I do not think that any motion the Prime Minister could bring before the House could more clearly show and emphasise the diametrically opposed points of view between the Government and the Opposition which have existed since 1939. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan), I think, reflects very thoroughly the attitude which the Dutch races of this country have always adopted to their leaders in the past. That attitude has become historical. We have seen it so often that no sooner have one of their leaders come to the fore, no sooner has he earned respect not only of the people of this country, but the people throughout the world, he is immediately attacked, abused and villified by a section of the people in this country, a section who want to pull him down from the position which he has attained. In this amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition the barrenness of the ground on which that side of the House attacked the Prime Minister and his policy is very clearly revealed. The amendment shows the bitterness, the vindictiveness and the hatred with which members of the Opposition constantly pursue the Prime Minister. Whatever one may say about the merits of the attitude which South Africa adopted in September, 1939, there can be no question as to the correctness of the course which had to be followed ever since that date. There is only one course. Once we had entered the war there was only one course which could bring credit to South Africa, and that was the course followed by the Prime Minister and his party. The Prime Minister remained faithful and loyal to our friends, and our cause, and he has kept faith with our Allies. There was no other course and today the motion which has been proposed by the Prime Minister can only serve to enhance the reputation which South Africa has gained in the world, it can only serve to bring greater credit to the name and the reputation of South Africa. And then we have the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. What would be the effect of that amendment if it were agreed to? It would bring discredit to the name of South Africa in the world; it would make her name foul, as one who was willing to break all agreements entered into, and let me say this, it could only cause joy to the enemy if it were agreed to, but at the same time we would be held in contempt even by the enemy. The Prime Minister has been criticised here and it has been alleged that in September, 1939, he did not indicate to the House that he was going to participate in the war. There has been a lot of splitting of hairs as to the actual wording of the statement which the Prime Minister made on that date. I would ask every hon. member of this House who was here on that fateful evening of the 4th September, 1939, and who heard what took place, what was in his mind and what he thought we were voting on. Did any hon. member here imagine that we were voting just on some form of benevolent neutrality—did any hon. member imagine that we were not voting on the question of peace or war, and did anybody imagine that the decision taken in this House could lead to anything but war with Germany? The Leader of the Opposition made an appeal that afternoon to the English speaking members of this House; he said: “You are entering upon a course now which is going to cause nothing but trouble. I hope that the English speaking people in our country are not prepared to throw in their lot in such a way. If they do not want to participate in this war it will not be said that they are unfaithful to their race, and their duty is to keep out of this war.” Did that mean that we were going to enter into a form of benevolent neutrality? Was not that a clear indication of what was in the mind of the hon. member himself at that time? He said that if there were English speaking members who did not want to take part in that war their attitude would not cause them to be scorned by others who held a different view. Now, I want to quote what another hon. member said here—the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan)—who was then Minister of Native Affairs. That hon. member said that the motion was a very important one, and, replying to remarks by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), he said this: “The hon. member for Krugersdorp has said that the question we have to decide is whether we are going to choose to stand by England or Germany. That is not the question before the House. The question before the House today is an entirely different one. The question is whether we are going to participate in a war against Germany, whether we are going to declare war against Germany.” I ask again whether anyone who was present here on that fateful evening can honestly declare that when he voted in favour of the Prime Minister’s motion he was under the impression that he was voting on a motion in favour of benevolent neutrality. No, sir, we all realise that we were voting on the question of peace or war, so I ask how hon. members can now come forward and accuse the Prime Minister of a breach of faith or a breach of trust. The Prime Minister has always kept faith.

I think you had better read the motion.

There was no other course the Prime Minister could follow. The Prime Minister when he introduced the motion had certain information in his possession which made it impossible for us immediately to take any active participation in the war. He made it perfectly clear at that time that the position was such in South Africa that we had to make ourselves secure before we could go any further, and before we could take any further steps. When he spoke he mentioned about our not taking any action overseas. Well, his attitude there was perfectly logical. He had in mind at the time the dangers which faced South Africa in the North. He also had certain knowledge in regard to our own internal security, and he also knew that our forces were not prepared for an expedition to other parts of the world. We were not in the position at the time to send any forces overseas. There is no question at all of the correctness of the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister. Now, another charge has been made on this question of sending troops overseas, and there, again, it has been stated that promises have been broken. I want to remind the House that when war broke out one of the first necessities was to re-organise our Air Force to control our shores, and to watch over the security of South Africa. Technically, members of the Opposition could have come forward at any time last year, and they could have said that we had sent troops outside South Africa—our Air Force was flying over the seas—

The word was “overseas”, not outside South Africa.

Does the hon. member agree then that the protection of South Africa extends far out to sea?

You are splitting hairs; the promise was overseas.

Does he agree that it was necessary to send our troops overseas, and is not Madagascar today as vitally necessary to the security of South Africa—

Didn’t you know it at that time?

No, at that time France was our Ally, and at that time France was prepared to stand by and fight with us to the end.

Why did you not help her?

We have had the example since then of what has happened in IndoChina. Our Ally of that time gave way and handed over Indo-China to the Japanese, with the result that through the handing over of French territory to the Japanese the backdoor to Malaya was opened; they entered Singapore and cleared up the whole East, and now hon. members tell us that we in this country should be prepared to allow the same sort of thing here. Already it was known that Japanese officers were in contact with Madagascar. Already it was known that contacts were being made between Vichy France and Japan, and yet hop, members asked us, and tell us in all seriousness, that we should have stood aside in Madagascar and that we should have allowed the Japanese to establish new naval and air bases there against us, because, forsooth, they say we should not have gone overseas.

You seem to be apologising.

Oh, no, I say this, that if with the knowledge which he had at the time the Prime Minister had not taken these steps, hon. members might have accused him of a breach of faith or a breach of trust to this House. Now, I want to deal with another matter, namely the employment of coloured and native troops, and the arming of those troops.

You are on a bad wicket.

My friend, the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) has dealt with that. He dealt with the position as it actually existed. I want first of all to remind the House of the policy which was laid down on this very question of the employment of native and coloured troops way back in the past, in the days of the Fusion Government, of which the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) was also a member. When the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) who was then Minister of Defence, was making a statement on defence questions and the training of troops he said this, during a debate in the House — and his statement was accepted as the policy of the Fusion Government. He said: “The possible training of nonEuropeans has frequently been mentioned in the Press. While I feel certain that our people will never sanction the training of nonEuropeans in the use of arms, they can be of the greatest assistance in other ways. The coloured population can provide a number of very necessary transport battalions. The natives can be trained to relieve the white man of all but actual military duties and to act as ammunition carriers, right into the front line.” Do hon. members agree with that? Now, I want to ask the House in all common fairness whether these munition carriers, these transport carriers, can be sent right into the front line, can be mixed up with our tanks there, can come in contact with the enemy and whether they can be expected to have nothing in their hand but an assegai. Let us be perfectly honest about this thing. If you are going to send coloured troops into the front line, no matter in what capacity you send them there, you have to give them the means to defend themselves. You cannot stick these men right in the front lines and arm them only with assegais.

Why did you not say that before?

That question must have come up as the inevitable sequal of the policy which was then being carried out, and which could only be logically followed up because if you call on these men to do this service, there is more than a likelihood of their being attacked, and you have to see that they can adequately protect themselves. And let me say this to hon. members. If you go back into the history of the Boer Nation you will find that at different times they have called on native troops to help them in their defence.

Yes, but not against white troops.

That fact still remains, and I say that if we have to face the Japanese and the Huns I would much sooner trust the coloured and native troops of this country than many of the other troops that may be put against us. I say that in the circumstances it is essential to see that the native troops and the coloured troops are able to defend themselves. And now, I want to deal with another charge. The charge is that the Prime Minister by arming these troops is inciting the Communist propaganda in this country. Have hon. members ever heard a more ridiculous charge? These South African troops have been doing magnificent work. They are being disciplined today in a way they have never been disciplined before, and now we are told that the arming or the alleged arming of these people is inciting the natives to Communism. I am quite willing to admit that there is need for worry over certain aspects of the labour situation in this country.

Yes, it will give you a lot more cause for worry.

We have to be particularly careful how this question is handled. We know perfectly well that there is an element in this country which is deliberately inciting the natives and certain sections of the coloured community to make trouble. The Government have taken measures to try and deal with the situation, but we know perfectly well that there are paid professional agitators …

I hope the hon. member will not go too deeply into that matter. He is anticipating a motion on the Order Paper.

I bow to your ruling, sir, but that is one of the amendments which the hon. member has put forward and I just want to point out that in this particular matter far from accusing the Prime Minister and holding him responsible, the responsibility lies with those members of the House who are behind this agitation which is going right through the country. I am sorry the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) is not here.

He is never here.

He is otherwise engaged.

His speech consisted of bitter gibes and vicious remarks against the members of this side of the House, and not a word of condemnation of the most bestial nation in the world, the German Nation, which is the cause of so much trouble. Now, he quoted …

Peter the Great.

Yes, he quoted Peter the Great. Well, every member of this House could be proud indeed to have taken the part which Peter took on behalf of his nation. He refused to submit to the overwhelming forces which he knew would be brought against his nation and he did not stop even if it was only for a few weeks—for six weeks or a month—the onslaught of the German hordes. And though it was only a matter of weeks he gave incalculable help in the saving of time to the Allied forces. Now, I want to deal with this other gibe of the hon. member’s, where he referred to Russia as being biologically half way between a zoological garden and a lunatic asylum.

He quoted Churchill.

One realises, of course, that the Russians have not yet attained that level of culture which his forebears, the German people, have obtained, but I can see the time coming when the Russians will attain to that. They certainly have not attained to that culture which includes the wholesale shooting of hostages, the mass murder of Jews and Czechs and the deliberate machine gunning of women and children, the wholesale removal of forced labour, of civilians, of conquered countries, and so on. No, sir, possibly Russia has not yet attained to that culture, but when they do and when they get to Germany, to Berlin, as assuredly they will, then I say “Heaven help Germany.”

Wishful thinking.

We are told it is wishful thinking. Yes, we know—the Opposition for the last three years have been indulging in a lot of wishful thinking of an Axis victory and every year we have seen them come back to where they start from. They have been telling us: “In some months time you will not be sitting where you are sitting now.” Each time they come back with their tails a little lower, and as one hon. member said the other day, the offensive spirit of the Opposition is changing every day, just as the German spirit is changing from an offensive into a defensive spirit. We know that though the road may be long the goal is clear, and the end is clear. We know that victory awaits us at the end of the road, rough though that road may be. We have listened to what one might call the swansong of the New Order and of the Afrikaner Party. One realises, of course, that they are in somewhat of a difficulty over this matter, perforce they have to support the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition if they are to have any hope at all of keeping their seats. But let me say this to them, they, just like the Opposition, will find that history will repeat itself. They will find that whenever they try to get to certain positions of eminence just when they get to a certain height, there will always be someone to pull them down. And I say that that is going to be the lot of very many of those leaders on the other side of the House. Today many of them will be looking upon Parliament for the last time from the seats which they occupy today.

Are you also singing your swan song?

No, sir, I am not, nor is my party, but wherever my party is I shall always be. These parties over there will not remain—they will disappear, and I am not so sure even that the other party, the official Opposition, may not also disappear into obscurity.

One feels somewhat surprised that the hon. member for Pretoria Central (Mr. Pocock) had the audacity to get up here this morning and to lecture the Afrikaners about their history, and the spirit of jealousy, as he called it, which prevails amongst us in respect of their Leader. The hon. member for Pretoria Central, a man with as little regard for the Afrikaner as he has, a man who cannot even speak the language of our nation, dares to get up here and to lecture us. He presumes to tell us about the arming of natives in the past. He tells us that natives were armed in the Republics. Surely, he knows as well as we do that there were the most stringent laws in the Republics, prohibiting the arming of coloured people or natives. Now he tells us that this was an old tradition of the Boer people. But I shall leave the hon. member. I want to put this question, however, what am I to think of the Leader of the hon. member (Field-Marshal Smuts), who said only last year that it would be foolish to think of arming the natives. What are we to think of that statement? He had scarcely uttered those words when the Prime Minister proceeded to arm the natives, and now the hon. member for Pretoria Central wants to make us believe that history is only repeating itself, that this has happened before in the history of the Afrikaner nation. The hon. member, to follow him for just a moment, glorified his party this morning and said that we on this side were so much weaker and that they would remain in power. The future will reveal that. During the previous war they said the same thing and not long afterwards they were pushed off the Government benches. However, I proceed now to the motion of the Prime Minister to send South African troops overseas. I believe that the Prime Minister’s motion will be passed because as long as the war lasts, hon. members on the other side will follow the Prime Minister in everything, but I want to express the hope that if the Prime Minister’s motion is passed, not a single member of our Boer nation will offer to fight overseas.

There will be many.

I hope that there will not be a single one, whether he is a member of the Permanent Force or not. Hon. members on the other side have made a lot of noise, but they are sheltering, with their double salaries, behind Afrikaners whom they want to send overseas to fight. I say definitely that it is no honour for the Afrikaner nation to go and fight for its conqueror; it is against our national pride; it is in conflict with our sense of nationhood, to fight for the conqueror of our country, and we refuse to do it. If there were any people who were under the impression that the Prime Minister had the slightest feeling for Afrikanerdom, then I think that impression has disappeared with the introduction of this motion and the speech which he made. He can rightly be described as the handyman of the British Empire. We on this side refuse to follow him, and bow the knee before Baal. We as an Afrikaner nation lost the war and laid down our flag at Vereeniging, but let me tell the Prime Minister that the Afrikaner has not yet lost its soul. That the soul of the Afrikaner cannot be killed. Frequent attempts have been made to kill the soul of the Afrikaner, but neither the Prime Minister nor his follower will succeed in doing that. On the other side of the House, we have a few Boer veterans. Including the Prime Minister, only three are left. On this side there are a number of them who still champion the old Boer nation, and who have refused to lose their souls and to become lackeys of the British Empire, and to speak the language of the conqueror. Nor can that be expected of us. But to deal with the motion now. What is responsible for the fact that on the 4th September, 1939, the Prime Minister plunged our people into the war, and what is responsible for the fact that today he wants to send our sons overseas in order to spill their blood there? The reason is that he has become estranged from Afrikanerdom. I am glad that the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. B. K. Long) is here. I must say that he is one of the English-speaking people on the other side, who, on the 4th September very honestly stated why they should enter the war. I want to quote what he said on that day. He said that we had the right to remain neutral, and to remain outside the war, but he said that we may not do it. What were the reasons that he advanced? He said this—

There we have the whole case in a nutshell. We must submit to the sentiments and feelings of the English-speaking section, as the Prime Minister submitted to their feelings. Let me repeat that we on this side of the House have not lost our soul, that we will not submit ourselves, and that we shall endeavour to oppose the motion of the Prime Minister with all the power at our command. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) spoke of the tender love of the English-speaking people for the country of their origin. Let me tell him that we tenderly love our own beloved Afrikaner nation and our own country. For that reason we refuse to trifle with this tender love and to sacrifice it in the interests of people who were the enemies of Afrikanerdom. But the Afrikaners must be reduced in number and killed in the war, so that those remaining will be so few in number that they will have to submit in servility. That cannot be expected of us. We have a tender love, but for South Africa. The Prime Minister and hon. members on the other side like to talk about honour and loyalty. We also have a feeling of honour and loyalty, but honour and loyalty towards our own nation and our own fatherland. If we do not live up to that feeling of honour and loyalty towards our own people, and if we vote in favour of and submit ourselves to the motion of the Prime Minister, then we would be guilty of not following the traditions of South Africa. Then we could be accused of not following in the footsteps of 26,370 women and children who sacrificed their lives for the freedom of Afrikanerdom. We refuse to be disloyal to the history of our nation. I refuse to agree to the Prime Minister’s motion to send troops overseas. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) spoke of loyalty to treaties. I should like to refresh his memory on the subject of treaties. It is scarcely necessary for me to remind this House of the experience of the Boer nation in so far as loyalty to treaties is concerned? It is necessary to refer to the Sand River Convention; in a moment I want to ask the Prime Minister to bear witness to it. Is it necessary to refer to the London Convention of 1884, which was also broken? What did the present Prime Minister write at that time? I do not think his conscience can be at ease. He feels guilty, and his guilt is beginning to rise like a ghost before him when he wakes at night and when he, as the responsible Prime Minister, thinks of what he did to the Afrikaner nation, and to what depths he brought the Afrikaner nation. This is what he said in connection with the breaking of Conventions—

It is not I who say this, but it is the Prime Minister who speaks of the wounded buck descrying the lion and the jackal and the vulture and the cordon of beasts of prey drawing closer and closer around our poor doomed little nation. The Boer nation is now expected to fight for Britain. At first Britain was supposed to be protecting us, but today we must protect her. We must now send our people overseas. We cannot, we may not, we dare not do it. We shall not be true to ourselves, we shall not be worthy of the name of Afrikaner if we accept the motion of the Prime Minister. As I have already said, he will put it through the House with his majority, but I again want to express the hope that not a single Afrikaner will offer his services. I sincerely hope that they will not go. But I want to refer to something else. I have quoted what the Prime Minister said while his sympathies were still with the Boer nation. And now I want to quote what people said who, whenever they got up in Parliament in the past, were listened to by us with the greatest esteem, and for whom we had the greatest respect. I want to quote something which was said by a man from whom we often differed, but to whom we listened with respect. And they listened to that man with the greatest respect; He was one of those old members of Parliament whom we no longer have with us today—I refer to the late John X. Merriman. Before I quote what he said, I just want to refer briefly to what was said even in the British House of Commons, in connection with Afrikanerdom, and point out how wrong and oppressive England’s policy towards the Boer nation was. They are allowed to talk about it, but we may not do so. Whenever we attack the Prime Minister’s policy, it is said that we are rebels and that we are disloyal to South Africa. English speaking people may say those things against England, but when we do so, then we are abused by that type of Englishman in South Africa, who wants to be more loyal than the King himself. I wholeheartedly agree with the Prime Minister’s statement. But why has he now run away from those words, and from his own nation; and since he has done that, why does he expect me and others to follow him? I just want to quote what William Redmond, a member of the British House of Commons said in regard to England’s attitude towards the Boers—

There, I agree 100 per cent. with Redmond. They have tried everything but they cannot succeed in suppressing us. He goes on to say—

He calls the suppression of the Boers by England a devilish piece of work—

It is not I who say this. I am quoting what was said by an Englishman, Redmond, in the British House of Commons. It may be said that Redmond was of Irish descent, and that for that reason he hated the English. Let me quote what another Englishman said, T. M. Healy. He said this—

We are glad that there were right-thinking people in England at that time. And that is why I quote what they said. But I said that there was some one for whom we in South Africa have always had the greatest respect. Unfortunately I did not know him very long, but during the short time that I was associated with him, I learned that whenever John X. Merriman spoke, he was treated with the greatest respect and esteem. He stated this—

That is what happened to us. The Boer nation was deprived of its life—

We hear a great deal of boasting about victory today. Whatever the outcome of this war, England will be ruined economically, and if England is ruined economically, then all the Dominions will fall away. Merriman went on to say—

