GERMANY AND THE HITLERITE STATE.

HL Deb 10 March 1943 vol 126 cc535-82

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER had the following Notice on the Paper: To call attention to the passage in M. Stalin's speech of 6th November, 1942, in which he said that it was not Russia's aim "to destroy Germany for it is impossible to destroy Germany" … but that "the Hitlerite State can and should be destroyed"; and to ask whether His Majesty's Government in their war aims make the same distinction between Germany and the Hitlerite State; and to move for Papers.

The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the question which I am to ask His Majesty's Government to-day has a military significance, for, as I shall hope to show, it has much to do with the hastening of victory. In order to avoid all misunderstanding, I should like to say at the start that I am as clear as any man about the necessity of the complete and final defeat of the present German military machine. But my question also has much to do with the pattern of European order after the war. It raises the issue of war aims and the character of the cause for which we and our Allies are contending. It is not a matter of good or bad Germans; it is a matter of creeds, creeds which pass the frontiers of nations, and of the faith by which the Allies are to overcome the Hitlerite State and the Hitlerite system, wherever found, and build for the future.

Let me introduce my question, which is based on a statement by Premier Stalin, by giving the context. It was made by one of the most remarkable figures and one of the greatest Generals in world history. To his marvellous leadership, coupled with the unbounded courage and devotion of his troops, no tribute can be too high. It occurs in a speech which he made in Moscow on November 6 last, on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Soviet revolution. At the end, after a reference to Mr. Churchill's visit, which, he said, "established complete and mutual confidence between the leaders of the two countries," Premier Stalin concluded by speaking of "our tasks." He said that every one of them was centred in the destruction of the Hitlerite régime in all its aspects. Then he set out the first task. He said: In an interview with a Turkish General Erkilet published in a Turkish newspaper Cumhuriet, Hitler said: 'We shall destroy Russia so that she will never be able to rise again.' That would appear clear, though rather cynical. Premier Stalin said: We have no such aim as to destroy Germany, for it is impossible to destroy Germany, just as it is impossible to destroy Russia; but the Hitlerite State can and should be destroyed, and our first task in fact is to destroy the Hitlerite State and its inspirers. A few sentences later he said: Comrades, we are waging a great war of liberation. We are not waging it alone, but in conjunction with our Allies. It will end in our victory over the vile foes of mankind, over the German Fascist imperialists. That is the context of my question.

A statement on similar lines was made in an Order of the Day to the Red Army by Premier Stalin, on 23rd February, 1942, which stamps on the "stupid lie" that it is the Red Army's aim to exterminate the German people and to destroy the German State. Premier Stalin says: It is very likely that the war for the liberation of our Soviet land will result in the ousting or destruction of Hitler's clique. We would welcome such an outcome, but it would be ridiculous to identify Hitler's clique with the German people and the German State. The experience of history shows that Hitlers come and go, whereas the German people and the German State remain. My question is very simple: Do His Majesty's Government make the same distinction as does Premier Stalin between the Hitlerite State and the German people in their prosecution of the war and their view of our war aims? I am not suggesting that the Government would have any difficulty in replying that the distinction which Mr. Stalin draws they also draw, but I do suggest that a public announcement by the Government, in emphatic, unhesitating terms, would be particularly valuable now.

I suggest that it is of urgent importance that, before the Western offensive begins, those resisting in. Germany and in occupied countries should know with whom the Allies will collaborate. There is a real uncertainty in occupied and satellite countries on this vital point, and the recent experience of North Africa shows good reason for doubts. A mere anti-German slogan is Lot enough for the occupied countries, and in Germany, as I shall hope to show, it actually helps the enemy. We must show a positive conception of the future of Europe and of the principles on which a future order will be built, a conception uniting the free men of Europe in all countries with the free men of America and the Dominions and China against the Nazi and Fascist tyranny which now grips Germany, Italy and Japan, and everywhere else where it raises its monstrous head.

I want to call attention to the importance of making this distinction from three points of view. First of all, I desire to remind your Lordships of the reality of the distinction before the war; secondly, I propose to give evidence of its continuance and development as opposition during the war, and to show how much the opposition could do if help came from outside; thirdly, I want to underline the vital importance of the distinction for the whole pattern of Europe after the war.

I begin with the six years before the war. It so happens that I was myself in Berlin at the outset of the Hitler régime on January 30, 1933, with German and other foreign Church friends. The general anxiety in Liberal and Christian circles was plain enough Almost at once assassinations and concentration camps began. The men who seized power were mostly criminals or of the criminal type, and, as Hitler and his collection of gangsters steadily gained control, the reign of terror grew. I dare not acquit the Germans as a whole of some guilt for accepting the Nazi régime, but the chief blame in Germany for letting the Nazis seize control lies with certain powerful anti-democratic forces, partly in military and partly in industrial circles, who betrayed their own county for their selfish ends. How little they reckoned the outcome! Nor in all honesty should we in Britain fail to recognize our own part in the general European and world responsi- bility, or forget the force of Mr. Eden's admission at Leamington in September that we, too, made many mistakes in the whole period of the twenty years because we lacked faith in ourselves and the cause we championed. And he said: Nowhere was this more evident than in the held of foreign policy.

But in spite of the cruelty and murder and of the paralysing effect—paralysing physically, psychologically, morally—of the ruthless strategy of the Nazis' oppression, vast numbers of the German people refused to bow the knee to Baal. I honour the Jews and the non-Aryan Christians, and can testify to their courage in millions of homes. Incidentally, is not the Nazi treatment of the Jews in itself an evidence of the reality of this distinction between the Hitlerite State and the German people? What other Government in German history, what other German organization besides the Nazi Party has ever tormented and murdered millions of Jews as the Nazis have done? But I rather turn to the so-called Aryan Germans — Communists, Socialists, Liberals, or other decent men who have suffered because of their revolt. It is no mere myth that hundreds of thousands of Aryans were sent to concentration camps, that thousands were executed, that the prisons were overcrowded; it is no mere myth that many hundreds, many thousands, of so-called Aryan families had the ashes of their nearest relatives cynically sent to them from prisons and concentration camps; it is no mere myth that hundreds of thousands, nay probably millions, of Aryans are now living in Nazi Germany as permanent suspects, untouchable from the Nazi point of view, trembling in face of the direct and indirect persecution of the Gestapo. When we are tempted to blame the German people for their docility, we must remember the multitude of assassins and spies.

I would remind your Lordships that the opposition that was most effective and world resounding was that of the Christian Church, Catholic and Protestant. The Catholic Church stood up, the Confessional Church stood up, and the whole world honours—who does not honour?—Martin Niemöller, Cardinal Faulhaber and their colleagues. The whole world is convinced that in the Nazis they faced the destroyers of Christianity and the enemies of God. They were not afraid to denounce the Nazi Government, not simply for interference with religious exercises, but for their denial of freedom, for their rejection of the rights of man, of the individual and of the family, for their idolatry of race and for their contempt of law. I myself was concerned from the start with the Christian opposition in Germany, and could give you many illustrations of the way in which this anti-Nazi feeling and conviction was expressed. There was no question of the reality of the distinction between the Hitlerite State and the German people then. It is a simple matter of fact that Germany was the first country in Europe to be occupied by the Nazis.

I turn to the period of the war and to the reality and development of the opposition in the past three and a half years. One of the most remarkable proofs of Hitler's expectation of opposition in wartime is a memorandum made by Himmler, the head of the Gestapo, for the senior Reichswehr Generals and officers, and issued in 1937. There is no doubt about its authenticity, and it has been published. It anticipates the existence of strong anti-Nazi forces at the outbreak of war, and gives instructions for their suppression. I will give you one or two extracts. Himmler says: In a future war we will have to deal not merely with the front of the Army on land, the front of the Navy at sea and the front of the Luftwaffe in the air. We will have a fourth battlefield to look after—inner Germany. At the beginning of the war mass arrests on an unprecedented scale will be necessary … the majority of political prisoners Will have to be shot out of hand. Again: Unless we can manage, by hook or by crook, to keep that fourth one, the home front, in check, the three other fronts, those fighting by land, at sea and in the air, will once again get the stab in the back…. This problem we must face under any circumstances, and we must have no illusions about the fact that any war in which we would neglect the internal battle ground would lead to catastrophe. Hitler and Himmler were as good as their word in the exercise of their powers against the opposition. When war broke out, mass arrests did take place. Hundreds of thousands of the opposition are in prison or in concentration camps.

But, more important from our point of view, outside the concentration camps there is an opposition continuous, very subtle, and determined. Much of the opposition has been by implication rather than direct. With our tradition of free speech we easily forget the impossibility of open criticism in a slave State. But if you recollect the method of irony, allusion and understatement in the eighteenth century, in the pages of Voltaire and particularly in Montesquieu's L'Esprit des Lois, where under the veil of Chinese history he gives a vivid description of France, and the ruin of France under the absolute monarchy of Louis the Fourteenth—if you recollect that, you will appreciate the devastating implications of writings by certain anti-Nazi German authors, widely read to-day. Much of the opposition is by sabotage in the munition and industrial factories and in other ways—listening to the wireless, passing on rumours and criticisms, making illegal prints, holding secret meetings. Part of the record of this underground opposition is to be found in the numberless executions week by week recorded in the Nazi Press. But the most conspicuous and steadfast opposition—public opposition—is offered by the Churches, Catholic and Protestant. I do not deny that the German Bishops pray for German soldiers; it is difficult to blame them for that. The astonishing fact is the volume of Church protest against the Nazi machine.

