HL Deb 26 February 1946 vol 139 cc890-909
LORD VANSITTART

had given Notice that he would call attention to certain questions relating to Austria; and move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I first put down this motion I had intended to cover a fairly wide field, but I thought it might facilitate the reply if I confined myself to the smallest possible number of points. Therefore, to-day I have limited myself to three.

In the first place, I submit that denazification in Austria is proceeding too slowly and too half-heartedly. The Inter-Allied Kommandatur has complained previously four times on this score, and British Military Government has censured the Austrian Advisory Committee in Styria for being more preoccupied with release and reinstatement than with purge or arrest or dismissal. Two other quite interesting points arise in this connexion. One is that too many Austrians are still disinclined to denounce Nazis to the Allies. They look upon it rather as being a denouncement of fellow-Germans to a foreigner, and I submit that is not a healthy frame of mind. The other aspect is more legitimate. Too many of them are still afraid of what may happen after the Allied occupation is withdrawn. Some minds are still haunted by the possibility that thereafter the Nazis and the Pan-Germans may get together again. There is one way in which that fear can be dispatched and that is by a more resolute policy. We should make it plain that we will no longer accept the excuse that a Nazi cannot be liquidated because he is administratively indispensable — on the contrary I would urge His Majesty's Government that it is indispensable that all indispensable Nazis should be dispensed with. We still have a good deal of Pan-Germanism to deal with in that country. An example brought to my notice is worth mentioning. It is an extract from the Linzer Tagblatt. Linz is in the American sector and that paper is the Socialist organ there. This is what it says: There are no Austrian people—no Austrian nation, but what do exist are Austrian citizens of German nationality. The Austrians are a German tribe, and one of the best German tribes, whose duty is to take the lead in the renaissance of Germany which will still again march at the head of the European peoples! My Lords, you are getting near to something most dangerous. I am surprised the American authorities are allowing it. We should keep our eyes on this very strictly. Some recent developments in Soviet foreign policy have compelled me to be critical. I am in full agreement with the Communist Austria paper the Oesterreichische Volkstimme. It says: The elimination of the Nazi spirit in Austria is impossible without a determined struggle against the greater German idea, a struggle which has hardly begun in Austria. That last sentence is an over-statement, because I have seen a very great deal of excellent material produced in other sectors. There is a first-class article by Dr. Missong in the Oesterreichische Monatshefte, which put the anti-Pan-German case as well as it can be put, and I submit that we should encourage the Missongs and discourage the writer of that article in the Linzer Tagblatt.

Secondly, I would like to ask for an approximate estimate, not an accurate return of the number of Allied troops still in occupation in Austria; how many British, French, Russian and American troops still remain. Nobody could be more adamant than I in insisting on a long and adequate occupation of Germany, but like all sensible people I do differentiate between that enemy and the ex-satellites who now really present no danger to anybody. Moreover, it is quite impossible for these small countries to achieve a real economic resurrection so long as they are over-burdened with futile and excessive precautions, more especially as some of the troops of occupation are still living on the country, which is indeed an unnecessarily heavy burden at this time of day. When that information was last sought several months ago in another place, the reply was given that that information could not be afforded on the grounds of security, but I very much hope that that answer will not be given to me to-day. The war has been over for ten months, and I ask whose security could be compromised, or how, by a little timely and approximate enlightenment? I would add that I believe it is still possible easily to exterminate Nazism and Pan-Germanism with less massive forces than those employed on the task at present.

Now I come to my third point. I wish to mention the matter of the South Tyrol. Your Lordships will observe that I say "the matter" and not "the question" because, to me, at least, there is no question. This involves a little retrospect. From time immemorial most countries and most languages have been feminine, and the convention has at least had the substance that during unregenerate days they sometimes contracted marriages of convenience, or even embraced the highest and most attractive bidder. Towards the end of the last century, Italy entered into a mésalliance with Austria and Germany. They were impossible bed-fellows and relations soon cooled, entirely to Italy's credit and to our advantage. To cut a long story short, as your Lordships know the result was that in the first world war Italy broke away and joined the Western Allies. But there was a price for that, and part of the price was the South Tyrol.

