I move—

At all times and among all nations, peace and the preservation of peace has always been regarded and appreciated as the one essential for national happiness and national welfare. The Government of the Union apparently neither shares that view, nor that appreciation. From a condition of the most absorbing peace and the enjoyment of an extraordinary degree of national welfare the Union and its people have been suddenly plunged by the Prime Minister and his ministerial followers into a war in which South Africa had, nor has, the slightest interest, and which, since that action of the Government, has closed to it every source of national happiness and every source of national welfare, and converted such source of national welfare into a source of war squandermania. Forty-six million pounds in one year! This at once testifies to the Government’s expertness in the sphere of squandermania. The fact of my coming forward with this motion should be regarded as nothing but an effort again to substitute old fashioned common sense, tested throughout the centuries for the new fashioned megalomania with its war mongering and to restore peace in its place of honour within our country, and of respect in the heart of the Afrikaner nation. In consequence of the campaign of suppression of truth, and the circulation of lies in which our Government is so gaily taking part by its radio and other agents, I shall be compelled, Mr. Speaker, to speak here with a frankness and clarity which to some of us may possibly be unpleasant. But where duty calls sentiment has to go by the board. As to the Government’s attitude towards the motion tabled by me, I am obliged to take it that in my case that attitude will be no less favourable than it proved to be towards the recent offer of peace by the German head of State. The Prime Minister and his colleagues apparently do not want peace. What they want must be taken to be nothing less than what is demanded by the British Prime Minister and his Government, that is to say: either war with a final British victory, or Hitler with the German nation on the grid. As this second alternative is unobtainable except by means of a British victory, I shall be obliged in order to convince the House of the necessity of this motion being passed, to go much more deeply and much more frankly into the question of the possibility of a required British final victory than what Ministers are accustomed to do, and than will probably be gratifying to them. In order to shew this House what an illusion the idea of such a British victory over Germany is to-day, I wish to be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to commence with merely a brief summary, in a few words, of the actual war position as it presents itself at the moment in regard to what originally were the three main belligerent Powers. Let us start with England. England is the only remaining one of the two great Powers which started the war against Germany thirteen months ago. Deprived already in this short space of time that the war has been in progress, of her powerful ally, France, England to-day stands within her own borders a fugitive from the Continent of Europe, defeated and threatened, with nearly all her original armaments, munitions and other war material in the hands of the enemy, and thus the war, judging from the statements of her Prime Minister and other responsible British individuals, is to-day being pursued by her in a spirit strongly permeated by despair, softened by the hope that in the further course of the struggle something may happen which may lead to victory. That is England’s position. Against this main belligerent country with her population of something like 50,000,000 stands Germany with its 80,000,000 to 100,000.000 Germans. By the victories already achieved by her, freed from all war threats on her borders other than those which may be inflicted upon her from England; with her warehouses replete with requirements for the war, and for the provision of the needs of her civilian population and in addition with practically the whole of Western and Central Europe under her influence, and material at her disposal. But Germany is not England’s only enemy at arms. There is still Italy. Recently entered into the war; well equipped at sea as well as on land and in the air, and with its 5,000,000 to 7,000.000 well trained soldiers already in possession of war achievements; nowhere, as far as we are aware, in this conflict, so far surpassed by British acts of bravery, a country with a population about equal to that of Great Britain. So far as South Africa is concerned, Mr. Speaker, this superficial summary of the position in regard to the actual belligerent parties as they appear to-day, after a conflict of hardly thirteen months, is adequate already to make each one of us realise at once the folly of our further participation in a war into which we have been precipitated with such reckless lightheartedness by our Government without our having any interest in it—a fact which we cannot repeat often enough. Poor South Africa. Too weak to be able to contribute anything either to the benefit of Europe or to her own defence against anyone of the two giants against whom it has so irresponsibly declared war, it is now doomed like a second Sancho Panza, to serve, as Europe’s Imperial satellite, and of the European warmonger; but, Mr. Speaker, only then, when attention is properly focussed on the course of war operations since the 4th September of last year, are we able thoroughly to appreciate how hopelessly the war has already been lost for us, and how essential it is for South Africa, as soon as possible, to withdraw from that war. The course of events in the war is still too fresh in the minds of all of us for it to be necessary for me to place before the House a review of all the many fatal and unpleasant events which have occurred during that short space of time — however important they may otherwise be. I therefore propose to confine myself to such of those events as may be necessary to relate, in order to show the fatal folly of which South Africa will be guilty if this war has to be pursued any longer, this war in which our defeat has already been decided, and the further continuation of which can only lead to further national ruin and national perdition. France, until so very recently England’s most respected and appreciated ally against Germany, lies there for ever knocked out in the dust of the war. Let me say this: this Lucifer among the civilised cultural countries of Europe will always be remembered by me with silent respect, as often as it may be necessary for me in this hour of her humiliation and of unmerited and inexcusable abuse by war comrades of a little while ago, to refer to her. This Empire, this rich and civilized France with all her resources and with all her harbours bordering as it were on the front door of Great Britain, is in German hands, and with all her war material and war supplies, taken on the field of battle, and the pick of her forces interned in German camps, has for ever been snatched away by German arms from all British power and influence. In the meantime Great Britain, which apart from the Dominions, is nowhere able to find any allied assistance, has already been reduced to isolation, and is compelled alone and without assistance from outside the Commonwealth to carry on the fight against the combined forces of Germany and Italy, with whom she has declared not to want to be at peace, except through the might of the sword. We may admire the courage and the daring by which this declaration has been inspired; but the senseless ill-will of which that inspiration gives testimony will not serve as an example for South Africa in determining its war policy. Meanwhile it should be borne in mind that Great Britain up to the 10th May last, consistently by means of its Press and other means challenged Germany to arrive at a decision on the Western front; and it was continually held forth to the world that it was there that the battle must and would be decided. That challenge was answered by Germany. The battle was wage d there and a decision was arrived at, and that decision I am convinced was a permanent decision, whatever disappointed politicians may say about it. It is therefore no idle question, Mr. Speaker, which is being asked, when it is urged that the Government in clear and serious words should produce acceptable reasons why we should continue our participation in this war. I want to express the hope here that the Government has by this time come to a sufficient realisation of its duties to understand that the time has passed to continue any longer under the illusion that it can acquit itself of its task by excuses of “lie and rot,” “honour and duty,” and so on. For reasons which I hope to give later on, Mr. Speaker, the duty rests on this House to-day more than ever before to ascertain from the Prime Minister why South Africa should continue the war, now that the two great nations by whom the war was started, and who were the only ones to benefit from the war, France the one which has already laid down arms and has made peace with Germany, while the other Great Britain, paralysed by Germany, is no longer able to continue the war on the Continent of Europe and has already found itself compelled to take refuge back to England. This is an important question. We shall have to know on what grounds we have to continue with the war with a view to achieving a final victory. The tremendous significance of these events to South Africa in the light of the statement of the Prime Minister of England, that England will not make peace before and until such time as Germany has been overwhelmed by the force of arms, must impress itself on the minds of everyone here as soon as this question is considered in relation to the war policy of the Union’s Prime Minister who wants South Africa to continue the war because of Great Britain, and so long as Great Britain desires to pursue the war. To-day therefore we have happening here exactly what on the 4th September — I think it was the 4th September — was predicted by me in this very House; South Africa will for the duration of this war have to play the part of a vassal state, subordinate to the interests of Great Britain, and subject to the will and at the pleasure of whoever may be the fool or the wise person who may happen to fill the role of Prime Minister of Great Britain. If we pause for a moment to ask ourselves what it may mean to us in the event of its being demanded of us that for a period of four, seven or ten years we shall continue to play the part of a satellite to Europe with an annual waste of millions and millions of money, we may get a conception, however poor, of what such henchmanship is going to mean to us over an extended period of years, not only in the wastage of money, but also in moral, spiritual and social exhaustion and deterioration. We have ample instances of that sort of thing in our daily life — we have examples of that sort of thing in the acts of violence which are taking place almost daily — Potchefstroom, Cape Town, Stellenbosch, the Witwatersrand, and numerous other places, aye, over the whole of the Union.

Shame!

Can it still be contended, Mr. Speaker, that I was over-stressing the position when I pointed out just now that in this war poor South Africa is doomed like a second Sancho Panza to serve as Europe’s Imperial satellite on behalf of Europe’s warmonger? Will this House, this House of Parliament, entrusted with the high and solemn duty of guarding the freedom, the honour and the interests of our beloved Fatherland, tolerate a continuation of South Africa’s humiliation in this manner, to deprive her of her freedom and to trample underfoot her interests like those of a foreign and newly conquered nation? I warn this House, Mr. Speaker, that if this sort of thing is allowed to go on much longer, if the abuse of the rights and liberties of the Afrikaner nation is persisted in with impunity any longer, no force, no power, no authority from wherever it may be, will be able to prevent the people of South Africa setting such an example to those who are misgoverning her, that through all times it will reverberate throughout the history of Afrikanerdom. Above all it is high time the Prime Minister and his Government should take this warning to heart. Do not let them, Mr. Speaker, remain under the illusion that by depriving the citizen of the country of his rifle they are condemning the nation to a condition of impotence. The fury of a people justly aroused has in the long run proved to be more powerful than the weapons of the oppressor. And that fury of the Afrikaner people aroused by the acts of violence and humiliation committed against it in its helplessness, is already fermenting. It will not require many more incidents of the kind that took place at Potchefstroom or in Adderley Street before it will boil over. And that will be followed by disillusionment. In order to avoid such a condition of affairs, let me warn Ministers that more than the mere putting up of bars and providing lifeguards will be required. The rights of the people must be respected in a spirit of a true interest in the welfare and happiness of the people. The conniving encouragement of hostile individuals doing acts of violence by those whose duty it is to assist in the maintenance of law and order must cease. If the Government is no longer able properly to maintain order and to protect the citizens of the country in the enjoyment of their freedom and their rights, as seems to be the case at present, it is evidence of the absolute necessity of South Africa’s participation in the war being immediately terminated. Who is there after what has already happened at Potchefstroom. Cape Town and elsewhere, who can still doubt that the Government is already in a condition of impotence in dealing with that type of violence. And as the Government is failing in its duty, who is going to prevent the people themselves from stepping in? Who will dare prevent it? Where we to-day, Mr. Speaker, find ourselves on the brink of a precipice, this condition of affairs, as we all know, is due to nothing but this criminal conflict in which we are engaged in destroying our country and our people; and nothing is going to rescue us from that precipice, except a speedy conclusion of the war which is to-day sticking to the Afrikaner people like a Nessus shirt. Once again, Mr. Speaker, the question must be put to the Prime Minister: What is your justification for dragging South Africa further through the mud of the war now that, of the two great Powers which started the war, the one has already laid down arms, and has made peace, and the other has withdrawn from the battlefield in order to seek the requisite security within his own borders? The war, Mr. Speaker, already is completely lost to the Allies insofar as they still exist. Do not let us have any illusions on that score. And all that is still lacking to bring that unpleasant fact to the full consciousness of those concerned is the disillusionment of the responsible war politicians out of their stupor of blind arrogance, of hatred, vanity and disappointment. The deeply distressed nations here no less than elsewhere will ere long insist on that disillusionment with an emphasis which even the present day democratic tyrannical governments, of which our government is one, will not dare to ignore. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I again wish to point out to the Prime Minister and his Government, that this House is entitled in the serious circumstances in which we find ourselves, to learn from him earnest and well-founded reasons why this war should be further pursued by South Africa, and why every possible effort should not be made immediately to end this war. It is a well-known fact that Great Britain is still cherishing the hope that America may intervene in the war like a rescuing angel. But if that is the reason why South Africa should continue to take part in a hopeless struggle so as to exhaust itself to a condition of beggary, and to sacrifice its sons to the European warmonger, let the Government say so. He, however, who is still suffering from the illusion that America at this stage of the struggle is going to interfere with any deciding effect on the outcome of the war has apparently failed to learn any more from what has happened in the world, and especially from the European events since the 4th September, 1939, than a faithful Sancho Panza should do; or it may be that our Government, too, wishes to carry on the struggle in anticipation of that moment for which so many of the former allies are longing with a great expectation in the hope that they may be able to secure a victory over Germany — they are looking forward to the moment when the flames of war will burst out over the whole of Europe, if not over the whole world. If that is the reason why South Africa is to be compelled by its Government to continue the “see the war through” policy, then this House, Mr. Speaker, more than ever, is entitled to be taken thoroughly into the confidence of the Government. It must be taken for granted that that is the main object of the British Government in regard to its war policy — that is the object which they have in view — that is clear from what has been said as well as from what is being done. That being so, it is all the more necessary for us to go a little more fully into what are the chances of a final victory being achieved by Great Britain. If our Government wants to carry on as though since the 4th September nothing of any significance has happened in regard to the war and the relationships and the feelings of the European nations and countries, as between themselves, and in relation to the war, then our Government is guilty of so childish an act that it should not be allowed to be passed over with impunity. I want to draw the attention of the House to a few of the facts which in dealing with the question of war or peace cannot be left out of account. First of all I want to say that since the beginning of the war certain events, certain acts of war and other events have taken place, which so far as the continuation of the struggle is concerned, must have a tremendous, if not a decisive significance, in regard to the further course as well as the final result of the war. The defeats suffered by the Allies in Norway, in Belgium and in France have not merely deprived them of their advantageous positions on sea and on land, on which they relied up to the time of the German break through, and which they had regarded as unconquerable, but at the same time the allied soldiers as well as the allied nations simultaneously suffered a moral defeat which for the duration of the war must not be regarded as less irreparable than the retaking of the Maginot Line, and the channel ports. The gigantic losses of war material and munitions cannot simply be made up by replacing the lost quantities. The once awakened consciousness that what has once happened may happen again, the more so as those events were not merely incidental but were the result of war achievement — the value of these things cannot be ignored and will in spite of all efforts to restore confidence, also make themselves felt throughout the duration of the w ar. And so also as regards the German nation and the German soldier. For the rest of the war officers as well as men will enter every new battle scene influenced by German achievements; and inspired by the successes already achieved, every German officer and soldier will be induced to greater exertions in order to secure fresh victories. All this may be looked upon by the Government as matters of lesser importance; the fact remains, however, that these are hard facts against which whole legions have been wrecked in past history, and in the face of which no nation is entitled to claim victory over the enemy. But let me further remind the Government that when I say this, it does not exhaust the fresh and aggravated circumstances and factors which in the continuation of the war will have to be taken into account; these generally known facts to which I again wish to draw the attention in connection with the continuation of the war, are of such a nature that outside England, and outside our own Government circles, with their prejudiced objection against peace, only very few impartial people of any importance are to be found who do not regard the war in any other light except as an accomplished failure. The defeat of the Allies with the subsequent surrender of France — no matter how much one may try to convert it into a glorious victory — signifies to us, as well as to Great Britain, nothing but the final result of the war — final and irreparable. On land the superiority of Germany has been proved to be unquestionable. In the air Germany has shewn and continues to show every day to be England’s superior. On and below the sea, Germany has proved and is still proving continually that she has no need to take second place to Great Britain. Therefore for the Government to try and make the world believe that there is any chance of winning the war against Germany, and against Italy as a second belligerent power, is nothing but an irresponsible and dangerous bit of bravado due to the unwillingness to admit the fatal folly of their intervention in a war which for South Africa and its population so far has brought nothing but dishonour and misery and which for the future cannot fail to cause an aggravation of that misery and dishonour. To try and make us believe that without France as our ally, without France in close co-operation with England, Great Britain can succeed in securing a final victory over Germany by the co-operation of other or of all the other European states, is nothing but an illusion born from despair. Do not let us lose sight of the fact that France as England’s ally in this war is lost for ever, and thereby the war itself is also lost. This brings me to another event, Mr. Speaker, which again shews the senselessness of the further continuation of a war which is already so completely lost. Do not let us forget this. People are still very apt to think in terms of 140 or 150 years ago. What happened to Napoleon in those days will never happen again. A year ago when England and France declared war against Germany, the two allied powers were sworn allies to the very death, and as a matter of fact subsequently they formally swore fidelity to each other; Great Britain and France were the most authoritative, the two most popular and most influential powers among the European nations. Who is there to-day among the European nations still holding those views, or looking at them from the same point of view? Not a single European nation considered it likely that these two countries would be defeated by Germany and would be forced as belligerents to disappear from the continent of Europe. Who was there who even considered such an eventuality to be a likely one? There certainly was no one who ever imagined that within twelve months this task would have been achieved as an accomplished fact by Germany before the eyes of the world. Yet that is what happened. Can we, after what has happened in Europe in the last twelve months, be astonished if it appears now that as regards prestige, influence, authority and even popularity, it is no longer England or France, but Germany to which the nations of Europe look and to whom they attach their hopes for the future. These are no longer dead facts; it is a living reality of great significance which South Africa will either have to take into account or otherwise it will have to disappear from the map as a free people. In view of the fact that as a belligerent we are so closely concerned in this catastrophic military collapse of France and Great Britain, this present occasion must be looked upon as the most significant and critical in the history of our fatherland, and in this decisive moment of our national existence nothing can be more imperative than that this House should give the most serious consideration to the true interests of South Africa in a spirit of devotion which will prevent our being stopped by false reasoning and war propaganda from giving faithful effect to our mission as the body authorised by the people of South Africa to do so. Only recently we experienced the surprising development that in spite of the decisive fact that the British forces had the continent of Europe as their battle ground under their feet, and had the whole of the combined and well-equipped French and Belgian armies bravely fighting at their side, were unable to prevent the German forces from walking over them, and from driving them out of their fortresses and armoured positions — in spite of all this, I repeat, we found the Prime Minister of this House on his own authority, without previous consultation, either with the people or with Parliament, in reply to the peace offer of the German head of state, simply declaring that the war against Germany would be carried on by South Africa. I wish to avail myself of this opportunity on behalf of the Afrikaner nation to raise my voice in protest against this decision, by which this offer of peace made by the highest authority in Germany was rejected by our Prime Minister without a solitary well-founded reason based on the true interests of South Africa, being given for the rejection of that offer. This rejection of the peace offer cannot be justified by anything, nor can it be attributed to anything but a spirit of reckless gambling with the lives of our citizens, with the happiness of the Afrikaner people, and with the freedom of our country. I now want to ask this House how long we are still going to tolerate South Africa being made the satellite in all this Imperial war mongering? How long will the Afrikaner still be treated by this House as standing on such a low, insignificant national level that he is to be regarded as senselessly dead to all the dishonour imposed on him and his fatherland through the manner in which the Government plays about with the interests and the honour of South Africa? Can we, as representing the highest authority of the country, longer tolerate that a Government shewing so little respect for the will of the people, giving so little evidence of its wish to promote the interests of the country, except in the interest of foreign powers and influences, shall continue to be entrusted with the despotic powers granted by us to them, powers of free disposal over the rights and liberties of the South African citizen, powers such as those which are to-day in such an unrestricted degree possessed by the Prime Minister and his colleagues — and unfortunately abused by them? There is no other country to-day where the Prime Minister possesses such extended despotic powers, and there is no other country where the citizens have been deprived to such a degree and in such a spirit of offensive pinpricking of their rights of freedom and privileges under the cover of war and of the maintenance of order, as in the Union. At the same time there is no other country where war is being conducted to a lesser degree and where order is being maintained more poorly. The Government is apparently powerless to ensure order being maintained among the evil spirits which it has itself aroused; and it is clear that South Africa will not re vert to a state of order and peace unless this House adopts an attitude of firmness, as a result of which South Africa will be rescued from the talons of these unscrupulous war mongers. Irrespective entirely of all moral dislike and contempt which I feel for the objects and motives at the back of this war, motives which stir up feelings to the perdition and ruin of everything that is great and noble in the history of humanity, I have to urge with all earnestness that is within me, that with all the facts and events of the war which are still so fresh in our memory, no responsible statesman on the allied side has the right to-day to steep his country deeper into the war in the belief of a possible eventual victory without making himself liable to commit the crime of being engaged in a gamble with the lives and interests of his people and his country. The time for an allied or British victory in this war, be it to-day or in four years’ or in ten years’ time, has passed. Even America’s assistance will no longer enable Great Britain to achieve that end. The sooner that disillusionment comes, the sooner it is realised, the better will it be, nor merely for all the belligerent parties concerned, but also for the rest of the European states, as well as for humanity. In regard to South Africa’s share in this war, our Government cannot be absolved of the charge of having deliberately interfered in a war in which the Union has no interest, and has nothing to achieve, and by which the interests of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population have again had to be sacrificed in order to conciliate the British Jingo spirit. I now wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not think the time has now arrived for putting an end to this conciliation policy by withdrawing the Union from the war? If not, I hope this House will insist on that being done. If this House should also be unwilling to do what is right and essential in the interest of South Africa, I want to warn the Prime Minister: however patient and tolerant a people may be, every people and the Afrikaner nation too, can bear things up to a certain degree but beyond that degree, beyond that measure, they will not tolerate anything further, and when that measure is full the Prime Minister with his Government will have to bear everything that has to be borne, whether he likes it or not. Thank God, Mr. Speaker, whatever the Government may do further, whatever misdeeds it may commit, the end is not far off.

I wish formally to second the motion, and to reserve the right to taking part in the debate later on.

This is the third time that the Leader of the Opposition has made this kind of peace effort, and I have no doubt, especially after the speech which he has made here to-day, of what the result of the debate in this House is going to be. The first attempt by the Leader of the Opposition was made a year ago, when he wanted to convince this House that neutrality was in the interests of the country. This House, however, after one of the most serious debates which has ever taken place in its history, came to the conclusion that the Leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister of the country, was wrong, and the House did not follow his lead. He subsequently renewed his effort during the last session of Parliament, an effort which he has repeated here to-day, and I feel convinced after what has been said here to-day by the Leader of the Opposition that this House and the people in the country will be still more resolute and determined to persist in the course adopted. I want the Leader of the Opposition now at last to realise that the resolution which was passed by this House on the 4th September was a definitive resolution, that the Government and the country are not going to abandon their policy until the war has been carried through to an end. It was not a resolution which was passed lightly, or in a frivolous way. That resolution of last September was one of the most important resolutions which have ever been passed in the history of South Africa. It was not only a decision, but it was a turning point in the history of South Africa, and it is one of the steps about which the country will not change its mind. It is a final decision, and I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will now finally and at length realise, at the end of this debate, that no change will be made and that this House and the country will not follow his advice, especially after the speech which we have had from him to-day! On the previous occasion this House had to listen to a glorification and praising up to the skies of Herr Hitler. To-day it was a glorification of Germany, and of Germany’s power, and also of the victories which have been obtained up to the present by Germany. I say this: That argument will have precisely the opposite effect on the people in the country, as well as on this House, to that which the Leader of the Opposition wished to obtain. It will not influence us and the people in the country. We will not be deflected from our course by the victories of Hitler, and by the glorification of Germany, as we have had them described to us here. It will not affect the policy of the country, but on the contrary, it will cause us to continue on the course which we elected to take a year ago. That is consistent with the character of the people of South Africa. We are not deserters. We are not hand-uppers. We are not going in the hour of danger, when things are going against us, to turn about and run away. The people who on a previous occasion in our history ran away are people who are not not held in grateful remembrance in South Africa. That argument about the power of Germany, of the overwhelming power of Germany, of the position which Germany occupies, and of the way in which all nations look up to Germany, will not make us change our point of view. But it is more likely to make us continue in it. I ask my hon. friend to throw his memory back to the history of 40 years ago, when the same arguments were used as those which he is using here to-day. Those arguments did not induce him and me to surrender. We carried on, and although in the long run we lost the war, we anyhow reaped the fruit of that continuance of the struggle. Why should we now change our attitude and course of action? The arguments and the propositions of the Opposition have, by the course of circumstances, been robbed of all force, one after the other. We were told at the beginning that neutrality was security; if we were to remain neutral and if we were to keep out of the struggle, then there would be immunity for South Africa. Has the course of circumstances during the past twelve months proved that? No, circumstances have answered differently and absolutely clearly to that argument. Has neutrality been any safety for the countries round about Germany? Has it not been proved that neutrality was a trap for those countries instead of safety? There were half a dozen of them, and where are they to-day? Where are the small neutral countries, countries which were more than neutral, which were friendly to Germany? No, that argument which was put before us in this House for months has been deprived of any force by the course of circumstances, by the facts of the past twelve months. The people in the country know this. There is the example of Denmark; there are the examples of Norway, Holland, Belgium and of the rest, to prove that that argument was a fallacious argument, and that it was a trap for us in South Africa, just as it was a pitfall for those countries. Now, again, another argument is being used here. We are now asked to conclude peace immediately and blindly. That is the course of Petain! We are asked by thé Leader of the Opposition to take the course that France did, the course which brought that mighty world empire to its fall. We are asked to follow that line. Why is France in the position she is in to-day? The other day the British Prime Minister said in the House of Commons that France had lost far less men in the whole of this war than in one of the big battles of the former Great War. France was not conquered and brought to defeat in the field, but she was beaten by her own government, by the sort of government which followed the advice and adopted the course which has been suggested here today by the Leader of the Opposition. What was the attitude of Marshal Pétain? He said: “We are in trouble; we are in great trouble and let us now make an honourable peace. Let us speak as one soldier to another, and conclude an honourable peace.” It is that attempt at making peace which led to the position in which France now is. It is one of the most terrible things in the history of the world. Here we have one of the most powerful countries in the world, a nation which the Leader of the Opposition called a Lucifer, a people who carried the torch in Europe, and which possibly was one of the greatest powers in the world up to the present time, that power to-day lies crushed, and has dropped into despair — not because she was beaten on the battlefield, but because she had a government which wanted to make peace, and which on that account walked into a trap, and sank into the state in which she is to-day. And now South Africa is asked to take that course. We no longer hear now of neutrality; we are now asked to adopt that course, and to take the line of action of Pétain and to ask Germany for peace. It needs no argument; it requires no statement of reasons against it. It is only necessary to consider what the consequences of it were to France to convince us what the consequences will be to South Africa if we were to agree to adopt that line. What reason is there why we could expect grace from Germany, and to be better treated than a country like Holland with its ruined towns, and the other countries which were the neighbours of Germany, and which were friendly with her for a large number of years. We have now for a year had before us the proof of what we may expect from Germany, and we have actually had those proofs before us in South Africa for years. Did we not give the German population next to us, on our boundaries, the best possible treatment the Germans had anywhere else in the world; did we not go out of our way to grant them rights? Our own population in those regions protested year after year and said: “You are going too far; you are treating the Germans too well, and what about our interests?” What did that German population do? There was agitation, Nazi organisation, undermining, defeatism and hostility from beginning to end. That is the evidence we have of the feeling of Germany towards us. Besides that we are entrusted with a German ma ndate, with a mandate over a German colony which had the largest German population. What can we expect? What good and lenient terms can we expect if we adopt the Petain method, and unconditionally and blindly put ourselves into the hands of Germany? We shall be treated in the same way that France was treated — disarmament and the prospect of peace terms which will possibly be the peace terms of Brest-Litovsk. That at any rate is the spirit in which Germany makes peace. Is it not remarkable that in all the talk and shouting about peace — peace where there is and can be no peace — is it not wonderful that there never was the slightest indication of what kind of peace it should be? What were the terms of peace to be? Do you see, the people are being blindfolded. The Leader of the Opposition commenced by speaking of the longing for peace. No one longs more for peace than I do. But the question is: what peace? Why in all this agitation has it not been said by the Leader of the Opposition or by his friends, what kind of peace terms they want? No, they are taking the Pétain road — without any terms they will go and ask for peace with their hats in their hands! And we know what the answer is going to be, and it will be the answer which France got. Now I ask the Leader of the Opposition: What are you going to do with South-West Africa? We heard that he and his friends regarded South-West Africa as a part of the territory of the Union of South Africa, and that they would defend it just as if it were the Union itself. Is he going to ask Germany for peace, and stand by that condition? We have heard what the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) had to say about that. He told us that it was in the vital interests of South Africa that Tanganyika should not be given back to Germany. Are we going to Germany to ask for peace under that condition? Inasmuch as those hon. members are now asking for peace, we want to know where they stand. A beautiful picture of peace is held up and described to us. But we want to know what it means; what it is going to mean in regard to the future of South Africa, and whether that peace will inter alia mean the giving back of South-West Africa and Tanganyika and other places which are of vital interest to us. That is what we want to know, but the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition is to blindfold the people of the country, because he does not say a word of the details of the peace. Now I am afraid of this. I have said it here before, and I repeat it now — that the attempt to get out of the war and to be quit of England and its wars, means only one thing, linking up with Germany. Yes, joining up with Germany. The only consequence will be that what will happen if we try to get free from them if we get separated from our alliance with England — the only result will be that you lose the only friend you have left in the world, and get into the power of the historical enemy of your country. I know there are people who wish for that. There are people to-day in South Africa, they are in a minority — who say: “Heil Hitler,” and who advance the clenched fist. There are even organisations which are proud of their swastika, but is that the attitude of South Africa, is that the attitude of the people of South Africa? Do we want to be a Nazi country? I just want to ask my friends who talk in that way about freedom, and shaking off England, I ask them to consider what the ultimate end of the matter will be. Field-Marshal Pétain never thought that the consequences would be what they turned out to be when he commenced to negotiate with the enemy. He would have cut off his right hand if he had known what the consequences of his peace appeal to Hitler would be. We want to know what the consequences are going to be. I say: “A thousand times rather in the company of England on the field of history, than in the company of Germany.” I cannot imagine a system which conflicts more with the spirit of Afrikanerdom, which will be more of a violation and a negation of the historical spirit of South Africa than the spirit prevailing in Germany to-day a spirit of Nazidom. I want to keep out of that and the people of South Africa want to keep out of it. We want to have nothing to do with the swastika or with “Heil Hitler.”