In a totalitarian State it is hard to exaggerate the significance of sermons like those of Cardinal Faulhaber, the Evangelical Bishop Wurms of Wurttemburg, and Bishop Bornewasser of Trier, or the declaration by the whole Catholic hierarchy at Fulda about human rights, or statements from the Episcopate read in all Catholic churches in most of the dioceses of the Reich. It is still harder to overlook the significance of three terrific sermons preached a year and a half ago by Bishop von Galen of Münster denouncing the Gestapo and the home Government. Just after the destruction of a large part of Münster itself by an R.A.F. raid on July 13, 1941, he said: Not one of you is sure, no matter how conscious you may be of being a most faithful citizen, the most conscientious, although your conscience may be one of complete innocence—not one of you knows when he may be dragged from his home, deprived of his liberty and shut up in the cellars and concentration camps of the Gestapo. I am taking into consideration that that could even be to-day and that it could happen to me myself. Since under such circumstances I could no longer speak publicly, to-day I want to protest publicly against continuation along this line which, according to my firm conviction, is bringing down upon men the Divine chastisement and unnecessarily leading to the misfortune and ruin of our people and country. This in the middle of a war!

Could anything be more pointed, or clearer evidence of the distinction drawn by the Catholic Church in Germany between the Hitlerite State and the German people than these words of his second sermon a week later? He said: Our soldiers will fight and die for Germany, but not for those who bring shame upon themselves by persecuting the brothers and sisters of our religious brethren. We continue the fight against the enemy outside, but against the enemy within who tortures and beats us we cannot fight by force of arms. There is only one means with which we can fight—by holding out strongly and tenaciously to the end. We must be strong and hold fast. There is no doubt about the sensation which these words caused not only in the crowded congregations which heard the preacher, but all over the land. Remember that these sermons circulate like wildfire. Bishop von Galen himself has a fleet of motor dispatch riders who see that the sermon reaches all the churches of Münster and the diocese. Other sermons by other prelates preaching on these lines, declarations from the Church, and the new pastoral letter issued just before Christmas by Bishop von Preysing of Berlin condemning the Nazi régime and warning the country of the terrible wrongs being done to the Jews—these have been, and are, distributed through Germany and seized and read in a way with which no other literature can compare. It is a very notable, a very systematic, a very successful portent, this portent of the anti-Government literature of the Church.

I do not want to exaggerate the capacity of the opposition in face of the Nazi despots. Let us never forget they have no arms while the Nazi régime is ruthless. Spies and assassins are everywhere with their machine guns and their revolvers. But no wise statesman will ignore this opposition. They have no weapons, but they have a great faith in the possibility, once given help from outside, of most vigorous action. Hitler does not ender-estimate the force of his opposition. He began by denouncing it at the end of 1941 after Russia and America had come into the war and when the winter campaign began to go wrong. At Berlin, on December 11, 1941, he spoke thus: At a time when thousands of our best men, the fathers and sons of our people, are falling, no individual at home who blasphemes the sacrifice of the front can reckon with remaining alive. No matter what camouflage covers any attempt to disturb this German front, to undermine our people's will to resist, to weaken the authority of the Government or sabotage the efforts of our home front—the guilty one will fall. Note the word "camouflage". Then there was the latest denunciation by Hitler just a fortnight ago when, at Munich, he said: In these coming months … the Party will have … ruthlessly to destroy saboteurs. The Party have to enlighten in places where enlightenment is being rejected. It has to break terror with tenfold terror. It has to extinguish traitors, whoever they be and whatever their design, who follow aims hostile to the people.

The Press in recent months have made it plain that many purges have been carried out in the last year and the last six months. The Times of January 2 recorded that, as a precaution against revolt, thousands of suspects were arrested in Germany between October and January, and that in December hundreds of persons long detained in concentration camps were removed to still closer confinement. The latest report of February states that there is a nation-wide Gestapo campaign, involving the imprisonment of thousands of all parties and the execution of hundreds. And that we may be under no doubt as to the seriousness that Hitler attaches to this opposition, let me remind you of the further precaution which he has taken indicating his fear of the home front. While he keeps the German Army on foreign soil and infiltrates it with his S.S. and S.A. spies, almost the whole of the S.S. and S.A. troops, nearly a million personal devotees, are stationed by him at home to guard against and to crush the first signs of revolution. Nor must we forget, when we are considering the opponents and enemies of Hitler within the Reich, the tremendous danger to the régime which is involved in the presence of 7,000,000 foreign men doing forced labour, imported from occupied countries, separated from their homes, working like slaves for an enemy they abhor. Certainly they are unarmed and not to be overrated, but who would deny the potential value of an army of hostile people if only aid could reach them from outside? We must not overrate it, but we must not ignore it.

Hitler knows that his only hope of appeasing the opposition is to persuade them that they as well as he are threatened by destruction by the Allies, that the Allies make no distinction between Nazis and other Germans, and regard all Germans as black. That is why Hitler sounds the note so constantly to-day, "To be or not to be for Germany." That is why he represents himself as the sole barrier against what he is pleased to describe as the Bolshevist menace; that is why he is pursuing his ruthless tactics now in the extermination of the Jews so that Germany as a whole may be involved in the consequences. Though the Jews are deported before they are killed, deported outside the Reich to be killed in Poland and the East, and though it is only Nazis (and not only German Nazis) who kill them, Hitler dare not arm the anti-Nazis for fear of revolt. So our policy should be the very opposite to Hitler's. He says to the Germans: "I am the only barrier between you and destruction." We should say, on the contrary: "Remove Hitler and you will be saved. Russia has no wish to destroy you, America has no wish to destroy you, Britain has no wish to destroy you, no wish to identify the German people with the Nazis." We must make the distinction plain and so hasten victory. We must make it plain in the interests of our cause, and of truth. I do not hesitate to say that those who fail to distinguish between Nazis and other Germans in England or elsewhere, who say that there is no difference, are playing into Hitler's hands.

So, remembering that the opposition has little power by itself, that anyone who raises a finger in opposition does so at the risk of his life, remembering that opposition can sabotage, can depress, can protest but cannot overthrow Hitler and Himmler and the rest unless aided from outside, we should, I believe, declare in unequivocal terms that a Germany that has overthrown Hitler and all he stands for, a Germany that repudiates all desire for military domination and renounces Hitler's crimes and anti-Jewish laws and Hitler's gains—that such a Germany can be saved and will be welcomed to a proper place in the family of nations. Again, giving them that moral encouragement, we must speed on the day of their liberation with the material support of Armies and armed assistance as well.

I have one final point, in a sense the most important of all: that is, the distinction between the Hitlerite State and the German people from the point of view of the future of Europe. The present war is not a war of nation against nation. It is a revolutionary war, it is a war of faiths in which the nations themselves are divided. It is necessary to leave no doubt which creed and which leaders in any nation we, the Allies, are ready to support. Our banner is the banner of liberty, democracy and Christian civilization against slavery, tyranny and barbarism. We must choose, and let the whole world know we choose, between the Hitlerite State for all Europe and the rule of freedom for all Europe, between Europe as "a prison of nations," as Mr. Stalin describes Hitler's New Order, and Europe as a home, with freedom and food for every member of the family. We must make the choice as clear as crystal. There is no time to lose. If we do not make it plain to-day to lovers of freedom everywhere, though we win the war in a military sense, we lose the war of faiths and help the establishment of Fascism in Europe. There is a problem of Europe. It is very real and very exacting. Hitler thought to solve it by his New Order, by the enslavement of nations to a dominant Germany. His solution was that of the destroyer. That the life of Europe requires a new pattern it would be foolish to deny. Europe was divided before the war; it is divided now. The peoples of Europe are not prepared to go back to the old pattern. We, the Allies, have a duty to show the nations that there is an alternative to Hitlerism in sane democracy built on freedom and justice, having respect for the individual and for the family, and in line with what is generally known as the Christian tradition.

The key to the solution of the problem of Europe, which is fundamentally spiritual and moral, and then social and industrial and concerned with the character of the industrial society, is to be found in a nobler faith and in freedom for all nations living in sufficiency and justice together, not in the domination of any master race. So I claim that we must distinguish between the Hitler State and the German people for the sake of the people of Europe. Free Germany and free Europe from the rule of Hitler, and you are doing priceless service to both. Indeed the problem of Germany never will be solved except as part of the problem of Europe. Concentrate on Germany to the exclusion of the other nations in Europe, impose restrictions on Germany which have no relation to the future of Europe, and you are only deepening the divisions, sharpening the nationalisms, fomenting intrigues and preparing for a further catastrophe twenty years hence. But look at Europe as a whole, plan your transport system, your civil aviation system, your educational system, your wireless and your communications system, and not least your system of armaments, for Europe as a whole, tell the German people that they and all other nations must have such and such restrictions imposed for the sake of Europe as a whole, then the situation, moral and psychological, will have changed.

I apologize to your Lordships for claiming your attention for so long, but at this moment, after the successes in North Africa, after the wonderful achievements of the Soviet troops in Russia, just before the great Western offensive, can it be wrong to consider the faith by which the Allies should be fired and to press the matter of this distinction between the Hitlerite State and the German people? I can only hope that I have given some evidence of the reality of an opposition in Germany, and of the necessity for encouragement and assistance if it is to carry out its own principles and to be of value to the cause. I also hope that I may have given some ground for believing that on drawing this distinction, and making as crystal clear as possible the choice between Fascism and freedom, between tyranny and democracy, the future of Europe depends. I beg to move.

LORD FARINGDON

My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships who have listened to the brilliant moving speech of the right reverend Prelate will agree with me that no apology was called for. I think you will feel, as I do, that it is very difficult to follow that speech, that there is very little to be added, and that what one can add cannot be added so eloquently as the right reverend Prelate put it. Therefore I rise only to express briefly the support of my noble friends on these Benches for the motion which he has raised in your Lordships' House to-day. Our Russian Ally is probably the most realistic politician in the world to-day, and if, therefore, at the height of this struggle, at a time when his own people are bleeding and suffering, at a time when Russia is exposed to the ultimate horrors of war, Mr. Stalin has thought it worth while to make this declaration, I suggest it may be worth while, may indeed be extremely important, that we should inquire into his reasons.

