Lords Sitting of 11 February 1943

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

WAR SITUATION.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make on the war situation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, many of your Lordships will know that less than an hour ago the Prime Minister in the House of Commons finished his speech—an incomparable exposition delivered with all his unique authority—on the present war situation, and gave an account of the meeting at Casablanca and of other recent visits and decisions of which it may be said quorum pars magna fuit. It is entirely right that your Lordships' House should receive on the same day some account of these matters from a member of the Government who has the honour to have a seat in your Lordships' House, and in the absence of our Leader I am called upon to undertake the task. I hope I shall have from those who hear me the indulgence and sympathy which a rather difficult occasion requires.
The method which we have adopted of periodic statements about the war situation made in each of the two Houses at appropriate intervals is, I think, a very useful way of forming a judgment and getting a balanced view as to the progress of this world-war in its many theatres. As in so many cases, it is often more important to know the way in which things are moving than to know the exact position at the moment of speaking. In your Lordships' House, and indeed in both Houses, we have, as I have just said, followed that practice. For example, it was on November 11 last year, Armistice Day, that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, made to us a very full statement. At that moment the Eighth Army had just won a crushing victory at El Alamein. At that moment the Anglo-American Forces had been safely borne across the seas and had landed in French Colonial Africa. They were at
1048
that very moment establishing themselves in Algiers, Oran and Casablanca. Then again we had the last of these summarized statements from Viscount Cranborne as recently as January 19, little more than three weeks ago, in this House.
As your Lordships know now, though it was not known then, the Casablanca Conference had by that time already begun. It began on January 14. Dr. Goebbels and the purveyors of information from German quarters were suggesting that the absence from this country of the Prime Minister must be because he had crossed the Atlantic to throw himself in petition at the feet of President Roosevelt in Washington. It is not without humour to note that since that ridiculous miscalculation has been exposed, there are some at any rate of the propagandists in Germany who explain that that anticipation was not so far out, because, after all, President Roosevelt lives at the White House and the Spanish for White House is Casa Blanca. That, therefore, is the taking off point, the datum line as far as I am concerned to-day. I will endeavour in the plainest and most summary-way I can, to put before your Lordships on a number of heads the recent information and the latest situation, premising that a great deal of this is really governed by the decisions at Casablanca.
I heard the Prime Minister just now say in another place that the dominating purpose of the Casablanca meeting was to work out this principle—that our main aim, all of us in the United Nations, was to engage the enemy forces on land, sea and air on the largest possible scale at the earliest possible moment. There were many other much more definite decisions reached at this great Conference which I will put together and communicate to your Lordships a little later. Following the method which has been followed before, we have to take a rapid survey of the different main theatres of war. First take then—as indeed in duty bound we ought to take—Soviet Russia. When Viscount Cranborne made his statement on January 19 he summarized the position as it was then in Russia. Three months before, of course, when he spoke in November, the Germans were still on the offensive. Three weeks ago it was already possible to say that the Germans were in retreat over practically the whole of their Southern Front in Russia. Hitler's

1049
troops, as it appeared three weeks ago, the troops before Stalingrad, were already entirely cut off from the main German Armies, and though it would have been rash for any commentator to say so then, the view held in professional quarters and by our advisers in this country was that, while they were being precariously maintained by air, even three weeks ago their fate was absolutely sealed. In mid-December the Russians had struck at the Don salient, and three weeks ago a fresh Russian offensive had just begun in the Upper Don sector.
Now allow me briefly to review what are the immense and crucial developments which have occurred in the Russian theatre of war in this brief space of three weeks. The German Army of the Caucasus, or what remains of it, appears to be completely cut off except for a precarious line of retreat across the Kerch Straits into the Crimea. The main exit, the exit that they have always marked down for use in case of necessity, is the exit at Rostov. That exit is; closed to these retreating troops absolutely. The Russian Armies, at this moment, hold, and are the masters of, the whole of the left bank of the Don right down to the Sea of Azov, and Rostov is on the right bank of the Don. Then again, we can now say with assurance that the Maikop oil-fields have been recovered, and that the whole of Hitler's plans for getting oil fuel from the Caucasus are in ruins. Equally important is the recently developed threat to recover the Donetz Basin. At some points, indeed, the Russian troops have already crossed the Donetz. Both north and south of Kharkov the threat is developing, and with Kursk already recovered the fate of Kharkov is in the balance. These are stupendous events. They indicate a power of drive and recovery which puts these Russians soldiers among the most heroic that history has ever seen.
And while we should be wise to abstain from all speculation as to what may be the future outcome and the ultimate success of these immense achievements of the Russian Armies, inspired by their unquenchable determination to drive the hated invader from Russian villages and towns, which have been so brutally laid waste and despoiled, and directed by the military genius of Stalin, this much at least is quite clearly established: the initiative has passed entirely to the Soviet
1050
Armies. The Germans are nowhere advancing. Both in the north and in the south they are in actual retreat. Hitler's intuition has led the Axis Armies into defeats so serious and into threats so dangerous that his propagandists are searching everywhere for some palliation or excuse. Notice what it is. Goebbels and his collaborators have to whip up German sentiment, if they can, and extract the last ounce out of German resource by picturing in the most sombre terms the consequences that would follow if they cannot make the tide of Soviet victory turn. One wonders—I think many of us must have wondered—whether this German attempt to evoke fresh efforts on their side by warning Europe of the Bolshevist flood does not sound strange, even to German ears, as it is to be remembered that just before the war broke out Hitler was proclaiming that he had, by agreement with this very Soviet, settled Soviet-German relations by a Pact which would "last for a thousand years."
While these splendid Soviet successes are so heartening, we must still keep the main proportions of the map of war in our minds. There are immense stretches of Soviet territory still in German hands. Broadly speaking, the line—if indeed you can call the division between the opposing forces a line—which existed last summer and from which the German offensive last summer proceeded, is the line which the Russian Armies have now re-established. They are still thrusting forward in their advance; working out this vast strategic plan which is gaining them constant new successes. The fact remains that the Armies of our Allies have a long way to go; the German retreat must go back much further before the enemy is expelled from Russia, and before German territory itself comes within the danger zone. Nevertheless the achievements of these heroic men are stupendous, and full of consequence for more reasons than one. Their main success lies not so much in the recovery of vast stretches of territory as in the destruction of German Armies, in the annihilation of whole divisions, in the capture of incredible quantities of material, and in the refutation of the myth that even with the help of Hitler's intuition the German soldier is invincible.
Let me in the same way, but more briefly, turn to Africa. All of us know this story, because recent news and an

1051
undying pride in what our own men have done, write it indelibly on the tablets of the memory. But let me recount one or two dates. The victory at El Alamein was won early in November and Rommel was in full retreat. When my noble friend Lord Cranborne spoke on January 19, General Montgomery was half way across Tripolitania and the Germans were endeavouring to hold him at Buerat. In the three weeks since the last statement was made in this House there is not a school boy or a school girl in the land who does not know that the Eighth Army has swept on until the whole of the coast of Tripolitania is ours, and Italian Africa is no more. I heard the Prime Minister just now, in one of the most entertaining passages I ever remember in a Parliamentary pronouncement, describe his impression of the great modern town of Tripoli. He said that he was naturally received with great enthusiasm by the Italian population because this was the first large Italian town which had been redeemed from the Huns. To all of this—to the loss of Italian Africa, now absolutely complete—Mussolini has no answer except the vicarious sacrifice of his son-in-law, Count Ciano, and of Signor Grandi.
The Eighth Army has now come into French North-West Africa, and so it passes under the general orders and supreme command of General Eisenhower, while General Alexander becomes Deputy Commander-in-Chief, with the special duty of co-ordinating the action of the First and Eighth Armies. I have had put together in a separate short statement the decisions about new Commands decided on at Casablanca, and will refer to that in a moment. Your Lordships will observe that there have been and are in Tunisia on the side of the Allies three elements: British, American and French. From the concrete decisions under this head taken at Casablanca, of which I have been told and of which the House of Commons has now heard, it would certainly appear that effective co-operation between these different elements has been most ingeniously and most successfully secured.
I cannot detain your Lordships for more than a moment or two on the Far East, but even the most summary account of the war situation at the moment could
1052
not possibly leave out some events in the Far East and the Pacific during recent weeks. First, as to China, that much-tried and essentially peaceful nation, which has been fighting for six long years in a ceaseless struggle to protect herself against the assaults of Japan. Your Lordships will hear with particular pleasure that General Arnold, who is the head of the United States Army Air Force, and Field-Marshal Sir John Dill, who of course is the head of the British Military Mission at Washington, have quite recently been to Chungking to concert with the Generalissimo there plans for positive co-operative action. I believe only to-day the message has reached this country that this all-important charge committed to their care has been carried out successfully, and that there is the fullest agreement between the Generalissimo and the representatives of the other Allies as to the action to be taken.
The other reference to the Far East which I really must make is as to two striking events which have occurred in the Pacific since we last considered the war situation. One is the driving of the Japanese out of Papua by General MacArthur's Australian and American Forces, a perfectly definite achievement which leaves no ragged edges behind it. The other is the resounding and significant success of Admiral Halsey in the Solomon Islands, where American Forces have cleared Guadalcanal of the Japanese. These operations, as everyone who has had occasion to study the elements of military and naval affairs will well understand, are all the more remarkable because action has to be taken at such immense distances from the home country from which these Forces come. As the Prime Minister, in an illustrative phrase, said in my hearing—it is like the difficulty which you have in holding a heavy dumb-bell indefinitely with your arm outstretched.
I will now, if I may, fulfil my promise and tell your Lordships quite specifically some of the decisions which were reached at Casablanca. First—and this is fundamental—it must of course be understood that in the area of French North-West Africa the enterprise is under American supreme command. That was arranged with President Roosevelt long ago. It is an arrangement which our own authorities and our own Government have freely

