Munich
A Total and
Unmitigated Defeat'
On 30 September 1938, Neville Chamberlain returned
from Munich bearing what he believed was Hitler's reassurance of 'peace in our
time'. For a brief interlude, he was the most popular man in the country, and
his parliamentary majority was never in doubt. But during the Commons debate on
the settlement, which lasted from 3 to 6 October, some very powerful speeches
were made in opposition to the betrayal of Czechoslovakia, especially by Duff
Cooper, who had resigned as First Lord of the Admiralty, Archibald Sinclair,
Clement Attlee, Anthony Eden and Richard Law.
As so often, it was Churchill,
who spoke late in the debate for 49 minutes, who provided, in another superb
oration, the most damning indictment of all. The Daily Telegraph believed that
his warnings, by now increasingly verified by events, 'have entitled him to be
heard'. In the final vote, thirty Conservative MPs abstained the most
convincing demonstration yet of the opposition to Chamberlain within the ranks
of his own supporters.
By this time, however, feeling against
Churchill in the Conservative Party was very strong indeed. The Times claimed
that he 'treated a crowded House to prophecies which made Jeremiah appear an
optimist', and even Beaverbrook's Daily Express dismissed it as 'an alarmist
oration by a man whose mind is soaked in the conquests of Marlborough'.
© David Cannadine 1989
The Speech:
House of Commons, 5 October 1938
If I do not begin this afternoon
by paying the usual, and indeed almost inevitable, tributes to the Prime
Minister for his handling of this crisis, it is certainly not from any lack of
personal regard. We have always, over a great many years, had very pleasant
relations, and I have deeply understood from personal experiences of my own in
a similar crisis the stress and strain he has had to bear; but I am sure it is
much better to say exactly what we think about public affairs, and this is
certainly not the time when it is worth anyone's while to court political
popularity. We had a shining example of firmness of character from the late First
Lord of the Admiralty two days ago. He showed that firmness of character which
is utterly unmoved by currents of opinion, however swift and violent they may
be. My hon. friend the Member for South-West Hull [Mr Law], to whose compulsive
speech the House listened on Monday, was quite right in reminding us that the
Prime Minister has himself throughout his conduct of these matters shown a
robust indifference to cheers or boos and to the alternations of criticism or applause.
If that be so, such qualities and
elevation of mind should make it possible for the most severe expressions of
honest opinion to be interchanged in this House without rupturing personal
relations, and for all points of view to receive the fullest possible
expression. Having thus fortified myself by the example of others, I will
proceed to emulate them. I will, therefore, begin by saying the most unpopular
and most unwelcome thing. I will begin by saying what everybody would like to
ignore or forget but which must nevertheless be stated, namely, that we have
sustained a total and unmitigated defeat, and that France has suffered even
more than we have. The utmost my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has been
able to secure by all his immense exertions, by all the great efforts and mobilization
which took place in this country, and by all the anguish and strain through
which we have passed in this country, the utmost he has been able to gain for
Czechoslovakia in the matters which were in dispute has been that the German
dictator, instead of snatching the victuals from the table, has been content to
have them served to him course by course.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
[Sir John Simon] said it was the first time Herr Hitler had been made to
retract I think that was the word in any degree. We really must not waste
time after all this long Debate upon the difference between the positions
reached at Berchtesgaden, at Godesberg and at Munich. They can be very simply
epitomized, if the House will permit me to vary the metaphor. was demanded at
the pistol's point. When it was given, E2 were demanded at the pistol's point.
Finally, the dictator consented to take 17s. 6d. and the rest in promises of
goodwill for the future.
Now I come to the point, which
was mentioned to me just now from some quarters of the House, about the saving
of peace. No one has been a more resolute and uncompromising struggler for
peace than the Prime Minister. Everyone knows that. Never has there been such
intense and undaunted determination to maintain and secure peace. That is quite
true. Nevertheless, I am not quite clear why there was so much danger of Great
Britain or France being involved in a war with Germany at this juncture if, in
fact, they were ready all along to sacrifice Czechoslovakia. The terms which the
Prime Minister brought back with him could easily have been agreed, I believe,
through the ordinary diplomatic channels at any time during the summer. And I
will say this, that I believe the Czechs, left to themselves and told they were
going to get no help from the Western Powers, would have been able to make
better terms than they have got after all this tremendous perturbation; they
could hardly have had worse.