I have often heard the resulting Treaty attacked—and I do not suppose it was a very moral one—but it would be idle, and indeed ungenerous, to deny that it brought us very tangible and solid benefits in an hour of dire need. It would also be ungenerous to forget that during that time of need the Italians performed some remarkable feats of mountain warfare. So we struggled through the bad patch and won the war. Then we had to deliver the goods; we had committed ourselves to make a whole province and its principal river call themselves Alto Adige, but the river in its upper reaches could say nothing but its real name, Etsch, Hochetsch. Oberetsch, as is the wont of Highland streams. It could not make a sound like Alto Adige till far lower down its course.

My conscience was unperturbed by the Treaty of Saint Germain. I took the view that next to the Germans the Austrians were responsible for the worst war in history so far, that losers must pay and that most payments are just, but I had a few qualms about this particular portion of the settlement, as I knew something of that part of the world. The principal peace-makers appeared to feel their position much more acutely. Mr. Lloyd George admitted that the transaction was a breach of the principle of self-determination. President Wilson was even more unhappy; he said that a terrible error had been made; he was very sorry about it, but he had been run into it before he had had time to study the facts—and I should add that even when he had had time to study the facts, he still seemed to have got his census figures wrong by nearly 100,000. In your Lordships' House Lord Bryce made an impassioned oration, in which he called the whole transaction "a gross offence against: the principle of nationality," and he added that people were being herded like sheep. We have got used since then to herding on a larger scale, but here I am to-day to echo Lord Bryce with, I hope, complete dispassion and a better chance of success. For the whirligig of time brings not only its revenges but its repentances.

All the time there was a perfectly easy and equitable solution waiting for us. We had only to give the Italian-speaking portion to the Italians and the German-speaking portion to the Austrians, and there was a ready-made frontier already on the ground at Salurn. But in those days people were not very apt to listen to such ideas; they were still obsessed with the idea that extension spelt happiness, and I think it is one of the world's tragedies that that mania has not even now departed from the minds of the mighty. Anyhow, the whole region was blandly labelled Compartimento Venezia Tridentina, but the river still said Etsch, and the language boundary remained just where it was. The Italian case was based on defence, and now that case is even less defensible than it was then. So far as I know, the Brenner has played no part in this war, and it is even less likely to play one in the atomic age. Yet even in the atomic age it w[...] be folly to deride all natural frontiers, because, just as at one time in American boxing there were fair fouls and foal fouls, so also there are natural natural frontiers and unnatural natural frontiers. I think my meaning will be clearer when I say that: all watersheds were not necessarily made to divide homo sapiens with an ice-field, and on the other hand that no faith has yet moved the Pyrenees; indeed, I believe there are quite a number of people at this moment engaged in wishing they were higher.

Between Austria and Italy there was, as I have said, a natural frontier, but it was disregarded in 1920 for the very simple reason that one of the claimants was the winner and the other the loser. Now that they are both losers it may be easier to hear the voice of the river. The river says quite plainly that in Austrian census of 1910 there were some 225,000 German speakers and only 7,000 Italian speakers, and those figures are so well-founded and accurate that even in the Italian census of 1921 they were not markedly changed. Of course, the Italians at the Peace Conference said that that quarter of a million was of no particular significance, and equally naturally the Tyrolese said that to them the Tyrol was a home, whereas to Italy it was only a tract of land. In the Trentino the positions were exactly reversed. There were 360,000 Italian speakers, and only 10,000 German speakers. The Italian majority was 97 per cent.—almost the figures of a totalitarian election. I ask your Lordships what compromise could possibly have been easier.

It is so rarely that the easiest way is the right way that we seem to be hesitating very strongly to take it again, because the way that the Allies took in 1920 was neither the right way nor the wise way. They were blind to their own principles and deaf to the parable of the river. In trying to make Italy defensible, they made Austria indefensible. Yet if there is one thing which emerges clearly from subsequent events, it is that the real interest of the Allies lay in fortifying the key position of Austria against Pan-Germany. I submit that in the long run Italian interests would also have been better served by an anti-Pan-German Austria and a contented Tyrol rather than by the temporary possession of a gap in the everlasting hills. As it was, the Allies automatically turned Austrian eyes northward. There was no love of North Germany in South Tyrol, but northwards lay the normal markets, and from them the South Tyrol was cut off, to its own undoing, and to no corresponding Italian benefit.