I believe that Mr. Stalin is, in fact, following a tactic which Hitler has used and the efficacy of which his successes have shown only too clearly. Hitler has repeatedly backed his military adventures with appeals to those elements, in the countries which he aims to destroy, which are hostile or unfriendly to their own Governments. It is, after all, a commonplace to-day that no nation is homogeneous. Every nation has its opposition in this war, which, as the right reverend Prelate has said, is not a national war. Every nation is divided, and we may count ourselves lucky that our own minority is such a small and such a feeble one. But the minority in Germany, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, is not such a small and not such a feeble one. This technique of appealing to minorities is a new one and it is one which I believe it is worth our while to study and to follow. It is, if believe, clearly in following this technique that Mr. Stalin has thought it worth while to outline at this crisis of the war his peace aims. I think we in this country have been too easily inclined to accept the myth spread by Hitler himself and by his German propaganda that Germany is an absolutely united country, unanimously inspired, to use Hitler's favourite expression, with a fanatic will to victory. They are not all fanatics. There are sceptics, even heretics amongst them, and in spite of the enormous machinery of oppression, the tremendous efforts of internal propaganda in Germany, which has been found necessary and which is in itself a proof of the opposition to the régime in Germany, there remains a strong opposition of which in peace-time we had repeated evidence, and of which evidence continues to reach us even in war-time.

Obviously one does not have an Inquisition where there are no heretics, if I may say that with apologies to the occupants of the Bishops' Bench. What is the purpose of the S.A. and S.S. formations, armed forces existing side by side with the regular Army, charged not with fighting the foreign enemy, but with combating the enemy within? They are organizations for supplying the Gestapo, which itself is an organization for terrorizing the terrorists, for keeping the police force of Germany up to the mark, for keeping it pure in Nazi ideals. Compare that situation with our own. How small is our machinery here for dealing with traitors and how small, happily, is the number whom we have had to intern here. The right reverend Prelate quoted Himmler and I cannot resist taking another quotation from Himmler's statements. Himmler said: The entire country must be occupied by thirty Death's Head Divisions. No Death's Head Division man is ever to patrol the streets alone. What should we think if the Home Secretary were to make a statement of that kind about our police force? Surely, my Lords, we should conclude that we were on the verge of a revolution, and I submit that such a conclusion would be right and justified.

Again, I say, compare the position here and in Germany, and immediately there will emerge the difference between a nation with a genuine will to victory and a nation with an artificial will. In 1942 a document, which was dated 1941, was captured in Libya, in which the function of the S.A. and S.S. formations was outlined so that it could be explained to the Army, who apparently had become jealous of this independent armed force. And this is how it was explained. The formations must be maintained, it was said, because any regular police might be corrupted through fraternization with the working classes and other subversive elements. What an extraordinary position this does seem to expose. As I see it, Mr. Stalin perceived very clearly that the strength of the internal opposition in Germany should be measured by the machine needed to crush it. He perceived that Himmler had spoken the exact truth when he said that to neglect the internal battle would lead to catastrophe. And these utterances, to which the right reverend Prelate has referred, were intended to strengthen his allies on that front, the internal German front, to assure those people of good will in Germany that if they played their part in overthrowing the worst tyranny that has ever disgraced the history of man, then they could count after the struggle upon the hope of a decent and humane life.

I think that the right reverend Prelate has made it clear that the existence of men of good will in Germany, and men of good will in Germany in considerable numbers, cannot be disputed. Most of us have met Germans who came here before the war. Many of them escaped from concentration camps bearing on their own bodies traces of the treatment which they had received. They are only a small portion of the victims of Hitler in Germany. For Hitler and Hitlerism they have an intensity of detestation which those of us who have never experienced, in our own persons, the brutality and beastliness of this régime cannot possibly feel. We should beware, I think, of the type of German who had reached this country bringing with him at any rate some portion of his goods, and who seeks now to curry favour with us in this country by abusing his own countrymen. I think that there would now be a prima facie reason to suspect the records of such men, and some of the most notorious of them have records which we now know would not bear close inspection. Do not let us be misled by them. They are, I believe, some of the most dangerous allies of Hitler if they inspire us to confound the Nazi régime with the entire German people.

I believe—in fact it is clear—that Mr. Stalin has appreciated the importance of the internal German front. Our Government are dumb, and the natural result is that Herr Goebbels makes use of all kinds of irresponsible statements made by people in this country to frighten his own people into the ranks behind the Fuhrer. I believe the time has come—indeed it is probably past—when His Majesty's Government would be well advised to make a statement supporting and in line with that of Mr. Stalin. This is the kind of thing that Herr Goebbels says to the Germans: What will be the fate of the German people if we do not continue the struggle? Whether one says this one is a Democrat, a Plutocrat, a Social Democrat, a Communist or a Nazi, it is all the same. I appeal to His Majesty's Government to make a statement to show that it is not all the same. I have up to now placed this matter on the lowest possible ground, the ground of expediency. The right reverend Prelate combined with the ground of expediency the ethical ground. The two, I believe, go together, and we on this side of the House feel very strongly on this matter, because our own people are not fighting in this war for any advantage or profit. They believe that they are fighting for freedom and justice, and that in this matter their natural allies are those who, under far more difficult circumstances, spied upon and threatened with punishment, torture and death, uphold those ideals.

LORD VANSITTART

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has put his case in an eloquent and persuasive speech. On some points I think we shall be found to be less far apart than might have been expected. Having said that I shall direct my remarks to what really lies behind this Motion. In a recent issue of his paper, the Editor of the Economist described a debate in this House on German atrocities as being only "the old, old topic of Germans good or bad." That is a very easy line for any superior person to take when he himself is far from danger or discomfort. But it so happens that this "old, old topic" is a matter of life and death for hundreds of millions of unhappy Europeans, and I am, therefore, glad that we can have it out to-day, because the time for the attainment of wisdom may, possibly, be shorter than we think. Accordingly, I warmly welcome this motion, and in particular I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on withdrawing from it that portion of the original winch seemed to presage the retention of some part at least of the German armed forces. With regard to that great force for evil I will only say this: The German word for "Army" is Heer, and the German word for "devastate" is merely the verb of that noun, verheeren. I think that the German Army has lived down to its traditions!

Furthermore, I am in warm agreement with the right reverend Prelate in not wishing to destroy Germany. I desire only, in company with hundreds of millions of other sensible people, to destroy Germany utterly and forever as a military power; and I further desire, in the company of an equal number of sensible people, to make an end for ever of all German pretentions, intrigues and efforts to gain the economic hegemony of Europe, which is only another road to Germany's intolerable tyrannies. Subject to those trilling reservations, I welcome the survival of Germany, with one proviso only; and that is that it shall be a totally different Germany; in other words, it shall bear no relation in shape, soul, or substance, to either the Second or the Third Reich, which have brought these measureless miseries on mankind.

Even that does not exhaust the measure of my concord with the right reverend Prelate. I agree with him that there is a difference between Hitlerite Germany and the very small number of Germans who are not working for Hitlerite Germany, and the still smaller number who are actually working against Hitlerite Germany. Let us by all means, from every practical point of view, distinguish between entity and non-entity. That is exactly what I have been always trying to do. For that purpose, you must put yourself in the position of the victims. Where, the victims have cried in vain through the centuries, are these good Germans of whom we have heard so much and seen so little? Well, here is the answer. Throughout those generations, the good Germans have corresponded exactly with Euclid's definition of a point: they have position, but no magnitude. Some, indeed, have exceedingly good positions, but I cannot tell you, and none of the victims can tell you, what they have done about it. I have spent a long time looking for them with a microscope, from the practical point of view, and I have invariably found a full-stop.

Some of our hopefuls, indeed, expected them to stop the last war by a general strike; and, in spite of the demonstrable and demonstrated futility of that idea, the hopefuls bobbed up unabashed before this war and said: "Come on; let us arm the good Germans; in other words, let us make Hitler arm them by making them fight, and then you will see how quickly they will sweep him away!" That was another slight disappointment! What happened on both these occasions? These Germans have fought us like one man and seventy million tigers, and the pursuit of this carnivorous and evanescent myth has twice nearly proved as fatal to mankind as the hunting of the Snark proved to the baker. Your Lordships will recollect that he "suddenly vanished away." Reliance on the "good Germans" has twice nearly caused civilization to vanish away, and I do most earnestly beg the right reverend Prelate to take some warning by these two providential escapes.

The right reverend Prelate has attained a just eminence in a noble calling in which I should certainly never have surpassed the status of that curate who entertained an uncertain opinion of a certain egg, but I am also the first to acknowledge with humility that, if "equality" is to continue to mean equality of knowledge without equality of effort, then democracy is in a bad way. It happens that in disproof of this artificial differentiation between Germany and Hitlerite Germany, there exists an absolutely inexhaustible storehouse of material, and from it to-day I will draw but three quotations, which cover at least a good deal of the ground. The first is from Mirabeau, in the eighteenth century: "War is the national industry of Prussia." The second is from Treitschke in the nineteenth century: "A people is judged by its rulers." I shall not take it upon myself to differ from that famous or infamous German oracle. The third is from Professor Jessop in the twentieth century, and I draw this quotation from his admirable little book The Treaty of Versailles: Was it just? which I hope that everyone in this House, and indeed in every house, will read, merely in order to see the extent to which the world has been fooled by German propaganda. This is what he says: The collective and continuing responsibility of a nation for its rulers' and leaders' doings and misdoings, is an utterly indispensable condition of any stable morality in international affairs. Let me add an illustration of that very sound maxim. In the last war, hardly a voice was raised in Germany against the policy of atrocity and enslavement which was carried out by the German rulers and elders, and indeed by youth. In this war, hardly a voice has been heard against that same policy of enslavement and atrocity, which has been carried out on a far vaster scale. Even before this last whipping up there were something like 10,000,000 slaves in Germany, irrespective of the scores of millions held in bondage in all the occupied countries. And again no voice is heard in protest. Hardly a German soul bothers—not even the women. It is only a fortnight ago that the survivors of the German terror in Kharkov were saying to one of our most distinguished correspondents: "We found the arrogance of the German women even fouler than that of the men." Why are these things so? It is because, as far back as the nineties, the German nation was told that subject and conquered peoples would do most of the dirty work for them. Why did not somebody protest? Those were the piping days of peace; there was no question of Hitlerite Germany then. But they did not protest, because even then they were not averse to the idea of being a Herrenvolk. It was their idea of a higher standard of living—for themselves at the expense of others—and, in search of that higher standard of living, and firm in their own faith that "men may rise on steppingstones of their dead friends to higher things," the German nation—yes, the German nation—set out on what Field-Marshal Smuts so rightly called "Germany's second thirty years war." And, once that phrase is used and admitted, most of my case is conceded. That has brought in its train an indescribable catastrophe of human suffering. It failed, and with mighty little remorse the German nation then set out on the second half of Germany's second thirty years war with a fivefold greater train of human agony.