You prefer the Potchefstroom methods.

The Leader of the Opposition, with all his eloquence and with the splendid well-thought-out speech which he made here to-day, will never convince the people that that is the course which we should follow for the future of South Africa. I do not want the people to be misled, and consequently I ask hon. members opposite what their terms are? Let us know — if we are to agitate in the country for a separate peace — let us know what the proposals are. I do not know whether there have been any secret negotiations as yet, but I know that when you speak to Hitler man to man, he is a man without mercy, and that he will impose drastic conditions. If he was not afraid of France, why should he be afraid of South Africa? And I always have the additional fear of Hitler, moreover, that whatever terms he may happen to give, one would have to ask whether he would abide by them. Is he a man who stands by his terms, who fulfils his promises? You have only to look at the history of the past two or three years to see that no reliance can be put, and that no confidence can be placed, on the promises of Hitler. In spite of the argument of the Leader of the Opposition, I feel convinced of the fact that after all that has happened, it is an additional reason for us to continue, more than ever before, on the course that we have taken. I have been reproached for the fact that we have now also declared war on Italy. But who started? Did we start against Italy, or did Italy declare war first, on the 10th June?

Not against us.

I remember that not so many years ago, only a few years ago, the Leader of the Opposition — then the Prime Minister — said that the invasion by Italy of Abyssinia would involve the greatest possible threat to South Africa. He was sitting on these benches when he said that. I ask: what now? What is the change which has come about? If in those days the attack on Abyssinia constituted the greatest possible menace to South Africa, what then is the position now, when Italy is going much further and is not merely attacking Abyssinia but all the British Colonies. What is the position now, that Italy has declared war on our neighbours? Are we to be afraid now? Now that the danger is coming nearer and is becoming more threatening, are we to be afraid now and run away from the interests of South Africa and make peace? It is quite clear to me that the threat of Germany was a serious threat, but the coming into the war of Italy undoubtedly brings the danger much nearer our own doors. I ask what is going to happen if Italy occupies Kenya and the other British Colonies, which are our northern military boundaries? They are unable to defend themselves.

Where is England?

Even the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) said, years ago, that we would be there if an attack was made on Kenya. The small community there of a few thousand people cannot hold their own against the 200,000 soldiers in Abyssinia because that is the military strength in Abyssinia.

Where is England’s might?

I am referring to the protection of South Africa.: Does the hon. member want England to protect our interest? That is always the false, I might almost say, lying attitude, namely that we are hostile to England, but that we nevertheless want to enjoy her protection. The Navy must protect us when other countries take action against South Africa. England as mistress of the seas must protect us. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) practically adopts the point of view that when the colonies to our north, which are our northern military boundary, are attacked, then England must protect us against the danger.

You said that Kenya could not defend herself. That is why I ask why England does not go to her aid.

Our interests are far more concerned in the matter. We are there, notwithstanding all the quarrelling and fighting and fuss of the last session here, as well as in the country, and we will protect the colonies. They are our northern boundaries so far as defence is concerned. We do not want to ask England. England has its hands full in other parts of the world.

What about the English troops which are here now. Where are they going to?

The hon. member is asking about military affairs upon which he knows I cannot give him an answer. He is possibly wrong again just as he was wrong a moment ago. I say that the entry of Italy into the war introduces an entirely new phase of the real danger to us and if there ever were a reason for us to take active steps or to participate in the war and to continue with it then it is after the entry of Italy. The Leader of the Opposition uses the reverse argument. He says that we should become afraid, be frightened of Italy, of the 200,000 soldiers and the hundreds of aeroplanes of Italy. We know that if those British colonies in the north fall into the hands of Italy, then a deadly attack will be made upon us, on the defence of South Africa. We cannot wait until the enemy reaches the Limpopo.

Why did you not defend Somaliland?

We cannot wait until the enemy is at our doors. I do not want to go into the arguments again because we debated them fully during the last session. If the enemy were to come within a thousand miles of our borders then all the towns in the interior, Pretoria, Johannesburg, etc., would be in danger and then there might happen to them what took place in Rotterdam a few months ago. Look at Rotterdam to-day, the great commercial city. If we simply want to allow the enemy to come within a thousand miles of our borders then that will be our fate. So far from allowing ourselves to be influenced by the arguments of the Leader of the Opposition those arguments will have the very opposite effect on us. We see that the danger is great, we see that the colonies in the north cannot defend themselves, and unless South Africa takes action and gives effect not only to what was said by this Government but also by its predecessor, there may then be a danger to South Africa we shall possibly not be able to get the better of later. Therefore we will stand firm and we will do our best in this war. I now come to other arguments of the Leader of the Opposition. He argues just as some other people do; we have lost the war, what more is there to go on with after we have already lost the war, why all these sacrifices and these difficulties? That is the argument. The Leader of the Opposition repeated it over and over again, I think as many as twelve times, that the war was hopelessly lost and we therefore have every reason for giving up the struggle. Is that an argument? Is it a fact that the war is lost?

Yes.

No.

It really seems to me that there is sometimes a great deal of wishful thinking. Our hon. friends on the opposite side and many of their supporters in the country are so obsessed with the idea of the German strength and the German ideal that they wish that the war was actually lost, that England were beaten and that Germany should become the centre, the fulcrum of civilisation. That is wishful thinking. It does not coincide with the facts. The Germans have undoubtedly obtained great advantages, but with the exception of France—and of the occurrences there I have already given an explanation—it has always been the tactics of Hitler to attack the small and weaker nations and all his victories up to the present were in respect of the small countries surrounding Germany which were not properly armed and which were absolutely unable to protect themselves and it was therefore possible for him with his amazing war material to overrun and crush them. But that does not amount to a loss of the war. Do you see, you do not conquer an army by overcoming this or the other patrol, you must defeat the army itself, and there is no doubt that Germany is now commencing to get the worst of it. I have even noticed a change on the other side of the House. After the collapse of France, the Leader of the Opposition wrote me the notorious letter in which he said that the war was hopelessly lost, that France was beaten, and had concluded an armistice, and that Italy had come in, so that the war was hopelessly lost, but the war was not lost so far as the British Empire was concerned. That is the point. We have noticed during recent weeks how notwithstanding “Blitzkrieg” and all the astonishing attempts which have been made in the English Channel and in England itself, we have noticed how the Germans are now beginning to get the worst of it. I see nothing else but a repetition—in spite of what the Leader of the Opposition said—of what happened in the time of Napoleon. Napoleon was master of the Continent of Europe, even more than Hitler is to-day. He had the whole of the Continent under his control, and the countries which were rot under his control were his allies. Notwithstanding that, England obtained the victory, notwithstanding the whole combine.

South Africa stands by England.

Napoleon came to a fall. I can quite imagine that the victories which Hitler has had will become his own Nemesis. He is left with a number of countries which hate him, and which hate his government, and which are groaning under his tyranny, and the day may come that what happened in the case of Napoleon will happen again. I remember, to come a little nearer to our time, the conduct of the last war. For four years Germany was winning. Everybody was convinced that Germany was going to win. That lasted for four years. But Germany lost the war during the last two months. The historic turn had come during the last few months of the war. The Colossus had feet of clay. That Colossus could make an astonishing effort, and bluff the world for four years, but when all was said and done the end came suddenly, within a few months.

America settled the matter.

I am not calculating on America, but of course those are all possibilities which people should bear in mind when they talk about big things. You cannot, merely because a few countries have been conquered, say that a war of these dimensions has been lost. Astonishing developments may yet take place. No one can say.

How long do you expect it still to continue?

It is not for me to stipulate the time.

If you go on in this way you must say that you are prepared to continue on those lines for ten or twenty years.

England is becoming stronger. Its air force is being strengthened, and it has the control on the sea. Within a comparatively short time England will be stronger in the air than Germany, she is reinforcing her air force.

What are the Germans doing?

The Germans get no supply of the necessary materials. [Laughter.] Hon. members may laugh, but I know that you cannot increase your air force unless you have certain necessary minerals and metals which Germany does not possess and cannot get so long as she cannot get it from overseas.

What, for instance?

It is clear to me that the small talk to which the Leader of the Opposition also gives the weight of his authority, has no foundation. [Time extended.] That allegation that the war is lost to us and that Germany has won, is in my opinion just as little true now as what it was in 1917 and 1918. We have precisely the same position. Germany has had brilliant victories, but none more brilliant than during the previous war. The conquests of Germany have up to the present not been greater than they were then. There is no doubt that so long as England can protect herself, as she is doing, as long as she can retain supremacy at sea, as long as she can continue as she is doing in developing her air force into a first grade air force, as long is there no question of a victory on the side of Germany or a lost War on the side of England, there are the very best prospects of our being able to win the war. We must not forget that it is not merely a military question. The position in which we are, the moral position which is being taken up by England and other democratic countries, is going to strengthen us amazingly and make us stronger and stronger. Germany, in spite of her military victories, is being more and more morally undermined by the Nazi outlook and the Nazi system which it is introducing into the world. It is aimed against the human spirit, and I think against the German spirit itself, and the longer the struggle lasts, the more will the forces which you draw out of the free soul of human beings, the free personality of the human race, the free religion, become stronger, and those are the forces which Germany is fighting against to-day.

Cut out religion.

On our side it assists in winning the struggle. This is not only a military struggle. There can be no doubt that it goes much deeper. It touches the foundations of humanity and human existence. I think it would be treason on our part—I say this with all respect for the Leader of the Opposition—and it would be cowardly towards the great human cause which we stand for in the world, if we were to become tired or if we were to withdraw from the struggle in which we are now engaged. There is something else about which I would like, in conclusion, to say a few words, and it is in connection with the argument that we have already lost the war. The Leader of the Opposition says something about there being a danger, so far as South Africa is concerned. That became more and more clear to me while I was listening to his speech. People who talk in that way of losing the war usually go further. It is here not merely a matter of a separate peace, but do you see, it turns into something else.

What is that?

The Republic.

Hear, hear.

Let us look the thing in the face. First it is a demand for a separate peace, but subsequently it develops into something else, namely a separate republic. And it does not even stop at that. If you begin tampering with foundations you do not know how far it will go. You are commencing to see that now. In South Africa a movement or movements arose, underground movements, undermining movements, which no longer consider political methods, no longer listen to the talk of constitutional action—as we hear from the platforms—but movements which have other objectives and which aim at other methods, and the result is that you are bringing the country step by step closer to the abyss. You start by talking about a war which is lost, you go further and speak of separation, and not only with regard to the war, but from England. You have the subterranean movements which do not consider political, constitutional methods, but aim at force. The Leader of the Opposition permitted himself to use words to-day which I fear are going to assist that movement. Be said many dangerous things, and this country also has its weaklings who do not understand those things.

That is right, we have a weak Government.

You need not be afraid so far as the Government is concerned, but hon. members on the opposite side know quite well what I mean when I speak of movements which do their work sub-terraneously, and which want to apply illegal methods.

Mention them.

There will be plenty of time left to debate these things, but the loose talk about a separate peace encourages that, and you get radical movements in the country which are a danger politically, economically and socially, and it is very dangerous to encourage those movements. In spite of what the hon. member said in that regard, the Government will protect the freedom and the safety of the country.

What about Potchefstroom?

Do not worry yourself about Potchefstroom, and I ask the Leader of the Opposition not to concern himself about trifling things which take place in the streets. They are trifles. There are many bigger things going on in the country.

We know what happened before.

I know what happened before, and the hon. member knows nothing about it. I know what happened in this country in 1914 and 1915. We must be careful that we do not by loose talk in this House and out of it, and by irresponsible movements, shake the foundations of our country, and bring a section of the population into the danger they were in before. This Government will maintain law and order. It will see to it that the country is properly governed, and the Leader of the Opposition need not be afraid that we will fail to take action when it is necessary. We have shown a great deal of patience, but we must be patient, because our population is so made up that hasty action may easily do harm. But if things go on as they now are doing in South Africa, and if that mentality is created in this country that we, as a Government are hopeless, that the struggle and the war are hopelessly lost, and the people commence to resort to force….

They cannot, because you have taken away their arms …

I appeal to the people, and especially to this House, both to hon. members opposite and those on this side of the House in regard to their action in connection with this-war and things which arise out of the war, to have a feeling and a realization of deep responsibility. There is no doubt that South Africa is to a certain extent in danger, not only so far as its armed forces in the field are concerned, but also inside this country. I direct the minds of hon. members specially to realise the responsibility which rests on every one of us. It not only rests on the Government, but also to a great extent on the Opposition. So far as the motion of the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, I finally want to say this: We are only looking for one kind of peace, and that is peace through victory. The Leader of the Opposition asked me: How long were we still going on? My reply is: We are going to continue until victory is won. We are going to maintain the policy which we have adopted, and which was agreed to after a free debate, and with a feeling of deep responsibility in this House last September, and we are going to continue it to the end. We will see that the name of South Africa is kept clean, that there should be no blot on the name of South Africa, and that it will not be possible to say of us in history that we were hands-uppers, and therefore I wish to move this amendment to the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. My amendment is as follows —

In view further of the entry of Italy into the war on 10th June, 1940, this House approves of the action of the Government in severing relations with, and declaring war on, Italy on 11th June, 1940.

I second the amendment proposed by the Prime Minister. I regret very much that it is necessary to have a repetition of the arguments and speeches which we heard here since September of last year. I had thought that this was a democratic country and that the decision which we came to in September of last year, serious as it was, would be the decision of this House and that the Opposition would accept it, and decide that in the interests of South Africa under the dangerous conditions which we were facing, we should stand as a united Nation and face the common dangers together. We have heard so much about democracy from that side, and yet when a decision was taken by this House freely and spontaneously without any pressure from political Party or leaders, they are the first to turn round and try to create trouble in this country and dissension among the people. That I think was a tragedy, and that it should be followed up again in March last and repeated here to-day, and the actions they have taken throughout this country in trying to stir up trouble and causing dissension among the people is, I think a sign of the fact that in no circumstances hon. members on that side of the House will ever be able to rule or guide this country. I am speaking as a South African of English descent. I have listened to two speeches here to-day. I listened to the speech of my old leader, the hon. member for Smithfield (genl. Hertzog), and I listened to the speech of my present leader, the Prime Minister. When I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Smithfield I asked myself a question. Only two years ago we had this great Voortrekker Movement here in which although we of British descent wished to participate, we were told that we did not have sufficient interest and that we could not be allowed to take that part which we would like to have taken. We were not good Afrikaners. I asked myself— if there were Voortrekker sons in this House to-day, whom would they follow after listening to the two speeches which we heard— the speech of a defeatist, a speech—if I might be allowed to use the word—full of cowardice fear, and surrender. We have taken up a definite attitude in this country and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tells us that we have lost the war before we have even tried to help “our best friend.” „Our best friend”—these are the words which have come from his own mouth repeatedly. Without stirring ourselves to help our best friend he says we must make peace and “hands up”. Then I listened to the speech of our present Leader, the speech of one whom I think we are justified in calling the Voortrekker of the future of this country, the speech of a man whom we will follow, we the British section, and not only the British section, the large section of the Afrikaners in this country, and not only the Afrikaners, but a large section of the other elements who go to compose the population of this country, and who will form part of the future nation of this country. I come from a part of the country where we fortunately have not these terrible racial dissensions. I come from the Transkei; I have twenty-three districts in my constituency, and I am pleased to say that joining our forces there we have large numbers of young Germans, the descendants of the old Crimean veterans, we have a very large percentage of the Afrikaners, and 100 per cent of the British element, and there are towns in my area in which 100 per cent. of the men have joined up, men who are anxious to carry out the promises which the late Prime Minister made when he called England „our best friend.” I also wish to deal with this matter from another aspect. We have in this country approximately 7,500,000 natives watching us to-day, watching everything we do. We have our duty to perform to these people. The late Prime Minister told those natives in 1927, and later on that we were the custodians and the guardians of their interests. I ask myself this question, as a man who has responsibilities to these natives: can we for one moment think of their being handed over to the tender mercies of Nazism knowing what has happened in South-West Africa, Tanganyika and other parts of Africa? If we “hands up” to-day; if we do not do our utmost to assist our allies, to assist our partners in this war, we shall lose that respect, that prestige which we have among the natives, and posterity will have to face a very serious problem. We are partners of Great Britain in the Commonwealth of Nations. That word has been used by members on the other side of the House repeatedly—it was used in 1927 when the Status Bill was before this House. That expression has been used since. „Partners.” Can you imagine when your partner, and what is more than a partner, can you imagine when your partner is in difficulties that you would say “We are dropping out, carry on by yourself.” It seems to me that that would be a gross act of treachery, an act of cowardice, which I as a South African, of English descent, which I as an Afrikaner, as I am proud to call myself, would never face. I believe that the decision which we took on the 4th September was the decision of the great majority of the people, and I agree with what the Prime Minister said, that we here in this House, are carrying with us the honour of South Africa, and it is up to us to hand down to posterity a clean sheet. It is up to us to feel that our children will recognise that we as South Africans have tried to uphold the honour and tradition of South Africa, and to do our duty whether the Empire is in danger or not—to do our duty to this country. I believe as I stand here that there is no other possible result of this war than victory. I was heartened by the speech which the Prime Minister made, I believe it will hearten the whole country, and I am convinced that the words he uttered will put fresh courage and determination into the hearts and into the minds of all true South Africans. I do not believe for a moment that all members on that side of the House are Nazis or pro-German. I believe that there are many good South Africans among them, and I trust that to-day the inspiration which we have had from the Prime Minister will help them to come to the correct decision and to do their duty by South Africa. I beg to second the amendment.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

However encouraging it may be to learn from the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) that 7,500,000 natives will die in the last ditch along with the South African Party I prefer to get back to the speech of the Prime Minister. I make bold to say that this House has seldom yet seen such a desperate attempt as that which we experienced here this morning. The Prime Minister spoke about wishful thinking. There was a great deal of wishing in his speech. But unfortunately, at any rate on the points which are of consequence, there was not a single concrete idea in his speech. The world to-day stands at the crossroads of its history. There is a tendency on foot, which happens only once in the world in many centuries and all our Prime Minister had to say in connection with the state of affairs now in existence was to repeat the old South African Party arguments of, 1914 and give us a repetition of the stupidities which Mr. Duff Cooper broadcasts two or three times a week over the wireless. The cardinal points which were concerned in the matter the Prime Minister did not deal with. The first point he should have spoken on was this: why is war being waged? And that is a question which is being put not only in South Africa. If we read the periodicals which arrive here week after week from England then we find that a large part of the British public demand that the British Government should now state what they are fighting about and what their actual war objectives are.

They are given us over the wireless.

I am not going to occupy myself with the stupidities of Duff Cooper. The Prime Minister cannot tell us why we are fighting but he says that he is determined that we shall fight to the end. That will possibly be until the Union troops have once more placed Haile Selassie on the throne of Abyssinia or he is going to challenge the Great Powers in such a way that we shall eventually become a German Colony. So far as the statement of the war objective is concerned I of course do not forget that the Minister of Finance has already expressed himself on the subject. The Minister of Finance has already made public a set of high ethical war objectives. But unfortunately since the appointment of the last native senators the public no longer takes the same notice of the high ethical theories of the Minister of Finance that they possibly took of them in the past. The Prime Minister also said that the whole of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was a glorification of Hitler. Yet all the Leader of the Opposition did was to state facts, facts which we have all realised, facts which we have all experienced, facts which are incontestible. But the misfortune is—it is the misfortune of the Prime Minister and of his Government and of all those who sit on the opposite side —that facts are to their mind only facts when they are pleasant facts. They have no ear for nor do they understand unpleasant facts. And I want to point out to this House that a large part of our troubles in this country and of the greater troubles which still lie before us, if I correctly understood the Prime Minister, are actually attributable to the fact that he and his supporters are wilfully blind to facts. It is that wilful blindness to facts which has caused them trouble in the administration of the country and even with that little war they are engaged in and which is yet going to constitute the greatest trouble and hindrances. From an administrative point of view as well as from the angle of the present international troubles it is highly necessary to look facts in the face, whether those facts happen to be pleasant facts or whether they are unpleasant ones.

Haw Haw.

It should have been hee haw. I say they are deaf and blind to the facts unless the facts are pleasant facts. And that is immediately proved by the views of the Prime Minister in regard to the position of France. He said that France fell owing to treason. Everyone knows, even those who have read nothing but the Reuter reports, that France collapsed because she was beaten on the field of battle. And as it happens England was beaten there along with her. It was not the Government of Marshal Petain which was carrying on the war at the time when the great military calamity came to France. It was the Government of Reynaud. The Prime Minister is a believer in martyrs, and now comes and tells us that France fell in consequence of treachery. The Prime Minister’s difficulty is that he is here speaking as the mouthpiece of Churchill. It is such a remarkable view of treason, which we find they hold. If we argue that Holland after their courageous fight was no longer able to hold out against the better equipped forces of Germany then it is stated that they collapsed owing to treachery.

Their Government remains in existence.

That is just what I am afraid of—that the Prime Minister and his Government will subsequently be alone in the field. As I said, it is so difficult to follow what the definition of treachery is. When King Leopold of Belgium one of the most highly placed personalities in Europe, no longer saw an opportunity of covering the British retreat by means of the property and blood of his people then it was treason on his part to surrender. Treason in terms of the view of the Government and of Churchill means a deplorable lack of an appreciation that everything must be sacrificed for the sake of the Empire. If you suffer from that deplorable defect then you are a traitor. Here in South Africa it is treason to plead on behalf of the interests of South Africa. Strangely enough if you are prepared to sacrifice the interests of South Africa for the Empire then you are a patriot. I want to prophesy that we in South Africa will begin at no distant time to get to the stage in which resistance to the unscrupulous and cruel sacrifice of the interests of South Africa for the sake of the Empire will be regarded as high treason. Then the Prime Minister also referred to Holland and Belgium. Well, Reuter and even the Dutch Government informed us what is supposed to have happened which, gave rise to the invasion of Holland. If the Prime Minister wants us to accept the statement of Reuter and the Dutch Government about the contributory causes of the invasion then we must also accept the French Government’s statement about the attack at Oran and the result of the British blockade. But no, when the facts are unpleasant then they are not facts. I think that it will be better to reserve our judgment about the causes of the invasion of Holland as well as about the attack of the British Navy on its former ally at Oran until we have all the facts before us. We shall then be able to pass judgment on them.

Ask Dr. Van Broekhuizen.

The misfortune of course is that everything we get by way of information comes through Reuter. I am not going to detain the House by exposing Reuter but I do want—when I see how hon. members daily stand in the lobbies reading the Reuter notices—just to recall to them what the position was when we were here last. Then we also had Reuter news, and the Reuter cables were eagerly read. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) who is taller than most hon. members here, even read from behind the others. Reuter informed us that the British troops were streaming into Norway. They did not say so once only, but on repeated occasions. Ten days later, in connection with the retreat of the British troops from Namsos and Andalsnest Reuter had to report the glorious fact that they had withdrawn because they could not land any troops on the Norwegian coast. Whether it was according to plan or not I do not know, but in any case it certainly was not Reuter’s intention to expose itself in that way. That is the position in connection with all the news and reports and propaganda. The Prime Minister put the question as to what we could expect from Germany. Well, he had the opportunity to find out what we might expect from Germany because Germany made an offer after the crushing of France and the offer to find out was just as much addressed to the Prime Minister, inasmuch as he was one of the belligerents, as it was to Winston Churchill. He realised that so much that even before Churchill could say anything our Prime Minister was immediately ready to inform the public over the wireless. If it happens to be a genuine question as to what we might expect from Germany—and I assume that a question by the Prime Minister is always a genuine question—then I say: why did he not find out when he had the opportunity? But without pointing out what the possible conditions of peace were, he at once took steps to reject them. Let me now put a question to him. I do not know what we can expect from Germany. Suppose that the conditions of peace were to be acceptable, would he consider them in such case? Let him tell us that. Perhaps if he were to tell us, there would be a reaction from overseas. If he announced that he had rejected the offer a little too hastily and that he would like to know what the conditions were he would be able to find out. But will he, if the conditions are acceptable, consider them? We unfortunately get the impression that he is not concerned with peace conditions. That is why they do not concern him at all. He does not want to touch them. He goes where England goes—even if it is into the abyss.

Preferably into the abyss.