1053
accepted, and all that need be said about it here is that of course it will be loyally and faithfully carried out. Therefore, General Anderson and the First Army are acting, as they have been ever since the landing, under General Eisenhower's orders. As we know well, the First Army very nearly succeeded in clearing the German Forces out of Tunisia at a blow; and, although that effort failed, I believe that it is the universal opinion of all who are competent to judge that that was an effort that ought to have been made, and that it was absolutely right to try it. But it failed, and, as a result, the Germans have made good their bridgeheads; and indeed, if you include Rommel's Forces—what is left of them—I believe that the estimate is made that there may be not far short of a quarter of a million of the enemy still in some part or other of the Tunisian theatre. We therefore must expect operations for the expulsion of the enemy from Tunisia to be severe. They may be prolonged, and the only safe thing to say here and now is that it is idle to prophesy and foolish to speculate
But there are one or two other matters on which a definite statement can be made. Our desert Army which is now crossing the frontier into Tunisia, as I have pointed out, comes thereby into the American sphere and comes under General Eisenhower as supreme commander. Under the allotment of parts which was most carefully worked out at Casablanca, General Alexander becomes the Deputy Commander-in-Chief under General Eisenhower.
Let me say a word or two about the other arms, the Air and the Navy. Air Chief Marshal Tedder becomes Air Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, and within what I may call the Eisenhower theatre is responsible to General Eisenhower, but the Air Chief Marshal necessarily also controls all the Air Forces throughout the whole of the Middle East for, from whatever aerodromes these machines of ours may come—Malta, Egypt, wherever it may be—they are to a very large extent engaged in attacking the same targets and of course they are co-operating very closely with one another according to type and occasion. Under Air Chief Marshal Tedder, Air Vice-Marshal Coningham, who has hitherto been working with the Eighth Army, will concert air operations in support of the
1054
First and Eighth British Armies and other troops on the Tunisian Front. So much for the air. Now take the Navy. The arrangements made at Casablanca resulted in this, that Admiral of the Fleet Sir Andrew Cunningham, who already commands all the British and American naval forces in the French African theatre, extends his command eastwards so as to comprise corresponding operations inside the Mediterranean, and the present Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, with headquarters in Egypt, will become Commander-in-Chief of the Levant and will deal also with the Red Sea and its approaches.
One more important piece of information which arises out of the decisions at Casablanca under the head of Staff appointments, I can give to your Lordships. As you will have noticed, the appointment of General Alexander to be Vice-Commander-in-Chief under General Eisenhower leaves a vacancy in the Command of the Middle East, the post he formerly held, and that post is being filled by General Sir Henry Maitland Wilson I have done my best, in extracting these matters from far more voluminous records, to give to the House as well as I can a picture of the Staff situation as it exists to-day.
I would venture to close with this single reflection, which perhaps, in an image, represents justly the situation in the war, taken as a whole, at which we have arrived. Those of your Lordships who in your youth took any part in the pastime of serious mountain climbing will know very well how, as you struggle up some severe slope the crest of which seems to be clear against the sky, and as you push nearer to the top of this slope, you discover that so far from being at the top of the mountain there stretches before you, it may be vast rough territory, rocks or snow, which perhaps includes some very dangerous and anxious descents before you can really say that you are engaged in the final struggle and will very shortly stand on the peak. Now I conceive that the developments of the war up to the point that it has now reached is very much like that situation in mountain climbing. Instead of comforting ourselves with the thought that, after such successes as we can see, looking back, we were close to the summit, we must realize that there is an immense amount of dangerous and grievous terri-

1055
tory still to be covered. But none the less we are entitled to say that some difficulties which might have seemed overwhelming have been overcome, that the spirit and purpose of the United Nations were never more closely knit, and if the great company of those who share the inheritance of freedom persist in the course they have chosen, then the day will come when Hitlerism will be dead, and when sanity and peace will be restored to the world.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure we all appreciate the statement which the noble and learned Viscount has made to us, and would like to associate ourselves with him in his expression of regret that the Leader of the House is unfortunately not able to be present. Your Lordships will also, I know, wish to join with one accord with me in expressing our appreciation of this type of statement and of the practice of making a series of statements presenting to us in a compact form the sequence of events and the place or places which we have reached in the course of this war. There is not one of us but will welcome the appointments which the learned Lord Chancellor has announced and express the sincere hope that these distinguished soldiers, airmen and admirals will have the conspicuous success which their past histories warrant and lead us to expect. I was glad to note some omissions from the statement of the Lord Chancellor. I noted, for example, that he did not refer to the French political differences in North Africa; that was an act of good sense and diplomacy with which we all wish to associate ourselves. Let us leave that matter to those who have the management of this tangled business.
We welcome particularly the high and splendid appreciation which the Lord Chancellor has expressed of the exploits of the Russian Army. I do not know how, hereafter, these will be judged in perspective, but we are simply staggered in trying to imagine the difficulties and complexities of supply and organization of these massed Armies at this time of the year over this difficult country. However we may view them, these events are certain to have a resounding effect in history. We rejoice with the noble
1056
Viscount at what has happened so far in North Africa. I was a little surprised at the size of the German forces which he mentioned in Tunisia. It makes it all the more disappointing that the inclement weather has not given the First Army, through no fault of ours, the opportunity of making the fullest use of its good start. Still, the weather is not an element which we can successfully contend against. We have no doubt as to what the end will be, with patience and our usual perseverance.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to be quite sure about the statement I made on this point. My noble friend seems to be under the impression that I actually spoke of nearly 250,000 Germans. I am greatly obliged to him for the opportunity of correcting that, and no doubt it will be corrected by the gentlemen who deal with the reports. What I meant to say was that there might be a little under a quarter of a million of the enemy there. How they are composed as between the different nations I am not in a position to state. It was probably the bringing in of the remnants I of Rommel's Army that induced me to depart from the more accurate phrase used by the War Office.
LORD ADDISON: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. I was about to say a word about Chungking. We all deplore the difficulties of geography and wish, I am sure every one of us, that geography could enable us somehow or other to get into closer contact, for consultation, with the high authorities both of our Russian and our Chinese Allies. I am quite sure that every effort will be made to progress towards that end, because we have felt a kind of helplessness, almost, as we contemplated the immense difficulties which present themselves in giving greater and more active help to the heroic Chinese. It only remains for me to express our thanks to the Lord Chancellor for his statement, and to express the hope that this splendid example of consultation between the high authorities of the Allied Nations will be extended as much as it can practicably be extended to the leaders of the other great Allied Nations, because we know that the closer o we are brought together in the war, the more easily shall we be able to work together in peace.

GERMAN ATROCITIES.
LORD VANSITTART LORD VANSITTART moved to resolve, That, in view of the systematic atrocities committed both by the Gestapo and the German Army, remedies should be proposed before systematic extermination has gone beyond repair. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not weary you with any narration of German atrocities. It is not my purpose to dilate upon them but to cast around with the very greatest diffidence and, as a sheer case of conscience, to make sure we have done everything in our power to check these horrors and, what is more, to ward off the even worse ones there may be yet to come. Therefore, in anything I may say to-day I shall be taking the standpoint of the victims, and that standpoint alone. Since I am trying rather to look ahead than to look back, I shall ask your Lordships to cast your minds no further back than Germany's fourth war. Even then I shall say nothing of the massacre, the arson, the wholesale looting that disgraced the German Army. I shall concentrate attention on one phase only which is germane to the point I am going to try to make to-day.
When the conquest of Belgium and Northern France was achieved there appeared on the scene some bodies known as the Niederlegungkommissionen. It is a fixed German principle that the German eagle is always closely followed by the German vultures. These bodies settled down on the occupied territories and ransacked them. The factories were gutted; all industrial machinery that could not be carried off to Germany was destroyed. This was done with the transparent and avowed object of so paralysing the victims economically that Germany, win or lose, would have no difficulty in capturing their markets. Therefore this policy was relentlessly pursued during the retreat. The mines were flooded, houses and villages blown up, even the humbler forms of private property—beds, furniture, utensils—were ruined or spitefully defiled. Not only the woods, but the very fruit trees were cut down. That policy was pursued—this is the point to which I wish to direct particular attention in view of my conclusion—even after the Germans had appealed to President Wilson for what they were pleased to call a "just peace." That policy is being pursued to-day, and in the crescendo that has characterized all
1058
German barbarism. We are on the way to witness the devastation and depopulation of all Europe, except Germany; and that policy, too, has a purpose and we had better face it. The Herrenvolk are minded to win this war, even if they lose it, and they intend to do so on a basis of population. They count on achieving that deadly purpose by the wholesale stripping of all territory once occupied by processes of enfeeblement and starvation which prevent the victims from breeding, and by the massacre of the inhabitants, particularly those capable of intellectual leadership.
When the Germans are losing—and they are losing, and that is what makes the problem all the more burningly urgent—they are likely, only too likely, to intensify these measures unless they are checked now. Against all this horror not a voice is raised in Germany. In his sermon preached on January 14, the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, very truly pointed out that not even the German Churches had protested against Germany's crimes against her neighbours and fellow-beings. That is very true indeed, because the German Churches have never protested against the atrocities of the German Army. And I think I can give you the reason in a single sentence. It was written by the greatest of all living German writers, Thomas Mann, now in the United States, in the middle of the last war, and it was written not in condemnation but in eulogy. He said:
"German militarism is the manifestation of German morality."
That is the whole trouble. That is why the Germans do not protest against anything, however bloody, and that is why our whole problem resides in making the Germans protest against their own instincts. When you have done that the problem is half solved. "Well," you may say, "that requires a miracle." The age of miracles is not yet over. The thing can be done, and must be done and done quickly, because there is worse to come and our Allies know it. If we had had any doubts on the subject they would have been settled by Radio Paris on January 24.
Moreover, as long as a year ago an order intercepted in Belgium, and widely publicized in this country, showed us