This time I trust that no one will be deceived when any Germans, good, bad or indifferent, start crying out because they have failed again. And I confess that this Motion gives me not too much confidence in that respect. It seems to me that the right reverend Prelate has occupied a weak position and has sought to fortify it very naturally with some Russian earthworks. And on that ground alone I somewhat regret that this Motion was brought forward, because it might easily be misinterpreted as an attempt to hamper Russian propaganda. Do let us leave to the Russians that mobility of which they have shown themselves such masters in every sphere. Premier Stalin and his people spoke the Germans fair, but practically no good Germans deserted. On the contrary, they continued to massacre and enslave the good Russians with an ever-increasing acerbity. In this long tale of horror I shall pick out only one episode, and that is the treatment of Russian prisoners in Germany. That is a horrible tale. And in that long nightmare of national inhumanity, not only the German women, but the very German children have joined. And again there is nothing new: the Germans treated their Russian prisoners practically as badly in the last war. I was for some time head of the Prisoners of War Department, and I shall not easily efface that memory. I rather doubt whether the Russians have done so either.

In any case, Premier Stalin and his people have found what I have always maintained, and that is that in order to civilize the Germans you have to beat them; and a very handsome job the Russians are making of it. I hope that in the course of this year we also shall be doing likewise in Europe, and then it would not altogether astonish me if, let us say by the end of 1944, we were to find—I hope with incredulity—that 101 per cent. of the German nation have always been 101 per cent. anti-Nazi. Meanwhile, and for all practical purposes—I underline that word "practical"—any attempt to draw distinctions between Hitlerite Germany and plain Germany is an ingenious pastime, and I shall watch with interest to see whether any occupant of the Front Bench will indulge in it. Such playfulness would certainly be a tribute to the perennial youth of His Majesty's Government. If, however, it is sought to strengthen this game by the invocation of Russian authority, then I must remind your Lordships of an insurmountable range of facts which no casuistry can traverse. May I point to a few of the peaks? The first is a message sent from Moscow, and therefore with full Soviet authority, some months ago by Mr. Alexander Werth. In that message he said that if you talked to Russians about the distinction that we are discussing to-day, they shrugged their shoulders and said that some people in England live a long way off. I agree with our Russian friends.

My next peak is an article by the most famous of all living writers, Ilya Ehrenburg. His authenticity is incontestable. He has recently won the Stalin Prize with his last novel. His article is called "Maturity," and by that I take it to mean the maturity of view which he and his countrymen have reached in regard to the Germans. This is what he says: The hatred of the Germans against other peoples is their natural condition. Note please that he speaks of plain Germans and no fooling. I would also ask you to note that he goes some consider- able distance beyond Black Record. He continues: Many of us under-estimated the historical peculiarities, traditions and psychology of Germany. Well, that is very curious. It seems to apply pretty exactly to us during both the pre-war and the inter-war periods, and, if I may say so with great deference, I think it applies in some measure to this Motion. He continues: Many of us waited for the Germans to come to their senses, to feel ashamed, and to revolt. I pause on that. It is an important point, because it marks the transition to maturity. It marks the transition from the first phase of the Russian attitude to the second, and I think that the right reverend Prelate has perhaps confused the first with the second.

The writer goes on: It was not long before our soldiers realized that they were not up against human beings. When we met the Germans we saw that beasts can hold university degrees. That goes a good deal further than I have ever gone, but it is not for me to dissent. He goes on: We hate the Germans … Like our hatred our contempt for the Germans did not come suddenly. There spake the heart. And in an even stronger passage in another article he goes on to describe the German cannibal washing down his carrot with gallons of human blood, and he warns us that: When the Germans have eaten all their dogs and cats, they will lift their hats and whine: 'Hitler Kaput!' There is not any word of Hitlerite Germany in that. And it is not I who am speaking. In all practical and spontaneous Russian utterances there is nowadays much less tendency than is generally thought to draw unreal distinctions. Hard reality has made them a thing of the past, and indeed, I think there is a growing weariness among the peoples of the world of the fiction that huge, repeated, and sustained wars of aggression are made and waged by the German nation in the teeth of reluctant or hostile German majorities.

I proceed to my next peak. It is from an article by another famous Russian writer, Leontiev. He says: Signs of imperialism, savagery and aggression are to be traced through all German history. Again I think you will agree that that goes a bit further than the Black Record. He goes on: Lenin in his works analyses the historical development of Germany and concludes that Germany has become a centre of the most inhuman imperialism with all the dangers that implies.… Even before the first World War Lenin was able to predict the creed of German imperialism.… Forcible Germanization was a German practice long before the new phase of German imperialism-Hitlerism. I rather like that phrase. It seems to me a very promising one. It might be a ground on which the right reverend Prelate and I could meet and compromise—"German imperialism-Hitlerism."

I go on, or rather Comrade Leontiev goes on, because there is no difference between us: During 1914–1918 the true face of Germany was fully displayed.… Comrade Stalin also stigmatized German imperialist intentions in 1918. He said: 'The German imperialists came into our country to turn it into a colony, to enslave its people.' How wise was Comrade, now Premier and Marshal Stalin, for that is exactly what the Germans did try to do by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. There they tried to snaffle 60,000,000 slaves at one swoop, and to that hope they clung like limpets even when it became manifest that they were being beaten in the West. I shall not detain your Lordships further with quotations, although there are plenty more where that came from. I shall only say, with the famous Lord Clive, "By God, Mr. Chairman, at this moment I stand astonished at my own moderation."

There may be, perhaps, a little confusion between what has been said in Russia and what has been done. Let us have a look at what has been done. In the mid-eighteenth century a large colony of Germans was imported and planted on the Volga. These were not Hitlerite Germans. Nevertheless, one hundred and fifty years later the Tsar had some reason to mistrust them, and in 1915 he decided to transfer them further east. But he only talked, whereas Premier Stalin has done things. These German colonists, who by now have reached a very large figure indeed, were transferred in 1941, and I think Premier Stalin was right. He was a thousand times right, five hundred thousand times right. Again, I say, these were not Hitlerite Germans. They had a quarter of a century's training in the doctrines of Communism. The schools and universities in which they studied were inscribed with the names and dignified by the effigies of Marx and Engels. Nevertheless they were held to be Germans and unreliable.

There are no illusions in Soviet Russia in regard to Germany. In Soviet Russia they do not suffer Germanofools gladly, nor have they any great understanding of that numerous Anglo-American caste, the Unteachables. Therefore I hope His Majesty's Government will be very cautious in replying to this Motion. There is nothing to be afraid of in the truth. Truth is only terrible when one tries to dodge her. And the truth is that there is really no such place as Hitlerite Germany. Hitlerite Germany be hanged! It will be, but your problem will remain. Therefore I say that if, in deference to any illusory refinements, this Government or any other Government, American or Russian, were to leave to Germany one shred of wherewithal to put the youth of the world for the third time through this hell and shambles, it for the third time blindness were to allow Germany the least chance of claiming again the broken bodies of the young and the broken hearts of the old, why then, before God, I would hope that there would be a general revolt, and I would be the first to join it.

LORD LANG OF LAMBETH

My Lords, I feel bound to say some words in support of the Motion and question by the Bishop of Chichester, and I am very sorry I may, in some respects, have to differ from my noble friend Lord Vansittart. He has spoken to-day with all his usual force and brilliancy. He began by appearing to be ready to agree with the Bishop, but before long I fear, if I may say so, he went back into his old ways. He said he was astonished at his own moderation. He must be alone in that astonishment. The truth is that though he brings to bear upon his indictment—his long, consistent, and familiar indictment—of the German nation all his immense knowledge and experience and all his brilliance, he is very apt to do what advocates sometimes are apt to do—namely, to overstate the case and to deprive it of a sense of proportion which is always a mark of wisdom. At the same time I must confess that the Bishop of Chichester, in parts of his powerful speech, also showed traces of that similar tendency to overstatement. I do not think, honestly, that the distinction is so absolute as he made out between the Hitlerite Government and its supporters and the great mass of the German people.

It is quite impossible, as a matter of history, to ignore what Lord Vansittart has so constantly pressed upon us that for at least a century since Germany was Prussianized, there has been in it and its people a tendency to self-assertion and aggression which has plunged Europe within the century into four great wars. It cannot be said that in all these cases it was simply the rulers of Germany who were responsible. These efforts must have been supported by the overwhelming mass of German opinion. Again I do not think it can be denied that the Germans have carried with them for a very long time a tradition of docility, of a readiness to be regimented even under the monstrous regimen of Hitler and his friends. I do not think you can say that the immense evil for which Hitler stands, and which he has wrought in the world, is something quite apart from the instincts and characteristics of the German people.

