I move—

I trust that hon. members on the other side, on the strength of the quotation which I read out yesterday afternoon concerning the speech of their Leader at Ermelo, just before the outbreak of war, will be satisfied that this side committed no breach of faith on the ground of any alleged election promise which we are supposed to have made in connection with neutrality. Let me repeat what the hon. member said at that time. He said that he did not know what this Government would do at the outbreak of war, because he did not know where the then Prime Minister stood. He knew perfectly well where he stood with regard to the then Minister of Justice (our present Prime Minister). He said that in so far as he, the present Prime Minister, was concerned, he had always adhered to his attitude, and that he knew precisely what to expect of him. But in so far as the Prime Minister of that time was concerned, and also other members of his Cabinet, he did not know where he stood. I feel therefore that that statement is devoid of all substance, and that it will fall away. But before I come to the main motion of the Leader of the Opposition, allow me to deal with the position in connection with Simonstown. The veil is now being lifted ever so slightly from the tragic occurrences which immediately preceded the motion of the 4th September. The hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler), said here that he questioned the Leader of the Opposition at a meeting at Burgersdorp in connection with the Simonstown Agreement. He asked: “Please explain this agreement,” and he drove the Leader of the Opposition into a corner. He said: “I differed from the Prime Minister, Gen. Hertzog and I call upon my colleague, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), to bear me out that when the negotiations took place there was a difference of opinion concerning the practicability of the Simonstown Agreement in time of neutrality.” The Leader of the Opposition conducted a campaign throughout the country, and he explained that we could not remain neutral whilst we carried out the Simonstown Agreement. That is also the opinion of the Prime Minister, and we agree with that. It was also the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition. But when it came to the point and there was an opportunity to put the Prime Minister out of office, when there was a chance to obtain a Parliamentary majority through fortuitous circumstances, the Leader of the Opposition was prepared to smother his attitude.

You understand nothing about it.

I may not be so versed in all the vicissitudes of politics, but I do at any rate try to be honest. The Leader of the Opposition has always adopted the attitude that we must break the Simonstown Agreement, because if we did not do so, we could never be neutral if England was involved in a war. But when the matter was put to the vote on that day, he was prepared to agree with other members to vote for the neutrality motion, but he did so with this reservation in his mind, that they would not carry out the Simonstown Agreement, while they came to this House and voted that the country should remain neutral, but that we should carry out our obligations, contractual or otherwise, to the letter. If that was the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition, then I say with all due deference that it was misleading the people and that it was gross deceit. Hon. members on the other side must not talk about breach of faith in view of these things which have come to light today. But let us go back. We are accused of having entered into an election agreement at that time. Hon. members know that it is not true. They will remember that just before the war the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) travelled overseas at State expense and was received there like a prince. He had the privilege, if it was a privilege, to negotiate with Hitler and others. What did he do when he returned? He immediately went to the Prime Minister and told him of the tremendous might of Germany, and he said that here was our chance because in the war which would come, Germany would be victorious. He further told the then Prime Minister that if he stood for neutrality, he would get the support of the Leader of the Opposition, Dr. Malan, and that if they stood together they could eliminate Gen. Smuts.

Try to be honest now.

Let him deny it. They were prepared to get rid of the then Minister of Justice (Gen. Smuts) and then Gen. Hertzog would remain Prime Minister, would later resign, and be replaced by the present Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) and the hon. member for Gezina was to have become Fuehrer.

Have you ever heard bigger nonsense?

That is what happened. That was the conspiracy before the 4th September. They talk about an election agreement. Members on this side were approached by the other side and they were told: “Vote with us today, and your seats will be safe.”

Be honest.

That is what happened. An election was to have been held and they would not have opposed each other. Talk about intrigue. That did not come from this side of the House. But why are hon. members on the other side so disappointed today? As a farmer expressed it the other day, they are furious with themselves, but fury is tinged with a sense of shame (skaamkwaad). This farmer said that as far as he himself was concerned, he admitted that Gen. Smuts was right, and that they were wrong, but that he had made such a fool of himself by proclaiming on the street corners that Germany had won and that our republic was an accomplished fact, that he had not the moral courage to admit that he was wrong.

Can you mention the name?

I can but that is not necessary.

The person concerned is imaginary.

Whether the hon. member believes it or not makes no difference. They are in this position that they are hopelessly mistaken.

Who says that?

The hon. member now associates with Satan, after being in the pulpit. We on this side follow the policy of a statesman who is acknowledged as such by the whole world. Hon. members on the other side follow the policy of a man who can scarcely be called a politician. And what is the difference between a statesman and a politician? A statesman sacrifices everything and does everything in his power to benefit his country, but a politician is a man who derives the greatest possible advantage from his country. If hon. members doubt that, I need only refer them to a speech which was made by the late Gen. Hertzog in March, 1939, in connection with the sending of the police to South West. He then said that the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) would be prepared to sacrifice the best part of South Africa as long as he could promote his personal interests by so doing. We can well appreciate their critical position. They speak of prophesying, but they have prophesied nothing which has come true. May I remind the Leader of the Opposition that only recently he said that two things would happen, Stalingrad would fall and the Russians would no longer effectively participate as Allies, and Jan Smuts and Churchill would lose the Empire war.

Who said that?

The Leader of the Opposition.

You don’t say!

It is a striking fact that we read in yesterday’s newspapers that the last troops have been driven out of Stalingrad. The prophecies of the hon. members on the other side do not come true. They talk of the atrocities of Russia, but what of the atrocities of Germany?

Of England.

They say that their cause can only triumph in the event of a German victory. Did the Leader of the Opposition think perhaps that he could play the role of Pierre Laval in South Africa? What are the disastrous consequences of Pierre Laval’s co-operation with the Germans? Do hon. members on the other side want us to be placed in the same position in this country? They can only see salvation in a German victory, and they talk about the atrocities of Russia. But can one compare these atrocities with those committed by the Germans? And do they want to stand under the Germans only or do they also want the Japanese to come here? Let us come back for a moment to the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. His first point is that we broke our promise. That was said repeatedly. As far as we are concerned, we want to protect this country against the enemy from outside, and if it is necessary, we also want to meet the enemy outside our country. The country is satisfied with the policy of the Prime Minister, and we are satisfied further to subject ourselves to his able leadership. The Opposition also refers to the arming of non-Europeans, but the Leader of the Opposition cannot speak with authority on that point. An hon. member, like the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha), who can speak with authority and from personal experience, told us that no nonEuropean troops were armed in the Union. The hon. Leader of the Opposition said that we must bring back our troops from the North to protect us from dangers in this country. Does he mean the danger against which he warned at Paarl, when he said that there was a circle within the Ossewabrandwag which is heading for revolution? Hon. members on the other side have always said that if South Africa is in danger, they will defend the country. If there is any danger from the non-Europeans, what are they going to do then? Will they do nothing? They want us to end the war, but on what terms, and what will be the practical consequences? No one but a fool and an idiot will advocate that the war is over as far as we are concerned in the present circumstances, and that we should withdraw. They know that that is idle talk. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) spoke eloquently of the mothers of South Africa. There is no one in this House who does not cherish a tender spot for his mother, but if the hon. member wants the reply of the women of South Africa, I want to recommend that he should read the message of the widow of Dan Pienaar. She has perhaps suffered the greatest personal loss in this war, and she said that although she was sad she was also proud and that we should encourage our men to further acts of heroism.

What about you? Is it not time for you to do a few heroic deeds?

What she said, interprets the feelings of other mothers. We sympathise with those who lost their loved ones, but the women say that they are thankful that Providence chose them as the mothers of the heroes of today. They told their sons that our forefathers have never turned back, and that they must go forward to perpetuate the peace and safety of South Africa. The mothers say that they prefer to sacrifice their sons on the altar of freedom, rather than that they (the mothers) should be dishonoured by Asiatic troops. The mothers and daughters of South Africa are not complaining. They encourage the men, and they are thankful that Providence chose them to bear the heroes of today. The war will continue as long as the mothers and daughters of South Africa stand by us. I still want to see proof that the women of South Africa are weakening. It would be unworthy of the women and their history. In the past the women of South Africa have always stood by the men and told them: “We shall not allow you to weaken.” They are naturally sad when they have to sacrifice any of their loved ones, but this sadness is mingled with heroic pride, with dignity, of which our whole country can also be proud. We mourn the loss of those who were killed. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) gave us the figures and said that possibly a total of 3,000 men had been killed, if we include all the men who were listed as missing and “presumably killed”, but if we compare that with the street accidents which took place in the Union, we find that during the same period as great a number were killed in the streets of the Union. We are sorry that we cannot attain victory without sacrificing our sons, but sacrifices are unavoidable. If hon. members on the other side are so concerned about the future of our soldiers, then they—the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker), for instance—should withdraw the slanderous statement which he made when he said that the orange flash was the mark of Cain.

I did not say so!

They called our troops all the names they could think of; they called the troops the “khakipes” and everything despicable, and now they want the troops to be withdrawn so that the enemy can again come to North Africa and overwhelm Africa, so that Germany can be victorious, and so that they can get a form of republic, a sham republic, without substance, without taking into consideration the material, moral and spiritual well-being of the people. We do not want to travel that road. Let hon. members be sporting enough to admit that they were wrong. They plead for a republic, but they cannot even bring together those Afrikaners who hold the same opinion.

Do not concern yourself about that.

I am not concerning myself about it, but I regret it, because if they were to set us a better example we might perhaps be able to follow it.

Thank you, we do not need you as a follower.

When we look at the example they set, we see how disastrous the policy is which they adopted. They cannot even hold together a small handful, and then they still talk about a Republic. Along that road there is no salvation to be found for us. A German victory will mean the ruination of South Africa, and everything for which South Africa stands, but they behave like the unemployed who thanks the Lord because he cannot get work, although he pretends to be looking for work. They pray for a German victory, but they thank Providence that Germany cannot be victorious. We realise that along the road of an Allied victory our salvation can be effected, and thank God, victory is assured.

The hon. member who has just sat down, made quite a number of assertions. He told us inter alia that it never had been the policy of the United Party to remain neutral, that there had never been a statement on the part of the Government that we would remain in peace. He may not be a stranger in Jerusalem, but he is a stranger in South Africa and in South African politics. The then Minister of Defence, the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) in his capacity of Minister made a statement in this House that we would under no circumstances participate in a war, unless we were attacked first. And the then Prime Minister (Gen. Hertzog) thereupon said: “What have we to do with Denmark, how does Poland concern us; we are in favour of a policy of peace.” The then Minister of Defence, when in England, declared in London that we would under no circumstances participate in an English war unless our interests were affected, and to the Empire press conference he stated that we would not thoughtlessly take part in a war in which England would be a participant. What is more, the present Prime Minister stated in this House that it was his personal opinion that if England should be attacked, it would be our duty to come to the aid of England. I supported that view. But didn’t England first declare war? The Prime Minister was satisfied with the Cabinet decision in favour of neutrality when the difficulty about Czecho-Slovakia arose, but when England declared war on account of the Polish question, Simonstown all of a sudden became a difficult problem. When first we remained neutral, Simonstown did not cause any difficulty, but after England declared war, Simonstown was our difficulty. I want to assure the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) that if the United Party had laid down as its policy that we would have to take part in a war when England would be at war, there would have been no United Party. I would at least not have been a member of the party. We had the definite assurance that we would only participate in the war when our interests would be directly affected. The Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) at the time made the accusation that fusion would mean the coupling of South Africa to England’s wars. We disputed that and during the election we gave the people the assurance that that would not be the case. On that we won the election. The hon. member for Ermelo and his leader misled and deceived the people. I still remember the hon. member for Ermelo on the 4th September sitting all by himself in a small room, very downhearted and very sad. He did not want to vote for the war. He said that he did not want to vote in favour of war. And now he makes speeches like the one he made just now. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) made a most remarkable statement here, namely that the big nations, America and England, will protect us, provided we behave ourselves. That is a most impudent declaration for a prominent Government member to make. So if we are in favour of freedom, peace and neutrality, we do not behave ourselves. He said we signed the treaty of Vereeniging with England when we made peace and that we must adhere to that. The Prime Minister played an important part in the peace negotiations. Did he undertake to participate in all wars of England? From the battlefields came back old fighters, people who were maimed—did they undertake to participate in all the wars of England? Did the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) give such an undertaking?

Speak on your own behalf.

I ask whether it is honour and duty to participate in an English war. We were forced to conclude peace at Vereeniging. Our wives and children would have been exterminated, and for that reason the late Gen. Botha and also the present Prime Minister declared that we could not keep on fighting, for our wives and children were being murdered. Is it therefore our honour and duty to serve as lackeys in this English war?

You do not know what honour and duty are.

Where has this war frenzy led us to already? The Afrikaans speaking members on the other side are silent as the grave, but the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) gets up, like some of the other members, and advocates that the Natives should be armed. I still remember the blazing indignation with which the Prime Minister, when still a leader of the Boer forces, protested for all he was worth against the arming of Natives and against using them to fight the Boers. He said that this was a violation of the Zandrivier Convention. It has always been a constant policy of Britain to arm Natives and to use them against the Boers. Then the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) has the arrogance and audacity—it is profanity on his part—to talk about the “Voortrekkers,” and to mention Louis Trichardt who was murdered by Natives at the instigation and incitement of the British. The British armed the Natives to fight against us, the white people. At the time when the diamond mines in the Free State came into being, the Natives were also given arms to fight the Dutch. Today the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Frankfort and others who went through all that misery come here and advocate the same thing against which the Prime Minister warned so strongly. We do not want to see the Natives armed. It has been remarked that the hon. member for Cape Eastern plays with fire, but the Prime Minister is playing with dynamite. At a recent reception of refugees, a lady—I do not want to mention names—a European lady said that she kissed all the Indians on their departure. That was a European woman. She had no difficulty in doing so. The hon. member for Frankfort does not object to it. The war frenzy has already brought us to that stage. They do not want a colour bar. You will remember that when we declared war, several reasons were given for it, and one of the most important reasons was that the Prime Minister had declared that we were fighting for Christianity. Today that reason is no longer mentioned. Why is that so? We never believed in that reason, for Providence does not make use of human weapons. The Lord said: “Not by force, but through My Spirit,” and he told St. Peter to put his sword back into its sheath. But the Prime Minister chose the sword and he should not be surprised if he perishes by the sword. How can you fight the evil that walketh in darkness by the evil that walketh in darkness.

You failed to land a job.

I cannot be bought. I refused. May I tell the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Friend) that S. W. Naudé cannot be bought. On the other side are those who can be bought. No, we do not fight for Christianity. This war is the devil’s work. He stirs up passions as we have seen again today. The bitterness and hatred and envy are worse than ever and murder and death are the order of the day. And they tell us that we are fighting for Christianity.

Stick to politics.

The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. Politics and Christianity do not go together, cannot agree, but you dragged it in at the declaration of war. You are fighting for Christianity. Today they fight side by side with Russia. What England is doing amounts to very little and it may be Russia which is busy winning the war. When Russia wins. Bolshevism wins. Then Russia will have won with its blasphemy and atheism and when Russia wins Bolshevism will come to England, for five per cent. of the population of England are the possessors of wealth and the remainder are slaves. Britain is ripe for Communism, and Cripps, its leader, is already a member of the Cabinet. I do not want Russia and its Communism here, and I do not want Germany here. It was a stupidity to declare war and it will be a greater stupidity to go still further and send troops oversea. The time has come to stand still and call a halt. It was a disastrous decision to declare war. It let loose terrible passions. What will the aftermath be? The Prime Minister of the time (Genl. Hertzog) declared that we were walking on the road of death towards our grave. He said that the goodwill towards England, which had gradually come about, would disappear again. There are many of us who made peace and extended our hand of friendship towards the English speaking section and who thought well about England, but today many of those who felt that way are now enthusiastic republicans and we shall not be satisfied with anything but a republic. What will the aftermath of this war be? Some of our best and noblest sons languish in prisons and camps, bitterness and hatred and thoughts of revenge have been sown into the hearts of many persons. And on the other hand there are of our best and noblest sons buried in the Lybian desert where they died. But the sons of many members on the other side sit at home and draw fat salaries. The Afrikaner sons have to shed their blood in the desert. More than one mother’s heart has been broken by sadness. I came in touch with many of the soldiers who came back from the North and one and all declare that they do not want to go back. Among them are some of my relations. The hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) and his friends who want to make war, should now go there for a while. A most remarkable statement was made here by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside), who said that it had become clear that this is a capitalistic war. That is also the reason why I am against it. This is a capitalistic war, a war of the Morgenthaus and the Hore-Belishas and the Oppenheimers and the Schlesingers. They are behind it all. The hon. member for Umbilo and the Minister of Labour realise it, but they eat out of the hands of their capitalistic lords and they do not care twopence whether the lives of people are being sacrificed. What was the position in Poland? The coal mines there were owned by the Rockefellers. The lords spoke and Chamberlain fell. That is the secret of this war. And the poor Afrikaners who are innocent and cannot see through it and who often on account of economic conditions cannot do otherwise, are being led to their slaughter. What the hon. member for Umbilo said is true, this is a capitalistic war. And, as the Minister of Lands said the day before yesterday, this is a war of the people who make pots and pots of money in our country. They want to keep the war going. They are making millions in the factories and through commerce. That thing must continue. The other day a lady friend of ours sat alongside a lady in the tram and the latter remarked: “I wish the war continues, for we are making money.” Another lady nearby in the tram attacked the lady who said so with her umbrella and said “Shut up, two of my sons are up North.”

That is Zeesen.

That has honestly happened here in the tram, here in Cape Town. There hon. members are sitting on the other side and are drawing from £1,000 to £2,000 extra. We only despise them. The hon. member for Durban, North (Rev. Miles-Cadman) pleaded here for a socialist state. They plead for socialism and the New Order advocates National Socialism. We want to finish capitalism which exploits the people and bleeds it white. Powerful forces are at work. There are small clouds in the sky and they are growing. I see one little cloud, the one of the returned soldiers. The red revolution will not come from the Leader of the Opposition. He is a man of peace. But it will come from the returned soldiers, from the men who did not get a fair deal, from the men to whom a heaven on earth was promised and who were done an injustice. It will come from the men who have been shot and maimed and who want to know what their reward is going to be. What are they going to receive? I am against the war because it is a war of capitalism. The returned soldiers will be the people who will bring about the economic revolution. I wish my eloquence would match my feelings in regard to the outcome of this war. This war is being fought for the benefit of high finance. Fortunately the evil sometimes produces the good and passions have been roused which can no longer be suppressed. When one keeps his ear to the ground, one hears the steps of thousands of mothers and fathers who march under the banner of freedom, freedom from oppression, freedom from capitalistic slavery. We want a better world and when I say so I am in good company. For what did the Prime Minister say when he was still in the prime of life, when he thought differently from what he thinks today? He said—

That is what the Prime Minister said in 1900. How did the mighty ones fall! We demand freedom, and that demand for freedom has perhaps arisen indirectly through his actions, and as in the case of Joseph he wanted to do evil, but had to do good. The torch has been lighted, and cannot be extinguished again, the torch of freedom. We look up at the monument near Bloemfontein which points like a finger to heaven. A cry for freedom has arisen and you cannot stop it, freedom from the yoke—not from the English yoke, but from the yoke of capitalism under which the English people also suffer. The Prime Minister agreed to being tied to the British Empire. He believes in the constellation of Great Britain. I am afraid his world is toppling over, perhaps not by means of the German arms, but definitely through a revolution which is approaching and which nobody will be able to allay—the revolution of the poor people, of the miners, of the slum dwellers, of the proletariat. They are rising against the existing system. They are returning from the war, and they will demand better conditions. I am opposed to this war because it is a war of the capitalists, a war which does not concern us at all. I still want to ask the Minister not to proceed with the adventure of sending our soldiers oversea. Keep our people here, rebuild the broken down walls, work to save the country. He may possibly be able to do it. I do not know anybody else who can do it.

