I move as an unopposed motion—

I move—

1. (1) Sittings and adjournments: The House shall meet at eleven o’clock a.m. on each sitting day; business shall be suspended at a quarter to one o’clock p.m. and resumed at a quarter past two o’clock p.m.; and at a quarter to seven o’clock p.m. if business be not sooner concluded Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House.
2. (2) Precedence of Private Members’ business on Tuesdays and Fridays: On days on which private members’ business has precedence (viz.: Tuesdays and Fridays) if such business be under consideration at a quarter past four o’clock p.m. the House shall proceed to the consideration of Government business standing on the Order Paper next after private members’ business.
3. (3) Application of Standing Order No. 26 (“Eleven o’clock rule”): In the application of the foregoing sessional orders resort shall be had mutatis mutandis, to the provisions of paragraphs (1) to (4) of Standing Order No. 26.
4. (4) Sittings of Select Committees: In terms of Standing Order No. 242 Select Committees shall have leave to sit during the sittings of the House.

The object of this motion is to overcome the difficulties connected with the blackout here in the Peninsula.

The unnecessary blackout.

This motion has been placed on the Order Paper after consultation, so I understand, with members on both sides of the House, and the object is to see whether by avoiding night sittings we cannot manage to make matters less inconvenient for members. Hon. members will notice that the proposal is to sit during portion of the morning, that is, from 11 a.m. to 12.45 p.m., and then to resume in the afternoon at the ordinary time, and to sit until 6.45 p.m., and in that way to cut out night sittings. The rights of private members on the two days available to them will remain, with this proviso, that the Government after 4 o’clock in the afternoon can again take up the time of the House. That gives members the same amount of time as they now have under the Rules of the House. Provision is also made for the Government to retain the right to suspend the 11 o’clock rule, in the event of it being necessary to do so; that is to say that the House can carry on at 6.45, just as it could in the past at 11 p.m. The same rule which used to exist in our rules continues, except that 11 o’clock is deleted and is substituted by 6.45 p.m. Then there is another arrangement under which Select Committees can meet during the time the House is sitting. Generally speaking, of course, Select Committees will sit before the House meets, that is to say, they will sit before 11 o’clock, and it may perhaps not be necessary for them to sit at the same time as the House sits, but if it should become necessary, the opportunity is there for them to meet while the House is actually sitting. I believe that all sides of the House will agree in regard to this arrangement, and that there will be no objection to the proposal which I now move.

Mr. HIGGERTY seconded.

I merely want to say that I have no objection to the acceptance of the Prime Minister’s motion. As a matter of fact, what the Prime Minister has now proposed was discussed before the start of the session between various individuals and officials of the House who took an interest in this matter, and it was also discussed by the Government. This arrangement for us to have morning sittings instead of night sittings has been found necessary, not only in view of the blackout, which quite unnecessarily takes place in Cape Town every night, but at the same time we are faced here with a very serious housing problem and boarding problem. Quite a number of members have found it impossible to secure accommodation in Cape Town and they have been compelled to find accommodation outside the town, in some cases pretty far away from the town, and in the circumstances it would be very difficult for them to attend evening sittings and to travel backwards and forwards to their homes. For those reasons I have no objection to the Prime Minister’s proposal. I only want to remind the Prime Minister that Tuesdays and Fridays are private members’ days. Those private members’ days under the ordinary Standing Rules and Orders used to be allocated in their entirety to private members until 6 o’clock and even until such time as the House wished to sit after 6 o’clock. Those hours are now curtailed to a certain extent so that after 4.15 p.m. the Government is going to appropriate the balance of these sitting days. Consequently, the Government gets certain benefits which it did not have before, benefits of which private members are now being deprived. I do not believe that the House on private members’ days has often sat after 6 p.m., and that being so it does not mean very much in actual practice, but simply because a right is being taken away I want to ask the Government, in the event of important motions being under discussion and not having been disposed of by 4.15, if it is desirable to dispose of such motions, and if the Government is approached to give up its rights and grant facilities to enable such motions to be concluded on such a day—I hope that the Government will meet the House on such occasions. Quite a number of important motions have been set down on the Order Paper and there certainly are a few falling in the category to which I have referred.

I should naturally be quite prepared in special circumstances to consider such a request. It will depend on the urgency of Government business and the necessity or the importance of the motions which are introduced, but I cannot give any definite undertaking that we shall depart from the rule laid down here except under very special circumstances.

There is something in what the Prime Minister said in his speech yesterday with which I feel I can associate myself entirely. The Prime Minister told the House that what he was proposing amounted to taking a further very important step in connection with our participation in the war—it meant greater participation in the war than has been the case so far, and than has so far been approved of by this House, and that is how we on this side also look upon the matter. What he asks for here is that we should take a step, a very important step, in our further participation in the war. The significance of this is really that while so far we have waged this war on a restricted terrain we will now, if this motion is passed, go in for what we can call a totalitarian war. That means that whereas we have so far assumed responsibility only for South Africa, and afterwards for the Continent of Africa, we are now assuming responsibility, or joint responsibility, for the waging of the war on all fronts. The Prime Minister has given us the assurance that what he really has in mind is comparatively speaking a minor matter. He does not even want to employ all our forces which he has so far employed in the North of Africa. He only wants to use part of those forces and, so he assures us, those forces will in any case not be employed far away from the Continent of Africa. He is not going to send them to Japanese waters or to the Far East or to America. In any case they will remain close to the Continent of Africa. In that connection I only want to say that such assurances from the Prime Minister are simply not accepted by this side of the House after the experience we have had of his definite assurances and promises in the past. After the experience which we have had we attach no value whatsoever to such promises. I mentioned an amendment yesterday afternoon which I was going to move to give expression to our attitude and to give further expression to the dissatisfaction prevailing on this side of the House, and I believe among a large section of the population, regarding the Prime Minister’s attitude towards the waging of the war, and more particularly in view of the very definite assurances and promises which he has made. The amendment which I now wish to move reads as follows—

I said yesterday, and I want to repeat at once, that instead of coming to this House and asking the House to approve of the extension of the sphere of the war, the Prime Minister owes this House an apology for having broken the promises and the undertakings given to this House. I want to go so far as to say, and to say deliberately, that the Prime Minister has committed a breach of faith to this House and to the country. The Prime Minister made certain promises and I want to deal with three of those promises. The first promise he made on the 4th September, 1939, and that promise was that he would not use South African forces in this war for any other but Defence purposes and that he would not send our troops overseas. The second promise made by him at a later date, when the idea took a stronger hold in his mind that the day would come when he would want to send troops overseas, was that he would not employ such troops overseas without having previously obtained the approval of Parliament. The third promise he made was when he clearly laid it down as his policy that we would not arm non-European troops in this war. Those were the promises made by the Prime Minister and he has broken every one of those promises, as I shall now try to show’. Consequently, instead of asking this House of an extension of our theatre of war, the Prime Minister should come to this House and apologise. I first of all want to deal with the first promise made by him, that promise which he made on the 4th September when this House decided on the question of our participation or nonparticipation in the war. That was on the 4th September, 1939. I say in regard to this question that the Prime Minister has broken the promise which he made to this House on the 4th September, when he tried to convince the House that we should not pursue a policy of neutrality. I say that he broke that promise not long after he had made it, that two days after he had made that promise he broke it. I say that he broke it when on the Wednesday after the 4th September he declared war against Germany. I want to quote from what the Prime Minister said on that occasion, and my quotation should make clear to every member of this House what was in the Prime Minister’s mind on that day, and that his arguments were, to induce the House to pursue the course proposed by him, a course which he did subsequently pursue. On that day he proposed a resolution which he wanted this House to pass. Definite emphasis was placed in that resolution on the fact that in this war no troops were to be sent overseas, but the Prime Minister in his motion went very much further and he made it clear that although he differed from the then Prime Minister, Gen. Hertzog, on the policy of neutrality, which the then Prime Minister wanted to adopt, that he himself did not want to go to the extent of declaring war against Germany. That is perfectly clear. Let us see what the present Prime Minister, who was then Deputy Prime Minister, objected to in the motion of the then Prime Minister, Gen. Hertzog’s proposal read as follows:

That is what Gen. Hertzog proposed on that occasion. That was the start, the preamble of his motion, but I want hon. members to listen to the way the Prime Minister reacted to that. This is what the Prime Minister said:

And then the Prime Minister goes on:

And then a little later he goes on to say this—

Hear, hear!

They don’t understand it themselves.

I quite agree—those who say “hear, hear” don’t understand the position at all; they forget that when war breaks out there are three possible courses to pursue from the point of view of a country in regard to such a war. The first is that one throws one’s full weight into the war, that one takes an active part in the war, one becomes a belligerent and declares war. That is one attitude. The other is that one can take up the attitude of neutrality, and that is what Gen. Hertzog wanted to do, that is to say that one does not break off relations with such a country, but that everything goes on as before so far as the relations between one’s own country and the other countries are concerned. That is the second course to pursue. And then there is a third possible course, that is a course between those other two, and that is what is called a state of non-belligerency. Such a country is not combatant, but that does not mean that it does not choose sides. We have had an instance of that in the United States. For months, I don’t even know if it was not for more than a year, America was not neutral in regard to this war—on the contrary America revoked its neutrality laws, it revoked them openly and yet did not declare war against Germany. America was simply non-combatant, America went further and said that they were not going to give any assistance whatsoever to the Axis powers, but America would give England and England’s ally, France, every possible assistance short of military assistance. There are countries in South America today which adopt an exactly similar attitude. They have broken relations with Germany but they have not declared war against Germany.

The mere fact that they have severed relations means war.

America severed its relations with Germany but did not declare war.

And what did America get for that?

That is not the point. One cannot take this statement made by the Prime Minister on the 4th September, 1939, the statement which I have quoted, in any other way but that he did not accept Gen. Hertzog’s point of view in regard to neutrality, but that he preferred the position of non-belligerency for South Africa, that we would be non-combatant, that we would not take an active part in the war. That was the attitude which the present Prime Minister adopted at that time, and by taking up that attitude he tried to convince a certain section of this House, and by taking up that attitude he undoubtedly succeeded in getting a large following in this country which he would otherwise not have got. They followed him because he said that we were not going to take an active part in the war but in actual fact we were going to keep out of the war. That is how he put it before his supporters and that is how they made propaganda.

Which supporters?