For instance, I cannot but note that very little has been said, even among the protests to which I shall allude in a moment, about the appalling cruelties that have been inflicted upon the nations who have come under the sway of the German Armies. The Army after all is a great section of German life, and the Army is perpetrating these things, not merely the Storm Troopers and the like. God forbid that we should be self-righteous, but I wonder whether our soldiers anywhere could perpetrate the kind of cruelties which the German Armies seem ready to perpetrate almost anywhere. There must be some strain in the German character which makes these things possible. It seems almost beyond belief that in this twentieth century a great and gifted nation, or a large part of it, should be capable of that last dishonour of saying to evil, "Evil be thou my good." Certainly it is a most sinister comment on the old belief that with science and education and material prosperity, mankind could be trusted to progress. Against that has come this appalling revelation of what can be done by civilized people in this twentieth century. I think that must be admitted in all candour.

I think also there is no question that there is a great tendency among the Germans to be even more satisfied with themselves than we are, and to let that self-satisfaction take a shape which is disastrous to the rest of the world. I think there can be no question of that. Now if that be so in any degree, then certainly the German nation as a whole must accept the consequences of its conduct and policy for a very long time. It must, of course, accept complete and absolute defeat. The Bishop was quite clear about that. It must also accept long and complete disarmament, so that it is impossible for these tendencies which are latent within it to do the mischief which they have hitherto done in Europe; and so as to prevent any renewal of these tendencies of aggression and self-assertion. But this is the point, my Lords, which I would like to emphasize, that before the conversion which is necessary before Germany can take her place as a good neighbour within a peace-loving world can take place, the movement must come from within; it cannot be imposed from without. It is useless in one breath to say that this immense change must take place in German life and thought, and then in the next breath to say that there are no Germans who are capable of carrying it through. You cannot get that conversion on which so much of the future of Europe depends except through elements in the internal life of Germany. In this connexion I touch upon the main point of division, I suppose, between the Bishop of Chichester and Lord Vansittart.

There are these elements in the German nation. I think it was quite clear that the Bishop of Chichester was right in contending that the evidence that he gave showed that there were these elements, and that they are stronger and more powerful than we have often supposed. I would like just to say that as far as I know there is no man who knows more about the internal life and thought of great sections of German opinion than the Bishop who spoke to us this afternoon. I also have means of knowing what is passing in the minds of various eminent Germans, because I hear from neutral sources who are able to cross the frontiers as we cannot, and who have close and intimate talks with these eminent Germans. I know that it is true that there is, in spite of what Lord Vansittart says, a very strong and growing and powerful section of opinion in Germany which is restive and resentful under the Nazi régime. It may well be asked, then why are they so silent? Why does there seem to be so little protest and so little effect in the protest? I think there are many reasons, all of which I happen to know are operating. I will not detain your Lordships by enlarging upon them.

One is a curious one, and very strange. This is a certain gratitude to Hitler existing in the most surprising regions. They say: "After all, this man rescued us from despair, recovered our national honour and existence, and since then he has undoubtedly given us a social solidarity which we never had before and a corporate social life of which we are proud." Strange indeed, but it is so. Again there is ignorance. It has been surprising to me to learn how little many Germans seem to know of the things that are being done in the German name by the German Army, and by German agents in different parts of the world. We must remember that nothing is known in Germany except what an exceedingly skilful and mendacious propaganda allows the people to know. We must always remember the effect of that ignorance. Then again there is fear—fear of the all-pervading Gestapo. I wonder how it would affect our own criticisms of the Government in this country if we knew that whatever we said might be, probably immediately, followed by spoliation, imprisonment or a concentration camp with all its terrors and miseries. There is all that to be remembered when we judge the silence of those who resent the Nazi régime.

Lastly, and this is perhaps most important, there is this; and this is where I come—I will not say to issue but to a real difference with my noble friend Lord Vansittart. I can only describe this reason, for want of a better word, as patriotism. The Germans, even some of those who most dislike the Nazi régime, have been taught by this exceedingly skilful propaganda, as the Bishop pointed out, that the aim of the Allies, of the United Nations, is to dismember the German State, to reduce it to the position of an outcast and an outlaw in the European system of nations. They therefore say—I know this is said by actual individuals whose sympathy with Nazism is nil—"Well, this is a war for existence, quite plainly. There is only one Government. We cannot change that in the midst of this war. It stands between us and extinction. In this war of survival we must stand by the Government and give it our support." There is where comes in the mischief, if I may use that word, of articles and speeches which at least imply that we carry our detestation of the Hitler Government into the whole German nation. The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, made it very clear in an intervention in a recent debate that he in no way advocated anything that could be called the annihilation of the German nation, and there were words at the beginning of his speech this afternoon which implied the same thing, but the impression made by his general attitude is one which the German propaganda does most sedulously cultivate, and undoubtedly it is used to give the impression "You must choose between extinction and survival." In that choice they feel, even those who dislike Nazism intensely, that they must stand by the only Government which they have.

If that be so, then I think we must see that after all our only hope and chance for the future is what the elements in German national life who are opposed to the Nazi system can bring to bear upon that future. When this war is over, to whom are we to look for preserving Germany from utter anarchy and disorder? We cannot trust to doing it by our own troops or the troops of Allied Nations. We cannot squat there until Germany is reduced to order. As Bismarck used to say, the one thing you cannot do with bayonets is to sit upon them. To whom are we to look for any guidance of the German people in the years that are to follow the armistice or peace? It can only be to just those who at present are really fearful of the extension of Nazi rule and who would willingly bring it to an end.

May I quote in this connexion some words which were spoken by the Vice-President of the United States only on March 8. They are worth noting. Mr. Henry Wallace said: Doubtless thousands of German boys will come home from the war bitterly disillusioned of Prussianism and Hitlerism. Thousands of both young and old at home will feel the same way. They will honestly want to build up a new democratic Germany and we without yielding to the old war-like spirit of Prussia Should encourage them to try. We shall need the help of all the Germans who give convincing evidence that they do not subscribe to the 'master race' myth and are genuinely opposed to the doctrine that might makes right. That is the point. They are the only people we can trust. At this time the importance of Marshal Stalin's distinction is precisely that it does give some encouragement to those who at great risk and often with great difficulty have kept themselves tree from the Nazi taint. For that reason I suggest that one of the most important things we can do at this present juncture is net to exaggerate but not to overlook the distinction which Marshal Stalin has drawn, and I hope that in view of all that depends upon it His Majesty's Government may be disposed to give it, with whatever explanation they think fit, some measure of real endorsement.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

My Lords, I desire to express my gratitude and appreciation of the Motion of the right reverend Prelate because it raises a point of vast importance not only with a view to what we are going to do after the war, but even with a view to what we shall do in order to hasten victory in that war. I also read the speech to which my most reverend friend, if he will allow me to call him so, referred just now, the speech of the Vice-President of the United States, Mr. Henry Wallace. He said not only what was quoted but he said very strongly that he thought it was of the utmost importance row that we should be preparing for peace. I think he said that in his view this year or next year we should have to make decisions on which would depend whether we were to have a further world war or not. He discussed the German question and other questions on that basis. I venture respectfully to submit that that is a perfectly sound view. These questions are of tremendous importance and they cannot be disposed of by casual sneers or sarcasms or anything of that kind. We have to face them as great practical difficulties and problems for which we must find a solution if we are to hope for anything like a permanent peace. It is from that point of view that I shall endeavour to address my observations to your Lordships.

There seem to me two questions raised. The first is whether there are any non-Nazi Germans and the second is what should be our policy with regard to them. As to the first, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, has often said he does not believe there is anybody in Germany who is not substantially a sup- porter of the Nazi Government under Hitler. I must say I think the evidence is all the other way. Not only is there this strong statement of Mr. Henry Wallace, who has no reason whatever for being prejudiced in the matter, but there is the statement quoted by the right reverend Prelate in his Motion and there is a general impression which I think prevails in practically all neutral countries. I have no doubt at all that there are non-Nazis and that they are an important body.

There is all the evidence that the right reverend Prelate quoted of the attitude of the German Bishops and other leaders of religious thought in Germany. I would like to remind your Lordships of a little story about the Bishop of Minister, who has said, I think, that he is supported by two million people. It seems that after one of his sermons the Gestapo sent agents to arrest him. They went to his house and they asked him to go with them. Thereupon he said: "Certainly, allow me a few moments and I will be with you." He went into another room and put on full canonicals. Then he returned and said: "Now I am prepared to go with you." But the agents declined to take him because they were satisfied he would excite so much sympathy for himself and so much indignation against the Gestapo that they were not prepared to run the risk. I believe that circumstance to indicate truly the fact that a great body of Roman Catholics, who used to be the great Centre Party, as it was called before the wars, still exists and is still on the whole faithful to its religion and to its Bishops and to its leaders.

That alone indicates that there must be a considerable body of non-Nazi opinion in Germany. It is quite true they have not shown themselves, but that is partly due, as previous speakers have said, to the extreme difficulty under modern conditions of any opposition in a tyrannically governed country. Undoubtedly the situation has changed in the last century or so from the time when a few agricultural labourers could defy the French Republic for years in La Vendee armed with scythes and weapons of that kind. The truth is that the mechanization of warfare has given enormous strength to the Government or to the body of people who have control of the armed forces of the country. That is one reason, but there is, I am afraid I shall have to admit, another reason which is also of great importance. I believe that the Germans really like what they would describe as a strong Government. I saw a statement the other day by a German clergyman, a refugee here, who was opposed to the Nazi Government, to the effect that the German undoubtedly likes the conception of being protected, as he put it, and sustained by something larger and stronger than himself, and would be prepared to obey such an organization almost without any exception—practically without any exception. That means that, though they may dislike a great many of the things the Nazis do, the Germans will, in fact, go on obeying the Nazi Government, and I think it is extremely doubtful whether you will see anything in the nature of a rebellion in Germany until much later in the war than the stage which we have at present reached. And, of course, all that is strengthened by the long catena of teachers, philosophers, theologians and even statesmen who have preached something very like the infallibility of the State.