There you are speaking the truth.

But you cannot do it along the road of war, but only along the road of peace. That enormous task is awaiting us. The Prime Minister can say we have done enough now, that South Africa has done its duty and that America with its millions and England with its millions can continue the work, but that we shall not shed any more blood, and that we have to keep our home front in order.

I do not think the hon. member for Potgietersrust (Rev. S. W. Naudé) expects us to take his speech and his outburst against capitalism seriously. I am convinced of one thing: If that hon. member can be a capitalist before sunset, the sun will still be high in the heavens when he will be one. I want to come to the amendment of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I think it is inconsistent. The amendment begins as follows—

This is ambiguous. Later on he also says that our forces must be withdrawn, and one may infer from this that he is in favour of using forces in Africa against the Axis. I just say this in passing, because we know the Leader of the Opposition, and later he may say that at one time during the war he was in favour of our using forces in Africa, but not outside Africa. Hon. members on the other side are opposed to our using forces outside Africa. Are we then safe enough in South Africa after the progress which the war has made, and is it no longer necessary for us further to participate in the war? Do they think so? They say that we must no longer allow our people to be killed outside Africa, not on the Continent or at other places. I say that what counts is not where you are killed, but for what cause you are killed. With me the question is whether the cause for which I am fighting and for which I am prepared to die is a good cause. Do they not think that it is good enough to die for the freedom of South Africa? Do hon. members on the other side want Germany to win?

You must ask yourself the question why you are here.

They will not reply to that question. If they do not want Germany to win, they must not hinder us in our efforts, but rather assist us.

But you yourself do not help.

I do the same as the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp): I grow potatoes and sell them at the highest prices to the troops.

I do not catch the Government’s guinea fowls.

I know nothing about guinea fowls, but guess again. To come now to what the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) said. I cannot allow it to pass unchallenged, because it is of the greatest importance that we should know what happened. On the 15th August, 1942, the hon. member for Kimberley, District, put a question to the Leader of the Opposition at Burgersdorp. He asked him to explain to the meeting what the Simonstown Agreement was, what its terms were and what the obligations were which the Leader of the Opposition would have had to fulfil if the motion of the then Prime Minister had been accepted. Judging by an interjection which we had just now, when the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) spoke, it seems to me that he knew nothing about it. I proceed to quote from „Die Burger’,” dated 17th August, 1942. This is the reply which Dr. Malan gave, according to the report—

What is wrong with that proposition?

I shall tell you what is wrong with it. I want to say here that I do not believe for a moment that Gen. Hertzog approved of this—because I would besmirch his name if I dragged him into this; because only a few days ago the Leader of the Opposition, together with the Prime Minister, paid homage to him as one of the most honest statesmen South Africa has ever had. I say that if at that time the Leader of the Opposition had said that this was his attitude on the eve of the 4th of September, then we might have had a different vote. He did not do so; and now I want to ask this question, who endeavoured to mislead this House? The Leader of the Opposition said that the present Prime Minister misled the House on the 4th September because he did not state expressly that he would declare war on Germany and take part in the struggle. But we now find that the Leader of the Opposition said at Burghersdorp that he had agreed with the then Prime Minister not to defend Simonstown.

Where do you get hold of that?

Yes, he says so.

He said that Gen. Hertzog understood this to be the standpoint of the Nationalist Party.

And then he comes here and on the 4th September he says nothing about it. I read his whole speech, and he did not mention a single word about Simonstown.

Then you cannot read.

He said that he resigned himself to the statement of the then Prime Minister (Gen. Hertzog), that we would fulfil our obligations under the Simonstown Agreement. He brought the House under the wrong impression. On the 4th September he voted for the motion of the Prime Minister, and he said that he would submit to its terms, notwithstanding the fact that on the previous evening he took an oath not to fulfil those obligations. He took that oath, and who is misleading the House now? If all the members on the other side had known that in his heart of hearts he had already decided that he would not carry out the Simonstown Agreement, then I doubt whether half of them would have sat where they are sitting now: The Leader of the Opposition did not do this, and it is no wonder that later on Gen. Hertzog felt that he had to say that Afrikanerdom under the leadership of members on the other side, would find themselves in the wilderness. I want to say this, that if eminent Afrikaner leaders give that sort of lead, Afrikanerdom will not only find itself in the wilderness, but will be buried under the sands of contempt. It was misleading; it was misleading on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to tell Gen. Hertzog that he would vote for the whole motion, without any reservations. He should have been honest and he should have said that he could only vote for the motion if the latter portion were omitted. We have every reason to condemn his attitude. The Leader of the Opposition also asks that we should withdraw our forces and immediately make peace with Germany. We on this side ask: On what basis? He did not tell us whether there would be conditions, and, if so, what those conditions should be. He did not tell us what we must do with our sons, and we are entitled to know what he proposes to do. He told us nothing in that direction, but simply said that we must make peace, that we must show the white flag and withdraw our troops. I say that the country is entitled to know what his proposals are. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad tried yesterday to belittle the Prime Minister. He said that the Prime Minister had deserted his people, and had practically joined another nation.

Can there be any doubt about that at this stage?

He says that the Prime Minister is fighting on behalf of that nation; that he has become their champion. I do not want to go as far back as the Sand River Treaty. But when we made the Union Agreement, we agreed that Afrikaansspeaking people and English-speaking people would be fellow-citizens in this country. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad co-operated for years under that system, and I can only say to him that the Prime Minister is still adhering to that agreement today—he stands by his people, by his own side, and by the other section.

No, he no longer stands by his people.

He also stands by the other section which he accepted as part of the Afrikaner nation. But he definitely does not stand in the uniform of a third Power to have his own people shot. No, it would be better for us to leave alone those things.

He wears the uniform of an English Field-Marshal today.

It does not become us to discuss those things here. It does not become us to try to reduce the antheap, to carry sand from the summit to the bottom like ants in an effort to reduce the antheap. We will not succeed and it will not avail us to try to do so. When Japan made that traitorous attack on Pearl Harbour, hon. members on the other side said that if Japan came to this country, they would defend the country. The hon. member for Moorreesburg said that. Now I want to ask in all seriousness what objection he can possibly have to the taking of Madagascar in order to prevent the Japanese from coming here? What objection can he have to our going beyond our borders? He ought to be thankful that we stopped Japan before she could come here. Then the Leader of the Opposition went on to say that the attitude of the Prime Minister might possibly result in massacre in South Africa in the near future as a result of the arming of coloureds and natives. Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition what causes trouble in the country and what incites dissatisfaction amongst the natives. It is this type of thing. A telegram appeared in “Die Burger” on the 14th December, 1921, and it emanated from him—

I want to go even further. That was in 1921. In 1925 we find that on the 18th June the Leader of the Opposition writes as follows to the Malay Congress in Cape Town—

It is that type of thing which makes the native dissatisfied. Today this type of thing is promised to him, and tomorrow there is a change of policy and he gets a kick.

The hon. member who has spoken, went into the question of the arrangements made between Gen. Hertzog and the Leader of the Opposition the evening before the 4th September, especially in regard to the position of Simonstown, and he referred to the reply given to certain questions in that connection put to the hon. Leader of the Opposition at a meeting at Burghersdorp. He comes to the conclusion—he had no other argument—that he does not believe the Leader of the Opposition. If it is a question of one man’s word against that of another, I do not believe him. Now I should like to point out this. The hon. member was present at the discussions that took place on the 4th September. All the members opposite, except a few who were on the return sea voyage from “Home” but who subsequently joined them, were present, and according to the Hansard Report the Leader of the Opposition in his speech referred to the discussions he had had with the then Prime Minister (Gen. Hertzog) the previous evening. And now I am going to read to the hon. member what the Leader of the Opposition said. These are his words:

When this statement was made, the late Gen. Hertzog was in the House, and he raised no objection to what the Leader of the Opposition said at the time. It was clear that the whole position had been discussed beforehand, and that the discussions were in connection with the question of contractual obligations It is also referred to in the motion of Gen. Hertzog, because the words “in regard to the contractual obligations regarding the naval base at Simonstown” appear in the motion. When the hon. member talks about such matters he should go into the matters and ascertain the nature of the contractual obligations regarding Simonstown. Can he produce any proof that there was anything in the contractual obligations between the Government of the time and the British Government that compelled us to defend Simonstown from land? There was no such thing.

But he differed from Gen. Hertzog on that point.

There were no obligations. The Leader of the Opposition discussed the matter with Gen. Hertzog the previous evening, and he satisfied himself on that point. The hon. member also had much to say about deception. Not only he, but also other hon. members opposite in the course of the debate have accused the Opposition of deception. The less members opposite talk of deception, in view of what occurred on the 4th September and a few days thereafter, the better it will be for them. I do not wish to reiterate what the Leader of the Opposition and other speakers have already said in connection with the motion introduced by the present Prime Minister, at that time the Minister of Justice, on the 4th September. In that motion the impression was very clearly created that it would only be a matter of severing diplomatic relations with Germany, and the defence of South Africa, and that there would be no question of sending troops overseas. The hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander) yesterday quoted from an article in “Die Burger,” and he wished to show that we had adopted the point of view that the Union had been dragged into the war. That certainly was our view. But now we are concerned with the deception on the part of the present Prime Minister on the 4th September, 1939. We knew that deception was going on. Since 4th September we took the view that we were being dragged into a war, and that it was not merely a question of the severing of diplomatic relations. And now I shall adduce the necessary proof why today we say that on the 4th September there was deception on the part of the present Prime Minister, and I do so for the benefit of the hon. member who has just spoken and of other hon. members. I think we may take it that “Die Suiderstem,” is the mouthpiece of the Government in the Cape Province, whatever we may otherwise think of it as a newspaper. We may take it that after the 4th September, “Die Suiderstem” was instructed to influence the Afrikaans-speaking section in South Africa in favour of the Prime Minister’s war policy, and therefore wrote as the Government dictated. But even supposing that is not so, we may still say that what “Die Suiderstem” wrote at that time, was the impression made upon it; in other words, it reflected the impression made upon it by the motion of the present Prime Minister. I think the Editor of “Die Suiderstem” has at least so much intelligence that he is able to say what impression has been made upon him by what is said in this House. I should like to quote a few extracts from an article that appeared in “Die Suiderstem” on the 5th September, the day after the motion had been introduced in this House. It is from a leader.—[Translation]—

And listen to this now:

He proceeds, and emphasises this:

Then follows an extract from the resolution of the House of Assembly, and the article states with reference to it:

This, then, is what the Prime Minister’s own paper was impressing on the minds of the Afrikaans-speaking section in the country in order to catch them for the war policy. It would then merely be a question of severing diplomatic relations. But the “Suiderstem” was not satisfied yet, and the next day an interesting article appeared. He wished to affirm the impression and catch the people with that idea. On the 6th September the paper wrote as follows—[Translation.]

They want to tell the world that in clear terms, but particularly the Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa.

And then we come to a very interesting part:

But it cannot be true!

That is what this Government organ wrote. And then there follows in heavy black type:

That is their point of view, and then there follows again in heavy black type—[Translation]—

And after these statements the people opposite still have the audacity to rise in this House and to ask who practised deception. Graver deception—nay, I shall go further and say graver fraud has never in the political history of South Africa been practised on this House and on the country and the people. That type of deceit it seems to me, is just what we might expect when a S.A.P. Government enters into the war. In 1914 we had the same kind of deceit. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Mr. Hirsch) yesterday went out of his way to mention the fact that in 1914 I was in South-West Africa. For him it was a great point. I do not know whether he enlisted at that time. Possibly he did. No, I notice the hon. member remains silent, and therefore he was not in the war. Then he is the last man to talk about it. But that kind of argument is now being levelled against me. Let me tell him what happened. I was registrar to one of the Judges at Grahamstown. When the report came that 40,000 Germans had already crossed our border, I joined up. It has always been my contention (and it is still my point of view today) that if our country is attacked without us having declared war, we should defend the country.

I praised you for it, and did not blame you for it.

The hon. member should not interrupt me now. I did what any patriotic South African would have done. The enemy had crossed our border, according to the reports, and in this connection I should like to point out how Gen. Botha at that time lied to us ….

I think the hon. member should moderate his language.

All right, Mr. Speaker; I withdraw the word. I shall say how deliberately he deceived us in order to promote his war policy, as is the case now with the present Government. Shortly afterwards the rebellion broke out, and then we ascertained the true story. I immediately wrote to the Judge and told him that I had been persuaded to join up through false pretences, and asked him to obtain my discharge for me. He refused to do so, and I had to go to South-West, where I did garrison duty. I returned and received my discharge. A tremendous attempt was immediately made to persuade me to join up for East Africa. I refused. Let me tell the hon. member that many white feathers were sent to me at that time. My friends would not play a game of tennis with me. As an advocate, I was boycotted by four of the five firms of attorneys at Grahamstown because I would not participate in an Imperial war. What I did at that time, I shall do again under similar circumstances. But when the actual state of affairs became clear to me, I did my utmost to get out of the army, and I refused to have anything further to do with it. But what is the position today? I was in the hon. member’s constituency recently; I was at the seaside at Humewood. Let me tell the House that the whole beach and esplanade teemed with Jews. I had not realised that there were so many Jewish inhabitants in Port Elizabeth. There were many other men also. The majority of them were of military age. Let him rather go and talk to those people and persuade them to do their duty, and not make all kinds of charges against me here. I return to this debate. The debate covered a wide field, and rightly so, because the Prime Minister said in his speech: “We are proceeding a stage further in the prosecution of our war policy.” In the circumstances it is understandable that the whole question of the war policy is raised for discussion. And yet the question is put from the opposite side: “Why do you bring up all the old arguments on the war?” The opposition did not raise the matter. We had our motions on the war in the past. This time the matter was brought up by the Prime Minister himself, not only by his motion, but also by his speech on the motion. He has stated that there is this difference between the motion of the 4th September and the one we are discussing today, namely, that on the 4th September it was merely a defensive war. The Prime Minister now clearly reveals that it no longer is a question of a defensive war, but that we have now reached the stage of an offensive war in the interests of the British Empire. Before I discuss the motion, I should like to say a word or two about something else that has been raised in the course of the debate, and in that connection I should like to refer to the speech recently made by the Prime Minister in the British Lower House. One of the things that nauseates every right-minded and decent person is the hypocrisy of the war propaganda that has been made not only in England but also by the Prime Minister and his followers here in South Africa. If the Prime Minister on the 4th September, when he introduced his motion, had said to this House: “Look, England must retain her position of power in Europe; it is necessary that she should retain it, and there is danger also that Germany might oust England economically …” Well, we would not have agreed with it, but it would have been honest on his part. But he did not advance those reasons. He told us all the other tales of aggression and religion. I have here an American periodical, and in it there appears with large headlines, the speech made by the Prime Minister to the members of the Lower House in England. Referring to Hitler, he stated:

Hear, hear!

Don’t shout “hear, hear!” so soon. It is obvious that the Prime Minister, after being in the company of Mr. Winston Churchill for a short while, learned abusive language, which is the characteristic feature of all Mr. Churchill’s radio speeches. He continued as follows:

That is what nauseates one, the high moral tone assumed by the Prime Minister and his followers since the outbreak of the war. One could expect it from the Minister of Finance—the high moral tone—for he is accustomed to preach at frequent intervals, but we do not expect it from the Prime Minister. He refers here to the new crusade, and I would remind you that when Union troops departed from Durban, he called them “Children of the Cross.” I should like to say this to the Prime Minister: He poses as a Child of the Cross, but he is the Ally of Stalin, the “Violater of the Cross.” I have here a book containing a number of caricatures from the well-known Communist paper “Pravda.” “Pravda” is the London Times of Moscow. I am showing hon. members a caricature of Christ in this leading Russian paper. And here is another caricature showing a Russian in the act of breaking down the Cross of Christ. And while the Prime Minister co-operates with the Violater of the Cross, he adopts a high moral tone, and complains that Hitler wants to trample underfoot the Cross. In his speech the Prime Minister stated that he takes off his hat to Stalin, the man who is breaking down the Cross of Christ. Eventually he will have to take off his shirt also to Stalin. To show now what the English themselves think of this kind of hypocrisy, I want to quote what an Englishman, the well-known historian James Anthony Froude said. I think the Prime Minister will agree with me that he is a leading British historian. This was written after he had completed a tour of South Africa:

But our Prime Minister refers to a new crusade for human rights and for truth. Froude continues:

Then he continues, and I would particularly bring this to the notice of the Prime Minister:

How can that be reconciled with what the Prime Minister said in London, where he referred to “a new fight to the death for the rights and liberties of man, and for the personal ideals of the ethical and spiritual life of mankind.” But I would return to the speech of the Prime Minister on introducing the motion. One would have expected that the Prime Minister in this case would have spoken to his motion with conviction, but I think the Prime Minister himself has realised, and we have realised, and members opposite have realised, that the Prime Minister spoke with less conviction than ever before in connection with the motion introduced by him. Perhaps it is a gratifying sign, that the Prime Minister’s conscience is beginning to worry him a little. We know the Prime Minister has the reputation of being a man of steel. The English writer Armstrong has described him as “Grey Steel,” the man of steel, without feeling, and without emotion. There are people who even allege that he also has no conscience. But I wonder whether his discomfiture when he introduced this motion is not an indication that his conscience still can worry him. And the same thing applies to his followers. Not one of them succeeded in his speech in refuting the charge of breach of faith made by the Leader of the Opposition. And after what I have read out to them from “Die Suiderstem” of the 5th September, 1939, they will still less be able to do so. Not one of them could justify the motion. But they could hardly succeed where their leader hopelessly failed. Clearly he was not at ease. He started off at once by making an excuse with regard to Madagascar. The manner in which it was put, amounted to an admission of guilt, namely that he had sent forces outside Africa in contravention of the resolution of the House of Assembly, and in breach of the undertaking given by him. And after him the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) came forward with a new excuse, and spoiled their case still more. He said: “Oh yes, but the Prime Minister knew nothing about it. The troops from England were already on the way, and the South African forces only arrived there long afterwards.” The hon. member for Kensington quite forgot about a Reuter report that appeared in the papers, and in which Reuter stated: It may now be revealed that South African Forces have been there for a considerable time already. The hon. member for Kensington tells us that the Prime Minister is completely innocent. He knows better, or ought to, know better. He knows very well that such a British Expeditionary force would not be sent to territory near South Africa without first having consulted the Prime Minister of the Union. And we also have confirmation in Reuters report. Why did the Prime Minister come forward with this motion? The undertaking has already been broken. He could therefore as well have left the motion. Why does he now all of a sudden have such respect for the rights of Parliament? I think the reply is to be found in an utterance in the Prime Minister’s speech: “We do not expect any difficulty in getting recruits.”

Thank the Lord for that.