1059
very clearly what to expect, and that is that in the event of defeat the Germans will increase the devastations of the last war and accompany them with calculated slaughter. That is an old German policy which has its roots deep back in the last century, and it is that policy which we must strain every nerve to defeat, because if we fail to do so the German policy of extermination may win the peace even though we shall have won the war. So far, no effective deterrent has been found. There have been most praiseworthy meetings and resolutions in St. James's Palace. There was a learned and eloquent debate in this House in October which left in some quarters an impression, I am sure erroneous, that only a few of the "big shots" would be hanged after an infinity of legal procedure. There have also been timely threats by His Majesty's Government, though these again have left in some quarters an impression, again, I am sure, erroneous, of the menace of King Lear: "I will do such things—what they are yet I know not." And so the policy of atrocity, for it is a policy, goes on unchecked, and will probably grow worse. It is carried out by all sorts and conditions of Germans, sometimes to order, sometimes without orders, spontaneously, even eagerly. Therefore the victims were grateful some weeks ago to the most reverend Prelate, the Archbishop of York, when he said it would be our business to punish not only the instigators but the thousands of thugs who never fail to carry out bestiality with gusto.
Now, all our Ministers have spoken to all our Allies about the dawn of liberation. It is a well-worn phrase but it is still potent with evocation. It can only ring true on conditions, and if those conditions are not faced, the world will face instead the blank vision of Omar Khayyam:
"The stars are setting, and the Caravan
Starts for the dawn of Nothing—
Oh, make haste."
Precisely because the German star is setting we must make haste lest we become the prophets of a false dawn. Therefore I had thought out and tried to set in order a number of points by which I thought His Majesty's Government might act now, and then I reflected that the shortest way to assent is simplicity. Consequently, today, I have scrapped the lot and reduced them all to a single and, I hope, entirely
1060
simple measure. It can be decided to-day and taken to-morrow, not only without cost but with great economy and profit, and not only without offending any principle but in consonance with the highest principle—humanity. In my very humble judgment it is the rock bottom minimum of what we owe to the oppressed. But before I come to it I have two preliminary observations to make.
In the first place, I have assumed that we are all in deadly earnest when we say that we mean to punish not only the instigators but the perpetrators, and in that case we shall happily not fall short of Article 47 of the German Military Penal Code which provides as follows:
"The subordinate executing the order will make himself liable as an accessory (1) should be exceed his orders, or (2) if he was aware that the order of his superior was an action involving a common military crime or offence."
If we accept our own doctrine together with the German doctrine, it follows that, as foreseen by the Archbishop of York, we shall have to face retribution on a very considerable scale, particularly if we include, as I think one must include, entire categories like the Gestapo, the Security Police and the Death's Head Guards at the concentration camps. That being so, it follows again, or should have followed, that we should long since have been driving at the German people the truth that this is the price of atrocity, that the price is rising, and that it is very vital in their interests to prevent it from rising any further. I think that, on the contrary, our propaganda has rather tended to reassure the Germans by telling them that only identified individuals will be brought to book. That is encouraging the Germans to believe they will escape retribution by such easy devices as blackening the faces of executioners. One cannot run after the guilty without losing sight of the innocent, because one cannot run two ways at once; and to-day that, I think, in the phrase so often and so wrongly attributed to Talleyrand, is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.
That brings me to my second preliminary point. I venture to recall to your Lordships the first speech I made in this House nearly a year ago, in which I said:
"It seems to me that we have tried our present line of propaganda for two and a half years of failure—I think of foredoomed failure"—

1061
I went on with the words that if we really wished to achieve results in Germany we must take a very much stiffer and more outstanding line, and I ended by saying:
"The right way to get into Germany is not to crawl."
Other counsels prevailed and conciliation, even ingratiation, continued. I beg your Lordships to reflect on what has happened during this last year. Millions more people have been slaughtered, Jews, Poles, Russians, Greeks, Yugoslavs—all our Allies—are slain all the day long. The situation is far worse than it was a year ago because we have had, not two and a half but three and a half years of "foredoomed failure." In what I have to say I shall be inspired by no captious or carping spirit. I would not dream of criticizing for the sake of criticism. I am only trying to be constructive within the piteously small means vouchsafed by Providence. Therefore it is in that spirit, and that spirit alone, that I say that in looking back over these three and a half years as a whole there has been a pervading and recurrent weakness in our attitude towards Germany.
Time and again, in our broadcasting in German, we have exonerated the German people—even the German Army, God forgive us!—and we have put down all crime to one clique, or even to one man, and that was done again even a short time ago. It is not true and the untruth has been a ghastly expensive one to the victims. I think that they have, therefore, some cause for complaint because that untruth has tended to make us pull our punches, has held out tentatively the promise of good things to come if only Germans will be good boys, instead of dwelling more on the bad things that are certainly coming to many bad boys, and may come to more, if they do not mend their ways, if they do not halt horror as they can, and halt it now as they can. Indeed, throughout the whole of this latest and greatest of German homicidal mania we have tended to address the German nation as a reasonable being and that, my Lords, is a deep-seated misjudgment of German character. I venture to suggest that the last excuse for that posture, or imposture, has vanished since Germany began to lose the war, and by that very loss to imperil the very existence of multitudes yet in her power.
A year ago I asked that we should stand up and hot suck up to Germany; but although it is impossible to have it both ways in dealing with the German, we have gone on trying, and I have here a very recent and cogent example. On the day on which the Germans killed forty English schoolchildren the following notice appeared widely in our Press:
"Three German airmen who were killed when their machine was shot down by a. British fighter during the raid over London on Monday were buried in a cemetery in S.E. England yesterday. Military honours were accorded by R.A.F. officers and men, each coffin, bearing a wreath from the R.A.F., was carried by six airmen. A contingent of the R.A.F. followed in procession. The pilot's coffin was draped with the Swastika flag. A large crowd, including Civil Defence workers, gathered at the graveside, and while an R.A.F. Chaplain conducted a commital service, fighter planes passed overhead in salute."
There are, no doubt, good reasons for such proceedings at such a time, and I make no comment on them, not even on the hallowing of the Swastika on free soil. But what I think highly unwise, and indeed unpardonable, is to put a description of that ceremony into German and broadcast it to Germany, for that, of course, produces exactly the opposite result to what was no doubt intended, and I will say in this connexion that it makes a very bad impression also on the feelings of hundreds and thousands of our martyred Allies who understand German. I have received some protests on their behalf. On that I say no more except to remind your Lordships that only ten days ago the Czechoslovak Minister for Foreign Affairs told us that we cannot expect the occupied countries to go on hoping for ever, and broadcasts like that make them despair.
That kind of thing does not stand alone. Let us see how the process of ingratiation beguiles us in other directions. On January 27 our European Service was discussing in German the number of Austrians lately executed by Germans, and one of the speakers intimated that the resistance of the oppressed was less due to hatred of the Germans than to ideological solidarity. He equated the victims with the German workers. In the first place, that is not true. The resistance of the German workers with whom the speaker connected the Austrian victims has been very small indeed, almost negligible. In

1063
the second place, I have examined very closely the names of the victims and they seem to come from all walks of life. Some appear to be Czechs. There can in no circumstances be any question of solidarity with Germany. The Prime Minister has repeatedly promised us the liberation of Austria, and if that liberation did not mean the liberation of Austria from Germany it would mean nothing and be worth nothing. Your Lordships will be hardly surprised to hear that this broadcast has evoked a considerable outburst of protests of which I had a good many samples sent to me. I do not propose to inflict them all on your Lordships, although I have them here, because I do not think some of them are quite fair. I choose just a couple of excerpts to show what they are like. One said: "This broadcast is the rankest Pan-Germanism." Another said: "The martyrs were not even allowed to die as Austrians," which they undoubtedly did, and it was suggested that they died merely to express their class solidarity with the German workers. Most of these comments are not fair, and I wish above all things to be fair, because as a matter of fact the speaker did allow for some hatred of Germany but had unwisely and wrongly laid emphasis on class solidarity with Germany which naturally evoked such a storm of susceptibilities that the sound part of the discussion was. entirely overlooked.
I am the last person to magnify a mere episode of that kind, but at the same time it does point two very useful lessons. The first is that the susceptibilities are so strong, so natural, so sensitive, that we should be extremely careful in no wise to wound or to discourage them. In the second place, there is perhaps an even more valuable lesson. I think it is a mistake on our part to discuss these agonies from afar, dispassionately, even cold-bloodedly and in German, and so convey the idea that we are rather strange and aloof beings living in another world,, which is indeed the case of a good many people still in this island. In a nutshell, I think if only we were not so frightened in our broadcasts of appearing to be anti-German there would be a little more warmth and a little more humanity in our utterances. I have a number of similar protests about other episodes which all point in the same
1064
direction, but i do not propose to lengthen my speech unduly by inflicting them on your Lordships.
I will merely pass on to another instance of how I think things had better not be done on the Home Front. On February 1, I heard to my stupefaction our Home Service broadcasting an account of the funeral of the late Mr. Ben Tillett in which it was stated that a wreath had been presented inscribed "From the German transport workers doomed to silence." There is no one in Europe who docs not know that no wreath was sent by the German transport workers. A wreath was doubtless sent i by a German transport worker or a few German transport workers living in exile, but the German transport workers are hard at work on behalf of our common enemy, and the war victims, without exception, know it to their cost. Moreover, the German transport workers are not doomed to silence. They are no more doomed to silence than the German churches have been, but they are all Germans and, therefore, they do not protest. This disengenuity was, naturally, heard all over Europe, and I think sometimes we are apt to forget that a great many of the victims understand English just as we sometimes forget that they understand German. Naturally, the broadcasting of this kind of thing is apt to discourage them very seriously because it leads them, in their innocence, to suppose that we must be either dupes or hypocrites.
The plain fact is that a good deal of our broadcasting, particularly our broad-casting in German, whatever its merits in other directions, is out of touch and sympathy with the occupied countries. I think that the reason for that is that the voices are so often those of men with no feeling against Germany. With such voices I would like to know how you are on the one hand to sustain the sufferers and on the other hand to deter and impress the Germans. By trying to conciliate the Germans you are trying to have it both ways, and therefore you get neither. I have always protested against the ingratiating approach to Germany because I have always been sure that it would not deliver the goods. Where are they? I think it is even more disastrously mistaken now, because I have never been able to see, and no victim has ever been able to