Only last week in the House of Commons the Secretary of State criticized what he called the uneconomic cut-up of the old Austrian Empire. "This was the most unkindest cut of all," because it was pointless. The wine, the fruit, the vegetables, of this intensely and ingeniously cultural district were redundant in Italy, but easily and habitually marketable in Austria. The wine in particular was an exclusively northern taste, easily gratifiable until a barrier was set up against it high beyond the Etsch. That barrier also impeded the passage of the Tyrol's, cattle and lumber. Tyrolese marble could find an outlet north but not in the glutted south, and, conversely, the North Tyrol lost the market for its industrial produce. Worst of all the tourist traffic began to dry up; like the symbolic Etsch it flowed south and not north. To my mind the Allies made the worst of both possible worlds. To ensure failure the Italians resorted to persecution, and that persecution, I would remind your Lordships, began before the Fascist era. Therefore, it would be difficult to trust even democratic Italy again in a district where, to my mind, she has no real business.

As your Lordships will probably remember the teaching of German, even the use of the word Südtirol, became an offence. Italians were pumped in from the south and the administration was handed over to an inefficient bureaucracy, inefficient because most of the bureaucrats could not speak the language of the people they were supposed to administer. Fascism increased the pace. German was eliminated from the streets, from the lanes, from the Law Courts and the cemeteries. Cheap labour was imported, factories were subsidized and set up in the orchards. In 1939 these unfortunate people were again sold down their own river, this time by an Austrian. Hitler and Mussolini concluded a bargain whereby the people of the South Tyrol were compelled to choose between Italianization or deportation to the Third Reich. But even those who opted for Italianization were given to understand that they might be deported south of the Po. Faced with those jolly alternatives, 70 per cent. opted for the country where they could at least make themselves understood. But they soon discovered their mistake, when they found out what the Third Reich was like. In the following year, 1940, more than 20,000 cancelled their Vote. Emigration practically ceased. By the end of 1942 only some 70,000 had gone, and some of those trickled back. The rest were scattered abroad in Lorraine, Luxembourg, Bohemia, Carinthia. Italians took their place so far as possible.

Then peace came. One would have thought the Allies would have sat down to consider past errors, but that does not appear to have been at all the case. On the contrary, during 1945 some 30,000 or 40,000 more Italians went in, over and above the 100,000 who had already found their way in since 1923. Then, at the end of the year, the Allies handed back the administration to Italy. That seems to me quite an incomprehensible decision. Now the Italians are in all the offices and influential positions. The purge of Fascism has been slight. Why should they be purged when they can be counted upon to vote for annexation? On the other hand, a good many German speakers have been purged, and quite rightly, because they fought for Hitler. But if you purge one species of black sheep and leave the other you destroy your balance, particularly when Fascist laws remain and Italian garrisons. Some of them bade a facile farewell to discipline. One of the great troubles has been the Folgore division which we armed. At the same time, to be fair, and I wish above all things to be fair, that division did render very signal service in the cause of the Allies during the period of co-belligerency.

By methods such as these and past manipulation of records all real basis for a plebiscite has been destroyed in advance. I hope we shall hear no more of such a remedy, the results of which would be bound to be "phoney." There is only one thing to be done and that is to hand back the South Tyrol to Austria without further fuss or intrigue, and let the Italians keep the Trentino. I hope that no one will think that I speak with any pro-Austrian bias. The Austrians have fought against us twice, but the second time I think it was, to some extent at any rate, our own fault, for our inability to recognize the expansionist tendencies of totalitarian régimes. But the Allies decided at Moscow to give Austria another chance. I applauded and applaud that decision. That being so, if having decided to give a final chance we do not make it a fair one, what fools we shall be. What fools we shall be if we make exactly the same mistake again that we made before. Equally, my Lords, I would ask you not to think that I speak with anti-Italian bias. You will remember that I began by saying that I fully recognize all the services rendered by Italy when she fought on the right side in the first world war. Still less do I forget the services which she rendered during the period of co-belligerency. Yet the fact remains that the claim to the South Tyrol was always a bad, one and, such as it was, was forfeit when Italy returned to the German connexion. I make every allowance for the pressure to which she was subjected.