Here, again, we have the words of an Englishman, and not the words of an Afrikaner. He was one of the most beloved leaders, and the Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, and these are his words. Those words of John X. Merriman will yet be realised. A nation is not built up in one day. And those are things which are still going to take place. I do not think it is necessary for me to quote anything else which was said. I want to tell the Prime Minister this, that we accuse him of having committed a breach of faith, and he committed this breach of faith not only towards us, but I think he committed this breach of faith towards other nations as well. This amendment moved by my Leader refers to the arming of natives and coloured people. I do not want to go into that, but I just want to say that if ever there was anyone who strongly disapproved of anything like this, it was the Prime Minister himself. He stated this in connection with the arming of natives—

But he has now become such an Imperialist, that he is resorting to methods which he disapproved of previously. Listen to what he goes on to say—

In saying that, the Prime Minister gave a prophetic reason, namely, that that action must lead to the destruction of the British Empire. I think I have said enough in connection with the arming of coloureds and natives. To expect me, as a Boer general, who led the Boers in 1899 and who saw all the misery, who saw all the murder camps, who saw Boers being killed in battle, to expect me who did not bend the knee to Baal, to tell my people that they must enlist voluntarily to go and fight—I say that I shall definitely not do it, and I shall use all my strength to prevent my people from doing it. I would be untrue to myself and to my race. If I were to act differently. I would be untrue to the Boer nation, and for that reason I reject the motion of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has not only broken his promise to South Africa; he has broken it to other countries. I just want to quote briefly a few passages in order to show that this war is so unjust, that we cannot think of sacrificing our people in it. The Prime Minister exclaimed in despair in connection with the Treaty of Versailles—

And then he sat down and in his own handwriting he wrote out his protest memorandum, which was published the following day. I shall not read out all the reasons why he protested against the Treaty of Versailles. I have not enough time to do that. But he was so convinced that that peace was an unjust peace, that he would not accept it without protest. I quote only his final words.—

He says that even greater misery might result from the peace than from the war 1914-T8. He also wrote a letter to Lloyd George in regard to this, which I do not want to quote but he ends with these words—

In think that the Prime Minister realises today that that house which was built on sand is in the process of toppling over, and we are now called upon to rebuild it. How does he want to do this? The Afrikaner has to be used in an effort to keep that house standing. What is the main reason why our people must be sent overseas? The Afrikaner must be exterminated and reduced in numbers, so that other sections may govern the country. But the Prime Minister will not succeed. All the catastrophes which struck this nation, did not have that effect. The murder-camps did not succeed; the war of 1914—’18 did not succeed. We have become stronger and stronger in the fight, and after this war, the Afrikaner will be even stronger in South Africa. We will become a nation which will live its own life and obtain its freedom. We are always prepared to defend our own country. But do not bring people here to come and attack us and then tell us that because there is danger, we must go and fight. I am sorry, we on this side of the House cannot support the Prime Minister, and we are not going to encourage our people in the platteland to enlist. I want to ask those people on the other side who are going to vote for this motion, that they should go. They occupy key-positions today. All the key-positions are on the other side, and not on this side. Some of them receive double salaries. Let them go and fight for that British imperialism which they champion. We on this side refuse to do it, and we shall oppose this motion of the Prime Minister with all the power at our command. The Prime Minister will probably win, but that victory will not last long. It will perhaps be one of the last victories which he will have in South Africa.

I do not propose to follow the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) in going into some of the ancient history he talks about. I go back as far as September, 1939, because one of the most amazing features of this debate seems to me to be that hon. members on the other side try to make out that they can see no difference between the situation as it existed then and the present situation. It is amazing that prejudice can so blind anybody and make it so impossible for him to face up to facts and realise what the real position is. They come along at this stage and ask for an amendment which demands the cessation of all participation in the war by South Africa. They do not even say “active participation”, but “all participation”. How they propose to have that done I do not know. I would like them to explain to the House how they propose to have this done. How do you “cease participation” when you are in the middle of a war? Is it suggested by hon. members opposite that we make peace? If so, with whom do they suggest that we should make peace? If they suggest that we should make peace with the Axis, how do they suggest we should set about it? Or do they suggest that we should make peace with the Allies? If that is the suggestion, I can tell hon. members opposite that their attitude in the past will require a great deal of explaining. I also want to tell them that even if they succeeded in making peace, they would never succeed in making peace with the national conscience, because the national conscience would never allow us to leave our comrades in the lurch, and endeavour to make a shameful settlement on our own. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) told us the other day of certain things that Gen. Dan Pienaar had said not very long ago. I will tell you something else he said. We asked him: “Dan, what do you propose to do when you have cleaned up the Germans in North Africa?” He said: “That is a matter for you politicians to decide, but you must not ask me to stand on the shores of the Mediterranean and wave farewell to friends of mine with whom I have fought side by side. You must not ask me to do that.” I asked him: “Dan, are you speaking for yourself or for your troops?” He replied: “I am speaking for 90 per cent. of the men under my command.” Contrast that saying of the late Gen. Dan Pienaar, one of South Africa’s greatest heroes, with the disgruntled letter read out by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) the other day, when he talked about “once bitten, twice shy”. Sometimes, looking at the hon. member for Winburg, standing at that great height, you would think that he would be able to take a broad view, but I am afraid that in spite of his height he takes a narrow view on most occasions. That is what Gen. Pienaar said, and I commend it to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, who says that he hopes not one Afrikaner will volunteer to go farther afield. That is Gen. Dan Pienaar’s opinion, and I think the House will be prepared to accept that opinion in preference to the opinion of a disgruntled soldier who writes to the hon. member for Winburg. Another question that worries hon. members on the other side a great deal is whether there will be compulsion. That position has been made perfectly clear. The hon. member for Rosettenville explained what happened in the last war. We then had three definite campaigns. People volunteered for service in German West Africa; others went to East Africa; others went overseas to fight in Flanders, and others went to fight in Palestine and Egypt. So that exactly the same position will obtain now. I can understand some hon. members opposite not understanding this, but if they cannot, they have only to appeal to the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). I understand that he was a soldier in the German West campaign. Unless I am mistaken, he had the honour of serving under the gallant command of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Col. Wares). He can explain to his friends that he was under no compulsion to go anywhere and that is exactly what will happen now. No one will be under any compulsion. That definitely disposes of any difficulty at all that there may be in that direction. Another aspect of the case which I also find very puzzling is this. Hon. members opposite are very interested in new orders; they are very interested in post-war reconstruction; they are very interested in social security. They put a very huge omnibus resolution on the Order Paper. I am sure they must realise that any post-war reconstruction must be international in its character, that it is quite impossible for any nation after the war to imagine that they can be so self-sufficient that they can settle their own affairs without reference to the whole world position, to what everybody else has to do in order to make a better world for the whole world, and not only one section. Do these gentlemen suggest that we shall, at this stage of the war, retire from all active participation in anything, but that when the war is over we shall come to the peace tables and say: “Although we left you in the lurch when we thought that South Africa was sufficiently safe, yet we are now claiming our full right to participate in all the benefits of the victory that has been won.” Is it the suggestion of hon. members opposite that they should take everything and give nothing in return? Is that the type the Afrikaner race is made of? I will tell them we are not. I will tell them we are going through with this to the bitter end. We have set our hand to the plough, and we are certainly not going back at this stage. We have a great opportunity now. We have brought our troops back to refit. There are definitely weaknesses in our military machine which have become apparent; there are certain things we can do to improve the position of the soldier; there are certain things we can do in order to get rid of any grievances that there are. When this has been accomplished, then our soldiers are going farther afield with the certain knowledge that their future will be safeguarded. They will go farther afield to add more lustre to the glorious name they have built up. They will go farther afield with the knowledge that South Africa stands behind them, notwithstanding what these people opposite have said. The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) gave some belated credit to what the troops have done. They will go farther afield to carry on the good name of South Africa. As has been said, this is one of the most momentous issues this House has had to decide. The honour of South Africa is in the keeping of this House. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the honour of South Africa is safe in the hands of this House, and that by a great majority we shall decide that the good work we have begun we shall carry on; we shall decide that we shall pursue it to the end, and we shall take our part in the glorious victory which is certain to come, and when it comes, we shall be able to hold up our heads to the whole world and say “We played our part in that titanic struggle, and we will now add our share in trying to create a better world.”

If on the 4th September, 1939, our young men had known that they could be sent to any place in the world to fight there, a large number of them would not have been so enthusiastic about the resolution which was passed by this House with a small majority of members on the other side. If on the 4th September, 1939, the nation had known, and if at that time this House had known what was in store for the country as a result of the resolution which was proposed by the Prime Minister, then there would have been a different result. On the very day that we voted, numerous members on the other side still had doubts. Quite a number of them—I can say this, because it is no longer a secret—had doubts as to how they should vote.

There is no longer any doubt now.

No, I agree with the hon. member that there is no longer any doubt today, because there are double salaries now. Why was there a doubt in the minds of those members? Because they wanted to prevent the same conditions which we experienced in the war of 1914-T8, and because there was this doubt, one member after the other got up to give this House the assurance that we would not have the same state of affairs. We therefore accuse the Prime Minister inasmuch he got this House and the country to vote under false pretences. In this connection I particularly want to mention the Minister of Agriculture and accuse him of having submitted this matter to us either under false pretences, or that he did not know what was really in the mind of the Prime Minister when he introduced his motion. The Minister of Agriculture, in secondinig the motion of the present Prime Minister that we must declare war, gave the assurance in this House, both to the House and the country outside that not a single man would be sent overseas. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not here, because I should have liked to put this question to him, how he can justify himself before the nation and before this House, since he is a member of the Government, which is introducing a motion of this nature in the House? The Minister of Agriculture owes an explanation to this House. He either brought us under that impression by means of false pretences, or he did not understand the motion of the Prime Minister. Only one of these two can be true. He either understood the Prime Minister to mean that not a single person would be sent overseas, or he knew that a motion of this nature would be introduced later. But on that day they required votes, and he, in his capacity as Minister, had to get up here and bring this House and the country under the impression that no one would be sent overseas. I say that under those circumstances the Minister of Agriculture owes an explanation to this House and to the country. Another hon. member who finds himself in some difficulty and whose main difficulties are yet to come, is the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler). He gave us the assurance in this House that if the Prime Minister resorted to commandeering and conscription, then Louw Steytler would go no further. After the speech which he made the other day, I want to address this warning to him, that as things are going at present, it is certain that he will have to make that choice.

I should like to conscript you.

I know the hon. member would like to conscript me, because the whole idea of hon. members on the other side is to send others away, while they themselves remain at home. If things go on as they are, at present, then the next motion by the Prime Minister will be one of conscription. According to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, South (Mr. Hirsch), one cannot serve the Empire half-heartedly; one must serve the Empire to the full extent and go the whole way. If the Prime Minister and hon. members on the other side are imbued with the idea that the Empire cannot be served half-heartedly, that it must be served to the full extent, the next step will be conscription, and then I should like to be present in this House to listen to the hon. member for Kimberley, District—but, of course, he will not be here after the election—in order to see what sort of figure he will cut on the day when he has to vote in favour of conscription. Judging by the attitude of the Prime Minister in so far as his promises are concerned, I am one of those people who do not accept his statement at Standerton at its full value. In other words, I think we must expect the time to arrive when the next step will be taken by the Prime Minister, and that will be a conscription measure. We may expect that the Prime Minister will postpone such a step until after the election. He is not prepared to move it before the election. He is rather afraid of that big cavalcade which comes to Muizenberg on holiday, and if the Prime Minister introduces conscription before the election, those people may possibly object. That is why the election must first take place. We feel justified in making a point of this at the election, and in warning the nation that up to the present the Prime Minister has served the Empire step by step, and that he and his people are repeatedly telling us that one cannot serve the Empire half-heartedly, but that one must be prepared to take the last step too. We are repeatedly told that we must fight to the last man and the last shilling. That is what conscription means. But I leave this. This motion which was moved by the Prime Minister represents a complete change in the policy which he proposed on the 4th September; it is such a far reaching alteration of policy and such an important matter, that if the General Election is close at hand—a fact which is presumed—then the Prime Minister should have awaited the judgment of the people in regard to such an important matter as this. He is in office, not as a result of the judgment of the people, but as a result of a fortuitous majority in Parliament. I will admit that as a result of the double salaries, that majority did increase slightly. I accept that. The Prime Minister must bear in mind that since the 4th September 1939, he has not had the verdict of the nation in regard to his war policy.

There were many by-elections.

The hon. member says that there were many by-elections, but the results were not all in favour of the Government. The Prime Minister now proposes taking this extremely important step, and the point is that this question of sending troops overseas is not a question which was submitted to the people at the by-elections or at any other election. The people have never had a chance to pass judgment in regard to this point. We are dealing here with an entirely new policy for South Africa. South Africa is waking up for the first time; for the first time in her history, she will now send troops to any part of the world, and pay for it herself. When troops were sent overseas previously, South Africa did not pay for it. Since we are now dealing with a totally changed policy, I ask the Prime Minister why he cannot wait a few months until the result of the election is known. Why hold out this fortuitous “double salaries” judgment of this House as the judgment of the country? It is not the judgment of the country. You may say that these people will have to wait somewhere else until the election is over, and that this will take too long. But a large number of people may want to go voluntarily, and nothing prevents them from going, as long as they are paid by the governments for whom they want to fight. This applies particularly to the Muizenberg people to whom I referred just now. Let them go. Let them go and fight overseas. Our objection is that our own people will be sent overseas to fight not for South Africa …

Volunteers.

When I look at the hon. member, I cannot really imagine what a volunteer looks like. Foreign troops come to South Africa, but the sons of South Africa must be sent overseas. That is what makes the policy so scandalous, and that is why the country should first be consulted. That too is the reason why we are getting telegrams here, in which objections are made, telegrams from men who are serving in the South African Air Force, and who say that we should try to prevent the Prime Minister from doing what he is doing now. The R.A.F. come to the Union and just wander about the coasts, and our South African sons must be sent overseas, to the North, and from there overseas. I have here a telegram which was addressed to this side of the House. It comes from 50 men at Roberts Heights, and I should like to read it out. Of course, no names can be mentioned, because one may not publish any name to this Government. I should like to read the telegram [retranslation]—

Disgrace!

Who sent the telegram?

The hon. member would like to have the name so as to hand it over to the Minister of the Interior.

We want to know whether this emanates from responsible people or not.

A fighting captain sent it.

It is a scandalous policy to load the South African coast with R.A.F. people, who are engaged, if you only keep your eyes open, on every holiday, in committing inexpressible misdeeds, and creating a problem which we will never be able to solve. These people are brought here and the sons of South Africa are sent overseas at our expense. The Prime Minister told me in reply to a question, that we have not got a sufficiently strong air force here, and for that reason the R.A.F. must come here. But in heaven’s name, first let us use as many as we have here, and then bring a portion of the R.A.F., if necessary. Why should our sons be sent to the North, and from there overseas? Why has the Prime Minister again wandered even further away from his own people, from the policy which he followed in the days of the late Gen. Botha? During the previous war he said that we were man enough to defend our own coasts, and the Imperial troops that were stationed here were sent overseas. Now he does the opposite. If it is true that our air force is too small, then first use what we have in South Africa, and then get in the extra men who are required, but do not let our own people bear the brunt in the North and overseas, and allow foreigners to be idle and wander about our coasts, only to aggravate our existing problems. I say that this policy of the Prime Minister is a crime against South Africa. Why must the R.A.F. be spared; and why must the sons of South Africa spill their blood? Why must the R.A.F. walk about in this country and do nothing, except create a further problem in South Africa, and our sons be sent overseas? The Prime Minister did a very ugly thing in the House yesterday. We say that hon. members on the other side who continually shout “war” should be compelled to contribute towards the payment of the war. I hope that after the war we shall settle with the double-salary men and the home fronters, and those people, who, according to the Minister of Lands, are making “pots and pots” of money. They should pay for the war, and I hope that this side of the House will settle with those people after the war. Our country is being bled to death, the nation must pay, but the home-fronters who did contribute something through the Governor-General’s Fund, have now received further relief. These people were persuaded to contribute something to the Governor-General’s Fund. But what did the Prime Minister do yesterday? He got up, and by means of one single sentence, he killed the Governor-General’s Fund. He killed it outright.

The hon. member may not refer to that.

I shall put it this way then, that if the Government will now contribute to the Governor-General’s Fund and accept financial responsibility for it, as the Government intimated, then it means that the Governor-General’s Fund will be killed in so far as contributions from those home-fronters are concerned.

Order. The hon. member may not refer to something which was said in a previous debate.

On a point of order, this is a matter of policy of the Government in connection with the war effort. It is the policy of the Government now to augment the Governor-General’s War Fund through the State coffers, and we think that that is not desirable. May the hon. member not say that?

The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) referred to a debate which took place yesterday, and the hon. member knows that that may not be done.

May we, without referring to the debate, discuss the policy?

The hon. member was referring to something which took place in a previous debate, and he must leave that subject.

Then I just want to make this point, that everyone realises that if the Governor-General’s Fund comes to an end, and it will now come to an end—because who will continue to contribute when the Government promises to contribute—then the home-fronters who are making “pots and pots” of money will be encouraged in their sins. In other words, the people of South Africa must be bled still further. The Minister of Finance will have to impose further taxation, get more money out of the people in order to be able to give this assistance to the Governor-General’s Fund.

I must ask the hon. member to leave this subject. All this is in reply to what took place in yesterday’s debate.

On a point of order, this is a very important matter, and before you give your ruling I should like to ask whether this will mean that we shall not be allowed, during this Session, to discuss the Government’s step in killing the Governor-General’s Fund. This is an intimation of policy on the part of the Government, apart from the question where the Government made the intimation. Surely we are entitled to attack that policy. If your ruling stands, it will mean that for the rest of the Session we shall not be able to discuss that.

The hon. member has brought what he is now discussing into direct connection with the debate which took place yesterday, and I think he should not go further into it

I depart from that, but I hope that your decision does not mean that we should have no opportunity of going into the matter. In any case the country will again have to pay the piper. Higher and higher taxes will have to be levied to pay for the war, but I hope that we shall get those people of whom I have spoken to pay for the war in one way or other in the future, that they will be taxed on a higher scale.

I have dealt with one point. I have asked the Prime Minister in the interests of South Africa to send back the R.A.F. to England. Another point is the question as to whom the Prime Minister will now send overseas. It is said that these will be volunteers. I take it that they will not be only Europeans but also coloureds and Natives. I want to point out that this will create an additional problem. The Prime Minister will remember the problem that was created when black troops returned from Europe after the last war. Some returned with white wives. The difficulties will be great when they are brought back to South Africa. These are people that will have had a touch of our civilisation, without the principle. They are now coming into the civilised parts, they learn things and they see things to which they cannot conform in accordance with the civilisation they have reached. The days are past when the Natives disseminated their news from hilltop to hilltop. The Prime Minister gives them a chance as in the case of the Europeans, to read their own newspapers at an electric lamp. Overseas the Native will come into contact with circumstances that he cannot stand with the standard of civilisation he has reached. He will come back with strange ideas. We already see the troubles that are arising in connection with the Natives returning from the North. For they have worn the same uniform as the Europeans, the same flash; they were put on a footing of equality with the Europeans. The days when the Natives had said: “Yes, baas”, and “No, baas”, are passed; he now says: “Yes, sir”, and “No, sir”.