As the hon. member says, he particularly favours the abyss. It apparently has a special attraction for him. The Prime Minister could also have found out what the position would have been in connection with South West. I assume that the position which we previously adopted was made impossible by the Prime Minister. The German Government laid down that they were prepared to negotiate about the Colonies. Then our attitude was that if it was a question of negotiation, if we had the opportunity of relying on that, then we were not going to give South West back. We were prepared to pay compensation. But whatever their attitude may have been in the past it became quite impossible owing to the reckless and illogical declaration of war by the Prime Minister. It is he who preferred that the question of South West should be decided by the sword. That view proceeded from him not from Germany. We are still of opinion that South West if possible should belong to the Union, and we shall still do our best, if we get the opportunity, to try to secure it by negotiation, but I fear if the Prime Minister continues with his war policy and continues to challenge great powers unnecessarily then we may ultimately be glad not to become a German colony. What was typical to my mind, was that the Prime Minister after his reference to South West, made the remark that Germany was the historic enemy of this country. Where the Prime Minister gets that from I certainly do not know. Or let me say that it immediately became plain to me that the Prime Minister merely was engaged once more, as he always is, in repeating what Winston Churchill has said. Strangely enough this expression is of absolutely no concern to South Africa, but it is a phrase which is constantly used by Winston Churchill. We have got to that position, so far as the two similarly-minded Prime Ministers are concerned. Then the Prime Minister wants to know whether we can believe Hitler. My difficulty is to know what world statesman you can believe. I recollect, for instance, that in September, 1938, that other world statesman was in agreement with the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the point that we should remain neutral. That is why I say: What statesman can you believe? The Prime Minister made it clear to us that we were fighting the Italians in Abyssinia, because otherwise they would one of these days be on the doorstep of South Africa. If we are to agree that the Prime Minister is right when he tells us that the British Navy governs the sea, then it is a little difficult to believe that the Italians in Somaliland would not thank God if they were left in peace there, and that they would not be attacked there without lines of communication as an isolated group. But the Prime Minister wants on the other hand, to make out that they will come and attack us here. They may try to do so after we have interfered in their affairs, but I am convinced of the fact that if we had been wise and had kept out of the war, then there would not have been even an imaginary danger. The Prime Minister expressed his firm confidence in a British victory. That, in fine, was the point on which his whole argument turned. Let us just enquire for a moment what the victory would have to mean, what will have to be done before Great Britain can obtain the victory.. She will have to crush Germany, she will have to destroy Italy, but she will also have to attack and defeat Russia, and after Russia she will probably still have to attack France as well. Does the Prime Minister think that France will be prepared simply to follow on as Great Britain’s subservient satellite? No, after Oran and the starvation blockade we may expect that France also will have to be kept down by force, and then I am not even referring to the changes which have taken place in the Balkans, and which also will have to be settled by force of arms. Or, and I actually shudder when I think of it, we must assume that all the talk about the restoration of violated rights and about small nations is so much hypocrisy in the high circles where the terms are used? Are we to assume that Great Britain, for instance, will be satisfied and the Union along with it— because if Great Britain is satisfied we also are satisfied — must we assume that Great Britain will be satisfied when she has inflicted a blow on Germany, and that then she will merely allow things to remain as they are, the Poles and all the other nations? If that is so, if we do not want to fight until all the nations mentioned have been conquered, and all the countries have been reinstated, then all this talk is pure hypocrisy. I believe that even our Prime Minister, in his wildest dreams, cannot see the attainment of that in reality, because I cannot imagine us taking part in the hypocrisy. There sits the Minister of Finance. He will protest against it with every fibre of his being. The only comfort in connection with all the conquests, which is still on the far horizon, the Prime Minister finds in Napoleon. He goes back 140 years to get this antiquated comfort from the dead Napoleon. We need not go back to Julius Caesar, but I was thinking of the bow and arrow times, of the battle at Poitiers and Crecy, because the modern warfare with aeroplanes and submarines under the water differs just as much from the wars in the time of Napoleon as the time of Napoleon differs from the bow and arrow period. But now the Prime Minister has also gone back to 1918, and that is possibly the most dangerous self-deception which statesmen can allow themselves. One would expect them at least to have an appreciation of military developments since that time. That lack of knowledge of military developments which have taken place cost France the victory. France reckoned on the conditions of 1914-’18. The lack of knowledge of the military developments cost France their country, and notwithstanding the strong moral support of the Minister of Native Affairs, it cost them the Maginot Line. The Prime Minister says that we may not talk of peace. He says it with a solemn voice, and he points out that there are so many difficulties facing us when we start talking about peace. He did not quite say that, but he announced that the loose talk about peace, as he called it, ends in rebellion. That was the meaning of his words, whether he will admit it or not. Let me tell the Prime Minister, whether he will admit it or not, that it is due to the leaders of Afrikanerdom that peace and quiet have been maintained in the country. We threw in the whole of our weight, after the fatal 4th and 6th September, to maintain peace and order and we would further see to it that peace and order are not disturbed, except possibly by soldiers who get out of control. And let me say this clearly: we do not intend unless force is used against us, to allow ourselves to be muzzled. Nothing will prevent us pleading for peace, nor from pleading for something else of which the Prime Minister is so terribly frightened, namely the establishment of a republic. If the Prime Minister were to prohibit from talking about that he can do so. He is able to do so. He can prohibit us from talking about it if he wants to destroy the same democratic freedom for which we are supposedly waging war.

Are we “supposedly” waging war?

Except in Potchefstroom. The Prime Minister referred to organisations from whom he expected trouble, or the public expected trouble. I am sorry that he did not name them, that he did not name the Handhawersbond and the Ossewa-Brandwag. Let me now tell the Government that the Handhawersbond and the Ossewa-Brandwag are the reply of the people to the Knights of Truth, of which he is the head. The Prime Minister, in connection with his covert reference to those organisations, stated that they were doing entirely subterranean work, and that the Government were preparing suppressive steps. Let the Government go on with it, but let them do it openly and not deceitfully. Do not go to work as was done in connection with the disarmament of the farmers, which was not honestly for defence purposes. The disarmament took place by means of fraud. We also intended, if it were necessary, to commandeer rifles, but we did not intend to disarm rifle associations, and we did not intend to take rifles which could never be of any military value. Even the .22 bullet guns had to be taken to go and shoot finches in Abyssinia. If the Government want to take measures then let it do so by means of its majority in Parliament and not by fraud. Then we will raise objections, but in any case it would then be done on a legal basis. Now we would like to know whether this taking away of the rifles is only a first step, or whether the disarmament is going to be followed by commandeering. I ask this particularly in view of the statement of the Prime Minister in the past that the Equator was the military boundary of the Union. Since Italy has been in the war, there have been Italian troops south of the Equator, because Italian Somaliland lies below the Equator so far as its southern point is concerned. I would like the Prime Minister, or speakers after him on the Government side, to tell us what we are to expect in this connection. Let the Leader of the Labour Party, for instance, such as it is, make a statement. He announced that if it depended on him the last penny and the last man would be commandeered. I doubt whether he is such a “he man”, but we know how loudly he can say things of that kind. There are going to be additional emergency measures, but I want to tell the Prime Minister, and those who support him, that all the additional steps will act like boomerangs. All the things which are being created to-day: the exploitation of the radio for Empire purposes, the internment camps, the occupation of key positions by creatures of the British Empire, the muzzling of other people, all these things will ultimately act like boomerangs. All the powers that he needs to drag us in the imperial mud we shall need once more later on in order to get out of it. Talking of mud, the Prime Minister tells us that the riots which have taken place were mere trifles. What happened in Potchefstroom was only a trifle. I wonder whether this idea that it was only a trifle is possibly the indication of what the report of the commission of inquiry will ultimately be. It is only a trifle for people to be attacked by soldiers. It is also merely a trifle for people in Pretoria, as it happens, not soldiers, but people who have been just as much inflamed, for instance, so to belabour the son of the hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Bosman) that he fell down unconscious. That is only a trifle. It is a trifle because the proper man has been hit. I want to conclude because my time is practically up. I just want to say this. We can well understand why the Prime Minister spoke in that way. It was nothing else than an argument of despair. Serious accusations were made by the Leader of the Opposition against the Government. They have not been replied to, and the reason why the charges have not been answered is because since the 4th September a great change has taken place. When on the 4th or 6th September it was decided to take part in the war, it was a demonstration of loyalty towards the Empire, a demonstration of lackey loyalty towards the Empire. But since that time the attitude of hon. members opposite and the steps which the Government have taken have become something entirely different, and we are now concerned with a further desperate attempt to cover up a second Dunkirk. It is no longer a question whether we are going to win or lose, but a matter whether there will be an unconditional surrender, or whether on the other hand, more or less satisfactory terms can be fought for. Let me say that I admire the courage with which a man like Churchill is prepared to fight for everything which is at stake, but that courage in our country becomes a folly. The Prime Minister of this country is prepared to venture everything on a chance of covering up the second Dunkirk, but we and the people are not prepared to do so.

Mr. Speaker, before replying to the voice that breathed o’er Zeesen to which we have just listened I will say it was a speech full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The hon. gentleman’s speech consisted chiefly of vilification of all things British and glorification of everything German. The only fact that emerges from the rigmarole he treated us to is that he has now gone away from his previous attitude and that the Nationalist Party has gone away from its previous attitude and is now prepared to surrender German West.

Are you still standing on the Maginot Line?

I want to deal with the more pertinent aspect of this peace motion.

Yes, I hope you will.

Up to recently, not so long ago, the Nationalist members were proclaiming that since the downfall of France I had despaired of the war, that I had become a pacifist and no longer supported the Government. Well, sir, I want to take this opportunity to give that statement the lie direct. Sir, recent events in Europe have not weakened but have strengthened my resolve, have strengthened my conviction that if this world is to be a place for decent nations to live in, Hitler and all that he stands for has first to be beaten. I am proud to remember that a year ago, every one of us on this side voted South Africa into this war and nothing that has happened since then has caused me to waver in my faith or to make me doubt for one moment that what we then did, was the right thing and the only path for South Africa to follow.

Do you still believe in the Maginot Line?

Is there one member here so blind to the facts, even the member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) so blinded by prejudice and ignorance to believe that if Hitler became all-powerful in this world that we shall be able to preserve our independence. The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) wants to know why we are fighting. I say, sir, that if ever there were a war in which South Africans were fighting for their own country and their own liberties it is this war. The Leader of the Opposition (Gen. Hertzog), together with all his supporters, have brought forward this peace motion. They have been indulging in peace parades and peace antics for the last few weeks, and what they have done has all been based on a miscalculation, no doubt induced by the hon. member for Gezina. They have made the same mistake that Mussolini made. They, like Mussolini, thought that when France fell it was all over bar the shouting. They thought the British were on the run, but on the contrary the British will say, like Stonewall Jackson, when they said to him, “The Yankees say you are retreating,” Stonewall Jackson replied, “I am retreating after them.” No, sir, this peace business is based on miscalculation. They thought the British were on the run, they thought the British were cracking up, and also they thought we were cracking up. Well, sir, they reckoned without their hosts; the British have not cracked up, they are not going to crack up, and we are not going to crack up. These gentlemen in some muddled and fuddled way decided that in a few weeks time they could set up a puppet government with the hon. member for Smithfield cast in the same ignominious role as that dotard Marshal Petain. That is what they thought, and I wonder whether they still think that. That was the basis for this motion and all this rigmarole that we have heard. They were so certain that the Germans were winning that in their indecent haste to surrender and hands-up they rushed off to make peace, peace without honour, peace without terms, unconditional surrender.

Are you talking about us?

Yes, I am talking about you. I will ask the hon. member for Smithfield if at the time Ladysmith was relieved and Kimberley and Mafeking and Bloemfontein and Pretoria were in the hands of the enemy what would have been his attitude if then we had suggested unconditional surrender. To-day the moral and political descendants of the handsuppers and national scouts are coming forward in the same way. Sir, these gentlemen in their anxiety to surrender unconditionally do not even stop to ask what is going to happen when they have made an abject and cowardly peace with Germany, when they are faced as they are going to be faced with a Britain emerging triumphant from this war and a South Africa emerging triumphant from this war, we do not know what the developments will be in the future and what are the tremendous possibilities before us.

What about Russia?

I will tell you one thing about Russia: Russia is not going to stand by and let Germany become all-powerful in Europe and I very much doubt whether Italy is going to continue to play fourth fiddle. These gentlemen in their dastardly haste to surrender, to hands-up, never considered these possibilities, but just rushed off in order to make peace; they have not told us yet on what terms they want peace. I wish the hon. member for Smithfield had told us what sort of peace he is envisaging. I hope he will tell us because it is not a question of his offering Hitler terms, Hitler will tell him where he gets off, and if after Hitler has told these gentlemen where they get off and the terms are not acceptable, what are they going to do about it?

Fight.

No, they won’t fight. There will, I suppose, be more peace parades. But I am not going to pursue that line of argument because we are not going to make peace with Hitler; the only peace South Africa will make will be a peace that will safeguard the liberty of our country.

That is a beautiful idea.

There is another aspect of this peace movement I would like to touch on. The peace motion brought forward by the hon. member for Smithfield is the culmination of a long series of peace meetings and peace parades and processions held right through the country. Sir, that peace campaign went hand in hand with a violent republican campaign. At every meeting that was held the speakers held forth to their deluded followers that in a few weeks we were going to have a republic. Sir, I look at my friends on the other side and I see the hon. member for Gezina who was one of these speakers and others were the member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan), the member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom), the member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), the member for George (Mr. Werth) and so on, all these barnyard politicians were violent in their statements that in a few weeks we were going to have a republic. Now the hon. member for Smithfield is the Leader of the party, at least I suppose so, although there is little so far to indicate that, and in bringing forward this peace motion he was not altogether frank with us; he did not paint the whole picture. I want to know, the country wants to know, and the House is entitled to demand, what is his view on this republican campaign, what is he going to do about it. It seems to me these young Turks of his have got out of hand. He has never said a word on the subject and he must know that peace in South Africa is not possible while this lopsided racial republican campaign is going on. I would suggest to the hon. member for Smithfield that instead of bothering his head about making peace with Germany he should help us to make peace in South Africa. The hon. member knows as well as anyone that if ever it should be necessary to change the Constitution it won’t be done by a handful of racial politicians on the other side, it will only be done by the consent of the bulk of both races. Yet the hon. member is tolerating, he is winking at, he is turning his face the other way from this one-sided racial republican business. I personally am not afraid of this republican movement. It reminds me of the story of the Irishman who was talking about republicanism, when somebody asked him why don’t you do something about it. He said: “The police won’t let me.” Well, sir, substituting that policeman for the Government of the Union I say the police won’t let them.

They won’t do that for long.

More cheap talk, cheap talk once more. Then there is another aspect of this peace movement. The hon. member for Smithfield again I say has not been altogether frank and has not given us the whole picture. Side by side with this peace propaganda and republican propaganda that we have witnessed of late there was a regular orgy of what I may call sadistic racialism. Sir, these young gentlemen that I mentioned just now like witch doctors or dancing dervishes have leaped round the fires at night and talked about “ons volk,” “Afrikanerdom,” and so on, and from their antics you would imagine that they were the only people in South Africa, the only Afrikaners in South Africa. I would ask them when they talk about the traditions of our forefathers and the Voortrekkers how they square all their talk with their pusillanimous and cowardly conduct about this war. Let me tell those hon. gentlemen that the better thinking Afrikaner to-day is getting sick and tired and nauseated with the way in which our race and our language is being prostituted for vote-catching purposes, and the time is coming when the Dutchspeaking South African will put an end to all this. I am an Afrikaner myself [interruptions]. Sir, I made that statement on purpose because I knew what would happen. Those gentlemen think the definition of an Afrikaner is a fellow whose vote they can get. It does not matter whether a man of Dutch-speaking descent has spent his whole life in the service of the Union, has done more constructive work than the whole lot of them put together, that all means nothing in their eyes, he is no Afrikaner as long as they cannot get his vote. I am an Afrikaner. I have not a drop of British blood in my veins.

Has there not been blood transfusion in your case?

There is not a drop of British blood in my veins and I have never subscribed to the doctrine that race and language come above the interest of country. I put the interest of my country first.

Your tongue is British.

My tongue is South African. Let me say this about the British. I fought against them and after that I can speak with nothing but admiration, I can indeed echo the words of the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) and the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) and say that the British gave us a square deal, and I admire and respect them for their courage and their love of freedom. For all that I am not an Englishman.

I don’t fight the British. I fight the Government.

I am a South African because I was born in this country and not because my people came from Holland or because my language is Dutch.

Tell us about the peace motion.

I am trying to analyse the psychology of this peace motion which is not meant as a peace motion at all. When they talk of peace they mean hatred. They are a party subsisting on hatred and that is brought about by an inferiority complex.

You are judging others by yourself.

They are suffering from an inferiority complex, they hate everyone, they hate their fellow Dutch-speaking South Africans, they hate the British, the Jews, the Indians, the natives and all the coloured people.

Let us get back to the debate.

I am coming back, but I am trying to show a little sincerity.

Say what a good case you have for carrying on the war.

The hon. member is getting hit. He is at last beginning to realise that he has been found out by this country. Their idea of patriotism is based on hatred. I was in Scotland recently, and there I was amongst a race which is the most clannish on earth. They are far more proud of their race and traditions than even we are. The Scotchman is not afraid of any other nation, he is proud of his own people but he does not hate anyone else. You fellows base your attitude on hatred. [Here the Leader of the Opposition left the House.] I have succeeded in chasing one man away any way. Goodbye, sir, goodbye.

I am afraid the hon. Minister is rather wandering from the subject.

I think this little homily of mine has gone home and I will leave it at that. But there is just one other point. I am not one of those fellows like the hon. member for Gezina who takes half an hour to say nothing. I have learnt the art of condensation, and I think in the twenty minutes I have spoken I have advanced sound commonsense which I leave hon. gentlemen there to digest. The hon. member for Smithfield complains about the vast expense of our war effort. One of the reasons for making peace from his point of view is the cost of our war effort, but that cost is really the fault of the hon. member for Gezina because we are now spending money that he should have spent. Yes, sir, he left us naked to our enemies, and I would say,* if I were not afraid of you pulling me up, sir, it was criminal neglect the way in which he left our Defence Force.

Order, the hon. Minister will reserve that for the debate on the Estimates.

Let me comfort the hon. member for Gezina by telling him that since he left us in the lurch we have built up the finest and strongest army South Africa has ever seen. It is not an army composed of skulkers belonging to secret societies, walking about with bombs, it is an army of the flower of the South African race. Our young men and women have come forward, not in the dark, not playing at being conspirators, they have come forward voluntarily.

Voluntarily?

Yes, voluntarily, and when after this war a new order in the world will have to be evolved I think the nucleus of the new South African nation will be this present army of ours, and when this young army forms a new nation they will remember with contempt the men who skulked and talked while others were up and doing.

We have just been listening to the promises of a clean-shaven Father Christmas. If ever we listened to anything imperialistic, then we did so this afternoon when the Minister of Native Affairs was speaking. We thought that he would tell us what our chances were of winning this war, and what advantages it would give us for having taken part in the war. But instead of that, he became afraid of the republican movement, although he once himself fought for a republic. He is now running away from that. He wants to run away. Let me tell the Minister of Native Affairs that he and his generation cannot stop that republican movement. He ran away so far, and has fled so far from the republic for which he once fought himself, that he can now no longer even speak his own language. He speaks the language of the conqueror. Let me say here in plain language that there is only one sound form of government for South Africa, and that is a free, independent republican government. We are not going to remain quiet, but we are going to work in a constitutional manner until we have attained that objective, until we have obtained an independent republic for South Africa. The Minister spoke here in a sneering way about national scouts and hands-uppers, who were supposed to be sitting on this side of the House. Show me how many hon. members there are on the opposite side who did their duty during the three years’ war. If you look for them, you will find them on this side of the House. If you look on the other side of the House, then you will find those there who burned our homes and who murdered our mothers and children in the camp. They are the supporters of the Prime Minister to-day, and then we find the Minister of Native Affairs priding himself on the hybrid Government sitting over there and saying that the hands-uppers and the national scouts are sitting on this side of the House. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Native Affairs say that they do not intend to surrender, but when the time comes for the people of South Africa to pay the piper, then they will probably run away to Canada or elsewhere. I want, however, to tell them that we will try to stop that flight, to prevent occurring here what happened in connection with Norway and Holland, where the government fled to London and went and boasted there. No, they will have to pay the piper together with us, in this country. I am going to speak frankly here to-day in connection with this war question. I know that it will not be pleasant for my hon. friends on the other side to hear it. But let me tell them very plainly that we expected to hear from the Prime Minister what the chances of winning this war were. The only thing he told us was that the British Navy had not yet been defeated, and that there is hope, just as much as there was in 1914-’18. He forgot what the position was between 1914 and 1918. Then Germany had the whole world against her. Now the Allies, or the so-called Allies, are absolutely alone. I intentionally use the words “so-called Allies”, because there is practically nothing left of them. I shall try to take one of them after the other and try and show how we are engaged on an aimless and needless war, a war in which the Allies, if there are any Allies left, have already been defeated. I want to admit that there have been two victories on the part of the Allies, the one is the victory over the Graf Spee. That victory was blazoned forth to the whole world. The other victory is one about which one ought really to be ashamed. That is the victory at Baviaanspoort after the great attack that took place there. When those poor people are in the internment camp, they can be attacked and killed!

What about the air force?

Let the hon. member go to London and see how things are going on there. He remains here, and he knows just as little as I do of what is going on there. But he is one of those who sits and boasts on the opposite side. They draw double salaries, even if they do not wear uniforms here. That is one of the reasons why we protested against double salaries being paid to members of Parliament who were forsooth on military service. That is the loyal patriotism which they have.

How many double billets have you occupied?

The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) had better remain silent. We know his descent. He belongs to a generation of hands-uppers. [Interruptions.] Hon. members should remain calm. I will try to express myself as calmly as possible, but I feel that if we were to remain quiet here at a time like this, then the dead in their graves, our mothers and children, who sacrificed their lives for the people of South Africa, will begin to speak. I want to get back to the reasons why I say that this war, so far as South Africa is concerned, is aimless and useless, and that it is madness for us to continue it any longer. I shall, in the first place, try to prove this from the speeches of the Prime Minister himself. As soon as France got into trouble, the Prime Minister went to the microphone on his farm — as he often does, in order to tell South Africa how well everything was going — to tell South Africa why France had to lay down its arms. He said—

Now I want to tell the Prime Minister this. He says that he wants to win this war. Was there ever a country where greater political division existed about the war than what exists here in South Africa? He says that he wants to win the war, but he condemns himself out of his own mouth, because he says that France lost the war because there were political divisions in that country. But as the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) clearly stated here, they cannot see what is correct. They only see what they want to see, and so far as South Africa is concerned, things are just allowed to develop. I want, however, to show that the war is already lost to the Allies. Now let us start at the 4th September, 1939. What is the first thing that happened? England and France were to stand by Poland. It was said that they had to go to the assistance of Poland because they were the protectors of small nations. Nevertheless it only took three weeks and the whole of Poland was under the heel of Germany, without England, the protector of small nations, having fired a single shotgun even to save Poland! To-day they still speak of the Allies, and of saving Poland. Now the Prime Minister comes and says that all those things are trifles; the great thing is the main army and the big battle which is yet to take place. I will try to come to that in order to show that the main army has already been attacked. Poland was a country with 35,000,000 persons with an army of 2,000,000 men who are well armed and equipped. Poland only lasted for three weeks. When I talk like this hon. members opposite will doubtless say that I am pro-German. I deny, once and for all, that I am pro-German. I am not pro-German; I am pro-Afrikaans. I do not want to be anything else except an Afrikaner.

Did you not wear a German uniform?

Some people are so ignorant that they do not even know what a German uniform looks like, and yet they speak about it. Let me say here that for the sake of the honour of my nation and of my country, I will not go and fight on behalf of the conqueror of my country, as hon. members opposite are prepared to do. I now proceed to the second loss of the Allies. Poland was lost with its 35,000,000 population, which is only a little less than the population of England. We come to Norway. On Sunday after the morning sermon had been preached, the Cape Times appeared in Cape Town in a special edition to inform us of the wonderful thing that happened, that France and Great Britain had landed troops on the coast of Norway, over a distance of 600 miles, to operate there against the German army. We were told that Germany was the offender and the oppressor there, and that although two days before we had heard that England had laid mines along the coast of Norway. Was Germany simply to sit still after England had violated the neutrality of Norway? What happened then? There are members of Parliament here, who are now running away, who made bets that within a few weeks Norway would be entirely in the hands of the Allies, and that Germany would be on her knees. Three weeks later the German army was in possession of Norway, and the Prime Minister of England notified the world that they were retiring according to plan, because the troops were required at other places.

And you were probably glad about it.

I do not rejoice about a defeat of another, but I am only glad about my own victory, about the victory of the Afrikaner, but the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) is one of those who forgets his own nation when he thinks of the “white cliffs” of Dover. I now come to the other country which is always held up to us, namely, Holland. The Prime Minister told us, when Germany crossed the boundaries of Holland and Belgium, that Holland and Belgium were our Allies, and now we would see. I am sorry for Holland, but I would like to put a direct question to hon. members opposite who are so concerned about Holland: Did Holland at that time declare war against England to save the Afrikaners in South Africa? Holland said: No, I will subscribe to collecting lists on their behalf, but I am not going to endanger the freedom and the lives of my own people for the sake of the Afrikaner. She did not do so.

What about President Kruger?

Every time we speak about these matters, then by way of an interruption we are asked how the German Kaiser treated President Kruger. [Interjections.] I ask: What did England do to President Kruger? They banished him, and even after his death Gen. Botha had trouble in getting his body brought back here. [Interjections.] Those hon. members only want to hear one side of a matter. Listen also to the other side. Holland resisted for three days.

And was then betrayed.

You probably are a traitor.

If hon. members da not stop interjecting, I shall have to make an example of one.

Holland resisted for three days, and then the country surrendered. Why? Holland did not get help from the protectors of small nations. Its Government also fled to London, which became the refuge of kings and governments. We go further and come to Belgium. The nations were left in the lurch one after the other. I have all respect for the Belgians, who fought bravely, but after seventeen days the king of the Belgians had to put up the white flag by refusing to allow his people to be ruined and exterminated for the sake of England. Now King Leopold is called a traitor because he did not stand by England. History will prove whether King Leopold did the right thing. If I saw my nation being destroyed I would not go and ask anyone else whether I should continue or not, but I would try to save what could be saved. What happened? The English and French armies were in Belgium. The Prime Minister now says that England can never lose this war owing to the magnificent retreat which was made from Dunkirk. That was such a magnificent feat of arms that England cannot lose the war! I have never yet heard that you can win a war by flight. By flight you lose a war, and the Government itself will yet retreat, and retreat until the war is completely lost. But then we come to France. France, as the Leader of the Opposition correctly said, was the great strength on which everything depended, the strength which would be the deciding factor. Now France is accused of treachery because it made peace. Treachery? If a man wants to save his people, if he wants to save what can still be saved, is he then to be charged with treachery? I think that is a scandalous thing towards the new French Government. Everyone ran away, as this Government will yet run away before we reach the end. One government after the other has disappeared from the scene.

Just as you ran away after South-West.

I did not run away, but fought with you. Let us now leave England and come nearer to South Africa. We have now listened to the Minister of Native Affairs. We know that he went to England recently and said to them that they need not be afraid about the British possessions in Africa, because South Africa would defend them. We see the magnificent protection which he has given. British Somaliland has surrendered. This is the first time for 300 years that Britain has surrendered a country which she had occupied. I know it is painful for the other side to swallow it, but truth must be stated. They will lose more possessions yet. I say these things to show the position in which our country is placed by this war which has been lost. In twelve months the so-called Allies have won two battles, and for the rest it was flight, and flight and retiring according to plan, and again a retirement according to plan. That is what has happened during the twelve months. Do hon. members think that the public can any longer be fed on the kind of thing that we are nevertheless going to win that England is going to win? The Prime Minister said this morning that he also wanted peace, but he wanted a victory peace. What hope has the Prime Minister when he is at Irene, while his khaki knights sit here, to win back what has already been lost? He wants to obtain the victory, get a victorius peace, but what has happened during the past twelve months? The so-called Allies — there are practically no Allies, but it is only Great Britain and the Dominions who are continuing the war — now say that they want to put the war through up to the last penny and the last man. Is that fair towards our people and to Afrikanerdom when with our eyes open, we see that we are fighting a lost cause, to ask the people to sacrifice some of its best sons on the altar, and to pay their last penny for a lost cause?

Are you afraid then?