As I explained the other day, I deem it essential to any wise long-term policy of His Majesty's Government that they should aim at the creation of a happy, honest and prosperous Italy, able and willing to take her place in that Western Union which I so strongly urge. Therefore it would never occur to me to be unjust in this matter. For that reason, I" would certainly not contemplate robbing Italy of Trieste, where there is an unchallengeable Italian majority. I do not think that there is any ethical or ethnological ground for handing Trieste to Tito. Therefore if you wish to be lenient to Italy there is a way in which you can be both just and lenient. If you wish to push leniency still farther you can perhaps consider some leniency in the matter of the pre-Fascist colonies. The matter in which you cannot be both just and lenient is in the case of the South Tyrol. John Bull has got the worst memory in the world, but even he will not thank you if you foist upon him an unjust and selfish settlement in favour of a flighty respondent.

Italy may have considered herself underpaid for her services in the first world war, but in this particular region she was undoubtedly overpaid. To pay her all over again in exactly the same coin after a decade of infidelity is not policy but lunacy. I therefore hope that we can be assured that the re-commission of old mistakes will be no part of the programme of His Majesty's Government, and the sooner we receive that assurance the less chance there will be that the advent of peace which has already been heralded by so much disappointment may not be marred by another injustice. I beg to move.

3.50 p.m.

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, I think we ought to be glad that the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, has brought the attention of your Lordships' House to certain questions connected with Austria, because Austria is clearly a country of great importance for the future of Europe. We were not aware from the Order Paper of the questions which the noble Lord was going to raise. If I do not confine myself strictly to them I hope your Lordships will forgive me. The first question he raised was that of the denazification of Austria. I think your Lordships will agree that denazification should take place provided that it is confined to people who are, or who are proved to be, acknowledged Nazis. We must not allow personal influences to interfere with justice, and I think the noble Lord will agree with that. I was troubled and alarmed by the extract which he read from a newspaper. I hope it is not a paper of importance, but I feel strongly that such an article ought not to be allowed in a zone occupied by one of our Allies.

I trust that the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, has brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government will receive sympathetic consideration by the Government and I hope, too, that when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack replies, he will be able to give us an assurance that everything possible is being done for the consolidation of Austria and, if possible, both for her restoration and consolidation as an independent State. We have had very many official assurances that that is the policy of His Majesty's Government and we hope therefore that we shall be told that real progress has been made. In this connexion, I should like to congratulate the Government on the initiative they took in reducing the number of troops of occupation. I think that that was a wise and happy measure.

Now for the South Tyrol. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, that there is great substance in the claim by Austria for the return of the German-speaking provinces. Historically it is justified, geographically it is justified, and it is just. I am glad to know that the Austrian Government have made no claim to the Trentino, and I think that there they have shown themselves to be extremely wise. As a matter of history, I differ perhaps as to the value of the Brenner Pass as a strategic frontier, because I remember that the first time Austria was threatened by Germany, troops were sent to the Brenner Pass and the danger was averted. That shows that the Brenner is of considerable strategic value, but in spite of that I strongly urge that it should be returned to Austria. Clearly, there is no reason why as regards the German-speaking provinces of the South Tyrol, we should repeat the mistake of the 1919 settlement. The position is completely different to-day. It is generally acknowledged that Austria was the first victim of Nazi aggression, and if that is so, she is surely entitled to every consideration from the victorious Powers.