Why not?

Why don’t you let your daughters dance with the Natives?

The hon. member does not know how to work with coloureds and Natives in the right way. He does not realise that the white man in South Africa is the guardian of the coloured and the Native, because they have not reached the level of civilisation where they can do without the guardianship. The Government now wants to destroy the guardianship. The Government is committing a crime against the people of South Africa when he wants to include Kaffirs and coloureds among the people who will be sent overseas. Then one again gets the same condition as after the last war, only in greater measure. The problem will never again be capable of solution. It will be an additional encouragement for the Natives to feel themselves equal to the whites. The hon. Prime Minister said at a recent meeting in Standerton that he was prepared to go even to the portals of hell, and he went further and said that he was even willing to go to Moscow. That is how it appeared in the Press. But please do not take the sons of South Africa to that place. Take rather the R.A.F. with you. We no longer want them at our coasts.

It will be our sons whom he will take with him, not your sons.

If you are hitched to the British wagon, you never know where you will end up. You never know what you will have to annex next. The defensive war, the so-called defence war, has ceased, it has now become a war of aggression. The Prime Minister wants to see the war through to the end, in other words he wants to stand by England to the end. When someone said to President Kruger: “The thing you see there in the moon is a man,” the answer of the President was: “It cannot be, because then the English would long since have annexed him.” If you hitch up with the English wagon, you never know where you will end. You may be dragged, as the Prime Minister said, to the portals of the hot place, or even to Moscow. Why must these people go? I think it is clear why the decision has been taken. Every time that the Prime Minister has gone to London, and they have treated him so handsomely, as they understand the art of doing, then he returns and South Africa has to pay the piper. He has been in London again, and I make bold to say that the plan to send our troops overseas originated at the request of England. The Prime Minister had such a wonderful reception, then he made a promise. It is said that it is our honour and duty to go, but if you look behind the honour and duty, then you always see that a prior promise has been made to Britain. Then they come with the story of honour and duty, and our little nation must suffer under it. Don’t call it honour and duty, call it by its name—a promise made to Britain. I have here before me the Prime Minister’s biography by Sarah Gertrude Millin. I want to quote something from it to give the background why the Prime Minister hitches up with the British wagon, and makes promises to Britain. She says—

When I look at the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell), I agree. When I look at the English-speaking, I can also agree. She says further in her biography—

In other words, what we have before us here is love for the English, as Sarah Gertrude Millin writes. He has made a promise in England and we have it here before us now. It has just become honour and duty to honour the promise and to sacrifice us for the Empire. Let me remind the Prime Minister of the words of the late Gen. De Wet: “Liewer met myn volk op ’n misthoop, als met koningen en prinsen in ’n paleisen;.” We must make all these sacrifices for the Empire. Our sons must again be sent overseas. And I do not know if they on their part are so grateful. I think of Casablanca. The Prime Minister informed us that he only saw in the newspapers about Casablanca. We can visualise another Casablanca in the future. But if such a gathering took place I cannot imagine how the Prime Minister could have been left out. If such a gathering had taken place near Canada, we could not imagine the Prime Minister of Canada being excluded, or if it was near Australia, the Prime Minister of Australia being excluded. But here in North Africa a conference takes place, which as the Prime Minister had said was cleared for a great part by our troops. It is a gathering of great interest to the world and the future, and the Prime Minister, after enjoying such a cordial reception in London, must read in the newspapers that such a gathering has taken place. Does the Prime Minister not see that they are using him merely as a football by saying to him: “Aap wat ’n mooie jongen ben jy tog.” Even Haile Selassie whose country was cleared by South African troops, did not even trouble to send a letter of thanks to the Prime Minister, but he did send a letter of thanks to Churchill. Haile Selassie might have had the courtesy to send a letter to the Prime Minister of South Africa, whose sons’ blood had to be shed to clear his country. No, the Prime Minister and South Africa are viewed merely as a little part of Britain. This is not surprising, because when a victory is achieved by South African troops in the North, then the Union Jack is hoisted, sometimes together with the Union Flag or sometime alone. Therefore I say that the world views him and country as a part of the British Empire, and therefore a letter of appreciation is directed only to London. I want to say this to the Prime Minister. He wants to go and sit at the peace table. Whether he will come there, is highly doubtful. We on this side just want to say this to him: Those people have little gratitude.

We have no doubt of it.

If I look at the seat of that hon. member, then I want to say that there is great doubt. But I want to say this to the Prime Minister, that they will treat him as they are treating him now in connection with Casablanca. At the peace table, where he would like to sit, they will treat him and they will let him eat, and they will also make him swallow a great deal. They will allow him to sign, but he will have to sign on the dotted line.

With or without protest.

Yes, with or without protest—he will have to sign on the dotted line. Here we have a man who likes to play the big man in the world. We are a little nation of 2,000,000 Europeans, with problems that we cannot solve. Bue he wants to bleed us on the broad sphere of the world to be able to play big man, because to him South Africa is too small. He wants to stand on the wide platform of the world and play big man, and South Africa has to follow and pay the piper. That is what is so unforgivable, that our little country that has such great problems, that we must go to assist to solve the great problems of the world, while we have not even solved our own problems. Keep your sons here. We have work enough for them. Do not send them away, we do not know where, to the moon or wherever you want to send them. Do not send them away to do things there that will be of no use to South Africa and that will make us poorer and cause us to suffer more when this war is past.

After having listened to the last speaker and after having heard him put up the bogey about our proposing to introduce conscription, I was reminded of those people opposite who are now so very anxious to take part in the glorious victory which the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg) has had so much to say about. It seems to me that they are very worried that possibly they may not be there to take part in the final victory. So far as we on this side are concerned there is no need for conscription. So far we have done all the work voluntarily and now that we see the opportunity of going further ahead the bogey of conscription is put up by hon. members opposite. No, we have done the work so far and we are going to see it through. Let hon. members over there stay here and be safe. They will not get into any trouble; we shall protect them. We do not suffer from cold feet nor have we any fear complex. We are afraid of nothing. So far as conscription is concerned let me tell hon. members over there that I am one of those who took part in the Boer War, I went in voluntarily, and wherever I went I went voluntarily, because I always felt that if a country was good enough for me to live in and to make a fortune, then it is good enough to sacrifice for.

Hear, hear, make a fortune!

Yes, I knew we would get interjections of that kind. We know that hon. members opposite are apt to cry out when they get hurt. Having listened to the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition and to the remarks of his seconder, the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé), having listened to the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), and after that to the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) and the hon. member for Heilbron, I never imagined that the vision which Gen. Hertzog anticipated would be realised so soon—I did not imagine that we would so very soon hear these voices crying in the wilderness. All this talk by hon. members opposite reminds me of the history of our people when the pioneers trekked from the Cape. Hundreds of people disapproved of their action, they told those people of the danger facing them, they told them that the lions would kill them and that the barbarous natives would wipe them out, but that did not stop them. They went away and became prosperous and I ask hon. members whether we are not entitled to be proud today of the perseverance and courage shown by our ancestors. Do not all of us claim to be descendants of those pioneers, even if some of us are not? It is those pioneers who made it possible for us to sit here today and to talk all the nonsense that we have been listening to this afternoon. It is the pioneers who made it possible for us to sit here as we are doing today. I go further. When we set out to conquer South-West Africa we had all sorts of reproaches, all sorts of charges levelled against us. Hon. members over there disapproved of the steps we were taking at that time. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) even went to South-West to get reinforcements for his forces, and now he tells us and accuses us of drawing the enemy to this country. But he is the man who in those days went to fetch the enemy to come here.

And you shot down your own people.

Yes, I did, and I am prepared to shoot my own people if they do what is wrong, and my own people also shot at me, I am prepared to meet anyone, man to man. We went to South-West Africa as volunteers. A certain section of our forces were commandeered, I admit that, but they were not Free Staters. People were commandeered in the Transvaal. My Brigade consisted of Free Staters and I know that they were not commandeered. They went voluntarily and they contributed towards conquering that country. After we had taken the country, however, I ask hon. members to remember what happened then. Even the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) travelled through the country and told anyone who would listen to him that we had taken Nabob’s vineyard. But in spite of that he was glad to become administrator of that country—to become “His Excellency” there. And we admired him because of the economy which he exercised there. And what has happened now since we have taken South-West Africa? The Nationalists were advised to go to that country and they did very well there and they made a success of farming, and not only that, but we also got the Angola Boers to come back and to go and live there. We did not object to what was done, even though it cost of a lot of money. And now we are told here that hon. members opposite are not going to move one hand if the country should be taken back by Germany, and the people who they advised to go there will have to do the best they can. After German East was conquered we sent troops to Europe and we know the excellent reputation they achieved for themselves there. I don’t want to remind the House of what the Leader of the Opposition in those days said about them. But his own lieutenants went through this country and told the people that it was scum of the earth who had gone and that we could get on quite well without them. But what happened after that? What happened at the unveiling of the Belville Wood memorial? What did Gen. Hertzog say there? He said that posterity could hear the footsteps of the heroes who had sacrificed their lives to save the world from militarism. He paid a great tribute to them, and here in South Africa the Opposition stated proudly that it was our people who had given their lives there. When those men had to go, in those days they—the Opposition—did not look upon them as “our people.” We sent thousands of coloured men and natives to work in the trenches and to offload the ships at the keyside, and do hon. members recollect the outcry there was about natives being employed? The question was put what we were going to do with those natives when they came back. Let me tell hon. members that so far as the natives and coloured people who have joined up now are concerned, they are being disciplined as never before. When those men came back from Europe in the last war it was alleged that some of them had come back with white wives. Well, I know of many of them who went overseas before and who also came back with white wives. We don’t want to say too much about that, but that is the position. I know of many farmers who told me in those days that they would be very grateful if their own labourers had been disciplined in the way those troops had been disciplined. For one thing they learned to obey their masters. Now, let me touch on another matter. The hon. member for Heilbron told the House that the majority of our volunteers had been forced to join up.

And it is true.

The hon. member stated that they had been compelled to join up because if they had not done so they might have lost their jobs and they would have had no food to eat. Now let me put this question to the hon. member. Did the sons of hon. members opposite who joined up join up for that reason? Several hon. members opposite have sons who are serving in our Defence Force today. We are proud of them. These men are men who don’t want to stay at home when their friends have gone up North to fight the great fight there. These young men don’t want to be ashamed afterwards when the other men return. They have gone and we praise them for what they have done. But if the sons of hon. members opposite have not been forced to go what right have they then to say that other young men have joined up because they have been forced to go? I have had a lot to do with volunteers and I can assure hon. members that the only trouble I have had has been with young men who have given the wrong age and who have said that they were older than they actually were, so that their parents afterwards came along with their birth certificates to get their sons back. Some of those boys went back with tears in their eyes, but some of them managed to slip away and they went up North. But hundreds of sons of supporters of hon. members opposite have come to us and have told us that it was the fault of their parents that they could not go; they are very anxious to go, but their parents stop them and tell them that they may be killed if they go into the fighting line. They are afraid, and they have got cold feet—otherwise they would go.

People with cold feet are sitting opposite, on the Government benches.

Yes, but they have warm salaries.

The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) told us that he was not responsible for the experiment made with bush carts, but that it was the Imperial staff which had suggested it because it had proved successful in India. Well, the hon. member should never have brought those bush carts here—he had the right to refuse, and as a practical man he should have known that they would be complete failures here.

I don’t think that bush carts have anything to do with this debate.

Unfortunately these bush carts have been mentioned repeatedly by hon. members opposite, and having tried to make experiments with them I know the failure they have been.

The hon. member referred to them in passing in reply to an interjection, and this matter cannot be discussed in connection with this debate.

Very well, Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) and the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) told us that our coloured soldiers are made to wear the same uniform as our European soldiers. I admit that that is so, but if hon. members over there knew more about military matters they would realise that all soldiers have to wear the same military turn-out. Coloured men and Natives do not wear any better class uniform—they wear the ordinary khaki. If that is evidence of their being placed on a footing of equality with the Europeans, then surely in our everyday life it must also be evidence of equality that the coloured people and the Natives wear the same kind of clothes as the European; they wear the best clothes they can get. In the Defence Force a certain type of uniform is laid down for every member of the Defence Force. I have had thousands of Natives under my command, and if ever they have been subject to discipline it has been in the army. I am able to state that those coloured and Native soldiers are well disciplined. They could not say that they were not prepared to risk this, that or the other; they could not simply turn round and say that they were ill or could not go. There was a doctor available and if they were ill the doctor attended to them, and if they were not ill they had to do as they were told. I as one of those who know what a Native and a coloured man can do have the greatest respect for those coloured men and Natives, and for their behaviour in the camps. They have given us no trouble whatsoever and they were among the most respectful men we had in those camps. And now we are told that we are arming the Natives and the coloured men. As I have already said, I have had many camps of Natives and coloured men under my command, and the only arms I have ever seen there are the ordinary assegais, and if those constitute such a great danger to the country, well, then we should also deprive the Natives in the locations of their assegais. We have been told of the great menace there is in this country today, and we have been told that our troops which went up North must go no further, but must be brought back, and who must they come to protect here when they come back? Must they protect our friends opposite? And whom are our friends opposite afraid of? I hear that they are afraid of the communists. I know of only one Russian here and he is an old Russian wearing a long coat and top boots walking about the Gardens. I have seen no other Russian here proclaiming the doctrine that hon. members talk so much about, but those people are afraid—they have told us time and again that they are afraid—and now those brave young men of ours who have covered themselves with glory up North must be brought back to protect them—against whom are they to protect them? I want to congratulate the Prime Minister on the motion which he has introduced here, where he asks the House to agree to our forces being sent overseas. As one of those who has had a lot to do with our returned soldiers and also with the soldiers who are still here, I can assure the Prime Minister that if he had not introduced this motion hundreds of them would have gone at their own expense. Hundreds of them are already in England. And are not those bearing the names of Malan and Hugo? Proud of those noble Afrikaners, who are among the greatest Afrikaners we can get, and who have covered themselves with glory.

Are they related to the Leader of the Opposition?

I don’t think that’s possible. We have heard of the hatred that is being created by England. I am one of those who fought to the bitter end and had it been in my power I would have wiped out that nation which I fought against at the time. But Providence decided differently. We made an honourable agreement with England at Vereeniging, and I ask hon. members of the Opposition whether England has ever committed a breach of that agreement, even to the slightest degree. I am open to conviction. England has carried out that agreement in an honourbale manner, just as we have carried it out, and I can assure hon. members opposite that the bonds of comradeship which have been forged up North between Afrikaans-and English-speaking will never be broken again. Sentiment will not break them, and party politics will not break them. Hon. members have had such a lot to say about our having to go and assist England. What did one of their front benchers say after the Boer War? He said that England could depend on the unerring rifle of the Afrikaner.

What kind of a rifle?

The unerring rifle of the Afrikaner of which the hon. member knows nothing. I have never yet heard that they have denied that statement. It was an assurance given that we had given our word of honour to England at Vereeniging and that we were going to stand by that word of honour. I am pleased, however, that the Prime Minister has now come to Parliament and has asked Parliament’s permission to allow our people to go overseas voluntarily and to fight there, and I am pleased that the Prime Minister proposes sending people to hold high South Africa’s great reputation, a reputation which has been achieved in Abyssinia and Libya. But I want the Prime Minister to go further than that. We are in sympathy with the great object of this war. Let him give those people opposite the opportunity of going over to Hitler and help him. They say that they are in sympathy with Hitler. Well, let them translate their sympathy into actions. They are afraid. They know that Hitler is going to lose, and that is what is worrying them, that is why they are concerned at the fact that we on this side are willing to go overseas and to fight Hitler. The hon. member for Heilbron spoke here of the glorious victory. No, give them a chance to go and fight. I am prepared to assist by contributing to a subscription to pay their passages, and I am prepared to go further and I want to assure the Prime Minister that if he removes the age limit then I am willing to go up North as a private and to join our noble heroes who are fighting for us up North.

I wish to express my sincere thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, for the privilege you are granting me this afternoon, of taking part for the first time in a debate concerning such an extremely important matter such as that dealt with in the motion of the Prime Minister. This is a subject concerning our participation in this war, and it also concerns our policy in regard to the war—a war in which I am absolutely convinced South Africa has no interest, a war which nobody less than the Prime Minister himself anticipated as far back as 1919 because he himself—and he is a farseeing Statesman, condemned the Versailles Peace Treaty as an unjust treaty, as a treaty which did not give us a guarantee of a lasting peace. To prove my contention I want to quote from a letter which the present Prime Minister wrote to Lloyd George in 1919 and where he said this—

History will avenge that crime and that injustice done to a conquered people. At about the same time he wrote another letter to President Wilson and in that letter he used much stronger language, and he said this—

Those indeed were prophetic words, and it is only a farseeing man who could have foreseen and predicted these things, and in his letter to Lloyd George he goes still further and he says this—

