HL Deb 24 January 1946 vol 138 cc1110-7

3.40 p.m.

VISCOUNT EUBANK had the following Notice on the Paper: To call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the necessity for arranging without delay that the western boundary of Germany shall in future be the Rhine River, and that the Rhineland and the Ruhr be created into a separate State, and he collectively controlled and administered by the United Kingdom, France, and the other countries adjacent to, their western boundaries, under the auspices of the United Nations Organization; and to move for Papers.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it was suggested to me that my Motion might be taken with that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, and one noble Lord did speak on my Motion in the course of his speech on that of Lord Vansittart. The two Motions deal, however, with two different subjects. The one proposes the integration of Europe, while the other—my own—deals specifically with the western side of Germany and with what we are going to do with Germany. In the debate on the international situation, in your Lordships' House in November last, I spoke in terms similar to those contained in my Motion to-day. No reply was given to me on that occasion. Regarding this, as I do, as a very important issue I put it down in the form of a Motion. Just before the Recess I was asked by the Government to postpone my Motion owing to the fact that the Moscow Conference was going to meet, and I agreed to do so. To-day, my Motion is on the paper again and I hope sincerely that I shall receive a reply of some substance to it. It was a great disappointment to me to observe from the official statements that were made after the Moscow Conference that this question of the western boundary of Germany was apparently not considered at all at the Conference.

Now I should like to refer back a little to the Potsdam Conference. A decision was reached at that Conference by the Big Three to treat Germany as an economic whole. The French, as is within your Lordships' recollection, were not represented at the Potsdam Conference or at the Moscow Conference. They have adopted—and I am glad that they have done so—the strong view and attitude that no central government machinery should be set up in Germany as was suggested, or rather as was arranged at Potsdam, and that in no case should this be done until the boundaries of Western Germany had been determined. The French contend, as many here in this country contend also, that the two territories of the Ruhr and the Rhineland should be separated now and at once from the rest of Germany, otherwise—and this is the important point—any centralizing, economic or administrative machinery that may be established for Germany (and we do not know, for we have not been told, how soon that machinery is to be established) is bound to expand into these densely industrialized territories which I have named.

That would be absolutely fatal, for it would be very difficult—as I think your Lordships will agree—later on to reverse the policy and to disentangle it from those territories. The French also point out—and this is a very bitter truth—that they have been aggressively attacked and despoiled and ravaged by Germany three times during the past seventy-five years. We ourselves, as we arc only too well aware, have also within the past thirty years been terribly affected by two of those aggressive wars. It cannot be gainsaid that Germany has always utilized the Ruhr and the Rhineland with their great war potentials, as the foundation for her war preparations and has made those areas the spearhead of her attacks upon France, Belgium, Luxembourg and, more latterly in this last great war, Holland.

Unless therefore—so far as many of us can judge—these two territories are separated from Germany the time will surely come again when Germany out of revenge will once more use them to prepare for and to launch another aggressive war against France and ourselves and these other countries. France, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg lie in the direct line of attack from Germany. We ourselves lie on the outer line of attack. They lie—and I wish to emphasize this —on the inner edge of the Germanic volcano while this country rests uneasily on its outer lip. If that Germanic volcano were to erupt again, as it has done in the past, we should all once more be caught. This must be avoided, and we must make sure of this now when we have the opportunity and not miss this chance as we missed it after the last great war of 1914–18.

Now what has Russia done about this? We have during the last debate heard something about Russia and what she has done. I would like to reiterate some of that. Russia, on her part, has already made certain that, her western boundary shall be secure, and, together with Poland, has made the boundary on her side of the river Oder. I wish, moreover, to point out that what I am suggesting to-day is something in degree much less harsh than has occurred on Germany's, eastern side, for, as all of us know, Russia and Poland have not only occupied German territory, but they are evicting into Germany all the German population from the areas that they have seized. This may possibly be a necessary precaution—I am not questioning in to-day—but it is not proposed that such drastic action should be taken so far as the Ruhr or the Rhineland is concerned. It is not proposed that the German population from those territories should be poured back into the centre of Germany. That is not my suggestion nor, so far as I know, is it the French intention.

Another point I should like to mention is this. I n connexion with what Russia is doing, I cannot believe that, even in the event of the Rhineland and the Ruhr being internationalized and permanently occupied by troops of the adjacent countries, Russia would wish to take part in that: permanent occupation, because, taking the converse case, I cannot conceive that Russia would agree, for a moment, to our sending troops, or France sending troops, into East Prussia which, together with Poland, Russia has seized, so far as one can judge, for good. It would no be a convenient arrangement for either of us, and I cannot conceive that Russia would ask for a quid pro quo of that kind.

A further point I would like to make arises in this way. Every responsible person coming from the British Zone to whom I have spoken recently has advised me that what I propose in my Motion is absolutely essential for the proper settle-merit of the German problem now and in the future. They have further emphasized to me that it is absolutely necessary to separate and create separate States out of these two territories. Quite recently—two or three weeks ago as a matter of fact—General McNarney, the American Commander in Germany, publicly in the Press called for an urgent decision on the western frontiers of Germany. He linked this request up with the fact that the United States Army of Occupation in Germany will be drastically reduced in strength during this year, and it is quite probable—indeed we have been told so in the Press and, I think in another place—that our own Army of Occupation is likely to be reduced, but of course to a lesser degree. General McNarney has pointed out that world security will in all probability be threatened when Germany's reconstruction is complete, if we do not take these steps.