I should like to take the opportunity of reminding your Lordships of a very important letter which was written by the present President of the Austrian State, Dr. Karl Renner, because I consider that one passage in it contains matter which I hope the Government will bear in mind, and which your Lordships should bear in mind. He wrote this: The guarantee for Austrian existence does not rest solely, nor even in the first instance, with the people of her soil, but it rests in a higher degree with the world outside. This estimate by Dr. Renner accurately expresses the position of Austria. I think it is a truth which the Powers who are dealing with Austria should never overlook. Unfortunately, as your Lordships know, the truth became obscured during the decade preceding the war and the collapse of Austria, with all its unhappy consequences, was the result. I trust sincerely that that will not be repeated and that the warning of Dr. Renner, who speaks with great authority, will be taken as a salutary reminder of Austrian opinion. It does not mean that the Austrians themselves can contribute nothing. They can contribute a great deal, and they can contribute not only to the consolidation of their country, but to the consolidation of peace as a whole. How can that be achieved? I think they can achieve it by showing both modera tion and statesmanship in their internal affairs. Happily, the signs are encouraging. I think the Austrians have done very well in the handling of their position. That is a good augury for the future, and I hope that your Lordships will wish that country, as I do, all success and happy future prospects.

I have been happy to be associated recently with certain members of your Lordships' House in making an appeal to do something this winter towards combating the serious conditions which, in common with most countries of the world, Austria has experienced. Happily, that appeal has had remarkable support from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and the Chief Rabbi. They have all said that Austria should be helped. I trust that that appeal may be accepted by the people of Austria as an earnest of the good will which the country as a whole, and your Lordships, feel towards the people of Austria.

3.59 p.m.

LORD SEMPILL

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Earl who has just spoken in regard to what he said about the appeal which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, for the return of the South Tyrol to the motherland, Austria. As your Lordships will remember, some years ago—on February 2, 1943—supported by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I submitted a Motion stressing the vital importance of Austria's independence in the post-war settlement. The tragic story of Austria in the between-war years was outlined and accepted by your Lordships as a correct analysis. At that time the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, was the Leader of your Lordships' House, and he gave a most sympathetic reply, but until the end of that year, 1943, nothing more was heard. Then came the Moscow Declaration guaranteeing the sovereign independence of Austria in the post-war settlement, so that the purpose of the debate was achieved.

As I have indicated, several of your Lordships take a special interest in Austria, and I would like, if I may, to suggest to my noble friend Lord Vansittart, whose Motion your Lordships are debating, that it might be of advantage on other occasions if it were possible in advance of the Motion being debated in your Lordships' House for us to meet together and measure up our views with regard to such important matters. I for one, if I may say so, do not feel that a separate Motion in regard to Austria is required at this moment, and in fact when a week or so ago the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, withdrew his Motion I felt that perhaps he might have come to the same conclusion. Austria holds a key position in the structure of the peace, as your Lordships are agreed, and in those circumstances it would seem to me that her requirements would have found better expression in the foreign affairs debate which is due to take place in your Lordships' House next week.

This said, I would like to join very warmly with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in stressing the tremendous importance of the declaration made recently by the President of the Austrian State, which was read to your Lordships by the noble Earl and which appeared in The Times on February 12. This pronouncement, as the noble Earl said, is of such great importance in setting the position of Austria in perspective that it should not only be recorded in the proceedings of your Lordships' House but it should be noted in every Foreign Office in Europe and particularly in our own Foreign Office. Dr. Renner's warning very clearly underlines the moral of the debate in your Lordships' House in February, 1943, and should, I submit, in no circumstances be ignored. Dr. Renner, as the noble Earl has said, is faced with enormous problems, and your Lordships will wish him well in their solution. I feel that I must take this opportunity of saying that I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, when, in a recent article in the Press, he classed the President as having been or as being a Pan-German. I do not agree at all that he was or is.