In other words this war was the outcome of this unjust peace treaty of Versailles. And now what interest has South Africa in the fact that Germany or any other foreign Power is seeking greater living room in Europe? We are not interested in it. But what we do know is this, that it is not in the interest of England and not in the interest of the British Empire that Germany should extend its position as a Power in Europe, and because it is not in England’s interest—and perhaps rightly looked at through English spectacles, war has been declared against Germany. But I fail to find any explanation for the reason why we should also have done so. The only explanation I can find is this, that we had to do so merely because there is a British connection here in South Africa. For the sake of the British connection and for the preservation of the British connection war was declared on behalf of South Africa. I did not want to speak on this subject in my first speech in this House, but I think I owe it firstly to my constituents, and secondly to that section of the population whom they represent, and thirdly, also to the Prime Minister himself. There are times when a Prime Minister and a Government attach particular value to the verdict of the people, and I think that in these days where we are dealing with a declaration of war which we are now discussing, it is the Prime Minister’s duty to hearken to the voice of the people just as we listened to it on the occasion of the Riversdale by-election. It was a by-election which was essentially a war election. By-elections concern the great and pertinent problems of the day, and in this case it was the war question. It was not merely the Nationalist side and the Nationalist candidate who made this a war election, but all the four Ministers who came to the constituency turned it into a war election. They told the people, “We are anxious to have a mandate,” and now for the first time we want to test the question whether the people are with us in this war. The Prime Minister created the impression throughout the country that Nationalist minded Afrikanerdom had also changed its views in regard to the war and our participation in the war. The result of this byelection showed that although no stone was left unturned to spread that impression in South Africa and to perpetuate it, and also to create that impression abroad, it was impossible to do so, because the defeat suffered by the Government was unquestionably the severest defeat which any Government had ever suffered at such a critical period. There are various reasons why we are opposed to participation in this war and those reasons are still exactly the same as what they were on the 4th September, 1939, except that a few more reasons have been added as a result of the problems which have been created here and as a result of the present Government’s war policy. Let me mention a few of those additional reasons. We do not believe that it is in South Africa’s interest that we should take part in this war. It is not in the best interests of the people and the country. There is nobody, not even the Prime Minister, who can put up a convincing argument to show that it is in the interest of South Africa. What did the Prime Minister say on the 4th September? He said this among other things; he said that the issue was not that of active participation in the war but whether we should sever our relations with Germany. But more than that, he said that England had broken off relations with Germany, and he added that if we failed to do so South-West would be taken away from us at the point of the bayonet. So because England had broken relations with Germany we must also do so. We must do the same as England had done. We had to “ape” England. The second reason is because we had committed an act of aggression in 1918 and had made a mistake, namely, that we had annexed South-West Africa. I say that we made a mistake because I can make no other deduction from what the Prime Minister has said, but that it was a mistake, because he says that if we did not do so—that is to say if we did not sever relations with the Reich we would get what we deserve. Well, now, if one has not got a guilty conscience, if one does not know that one has done something wrong, then I do not think one need be afraid of getting what one deserves! but it is because we committed this wrongful act in 1918 that we now have to put things right by committing another wrongful act. In science it may be logical and correct, because in algebra I learned that two minuses make a plus. But I never knew that in international matters two wrongs make one right. The Prime Minister told us the other day, “It was a leap in the dark”; I only want to say this, and I feel that I am speaking on behalf of the Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners of this country, when I say that if the Prime Minister wants to take such a risky step that he regards it as a leap in the dark, let him get Imperialists to join in with his leap in the dark, but he will not get Nationalist minded Afrikaners to do so. We also feel that the war is too expensive. We feel that it is too expensive to spend £250,000,000 on the war in the interest of the Empire—not in the interest of South Africa. The Empire is not worth it. It must necessarily entail a National debt which will be felt by our people and by the Nation and by posterity for generations to come, and it is a waste of money, not in the interest of South Africa but in conflict with the best interest of the people, and we cannot support a proposal of that kind. Then there is a further reason and it is this, that the Prime Minister’s proposal involves the arming of coloured and native troops. It means complicating the coloured and native problems in South Africa. It means that we have to see to it, and we have to help the Government if we support this motion—it means that we have to assist the Government in carrying out this policy which will result in bringing about greater equality between natives, coloured people and whites in this country. And that is something which we cannot do. The people and this side of the House refuse emphatically to tamper with the foundation stone on which white South Africa is based. We decline to lay more Afrikaner money and to shed more Afrikaner blood on the Imperial altar. We are not going to do it, we are not going to spend Afrikaner money in the interest of the Empire; because an entirely new precedent is being created here, namely that if the Government gets its way it will in future no longer ask England to pay for war services which are given on European battlefields in the interest of England by Afrikaners. But in future the Government will say that we have to pay for these things ourselves. That is something which we cannot and may not approve of. There is another reason why we do not want these men to be sent overseas. We feel that it is wrong, by sending our sons over there, to keep the English away from the front lines because since the outbreak of the war until the present time, we have found that the troops of the smaller nations—the Dominion troops—have had to bear the brunt and in most cases have had to cover the retreat of the English soldiers. We feel that if any fighting has to be done on the European battlefield for the sake of the preservation of England, the English tommies themselves must do that fighting.

And they must be in front.

Yes, they must be in front facing the enemy. They must not be with their backs to the enemy. We do not want to keep the English away from the front line, nor can we assist the Communists to win. I have heard hon. members opposite say that they are quite convinced that they are going to win the war. Well, assuming they do win the war. Are they convinced then that it will be England which will win the war? It may not be England, it may be its best ally, in this case Russia, and if that is so then we are going to have a position here one day when hon. members opposite will approach the Leader of the Opposition, if he is still alive, and that they will say to him: “Come and help us out of this mess.” I say that Communism is a danger, not only to South Africa but to the whole world. I feel that it is on that point that the Prime Minister will be disillusioned at the next election. It is a common danger to all of us. In order to get us to vote for the Prime Minister’s motion we were told that on this occasion it was necessary for Parliament to pass a resolution that only volunteers would be used. We know that story. We are fighting with volunteers now. How did we get those volunteers? It starts off with a few people who are willing to go and then a whole lot of unwilling people are forced to join up. And that is how this Army of volunteers is made up. The last reason I want to mention why we cannot accept this motion is this. We feel that we must not, and cannot, take any further part in this war because it is not in the interest of our own nationhood in South Africa. It is not in the interest of the development of our freedom and of our demand for independence in South Africa. We believe that the South African Nation has a call, a mission, to occupy a place of honour in the world as an independent nation. I cannot conceive of a people achieving the highest position in the world so long as it does not show a will to be independent and to stand on its own. For the simple reason that we are taking part in a war which does not concern us, but which concerns the interests of another great power, that in itself is denationalising to the nation, and while we display the sympathy which we are now displaying towards great powers, whoever they may be, so long shall we find obstacles in the way of our becoming a nation in South Africa, and I therefore feel that on principle we cannot support this motion of the Prime Minister, and for that reason I wish to support the amendment of our hon. Leader.

Mr. Speaker, this is the sixth occasion on which this House has been engaged in a full-dress war debate, and I do not think anyone can contradict me when I say that not a single new argument has been presented before this House and consequently before the country.

On your side.

There has been a complete rehash of all the old arguments that have been put forward; and which the country has long since turned down.

You only sing “Rule Brittania.”

Neutrality, a separate peace, republics, the British connection, the danger of communism, the new order—and then some more neutrality and the danger of arming the coloured people has been thrashed out in this House, and on platforms in the country ad nauseam. And, Sir, take the result of the by-elections right throughout the country, and I ask my friends to judge by those results whether or not the country accepts those arguments. Yet, they come back before the House and before the public and rehash it all. It goes to show one thing quite definitely, that in opposing this motion to send troops out of South Africa, they are positively and absolutely bankrupt of any real argument that this country is prepared to accept and prepared to follow them on. We have been discussing this now, I think, this is the fourth day, and it is perfectly obvious that we know just exactly what is going to be presented to us between now and when the debate finishes, a tedious repetition of what we have had for the last four years. There is one thing that is notably absent on this occasion, and that is any one of the prophecies we have had during the last two or three years. We have not heard those famous prophecies any more, and as a matter of fact, if my hon. friends care to try and make a living at fortune telling, and were as successful as they were during the last two or three years, this House would have to increase its charity vote, because a lot of them would have to be fed.

[Inaudible].

May I inform the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) that he will very soon be without a salary at all. I would like to deal with this accusation in connection with the recruiting campaign that has been put forward by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) and supported by my hon. friend the member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). On several occasions charges have been levelled against commercial firms and others of forcing men into unemployment and thereby forcing them into the army. I have my own point of view on that particular subject, and it is based on a personal experience. Hon. members have used this word “victimisation.” I would like to tell the House of a personal experience. I am interested in quite a big factory, and when the country appealed for men to go up North and fight, that factory released a very large percentage of its employees, and in order to carry on gave work to those who were not prepared to go North, not prepared to join the army. One man in particular was quite open about it, he told me as chairman of the company, that he was against the war. I said: “That is all right, you do your job and you will be paid, so carry on.” This man worked, and worked very well for some months, but one day I happened to be in the factory when the police arrived, and asked where was so-and-so. The managing director showed them, and two detectives went round, one on one side and one on the other, and they came out with this unfortunate man handcuffed. I said: “Why are you arresting this man,” and the detectives said: “Why are we arresting him? Come and look here.” They took us to the back, and there were 22 beautiful big bombs that had been made by this gentleman in our factory, with material stolen from us. Yes, sir, can my hon. friends blame me today if I refuse to engage men with similar sentiments? Who was victimised on that occasion, the man who worked for and was paid by us, or ourselves, who had our material stolen, our time stolen, because this man did work for himself with our materials and in our time. Let us not hear so much of this victimisation.

Did he say he was an O.B.?

No, when he went into the pick-up van he said “Heil Hitler,” and he was not an English-speaking man either. One wonders where such men get their encouragement to do that sort of thing. The longer one sits in this place, and listens to what is said and reads reports of what is said on the platforms throughout the country, the solution to one’s wondering becomes fairly easy. I sincerely trust, Mr. Speaker, that we will not hear any more from the hon. member for Gordonia about victimisation. South Africa has always had among its citizens people like my hon. friends over there, those who are prepared to reap the benefit of the deeds and courage of others. South Africa has always had that type of citizen who will allow others to go forward, risk their lives, spill their blood, do the dirty work, and then go behind them and enjoy the fruits and the benefits that have accrued from the actions of those who had the courage to go and to do. We know it, Mr. Speaker, Louis Trichardt, Piet Retief, and Andreas Potgieter had the same kind of people here in 1838, people that would not leave the Colony and go forward, and a lot of their descendants are sitting over there. In 1899 Paul Kruger, the President of the Free State, Gen. Joubert and others had the same kind sitting in the same part of this country, identically the same kind who would allow others to fight for what they today are championing the Afrikaners for. My present leader, sir, risked his life and travelled right through the particular country that they represent from Port Elizabeth to Port Nolloth asking them to come along and help. And, Mr. Speaker, in 1943, we find the same kind of individual who is prepared, after this war is over, to reap the benefits of freedom and peace. The country knows them, Mr. Speaker, and the longer they carry on with this policy of theirs the more certain is their disappearance from South African politics. They have had ample opportunity to show what they are worth, but all they have done was to go all out in every direction to stultify this country’s war effort. When it comes to reaping the benefits that undoubtedly will flow, we shall find them hanging round like the beggar at the table, looking for crumbs.

To begin with I want to confine myself to the remarks of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter). I am also sorry the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) is not here, because I should like to say something about a few of his remarks. I particularly want to say something about what the hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock), has said. The hon. member for Pretoria, Central, pointed his finger at us, and said that this was the last time we would see Parliament. It is rather peculiar, a remark like that coming from the hon. member. It seems that Parliament has now become his great ambition; if he cannot become a controller, he apparently wants to stay in Parliament. I would rather not be a member of Parliament than be in the position of that hon. member and retain my seat in the way he apparently wants to retain his. Now, we have also had the hon. member for Frankfort and the hon. member for Springs making speeches here, and to listen to them one would have thought that they had been in the very front lines, and that they had been fighting there and had done all in their power to protect the British Empire. I want to draw the attention of those hon. members to the fact that they have a special responsibility in this regard. They should never forget that it is due to the way they voted that South Africa has been plunged in this war. They took that responsibility from the very start, and then we heard the Prime Minister say the other day that he had refused to allow them to go to the front. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister wants to keep them here to fight on the home front. Let me just say this to hon. members opposite, that I would refuse to be a member of Parliament and draw money from the war funds, even if the Prime Minister told me that I was not allowed to go and fight. Surely when the resolution was passed for South Africa to go to war those who voted for it knew that hundreds and thousands of people would be killed, that hundreds and thousands would come back maimed and mutilated, and then after hon. members have voted in favour of the country going to war they draw a special salary and they remain on the home front in Parliament without firing a single shot. When listening to the speech of the hon. member for Frankfort I got the impression that he had been in Abyssinia and North Africa, and that he had been fighting there to the last ditch.

He has been training natives here.

The hon. member told us that he does not suffer from cold feet. Well, if it were not for the fact that he has cold feet I am sure that he would have been in North Africa long ago to do his share of the fighting. I would have imagined that he would have gone there after the last Session.

I was under the impression that you always tell us that you never become personal.

I don’t mean to be personal; I have no intention whatsoever of attacking the hon. member, but he made a personal attack against this side of the House, and I am talking in general terms about those hon. members. They can defend themselves in general terms. Some time ago before any soldiers had been sent out of the country I was travelling along the Main Road when I met an Englishman who was walking on the road. He asked me to give him a lift. I asked him where he was going. He told me that he was prevented from going overseas, so he was walking to Cape Town to find out whether he could get an opportunity of going to England because his country was in danger. That is the type of man I respect. I respect the young man who was in Holland studying when the Boer Republic needed him, and who gave up his studies and came here to fight for his Republic to the very end. Hon. members opposite give this motion their full support. With a sob in their voice they ask for volunteers, although they themselves are doing nothing to help. That being so, they must not blame other people if they refuse to go voluntarily. The hon. member for Pretoria Central said that the Russians would be in Berlin one of these days. Just let me say this to him, that unless more aid is given to Russia, than is being given today, the Russians will never march into Berlin. We have heard hon. members opposite criticise us so often that we really don’t take much notice of them any more, but let me tell them that they will never convince the Afrikaner until they have proved their own sincerity. The hon. member for Frankfort has been holding forth here about the conditions and the achievements of the pioneers.

What does Deneys Reitz say?

Yes, let me deal with that point; let me deal with the statement of our present High Commissioner in England about the cause of the Trek. He states that the Trek was brought about by the fact that the pioneers refused to acknowledge any authority.

The hon. member is straying rather far from the subject of the debate.

Well, I shall leave it at that. I am convinced that the Treaty of Vereeniging has made such a great impression on hon. members opposite—a Treaty that was made after the Afrikaner had been conquered—that they don’t mind sacrificing everything for the preservation of the British Empire, so long as they themselves don’t have to shed any blood for that purpose, although they want other Afrikaners to shed their blood. If they are really sincere they will see to it that the Prime Minister does not hold them back. Three years ago, in 1939, we passed a resolution that South Africa would take part in this war. The resolution of 1931 was taken immediately after the General Election. In that General Election we went into the country and we told the public what was contained in this document which was drawn up by the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). That is what we laid before the public on the public platform, namely that South Africa did not want war, that South Africa’s policy was a policy of peace. We took part in those General Elections as a United Party and what we submitted to the people was contained in the main in this pamphlet which I have in my hand. It was drafted by the Minister of Finance and by the hon. member for Gezina and in this pamphlet the principles are laid down which we had to proclaim to the public from the platforms throughout the country. One of the first points appearing in this document is that South Africa does not stand for war, but that its policy is a policy of peace. Immediately after the Elections we arrived at the position which was created on the 4th September, 1939, and we then had three alternatives open to us, according to the motion introduced by the then Prime Minister (Gen. Hertzog) and the then Minister of Justice (Gen. Smuts). We could do one of three things; the first thing to do was to remain neutral; the next alternative was to go to war; and the third alternative was that without taking part in the war we could have severed our relations with the Axis and we could have devoted ourselves to our own defence. And that according to the arguments and the speeches made in this House was the intention of the Present Prime Minister—that was the attitude adopted by the present Prime Minister. That was what he meant by his motion. Not long afterwards, however, he decided that this country should take an active part in the war. Now, we again have a General Election at hand Again we are asked today to take a serious step if the first step we took was a serious one this one is just as serious. The other step to which I have referred was taken after the Elections. But the Prime Minister never gave the public the opportunity of expressing itself in regard to that step of his, and now before giving the public the opportunity of saying what they want he wants to take a, further step. Once one has taken a step like that it is not easy to retract, to go back. Why is not the Prime Minister prepared to be fair to the country and to the people of South Africa? Why does he not make this question the issue at the next General Election? Why does he not do that because surely the people, the public of this country, are the ones who have to make sacrifices. They will have to face and contend with the great economic difficulties resulting from the war, a war in which he, the Prime Minister, has plunged this country. They are the people who have to bear the burden. They are the people who have to make the sacrifice, and yet we are asking them to send volunteers. Why does not the Prime Minister, before doing anything else, proclaim a General Election, and why does he not test the position? If he gets the majority, he can say freely that he is acting on behalf of the people of South Africa. He has never yet given the public the opportunity of expressing themselves. In 1939 when our policy was a policy of peace he declared war immediately after the General Election. Now we have the opportunity, while the matter is still in the air of making it the issue in the Elections, and if the Prime Minister scores a victory in those Elections he will have the right to say freely that the people of South Africa want volunteers to be sent away. That is the Prime Minister’s responsibility to the public; it is his duty to give the public that opportunity. We hear a great deal of talk about volunteers having to go. We know how the recruiters came to the Transvaal schools; we know that cadet officers were compelled to sign the Africa oath and if they refused to take it cadet training would have completely gone by the board. That is the type of volunteer the Government got. With threats these people were forced to go, and thus all sections of the population had pressure brought to bear on them; pressure was brought to bear on the workers—it is unnecessary for me to go into details. We have dealt with this matter repeatedly, but I want to say this to the Government, that they talk about volunteers—let them give us more confidence in regard to the type of volunteers they want to send, and until such time we are not prepared to say that those men are going voluntarily.

Thirty years ago I stood on the stoep of the house of the late Mrs. Piet Joubert in Pretoria. She was, as you know, the widow of the late Gen. Piet Joubert, Commandant-General of the Transvaal. She was at the battle of Majuba, and I asked her to tell me what had taken place there, and she told me something I have never forgotten. She told me that the Commandant-General had instructed another Commandant to see that the British at Laingsnek did not move to Majuba. This Commandant later on rode into the camp of Gen. Piet Joubert and said: “General the British are at Majuba.” The old General became angry and shouted: “Then you can go and fetch them off there.” Now in this motion I hear a second Piet Joubert shouting to the manhood of South Africa that there are thousands of young South Africans in the prisoner of war camps in Italy, and I hear him shouting to them: “Go and fetch them there.”

Are you going?

It would be a shame, it would be a crime, it would be a disgrace if we allow the soldiers of other nations to go and release our young men over there. Our young men over there will ashamed if we send New Zealanders, Australians, British troops and even Americans to go and release them while their comrades in arms stand on this side of the Mediterranean—stand looking on like old women. Because if you allow your job to be done by another man you must be an old woman and if we allow our young men to act like old women, our brave forefathers will look down with disdain upon us and rightly so. I am reminded in this motion of an experience I had six years ago. I was hunting in Tanganyika and I was camping on the Serengetti plains. And at about 10 o’clock at night I heard behind me the roar of a lion over the wide plains.

Did you get a fright?

I notice that the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) is very much amused and asked whether I was afraid. I admit that I was a bit uncomfortable, but not as uncomfortable as he was when one night in Long Street he ran his legs off for a Tom Cat with a bobbed tail. I heard the roar of the lions over these mighty plains, and only a minute after I heard another lion roaring back in that tropical stillness.

Good Heavens!

The one lion roared in response to the other one. It was one lion roaring to the other, and here in this motion I hear the thousands of young South African lions, those brave fellows—I hear them calling across the waters of the Mediterranean to this grey old lion sitting here, and he is responding to them, and he says to them: “Boys, I shall see that you are released.” He is respoding to them like another Piet Joubert, and he says to the manhood of South Africa: “You go and fetch them from there.” The second point I want to make is that this opposition to this motion is an infringement of the liberty and freedom of our nation. We are volunteers. We are democrats. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) makes some interjections. Let me say this. I like his interjections. I shall tell you why, because usually when he makes an interjection he is as merry as a sick monkey. I say that this is an infringement on the freedom and liberty, not only of the individual but also of the Nation. Those men are volunteers, and they Want to go as volunteers. What right have we to keep them back if they want voluntarily to go overseas to release our young men there? In this country we hear so many people talk about liberty and freedom and Republicanism. Well, I read the “Die Burger” fairly regularly and I read in that paper on the 9th January that a meeting had been addressed by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) and also by a certain Dr. Ross and these were the remarks that were made at that meeting—[translation]—

And then on the 23rd January I read in “Die Burger” that the people on the Flats at Southfield had been addressed by the hon. member for Bloemfontein District (Mr. Haywood) and by the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys), and the hon. member for Bloemfontein District then made these remarks—that the day was not far when we would release ourselves from the yoke of slaves.