Well, we shall have to see. I believe the hon. the Prime Minister really is uneasy about this. He knows he is going to experience difficulty. After the fall of Tobruk the radio and the Press were harnessed, and it was announced that the Prime Minister required 7,000 men. Propaganda was spread throughout the country, from East to West, and from North to South, and after two of the three weeks’ propaganda the “Argus” came out with the headlines: “Only 2,000.” That was after the fall of Trobruk. They wanted to avenge Tobruk. Now they say they want to go and fetch our boys in Italy. He knows he is not going to find recruits easily, for the war propaganda of after the 4th September has become obsolete. The aggression-tale cannot be used any longer. Now it is an aggressive war on the part of the British, and the story of aggression by the other side has become obsolete. We know what British aggression we have had since then, in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Madagascar, Morocco, Tunisia, and particularly also in Timor. What did Dr. Salazar, the Portuguese Prime Minister, say about the British aggression in Timor? What I am going to read here is from a pamphlet coming direct from Lisbon. I mention that deliberately, because I do not wish to create any suspicion against the local representatives of Portugal. Portuguese government pamphlets are sent to me on the personal instructions of Dr. Salazar himself. It is a part of his speech to the Portuguese Parliament, and it struck me that Reuter had omitted this portion of the speech from their report. He says—it is in English—

An then he continues, saying:

That is a charge against England. It is understandable, therefore, that the cry of aggression no longer will bring forth recruits for the Prime Minister. It is a pity the hon. member for Kensington is not present. When on a previous occasion we discussed this matter, I stated that from the moral and ethical point of view, there was no difference between the British aggression in various countries and the German aggression in Norway, Holland and Belgium, because in all these cases similar motives inspired the aggression. Both sides tried to get there first, both wanted bases for operations. The same thing happened in Madagascar, and the Prime Minister participated in that. He tries to justify the aggression by saying that there was no wholesale slaughter as there was in Holland. But there were only 7,000 badly armed Frenchmen in Madagascar, and against them there were 30,000 or more well equipped British troops. But what would have happened had there been 20,000 or 30,000 properly equipped Frenchmen? There would then also have been great slaughter. I am afraid the only difference between the aggression on the one side and that on the other, is as in the case of a person who breaks into a house in a decent manner through an open window and steals a lot of money, and another who breaks the window and breaks everything to pieces, but perhaps steals less. Both are guilty of housebreaking. This cry of aggression will no longer make an impression and will not produce recruits.

When business was suspended, I was indicating how the old propaganda cries we had at the outbreak of the war, have all become obsolete. Even the cry of the defence of the Union has become obsolete. The Prime Minister has stated that Africa has been cleared of the enemy, except for one small place. I am not so sure that he is going to clear that small place as quickly and as easily as he has suggested, because the “Cape Times” yesterday had a big headline: “No easy prospect in Tunisia.” The only remaining propaganda cry, and the only one the Prime Minister referred to in his speech, is that old and wellworn cry of world domination. This morning I quoted what the wellknown British historian Froude said regarding the fact that the English have collared half the world, but I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he should be a little careful with the argument of world domination. I should like to draw his attention to an article which appeared in the American periodical “Life,” of October last year. It is an important magazine, so important that the Prime Minister not so long ago wrote a special article for the same periodical. “Life” says inter alia, addressing also the Prime Minister of the Union:

I specially mention this because the hon. the Prime Minister, in replying to an interjection by me, stated: “What about America, who has now entered into the war?” Let me remind him of the words of “Life”, that they are not fighting for the preservation of the British Empire. I therefore say that the Prime Minister now is afraid, afraid that he will not secure enough recruits, and for that reason he comes forward, and, in spite of the fact that he has already broken his promise, wants to have a Parliamentary resolution behind him, so that he may be able to tell the people that Parliament said that the men should go and fight. I would suggest that the Prime Minister should comply with an appeal recently made to him for the establishment of a Jewish regiment. They say they are anxious to have it. I have pointed out how the beaches on Sundays are covered with Jews of military age. Let him-have a Jewish regiment; let them go; they are shouting loudest. It might make a good impression if such a regiment could go, e.g., under the command of Lt.-Col. Kentridge, and perhaps the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, (Mr. Alexander) could carry the keys of the commissariat. I would also refer to something very significant mentioned by the Prime Minister in his speech. He stated that he would issue strict instructions to the officers of the Defence Force to see to it that the voluntary basis be actually and effectively maintained. If ever there has been an admission, a clear admission on the part of the Prime Minister, then it is this. He says, with regard to his new recruiting campaign, that he will see to it that this time it will be real volunteers who will be going. It has constantly been denied that pressure has been brought to bear on people to go North, that economic pressure has been exerted. Here we have an admission. This afternoon, incidentally, just as I was entering Parliament Building, I met a man from my constituency who had been offered a position with De Beers. He is a person who is conversant with three or four native languages. When he got there, they asked him: “Are you medically unfit?” [Time limit.]

I move—

I object.

The motion of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, far from breaking any promise, either made or implied, is but the logical step to be taken in view of the new phase into which this war has entered, and is in conformity with the upholding of the honour and the prestige of our country. When, by free resolution of Parliament, we decided to participate in this war, it must have been obvious that to play our part worthily, as befitting our traditions and our honour, we would, notwithstanding our peculiar internal problems, have to bear our fair share to the full extent of our capacity. Our first and most immediate task was to defend our own country against attack or possible attack. How worthily our brave sons on land, on sea, and in the air, have fulfilled, their duty in this respect in Abyssinia and in Libya, will be recorded in the new pages of our history which they, so gloriously, have helped to write. But, Mr. Speaker, now that the last remaining forces of the enemy are held in a small corner of our Continent, shortly to be driven out and destroyed as surely as our courageous Russian Allies have destroyed them at Stalingrad, our task is not over. We are not fighting for South Africa alone. We are, as the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said, in his notable speech in London, continuing the fight commenced in 1914 and postponed in 1919—the fight for world freedom—South Africa can know no safety until all the world is safe. South Africa can know no freedom till all the world is free. South Africa can know no peace till all the world has peace. The fight of our Allies is our fight. Wherever they fight our honour and our traditions demand that we fight also. There can be no standing back. There will be no standing back. As it was in the last war, so it will be in this. Our path of duty is clear before us, and the sons of South Africa, white, coloured and black, will respond to the clarion call. For of our South Africans—our Springboks—can it once again be said—I cannot do better than read the words of the late Gen. Hertzog when he unveiled the Delville Wood Memorial in 1926—

I have quoted from the oration delivered by the late Gen. Hertzog at the unveiling of the Delville Wood Memorial to our gallant sons who gave up their lives in the last war. The words said then apply equally forcibly and truly now. They differ only in that I have used the present tense in quoting instead of the past tense Gen. Hertzog used. Truly, I can think of no finer recruiting appeal to the manhood of South Africa for service overseas than these words of the late Gen. Hertzog. One outstanding feature of this debate, Mr. Speaker, has been the opposition to this motion by hon. members opposite—an opposition based not on the merits of the motion, but on a palpable fear. And, they have grounds for fear. The only way in which the Opposition groups can keep their followers together is by continually sowing and fertilising the seeds of racialism. Anti-British, anti-Jew, anti-Colour, anti-War, are the sole battle cries of an undisciplined, badly led army of disunited hands-uppers. But, Mr. Speaker, men who fight side by side, irrespective of race, colour or creed, get to know each other in times of danger and grow to appreciate and respect each other’s good qualities. The petty squabbles and bickerings of disgruntled politicians seem to them beneath contempt, and in their hearts there grows a fixed determination that an end must and shall be made to those who strive to keep apart our people who by all the canons of common sense should be unitedly working together, as fellow South Africans, for the common good. Mr. Speaker, I can testify, as a member of the 1st South African Brigade in the Great War, that never at any time did any suspicion of racialism exist among its members whether of Afrikaans or English parentage. Serving side by side, as they have done also in this war, there grew out of their common dangers indestructible bonds of friendship and mutual respect which, welded together, laid the foundations of a common nationality. For themselves they gained imperishable glory. For South Africa they laid the foundation for that greater equality of nationhood and freedom which today is our privilege to enjoy within the British Commonwealth of Nations. That, Mr. Speaker, is the basis of their fear. Their sons and supporters who courageously in the face of their sternest opposition and disfavour, are serving side by side with our sons and supporters, will return enlightend. No longer will they be the dupes of the subtle party propagandist. Their trials and ordeals together will clinch their future solidatrity. Never again will they allow themselves to be separated by racial issues. As united South Africans they will demand complete unity and those who seek to prevent it will be swept aside as Rommel was swept from El Alamein. Mr. Speaker, I cannot end my small contribution to this debate without making an earnest appeal to the Prime Minister on behalf of our coloured soldiers. Notwithstanding the fact that they have so far been denied opportunity of serving as combatant units, our coloured men have come forward in their thousands to offer their services. Disparity in pay and allowances has not deterred them from making their praiseworthy contribution to our cause. They have displayed a courage and a devotion to duty second to none. On the one and only occasion I had the privilege of meeting the late Gen. Dan Pienaar I asked him for his candid opinion regarding the coloured soldiers under his command. I received the answer that I expected. “In every respect,” he said, “I cannot speak too highly of them. They have been simply magnificent, and I am proud to command them.” Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for me to remind the Prime Minister of the part played by our Cape Corps—a combatant unit in the Great War—at the Battle of the Square Hill in Palestine and elsewhere. Their glorious stand against fearful odds when their officers were dead or wounded is one of the epics of the forces then under the command of Gen. Allenby. What they did there they can and will do again, given the opportunity to participate as a fighting unit overseas. My plea is that this opportunity be now given them. Opposition members have already raised all sorts of bogies in regard to the arming of coloured troops and their enlistment in our Army. Hair-raising speeches have been made and will continue to be made by them in an endeavour to catch votes as a result of colour prejudice. Mr. Speaker, my reply is that their fears are base, baseless, and unfounded in fact or experience. There are no better coloured persons in South Africa than those who served in the Cape Corps in the last war. And, as it was after the last war, so it will be again—only we will have a good many more better citizens. I, sir, support this motion whole-heartedly. The price we shall have to pay is the price that all must pay who desire to preserve their rights and privileges, and who place love of country and honour above all personal considerations. The responsibility for the taking of this further step along the road to ultimate victory has been charged to the Prime Minister. I am prepared to accept my full share of that responsibility in the certain knowledge that by so doing I am doing what is best in the interest of my country and its people.

It is not my intention to devote much time to the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down because, to tell the truth, he did not say anything which was worth taking the trouble to reply to. All that I want to say is this, that if he must receive an extra £1,250 per annum to deliver such speeches, then we must conclude that the Government probably has more money to waste than it has sense. Accusations have been made against the Prime Minister in various speeches which have been delivered in the House, and I should like to refer briefly to those accusations. The first was that the Prime Minister, with premeditation, when introducing his motion of 1939 gave us to understand that we were not going to take an active part in the war, and that a few days after that motion had been adopted he started to take the necessary steps to break that promise. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has already made that clear, and I do not want to dwell on that. The second accusation against him was that he comes to this House with a motion to ask that troops should be sent overseas, whereas he and his followers gave us to understand very clearly in the discussion of the motion in connection with the declaration of war that it was not their intention and would not be their intention to send troops overseas. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has already in a very effective way demonstrated what the impression was that the Prime Minister created on his own newspapers at the time. From what the hon. member for Beaufort West read here, to the discomfiture of the hon. members on the other side, it was very clear that they were all under the impression that no attempt would be made to send troops overseas, not even volunteers either. I should also like to quote something from “Die Suiderstem” to show that that newspaper did not only emphasise that point of view for two days after the acceptance of the motion, but that it also did it the day before. For three days it considered it necessary to drive that lesson home, firstly, that we would not take an active part in the war, and secondly, that we also would not be asked to send troops overseas. I should like to quote the leading article which the paper wrote on the 4th September, 1939—the same day that the motion was discussed here in this House. The paper appeared in the afternoon and we voted towards evening, and the article was presumably written because there were certain friends on the opposite side who were nervous concerning the motion and who had to be passified. The article appeared under the heading “Sober Facts” and there was a sub-heading “No Participation Overseas,,’ which meant that we would not send troops overseas. In this article the following appeared—[ Translation ]

And note this:

Here it is therefore emphasised that if we do not send troops overseas we will not be blamed for it. It will not be a severance of bonds of friendship; it will not be dishonourable, as the charges which are now being made imply. The paper then goes further and says that it can be deduced from this that we are going to get what may be called a defensive—and not an offensive—participation in the war. The paper then adds—[Translation ]

Not which will threaten our safety, but which may threaten. The paper then goes on to say—

This quotation is in the official organ of the Government party. It is clear that this article was written as well as the other two articles from which the hon. member for Beaufort West quoted, because at that time presumably there were members on the other side who hesitated to vote in favour of war because it was a fact at the time that the majority of the people, both English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking, were not prepared to declare war which would have brought in its train active participation in the war. That is why these articles were written, to bring about a re-assurance and to calm the mind of those people. The purpose was to obtain a majority for the amendment which the present Prime Minister proposed to sever relations with Germany. In this connection, I would just like to direct a few words to the hon. member for Carolina (Mr. Fourie). He will remember that I addressed a meeting at Carolina at which I emphasised that we should not have participated in the war. He was the person who attacked me and said to me “Why do you take up that attitude; we will not send a single man; we have only severed relations with Germany.” Today, notwithstanding those words used in Carolina, he is prepared to vote for a motion which requests us to send our boys overseas. Here it is so often stated that we must send our boys to bring back our people who are prisoners in Italy. But have they considered how many of those boys will perhaps never come back? It is held up to the people that they will have a sort of pleasure trip there to go and fetch our prisoners in Italy. They forget how many of those boys will be killed in Italy. Shortly after the Prime Minister made it known in his constituency that he would move a motion of this nature, I received letters from people who urged me to support this motion. Some of the letters were anonymous, but I should like to read a few of them to enable me to deal with the arguments which appear in them. The one wrote to me as follows—

The second letter was in the same tenor and concluded as follows: He reminded me of a statement by a famous Statesman—“My country, right or wrong.” He says that we must throw in our lot in the war whether it is right or wrong. A third letter was from an English-speaking person. He wrote to me [retranslation]—

And then he continues—

I have quoted these few letters because they are a short summary of some of the arguments which are used to justify our participation in the war and to bring about the extension thereof. In the second place, I quoted these letters to show how short-sighted and illogical those people are who use these arguments. Then I also quoted these letters to show that definitely nothing has happened since we issued the declaration of war against Germany which has compelled us on this side to change our attitude. On the contrary, as a result of the latest developments there are dangers hidden in the position, as I shall demonstrate later, which makes it more than necessary for us to withdraw as quickly as possible from this war. In the first letter it was stated that we had made our protest; it was a lawful resolution of Parliament, and now we have to abide by it. In other words, if a person is once a drunkard then he must remain a drunkard and never improve himself again. It is therefore “My country, right or wrong.” In the first place, I should like to ask those people if we must violate our conscience. We are convinced in our own minds, as are the majority of members on the other side, except naturally those who draw double salaries, that the war should never have been declared, and that it is not in the interests of South Africa, and yet it is expected of us simply to abide by the resolution of that Parliament. We must violate our conscience because Parliament has already adopted a resolution! I do not want to go into the question whether the Parliament which adopted the resolution was authorised by the people to adopt such a resolution. There is a great deal to be said in regard to that. All that I want to emphasise again is that during the preceding election that Parliament was elected, not to drag South Africa into a war, but definitely to keep South Africa out of the quarrels of Europe. I say those members are not consequent. I recollect that at the time the old Nationalist Party was in power Minister Havenga introduced a motion here that the gold standard must be maintained. The whole opposition were in agreement with his motion and the decision was generally accepted by Parliament. Shortly afterwards, however, the Opposition switched round and made a big song right throughout the country and stirred the whole country into an uproar against the gold standard. Thus if it suits the purpose of those members then we must abide by a resolution of Parliament. If it does not suit their purpose then we find that in spite of the fact that a motion is agreed to by Parliament, and that above all with their support, they switched round and made propaganda against that motion. Those people always declare that they fight for democracy. They will admit that the first principle of the system that they are so eager to retain is that the minority must have the right to express its opinion. If we have to accept that argument that if Parliament has once adopted a resolution then the Opposition must abide by it, and we follow it through to its logical conclusions, then it simply means that all oppostion must vanish. The Government simply will have resolutions adopted and then the Opposition must abide by them and say nothing. I say therefore that those hon. members make use of democracy just as it suits their purpose. Then I want to come to another argument contained in the English letter which I read. He asks whether we realise that there would have been bloodshed and rebellion in this country if Parliament had decided to remain neutral. To what does this argument boil down to? It is an argument which was also used by hon. members on the other side. If the majority in Parliament had decided to remain neutral on 4th September, then the English-speaking section would have rebelled—then they would not have resigned themselves to the resolution of Parliament. No, it is expected of us that we must abide by the resolution of Parliament if it protects their sentiments. The sentiment of the Afrikaner does not weigh with them in the least. If the sentiment of the Afrikaner is offended by a resolution of Parliament then the Afrikaner must abide by it, but they need not do so. Let me immediately say to that friend that that is one of the reasons why we are against this war. We are against this war because the action of members on the other side was dead against the sentiment of the Afrikaner and we want to assure them that it will not be tolerated any longer that the sentiment of the Afrikaner shall be exploited in that manner. Further, one of the letters is concerned about my personal future. I do not want to say any more about that than this. Since the outbreak of war we have seen many cases of violation of political convictions in this Parliament. Our standpoint is very clear. Whether it means that our political future will be ended as a result of it, that does not count anything. We will not violate our political convictions because of the advantages which we can derive therefrom. Then I come to the argument that we must realise that we are assisting Hitler with our decision. We have repeatedly heard such rubbish and we still hear it daily. I should like to know this. Does it necessarily mean that we would have assisted Hitler if we had remained neutral? If South Africa had remained neutral then we would not necessarily have chosen sides to assist Hitler. That stands to reason. If members maintain that then I should like to put this question to them: Did Spain choose sides when she remained neutral; did Portugal choose sides when she remained neutral; did Egypt choose sides; did Ireland choose sides when she remained neutral; did Turkey choose sides when she remained neutral; did any one of those countries choose sides? It is coincident that the British Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, has just visited Turkey. Let us see whether he thinks Turkey assisted Hitler. The argument was used here, also by the Prime Minister, that if we refuse to send troops overseas and we do not continue with the war, then it will be dishonourable and we will not be worthy of the fame of our name. It is coincident that Mr. Churchill has now visited Turkey, and let us see what he said about Turkey. He said this:

And here we must remember that Turkey was an ally of Britain and that there was an agreement that she would enter into the war at the side of Britain. She did not do it, and yet Mr. Churchill says that the friendship between Great Britain and Turkey is now closer and more sincere than what it ever was previously. But if South Africa had wanted to take up the same attitude, then it would have been dishonourable on its part. Mr. Churchill also paid a visit to Egypt, and what did he say there to a conference of journalists?—

The Egyptian Government decided to remain neutral and in spite thereof Mr. Churchill praises Egypt for its attitude, but if we want to do the same thing then it is said that it would be dishonourable on our part. But I think the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler), let the cat out of the bag. These kind of things which are being said, that we do not keep our word and that it would be dishonourable, that is nothing else but smoke-screens which are being raised. The hon. member for Kimberley, District, let the cat out of the bag when he stated here: How could South Africa remain neutral seeing that it is a member of the British Commonwealth?

I referred to Simonstown.

I am coming to Simonstown. The hon. member let the cat out of the bag when he asked how could we remain neutral if we are a member of the British Commonwealth? I should now like to put a few questions to him. From when does he say that? He says that since 4th September. Before 4th September he took up another point of view. Then he was a Nationalist and he supported all of us when we said that South Africa has a right to remain neutral. He has now become such an ardent S.A.P. supporter that he denies that.

I still say that we have the right to remain neutral.

Now he speaks differently again. We on this side used the argument in connection with Turkey and Egypt and his argument was that they were not members of the British Commonwealth and that is why they could remain neutral. In other words, the fact that South Africa is a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations prevented her from remaining neutral.

