servant, should not have come out into the open and expressed his opinions, and my second point is that, as he has done so, there are innumerable questions which could be asked of him, but which I think it would be unfortunate and unwise to put at this present moment.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (LORD CECIL)(Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, before I come to the subject of this debate. I should like to say a word of very warm thanks, to the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, for the kindly welcome which he gave to me in arriving at this 404 House. I need not say how very greatly I appreciated it. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has raised in his Motion the question of the broadcasts which Sir Robert Vansittart has been delivering in the Overseas Programme of the B.B.C., broadcasts which were later put together in a pamphlet under the title of Black Record. As your Lordships will be aware, this question has already been raised in another place, and you will have seen the answer which was given there by the Prime Minister. I must confess that, after listening to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Arnold, I am still a little uncertain what are the main grounds of their objection to these broadcasts. There are, as I see it, two possible main grounds; one is as to their content and tone, and the other is to the fact that they were given by Sir Robert Vansittart, who occupied at the time an official position.
§ I had the impression—it may have been an erroneous one—that both noble Lords were principally concerned with the substance of the broadcasts. The reason why the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, raised this subject was that he felt himself in violent disagreement with, and, from what he said this afternoon, had a strong aversion from, the sentiments expressed by Sir Robert. I formed the faint impression, which perhaps he will forgive me for expressing, that if Sir Robert Vansittart had rather unexpectedly expressed quite different views and had said, for instance, that it was about time this war came to an end, that it was not worth while going on with it, and that the misery it caused was too great, then, although Sir Robert would still not have been in complete harmony with the policy of His Majesty's Government, the noble Lord would not have put down his Motion but, on the contrary, would have considered the broadcasts rather constructive and broadminded contributions to modern thought. I had the same impression from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold. What they were really concerned about was that they did not much like what Sir Robert Vansittart said, they did not like the way in which he said it, and they thought, therefore, that he should not have been allowed to speak.
§ Now I to-day, as representing His Majesty's Government, am not concerned 405 with the views which Sir Robert has expressed as a private individual in his broadcasts I hope to deal with that point in a moment. I am concerned, however, with whether he should have been allowed to express those views. It is, of course, almost certain that there must have been numbers of people—perhaps large numbers of people—who did not and do not agree with what Sir Robert said. He has, as we all know, a very strong personality, and he expresses himself in a very trenchant manner. I submit, however, that that would not justify us in debarring him, as an individual representative Englishman, from giving his considered views; for that would be the wrong way of dealing with his views, even if we did not agree wish them. Our remedy would be to reply to them, and that is what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has done to-day, and has done very persuasively and skilfully. I am sure that it would be wrong to do what the noble Lord suggested should be done, as I understand it, with all views of this kind. He suggested that such views were in his opinion dangerous, and that therefore those who held them should not be allowed to speak at all. Now what under those conditions becomes of our much-vaunted liberty of speech? It ceases to exist altogether. Sir Robert Vansittart is not a unique case on the B.B.C.: there are many other broadcasters, whom we could all name, who have also aroused a certain amount of irritation among their hearers. Would it be suggested that they should all be gagged for that reason?
§ LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDEI do not think the noble Lord has got my contention quite correctly. I do not want anybody to be gagged; I am all for their expressing their opinions as much as they wish, but I do not like them to be representing the Government when they express opinions which are not in harmony with the Government's policy.
§ LORD CECILI beg the noble Lord's pardon if I misrepresented him, but I understood him to say that people who spoke balderdash of this kind, as he called it, should be restrained because it did not make for an improvement of relations between countries or for bringing the end of the war nearer. Lord Ponsonby holds—and this I quite appreciate—that the only effect of these broadcasts will be to unite 406 the German people and strengthen their determination to prolong the war. Sir Robert, on the other hand, takes the view that the German people are already united behind Hitler as they have been behind similar leaders in the past. It seems to me that those are both defensible views, and I certainly think it is arguable, and in my view right, that it should be possible for the view which Sir Robert has taken to be put before the English-speaking people. Indeed, I really think the issue is—and here probably the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Arnold, are at one with me—not whether the broadcasts should have been made at all but whether they should have been made by Sir Robert, holding the position he did.
This, I agree, is a much more difficult problem. It is not a new problem. It is a problem that is constantly arising, as the noble Lords will know, in our ordinary national life and in the national life of all countries. How far can a public man speak in any private capacity? How far can he divest himself of his official status and speak as man to man? As I understood the speeches of Lord Ponsonby and Lord Arnold, they did not think he could do such a thing; they thought it was quite impossible. I should not be prepared, and the Government would not be prepared, to agree that you can draw any so definite a line as that. I think you have to judge in particular cases. Clearly, Sir Robert regarded himself as representing only his own views. He made that abundantly clear. If noble Lords read the preface of this pamphlet, Black Record, which I have no doubt most of them have already read, they will see that Sir Robert describes himself as "A diplomat with his coat off," and that of course means his official coat off. And this view was accepted, not only by him but by the B.B.C., by Lord Halifax at the time when he was Foreign Secretary, and by the Prime Minister himself.
§ LORD ARNOLDWas there any such qualification in the broadcast which Sir Robert Vansittart made to the French nation? Was it then announced that he was speaking in his private capacity?