There never can be any absolute
certainty that there will be a fight if one side is determined that it will
give way completely. When one reads the Munich terms, when one sees what is
happening in Czechoslovakia from hour to hour, when one is sure, I will not say
of Parliamentary approval but of Parliamentary acquiescene,, when the
Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a speech which at any rate tries to put in a
very powerful and persuasive manner the fact that, after all, it was inevitable
and indeed righteous: when we saw all this and everyone on this side of the
House, including many members of the Conservative Party who are vigilant and
careful guardians of the national interest, is quite clear that nothing vitally
affecting us was at stake it seems to me that one must ask, What was all the
trouble and fuss about? The resolve was taken by the British and the French
Governments. Let me say that it is very important to realize that it is by no
means a question which the British Government only have had to decide. I very
much admire the manner in which, in the House, all references of a recriminatory
nature have been repressed. But it must be realized that this resolve did not
emanate particularly from one or other of the Governments but was a resolve for
which both must share in common the responsibility. When this resolve was taken
and the course was followed you may say it was wise or unwise, prudent or
short-sighted once it had been decided not to make the defence of
Czechoslovakia a matter of war, then there was really no reason, if the matter
had been handled during the summer in the ordinary way, to call into being all
this formidable apparatus of crisis. I think that point should be considered.
We are asked to vote for this
Motion [That this House approves the policy of His Majesty's Government by
which war was averted in the recent crisis and supports their efforts to secure
a lasting peace.] which has been put upon the Paper, and it is certainly a
Motion couched in very uncontroversial terms, as, indeed, is the Amendment
moved from the Opposition side. I cannot myself express my agreement with the
steps which have been taken, and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put his
side to the case with so much ability I will attempt, if I may be permitted, to
put the case from a different angle. I have always held the view that the
maintenance of peace depends upon the accumulation of deterrents against the
aggressor, coupled with a sincere effort to redress grievances. Herr Hitler's
victory, like so many of the famous struggles that have governed the fate of
the world, was won upon the narrowest of margins. After the seizure of Austria
in March we faced this problem in our Debates. I ventured to appeal to the
Government to go a little further than the Prime Minister went, and to give a
pledge that in conjunction with France and other Powers they would guarantee
the security of Czechoslovakia while the Sudeten-Deutsch question was being
examined either by a League of Nations Commission or some other impartial body,
and I still believe that if that course had been followed events would not have
fallen into this disastrous state. I agree very much with my right hon. Friend
the Member for Sparkbrook [Mr Amery] when he said on that occasion: 'Do one
thing or the other; either say you will disinterest yourself in the matter
altogether or take the step of giving a guarantee which will have the greatest
chance of securing protection for that country.'
France and Great Britain
together, especially if they had maintained a close contact with Russia, which
certainly was not done, would have been able in those days in the summer, when
they had the prestige, to influence many of the smaller states of Europe; and I
believe they could have determined the attitude of Poland. Such a combination,
prepared at a time when the German dictator was not deeply and irrevocably
committed to his new adventure, would, I believe, have given strength to all
those forces in Germany which resisted this departure, this new design. They
were varying forces those of a military character which declared that Germany
was not ready to undertake a world war, and all that mass of moderate opinion
and popular opinion which dreaded war, and some elements of which still have
some influence upon the Government. Such action would have given strength to
all that intense desire for peace which the helpless German masses share with
their British and French fellow men, and which, as we have been reminded, found
a passionate and rarely permitted vent in the joyous manifestations with which
the Prime Minister was acclaimed in Munich. All these forces, added to the
other deterrents which combinations of Powers, great and small, ready to stand
firm upon the front of laN, and for the ordered remedy of grievances, would
have formed, might well have been effective. Between submission and immediate
war there was this third alternative, which gave a hope not only of peace but
of justice. It is quite true that such a policy in order to succeed demanded
that Britain should declare straight out and a long time beforehand that she
would, with others, join to defend Czechoslovakia against an unprovoked
aggression. His Majesty's Government refused to give that guarantee when it
would have saved the situation, yet in the end they gave it when it was too
late, and now, for the future, they renew it when they have not the slightest
power to make it good.