The hon. member is fond of making interruptions. Why is he not on the field of battle? It is so strange that hon. members walk about in uniform, but they have not sufficient courage to go and fight on the battlefields of the Empire. If the hon. member is so fond of the Empire, let him go and fight. I can guarantee him that we will in the meantime see to it that order is maintained here. As the hon. member for Gezina said, it is only owing to our action from the 4th September until to-day that peace and order have been maintained, notwithstanding the fact that the population has been oppressed and trampled underfoot until the people at length could hardly bear it any longer. Now the Prime Minister says that the war must be continued, and he said this afternoon that the war was being voluntarily carried on. Is that true? Is it true that the war is being voluntarily continued? We have the word of the Prime Minister. I think it was on the 7th February that he said that the war would be carried on by means of volunteers, and that no one would be intimidated to make them join up. But we find that people are being intimidated in the most scandalous manner. They are kicked out of their billets. Take, for instance, the action of the Minister of Lands towards the settlers on the Pongola scheme. The way in which the people have been pushed out there is scandalous.

That is a lie.

Can the Minister of Lands say that it is a lie?

Hon. members must not use such language.

I thought the Minister of Lands would show enough respect for Mr. Speaker to withdraw what he said.

Say nothing but the truth.

I have a letter here from one of the settlers which reads as follows—

The letter is dated 17th August, 1940. It goes on—

The letter was written on the 17th, the man had to do four days more hard work, and thereafter he was told that he was on leave from the 14th August, although the letter was only written on the 17th. Can you imagine such a thing? The man was further told that he could receive the salary still due to him on the 22nd August, and that then his services would be no longer required. He could not continue to live on the settlement, and had to leave the settlement and move with his family.

Where is the compulsion to join up?

The people are treated in that way because they will not sign the imperialistic oath. They are treated worse than natives. A native can under similar circumstances continue to remain on the farm for three months before he has to leave. This man, however, is only given seven days’ notice, and then he is only written to four days after he is supposed to start his leave. Then he has to go away and wander about with his family under the open sky. That is the way things are done, not only in the Department of Lands, but also in that of the Minister of Agriculture. I know of people who were told last week that they had to take the imperialistic oath, or otherwise they would have to go.

I challenge you to give names.

I challenge the Minister to appoint an impartial commission. Then we will furnish the proof. Commandants are sent, and the persons are being intimidated, just as the police were intimidated to sign the imperialistic oath, or otherwise to starve with their families.

I challenge you to give instances.

We took the Prime Minister at his word that only volunteers would be asked to fight, but the Prime Minister ….

What about the motion?

Am I not speaking about the war? Is the hon. member so stupid that he cannot understand me? I do not blame him for not being able to understand Afrikaans, because he is as imperialistic as he can possibly be. The Prime Minister said that the boundaries of the Union, from a military point of view, go as far as Kenya and Tanganyika, and he said that Italy had declared war against us. I would like to know when I am to believe the Prime Minister. In his speech he said that Italy had declared war against us, and immediately afterwards he moved an amendment to ask the approval of this House for the declaration of war by the Government against Italy. When do.es he speak the truth? Now I want to put another question. The Prime Minister said, first of all, that he would only use volunteers, but if Italy came closer to us from the north, he was going to commandeer us. Is he going to commandeer the people whom he has no confidence in, and from whom he has taken away their rifles? These people have their property taken away not because they refuse to do their duty, but because they refuse to be lackeys and to follow the Government in bearing arms, and who are punished on that account. The people said: “I am not the native of the Government, and I am not going to carry arms on his behalf.” And for that reason they are put into gaol for three or four months. I want to tell the Prime Minister that he is playing with fire. The time of reckoning is coming, and it will be an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. The grace shewn to the Afrikaners in the past has to stop, the forgiving disposition in favour of the Afrikaner in the past must stop. The Government has taken steps against us. We must make use of them.

You will not get the opportunity.

I know that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) would very much like to have me behind the bars. I once spent 23 months in gaol, and they may as well put me there again. If it is necessary, I am even prepared to suffer the fate of Jopie Fourie for my people. I have always been prepared to sacrifice myself for my people. The Prime Minister also said that the Germans in South-West were really treated so very well by the Union, and that they were now causing trouble out of gratitude! Does he want the Germans to sink just as low as certain Afrikaners and go and fight on behalf of their conquerors? I am glad that the Germans are still honouring their German descent, and that they are proud of it. I am just as proud of my Afrikaner descent. I want to close The war has been lost. Only two battles have been won, and for the rest the retirements were according to plan. I fear that this Government will also, in the future, have to retire along with England. They do not want to make peace, they want to go on with the war, but they will, just like other governments, take fight, and they will go to America or Canada to seek safety for themselves, while the people of South Africa will have to pay the piper. I hope that the party on the other side will yet come to its senses, and will not go on with the folly of continuing a lost war. Anyone with a grain of sense can see that the war is lost, notwithstanding all the victories that are being spoken of. From day to day there is systematic retreat, and things will go on in that way. France has been eliminated, and what chance is left now? The Prime Minister says that the main army has not yet been beaten, but when your flanks have once been defeated, what chance is there then of escaping an encirclement? The Prime Minister also says that an effective blockade is being carried out against Germany. He should go and tell that to the children and not to grown-up people. Germany has all her back doors open, and can get food. The doors are only closed on one side, namely to America. In the last World War it took four years to enforce the blockade against Germany, and now it will be much more difficult. Why should they succeed now? I fear the blockade may possibly be applied against England. Why are the children being sent out if everything is in such a good way in England? Are they not the precursors of a flight? We see in the newspapers that things are so safe in England, the people dance in the streets when aeroplanes are passing over London. They are brave people. But why are the most important people, who have the money, leaving England? If things were so safe, I would not run away. Why have the children of Mr. Duff Cooper gone to America? No, there is something wrong. The amendment of the Prime Minister will be passed. Why? Because there is a Government in office which does not represent the people of South Africa. They say that they represent the people. I challenge them to hold a general election. They will be able to disarm us in that way. They can, by an election, prove that the people stand behind them, but they are too afraid. Yes, we have had a fifth column since the 4th September last year. The Prime Minister made mention of an underground movement. We had an underground movement in South Africa between 1933 and 1939. We held the election in 1938, and we told the people that we would remain out of the war. The Prime Minister respected that point of view.

That is untrue.

Hon. members opposite are not courageous enough to ask for the decision of the people. Great Britain is the father of the fifth column. We remember quite well how the Jameson Raid took place, and how, supported by England, the freedom of the Transvaal was to be taken away from it by the Jameson Raid. We also know the history of the first annexation of the Transvaal in 1877 well. Do hon. members think that we have forgotten those things? No, but then the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) comes and says that they have always shown a forgiving spirit, but that they are now becoming hot and can no longer stand things. If there are any people who conduct themselves calmly under all the oppression, notwithstanding all the occurrences at Potchefstroom and Pretoria, both in connection with the Voortrekker torch and in connection with other insults, then they are the Afrikaner population. They have conducted themselves calmly even under the greatest insults, namely the taking away of their arms, their rifles. They are not trusted, but if the Government were to come to-morrow or the day after and ask the same people to defend the country, although the Government has put no confidence in them, will the people then be prepared to protect the Government? The property of the people has been taken away, and they have not even been paid for it. That is scandalous treatment. The natives have arms, but the Europeans may not have arms. I think hon. members opposite will be glad when the day comes that the Bantu and natives are on the countryside after the Afrikaners have been exterminated.

On a point of order: Can the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) make venomous charges against us and point his finger in our direction?

One can of course expect that from the hon. member. He is the man who had the impudence last year to tell us that if we did not take part in the war, the English-speaking people would rebel. Does he think that we are afraid of the English-speaking people wanting to rebel? In 1899 we were not afraid of a nation of 45,000,000 people. Does he think that he can frighten the Afrikaner people? We will get into power and have a republic as certain as we are sitting here, and possibly much quicker than hon. members think. I want to give my hearty support to the motion, because there is no hope of winning this war. If I could assist members on the other side to gain the victory on the battlefields, I would like to send them, and we would see that peace and quiet is maintained. If they go we would maintain peace and order and see that even the Prime Minister is protected. He will not even need to have a large bodyguard protecting him. We are peace-loving, and do not want to do underground things. If such things occur, then they are caused by the other side.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) having now safely eliminated the British Empire, is now going to tea with his colleagues.

Why should he listen to you?

Why should he. Let me first of all give the direct lie to the statement which the hon. member made in his speech that the children are being evacuated from Great Britain because there is no food for them in Great Britain.

Well, why are they going then?

If the hon. member will take the opportunity of going to some of our coast ports he will see that not only does Great Britain hold the command of the seas but shipping has recently actually increased, three, four or even sixfold.

That means nothing.

Well, we are not unaccustomed to these things from the hon. member for Wolmaransstad who likes to sneer at the evacuation of Dunkirk which even his friends, the Nazis, have not descended to. We are also accustomed to his verbal bravery in this House, and I can remember only a few days ago when with a great flourish of trumpets—no, it would not be trumpets, that would be too English for the hon. member—but at any rate when with great flourish the hon. member for Wolmaransstad told a large meeting of people that they must not hand in their rifles, and that he (Gen. Kemp), the great and glorious Gen. Kemp, was going to lead them in this form of passive resistance, and that he himself would refuse to hand in his rifle, although at that very same moment he had already applied to the Government for an exemption to be allowed to keep his rifle.

That is not so.

Oh, yes, my friend, It is so. He must have had it in his pocket at the time, and it must have been a coolly calculated, deliberate attempt to get a crowd of unthinking people to land themselves into gaol, as numbers of them subsequently did on his advice, while he himself has not the courage to carry out what he promised.

He carried out everything.

I am sure South Africa, or any other country, need not worry itself about gentlemen of that kidney. As a matter of fact there is no hon. member in this House who owes more to the generosity of the British people than the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. I for myself have never been able to find out what were the abilities possessed by the hon. member which would have justified any sensible Parliament, or any sensible government, making him a Cabinet Minister, but the fact remains that due to the magnanimity of the people of this country he was imposed on us for something like sixteen years earning £2,500 per year— and you could not sell him in a tickey bazaar.

Order, I think the hon. member should modify his language.

Yes, sir, I agree, but I also want to put the point before this House that we have had to listen to a tirade from the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. He is an individual who tells us that he is very proud of his own race. He is a member of this House. He tells us with a great deal of vehemence, with more vehemence than eloquence, that he is a true Afrikaner, that he is proud of being an Afrikaner, that he believes in the Afrikaans people, and so on. Well, if he believes in all these things the fundamental should be that in this House at least—I do not care what he does in his irresponsible travellings throughout the country—he should respect the sentiment of the English-speaking people. One, of course, was amused when in the earlier part of his speech he blossomed out as an authority on international affairs. If it were not so pathetic one might have laughed at it. But one can see the development which has taken place among these people, since last September, when the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) and his colleagues were at great pains to tell us that definitely they were not pro-Nazi or pro-German—they were pro-Afrikaans, and that they believed in keeping South Africa neutral. However unworkable the idea of neutrality may have been, it was at least a point of view held by them. It was a point of view which I think the hon. member for Smithfield was justifiably entitled to hold, but since those days he has thrown overboard all the stories he told us about being purely in favour of neutrality, and he and his colleague have come out openly in support of the Nazi doctrine.

Where do you get that from?

The hon. member knows that it is so, and I want to say that not only do they support him in the open but they do so under me, and I have proof of that, and I know that in almost every dorp in this country, and even in Natal itself, members of this particular party are going from house to house and deluding people with the most monstrous lies with reference to the conduct of the war.

Are you referring to the Government’s Information Officer’s stories?

This is the whispering campaign on which the foundation of this great and glorious republic, envisaged by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), rests. Let me tell hon. members on that side of the House that no state can flourish on a foundation of lies, and it is because the Nazi State is founded on lies that it cannot last. Lies are part of their propaganda. Hitler has time and again said that in his own book—which has become the bible of the German people—the book which even the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) is now prepared to swap for the Bible of his forefathers, the book which the hon. member for Smithfield has during his long career read to us so extensively, and even the National Socialist over there, whose constituency I forget—these people are all prepared to-day to hand over their Bible, the book which has been the foundation of the Afrikaans nation, and to take in return Hitler’s Mein Kampf. That is what it amounts to. Even in the nightly broadcast from Zeesen this kind of propaganda is put to the Afrikaans people—and they do listen to it at the behest of people like the hon. member for Fauresmith and the hon. member for Smithfield. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have heard it said, and it has been said in the Press, that the hon. member for Fauresmith is only sitting where he is because of his personal loyalty to the hon. member for Smithfield, and I want to suggest to him that if he has got to the stage where he is going to sacrifice his country because of personal loyalty to anyone, then it must have been a mistake to have had him as the leader of the country for so many years. He is a man who has great influence with his party, he has great influence with the young Turks, so ably described this afternoon by the Minister of Native Affairs, and the time is rapidly arriving when the hon. member for Fauresmith must use his influence with the people—it is his duty not only to the Afrikaans-speaking people, but to South Africa as a whole.

What about Hertzog?

I have got past the stage of appealing to the hon. member for Smithfield. He no doubt also has a great deal of influence, but I have got past appealing to him to use his influence with his own people, because he is quite satisfied that he is right, and one cannot wonder perhaps at him in his later days taking Hitler as an example.

A case of run, Rabbit, run.

I am afraid I cannot refer to an ex-Minister as a rabbit, Mr. Speaker would call me to order. Now I want to suggest that this question of war and peace is not a question of one section of the Afrikaans-speaking people against the other section of the Afrikaans-speaking people. When the former Prime Minister originally introduced his motion in favour of neutrality, the debate in many instances centred around a constitutional issue as has so often happened in this House. The constitutional issue becoming clarified and quite obviously the people not being prepared to fall for the neutrality theory, it has been found necessary by the members of this new Reunited Party to bring in once again this very old squabble of Afrikaans-speaking people versus Afrikaans-speaking people. Perhaps it is about time that we English-speaking people should be a little frank. We have heard such a lot about the sins of England, we have heard a diatribe by the hon. member for Gezina who left us in this lurch and I might perhaps retaliate by saying to the Afrikaans-speaking people that they will never have a republic in this country so long as they cannot agree among themselves. That is at least one thing which we English-speaking people do in the Union —sometimes at least. The Afrikaansspeaking people axe always breaking away, and I have come to the conclusion that we are faced here with a Reunited Party who are not really concerned with the country at all, they are only concerned with themselves. I am convinced that there is not so much vindictiveness against Great Britain on the part of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. It is not a matter so much of his being pro-Afrikaans, it is a matter of his having been reduced from £2,500 per year as a Cabinet Minister to £700 per year as an ordinary member.

I must ask the hon. member not to refer in those terms to other members.

I withdraw, but I must say that is my opinion. My friends over there can say whatever they like about Great Britain and about members on this side of the House. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad was guilty of some very vicious statements about members on this side, and what the hon. member for Wolmaransstad can say, and what members of the Reunited Party can say, I propose to say.

The hon. member is now making reflections on the Chair.

I withdraw it, if you think I am doing so.

Hear, hear!

I am pleased to see that the Reunited Party members are amenable to the Chair. I thought that the Nazi philosophy was that you had no Chair. You had only one man, Hertzog or Malan.

Are you trying to ridicule the Chair?

No, and I am glad that they are still prepared to pay attention to the Chair. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad says that nothing will stop a republic — I suppose he means even with his rifle which he got a permit for. There are a great many things which will stop a republic, and one of the main things which will stop a republic is the hon. member for Wolmaransstad himself. Because I am quite satisfied that the people of this country, when they look at the kind of Government we have — and I do not want to write too many glowing tributes for it, because I may find occasion later on to criticise it—but I am satisfied that if the people of the country look at the kind of Government we have, and then gaze at the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, there will be no republic. He is the finest bulwark we have against a republic, and rather than chide him for his republican views, we should encourage him to get up from time to time and deliver these nice homilies and give us something about the British Government.

Would he get an exemption from fighting?

Probably he would. He has a history which I cannot very well go into as Mr. Speaker would stop me. I am not concerned to argue on matters of strategy. I am not at all sure, however, that I could not argue strategy probably better than the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, because even in the last war when he did try to put forward a little bit of typical Wolmaransstad strategy, it did not last long. But the question which we have to discuss on this motion is not a matter of strategy, or whether Britain let France down, or whether France let Britain down, or whether Britain is winning the war—of which, of course, there is no doubt—and whether the battle should be fought in the east or the west. What we have to decide—what has already been decided, and what we have to reaffirm, is whether we are prepared to be a party to the infliction on the world generally of a political philosophy which is based on force, or whether on the other hand we are prepared to put every effort behind the armed forces which are to-day fighting for freedom and democracy, and what perhaps is most important eventually, world peace. I am persuaded to make a great case for democracy as we have known it. It has many faults — that is why we are on the Labour benches, because we feel that democracy has many faults, but to-day it does represent the best form of government which has so far been evolved.

Oh!

Yes, and if my hon. friend were only two weeks in Germany, he would realise it. It is the essence of the knowledge of what is best in the realm of government, and it is the form of government which can be greatly extended and improved, which is capable of almost infinite variations, and we must keep it. And the fact that the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) is permitted to sit here and smile against democracy in this House, does at least show that democracy allows him all this freedom which he has to-day. That is possibly one of the failures of democracy. But I would suggest that if in South Africa we had a Nazi regime, he, no more than I, would be allowed to come into a place like this and say what we do say. I cannot imagine him putting sixty-four questions on the Order Paper in the Reichstag under Hitler. In the Reichstag conditions are very different. The members are told to be there. The President gets up and Hitler says his little piece, and that is the end of it, until the next time, and if you object to that, then there are the concentration camps for you. And if you are in Italy, something which I think would do the hon. member for Wolmaransstad a great deal of good, instead of concentration camps he would be given a large dose of castor oil. What he would say about that, we had better leave alone. We have to decide whether we are going to be a party to allowing this Nazi doctrine to overrun the world, or whether we are going to play our part and take our share with the only remaining democracy which is prepared to stand up to the Nazi regime. I only want to say a word or two about what the hon. member for Smithfield has told us here to-day. The hon. member obviously does not know, but if he were to think that even though he has been Prime Minister of the Union for sixteen years, even though he has as a colleague the hon. member for Gezina, who has actually seen and spoken to the great German Fuhrer — although he has never told us what Hitler said to him, or what he said to Hitler — but if the hon. member for Smithfield thinks that because he has a great reputation in the Union, because he has been a leader of a section of the people for many years, that that will cut any ice with Hitler, then I must admire his childlike simplicity. There is no possible shadow of doubt. We have seen what has happened in Czecho-Slovakia. We have seen what has happened in Norway, in Denmark, in Holland and in France. As a matter of fact the Germans appear to treat their treacherous friends, and appear to put their feet much more heavily on the people who have originally betrayed their country than on the others, because they know that a man who is once a traitor is always a traitor, and having used these quislings in the various countries, they subsequently take very good care to see that no effective power is played into their hands. It is impossible for South Africa to get a peace from Germany and Italy. We might possibly approach them, and they would say, “Be very good boys, and when the war is over we may make Pirow Fuhrer and may even do something for the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop). But I am rather inclined to be persuaded that my hon. friends only indulge in this propaganda because they are satisfied that Germany cannot win the war, and so they run about the countryside, having in their hearts the knowledge that they are quite safe, first because they know Britain must win the war, and they know probably that we will not take any very stern action against them, and they are quite safe. In the second place, they have nothing to lose, they never had any political reputation, and so they can afford to run about the country with nothing to lose. I want to suggest, before I sit down, that the time has arrived when we should put a stop to some of the activities that are going on. We are not going to put a stop to peace motions and peace speeches, because we are still a democracy, and we believe that being a democracy we should allow the greatest possible freedom. But there have been happenings recently which are just a little bit beyond the usages of democracy. We have had the dynamitetard, we have had various members of the Reunited Party speaking outside this House in language that can only be described as traitorous to the state. We have had in the case of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) almost open rebellion with reference to his rifle. Unfortunately one or two people have been gaoled because they took his advice. Finally, after a long period of silence, during which we were given to understand he was communing with the lions on his farm, we have had the reappearance of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) with his brand new scheme not made by Hitler or Mussolini, but a brand new scheme backed by his storm troops. I feel actions of that description in time of war are definitely traitorous, because make no mistake about it, the people of South Africa are fundamentally sound. South Africa appealed for volunteers to do their duty to their country, and that appeal met with a magnificent response. These meh are there to do their duty, in very generous numbers, and after we get over the mess which was left by the hon. member for Gezina, it will be possible to put a very large and very well trained, efficient and, I think I may add, a very brave South African force into the field. But when they are put into the field, and this kind of talk is going to be continued all round the country, these people are literally stabbing their fellow-Afrikaners in the back. Whether or no they still sincerely believe that neutrality is a possible policy for the Union, whether or not they are still prepared to concentrate purely on the constitutional aspect, there is no doubt that their recent actions have gone beyond all arguments of constitutional matters, gone beyond a belief in neutrality. The kind of speeches they are even making in the House verge, as near as possible, on the traitorous, and I feel that the amount of latitude they are getting now in the matter of these peace motions is too generous. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that while we have no possible objection to any politician sincerely believing that peace should be made to-day, we have every objection to political propaganda which gives rise to speeches and actions which verge on the traitorous, and which in the long run may do us a great deal of harm when our armies are engaged in the field.

We have now heard the point of view of both sides of the House, hon. members on this side in favour of peace, and hon. members opposite for the continuance of the war. That difference in views is a reflection of the difference in opinion in the country. There is a large section of the population—the majority— who, whether the Prime Minister wishes it or not, do not want the war to continue. There is, on the other hand, another part which wants the war to continue. The present position is that we must assume that the difference of opinion about the continuance of the war actually does exist. Many people, especially the Afrikaans-speaking people, say that they have no concern with the war. They and we feel that we cannot co-operate with the Government in involving. South Africa in this war. On the other hand, the Prime Minister said from the start that he was going to see the war through. I listened carefully to what he said here to-day, and also to what the Leader of the Opposition said. Now what is the position in the country? Can the Government continue the war without the assistance of that section of the population which is to-day opposed to the war? My argument is that the way in which the Government is acting to-day is going to make things very difficult in the future. I am fortunately or unfortunately one of those who since the three years war, has been involved in all the troubles. To-day I am in favour of peace. I say that we must make peace, and for that reason I am now called a hands-upper. However it makes no difference what they call me. I am convinced of my feelings, and if there are people in the country who differ from me, then that is their business. I am a person who believes in democracy, in the right to my own free opinion, and I act in accordance therewith. In the first place, I would like to say this to the House. I am not in favour of a rebellion. I have seen quite sufficient of what the position was when years ago we have shot each other in consequence of divisions that existed. Accordingly, I have done everything in my power not to have a repetition of what happened in 1914. But then the Government must also take into account the point of view of our people. What is happening now, however? The Prime Minister possibly does not know it, but we know it, we who talk with our people in the country and with the soldiers. There is a kind of smelling out of people going on to-day to get them to go on active service, and it is going on on a large scale. I spoke to a certain magistrate and pointed out to him that there were certain people on the native borders who have been accustomed for years and years to have their rifles for their protection. He told me that it could not be permitted, because they were afraid of a rebellion. That is what an official said. Now it may be the view of the Prime Minister that he is afraid of a rebellion, and that he took away the rifles from the people for that reason. If then there is anyone amongst our people who wants to oppose the authorities by force, lock him up. But when someone honestly comes and expresses his views and says that he is opposed to the war for this or the other reason, then I say that it is the right of an Afrikaner to do so, and therefore we cannot humiliate and punish that person for that reason. Just look at the disturbances that there are going on in the country. The Prime Minister says that they are trifles. They may be trifles to him, but it will depend on those trifles whether he will win the war. I can give the Prime Minister the assurance that unpleasantnesses are occurring in the country. Take the riots we have had on the part of soldiers and sailors. After the World War I was in Cape Town when the Australians passed through here. They were rough people, and I did my duty, and locked them up and put them in chains when it was necessary. I took the responsibility on myself to do so, but what is happening now? I meet officers of high rank — I am thinking of one who formerly was a servant of mine in the army, and I asked him how he succeeded in obtaining that rank. His answer was: “I got in first.” The people who are officers are not able to maintain discipline, and from what I have seen in Cape Town there is no control, and the officers are powerless. We know of the things that occurred in Potchefstroom, Pretoria and Johannesburg. The officers stand behind the people and simply say: “Carry on.” I cannot repeat the language which I heard as language which is being used against the so-called “Dutchman” who will not go and fight. It shows that the Prime Minister and his Government cannot take proper control of matters. I remember the telegram which the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) sent about the riots in Cape Town. We have a war here to-day in the Cape Town streets. I do not pray in the street, and we do not allow ourselves to be dictated to as to where and how we must pray. The Prime Minister regards this as a small matter, but it is an interference in our streets which causes divisions amongst our population.

I think the hon. member is now going too far.

But I am stating facts here.

Yes, but it seems to me that those things have no connection with this motion.

They are connected with it, because I want to make peace to prevent riots of that kind on our streets. To-day we have the position that soldiers stand in the street with one eye closed and the other open to see which people can be persecuted. If that kind of thing goes on then the division in our country will continue to increase, and I can give the Prime Minister the assurance that many people who stood by him at the time when he declared war, will no longer stand by him to-day. He says, however, that only big things and not trifles weigh with him. We cannot all think in that way, and the danger is that subsequently we will have such exalted thoughts that such things will appear to be nothing to us, and that is where the Prime Minister is now making a mistake. The Prime Minister ought to take notice of what is going on to-day in state departments. I went to a certain coastal town and I found two men there who had already been twenty years in the service, and they were working under a young man who only had eight years service.

The hon. member is now wandering too far from the motion.

No, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on this peace motion. My argument is this, that in the country and right through the public service there is a kind of smelling-out process going on to persecute people who feel as I and others do, people who do not agree with the war policy. No one can charge me with being proGerman. I fought against the Germans. I have no time for Germans, and I do not want to live under Germans. I do not want to live under England either. I only want to be under my own government, which is appointed by the people of South Africa themselves. I know no other country. I only recognise South Africa, and when I stand up for my rights, I feel that I am only doing my duty, and no one has the right to persecute me for that reason. But to-day we find that there are nevertheless people in every little village who are listening to what you say and watching you. They openly say that they are watching us because we are Nazis. Do you know what happened here when I proposed that we ought not to get double pay as members of the House of Assembly? I felt that I was possibly wrong, and that those people should go on active service, and that they would make sacrifices and incur expense. I thought that my prophecy was possibly wrong and that they would really go and fight. There are some of them who wear the red tab on their shoulders, and they came into this House with the red tab. Many of them only wear that red tab to be snobs, and to make a show before the ladies. They know that they cannot go and fight because the doctor has certified them unfit for fighting. But as long as they only have the red tab, then they are big men. I prophesied to the Prime Minister that this red tab would cause trouble in the country. My hon. friends opposite are now making a joke of this kind of thing. It is a serious matter. We are engaged in a world war, and things are more serious than you think. The Prime Minister of England told us that the war may possibly be transferred to the Colonies. Can we continue this struggle successfully if we are divided.? I want to warn the Prime Minister that I got a shock when I reached the countryside. I went to people who in my opinion would be in favour of the war— to English-speaking people—but I found that they were not in favour of it. I said to one: “Paddy, why are you not in uniform?” His answer was that he was in the last war, that England had got the victory, but that he had to plant potatoes in Germany for seventeen months. He said also that someone else could now go and plant potatoes. If an Afrikaans-speaking person, however, does not agree with the views of the officials and the officers, then he is abused as a Nazi, and it is said that he is undermining the state. That is the first charge which is made against him. Just look at what has been going on during recent weeks. An unfortunate school boy—not the one who went to court—who was in the Jan van Riebeek school, was beaten on the street. He is sixteen years of age, and a certain officer in uniform came and asked him why he did not stand still. The boy told him not to interfere with him, and then the officer beat him. That was the sign for a group of coloured people to beat him and to abuse him with shouts of, “Kill the dirty Dutchman.”