A few days after the 4th September, however, the Prime Minister declared war against Germany and he gave up the attitude which he had adopted on the 4th September, 1939, and he relinquished the position on which the resolution passed by this House rested. He simply became untrue to the attitude he had adopted, and he broke his promises. Speaking at a meeting at Stellenbosch at that time I said this—and the Prime Minister will not take it amiss from me if I repeat what I said there—I said that although the Prime Minister had proposed that we should practically keep out of the war, not neutral but non-combatant, I did not trust him. This was just after he had declared war against Germany. I said that he had only put this out as a bait so as to get a following in the country which he would otherwise have been unable to get. He only put it out in order to catch people who were in favour of neutrality, and I said that we were quite old enough and had had enough experience to know what a Jackal was like when we saw one. In other words, I made it clear there that I expected that the Prime Minister would go further step by step and that he would turn on the screw more and more as time went on. And what I said there has literally come true. He has gone further step by step in that same direction, and if we look at where we stand today and see what he said in those days, and then compare the position as it is today, then I say that it amounts to a breach of faith on his part against this House and against the country; and then the Prime Minister came here yesterday, as hon. members will recollect and he told us quite openly that he had felt long ago that so far as Afrika was concerned it should be regarded as our theatre of war, and Africa, so he felt, was the most suitable jumping off ground for the purpose of carrying on the war in Europe. When did he arrive at that conclusion? Did he know it on the 4th September, 1939? If that was his conviction when he adopted the attitude he did on the 4th September, then it was nothing short of a breach of faith. It was nothing short of deception of the public of this country. And now the Prime Minister comes here and uses this argument, and tells us that what was done on the 4th September was that a resolution was passed in regard to the sending of troops overseas and the employment of our South African forces for defence purposes only—he says that that was the resolution passed by Parliament, and then he denied all responsibility for what had happened and placed it on the Parliament of this country. All I can say in reply to that is that an argument of that kind is nothing but splitting hairs, is nothing but “slimmigheid”—and it is very much akin to dishonesty, but if he wants to put the responsibility on this House and wants to shake all the responsibility off his own shoulders, then I must say that I had expected greater moral courage than that from the Prime Minister. I think that the Prime Minister who proposed this resolution here is fully aware of the fact that he introduced his own motion. In the attitude which the Prime Minister explained on the 4th September, 1939, he laid down his own personal opinion, and he proclaimed his own attitude. He wanted the House to understand it in the way he put it forth, and the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in the circumstances, and in the responsible position in which he finds himself as the Leader of his Party, astounds me when he comes here today and says, “That was not my proposition; it was not the proposition I placed before the House, but it was a resolution for which this House was responsible.” In his speech yesterday he used a totally different argument as to why we should take the action which he proposes, as to why we should conduct a totalitarian war. This is his argument—that if we don’t do so we shall become the subject of the bitter hatred of the other countries of this world. That type of argument is exactly what we expect from the Prime Minister. He is quite able to look at a matter not from a point of view of the interest of South Africa. In any attitude he adopts even if vital questions affecting South Africa are concerned, he always has to look overseas to other countries in the world, he always has to see what other countries have to say about it. That is his usual attitude, and that is why I am not surprised at this argument of his. We have had the example of other countries which have acted differently from the way in which he wants us to act now. There is Ireland, for instance, which is very close to England, and which has kept out of the war and has declared its full neutrality, and I want to ask whether Ireland having acted as she has done is today the subject of hatred by other nations of this world? I have never yet heard that. All I know is that whenever Ireland is mentioned, it is referred to in the terms of the greatest respect, both in this country and anywhere else in the world, because Ireland, whenever it is referred to, is referred to as a country which insists on its own national rights and its own national existence. Why, then, if we had done what Ireland has done, should we have provoked the hatred of the other countries of the world. There are other countries which have done exactly as Ireland has done and which has declared their neutrality. Spain, Portugal and Turkey have done so. Turkey had an alliance with England to fight on England’s side, but so far Turkey has not yet proceeded to participate in the war on England’s side, and yet I have not heard of those countries being hated by other countries with a bitter hatred. But, so says the Prime Minister, there is Holland. Holland will hate us if we act in any different way. The Boer nation were also overwhelmed by the armies of the enemy from across the seas. That was in the Anglo-Boer War. Did Holland in those days take up the attitude that because South Africa was a friendly nation and had close relations with her, and that because South Africa was overwhelmed by another Power, that therefore Holland must also enter the war, and act as South Africa’s protector? Of course, not. Even the deputation from the Boer people which went to Holland was received in a friendly manner, but what did the Holland Government do? It simply gave the deputation the cold shoulder, and it told them that Holland could not do what she was asked to do. Why not? Because the Government of Holland had to look after Holland’s interests, and in view of Holland’s interests which came first and foremost with them, they could not do what they were asked to do, and if we look at South Africa’s interests and put those first and foremost, why, then, should Holland hate us with a bitter hatred? No, arguments of that kind do not hold water. They are nonsensical. Then we have a further argument that we would have been cut off. The sea routes to Africa would have been closed, and where would we have been then? My first reply to that is that Ireland is out of the war. Ireland for all its supplies depends on overseas shipping. I know that Ireland is suffering hardships in regard to the supply of commodities from outside, but are we in any different position? In spite of the fact that we are in this war, and perhaps largely because we are in this war we are in this position today, that while we need certain goods from abroad we simply cannot get them, and those goods which are already in this country are being very severely rationed. To come here and talk as though the sea routes are wide open and as though the British Fleet is protecting us and is making it possible for us to get all we need is pure nonsense. It is not so, and it is not in accordance with the facts. I shall leave it to other members to deal with other points raised by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, and now I want to deal with the second promise which the Prime Minister made, namely, that unless Parliament approved of his request, as placed before the House by him, no troops would be sent overseas. No troops, as he put it in his motion, will be sent overseas. Has the Prime Minister kept that promise? The question was put to him by an hon. member, whether it is a fact that South African forces took part in the war in Greece, and his reply was in the negative. Well, I shall take his word for it that none of our troops took part in the war in Greece, but I want to put a further question now, and it is this—and I wonder whether the Prime Minister can give a satisfactory reply to that. Were any of our forces in Crete? Crete is more a part of Greece than Madagascar is part of Africa, and the question is whether some of our Air Force took part in the battle of Crete? If they did take part in that battle, then I ask if that was not a breach of his promise? I believe he has admitted that our Naval Forces—I know we have no large naval forces—but that some of our minesweepers have disappeared from our waters and have gone up North. I think the Prime Minister will admit that those naval forces were used in the Mediterranean, and were they not used outside the Continent of Africa? I have read, and the Prime Minister can say whether it is true or not, that he has sent a contingent to construct roads outside Africa, in Palestine, in Syria, and in other parts of the Middle East. They went there and they worked there. Well, such contingents and forces, even though they are not combatant forces, are still part of our Army, and they are an important part of our fighting forces. But even more than that. Not so long ago I read the following. It came from the Sapa War Correspondent in Cairo, and the report reads as follows:

This is a non-combatant unit, but it constitutes part of our army and of our fighting forces. And the report goes on to say this—

Does that belong to our fighting forces or not?

That is for nearly the whole period of last year—

And one of the officers even went to London.

Judging from the Prime Minister’s ideas, and judging from his relationship with London, it would seem as if London were in South Africa. [Time limit extended.] So far as Madagascar is concerned, the Prime Minister intimated that the expedition to Madagascar technically was not quite in accordance with what was contemplated by Parliament on the 4th September when war was declared, but he said at the same time that nobody could hold that Madagascar did not belong to the Continent of Africa. One hon. member opposite went so far as to say that there was a geological period millions of years ago when Madagascar actually was part of Africa. Well, it seems to me that they must be pretty well bankrupt so far as arguments are concerned if they have to go back a hundred million years in order to find a reason. Let them go back another hundred and fifty years and they will get back to the days of Noah’s Ark. In those days the whole of the earth was covered by water and there was no Continent, and if that argument is taken to its logical conclusion it would mean that if the Prime Minister sent troops across the Karroo he would be sending troops overseas, and then even that would be a breach of his promise. But such foolish arguments should not be raised in a debate like this.

I did not say that, don’t look at me.

I am glad to notice the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) has more common sense than some people give him credit for. I only want to say this in that connection. There is a pretty serious aspect of the matter in connection with his expedition to Madagascar, apart from the fact that troops were sent overseas, and we cannot just allow that aspect of the matter to pass. Last session I put a question to the Prime Minister in regard to Madagascar, when he gave me the following answer. I asked him whether he contemplated attacking Madagascar, whether there was any truth in the report which had been sent out from Durban that South Africa, together with England and America, had decided to invade Madagascar. To that question the Prime Minister replied as follows—

There were interjections then of “Call it a French Government” and the Prime Minister replied—

That is the point.

But hon. members know that the impression which the Prime Minister wanted to create on that occasion was this—“we are not considering anything of the kind and we are not going to do anything like it unless certain things should happen in the future.” That is what he said and do hon. members know what the facts are? Do hon. members know that at the very moment when the Prime Minister made that statement troops from England had been at sea for three weeks for the purpose of attacking Madagascar? I base my statement on the declaration made by Mr. Churchill. When the Prime Minister made that statement in this House the troops from England had been at sea for three weeks, according to Mr. Churchill, to go and attack Madagascar, and our Prime Minister knew nothing about it. Mr. Churchill said a very serious thing about himself. In the course of a debate in the British House of Commons he made a certain statement regarding a war front which was going to be opened, he made a statement which was not true. And he was told this, “But look here, you did not tell the truth” and his reply was, “Yes, I know I lied, but I was justified in lying.” That was his excuse. That is what he said. If the Prime Minister had told us that he was not prepared to give us any information, or that the information would be of a military nature and that he did not think it was in the interest of the country or in the interest of the war effort to do so I would have had no objection. He could have said that he was not prepared to give us any information.

And his refusal to give information would in itself have been information.

In other words, the hon. member for Kensington who a little while ago wanted us to believe that this whole business about Madagascar was beneath him, is quite prepared to take up the attitude that the Prime Minister should not have said that he could not give us any information, because the fact of his saying so would have given us information, and that he was therefore justified in lying to us. That is what it amounts to. All I can say is that that is the kind of war morality which is created by the war. It is the kind of war morality which the world is suffering from today, and it is the kind of thing which we recently came across in the statements made by the Archbishop of the Russian Orthodox Church, that although the church in Russia had been destroyed by Stalin, although religion had been banished and active propaganda had been made against religion by the Government, and more particularly against Christianity through Christ having been declared to be Enemy No. 1—that Archbishop declared that Stalin had been blessed by the Lord. That is the kind of war morality which the world is saddled with today, and with which it may be saddled for long years to come. Now, the Prime Minister made a further promise, a promise about the arming of the nonEuropeans. Let me quote to the House what the Prime Minister actually said on this subject. His statement was made as the result of objections raised in this House against the declaration by the former Minister, Col. Deneys Reitz, and by the hon. member’ for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha), that the non-Europeans should be armed in this war. The Prime Minister’s reply was as follows:—

That was a declaration of policy by the Prime Minister, that no matter what might happen in other parts of the world, so far as South Africa was concerned we must not arm the coloured population or the native population of this country. That is how he spoke at the time of the Anglo-Boer War and that is what is recorded in reports which he sent to the State President of the Transvaal. And that is the attitude which he should even adopt today. But what did he say not so very long ago? In the course of another debate he made these remarks—

And then we had this qualification — he started opening the back door. He told us that numerous members had approached him in order to persuade him to arm the nonEuropeans, and he went on to say this—

And there we found the Prime Minister opening the back door, so as to break the promises he had made to this House. Last year he went still further and he said this—