The present requirements of Austria I suggest are as follows: The immediate necessity for the reduction of all the Armies of Occupation; the abolition of the separate zones so that Austrian economy may develop naturally; the representation of the "first victim of Nazi aggression"—I wish to emphasize those words—on the United Nations Organization; that distinction be made in all branches of our administration as between Austria and Germany, Austrians and Germans. In many directions there still continues too great a tendency to confuse the two, with injustice to Austria and disadvantage to our best interests with the Austrian people. I hope that there may be no weakening in our attitude as regards preserving Carinthia to Austria. Equally as regards the German-speaking provinces of the. South Tyrol I fully support all that has been said so very clearly and with many arguments that cannot be gainsaid by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart. I hope that these provinces may be returned to Austria. On this subject there exists strong public feeling in this country. Italy can derive no conceivable advantage from retaining within her borders a people linked by so many ties with Austria, the motherland; a territory necessary to Austria if Austria is to be consolidated consistently with the interests of all the Powers including Italy. I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, when he comes to reply for His Majesty's-Government, may indicate in a clear statement their attitude with regard to one and all of these points I have the honour to submit.

4.7 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the Lord Chancellor when he comes to reply to a Foreign Office debate of this sort is, I say quite frankly, in a somewhat difficult position. The House has listened with great interest and profound respect to the remarks of the previous speakers, the first two of whom at any rate have spent a lifetime in diplomacy and know from their own observation and information the subject matter about which they are talking. When I was spending my time arguing demurrers in the Strand the noble Lords were spending their young days learning those strange foreign languages, and then after that in studying the particular countries. I can claim no such privilege or advantage. Therefore I am bound, to a very large extent, to rely on the brief of the Foreign Office. After many years in the law I do not trust briefs very much. Normally I like to be able to take the matter up with the one-man who really can give me information and can talk to me; that is the Minister-in charge. But my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is having a very short and a very well-earned rest,. and therefore I have been unable to communicate with him or to discuss the matter with him. I shall therefore, I am afraid, have to stick much closer to my instructions than I should like.

For the moment I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, that I am not prepared to tell him the numbers of the forces we have in Austria. I hope, after I have had an opportunity of discussing the position with the Foreign Secretary, I shall be allowed to say publicly what of course I shall say to him privately, but at the present moment I am not in a position to give that information, and therefore the noble Lord must not press me. I shall say this, however, that the forces we have are approximately the same size as those of the Americans; our forces are larger than those of the French; and the forces of the three of us are not so great as the Russian forces. I agree with the noble Lord, and I think with the two other speakers, that the time has now come when the size of these forces might well be drastically reduced. Although it is true that an undertaking has been given that these forces are not going to live on the country, yet, even if that undertaking were rigorously observed, it is unfortunate that you should have a large number of military personnel still living in the country, tending to increase its financial difficulties and so on.

Austria must not think of herself as dependent unduly on outside resources. She has to live her own life and evolve her own economy, and we have to help her to do it; the best way we can help her at the present moment, as in the future, is to reduce the number of our forces to such an extent as is sufficient for the important tasks which still remain to be done. There should be a substantial reduction. Therefore, in November last, we proposed that this should be done, but down to the present time we have, unfortunately, been unable to obtain the consent of our Russian allies to this course. The Americans and the French are in substantial agreement with the course we have proposed. We have more recently put forward a new project to the same effect, and I am hopeful that our Russian Allies will concur in the course we have proposed. In the meantime, I would like to say this. I am quite satisfied that the services the British Forces have rendered to Austria, not only in matters of food but in matters of transport and in the restoration of some of the industries, mining in particular, have been very great and very remarkable.

Now I pass to the second topic, the slowness of denazification of Austria. Let me state again categorically that our object is to destroy, and to destroy utterly, the whole structure of National Socialism. That involves two things. It is easy enough to pick up those persons who are, or were, holding certain specified positions in the Nazi movement. They, after all, can be identified; they can be picked up and kept in some safe place. The trouble is that, altogether apart from those in what I might call the specified categories, there are a number of sympathizers who played a more or less important part, on whose activities and on whose sympathy this structure was built. It is much more difficult to find out who those people were and to get at them. At the present time we have made something like 6,000 arrests, but those 6,000 mainly come from what I call the specified categories, and comparatively few are in the discretionary type of case where we want to find the influential people.