1065
see, how on earth you can expect the Germans to take seriously your threats of retribution if you continually undo with one hand what you do with the other.
Let me give you an even more cogent example. Some months ago Mr. Wolsten-croft, speaking as President at the Trade Union Congress at Blackpool, made a speech which, from the point of view of the victims at least, was invaluable because it was stern and therefore salutary. What did we do? We got on the air and explained him away in German. That is crawling, and I do not see how you can expect to impress the Germans with such a lack of dignity. I need hardly tell your Lordships that the same people have also explained me away on a number of occasions. I take that in such good part, however, that I hope nobody here to-day will weary himself with any unnecessary genuflexions. At the same time you cannot be surprised that a great many of us have felt for a long time—and this feeling is particularly prevalent among representatives of the victims—that there has been a lack of concentrated policy and purpose in our broadcasting to Germany.
In consequence, the Germans have not taken seriously our threats of retribution and have gone on their way, murdering and committing atrocities, banking on ultimate impunity and fortified by the remembrance of our weakness towards the war criminals at the end of the last war. And here it is not only fair but important to add that in that respect the attitude of the United States Government was even weaker. It is important to add that for this reason. In this vile crisis that involves so many millions of our fellow-beings, it is absolutely vital to see ourselves as others see us. We must never forget that in German eyes all democratic policy during the inter-war period was one of unadulterated weakness of which they took advantage. It is vital to dispel that background. We have not succeeded in doing it. Where, after all, has this hang-over of the old policy got us in three and a half years? In the eyes of the victims, nowhere. In their eyes, and in mine, it has been bankrupt from the start. In their eyes it has not paid 1s. in the pound. After ten years of Hitler and three and a half years of war there has been, in their eyes, no change of German heart except for the worse.
Well then, what is to be done? I think the answer is a fairly simple one. Cannot we change our tone as the Russians are really changing theirs; and for the same reason? It is wrong, and because it is wrong, it has failed. I would venture to urge that we should, anyhow for the time being, dispense with the soft sawder and strike out boldly with a new policy and new voices. And, if it is asked, What is the new policy? I would venture, again with great deference, to define it as something very simple. I ask for two things. I ask that henceforth the consideration of the interests of the victims should be the. main, though of course not the only, criterion of our broadcasting in German; and secondly, I ask that we should drop conciliation until the Germans drop atrocities.
I now venture to suggest to your Lordships, again very tentatively, how I think this might be accomplished. At present I think our broadcasting in German occupies something like five hours a day—or just short of it—and again, from the standpoint of the victims, which I am trying to present to you to-day, that has been largely a waste of time. I venture to suggest that we should cut it down by half and concentrate it; that we should improve its quality and diminish its quantity. I further venture to suggest that we should distribute the balance of the time to countries who need it more and who will give us a better return. I suggest that we should transfer part of our investment to the occupied countries, remembering always that we cannot expect them to hope for ever. Therefore let us give them all we have got, or anyhow all we can spare. To make this possible I suggest that, for the lime being at any rate, we should cut down, perhaps even cut out, the many confused and confusing categories of broadcasts to Germany to which I have often listened. At various times we broadcast to German soldiers, to women, to workmen, to Catholics, to farmers and peasants, to seamen and airmen; one ends by losing count and direction. Cannot we, I ask, dispense, at any rate for the time being, with this complicated and cumbrous excess machinery? Cannot we simplify it? Cannot we have an abbreviated and unified transmission, and plug it at the whole German nation daily?
They are in a more receptive mood just now. Do not let us miss the chance, and

1067
do not let us be frightened of being misrepresented; that will happen in any case. No one in this country has ever suggested the extermination or annihilation of the German people. I see with a certain grim amusement that the Prime Minister and President Roosevelt have been having their share of that old libel. Let us by all means and every means tell the German people that it is a libel, a libel designed to get them deeper into crime and punishment. Tell them that the remedy is in their own hands, and that it is not a very difficult one; but tell them, too, that retribution—the lady with the limp—is not class-conscious, and will not recoil before numbers, however great, if really guilty. Tell them every night that if they lie awake they can hear her footfall in the darkened streets, and tell them the addresses at which she will call. Tell them what their fellows and friends and relatives have been doing in every country, great and small, from Russia to Luxemburg. Believe me, you can get a result in that way, and I know a little of what I am talking about. For some time during the last war I was head of the Prisoners of War Department, and a great many of my acquaintances have told me subsequently that, when they were being particularly maltreated, they found the means to say, perhaps to a guard or sometimes even to the Commandant, "I suppose you know that you are on our list?" They have told me that that very rarely failed to produce an effect.
I suggest, however, that we should go further than that, and that we should not only name fresh culprits but include fresh categories. For instance, I should like to see included among those proclaimed as liable to the penalty of death all those engaged in the German policy of starving whole peoples to death, as in the case of Belgium and Greece. I think you might save hundreds of thousands of lives in that way, when things begin to go worse for the Germans. "Depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight it concentrates his mind wonderfully," said Dr. Johnson, and what is true of two weeks is true of two months or two years, provided a man knows that it is a dead certainty that he is going to be hanged. I say that you can concentrate the German mind, but only by a
1068
policy of concentration. We seem to me so far to have followed rather a policy of diffusion, and that means confusion. I have often been accused of being a pessimist as regards Germany, but I think it is clear that I am a greater optimist than some of our broadcasters, because I maintain that you can make the Germans protest against their own instincts; and, as I said before, when that is done the battle is half won. But I think that that can be done only by new methods, and not by perseverance in the old methods. I believe that perseverance in those old methods will lead only to the brief picture painted by an early saint of an earlier invasion of the German barbarians: "Nothing was left," he wrote, "but the sky and the earth."
Of course, what I am proposing does not exclude many other things as well, such as the extension of asylum, which I should very greatly welcome; but we all know perfectly well that that is only a palliative, and touches only a corner of the problem. You cannot transport and lodge whole peoples. Moreover, the Germans will not let the people go. Does anybody really suppose that they will be; anxious to release upon the world a cloud of witnesses of atrocities? No; they will be more inclined to murder them. I regret to say that we make that more likely still when we tell them on the air that only those identified by eye-witnesses will be punished. I confess that I shuddered when I heard that, and I am sure that many of the witnesses did so too. What do you expect to happen to your witnesses? Is not that a clear proof that sometimes our broadcasters do not quite realize the sort of people to whom they are talking, or else that they are still so busy propitiating the wolf that they sometimes lose sight of the lambs?
We have all been greatly heartened by the Casablanca declaration that no peace will be made with the Axis short of unconditional surrender. That is the only way to the only peace worth having. At the same time, however, that declaration immensely strengthens the argument that I have been putting to your Lordships; for, if you reject it, the Germans will go on murdering and laying waste, according to plan, until they reach the confines of their own country, and then, according to plan, they will surrender, and thus, according to plan, they will win the peace,