And now we have reached this position, that neither the Prime Minister nor any member behind him can deny that coloured troops have been sent up North and that they are taking part there in the campaign as armed forces. The Prime Minister even went so far as to say that if we refused to do so we must be bereft of our senses. All I can say is—where does the Prime Minister stand today as compared with the attitude which he adopted as recently as the 15th April, 1941, on this very matter? He has completely departed from that attitude. He has broken his promise, and a more serious thing than a breach of that promise can hardly be imagined in South Africa. Now the last point I want to deal with is this. In the amendment which I have moved I point out that we see something developing in our own country, that a development is going on here which constitutes a serious danger to this country. For that reason we not only refuse to send our troops outside the Continent of Africa, to make them take part in a totalitarian war on any front; we not only refuse to make them available for any front which may be opened up from time to time, but we say that we must start thinking of South Africa. We must start thinking of the serious danger which is developing here in South Africa. I say that the time has come when the Prime Minister must start thinking of South Africa and of what is developing here. We have the danger here in South Africa. We are faced with a danger here in South Africa, and in my amendment I am not exaggerating the position—I am not saying too much when I say this—South Africa’s troops and fighting forces are needed more urgently in South Africa today than in any other part of Africa or the world. The Prime Minister is responsible for that. His non-European armament policy is responsible for that; the Communistic propaganda which is being carried on unchecked in this country is responsible for that. The Prime Minister is responsible for it. If it were not for his armament policy, if he had not adopted the policy of arming natives and coloured people, if he had not given free rein to those Communist activities which we behold in this country today, that danger would not have existed. It certainly would not have existed to the extent that it exists now. If the danger of disturbances and troubles has arisen in South Africa, it is the Prime Minister’s fault. After the last war we saw disturbances take place in this country. We know that we had strike after strike in South Africa, and we remember only too well that the Prime Minister called out the troops and that in 1922 he shot down the workers. We had disorders and troubles in this country, but the troubles which are developing today are of a different nature largely; they are of a much more serious nature, but they are troubles also which have been caused by his own doings, and by his own actions. Let me first of all refer to the spirit which for the first time is being displayed on such a large scale by the coloured people arid the natives of this country. Let me quote a resolution which amid cheers was passed unanimously at a large meeting held in the City Hall in Cape Town in March last. It was a meeting attended also by a few Europeans—unfortunately, they were the leaders—they were mostly people who had drifted into this country from overseas and who should long since have been put out of the country. Mainly, however, the people attending the meeting were coloured men and natives, and I want hon. members to listen to this resolution:

That was the demand made by this large meeting of non-Europeans in the Cape Town City Hall, and that is the spirit which has been displayed at numerous other similar meetings which have been held in all the Provinces of the Union. And that is not all. Strikes have taken place, serious strikes among coloureds and natives. There has been a serious strike in Durban, a more serious strike in Johannesburg, and the most serious of all resulted in disorders in Pretoria. What happened there? These happenings of the Red Lights are the danger signal on the course of South Africa. They are the little clouds in the sky announcing the coming storm, and what has the Government done so far? The Government has shown the greatest weakness. Naturally it cannot do anything else, because we are Russia’s Ally, and that is why the Government is being stampeded. We have seen for ourselves what has happened. The Minister of Labour announces that higher wages are to be paid to natives in the employ of Municipal Councils. The Municipal Council of Johannesburg and other Municipal Councils approached the Minister of Labour and asked him to postpone the increase of wages for the reason that if it has to be applied at that particular time of the year it is going to create disruption in their finances. They could not introduce the system at once. What happened? The City Council of Johannesburg gave way to the agitation among the natives, and, in spite of the postponement which has been granted, they introduced higher wages. They gave way. The Minister of Labour with his usual irresponsibility and lack of discretion proceeded to tell the other Municipalities and Councils: “I also gave you an extension of time, but I am now withdrawing that extension.” The disturbances in Pretoria were the result, and they led to bloodshed. I say again that all these happenings are merely the clouds in the sky announcing the coming storm. The Government has appointed a planning council. That Council has recently produced its report on the question as to the provision that is being made to prevent unemployment at the end of the war, and what does that report say? They calculate that after the war there will be no fewer than 230,000 unemployed for whom provision will have to be made, and for whom the Government will have to devise plans in order to find them employment. 230,000! Instead of making proper provision for the employment of those people, the Planning Council says that so far only 15,000 people are being provided for instead of 230,000, and of those 230,000 the Planning Council calculates that 120,000 will be non-Europeans. 120,000 unemployed non-Europeans! Possibly the Government is making provision for certain numbers of people, but it will not provide for all of them, and 120,000 non-Europeans will at the end of the war find themselves without work. Large numbers of them will say: “You required our services when the war was on and now we need you; where are you.” They are being stirred up by Communistic propaganda, they are demanding rights, equal rights; they are being stirred up by people who to a large extent come from outside the Union, and their cry is; “Away with the Colour Bar in every sphere of life.” They are told about a revolution which has to take place in South Africa, a Black Revolution. I ask hon. members what the condition is which we are going to have at the end of the war, and I ask them who is responsible. It is the Prime Minister with his armanent policy and with his allowing unchecked Communistic propaganda among the non-Europeans. All I can say is that in. South Africa’s history, with the exception of Milner and Rhodes, we have not had any public men with more blood on their conscience than the present Prime Minister, and as a result of his armament policy for coloureds and natives, and if as a result of his allowing unchecked Communistic agitation South Africa is converted into a welter of blood in days to come, the fault will be his.

I second the amendment of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan). May I say immediately that I have never heard the Prime Minister propose a weak case so weakly as he did in this House yesterday when he proposed his motion. We expected that with the galleries filled with his supporters and in the flush of victory, which the newspapers have assured us is already achieved, that under such circumstances he would defend his case with customary fire. But it was peculiar that from beginning to end he was obviously busy trying to convince himself, because when he resumed his seat he himself still felt that he had not advocated a good cause. It was also noticeable that members on his side, who generally do their duty towards the Prime Minister, applauded only twice, the first time when he got up and before he said anything, and the second time—and there I agreed—when he mentioned Gen. Pienaar. But when the Prime Minister sat down they even forgot to sound their “hear, hear,” because evidently they had still heard nothing. I agree with the Prime Minister, however, that the matter now under discussion, namely South Africa’s participation in the war, still remains the most important matter for the people and for this House. Other important matters will be discussed here, but this is the most important, because we know that the war affects every man, woman and child in the country, and for that reason it is so necessary that we express our opinion clearly and unambiguously on the subject. The people—and by that I mean every truly genuine Afrikaner, either English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking—feel that a breach of faith has been committed against them since 4th September 1939, from beginning to end, and that the game has never been played with the people. In great praise of our people we can say that notwithstanding everything, notwithstanding the provocation they have experienced, they have behaved themselves calmly and quietly. We know that under similar circumstances, perhaps less difficult circumstances in the past, greater trouble has taken place, and it redounds to the honour of our people that they behaved themselves calmly and quietly. The gratitude of the country in this connection is also due to the Opposition Parties which have done their best to keep the people so calm. Greater trouble would undoubtedly have taken place in South Africa, were it not for the action of the Opposition. We deplore the fact that there are young Afrikaners today who transgress the laws, and who do things they would never have done in normal circumstances. We disapprove of this strongly, but what we add is that the Government, to our regret, is responsible even more than others for the fact that young Afrikaners have landed in gaol, and are there treated like criminals. The people have every reason to feel dissatisfied at the way they have been misled and their feelings ignored. I want to point immediately to the different directions in which the Government has committed breach of faith. I do not want to repeat what the hon. member for Piketberg has already said, but I want to touch on certain aspects of the matter. In the first place, the Government has committed breach of faith towards the people, in that the Government of which the Prime Minister was not only a member, but in those days deputy-Leader, gave the people the assurance before the war, through the medium of the Minister of Defence, that it is the policy of the Government to remain neutral if in any way possible. The policy was very clearly set out, and the whole country knew what the policy of the Government was.

When was that?

On 6th May, 1936.

And must that bind us three years later?

The Prime Minister was a member of the Cabinet at that time, and he and the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) agreed, and the country and the people were under a definite impression regarding the policy of the Government.

What did Hitler do in the meantime?

The policy was that we should not participate in any war, except where the true interests of South Africa make participation inevitable. We remember how, with reference to the war of 1914-1918, the argument was that we could not remain out of the war because we were part of the British Empire, and because England had at that time declared war we also had to go into the war. For the precise purpose of giving the people the assurance that South Africa is an independent country and that we should not have a repetition of 1914, and that we were not bound to go into the war simply because England had declared war, it was laid down and the people were given the assurance that we would participate only if participation became inevitable on account of the interests of South Africa. The declaration was generally accepted, and the present Prime Minister and all the members there submitted to it. What has happened now?

Parliament had taken a decision.

Yes, it was stipulated that we would not participate in the war, except when it becomes inevitable, and then only if Parliament gives an unambiguous mandate thereto with the greatest possible unanimity. Surely there is nobody on the other side of the House who will allege that our participation on 4th September, 1939, was inevitable. There is surely also no one who will say that Parliament has given an unambiguous mandate with the greatest possible unanimity. The people have reason to believe that they have been misled. Have we ever had an occasion where Parliament was so divided as on 4th September, 1939? The whole Opposition unanimously, as one man, voted against the proposal, and of the Government Party of the time 38 members, more than the majority of the Government Party, also voted against, and among them was the Prime Minister of the day and four of his Ministers. Dare you still talk, then, of an unambiguous mandate? The people were misled. No unambiguous instruction was given for the war. Never in the life of Parliament was there such a clear division as at that time, and the people therefore have the fullest right to say that breach of faith has been committed against them. No, the only reason why we had to go into the war was that England desired it, that the interests of the Empire demanded it. We have been in the war for four years, and I ask anyone if it is not clearer today than ever that South Africa did not have the least interest in going to war. The longer the war lasts the clearer it becomes that we should never have participated, and that we should withdraw as early as possible. The only argument adduced by the Prime Minister yesterday as to why we had to go into the war, was that Hitler was striving after world domination. That is the old threadbare argument and yesterday he could again not progress beyond that argument. He could find no other argument as to why we had to participate. As proof he stated that Holland and Belgium and other countries had been attacked and overwhelmed. But if that is the proof, then we can also deduce from the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday that he himself is striving after world domination. He mentioned West Africa and East Africa and how we had conquered South-West Africa in the previous war and how in this war Abyssinia has been conquered, and how in the North Tripoli has been occupied, and how we are busy cleaning up the whole North Africa, and how we occupied Madagascar, and how he is going, to fight and is looking for a place to fight—he does not even know where he is going to fight. Cannot we therefore accuse the Prime Minister on this basis of striving after world domination? The second breach of faith that he committed against the people of South Africa was that it had been clearly stated, by the Prime Minister himself, that there would be no actual participation by South Africa in the war. The hon. member for Piketberg has already gone into this. We were clearly brought under the impression that there would merely be a severance of the relations with Germany and a passive declaration of war, nothing more. On that understanding some members voted for the war—that there would be no active participation. That is the second breach of faith committed against the people. Then I come to the third occasion of breach of faith, and that is the clear announcement that South Africa would only act defensively. We would under no circumstance do more than merely defend South Africa. We know wat discussions were conducted here on the question as to how far our troops would go, whether to the boundaries of the Union or farther afield. The Prime Minister himself determined how far in his opinion troops could go under the Defence Act, viz. to the highlands of Kenya. That was the farthest. So far they would go. But when it suited his purpose, he, as he said himself, “stretched a point.” He extended the highlands of Kenya to the coast of North Africa and later extended it towards the right-hand side and even included Madagascar. In this respect the people were again misled. We were never to have acted offensively, only defensively, but the Prime Minister committed a breach of faith. The Prime Minister’s excuse is that he is not a prophet and could not see on 4th September what would happen. It is precisely our criticism that at the juncture when he got Parliament to vote for his proposal, and when he persuaded South Africa to his standpoint, that it was in the interests of South Africa to declare war, that he then, notwithstanding what might happen, declared war, but with the promise and condition that South Africa would in no circumstances act otherwise than defensively and in the interests of South Africa. When it suited his purpose, the Prime Minister broke that promise. We often hear of honour and duty or about doing this or that. It is the duty of the Prime Minister to act in such a way that the people of South Africa can accept his word. The honour of the Prime Minister is at stake. A fourth accusation of breach of faith that is brought against the Government is that the Prime Minister broke the clear and solemn promise that no native and coloured troops would be armed. The hon. member for Piketberg has gone into that matter, but I want to return to it briefly. We all know how strong the feeling is among English-speaking as well as Afrikaans-speaking South Africans that no natives or coloureds should be armed, particularly in a struggle between Europeans and Europeans. We know that the Prime Minister was opposed to this in the Anglo-Boer War, and we know how at that time he described it as a crime to arm coloured troops. I agree with him. It was a crime in those days and it is a crime today to arm coloureds, particularly in a war between white and white. We know how strong the feeling is, particularly among the Afrikaans-speaking people, in connection with the maintenance of the colour bar. And I ask what will happen if coloureds and natives are armed, if they are put in the same uniform as the Europeans, if they salute the officers in the same way as the Europeans and if the officers must return the salute in the same way. There we have equality. If the Government has gone too far in anything, then it is undoubtedly where it allowed natives and coloureds to participate in the war on this basis. Now the natives and coloureds are beginning to put demands, as the hon. member for Piketberg has mentioned They feel that where they have worn the same uniform, and have fought for the same purpose, there they can claim the rights that the Europeans possess, and in this we place the European civilisation of which we are so proud in the greatest danger. Here coloureds are being armed under the leadership of the Prime Minister, a former Boer General, while the Boer people have been disarmed, while the European farmers on the platteland had to part with their weapons. He arms natives and coloureds and disarms the Europeans. That should never have been allowed and that is one of the things which the Prime Minister will yet deeply regret. I would like to read what the Prime Minister said at that time. I find it in col. 5262 of Hansard of 1941—