All is over. Silent, mournful,
abandoned, broken, Czechoslovakia recedes into the darkness. She has suffered
in every respect by her association with the Western democracies and with the
League of Nations, of which she has always been an obedient servant. She has
suffered in particular from her association with France, under whose guidance
and policy she has been actuated for so long. The very measures taken by His
Majesty's Government in the Anglo-French Agreement to give her the best chance
possible, namely, the 50 per cent clean-cut in certain districts instead of a
plebiscite, have turned to her detriment, because there is to be a plebiscite
too in wide areas, and those other Powers who had claims have also come down
upon the helpless victim. Those municipal elections upon whose voting the basis
is taken for the 5o per cent cut were held on issues which had nothing to do
with Germany. When I saw Herr Henlein over here he assured me that was not the
desire of his people. Positive statements were made that it was only a question
of home rule, of having a position of their own in the Czechoslovakian State.
No one has a right to say that the plebiscite which is to be taken in areas
under Saar conditions, and the clean-cut of the 50 per cent areas that those
two operations together amount in the slightest degree to a verdict of
self-determination. It is a fraud and a farce to invoke that name.
We in this country, as in other
Liberal and democratic countries, have a perfect right to exalt the principle
of self-determination, but it comes ill out of the mouths of those in
totalitarian states who deny even the smallest element of toleration to every
section and creed within their bounds. But, however you put it, this particular
block of land, this mass of human beings to be handed over, has never expressed
the desire to go into the Nazi rule. I do not believe that even now, if their
opinion could be asked, they would exercise such an opinion.
What is the remaining position of
Czechoslovakia? Not only are they politically mutilated, but, economically and
financially, they are in complete confusion. Their banking, their railway
arrangements, are severed and broken, their industries are curtailed, and the
movement of their population is most cruel. The Sudeten miners, who are all
Czechs and whose families have lived in that area for centuries, must now flee
into an area where there are hardly any mines left for them to work. It is a
tragedy which has occurred. There must always be the most profound regret and a
sense of vexation in British hearts at the treatment and the misfortune which
have overcome the Czechoslovakian Republic. They have not ended here. At any
moment there may be a hitch in the programme. At any moment there may be an
order for Herr Goebbels to start again his propaganda of calumny and lies; at
any moment an incident may be provoked, and now that the fortress line is
turned what is there to stop the will of the conqueror? Obviously, we are not
in a position to give them the slightest help at the present time, except what
everyone is glad to know has been done, the financial aid which the Government
have promptly produced.
I venture to think that in future
the Czechoslovak State cannot be maintained as an independent entity. I think
you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may
be measured only by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi regime.
Perhaps they may join it in despair or in revenge. At any rate, that story is over
and told. But we cannot consider the abandonment and ruin of Czechoslovakia in
the light only of what happened only last month. It is the most grievous
consequence of what we have done and of what we have left undone in the last
five years five years of futile good intentions, five years of eager search
for the line of least resistance, rive years of uninterrupted retreat of
British power, five years of neglect of our air defenses'. Those are the
features which I stand here to expose and which marked an improvident
stewardship for which Great Britain and France have dearly to pay. We have been
reduced in those five years from a position of security so overwhelming and so
unchallengeable that we never cared to think about it. We have been reduced
from a position where the very word 'war' was considered one which could be
used only by persons qualifying for a lunatic asylum. We have been reduced from
a position of safety and power power to do good, power to be generous to a
beaten foe, power to make terms with Germany, power to give her proper redress
for her grievances, power to stop her arming if we chose, power to take any
step in strength or mercy or justice which we thought right reduced in five
years from a position safe and unchallenged to where we stand now.
When I think of the fair hopes of
a long peace which still lay before Europe at the beginning of 1933 when Herr
Hitler first obtained power, and of all the opportunities of arresting the
growth of the Nazi power which have been thrown away, when I think of the
immense combinations and resources which have been neglected or squandered, I
cannot believe that a parallel exists in the whole course of history. So far as
this country is concerned the responsibility must rest with those who have had
the undisputed control of our political affairs. They neither prevented Germany
from rearming, nor did they rearm ourselves in time. They quarreled with Italy
without saving Ethiopia. They exploited and discredited the vast institution of
the League of Nations and they neglected to make alliances and combinations
which might have repaired previous errors, and thus they left us in the hour of
trial without adequate national defense or effective international security.
In my holiday I thought it was a
chance to study the reign of King Ethelred the Unready. The House will remember
that that was a period of great misfortune, in which, from the strong position
which we had gained under the descendants of King Alfred, we fell very swiftly
into chaos. It was the period of
Danegeld and of foreign pressure.