We are working in this way. In each district of the British zone we have working with us an Austrian Advisory Committee. They are advising us with regard to those we have arrested, as to whether or not we can safely let some of them go; and, secondly, they are advising us with regard to those we have not arrested, as to whether there are other people and which other people we ought to arrest. I should be lacking in candour if I did not tell your Lordships that the advice they are ready to give us in the former respect—that is to say, letting go those we have arrested—seems to be more ready than their advice in the second category, namely, what further people we should arrest. But we are going on and we shall continue to go on, even though we do reduce, as I hope we shall, the size of our occupation forces.

In the meantime it is fair to point out that the Austrian Government themselves have set up what I may call a denazification committee in order to purge the Government, the civil service, and industry generally of people with Nazi records and Nazi sympathies. We have made, I believe, very considerable progress and we shall certainly not relax our efforts to see that this job is really and thoroughly done. We shall continue to watch the matter with attention. For our object is to purge from Austria this nazification, in order that Austria may maintain its complete independence and separation from Germany. In spite of everything about Austria, in spite of the overwhelming responsibility of Austria for the 194 war and the rôle she played in the last war, there remains, I firmly believe, friendship between the people of this country and the people of Austria, and we want the Austrian people to be free and independent and true to their own traditions.

The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, asked me about the article in the Linzer Tagblatt. That was a paper published in the United States bane. I agree with him as to the nature of the article, which I have seen. It is right to add that it was promptly challenged by the Vienna Socialist newspaper, and it is further right to add that the United States authorities were so disturbed that an article of that nature should be published that they have put the paper under an interdict, and at the present time it is not allowed to be published. But I agree that the fact that that publication was made reminds us that this matter is one which demands our constant attention.

I would like, from my own observation of Austria just to say this: that if we want to achieve and maintain complete Austrian independence, I am perfectly certain that we must take care to see that we make Austria possible as an economic entity. If you have a great metropolis surrounded by a comparatively few villages, hemmed in by tariff barriers in all directions, it must be exceedingly difficult for Austria to survive. It was because of these things, I believe, that certain Austrians who, I say frankly, should have known better, regarded themselves as interested in Pan-Germany. The other day, speaking in another place, the Foreign Secretary urged those countries living in the Danube Basin to see whether they could not do something to remove all these barriers which are throttling trade in that area. I hope that in the future we shall be able to do something on those lines. I am quite satisfied that if we make it possible for Austria to have a suitable economic existence, we shall be doing the very best we can for her.

In the case of the South Tyrol, the matter is not quite so simple, if I may say so with the greatest respect, as the noble Lord's statement would lead one to suppose. It is in these areas—which rightly or wrongly were handed over to Italy as the result of the first Great War—that great hydro-electric works have in the meantime been undertaken by the Italians, with Italian capital, in territory, part of which, at any rate, is undoubtedly ethnically Austrian—in other words, peopled by German-speaking people. What is to be done under these circumstances? The Austrian Government have put forward a claim to the Province Of Bolzano and they have made it plain that, if their claim is granted, they will have complete regard to Italian interests in regard to the hydro-electric works and so on; whereas the Italians who are resisting the claim have made it plain that if the territory is allowed to remain with them, they will grant a very wide measure of local autonomy in the area. I devoutly hope that a satisfactory solution to these problems will be found, that both countries will derive benefit from these natural resources and that the problem will not be allowed to become a bone of contention with assertions of prestige and the like.

I do not think it right that I should pronounce on behalf of His Majesty's Government in any way on this matter today. After all, this case is at the present moment in a very real sense sub judice. It is now actually being discussed by the Deputies of the Foreign Ministers in connexion with the drafting of a Peace Treaty with Italy. Both sides should be heard, and heard fully, before any solution to the problem is propounded. I would like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, that, although the South Tyrol was handed over to Italy for administration, it was done without prejudice to what might be considered right in regard to the eventual disposal of the territory under the Peace Treaty. It had to be administered by somebody as a purely temporary measure, and it was made clear by a public statement at the time that this action was entirely without prejudice to the eventual disposal of the territory. We are perfectly free to do what we think right, always assuming of course, that we can get other people to agree with us. I do not think, for the reasons I have given, that it will be useful to discuss this matter further today.