In the same speech he said—

What does the Prime Minister say today? Today we know that he no longer maintains the position he took up at that time. At that time he realised that it would be fatal to arm coloureds and natives. It is a tradition of the boer nation and of every right-thinking Afrikaner that it must never happen that coloureds and natives are armed, particularly in the fight between white and white, and certainly not in the circumstances under which it is happening today. Have we degenerated to such an extent that we must arm coloureds and natives and must call in their help to defend South Africa? I really hope that we have not sunk so low. In England the colour bar has disappeared. It is practically non-existent. In America they already have a negro general participating in the war. In New Zealand the Maoris—the aborigines of that country—fight shoulder to shoulder with the European troops. In France there is absolute equality as regards the military forces, and what is the position going to be in South Africa? No, it is part of the price that South Africa must pay for participating in the war that we today are in danger that here will be equality in our country, that the Kaffir and the coloured will be placed on an equal footing with the white man. I ask the Prime Minister to revert to the policy which he announced to us in April, 1941, when he told us that the Government had decided that Coloureds and natives would be permitted to take part in the war but that it was out of the question that they would be armed, and that they would be given duties outside the fighting line. But what is the position now? Does the Prime Minister want to deny that they are inside the fighting lines in the North and that they are being allowed to load cannon? We are told that they are being used on Robben Island to man the batteries. Will he deny that coloured and native guards are being appointed to guard Italian prisoners-of-war? They are being appointed to guard Italians in their camps, and is it not scandalous to think that our Government is using natives and coloureds to stand sentinel over a European race? They are being placed in a position of authority over Europeans, and what does the Prime Minister expect of those non-Europeans when they return? Will they be satisfied to be subsidiary as in the past; will they return to the farms to revert to their old farm work? Certainly not. They have been placed on an equal footing with the Europeans by the Government; they have even been placed in a position of authority over Europeans, and they will certainly not be satisfied to occupy again the positions which they previously held in the country. If there is one thing that will yet yield South Africa bitter fruits, then it is this unfortunate policy of the Government to arm coloureds and natives in this war. I can only say to the Prime Minister that the Boer nation will not permit those sacrifices made by our antecedents in the past to be nullified in this way; they will not allow the sacrifices to make this a whiteman’s land and to enable European civilisation to triumph, to be trod underfoot because the Government places natives and coloureds on a footing of equality with the Europeans. If ever the Government has committed a fatal mistake for South Africa, then it has done so here. I come to the fifth case of serious breach of faith on the part of the Prime Minister, and that is the proposal made by the Prime Minister that our Afrikaner sons, and I take it also Afrikaner daughters, must now be satisfied not only to go and fight anywhere in Africa, but must also be prepared to fight anywhere in the world. We have on previous occasions heard arguments on where the boundaries of the country are, how it was necessary to go even to Kenya to defend our boundaries. We know how things have progressed ever Northwards. Now the whole position is clear. It is now no longer a defensive war, but we now have to do with an aggressive war on the part of South Africa. If we now ask the Prime Minister for what we fight, he can no longer give the answer he gave in the past. In the past he always said that we are sending our sons outside our boundaries to fight for the defence of Africa, and that it is in the interests of South Africa to do so. But now I ask the Prime Minister: Why must our sons and daughters be sent overseas—he himself does not know where. He makes me think of a saying about the Irish that they do not know what they want but are prepared to sacrifice their lives for it. The Prime Minister does not really know for what he is fighting, but he is prepared to sacrifice South Africa’s son and daughters for it, and he does not even know where. All he knows is that it is in the interests of the Empire, and they must go and fight where the interests of the Empire demand it. He is responsible for the fact that the Afrikaner people will always have to listen to the charge that they twice declared war on a nation that was friendly and well-disposed towards us, and that without the least reason, for we have done so only because of a slavish feeling of subjugation towards a nation that has always been the suppressor of the Afrikaner people. Let the Prime Minister be honest and tell the people outside that we have gone into the war because England has gone into it, and that we remain in the war because England remains in it, and because we want to be subjugated by England; let him say clearly to South Africa that we are sending our sons and daughters overseas—we do not even know where—because England wants it. That is honestly the position, and if the Prime Minister would do this then he would bring matters much nearer actuality and the truth. South Africa is looked upon by him and his side of the House as a subsidiary part of the British Empire. To put it better still—South Africa is the spare part —and must go with England wherever England goes. We must not forget that it was not Germany who had declared war, but South Africa and England who declared war against Germany. We are the people who sought the trouble. First it was said that we must defend our country. That argument has no force today, for by no stretch of imagination can we say that the boundaries of the Union stretch into Europe. Therefore I say that South Africa is not fighting a defensive war, she is now fighting an aggressive war against a country which was well disposed towards her.

Can you tell us why America is in the war?

The people are misled. It was said that we would participate in the war only in a passive sense and not in an active sense, that we would only defend our country, that we would act only defensively and would not send trops overseas. All that has now been thrown overboard. The Prime Minister proposed on 4th December 1939—

That was the emphatic condition put by the Prime Minister, and on the ground of that condition many members voted for his proposal. That is also what the people outside were told, that we would not again send military forces overseas as in the past. That was said not only by the Prime Minister, but I want to quote also what other responsible members on the other side have said. The Minister of Finance has said—he also made it very clear how he views the war and in what spirit he voted for the proposal of the Prime Minister—

May I pay members on the other side the compliment that they have always stood guard here. They are still standing guard in South Africa. They will never go and fight. That is what the Minister of Finance has said. That was his impression. But the Minister of Agriculture also took part in the debate, and let me say that I have the greatest respect for the Minister of Agriculture as an Afrikaner who did his duty in the Boer War from beginning to end, and I know that he meant honestly what he said on this occasion—

But now take an ordinary member on the other side, the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) who took part in the debate. We know that he takes part in every debate. He said that he supported the proposal of the Prime Minister and that he supported the decision in the same spirit as the Minister of Justice—

It was generally accepted by Ministers and members that there would be a declaration of war, but that not a single man would be sent overseas. There can be no doubt in the minds of anyone that we have to deal here with a reprehensible case of breach of faith against the people, where the Prime Minister now proposes that military forces must be sent overseas. Now that South Africa is evidently out of danger and now that we are on the point, as the Prime Minister says, to sweep everything clear in Africa, now we must send people overseas. That is a prostitution of the previous proposal of the Prime Minister, and he has no right to propose this motion to the House today. If the Prime Minister persists in this, the people will no longer attach any value to the word of the Government. The people will begin to doubt the good faith of the Government, and if this sort of thing goes on we need no longer be surprised if people begin saying that the Parliamentary system is outworn. The Prime Minister is a strong champion of democracy, a system which I also support, but this action of his is the cause that people are beginning to cultivate the opinion that democracy is obsolete. When breach of faith is committed in this way, against decisions of Parliament, it cannot be otherwise. I want to ask the Prime Minster, however, to give further elucidation of what he said here yesterday. What precisely is going to be the position of those who have already joined up and are already members of our military forces? When the period of four years for which they have attested has expired, and the four years have now almost expired, must they take a new oath, since after those four years they will be free? Will they all be permitted to say voluntarily whether they want to withdraw from the army, or will that apply only to those who are prepared to take the further oath? What I mean is this, will these people be permitted to withdraw if they wish or will they be compelled to remain on even though they are not compelled to go overseas? The second question I would like to put is, who will pay the troops who go overseas? The reason why I put this question is that in the previous war England paid the troops. We only paid the difference between the allowance that England paid them and what we paid our troops. I would like to know from the Prime Minister, since South Africa’s interests are at stake here, if the country in whose interests they are going to fight will pay the troops.

You don’t mind their blood being sacrificed; only our money must not be sacrificed.

I am not in any sense in favour of any single one of them going. The third question is whether those who are not prepared to sign the new oath will receive the same rights and privileges as those who are going to sign? I can scarcely follow the argument which the Prime Minister employed yesterday. He said that he had given special instructions in this case that it must be absolutely voluntary if they go overseas. He had said, that this would now be a Parliamentary decision, which it was not in the past. Previously it was merely the word of the Government that he would only use volunteers. Is it then more binding when it is a decision of Parliament; were we right then when we said that those people had not gone voluntarily and that they were being compelled in all sorts of ways to join up? It is clear that those people were not volunteers, and I am glad to learn that in this instance it will be seen to that only actual volunteers will go. May I suggest something to the Prime Minister? If he will allow that a person who signs on can withdraw within a month, then we can look upon that person as a volunteer. It has happened in the past that a Justice of the Peace comes to a young man; he persuades him, and the man signs the oath. The following day the person comes to his senses and he tries to free himself, and then he is told that he cannot do this and that he will be brought up for perjury. The right ought to be reserved that a person may decide within a month—I do not want to put the period longer—whether he wants to withdraw or not. In principle we object to any person being sent overseas so long as he is sent at the expense of the Union Government. It is their own concern. What surprises me is that there are so many people who support the war effort and who still sit here in this country. They can go voluntarily with the greatest pleasure in the world, and every facility can be extended to them. But then South Africa must not pay for it, but the land for which they really fight, and in this case it is England, must pay. If this can be arranged, we have not the slightest objection to it. The Prime Minister’ said it would be a crime to say to our sons that they must now go home because we have got what we fought for. In my turn I say it will be a crime, while it is acknowledged that South Africa’s defence no longer requires it—that there was a time when defence was more necessary than now—that a single Afrikaner son should be sent overseas to shed his blood in the interests of England. It is a crime to compel Afrikaner sons by all sorts of methods of compulsion to go and fight there. We are now busy with a war of aggression and no longer with a war of defence. Let those who are English-inclined go and fight. For that no oath should be necessary. The Prime Minister has told us that he is now so proud of Stalin that he takes his hat off to him, “for how has he not fought for the freedom of humanity”! I can understand the Prime Minister raising his hat to Stalin. I can also understand England doing so, because Stalin has saved them. If Stalin was not there the war would long since have been over. But just imagine, Stalin fights for the freedom of humanity! Is it possible that the Prime Minister of South Africa can welcome it and believe it that Russian Bolsheviks are fighting in the interests of humanity. Are they fighting for democracy and Christianity? Certainly not. Stalin makes no secret of this. He is fighting for his ideal of Bolshevism, and that is the greatest danger not only to the world but also to South Africa; I would say particularly to South Africa, because we have a great native population. I can visualise the day when Germany and England and other countries will yet have to stand together—there will again be a Casablanca—to bring them together to act against Russian Bolshevism. In his speech yesterday the Prime Minister asked what the position of South Africa would have been if this House had voted differently on 4th September. I want to reply to that. We all feel that South Africa would have been a happy and prosperous country. We would have had all the advantages of the war and none of the disadvantages. We would have had that instead of strife and division, instead of the malice which is the cause of Afrikaners today sitting in gaol. We would have had that instead of a country going bankrupt because millions and millions in taxation are being taken from the people and in addition millions and millions are being loaded on posterity, and that moreover with a post-war period in prospect. That is the contrast to the prosperity which we might have had. But we had to participate in this war on behalf of the British Empire! England would have come here to fetch the commodities she requires. No country takes anything from another unless she needs it, and those nations would in that way have come here to buy what they require. England goes to buy in the Argentine. The Argentine is outside the war and is not so well-disposed towards England, and yet England goes to the Argentine and gets everything she needs. Why should she not have done the same towards us? No, if we had remained outside the war, we would have had all the advantages. Committees are now being appointed everywhere and announcements are being made of what all will be done to make the people happy after the war. If we had remained outside the war, it would not have been necessary for us to wait. We could have commenced building up immediately a South Africa in which there would have been happiness and welfare for all sections of the population. We are now developing industrially, but we would have had a much sounder development if we had remained outside the war. We would in fact have had the money for it. If we had used a quarter of the money spent on the war we could have developed our industries to make our people happy and to prepare ourselves for the post-war days of depression. No, I am glad that the Prime Minister has put that question because I can give him the assurance that if we had remained out of the war we would have had a happy and prosperous people. Think of the losses our people are suffering today; think of the labour power, the initiative and the brains of the hundreds of thousands who are taking part in the war. All that could have been used for building up our land and people. Those people should all have been here instead of taking part in the war conducted in the interests of another country. I want to repeat what I have so often said before. We want to withdraw from this war, not because we are anti-British or pro-German, but because it is not in the interests of South Africa to proceed with this war. We place ourselves only on that standpoint and from that standpoint the amendment of the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) is completely right. We should never have gone into the war, and the sooner we withdraw from it the better. The only advantage we have got out of this war is that all who are not imperialistic realise in South Africa today that the only way to keep ourselves out of the wars of the Empire is to obtain a free and independent republic here in South Africa.