I must say that the rugged words of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, written a
thousand years ago, seem to me apposite, at least as apposite as those
quotations from Shakespeare with which we have been regaled by the last speaker
from the Opposition Bench. Here is what the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle said, and I
think the words apply very much to our treatment of Germany and our relations
with her. 'All these calamities fell upon us because of evil counsel, because
tribute was not offered to them at the right time nor yet were they resisted;
but when they had done the most evil, then was peace made with them.' That is
the wisdom of the past, for all wisdom is not new wisdom.
I have ventured to express those
views in justifying myself for not being able to support the Motion which is
moved tonight, but I recognize that this great matter of Czechoslovakia, and of
British and French duty there, has passed into history. New developments may
come along, but we are not here to decide whether any of those steps should be
taken or not. They have been taken. They have been taken by those who had a
right to take them because they bore the highest executive responsibility under
the Crown. Whatever we may think of it, we must regard those steps as belonging
to the category of affairs which are settled beyond recall. The past is no
more, and one can only draw comfort if one feels that one has done one's best
to advise rightly and wisely and in good time. I, therefore, turn to the
future, and to our situation as it is today. Here, again, I am sure I shall
have to say something which will not be at all welcome.
We are in the presence of a
disaster of the first magnitude which has befallen Great Britain and France. Do
not let us blind ourselves to that. It must now be accepted that all the
countries of Central and Eastern Europe will make the best terms they can with
the triumphant Nazi power. The system of alliances in Central Europe upon which
France has relied for her safety has been swept away, and I can see no means by
which it can be reconstituted. The road down the Danube Valley to the Black
Sea, the road which leads as far as Turkey, has been opened. In fact, if not in
form, it seems to me that all those countries of Middle Europe, all those Danubian
countries, will, one after another, be drawn into this vast system of power
politics not only power military politics but power economic politics
radiating from Berlin, and I believe this can be achieved quite smoothly and
swiftly and will not necessarily entail the firing of a single shot. If you
wish to survey the havoc of the foreign policy of Britain and France, look at
what is happening and is recorded each day in the columns of The Times. Why, I
read this morning about Yugoslavia and I know something about the details of
that country
The effects of the crisis for
Yugoslavia can immediately be traced. Since the elections of 1935, which
followed soon after the murder of King Alexander, the Serb and Croat Opposition
to the Government of Dr Stoyadinovitch have been conducting their entire
campaign for the next elections under the slogan: 'Back to France, England, and
the Little Entente; back to democracy.' The events of the past fortnight have
so triumphantly vindicated Dr Stoyadinovitch's policy ... [his is a policy of
close association with Germany] that the Opposition has collapsed practically
... overnight; the new elections, the date of which was in doubt, are now
likely to be held very soon and can result only in an overwhelming victory for
Dr Stoyadinovitch's Government.
Here was a country which, three
months ago, would have stood in the line with other countries to arrest what
has occurred.
Again, what happened in Warsaw?
The British and French Ambassadors visited the Foreign Minister, Colonel Beck,
or sought to visit him, in order to ask for some mitigation in the harsh
measures being pursued against Czechoslovakia about Teschen. The door was shut
in their faces. The French Ambassador was not even granted an audience and the
British Ambassador was given a most curt reply by a political director. The
whole matter is described in the Polish Press as a political indiscretion
committed by those two powers, and we are today reading of the success of
Colonel Beck's blow. I am not forgetting, I must say, that it is less than
twenty years since British and French bayonets rescued Poland from the bondage
of a century and a half. I think it is indeed a sorry episode in the history of
that country, for whose freedom and right so many of us have had warm and long
sympathy.
Those illustrations are typical.
You will see, day after day, week after week, entire alienation of those
regions. Many of those countries, in fear of the rise of the Nazi power, have
already got politicians, Ministers, Governments, who were pro-German, but there
was always an enormous popular movement in Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria and
Yugoslavia which looked to the Western democracies and loathed the idea of
having this arbitrary rule of the totalitarian system thrust upon them, and
hoped that a stand would be made. All that has gone by the board. We are
talking about countries which are a long way off. But what will be the
position, I want to know, of France and England this year and the year afterwards?
What will be the position of that Western front of which we are in full
authority the guarantors? The German army at the present time is more numerous
than that of France, though not nearly so matured or perfected. Next year it
will grow much larger, and its maturity will be more complete. Relieved from
all anxiety in the East, and having secured resources which will greatly
diminish, if not entirely remove, the deterrent of a naval blockade, the rulers
of Nazi Germany will have a free choice open to them as to what direction they
will turn their eyes. If the Nazi dictator should choose to look westward, as
he may, bitterly will France and England regret the loss of that fine army of
ancient Bohemia which was estimated last week to require not fewer than thirty
German divisions for its destruction.