1069
with German territory intact and all around in ruin. I hope most earnestly, therefore, that the Government will take into consideration my minimum request. I know that it amounts to pitifully little, and I am hoping most sincerely that some members of this House will say so this afternoon; because I shall then immediately reply that that is the very reason why refusal is impossible. I know perfectly well that in official life the easiest and most convincing reasons are always the negative ones, but I hope that that will not he your Lordships' mood to-day, else nothing will be left but the sky and the earth, and the dawn to which we are all pledged will be the dawn of nothing for millions whom we might have saved. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That, in view of the systematic atrocities committed both by the Gestapo and the German Army, remedies should o be proposed before systematic extermination has gone beyond repair.—(Lord Vansittart.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord has, in eloquent language, explained the case for the punishment of all those who have been guilty of what he has properly called "systematic atrocities''; and for my part, so far from detracting in any way from or attempting to add to what he has said on the subject of these terrible crimes, I should be inclined, if I were to embark on the subject, to use even stronger language than he has done. I do wish to point out, however, certain facts with regard to the punishment of these people and the proper way of dealing with them which may not be apparent at first sight to anybody but one who has had a long legal training. Nothing is simpler, and nothing is more apt to obtain approval from an audience, than to state that your intention is that anyone guilty of cruelties, of murders and other bestialities such as those of which the Germans have been guilty, shall be punished. That is a maxim or an idea with which I thoroughly agree, but I also have another idea which I will put before the House, whether it be unpopular or popular, and for which I am prepared to contend anywhere; and that is that this country has to take steps to see that, in the punishment of people who are believed to be guilty of these crimes, we do not punish
1070
the innocent in the belief that they are guilty.
The noble Lord poured scorn on somebody who appears to have said that evidence of eye-witnesses must be produced before you can punish anyone. Well, I dare say that particular sentence went too far, but what does the noble Lord mean? Does he mean that you can punish people without evidence at all, and that if you come across Germans in Belgium who are wearing or have worn the German uniform, you are to jump to the conclusion that those persons have been guilty of terrible atrocities and must be punished by death? Well, I do not know what he means in that respect, but all I can say is that that would not be my view.
LORD VANSITTART: Perhaps, just to put that straight and make quite clear what I mean, may I say that I only meant that that is not the sort of thing which it is advisable to broadcast to Germany if you wish to produce a deterrent effect? It is not the principle I object to, it is only the method of transmission to Germany and the occupied countries.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am glad to hear my noble friend's qualification of what I thought was the implication to be gathered from what he said. However, without now associating the noble Lord with the proposition that I am objecting to, I wish to make it quite clear that in my view this country cannot, in accordance with its ancient traditions, accept the view that we punish people unless we are satisfied that they are guilty of these terrible atrocities. But let me point this out. The noble Lord, I think, would have no ground for objecting to my stating my own conclusion from what he has said in such moving terms. My conclusion is that his view involves the punishment of millions of Germans for having, under the orders of their superior officers, committed these detestable crimes—not less than millions. The whole of the Gestapo, all the soldiers who have been involved in the systematic starvation, horrible though it is, of people in Greece, in Yugoslavia, in Belgium, and in Holland, as well as in parts of France—all over Europe where their feet are to be heard resounding on the cobble stones—all those soldiers would be guilty, I think, if we are to apply Article 47 of the German Military Code in its strictness. I am well acquainted

1071
with this section and have considered its effect on what we can do. It would be just as difficult to apply that and to bring these people to justice as if we applied the English law on the subject in so far as there is jurisdiction to try people for crimes committed abroad. But I am for the moment only pointing out that nothing short of millions is the number that the noble Lord suggests have been guilty, and whom we are to bring to justice.
He observed that in the debate which I had the honour of opening before your Lordships in November of last year there were statements made which were regarded as suggestions that only what I think he called the "big shots" were to be subjected to the death penalty or any other penalty in respect of these crimes. Well, as the noble Lord seemed to be aware, that is a complete mistake. I certainly did not say so, and I did not hear anybody else say so. The argument which I put tentatively before the House in the hope that the Government might be persuaded to accept it was this, and if your Lordships will pardon me I will repeat it in a few words. Most of these crimes have been committed in the East of Europe. The people who are being or have been murdered are Poles and Russians and Greeks and other people in the East, and it is the countries whose nationals have been so destroyed, and destroyed on their own respective territories, who are primarily concerned with punishing these crimes. In other words, I was suggesting that you should let the National Courts of Russia, Poland, Greece and the other countries concerned be responsible.
Let it be left to them to apply their own laws against these people who have been guilty in their lands of murders. Let them apply their own penalties, whatever they may be. In many countries, it is not the death penalty at all, even for murder; it is something short of that. Those countries have got their own ideas of evidence, which differ very largely from our own, and perhaps are very much better suited to the particular cases which they will have to deal with. Let all those cases be tried by the National Courts; and we have quite a small number of cases with which we as a nation are concerned—namely, cases where our own nationals have either been murdered or have suffered serious injuries which our
1072
Courts can deal with if they are given jurisdiction—which, I pointed out, they must be given—to try cases where these things have occurred elsewhere than on the soil of Britain. Because, as I pointed out in the House an English Judge has no right at present—I am hoping that the Government will alter it very soon—to try a German who happens to have brutally killed any number of British people on the soil of Germany.
That was the main thing which was in my mind, and which I know is in the mind of many other jurists who have carefully considered it. If that is done it is quite true there will be far more than a million people who might be tried before these National Courts, but it will be for the National Courts to deal with them, to get such evidence as they can—and probably the evidence is to be found on their own soil—and as I say, to apply such rules of evidence as they think are just. But for my part I stand for this, that if we are going to try people here, either in a British Court or an International Court which we are responsible for, we must try people according to English law, except to this extent, that jurisdiction must be given to empower them to try these various people, although the actual criminal acts have not been committed on British soil. That is my view. I do not know how far it coincides with that of the noble Lord who has moved this Motion, but I know that a number of people who have had a training in English law do agree that that is the proper course for this country to adopt.
But now, I want to add two very short observations on that point. It was suggested by various people, including my noble friend Lord Crewe, whom I see sitting opposite, that it would be better, having regard to what most people consider as the rather troublesome form of English law, that these criminals should be tried by Military Courts. There I want to make a distinction and make it quite clearly. Two things may be intended. One is that we should leave all criminals to be tried by Courts Martial, by Martial Law, and the other is that they should be tried by what are more generally described as the rules of Military Law. Punishment by Martial Law is not punishment by law at all. Law has got nothing to do with it. Those who are engaged in administering Martial Law are engaged in doing something which is so illegal

1073
that our British law has to give them an act of indemnity afterwards in respect of it. You find no laws applicable to such a case. They can take any evidence they like, and convict and punish by any sentence they please.
There is, however, something quite different. There is the Military Law of this country which is to be found chiefly in the Army Act, but that does not help you in this matter because there is nothing about such crimes as we are dealing with here. There is nothing in the Army Act which will allow you to punish a German whom you have caught and who has been guilty of a crime against a British soldier or civilian. It is not so abroad. In such countries as Poland and Russia they have got a Military Law to deal with cases of that kind, and they can very readily say: "We do not need to go to our Courts. Our Military Courts under our own Military Law have got power to deal with these cases." We have not. So really the alternative before you is to say that punishment here must be inflicted either by a Court of Law, according to our rules and our system, or it can be left to be punished by what, to a lawyer, is not law at all—namely, by the Martial Law of the soldiers who are charged with the matter.
I only want to point this out. If you are going to say, "Let it be done by Martial Law," I do not know what the result will be in practice. There may be a great many cases, and you may find the greatest reluctance among British officers to be engaged for years, perhaps, after the "Cease fire" has been sounded, in trying numbers of Germans for these various offences. In our law we can get evidence, as a rule, by various methods. We have definite rules with regard to it. I do not know how a Court, constituted to administer Martial Law, sitting, say, in Paris or Geneva, or wherever you choose to fancy it, is going to get any evidence at all with regard to a crime committed, it may be, in Breslau or Leipzig or somewhere a long way off. How are they to get the people, how are they to be supported, and in what gaol are you going to put all the people before you try them? There are countless difficulties, because the thing has never been worked out, from the point of view of Martial Law in starting to investigate cases against hundreds, thousands, and it may
1074
be even a greater number of criminals whom you desire to punish.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): May I ask the noble Viscount a question? I gather the suggestion is that when atrocities have been committed in occupied territories—Poland, Belgium, or Russia—the offenders should be tried by the law of the country where the atrocities were committed.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Precisely.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Suppose an atrocity is committed on a Belgian. Russian, or Pole on German territory, how would the noble Viscount suggest the matter should be dealt with?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am obliged to my noble friend for asking the question. The answer depends, of course, on a question of foreign law. In a great many of these countries on the Continent the Courts have already got jurisdiction for trying all crimes committed against nationals of their own country. In other words, if a Pole is killed on Russian soil or German soil, the Polish Courts have jurisdiction to try the criminal, if and when they capture him, for that offence. It is not so in England. The present jurisdiction of our Courts is limited to what we call the venue, which goes back to ancient English history. We do not have anything to do, generally speaking—with one or two exceptions, which are not material—with any crimes committed on foreign soil. Our Courts have no jurisdiction, but tire crime is the same, and I see no objection at all to au Act of Parliament saying that these crimes shall be subject to the jurisdiction of British Courts if, and so far as, the victims are nationals of this country. That would not mean we could try a man here for murdering a Frenchman outside this country. It is our own nationals that the State ought, and is entitled if it pleases, to protect by providing that a National Court shall try cases in which they are the victims.
I am afraid I have been led to say a little too much on that point, and I do not want to take up any unnecessary time. I would like to say this before coming to my final observation. I agree with so much that my noble friend Lord Vansittart has said that I should be most unwilling to be supposed to he arguing