I do not regard that state of things with the same exultation that my noble friend Lord Vansittart displays whenever he mentions it. I think that this docility of the Germans is a very terrible danger to the peace of Europe. It means that if anybody gets hold of the Government in conditions such as those which prevailed before the war they are able to turn the whole strength of Germany, however much the Germans may disapprove in their own hearts of that being done, to any form of aggression or offensive action they please. That is a very serious danger to peace, and one that we have to face. In our policy after the war we must face it, and take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard Europe against this danger. I do not think that anything much is to be gained by violent denunciation. That will not affect the Germans, except, possibly, that it will give them some pleasure. I could not help feeling, when listening to my noble friend Lord Vansittart, that there was, at any rate, one man who would be thoroughly pleased with everything he said, and that man, of course, is Herr Goebbels. I believe that that kind of concentrated hatred which appeared in almost every sentence uttered by the noble Lord is just the kind of thing which at the present juncture the German leaders desire to see existing in enemy countries. It enables them to spur the German people to make one more effort which, as I understand it, if the information printed in the newspapers is correct, as I have no doubt it is, is the great object of the German Government at the present time. I do not think that mere violent abuse is likely to be of any value. It certainly will not be of any value after the war, and I, personally, do not think it is of any value now.

Nor can I approve of various suggestions which I have read as to the treatment of Germany after the war. I have read a suggestion that there should be a prolonged occupation. That there should be occupation immediately after the war, no doubt we should all agree, but to prolong it for years would, I am sure, be madness. It was tried with great thoroughness by Napoleon, and it certainly did more to unite the Germans in hostility towards foreigners than anything else that has occurred in their history. Then there is the suggestion that we should split up Germany into a number of different States. I do not think that that is a practical proposal. I cannot see what you would have to do if the States afterwards came together, either formally or practically, and acted as one State. Of course if they divided themselves up into States, that would be an entirely different proposition, but I am dealing with what can be imposed upon them from outside. So it seems to me that you are driven back to the possibility of the re-education of Germany. I hope that the Government give very deep attention to that subject. I think that it is a subject of enormous importance and immense difficulty. I see a great difficulty—indeed I do not in the least believe in the possibility of it—in sending in a body of foreigners to teach the Germans what they ought to believe in political matters. I am sure that such a course as that, if adopted, would fail. And the difficulty, of course, is that if it fails you have got to consider what you are going to do.

I observe that Mr. Henry Wallace, in that speech of his, quite agrees that anything like the wholesale burning of school books or similar measures in which the Nazis themselves have indulged must not be contemplated. All Nazi teachers must he forbidden and prevented from teaching anything in the nature of the political doctrines of the Nazi Party. I certainly hope that you will be able to succeed in doing that; but before you embark on that and make it an article of your policy, I beg you to consider what you are going to do to enforce that policy on a reluctant population in Germany. I hope you are not going to imitate the German conception that you must immediately send to a concentration camp all those who do not obey, and shoot them, if necessary. That sort of thing never gets you anywhere in an attempt to govern a great community such as the Germans. You must do something better than that. I am confident—and in this I quite agree with the right reverend Prelate and disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart—that the only way to re-educate Germany is to induce the Germans to re-educate themselves. I quite admit that for that purpose there is very little that we can do directly. There are some things which we can do, but we cannot do very much.

I agree very strongly with the noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Lang, when he said just now that we must disarm Germany. That seems to me to be elementary. We certainly must disarm her and keep her disarmed until we have practical and definite evidence that she has abandoned her present conception of the supreme right of any country to make war on any other county for aggressive purposes. The whole theory on which Nazism ultimately rests must be abandoned by Germany before she can have any arms. That seems to me to be essential. That I hope will be done absolutely, and not as part of a general disarmament. I am in favour of a reduction of armaments all over the world after the war for other reasons, but that is an entirely independent matter. The disarmament of Germany is a measure of protection which all peace-loving States must take and are bound to take. If that is what Lord Vansittart meant by the abolition of militarism in Germany, I am in agreement with him; but he coupled with that a denunciation of the economic prosperity of Germany, and I can only conceive that he really desires to reduce Germany to a condition of slavery.

If we disarm Germany and give her an opportunity of re-educating herself, is there anything else that we can do to help? I sincerely believe that one of the things we can do is to do our utmost to assist those Germans who are really opposed not only to the Nazi Government but to that whole conception which has been, I agree, a prominent conception in Germany for many years before the Nazis came into being. Anything that we can do to help we ought to do. I have seen proposals for the rewriting of history books under some international authority, by which we should represent fairly and impartially the events of history without any colour. I am not sufficiently expert in the matter to know how far that is possible, but I know that some people who are far more expert than I am think that it is quite possible and ought to be done. That kind of thing is certainly desirable, and should be one of our aims.

We should also be most particular—and this is a point which I venture very respectfully to urge on the Government, though I think they would not disagree with me—that in our foreign policy and, as far as may be necessary in our home policy also, we should be guided by the principles which we desire that the Germans should adopt. We should be prepared to do absolute justice to everybody, and rigidly to refrain from enforcing claims which we do not believe to be right. We should be ready to submit international disputes to some impartial authority for determination. That kind of thing is essential. We shall have a good opportunity for showing how sincerely we hold to that doctrine in regard to a question which we have discussed once or twice before, the question of the trial of war criminals. It is for that reason that I venture to urge very strongly—not from any distrust of military force, but because I want to be on the safe side, so to speak—that the war criminals should be tried by civil Courts with every guarantee of an impartial trial which can be arranged. I think that that would be an excellent object-lesson of the kind of spirit which we desire the Germans to adopt, and would greatly strengthen our hand in any action we may take to induce them to adopt it.

I shall not detain your Lordships much longer, for I fear that I have already spoken at unnecessary length. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood in any way. Any policy of this kind presupposes a victorious conclusion of the war. I believe that to announce this policy, or a policy of this kind, would help the victorious conclusion of the war. I believe that it might do something to undermine German resistance, and I believe that it would certainly do a great deal to encourage and hearten very large sections of English opinion. I am sure that there is a great demand growing up in this country and in America for answers to the questions: What are we actually fighting for? What is it that we hope to establish? What is our New Order, differing from Germany's New Order? I am sure that all those questions are being asked by people in this country, and that, if we can give an answer to them which satisfies their conscience and their political sense, we shall do a great deal to hasten that victory which we all so much desire.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)

My Lords, I do not propose to detain you for more than a few moments, and there is only one point which I wish to make. The reason that I venture to trouble your Lordships at this late hour is that it so happens that opportunities have been given me to see a good deal of Germany and of the Germans, and to form certain opinions regarding them, both since the last war and before it. I would refer in particular to the experience which I gained before the last war, because that is really the important point. I went first to Germany in 1888, and lived for some time with a peasant family in a wild part of the Palatinate. From 1894 to 1901, although I was not educated in Germany, I spent some months there every year, and sometimes more than half the year. For two years about 1908 I was at our Embassy in Berlin and travelled all over Germany, seeing a good deal of the German people.

The point that I want to make to your Lordships is that during all those twenty-rive years the Germans spoke very freely and readily, and exactly the same sentiments were expressed by them as are expressed to-day, or as were expressed before this war began by the National Socialist Party in Germany. I do not think one ever heard a different view. Lebensraum was not the word then used, but there was a great deal of talk about "A place in the sun" and about mailed fists and the "German Michael" and Realpolitik. Germany wanted to dominate and to expand. Domination and expansion were the aims in life of the German people. Your Lordships have no doubt read German political writers like Nietzsche and Treitschke, and the same sentiments are expressed in their writings.

What is the reason for this desire for expansion and domination? I venture to think that the real reason is this. Germany was the last great Power to come on the scene. Before Germany, other European Powers had founded great Empires, some of which still exist, some of which have been much reduced and some of which have passed away. For instance, there have been the great Spanish Empire in Central and South America and the Portuguese Empire in Brazil and Africa. The Netherlands are still the owners of a huge Empire in the East Indies, and also own Dutch Guiana. Then there came Russia, which extended gradually from the Baltic to the Pacific, from St. Petersburg to Vladivostok, almost without it being noticed by the Western Powers, and which extended also southward to the Afghan frontier and to the provinces there. France, defeated in 1870, gradually built up a huge new Empire in Africa. Your Lordships have only to look at the map to see that it is one of the largest continuous stretches of territory on earth.

Above all, however, the Germans were jealous of this country. Not only were they jealous of ourselves for having a huge Colonial Empire and for giving birth to other nations, the great Dominions, but still worse, from their point of view, was the fact that part of our huge Empire had separated and become another great Power in the world, the United States of America. The Germans, who felt that they were the greatest military power on earth—and perhaps they were—thought that they had been cheated out of their inheritance, and they said so. They said: "Why should not we do what others have done? Other countries have done this without great military expenditure, but we have in our hands the power to take what we want and what we are entitled to." That was certainly the type of talk that I used to hear in Germany during 25 years before the last war. And it is certainly the talk that we hear or read of now, enunciated by the Nazi Party.

This continuous jealousy, which has been going on ever since 1870, we noticed during all the years which culminated with the last war; for instance, in the negotiations over Morocco and elsewhere in Africa. Then came the war and the defeat of Germany. That defeat—and this is the point which I urge upon your Lordships—did not in any way reduce the sentiment in Prussia which existed before the war, and which I venture to maintain is exactly the same as that which guides the Nazi Party to-day and is felt by Germans at the present time. There was in Germany after 1918 a period of confusion. Then Hitler came forward and it appeared to the Germans that Hitler was the man who would be able to carry out their wishes and obtain for them that power to dominate and expand which they had been desirous of obtaining for so many years, and which they had failed to obtain during the last war. If your Lordships remember the circumstances under which Hitler came to power, you will recollect that at first he was a member of a Coalition Government. About eight months after he first came to power an Election was held and there was a tremendous swing over to his Party, which made him the head of the State. That, I venture to suggest, was d Le to the fact that the Germans had become convinced that Hitler was the man who would be able to give them what they wanted, the man who, if I might express it in the vulgar phrase, could deliver the goods.