But in your motion reference was made tot Simonstown.

The motion of my deceased leader was that we would fulfil our obligations just as Egypt, according to Mr. Churchill, fulfilled her obligations. But does the hon. member for Kimberley, District, also want to deny, despite the fact that the Simonstown agreement existed, that a solemn resolution was taken by the Cabinet in September, 1938, that we would remain neutral in the event of war? Can he deny that? If it was possible then to remain neutral, despite the fact that the Simonstown agreement existed, why was it not then possible to remain neutral a year later? Have we to accept it that his present leader either accepted that resolution with his tongue in his cheek, in other words simply to mislead the Prime Minister and his colleagues, or that he differed from his leader?

No, you voted for the motion with your tongue in our cheek.

I at least know where my tongue was, but the hon. member still does not know where his tongue is. Let me say this: the argument which the hon. member used reveals the mentality of the majority of members on the opposite side; it shows the inferiority complex which is responsible for their attitude. We are a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations and therefore we cannot remain neutral. In the past I was prepared to support membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I delivered a speech in the House for which I have been blamed. In 1938 when the difficulty arose in regard to Sudetenland I said that we would adhere to membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations on condition that we would definitely have the right to remain out of the wars in Europe and would remain out of them, and not one of them contradicted me. But it is clear now what the position is. We, on this side of the House, have now come to the conclusion that the fact that we are a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations will for ever hinder us and will drag us into British wars because people such as Mr. Steytler will always be found, and therefore we say there is no other alternative than to resign and establish a republic. But that man goes further—

Now, I do not know if Hitler has already been defeated and he does not know it either, but what I do know is this: If Hitler is defeated it will be Stalin who will defeat him and not England. There are a number of hon. members on the opposite side who continually say: “Our Allies fight is our fight.” Well, all that I can say is: “The poor Allies” if everybody fights like members on the other side fight. If Hitler is defeated is surely will be as a result of the Russian campaign and as a result of Russia’s action, and that is the most important fact today because therein lies locked up the greatest danger for the future. The fact is that if the war is won by the Allies it will definitely be a Russian victory. Therein lies our danger. It is an important fact which we must not lose sight of. Let me put it this way. For what purpose is the motion of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister proposed? The purpose is in the first place to achieve the victory. But they cannot say along which road victory must be achieved. As Churchill once said he will co-operate with the devil if he could save the British Empire. Let us now assume that Hitler is going to lose the war. What will be the result? We must look a few very important facts in the face. If Germany is defeated it will in the first place mean a German defeat and a Russian victory. It will mean a National Socialistic defeat and a Communistic victory. That is what our boys must now go and fight for. That is around which the whole matter revolves.

You said Hitler must win.

I have always said that since Russia entered the war that the struggle is no longer between National Socialism and Democracy but between National Socialism and Communism. And it is very noticeable that the hon. the Prime Minister never mentioned a word over the complications which a Russian victory may have. All that he did was to say that he respects Stalin for his contribution in the struggle for victory.

He blessed his weapons.

That is all that he said. But the Prime Minister did not tell us how he was going to achieve or guarantee that freedom if the Russians should be successful in defeating the Germans. It is however not strange that he did not say it, and because of the following reasons. The Prime Minister realises just as well as we do that if the Germans are defeated we will come up against a greater evil. He realises that probably he will have to deal with a more dangerous devil than what he regards Hitler. He realises also that he and his friends, Churchill and Roosevelt, will probably have very little to say if Russia attains the victory. Let us keep these facts in mind. The first is this, that Germany is the last buffer against Communism in Europe. If Germany falls, then Communism and not Democracy will triumph. In the second place, if Russia is successful in defeating the Germans then Stalin will be in Europe what England wanted to prevent Hitler from becoming. In other words, Stalin will be the sole ruler in Europe. The Prime Minister and his allies will not be able to prevent that. Why will he not be able to prevent it? Simply because of this reason that if the Russians achieve victory they will undoubtedly overrun the whole of Europe and I want to ask them this: Will Stalin under those circumstances not have the right to say to Churchill and Roosevelt: “I am going to do what I please because I achieved the victory without your assistance.” He will undoubtedly do that. It is a well-known historical fact that in the past 300 and 400 years Great Britain took part in all the wars in Europe to keep the balance of power between the great nations in Europe. She took part in the war against Napoleon; she took part in the war against William, and now again against Hitler. She declared war in order to maintain the balance of power between the great powers in Europe. And I do not blame her for it; it was in her own interests to do so. But the irony of the present situation is this: that today England has to see with her own eyes, and without being able to say anything, that the policy which she has pursued for the past 300 or 400 years is being thrown overboard; in other words, that a situation may be created in Europe which England has been trying to prevent all along. That is to say, England will be faced with an accomplished fact and will no longer be able to exercise the influence in Europe which she has been able to do in the past. This is a most important fact of which we should not lose sight. Most probably we will come to such a state of affairs in Europe, where a power will rise in Europe which will be stronger than Hitler ever was. During the past two years we have already seen the enormous power of Russia. Nobody will deny that. Now I ask hon. members opposite, if Russia should be victorious, who would then be able to lay any restrictions on her demands? My hon. friend who spoke before me pointed out that there was a strong Communistic element in England. We know that in all the countries in Europe there is a strong Communistic element and that also in America there is a Communistic element to a certain extent. Should we look on and see a power brought into being in Europe which will be able to spread an ideology to the rest of the world which will definitely not be in our own interests. These are facts we definitely have to face a this stage. Now people ask: who knows that Russia has any imperialistic ambitions? But who knows that Russia has no imperialistic ambitions? I ask the hon. members opposite to prove to me that this is not so. I want to put this question to the Prime Minister. If he could allay our concern I would appreciate it very much. I want to ask him whether discussions have already been held between Allied leaders and Russia which provide a guarantee that Russia will not convert the whole of Europe into a Communist State? Or are they simply allowing matters to take their own course? I maintain that this war started in a struggle between two ideologies; it was a fight between National-Socialism and Democracy. Since the entry of the Russians into the war it has developed into a fight between Communism and National Socialism. And it may very well develop into a struggle between Democracy and Communism. Maybe that is rather far-fetched, but we know that in international politics nothing is impossible. It was the greatest surprise to all the world when Germany and Russia formed and alliance. Is there any guarantee then that Russia and Japan will not at a later stage form an alliance against America and England? If Russia should defeat Germany, Japan would also collapse. If Japan collapses it may also happen that a Communistic Government comes into power there. We could then guarantee that Japan and Russia would not form an alliance? Remember this: Russia and Japan are rot against each other in this war; they are both Asiatic nations. The possibility therefore exists that in the event of a German collapse we may see an alliance between Russia and Japan. (Laughter). My friends opposite laugh, but I say that it is quite possible that Russia and Japan may stand together against England and America if the Germans should be defeated and then the fight would develop into a struggle between Democracy and Communism; in other words, between Japan and Russia on the one side and England and America on the other. I am only pointing out the danger there is. Hon. members on the other side of the House simply close their eyes; they just close their eyes to this danger. I am only trying to point out the possibilities that exist in, the event of Russia winning the war. The question has already been raised: why are you crying out against Communism today, why did you not do so while Russia was still neutral? My answer to that is this: when Russia was neutral, it was the hon. members opposite who attacked Russia for being the oppressor of small nations. They raised such a cry against Russia that we never considered it necessary to say anything to the credit or discredit of Russia. But the fact that today Russia is in the war alters the position considerably. There was no military collaboration between Russia and Germany, whereas today there definitely is an alliance between Russia and England. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) is the authority on neutrality that he pretends to be. A little while ago at Elsie’s River he actually said that the salvation of this country would be a German victory.

Which means a Japanese victory too.

I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) is not here, because he spoke about jingoism at Grahamstown. I feel that to be a direct attack on myself, and I would like to say that if anyone could be called a little jingo, it would be the hon. member for Beaufort West when he lived in Grahamstown. We in Grahamstown were told that in his father’s will it was laid down that he should join the Nationalist Party. [Interruptions]. That was definitely the information we had.

To what depths have you sunk?

Order. I don’t think the hon. member should go into personal matters of that nature.

Well, Mr. Speaker, after all that has happened in the world since September 4th, 1939, the members of our Opposition still make very much the same speeches as they made at that time. In those days they quoted the neutrality of Holland as a reason for our remaining neutral, and now they quote the neutrality of Ireland; that is what the Leader of the Opposition quotes, quite forgetting, of course, that Ireland is directly under the wing of Great Britain. I believe that many of the Opposition did believe that we also could rest in this country under the wing of Great Britain and remain neutral on account of our strategic position in the world. Many of them believed that Great Britain could not allow us to be on the side of Germany and to protect our sea routes she would have to protect us, and in that way many of them imagined we could remain neutral. Of course, there were those who thought otherwise. For instance the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) in quoting Redmond the other day, spoke of devils or something of that nature. I don’t think any country in the world was so filled up with little devils as this country was by Hitler. Fortunately many of those devils are in concentration camps today, but many, as everyone knows, have escaped. Speeches in this House today have clearly demonstrated the feeling of members of the Opposition. We had the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) saying that a British victory would be to South Africa’s disadvantage. The Opposition have disclosed in their speeches in this debate that they did want to remain neutral, but neutral on the side of Germany. That is quite an Irishman’s way of looking at neutrality, and probably that is why they quote Ireland as a reason for our remaining neutral. I think the speech of the hon. member for Potgietersrust (Rev. S. W. Naudé) was rather pathetic. He did not speak like a man who is really badly in want of money, but he did seem to envy the capitalists, and he spoke of this country as being a capitalist country, and that this was a war waged by capitalists on our side. I think, however, if he went to Germany today he might find fewer capitalists, but he certainly would find more millionaires in Germany than has ever existed before in its history. I was astounded at the funeral oration made by the hon. member for Fauresmith last night, the way he criticised our Prime Minister, and quoted some speech of the Prime Minister’s alluding to the mercenary troops in Central Africa. These, of course, are the same black hordes that the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) always feared. I would like to remind him that we have nothing to fear from our natives in this country if we treat them justly; our natives have proved that they can always be loyal followers of the white man in this country. They spoke also about arming the natives. Well, we have only armed those natives in self defence. I myself can testify that in the Boer war I saw men whom they call “agterryers” actually carrying rifles, coloured men, and it is very hard for me to believe that if their masters were in difficulties, they would not use those rifles, although they only carried them for their masters. We can argue that our men were only carrying rifles if they were attacked. That is not the only case, the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) has mentioned that in the earlier history of our country we actually fought with natives, and we even made treaties with natives. We have found the natives in our colony definitely very loyal supporters of the white man if we treat them with justice. They are the greatest asset we have in this country, our civilisation has been built up on our native and coloured population, they are our wards, and there is no doubt that those wards are going to grow up. There is no doubt about that, and we shall have to take special regard to that. We shall not always be able to keep them as hewers of wood and drawers of water. With regard to the hon. member for Gezina, I do want to respect your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I want to say that my grievance against the hon. member is that he used a certain type of vehicle as a secret weapon. I make no complaint of that vehicle being introduced, but he used it as a secret weapon, whether it was to be used in flight or surrender I don’t know. But that was the only weapon we found in this country when the present Government took over, that would help us to any material extent as regards our defence, if you call decence running away. Coming back to the hon. member for Fauresmith and his attack on the Prime Minister, I would like to give him a kindly warning. He succeeded one of our big men in that constituency, and it is terribly dangerous to attack a character like our Prime Minister. I would advise him to leave matters of that nature to people like the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) and the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). The hon. member for Beaufort West is well known on the Continent and in America and the hon. member for Victoria West never will be known, so the hon. member for Fauresmith will be perfectly safe if he leaves it to men of their calibre. The hon. member for Victoria West surprised me when he said we should have annexed a portion of Abyssinia; then he would have seen some justification in sending our men on that campaign to help Haile Selassie. Fancy the hon. member advocating what they call aggression by annexing a part of Abyssinia. I suppose if we had annexed a part of Madagascar, then of course Madagascar would have been a portion of South Africa, and it would not be said that we were sending our boys overseas. But I prefer the practical to the theoretical side of every question. One of the principal regiments we sent was one from the Eastern Province recruited from Grahamstown, Alexandria, Bedford and the surrounding districts, one of the finest regiments in the country, and not one of those men wanted any coercion to go to Madagascar. They have been straining at the leash to go North, and were only too happy to be sent to Madagascar. Their only complaint was that they did not see enough fighting there. These men are ready to go anywhere in the world today; they do not want to be limited to Africa. They feel proud, as we do, to be equal in status to Great Britain in the Commonwealth of Nations. There is no doubt that we voted in the best interests of South Africa on September 4th, 1939, and that has been proved by events. We have heard from the other side that Hitler was not out to dominate the world, but is there a man on the Opposition side today who could say Hitler was not out for that? We have beard a great deal about Russia in this debate, but hon. members opposite who expressed their pleasure when they imagined Russia was an ally to Germany, now when Hitler’s prospects are not so bright, Russia is said to be a danger to us, that Russia is the greatest communist nation, an everrolling stream which will engulf all of us. That is dust to be thrown in the eyes of their supporters. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) said he was against sending our men overseas, because it was contrary to our honour and national pride. That is the tune the Opposition sings to, but I think very few will pay any regard to his ideas of honour and national pride. The forefathers of hon. members have as great a military tradition as anyone else in the world. When we think of the part the Voortrekkers played in history, how they brought civilisation to this country, and when we think of the republican wars, how they stood up against the might of Great Britain, we on this side feel pride in them, and we feel pride particularly in the part our great leader took in that war, and the whole world feels pride in that.

[Inaudible.]

I am just as good a South African as hon. members opposite. I have never been out of this country and I have no other home but this country. And I do feel that when hon. members opposite want to deprive their sons of the right to take part in this war they are creating an inferiority complex among their young men—they will create hatred and bitterness. They will sour the young men of this country.

After you have robbed us of our country you tell us you are proud of the fight we have put up.

That is not the point. You may have lost that war—but you can claim to have won the peace. We are a sovereign independent country today—we have the same type of independence as President Kruger wished for. We have the same type of freedom as he aimed at—a united South Africa. And I do believe that had it not been for the Anglo-Boer war there would never have been a united South Africa. I regret the tremendous price which our Afrikaansspeaking people have had to pay. We respect them for the price they paid, and admire their effort they made, but do not try to discourage our sons and children from living up to the traditions of the past. You are hurting them, you are hurting their future, you are creating discord which will prevail for many years—you are putting back our history.

The hon. member must address the Chair.

I feel that they are putting back the clock of history by 50 years and we have much leeway to make up. We have a wonderful future. We are the guides in the policy of Africa, and I do feel that whatever sacrifice we made in the Anglo-Boer war it has been worth it. It is only that I feel that the price which was paid has been onesided, and for that reason I say that I have the greatest respect for our Afrikaansspeaking people. I even have respect for them when they are wrong. I sympathise with them when they are misled by their leaders. I sympathise with them when they hanker after the honours of office, and the fruits thereof. I am sorry for hon. members, I am sorry they are so divided that they find it impossible all to be on one side.

You are mean.

No, you are just impertinent.

I am wholeheartedly in sympathy with this motion. We feel that it would be an injustice to our sons if they were not allowed to volunteer for service overseas. I am satisfied that no pressure is ever brought to bear on them to force them to volunteer. I have sons of my own—I know my own sons would never be forced to volunteer for overseas service.

Question.

But they do not want to be bound down to the limits of Africa if the war is still going on overseas. They do not want to see their friends carry on the war while they have to stay behind; they do not want to stay behind while their flesh and blood are in the prisoner of war camps in Italy. They want to go and release them. That is the urge behind our sons and daughters today. They want their flesh and blood out of Mussolini’s hands. They want to release them from bondage and they do not feel justified in letting other nations do their job.

The hon. Prime Minister who was born under a star of blood, is very much taken up with himself. His first proposition is that might is right and that war is a natural state of affairs for man; and secondly, he realises the spirit of Rhodes of a British Africa. The Prime Minister is taken up with himself because he has partially succeeded in making Africa British. This North African campaign was conducted chiefly on the initiative of the Prime Minister, and if the Allies are successful, he will receive all the necessary fame and credit and thanks for it. But the Union, especially under the Government of the Prime Minister, has a record of aggression in the world. Allow me just to state that we have to our credit German East Africa, South-West Africa, Abyssinia, Somaliland, Lybia, Madagascar, Reunion, and the next one is going to be Mocambique. And then we want to talk about aggression. There is the aggressor. The Prime Minister does not tell this House of Assembly or the country outside a thing. He is silent. The only thing that he tells us is that we should vote for his motion for sending troops overseas. All the belligerent nations and Governments declare their policy, and how the war is progressing and what should be done, but what does the Prime Minister give us? Nothing of this nature. The Prime Minister is as silent as the skeleton of Tut-Ank-Amen, and says nothing. For this reason I feel compelled to take part in the debate and to supply some information to the House of Assembly. The Prime Minister declared at the introduction of the motion that it had been necessary to take Madagascar because of its strategic position. But Mocambique is situated nearer and is strategically of much greater importance, and is also a very much greater danger to the Union than Madagascar. The submarines which are a great danger to this sea route, do not go along the coast of Madagascar, but navigate the Mocambique Channel, all along the coast of Mocambique. You still have the German Consul in Lourenco Marques and consequently Mocambique is today strategically grater danger to the Union than Madagacar or Reunion ever has been, especially to shipping. And what is happening now? Today after a thousand years of friendship between Portugal and England, the peace has been disturbed and we have to play the role of aggressor to take Mocambique.

The hon. member is digressing considerably from the motion.

I am showing where the war is leading us, and if our troops have to be sent overseas, then they will have to be sent to this territory. That is why I am pointing out that only Mocambique, Angola and Spanish Morocco are left which have not yet been painted red for Britain, and because these countries follow a policy of National Socialism, they still have to be taken. It is clear from the discussions at Casablanca and from the speech recently made by the Prime Minister at Standerton, and since then one has been hearing the S.A.P.’s say that they cannot await the day when they will be able to select a cattle ranch in Mocambique. The Government is still daily recruiting troops. For what purpose has the First Division been sent home. To me it is very clear. It indicates what is going to happen in the near future. Perhaps I might be able to say a lot about troop movements, but then it may be considered that I want to give away secrets. That I shall not do, no more than I shall make public here Mussolini’s secret weapon of which I have a photograph. But here we have to vote for a motion for sending troops overseas. Where must they go? They are not destined for Tunis. The Prime Minister has made a complete miscalculation as regards the position in North Africa. When he returned from London, he declared that the campaign in North Africa would be concluded within a month and that Africa would then have been cleared of the enemy. What is the true position? Three months have now passed and the position is still very serious. It is not yet clear to me that they will get the upper hand in Tunis this year. The Prime Minister should throw the bones again. It is clear to me that Biserta and Tunis, with the cover of a large air-umbrella from Tunis, Lybia, from Crete, Corsica and from France will necessitate a long and stubborn campaign. Then there are other factors. Spanish Morocco and Spain dominate the Straits of Gibraltar, and here also there will be a campaign. Even if the “All Lies” succeed in finishing the African Campaign, there will as yet have been no decision as regards the war. The big struggle is yet to come. Europe has yet to be taken, and if the landing which is to take place in Europe is to be of the quality of the landing in North Africa, and they cannot multiply the number of troops and the quantity of material by twenty, then I want to assure the Prime Minister that Hitler will send his police to arrest them. Allow me to say a word in connection with the unhoy combination with communist Russia. Providence will never allow Communism to be victorious over Christianity and the germ of the plague of Communism will not overpower Christianity. It is clear to me today that England is receiving from the Supreme Being only the judgment for all its crimes of the past. I, as one of the oppressed, do not feel inclined to give any evidence on behalf of the criminal and as a Christian I grant my fellow man what he grants me. For that reason I cannot vote for the motion. But, as we are aware, the position is critical, especialy for England as result of the U-boat menace. I should like to point out to the House that when the Prime Minister was in England recently and saw the position there he decided to recall our new Minister for Commerce and Industries, in order to give him a position in the Cabinet here. If the House wishes to know what the position in England is they can but take a look at the new Minister. He is the barometer.