Were you there?

I have witnesses to prove it. That is the position. The skollies were standing there and the poor boy was attacked, and it is the first citizen of Cape Town who continues this thing. To think that I cannot walk down Adderley Street in my native land without being molested by the skollies if I will not stand still, and to be called a “dirty Dutchman …. ”

You people on the other side have done nothing else to-day but insult us, and abusing us as “vuil Engelse.”

I am not referring to you.

No, you are one on the other side who fights cleanly.

The Prime Minister spoke of little things of which it was not necessary to take notice, but it is those things which occasion all the bitterness. Difficulties will arise owing to the small things. You cannot realise how the people feel. They are commencing to say: “Put me in gaol, let me get Hitler, because that cannot be worse than what is going on now.” They feel that they are being persecuted wherever they go and are abused as Nazis. That is what we are called, and these small things cause the greatest bitterness. The Prime Minister promised that we would only wage war with volunteers, but he is forcing people by affecting them in relation to their bread and butter. I met somebody a few days ago in Pretoria in khaki. He said that he was against the war, but that he had to go otherwise his wife and children would not have food. The head of the department had come and said: “Either the red tab, or you will get an inferior appointment.” That is the position, whether the Government will admit it or not. I have never yet abused an Englishman because of wanting to go and fight for England. If he feels like that, good and well. His nation is in danger, and I can understand that he considers it his duty to go. But we feel that the people who are talking so big here and causing trouble have no intention of going to defend the Empire. They want to play the big man in the streets, but do not want to go and fight. The Prime Minister should send those people who are physically fit, but to-day you find a man 80 years old who knows that he is unfit, and he makes an application and gets a uniform with a red tab, and an extra allowance. I feel that hon. members opposite who wear the red tab are not doing their duty. I cannot do otherwise than despise them, because they are wearing a tab which says that they are prepared to go and fight, but they have no intention of going. Up in the north there are the macaroni people who are waiting for them up there. Let them go and fight there. It is our own people who are behaving themselves so intolerably in the country. I have never yet seen drunk Australians such as we have seen here in Cape Town, and that the soldiers who are now here, ever do such dirty work as our own people do in uniform. It astonishes me to see how things are being conducted at Potchefstroom. I saw in Pretoria coaches of a train being broken up, because the train did not start on their order, inasmuch as the stationmaster said that he had to wait for the right time of departure. You cannot believe that they are people who were born in South Africa who conduct themselves in that way. I do not at the moment want to judge whether the students in Potchefstroom insulted the sailors and soldiers, but what right has a disciplined troop of men to go and molest the students and to destroy their property? Is it not a shame? I tell the Government that it has lost thousands of supporters by those occurrences. My friend next to me told me that he saw with his own eyes what damage had been done, how the books were torn to shreds, and how the doors and windows and the piano were broken, and how wired sticks and leaden gloves were lying about. I have already marched troops to the station at Potchefstroom, and I well remember how I was insulted, but not one of the soldiers dared open his mouth. They had to march silently. In Durban also I was subjected to insults, but we did not dare to open our mouths, because we were soldiers and under discipline. But to-day we see lawlessness and lack of discipline. Soldiers and sailors in Cape Town are going about trying to find someone who is not praying, and then he is attacked. A lad of seventeen years appeared before the court. He was standing by a certain group, but the poor boy thought that the time was over and walked on. A sailor came and hit him. The police intervened, and the man was convicted. That is only one out of hundreds of instances. I am astonished that so much recklessness can go on in a civilised country. I say quite seriously that it is the small things which are going to cause great trouble. I do not want to have a massacre in our country again, and I will do everything in my power to suppress a possible rising, but we come to the Government and say that these things must be put an end to, and very quickly too. Just look at what is going on on the countryside, notice the poverty there. The people are being discharged on the dams. There is no money. It is being spent on the war. All these things lead to trouble. How dare we get up and say that we are fighting for democracy. If I were a member on the Government side I would not venture to stand on a platform and say that I was fighting for democracy. We can no longer tolerate all these things. Now cheap remarks are being made on the other side that we are hands-uppers and Nazis, and that kind of rubbish. This, however, is not the time to laugh. We have been dragged into a war which is being carried on 3,000 miles from here, and perhaps we shall have to go still further, although we have nothing to do with it. I do not want to condemn hon. members opposite because they differ from us, but what I want to do to-day is that I want to issue a warning against the undermining of the morale of our population. All that oppression of people who hold different views to hon. members on the other side must stop. I get about a fair amount and see what is going on. The other day just before 12 o’clock I saw soldiers talking together. They then said they would take another little drink, and then go oh the street to see if there was a rebel. They were ready to attack. The people who never have prayed are suddenly taking part in it. I do not believe in this sudden urge for prayer. If you feel an urge to pray you do not pray in the street. And yet another thing: The skollies are making use of such incidents. There are 300,000 coloured people in Cape Town, and they are told that a Dutchman who will not stand still is a Nazi. He must pray, or otherwise he is a Nazi. I want to prophesy that if the pause for prayer is not stopped, it will yet have bitter consequences. You will possibly say that I am exaggerating, but I remember what happened in 1914 and in 1918, and during the Boer War. The Australian bushmen were here, and they were big fellows and pursued us. The Prime Minister knows about it. They burnt down houses and carried on the war, but they never did such dirty things as our own troops are doing to-day. I must say that to their credit. During the last world war we had cause to be proud of our South African troops, but to-day we cannot be so. If troops attack their own brothers in the streets, and if they even destroy a Christian institution, and if they do all that kind of thing with officers standing and looking on, is it not a scandal? We ought not to be involved in the trouble of Europe. Germany was never an enemy of ours, nor was Italy as far as I know. The only enemy we had was Great Britain. We made peace, but now Afrikaners are being forced, directly and indirectly, to fight against their conscience and against their feelings. Hon. members on the other side must regard the matter from that point of view. If they want to fight let them fight, but do not oppress the Afrikaner people in the manner in which it is being done, because that will yet end in a shedding of blood.

In the course of this discussion the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) ….

[inaudible].

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) advances the proposition that I have no right to speak, but I am sure the country will not accept that proposition. I am a citizen of South Africa and have the same rights as the member for Wolmaransstad. If he pursued his policy of exclusiveness the member for Gezina would, if he sat on this side of the House, be told that he has dual loyalties, being of German origin, and that he has no right to speak. I stand for the right of everyone who abides by the law and is prepared to do his duty to the country, to speak as our friends opposite. I was going to refer to the fact that the hon. member for Gezina, in supporting the resolution for peace, has apparently quite forgotten the policy which he supported previously. I would remind the House of some of his utterances as recently as 1939. On the 23rd March, 1939, speaking in this House on the possibilities of attack from the north, the hon. member dealing with the question whether it was necessary to go in for heavy expenditure for anti-aircraft, having declared, with the knowledge that he gained in Spain, that it was unnecessary to spend very much money on anti-aircraft, went on to say—

That is a very different attitude to that which he is taking up now. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad has been gloating over the difficulties of Great Britain at the present moment, and that reminded me, sir, of the fact that in 1936 the hon. member for Gezina, who was then our Minister of Defence, was in London, and gave the following statement to the London Daily Telegraph on the 10th June, 1936, a statement which was read out to this House some three years ago—

That is what he said in 1936, and on the occasion of the same visit he was referred to as follows, on page 231 of a book entitled “Zero Hour”, published in 1936—

Where did you get that?

From a book which is in the library, “Zero Hour,” by a very well-known journalist, and the statement has never been disputed. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), some eighteen months ago, said that the hon. member for Gezina came to his own party and told them one thing, and went to the Nationalist Party and told them another, and the Nationalist Party did not trust him. I am not surprised the Nationalist Party do not trust him in the light of his statements, which he made as recently as 1939. To-day we find ourselves in a position when the hon. member for Gezina comes to the House and says we must have peace with Germany and Italy. The Leader of the Opposition, in September last, introduced an entirely different resolution to the one he has proposed to-day. Although I disagreed with him then, I admit that there was something to be said for his point of view at that time. Last year the hon. member introduced a resolution calling for neutrality, and the reason why he adopted that policy was because he said, as he had always said, that unless he was satisfied that Germany was out for world domination, he would not enter the war. He then argued to this House that neither Germany nor Herr Hitler were out for world domination, and, therefore, Great Britain and South Africa should stand aside and assume neutrality. It is true that my friends, the supporters of the purified Nationalists, swallowed a neutrality resolution which provided for the continued co-operation of South Africa with Great Britain, and a neutrality which included the adherence to the Simonstown agreement, although that was really a ridiculous proposition. Now the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) realises, as he must realise, that Hitler is out for world domination, we have the evidence strewn all over Europe. We have Poland, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, and now France, under the heel of Germany, and it is now impossible even for the hon. member for Smithfield to suggest that Germany is not out for world domination. So now they have shifted their ground in a manner which is unworthy of the hon. member for Smithfield. The whole argument that is now brought forward is not that peace is desirable in itself, but that Great Britain is on the verge of collapse, that Germany is victorious and, in the words of the hon. member for Gezina, it is all over, bar the shouting, the convulsions as he termed the present phase, and it is because, in his view, Germany is victorious he now says we should go along and suggest to a victorious Germany certain peace terms. The hon. member wants peace not because he thinks it is right, but because he is of opinion that Germany is on the verge of winning. He has not suggested that he is going to Germany to say that he is sticking by his original position, and wants South-West Africa to belong to the Union. No, sir, he is not in a position to suggest any terms at all, he will say: “We want to make peace; what terms are you going to give us?” And we know the terms that have been given to other countries occupied by Germany at the present moment. Take the case of Denmark. Denmark was not only neutral, but was not involved in this war in any way whatever. Denmark was invaded by the Nazis, who plundered her of every ounce of food that she had, and left her in a state of poverty and starvation. What happened when they made peace with that section of Holland which was prepared to make peace with them? They plundered Holland of her assets, and not satisfied with taking food and assets, they took 150,000 Hollanders and deported them to work for the Hitler war machine. The same thing happened with Poland. Having plundered Poland of its assets, they took hundreds of thousands of Poles to work for the German war machine. I ask hon. members in this House, if they will only be impartial for a single moment, to say whether they expect South Africa to receive better treatment at the hands of a Victorious Germany than Poland, Denmark, Holland, Belgium and now France are receiving at the present moment. Hon. members opposite do not tell the people of South Africa about the sort of peace these countries have got; if they did, then supporters would have nothing to do with such a policy. In addition to these peace proposals, the hon. member for Gezina introduced the question of a republic. I must say I did not notice the hon. member for Smithfield cheering very vociferously when the question of a republic was introduced, and here it is worth while reminding my friends opposite of the sort of republic the hon. member for Gezina would like. He has stated on several occasions that his republic would be based not on gold or on diamonds. I wonder whether, if the Germans came here, whether the German Government would not immediately say: “We must have your gold and your diamonds, and we must have your mineral resources to the fullest possible extent, as well as your agricultural produce, in the interests of Germany and not in the interests of the republic.” And then the kind of republic he suggests is to be based on National Socialism, which is Nazism. The hon. member for Gezina insults the memory of the late President Kruger by suggesting that he was the first National Socialist. I think it was an insult to the late president’s memory to compare his policy with that pursued in Germany. The hon. member for Gezina says that what we want is disciplined organised labour. He forgets to tell the House and his supporters of the discipline to which organised labour is subjected in Germany. There they have the Nazi military force, the Storm Troopers, the Gestapo, the concentration camp, and there is no freedom whatsoever, and so far as the workers are concerned, this organised labour force, which is going to make the prosperity of the country, has been reduced to economic serfdom; the workers have no choice as to when or where they shall work or what wages they receive for their work, they are shifted from one place to another, and on conditions laid down by Nazi authorities in Germany. That is the sort of offer that the hon. member makes to the workers of South Africa when he talks about his organised republic. Both the hon. member for Gezina and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad have endeavoured to tell us why they have come to the conclusion that Great Britain and the Commonwealth have lost the war already, and why we should simply throw up our hands and attempt to make peace. They base their attitude on what has happened to Holland and Belgium, and what has happened to France, but that analysis of theirs has been torn to shreds by the statement made by the Prime Minister of England a few days ago. Mr. Winston Churchill has given us figures, more reliable than those of Herr Hitler and some of our friends, he has given us figures to show that so far every so-called victory of Germany has not been won as the result of fighting, but mainly because of the fact that for a period of six years from 1933 onwards, during which the hon. member for Smithfield used to apologise to Herr Hitler day in and day out, Hitler in addition to preparing his military machine prepared his’ fifth column in every part of the world, and it is because of the existence of that fifth column that he did not have to fight to any extent in those countries that he has overrun. The moment Hitler and Germany were faced with grim determination, and with heroism, as they are to-day being faced by the people in Great Britain, there have been no speedy victories. Why at the very time hon. members are talking about Great Britain being defeated, let them look at our docks and see the ships carrying units of the British Navy in our docks, and goods are being landed in this country in spite of the so-called German victory and German blockade. Let hon. members opposite look at these things, and look also at the troops which are passing through to other parts to do the fighting for our friends over there. In face of these things, let them say honestly whether Great Britain has lost and Germany won. I would remind hon. members of the attitude that Mr. Gand hi has taken up, and to which he gave expression a few months ago. He made the statement that whatever might be his criticism and complaints about Britain and Britain’s policy in India, he declined to make the peril of England the opportunity of India. That, sir, is not the ideal of our friends over there, but it is a much greater ideal than the one which seeks to make the perils of England the opportunity of a section of the people in this country. Hon. members over there have forgotten that although at the moment Great Britain and the Commonwealth are fighting on their own, they have the silent prayers of millions of people in the conquered countries and in the world who are praying and hoping that Great Britain will win, because in the victory of Great Britain and the Commonwealth lies the salvation of those countries which are overrun and are in peril of being overrun. That is the position at the present moment, and I refuse to believe the majority of the people of South Africa do not realise the sort of peace we would get if hon. members opposite had their way. The right hon. the Prime Minister referred very aptly to the position of England in the Napoleonic wars. The hon. member for Gezina says that it is no use our drawing an analogy of what happened to Napoleon. The trouble with the hon. member for Gezina is that he does not want to go further back than the Nazi revolution. I think the case of Napoleon constitutes a very apt illustration. Napoleon was a much greater man than Hitler. Napoleon had conquered practically the whole of Europe and England was standing alone.

As she is to-day.

England had decided that she was going to stand by herself if necessary against all the rest of Europe — England succeeded in winning the war and we have no reason to think that the result will be any different on this occasion. I need only remind the House that on that occasion, when England stood alone, the then Prime Minister, William Pitt, addressing a meeting said to the people of England and to the people of the world: “England has saved herself by her exertions and will save Europe by her example.” And I believe to-day again that Great Britain and the Commonwealth of Nations will save themselves by their exertions, and will save the world and the freedom of the world by their example.

I feel that many of our Imperialistic friends who may perhaps be despondent about England’s setbacks will feel greatly encouraged after the speech by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). He told us that those dangers which were placed before the House, that we ourselves and England were going to lose the war, were only imaginary, and that we on this side of the House wanted to make peace because we were under the impression that Germany was going to be victorious. I can give him the assurance that from the very start we have been against participation in the war, as is proved by the peace proposal which at the beginning of the year was introduced by us into this House. This motion which is being brought in by us is not an afterthought with us. It is because we think that the position in this war is becoming more and more precarious, so far as South Africa is concerned, that we have again introduced a peace motion. From the very beginning we have held the view that participation in this war is not in the interest of South Africa. Members opposite have asked what the peace would be which we would be able to conclude now, and what conditions we want to put forward. I want to say this to them: What will be the peace conditions if we continue to be so foolish as to carry on in the way the Government is carrying on to-day?

Where will our honour be if we make peace now?

The hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Steenkamp), and the Prime Minister this afternoon as well, want to make us believe that if we now make peace with Germany it means that we are running away and that we are “hands-uppers.” Let me say this to the Prime Minister: They can stigmitise us as much as they like as hands-uppers. If we do not want to fight for England and if we are called hands-uppers for that reason, then by all means let them call us hands-uppers. Then we are hands-uppers in the interest of England, but not in the interest of South Africa. If the occasion should arise that South Africa must fight alone, or that South Africa must fight only for its own interests there would not be a solitary member on this side of the House who would be unwilling to make the supreme sacrifice for the sake of South Africa.

Without pay?

We are not willing, like the hon. member who has just made a speech, to play the part of “star police” as this photo of his shews. He acts as a star policeman and takes cover behind the blood of Afrikaners who, for the sake of him and others, go and shed their blood. If the interests of South Africa are at stake not one of us on this side of the House will stand aside. While the Minister of Native Affairs was speaking here to-day I could not help thinking of the story that was told of the school boy who in the classroom drew the picture of a horse on the blackboard. When he had finished he was so uncertain whether the other children would know that it was a horse which he had drawn that he considered it necessary to put the word “horse” underneath his drawing. When the Minister of Native Affairs went out of his way this afternoon to tell us that he also was an Afrikaner, it was to me clear evidence of the fact that he was as little convinced that the people of South Africa would look upon him as an Afrikaner, as that youngster was that the other children would recognise his drawing as that of a horse. The part which that hon. Minister has played in the political and national life of South Africa is of such a character that nobody imagines any longer that he is a man who is worthy of his ancestors in South Africa. Our accusation against the Government is that it has dragged South Africa in an unfair and improper manner into the war, and that it has not availed itself of the opportunity which presented itself to withdraw South Africa honourably out of that war, and that by the manner in which the Government carries on the war the relationships between the different sections of the population have been tremendously disturbed, and the Government is endangering the civilian population and is steering the country in the direction of a certain economic and national calamity. I say that the Government has dragged us into this war in an unfair and improper manner. How did we get into the war? The people have not been consulted, and the will of the people has not been tested. It has always been laid down as a doctrine that when a declaration of war has to be decided the people of South Africa should be given the opportunity of expressing themselves on the subject. The last elections which were held in 1938 shewed that there were many people in our country who were afraid to vote for the Government because there was a possibility of war breaking out. They were not prepared to vote for the Government, but they were induced to vote for the Government because they had been given satisfactory replies to questions put by them in regard to the possibility of South Africa being landed in the war as the result of the attitude adopted by the Government of the day. They asked, “What is going to happen if war breaks out in Europe?” The Minister of Defence, inter alia, told them that they would not be dragged into the war, not even into an unavoidable war, unless there was the greatest unanimity among the people and in Parliament. The present Prime Minister told the people that there would not be war unless Parliament and the people gave their consent to such a war. We landed in the war not as a result of an expression of the will of the people but as the result of a Parliamentary coup d’etat which took place here on the 4th September. In that way the people, against their will and against their knowledge, were in an unfair and improper way tied to England’s war chariot. That promise made to the people that it would not be dragged into a war without its having decided on the matter itself — that promise was relied upon by the people, and as the Government, in spite of that, has dragged the people into a war without consulting those people, the Government has been guilty of a crime towards the people. This Parliamentary coup d’etat started on the 4th September when sufficient groups and interests combined in this House in order to secure a majority for a motion which dragged South Africa into the war, but that majority was obtained by means of deception and misrepresentation.

Nonsense!

I shall prove it. Originally when the motion was put forward that we should keep out of the war, the Prime Minister came along with his amendment. His amendment was not to the effect that we should actively take part in the war, but it was to the effect that our policy would be decided by the following considerations—

By that promise he brought the people of South Africa under the impression that there would be no active participation in the war, but that it would be a passive war. Has he carried out that promise? I have the words used by the Prime Minister in this House on that occasion and this is what he said:

On the 4th September the House was given the impression that it would not be an active participation in the war but that it would be a sort of passive war — that it would only be a breaking-off of the relationship with Germany. The Minister of Agriculture also repeated that assurance. This is what he said:

That is quite right, and that is what we have done.

Whether it is the North of Africa or England makes no difference; the fact is you gave the people the impression that it would be a passive and not an active war, to use the expression of the Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance, inter alia, said this:

That is what is being done now.

What does he say further:

You see that this House and the people outside were on the 4th September of last year given the impression by the proposal of the present Prime Minister that South Africa would only conduct a passive war, and for that reason, as they are going beyond that to-day, I say that they have misled the people. The coup d’état by which on the 4th September they dragged us into the war succeeded as a result of that deception in this House and of the people outside. The other way by which they tried to obtain the support of this House and of the people outside was by making an appeal to the basest materialistic consideration in a national existence, namely by making the people believe that if we took part in the war we would have the opportunity of making money, and if we did not take part then we would miss that opportunity. That brings us to the lie and rot story of the Minister of Agriculture.

He was quite right.

What was the case? That argument is not merely an immoral argument, but it is also untrue, and the facts go to prove it to-day. Instead of our being able to sell our products we now find that our products lie there and rot. What about raisins, mealies and skins? And so hon. members see that this unfair and misleading argument was made use of in order to induce the representatives of the people to vote in favour of the war. By means of those arguments they persuaded the people, and once having succeeded in forming a Government, they are now able to forget and ignore those arguments; they no longer need take any account of the democratic institutions of the people; they are able to govern by way of proclamation, and to all intents and purposes to make a dictatorship of the Government of South Africa. That is what South Africa has come to. They have misled the people by misrepresentation and now that they are in power they are abusing their powers in South Africa. It is contended here in South Africa and outside that we are fighting for high democratic ideals. But have we got a democratic Government to-day? We have an actual dictatorship. We have a democratic dictatorship and the difference between our dictatorship and other countries is this: Where in Germany and in Italy they have a dictatorship in the interests of the country itself we here in South Africa have a dictatorship not in the interests of South Africa but in the interests of England. By this time the Government has had ample evidence of the fact that the people are divided, and that they are dissatisfied about this participation in the war; therefore, if the Government wants to act in a democratic manner, and wants to respect the feelings of the people outside it should be prepared to test the will of the people and to comply with the will of the people. There are two ways in which the Government can act, the first way is that the Government, before it is too late, and before irreparable harm has been done to South Africa, should make peace. The Prime Minister argues that this House and the Government decided to declare war and that for that reason we cannot make peace now. But let the people decide if you believe in democracy. If an appeal is made to the people, the people will see to it that a Government is elected which will be willing to make peace, and then there will be an opportunity to find a way out of the difficulties into which the Government has dragged us. Give the people the opportunity of changing its Government. The manner in which the war is being conducted by the Government is calculated to disturb the sound and good relationship between the citizens of the country to a tremendous extent. Nobody doubts that to-day we have a much greater bitterness and division in the country than we have ever had before in the history of South Africa.

Who has caused it?

You and your party have caused it. The divisions and the bitterness which prevail are the outcome of the decision of this House to take part in this war of England. If ever there was an opportunity of securing national unity in South Africa it was on the 4th September, 1939, when the Prime Minister of the day, by means of his motion, sought for peace and for the welfare of the country. If the present Prime Minister had accepted that resolution — which probably he wanted to do originally, but he had to give way to the Imperialistic jingo element — for loyal Louwtjie and such people — if, together with us, he had decided in favour of neutrality and peace, national unity could have been established in South Africa. Members opposite, however, followed the present Prime Minister on the course pursued by him, and by doing so they brought bitterness and division in South Africa. In Ireland there was just as much division and bitterness as there was here in South Africa. We find, however, that the Irish people, the De Valera Party, the Cosgrave Party and the Labour Party stand united to-day on the principle of neutrality and peace. In the same way we in South Africa could have had peace and unity on the basis of peace and neutrality. Instead of that, however, we followed the course of war and we brought about division and bitterness in South Africa worse than we have ever before had in this country; division and bitterness which are continually going to be aggravated, and from the side of the Government day in and day out more is being done in order to aggravate that division and bitterness. The Government differentiates between one person and another, between one member of the Defence Force and another. The one man has a red tab and the other has not. In that manner it introduces division into the country, and the result of those steps which the Government has taken is the division which we now have here, and which has already led to disturbances of the peace in the urban areas of South Africa, such as in Cape Town, Potcefstroom and Johannesburg. Somebody stated here that the Allies could pride themselves on certain victories they had achieved. Barring the victory which they have achieved at Oran over a former ally we can mention another victory excelling all the other victories, and that is the victory which the South African Government has achieved by means of one thousand well equipped soldiers who made an attack on fifty young men and girls at the college at Potchefstroom, a force which had been organised to go and conquer those young fellows and girls by means of violence. Those are the things which take place here in South Africa in consequence of the steps of the Government, and which has divided the people into two camps. Another cause of the division and the bad feeling which has been created is the internment of Union citizens without trial which has continually taken place. It is one of the most scandalous things that a citizen of South Africa no longer enjoys his ordinary citizen’s rights. And then we still say that we are fighting for democracy. Our citizens are interned on charges made by people who came to this country perhaps yesterday or the day before, people who may be induced by trade jealousy, or may have some other feelings against them—they make a complaint and people are interned. Moral suasion is brought to bear on people and they are threatened with dismissal. This sort of thing is done against officials, specially against the police, and then we are still told that we are fighting for democracy. There are other causes yet for division, and the result is that in consequence of the Government’s action the greatest misery prevails in South Africa, and one can only describe the conditions as scandalous in the extreme. A deliberate promise was made by the Prime Minister that he would conduct this war by means of volunteers. Why does he not stand by his word of honour? Why this moral suasion and other compulsion which is brought to bear on people by telling them that they will be discharged, or by discharging them, if they do not want to take part in the war? But the thing which has caused most feeling among the people is the step which has been taken to humiliate the people by disarming them and by demanding the surrender of their rifles. The result of this is not merely that the citizens of our country no longer feel secure, and are not armed against the ordinary danger which we are always faced with in South Africa, but the people feel deeply humiliated because they have to go hat in hand to the magistrate or to the police officers to hand over their rifles. Never in our history have our people been humiliated to such an extent. At Vereeniging our people had to submit to humiliation by being forced to give up their arms, and now the Prime Minister comes along and humiliates the people to their very depths by again demanding the surrender of their arms. The excuse put forward for that action is that he requires the arms for the purpose of fighting the war. That is a strong condemnation of the Government itself. If it is true that he requires the arms for the purpose of carrying on the war against Germany and Italy, what right then did the Government have to declare war when it had no arms? But we do not believe that is the reason why this has been done. The Prime Minister did not call up the rifles because he required them for the purposes of the war, but he did so because he did not trust the people of South Africa, and that being so, he decided to disarm them and humiliate them. Having thus humiliated the people, and in view of the fact that he does not trust the people to possess arms, he can take it that if he should again have to take compulsory steps to rearm the people, the people will draw his attention to this humiliation to which they have been subjected, and the people will be absolutely unwilling in any way whatsoever to take part in this war of his. I say this particularly because the Government has departed from its original policy in connection with the war. The Government has not merely had recourse to active warfare but it has undertaken a war of aggression. The Government has not taken action against an aggressor, it has not acted in the role of defender, but it has acted as the aggressor. Can the Government, now that it has acted as aggressor, expect that after the humiliation caused to the people by their being disarmed, those people of South Africa will in any way be prepared to take part in such a war of agression? What is the price which we have to pay for the war? I am afraid that it is a very high price. We are running the risk of an economic national collapse here in South Africa. The financial disadvantages which we have incurred as a result of the war are very considerable. All that is necessary is to refer to the estimates of expenditure which the Minister of Finance introduced here yesterday. Even now we have the prospect of the war costing us £50,000,000 per year, and if we accept the statement of hon. members opposite that the war may perhaps last four or five years then it may cost the country £200,000,000 or £250,000,000, a terrible price to have to pay. We see what the war is leading us to; we see the danger of being driven to an economic precipice. That is the direct price of our participation in the war; but over and above what the people are being asked to vote for the war further financial sacrifices have to be made. Taxation will press heavily on the people. In addition to that the wool farmers will be specially asked to contribute a special amount to war expenditure.