I quite agree that nobody desires to destroy Germany. In fact I do not know what that phrase means. Does it mean that we should send troops there and kill every German in the place, or what? It does not seem to me to be worth discussing, because it is, as Mr. Stalin said, an impossibility. But when it comes to destroying the Hitlerite State, I think we are over-stressing the importance of that. When Germany is completely defeated—and the noble and most reverend Lord said that the first necessity was that Germany should accept complete defeat—when Germany has been completely defeated Hitler will have vanished from the scene, just as the Hohenzollerns did after the last war. There will be no further use for him. But when Hitlerism goes, Prussianism will remain. I do not think it possible to believe that Prussian-ism will be wiped out, and that a different state of affairs will exist among the Germans.

As the right reverend Prelate said—and I think many of your Lordships will agree—opposition to Hitler may exist in Germany. No doubt opposition to him has existed for a long time on various grounds, otherwise it would not have been necessary to set up concentration camps and the Gestapo. Of course I would not deny for one moment that the opposition is increasing, but I would venture to ask the right reverend Prelate this question: Is it not due to the fact that the Germans are being shaken in their belief that Hitler is the man who is going to give them what they want, and, now that things are going wrong for him, that he is no longer the leader that they thought he was? That Hitler is a leader who led the Germans into the present trouble I do not believe. I believe they put Hitler forward because they thought he was going to give them what they wanted. Not that he made any new proposition to them. As Sir Nevile Henderson said, Hitler never really had a new idea; any idea he put forward was one that he had drawn from somebody else. As I say, the growing opposition to a large extent may be because the Germans are doubtful of Hitler, not that there is any change of heart. If that is the case it is a matter that wants very careful examination. As Hitler and his Party now feel that things are not going so well for them, Goebbels and his propaganda have to put forward good reasons to continue the strenuous support of the German nation, and to tell them that if they do not fight and win they will be destroyed altogether.

Well, that is as may be. But the real point I am trying to make is this. The only remedy which you can hope for to cure the German desire for aggression, for conquest, for domination and expansion, is to make it physically impossible for them to make further aggression. There are all sorts of means to that end, which my noble friend on the Front Opposition Benches has discussed, and it is a question of what means will be efficacious. I do not think it is much good making up our minds as to that until the war is over and we see how we stand. We have to remember that you can fight even without arms. One has to think of all these things. I will not discuss them, but if aggression after this war is still possible, another leader or another agent may arise, and I think will arise in Germany, and this will bring about the same catastrophe for the third time. The new Government in Germany may be quite a different one, acting on quite different principles, but the aim and object will be the same: they will still have the desire for domination and expansion. They do not want opportunities in other people's Colonies; they want to govern Colonies of their own. That has always been their desire. I remember very well the Colonial League in Germany. The whole idea was to have their own Colonies and govern them themselves: they do not want to have anything to do with other people, they do not care about opportunities elsewhere. And I can imagine it will be the same thing again. But I do not see why Germany should not take part in all the peaceful activities of the world and be on an equal footing with other nations, provided it is made impossible for Germany to upset the whole world again in an aggressive war.

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, I would like to say how much I sympathize generally with the right reverend Prelate on the Motion which he has moved, except perhaps in regard to a few words towards the end of his speech which I will come to a little later. I therefore want to express my appreciation of what he said about the strong opposition of the Catholic Church to the heresies of the Nazi creed and also to pay my tribute to Pastor Niemöller and the Confessional Church for their opposition to the false doctrines of the Hitler State. It seems to me that we are all agreed on two points—namely, the punishment of those Germans who have committed criminal acts, and, secondly, that Germany must never be allowed again to be in a position even to imagine she can commit such acts of aggression on her neighbours as she committed in 1914 and 1939. So far there must be general agreement. It is when we come to the methods which we shall use to attain the second end that we may perhaps differ. The difference probably arises from a difference of diagnosis of Germans and the German character. There is a school of thought which apparently holds that nearly every German infinitely prefers war to peace. I frankly do not believe that that is a correct appreciation of the case. I am not going back to Tacitus; I am going to put two or three simple considerations before your Lordships on this point.

If it is possible to imagine that there could have been a referendum of individual Germans taken in 1937—a referendum taken in secret and apart from Party pressure, because it is very difficult for us to realize what Party pressure means to a man and his family; it is a most terrible pressure, and it is difficult to resist it—if we could have had such a referendum as I have suggested you would have found there would have been a considerable majority of Germans who would have expressed a preference for peace rather than for war. Munich—it is a dangerous subject; but Munich was very popular in Germany, not only because at Munich Hitler and the Germans very largely attained what they hoped for, but also because peace was preserved there. I do not know if your Lordships have noted that in all the early speeches of Hitler he laid the very greatest stress on his desire for peace. I know I shall be told that that was to throw dust in the eyes of such nations as ourselves. I admit that; but it was also because he had to carry his people along with him, and a great number of them really desired peace. Now, curiously enough, even in his latest speeches, Hitler has always emphasized this point. He has emphasized it at a time when the fable could not have had any effect on the United Nations, so that it must have been directed to his own people.

From all this I deduce that there must be in a considerable number of German minds a feeling in favour of peace and opposed to war, and we ought to work on that as far as we can. I am going to exempt from that category the military clique who are, I believe, at the root of all the evil in Germany. We ought to exempt the Gestapo, too, and also, I fear, the German youth. That last is a very difficult problem. It is one of the most difficult with which we shall have to deal. We have got to eradicate the false teaching, and we shall have to re-educate that youth by some means or other. We also have to educate the ordinary German to some extent—the "common man," as Vice-President Wallace calls him. We have to educate him to this extent that he must realize that politics is a thing which vitally affects him and his family and that he cannot leave politics to the experts. I remember so well some years ago talking to Germans of the liberal professions about foreign policy and its consequences. What happened? They shrugged their shoulders and said, "Oh, well, that is a matter we can safely leave to our experts." I believe that one of the great defects in pre-Hitlerite Germany was this tendency for the ordinary Germans to leave everything to the experts and to be governed and guided by them. They had not a political background, and that defect I hope, by some method or other, we shall overcome. If my theory is correct, the German problem, although it is a very vast one, is not quite so huge as it is sometimes thought to be. It is of such proportions that we may reasonably hope to deal with it.

To come to the last part of the right reverend Prelate's speech, I rather hope the Government will refuse to give a final detailed reply on the issues which have been raised. We must remember that we and our great Russian Allies are by no means the only nations concerned, although of course Russian opinion must be of the highest importance. There are the United States of America, the Latin American countries, and China, but, above all, I feel we must learn the views, which should carry great weight with us, of those nations which will ultimately have to live as neighbours of Germany—Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg, France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Austria. Some of these countries are not, perhaps, in a position to-day to give us their considered advice on this very difficult question and, even it they are, co-ordination and consultation will be necessary. I feel that it is very undesirable to press the Government for a final policy on this problem, and that we ought to allow them ample time so that when they do announce a policy it will be the policy of the United Nations.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON)

My Lords, the question on the Paper put down by the right reverend Prelate is the primary matter with which we have to deal, though it is natural that this important debate should have ranged aver many aspects of this most critical and difficult problem. The question put down by the right reverend Prelate admits of a clear and simple answer, and that is the answer I propose to give I did not quite understand the concluding observation of my noble friend the Earl of Perth, because answering this question, as I shall do now, does not involve any new declaration of policy at all. Speeches have been made this afternoon, for instance by Lord Faringdon, which showed it is much desired that there should be in this debate a definite statement, and I will try to make one. It will at any rate clear the air if the air is not clear already, and there are cases where repetition may be very useful and very timely. I think, too, myself, notwithstanding that this has been at certain periods a debate when there appeared to have been some controversy in it, that the answer to be given to these questions is an answer which will go a very long way to unite the view of this House on a matter in regard to which the country also is, I think, very solid and united.

I turn, then, to these two questions. Let me first say that this very striking speech of Premier Stalin on November 6 last year has been studied with close attention by His Majesty's Government. We welcomed the speech as a notable contribution to inter-Allied understanding, and I think it is appropriate of the right reverend Prelate to be calling our attention to this Russian declaration at the present time when German propaganda once more is disinterring and exhibiting that grizly corpse which they call "the danger of Bolshevism" and trying to breathe new life into this bogy in the hope that its antics will terrify everybody in Europe to doing Hitler's will. Premier Stalin's speech among other things provides the best possible demonstration of the utter hollowness of the propaganda of Goebbels in that respect.

Since the early days of the war His Majesty's Government have made their own position clear. It has been repeatedly and solemnly stated that peace with the present Nazi leaders of Germany is utterly unthinkable, and it must be a satisfaction to this House, and I trust it will be of significance outside, that, whatever variations of view there may have been in this debate, there is not a single person who took part in it, or, I am sure, any noble Lord sitting in this House, who does not subscribe to that proposition. Like our Soviet Ally we firmly believe, and we shall continue to believe, that before the foundations of an enduring peace can be laid, the Nazi régime must be destroyed for ever, and all those war criminals—I will say a further word about that in a moment—who have inspired its evil deeds must be suitably and severely dealt with. I now say in plain terms on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that we agree with Premier Stalin, first, that the Hitlerite State should be destroyed, and, secondly, that the whole German people is not (as Dr. Goebbels has been trying to persuade them) thereby doomed to destruction. I put the two propositions with equal prominence and equal clearness and equal firmness. I want the right reverend Prelate to feel that if those are the questions he wants answered, answered they are, and on behalf of His Majesty's Government I am glad to have this opportunity of making both assertions with equal emphasis afresh.

I want now to say one or two words on each question, not in the slightest degree for the purpose of qualifying my answer, but because this debate provokes thought and consideration on a number of topics. Let me take the first of the two matters. My noble friend Lord Onslow just now said—and I must say I warmly concur in his observations—that it might well be that Hitler would go but that Prussianism would remain, and when I use the language which was used by Premier Stalin, "the Hitlerite State," I do not want him or anyone to suppose that that consideration is overlooked. But we have again and again declared that we will never in any circumstances enter into negotiations with Hitler and the Nazis. A single quotation is worth making from the Prime Minister. On November 10, 1941, Mr. Churchill said: His Majesty's Government will never enter into any negotiations with Hitler or with any party in Germany which represents the Nazi régime. So I think say all of us.