The hon. member is digressing entirely from the subject under discussion.

Allow me to say this. On the part of the S.A.P. our participation in the conflict was expected to be a picnic, because they had been spoilt in the past. I can only say that it might rue very much.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) is not in his seat at the moment. He went out of his way to make special reference to something which I am supposed to have said at a meeting of his. I remember the meeting in question, and the question was raised of what the hon. member had said in this House in connection with neutrality, namely, that he had said this, inter alia—[Retranslation]—

That is what the hon. member said in this House, and I am quoting from Hansard. He was then told that now they knew where he stood. When someone asked him whether we could not remain neutral, he did not reply—

He now states that he was elected and sent here to stand for neutrality, but then there was this interjection—

His reply was—

That does not look like a plea for neutrality. Then the hon. member went on and advanced a strong argument against the establishment of a Republic. Then there was this interjection—

The hon. member said—

Then he was told—

The hon. member then stated—

I am sorry that the hon. member is not here, because I should have liked to refresh his memory. It is not clear to me what he alleged, that I had stated, but this was at a time when the Opposition went through the country with this cry: “Where is the enemy?” That was before Italy entered the war, within three or four months after war had broken out, and then the cry of the Opposition was: “Where is the enemy?” The hon. member will remember that at that time when the discussion to which he referred took place, Italy had not yet entered the war. The Opposition asked why all this money should be wasted, since there was no enemy and since not a single shot had yet been fired. The true position was that South Africa, although it was in a state of war and although a declaration of war had been made, did not actively engage in the struggle, but simply tried to make up as much leeway as possible and to take up its position on the borders of Abyssinia in defence of the Union. Now we will be told that Italy never declared war upon us. Yes, but she did declare war on our neighbours. In that respect the policy of the Prime Minister was so far-sighted that when the day arrived, South Africa was in a position, as far as was possible in that short space of time, to step in immediately and to play her role in defence of our borders. The Opposition still maintains that it was in conflict with the policy of the United Party and in violation of its policy. My personal experience during the last General Election, to mention one example, was that one of the members of Parliament who later also took up an attitude against participation in the war, held a meeting in my constituency in the interests of the United Party at the time of the election, and there he said that he came from the Free State with its big grass plains and there, so he said, the farmer learned not to wait, when he saw smoke in the distance, until the fire reached his fence, but he met the fire half-way and tried to extinguish it at that point where the smoke appeared. The voters whom he addressed there, definitely got the impression that it was a plea for something other than neutrality in the event of war, and the representations which were made cannot be interpreted as an attitude of neutrality, not even with the biggest imaginative powers. The position in that constituency is, as I have already said previously in this House, that the supporters of the Prime Minister are prepared to go right into Berlin. They stand by the policy which was accepted five years ago, namely to meet and extinguish the fire where the smoke first appears. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) objected to the fact that the war effort in connection with Abyssinia had only resulted in the restoration of Haile Selassie to his throne. He said that there was a tremendous state debt on our shoulders, that we had lost many in dead, maimed and wounded, and that for years to come South Africa would feel the consequences of the war. He asked: “What have we got for it? Haile Selassie is back on his throne.” The hon. member will remember that in the course of that process, Mussolini was put in his place. That is the difference, and I find it amazing that the same hon. member got up here and prided himself on the fact that for the past forty years he has supported the policy of the late Gen. Hertzog. He has now totally lost sight of the threat which his deceased leader saw in connection with Abysinnia. He never said that the fact that Haile Selassie was on the throne in Abyssinia represented a threat to us, but his difficulty was that Italy’s aggression on the Continent of Africa might not leave us undisturbed. It surprised me. It has been said already in this debate that if we had annexed a portion of Abysinnia, then we might have got some advantage out of it. We know what the experience was in the past. There was the same feeling against war on a previous occasion, and then a portion of Southern Africa was conquered by Union troops. What did we then find? Immediately after that happened, people, mainly those who had been opposed to that war policy, trekked there is their thousands. On the strength that it may happen again that we shall lose a large number of Afrikaans-speaking people who will trek to Abyssinia, I want to object to the annexation of Abyssinia. I would rather see our Opposition friends remain here. In so far as the hon. member for Vredefort is concerned, I can understand that perhaps he expects to become Administrator of Abyssinia. There is nothing in his attitude which will prevent him; he will have no conscientious objection accepting the post.

I think the hon. member must now leave alone these personalities and confine himself to the motion.

The hon. member passed the foolish remark that the Prime Minister had become totally estranged from his people. That is a measure of presumption coming from a person who is in the position in which he is, which goes too far. I am talking, Mr. Speaker, of the political aspect and not of any personal aspect. In politics we have this position that the hon. member sits here, totally estranged from his people. When you talk about estrangement, you can see it in that case. The hon. member invited us and said that the doors of his party were open. The hon. member must rather close the doors. It is very dangerous to leave them open, because followers and supporters are escaping continually. We do not expect the hon. member to talk about estrangement. I feel that this motion is the logical result of developments and of the attitude which was adopted by our party and which was repeatedly endorsed by Parliament, and which is endorsed throughout the length and breadth of the country. As far as I am concerned, I have not the slightest objection to giving my full support to this motion.

What made me rise this afternoon, is an announcement here on the newsboard of Parliament. It is a cable from America, and it contains the information that a mission sent by the American Government in connection with the Lease-Lend-Agreement is on its way from Washington to Pretoria. In the first place it relates to economic questions, in the interest of America. What struck me particularly when I read that, announcement was this, that while we have been busy on both sides of the House during the past three days discussing points as to whether or not the war should be proceeded with, while we have been busy for three days giving our opinions as to military action that should be taken or not, America quietly goes its way, and is sending to South Africa another mission to maintain its economic interests. South Africa is not the first country to which such a mission has been sent. Missions have been sent to various countries. It is also not the first mission that America has sent here. On other occasions missions with the same purpose have been sent here.

What has that to do with the sending of troops to Italy.

It has everything to do with that. That is what my hon. friend does not realise, and to what I want to refer. That mission from America reminds me of the missions our Voortrekkers were accustomed to send out to spy the land. I almost hesitate to ask the Prime Minister for elucidation on this matter. I have tried several times to obtain information from the Prime Minister on economic matters. Last year I tried to bring the mission of Mr. John Martin to America under discussion here.

He could not go there without taking an oath.

I admit that. But his mission stands in conjunction with the expansion of the war. We have sufficient information to know that. Polite requests for more information led to nothing. Only a few days ago I asked in this House something about an important subject in connection with this matter. It was in connection with the question of the appointment of a Supplies Board. The country awaits enlightenment on that matter. It is almost a revolutionary step that has been taken by the Prime Minister, but while we await enlightenment, and while we politely ask the Prime Minister to enlighten us and tell us something about those things, we have so far waited in vain. I want to say with all respect that it appears to me that the Prime Minister is concentrating all his talents—and they are not few—or all his powers—and they are great—on one point, and that is to participate in the war on an ever-increasing scale—military questions and military questions only. In connection with this motion there is another side of the question that has not yet been dealt with and it is of the greatest interest. The war is being waged for something. There is a purpose. War is not an end in itself. The previous war was allegedly waged “to make the world safe for democracy.” Well, that was the purpose, and for that thousands and millions went to their death. But did the world really become safe for democracy? No, that war plunged democracy into a sorry plight, and in such a measure that democracy will apparently never again land on its feet. Just the opposite of what the war was waged for, and what millions died for, has been achieved. And this war, for what is it being waged? According to the Atlantic Charter, it is being waged for the four freedoms of Roosevelt. One is freedom from want. That shows us that the economic question is one of the greatest, and Roosevelt proves it by the economic mission he is sending here. That is always the chief point with him. In connection with this question I want to go into a point that throws light on this war and the causes of it. To trace what the results and the objects of the war are going to be, it is imperative to trace who had called the war into being. The answer that will immediately be given by members on the other side is: It is the Nazis. This House knows that I, long before war broke out, warned in this House against the Nazis. I have warned frequently, so frequently that even my own friends who are today the greatest protagonists of the war, laughed behind my back and said: “Old Harm has a bee in his bonnet.” Well, it has transpired that that bee has an ugly sting.

I believed what you said then.

Nothing has happened to cause me to change my opinion in the least. But the question is this. What I did not know at the time and what I know now, and on which the Prime Minister can give more information in this House, because the Prime Minister shares in the deepest secrets of the Allies and he knows everything—what we may know, is that this war is the direct result of the action of nothing else than the great capitalists. I must briefly explain the matter, because for the purposes of this debate it is of great importance. We know the history of that time. We know that at that time meetings of the League of Nations were held almost daily in Geneva, where there were perpetual discussions on peace and again peace in the world, and on disarmament. Germany was not permitted to arm. The other countries should disarm, and there should be peace. That, on the surface was the intention of the nations. But what actually happened? This happened. While pious talk was going on in Geneva, big capital, and particularly the big capital involved in the production of cannon and ammunition in France, England, Germany and other countries, joined, and what did they do? It is they who provided Hitler with capital to conduct his precious propaganda. Nobody dares deny it. It is big capital that brought the danger of Nazism to the point where it now is. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) admits those facts, and he knows it is so. The Schneider-Creuzot factory in France, the Skoda factory in Czechoslovakia, and the great ammunition factories in Germany befriended one another, and while Germany had to disarm, they saw to it that Germany got arms. It has been proved that the Schneider-Creuzot factory and Skoda factory sold cannon to Hitler on credit. In Geneva we heard peace, peace and no danger. On the other side Hitler was busy rising, and he tried to let his Nazi system take form in the Government of the country. Big capital came from England to feed Hitler’s great requirements. Nobody can deny it. And from all this emerged the bloody war about which we have been busy talking for the past three days. It has been caused by nothing else but big capital which is now making more money. They knew that if Hitler got cannon on credit from the Skoda factory, then the other countries must also have cannon, and then they can sell cannon. Thus it happened in England, France and Germany, and for that we are bleeding today. For that we see today some of our young boys hobbling along on one leg, for that we see them minus arms, that and that alone lies at the roots of this war. It is the unlimited acquisitiveness and avarice of big capital. What I say here are facts. Not that I am a Socialist or opposed to capital. I try to arrive at a sober conclusion of the position by familiarity with facts and unadulterated logic. Will this war bring us the four freedoms of Roosevelt? Certainly not, if we go on as we are now going on in this House. Here we see the Prime Minister using all his great powers for the continuation of this bloody struggle. I agree with very little that Hitler says. But a few days ago I noticed something in a proclamation of his, that to my mind can be near the truth. He said this—

He did not say that at the beginning.

No, that is another story, and it has nothing to do with this matter. I admit that Hitler is feeling his military power weakening. But that has nothing to do with my argument. It is quite beside it. My argument at the moment is to place the economic aspect of the war as much as possible in the foreground, and the possible results of the war. Let me say to my hon. friends that I hope just as they do that that military power will be broken. Precisely for that reason it is so essential that we in this House should try to depart from the warring that is going on in this House. I will quote all of it—

We know what the fanaticism of a Nazi state has as its object. Germany and nothing but Germany. “Today Germany belongs to us, and tomorrow the whole world,” that is what the young Nazis sang. That is precisely the same spirit that we shall get in America and England, and nothing else. But there is another word that Hitler has spoken, and it has connection with the fanaticism mentioned by him. He has said more than once; I have heard it over the radio—Germany will never give in. “Deutschland capituliert nicht.”

Do you believe it?

I have nothing to do with it. I am trying to discuss the economic side of the matter. That is the actual position because according to the statement of Hitler, this war will be waged to the bitter end. Germany will not give in. And what are the results going to be? It will have only one result—total and boundless despair. It can be said of any war, but more of this one than of any other, that on its threshold stands revolution. A war is scarcely over, or revolution takes its place. Not only in Germany, but also in other countries, in all the war-waging countries we have to do with that fact. And then the question arises, what are we going to do to prevent it; what is the Prime Minister going to do to prevent it in South Africa?

You must not accept Hitler’s word.

The hon. member does not want to understand. I have to do here with things that stand much higher than Hitler, or than Hitler intends. I have to do here with the results of inexorable economic laws following on certain deeds or misdeeds, and one of those laws is, and we cannot get round that fact, that on the threshold of war stands revolution. Would anyone dare to deny it? And now I ask the Prime Minister again, in view of that fact, to keep an eye on the troubles that will assuredly come. One may have the greatest admiration for his strength. A person who has reached his age, and who stands absolutely alone to carry the burdens that he carries, can only earn our admiration, unless we are hopelessly prejudiced. I want to ask the hon. friends on the other side to prove to me that a single important step has been taken in the direction of what America is doing. I think we have to do here with a matter of the utmost importance. For that reason I have deliberately departed from the whole spirit of the discussion which has been conducted by both sides during the last three days. I now revert to this question. The Prime Minister knows, as I do, and better than I do, that our men’s blood flowed in Kenya, that crosses stand in the desert where our young men fell. I speak of personal experience. One cannot get a sixpence worth of value out of Kenya, without the approval of England. Madagascar has been taken, and I challenge anyone to prove to me that we can get one pound’s worth of goods from Madagascar without England’s permission. These are facts. These facts cannot be lost sight of. Take the Belgian Congo. I was very interested in the Belgian Congo. This is not the first time that the Belgian Congo has been mentioned in this House. I have previously pleaded for trade expansion in the Belgian Congo, and I still hammer this point. I have here a letter that appeared in December 1942 in the periodical Industry and Trade. Someone writes in that periodical what we could have done in the Belgian Congo, how much we could have achieved there, and what the result is of our procrastination. He begins by saying that the Belgian Congo pleaded with us to send goods there, but we were asleep.

I am sorry, but the hon. member is now wandering too far from the motion before the House.

With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with something that arises from this motion. But if you think it is out of order, then I will not proceed with it.

The hon. member must not dilate further on this point. It has nothing to do with the motion before the House.

I would just like to say this. I would have liked to read the quotations, but I accept your ruling and will not do so. The person who writes this letter does business in the Belgian Congo, and he states very emphatically that they in the Belgian Congo would very much have liked to trade with South Africa. But they simply could not do so. The result was that they had to go to America, and now America provides them with all the goods which we could have provided. If we go out of Rhodesia into the Congo today, then we emerge from a poor land, and if we arrive in the Belgian Congo we find a land of plenty.

I think the hon. member should rather depart from that point.

Then nothing remains for me to say than that as a result of the action of the Government, and as a result of the weak attitude of our country on this point, we are on a totally wrong road. We are wasting millions and millions—we are spending £100,000,000 per year on this war—and only misery can emerge for us out of this war, unless the economic side of the matter receives that attention it warrants. I blame the Prime Minister for concentrating too much on the military side of the matter at the cost of the economic side. I allege further that, if matters go on like this and the Prime Minister does not realise that this policy of his is going to be fatal to South Africa, then I despair greatly. But I can in any case say: My conscience is clear. I have more than once warned and warned against the economic results of the war, I have again done so in all genuineness and with all sympathy, and I think with a certain measure of knowledge of affairs resulting from study and practical experience. If we follow the road on which we are now, then South Africa will not only end in the wilderness, but also in misery and destruction. That is my conviction.

I think that we, no matter on which side of the House we may be sitting or whether we are belonging to the same political party or to any other political party, should admit that we can congratulate the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) on the speech that he made here this morning. I think that every member in this House will admit that he dealt with the subject on its merits and that he kept the debate on a very high level. I do not think that there was anything of a personal nature in his whole speech. I do not think that it contained anything of such a nature that any member of this House could have taken exception against. I think that you will allow me to say that members of the Other Place, belonging to another political party, said that the speech of the hon. member was fair and square. In these circumstances we expected that should any criticism be forthcoming from the other side the speech will also be dealt with on its merits. But what did we hear? You, Mr. Speaker, were not then in the Chair. We received one of the most unpleasant and one of the most vulgar attacks on the hon. member for Beaufort West by a member of the other side. Not only was it a general attack but it was an exceptionally personal attack, and the hon. member for Beaufort West permitted me to tell the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) that what he related here is a gross untruth.

The hon. member may not use the word “gross.”

I shall withdraw it and say that the statement of the hon. member is divested of the truth. The hon. member for Beaufort West says that he never knew the hon. member for Albany until he met him in this House. The hon. member for Beaufort West says that the member for Albany can see that will in the Deeds Office.

He can pay a shilling and thereafter see it.

We will even give him the shilling to go and see it. I do not want to expatiate on this matter any further because it leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth. I do not want to interfere with something with which I did not have much to do, because I was not a member of the United Party. But there seems to be a difference between the old members of the United Party in connection with the attitude in case of war as regards neutrality. I want to refer to it because I want to show that this Assembly was not elected to plunge South Africa into a war or not to do so, out that the voters of the United Party received instructions to educate the nation on true South African principles here. I fought against the United Party and then the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) came to my electoral division. He was a Minister of the old United Party at the time. And at the meeting where I was present the question was put to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad whether the United Party candidate was right when he said: “It is the policy of the Government in case of war or no war,” and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad stated: “Our policy is that we remain neutral in the wars of England.” After that the person who is now Minister of Commerce—at that time he was a member of this House—he also came to my electoral division after the member for Wolmaransstad—I then prompted another person to ask the Minister a question. The question was: “Was Gen. Kemp correct when he said that the policy of the Government was one of neutrality,” and to that he replied: “Yes, that is correct.” I leave it at that. I can say this about my electoral division, that the candidate who stood on behalf of the United Party obtained many Afrikaner votes there in consequence of the statement made by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad and corroborated by the present Minister of Commerce. They did not believe that South Africa would be dragged into war. Neither did we doubt what the previous Prime Minister, the late Gen. Hertzog, would have done in these circumstances. But we know the present Prime Minister. We watched the Prime Minister from our earlier years, and we knew that we could no trust him and that we could not accept his word. He said that Gen. Hertzog would have desired neutrality, but we felt that the present Prime Minister would plunge into war because he was a handy-man of the Empire. And we were correct. The Prime Minister dragged us into war without the authority of the electorate. I do not even want to mention without the authority of the people of South Africa because we all know that there is difference between the electorate and the people. Everybody will admit that. But I do not want to expatiate on the course adopted by the Prime Minister then. I am not surprised that he took that course. We expected it of him. We watched him since we started to take an interest in political matters, and the tactics with which he is exceptionally conversant is how to lead people step by step to the objective which he has in view. If he had only gone in a good direction it would have been excellent but unfortunately he came here with a motion at first the Prime Minister denied it but now hon. members on the other side admit that the motion was in fact one of non active participation; the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Steenkamp) admitted it—the Prime Minister took us step by step and I think that he took us step by step because he knew that if he had come on the 4th of September with a policy which required our sons to be sent overseas, even on a voluntary basis, that at that time he would never have obtained a majority in this House. I hope you will excuse me; I do not like to be personal; I want to say it with the utmost courtesy; but we who are against the war do not seek jobs for pals. What we say here is based on our convictions. Outside we are the people who are being persecuted. Consequently if we are speaking here, even though we might be wrong in our conceptions, then we are speaking because we are honestly convinced that what we are asking for is in the interest of South Africa. But I just want to mention a few names of hon. members on the other side who spoke and show what they have so far obtained out of this war. I shall not refer to hon. members who did not participate in this debate. Rhodes said we all have our price. I do not suggest that it is a price but I want to mention a few names of members on the other side who spoke on the subject of sending our sons out of South Africa. They said that we should be glad in South Africa that we belong to the British Commonwealth of Nations, and the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) even said: “Here where you make your fortune in South Africa,” and it does appear to me as if these people are making something in South Africa; it appears to me that they are making something as a result of the war. Take the hon. member for Frankfort. If there was no war he would have had more than £2,000 less in his pocket.