I am very grateful to your Lordships for having had this debate, and I am very grateful for the speeches which were made. The observations which your Lordships make on this matter with great authority will be very carefully considered by those responsible for the formulation of our policy in Austria. I think all sides of the House agree on this. We want to see a free, happy prosperous and independent Austria, an Austria which can maintain its independence and survive as an entity, completely separate from the German people.

4.15 p.m.

LORD VANSITTART

My Lords, I am very grateful for the support to my Motion which I have received from the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I gather he agreed with most of what I said, and I agree with most of what he said. On that I have little comment to make. There appears to be only one infinitesimally small difference between us, and that is the value of the "Brenner" in 1934. I always regarded that as a contest between two bluffers, and that "saw-dust Caesar" out-bluffed "Schikelgruber." Lord Sempill suggested that when I spoke again it would be well if we got together and I organized some support before I spoke. I have frequently spoken in this House in a manner that has not always been acceptable, and I have always studiously refrained from anything in the nature of soliciting, because I did not want to put any of my friends in the delicate position of having to say they do not wish to speak. The noble Lord went on to suggest that I had previously withdrawn my Motion. I never did anything of the sort. I merely postponed it, because I was informed it might come on at such a late hour. It was merely out of consideration for the House that I postponed it.

It is quite true that I did object originally to the declaration of Dr. Renner, and I am not going to be drawn on to that ground because I do not wish to. There is a difference between Gross-Deutsch and Alt-Deutsch. My original objection to Dr. Renner had nothing to do with personalites. I merely thought he was a dangerous President, with a very Gross-Deutsch record. That is a matter of the past and I do not wish to revert to it.

THE EARL OF PERTH

I cannot accept that it is a very Gross-Deutsch record. I do not wish to go into the argument, par ticularly as it refers to the Head of a friendly State.

LORD VANSITTART

I affirm it. I do not wish again to be drawn on to that. There is very ample evidence of it. I prefer to let people speak for themselves, and that voice was a very clear one. With regard to the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I heard with regret, but without surprise, that he felt unable to give me even an approximate idea of the number of troops of occupation. He did say, if I understood him aright, that the forces of the French, the British and the Americans combined were considerably inferior to those of the Russians. Therefore, I suggest that His Majesty's Government might enter into communication with the Soviet Government with a view to getting some alteration there. He said they had already arrested 6,000 Nazis. That seems to be a disappointingly small figure. I should have been better pleased with 16,000, and perhaps the Foreign Office will duly inform me when they have reached that more satisfactory figure. He went on to say it was the firm intention of His Majesty's Government to purge the place of all these various taints, and there again I listened with very great interest. The only comment I have is that the purge has not been effected yet. I hope it may be stimulated. I welcome very much also what he had to tell me about the Linzer Tagblatt. That certainly is the stuff to give Pan-Germanism. I hope the dose will be repeated whenever necessary.

The noble and learned Lord went on to make a point which surprised me a little. He said the matter was complicated by the fact that the Italians had established power stations in the South Tyrol. Of that, I am well aware. I see no reason why Austria or the South Tyrol should not export power just as Switzerland does. I think the noble and learned Lord would be surprised were I to raise in another context the argument he has used here. Suppose I were to wait at his residence until he takes a vacation, and then slip in and instal a refrigerator: he would be surprised if I were to claim that the residence were henceforth mine. I do not think that is an admissible argument. He also said the administration of the South Tyrol had been handed back to the Italians without prejudice. I am afraid you cannot do that. It is not possible to hand it back without prejudice. The possidentes have certain advantages which you cannot annul.

I quite understand that he is not able to disclose to me the intentions of His Majesty's Government in regard to this area, but it may assist matters again if the substance of this debate is brought to their notice, with a rider that some of us, at least, would find it very difficult not to move to reject a treaty which contains a repetition of old injustices. Meanwhile, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his remarks and for the support I have received in this debate. I hope it may have done something to clear the air and show what this House esteems to be justice, which I hope also I shall see done. I beg leave to 'withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.