He is such a slave that he can say as much as he likes.

Now I want to ask this, where do we want to get greater freedom, greater liberty and greater independence than we have today? Are we looking for any greater freedom? Do we expect to get it? I put this to hon. members in all fairness. The Governor-General of this country is a South African.

He is not.

The Acting Governor-General is a farmer’s son from Aliwal North. This country has been governed for thirty-two years by Boer Generals, the heads of Government Departments are Dutch-speaking people; the professors at our universities with few exceptions are Dutch-speaking; three out of four of our Administrators are Dutch-speaking people. The Chiefs of Police are Dutch-speaking people. We are allowed in this country to swear and curse at the Government as much as we want to; we can even depose the King if we want to. Do we want greater freedom? And still these people speak of the yoke of slaves! Well, at any rate they tell us that they are yearning for freedom and liberty. Why then, if that is what they want, why do they want to refuse freedom to these young men who want to go overseas, to release our young men? If they think that they are suffering and that they are bent under the yoke of slaves, then I am inclined to think that it is not a yoke of slaves but if you will permit me to say so, a joke of fools.

It strikes me that you are the joke of fools.

Thirdly I want to say this, necessity knows no law. The Prime Minister has been accused of having broken his word because he wants to send these men overseas. He has been accused of having broken his word because he sent an expedition to Madagascar. I admit that he has broken his word, but at the same time I want to ask whether anyone could predict at that time that our men would be captured at Tobruk? Could the Prime Minister have predicted at the time that we were going to see this treachery of Japan attacking Pearl Harbour? Could he foresee the possibility of an attack on Madagascar by the Japanese, the possibility of their forming a U-boat base there? Could he predict that? Is he a prophet? No. And I want to say this of the Prime Minister, that the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) is a better prophet than he, because the hon. member for Piketberg was able to say long before that on the date when he was to have met Dr. Van Rensburg he would be very indisposed. He was able to say that on the date when he was to address a meeting together with Dr. Van Rensburg—a fortnight before that time he was able to prophesy that on the 9th December he would be indisposed, and on the 9th December in fact he was so indisposed that he was wallowing in the tepid waters of Hermanus. Yes, he is a better prophet than the Prime Minister. Now, a lot of dust has been kicked up here about sending native troops away, about arming them and so forth. Why not? If there is a necessity for it why not arm them? Do you want them to meet the enemy with cudgels, or with nothing in this hands? What I am surprised at is that these remarks actually come from members on the other side who are Transvaalers, from men who should know their history better. Don’t they know how Dingaan was defeated? He was defeated by our Boers in the first place but in the end he was defeated by Panda. Panda was an Ally of Genl. Pretorius and Panda and his men moved up together with Genl. Pretorius to put an end to Dingaan.

Those are old stories.

Yes, they are old stories but the hon. member does not know them. Finally what has disgusted me about this whole opposition to this motion is the hypocrisy on the other side. If that word is too strong for you, Mr. Speaker, I shall say the whitewashing, and if that is too strong I shall say the pretence. Just fancy these people objecting to our sons being sent over there, and the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) standing up yesterday or the day before and slobbering away about the “dear mothers of the boys who will be shot over there,” and not a single one of them has a boy over there. Why are they concerned? The people who must be concerned are we who have our sons and daughters in the war. They are not concerned at all. Let me pin them down. If they are so concerned about our boys—let me ask them is there anyone over there who has ever contributed to the Governor-General’s Fund, or is there a movement among them to contribute anything to the Gifts and Comforts for our soldiers, or has any of them ever given anything to the Red Cross to alleviate the sorrows and the troubles of our boys in Italy, and those are the men who are so concerned! Let me give expression to something which has disgusted me in the Opposition more than anything else has ever done, because after all I and they are of the same blood. And it is this, Dan Pienaar was the greatest general the Dutch speaking South Africans have produced. The only general who could compare with him was Gen. De Wet but he did not have to fight against aeroplanes and tanks. He was the greatest general our nation has ever produced, and what happened when he was killed. I read “Die Burger” every day. Not a sound was heard, not a funeral note was struck—not a single note—about the death of Gen. Pienaar ….

What you are saying is not true.

Not a word did I read in “Die Burger” about Gen. Dan Pienaar. Is that Nationalism? Nationalism is to honour your heroes, and if you don’t honour your heroes you are not allowed to use that sacred word in this world, a nation that does not honour its dead and its great men is not worth surviving. I want to say this in conclusion, the Prime Minister like a second Piet Joubert has made a call to South African manhood, and he is shouting to us that we must go and release our boys over there. Let me give him the assurance in the name of South African manhood that we shall rise to the occasion. And to the lost Battalion over there I can only say “Heil”.

If I have ever been disappointed in my life then I have been disappointed today with the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Steenkamp). If ever a man has changed his course and his attitude, he is the man, and now he is running away from this House. He is afraid to listen to the truth, but I am quite prepared to say outside what I am going to say here today. In 1914, the time of Gen. Maritz’s rebellion, it was the hon. member for Calvinia who went to Maritz’s commando and who said to Maritz and his men, “Maritz, you and your men know that I am with you, even if you go to hell.” He knew that they were going to rebel and he encouraged them to go into rebellion. Rebellion against whom? Against this self-same Empire which he is now glorifying. And when the first shot was fired at Kakamas he cleared off with his Ford car without stopping—he cleared through Bushman’s Land, kicking up a terrific dust until he arrived at Nieuwoudtville and took refuge in the parsonage. And there he shouted and screeched until they arrested him. And he is the great hero who wants to defend the Empire today. Immediately after peace was declared in 1918 a synod was held in this town and he stood in Adderley Street wearing a long coat and a high hat, when two of his fellow parsons walked along. As they passed him—because they were pro-British—he pulled his top hat off, threw it on the ground and trampled it to pieces. He was like a roaring lion. He was the great champion of the Boer nation, yet today he agitates against his own people, against the Afrikaner nation. Why does he talk today in the way he does? It is because he is drawing an additional salary of £1,320 per year on top of his salary as a member of Parliament. And next to him is the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha), who draws extra pay amounting to £2,918. The bench holding those two members costs the State no less than £4,301 per year, plus their Parliamentary salaries, making a total therefore of £5,701. It is magnificent! That is the reason why they defend the Empire in the way they are doing; that is why they stand like rocks behind the Prime Minister. We quite understand their attitude; the hon. member for Frankfort boasts of the Voortrekkers; he says that he is taking up the attitude today which the Voortrekkers would have adopted. What was that attitude? Is he honest in making a statement like that? The Voortrekkers who acted in the way we are acting today and who would have stood for the policy which we are standing for today, left the country; they trekked away from the Empire, seeking freedom and liberty. And where does the hon. member stand? He is getting back to the Empire; he is fighting for his Empire. Well, let him do so, but do not let him humiliate the good and noble name of the Voortrekkers in this unjust and reprehensible manner. Let him leave the Voortrekkers alone. The hon. member says that volunteers will come forward, and that they will go and fight. Well, we have so-called volunteers sitting on the benches opposite. I am surprised that no more volunteers are obtained at a salary of £2,918. I am surprised that a salary like that does not attract more people. I have a list here but I do not propose reading out the whole list containing the names of members opposite drawing extra salaries. Our sons had to sacrifice their lives but hon. members opposite sit in Parliament drawing high salaries and they get nowhere near the enemy. They sit here like stuffed owls and hide themselves behind the blood of young South Africa.

And you hide yourselves behind the blood of your own sons.

I want to protest most emphatically against this motion of the Prime Minister’s to place South Africa on the altar for the sake of a British-Jewish Empire. Our country has a past and we know our country’s history. This motion does not conform to the sentiments of the Boer nation. I think the Prime Minister has gone far enough and should be satisfied now, and he should not ask us to agree to sacrifice our young men overseas. I think we should now concentrate the little bit of money we have and the little strength we have in our own country in an effort to build up our country. I think we should not allow anyone to go overseas, not even volunteers. We need all our strength for our own future. We don’t know what the future may bring and we must keep our forces here and not sacrifice them across the waters. And whom are we going to sacrifice those forces for? It is not a secret that it has always been a matter of British tactics to get others to fight for Britain and to die for Britain. It is a well known British habit. Britain saves her Tommies for what may come afterwards. It is a well known tactic of the British Empire. We recollect the battle between Wellington and Napoleon. When Wellington was on the point of retiring Bluecher saved the position. This was in 1815. It is British history and it is an absolute fact. Bluecher, the German General, had to come and save the position, and he had to rescue the British troops. But after the battle was over it was stated that the British troops had defeated Napoleon. They were the great conquerors and today we have the same thing again. France is being used to humiliate Germany and to break Germany; Russia is supplied with arms and war equipment and with everything that is necessary to fight Germany. The Empire is just as much afraid of Russia at it is of Germany, hence those tactics of getting one potential enemy to destroy another enemy, and in the end the British Tommy comes along and claims to have won the war. Those self same tactics are being employed today. Our young men, the young men of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and India, are turned into cannon fodder, and we ask “Where are the British Tommies?” There are 5,000,000 of them on the Coast of England. Here and there, just for appearance sake, one finds a few of them, but Britain is hiding behind the blood of other nations. Those are the British tactics, and the Prime Minister knows those tactics; he has had experience of them in the past. Is it fair, is it just, knowing what has happened in the past that we should be prepared to sacrifice our young men and to spend our money for the sake of the Empire? The battle cry as to why we must go and fight overseas is that they are wanted for the preservation and the rescue of the small nations. If that is the honest intention of the Prime Minister, war should never have been declared. England could have assisted the small nations and released them form the yoke of the oppressor, and the whole world would have been free. What are we fighting for? Great Britain has already got half the world under her heel; the world knows that the British-Jewish Empire is an international land robber. At the end of the last World War another half dozen small nations were incorporated into the Empire. Is it the honest intention to free small nations today? What then of India? No, Mr. Speaker, the British-Jewish Empire will not rest until it dominates the whole world if it is able to achieve that purpose. I believe that the Axis Powers will make peace on the basis of the freedom of small nations. On that basis they will be prepared to make peace tomorrow. So far as they are concerned they would be prepared to free all the small nations provided the British Empire does the same. But the question is whether the British Empire can afford to give freedom to its small nations. I am afraid it cannot. If it does so then Great Britain no longer will be Great Britain. Then Great Britain will be Little Britain and there will be nothing left of her. Consequently, Britain has to retain what she has, even against her own will. Great Britain will never free those small nations. Is it therefore not impertinent hypocrisy to appeal to us and to tell us that we must go and fight for the freedom of small nations? We were told that we had to fight because the Axis Powers had invaded Poland, and because they had taken Danzig. When Great Britain invaded the Republics in 1900 the Axis Powers did nothing. But when the Axis Powers took back their own territory it was regarded as a crime. Why? What interest have we in Poland? No, it was again Great Britain’s interest which was at stake. The back door was locked to Great Britain’s trade. It was not a question of Poland, it was a question of the Empire’s pocket. This whole conflagration has been started solely and simply for the sake of the British Empire’s pocket. But that is not enough. Now our sons have to be sent beyond the borders of Africa. The Prime Minister at the end of the Second War of Independence wrote a book entitled “A Century of Wrongs”. It was a book of protest, of vengeance against the British Empire. If he could withdraw that book he would not hesitate for a moment to do so. If there is one thing he is ashamed of it is that he has to contradict himself in the way he has to do today. And now he has come along with a second book. I have in my hands his book “Holism and Evolution”. It is a book based on scientific facts but these facts constitute a lot of old stories and there is nothing new in them. Still, I read the book with pleasure, but what is it’s object? At the end the cat is let out of the bag. That book was written with the very same object as this motion now before the House. In that book he even goes so far as to say that the weaker has to make way for the strong, and he tells us that the British-Jewish Empire will eventually triumph like a great powerful mountain, which will dominate everything, and all the small nations in the world will be swallowed up by the British Empire, they will have to surrender their language, their traditions, their flags and their national anthems. This book is the second verse of “Home, Sweet Home”—“Good old England”. “Tommy rot”! What is given expression to, what comes to light, is that the small nations must be swallowed up by the British Empire, just like a small raindrop in the brook, and the brook in the mighty river. If that is the object I want to remind the Prime Minister that he is only dealing with one aspect of science. Why did he not at the same time make some mention of the great powerful river which at one time used to flow and which eventually as a result of a change of climate dried up and was turned into an arid desert. Why did he not make mention of the mighty rocks and mountains which by the consistent drops of rain were turned into, deep holes so that eventually they were converted into deep ravines. Why does not he make mention of the big trees which by its powerful roots destroys the small trees? Why does he not say that time has rotted away the big tree so that the small trees are now growing in its stead? Why does he remain silent about all those scientific facts? Why does he not tell us that even the finest diamonds as a result of oxidisation eventually split up and fall to pieces? Why does he remain silent about those scientific facts? No, the fall of the British-Jewish Empire will come, just as mountains and rocks are split by drops of rain, and are at long last broken into little pieces. Just as the big tree falls and dies, so will the British-Jewish Empire fall and die. The rot has set in, and no matter whether Britain wins or loses this war the end will come. One thing is certain, and that is that Britain declared war. Britain has lost its future. Britain after this war will no longer be top dog as it has been in the past. Nor will it be the second in line. It will have to play a minor part, or perhaps it will not be there at all. If we remember that this war has cost more than £200,000,000 and God knows how many lives, God knows how many young men have been maimed and mutilated, how many mothers’ tears have been shed, how much blood has been spilt, then we ask ourselves, “What for?” What else is awaiting South Africa as a result of this war, but a doleful future? If we think of the great sacrifices in material things and in lives that have already been made, then we ask ourselves if that is the price which has to be paid for a Field-Marshal’s Baton. If that is the price which we have to pay for a Field-Marshal then may the Lord preserve us from a second Field-Marshal.

I listened to the speeches of the leaders of the respective groups opposite and their followers with mixed feelings. Since the outbreak of the war the leaders opposite have appeared as war prophets depicting with confidence the downfall of the allied cause, and even today by their motion wish to expose the cause of the enemies of South Africa. But, sir, South Africa is in this war, boots and all, and South Africa must play its full part in the achivement of a victorious end. We cannot stand aside as we it to our gallant men in the front line and those who are prisoners of war, to ensure that relief and release will be brought to them at the earliest opportunity. The speeches of members opposite and especially the sort of speech as that just delivered by the hon. member for Namaqualand will move even their own supporters to tears, as they their supporters, are daily realising that this country is fighting in order to secure our existing freedom, whilst members opposite are doing their best to obscure this great fact. Members opposite surely must be aware of what the German designs on South Africa are, and thus they have been allowing themselves to be used as willing tools to assist our main enemy, Germany. What does Hitler say in his “Mein Kampf”—

Surely members opposite must know that Hitler has a profund contempt for these “hands-uppers.” But, Mr. Speaker, I have also listened with amazement to the speeches of some hon. members opposite who once sat on this side of the House, and am more than ever convinced that they are kicking themselves for their very wrong judgment on the 4th September, 1939, and thus landing themselves in their present undignified position. I can also quite imagine their chagrin for committing what I may term, political hari kari, by having backed the wrong horse and for having jumped off the wrong side of the fence, and their annoyance with Adolf Hitler for very definitely letting them down, and thus they now wander round in further disappointment and frustration and then resort to suggesting a discreditable policy of surrender. No, sir, the hon. the Prime Minister’s lead in September, 1939, clearly was the right one to follow, and his sound and discerning judgment once again has proved of immense value to this country, as it has done in every real critical juncture in its affairs. The Prime Minister has the honour and affection of the great majority of people in this country who realise the debt they owe to him for his great leadership. The Prime Minister also has already dealt with the Opposition effectively, and he has shown that every prediction he has made has been fulfilled. No, sir, a policy of neutrality would have landed us in civil war, and the Union would have become a nest of Nazi intrigue. The criticisms from the leaders of the Opposition have been very remote from a practical policy, and even their own supporters have shown very little confidence in representing them before the House. The opposition to the Prime Minister’s motion is really a disreputable one, and although no doubt intended to exploit the situation for party interests, will be discredited by the great majority of people in this country. The Prime Minister has made it clear that there will be no compulsion, that the service will be entirely voluntary and the only persuasion will, therefore, be moral. Yes, Mr. Speaker, both sections are in this war moving together for final victory as comrades and when they return they will effectively deal with those gentlemen opposite and their kidney. South Africa is proud of its fighting sons, and when the full story is ultimately told of the achievements of our men in Abysinnia, Egypt, Libya and Northern Africa, their deeds will go down into the most glorious records of the Union, and definitely a feeling of shame will be felt when it is realised that not one word of sympathy or praise has come from members opposite for their gallant deeds. The post war problems need national unity, and it is only that unity which will effectively solve them, and under the Prime Minister’s leadership the great majority of the people in this country are becoming united today. The Opposition allege a breach of faith in the occupation of Madagascar but the occupation of Madagascar was in the interests of South Africa, and also, incidentally, distinctly in its own interests as well, as they will now benefit by all the Allied economic advantages. We, sir, on this side of the House have chosen the path of honour—the Opposition that of dishonour—and they are therefore intoxicated with animosity, animosity which is directed against those fellow South Africans who have been saving the honour of South Africa at the front, and against the Prime Minister, who has saved South Africa in the eyes of the world. And so, when the hour of victory comes, these members will have to stand before their fellow countrymen and admit that in the hour of danger they failed their country and betrayed those very principles of freedom which they constantly assert. So, Mr. Speaker, the motto of those on this side of the House, under the wise leadership of the Prime Minister is “Onward to final victory.”