I think it was Voltaire who said of an opponent of his: “I disagree with every word that he is saying, but I will go to the stake for his right to say it!” I could not help thinking this afternoon as I listened to the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) that we were seeing in this House Democracy at its best. Here in the middle of a great war the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence, has come to Parliament to ask for permission to send South African troops overseas, and the Leader of the Opposition not only is permitted to get up and say his piece against that, but when he reaches the time limit prescribed by the Rules of the House an extension is freely conceded to him, an extension which could be debarred by the veto of any private member of this House. In other words, we disagree most profoundly with every word which the hon. member is saying, but we will go to the stake for his right to say it. That is Democracy, that is the Parliamentary system under which we are living. That is the system which we preach, and that is the system which the very philosophy behind this Motion is intended to maintain and preserve. Possibly, without knowing it, the hon. getleman is voting this afternoon against a measure calculated to preserve the very system under which he was born, under which he has grown up, under which he is sitting here this afternoon, and under which, I think, he prays to God every night he will die. I listened as usual with great respect, great care and attention, to both the hon. member and his seconder. What did their speeches amount to? Two hours in the sum total in attack on the Prime Minister of this country, two hours of petty accusations against him, accusations of faith breaking. I shall endeavour at a later stage to deal with at least two of these accusations; I cannot deal with them all. But of a real appreciation of the war position, of a real appreciation of the position of South Africa in regard to the war, these hon. members gave no sign. These two hon. members really are the same blind guides that they have always been in this regard. I wondered that the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) should dare to intervene in this debate at all, and should dare to talk on a war motion. He is the hon. member who will never be forgotten—for he is the expert on poultry. He knows all about the habits of the farm yard. Two years ago when the war position was at its blackest he stood up here and said: “Britan has lost the war, but she is like a fowl with its head chopped off; it goes round flopping about the farm yard; it is dead but it does not know it.”

She does not know it yet.

That fowl is still flopping around the farm yard, and the hon. member for Pietersburg is still making the same speeches on the war, without even having the good sense to acknowledge how wrong he and his friends have been for the last three years. The hon. member who moved the motion, two years ago, was saying this: “Britain has already lost the war; it is not only probable but certain that Britain’s power is being broken.”

And it is so.

And six months ago he was saying this: “Stalingrad, the fall of which is imminent, means the elimination of Russia as an important factor in the war.” But now he and his friends are taking a different line. They say now: “Russia is winning the war.” Hence the danger, as the hon. member for Piketberg sees it, of Bolshevism to this and other countries. Six months ago, according to hon. members over there, Russia was being eliminated. Today Russia is winning the war. Another hon. member, the Leader of the New Order Group, said this—this was in August, 1940, “It was no longer a question of whether the Allies were going to win or lose, it was a question of whether there would be unconditional surrender, or whether more or less satisfactory terms could be fought for. And then the hon. member who leads the Opposition on war matters, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), said “British Somaliland has surrendered, the Allies will lose more and more, and they will go from flight to flight. The war is lost.” These are the gentlemen who are this afternoon proposing to lead the country in the matter of war policy, and who give us advice as to how we should fight and act. These are the gentlemen who, themselves declining to fight and advising their followers to decline to fight ….

And that from those benches—you talk about declining to fight!

Well, the hon. member himself has never had any experience of fighting; he has never made any attempt to fight except from a Bush Cart. Don’t let him talk to me about fighting; I don’t think he has ever carried a rifle in his life. Those are the gentlemen who themselves, and for their followers; while declining to fight, are now holding up to vilification the coloured inhabitants of South Africa, who have done their bit on every front. I remember that when my son came back from captivity in Eritrea he told me this: “The finest service I have seen in this war was done by the coloured motor drivers, the South African coloured motor drivers, who wear the orange flash. In the face of incredible difficulties and the greatest dangers and under constant fire they never let us down.” I say that South Africa can be proud of what some of its coloured troops have done, although they were not armed and although they did not fight. Well, sir, what was the speech of the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) ? As I say it was one long rhodomontade against the Prime Minister, accusing him of the studied and constant breach of all his promises in regard to the war. Now, sir, the House will not give me the indulgence that it gave to the hon. member, and even if it would I would not claim the same time to reply to him that he has taken to attack the Prime Minister. But what I do propose to do is to pick out some of the instances that he has given and show how demonstrably untrue are his accusations against the Prime Minister. I am going to take all three cases mentioned. The first promise he says, was the promise that we would merely break off relations with Germany, and that we would not go to war with her. The second promise that he said the Prime Minister broke was that he would not send troops overseas, and the third that we would not arm the non-Europeans. Let me deal with this first charge. The first breach of promise he says occurred two days after the promise was made; he said in other words, that the Prime Minister led this House and the country into a trap on the 4th September, and two days later he broke a solemn promise. Now what does he say the promise amounted to? He says that all that the Prime Minister asked this House to do on the 4th September was to break off diplomatic relations with Germany, and he did not say a word about war, he never told this country we were going to war with Germany; all that we were asked to do was to break off diplomatic relations with Germany, and then adopt a state of nonbelligerency. He gave instances of certain South American republics which he said had quite recently broken off relations with Germany, but had not gone to war. Then the hon. member said that two days later, without coming back to this House, without consulting the country we suddenly found ourselves at war with Germany. There, he said, was the first breach of faith. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. gentleman in this House for the last three and a half years, I have replied to him on occasions, I have studied his speeches, I do not think he has made a single speech on the war that I have not listened to, and I think I am right in saying that this is the first occasion that this particular charge has ever been made. He did not come back to Parliament in the following Session of 1940 and make this charge; when we asked for money to be voted for the active prosecution of the war he did not say “Oh no, I am not going to vote for it because you misled us, because you made promises that are not fulfilled.” No, sir, he has waited till this afternoon to make that charge, and I have only to mention that to show how hollow, how insincere that charge is. I can go much further, I can show from what actually took place that the whole charge is a trumpery one, and there is no substance in it. The hon. gentleman to make his case has quoted certain passages from the speech of the Prime Minister then Minister of Justice on September 4, 1939. I will refer to those passages, and I will show what he went on to say. This is the passage—

That is the passage that my hon. friend quoted. He went on—

Sir, what does he say there? Our active participation in the way in which we participated in the last war may not be possible. He meant that we could not at this stage engage to send troops overseas. He said we should have our hands pretty full in Africa, and so they were. Let me go on—

Then a little later there is another passage which my hon. friend did not read—

Nothing more.

I am now going to show how my hon. friends took the resolution which the Prime Minister moved pursuant to that speech. He reads that merely as a declaration of non-belligerency.

We knew our man.

The hon. member for Piketberg also spoke on the 4th September after the present Prime Minister. Listen to this—

I say the hon. gentleman is playing with words, he is paltering with a serious subject if he now comes, three and a half years afterwards, and says that all that he understood the resolution and the speech of the Prime Minister to mean, was that we would draw our skirts around us and take no part in the war as a belligerent. We don’t expect him to palter with the House or his party and the country on a subject such as this. And then he goes on to say at a later stage in reply to Mr. Heaton Nicholls, who took part in the debate, that “a considerable number of English-speaking people in South Africa did not want to see South Africa drawn into the war.” In other words, as I have shown, this was a resolution framed and intended to draw South Africa into the war. It was so proclaimed by gentlemen opposite from every hilltop and every platform in South Africa, yet now he says: “We were misled, the Prime Minister did not mean that and did not say it, and two days later he broke faith.” I repeat that this point which is now made has been made for the first time in this House today, a point we have never heard of before, and a point without any substance whatever. The second accusation of bad faith relates to Madagascar. Well, Sir, we had a full discussion on Madagascar the other afternoon, and we need not go over the same ground again. Let me reassure my hon. friend opposite. I based no argument myself on the fact that in remote geological ages Madagascar was part of the African Continent. What I did say was this, that geographically speaking—in the eyes of a geographer—Madagascar is as much a part of Africa as Tasmania is part of Australia. I am not going over that again, we had that out the other afternoon, but I am now going to deal with the specific accusation of bad faith arising out of the question that he says he put to the Prime Minister some time ago. Now, Sir, it was not a question put by way of formal question and answer, but a question put in the course of debate. The hon. gentleman this afternoon has deliberately accused the Prime Minister of giving him and the country on this occasion false information, false to his knowledge. I say there is not a word of truth in that. This took place on March 11th last year, three months after Japan had come into the war, and when Japan had already taken Singapore. Yes, Singapore fell in February, and the Japanese had overrun practically the whole of the Netherlands Indies and New Guinea and were reaching out arms towards Australia. In these circumstances the hon. gentleman asked the Prime Minister a question about Madagascar. The Prime Minister said—

Now see how the Opposition took that; they did not take it as an unconditional undertaking not to attack Madagascar, because the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) at once interjected—

Then the Prime Minister went on—

That has been the attitude of my hon. friend for the last three and a half years; why anticipate, why not wait until the enemy is on your doorstep! I proceed with my quotation—