Can we blind ourselves to the
great change which has taken place in the military situation, and to the
dangers we have to meet? We are in process, I believe, of adding in four years,
four battalions to the British Army. No fewer than two have already been
completed. Here are at least thirty divisions which must now be taken into
consideration upon the French front, besides the twelve that were captured when
Austria was engulfed. Many people, no doubt, honestly believe that they are
only giving away the interests of Czechoslovakia, whereas I fear we shall find
that we have deeply compromised, and perhaps fatally endangered, the safety and
even the independence of Great Britain and France. This is not merely a
question of giving up the German colonies, as I am sure we shall be asked to
do. Nor is it a question only of losing influence in Europe. It goes far deeper
than that. You have to consider the character of the Nazi movement and the rule
which it implies. The Prime Minister desires to see cordial relations between
this country and Germany. 'There is no difficulty at all in having cordial
relations between the peoples. Our hearts go out to them. But they have no
power. But never will you have friendship with the present German Government.
You must have diplomatic and correct relations, but there can never be friendship
between the British democracy and the Nazi power, that power which spurns
Christian ethics, which cheers its onward course by a barbarous paganism, which
vaunts the spirit of aggression and conquest, which derives strength and
perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses, as we have seen, with pitiless
brutality the threat of murderous force. That power cannot ever be the trusted
friend of the British democracy.
What I find unendurable is the
sense of our country falling into the power, into the orbit and influence of
Nazi Germany, and of our existence becoming dependent upon their good will or
pleasure. It is to prevent that that I have tried my best to urge the
maintenance of every bulwark of defence first, the timely creation of an Air
Force superior to anything within striking distance of our shores; secondly,
the gathering together of the collective strength of many nations; and thirdly,
the making of alliances and military conventions, all within the Covenant, in
order to gather together forces at any rate to restrain the onward movement of
this power. It has all been in vain. Every position has been successfully undermined
and abandoned on specious and plausible excuses.
We do not want to be led upon the
high road to becoming a satellite of the German Nazi system of European
domination. In a very few years, perhaps in a very few months, we shall be
confronted with demands with which we shall no doubt be invited to comply.
Those demands may affect the surrender of territory or the surrender of
liberty. I foresee and foretell that the policy of submission will carry with
it restrictions upon the freedom of speech and debate in Parliament, on public
platforms, and discussions in the Press, for it will be said indeed, I hear
it said sometimes now that we cannot allow the Nazi system of dictatorship to
be criticized by ordinary, common English politicians. Then, with a Press under
control, in part direct but more potently indirect, with every organ of public
opinion doped and chloroformed into acquiescence, we shall be conducted along
further stages of our journey.
It is a small matter to introduce
into such a Debate as this, but during the week I heard something of the talk
of Tadpole and Taper. They were very keen upon having a general election, a
sort of, if I may say so, inverted khaki election. I wish the Prime Minister
had heard the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Abbey
Division of Westminster [Sir Sidney Herbert] last night. I know that no one is
more patient and regular in his attendance than the Prime Minister, and it is
marvellous how he is able to sit through so much of our Debates, but it
happened that by bad luck he was not here at that moment. I am sure, however,
that if he had heard my hon. and gallant Friend's speech he would have felt
very much annoyed that such a rumour could even have been circulated. I cannot
believe that the Prime Minister, or any Prime Minister, possessed of a large
working majority, would be capable of such an act of historic, constitutional
indecency. I think too highly of him. Of course, if I have misjudged him on the
right side, and there is a dissolution on the Munich Agreement, on Anglo-Nazi
friendship, of the state of our defences and so forth, everyone will have to
fight according to his convictions, and only a prophet could forecast the
ultimate result; but whatever the result, few things could be more fatal to our
remaining chances of survival as a great Power than that this country should be
torn in twain upon this deadly issue of foreign policy at a moment when,
whoever the Ministers may be, united effort can alone make us safe.