Of all the big problems that South Africa has had to face the problem contained in the motion of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister now before the House is certainly one of the biggest and the most difficult that this country has ever had to contend with. There is such a great difference of opinion in regard to our participation in Great Britain’s war, and particularly to the sending of troops overseas under the aegis of the Union Government that in the history of South Africa we have this outstanding fact facing us, that in this country we have a position of affairs which has never been experienced at any other time in its history, namely the experience of one brother chasing the other over the plains of South Africa with a rifle in his hands. That is the tragedy which we are experiencing in this country, and it is due to our participation in Britain’s wars and the sending of troops overseas. That was why South Africa experienced a rebellion here. We had far-reaching differences in this country and for a moment we shall let the question rest as to who was right and who was wrong. We are stating facts and I want to repeat that there is a very great difference of opinion on this question among the public of South Africa. But more than that. It will not be admitted but it is a well-known fact that coalition and fusion were entered into because in the opinion of the present Prime Minister a war was going to break out, and to make it possible that here in South Africa a majority could be found to decide in favour of participation in Great Britain’s war. This issue, far-reaching as it is, was, however, always kept in the background, so far as the party on the other side was concerned at least it was always kept away from a section of that party, because the difference of opinion was so far-reaching that that section of the United Party which was not in favour of participation in the war was simply unable to express its opinion on the subject. We are glad that a section of the United Party stood by its convictions and voted against participation in the war on the 4th September, 1939. It was generally recognised that war would break out. Yet when the Leader of the Opposition openly made a statement to that effect his remarks were repeatedly ridiculed, and it was stated that he was raising bogeys and that no war was going to come about. And that was being done, and was being said at a time when one section of the United Party opposite knew perfectly well that war was brewing, and it was because the issue was such a difficult one that they hid it away as deeply as they could. We had the privilege today of listening to a speech by the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) who used to be a member of the United Party and who openly admitted that that was the attitude of the United Party during the 1938 election and that the elections were fought on that issue, namely that the United Party was opposed to participation in the war. I say again that we are glad that those belonging to that party who were honest in their intentions during that election have been honest enough to maintain that attitude throughout. And now I want to put this question to hon. members opposite—if during the elections of 1938 you had stated that you were in favour of participation in Great Britain’s wars, what then would have been the result of those elections? The split would not have come on the 4th September, 1939, but it would have been there in 1938, and the United Party would have suffered a crushing defeat and those of us who are sitting on this side of the House today would have sat on the other side because of the great difference of opinion in South Africa in regard to the participation in Great Britain’s wars. But even more than that. The Prime Minister in those days, as Minister of Justice, went out of his way to move an amendment to the Prime Minister’s motion—Gen. Hertzog’s motion. Point No. 3 in that amendment was that the Union should take all steps necessary for the defence of its territory and for the defence of South Africa’s interests, and that the Government should not, as in the last war, send forces overseas. I ask why, if there were no such far-reaching difference among the Afrikaner people, it was necessary for the Prime Minister on the 4th September to go out of his way to make this stipulation, that we would not send any troops overseas? And that stipulation was made at a stage when this House was going to take a vote on the matter before it. But it went even further than that. It was not only the then Minister of Justice but also the Minister of Agriculture, as we have already heard, who made the following statement:

If there were no such far-reaching difference of opinion among the Afrikaner people, was it necessary then for one man after the other to get up and to emphasise that point and to make it clear that we were not going to send a single man overseas? But apart from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), the Labour member in those days, said this on the 4th September:

I say that there is a far-reaching difference of opinion on this point, and that was why it was necessary for one after the other to emphasise this point, but it didn’t stay there. We have another front bencher, the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler), who said the following:

This deep-seated difference of opinion among the people of South Africa was the cause of one member after the other getting up on the 4th September to try and induce people to vote for this war because, so they said, this time we were not going to send troops overseas again. Will you allow me, will I be in order, if I say that it is difficult to imagine a more gross deception than was practised on that occasion? So deep-seated is this difference of opinion about our participation in Great Britain’s war that 67 out of a total membership of 147 who attended the Session of Parliament on that occasion voted against our participation, notwithstanding the pleas that were put up from that side of the House. And do hon. members realise that that means that 45 per cent. of the members of this House voted against the proposal, and now you know, Mr. Speaker, that the question has been put over and over again: Is it fair for such a drastic resolution to be taken without the people having been consulted? Let us take the reply for a moment, the reply which has been given over and over again in this House, that the representatives of the people did actually represent the views of the people on the 4th September. For the sake of argument I am prepared to accept that for the time being, but in spite of that I still say that 45 per cent. of the people of South Africa voted against participation in the war, and I say further that it does not seem to be sound statesmanship when there is such a great difference of opinion to pass such an important resolution by a small majority of 55 per cent. If, for the sake of argument, we ignore the non-European votes, then we can say that at least 50 per cent. of the people of South Africa voted against participation in the war, and with this small majority, if the non-European population is added, the Government party of the day dared declare war and go with Great Britain, and today, after all those promises which have been made by three, four and five prominent members, they come here and break the solemn pledge which was given to this House and to the country. And why is there this difference of opinion in South Africa? Is it because this side of the House is mad? Is it because we are pro-Nazi, as we are accused of being?

Yes.

No, that affirmative “yes” is completely wrong. It displays a lack of statesmanship. No, I want to mention the first point—and it displays a very unfortunate position of affairs—it is because in South Africa the conqueror and the conquered have to live together. We have British sentiment in this country. Well, that being so you must allow us also to have Afrikaner sentiment.

What about German sentiment?

If I have to answer that then I have to say that there is infinitely more German blood in the Afrikaners than English blood.

To our sorrow.

And notwithstanding that fact I contend that we must remain neutral because of this deep-seated difference in South Africa. I say that we are in this unfortunate position in South Africa because the conquered of forty years ago have to live together with the conquerors. May I be allowed to refer to a few points in the history of the Afrikaner nation, and in doing so I do not want to touch any sore points. I have done everything in my power to remove the past, I have done everything to make South Africa—the people of South Africa, into one great race. Let us cast our minds back to the Great Trek which found its origin in the feeling of unwillingness to be under British domination. There is Slagtersnek. One does not like to mention it, but it is part of the history of the Afrikaner people. If one is in a sentimental mood these matters come into one’s mind. Then there is Majuba, and the Jameson Raid; I am only mentioning facts, and then there was the Boer war.

What did you do in the Boer war?

Take the Anglo-Boer war with all its terrors, concentration camps, 26,000 women and children of South Africa who perished there. I am only stating facts. I am merely drawing attention to the causes of this deep-seated difference of opinion about our participation in the war of the conqueror.

You are still under the Union Jack.

Can we possibly find any stronger argument than that used by the Prime Minister when he wrote to President Kruger: “If Europe only knew half of the acts of barbarism which have been perpetrated here in South Africa.” I say that it is understandable that there is a difference of opinion about our participation in a war of the conqueror. It is due to our history. If there is a British sentiment in this country, we would indeed be a miserable lot if we had no Afrikaner sentiment, but let me mention a second point as the cause of this deep-seated difference of opinion about our participation in Britain’s war and it is this—and this has been our general experience in the world war of 1918—that every time there is a war the good and very definite line of demarcation between European and nonEuropean is tampered with and even removed. Now, I want to say this, that in most countries where nations have established themselves, in most countries like South Africa where there was a small crowd of Afrikaners against mighty hordes of non-Europeans, those people were taken up by the non-Europeans, and the white population practically disappeared, but here in South Africa the people who settled here did decide to maintain white civilisation, and that is why they are so insistent on the maintenance in South Africa of the demarcation line between Europeans and non-Europeans—not only do they insist upon that but they want it to be maintained unto the end of time, because if it is not maintained the future of South Africa, so far as the white race is concerned, is doomed. We are opposed to this participation in the war because every time we are involved in a war we have to contend with that self-same difficulty. But what better can I say than what the Prime Minister said in April, 1940, in this House, when the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) raised this question and when the debate that was conducted here became very hot—on that occasion the Prime Minister got up and said this—

And today the Prime Minister allows front benchers opposite to get up and to plead for the arming of non-Europeans, simply because they are such good soldiers. I have never yet doubted the fact of their being good soldiers, but at the same time I am convinced, because of what the Prime Minister said, that by arming the nonEuropeans we are breaking down the foundation on which South Africa has been built, and we are wiping out the Europeans. In this debate of the 4th September the then Leader of the Labour Party, who is now Minister of Labour, made this remark; that his objection to the then Prime Minister, the late Gen. Hertzog, was this: “That we English do not count.” I want to say this, that that is also my objection today, that the feelings, the convictions and the sentiments of the Afrikaner nation do not count. There is a majority and their views are forced through in spite of the promises that have been made here, and those views are forced through because it is in the interest of the Empire. I would almost say because they are Empire worshippers. The Prime Minister in his speech on the 4th September said that he was going to vote for what he regarded as being best in the interest of South Africa. I say, and all my friends on this side of the House, have said that we voted against the war and we are going to vote against this motion because we consider it best in the interest of South Africa not to send troops overseas, even if they should go voluntarily. They are going under the aegis of South Africa; they are going at the expense of South Africa. Even if they go as volunteers the fact remains that this country and generations to come will have to pay for the sending of these troops, not only for sending them up North but also for sending them overseas. And now I want to say what I consider is the best for South Africa; it certainly is not to help Great Britain win the war. No, the best thing for South Africa is to adopt a policy which will bring about the greatest possible degree of unity in South Africa. Not only between the Afrikaansspeaking but also between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking in this country. Do we want to follow a line of policy in this country which will for ever, for the next 200 or 300 years, keep these two white races in South Africa apart? Do we want want to put our 2,000,000 whites against 8,000,000 nonEuropeans. Do we want to carry on with this madness? If so, there is only one end to it, and that is the total destruction of our people, by the non-Europeans. No, when there are such differences of opinion and such issues the best thing is to see to it that the two sections of the population are not stirred up against each other, and there is only one road that we can follow in such circumstances, and that is the road of neutrality. If there are people who because of their sentiments want to fight for Great Britain they can do so, I raise my hat to the man who wants to go and fight for the sake of sentiment. Give him an opportunity to go and fight, but let South Africa remain neutral and keep out of Europe’s wars because here in South Africa the very first thing we have to see to is that a great nation is built up.

If you want the Mikado to come and look us up let me tell you that he is too busy.

I am glad to have this opportunity of supporting the Prime Minister’s motion. It is a similar motion to that which we have been discussing in this House for three years and more, and one is amazed at the attitude of Opposition members in sticking to their policy, well knowing that they are entirely in the wrong, and when I say that I am glad to be able to support this motion I feel that I am carrying out the wishes of the majority of my constituents. And I should like to say that in supporting this motion I am supporting the wish of practically every one living in the Division of Langlaagte, and I am glad to be able to voice their opinion on this important matter. This is a matter which is rather different from the matter which we have been discussing on many occasions in the past few years, because if the Prime Minister’s motion were lost, it might mean a parting of the ways—and we know what a disastrous effect that would have on the people of South Africa. Now, there is one thing which I particularly want to mention in connection with our returned soldiers. We know that only recently large numbers of our returned soldiers arrived in Johannesburg. I had the privilege of seeing a good many of these boys because I had known a good many of them for many years, and I thought it was the right thing for me to see as many of them as I could before coming back here, anticipating a motion of this sort. And I spoke to those boys and I said: “What shall I tell General Smuts when I get to Cape Town.” I want to tell you, sir, that the message which I received from those boys was this. They said: “Tell Gen. Smuts that we are prepared to go anywhere, tell him that we are not going to stand by and see our comrades detained in Hitler’s or Mussolini’s camps, we are prepared to go to the utmost to see that our comrades are returned to South Africa, and we are not going to give forces outside the Union of South Africa the opportunity of saying ‘We liberated your comrades in Italy or Germany,’ we are not prepared to see the good name of South Africa besmirched in that way. Tell Gen. Smuts that we are prepared to follow him to the end. We only wish that Dan Pienaar was there to lead us. We would have gone anywhere with him. But we are going to carry on the good work in the way that he wanted us to do it.” When listening to the speech this afternoon I was rather disappointed and I do not think it would be out of place to tell this House a little about the things which have taken place in Johannesburg. I represent a mining division, and I can tell hon. members that they would be amazed if they would only take the trouble to see what the mines on the Rand are doing for the continuation of the war. They would never allow the Opposition to come here and talk in the way they have done. And that not only applies to the mines, but it applies to the people of Johannesburg as a whole. They are all doing their utmost to help in bringing this war to a successful issue. May I tell hon. members something of what took place in Johannesburg, something which has a bearing on the continuation of the war. What I am going to refer to is the great Liberty Cavalcade. Let me give the House some figures in connection with that great undertaking. The takings at the first count were not less than £476,000, and after that the total amounted to just over half a million. And the number of people who attended that Cavalcade was close on 48,000 daily, while the grand total of those who visited the Cavalcade was 378,273 people. Now, knowing these things and then coming to this House and listening to the speeches from the Opposition, asking the Government to withdraw South Africa from the war, makes one realise that hon. members over there are trying to follow a course which South Africa would never tolerate. The effect of this motion is what one might call a two-phase one. The one is the continuation of a war and the other will be the peace settlement which will take place afterwards. Well, sir, if we drop our participation in the war, how shall we be able to take part in the peace settlement? Let me remind the House of recent events. I am sure everyone was thrilled when waking up one morning and reading in the daily papers that Gen. Smuts had arrived in London. And not many days afterwards we were even more thrilled when we read that our Prime Minister, our Leader, had had the opportunity of addressing both Houses of Parliament. His was an honour which does not fall to many men—very, very few men indeed have had that great honour and privilege bestowed upon them. We as South Africans knew that Gen. Smuts while in London had the opportunity of dealing with matters affecting our welfare and our future, of dealing with matters of paramount importance in this war. We were thrilled with the speech which he addressed to the world, and we felt that a great honour had been bestowed on Gen. Smuts and through him on South Africa, and let me tell this House that I have had letters from America telling me that even the people over there were thrilled by those weighty words of Gen. Smuts on that historic occasion. We know that hon. members opposite avail themselves of every opportunity to attack him. But that is not going to detract him from the path he has set himself. And what he has been doing lately is only a forerunner of what we may expect in the future. And now I come to the peace settlement. If we withdraw from this war, then I ask what right we would have to take any part in the peace settlement that is to come. Members on this side of the House are going to see that we do take part in that peace settlement, and the man whom we are going to send to the Peace Conference will be Gen. Smuts whose wisdom and great foresight will be invaluable there. His words and his advice will be accepted by the nations of the whole world, and through Gen. Smuts being there South Africa will be in a very fine position indeed. I think that when peace comes the name of South Africa will be written in letters of gold in the annals of history, alongside those of the other Allied nations. And South Africa will owe a great debt to our leader. Now, I want to appeal to hon. members opposite and I want to ask them what they think will happen if this motion were lost. The name of South Africa, the fair reputation of this country, would be besmirched for generations to come, and we on this side of the House are not going to allow that. We shall see to it that this motion is carried and that the fair name and the dignity of South Africa are upheld by our continued participation in this war. Listening to hon. members opposite my mind went back to the peace settlement after the last great war. We all know that President Wilson of the United States formulated the fourteen points on which the peace settlement came about. We know that after that he returned to the United States and that when he returned the members of the Senate and the Congress took up an attitude similar to that adopted by the Opposition here today, and what was the result? The result was that the United States, after having allowed their President to take part in the Peace Conference, practically repudiated the settlement arrived at, with the consequence that America took no part in the League of Nations, and through doing so became largely responsible for the present war. If America had supported the League of Nations and had assisted to keep Germany in its place I doubt whether this war would have taken place. But it was due to the attitude of the Senators and the Congress men of the United States that this war has now come about. And I wonder when these Congress men heard of the tragedy of Pearl Harbour and of the atrocities committed by the Japanese, whether they realised that they were largely responsible for what had taken place. We are not going to repudiate our Leader, we are going to see that our Leader is able to carry on, that he is able to continue to do the right thing for glory of the people of South Africa, and that he is able to use his influence, his knowledge and his wisdom for the benefit of humanity at large.

Although this motion has been fairly thrashed out, and perhaps all arguments have been used, I cannot but express my disapproval of the motion before the House today. If one takes into consideration where we stood three years ago when the first step was taken in this House, and where we stand today, it is almost unbelievable. On 4 September the former Prime Minister (Gen. Hertzog) introduced a motion, but the amendment to it from the present Prime Minister received the majority, and from that time until today we have gone step by step further, until today the Prime Minister proposes here that he intends to do precisely what he promised us on that day not to do, namely, to send troops overseas. From 4 September we got into the war deeper and deeper. At first the Prime Minister would only sever our relations with Germany. Thereafter the question of the boundaries of the Union arose. It was later fairly elastic, and there was great difference of opinion as to just where the boundaries are. The boundaries became wider until later they included Egypt, Lybia, etc., and then stretched to where the North African campaign is now being conducted. But we go further and look at what the war has brought further. We find that we as a small population of barely 2,000,000 have already suffered a loss in the war of 20,000, that is to say in dead, wounded and prisoners of war. But let us just think of the dead and maimed. We have already had to pay a tremendous price. To that is added the money spent on the war, tremendous expenditure that this year alone reaches almost £100,000,000. This is a burden that the people have to bear. Other dangerous positions have developed, apart from the loss of life and money. We have the sad circumstance that coloureds and Natives are being armed, no matter how understandable this may be from the standpoint of the Prime Minister, but a principle has been adopted that has hitherto always been opposed by all Europeans. The principle has always been maintained that the nonEuropean population has not reached a level of civilisation where they can be trusted with arms. This war has brought about the sacrifice of this principle, and the step to sacrifice of this principle — the step to arm coloureds and Natives. All this misery and trouble we have brought upon us. And now I ask the Prime Minister—why he is not satisfied with that? He has achieved his purpose. He received a majority on 4 September 1939, declared war, went step by step further, brought all the misery over our country to where we are today, and where the campaign in the North has now almost concluded, why is he still not satisfied with the price we have paid? Withdraw our troops, and keep them in readiness if they may be required within Africa. But now the Prime Minister, despite his promise of 4 September, after he has engendered a spirit of war, comes and asks permission to send the Union’s forces overseas. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) has brought a message from soldiers who have come from the North. The hon. member should know that a soldier who has been trained and disciplined goes to fight where he is sent. He does as the late Gen. Coen Brits did. When he received a telegram from Gen. Botha to mobilise, he telegraphed back that he had concluded mobilisation, but added, “Who must I go and shoot, the English or the Germans?” A soldier is a disciplined man, but the responsibility rests on the Government to say where he must go. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) gave the Prime Minister a valuable hint, namely, to proceed with Parliament only a few months more, and to make this point a platform plank at the next General Election. Then the people of South Africa will be able to say, after all the prices that have been paid hitherto, whether they are still prepared to send forces overseas to conduct the war further for the British Empire. In this war, the other members of the Commonwealth have no shortage of man-power. Is there actually such a shortage of men in England that we must send troops to go and fight? And where must they go and fight? The Prime Minister has not said whether they will have to go and fight in Russia, or in India, or elsewhere. But is there a shortage of troops? I would like the Prime Minister to tell us. In any case we gather that the war is already won. Then it is unnecessary to send our forces overseas. Now the Prime Minister says that he had promised on 4 September that troops would not be sent overseas, yet now he asks this House to empower him to do so, but only volunteers will go. Well, two-thirds of the so-called volunteers are not really volunteers; it is not really left to volunteers to choose. That is not the case. If you have a disciplined force, then you will find few in the army who will not go with the stream, but they are not really volunteers. It is said that there have been no cases of intimidation, that the people have gone voluntarily. Is there one hon. member who cannot mention cases of intimidation? So far as my district is concerned, as I have said before, it is not the war inciters who participate, not their sons—they produce. But their workers the poor people, are encouraged and also compelled to go. In all sorts of petty ways they are incited and driven. Those are not volunteers, even though they are not forced by military law. I think the Prime Minister can now be satisfied with what he has achieved and for the future keep our troops in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I should have thought that after three and a half years of war we should have seen a different spirit in the House, and I, for one, thought that after events had falsified the prophecies of hon. members opposite, they would have taken a more real view of the situation. Instead of that, what has taken place? We find that the old cows are still being drawn out of the sluit. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) has given us a new reading of history, and we shall all have to go back to school again. He has told us that Wellington did not win the Battle of Waterloo. I do not know whether that is according to Zeesen, probably it is so, but I must say that the hon. member is to be sympathised with if he reads history with such a complete ignorance of the facts of the case. Probably, however, he reads history according to his own sympathies. One hon. member opposite even told us that the future of South Africa, or rather of Afrikanerdom, rested upon a German victory. They are not today insisting so much upon the certainty of a German victory, because they see that the man whom they thought was going to dominate the world, is very far from occupying that position and is being gradually pushed back until he must absolutely collapse before very long. Sir, they began this debate with the same sort of egg dance that has been going on since 1939. They began it with a quibble, they told the House that the Prime Minister never led the House to believe that he was going to declare war, but on the contrary, they had every reason to believe that he was going to adopt an attitude of passive belligerency. I am not going to go in detail into this, but I would like to refer to the leader in “Die Burger’” on the 4th September, from which I think hon. members will see that their leading organ did not think that there was any third way in this matter at all. The leader is headed: “Geen derde weg.” There it is laid down very clearly there were only two alternatives before the country, the one was neutrality as proposed by Gen. Hertzog, and the other was war, which was meant by the amendment of the present Prime Minister. It says—referring to Mr. J. N. Hofmeyr, M.P.—

Then he goes on to refer to Gen. Hertzog—

At the end he says—

The House will see that there it is pointed out that there were only two ways, and that even if the Government succeeded in declaring passive belligerency, they would be forced by the circumstances to go on to active war.