What the hon. member for Piketberg did not tell the House was that very shortly after that we did break off relations with the Vichy Government, and the French Minister had to leave this country. What he did not tell the House also, or rather he did tell the House, that at this time there was an expedition from Great Britain making for the northern shores of Madagascar, in which we had no lot or part. That expedition landed and took a French port in northern Madagascar, and having done that it remained quiet there for three months. Then, sir, six months after this declaration was made, after we had broken relations with the Vichy Government, it was found necessary to place ourselves in military possession of the whole of Madagascar, and then, and then only, did the Prime Minister send a brigade of our troops to take part in that expedition. How anybody but a politician absolutely blinded by political prejudice could base on this an accusation of ill-faith against the Prime Minister is utterly beyond me. Let me deal with Mr. Churchill. My hon. friend is shocked to the depths of his conscience by what Mr. Churchill told the Germans last year, that he was planning an offensive in Europe when in fact he wasn’t. He thinks that is terrible, he thinks the thing you should do is to tell the utter truth to the enemy, tell them where you are going to attack them, and keep the utmost faith with them in matters of this sort. I have heard the hon. gentleman for many years in this House, and I do not remember when Hitler was pretending friendship to the utmost degree with the Russians, and then suddenly turned on them and invaded their country, that he ever said a word; I don’t remember that when, after in the most explicit terms Hitler made a treaty with Denmark of friendship and non-aggression and then overran Denmark, that my hon. friend’s conscience was shocked in the slightest degree. No, he has got what you might call a double-barrelled conscience: it is shocked by anything that Winston Churchill or Jan Smuts may do, but Hitler and his friends can go on breaking faith till the crack of doom without a word of protest from my hon. friend or his colleagues. Whatever moral sense they have to be outraged, they keep for the benefit of the Government of this country or any of the allied Governments. The third accusation of bad faith and of breaking promises, is in regard to the arming of coloured troops. Sir, the promise was that coloured troops would not be employed as combatants, and coloured troops have not been employed as combatants. If I had been at the head of affairs in this country, and I had been faced with an Opposition which said “We won’t fight, and nobody that we can influence will fight”, and the Japanese menace had been round the corner, surely, sir, I would have said what the Prime Minister said, that in the last resort if it was necessary to arm South Africans for the defence of South Africa, “I will throw overboard the colour line. They have a right to come to the defence of South Africa.” Twelve months ago, when this country was in the greatest danger in which it has stood for a hundred years, they were ready to come to the defence of this country, but my hon. friends opposite rejected the appeal made by the Prime Minister. If Japan did come into the war they would do nothing, they would sit quiet. My hon. bellicose and military friend, the member for George (Mr. Werth) who used to thump his chest and say, “When the enemy comes here, the last drop of my blood will be shed, “—even he would do nothing. Not only would they do nothing, but they would try and prevent other people equally sons of South Africa, despite their colour, from defending South Africa from the cruellest invader that this world has ever known. They would not do it. To return to this accusation of bad faith, I defy the hon. member for Piketberg to prove that a single coloured or native soldier from South Africa has been armed for combatant purposes. They have been given rifles, but let me say that not a single fighting unit, coloured unit, coloured fighting unit, has gone from South Africa. And I say, sir, that this charge of bad faith against the Prime Minister on this count breaks down as completely as the other two charges with which I have dealt. Now let me leave the hon. member for Piketberg for one minute, and devote two minutes to my hon. friend the member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé), if my hon. friend will turn round and give me his attention. At the end of his speech, after protesting to high heaven that we should not send these troops overseas, he struck this note: “If we do send them, who will pay them?” Now just let me follow that up. This resolution will be passed, those troops who volunteer to go overseas will be sent, and my hon. friend the member for Pietersburg wants to say “Let us smouse on England, on Great Britain, to pay our South African troops who go to take their part in this fight.” I want to ask the hon. member for Piketberg is that his policy. If we pass this resolution, if Parliament agrees to send these troops, does he say we should not pay them, but should smouse on Great Britain.

They are not fighting for us.

Shades of Dan Pienaar! What would he say if he heard that remark. I say, Mr. Speaker, that with all respect that is due to this House, that such an attitude is absolutely contemptible.

Order. The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw that, sir, and I say such an attitude is utterly indefensible. Then the hon. member comes along with another brainy suggestion. He says “Let them take the oath that they will serve anywhere in the world, but let them a month later, if they get tired, let them resign.” That is the spirit with which this new army is to be recruited! Does the hon. gentleman seriously mean that, does he seriously think we are going to recruit an army for overseas, and allow them the right, shall I say after training them, allow them the right in the face of the enmy, to resign? Surely, sir, his suggestion is preposterous, and quite frankly I do not know why I am dealing with it seriously. Now may I say a word or two in conclusion on the motion itself. I think I have perhaps devoted an undue amount of time to the speeches of the hon. members for Piketberg and Pietersburg. May I say a word or two to express what I think is the feeling of all hon. members on this side of the House. We are proud to be taking part in this debate this afternoon, we are proud to be given an opportunity of voting for this resolution, and I will tell you why. As my hon. friend the member for Pietersburg rightly remarked,—and it is the only point upon which he was right,—this marks the end of the defensive and the beginning of the offensive, it marks the turning point so far as South Africa is concerned, of this war. That was the only just observation that the hon. member made, and it is true. This is now the turning of the war so far as South Africa is concerned, from merely defensive operations to a war of offence to bring this war to a speedy and successful conclusion. So far from the chicken flopping round the farm, with its head off, the chicken has found his head is on and is looking for its enemies. My hon. friends know that rightly or wrongly this country was committed to participation in the war three and a half years ago, and do they want us now to take second rank? Is their idea of South Africa so low that they would have to say to our Allies “Yes, you go and fight, you send your men to bring this war to a successful conclusion in Italy, Russia, or wherever you like to go and fight, and we will sit back and do garrison duty in Cairo or Libya.” Is that what they would suggest to South Africa? We have been in this war for three and a half years, we are proud of being South Africans, and we will not take second place to anybody. We have not taken second place so far to anybody. “E’en the ranks of Tuscany could scarce forbear to cheer.” Even my hon. friends opposite were proud of Dan Pienaar, proud of the First Division which returned the other day; they could not help feeling proud. But will they continue to be proud if South African troops have to take a back seat? What would the army itself say to the hon. member for Piketberg if he were able to prevent this motion from going through, and if our South African troops were to be recruited on the basis that for the rest of the war they must sit here in South Africa, or do garrison duty up in Kenya or Libya, while British troops and Australian troops and New Zealand troops went on to finish the war. No, sir, let us be logical, we took the step in September, 1939, of saying “We will be in the war.” Attempts by my hon. friend opposite to try and change this policy have always failed. This country, this Parliament, has remained loyal to the war policy, and the country, so far as the by-elections are concerned, has shown that it supports the Government in that policy. We cannot stop now; we have carried the war through the black days, and we are going to carry it through the great days that lie ahead.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) was very caustic in his references to me, but I don’t blame him in the least for being so. This is a difficult day for him. A Minister is being sworn in again today and the new Minister is not the representative of Kensington. The hon. member took up some time in dealing with statements made by certain members, including myself, statements about the war made a couple of years ago. Now, I don’t know whether the hon. member and the members behind him have studied what English military experts have been saying, and I don’t know whether they have studied what those experts said some time ago. For instance, Capt. Liddell Hart, a recognised English expert, stated that until Russia entered the war, even before France had fallen, Britain had no military reasons whatever to expect that it would be able to win the war. That is a statement by an outstanding military expert. So far as my statement is concerned, even though the war has lasted three years instead of two years or one year, I still hold exactly the same opinion as I held before. The hon. member also made some comments on the subject of bush carts, and I do want to say something about that, because we are continually hearing this kind of idiotic and absurd statement made. The hon. member as a rule has a great deal to say but I want to suggest to him to go to the Prime Minister for a little advice, and to ask the Prime Minister to tell him where those bush carts hail from. I did not invent them. I did not draw up that particular scheme. Let me tell the hon. member, and let him take careful note of it, that it is an invention of the British Imperial General Staff, and it is from the British Imperial General Staff that we received this particular plan, after I had discussed the matter with the Chief of the British Imperial Military Staff. These are the M.T. carts from India which have been in use there for the last ten years, and the idea was that they would be used here under exactly similar circumstances as those under which they were used in India. Now I can quite understand that anything we get from the Imperial Staff, even if it is only a plan for a cart, is rotten, but it surprises me somewhat to find the hon. member for Kensington adopting that attitude. I want hon. members to realise that the real charge against me is that I had accepted something from the British Imperial Staff. Very well, I plead guilty to having been absolutely wrong in that, and I may even go further and say that perhaps everything we got from them was wrong. But that is a matter I don’t want to go into at this stage. I want to say that I agree with the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) in his description of the Prime Minister’s attitude and his introduction of the motion now before us as an instance of the grossest breach of faith ever perpetrated against the Afrikaner nation. Further, I want to say that I agree with him when he says that he, and we on this side, immediately realise that there was going to be a breach of faith. I do not think there is anyone on this side who did not expect that breach of faith. The betrayal of the 4th September, 1939, alone ….

The hon. member cannot use the expression “betrayal” in connection with a resolution passed by this House.

May I explain that what I am saying has nothing to do with a resolution of this House, but only with the attitude of certain Ministers who were bound by an agreement.

The hon. member must not use such an expression about other members of this House.

May I say then the departure from their solemn undertaking? The House will remember, because it has been stated here repeatedly, that in September, 1938, when we were threatened with an exactly similar danger of war, we agreed as to what South Africa’s attitude was to be. That agreement between the present Prime Minister, the late Gen. Hertzog, Mr. Havenga and myself is what was contained in the motion of the late Gen. Hertzog which was later on moved in this House—that was the agreement word for word. I know that there are Ministers who say that they do not remember that those things were brought before Parliament. This is not the first time that that type of Cabinet Minister fails to remember anything. There was a solemn agreement and all the Prime Minister was able to say as an excuse for his departure from that agreement—I emphasise the word departure—was that Germany in the meantime had shown that it was out for world domination. What was so remarkable in that connection, however, was that the Prime Minister kept it as a close secret. None of his colleagues, none of his friends, had the slightest conception or the slightest idea that he had departed from that solemn agreement as long as six months ago. The first we heard about was when we had a special Cabinet meeting at Groote Schuur and when we broke up there. If I have used rather strong language about an attitude of that kind, hon. members will realise my reason for doing so, and the House will realise why we say that after that departure from a solemn undertaking we expected anything from this Government, and I say so for another reason as well. It is not merely a war which is being waged, but there is also a race, or a competition, going on, namely, a competition as to which part of the British Empire is going to succeed in being England’s most humble lackey. That is the competition which is going on now and one thing is certain, and that is that our Prime Minister will see to it that even if we lose the war, we are going to win that competition. That being so, South Africa, as befits a good lackey, is not going to worry itself about any solemn undertaking, any agreement, or any impression that may exist in the minds of the public—we are going all out to win that competition. The reason given for the motion before the House is that “because of the progress of the war and the forthcoming complete expulsion of the enemy from the continent of Africa, we” … and then the motion goes on. In passing I want to say that it is somewhat peculiar to our minds that if the war is making such fast progress, that should be a reason why we must help at once. One would have assumed that with the progress that was being made, our little bit of assistance could well be done without, especially as that assistance is given in direct conflict with the interest of South Africa and in conflict with the solemn undertaking given by the Prime Minister. That, however, in passing. The motion further says, and it has emphasised it, that the Axis Powers will soon be driven out of Africa. That is one of the motives set forth for the motion, and it is part of the facts announced to the House as a basis for the sending away of troops. Our young men who have to join up have to join up because they may probably be under the impression that all that is necessary has been done in Africa and now they will have to go and fight somewhere else. The object is to create that impression in this House and also to create that impression in the minds of possible recruits. If that is so, will the Prime Minister give consideration to making that a condition for the sending away of our troops? We have had bitter experience of the undertakings—solemn and otherwise—given by the Prime Minister; but let us give him another opportunity and perhaps we may be more fortunate now than we have been in the past. Let the Prime Minister make this a condition for the adoption of his motion, namely, “After the Axis Powers have been cleared out of Africa our new recruits will go overseas.” We are very anxious to believe that the Prime Minister is really convinced that the position is such that the Axis troops will be driven out of Africa in the near future. It is an important point, because if he does not believe that then he cannot ask our young Afrikaners to take this oath, but if he does believe it then it is quite easy to record such a promise by making it a condition in connection with this motion. But, of course, we have another difficulty. If he cannot state it as a fact, as something which is absolutely certain and definite, we are in danger that he is again making prophesies, and in the role of a prophet the Prime Minister really is a menace to South Africa. I don’t want to take up the time of the House by reminding members of all the prophesies which we have listened to during the past three and a half years in connection with Poland, Norway, France, the Balkans and Crete—just to mention a few of them; the Prime Minister even mentioned Greece, and that being so it may be well to remind the House of what he said about Greece. Let me put one question—is not the driving of the Axis forces out of Africa perhaps a prophecy of the same nature as his Balkan prophecy was? On the 8th March, 1940—hon. members can read it in the “Argus” and in any other paper—the Prime Minister let himself go in this way about the Balkans—