1075
against his general views. I also agree with a great deal that he has said about German mentality and the way to deal with them. I particularly want to say that I am not in the least arguing contrary to his views as to our propaganda, contrary to the view that firmness is the great thing we have got to exemplify in communicating with the Germans. Leaving on one side a great number of the topics with which my noble friend has dealt, I would say this. It may be that the Germans will go on committing atrocities. It may be that in some countries they will be liable to do even worse things at the moment when it becomes evident to them that they are going to lose the war. When that time comes, and they are beginning to act as they are now in Russia—namely, to evacuate important towns—it is my view that it would not be impossible, and it would be very wise, to adopt then an altogether new system of warning the Germans in charge of the proceedings in those countries that violent steps will have to be taken if they follow the course which my noble friend Lord Vansittart thinks they will take, of intensifying the process of devastation and murder. That would be a moment when Martial Law might properly be invoked both to prevent and to punish acts of the nature my noble friend suggests. At the present time they are, as he says, looting and devastating many of the occupied countries.
With regard to those offences against humanity, and of course against every rule of International Law, I think they ought to bring with them their own punishment in this way. I think there must be a restitution to the countries from which things are stolen deliberately at any time during the war, and there must be restitution to those countries at the expense of the Germans themselves. They are even now taking property away from some of the occupied countries. In Poland they have already stripped every library, every factory, except the factories used for German purposes, museums, and railway stations. They have taken where they could locomotives, rolling stock, railway lines, and the sources of materials. All these things have been taken away from Poland and are being taken away from other countries.
As I have stated before, there is no law, human or divine, whatever the
1076
result on Germany may be, which prevents us saying: "You shall restore these things to the countries from which you have taken them." If that is done as part of the deliberate policy of the Allied Powers on entering Germany, and if full restitution is made to the countries which have been despoiled, the result on Germany is bound to be a terrible retribution. The means of transport, the stock which they have relied on for competing with other countries immediately after the war, for the civilization on which they pride themselves so much, and which they have attempted to help on (as if it were possible) by stealing these things from other countries, from museums, schools and scientific institutions—all these things should be restored, and if they are restored there will be very little left for Germany for many, many years. In that way that country, which is supposed to be in charge of these mighty Herrenvolk, will indeed have suffered a punishment which, if not equal to, will approximate to the crimes which it has committed.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, no one who listened to the speech based, as that of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, was based, on the principle of consideration for the victims, could help being moved. The catalogue of atrocities which he referred to is a hideous catalogue, and we shall all agree in saying: "Woe be to the perpetrators of such brutalities." I am in whole-hearted agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, as to the grossness of the brutalities which have been committed by the Gestapo and the German Army, and I am in wholehearted agreement with him in his desire that "remedies should be proposed before the systematic extermination goes beyond repair." But while I agree as to the shocking character of the crimes committed in Germany's name, I am not wholly in agreement with the noble Lord's diagnosis of the sources of the crime. This leads me also, I fear, to a difference of judgment as to the remedies which he has recommended. As it is the remedies which are of supreme importance, and as the nature of a remedy is intimately associated with the question of on whom lies the principal responsibility, I venture to make a few observations on this all-important point.
In his Motion the noble Lord speaks of the atrocities committed by the Gestapo and the German Army. I will come to

1077
the German Army in a moment, but it is with the Gestapo and with the assassins and the gangsters that run the Gestapo that the supreme guilt lies. I was very glad that in his Motion the noble Lord, by placing the Gestapo first, laid the chief emphasis on that instrument, for it immediately reminds us that the Gestapo was the instrument of atrocities for six and a half years before the war began. It is impossible to form a just estimate of the atrocities committed by the Nazis on the nationals of other countries from 1939 to 1943 unless we also take account of the atrocities committed by the Nazis in Germany upon their fellow Germans in the years which preceded the war. Long before September, 1939, these atrocities were perpetrated against political opponents and against Jews. I took a very humble part in calling the attention of Churchmen in England and abroad, and even of statesmen in Germany, to them. As far back as May, 1934, a memorandam, prepared by legal and historical experts and one or two Churchmen and in fluentially signed, was addressed to Hitler and taken by a messenger to Berlin. It called attention to the alleged atrocities committed by the Nazis against their political opponents and Jews, and it asked for facilities for objective examination, which Goebbels then professed himself ready to welcome. It made no impression whatever, and why? Because of the silence, because of the soft-pedalling, because of the unwillingness to cause embarrassment, which for long years prevailed in most circles in England and outside Germany.
I have also in my possession reports of the inside of concentration camps in and since 1934. The tale they tell of tar speakable atrocities against Germans is fully consistent with what the Nazis have perpetrated, and are perpetrating on the largest scale, against the Poles, Yugoslavs, Czechs, and other nationals in occupied territories. It is Hitler and Himmler, the head of the Gestapo, it is Goebbels and Goering, Boorman and Ribbentrop and their partners in Nazi leaderships who have carried on and extended during the war atrocities systematically perpetrated long before it. Their reign then was, their reign now is, the reign of the assassin.
The noble Lord linked the German Army with the Gestapo in responsibility. I have no doubt that for the perpetration
1078
of many of these terrible atrocities large parts of the German Army are, and must be held responsible. There are many brutish Germans; I do not deny it. The young men in that Army have been Nazi-lied and brutalized by ten years of Hitlerite training. It is from Hitler that the inspiration comes. I would add this not unimportant point. At last Himmler has got his way and has succeeded, in spite of the opposition of the German Army, in placing his own agents, the Storm Troopers and the Brown Shirts under his authority, obeying his command, in the very heart of the German Army and the German Air Force. They are ruthless in their atrocities, and they are ready to deal ruthlessly with any rising against the authority of Hitler of which the Nazi régime is beginning to be more and more afraid.
But there is something more about the German Army which is not a little significant. The most interesting evidence has come from German soldiers who have been taken prisoners of war in Russia. This evidence shows not only considerable disillusionment on the part of the soldiers, but also an increasing revolt in the rank and file of the German Army against Hitler. I could give your Lordships quotations from letters and speeches from prisoners of war, from resolutions passed in the camps of prisoners of war in camps in Russia, all tending this way. Let me give you an example. Here is part of an appeal to the German Army from German officers who are prisoners of war, dated last March:
"We have now reached the point when the hooligans of the S.S. and the Gestapo set the tone for the Army and our forces, the nation's defenders, have been degraded to the position of a tool of a man and his party."
Then it goes on:
"It is necessary to take up the struggle before it is too late, before Hitler has driven you to the wall. Form a front against the creators of the Nazi Party and the Gestapo in the Armed Forces. Remember that you have weapons."
Here is another appeal from 805 German private soldiers, prisoners of war in Camp 74, also in March, 1942. It is signed by every one of the prisoners with their regimental number and position. It says:
"Why is it that the war continues? Who is driving million after million to the front line where, in spite of our wishes, hundreds of thousands will find their death? Hitler, with

1079
his greedy gang of profiteers, is the only obstacle on the path to peace.… Down with Hitler and his criminal gang! Rise to struggle for a free Germany."
Most telling of all is a resolution unanimously adopted in prisoners of war camp 95, at a meeting of 190 German noncommissioned officers representing 1,242 non-commissioned officers in other camps. This is the text of the resolution:
"It is now clear to us, German workers, peasants, and clerks dressed in soldiers' uniforms, that the plunder, outrage, humiliation and massacre of peaceful Soviet citizens are disgracing the German Army in the eyes of civilized mankind. We ourselves have witnessed many of these atrocities. These monstrous crimes could take place because the Nazi system of Government and the German High Command deliberately let loose the basest instincts of certain officers and soldiers … We declare that the time has come for all honest Germans to realize that Hitler and his clique stand for an endless barbaric and ruthless war.… Down with Hitler and his gang! For a new and free Germany based on the great principles of democracy, liberty and international co-operation!"
I hope your Lordships noticed the reference there to atrocities.
I am not attempting to palliate atrocities. I have seen too many victims of German atrocities for that. Nor do I suggest that another nation like the British nation with a long tradition of free speech would have been as incapable of action as the non-Nazi Germans. But I do say that there is plenty of evidence that the worst of the atrocities outside Germany have been perpetrated by Brown Shirts, Storm Troops and those infested by the Nazi poison or at their mercy. It is fair to remind the noble Lord when he criticizes the silence of so many German people that Englishmen who read the Frankfurter Zeitung and the Voelkische Beobachter are bound to observe that the way in which the crimes of the Nazis, the elimination of the Jews and other atrocities, are recorded in those pages give no idea of the scale and character of the atrocities themselves. The more that Germans inside Germany know of these atrocities—I know this at first hand—the more ashamed and humiliated they are. Many have protested in spite of the machine guns. Many are in concentration camps, many have been killed, many have committed suicide, as the only form of protest possible to them.
1080
I am not attempting to deny a dark streak in the character of many Germans, but I do claim that the most powerful, the most significant portion of Germany and the German character, is not all black. I am not attempting to deny the over-docility of the Germans, but I recall that when they had no friends outside to help them in their struggle against Fascism and tyranny for six and a half years before the war, and when during the war they find themselves involved in as heavy a condemnation as the tyrant whom they loathe, their lot is not easy. Whatever our feelings about silence, we must remember that the control exercised by the Party and by the Gestapo is extremely severe and extremely clever, and that it is very difficult for the opposition to get out into the daylight, so that when one ray does appear it becomes almost a miracle.
What is the remedy, for it is on the remedies that, as the noble Lord himself agrees, everything depends and all our energies must be focused? Of one thing I am sure. The noble Lord has not threatened all Germany with destruction. To do anything of that kind is to hound on the bestial Germans to more bestialities, and to play the very game that Goebbels wants the Allies to play, by uniting the anti-Nazis and the non-Nazis with the Nazis, under the lash of despair. The war has never been popular in Germany. It is hated now. But to line up the Nazi assassins in the same row with the people of Germany whom they have outraged, is to make for more barbarism, possibly to postpone peace, and to make quite certain an incredible worsening of the conditions of all Europe when at last peace comes.
The true remedy for the atrocities is to fix the guilt of the atrocities on the real criminals, Adolf Hitler and his co-assassins, the heads of the Nazi Party, the Gestapo and their satellites, and, having boldly and plainly fixed the guilt on them, to declare as plainly that we take a very different view of other Germans who loathe the Nazi régime and repudiate the lust for world dominion, and that we appeal to them to join us from within Germany in overthrowing Hitler and all his gang. The remedy is to tell those inside Germany who are anti-Fascist that we want their help, that we will help them in getting rid of the common enemy, and that we intend that