Secondly—and here I am choosing my words I hope accurately and carefully—the complete overthrow of that régime and all it stands for, and the defeat and overthrow of the German Army are the conditions which must he fulfilled before there is any prospect of the war coming to an end. That, my Lords, is, as I understand it, the meaning of "unconditional surrender" as proclaimed at Casablanca. That is not only our resolve, it is the resolve of all our Allies. That resolve springs really from the nature of the case, or the nature of the disease, as it has been analysed by several of your Lordships this afternoon. Again I prefer to quote what has been said by a responsible authority on behalf of the British Government already. Here are some words of the present Foreign Secretary. On 29th July, 1941, Mr. Eden said: If we are to have peace in our life-time the German people must learn to unlearn all that they have been taught not only by Hitler but by his predecessors for the last hundred years, by so many of their philosophers and teachers, the disciples of blood and iron. I really do not think that these propositions are likely to meet with dissent in any quarter of the House, and my purpose is to show how, by putting them together, we shall really present a united front.

Let me add this word on the disarmament of Germany. I too have noted that striking speech of Vice-President Wallace a day or two ago and here is a sentence from his speech which has not been quoted this afternoon and which seems to me to be full of wisdom. He said: A new war in the future is certain if we allow Prussia to rearm either materially or psychologically. And these are the words used by our Foreign Secretary on behalf of the Government not long ago: Germany must be disarmed and must be placed in conditions in which it would be impossible for her again to rearm and to resume the struggle for domination over peace-loving nations. He added: It is equally important that she should not become a source of poison to her neighbours and to the world by economic collapse. Again there, I think, we shall find ourselves all walking along the same road of reason and good sense.

Here let me add one word on a particular topic mentioned by my noble friend Viscount Cecil. We have, as he reminded us, taken a very definite position about the punishment of war criminals, and I want to add two observations to what has previously been said by me and others in your Lordships' House about it. We mean, of course, to do the utmost in our power to secure that war criminals are punished. The wholesale barbarities perpetrated on defenceless innocent people by the Nazis and their willing instruments, the mass executions of civilians of all ages and both sexes, the villainy of the Gestapo, the deliberate extermination of jewish communities—these, my Lords, we all feel are things that have disgraced the German name for ever, and they cry aloud for just punishment. But I wish to add this. Let it be quite clearly understood and proclaimed all over the world that we British will never seek to take vengeance by wholesale mass reprisals against the general body of the German people. Our methods will be the methods of justice. That distinction in fact has already been drawn both by President Roosevelt in the notable declaration he made in Washington on October 7 last, and also on behalf of the British Government when we made a similar announcement. That is one of the observations which I wish to add on the general subject of war criminals.

There is a second thing which refers to something which I remember my noble friend Lord Vansittart mentioned in a former speech, though not, I think, to-day. He said on the last occasion that the impression had got abroad that we were only aiming at dealing with the "big shots," the people at the very top. Then wish to add this. What the United Nations have to do, and are doing, is to prepare the best arrangements that are possible to secure the just punishment of the guilty, and by the "guilty" we mean, not only those highly placed individuals who inspire and direct these monstrous crimes, but those also who with cold-blooded ferocity organize and take a definite and responsible part in carrying them out. Therefore I do not feel that there is likely to be any difference of opinion in any quarter of your Lordships' House arising out of the first matter which the right reverend Prelate brought to our attention this afternoon.

Now I turn to the second matter, and here again I do not feel that what I am about to say constitutes any new declaration or should take any well-informed person by surprise. It may be very well to repeat it, but that is a different matter. I would remind your Lordships of one Article of the Atlantic Charter. The Atlantic Charter is not a bargain and it is not a contract made with the enemy. It is a unilateral solemn declaration made by the United States and ourselves which has now received the accession of other members of the Allied Nations. The Atlantic Charter specifically states that the signatories will endeavour, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity. That is a definite rejection of the notion that, as the outcome of victory, there should be populations that are ground into misery by economic difficulties deliberately contrived for their hurt. I am sure there is wisdom in that. It is not a mere matter of generosity. It is a matter of prudence and good statesmanship.

Our object then is to defeat all Germany's armed forces, not the Army alone, but the Air Force and the U-boat, to be followed by the disarmament of Germany. That means the destruction of Germany's war machine, including of course Hitler's private armies, the S.S. and the Gestapo. Goebbels is constantly trying to persuade his fellow countrymen that an Allied victory will mean the end of Germany, the extinction of the German race, the breakdown of society, the return to chaos. We were reminded of this aspect of the matter by the very wise and moderate speech of my noble and most reverend friend Lord Lang this afternoon. I take this opportunity on behalf of His Majesty's Government to deny Goebbels' assertion altogether. But this must be added. It is for the German people to choose the course which they will follow. With all respect to the right reverend Prelate, I wonder a little if in all respects he correctly estimates the character of the German people. I could not help but think that there was an application of the phrase he quoted "Hitlers come, Hitlers go." They do indeed. The worst of it is, that having got rid of one, another may arise. Surely that is because of some of those qualities in the German temperament to which allusion has been made by other speakers this afternoon, including Viscount Cecil, the Earl of Onslow and Lord Vansittart. We must make full allowance for that.

I do not speak with anything like the same claim to authortiy, but I must say it appears to me as if the modern German is never entirely happy unless he is either bullying or being bullied, one or the other. I am not quite sure how far the right reverend Prelate, in his very bold and chivalrous championship of those in Germany who are taking the right view, takes into account that German characteristic. The right reverend Prelate says he cannot acquit the Germans of letting the Nazis get control. I think that is putting it mildly. It appears to me that whatever wrongs or mistakes have been made elsewhere, the people must accept responsibility for the form of government that grows up in their country, under their hand, by systematic development, however ingenious the means. Be that so or not, I repeat it must be for the German people to choose the course which they will follow. And I point out this distinction. There is not a single country in Europe that has been overrun by Germany in this war, held down and oppressed most terribly by the Gestapo, by horrible cruelties and frightful inflictions, that has not thrown up some brave bold men who have publicly denounced the whole wickedness at whatever cost. I wish there had appeared up to now more instances of a similar reaction inside Germany itself.

But be that as it may, the statements that have already been made by His Majesty's Government, and the statement which I have the honour now to make, make it quite clear that we are not seeking to deny to Germany a place in the Europe of the future. But the longer the German people tolerate the Nazi régime, the greater becomes their responsibility for the crimes which that régime is committing in their name. If there are men in Germany who realize that they have allowed themselves to be the tools of this wicked system, if there are men in Germany who are ready to wage war against the monstrous tyranny of the Nazis from within, then we seek in every way to encourage them. We make plain to them what is our conception of the part which, in Europe, Germany may hereafter take. I repeat once again that the German nation can only be saved by the German people, and they would be foolish, these friends to whom the right reverend Prelate refers, if, indeed, they were to believe Goebbels' stupid falshood that their best chance rests in supporting the Nazi rule. The way of salvation for the German people lies in realizing that their only hope depends on the overthrow of the Nazis and the abandonment once and for all of this monstrous claim to be the Herrenvolk of the world. The other nations of Europe, and, in particular, those who are now suffering under the German heel, are entitled to play their full part in restoring and maintaining European civilization, and that can never rest on a secure foundation if it rests on German domination, actual or potential.

I am fully conscious of the fact that I have made no novel declaration—I have not sought to do so. But I have brought together, with such command of clear language as I have, the statements which stand on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and I do claim that when they are thus stated we find ourselves in this matter in a much greater measure of unity than might appear from some of the speeches which have been made in the debate. May I, in a few sentences, sum up or epitomize the British position? We say that we will never in any circumstances enter into negotiations with Hitler or the Nazis as to terms for bringing the war to an end. It would be useless to do so. How could anybody attach the least importance to anything which those people either wrote or said? And, moreover, it would be wicked to do so, for our Allies as well as ourselves are pledged to exterminate this horrible and hateful system from the world. By that system I mean not only Hitler but the whole Prussian régime. Freedom will only be secured when that system is gone for ever. Secondly, we are not seeking the destruction of Germany or of the German race. We desire to encourage, in every way we can, the opposition inside Germany which has been described by the right reverend Prelate. But we are determined that Germany must be effectually disarmed, and that there must be no possibility of yet a third world war provoked by the desire of Germany to dominate the world. When this has been secured, when the States overrun and maltreated by Germany are restored to their just rights, we want to see a Europe which fairly shares in the resources of the world in peace and prosperity.

As I have said, the Germans must indeed be stupid people if they cannot see the falsity of Goebbels' propaganda which seeks to persuade them that they have no choice but to uphold Hitler and his fellow Nazis. Therefore the question is—and with this I conclude—whether the German people, as distinct from Hitler and his henchmen, can learn and apply the lesson before it is too late, that the fate which threatens their country can only be mitigated by the overthrow of the Hitlerite régime, and by the complete abandonment of that false creed and outlook which all free men in this war of liberation will continue to fight to the death.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER

My Lords, you will agree, I am sure, that the question which I have ventured to ask has given rise to a very impressive debate, and, particularly, to a very serious, deliberate and important answer by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack. The Lord Chancellor has answered the questions which my Motion contained quite plainly by saying that Hitler's régime can and must be destroyed and that the German people is not thereby doomed to destruction. I am grateful for that reply, and I am grateful also for what the Lord Chancellor has said about the encouragement which the Government give to the opposition in Germany, realizing that it is upon the German people, with help from outside, that responsibility rests for a change of Government. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor for what he so kindly said about the propriety of this particular moment in the history of the war for raising this matter. I appreciate very much his references to M. Stalin, and the manner in which he has shown up the hollowness of Goebbels' policy. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.