If we think what has become of this poor youngster—Peter the Great—we feel that the Prime Minister was not fair to that child. He put him on such a high pedestal that when he fell, his fall was a mighty one. And he went on to say this—

Less than four weeks after that the Germans were in Athens, so I ask again whether we have before us a prophecy of the Prime Minister, or are we faced with facts? The question is an important one to those people who are asked to join up. Let me give the Prime Minister some well-meant advice. It would suit him better to create a special Vote on the Estimates for the appointment of an official “bone-thrower”. Anyhow, such an official could not be more mistaken time after time than the Prime Minister has been in the past. Now let us go a little further and put this question to ourselves—and it is an important question: what was the situation when the Prime Minister elevated Peter the Small to Peter the Great? What was the actual position? In his book “War Expanding”, Capt. Liddell Hart writes as follows on page 47:

And this makes us think of the Prime Minister’s prophecy about Africa. He goes on to say—

That word we heard again yesterday—

And then we ask ourselves whether the Prime Minister did not know what was going on in Greece. Did’nt he know what the facts were? And if he did not know what were the facts in regard to Greece does he now know what the facts are in regard to North Africa? The British War Ministry has now announced that there were only fifteen British aeroplanes to assist in the Balkans at the time. It is not Germany, which attacked there, which told us that, but according to the British War Ministry itself there were only fifteen aeroplanes and according to the British War Ministry Germany attacked with five divisions including two armoured divisions, and the total was never more than eight divisions, and that though Germany had mobilised—and I again quote the British War Ministry—155 divisions. If we find then that the Prime Minister in those circumstances made such remarkable prophecies, how then can we take him seriously on military matters, and how do we know that we can attach any value whatsoever to his statements about North Africa? Well, I am not going to say anything about his other prophecies; the House has heard them and the House can judge for itself.

What has Rommel to say about it?

I think that what Rommel feels is that he is sorry he can’t find anyone up North drawing a double salary. I shall be pleased if the Prime Minister will tell us straight out: “Look here I don’t know what the position is, but we expect this, that or the other.” If he would do so, if he would tell us that, then the volunteers would know on what basis they are joining up. I have reached the conclusion that the reason why this motion has been brought before the House is not merely to be looked for because the Prime Minister wants to recruit volunteers. I have a strong suspicion that this motion constitutes a big smokescreen to cover something else. And some remarks which the Prime Minister made yesterday tend to strengthen me in that suspicion. He said that the period for which the Red Oath had been taken was drawing to a close. Another few days and nobody who had taken the Red Oath would be bound for military service, so here was a brilliant opportunity of confusing the whole position and of getting those people, without their realising it, to sign for further service in Africa by their now being told that they would be given a chance of signing on for service in Europe or elsewhere. Thousands of those who have taken the Red Oath were brought into the war by fraudulent means, by compulsion, and by other tactics. One of these days the Prime Minister will have to tell them outright, “Your time is up, and you can now decide whether you want to join up or not.” Hence this smokescreen. That is why this motion has been introduced. The matter has been discussed during this debate, and also in all the newspapers. The question at issue now is not the Red Oath but service outside South Africa. Thousands of people have lost their illusions in regard to this war, and I want to know from the Prime Minister whether this motion, partly at any rate, is not intended simply to detract those people’s attention from the fact that their period of service is over, and whether it is not intended at the same time to induce them with fine promises to join up for further service. We shall have the opportunity of finding out how much compulsion has been brought to bear, how much deception, how much pressure has been exercised to induce people to join up, and to what extent that sort of thing is to be used again to get people to sign on, because those people cannot be compelled to serve one day longer when their four years are over. When that time is at an end they are automatically released from their oath.

That is where you are wrong.

That is what the Prime Minister stated here and that is one of the reasons he gave as to the necessity of introducing this motion. What we are anxious to know is this; I am not talking now of those people who are signing the new oath, but when the four years for which the people who have signed are over what then is going to be the position if they say that they are not prepared to continue? Are those people going to be victimised or are they going to be granted the benefits which were promised to returned soldiers? Are they going to get the benefit for which special commissions have been appointed, and all the rest of it? That is what we should like to know. If their time is really up and they leave the army, are they going to be treated as returned soldiers? We have already heard what they have achieved. The Prime Minister has referred to them as the heroes of the North. I want to associate myself with any appreciation of their bravery.

Yes, and that is what you are doing now.

I am not referring to hon. members over there. If I had been made a Captain and had drawn double salary I would have been up North. Will those Heroes of the North, when their time is up and they say that they don’t want to carry on, because their Red Oath has come to an end—will they get the full privileges of returned soldiers? The Prime Minister said that those people who sign the new oath will not be sent to India or America or the Far East. Again we say he will have to give the country and himself an opportunity of seeing how sincere his intentions are in regard to this matter. Let that be a condition in regard to the adoption of this Motion. And should the Prime Minister be in the mood to make concessions he will perhaps give us the assurance that they will not be used as cannon fodder for an enterprise such as participation in a landing at Dieppe where the Canadians were used for such a purpose. I realise that if I were to make that condition and if the Prime Minister were to accept it it might possibly endanger our chances of winning the Imperial competition, but I hope that the blood of young Afrikaners will count more with him than the intentions which he apparently has of being Great Britain’s obedient lackey. Will those troops possibly be sent to Russia? Our relationship towards Russia has changed to such an extent that that is a permissible question. In the beginning the Prime Minister confined himself to blessing Russia’s arms—those self-same arms stained by about ten times as much blood of Russia’s own people than by the blood of any enemy Russia has ever met on a battlefield, the blood shed by the murder of men, women and children. We blessed those arms, and I am not sure whether that blessing is not going to have the same fatal consequences as the prayers of the Archbishop of Canterbury had. Is there no possibility of then-going to Russia, because the Prime Minister today is not only blessing Russia’s arms, r e is also raising his hat to Russia. Well, perhaps a little bit of practical assistance will meet with greater appreciation. But that statement of the Prime Minister’s will be received with appreciation by all those fanatics—whites, kaffirs and others—who are indulging in communistic propaganda and incitement in South Africa in order to undermine South Africa’s future and to undermine the future of white civilisation here. To me it is striking that we can now talk about Russia in the way we are doing. Is it simply because Russia has shown that it is prepared to defend itself, and, by the way, to allow its men to be shot for the sake of the British Empire? It is extraordinary that we should now be able to speak about Russia in such terms, a country about which Mr. Churchill only a short while ago said this:

We are today becoming acquainted with his plague and the plague germs from overseas, and yet we raise our hats to the principal carrier of this plague. Let me refer to something else. I am sure this House remembers that when Russia attacked Finland the Archbishop of Canterbury prayed Providence to grant victory over the Godless Bolsheviks who had attacked Finland. In those days a Finnish author said this about the Russians:

And those are our comrades whose arms were first of all blessed by the Prime Minister and to whom we now raise our hats. Those are the people whom we are going to embrace if we can only get close enough to them. I fear that whatever we may say from this side of the House, this encouragement of Communism will continue. Our alliance with Russia will continue until we have reached a certain point, and that point will be reached when the interests of the mining magnates are touched. On the day when Communism finds its way into the mining compounds, on that day will the Prime Minister revert to the policy he pursued before 1924, the policy of shooting down people; bearing that in mind, I want to make this suggestion. I want the House to adopt the attitude which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has adopted, and then we shall not require a blue or a red oath for our people in this country. I oppose the motion and I associate myself with the amendment.

I am glad that for once hon. members on the other side were reasonable enough to liseten to what the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) had to say in regard to the bush carts, and that they have eventually heard now how those bush carts came into existence. I want to advise them to ask the Prime Minister to take them into his confidence. He was a member of the Government at that time, and he will be able to enlighten them fully in regard to these bush carts—also that he, together with the hon. member for Gezina, must take the responsibility for that. I make no apology for the further amendment which appears in my name on the Order Paper and which I want to move as follows:

I say I make no apologies. I realise that it was the duty of the Leader of the Opposition to move a direct motion of on confidence in the Government, when this motion was introduced. But if the Leader of the Opposition failed in his duty, there is no reason why we on this side should neglect our duty. On the 4th September, 1939, the Prime Minister, as has already been said and as I want to emphasise, made the solemn promise to this House and to the people that he was only going to declare war and that he would see to it that our sons were not sent overseas again as in the previous war. That was his promise. Now the Prime Minister says that he is going to send them overseas. I want to ask this: if, on the 4th September, the Prime Minister stated in his motion that he was declaring war and that he was going to send our sons to any part of the world where the war was being fought, would be ever have got a majority to support him in this House? I know that many of my friends on the other side …

Who?

I know what I am talking about, because at that time I was amongst them.

Mention one name.

I am not going to be personal. I say that I know that many of my friends on the other side voted for that motion only because the Prime Minister said that he would not send our people away. That is the position, and if the Prime Minister had expressly stated in his motion that he proposed sending our sons overseas, I make bold to say that the Prime Minister would never have got a majority on the 4th September. This is a fact from which we cannot get away. A few days ago the Prime Minister said in this House that he did not promise that, and that it was a resolution taken by the House. Must we really take the Prime Minister seriously when he juggles with words in this way? He was the proposer of the motion, and hon. members on the other side took his word and followed him.

And we are still doing it.

Yes, those members have committed themselves. At that time they were dragged along by means of that promise on the part of the Prime Minister. I was not. Now they are in difficulties. My hon. friends on the other side took the word of the Prime Minister in good faith. They took the first step, and when they came to the second step, they could not withdraw but were forced to carry on, and they will carry on now even though it means the ruination of South Africa. They cannot and dare not turn back. That is the position in which they find themselves. I say that if the Prime Minister had clearly stated in his motion what he is doing here today, then I can give him the assurance—and he knows it—that there are thousands and tens of thousands of mothers and parents in this country who would never have agreed to their sons going to the war.

Why are they still going?

I should like to talk to someone with sense. I say that thousands and tens of thousands of parents would never have given permission for their sons to go, and I want to prove this. Since I have been in Cape Town, and even before I left home, numbers of mothers have said to me: “We shall never give permission for our sons to go overseas.”

They need not go.