1081
a Germany, delivered from Hitlerism, shall have fair play and a proper place in the family of Europe. If we take that line, we shall find that a more potent means for curbing and ending the atrocities committed by the Gestapo and the German Army than these which the noble Lord has recommended. I find a good augury for this policy of enlisting the enemies of Nazism inside Germany for overthrowing the Nazi tyranny, in the Prime Minister's words when he broadcast on July 14, 1941
"The best solution will be if the Nazi régime is torn to pieces by the German people themselves."
The noble Lord spoke—but he did not actually give evidence of it I think—of the Russian propaganda rather changing its tone. I should, therefore, like in conclusion to call attention to a very important and illuminating letter published in the Manchester Guardian of February 6. It was written by a prominent Russian journalist, Mr. A. Yanovsky, and cabled from Moscow. Mr. Yanovsky is a contributor to Izvestia and Red Star. The date of the letter is February 1. It could hardly have been sent without some high authority in Moscow. The writer deals with the subject of what is in the mind of the German people, and he mentions a considerable change which he asserts that that mind has lately undergone. As his evidence he gives partly letters and diaries found on the bodies of dead German soldiers, and partly what has come out in the cross-examination of German prisoners of war in Russia. It is plain that the confidence of the Germans is shaken. It is also plain that there is a great longing for an end to the suffering.
But, the writer says, there are two factors in the German mind which have to be met, and he quotes a German prisoner of war speaking thus:
"Every German understands perfectly that everything is at stake. If Germany wins the Germans will live splendidly at the expense of other nations. If they are defeated they will everywhere be destroyed … if the Russians defeat us it will mean the end of Germany."
Mr. Yanovsky observes that the German stubbornness is explained by the two motives of greed and fear, and he says that the proper way of destroying those motives is to deprive them of any basis in fact. On the one hand, it must be made absolutely clear that the German is pursuing a phantom in his greed; that
1082
world supremacy is impossible. This means bringing the overwhelming superiority of the United Nations home to the Germans, and showing that the decision in the military field is achieved beyond all doubt. On the other hand, it must also be made absolutely clear that it is the eradication of Hitler's régime and not the eradication of Germany itself that forms the United Nations' goal. There is no reason for Germany to fear the future once Hitler and his men are down on the ground. And this is how the writer puts it in a nutshell:
"It is the business of the Generals to destroy German greed. It is the business of the Statesmen to disperse German fear."
I do not think that the remedy for the atrocities, which we all loathe and abominate, could be better put than in these words.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I am sure we have all listened to the right reverend Prelate with very great interest. I wish that I had more time in which to reply to his speech, but I should like to remind him that, whilst he states that our object is to get rid of Hitlerism and Nazism, he seems to forget that we shall be unable to accomplish that Object unless we defeat Germany. The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, has been at pains to suggest how we can defeat Germany. The right reverend Prelate suggests that we should go on as before, utilizing the same form of propaganda and doing everything that we have been doing in the last year or two in that regard. The noble Lord has pointed out, however, that, in spite of the mellifluous form of the propaganda which has been sent over the air during the past year and a half, these atrocities have been growing in number and brutality all the time.
I was very curious, when I saw the wording of the Motion which the noble Lord was to move, as to what his remedy would prove to be, and I am very interested to find that he has come to a conclusion to which I myself came a year ago, and which I ventured to express in this House—namely, that the only way at thy present time in which we can induce Germany to surrender is to let the Germans know that we intend to defeat them, and that we shall go on until we do. There is, I trust, no one of our nationality in this House or outside it, who has any idea of the extermination of the German

1083
race, or anything of that kind; but this war has proved to us, as it has been proved in the past, that the only way to beat Germany is by going all out by every means in our power—by arms, by propaganda and by every other means. I therefore support most heartily the remedy which the noble Lord has suggested.
I was also very interested in the remarks of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, who misunderstood what Lord Vansittart said with regard to the trial of the criminals. I myself did not understand that Lord Vansittart intended to say that all these criminals were to be tried here, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, corrected that impression in his intervention. I would go even further than the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, who explained the procedure so clearly to us; I would say that the Governments and people of the countries in which atrocities have been committed will insist upon trying the criminals in their own countries, and according to their own procedure in their own Courts. No doubt Courts will be set up in Germany to deal with those who have treated Germans in the way in which we know some of them have been treated. One thing, however, is absolutely necessary. Before any of these things can happen, we shall have to find ourselves, together with the other members of the United Nations, in Berlin and in other centres of Europe, in full control. It is only in that way that we shall be able to secure that these criminals are tried. I foresee an Inter-Allied Council which will be set up in Germany, with headquarters in Berlin and with many functions. That one of those functions should he to ensure that these criminals are tried, and tried fairly, is, I believe, an absolute necessity. That is all that I wish to say to-day on this subject, but I am glad to have had the opportunity of saying it.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to those already spoken by those who have participated in this debate in support of my noble friend Lord Vansittart. In his vigorous phraseology, he pointed out the opportunities which were being missed in regard to the broadcast material put over to the German people and others in Europe, and he recommended that the time should be shortened and that the material itself
1084
should be more vigorous and concentrated. There is a very good illustration of the need for that in relation to the debate on the subject of Austria which took place in your Lordships' House on February 2. At midnight on February 2, the Austrian section of the B.B.C., which is a section established within the last few months, broadcast to Austria and touched on what had been said in that debate. But, prior to speaking to the Austrian people about matters which were of vital interest to them, by virtue of the fact that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, and other noble Lords had made many highly sympathetic references to the people of Austria and their sufferings, the broadcast technique employed involved a long dissertation on what was happening in Russia and in the other theatres of war, when the only thing that mattered to the Austrian people was an account of the sympathetic words which had fallen from the Leader of your Lordships' House, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, in relation to their future. They were not particularly interested in the other matter, and should have heard more vigorous words more directly spoken on a subject which was vital to them. I suggest that that shows how very necessary it is that the suggestion made with regard to broadcasting by my noble friend Lord Vansittart should be given careful consideration.
THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, I think we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, for raising this question again, although it has been debated in your Lordships' House more than once. I think we are indebted to him not only because of the great wealth of knowledge that he brings to your Lordships' debates on all subjects connected with Germany, and, I venture to say, particularly with regard to German psychology, but also because it seems to me to be very important that everybody, not only in this country but especially in Germany, should realize that this is a matter which is insistently in the mind of the British people and of the British Parliament, and, having debated the matter last autumn, we have not forgotten about it and do not intend to forget about it until justice has been done. Therefore I make no complaint of a certain amount of repetition which has inevitably occurred in this debate. Indeed, I think on the

1085
contrary it is very important that some of these things should be repeated, and that the Government and your Lordships should bear in mind and face squarely some of the difficulties that have to be faced.
If I have any complaint at all about my noble friend Lord Vansittart, it would only be this—and it is a purely personal one, for which I hope he will forgive me. I confess that I did not gather from the terms of his Motion, which are very simple and direct—namely:
"That, in view of the systematic atrocities committed both by the Gestapo and the German Army, remedies should be proposed before systematic extermination has gone beyond repair—"
I confess I did not guess from a perusal of those words that something like ninety per cent. of his speech, his very eloquent speech, would be directed towards denouncing our methods of broadcasting to Germany. Therefore, I regret to say I did not acquaint myself perhaps sufficiently with the exact nature of our latest broadcasts on this subject, as I had no intimation from my noble friend or from anybody else that this was so much in his mind. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot attempt a detailed reply to ray noble friend on that, the greater part of his speech.
But I would like to say this to him. He produced a number of quotations which he gave to your Lordships and which he denounced. I have no doubt that he selected those quotations in a manner Which he considered to be absolutely fair, but I think it is very difficult for those who have not followed the matter as closely as my noble friend has, to judge or condemn a whole broadcasting service on half a dozen extracts, necessarily short, without consideration of what went into the remaining five hours of every day, as he told us, that is allocated by the B.B.C. to broadcasts to Germany. It is like the old question, with which all Parliamentary candidates are very familiar, "What did Mr. Gladstone say in 1866?" One solitary quotation, or even half a dozen quotations, prove very little. But I assure my noble friend that I will draw the attention of the Minister of Information particularly to what he and other noble Lords have said on this subject this afternoon, and I am sore that the matter will receive very careful consideration in
1086
the highest quarters. I agree with my noble friend that it would be a real tragedy if we left the German people under any misapprehension as to what the intentions of the Allies are in this respect.
War is necessarily always harsh and brutal, and that is why the British people—though when they have to fight they fight as gallantly and as bitterly as any people in the world—hate war. But there is all the difference between acts carried out in the heat of battle and the cold-blooded, inhuman cruelties which the German Government have systematically and deliberately inflicted on the helpless civilian populations at their mercy. There is every difference between the two. And it is that practice, which has been reintroduced by the German Government from the Black Ages into so-called civilized times, that the Allied Nations, for the sake of posterity, are determined to do everything they can to extirpate. My noble friend said he anticipated that these atrocities would become worse as the Germans increasingly realized that their defeat was near, and I am afraid that what he says is very likely true. I think his great knowledge of the German people and his study of their psychology would alone entitle his view on a matter of that sort to our most respectful attention. But, as he pointed out, our experience of the last war was to that effect.
I listened to my noble friend very carefully and I listened to other noble Lords, and I think I am right in saying that they and the right reverend Prelate are really in agreement, that the only thing we can now do is to convince people in Germany that if they take part in these atrocities they will be brought to a court of justice. I think that is the view of my noble friend, it is the view of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, and of the right reverend Prelate. My noble friend Lord Vansittart expressly said that he had no desire to exterminate the German people. Nobody who knows him would think him guilty of such a desire. Lord Maugham and the right reverend Prelate were really at one with him in their object. What steps are we taking, then, to give effect to that? As your Lordships are aware, those steps were detailed so far as is now possible, by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in the debate in your Lordships' House on October 7 last.