Who asks that?

The Government which compels the wool farmers to sell their wool at a price which is lower than what they got last year in the open market.

Where can they sell their wool in the open market?

The wool farmers are now being compelled to accept less for their wool than what they could have got last year, and not only is the price which they get for their wool considerably less in money than last year, but the value of the money has in the meantime also depreciated, and the 10¾d. which was guaranteed by the English Government last year is worth less now. The wool farmers, therefore, are being asked to make a special sacrifice. They are compelled through an agreement to help carry out the English blockade against Germany. The cause of the agreement is nothing but that England is afraid that if we sell in the open market, our wool may possibly in an indirect way go to. Germany or Italy. Another reason why we are being compelled to sell our wool to England is to assist England to speculate with it. England itself holds out the prospect that she may make a profit on our wool, and for that reason she is so kind as to promise us that after having covered expenses she will refund half of the remaining amount to South Africa for the duration of the agreement. We notice, therefore, that England herself holds out the prospect of her speculating with our wool and making a profit on it. In that way the wool farmers have to make an extra contribution to England’s conduct of the war. If the Government really wants to act in the interest of the wool farmers, it can protect the wool farmers. Somebody put the question to us, to whom could we sell our wool in the open market? Whom did we sell to last year? To America and Japan. And in addition to that there are other small countries which buy wool. Even the English paper, the Argus, stated a few days ago that if the open market had remained, the farmers might perhaps have obtained more from Japan and America for particularly good clips, but other clips might possibly not have been sold. If, however, we should be unable to sell all our wool, our Government could have stepped in and she could have done for our wool farmers what England is now prepared to do, and we could have had the open market. It is generally expected that after the war the price of wool will be a high one. In the agreement provision is made that for a year after the war, England will buy our wool. As it is generally expected that the price will be high after the war, we are now being compelled for a year after the war to hand over our wool to England because otherwise England might perhaps again be in the inconvenient position that Australia, as it did last year, might say that South Africa in the open market was obtaining better prices than Australia was getting. And for that reason we are now to be compelled to supply our wool for a year after the war to England. It is to be expected that after this war the price will be a high one, because the whole of Europe will need wool, and our wool farmers would then have had an opportunity of selling our w®ol at a high price, especially as England will already possess most of the other wool. The farmers are now being deprived of that opportunity. There is another way in which we are paying for the policy which we are pursuing, namely by stopping the essential services in the administration of the country. We have already heard that the Government is not going to undertake any further expenditure in connection with irrigation, soil erosion and settlement. That is the price which the people have to pay, that they are now being deprived of those essential services, and then the Minister of Finance comes along and says that we have compensation for all that in the industrial development which is taking place. That development would also have taken place if we had not entered into the war, but I am afraid that the principal industrial development is in the direction of the manufacture of arms, and that after the war we shall not have much of that left.

The hon. member must not elaborate that point. It has nothing to do with this debate.

If the industries have to stop after the war, it will mean that in consequence we shall have a tremendous economic dislocation. We are working in the direction of an economic collapse, but we also run the risk of bringing a national calamity over South Africa. The right hon. the Prime Minister said that if the nation was divided, it meant the downfall of that nation in a war in the same way as France had gone under. Where is there greater division in connection with the war policy than in South Africa? The majority of the people are against the war policy. If there is any doubt about it, let the Government put it to the test. I am convinced that if the Government were to appeal to the public, the majority of the people would be against the war policy. I am prepared to admit that at the beginning of the year the position may have been different as a result of the misrepresentation and deception, when the people were told that we were only going to conduct a passive war and that we would make money out of the war without our taking any active part in it. Perhaps the Government in those days might have succeeded in winning an election, and they may possibly also in those days have been able to win certain by-elections, but to-day the eyes of the people have been opened to that deception and misrepresentation, if I may call it that, and I am convinced that if the public are given the opportunity, they will see to it that they get a government which will make peace as soon as possible. By insisting on continuing the war we are doing incalculable harm to South Africa. With England in the lead, however, we are stubborn, and we persist in the war. I am convinced that even if Hitler were to make acceptable peace proposals, our Prime Minister would still turn them down. When Hitler made a suggestion, even before the Prime Minister of England had spoken, he made it known to the world that England would not make peace. If, however, our Prime Minister had used his influence in a different direction, we might possibly have secured peace in the interests of South Africa. This insistence, however, may yet lead to a veritable national calamity. What will happen if we should lose? What will then be the price which South Africa will have to, pay? Possibly the victor will then place a great financial burden upon us, or perhaps, as the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) has said, we may become a German colony. We have to brave all these dangers, merely in order to be loyal to England. And yet with all these dangers staring us in the face, the Prime Minister comes along and says: “You may be against the war, but I want to make an appeal to you. We are in the war, let us stand together.” It is becomng to a people once it is at war to stand together. Let us forget the differences of the 4th September and stand together. My answer is that he is not entitled to make an appeal to us to ask us to stand by the Government. The appeal which can be made to each of us is to stand by the people and not necessarily by the Government. If we are convinced that the Government is not acting in the best interests of the people then we are entitled to demand that we shall get rid of that Government. Just as France has got rid of Daladier and Reynaud and just as England has got rid of the Chamberlain Government, so South Africa wants to get rid of the Smuts Government which is leading us to perdition. That is a reasonable point of view, it is a democratic point of view which aims at the welfare and salvation of South Africa. The Prime Minister has already gone too far along the course which he is pursuing, but the people have now been awakened, and it sees what is going on. The people have now been awakened to the dangers which have always threatened it, although we may not have been sufficiently conscious of those dangers, namely, the dangers of belonging to such a great brotherhood, such an alliance. Now the eyes of the people have been opened and the people know how dangerous it is for us to be tied to a country like England which always gets into difficulties. The people of South Africa feel that if henceforth we want to avoid those difficulties, and if we want to have prosperity, peace and unity, we must look for our salvation along the course of South Africa and South Africa alone, and not along the course of England and the other brothers or allies. The eyes of the people are open, and that being so the Prime Minister must not be surprised if he hears the people marching in that direction, and if he hears the people insisting on a form of government which will release us of the bonds which tie us to other countries with all their difficulties. The people will not rest before their release from those difficulties, before they have achieved real and true economic and social freedom.

The Opposition has pointed out that never before has there been such a strong feeling in South Africa as there is to-day between the different sections of the people. There is to-day more bitter feeling between Afrikaans and Afrikaans-speaking than ever before. Who is the cause of that position?

You.

I still recollect the days when the former Prime Minister (Genl. Hertzog) and his followers tried to bring about peace, unity and co-operation, and how Keerom Street carried on so that the Leader of the Opposition capitulated on the 4th September. I congratulate Keerom Street. They have succeeded magnificently in bringing about the feeling which prevails to-day, not between English-speaking and Dutch-speaking, but between Dutch-speaking and Dutch-speaking. For six and a half years we had co-operation, and Keerom Street stigmitised the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) and the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) as traitors.

I stood by my people when you betrayed us.

The hon. member is beginning to be plagued by his conscience. I congratulate Keerom Street on having achieved this split but I want to say that they will pick the bitter fruit of what they have done. The eyes of the people will be opened to this division and to this bitterness brought about by Keerom Street.

You seem to be getting scared.

Yes, I am of the frightened kind to which the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) belongs, because he is the man who stated at his meeting, when I asked him whether he had not voted in favour of a proposal to bombard the Germans from our fortresses if they should come here, “We voted for it, but we know that they will never come here.” That is the courageous type of Afrikaner who says that I, Mr. Steytler, no longer belong to the Afrikaner people, but he is now the leader of the Afrikaner people.

How is it that you ran away from De Aar in 1914?

I am not going to waste my time. Everybody knows, and it is a well-known fact also in Burgersdorp, that I was returned because I was a Nationalist in those days. I have never run away, nor am I one of that type of Afrikaner to which he belongs. The Opposition have been speaking about the motion proposed by the Prime Minister on the 5th September, and the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) has made it clear that the Prime Minister proposed that we should take a passive part in the war and not an active part, and that we were not going to send any people overseas. That exactly is the attitude adopted by us; but if one travels through the platteland one hears that hon. members over there have stirred up the people, and the people have been told: “Your sons will be commandeered and they will be shot down on the battlefields of Europe.” There are so many leaders on the other side, and there are so many directions that they do not know where they are, but that is the sort of thing which they tell the platteland.

Are you still carrying on a passive war?

We now have this position that when people are put on a ship at Durban and put off at Mombasa, then the Opposition holds forth that our promises are not being given effect to. I want to put this question to the Opposition, and more particularly to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, whether they have ever given any thought to the motion that was introduced by their leader on the 4th September. I am just assuming that the hon. the member for Smithfield (Genl. Hertzog) is the leader of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, and that it is not the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) who is his leader. The motion proposed by the hon. member for Smithfield expressly stated that we would remain neutral but that we would carry out our obligations as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I have never yet heard any hon. member on the opposite side explain the latter part of that motion on the platteland. That part of the motion contains the obligation in regard to Simonstown.

We do not make Germany our enemy.

They want to retain Germany’s friendship, but if the Germans should come here they will bombard them from our fortresses and with our big guns, and then the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg tells us that if Hitler wins the war he will give us a republic. Can one believe that this is a statement made by a man who has a doctor’s degree? Will the hon. member deny that he made that statement? If he does deny it Burgersdorp will take him to account. Hon. members over there have run away from the policy of the Leader of the Opposition when he was still Prime Minister; that is to say they would never run away from South-West Africa, just as little as they would run away from the Union.

You dragged us into the fire.

Now they have abandoned that policy and we are to hand over South-West if Hitler comes here. But they have also run away from their motion proposed on the 4th September. Are they going to tell Germany that they will bombard German warships if they should come here? That obligation still rests upon them, but according to the speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), and by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux), it would appear to me that we have been finally beaten, and conquered. How then are they going to give effect to their own motion if we have been finally beaten? No, we Afrikaans-speaking people who sit here are not a lot of hands-uppers. It is simply tragic to us to see that men like the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) who have made history in this country, have been led by party politics into the position that they will eventually have to be counted among those who have taken part in the hands-up movement.

Those “white cliffs of Dover,” have they not been shot to pieces yet?

When that title was conferred upon me the hon. member still supported me, but he has also been vanquished by Keerom Street, and now he is following Keerom Street. I contend that hon. members over there are acting in conflict with the proposal contained in a motion of the Leader of the Opposition of the 4th September, in which he stated that we would carry out our obligations as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I have never yet seen, however, that it has been explained to the people at meetings what is comprised in those obligations. They remain perfectly silent and they only state that we should have remained neutral and that the Government has dragged us into the war, and then the hon. member for Oudtshoorn comes along and says that the resolution proposed at that time only aimed at our taking a passive part in the war, and not an active one. But what do they say outside? At Burgersdorp I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg, when he told the people that their sons would be commandeered to perish on the battlefields of Europe. Is not that a misrepresentation and a deception? If you will allow me I want to say that the public are being deceived.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

When business was suspended I was pointing out that the motion which the present Leader of the Opposition introduced on the 4th September of last year in his capacity as Prime Minister laid it down that we would assume certain obligations. One of those obligations was that we would carry out the Simonstown agreement, and secondly, that we would carry out our obligations as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) admitted here this afternoon that the Prime Minister’s motion on that occasion was a motion in favour of passive participation in the war and not of active participation. We admit that, and our grievance still is that members opposite travel about the platteland and tell the people that the Prime Minister has dragged South Africa into the war, that we could have remained neutral, and that our sons will now be commandeered to be shot down on the battlefields of Europe. But they decline to make it clear to the public what obligations we would have taken upon ourselves under the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, who was Prime Minister at that time. I attended their meetings and they have always neglected to tell the public about this. Whenever they are asked how we can remain neutral if a German ship should come here and open fire on British warships in Simonstown, and if we bombard them with our big guns from the shore, they say that they voted in favour of that motion because they knew that no German ship would come here. If that is so then that motion was not a straightforward and honest motion. Can we go and bombard Germany’s ships in Simonstown with our guns and then at the same time tell the people that under that motion we could have remained neutral, but that it was Gen. Smuts who dragged us into the war? That sort of thing is not straight and not honest, and it is unfair to deceive the people in that way. The second point is this, that we have undertaken to carry out our obligations as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I have never yet heard that one of them has made it clear to the public what are the obligations which we have undertaken to carry out. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) is not here and I can quite understand his being ashamed to sit here, because he made me out to be a liar at a meeting by declaring that there was no such thing in the motion. I speak subject to correction, but I am of opinion that we are actually engaged in giving effect to the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga), at the Imperial Conference of 1926 supported a motion that all who were represented there would undertake to defend the British Empire and its trade in times of war. Is that so, or is it not so?

No, it is not so.

Well, it is recorded in the Minutes of the Imperial Conference.

Why do you say then that you are speaking subject to correction?

Because the hon. member’s leader is in his seat and he can deny it if he wants to.

The hon. member for Fauresmith denies it.

I contend that the Conference passed a resolution that the British Empire and its trade must be defended. We are not in a position to send ships to Ceylon and such places. The parts which we can defend and which we are obliged to defend are Rhodesia, Tanganyika and Kenya. But the people are told that we could have remained neutral and that we could safely have stayed here. It was only a false neutrality which they proposed, it was not a real neutrality. It was only a political apple of discord which the Leader of the Opposition cast among the people. It is very easy to say we could have remained neutral. I believe that everyone would like to remain neutral if he sees the world aflame, and is able to say, ‘T am neutral and I do not want to get into the flames,” but what is the position to-day with countries such as Holland, Belgium and Norway, which also wanted to remain neutral?

And what is the position so far as you are concerned now?

That sort of joke does not cut any ice. That sort of thing is frivolous while we are dealing with things which are of the greatest importance to our people, matters affecting the very existence of our people. Hon. members there are making a joke of it, and that is the sort of thing which those hon. members are doing on the platteland. On the platteland people are being told that if Hitler wins we will get a free republic, and if England wins then we will not get a republic. It is even further being stated that we must couple our financial system on the Reichsmark. And it is responsible members of Parliament who make statements of that kind!

Irresponsible members of Parliament.

I call them responsible members of Parliament in the sense that the public have sent them here. We listen here this afternoon to the speech made by the hon. member for Wolmaransstand (Gen. Kemp). He is a man who was a Minister of the Crown in this country for sixteen years. I remember that after the election at Groot Marico members opposite proposed that a commission of investigation should be appointed to enquire into the statements made by that hon. member during that election. I can well remember how the Keerom Street group got up in this House and quoted what he had said during that election.

I think the hon. member is now discussing matters which do not concern this debate.

I am only replying to the speech made by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad.

Yes, but the hon. member cannot refer to matters which have nothing to do with this debate.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad stated here this afternoon that the Afrikaner must stop forgiving others. In other words I and other Dutchspeaking people sitting on this side of the House must never again be forgiven for the fact that we are now supporting the Prime Minister. The Keerom Street group has very quickly forgiven the hon. member for Wolmaransstad for the sins he committed in those days. They have also forgiven him his actions in connection with the Chinese after the Boer War; yet he does not want us to be forgiven. Not that I admit that we have committed any sin by supporting the present Prime Minister. On the 4th September of last year we acted in the real interests of the Afrikaner people. I notice in the Press that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad stated that he was not going to surrender his rifle. He incited the Afrikaner who usually observes law and order, not to give up his rifle, but all the time he had in his pocket a permit to retain his own rifle.

That is a lie.

On a point of order, is an hon. member entitled to say that another hon. member is guilty of telling a lie?

No hon. member is entitled to say that another hon. member has told a lie. I have already drawn attention to that, and if it happens again the hon. member making such a statement will be dealt with.

Withdraw.

Order, the hon. member may proceed.

We are now being asked what we are fighting for. We are not fighting for Haile Selassie, but we are fighting for South Africa, for the same purposes as those in connection with which the Prime Minister of the day, now the Leader of the Opposition, in 1938 applied sanctions to Italy. When the Prime Minister at that time made his speech to which I listened very attentively he stated that never before had the Afrikaner people been in such danger as they were at the time when Italy made an attack on Abyssinia. Sanctions were applied, and as I understand the position, sanctions are almost akin to war. Now Italy has declared war not merely on Abyssinia, but against the British Empire, against Kenya, Tanganyika and Rhodesia, and are we to sit still now until such time as those countries have been conquered, and until Italy is at the Limpopo? No, I think we did the right thing in immediately declaring war. We are to-day fighting against those dangers which the Leader of the Opposition warned us against in 1935. Things have not changed, rather have they become aggravated. The dangers to the Afrikaner people are to-day much greater than ever before. Now it appears to me that because Germany has been successful and has subjected the one little state after the other, and because there was a fifth column in France which caused France to collapse as a result of treachery in her own ranks, members opposite want us to put up the white flag. I want to protest here this evening as an Afrikaner who is proud of his history. I speak here this evening as a Freestater. We passed through a war and I remember that in 1899 the Free State came to an agreement with the Transvaal, and England said to the Free State, “We have no quarrel with you; remain neutral because our quarrel is with the Transvaal about the Franchise.” But through the mouth of the noble President, President Steyn, the Free State said, “We have an agreement, and we are going to stand or fall by that agreement.” We stood by our agreement. When the Free State was shot to pieces and burnt flat we never heard any reproach made against the Transvaal, we never heard it said that the Transvaal had dragged the Free State into the war. It is not in the character of the Afrikaner to do a thing like that. The mothers and children in the concentration camps sent messages to the burghers, “Do not surrender, go on fighting to the end, and do not make a dishonourable peace,” and what is being done now? For the sake of party political purposes the mothers of our people and the daughters of those who went through the concentration camps are being used to take part in processions for peace.

And the Prime Minister does not want to meet them.

What kind of a peace is it that is being asked for here? We have not yet heard the conditions that are being suggested. There is only one peace which we can conclude now. Hitler has said, “I speak as the victor and I want to make peace as victor.” Was that the history of the Afrikaner people? When Bloemfontein was taken, when Pretoria was taken, we did not talk about peace, we fought until the end, and we secured an honourable peace at Vereeniging. We there surrendered our freedom in the Republics, but we left behind us an asset for the Afrikaner people which is the greatest asset any nation can have, and that is its history. To-night we again stand at such a turning point in our history. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about certain agreements in his proposal of the 4th September. We must carry out those agreements, and if we fail to do so we are not worthy of being an Afrikaner nation. We must uphold our history, and we must make new history for the Afrikaner nation, and that is what we are going to do. The Afrikaner nation is not a nation composed of a lot of hands-uppers and cowards — history has proved that. And the result has been that the conqueror of 1899 has returned to us what we had. When the Leader of the Opposition in 1926 returned from the Imperial Conference he told us at Paarl that the freedom which we had lost at Vereeniging had been restored to us, and we had restored to us more than had been lost, and he told us that we must stand or fall by the British Commonwealth of Nations. I stand by the words of my leader of those days. The Afrikaner must uphold that history. Now it is being stated here that our sons are sent to Northern Africa to be sacrificed there for the sake of the British Empire. That is idle political talk. My friends know as well as I do that if Italy and Germany win this war it is the end of the freedom of South Africa. That freedom for which we have fought for generations, and which we appreciate, is being tossed about here in South Africa for party political purposes, and processions are being held in favour of an unconditional peace. The Afrikaner will stand by his word of honour and he will save the honour of the Afrikaner. The majority of the young fellows who go to Northern Africa to fight there are of Dutch descent, and I can say that I as an Afrikaner am grateful that I can stand by a man like the Prime Minister, a man who has made history, and who has shewn us the right course to pursue. Those young fellows in the North will shed their blood for their country. The blood of English-speaking Afrikaners and of Dutchspeaking Afrikaners will mix there in the interests of South Africa. I think back to the days of 1914, and I think back also to the unveiling of the Delville Wood Memorial. History repeats itself. I hope a monument will also be erected to the young men who are going to shed their blood there for South Africa in the North, and we shall be able to face the world freely, because they have done their duty there. The Afrikaner nation does not watch out to see who is the stronger. Our friends opposite have apparently got scared because Hitler is strong, and because he has deprived the one country after the other of its independence They are running away, but the Afrikaner nation is not going to run away; it will stand up to the very end. Win or lose, the Afrikaner will do his duty towards his Fatherland.

What about your sons?

I have two sons, both of whom have joined up, but my hon. friend who has just interrupted me took part in the war in East Africa, and he assisted in the conquest of South-West.

As the result of deception, because we had been told that Nakob had been attacked.

For the sake of party politics he is now running away. Those are not the ways of the Afrikaner people, and I say this: the Afrikaner nation will uphold its tradition and its history. It will do its duty, and I am convinced that posterity, both Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking, will be grateful for the attitude which we on this side have adopted.

The hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler), has done everything in his power to find a fig leaf, but unfortunately he was unable to find one here. He may be able to find a fig leaf in London to cover his sins, but not here in South Africa. We found here to-day that the Prime Minister is determined to continue the war, but we wonder if we were to make an appeal to him to put a stop to this internal war, whether he would not do so. I want to confine myself to a few matters in regard to events which are at the moment taking place in our country, and I particularly wish to confine myself to the cowardly attacks which are being made on our children whom we as parents send to the various schools. Last Saturday, a fortnight ago, an attack was made on the students of the Pretoria University, and they were manhandled in a disgraceful manner by English-speaking individuals. My son unfortunately was among them. When the university started it was found that quite a large number of the children had not returned. Enquiries shewed that the reason was that the parents had said that they were afraid to send their children because the lives of those children were in danger as a result of the attitude adopted by the soldiers. I thought that these were just stories that were told, but when I got there on the Monday morning I found that my son was in hospital, having been knocked about by those people, simply because he was a student at the university, and I found that that was the cause. He had been brought there unconscious, and when he was placed under the X-rays a black line was found across his skull — very probably a crack in his skull. Hon. members will realise how I and other parents feel if we as Afrikaners in our own country are not to be allowed to send our children to school owing to the Government soldiers murdering them. What is behind this attitude? There is only one thing: it is that those English-speaking people are of opinion that those children from the University are not inspired by the same political spirit as they are, and they have only one punishment for them, and that is death. I say death, because if we look at the instruments which are used for the purpose of belabouring those children — thick bits of wood with barbed wire attached and pick handles, I think I am entitled to say this. Imagine such an instrument in the hands of a soldier to knock about a child! Am I saying too much when I state that they have only one penalty for those children, and that is death. Now I ask whether the Prime Minister is unable to put a stop to that hooliganism which is now going on? Now the English-speaking people in this country want our sympathy. What sympathy can they expect from me if my child, whom I send to the university, is to be assaulted in that way and, maybe, maimed for life? What sympathy can the English-speaking people expect from me? Most unheard of things are going on in our country to-day, and the position is becoming intolerable; but it is not only the English-speaking section which is taking up this militant, defiant attitude. What do the Jews say about us? I just want to quote from a letter written to two Afrikaners by the Junior Jewish Society of Brakpan. This is what they write—

That is the sort of thing which one gets in these days of war, even from that group. Is it to be wondered at that we want peace, seeing that we are being defied in this manner? But that is not all. At Grobbelaarsdal in my constituency another Jew said—

How dare those people with their turned-in feet make insinuations like that against Afrikaner women and girls? And even if the Jews were to play their part in the war — but all of them are walking about to-day with sore stomachs and are unable to take up active service — yet they are busy slandering our women by using language of that kind. Unfortunately, however, there is also a section of our own nation which is being used by the English-speaking people to defy and hurt our people. I have in mind the so-called knights of the truth. On the day I left Pretoria, the 21st August, there were hundreds of soldiers gathered on the square in Pretoria. The citizens of Pretoria were surprised to see them there that evening, but when in the company of a few others I went to the station, there was a soldier there who did not know who we were. And he said in English: “We are all here this evening to fight the civilians. Most of us have brought our bayonets with us and we are going to show them to-night.” That is the sort of thing that is going on in the country — a crowd of soldiers take it upon themselves to meet together on the square in Pretoria and then they boast of the fact that they are going to fight the civilians. That is the sort of thing that is going on under this Government; we are no longer sure of our lives; we can no longer send our children safely to school; our property is being destroyed. I say that the Government is no longer able to maintain law and order in the country. When the rifles had to be handed in, we elected a committee and we went to the magistrate in order to ask the Prime Minister through the magistrate that the farmers in the Lowveld should be allowed to keep their rifles as those areas adjoin the native territories; we know the conditions under which the natives live there. The blood of a farmer, who during the night had been coaxed away from his house, was not yet dry before a number of other instances occurred in which natives drove the cattle away from the kraals into the farmers’ lands. When the farmers still had their rifles, they were able to stand up against those natives, but I ask hon. members what is going to happen now that they have no rifles left? The Prime Minister’s reply was that every rifle had to be handed in; not one exemption was granted in the whole district of Middelburg in spite of all these facts. Everybody’s attention has to be concentrated on this destructive mad war, and in our country everything is going wrong. The military camp at Middelburg is right up against the hospital. I went to the office of the Prime Minister in Pretoria, and I was referred to a certain Col. Kloppers. I told him the whole position, and I told him that we read in the papers that the Germans were keen on opening fire on hospitals and children, and I painted out to him that the military camp was right alongside the hospital. That, however, was not the great point so far as I was concerned, but I was concerned with what was going on. The soldiers are all around those children night and day. The people attending the school are high school girls and young fellows, and they come under the bad influence of the soldiers. There is the danger of disease among the children and other dangers. There is a lot of open ground there, yet the camp is put right up against the hospital. Wherever has one heard of a thing like that? I was promised that the camp would be removed; this was two months ago, but the camp is still there. The soldiers live in houses on the show ground, but as a rule they sleep in tents and the position is intolerable. We cannot sufficiently emphasise these matters. Surely a soldier is a man who should have a sense of honour. A soldier always was a man of pride, that is how we knew him. They did not know what it was to commit a cowardly act, and they would not do any low-down, dirty thing. But what has become of the soldier to-day? Can we still be proud of him? I am afraid not. We have one hope, and that is that our salvation may be close at hand.

When the then Prime Minister last September brought his motion into this House asking us to support him in a policy of neutrality I think it was well known to many of his friends and known to others outside of this House as well that in coming to that decision he had not decided it, so to say, on the merits. It was not so much the merits of the case he was considering. The then Prime Minister had a sincere desire to try and avoid splitting the people into two sections in this country. He did not want to see the people of South Africa divided, and that was the biggest reason for his bringing in that motion. Many of us sympathise with that view, and very greatly respected the then Prime Minister for that part of his argument and for the views in the speech he made here in support of his motion, so far as it tried to keep the people of this country together. But in any event he did not succeed in his motion and, as a matter of fact, no motion was ever brought into this House which so greatly succeeded in dividing the people as did that motion on neutrality. Now I may be wrong, but I wish to give it as my view that when one has to make big decisions in one’s life, and if one makes these decisions on anything short of what one considers to be right and just, then there are going to follow in the train of such a decision all kinds of complications and difficulties, and the trouble with the Opposition to-day is that they find themselves in troubles and in difficulties because they have made a decision on a question not because it was right nor even that it was wrong, but because it was expedient.

That is exactly what you did.

When this House met again we found another motion brought in and that motion asked us to make peace with the enemy of freedom. I state it bluntly and I state it frankly, but I think I state it truly.

It is a good thing that you add, “I think.”

We have before us evidence of the downward trend that must follow a decision that is made on other than first principles.

Why do you not speak on the merits of your own decision.

We have got a step further to-day. The Leader of the Opposition has now come forward with a motion which tells us that we must make peace, and the reasons why we must make peace are that our side, that is the side of freedom, the side of democracy, the side of religious liberty ….

The side of hypocrisy ….

We are told that our side has failed.