What about the farming that he had to neglect?

He is not a farmer.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) would have had £1,200 less than he has today. The hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) would have had £1,252 less in his pocket. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, South (Mr. Hirsch) would have had £464 less and the hon. member (Mr. Howarth), the heroic captain of the House, would have had £1,120 less in his pocket. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) would have been £1,004 poorer, and the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Steenkamp) would have had £1,320 less in his pocket. I do not even want to mention members who did not participate in the debate. They received this money, not for going away, but for remaining at home. They do not receive it because they are fighting but because they are remaining at home. A total sum of £9,270 has already been paid to hon. members on that side of the House. What for? Because they are staying behind whilst they are sending our sons out of the country. I say the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is changing his policy, or rather that he is taking us step by step in the direction to where he could not succeed in immediately taking that big jump. In one of his speeches the Prime Minister said that we must thank the Lord that we can participate in this war; we must be glad that we can participate in this war because South Africa’s name will be found written in the history of the future. What did the Prime Minister have in mind when he said that the name of South Africa will be found written in the history of the future? Is he really anxious to get the name of South Africa in the history books? Does he forget that South Africa has a past that will always be glorious in the history of South Africa, a history that can never be expunged? Recently an election took place at Hottentots-Holland. I mentioned here the sums of money that some people obtained as a direct result of the war. Throughout that election at Hottentots-Holland one great call was made on the people. It was said that we here in South Africa are now in a flourishing position; money is plentiful; people who were unable to obtain work can get work; there is no scarcity of money; everyone who wants work can now get work. The material side has been shown to the people, and it was pretended that if South Africa could remain at war for ever, that we shall be flourishing here. The people who spoke there naturally failed to remember that a day of reckoning will come. I think that the demeanour of the Prime Minister is not a step by step one because he willingly wanted it. You will notice that every step that is taken, is taken after the Prime Minister had paid a visit overseas. No sooner does he return then a new turn of events is noticeable. After he has stayed there for a while he returns with a new proposition. He told the British Parliament a story of right and righteousness; a story that can be bought on every gramaphone record; after that he returns and asks that our sons should be sent overseas, because he is the handy-man of the Empire. He was asked to do it and agreed. I want to go further and say that we on this side of the House have no objection against any person who wants to go voluntarily overseas at his own expense or at the expense of that country. I say voluntarily because here in South Africa the word “voluntarily” has acquired a peculiar meaning. What does voluntary mean? The Prime Minister told us that up to now all the troops that were sent by him had joined voluntarily. If that is voluntary then we even object against volunteers being sent abroad. Take the police for example. Those people who have been caught at Tobruk, that police force that have been surrounded and caught, have they gone voluntarily? Will the Prime Minister tell us how many members of the police service have left the police service since he became Minister of Defence? Will he tell us that people looking for employment today are able to obtain it? Will he deny that when one goes to a place today whether it is to the Railways or to any other place to look for employment then it is expected of you that you should be physically unfit. I have here a letter from the University of South Africa. In that University a person wrote his examination for his B.A. degree. He failed in his two major subjects. Now, as you know, if a person fails in any of his major subjects he has to wait a year before being allowed to rewrite that examination. But in the meantime this person gets a letter from the University of South Africa in which he is being told that in the event he intends joining up he need not necessarily rewrite both subjects at the end of the year, but that he can only write one subject during the month of March and then he will pass in the whole examination. I can name more cases here and no one in this House can deny it. If you go to Hottentots-Holland and you go to look for employment with the De Beers Factory then the first qualification—I can supply the names if necessary—then the first qualification is that you should be physically fit. You are being asked if you are physically fit, whether you are in possession of a doctor’s certificate that you are not fit for active service. If you are physically fit you are not employed. I want to ask the Prime Minister if that is what he intends by voluntary, and whether he disapproves of it that people are being refused employment on account of the fact that they are physically fit. I hope that the Prime Minister will pay me the compliment by giving me an answer to this simple little question. Does it carry his approval that people who are not physically unfit cannot obtain work today? People who are physically fit can perform military work in the army, and it is conse quently not in the interest of the Government that such people should be taken on. We do not even want to mention the red tabs. We do not even want to speak about how indirect force was exerted on people who joined the army before they went up North. Red tabs were given to the soldiers. Why? So that you can point your finger at the person who wants to defend South Africa but does not want to go and fight up North. In this way it has been made practically impossible for the person who does not want to go and fight in the North to remain in the army. We have no objection against people going voluntarily but what we do object against is the fact that members on the other side, some of which are still fit for active service, expects others to go, whilst they are unable to obtain employment and then call it “voluntarily.” There are members who are advocating that our sons should go abroad and one hon. member on the other side tried to get his own son out of the army so that he need not go overseas.

He is out.

I understand that he has already left the army. Do you blame us, whether we are right or wrong, when we say to the South African: we beg you not to go as we do not consider it in the interest of South Africa; whilst hon. members on the other side say: The Empire requires you and meanwhile they are engaged taking their own children out of the army. You understand what I mean. Not only do we ask that our sons should not go to the North because we are against war, but we are speaking on behalf of those others who are in the unhappy position that they have to have something to live of and who are being forced to join the army in order to obtain a livelihood in that manner. We object against it that our sons should be sent away because we have here physically fit persons who remain at home whilst our South African sons are beging sent away. Our South African boys are being taken out of the clerical duties in the air force, and do you know that in the air force Englishmen are being taken up from overseas who are also physically fit to take their places. Can the Prime Minister deny that physically fit Englishmen came here to take the place of physically fit South Africans in the offices in order that the South Africans can go abroad. If people must go to help the Empire why not send the physically fit Englishmen and keep the South Africans here to defend South Africa? We do not want to send our people away because we would much rather be defended by our own South Africans themselves. Why should these Englishmen who are physically fit remain in the offices here whilst our people are being pushed out to go and fight? I hope that I have made it clear that we on this side of the House respect those people who think that they must fight and who do so voluntarily. I say go to fight and not remain at home. We respect those people who go to fight and who go voluntarily but we cannot even allow them to go to fight if others come here in order to sit here safely. We object against it that hon. members on the other side incite our boys to go to war whilst they themselves are running away. I want to quote from what was written by Arthur Barlow on the 11th of November 1942. These are the persons who are advising our boys to go overseas. Listen to what this person writes—

And then Arthur Barlow replies to it—

I would like to draw the Prime Minister’s attention specially to this—

Then you still find people on that side of the House rising and praising the South African Army sky high. Why? They do not discuss the merits of the case, but they only speak in that way when we on this side say something against it, or when we say: “You are besides the point,” so that they can then say that we disdain whatever they have done. We repeat that if a man goes voluntarily to place his life in danger for that which he believes to be right, then we admire him. But we cannot admire this sort of thing. The Prime Minister told us here that he will not send troops outside Africa. I would like to ask the Prime Minister respectfully also to give us a reply to this question: Where does he want to send these troops to? At the moment say e.g. they manage to drive the Germans out of Africa then only one other place remains to which African troops can be sent and that is to Russia.

Are you a military expert?

No, but I have my intelligence and it speaks for itself that there only remains one place where they can fight, and that place is Russia, because at the other places they only run away. There is only one place to which they can go and that is to the Russian front. I want to ask the Prime Minister if he wants to send South African troops there? I also want to ask him if he intends sending coloured troops there? The reason why I am asking it is this: In South Africa propaganda is being made at the moment—Communistic propaganda—not only amongst the Europeans but also amongst non-Europeans. In Russia no distinction is being made between white and non-white. Here in Cape Town we find that less and less difference is being made between Europeans and non-Europeans. We find that Europeans and non-Europeans are associating at dances. We know that members of Parliament representing the Natives are taking seats with them on the same platform. We know that members are sitting down with non-Europeans at the same dinner table and partake of the same meal. Less and less differentiation is made between the two races. Consequently I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he intends sending coloureds to Russia and whether he realises what that means? Does he realise what that will mean when these coloureds return to South Africa? I hope that the Prime Minister will excuse me when I say—it is something that is very true—that old people must die and young people may die, but it seems to me that since the Prime Minister has estranged from his people, that he is now playing for the historic future and that he is keeping his eye on the younger generation because old people have to die. But I want to ask him if he cannot see what it will mean should he send troops to Russia which is the only front at the moment should he be sending coloured troops there. Is he unable to appreciate what that will mean locally? I want to ask him in the name of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the South African population. I want to ask him at this stage of his life not to plunge South Africa into that unhappy position that there should again be bloodshed in South Africa. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad said: “Who shed the most blood in South Africa?” I feel sure that through this policy of the Prime Minister that there is every possibility to see more blood in this country than ever before. We object that our boys should go because there are some of us who believe that if there was no British Empire that there would not have been half the number of wars in this world, and that is why we ask that our South African boys should not go overseas. We are asking that our sons should not be sacrificed in the war of the Empire that we have nothing to do with. We ask that our sons should remain here because they belong here. We ask that they should remain here so that they may become citizens here, so that they may become soldiers of the South African Republic under their own flag in their own country. I said that the Prime Minister went step by step. Who knows after the election the Prime Minister may decide on conscripting our South African boys and here I want to say a word of thanks to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition said that should the Prime Minister proceed to conscript that he would advise his people not to pay any attention to that appeal. We want to assure you that the Government will not then have enough prisons and camps in which to throw the South Africans and that he will have to get more British from overseas to look after the South Africans in their own country. There will be more trouble. We want to ask our sons to remain here for the sake of their fatherland and people, because we need them here.

Mr. Speaker, the House has been accustomed to expect from the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) a voluble if not elevating speech, but I think he has gone much farther than he has ever gone before in daring to attempt to point the finger of scorn at the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha), a man who has done more for South Africa in his lifetime than the hon. member will ever do.

What did he get for it?

The hon. member has referred to certain speeches made by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) and the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). The hon. member for Wolmaransstad made a bitter attack on the hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock), and chided him for never having any sympathy with the aspirations of the Afrikaans-speaking people. I should like to know when the hon. member for Wolmaransstad was glad of the support of the hon. member for Pretoria, Central, when he was a Minister, and looked to the member for Pretoria, Central, for support, whether he held those same sentiments.

He stabbed me in the back.

Did the hon. member for Wolmaransstad show any sympathy for the English-speaking people’s traditions? On the contrary, he went up to Pretoria as Minister, and there he took the opportunity of slapping in the face the English-speaking people by changing the name of Roberts Heights to Voortrekkerhoogte, a gross betrayal of his responsibility as a Minister of the Crown. He is the last man who should dare to attack anybody for not having sympathy with the traditions of the Afrikaner, he has done more to divide the races in this country than any man living today. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Beaufort West is also one who does not hesitate to pretend that he is a martyr in the cause of Afrikanerdom. Today he had the temerity tot get up and say that he was boycotted when he practised at the bar because he happened to be against the last war. I would ask him whether the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) is boycotted at the bar because of his antagonism to this war, and I would also ask him whether the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan) has been boycotted for the same reason. No, there is something much deeper in it than that. When I listened to the extract which the hon. member read indicating that Britain had from time to time “grabbed”, as he said, whatever territory she was able to, then it seemed to me that there was some reason for the boycott. The hon. member knows perfectly well that at the time when Britain occupied the territories outside which created the Empire, every country in the world, Germany, France, Portugal and others took whatever territory they were able to take, and even in this country the Voortrekkers themselves went and occupied the unoccupied land which they needed.

Nonsense.

We know these are the facts, we know that they went and occupied that land, more than a hundred years ago. When I hear that sort of case against Britain put up by the hon. member for Beaufort West, then I think that the boycott of which he complains was rather due to some wise discrimination on the part of attorneys than to any other reason. The amendment which the hon. Leader of the Opposition has proposed is an extraordinary amendment; it is extraordinary in this respect, that it alleges that the Prime Minister has broken his solemn undertaking given in this House on September 4th, 1939, not to employ South African troops for other than defence purposes. And it has been suggested that it was on the faith of that undertaking that he induced members on this side of the House to vote for him. Well, Mr. Speaker, if that were so it is not for hon. members over there to complain, but for us on this side to complain. We do not complain, we know that there was no such undertaking given. I am not referring to speeches that were made after, but I am referring to the vote of the 4th September; I know that no undertaking was given, and that the Prime Minister never spoke to a single person on this side of the House before he made his speech on the floor of the House. We cast a free and untrammelled vote. I have re-read his speech, and I can find nothing in the nature of a “solemn undertaking” such as that which the Leader of the Opposition says was given. Yesterday afternoon an impressive speech was made by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges), and he introduced, or rather enlarged upon a new note, one of the very few new notes that have been introduced into this debate, and that was the bogey of Communism. Now this bogey of Communism is one of the things which has precipitated this war. It has been used by Hitler, and used most effectively by him, and had it not been for the use of that bogey, it is very doubtful indeed whether Hitler would have been able to arm and prepare himself to overrun the countries of Europe in the way he did. In order to try and frighten this country with this bogey of Communism, the hon. member quoted from a book—the hon. member always embellishes his arguments by some quotation—he quoted a certain writer as having said that a man cannot be a Communist and a Christian at the same time. I am surprised to hear that from the hon. member. I am not a Christian myself, but I would like to refer him to a book by a pious Christian divine, the Dean of Canterbury, called “The Socialist Sixth of the World.” If the hon. member reads that book, he will see that according to that divine, there is nothing inconsistent with Christianity in the practice of Communism. I am not arguing in favour of Communism in this country, because it is a condition of affairs which can only apply to a homogeneous population, and I realise as well as hon. members on that side that Communism in this country would mean the grave of the white race. But when the hon. member makes a statement like that and uses it in favour of Germany, because that is what it means, then I say he really does not know what he is talking about. I, also, would refer the hon. member to a book called “The Mind and Face of Nazi Germany.” It is an anthology selected and edited by a professor of the University of Calcutta, with a foreword by Dr. Edward Benes, who as the hon. member knows, was President of Czechoslovakia, and one of the best-informed men in Europe. In his introduction to the book he says that in this book—

If the hon. member will look at page 1 of the book he will see this declaration by the Reich Minister for Church Affairs—

Then further—

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been brought up in Christian schools and amongst Christians, and if this is consistent with Christianity then I must say I have never understood the faith of the people amongst whom I have been brought up. I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who is an authority on Christianity, whether he accepts these quotations as consistent with the religion he professes. The question at issue in this motion is a very simple one. It amounts simply to this, are we, now that we are safe in this country, going to say to our Allies “You go forward and finish the job.” That is what it really comes down to. That our freedom is at stake is perfectly clear, even from the statement of Dr. Hans van Rensburg, who is well-known to, although he seems to have fallen out with many of the members on that side of the House. He has realised the issues at stake, because addressing a meeting at Ventersdorp last December he made this statement—

Mr. Speaker, that is a clear and succinct statement of the position. The future of the world is being decided, and we, as South Africans, have got to realise that our fate, together with the fate of others, is at stake. I would be failing in my duty if I did not, on behalf of the constituency which I represent, declare, as I do now, that the resolution of the Prime Minister has my wholehearted support.