In my Motion I have suggested that the Rhineland and the Ruhr should be collectively controlled and administered by the adjacent countries, France, Holland and Belgium, together with ourselves under the auspices of the United Nations Organization. I think probably this is the best arrangement, but if, on the other hand, it is thought that control and administration should have a broader international application I, for one, should raise no objection because what we are really most anxious to see is that all steps should be taken to ensure an early separation from Germany of the Ruhr and the Rhineland and that, in effect, the River Rhine on both its banks should become our western boundary with Germany in the future. I wish to emphasize that pointL—both banks of the Rhine. Militarily it is necessary that this should be clone and it would not be difficult for an international military commission to delimitate such a boundary on the western side of Germany as would secure the Rhine as the boundary on our side.

I am told further—I do not know whether this is absolutely necessary—that Dusseldorf, Cologne, Coblenz and Mainz ought certainly to be included within the Rhineland and not left inside Germany. A suggestion has been made that as a solution the Ruhr arid the Rhine should be internationalized economically and not politically but that politically they should still form part of Germany, and that the political administration should be in the hands of Germany. To that policy I am utterly opposed, as I can foresee, German character and methods being what they are and have been, that these will not change. The leopard does not change its spots and neither will the character and methods of Germany change as far as this matter is concerned, especially with the strong feelings of revenge that she must have in her as a result of all that has hap pened. One feels that no change is possible. I foresee that as time goes on Germany, through her political machinery, would once more gain control over the economic machinery of the two territories concerned.

There may be those who do not believe even in the wisdom of internationalizing the Ruhr and the Rhineland economically. The argument will probably be that Germany or what is left of Germany would find it difficult to survive economically if she were deprived of the whole substance of the Ruhr as well as of the Rhineland which includes the large Saar coal deposits, but this need not be the case at all. It would, I submit, be quite easy to make agreements with the Ruhr-Rhineland international authority or authorities under which Germany could be granted annually a reasonable and fair proportion of coal, steel and iron which would enable her to live—when I say Germany I mean the rest of Germany—on a basis of planned economy and to create the light industries which will be necessary for her to get on her feet again.

All sensible people are averse from Germany once more having an opportunity of establishing within her borders large, heavy industries with war potentials which will enable her to prepare for and launch, probably, another aggressive war. The only way whereby we on our side of Europe can rest peacefully secure in our beds in the future is by cutting off the Ruhr and the Rhineland and by depriving Germany in this manner of the facilities for waging war against us. Finally, therefore, I ask the Government to give me an assurance to-day that the policy I propose in my Motion is the policy that they are pursuing, and that they will match hand in hand with our ally France and do all they can to ensure close cooperation with them in this matter which is so vital to our and to their future security and to the future security of a the countries adjacent on the western side of Germany. I beg to move.

3.56 p.m.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

My Lords, I shall not be able to give the noble Viscount all the full and detailed assurances that he desires but there are a good many points on which the Government and he see eye to eye. The small industrial area of the Ruhr and the larger area of the Rhineland have been extremely important in the past to Germany in the pursuit of her military aims. The Ruhr is an arsenal with its great richness of natural resources and its industries while the Rhineland has been a jumping off ground —twice in our lifetime—for attacks on France. Although I am not able to lay any definite plan before the House and to explain it to the noble Viscount, I can say right away that whatever policy is pursued will be designed to make it impossible for Germany ever to be able to start another war. The arsenal of the Ruhr must never be in the possession of a militaristic German Government, and the Rhineland area must never again be used by her for the same purpose, as she has used it in the past.

This matter was first raised by the French. They wished to have it discussed at the Foreign Ministers' Conference in September but it was decided that it should be dealt with through diplomatic channels and in fact they took their proposal both to Washington and Moscow. The French proposal is of much interest. I am in agreement with the noble Viscount that in addition to the four Powers of the Control Commission, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg are interested in this matter. I suppose that is what he means by the adjacent countries. The initiative in this matter, however, at present lies with France. The principle of never permitting these Powers to fall again into the hands of Germany is established. In the Ruhr a great deal of damage has been done. I visited it, as your Lordships know, two months ago, and can testify to this. Moreover, much industrial plant will no doubt be removed for reparation. But it cannot and should not be entirely destroyed. You cannot destroy a coal mine, for instance, and it will still possess a complicated system of communications and in fact still be a potential arsenal. The view of the Government is that these resources should be used for the benefit of Europe as a whole, bearing in mind that our interests would not lie in the direction of creating in the centre of Europe an economic slum. The needs of Germany have got to be provided for.

Now, of course, the question that is put is what is going to be the industrial and political framework for carrying out this policy? And that is a question I cannot answer. I can only say here, as I said in some earlier remarks this afternoon, that whatever policy the Government does pursue, it will be co-ordinated fully with the machinery of the United Nations Organization, which is the keystone of the policy of His Majesty's Government in this and all other matters.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, may I, before the noble Viscount sits down, if I am not out of order, ask whether the question of imposing central machinery in Germany will be held up pending a settlement of the other point which I raised today?

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

To do justice to the noble Viscount, I would ask him if he would be so kind as to give me a little notice of this, and he will have a full and authoritative reply.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Viscount for his reply, and I am glad to know that the question is being pursued. I am not altogether happy about the last reply which he gave to the question that I put to him, because I feel quite certain in my own mind that if central machinery is applied in Germany to-day and it manages to reach across the boundaries of the Ruhr and the Rhineland, it will be very difficult to reverse it, or to disentangle it again. Therefore in withdrawing my Motion—I am not giving any undertaking that I shall not raise it again—I ask the noble Viscount to convey to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and to lay stress on, the particular point that something has to be done to make sure that those two countries will not be caught in the stranglehold of any administrative or economic machinery in Berlin, or wherever the capital is set up. I beg leave to withdraw.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

4.2 p.m.