And you admit it.

I do not. Another signal proof that when you start on a road of compromise you never know where it will lead you, is produced by the attitude of the Opposition. I have wondered as I sat here to-day what the next motion will be which the Leader of the Opposition will bring into this House.

There will be no need for another motion.

If it eventuates, it will not be upwards, it will be downwards, as we have seen. The former Prime Minister in all the motions which he has brought forward from time to time since last September shews that he and his friends are on the downward path. Now I would ask that we should all try to consider the great problem before this country to-day, the great problem before this House to-night, from an objective point of view. And I would say that I honestly believe that when the Prime Minister of this country, the present Head of this Government, came to the decision he did come to in September—I say that he came to that decision after objectively thinking over the whole problem. His decision was the result of careful and objective thinking.

That is why we are in such a mess.

It is only the Opposition which is in a mess.

The Prime Minister has the power of self detachment and when he had to consider this matter he did so in a self-detached way. I would ask this House to see if we cannot to-night consider the problem before us from that same self-detached point of view. We know that the rise of the dictators in Europe was synonymous with the preaching of a new political doctrine, a doctrine that was opposed to the democratic form of Government and institutions. They did not hide their light under a bushel. From the earliest days they inveighed against the democratic kinds of government, as something decrepit, obsolete, which must be swept away. That was the beginning of the dictator Mussolini and the dictator Hitler. Now who are the peoples and countries with a democratic system of government, to whom these onslaughts particularly applied? America, the Commonwealth of British peoples, Holland, Norway, Denmark, Finland and so on.

And Haile Selassie.

Now I would like to ask the House this evening if we objectively decide on this question would we be on the side of these countries — countries like America, Holland, Norway and so on, or would we be on the side of Germany and on the side of Italy?

We are on the side of South Africa, never mind about the others.

We do not want to choose sides at all.

Let us think over these things objectively, but hon. members over there cannot do it. Practically every speech we have had here to-day has had to be supported by all sorts of irrelevant references. We are told, “We do not want to go into England’s fights,” as if that was the question confronting South Africa to-day.

Nor more do we.

We are told, “We want to have nothing to do with the Empire.” Remarks of this kind shew conclusively and absolutely that our friends on the other side of the House cannot possibly think objectively, that is their trouble.

Well, you cannot think at all.

These are the cheap gibes we get from the other side of the House, but we are quite accustomed to them. That is the way they reply to us and that is the way they reply to arguments. In all seriousness I am asking my friends opposite to do some objective thinking. I want them to-night to realise that acting as they are acting, moving as they are doing, they are moving against the peoples to-day who represent our democratic form of government. They are moving against Holland, they are moving against America, they are moving against Norway ….

And against Iceland.

And they are in company with — I hope they are pleased with it — Adolf Hitler, Goering and Mussolini. These are their friends. I have no hesitation in saying that the overwhelming majority of the people of South Africa repudiate these people. These people are not our people, and their ways are not our ways. What I am asking this evening is that my friends opposite will try to do some objective thinking, and ask themselves the question whether they are leading a section of the people to-day.

Never mind about a section, we want to lead the whole of the people.

The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) this afternoon said that we on this side of the House were afraid of unpleasant facts. It looks to me that it is hon. members on the Opposition benches who are afraid of unpleasant facts. When facts are brought home to them, all we get from them are gibes and jeers, and an absolute refusal to look these facts in the face. Pleading is in vain when we ask them to look these facts in the face.

Will you face the fact that you are going to lose the war?

These facts may be unpleasant to them, but never mind, they have to be faced, and it is by looking these facts in the face that we on this side of the House have made the decision which we have made. And I say in all sincerity and all friendship that I do hope that this will be the last motion of its kind which the Leader of the Opposition will bring into this House.

There will not be any need for any more.

He has tried once, he has tried twice, he has tried three times. I hope this will be his last try.

Yes, it will be converted.

At any rate this House will turn down this motion as it has turned down the preceding motions in the past. This motion will not deflect us from doing our duty, it will not make one iota of difference to us in doing what we believe to be the right thing, in following the right path in the interest of South Africa, in the interest of freedom and in the interest of democracy, and we still believe and know that the overwhelming majority of the people of this country cling to freedom and democracy as the best form of government and in this decision they are behind us.

Just before finishing his speech the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet) expressed the hope that this would be the last time that a peace motion would be brought before this House. I think his hopes will materialise. This will probably be the last opportunity, if we are to judge matters with a view to developments overseas; this will be the last opportunity for us to make use of the privilege of pleading for peace. In my opinion, and in spite of the hon. member rubbing his eyes over and over again, Hitler will tell him: “Look here, you have to make peace now, whether you want it or not.” I want to make it quite clear to the hon. member, as well as to all Afrikaansspeaking members, with few exceptions, that as yet they never learnt to respect the sentiments of the Afrikaner. To me this is abundantly clear, for he said: “It was our duty to come to the assistance of England.” For a time he and I worked together and I had frequent opportunities to discuss matters with him and he then gave me the impression that he had at last identified himself with the Afrikaners. This was in peace time, but no sooner had England declared war than he left us in the lurch and stabbed us from behind. I said on a previous occasion that we took the hand of the English-speaking South African in 1933 and that we declared that we would respect one another’s feelings. We went forward under one banner, that of “South Africa first,” but on the 4th September my English-speaking friends stabbed us from behind. I now want to tell them that never again in the future will the English-speaking section have the right to declare that they offered us their hand of friendship but that we refused to accept it. The Afrikaner has shown that he was serious in his desire for co-operation, but at the very first opportunity they left us in the lurch. As far as my hon. friend is concerned, I will leave it at that, for I want to say a few words for the benefit of the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler). When the hon. member addresses the House he usually gets up, expands his chest and is prepared to challenge the whole world. We have come to know him so well already that we know exactly how much value is to be attached to his words. I still remember how, only two years ago, the hon. member for Kimberley (District), then a member for Albert, on every platform and here in this House challenged the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) to resign; the hon. member would then also resign and he (Mr. Steytler) would stand against him at Burgersdorp. At that time he was a member for Burgersdorp. What is the constituency, however, he represents to-day? The people have long ago cast out this great Afrikaner who expands his chest on every occasion. A few weeks ago one of my friends held a meeting at Burgersdorp, where the hon. member for Kimberley (District) resides. Once upon a time the hon. member for Kimberley (District) used to be the uncrowned king of Burgersdorp. He was the leader of the Burgersdorp people against the Prime Minister and the late minister Burton, and they sent him to Parliament. But at this meeting, a fortnight ago, the hon. member for Kimberley (District) got up and wanted to address the public and put questions. He started with „fellow-Afrikaners” and the Afrikaners were so shocked that they told him to withdraw that expression as he was no longer an Afrikaner. And do you believe it, he acquiesced and withdrew those words. In other words, he admitted not being an Afrikaner any longer.

You alone are an Afrikaner.

There you have the difference which already exists between the hon. member and myself. I have never yet boasted on my being an Afrikaner, but every time the hon. member gets up we have to hear all about his Afrikanership.

What is it?

If the hon. member could understand Afrikaans, he would not have asked that question.

I thought you were an Irishman.

To a certain extent the hon. member is correct. I have Irish blood in my veins but it is the De Valera-blood and not the other kind. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) spoke at great length about the discord amongst the Afrikaners and he accused us of having left the Prime Minister in the lurch on the 4th September, that we betrayed him. Let us see for a moment who has been betraying. You will remember that the Leader of the Opposition, who at that time was our Prime Minister, laid down a policy of neutrality 12 months before that date. The present Prime Minister approved of it. When we met here twelve months later, on the 4th September 1939, and wanted to give effect to that policy, who was the betrayer? We on this side or our friends on the other side under the leadership of the Prime Minister? Were we the people who wanted to give effect to the policy which we had clearly stated to the people in the country to be our policy, or did our friends on the other side who generally supported that policy in the past give effect to it; those members declared on the 4th September. No, we do not support neutrality, we want war.

Germany will not win the war.

The hon. member over there was asleep on the 4th September and he is still asleep. The unfortunate part of it is that he and others do not realize that they are asleep. I believe I have answered the question of who was the traitor, and I hope I shall never again hear from my hon. friend’s» lips that we on this side are traitors. My friends on the other side voted for war on 4th September. I thought that every one of them, as soon as they had a chance, would have joined up immediately in order to fight. I notice that members of the Rhodesian Parliament even resigned in order to be able to fight. I respect them. Here we thought that those members over there would join up and so strengthen the hands of the Prime Minister. But what do we find? A few of them have joined up. But they were key-men!

But they were not rebels.

I want to say here quite clearly that I have more respect for a rebel who openly says so than for a “hans-kakie”. There are quite a few “hans-kakies” on the other side. They voted for war, but when they had to join up in order to go and fight, they did obtain their red tabs, but they remain here like bottle-fed lambs — and what do they want? Instead of fighting themselves, they urge me and others on this side, that we should go and fight. I respect the man who openly says that he supports the war policy and then goes out to fight. On the 4th September I told certain prominent members on the other side that I would not mind if the Government would send volunteers to fight, and what did they tell me? They said: We are also in favour of volunteers. They are now sitting on the other side. Some of the members over there have grown-up sons, and why don’t they go? Some of them have gone already. That I do admit. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) said that his sons joined up, but he did not tell us whether they are considered key-men.

One of them is.

There you have it. I say again, I respect the man who is» in favour of this war and takes up arms to support the Prime Minister. I take off my hat to him. But many of my friends on the other side are still young, and why do they not go? No, they pretend to have joined the police. We have seen here the picture of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). There he stands with a gun and a police badge on his left arm, and see how he looks now. I would be very pleased to see him on service when a few Germans should land here in Cape Town. I am convinced, considering my knowledge of him and his race, that if I wanted to give him a fright, all I have to do is to slap my thighs. If we go through the streets of Cape Town and go through the shops, we find hundreds of fit, young English-speaking South Africans. Visit Muizenberg on a Sunday and you will find hundreds and hundreds of young men there who are fit to fight but who do not join up. They want us to fight. If I read the English newspapers and see how much trouble the Prime Minister has to obtain recruits, I feel sorry for him. They want our sons to fight. My grievance against the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet) is that he has been living so long in South Africa and yet does not want to understand the sentiments of the Afrikaans-speaking section. The feeling of the Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner is that he refuses most decidedly to be dragged into the wars of Europe. I now come back to the hon. member for Kimberley (District). He said here that our proposal of the 4th September meant that we should carry out all our obligations towards the British Commonwealth. We added to that that we shall continue to uphold ties of friendship with other nations. What did the Prime Minister himself clearly state in the country in connection with that September session? He said that he is also against participation in European wars, and he added: “Unless England is attacked, I shall not agree to a war.” I dare the hon. member to deny this. I now want to ask him the following: We stand accused to-night of having said at that time that we shall defend South-West Africa. We did say so. The Prime Minister at that time clearly said that he would not drag South Africa into a European war, unless England were attacked. Did he change his policy then? Was England attacked in this war or did it attack itself? If my friends on the other side had supported us on the 4th September, I maintain that we would have defended South Africa to the last man. But conditions have changed. They have landed us into trouble. They made an attack, and they now expect us to be made a cat’s paw for the trouble they created. I want to tell them that they should have realised this before. On the 4th September I warned them in this House that if the amendment of the present Prime Minister were adopted, we would be putting the clock back 50 years in South Africa. I warned them and I specially warned the Prime Minister that he apparently was not realising the extent of the difficulties which would arise in the future if he dragged us into this war. I warned him about the strife which would be created in South Africa. Did you ever see more hatred, envy and discord in South Africa than that which we have here to-night? Do you think that I am pleased to have to speak in the terms and the way I have to do to-night? My friends on the other side think that they carry all responsibility. We on this side carry as much responsibility. But the decision reached on the 4th September has advanced the evolution in the history of South Africa by 50 years. I mean it this way: the fact that we decided on 4th September to declare war against a nation which is 5,000 or 6,000 miles away without the least provocation, whilst we all believed that South Africa was a sovereign independent country, forced us to realise certain things very clearly. There was a time when I also believed that there would be protection from Great Britain’s side. I want to admit that. But since the 4th that so-called protection from Great Britain has shown me and the whole world that Great Britain’s protection amounts to nil. Britain promised Poland its protection. It promised to protect Finland and it promised other countries that they would be protected. Did it give that protection to those countries? No, not one of those small countries enjoyed it. It promised it to Belgium and it promised its big ally France, that it would stand at its side to the very last.

And then France made peace.

What are the facts. England sent eight divisions to the fighting front. It is said here that the number was fifteen.

The number was ten.

Put it at that. That is what Churchill said and you believe that of course. During the World War they sent sixty-five divisions to the Western Front. Now one should not forget that during the World War 22 countries were fighting against Germany, and even so England deemed it necessary to send 65 or 85 divisions there. On this occasion, however, they only sent ten! Is this a proof of faith and sincerity towards its strongest ally? What happened thereafter? We know the history of Dunkirk and we know that out of 400,000 English troops 300,000 fled. We saw in the newspapers that the poor English tommies had to flee into the sea up to their neck in the water.

But the fleet waited for them.

Yes, but the soldiers first had to be half drowned before they reached the fleet. We would have expected that those 300,000 men who escaped by ship would have been taken to some other part of the French coast, but no, they fled to England, and as we understand, most of them arrived there without their trousers. I only mention these facts in order to point out that before that happened I was one of those believers in England’s protection. But here we had the conclusive proof that it could protect neither those small nations nor its faithful ally. It could not carry out its promises, and to-night I say that England finds it very difficult to protect itself. Only the man who is blind although seeing, cannot foresee what the end of this war will be. My friends on the other side and the Prime Minister of England believe that a miracle will happen. They remind me of the man who went out hunting lions, injured a lion and took refuge in a tree. When the lion stood there and roared at him he looked up and saw a mamba in the top of the tree. He then shouted: Here is the chance of a miracle, but it must happen quickly. I know what is the foundation underlying their expectation of a miracle. They base their expectation on the eventual participation of America in the war. If the position would be that of 1918, I could also see some reason for their hopes. But to-night I see it in such a way, that any neutral country refuses England’s protection, for it knows that there is no such protection. We on this side of the House want peace. Why? Because we see what is happening. The Prime Minister’s followers behind him are struck with blindness. They talk about the continuation of the war, and we notice that Churchill even declared that, should England be conquered, the war would be continued from a colony such as Canada. I want to tell them the following. I do not know how many armed troops there are in Canada or how many we have here. If, however, I have to judge by what has happened in Europe during the last four months and in England too, well, when Churchill has fled to Canada I take it that the King will also have sought refuge there. The English people, however, will have to stay in England and I am convinced that they will make peace.

There is no betrayal in England.

This shows how simple-minded my hon. friend is. I notice that a member of Parliament has already been interned there. There they also have a minority opposed to the war. If it should happen that the English king flees, and who wants to doubt that he will flee if London and England have been devastated to such an extent that the Government has to leave the country? If that happens, the English people will see how they have been deceived and they will demand peace. What is that peace going to be? It is going to be a republic for England. [Laughter.] That shows how simple members can be. If a republic is established in England, will they still be prepared to adhere to their ties with England? No, we maintain that we do not want to wait until we have been conquered at the point of the bayonet. We want peace. Up till this day Germany has done nothing against us, and we now want to conclude a peace. The Prime Minister this afternoon admitted that the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was a well-considered speech. I am sorry the same cannot be said about his speech. His was sentiment from the beginning to the end. England will win this war! It won in the time of Napoleon; it won in 1918, and for that reason it will win this time too. Is that an argument; are those sober facts? When the Prime Minister dragged the people and the country into the war, matters were different from what they are to-day. The war has now developed in such a manner, that we may well ask ourselves whether it showed much commonsense on the part of the Government that it did not take timely steps to drag us out of that war again. He says that it is shameful to conclude peace at this stage. King Leopold of the Belgians fought to the bitter end, and is it shameful that he then made peace? Reynaud in France fought until the capital fell and a large part of France had been conquered, and should he have waited until his people would have been ruined to a still greater extent? Would it, therefore, be shameful on our part if we made peace if it was not shameful for that country? I remember the Boer War, when we fought to the very bitter end. The Prime Minister was my officer in command here in the Cane, and after the peace I found out that the Prime Minister at the conference said that we had to make peace, as otherwise our people would be decimated; that we had to make peace because we could not expect any assistance from the rebels in the Cape Province. At that time it was not shameful to him to make peace. To-night it is still less shameful. He tells us that we are handsuppers if we make peace now. Well, then he was truly a hands-upper at Vereeniging, for he then voted for peace. In spite of this, he sneers at us because we plead for peace on behalf of the people. We are now called hands-uppers. If I look here behind me, I find that those of us who were old enough, fought to the bitter end with our Prime Minister in 1902. But look at the other side. I do not want to cast any reflections, but I want to tell the Prime Minister that he should sweep before his own door before trying to sweep in front of our door. The worst is, however, that he has sung this song so often and in such a way that even his own noble wife has become guilty of saying that the people who hold peace meetings are descendants of handsuppers.

That is not correct. I told you what the position is.

The Prime Minister has been guilty of the greatest insult against the Afrikaner which one can perpetrate. He humiliated and insulted the Afrikaner by disarming him. The Afrikaner has two characteristics. He possesses two things, and when you touch them, the fat is in the fire. One is his wife and the other his rifle. The Prime Minister has mustered up the courage to humiliate the Afrikaner people by disarming them and if it were not for us on this side who have told our people since the 4th September to keep orderly and respect the law, I wonder what would have happened when the Prime Minister acted as he did. This is the greatest insult to the Afrikaner and I want to tell the Prime Minister this. The day of reckoning will come. I want to warn my friends on the other side. We shall not settle accounts in the way we did in 1924. This time we shall keep the facts well in mind. There is not the slightest doubt, and to me it is absolutely certain that England is going to lose the war. If they lose, peace will be made, and I can foresee that one of the peace conditions will be that a war debt will have to be paid, and we shall remember these things. When the time comes that we shall constitute the Government, and that time will come as sure as the sun rises, we shall keep these things in mind and we shall see to it that the men who dragged us into the war, will carry a double burden. [Time limit.]

It is not for the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) to make an imputation of treason against the Prime Minister. If there is one member who ought to know the Prime Minister, it is the member who has spoken before me, and he ought to know as the people of South Africa know, what the Prime Minister has meant to South Africa and what he sacrificed for his country and his people. It is regrettable that so much personal feeling has been introduced into the debate. The hon. member furthermore spoke of the day of reckoning which is to come. If such a day has to come, we shall be prepared to await that day with the greatest frankness. What we have done, we did because it was our sincere conviction that it was in the best interests of South Africa. We do not want to make bold in saying that we are the only true Afrikaners. The Oppossition maintains that they are the only true Afrikaners. It suits their purpose to say so, but it does not beseem them to claim that virtue. I maintain that on this side of the House there are as good Afrikaners as will ever sit on the other side. The hon. member spoke about the happenings in September 1938. This has been explained repeatedly and ad nauseam. The events of September 1938 and the events that happened in the following year when the discord took place are as far apart as the poles and it is not necessary to go into that matter again. In September 1938 we had the Sudeten problem, but in September 1939 it was not a problem concerning one country, but the peace of the whole world was at stake. The Prime Minister furthermore stands accused of having changed his policy. I just want to remind members of the fact that shortly before September 1939, the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) came to Ermelo and addressed a protest meeting, and in my presence he declared inter alia—

If we want to go back, we can keep the House busy for days in showing what has been said by members on the other side on this or that occasion and which they deny to-day, but I want to leave it at that. The problem before us to-day is whether it is in the interests of South Africa to negotiate a peace with Germany. The hon. member who moved this proposal and hon. members on the other side said that we are engaged in a war in which we have not the slightest interest. How does that square with the assertion made on every platform by hon. members on the other side that the final decision in this war will fall in Europe and that the fate of South Africa will also be decided there. If we have no interest in this war, how then can our fate be at stake and how can we be affected by the present war? It is hardly 18 months ago that the then Prime Minister (Gen. Hertzog) told us that the war which was threatening then, might start any moment and that it might crush South Africa not less than any other part of the world. If we are not concerned with it, how can the mover of this proposal justify that expression? Only a person struck with blindness and folly will make bold to say that the interests of South Africa are not affected by this struggle. Our interests are most certainly at stake and because we held that opinion, we threw in our weight on the side of the Allies. Right through the country persons talk about the slavery in which the people of South Africa finds itself to-day. That is nonsense. They know well enough that we are as free as any nation in the world. They have said this themselves time and again and if they have said this for fourteen years now, where do they to-day acquire the right to say that our freedom has been taken away from us? By whom? We are as free as possible and it is our desire to maintain that freedom. What has happened since the beginning of the war to justify us in changing our standpoint? Do my friends over there believe that it is to the best of our interests that England wins the war or do they think that it is in our interest that Germany wins the war? In March of 1939 the Leader of the Opposition said that the then Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) and his followers could justly be accused of being Nazis. To-day it is no longer a matter of assumption, but it is abundantly clear to any person who wants to see, that they are possessed with the desire that Germany should win this war. If Germany does win, to what advantage can that be to us? They know as well as we do that our salvation lies solely in a victory for the Allies and that if Germany wins the war, it will mean the end of us as a free and independent nation. Take the example of Holland. Dr. Van Broekhuizen is as good an Afrikaner as any of my friends over there. He was in Holland and has seen with his own eyes what happened over there. If he tells us that the day Germany puts a foot inside Africa, it will mean nothing but hell on earth for us, we have to accept it as correct. Dr. Van Broekhuizen has been there, but the hon. members on the other side were not there and do not know what happened. Now, however, Dr. Van Broekhuizen is dubbed a traitor. It does not become great leaders to act in this way. We know what to expect if Germany should conquer us. [Quorum.] I repeat that it is perfectly obvious from their behaviour that hon. members on the other side desire that Germany should be victorious. I can understand it in the case of some of them but how the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost) who was born in Holland, can acclaim a German victory and can subscribe to the view that a German victory is in the best interests of South Africa, is beyond my comprehension. Holland treated Germany kindly with the best of intentions, but in return for that it was extinguished and is being oppressed by Germany. A man like Dr. Van Broekhuizen is in the best position to give us information. He knows what happened there and we have to take notice of what he says. But I do not want to speak about peace terms again, for the hon. members on the other side cannot even tell us what the peace conditions are which they want to accept. It is their duty to explain to the people and to us what the advantage to this country will be if peace were made now. In how far is it going to help us? Give me one example? Are we not free? Can we enjoy more freedom than we do enjoy? And if they say to-day that we are not free, then all the talk we had from them for the past 14 years was hypocrisy, for on every platform they always talked about the freedom given us by England. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) in 1926, after the Empire Conference, declared—

If a man who has been a minister of religion is prepared to compare England with his mother—the noblest human being God created—then he must have had a very high opinion of England and have been convinced that England gave us a great treasure, viz. our freedom as a people. It is nonsense to talk about slavery and that we are not free. Speaking of slaves, I want to refer to something the hon. members for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) and Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) said the other day at Ermelo. They declared that if they should come into power, they would ban all political parties who were opposed to them and that there would be only one political party. They will not allow any opposition. Is that the freedom they are thinking of? Do they want to curtail our freedom in that way following the example of the Nazis. If we want to be honest, we have to admit that our freedom is complete. What can we at this stage achieve by a separate peace? We are after all the allies of England. And who brought us there? Our own leaders. They have repeatedly said that we belong to the British Commonwealth because we think it is to our advantage. They said that we want to belong to it out of self-interest. I maintain that we declared war on Germany and Italy in our own interests. If this be the case, what is it going to help us to conclude a separate peace? And what will England say about it? We have repeatedly listened to the other side expecting that something would be said about the attack on Holland by Germany, and whether they disapproved of it. No, they did not condemn that attack, that rape, that destruction of Holland. They said that Germany could not do otherwise. In its own interest Germany had to crush Holland, for Holland stood in its path. Will they show the same consideration towards England. Let us suppose we conclude a separate peace with Germany on terms which are antagonistic towards England, and England comes along and declares that the Cape is of vital interest to them. Suppose England went further and declared: We cannot relinquish it for the continuation of the war and for our own existence. Will hon. members then be satisfied if England takes military protective steps against us? Will they offer military resistance. [Quorum.] Will this separate peace not result in us becoming embroiled in a second war? What will the results of that be? They know as well as we do that this will not be to the advantage of South Africa. The poorer section of the population are always being told that the slavery, imposed upon us by England, is the cause of our fate. People are always apt to believe that somebody else is the cause of the failure in their lives. I now want to know whether they also take part in the propaganda against which the natives had to be warned by a magistrate quite recently, namely that they were being told that they must support Germany, for that they then will receive the farms of the Europeans and a minimum wage of 10s. per day.

That happened in Rhodesia.

This was also told in Ermelo and Piet Retief. From where does that propaganda emanate? Do they identify themselves with this propaganda? They know as well as we do that the best interests of South Africa can only be served by co-operation within the British Commonwealth of Nations. We have thrown in our fate with them and we can as little forsake England as we need fear that England will forsake us. Do you want to believe that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Genl. Kemp) declared at Ermelo that fusion had been a mistake? It is most remarkable that it took him six years to discover the mistake and he only discovered it after he had lost his ministerial seat. If it took him six years to discover that mistake, how long will it take him to discover his present mistake. It may be 10 years, and in the meantime he works for the downfall of his people. We have spoken about the great ideals of the people. We now come to the material welfare. They say they are tired of the rotting produce story, but Portugal remained neutral. What is there to prevent them from sending their wool and mealies to Lorenco Marques?

You know that we are not allowed to do it.

We are prepared to pay the railway freight on their wool and mealies if they will send it to Lourenco Marques to have it sold there to neutral countries and other countries too. They know well enough that it suits their purpose to sell to England, but nobody forces them to do so. I cannot understand their arguments. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) speaks of the profit England is going to make out of our wool after the war, but if they are so certain that England is going to be beaten, they need not be anxious about it. After this war, after England has been defeated, Germany will certainly come and take our wool. It will not ask England for it. All those arguments are so much loose talk. They know as well as we do that we are on the right road in South Africa and that we work for the interests of South Africa. They furthermore know as well as we do that what they propose to-day only aims at political advantages. They will not succeed there. The people know on which side its bread is buttered and will support the Government. We shall reject the peace motion.

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) did not make the speech which he made here to-day, during the general election, for then he would not be sitting here in this House. He is one of those hon. members going from platform to platform in the Transvaal countryside and proclaiming to the voters that South Africa will not take part in any European war.

I never said so.

I have repeatedly read in the newspapers that he did say so. He furthermore added that South Africa would take part only when its interests were affected.

Show that to me.