I have been casting about to see
how measures can be taken to protect us from this advance of the Nazi power,
and to secure those form, of life which are so dear to us. What is the sole
method that is open? The sole method that is open for us to regain our old
island independence by acquiring that supremacy in the air which we were
promised, that security in our air defences which we were assured we had, and
thus to make ourselves an island once again. That, in all this grim outlook,
shines out as the overwhelming fact. An effort at rearmament the like of which
has not been seen ought to be made forthwith, and all the resources of this
country and all its united strength should be bent to that task. I was very
glad to see that Lord Baldwin yesterday in the House of Lords said that he
would mobilize industry tomorrow. But I think it would have been much better if
Lord Baldwin had said that two and a half years ago, when everyone demanded a
Ministry of Supply. I will venture to say to hon. Gentlemen sitting here behind
the Government Bench, hon. Friends of mine, whom I thank for the patience with
which they have listened to what I have to say, that they have some
responsibility for all this too, because, if they had given one tithe of the
cheers they have lavished upon this transaction of Czechoslovakia to the small
band of Members who were endeavouring to get timely rearmament set in motion,
we should not now be in the position in which we are. Hon. Gentleman opposite,
and hon. Members on the Liberal benches, are not entitled to throw these
stones. I remember for two years having to face, not only the Government's
deprecation, but their stern disapproval. Lord Baldwin has now given the
signal, tardy though it may be; let us at least obey it.
After all, there are no secrets
now about what happened in the air and in the mobilization of our anti-aircraft
defences. These matters have been, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for
the Abbey Division said, seen by thousands of people. They can form their own
opinions of the character of the statements which have been persistently made
to us by Ministers on this subject. Who pretends now that there is air parity
with Germany? Who pretends now that our anti-aircraft defences were adequately
manned or armed? We know that the German General Staff are well informed upon
these subjects, but the policy of submission will carry with it restrictions
upon the freedom of speech and debate in Parliament, on public platforms, and
discussions in the Press, for it will be said indeed, I hear it said
sometimes now that we cannot allow the Nazi system of dictatorship to be
criticized by ordinary, common English politicians. Then, with a Press under
control, in part direct but more potently indirect, with every organ of public
opinion doped and chloroformed into acquiescence, we shall be conducted along
further stages of our journey.
It is a small matter to introduce
into such a Debate as this, but during the week I heard something of the talk
of Tadpole and Taper. They were very keen upon having a general election, a
sort of, if I may say so, inverted khaki election. I wish the Prime Minister
had heard the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Abbey
Division of Westminster [Sir Sidney Herbert] last night. I know that no one is
more patient and regular in his attendance than the Prime Minister, and it is
marvellous how he is able to sit through so much of our Debates, but it
happened that by bad luck he was not here at that moment. I am sure, however,
that if he had heard my hon. and gallant Friend's speech he would have felt
very much annoyed that such a rumour could even have been circulated. I cannot
believe that the Prime Minister, or any Prime Minister, possessed of a large
working majority, would be capable of such an act of historic, constitutional
indecency. I think too highly of him. Of course, if I have misjudged him on the
right side, and there is a dissolution on the Munich Agreement, on Anglo-Nazi
friendship, of the state of our defences and so forth, everyone will have to
fight according to his convictions, and only a prophet could forecast the
ultimate result; but whatever the result, few things could be more fatal to our
remaining chances of survival as a great Power than that this country should be
torn in twain upon this deadly issue of foreign policy at a moment when,
whoever the Ministers may be, united effort can alone make us safe.
I have been casting about to see
how measures can be taken to protect us from this advance of the Nazi power,
and to secure House of Commons has hitherto not taken seriously its duty of
requiring to assure itself on these matters. The Home Secretary [Sir Samuel
Hoare] said the other night that he would welcome investigation. Many things
have been done which reflect the greatest credit upon the administration. But
the vital matters are what we want to know about. I have asked again and again
during these three years for a secret Session where these matters could be
thrashed out, or for an investigation by a Select Committee of the House, or
for some other method. I ask now that, when we meet again in the autumn, that
should be a matter on which the Government should take the House into its
confidence, because we have a right to know where we stand and what measures
are being taken to secure our position.
I do not begrudge our loyal,
brave people, who were ready to do their duty no matter what the cost, who
never flinched under the strain of last week I do not grudge them the
natural, spontaneous outburst of joy and relief when they learned that the hard
ordeal would no longer be required of them at the moment; but they should know
the truth. They should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in
our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war,
the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should
know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole
equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the
time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: 'Thou art weighed
in the balance and found wanting.' And do not suppose that this is the end.
This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the
first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be preferred to us year by year
unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again
and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.
© Winston Churchill 1989
|