Precisely, that is the point to which I want to come. On the 4th September, we were told in the motion that this would be on a voluntary basis; that no pressure would be brought to bear on anyone. And what has happened throughout the country? I will admit that officially, on the part of the Government, no obvious pressure may have been brought to bear, but hon. members on the other side will not deny that pressure was brought to bear indirectly.

You cannot prove that.

Highly placed officials on the Railways and elsewhere brought indirect pressure to bear on their clerks, and I know of three University students at the Witwatersrand who were told by their Professors in August: “As far as I am concerned, you need not write the examination ‘this year unless you enlist. As far as I am concerned, you need not continue your studies unless you enlist.” What does that mean? Is that compulsion? Is that indirect pressure? The Prime Minister must not hold it against us—and here I heartily agree with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow)—if we do not take his word.

Is he one of the Professors?

He must not blame us if we feel that we cannot take his word. If my hon. friend on the other side wants to take his word, very well; but the Minister has proved to us on this side of the House that we cannot rely on his word. He has shamefully broken his promise to this House and to the country. On the 4th September, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister indicated as one of his reasons for the declaration of war, that Hitler was out for aggression, that he was out for world domination. Does he still say that?

Yes, certainly.

And what did we do? My hon. friend on the other side saw the mote in another’s eye, but he cannot see the beam in his own. We had scarcely entered the war, and what did we find? What happened in Syria? What happened in Iraq and Iran?

And in Madagascar.

What happened in Madagascar? What happened in French North Africa now? What happened in Iran? [Interjections.] Empty kettles make the most noise. One might still be able to overlook—I do not forgive them—but I say that one might still be able to overlook it, but what one cannot forgive is that the Allies, with the full support of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, attacked French ships and has now again attacked the French in North Africa. France, an ally of the Allies. That is one of the biggest scandals of modern times. Then take Madagascar as an example. Look what happened there. And then the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) dares to get up here and try to justify this, and we are told that Madagascar is regarded as a portion of Africa.

Yes, the “Great Cleavage”.

But I want to ask this. If we must take it that Madagascar is a portion of Africa, what about Lourenco Marques? There are rumours that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister intends attacking Lourenco Marques.

We shall believe anything.

I want to ask him, are we going to be consistent? The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, although he condemned Hitler on the grounds of aggression nd domination, is engaged in doing the very same thing. There is not the slightest difference between his deeds and the deeds of the Allied nations, in so far as aggression in the various small countries which I mentioned here are concerned, and the deeds of Hitler. He told us that Germany was a menace to South Africa, and already on the 4th September, 1939, we told them that could see no danger.

But you were blind.

Has the German menace ever shown itself here? But later, when Japan entered the war, Japan was suddenly held out as a danger, and then Madagascar was attacked.

Madagascar had a rebel government.

The hon. member talks of rebels. I say that the Vichy Government will be recognised internationally as the lawful Government of France. De Gaulle and his followers are the traitors of France.

Just as you are the traitors.

They gave Madagascar back to the traitors of France after they had invaded her. I say that De Gaulle should have subjected himself to the lawful decision of his lawful Government.

In that case, why do you not submit yourselves to the lawful decision of this Government?

The Prime Minister’s first resolution, as he has now said, has nearly been accomplished. I do not want to go over the same ground as my hon. friend, but we know the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister with all his prophecies. On more than one occasion he has prophesied and his prophecies failed to materialise. He told us that the enemy would be driven out of Africa in the near future—he may be right—and then he wants to go on to final victoy. I want to tell him to bear in mind that old saying of the farmer: “Heaven is still ahead.” The Englishman says: “It’s a long way to Tipperary.” We must first see that victory. I am not ashamed to say here—I have said so on previous occasions and I shall repeat it—that in so far as England is concerned the war is lost. I say in so far as England is concerned. If Russia and America win this war, it is far from being England. But I want to say this to the Prime Minister, since his wish has now been satisfied and he has driven the enemy almost completely out of Africa, I believe that even though the Minister has become estranged from his own people, I believe that in the winter of his life—because he is in the winter of his life—he will consider posterity, knowing that the declaration of war has caused chaos in our country, bitterness and estrangement. Now I want to ask him, since his wish has been satisfied, why our troops cannot be brought back from the North.

Our troops!

Because he has achieved his purpose …

They do not all want to come back.

I want to say this to my hon. friends on the other side: I know the English sentiment very well, and I want to say this, if the Prime Minister will act on my advice and if he brings our troops back i to the South, then he can put this to them:, “You Englishmen, or even you Afrikaners, who want to continue fighting for England, may continue to do so, but England must pay for it because this is England’s war.” Then you will see what happens. I understand the sentiment of the Englishman, and I want to support him to live up to his sentiments, and for that reason I say that the Government can do what was done in the last war. During the last war, Gen. Botha and the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, who was also a member of the Cabinet, said this: “Very well, you may go; we shall assist you in getting away.” Why did the Prime Minister not adopt this plan? I am not making a plea for these people, but for their successors who would like to fight for England. I want to make it possible for the Englishman and for that type of Afrikaner to assist in fighting for England if they want to. And I want to give the Prime Minister the assurance that then at any rate he will not get the reproaches—and I might almost say the curses—of the mothers of the nation. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister now promises us that this will be on a voluntary basis. But we refuse to accept that promise. We saw what happened after the 4th September, and we know what will happen now. The young Afrikaners who return, and whose parents do not want them to go, will, indirectly be compelled to go, because as soon as they intimate that they do not want to go, their friends will brand them as cowards, and we know that the young Afrikaner does not want to be accused of being a coward. Consequently, he will have no alternative but to go. I want to ask the Prime Minister, since he is now in the winter of his life, whether he will not give these mothers those “sweet drops of comfort” for which they ask.

You are becoming a minister in your old age.

We know what the position in the country is at the moment. We know what the result of the war policy is. We know that there are Afrikaners—and a large number of the Afrikaner people are today strangers in their own country as a result of the war effort and all those war measures which were passed—we learnt the other day from the statements furnished by the Minister of Justice, how many of these Afrikaners are in prison, how many of them are in internment camps. But the worst of all is this, that these people are interned without trial. That is the most serious grievance which I have against the Government, viz. that they detain Afrikaners for seven and eight months without trial.

The hon. member cannot go into that now.

I just mentioned this in passing.

Just in passing.

But I want to discuss the other consequences of the war policy. What is the position as a result of the policy of the Government to arm coloureds and natives? What is the position in our country? There is one strike on top of another. They are incited by communists and natives who enlisted. That is the outcome. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted a resolution here—I remember it—which was passed last year in the City Hall, where natives and coloureds said that they were prepared to take up arms, but on condition that they receive equal rights. The Prime Minister will remember that he said last year that if danger threatened this country, then if need be, he would arm the natives. He will remember that I told him that he was playing with fire, and that this might easily prove to be a boomerang. That is a difficulty which I foresaw at that time—these strikes. The fact that in Pretoria it was necessary to use force to shoot down armed natives, is the result of the policy of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. If there is one thing which we need and will need in the immediate future, then it is our own troops. There is no danger which threatens us from outside; these strikes are but forerunners of the dangers which threaten us in our own country. We foresaw this. This is only the beginning of the trouble, and I want to tell the Prime Minister that it is necessary to bring back our troops. He must not forget that we are not in a position to defend ourselves. It will be necessary, when that danger comes, for our own troops to defend us. We shall need them. But let me go further.

What about you? Can’t you fight?

I have indicated what the consequences of the war have been, and I now want to indicate what it has already cost South Africa in human lives and in £ s. d. According to the statement of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister—I am going to quote figures showing the number of officers, men, coloured and natives, who were killed. According to that statement, 175 European officers have been killed, 866 men, 38 coloured, 36 natives. Missing (which means nothing less than killed): 102 officers, 1,098 men, 252 coloureds, 785 natives, Wounded: 356 officers, 3,226 men, 315 coloureds, 220 natives. Total: 633 officers, 5,210 men, 605 coloureds, 1,041 natives.

An honourable record.

A total of 7,499. Now we come to prisoners of war. Officers: 796; men: 10,391; coloureds: 475; natives: 1,091, a grand total in killed, wounded, missing and prisoners, of 20,250. That is what the war has cost us in man power, and our nation has been made poorer to the extent of 7,499 killed, wounded and missing—those wounded and maimed whom South Africa will have to take care for. That is South Africa’s duty. Then I would just like to say a few words with regard to the late Gen. Pienaar. As someone who knew him, I mourn the loss of the late Gen. Dan Pienaar. I am convinced that the Prime Minister will find it difficult to appoint a successor in his place. South Africa has lost one of her officers who had outstanding qualifications as a soldier. But let us examine what the war has so far cost us. I got these figures out of the Auditor-General’s report. I take it that they are correct. During the financial year 1939—’40 we spent £4,183,666; during 1940—’41 the amount was £60,000,000; during 1941—’42 the amount was £72,000,000, and in 1942—’43 the amount £96,000,000—a total of £232,183,666. I quote these figures from the report of the Auditor-General to show the amount voted for war purposes. That is the sum which has been voted and expended, but what about the indirect costs which we incurred? Who is there in this House who can give us that figure? Even the hon. Minister of Finance cannot give us that figure. But if one makes an estimate, one can add a further £150,000,000, so that the war is now going to cost approximately £382,183,666. That is what it costs us, and what can the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister show for that money? He might say: “Yes, I have cleaned up Abyssinia.” He might say that he has restored Haile Selassie to his throne; but he was not even thanked for that. No wonder the taxation burden has become so heavy on the people that even the supporters of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister were lashed by the Minister of Finance. There is already dissatisfaction. Did we not prophesy two years ago that the day would arrive when they will no longer shout “Hosanna!” to the Prime Minister but “Crucify him”. Here is the forerunner of that. His most important supporters had to plead with the Minister of Finance to remove certain anomalies from the taxation laws. If the war lasts another two or three years—in spite of what the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister promised, namely, that the war may be over by the end of next year—in so far as that is concerned I just want to tell him that he is an optimist; on an earlier occasion he said that the war would be over by the end of this year, and I say that he is an optimist—the war can only be won …

[Inaudible.]

Listen to that meek little voice.

Order!

I think I am interpreting the feelings of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister when I say that the war can only be regarded as won when the Allies have driven the Germans back as far as Berlin.

That will happen.

Hear, hear.

I noticed this morning in a sub-article that the “Cape Times”, which formerly echoed everything the Government said, now talks of victory or check-mate. I am also of opinion that the war can only be regarded as won when they drive the Germans back as far as Berlin, and I cannot for the life of me see how they can do that during this year. I cannot see how they can succeed. They have tried on various occasions, as at Dieppe and other places, and that effort showed us that it was nothing but suicide. Well, if they succeed, then I say to them, as the English would say, “Good luck”. But I cannot see how they can possibly succeed. If they think they can succeed, then they have more confidence in themselves than I have in them. At its best I can visualise check-mate. Two years ago I told my friends that a time would arrive when the war would be over, that they could not think normally now, and that when the reaction was over and everyone was normal again, many of my friends on the other side would realise the stupidity of the step which we took in September, 1939. I just want to repeat what I said two years ago: “When that time comes the doors of the Afrikaner Party will be open. (Laughter). Yes, my hon. friends may laugh.

The hon. member is now digressing somewhat from the subject of the debate.

I am glad that you allowed me to hold out the hand of friendship to hon. members on the other side. I now want to make an appeal to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister at the eleventh hour to save the country from further ruination. I can visualise the time, if the war continues, when eventually the taxation burden will become unbearable in the country, and we know what happens when a man reaches the end of his tether. For the sake of the past, I want to ask the Prime Minister to reflect before he takes the last step.

I second and I want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Minister to adjourn the debate now. I move—