I have not got it here but I shall show it to the hon. member at some future date. The hon. member used a phrase here which shows us very clearly what the psychological line of thought and mentality of the members over there is. He asked what England would say if we were to conclude a separate peace. I can assure him that this side of the House does not care tuppence what England would say if we were to conclude a separate peace in the interest of South Africa. At the same time I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we do not want to pick a quarrel with England. We have declared often enough that we do not reproach or accuse England, because we are in this war, and we do not blame the British public if they want to participate in the war. We do take offence at persons such as the hon. member for Ermelo and other members on that side of the House— they have trampled upon our freedom and abused it; it is not England who is to be blamed for it. Our Government party has abused the rights we possess, and we have never yet blamed England for it. He now comes here with the old story: What would have become of our farmers if we had not taken part in the war? I really thought that he would have seen during the past eleven months that the talk of our unsaleable produce is nothing but a cock-and-bull story. I want to ask the hon. member: Is Egypt participating in the war? Of course not, and nevertheless the British Government bought the whole of the Egyptian cotton production a few days ago. They bought it because they need it, and they would have bought our South African produce in order to be able to continue the war. I want to refer the hon. member to yet another instance. The British Government has concluded an agreement with the Turkish Government for the purchase of raisins. They buy from Turkey because they can obtain raisins there at a lower price than in the Western Province. That shows you the value of your unsaleable produce story. I now want to say something about the speech of the Prime Minister of this afternoon. I listened intently to all he said and there were in particular two points which have become quite clear to me. The first one is that he intends, with his Government to definitely persist in the continuation of the war. He has said several times that they will continue the fight. The second point is of a more negative character, namely that he has told us now what their plans are to win the war. The people have the right to ask the Government, because the latter wants South Africa to stay in the war and to continue it, with all the expenditure involved—I say the people have the right to ask the Government in what way they hope to win the war. Unless and until we have a satisfactory answer to that question, the Prime Minister has no right to continue the war. Did the Prime Minister answer this question? We had nothing but loose, vague assertions, which gave the impression that the Prime Minister himself does not know what they are going to do. What the Prime Minister and his colleagues said here reminds me of the little boy who had to pass the cemetery and whistled loudly in order to keep up his courage. It appears to me that everything the Minister says here and elsewhere is only being said to bolster up his own courage. I am glad to see that the Minister of Lands is in his seat — he is the only Minister present.

Yes, you are whistling for all you are worth now.

I challenge him to mention any actual point in the speech of the Prime Minister or in the speeches of other Ministers or British Ministers, from which one can deduce that they still have the right to expect to win this war. We cannot find that anywhere. I went through the various speeches, the speeches of the Prime Minister and the speeches of the leaders of the British Government. I want to refer to the latest speech by the Prime Minister over the wireless. He said that South Africa had to continue the war and he then produced, one argument which convinced him that England will win this war, and that was the retreat of Dunkirk. I do not want to go further into that point; the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has shown us that one cannot win a war by retreats. I want to refer to the latest speech by Mr. Anthony Eden. In that speech there was nothing whatsoever from which one might deduce in what way they are going to win the war. He said the following: “The real war will begin when we take the offensive, and when we attack the enemy. That is the way wars are won.” How they are going to attack the enemy he did not say … I fully agree with him that that is the way to win wars, but he did not say how they were going to do it. But take the latest speech of the British Prime Minister. I should like to ask the Minister of Lands whether he can show us one passage in that speech of Mr. Churchill, which so inspired the British people with a spirit of victory, from which we may deduce that Churchill had the right to say that Great Britain is going to win the war. I want to quote a few sentences from that speech to show you the vagueness of it all. He said in the first place—

Unfortunately we do not obtain the least indication as to how and where these campaigns will have to be undertaken. He goes on to say—

What those opportunities will be and how he intends making use of them he most carefully omitted to say. In spite of that he said—

Yes, up till now we have had nothing but words and precious little deeds from the British politicians. All deeds we have had were retreats according to plan. Churchill goes on to say—

What those blows are going to be he does not say. All he says about it is—

I want to say this—the conviction that they are going to win, will not help them to win a war. It is necessary, but it cannot by itself win a war. Finally he says—

To be sure about your cause is not going to win the war for you. The Afrikaners in 1899 were sure about the righteousness of their cause and their actions, and nevertheless they lost that war. The whole speech of the British Prime Minister was absolutely negative and vague. If we read through it, it involuntarily gives us the impression of letting things drift. And this is the speech of which such a fuss was made in the British newspapers. It is remarkable that there is not the slightest indication in it of how Churchill intends beginning a victory offensive. He referred to large-scale preparations in the Near East and in Africa. He says, however—

He could not even say what was going to happen in the Near East or in Africa and this is but another proof of the vagueness of his speech. We now ask ourselves why he was so deliberately vague, for it is clear that this is deliberate vagueness. The reason is that he was definitely unable to put anything concrete before the British people; he could not give any concrete consideration from which one might deduce that Britain is going to win the war.

Do you really expect that the British Prime Minister should divulge his military plans.

Nobody will expect that. But on the other hand we, who have been dragged into this war against our will, have the right to expect from our Prime Minister that he tell us what his plans are and that he should not echo Churchill and nothing else.

But you are now busy critisizing Churchill and not our Prime Minister.

That amounts to the same, for our Prime Minister is the echo of Churchill. He says exactly the same. I can well understand why the Prime Minister was so vague in his speech, for the reason is quite clear. He realises that there are only two alternatives for Great Britain to win the war. The first is that it undertakes an offensive on land and the second is that it breaks Germany by means of the blockade. Let us consider the first alternative. What does an offensive on land mean for Britain; what is the task Britain will have to undertake if it wants to start a land offensive? As human beings with common sense we should ask ourselves whether it is humanly possible for Britain to start anything of that kind. It will mean in the first place that it will have to land its troops somewhere, either in Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Holland or France. Let us for a moment suppose that it succeeds in doing so; its difficulties will only then begin. After it has landed its troops it has to drive the German forces from those five countries which it has occupied, and after that it has to defeat Germany itself. It will have to enter Germany and defeat it on its own soil. In view of the performances of Germany during six weeks — performances which are so wellknown that I need not detail them here—I ask hon. members how anybody with a normal mind can say that it will be possible for Britain to land its forces somewhere in Europe, to expel Germany from the occupied countries and thereafter to defeat it on its own soil? But even if it should succeed in defeating Germany, that does not mean the end, for it then has to settle accounts with Italy still. It has to obliterate the Italian fleet, it has to expel the Italians from Abyssinia, from Libya, from Somaliland and the recently conquered British Somaliland, and then it has still to defeat Italy itself. I now ask the Minister of Lands to-night to tell me in all honesty whether he expects Great Britain to be capable of accomplishing that herculean task.

You missed your vocation. You should have been military adviser to England.

It does not help to tell me now that I should have been military adviser to England. The Minister should show me where my arguments are wrong. I have mentioned undeniable facts for the benefit of the Minister and they show what England will have to perform in order to successfully undertake an offensive on land, and the Minister should not try to evade the point in that way. Let him tell me where my argument is wrong, and if he cannot do so, he should agree with me that it is absolutely out of the question for England to successfully undertake such a land offensive. It cannot be done. I maintain most emphatically that a person who says that Britain will accomplish that feat does not know what he says. What then does the second alternative mean? It is obvious that in this connection Britain’s hopes are based mainly on four factors. As the Minister of Native Affairs already indicated, they hope that they will eventually drive a wedge between Russia and Germany. All I want to say to this, as a reply to the Minister of Native Affairs, is that they are apparently prepared to conclude a non-aggression pact with Russia, in spite of the fact that Russia is one of the greatest aggressor countries. From morning till night we are being told that we are fighting against aggression. But if it suits Britain’s purposes, it tries to become friendly with one of the countries which is mainly guilty of aggression. That shows us the futility of their argument. The second factor on which they base their hopes is the possible entry of America into the war. My personal opinion is that America will eventually enter the war. There are distinct signs that America is moving in that direction. The fact that Roosevelt has already concluded an agreement with Canada actually made him take sides. But the question remains whether the assistance America will be able to offer will be of such a nature that it will enable England to win the war. The third factor on which Britain’s hopes are based is its air force and navy. Let us suppose for argument’s sake that Great Britain remains in control of the sea and ultimately succeeds in equalling in numbers the German air force. Is the Minister willing to explain to this House in what way Britain will be able to gain victory by means of its fleet and air arm? The civil war in Spain showed that the air force alone cannot decide a war. Ships cannot sail on land. It is therefore clear that the British air force and navy cannot achieve the victory for England. I now come to the final factor, and this is apparently the most important one on which their hopes are based. It is that the air force and navy combined blockade Europe. This is the second alternative I mentioned. The first one was a land offensive and the second one is the blockade. The question then naturally arises: How long will it take England to break not only Germany, but the whole of Europe by means of a blockade. I think we are fully entitled to say that it will take many years, if it ever happens, and is it the intention of our Prime Minister to continue the war for all those years? I maintain that it will take many years, and I say it for the following reason. Taking into consideration that Germany during the World War fought so to say against the entire rest of the world and was nevertheless able to hold out for four years, in spite of the fact that practically the whole of Europe was at war and did not produce anything which it could sell to Germany. What is the position to-day? From 1914-1918 Germany was encircled by enemies. Its only channels were the Scandinavian countries, Switserland and Holland. Those were the only countries through which it could import, and the European countries were not able to put products at Germany’s disposal because the war was obstructing production and they could produce hardly enough for their own requirements. To-day the position is the reverse. In his broadcast speech the Prime Minister himself described the position Hitler is in and he told us that Hitler is in a very strong position indeed. He told us that Hitler would shortly also dominate those parts of Europe which are as yet not under his control. The Prime Minister therefore visualised a Europe in which Germany will be in the position to obtain from the whole continent anything produced there. The argument now is that Europe does not produce enough to provide the needs of Germany. I went to the trouble to collect the production data of Hungary, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, the Ukraine and other countries, and it appears that if those countries produce to their full capacity, they will produce more than sufficient to cover the needs of Germany for the continuation of the war for years and years to come. I do not want to spend the time of the House in quoting the production figures for grain, rye and similar things which are essential for the nourishment of the population. Those figures, however, show that Europe can produce sufficiently to enable Hitler to continue the war for years. The possibility is that the blockade of England will much sooner cause a collapse in England than in Europe. A further secret wish harboured by Great Britain is that as a result of the blockade there will be a revolution in Europe. The question naturally arises whether those who expect a revolution, have any right to assume that such a thing is probable. In the first place we must remember that there will not be a shortage of food, with the result that the hunger factor will not be present to cause a revolution. Supposing, however, that this might be the case, I want to point out that totalitarian countries such as Italy and Germany will not allow a revolution. Revolutions occur in democratic countries and not so easily in dictator countries. That possibility on which they are building, is therefore very remote indeed. Under those circumstances we have the fullest right to ask our Government for what purpose this war is being continued. We have been told that we in South Africa fight for our own interest for the maintenance of our freedom and because we would be threatened. I should like to put these questions to those who use those arguments: If South Africa were neutral to-day, would it as a neutral country have been more threatened than Egypt, Turkey or Switserland? The latter is situated between warring countries. Would South Africa as a neutral country have been in greater danger than Eire? No, if those countries such as Egypt which has concluded a military pact with England and has undertaken to fight at England’s side if there should be war in the Mediterranean, if such a country can remain neutral then there was not the slightest reason for South Africa which is 3,000 miles away from the war zone, to take part in the war. Nevertheless we are being told that we have to fight because our freedom is at stake. I maintain that the countries much nearer to the danger zone should know better whether their freedom is threatened than a country which is thousands of miles away. Furthermore we are being told that we have to continue the war because we are fighting for Christianity. I mention it here because those are the things that are being told in the country. Members on the other side tell it in the rural districts because they know that our people are a Christian people and that there are unfortunately still many persons who believe those stories. But they do not tell the people why Britain did not declare war on Russia. I do not think the Minister of Lands will deny that Russia is a far more ungodly country than Germany. Russia is also an agressor country; it is much more unchristian than Germany, and not only is no war declared on it, but Britain is doing its utmost to negotiate a commercial treaty with Russia. By means of its representative in Moscow Great Britain is so to say on its knees praying Russia for a commercial treaty. And this is the country which fights against countries which commit agression and are unchristian. If we take these things into consideration, we have the fullest right to contend that it is gross fraud and hypocrisy to put these things before the people. Take for example another argument. I have already referred to the story of our unsaleable produce. I should like to ask the Minister: How does he explain the fact that Great Britain only a few days ago agreed to buy the Egyptian cotton crop, although Egypt is a neutral country? According to their argument England should not have bought it. But those arguments are being used. Turkey was England’s ally, but it found out that England’s guarantee is no longer worth anything. They therefore did not participate in the war. England now buys Turkish raisins, most probably in order to buy Turkey, but the raisins of our farmers are apparently not good enough. How on earth can we still believe that story of our unsaleable produce? Then there is still another argument. It has been said this afternoon that we fight because we must support our friends. The Leader of the Opposition has often declared that Great Britain is South Africa’s best friend. But I want to ask the Minister, if my brother plunges himself in misery, is it my duty to do the same? It has never yet before been expected that friendship compels one to cause one’s own downfall for the sake of friendship. If England gave guarantees in central Europe which have now landed it into misery, it is no concern of ours. During the election campaign at Zeerust the question was put to the present Prime Minister—as reported in the Star—what would happen if Great Britain were to declare war. His reply was: That is no concern of ours whatsoever.”

That was before the election.

Yes, that was before the election. I have quoted a few of the arguments which are usually put forward in the rural districts as the reason why South Africa must participate in the war. We are told that we have to fight because our freedom is threatened. It may be true that today South Africa is in danger, but who is the cause of it then? It is the Prime Minister with his Cabinet colleagues. They plunged South Africa into distress. Does the Government now expect that Germany and Italy will not be entitled to tell us that we have been looking for trouble and that we shall get it now? The Government reminds me of the gangsters in America. They go to a shopkeeper and tell him that he has to pay them so and so much per year, as otherwise they will blow up his shop. They endanger the man and then he has to pay them because he is in danger. They have plunged South Africa into distress and now the people have to be asked to help them out of it. The Minister of Finance was slightly more explicit about the ideals we are supposed to fight for, and I should like to say something about his utterances. The Minister of Finance said inter alia—

During the same speech he emphasised that the aim for which we fight is the restoration of the injured rights of the small nations. His leader said the same, and he became quite lyrical about the league of nations which has to be established. How do the Minister of Finance and his leader think to achieve all those wonderful ideals, unless they also declare war on Russia? Russia has violated the rights of five small nations. Are they going to force Russia also to restore the rights of those five countries? No, all that is nothing but pretty talk and nothing else. It is the same patter we heard during the World War when we were told that a kind of Utopia would be created after the war. How very different was the reality! I want to conclude with the following remarks. When we go through the speech the Prime Minister held over the wireless the other day and consider what he said about the new league of nations, at once the person of President Wilson rises before our mental eye. They have much in common in many respects. Wilson also promised the American people that he would not let his people be dragged into the war. Nevertheless he dragged them into the war after he had been elected. He also spoke about the ideal league of nations and went to Europe with his 14 points. He came back without any of his 14 points having been given effect to. It reminds me of a cartoon of Wilson appearing at that time. Before Versailles he is represented as a peacock with 14 beautiful tail feathers. After Versailles not one of those was left. I am afraid that all the ideals which are now painted too well by the Prime Minister, especially those concerning that league of nations, will have the same fate as Wilson’s ideals. Our Prime Minister will achieve the same success as Wilson did with his league of nations. After Wilson returned to America, after he made a failure of his mission, he held meetings in the United States. A friend of mine who was in America at that time told me that on one night 50,000 people assembled in New York to hear Wilson. The next night another 100,000 of his antagonists assembled to hear him. During his tour he became ill and disappeared from the stage. His people rejected him. Perhaps the similarity between Wilson and our present Prime Minister will also come true in this respect. He will also disappear from the stage.

Will the Minister allow me to move the adjournment of the debate.

I have nothing to do with it.

The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet) made a speech here this afternoon in which he referred to democratic countries which we should stand by. The question arose in my mind, however, why then are democratic countries like America not in the war? They want us to understand that England is the only country in the world which has a Christian conscience, and which is out for the protection of Christianity, freedom and democracy. Why then are those other countries like America not in the war in order to strive for the same ideals which England stands for? Surely that is a question to which one expects an answer. I do not blame the hon. member for Maitland for having spoken in the way he has done. His sympathy is with England and the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) rightly stated that he has no feeling for, and no realisation of the sentiment of the Afrikaner people. He does not realise what the Afrikaner people have gone through, all the misery and all the sorrow, but all these things have to be taken into account. Assuming Germany were to conquer England, and assuming that in ten or fifteen years time the Germans were to get into difficulties, and were to ask the English people to assist Germany in its difficulties. I am convinced that one would not get any Englishmen in such circumstances to come to the aid of Germany, yet it is expected of the Afrikaners to do so after everything they have gone through. We are expected now suddenly to stand by England. The rt. hon. the Prime Minister stated that Parliament had decided, and that a peace motion had already been rejected on two occasions. Quite rightly one hon. member said that the Government which is in power to-day got there as the result of a coup-d’etat. Who dragged us into the war? If we look into the question carefully it is really the native representatives and the representatives of the coloured people who are not liable to military service, and that crowd of English Natalians, the worst jingoes, and the keymen who also decided to plunge us into the war. While I am speaking about the key-men I just want to say that in my district at a small place like Roetang which is a small station, there are no fewer than five Jewish shopkeepers, and each of them together with their son or sons are well built, upstanding Jews, key-men; not one of them has joined up. It is that type of person who has dragged us into the war and I and my son have to go and fight while they stay at home. It is becoming more and more clear to us every day that the Leader of the Opposition on the 4th September looked far ahead. We know him as a man who can look far ahead and he told us that the Prime Minister was pursuing the course of death. I remember it well. It is the course of death of the United Party, and of the good relationship which existed between us and Great Britain. That is the course which is now being pursued. The Leader of the Opposition succeeded in getting things right which nobody else in this world could have got right. He succeeded in our making peace with Great Britain and with the English-speaking people; he succeeded in getting us to believe them and in getting us to trust them, but they have shewn that they are not worthy of that trust and confidence. The war motion of the Prime Minister has made the unity of our people impossible. The proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition (Gen. Hertzog) aimed at all costs to preserve the unity of the Afrikaner nation, and the aim of his proposal was that we would remain a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and that we would carry out our obligations towards England. In that way we would have succeeded in getting the whole of Afrikanerdom to be united. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) with his party was prepared at the time to support that motion. We would have got the people together, the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking, with the exception of a small group of Natal jingoes. We would have had a condition of unity such as we have never had in the history of our country, and there would have been peace in our ranks. If Germany or Italy had failed to respect our neutrality I can assure you they would have had to deal with a united people, and knowing the Afrikaner people as we do we know that they are a people who can stand up to their man, and they would have stood up for their rights. But then we would have had to be united. The then Prime Minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, saw things in the right light, and he realised that the war policy would mean the end of the United Party and the end of co-operation. To-day they still call themselves the United Party, but who are in the Cabinet? The men we have chased out like the Minister of Mines, who was opposed to the Status Acts; the Minister of Finance whom we kicked out of the Caucus on the colour question, and then there is also the Minister of Labour. Is that the United Party? Certainly not. We have heard a great deal about the reasons for the war, but we regard these as fallacies. We now have to have England’s friendship, and we are told that we must preserve that friendship. If ever there was a nation which knows what it means to be without a friend in the world, it is the Afrikaner nation. There was a time in our history when we had to stand on our own and face our difficulties alone, when we had to drink the cup of bitterness and there was no one in the whole world to stand by us. When the United Party was established it was said that we had a powerful friend, an ally with 490,000,000 people, and that we need no longer stand alone, but that we could depend upon England’s help. Sometimes, however, one has to pay too dearly for friendship. England to-day buys from us to the tune of £14,000,000 while we buy from England to the value of £44,000,000. Is that true friendship, is that a quid pro quo, is that fifty-fifty? We have seen how England has left her friends in the lurch in this war, but the most gruesome of all the things that have happened is that her former ally, France, after that country was knocked down so that it wallowed in its own blood, was held up to contumely and contempt. When France, unable to resist, was forced to give in, a cowardly attack was made on her ships at Oran.

Apparently you wanted the Germans to get those ships.

I take no notice of that nonsense. The hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) in his speech already shewed the stupidity of that contention; he shewed how stupid was the contention that we would lose our trade if we were not on England’s side. Egypt has not joined up with England, Ireland has not done so, and Turkey has not thrown in its lot with England. Why are they not in the war? And why are we in the war? If we are in favour of peace we are told that we are pro-German. What is the most painful thing of all to me is that England gave a guarantee to Poland knowing that she would be unable to carry out her promise. She told Poland that if Germany were to attack her (Poland), England would stand by Poland. Not one Tommy was sent to Poland’s aid, not one aeroplane. What did the English do? They flew over Germany and dropped pamphlets. Why did they not send aeroplanes? Czechoslovakia was the first country of all to be left in the lurch. They pinned their hope and their trust on England, and it was on that that they lost the war. Chamberlain handed over Czechoslovakia hand and foot to Germany. Was that the right thing to do? A short while ago I had a conversation with a certain lord, and I asked him why they did not then declare war. His reply was that England was not then prepared. Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, Denmark are all instances which we can cite as instances of breach of faith on the part of England, and the saddest part of all is that to-day one hears that all those countries have committed acts of treachery. Holland has committed an act of treachery, Winckelman said that he had to surrender because nobody assisted him. King Leopold had to surrender because he did not get help. France had to throw up the sponge because it only had the assistance of ten divisions of English soldiers which really meant nothing. Therefore the friendship about which we have heard such a lot of talk means nothing so far as our protection is concerned. The position to-day is that England stands alone in the world, without an ally, without a friend. Is that perhaps God’s will, and God’s judgment? The Afrikaner people had to stand alone in their great struggle, and had to drink from the cup of bitterness. To-day England stands alone, and the Lord only knows what the result is going to be. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has warned us against a second Oran. What did he mean by that? Does he wish us to understand that if we make peace England may possibly also attack us? That is my explanation, but he does not warn us against the lot of Holland or Belgium or France, which took up arms. They defended themselves, they fought courageously, but they were beaten and they were left in the lurch. The danger threatening us is that we have been plunged into this war and we may also get into difficulties. Yet now the Prime Minister warns us of a second Oran. He gives us to understand that if we make peace England will attack us. A further reason that is put forward why we have to be in this war is that this is a war for the sake of Christianity. I want to know whether those people who pray in Adderley Street are displaying the spirit of Christ. Christ has told us that when we pray we should pray in privacy and he has taught us that what we do in the darkness will be accounted for in the light, and that we should not, like the Pharisees, pose at the corner of streets when we say our prayers. But now they pray that God save the King, and then they open their eyes and beat an Afrikaner, and then they pray again, and then they again knock an Afrikaner about. Is that Christianity? The Government and its supporters are engaged on turning Christianity into a farce with this prayer business. I never imagined that the Afrikaner people would descend to the level of making a farce of Christianity in the way it is being done. I ask the Government to make the Mayor of Cape Town (Mr. Brinton) come to his senses and realise that he should put and end to this stupid thing, because he is making a farce of Christianity. They are out to safeguard. Christianity, so we are told, but who are their allies? The Mohammedans, the Brahmans and the Jews who do not believe in Christianity. They are now asked to safeguard Christianity, and if they had got their way they would also have dragged in Russia which wants to destroy Christianity, and which on Lenin Square has erected a statue to Judas Iscariot. They were very keen on getting Russia to safeguard Christianity, but I want to put a few questions to the Government. The first question is how many millions of pounds the Government require — we have already voted £42,000,000 — to drive the Italians out of Africa? Surely that is a reasonable question. The second question is whether with our war efforts we are helping England one tittle or iota towards winning the war? I want to give the House the assurance that if we had followed the advice of the Leader of the Opposition we would have rendered a great service to the country. But the Government, the present Prime Minister, wanted war, and he split up Afrikanerdom, and he caused bitterness and turned Afrikaners into bitter enemies of Great Britain, and it will take years and years before that enmity simmers down. If hon. members had had the sense to take the advice of the Leader of the Opposition with all his experience and all his knowledge of the Afrikaner people, they would have rendered a service to our country, and we would have remained friends of England. That opportunity has been lost. The Prime Minister did not listen. He could have left the scene as one of the greatest sons of South Africa, esteemed and honoured by the Afrikaner nation. That chance has been lost. If Germany wins the war what then is going to become of the Prime Minister? Where can he take refuge? I am very sorry for him. He might have died a great Afrikaner in the arms of his people. I am opposed to the war because no war will ever solve any problem. It will only create problems. It will cause further poverty and misery and enmity and bitterness. Millions of money are wasted on the war, and in the meantime we have 300,000 poor whites living below the bread line, living in conditions of misery, not knowing where to-morrow they are going to get food for their children. I can assure hon. members that in my district there are people who live on bitter coffee, not made of coffee beans, but of the “Witboom” roots, and on dry mealie pap. But we have millions of pounds to waste uselessly and unnecessarily on a war which we cannot win. Why is the war being waged in England, and by whom? It is the capitalists who are waging the war. I saw a strange thing the other day in “Truth” about Mr. Hoare Belisha, and I wonder whether there is any truth in it. In any case we have the position in England that 5 per cent. of the people are rich and the rest are poor, and live in scandalous conditions in the slums. Why is not war declared against the slums? Sneering references are made to national socialism, especially by an hon. member like the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). He knows nothing of Germany. But we know in any case that Germany was in the grip of poverty and misery, and that Hitler by his system saved the German nation from ruin. Let us face these facts. This is a war of the capitalists for the preservation of the capitalistic system. I am astounded that the Minister of Labour who has always fought for the interests of the poor man is playing the part which he is playing to-day. The Minister of Finance referred to America, and he said that we should compare America’s estimate of expenditure with our expenditure on defence, and if we did so we would see that we compare favourably with that neutral country. In America, however, there are deplorable conditions, and America wants to sell the arms and munitions which are manufactured there, and wants to benefit from the war. This is a war which does not come from heaven, it is not a war of the Lord, but of the devil, and for that reason I say that we must make peace before it is too late. It is not an act of cowardice and dishonour to make peace. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) talked about hands-uppers. I am reminded of the days when he in 1914 fought so bravely for peace as a member of the Nationalist Party. Was he a hands-upper in those days? Surely we should be consistent. The Leader of the Opposition in 1914 wanted to keep out of the war, and to-day he still takes up the same attitude. He knows the people, he has his finger on the pulse of the people, and he knows the hearts of the people, and he knows what the people think and feel, and he says: “Let us preserve peace, failing which we are following a course which will lead to our own downfall.” If we were a nation which was predestined to go under, the Afrikaner nation would have been completely destroyed, root and branch, long ago. But that was not God’s desire, and we still exist. The Afrikaner nation is to-day being held up to contumely and contempt, but we have always come forth stronger than before from any oppression. Everything has been taken away from our people; but the people have maintained their soul. May the Lord in this great trial also mercifully see to it that the Afrikaner people shall maintain their soul. I want to conclude by referring to the Bible. The Bible says that if your opponent takes you to gaol, you should make peace with him. If he wants to take your coat, give him your vest as well. If we do not act towards Germany and Italy in that spirit, and if we fail to make peace while the opportunity is still open for us to do so, while we are on our way to gaol, we may possibly lose all our clothes, trousers and everything, and come forth naked. We shall then have to sit at the peace negotiations and Germany will dictate the terms. As I see things, and as I understand the Bible in all my humility, I fear that this is the end of Great Britain. Hon. members may believe it or not, but the downfall of Great Britain is nigh. Hon. members want us to go under together with Great Britain, but we refuse to.

Have you read Mein Kampf?

Yes, I have read it, and I have found useful things in it. I read in it that in Germany before the end of the last war there was not a Jew who was not a clerk, and there was not a clerk who was not a Jew, but it was the other people who fought. To-day that is still the case in the world. But speaking about Mein Kampf, somebody said that we should rather pursue England’s course than Germany’s course. Well, I should like again to refer to the economic aspect of the matter. A marvellous work has been achieved in Germany from an economic point of view. What we require is an economic revolution. The capitalistic system must disappear in order to solve the problem of poverty in South Africa. I would advise the hon. member also to read Mein Kampf. Along the course pursued by England there are misery and poverty and bitterness. And in England herself poverty prevails on a large scale, and in India and South Africa there is terrible poverty, as a result of the application of the capitalistic system.

At 10.55 p.m. (while the Rev. S. W. Naudé was addressing the House), the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1). and the debate was adjourned; debate to be resumed on 30th August.