The hon. member who has just sat down, spoke here about the imaginary spectre of Communism. Let me just remind him of what the Prime Minister said recently when he received a deputation of the Christian Council: “I must admit that there is a Communist influence in South Africa on a fairly large scale.” He added that Communist influences were at work and that many people realised that something was being placed in the hands of the natives that could be abused by other people. In the face of that point of view of the Prime Minister the hon. member makes the strongest plea for Communism we have ever had in this House. Well, let him plead for Communism, but what I strongly object to is is that one like him, with the race to which he belongs, and with a record such as he has, should dare open his mouth to besmirch the name of the Voortrekker race. He comes here and refers to the past of the Voortrekkers and dares to say that they committed the same crimes that Great Britain committed of robbery and conquest against other nations on a large scale. I hope that after what he has done, he will go back and think calmly over what he has said, and that he will then write a book that will also be translated into German, and which I expect will cause Hitler to lose the war, with the title “When Adolf meets Adolf.” I just want to refer to the accusations that have come from the other side. Ever since Monday morning the other side has been talking continually of honour and duty. Repeatedly members have stood up and tried to create the impression that to us as a House, and to us as a country, it is a matter of honour and an obligation to participate further in the war. But what surprises me so much, is that on the other side a whole lot of them are sitting who, since the war broke out, have been drawing double salaries, not for maintaining their honour and duty, but as recruiting agents, as lackeys, to urge other people to go to war, while they themselves shield behind the blood of other people. I expected that there would have been at least one of them since Monday who would say: “I still have just a little grain of sense of honour and because my sense of honour cannot be bought with money, I no longer want the £2,500 or as many pounds as I receive extra. I speak from sheer conviction, not for the money I make out of it.” Instead of letting them exercise their sense of honour, the Prime Minister comes here and tells them still further that they need no longer make voluntary contributions to the Governor-General’s Fund, because if there is a shortfall, the Treasury will pay for it. Now they need no longer do anything. The Prime Minister in this debate has been accused of many serious things, and the accusations have been supported by evidence which he cannot answer. He has not kept his word to this House and the country in connection with the nature and the extent of South Africa’s participation in the war. The Prime Minister gets up and tries to answer the accusations, but when he gets up again, I want to ask him not to try and shake the responsibility from him and throw it on Parliament as he has done on a previous occasion. With chapter and verse evidence has been brought for what has been said here. The onus rests on him to disprove the accusations that have been made. There is also the accusation against him that he did not keep his word in connection with the arming of coloureds and natives. It has been sufficiently proved and he cannot disprove it. Now he comes and asks the House for permission to break his first promise, and for the right to send the sons of South Africa overseas, but says he, everything will be on a strictly voluntary basis. I want to ask the Prime Minister if he expects that the House and the country should take him at his word, when he comes and says that it will be on a strictly voluntary basis. If he expects that, then he expects too much. When he introduced the motion, he said that strict instructions will be given to officers of the Defence Force to carry out the principle of voluntary recruiting truly and effectively. That, he wishes to make the basis. He is prepared to give this assurance to the House. Is he prepared to give the assurance to the country and to this House that he will take action against anyone who in public or in private who makes use of any measure of coercion, also economic, to get people to go to war? The Prime Minister came and said that nothing else could be done than to act according to his proposal. We are in the war and we must now go further. Troops must be sent overseas. The most tragic thing about the case is that he does not ask what South Africa would think, but what the other countries of the world would think if we do not take part and go further. He said that Holland and other countries would hate us. Let us examine what the position is in other countries that are neutral. Recently Mr. Churchill visited Turkey, who has an agreement with Britain. Here obligations under treaties are continually being spoken of. Turkey has a treaty with Great Britain, but she has remained neutral. Mr. Churchill said of his visit to Turkey that he had met the President of Turkey and the head of the Turkish state, and that it was very pleasant for him and that he was glad to say that relations between Great Britain and Turkey were of a then very friendly nature. I want to ask the Prime Minister why Turkey does not hate England and why England does not hate Turkey. Why, when Turkey remains neutral, do the friendly relations with England continue to exist, while if South Africa remained neutral, then she—so says the Prime Minister—would bring the hatred of the world upon her neck? Take the example of Portugal. It is said that this is England’s oldest ally. Portugal has also possessions on the continent of Africa. Portugal is neutral and recently high ministers of Portugal were still received by our Government in the most friendly manner. Where does the Prime Minister come by the nonsense that we would have brought down upon our neck the hatred and ire of all countries of the world if we had not participated in the war? This debate is a historic debate. It recalls a former occasion when a similar debate on a similar matter took place here. I refer to the debate on a similar matter on the 9th and 10th December, 1914. Then the Prime Minister was also one of those who said that South Africa should take part in that war. Further I recall the debate of 4th September, 1939, on the same matter. Together with the debate of to-day, these are the three historic debates on more or less the same matter. I want to predict that there will be yet another historic debate on the same important matter and then, the accusation will be laid before the Prime Minister that he promised not to conscript Afrikaners to take part in the war, while he nevertheless wishes to do so. Because he will then come and ask permission to conscript Afrikaners to take part. Now I want to refer shortly, in order to get the exact background of three important periods in our history, which are so beautifully described by the Prime Minister himself. At that time he said that the first period was the period in which an attempt was made to eliminate the Boer people by coercion and suppression and with the sword. In this period the mighty Great Britain with everything she could muster, sought to destroy us. It is well described in “ ’n Eeu van Onreg.” It resulted in a failure. Thereafter the second period followed. That was the period, the basis of which was a feeling of mourning for the failure. They felt that they could not eliminate the Boer nation in this way and they resorted to another measure. The inherent British hypocrisy seized upon another measure. It was again the Prime Minister who drew attention to it. By hypocrisy the Afrikaner people were to be overcome in a disguised fashion. The Prime Minister also wrote about that policy. The third period was a period in which an attempt was made with the aid of the new power of capitalism to overcome us. They could not overcome the Boer nation by shooting, they wanted to bribe us. The Prime Minister in his flowery language said of this that after the Boer War all the powers of robbery and plunder that could be gathered, were mustered. It was Great Britain who brought together these powers. That is the third period that has now passed. But I want to tell the Prime Minister that with his motion he is busy introducing a fourth period, and that is the period in which the use of everything that has been used so far, of all the powers of robbery and plunder, but in this fourth period, there is something else, namely, a Boer general who is assistting, a Boer general now with a fieldmarshal’s baton, which is being used to achieve the aim. The Prime Minister is making available all the measures he controls in our country. There is a frightful extravagance in connection with the war. Double salaries are paid; instead of getting his disapproval as far as double salaries are concerned, he stood up here and will perhaps get up again, as the protector of the doublesalaries people. I want again to come back to the historic debate of 1914. Then the Prime Minister held the important post of Minister of Defence and he was supposed to defend South Africa in war. But he no more did so than he is doing so today; he supported the motion of the late Gen. Botha that measures should be taken for the defence of the interests of the Union. So far it was good, but then it went further, that South Africa should co-operate with the Empire to protect the safety and integrity of the British Empire. My accusation against the Prime Minister’s sending of troops oversea is that it is a continuation of the process of protecting the safety and the integrity of the British Empire. It was none other than the Prime Minister who recently in his historic speech in London spoke of the greater British Empire, which he has now given it another name—he no longer speaks of the British Commonwealth of Nations, but the “Greater British Empire”—and when he speaks of it he has in mind the “United Nations”. In 1914, just as in the debate of today, he did not answer arguments with arguments, he did not set doctrine against doctrine, but stood up and in a manner which does not do him honour, and in the blaze of his Empire ambitions, he accused everyone who dared get up and oppose the war of being a little German advocate. I hope that by this time he has learned that a person in South Africa need not be English or German, but that he can be Afrikaner out and out, with both feet on the soil of your own Fatherland, and with love for what is your own. In the debate of 1914 the same thing happened as is happening today. We see also from the speeches that were made then the earnest appeal that was made to the Government not to go into war before the people are unanimous. Today we have the same position. The Prime Minister has plunged our country into war with a divided people, and nothing has been done on his part to achieve unanimity. On the contrary the division and bitterness is worse than it has ever been in the history of our country and as a result of this motion it will become worse. In this debate it was pleaded: Take the people into your confidence. In this debate the Prime Minister was repeatedly asked: Take the people into your confidence, and tell the people what your aim is in this war. Not once has the people been taken into the confidence of the Government. In that debate it was repeatedly said by men who had made their mark in the history of South Africa: If we must defend South Africa, we will all be prepared to do so; but do not ask us to go and attack a country. In this war we have not to do with a war of defence. It is a war of attack. I want to quote what the Prime Minister said when he made that great historic speech in London. He used these words, which I want to read from the “Friend” of 22 October, 1942:

It was an accepted fact. For the first three years of the war the role of South Africa was to have been a defensive war. But while he was in London last time, he again discussed the role of attack with his master, and this proposal which we have before the House this afternoon is the result of those discussions which he had with Churchill to transform this war from a war of defence to a war of attack. He says further:

Quite right.

That hon. member says it is quite right. But they did not say so when they got people to vote with them to put this motion through. In 1914 this important doctrine was laid down by one of the members who made a speech, one who has been described by the Prime Minister as a person who held a high and honourable position in the country, namely, Mr. Piet Grobler. He said in that debate—

And what did the Prime Minister of today say at that time about these words of Piet Grobler. He said this—

Just as in this debate he wants to play with the sentiment of the Afrikaner people, and asked us what great Afrikaners would say of this; just as he asked what the Voortrekkers would say about it, so at that time he asked what General de Wet would say. What did General de Wet say? When he was chased over the plains of South Africa for his people, he said this, when he had to enter the Fort of Johannesburg as a prisoner—

That was what De Wet said when he protested in 1914, and what did he say on the same day?—

I just want to refer to the reasons that were used in 1914 also. The reasons that were used then were also fallacies, the same fallacies that were used in this debate to drag us into the world war. In 1914 the present Prime Minister made the greatest use of the argument that South Africa would be invaded. Let me remind the Prime Minister of his own past. There was a time when he wrote and used these important words. It was shortly before the Boer War, and he said this—

That was the viewpoint of the Prime Minister at that time. On that viewpoint which he adopted at that time as a young man history will pass true judgment. Many years have passed since these happenings of 1914, and many events have taken place in our country. And now I want to say this to the Prime Minister, that what he is doing here today, will be judged not by the speeches on this side of the House but it will be judged by the heavy blows of history, and history will give the true judgment. I speak with respect of what I am about to say here. There was a great Afrikaner in the years 1899 to 1902, a man who was accepted in the heart of the Boer people, and in the heart especially of the Transvaal. That was the late General Botha. But because he took up the attitude of dragging South Africa into the wars of a foreign nation, because he took up that attitude, we find today that he rests in the lap of oblivion, and he is no inspiration to the Afrikaner people. It put it to that side of the House: Tell me of one single instance of where the name of General Botha is ever mentioned from a platform as an inspiration for the Afrikaner people. No, I hear the name of General de Wet practically every day on the platform as an animation an inspiration; I hear the name of Delarey; I hear the name of Kruger; I hear the name of President Steyn. I hear the name of President Reitz, and I hear the name of General Jan Kemp, who played his part in those dark days; but never do we hear of that name which I have mentioned. That is the heritage which the Prime Minister will get because he has given his love to the foreigner outside and not to his own people here in South Africa. I will not say to the Prime Minister that history will forget him. And if history should perhaps remember then historians will place his name near those names which he himself mentioned in “Die Eeu van Onreg,” Haarismith, Shepstone, Jameson and Rhodes. Together with them he will live in history, together with those men who cost South Africa blood and who often plunged the country into mourning. What was the result of the decision of 1914? The result was a blood-bath in South Africa. The Prime Minister will recall that shortly before 1939 at a meeting at Reitz he spoke on the question of neutrality. I asked him then whether he wanted to plunge Reitz into a blood-bath again like in 1914. His answer was “No”. But the result of measures such as this which he wishes the House to accept today can mean a blood-bath in South Africa again, that blood will again flow over our mountains and valleys, and over our plains. I want to remind the Prime Minister of a boy who fought with him in the Boer War, and as a result of the decision of 1914, that boy found himself before a firingsquad. What did one of our great poets write about him? No poet in our country has ever yet written about Botha or Jan Smuts. The foreign world outside will erect a monument for them. But I wish to quote here what one of our great poets wrote about Jopie Fourie when he had to stand before a firing-squad—[Translation]—

I claim that the Prime Minister wants our young Afrikaners to participate in the war because he promised it to Churchill. He is bound and he cannot do otherwise. Churchill is mustering all the forces he can gather to assist him. He seeks to make everyone an ally of England, and the Prime Minister is doing the same. At one time he even called in Satan to assist against Hitler. In one of his speeches he said this. He spoke about the serious position that arose after the fall of France and the fall of Singapore. And then, according to the “Friend”, he said the following:

He gave a clear description of the critical situation of the British Empire at that time, and then he used the following words:

He not only called in the aid of Satan, but he also thanked Satan for the help that he gave after the fall of Singapore. I want to ask just this. Where he is so thankful for the help of Satan and where he does not hesitate to make an ally of Satan, whether this is the reason why he said that he was prepared to prosecute the war right up to the gates of Hell. If he is so thankful, then I would very much like to ask him in addition whether this is the peak of the Prime Minister’s ambition. I allege this afternoon that this process of sending Afrikaner boys to the battlefronts outside is a process to reduce the Afrikaner in the land in that way, thereby making place for foreigners who will come from outside. That argument has already been used in the House, but I just want to give proof that this is the plan. Here there is talk about volunteers, as the people are called who go abroad. But we know that one of the Ministers of that Cabinet on 10 October, 1941, published a proclamation in the Government Gazette that in spite of any contrary provisions of the Law, the Minister on his own initiative can issue an order for the issuing of a Naturalisation Certificate to any volunteer doing military service, whether all the requirements of the regulations of the Law have been fulfilled or not. Anyone from outside can come in here, whether he is qualified for registration or not he can obtain full citizen rights merely because he has joined the army as a volunteer. And further it is stated that for the purposes of that proclamation a volunteer will be regarded as one who is doing military service according to Art. 1 of Act No. 29 of 1941 as amended. This means that anyone who enlists voluntarily, any foreigner who joins the Union army and serves in the Union itself, can thereby obtain naturalisation. This is the process that is going on. Afrikaner boys must be shot dead; they must cover the retreat of soldiers of Great Britain, and then their place here in South Africa is taken by foreigners naturalised because they have enlisted for military service in the Union. Just before I sit down I want to say a few words by way of protest against the arming of Natives. Here we have seen the same process as we have seen in connection with the sending overseas of our troops. The Prime Minister was one of those who strongly disapproved of the arming of coloureds and natives. In connection with what happened at Slagter’s Nek he wrote the following about the arming of coloureds and natives:

That is what he said himself and it is now people of that despicable class of Natives whom he is arming, and when we draw his attention to it he asks: Why not? He disarms his own Afrikaners while he arms that class among the natives and coloureds. It is not so long ago that he said here that it will cause very serious difficulties if South Africa went over to a policy of arming coloureds and natives. He was still thinking of the past of his own people, and on that occasion he said it was a serious matter. In South Africa we dare not arm coloureds and natives, because it is in conflict with our traditions. He has tried to drag in one of the cleanest traditions of our people, for as such he described it in the past. This is what he wrote as Attorney-General of President Kruger, and as one of his generals:

I hope he is right. Just as it was the cause of the Great Trek, so, in his own prophetic words, I want to say that this arming of coloureds and Natives will be the grave of him and his policy here in South Africa this arming of coloureds and natives will be the forerunner of a free Boer Republic from Cape Town to the Zamebsi. And then he goes further—

The arming of the coloureds was the most serious grievance in those days—

And now he wants to drive the wedge of that grievance still deeper. He proceeds—

This is what the Prime Minister had written as a young man. He says that there can be no greater crime against the white race than to arm coloureds and natives. It is he who condems himself where he is busy today committing a crime in South Africa. He says further—

Does he not think that he is making a very serious impression today on our people? What must we see here? We must see how white prisoners-of-war have to go from one public place to another guarded by armed coloureds. Is that not a grievance? What happens then in the minds of those natives and coloureds? Will this not become a perpetual pest in our country.

I fear that the hon. member is wandering far from the subject.

I refer to the amendment that opposes the arming of coloureds and natives. The amendment of the Leader of the Opposition refers to this. I say that we offer the strongest opposition against that arming of natives and coloureds, and I say that in so far as this matter is concerned, the Prime Minister has played the same misleading role, until he convinced his own people, and then he came out with the whole matter. In connection with this question of the arming of coloureds and natives I may just give the Prime Minister this assurance, that he is going to repent of it. What did he himself say to us in this House. Here are his words—

And it is he who is now proceeding with that arming, to bring that strife and division among our people. In reply to a question put to him by the Leader of the Opposition, he further said this—

He solemnly gave that assurance again to this House, and added—

He had again given a solemn assurance, but when we now object to the arming of coloureds and natives, he asks: Why not? I want to remind the Prime Minister that with this declaration of war of his, he has created a position of chaos in South Africa that will continue for years and years before we shall be able to allow matters in the country to go their normal way. I want to refer the Prime Minister to his own past. To the days when he still had a sound conviction and was available to his people. He then wrote these words—

I want to ask the Prime Minister today to give effect in South Africa to those words he has written, and to provide proof that he does so, he can prohibit those members sitting on the other side from drawing double salaries out of the Treasury. Let him keep politics in South Africa clean in that way. [Time limit.]

After this flood of words I hope that we shall be able to continue a bit calmer, in a calmer atmosphere. The debate has lasted long. It has been an extended debate. So far as I have been able to calculate, excluding myself, 52 members have taken part in the debate. I do hot believe that it will be necessary for me at this late hour to detain the House very long, because arguments have been repeated and repeated again. It cannot be otherwise. I have made a list of the most important points raised during the debate, and I find that these points have been repeated over and over and have been answered over and over on both sides of the House. In these circumstances, it is not necessary for me to go into all the speeches that have been made. I will confine myself to the most important points raised. It is not only that in this debate for the last three or four days all the points which have been debated at the degree of repetition to which I have referred, but it has happened for the last 3½ years. The same arguments which we have now heard in this debate, we have heard for practically the last 3½ years. Nothing new has been raised during the discussions. Year after year, sitting after sitting, debate after debate, we have gone into the same points and therefore it is not necessary for me to go into it all again. It is no longer a question of debate or argument. It is a question of facts and developments. And the truth is this, that during the last 3½ years, the turn of events, the developments in the war sphere, history has shown that the viewpoint taken by my party from the beginning, from 4 September, 1939, was the right viewpoint. All that we now await, is the final judgment. That will come. The people will yet judge and decide, and according to the by-elections that have taken place, and to judge by the position of the parties on the other side, I have no doubt of what the judgment of the people will be. The united Afrikanerdom! There they sit. Is any argument necessary? It is not a question of argument. There we have the fact that the party which 3½ years ago took the wrong direction, has disintegrated further and further and deteriorated. Blame is placed on the leaders. It is said that the leaders are responsible for it. Even if we had had an angel from heaven to lead that party, we would not have been able to prevent, with the wandering course on which they were, that anything else would have happened than what has happened. And it will go still further. All that is still necessary is the final judgment of the people. A great attack has been made on the Government, on our party and on myself personally. Let me say this. On the personal attacks on myself, I shall not go into. It is unnecessary. It leaves me cold. The matter is serious enough. The matter which we are now discussing, is from the point of view of public interest, big enough for us not to go into personal matters. I want to say this: With people who say in this House that General Botha was a liar, that General Botha deliberately deceived, with such people I cannot argue. I do not believe that the people of South Africa expect me to become involved in such arguments. In so far as I am concerned, what I have done in the past approximately 50 years, that lies before the public, and it will be for the public and the people, the people of today, and the people of tomorrow, to judge how far it was right from the point of view of the country’s interests, in how far I was right in the Boer War, in the Great War and in this war. I leave the judgment there to the people of today and to the people of tomorrow. Into that kind of argument I shall not enter. I leave it there. I come now to the viewpoint taken up by the different parties. In begin with the Afrikaner Party. The amendment introduced by the Afrikaner Party, has so far had only one result, and that is the further disintegration of the party. After that amendment, they were forsaken by one of their most important supporters. If there is one man in our Legislative Bodies for whom I, on grounds of the past, and on the services which he has rendered, have the greatest respect, it is General Alberts. The only thing in which the honourable member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) with his amendment has succeeded, is to drive that old hero among heroes, that figure of the Boer War, out of his party. Senator Sarel Alberts is not only an answer to the amendment of the honourable member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy), but he is also the answer to another accusation that has been made. It is stated by members on the other side, and from the other side of the House the accusation comes that we in the United Party are of the old Afrikaans traditions. Is the coming over and the joining up of a man like Sarel Alberts not an answer to that accusation; an old veteran among veterans; is that not an answer to that accusation? I believe that it will not be the last. For me one of the best proofs that we are not off the course, that we have not departed from the Afrikaans traditions, is that South Africa today in all parts is full of old veterans of the Boer War, who stand with us.

We only see a few there.

It is not a question of argument. There you have a living proof of what I say.

I wish to say nothing about Quislings.

The honourable leader of the Afrikaner Party has referred me to the case of Canada and the actions of the prime minister of Canada and he asked me why the matter has not been referred to the people; why the matter has been decided by Parliament which has not had a mandate of the people. He asked: Why not follow the example of Mackenzie King, who laid the matter before his people by way of referendum. Let me just say this in answer to that accusation. Who brought the question before Parliament? Was it I? Have I the responsibility that this House on 4 September was called upon to decide this question. I have nothing to do with that. I opposed it. The matter was laid before Parliament and by the former Prime Minister, who later became the honorary leader of the party of the honourable member for Vredefort. No responsibility in that respect rests on me.

Who bears the responsibility that after that no appeal was made to the people, as the former Prime Minister suggested?

That appeal will be made at the right time. The appeal has already been made from time to time by way of by-elections, and the final appeal, and the final judgment will be made at the right time, sooner or later, and I shiver and shudder for the benches on the other side when I think of it. I come now to the other argument that I should have followed the example, if I had respect for the opinion of the people, that I should have followed the example of the prime minister of Canada. But the honourable member misses the point entirely. The situation in Canada was altogether different. The situation in Canada was one of conscription which is not the case here. Canada voluntarily, without any appeal to the people, without any referendum, sent her army of volunteers to England in 1939 already. From the beginning Canada has had her army of volunteers in England and in other parts, but especially in England, and the people were not consulted about it; Parliament did not decide about it. But it happened later. The question arose in Canada whether further steps should be taken and whether conscription was necessary for supplementing the army overseas, and what happened then, was this: At the last General Election the prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, made the promise to the people that he would not bring about conscription. He made a definite promise and the Election was presumably fought on it and when it became apparent that conscription was nevertheless necessary, then Mackenzie King held a referendum of the people of Canada to free him of that undertaking. But the referendum was not about the question of sending volunteers overseas but about the question of conscription. The honourable member will therefore see that the example which he suggested to me, refers to a different situation. Let me say this, the honourable members who spoke so much of conscription, should not concern themselves about that; we do not require conscription.

Another promise.

And it will be broken again.