[Inaudible.]

My hon. friend will see that before the debate started it was clearly laid down by “Die Burger” that there were only two issues, one was neutrality as proposed by Gen. Hertzog, and the other was taking an active part in the war, which was the Prime Minister’s amendment proposed afterwards. And yet they come and tell us seriously that they understood in the afternoon of the debate that Gen. Smuts really did not mean to declare war against Germany, but that he merely intended passive belligerency. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell), this is the first time this attitude has been taken up by the Opposition. It shows how bankrupt they are of argument that they had to drag out this particularly silly argument that when the House voted for the amendment of Gen. Smuts in 1939, hon. members were not voting to go to war with Germany. “Die Burger” clinches the matter that such a thought could never have been in the mind of the Opposition, and never in the mind of anybody else. Sir, I said there had been an egg dance on this matter from the beginning. That is clear from the motion originally moved by Gen. Hertzog. I am not going into it in detail, but it was really such patchwork. They declared that they were going to remain neutral, but they were not going to disturg the Simonstown agreement, or disturb the relations with the other members of the British Commonwealth; they were going to carry out their obligations and still going to remain neutral. It would have been rather a comic situation for South Africa, because we should have been waging war in Simonstown and having perfect peace in Cape Town. The thing, of course, was farcical. It was only because hon. members opposite found it so difficult to find a formula to unite them—they cannot agree upon anything—that this patchwork resolution was put forward. It was met by the clear-cut amendment by the present Prime Minister. Gen. Hertzog might have expressed himself clearly if he could have carried his party with him, but he had to declare himself in those words because without that he would not have got the minority which did vote with him. That is why we had that patchwork resolution which I have described as an egg dance. Then there is this other preposterous suggestion that the amendment was not the resolution of Parliament at all but the resolution of Gen. Smuts. Well, sir, it is well known constitutionally that when a resolution is moved and adopted by Parliament, it ceases to be the resolution of the individual who moved it, and becomes the resolution of Parliament. That is the constitutional position. The same when you refer to an Act of Parliament, you don’t try to find out the man who moved the second reading; it is the act of Parliament, and that is the only way Parliament can express itself, by resolution or by Act. It is curious that hon. members opposite fail to understand the simple fact that Parliament, by a free vote of the House, decides a course of action. I wonder if Gen. Hertzog’s motion had been carried, and it had been referred to afterwards on this side as Gen. Hertzog’s resolution, what hon. members opposite would have said. They would have said Parliament had decided, and we must carry it out. When Parliament decides it is no longer the Prime Minister’s or any other member’s motion, but the decision of Parliament, it is a motion which binds the whole of Parliament, that is how it is recognised by the outside world, and it is because Parliament has given this authority that we have taken the part we have in the war. This resolution we are debating this afternoon carries the matter a step further. As the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. A. P. Swart) has said, the soldier does not want to know where he is going to fight, he gets the order and he fights. But the Prime Minister has given every soldier the opportunity to make his choice. Nodbody is forced to go and fight beyond the confines of the African Continent; everyone will have the free choice as to whether he wants to go or not. We know from those who have been in contact with the troops that have gone North, that our soldiers will be the most disappointed men in the world if this motion is not passed. They are anxious for it, they are waiting for it, and I myself think that over 90 per cent. of the men who return will want to go again and rejoin their fellow soldiers in the fight to liberate their comrades in Italy and elsewhere, where they are prisoners of war. It is amazing when one follows the arguments of the Opposition to see the different forms that their opposition takes. I have given you the form it took in 1939. In 1940 the late Gen. Hertzog moved that the House was of opinion that the time had arrived when the war with Germany should be ended and peace restored. That was in the middle of the war, that we were asked to declare peace. I suppose it would be hands up, and the troops would have to surrender. How you can declare peace unless you can get the other side to accept your declaration I fail to understand, and especially when you are at grips with your enemy. At any rate, that was the resolution that was brought forward, and the present Prime Minister’s amendment was sufficient to defeat that. In 1941 the Opposition took a different form, because then the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) boldly came forward with a motion of no confidence. Well, that, at any rate, threw the glove down. That again was knocked out by a substantial majority. Last year we had a very long motion by the Leader of the Opposition, I am not going to read it, but I may say, sir, that the weaker the argument gets the longer is the motion or the resolution that is put forward. In fact, these motions of the Leader of the Opposition are becoming portentously long, as his position as leader becomes weaker and weaker. In this very lengthy motion he advocated a republic, while we were at grips with the enemy he advocated a republic, with all sorts of innuendoes excluding certain people from this republic and so forth. That again was knocked out by a very sensible amendment of the Prime Minister. The Leader of the Afrikaner Party, not to be outdone, also brought forward a very lengthy and portentous resolution, suggesting inter alia the form of republic which he wanted. They cannot agree upon the form of republic, or on any other subject. Then this year we have seen another change in this long amendment of the Leader of the Opposition, and an amendment proposed by the Leader of the Afrikaner Party. Again not be outdone, the Leader of the Afrikaner Party gave notice of motion for a vote of no confidence, in regard to which we had that decision of the Prime Minister. I really felt sorry for the Leader of the Afrikaner Party when he asked for precedence for his motion. The Leader of the Opposition gets precedence for a vote of no confidence, and when he got the answer of the Prime Minister that he would not take notice of a little group and could only take notice of the Leader of the Opposition. I felt sorry for the hon. member. The constitutional method is well-known to everybody except perhaps the Leader of the Afrikaner Party. That only shows how this egg dance has proceeded, and I suppose it will continue until the end of the war. Then the leader of the Afrikaner Party gave notice of this amendment expressing no confidence in the Government. The Opposition has lamentably failed to show that the arguments in favour of this motion are not sound. They have shown personal animus against the Prime Minister. It has been said that the small nations of the world have produced the greatest men, and that is quite true; it is the small nations that have produced the biggest men, and South Africa has produced them in profusion. When history comes to be written, the greatness of the present Prime Minister, both before the Boer War, during the Boer War, during the Great War and now, will become apparent. Everyone realises the way in which his words are received and listened to in every quarter of the globe. I know how his word was accepted when I was over in Australia. There is not a public man in Australia who would get as much attention as our Prime Minister. The same thing applies in America and in England and elsewhere. One great English writer, when peace was being discussed in England after the last war, speaking about our present Prime Minister, said the greatest figure thrown up by that war was General Smuts. Those who saw him in the War Cabinet and in the Peace Conference recognised that they had come in contact with one of the greatest and most vital intellectual forces in the world. The Prime Minister is still greater now. [Interruptions.] My hon. friend interrupting was not in the House during the last war. The party to which I belonged gave Gen. Botha and Gen. Smuts undivided support at that time in their war programme. Everybody who knows the history of that time knows that from the moment South Africa was in the war we gave Gen. Botha and Gen. Smuts 100 per cent. support, though we were not represented in the Cabinet, so what my hon. friend says does not cut any ice. It is lamentable to think that when the whole world acclaims our Prime Minister as the greatest living force in public matters, that we should hear such speeches trying to convict him of breach of faith, breach of promises and so on.

[Inaudible.]

I am speaking to a free Parliament, and the hon. member ought to know that one of the best traditions of a free Parliament is that shouting should not take the place of argument. These interjections are best treated by ignoring them and treating them with the contempt they deserve. Hon. members over there are on a bad wicket and the sooner they realise it the better; they should realise that South Africa’s fure is bound up with what is going on across the seas; hon. members should realise that what we on this side stand for is what their forefathers have stood for and if they do not help us they will help to lose the traditions of the Afrikaner people, they will be helping to lose that liberty which is at stake, the freedom to worship their God in their own way, the freedom to live as free men in a free country. If they want to preserve the traditions of this country, the great ideals of their Afrikaner forefathers, then they will vote for this motion and ensure victory—a victory which will come in any case, even without their assistance, before very long.

The hon. member who has now sat down, has tried to make an attack by quoting what “Die Burger” wrote in 1939. What he quotes there, proves precisely what we are saying here today. We adopted the attitude in 1939 that we are now following. What is so wonderful, is that when we on this side of the House ask that this country must remain neutral, then we are told that we are pro-German that we are Nazis, and what more. We have been born here; we have not come here from elsewhere. We grew up here and we must remain here. We are not like those who come here to make their fortunes, and who then, after they have sucked South Africa dry, go overseas to lead a comfortable life. We say that in the interests of this country there is only one thing to do, and that is to remain neutral in such wars. We say that millions are being spent today, and day and night our country is being impoverished to conduct a war for another country, and that on behalf of a country that has done nothing but harm to the Afrikaner people. Millions are being spent on that war, and if one day the war is over, I would like to see if the Government sitting on the other side will spend even half or a quarter of all these millions now being spent on the war, on the upliftment of our own people. For that money will never be found, except to conduct wars—for that they have always money. When we say these things, then it is said on the other side that we are pro-German and that we are Nazis. No, we want to remain out of the troubles of Europe. We have had enough trouble in the past and we have more than enough problems, and I cannot understand why we should go and seek other troubles. It simply shows how many we have of that sort of Afrikaners who are no longer really Afrikaners, but who have become such Imperialists that they can see only one thing, and that is the interests of England. They pay very little attention to the interests of South Africa. We have today heard here how the hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock) rages about what he calls “the barbarity of the Hun.” I think he participated in the last war here in this country, and he should not talk about “the barbarity of the Hun.” He has forgotten the misdeeds of that time. Let him rather look back to the misdeeds that occurred at that time and how in that war in South Africa 3,500 men perished on the field of battle, while 26,000 women and children perished in the camps. Must it surprise him then if we say that we do not want to have anything to do with those things. If there is money to spend, spend it on the people who need it. But when we need money for our people, then there is no money. The Prime Minister proposed his motion in 1939 that no people would be sent overseas. Now he asks us for the right to send people overseas. This House must decide. We know what this side of the House will decide, but we also know what the other side will decide. They will support the Prime Minister, and what assurance have we that the Prime Minister will not go further later and compel our people to go overseas?

We do not want frightened people.

I know that. But I will tell you what is now happening. It is said that under the system you now have, nobody is compelled to go and fight, but I want to tell you this, that on the application form for work of the Railways and Harbours the question is put whether the applicant is prepared to undertake service in connection with the army. Why is that question put? The people are not told straight out that they cannot be appointed if they do not want to serve in the army, but what strikes me in connection with the cases with which I have had to do, is that no applicant is appointed who states that he is not prepared to serve in the army. Thus those people are forced. You try everything possible to force those people. There are people who go and ask for work at the municipalities, and where there is a majority on the municipality who think otherwise than we do, then the applicant is asked: “What is your position, are you prepared to undertake military duty, or can you show us certificates from your doctor that you are medically unfit?” If the applicant cannot show them, then he is not appointed. The things that are asked in places such as Cape Town, are far-reaching, and the purpose of those questions is simply this—to compel those people who come to look for work to join up. This is also done in connection with people in their service. A man is married, and he ultimately feels obliged to go and fight. He has no way out except to join up, and then it is said that it is volunteers who go. What is the position of the men who serve in the Permanent Force? If they do not voluntarily join up to fight overseas, what is their position in the army going to be? Will they be kept on, or will their position be made so untenable that they will no longer be able to remain in the army? I know of cases of boys in my district, since 4 September, 1939, who came to me and who had correspondence with the Department. They do not want to join up to participate in the war, and they are gradually dismissed from the army. Of what good is it to say that it is voluntary and that the people can go, when we dismiss such people from their sustenance if they do not go? That is the career they have chosen; that is the posts they have taken up and the direction they have followed, and then it is said here in Parliament that we are fighting only with volunteers. What about the man who now wears the red tab and who does not want to join up to fight overseas? Is that man going to retain the position he now holds, or will he be dismissed, and if he is dismissed, will the Government see that he will get work? The third question that I want to put is this. If a man joins up to serve overseas, will he receive preference when land is distributed? The Department of Lands does not now provide land, but is waiting until after the war. The Minister has said that the people now serving will receive preference.

That is not so.

I have read that he said that. If the Minister himself denies it, then I shall take his word, but I am not prepared to take that hon. member’s word, because he may be wrong. In any case, no land will be distributed until after the war. I have received a letter to that effect myself. Why does the Government wait until after the war, and if there are now deserving cases of people who must be assisted, why cannot those cases be investigated now, and why must they wait until after the war? Now I also want to ask the Prime Minister this, will the people who take the new oath to go overseas get preference and treatment above those who wear the red tab, and will those who wear the red tab receive preference above those who do not wear the red tab? What is the distinction between those three? No, we on this side say that we have always adopted the attitude that South Africa must remain neutral in the quarrels of Europe, and if we have money to spend—I shall say to waste—let us spend it on our own people. They need it. We can help our own people in this country forward a great deal if we do not waste money in this manner. The war is not in the interest of South Africa, but in the interest of a country that in the past has done the Afrikaner people no good. We have always complained about the treatment we have received from that country, and we on this side cannot support this motion.

I have listened with great interest for some time to the many arguments raised in regard to the changing of the promise on the subject of sendingtroops overseas. My hon. friends on my right seem to forget that a lot of water has run under the bridges since we said these things two years ago. At that time it was a very right resolution to come to, not to send troops overseas, because at that time, you will remember, there was a large force of Italians in Abyssinia—over 300,000 strong, there was also a very large German-Italian force on the Northern shores of Africa, there was also a German Navy, practically intact; there was also a very potential enemy in the Japanese, who might have come in at any time, and England was certainly not in the position in which she is today in regard to ammunition and troops and other things. In the circumstances it was absolutely necessary to keep our men within the Continent of Africa because we did not know what was going to happen. It was even necessary to keep troops in Africa because of the things which might happen in this country. So the fact that we have changed since then is not to be wondered at. The forces in Abyssinia are no more, the Italian Empire has disappeared, the Germans in North Africa are only a fraction in strength of what they were, the German Navy has practically been eliminated, the Japanese, we are glad to say, have also got a great deal less strength than they had, and they have as much to do as they can manage to keep their end up against the Americans, and I hope that before long they will also be eliminated. In those circumstances it would not be right for our troops to stand by and see their comrades with whom they had been fighting shoulder to shoulder go and complete this war, and release the prisoners of war who are now in Italy; it would not be right for them to stand by and see all that kind of thing happening and simply say “Goodbye you chaps, we wish you the best of everything, but we are not going there”. And why? We would repel the idea if we ever thought of that sort of thing, afterwards. We would be horribly ashamed of our people if after having gone as far as that they were to desert their comrades, and after all we are not going to send our troops over willy-nilly. We are only asking these men to volunteer. Many of them may not be able to volunteer but no pressure will be brought to bear on them to go. At the same time I am perfectly certain that a great many of them will go forward and will be delighted to get the opportunity to go. It was my privilege a little while ago to address a gathering of returned soldiers of the First Division, and these men—very fine fellows too, looking in the pink of condition—when I mentioned that Gen. Smuts had brought this motion before the House, cheered the announcement to the echo. I told them that they would probably be asked to volunteer later on, and I said that I personally hoped that many of them would volunteer when the time came. To the astonishment no doubt of my friends on the right these men showed no reluctance, the hall reverberated with their cheers. These men are not reluctant, they all feel in honour bound to go forward and help their comrades and that is going to be the policy right through.

“In honour bound”—you are already beginning to compel them.

It has already been mentioned that we are a small nation. Several of my friends on the right have mentioned the fact of our being a small nation, but I am very glad that at last they are beginning to realise that we are a small nation such a small nation that we cannot possibly stand alone. If we were to stand alone it would not be very long before we would be dragged into some awful trouble, and we would rue the consequences. What would have been the position if we had remained neutral at the commencement of the war, with this big force of Italians in Abyssinia and the German armies intact. What would have happened in view of our strong geographical position, if this country had been undefended. There would undoubtedly have been an invasion from the North and there would have been a terrific struggle between the British and the Germans as to who would hold the Cape of Good Hope, and we would have had to bear the consequences. Our cities would have been bombed; our people would have been smashed and we would not have had the easy time which we have had. There is no doubt that the state of ruin which would have been brought about in South Africa would have taken many years to put right. Instead of that, under the able leadership of our Prime Minister we took the decisive step of throwing in our lot with the power which after all, whatever one may say against it, has given us the freedom which we enjoy today in South Africa. Without that freedom, which enables us to say whatever we like in this House, to slate all sorts of people, to give contributions here, there and everywhere, to welcome all sorts of people from overseas—without that we could never have done any of these things. And I suppose that had we not taken the course which we did take, it is not unlikely that many of us would have been slaves working for Hitler in Europe. Had the struggle which has taken place elsewhere taken place in Africa, had it taken place in this country, we don’t know what might have happened. It is quite possible that many of us would have been transported. This country of ours would have been smashed to pieces by these great powers which would have been fighting here, but thank God we took the right course and that danger is now passed. There is one other point I want to raise, and that is in regard to the men of the First Division. The men of the First Division and I suppose those of the Second Division who have survived, are very proud of the flash which they wear on their shoulder—the Orange and Green flash.

You must be colour blind.

It is quite possible that that flash with the re-organisation which may take place will have to disappear, but I am hoping that something can be done to enable these men, if they don’t retain the flash, to get on their uniform some momento of that flash, a momento of the gallant performances in which they have taken part in North Africa and I hope if a medal is not granted now, that at least some momento will be given to commemorate the great events in which they have taken part, and to commemorate the struggle which they have put up against the enemy. In the last war the men who were wounded were allowed to wear a small piece of gold braid on their cuffs. Surely something could be done here to enable these men to commemorate the campaign in which they took part. I hope the Defence Department will be able to think out some scheme. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) who is not here now, referred to Wellington and to Bluecher and the Battle of Waterloo. I have had the pleasure of going over the field of Waterloo and I was rather astonished to find that even the Belgians claim Waterloo as a victory for their forces. The Germans do certainly claim it as a victory for their forces. But whatever happened we know from history that had it not been for that gallant little British army which held out against overwhelming numbers and bore the brunt of the attack, by the French Army, there would not have been a victory for our side at all. At all events that long struggle during that day decided the fate of the French army so it was easy meat for the Prussians when they finally came on the scene. I hope my hon. friends on the right will think again before they condemn us for changing our views about sending troops overseas. I hope they will see and I daresay many of them do see it, that it is absolutely necessary for us now to take a different view with regard to our attitude in this war and send our troops forward, so that there will never be a stigma on the armies of South Africa, so that it will never be said that when the final struggle came we were not represented.