§ LORD CECILIt was assumed that he was speaking in his private capacity. And I would challenge the noble Lord to suggest a single thing that has been said 407 by Sir Robert Vansittart which gives the impression that he was speaking for anyone but himself. There was nothing in any of these broadcasts which could give that impression, and I frankly do not believe that either Lord Ponsonby or Lord Arnold in his heart of hearts believes that he was speaking for the Government; they know quite well that he was speaking his own views, which are perfectly well known.
§ LORD ARNOLDI distinctly said he was not speaking for the Government. The point was whether the people to whom he was speaking understood that.
§ LORD CECILI am coming to that point. It is connected to a certain extent with the manner of the broadcasts and the general tone of them. I do not believe in any case—and I think probably we are all agreed about this—that any criticism can properly be levelled against Sir Robert himself. He has behaved with complete propriety throughout. Nor do I think that criticism in this matter can be fairly levelled against the Government. I do not believe anyone in this House seriously suggests that those broadcasts to which reference has been made constitute a pronouncement of Government policy. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, would not suggest such a thing himself. We all know the pronouncements of Government policy. They are made by the responsible Minister and in the proper place. And indeed, as my noble friend Lord Stonehaven has already pointed out, there are in these particular broadcasts no questions of policy mentioned at all. They are entirely factual in nature. Nor are these broadcasts in the least official in character. Lord Ponsonby said in his speech that he was a little surprised not to find on the outside of the pamphlet the Royal Arms. The reason of course is that the broadcasts were not official—which should have proved to him that our contention is correct.
Nor is the manner or the tone of these broadcasts in the least like those of an official document or a pronouncement by His Majesty's Government. They are very individual, they are entirely in Sir Robert's own style; and I should have thought that by suggesting anything else the noble Lords are really misrepresenting 408 the position. They know in their heart of hearts he was only speaking for himself, and by making this sort of point in the House to-day they are only liable to mislead people who would otherwise never have conceived that he was speaking for anyone but himself. He did not speak as Diplomatic Adviser. He spoke, as has already been made clear by the Prime Minister, merely as Sir Robert Vansittart. He spoke as a man who has spent his life in international politics, who has had a considerable and intimate experience of affairs and who wished to give the benefit of his conclusions to his fellow-men. It is true that the fact that it was he gave the broadcasts a certain publicity, but it was not because he was Diplomatic Adviser to the Government, but because he was well-known as as experienced diplomat himself, and if any contrary suggestion were to be made now I think that would do a great deal of harm.
I agree with noble Lords that this is a difficult matter. It is always hard to draw a quite definite line between what is permissible and what is not permissible in these matters; it would be foolish to say that it was not difficult. But at the same time in the view of the Government on this particular occasion that line has not been transgressed, and in our view there is therefore no need for the additional machinery for which the Motion asks.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYBefore the noble Lord sits down may I ask about the point I raised concerning the Civil Service? Is it a custom or habit or rule that members of the Civil Service are not supposed to come out in the open? The noble Lord has not addressed himself to that.
§ LORD CECILCertainly. I addressed myself to that when I said I did not think an absolutely definite line could be drawn, but it has certainly of course been a general custom that the Civil Service does not express a strong view, and that general custom will no doubt remain. But the noble Lord would not say that because a thing has never been done before it never can be done; and in this particular case Sir Robert Vansittart discussed his broadcasts with Lord Halifax, he consulted him, and Lord Halifax approved that they should be given—sub- 409 ject of course to the proviso that they represented entirely Sir Robert's own opinions.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYIs not the noble Lord laying down an entirely new doctrine? We have had no notice that such a change has come about. It is a brand new doctrine so far as I know that civil servants should come out and make a pronouncement; and if you read the pamphlet you will see there is no suggestion that Sir Robert Vansittart is Chief Diplomatic Adviser of the Government. If my noble friend writes a book he will describe himself as Secretary of State for the Dominions.
§ LORD CECILI would remind my noble friend, when he says this is a completey new principle, that it is not entirety new. I would remind him of the book written by Sir Nevile Henderson dealing with recent history in Germany Sir Nevile Henderson was still a diplomat.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYHe was not a civil servant.
§ LORD CECILHe was still in Government service.
§ LORD NEWTONBut not Chief Diplomatic Adviser.
§ LORD CECILI think the case is exceedingly similar. There was a man who was representing His Majesty's Government at the time when the things of which he wrote occurred, and he remained a diplomat in the service of His Majesty's Government up to the moment the book was published. I think my noble friend will find there is an analogy.
§ LORD NEWTONMy Lords, I suggest that this debate can be summed up in a single sentence. Sir Robert Vansittart, with whose abilities I am well acquainted—I have worked with him myself—has been speaking really not as a representative of the Government, but as a kind of temporary expert in vituperation who has been employed on a particular occasion. I do not think there is anything more useful to be said.
§ LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDEMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cecil, for the full way he has dealt with my question. I do not think it is quite so simple as he makes out. He was in a slightly difficult position in defending this practice of this newly-created post of Chief Diplomatic Adviser to the Government being converted into that of Chief Broadcaster, because that is what it is becoming. Therefore, not in my eyes, because I know the facts, but in the eyes of those who listen to Sir Robert Vansittart and those who read this pamphlet, his views are looked upon as Government policy because, after all, the whole of his career has been spent in Government service and all his knowledge is acquired from his official position. The noble Lord said if the broadcast had been written otherwise I should have taken a different line. I should like to broadcast very much. I have been an habitual broadcaster since the earliest days, but the Minister of Information has forbidden me to broadcast. There is a ban laid upon me because I am what he terms an enemy of my country. I thank the noble Lord for his reply.
House adjourned.