The fact is that South Africa was in a position to make that maximum effort with volunteers only, an effort which one would have considered impossible. I say that it is one of the greatest pieces of eulogy, of praise, which you can attribute to South Africa that it was possible for us to establish such an army as we have, and also to have sent to other parts of Africa without introducing conscription. If you introduce conscription in South Africa today, it is my opinion that you will not get a larger army. We are getting all that we can get by way of volunteers. I say it is an honour for our people. You have the tradition which is deep-rooted in our national life in South Africa that where there is danger, where the country demands it, then the citizens come forward to do their duty.

Thanks to victimisation.

That is my answer to the honourable Leader of the Afrikaner Party. Now7 I come to the official Opposition, and the matter is laid before us here by the honourable Leader of the Opposition. His main accusation against me was one of breaking faith, breaking faith on a number of grounds which I will now go into, and the first accusation is this, that I have broken my word to the House, that I have broken my word to the country, by having declared war, by having plunged the country into a state of war while my original attitude was one which the honourable member describes as “non-belligerency”, of abstaining from actual participation. That was the first accusation, that I promised this; it is not only the attitude; I am supposed to have promised that we would not go further than an attitude of “non-belligerency” and that after the decision was made, I went further. I have said before that I think it is unreasonable to say that I made this promise where I made a proposal and that proposal was accepted by the House by way of resolution.

Do you interpret your words as they appear in Hansard?

I will come to that just now. My responsibility, my moral and political responsibility, remains for the proposal which I made, but I think it represents a distortion of the whole matter where I made a proposal to Parliament by way of amendment to a proposal of the then Prime Minister, where I made a proposal and it is accepted by the House, then to say that it was a promise on my behalf. It was not a promise on my behalf; it was not a point of view of mine that was accepted by the whole House.

That is a weak defence.

I go further. Let us now see what the decision was that I took. Let us take the position that was passed on September 4 and see whether it was a decision of “non-belligerency” as it is called. I refer to the decision.

That is how “Die Suiderstem” interpreted it.

I know how the honourable member interpreted it. I will come to that just now. The amendment of mine which was accepted and the decision of the House was as follows:

That is not “non-belligerency”. Paragraph (1) of the resolution says that we shall not remain neutral; we shall not accept the motion of the Prime Minister; we shall not remain neutral; we shall sever relations with the German Reich and refrain from neutrality.

That is not yet a declaration of war.

If our attitude was one of “non-belligerency” it would have been quite unnecessary to go further. But listen now to what follows; listen to Paragraph (3)—

There it is!

My question is this: If it was my opinion or thereafter the opinion of the House, not to use armed forces at all, not to go into war at all, why was the restriction made that our troops should not be sent overseas? This is surely stupid.

The whole thing is stupid.

The mandate of the House to the Government was this: You shall take the necessary steps for the defence of the territory of the Union and its interests, and the only restriction that there is, is not that you declare war, but that you shall not send troops overseas.

Even your own party do not swallow that.

To say after the passing of the amendment that the result is “non-belligerency”, that is surely childish.

Your interpretation today is quite different from your interpretation on 4 September.

No, no. But it goes still further. That is the mandate under which we act. That is the mandate under which the Government advised the King to declare war. I have read Article (3) which makes it absolutely clear that there was no limit; we shall take any step which we deem necessary, and the only limit is that we shall not send troops overseas. Now follows Paragraph (4)—

Imagine it. Here honourable members make out that in a question and a matter where the freedom or the independence of the country is at stake, that there we must fold our arms and sit still.

Like Ireland’s is at stake.

I go further—

Now how any one in his right senses, how any one who soberly can grasp the meaning of words, can say that this is a decision of “non-belligerency”, surpasses my understanding altogether. Here it is stated that we shall take all the measures that are necessary for the defence of the country, except sending troops overseas. Here it is stated that it is a question of the freedom or independence of the country, that it is in the true interest of the country to oppose the force that threatens us.

So Roosevelt said for nearly two years without a declaration of war.

Even hon. members on the other side could not swallow it.

President Roosevelt remained neutral for two years. He was in a state of neutrality.

Oh, no!

But if the decision was to be carried out, if it was true that the Government had a mandate to protect the safety of the country, to protect our freedom and independence, with that one restriction that troops should not be sent overseas, if in those circumstances the Government folded its arms, then we would shamefully have neglected our duty. The hon. member referred to the speech I made in Parliament before this resolution was adopted, and he assumed therefrom that I was against actual participation. Honourable members on the other side do not understand what the position was which I laid before the House, and that was this. The Prime Minister gave his version, his story to the House, the point on which we in the Cabinet came to a split and to that I answered and said: I must set out the correct story of my viewpoint and that of my friends who supported me and the true facts of the matter was this: We did not in the Cabinet give any attention to the question of actual participation in the war. That was not discussed. The question on which we split in the Cabinet, was in connection with neutrality. The question of actual participation in the war was never raised. The question on which we split in the Cabinet, was this; that we should not remain neutral but that we should sever our relations with Germany. In the Resolution which I introduced, I went the whole distance. It appears clear from that that the Government received a mandate to take the necessary measures for the defence of the country or to defend the freedom or independence of the country which was at stake, and to take any steps except the one step of sending troops overseas. That is the truth. That is the only interpretation that is juridically possible. And now the whole accusation falls away. The whole case of “non-belligerency” which the honourable members on the other side has built up, falls away. It cannot be deduced from that resolution and if it were our intention to limit ourselves to “non-belligerency”, we would have limited ourselves to the first paragraph of that resolution and we would not have gone on to the following paragraphs. That is the main accusation. The other accusation is that I broke my word, by contrary to the resolution of Parliament not to send troops overseas, nevertheless having sent troops overseas — to Crete, to Syria, where engineers were sent to build a railway, to Madagascar …

To Ceylon.

No. No one was sent to Ceylon. One thing, and the most serious of all, the honourable member forgot, and that is that we guarded hundreds of miles of our coast on the Atlantic Ocean and the Indian Ocean and that we sent our troops to protect our coasts. Our air forces were from the beginning engaged in guarding the coasts of our country. Why was the accusation not made before?

We did not know about it.

You see the false position taken up by the honourable Leader of the Opposition? Where we have troops in Egypt, where our troops must be supplied with food and ammunition hundreds of miles away in the Libyan Desert, there it was reasonable that our air force, which was there to protect our troops, that they therefore should do service in Crete, because the attacks at that time came from Crete. Most of the attacks which were made on our small ships which we had there, to supply our people there, came from Crete and the enemy was therefore attacked right up to Crete. You may say that technically we went further than the Continent of Africa; just as we are further than the Continent of Africa, if we go 300 or 400 miles into the sea to protect our coasts. Actually and in practice it is no violation, and I consider that what we have done is reasonably within the decision which we have taken.

But then you need not have come to Parliament for approval at all.

Now that the Government proposes to send armed forces further, not only to have subsidiary movements on our coasts, as has been done hitherto, but to go further, now I think it is right that we should come to Parliament and ask that we be relieved of the responsibility. But let me just say something about Madagascar. It has come under discussion repeatedly. In the case of Madagascar I have admitted that I went rather far.

You stretched a point.

I am a practical man. I have an aim, with the great problem of the defence of the country, and where I see that we have gone rather far, I am prepared to admit it. Why not?

Why then the motion?

What happened in Madagascar, was done in the interest of South Africa itself, and the defence of our country.

The defence of England.

No, it was for our own defence. All which we have done here, was for the defence of our own cities and to keep the danger away from our coasts.

You are putting up skittles to knock them down yourself

The Union had good relations with Vichy up to a certain point. Thereafter the Japanese attacked in the Indian Ocean and it was necessary to keep the new position in view. But that was not all. What happened then? In France practically a revolution took place. In France, after the Parliamentary Session was over, and after I had made the statement referred to, Laval became head of the government with practically unlimited authority to rule the country, and it was generally known that Laval—I do not want to say he was a German agent—but he was certainly one who could collaborate with the German government to the extreme. It brought about a total revolution. The fall of the former French Government, the appointment of Laval with a totally new Government of pro-Germans and German henchmen, made the position impossible for us and it was at that point of time that relations with Vichy were severed and it was after that time that we took part in the operations in Madagascar.

When you made your statement in Parliament, South African troops were already on their way to Madagascar.

No, our troops went long after that. In so far as the British forces were concerned, there was a great transport of troops to Burma and Singapore and Further-India for the defence thereof and no troops were specifically sent to Madagascar.

Churchill said so.

The troops that were en route to Further-India were afterwards redirected to Madagascar. In so far as the Union Government is concerned, our record in that respect is absolutely clean. We acted after our relations with Vichy had been served. We acted after it became clear that it was in the highest interest of the Union that Madagascar should be defended and that it should not fall into the hands of Japan, so that she could establish a submarine base there to use against us. I think that instead of placing any blame on us, honourable members should admit that the Government rendered a definite service to the safety of South Africa. The position today is that Madagascar is safe. Our coasts are not yet altogether safe, because we do not know what the danger is and the great number of ships which have already been sunk—we shall quite possibly see a repetition in one measure or another. The danger is not yet over, but how much greater would the danger have been if a place like Diego Saurez had fallen into the hands of the Japanese, because it is one of the best harbours in the Southern Hemisphere, and the Japanese would then have been able to do near us what they are now doing not far from Australia. It would have been a dagger in the heart of South Africa. We prevented that and South Africa has done her share in the defence of our coasts. I think we have earned the thanks of the Opposition also instead of all the quibbling and criticism that has been levelled. I now come to the last point of the breach of faith of which I am accused, and that is that the proposal to go further than Africa is the grossest breaking of my word.

Will it now be possible to send them to any place?

The honourable member is a little impatient. I am coming to that. If I do not consult Parliament, as in the case of Madagascar, then I am accused of a breach of faith. If I come to Parliament, as in this case, and I ask permission to go further, then I am also accused of the gravest breach of faith. Where do I stand? What must I do? Must I do nothing?

Go to the country.

Those are debating points which we get from the other side and they do not come down to the real truth. Here I see a change which is coming. I have already told the House at an earlier stage that we would go a step further than we took on September 4, and now I am not going to do it alone, not contrary to the resolution taken at that time, but I come constitutionally to Parliament and ask Parliament to decide the matter. Therefore the matter is now being subjected to the decision of Parliament. How I in connection with this can be accused of breaking faith, surpasses my understanding. It is clear that we no longer stand where we stood on September 4, 1939. The war situation has altered entirely. On 4 September we had one great problem before us, and that was the danger for South Africa. There was a great force of Italians in East Africa, and North Africa was in an undefended condition. The danger for South Africa from the Italian side could have become very great, because they had a large air force with hundreds of aircraft, and if they took possession of Kenya and adjoining territories the danger to us would have been great. My predecessor, as Minister of Defence, made a solemn promise to Kenya that we would send hundreds of aircraft to defend the territory. It is on record. I did not act on those promises, but on my own realisation of the danger for South Africa and the steps that were necessary for the defence of South Africa. That was our problem on 4 September, but now, three years later, the situation has changed entirely. Kenya has been made safe, so also the highlands of Central Africa, the army which Italy maintained in Abyssinia is no longer there, and even North Africa to a great extent has been swept clean. There still remains one spot; and I do not expect that it will take long to clear that, but the danger has been almost averted.

Will you not send any troops overseas until North Africa has been cleared?

No. There is no question of that, but before this Parliament or its successor meets again, many things can happen. It might be the successor of this Parliament. No one knows. I do not want and deduction to be made from my words to which members on the other side will again try to appeal. Before our Parliament meets again, we will probably be faced with the new situation that Africa has been cleared. The question is whether we wish to keep our people up there in the desert under conditions of the most unbearable kind in the world. I speak of personal knowledge. Or must we go further, or must we recall our troops and at last carry out the desire of the Opposition and withdraw from the war, throw in the sponge and go home? The matter of throwing in the sponge and withdrawing from the war has repeatedly been discussed, time and again and every time the House has rejected it.

The same House?

The next Parliament will probably go still further. The matter has been dealt with here time and again and I now stand before this difficulty—withdraw from the war is out of the question, that is forbidden me under resolutions which have already been adopted. I do not wish to leave my people in the desert. They would not thank me for it. It would be unbearable to leave our forces there in the desert as guards for the Egyptian coast. Therefore the only way open is to go further. The war is going further. Where, is a question that I cannot answer, or if I could, I would not. But the question is whether we must leave our army to suck their thumbs. They wish to go further in the war in which case they would most probably have to go overseas. This will necessarily mean an alteration of the original resolution. For this reason I come today and make this proposal. I do not think we can argue over the matter because what is proposed here, is a logical consequence, nothing else, of the situation that has been created in the war situation. We have practically fulfilled our first task which we set ourselves to clear Africa and to remove the danger from us. I hope that the task will be rapidly completed and for this reason I now ask permission of this House to go further. It is said that if the House knew on 4 September that we would eventually go further, it would never have taken the decision that it took. But no one is under a misunderstanding. Every one knows that if you go into a war, then you know where you begin, but not where it ends. That is the way with a war. This step naturally follows from what has hitherto happened in this war. We must either withdraw from the war or go further and further fulfil our task after we have finished in Africa. The question is asked how far we shall go. I have already stated in my introductory speech that what we visualise is naturally to go to neighbouring theatres of war which lie before us.

Another promise?

No promise. There are no bounds or limits. I do not want honourable members to come again later with accusations of breach of faith. Formally troops can be sent to any sphere outside Africa.

European troops only?

All that we can say is that troops will not be sent to far distant theatres of war like Asia or other parts that are far removed.

But is possible?

All things are possible. It is improbable that troops will go further than neighbouring theatres of war. I do not think that honourbale members need fear that troops will go to Russia or to other far distant parts. Let me now just come to the arming of non-Europeans. What is the argument? My conscience is quite clear. The undertaking which I gave to this House from the beginning, I have fulfilled. I said from the beginning that I was not prepared to arm non-Europeans for combatant purposes. We are not doing it. Where coloureds are armed, it has taken place in circumstances where they come into danger and it becomes necessary to supply them with weapons. With every section of our army there are coloureds or natives and it is obvious that this must be so. I was in the Boer War from the beginning to the end and we always had natives with us.

Armed?

No, as auxiliaries. The position today is the same. For subsidiary services—and I have already explained it a hundred times—we use coloureds in some cases and natives in other cases. There are the mechanised services, motor services, work at guns, the handling of bombs—all instances of hard work which natives and coloureds can do just as well or better than Europeans, and which under ordinary circumstances in our country are always done by them.

Do we understand rightly that coloureds are given arms, but not to fight?

They are not armed except where they come into danger in the North.

Then they do fight?

To defend themselves. The honourable member must not argue idly and foolishly about the matter. Where a coloured driver is travelling by motorcar in war territory and he is attacked, what must he do? Allow himself te be shot dead? That is too stupid and childish. There is a second case where they are armed and that is where they are employed as guards. Coloureds, owing to the limited number of European troops we have, to do a thousand and one things, are also employed as guards.

To guard European prisoners of war?

At Italian prisoners of war camps you have regiments of coloureds doing service under European officers and who are armed. It became necessary to use them as guards, and to put them there without weapons, is stupid. In so far as the natives are concerned, the situation is different. Our natives are not armed except with kieries and assegais and their ordinary weapons.

Are they also going overseas?

I have already said that our army consists of European troops and subsidiary troops which are either coloureds or natives. They are all going. The undertaking which I originally gave the House has been fulfilled up to to-day. In a debate which took place in the Senate, I said that in the hour of the greatest danger, if, for example, the Japanese should enter the country, and threaten South Africa and we did not have sufficient armed forces to defend ourselves, then I would arm man and mouse. But that situation did not arise and we hope that it would not come about.

In the Boer War you were against it.

What does the honourable member know of the Boer War? But I expressed the opinion in the Senate that if such a situation arose—and I hope it will never arise—then I would arm everyone to keep the Japanese out of the country. If such a situation arose I should be guilty of the greatest dereliction of duty if I did not defend our country with all available means. While I am speaking on this subject, let me express a word of praise to our native and coloured troops. Without doubt the services which they are rendering, are extremely good and I think that it is quite wrong for members on the other side to endeavour to create the impression that through the exercising and training which they are receiving the coloureds will become a danger to the country. On the contrary I think we are taking very strong measures in doing so to bind these people to us and keep them obedient and bring them to a state of mind which will make them true citizens. They are doing their share.

What about the meeting in the City Hall of Cape Town?

The hon. member is alarming himself about chatter on street corners and in the City Hall. It is something which makes no impression on me and I think that nothing does more harm in the country in so far as our relations between European and non-European are concerned than the constant moaning of members on the other side. The blame that is laid here on a people who so far have made a magnificent contribution to the development of South Africa, who are remarkably submissive and obedient—with the exception of a few as you get among all sections of the people—does not promote good relationship. I think the coloured and native populations behave themselves remarkably well and instead of devoting a little praise to these people and recognising their good qualities, they are spoken of here as if they were enemies of South Africa. Nothing can do more harm and sooner ignite the fire as the sort of talk which we sometimes hear in this House and also outside. I think it is right that on an occasion such as this where we raise the subject, I should express a word of praise and thanks on a section of our population who have earned much better than what they have so far received. I think I have dealt with all the points, except the point of the honourable member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) that our air force is being sent to the North and its place being taken by the R.A.F. This is not so. In the training schools we have here, the rule is laid down by way of agreement with the British Government that although they are mixed schools, as our armed forces grow here and our air force expands, our people will take up the positions of the training staff from outside. The troops that are here and that are being trained in the various schools, are becoming more and more pure Afrikaans. The R.A.F. is not here except in training schools. The R.A.F. of which the hon. member talks, is the air force connected with the fleet, the so-called “Fleet Air Arm”.

For coastal defence?

Yes, it is part of the British fleet. The British fleet is so constituted. It consists not only of warships but also of an air force. Every ship of every unit of warships has also as part of its unit a “Fleet Air Arm”, the air force of the ships necessary for their defence. If he sees some of these people on our coasts, then it is not the ordinary air force, but the “Fleet Air Arm”.

But we have also our own air force for the defence of the coast.

We go as far as we can, but unfortunately we cannot go far enough. Without doubt our air force is inadequate for the protection of our coasts. It is growing all the time.

What of all the fighters that have gone to the North? Can they not be used for the defence of our coast?

Only a limited number. You require long-distance bombers. I am sorry to say, and I do not say it to offend, but the hon. member talks about things of which he has no knowledge. We require here bombers which can travel a longdistance and of these we have not sufficient. We have a large air force. I do not think the public is aware of the extent of our own air force, but it is not sufficient to protect the routes which are today the most important in the world—except the North Atlantic route, the Cape route is today in our own interest, and for the whole world perhaps the most important. A surprisingly big air force is required to defend the route and we are thankful for the help which we are receiving from the British fleet and the Fleet Air Arm. I think I have now dealt with all the important points. I think it should be understood by all now that the steps that the Government propose here are not only a necessary consequence of the developments of the past three years, but that it is also a step that is of the greatest importance for the final victory to which we are looking forward. It will not help us to clear Africa only if the war is lost in a greater theatre. The war is a world war, not only an African war and the final victory will have to be won in the great theatres of the world. I think it is the wish of South Africa and it is in the interest of South Africa that when one day peace comes after victory, South Africa should play a worthy part in the peace and protect her own interests at the peace conference. For this reason we want to keep on till the end, to final victory, and the proposal before the House is a further step towards final victory and our contribution thereto.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the’ motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—75:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander. A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, T.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—49:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Grobler, J. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jan.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed, and the amendments proposed by Dr. Malan and Mr. Conroy dropped.

Original motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—75:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—49:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Grobler, J. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jan

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.