1087
He then explained to your Lordships that two steps had already been agreed upon by the Allied Nations. The first is the proposal to set up with the least possible delay a United Nations Commission for the investigation of war crimes. The Commission will be composed of nationals of the United Nations selected by their own Governments. It will investigate war crimes committed against nationals of the United Nations, recording the testimony available, and the Commission will report from time to time to the Governments of these nations cases in which such crimes appear to have been committed, naming and identifying wherever possible the persons responsible. The Commission would direct its attention in particular to organized atrocities.
That is to say, the first essential step is already in hand, the constitution of a fact-finding Commission. Your Lordships are aware that already a great deal of work in that direction has been done by individual nations. The Poles, for instance, have a most extensive dossier containing a vast number of names and particulars of a terrible catalogue of atrocities. Other nations have similar dossiers. A great deal of the preparatory work which will be brought to the attention of this Commission has already been done by individual nations. The mere fact that this step has been taken collectively by the Allied Nations is an assurance to all of us that the United Nations are in earnest in this matter. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, in his very interesting speech to-day, reverted to the question as to what was the appropriate Court to try these cases. He gave his reasons for thinking that these crimes ought to be tried by National Courts. The Lord Chancellor made it quite clear on the previous occasion that there is nothing which has been said on behalf of His Majesty's Government that is contrary to the view expressed by the noble and learned Viscount. The actual composition of these Courts has not yet been decided. It is not a matter only for this country or this Government—it is a matter for the United Nations—and on difficult, technical, complicated matters of this sort conference between them necessarily takes some little time. I can assure my noble o and learned friend that
1088
his is one of the propositions before the United Nations at the present moment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I did not intend to say that all crimes should be tried by National Courts, only that a large number which were suitable to that form of tribunal should go before them. I quite recognize the fact, to which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack also adverted, that there are some crimes which would more properly be tried by an International Court with jurisdiction ad hoc.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I take it also that my noble friend will not object to what the Lord Chancellor said in regard to Military Courts when he pointed out that it was a perfectly well-established International Law that the laws of war permits a belligerent commander to punish by means of his Military Courts any hostile offender against the laws and customs of war who may fall into his hands wherever be the place where the crime was committed. All these questions concerning the appropriate court are before the United Nations at the present time, and there is no further statement which I can make on the matter beyond what has been already said. The other most important announcement by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack on October 7, of which I must remind your Lordships because it has not been mentioned this afternoon, was that the apprehension of these criminals would not be postponed until the Treaty of Peace but would form a part of any Armistice. That is a decision of the utmost importance. If a similar decision had been taken during the last war I do not think we should have had the fiasco which we did have and which has been mentioned by noble Lords to-day.
Therefore we can say that this House is unanimous on the point that these individuals who can be proved to have been guilty of these atrocities must be brought to justice. So far as I am aware, nobody speaking for His Majesty's Government or for any other of the United Nations has suggested that the persons to be apprehended should be confined to a few important individuals. On the contrary, the declaration, as I understand it, applies to all, high and low, so long as they can be proved to have been guilty of these atrocities. That is a point I should like to

1089
make clear. As to what the noble Lord said about eye-witnesses, surely he will agree with me when I say it is not always necessary to have an eye-witness to prove that a man is guilty of an atrocity. If, for instance, it is proved that a man was in charge of a particular camp for a certain period of time, and it can be proved that during that period atrocities were committed in that camp, then surely that man can be held responsible for these atrocities. I can assure my noble friend that the evidence which has been already collected in regard to a great many of these atrocities is very impressive. The point on which we are all agreed is that the guilty, whether high or low, must be apprehended and punished.
I do not propose to enter at length into the question raised by the right reverend Prelate of the responsibility of non-Nazi Germans. I should agree with him that every one of these cases must be tried on its individual merits. But I do think he would be misleading us if he suggested that the German nation as a whole had no responsibility for what has happened. After all, we have to remember that ten years ago Germany had a democratic Republic, and it has been transferred into a Nazi régime, and that in the land of a people who used to boast themselves to be the most educated and civilized in Europe. I find it impossible to exonerate the German nation as a whole from responsibility for that. But, having said that, I agree with the right reverend Prelate that so far s it is a question of trial by Courts and punishment by them, individual responsibility for the crimes committed must he found. Let the German nation realize that this is matter on which the Allies are in deadly earnest.
Surely the present condition of the war should cause them to reflect deeply on the matter. They are, as the noble Lord said, losing the war. They have been defeated in unparalleled disasters by the Russian Armies. They are being driven out of Africa. Great British and American Armies are massing for the assault on the Continent of Europe. Every day more ships, more aircraft, more tanks, more men are at the disposal of the Allies. The day of retribution is being brought near. The question which every German soldier must now ask himself is simply this: When Germany is conquered do they want to be treated according to the rules of civilized warfare as soldiers who have
1090
surrendered, or do they want to be treated as criminals? Those men, high or low, who have been active participants in the nameless horrors of which the Nazi régime is guilty will be treated with the utmost severity. We have learnt our lesson. There will be no repetition of the fiasco after the last war when all the German war criminals were allowed to escape. These criminals, whether they be big men, or whether they be small men, will be sought out. The future of posterity demands that they shall not be allowed to escape. Wherever they go there shall be no refuge for them here on this earth. Their only refuge will be in hell.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I think there has been perhaps a little misunderstanding about this debate. I thought that my Motion had made it clear, and I again made it quite clear at the beginning of my speech, that I was not proposing to discuss the past nor indeed to discuss the methods or machinery of punishment. What I said I was trying to do was to look ahead because I thought that worse was coming. Now I said that last year, and I said that the remedy for it was to intensify our propaganda. I am only saying the same thing again a year later, and asking for the same thing again, because I can see no other means of preventing the worst that is yet to come. I think the noble Earl used rather too strong an expression in saying that I was denouncing our propaganda. I was merely asking for an intensification of it. I think that is a very different thing. He also said—and I think it was quite just criticism—that I had selected a number of quotations. That is perfectly true. I have a great many more, but I did not want to inflict them on your Lordships, but I did say, and I think quite clearly, that it was not only a case of those excerpts. I alluded to the broad impression left on my mind after three and a half years of close observation. I generalized as well as specified. The noble Earl assures me that that point will be looked into, and I am very amply satisfied that that should be so. I hope perhaps this year I shall be a little more lucky than I was last year.
Before I sit down I would reply to one or two points made by the right reverend Prelate. If I understood him rightly, he sought to establish some kind of difference between the Germany Army and the

1091
Gestapo on the ground that the Gestapo had had a six years' run from 1933 to 1939 and that the Army had not. To that I would answer very briefly that the Army had its day, and it was a very long one, from 1914 to 1918, and I think on that score we may very nearly call it a day. He then proceeded to read us some extracts from letters he had received or resolutions moved by German soldiers in 1942. My only answer to that is: Where were those letters and resolutions in 1939, 1940 and 1941? For my part when the devil is sick I am never very greatly in favour of sending him hothouse grapes, though I will willingly allow him some sour ones. I think in making his case the right reverend Prelate overlooked the fact that, apart from the four years 1914 to 1918, more men of the Left were killed under Weimar than during the six years from 1933 to 1939, and that all those murders took place not only with the connivance but at the instigation of the German Army. Finally, I think that the German Army is the German people and that even the Weimar showing alone rather disposes of his case; but I do not wish to argue any further. I express my gratitude to the noble Earl who replied to my Motion and I hope that intensification of the propaganda will be seriously considered. This I put forward simply because I did not think anybody could suggest anything better to be done. Anyhow, I have not heard of anything better this afternoon. I beg to withdraw the Motion
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

AN AMERICAN MAGAZINE ARTICLE
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The Notice was as follows:
To call attention to the article published in the current issue of the American. Mercury under the title "Our Government's case for Expediency," apparently purporting to reflect the views of the State Department, and intimating that "there are most likely to be deals with other Darlans not only in France but in other Axis-dominated countries, and even with the Prussian Junkers"; and to ask whether His Majesty's Government will give an assurance that there is no foundation for these disturbing allegations.]
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the attention of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has been drawn to the article in the American Mercury to which the noble Lord's question refers. As the House will be aware, the American Mercury is an unofficial publication, and the article in question no doubt represents the personal views of its author. It is clearly not for His Majesty's Government to comment on the statements of American journalists regarding the policy of their own Government, nor to answer for the United States Administration. But the noble Lord will doubtless warmly welcome the President's recent description of the Casablanca meeting as the "unconditional surrender" meeting.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I hope that answer will serve to allay the considerable suspicions and uneasiness that were certainly aroused by that article, and will put them at rest. I also venture to hope that the American Mercury will make no more such suggestions.
House adjourned.