I am certain that if the hon. Prime Minister has taken the trouble of listening a little to the speeches that have come from that side of the House, then he will perhaps also feel as Disraeli felt when he said to Gladstone that if he looked a little over the people sitting behind him, then all he (Gladstone) could say was: “They are a poor lot, but mine own.” At any rate he has the assurance that they will follow him through the depths and in any direction. At any rate they are his own. He has them in his hands. I will tell you why I think that the Prime Minister, who has a measure of knowledge of these matters, has been a little ashamed at the treatment of this matter by members on that side. I think that even the Prime Minister did not feel happy when the hon. member for Castle (Mr. Alexander) stood up and, as the mouthpiece of Afrikanerdom’s tradition, tried to teach this country a lesson. The arrogance of such a thing is well-nigh incomprehensible—that the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, should lay down what is precisely understood by the maintenance of Afrikanerdom’s best tradition. What does the Prime Minister think of the wonderful contradictions of the other side? On the one side it is said, for instance, by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) that the speeches on this side are nothing but a re-hash of all the old arguments. And then again we had to hear from a front-bencher on his side, the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) that this argument that has been adduced by us, namely, that according to the Prime Minister the question at issue in 1939 was not whether there should be active participation in the war, is a brand new point. Thus the one contradicts the other. And if one looks at the logic employed by members on the other side! Let us take the example of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, who happens to be here. He stands up here, and he says he is surprised; he asks how it is possible that we could have thought we could apply neutrality while Simonsown is there. He said that then we would have had war in Simonstown and “peace, sweet peace” here in Cape Town. To him it was something unfathomable. That proves how insular the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, is. Apparently he does not know that this is the position of Gibraltar. While in Algeciras, close to Gibraltar, there is peace, there is war in Gibraltar. There is nothing conflicting in this. That is the position that exists in the world. In Spain there is peace, but at the extremity of Spain there is unfortunately a point taken away from Spain just as we lost Simonstown to England, and there war prevails. Let us look a little further. The hon. member has spoken about an egg dance. I think we can hand it to him that he is an expert in that respect.

Only he dances on rotten eggs.

Yes, that is perhaps the only difference. I want to take the argument that has already developed a little further. It is said: How dare we hold the Prime Minister personally responsible; it is a decision taken by Parliament on 4 September. If the hon. member would want to use that argument in the Supreme Court, then I would readily allow it. As regards the legal side, it is so. But we have to do here with the moral side, and we say that the man who is morally a party to this decision and who must morally take the blame for its adoption in this House, for that promise that no troops would be sent overseas; and we say that the man who is guilty is the Prime Minister himself. It is not a question of legal guilt, but a question of moral guilt, and it avails nothing to come with concepts of the Supreme Court while we have to do with the matter of inherent interest affecting the Afrikaner nation. The hon. member comes here and quotes from “Die Burger” of 1939. I did not know that what he said here was so, but what the member has quoted there is precisely the greatest reinforcement of our argument, because it provides us with the missing link for the speech of the Prime Minister on the afternoon of 4 September. Apparently he saw the article that morning in “Die Burger”, that “Die Burger” said that there was only one of two things, either neutrality or war; and the Prime Minister realised that, if the country and the House got that realisation, then it would be very difficult for him to get his amendment adopted that afternoon, and therefore he came to this House and said that that is not the point at issue; and the House must not accept that argument of “Die Burger” because it is quite wrong. When Gen. Hertzog said here that that was the point at issue, the Prime Minister came and said that we viewed the position quite wrongly. He was afraid of that contradiction. He was afraid of that contradiction and he was afraid of letting the House decide between the two alternatives—war or neutrality. He came with that thing in between, what one can describe as “passive belligerency,” but he gave us to understand that we would not have actual participation in the war. I have not heard any attempt at an argument to get away from that point. That is the idea that the Prime Minister conscientiously created here, and he created it here with a purpose, and that was viz. because he was afraid that if he said it in its naked truth, that the actual two alternatives are neutrality or war, then he himself would not have received the support of those people on the other side. We are now at a further instalment, a further instalment which the people of South Africa are asked to lay on the altar of the war of the Empire, and one would have thought that where we stand at such an important new development in the war, one would have expected the Prime Minister to give us an exposition of the objects of this war in which he is asking us to involve ourselves still further. But he did not tell us a word about this. We are still standing on the old thing, and you know how those old objects put to us have become obsolete and rotten. I do not even want to speak of the hon. member for Kimberley, District’s (Mr. Steytler’s) “lie and rot” story. We know that all that remains of it is that it is itself lying and rotting. I do not want to go into those things, but why did not the Prime Minister—if only for the purpose of firing the faith of his people afresh—give an exposition of the objects of the war? Is the reason for it then that when he recently spoke in London and said that the Allies were fighting for the continued existence of Christianity, that it was then said to him that he must not talk such dangerous things; what about all those Mohommedans who do not acknowledge Christ? If you now say that the object of the war is the survival of Christianity, what about those countries who do not worship Christ? Did he perhaps take fright at that? Or is it that he realised, with the advent of Russia to the allies, that he could no longer plead with any measure of decency and honesty that the survival of Christianity is one of the objects of the war? Perhaps I can remind him incase he does not know it himself, of what is contained in the Constitution of Russia, Soviet Russia that has now become our Ally in this war. I want to read out to him just a few things to refresh his memory. In the first place I want to quote to him from the Constitution itself. This is not comment on it, but it is the Constitution itself. Paragraph 13 of that programme reads as follows—

You will notice that anti-religious propaganda must be organised. That is one of the objects of that Ally. And then is added—

In other words, if you come into a country such as South Africa, then you must be careful not to offend the religious sentiments of the religious, but if you come into another country you can go further. This is calculatedly an object of Soviet Russia. Then I want to quote briefly from the booklet of the official president of the Union of Militant Atheists. It is written by Yaroslavsky, and he is an authority. Here are a few quotations from his book—

Thus he goes on to say that it is impossible for a person to be both a Communist and a Christian. The ultimate doctrine is that this atheist propaganda must be intensified in such a way that religion shall later be nothing but an historical memory. He says—

I say if one looks at this Ally of the Prime Minister, at this Ally who has abolished the Sabbath, who no longer has a day of rest on the seventh day, this Ally who has converted churches into anti-religious museums, then I ask whether it has permeated through to the conscience of the Prime Minister that it is a mockery to say today that this war is a war that is being conducted for Christian principles. In one of his radio speeches from Irene the Prime Minister has concluded with these words—

We thought at the time that this was merely a bit of sacriligious persuasion, but I wonder if one looks to-day at that Russia, how it stands towards Christian principles, and after that propaganda whether a prophetic significance does not underly those words of the Prime Minister? But I just want to say this to you that any alliance with a country such as Russia can, in the long run, and no matter what might happen at the moment, yield nothing but the bitterest of fruits, and I feel today that I as an Afrikaner and man who has religious principles dare not trample on my principles to the extent of praying for a Russian victory, because a Russian victory would mean the crushing of those principles in other parts of the world and it will pave the way for Communism also to our part of the world. And it requires no wonderful imagination to visualise what the results of that will be. No, let us revert again to the actual objects of this war. It has been said, and I think it is perhaps nearest the truth, that the Allies are today fighting for “our way of life,” but there are a number of different “ways of life.” It is the status quo for which all these countries stand. They want to retain the system they have today, a system of freedom, but freedom to have a hunger-death, that system which has the effect that you have millions on the one side while on the other side there are people who have no bread to eat or no roof over their heads. There was a time when the Prime Minister thought differently on this matter. I think if the political career of the Prime Minister is studied, we shall see that it is a career bestrewn with the skeletons of broken promises. There was a time when he was Attorney-General, a Boer General, and a politician at the first election in 1907. If one looks back upon those days, then you see how the promise of his youth was broken. If one looks at a few of his speeches in connection with that 1907 election, and one sees how he took the field against the influence of big capital and said that the choice is: will the country be governed by the people or by the Chamber of Mines—if one looks at that and one looks at the capitalist company in which the Minister finds himself today, then one almost feels like parodying Browning’s words—

If I may take that quotation from Browning a little further, then I would say to the Prime Minister that in spite of what he made us lose, in spite of the fact that he himself can be written off to Afriknerdom as a dead loss—

We shall persist on that road he showed us in the first instance, and we are not going to be deviated from our course by the fact that he has broken the promises of his youth. But let us go a little further into the broken promises of his political career. We have already mentioned the case of actual participation in the war, that he has misled the country under false representation. In the language of the law there is a name for such a thing. He has here misled us in a measure that, had it taken place in a business undertaking, would have brought very dangerous consequences upon the person concerned.

There would also have been a place for it.

There is another point, that in 1939 he told us that no troops would be sent overseas. We know what he did even before he consulted Parliament. He comes today—and the fact that he comes today to ask for leave of the House is a condemnation of his own action in the past few months. If it was not essential for him to get the approval of the House, then he would not have been here today with this motion; but I say that through his action he condemns himself. I come to another matter—when he, as we thought, made a promise to the country from his heart. Then he went and broke that promise. We know that in his despatch to President Kruger he condemned the arming of non-Europeans in the strongest possible language. In 1917 when he delivered a speech at a dinner in his honour, during the last war, a dinner under the chairmanship of Lord Selborne in the Savoy Hotel in May, 1917, he said—

Remember, this is in the middle of the last war, in May, 1917, when the position for the Allies was very difficult, when their prospects were far from rosy, and then he said—

Oh, my goodness!

Without a blush.

It is a bit late, but I want to stress this, because it is said today that if we are in danger here we must use everything; then we must also make use of coloureds and Natives. I want to say to the Prime Minister that in 1902 the Republics were in the gravest danger. The future then was precisely at its darkest, and then the Prime Minister did not say: “Yes, but the circumstances are against us and we must now perforce, because the enemy is at our gates, arm Natives and coloureds.” No, then he had the manly courage to say that it is a crime against civilisation. Then he did not run away and say: “I shall call in the help of those people.” Even in 1917 he still had the courage to stand by his convictions, and here, even recently in 1940, when the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) surprised the House by preaching this fatal doctrine for South Africa, it was the Prime Minister who soothingly said: “No, I realise that that deed more than any other will be calculated to stir up feelings in South Africa.” And now? Now we have got this somersault on the part of the Prime Minister. Now all his principles of the past have been betrayed, and now he asks without shame on his face, and tries to justify the arming of non-Europeans in the country.

He has smoked Churchill’s cigar.

One can only say it is a pity that those lofty principles that have imbued the Prime Minister in the past, that those principles have now lost their value for him. In any event we expected that the Prime Minister would give us an exposition here of the objects of the war. We also expected, in view of this report which he received from his Planning Council, that he would avail himself of the war position in the North to adopt a gradual policy whereby the people in the army will again be absorbed in civil life. We expected that he would say to the country: “Look, I have adopted the war policy, but we have now virtually cleaned the whole of Africa; we have gone through many troubles; our 1st Division are the men who fought in Abyssinia; they are the people who fought in Egypt and Eritrea; other people have only now entered the struggle, and it is time for us to withdraw; it is now time for us to bring the First Division back to the country, not to disperse them immediately, but to use them for our home defence and to take them up gradually in our civil life; we can now say to America: ‘You can now take up the torch where we have left.’ ” And may I say this, that hon. members on the other side will not hear what the actual feelings of the members of the First Division are. There is such a thing as victimisation. But I can say that not only members of that First Division, but also their mothers and wives, would have applauded such a wise decision on the part of the Prime Minister. Here we ask: Bring back those people, not merely to absorb them gradually in civil service, but also to protect us against the dangers that threaten us both in the country and from outside. I want to ask the Prime Minister if he does not sometimes, when he lies awake at night, hear the voices of those mothers whose children are sacrificed on those battlefields? Is he not touched by those things? A poet has said:—

Is the Minister not touched by that blood, by those tears of mothers who call and say: “End this thing and bring our children back; those that are left, bring them back to our country.” I thought that the Prime Minister, even though he is so tied to the policy of the English Government, would make an attempt to passify the emotions he had stirred in this way. I want to end here with just a little word made necessary by the arguments raised here. It seems to me that the arguments run on parallel lines that never meet. The viewpoint and the doctrines are so different that those two great lines will never meet each other. The standpoint—and I speak now of the people who honestly have that standopint because they are of English derivation, because they feel that there are bonds that bind them to England—I say if it is those people or other people who want to be aping English and who want to dissolve themselves in a foreign drum, their standpoint is the same and that standpoint is: What are the interests of the Empire? You know what a member in Another Place, who is now an administrator, said: That no decision of the House was necessary, that every Englishman knew immediately that when England is at war South Africa is also at war. And the ultimate destination is also different, and therefore I say that the two lines will never meet. We ask today that we should get a mutual viewpoint. We do not want to subordinate the viewpoint of South Africa to the viewpoint of Holland, of England, of France of of Germany. We say: Let us take as viewpoint only the interests of South Africa, and when we have that joint viewpoint the two lines will meet each other. But so long as we have these different viewpoints in South Africa, that can never happen. Now it appears to me that there is an impression abroad that now that matters are going more favourably for the Allies, that this is a reason for a change of standpoint on this side of the House. I want to emphasise with all my power that the viewpoint that we adopt in respect of the war is based on principles and are not affected by the temporary fluctuations of what may happen in the war position. We have nothing to do about who wins the war overseas. Our standpoint is that no matter who wins, we as Afrikaners in South Africa, irrespective of our descent—whether German, French, English, or Dutch—we say South Africa must win. We must go further on this road we visualise, and which we believe to be the destination and the object for which we have been planted here in South Africa, and our viewpoint is not affected by anything that may happen in the war position. Hon. members on the other side may perhaps feel very pleased about the war position today. In the past there were perhaps others who did not feel pleased. But that has nothing to do with the standpoint of your Afrikaner Nationalist. He says that his standpoint is South Africa. That is the foundation on which he takes up his position, and it is that alone; and I tell you that even if England wins in this war, under the circumstances existing today, then it means that South Africa has lost. I say South Africa has lost as a result of the policy of the Prime Minister, not only regarding the step he took on 4 September, but also regarding the manner in which since 4 September he consistently forgot that there is an Afrikaner section, and tried to trample down and crush everything that is Afrikaans, to such an extent that one of his men who had gone to make subtle propaganda in the North, had to admit that as a result of the Government’s policy the impression prevails that no matter who is being fought outside of the Union, it is the Afrikaners who are being fought inside the Union. Thereby the gulf existing between the two races has been made deeper and deeper, and if the Government proceeds along this way then, even if England wins the war, the true interests of South Africa will have suffered defeat. In the circumstances it is impossible for us to say here that something really great has been done for South Africa. A victory may be achieved, even a victory that may bring material prosperity, but the true testing-stone is not material advantage, but whether the spiritual unity will be obtained here that can alone be the foundation upon which a great South Africa can be built in the future.

While we can in no sense identify ourselves with most of the utterances of the hon. member who has now sat down, we congratulate him in any event that he has dealt with the subject very soberly. His concluding remarks surprise and touch us deeply. I would like to ask the hon. member if his views are shared by his leader and other members sitting on his side. He has said that it is immaterial to him who wins or loses the war, but if England wins under existing circumstances then the Afrikaner cause will in their view be lost forever. If that is the view members there entertain, then only one deduction is possible, namely that they desire a German victory with all their heart and soul, because they say that if England wins, then their cause is lost. We now come to the question as to whether our interests are involved in the struggle or not. The hon. member says that, viewed from their standpoint, a British victory means a defeat for South Africa. I do not know why he particularly speaks of an English victory—let us call it by its right name: “An Allied victory”. Let the hon. members on the other side now say once and for all that they look at the matter purely through German spectacles and purely from a German viewpoint. They cannot view it from the standpoint of the true interests of South Africa. There lies the difference between us. We are convinced that there is no future for South Africa if our nation has to stand under the German yoke. We shall be swallowed if Germany wins. We have given the reasons for this very clearly. The hon. Prime Minister has repeatedly preached it to the country and to the world. Let our friends on the other side say what assurance they have that a German victory will bring them anything. I know that the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) said at Ermelo last year that our salvation depends on a triumphant Adolph Hitler, that we can only expect a republic from the generous hands of a triumphant Adolph Hitler.

Were you at the meeting?

Yes.

Did you put questions?

No. I would like to know if this is the standpoint of the hon. members there. Do they desire a German victory? If they desire it, then I ask them what right they have to desire it. Have they any assurance from Germany, and what assurance, that Germany will treat them better than Holland, Belgium, Poland and all the other nations. Hon. members on the other side are making a great to-do against Russia, but Germany is the country that broke its treaty with Russia. It committed breach of faith against Russia, and stabbed Russia in the back. So long as hon. members on the other side look at the matter from their narrow viewpoint, we shall never have peace in South Africa. The hon. Prime Minister is being accused of breach of faith, but what has the Leader of the Opposition done? Just before the outbreak of war, he set afoot a campaign in favour of neutrality. He came to Ermelo and said that the war-clouds were gathering, and that if war broke out tomorrow then they (his supporters) would know where Gen. Smuts stands. He added that he differed with Gen. Smuts but that he must give him the honour that he has consistently taken up the standpoint that he embraced throughout his whole career. He therefore said that they know what to expect from Gen. Smuts if war broke out, but, he said, from the Prime Minister (Gen. Hertzog) he did not know what to expect. He went so far as to say that he doubted if the other members of the Cabinet know just what they could expect from Gen. Hertzog in the event of war breaking out. Now it is being said on the other side, it is being slung at our heads as an accusation, that in 1938 we won the election because we stood for neutrality.

That is the truth.

If that was the case, it was not necessary for the Leader of the Opposition to take the trouble of launching the campaign for neutrality. If they knew that we are bound to neutrality under all circumstances, then it was not necessary for him to1 waste his time going about and pleading for neutrality. Gen. Hertzog, after the Sudetenland invasion, said, in this House that the war-clouds were lowering in Europe, that a war may burst forth, and that South Africa may be dragged in with all the other countries of the world. Gen. Hertzog did admit that our interests would be involved thereby, and it is idle for hon. members to try and persuade us that we can stand aloof from this struggle. In all the by-elections that have taken place since that time, that question was put in the foreground and the great majority of the voters have supported the Prime Minister in his war policy. But I want to revert to the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. He speaks of breach of faith. If the hon. member for Fauresmith will take the trouble of tracing all the promises the Leader of the Opposition has made in his life he will see that the Leader of the Opposition has never stood by one single promise. As far back as 1935 the late Gen. Hertzog said at Smithfied that at that precise juncture the Leader of the Opposition had shown himself in his true colours. He had played a double game in South Africa. He had always played a double game and was still busy with it, to divide South Africa. We have received a mandate that the Prime Minister must protect and defend South Africa’s territory and interests.

From whom?

What the Prime Minister has done, he has done in the best and true interest of South Africa.