I move—

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying when this debate was adjourned three weeks ago, I think that we ought to take the motion of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) seriously. After all, Communism is one of those ideas which are always powerful in a civilised world. The root principle of Communism is the root principle of Christianity, the equality of every human being. The difference between the two is that Christianity promises a reward of that equality in another future world, whereas Communism promises the reward of that equality in this world, and of those two principles, Mr. Speaker, it is only natural that those who are living in this world in a state of little privilege, the poor and distressed, the oppressed should find that a promise of reform of those conditions under which they are living in this world, is even more attractive than the promise of Christianity, that they shall have their reward in another world. And so we must accept that under our conditions in South Africa, where after all there are a very large number of the population who live in conditions which everybody will admit are unfavourable conditions, that where that is the case the idea of Communism will be potent. I agree with what the right hon. the Prime Minister said to a deputation of the English Churches the other day, that there is a wave of unrest in South Africa and that to a certain extent a Communistic influence is abroad in South Africa, and that we must take serious note of that influence. What I do not agree with is the method by which the hon. member for Beaufort West proposes to deal with that Communist influence which, as the Prime Minister says, is abroad in this country. The hon. member for Beaufort West suggested that the Prime Minister’s hands, and the hands of the Government were tied by the fact that we are now allied in this war with Soviet Russia. He said that the Prime Minister could not take effective steps to suppress Communist influence in South Africa, because he would not want to offend Premier Stalin, who is the ruler of a country with which we are allied. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member did not mention to the House the existence of a treaty which was made between Great Britain and Russia in 1942, after Russia had been attacked by Hitler and had come into this war. I do not know whether we are actual parties to that treaty—I think we are not—but anyhow that treaty and the conditions of that treaty, though the treaty may only be between Great Britain and Soviet Russia, certainly apply to all the states of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and they apply to South Africa as a dominion of the British Commonwealth as much as to Great Britain herself. Now the main condition of that treaty is that neither country should interfere with the internal affairs of the other country. That is the prime condition of that treaty, and if any country which is either a party to that treaty or has assented to the conditions of that treaty, breaks the prime condition then the country which is affected by that breach would have a perfect right to take steps against the effects of such a breach of the treaty. So that if the hon. member for Beaufort West could prove to this hon. House that in effect actually Soviet Russia which is bound by that treaty of 1942, was actively engaged through her official representatives in South Africa, in propagating Communism in this country, then the Prime Minister would have a perfect right to say to Soviet Russia: “You are breaking a prime condition of that treaty, and you cannot complain if I take any steps to prevent you doing that.” The hon. member who proposed this motion may say to me: “Yes, but we all know that Russia will not keep a condition of a treaty of that kind.” He did practically say that when he suggested in his speech on this motion that already Soviet Russia had sent to its consular establishments here a wholly unnecessary number of members. He said that it was the way of Soviet Russia to overstaff its consular and ministerial costs in other countries, and that the object of that was that that excessive number of consular or ministerial representatives should engage in the active propagation of Communist doctrines in that country, where that consulate was situated. But I would point out to the hon. member that far from this being the case, far from it being the case that Russia is in the habit of breaking her treaties, Russia under the Stalin regime, has an exceptionally good record in keeping her treaties. Why, Mr. Speaker, even after Soviet Russia was attacked by Germany, she refused to break her treaty with Japan, although Japan is actively engaged in this war on the side of Germany, with which Russia is at war.

Have you Finland particularly in mind when you say that?

And Poland?

I do not know what connection Finland has with that. I am pointing out that here is a case where there was the utmost temptation for Soviet Russia to break her treaty with Japan, and that she has faithfully observed that treaty and has refused to be a party to any breach, so that the hon. member for Beaufort West is on the horns of a dilemma. Either he shows that Russia is prepared to break this treaty—in which the facts are totally against him—or he suggests that even if she does break the conditions of the treaty, which prevents her interfering in our internal affairs, we have no power to retaliate and stop her. I leave the hon. member with that dilemma. He will no doubt answer me when he replies. The hon. member also suggested that the hands of the Prime Minister were tied as against Soviet Russia by the fact that Premier Stalin must also be annoyed at certain rather uncomplimentary remarks which the Prime Minister made about him three years ago, and that the Prime Minister would not want to add to that annoyance by taking any steps against Communist propaganda in this country. Well, really, I should have thought that the hon. member would hardly have used seriously to this House an argument of that kind. Why! There is hardly a leading statesman in the modern world who has not abused in most violent terms, the man with whom he is now allied. When I was a student of the classics I remember a wise maxim of the poet Sophocles, who observed that when you are a politician you had better so treat your enemy that you will not be too embarrassed if he becomes your friend in the near future. A very wise maxim for politicians and statesmen, but it happens that that wise maxim has been disregarded by a number of honoured statesmen. Take Mr. Churchill. He has said things about Soviet Russia and its leaders, and particularly about Premier Stalin, which have been of the utmost virulence; yet nowadays the two meet together in the utmost friendship and talk very frankly to each other and concert measures against their common enemy. But there is a still more remarkable illustration. Who has said more violent things about Soviet Russia and Premier Stalin than Herr Hitler? He spent the first years of his power in Germany in doing nothing more violently and more persistently than showering abuse on the whole Soviet system, and particularly on the man who is at the head of it. Yet, that did not prevent Hitler in 1939, when he sorely needed an agreement with Russia, from coming to terms with Stalin and making an alliance with him. No. The hon. member must find a better argument than that to suggest that the Prime Minister’s hands are tied by his references to Premier Stalin three years ago, when the Government is dealing with Communism today in South Africa. However, I leave that point, and I want now to come to another and far more important point, which is this. It will be remembered, to his great credit I think, that the hon. member, when he moved this motion, had evidently given enormous pains to consulting authorities which might support this motion, and he quoted a whole volume, in fact a whole torrent of excerpts from various sources to support this motion. He quoted, I think, The Times in London. He quoted Premier Stalin himself in his speeches. He quoted books, documents and speeches of every Soviet leader to prove that the Communist danger in South Africa was a danger which was rooted in Moscow, which was propagated in Moscow, which was inflamed in Moscow, and which was consistently supported by influences from Moscow. But, Mr. Speaker, there is one rather remarkable thing I happened to notice in these Quotations which the hon. member used in support of his speech; they were all extremely venerable. None of them was more recent—I think he will agree with me—than about the year 1936. I read his speech very carefully and I failed to find any single quotation from any authority at a date later than the year 1936.

That is late enough.

Well, that is rather a remarkable fact, to my mind, because the literature about Russia since 1936 has been extremely voluminous. The hon. member has only to walk into our library to find dozens of books written about Russia, far later than 1936, books about conditions in Russia in quite recent times, and even almost up to the present moment.

Why don’t you quote?

I am going to quote. I was just about to say, when the hon. Leader of the Opposition did me the honour to interrupt me, that I did not propose to quote these authorities at the same length as the hon. member for Beaufort West did, in proposing his motion. That would bore and tire the House, I am afraid, but I do want to quote from at least one of these authorities, and I shall do so in a moment. But what I want to say first is that these recent sources of information about Russia seem to show two things. They seem to show firstly that what I might call “the missionary impulse” of the Communist movement in Soviet Russia, has decidedly weakened during recent years. When I say “the missionary impulse” hon. members will understand what I mean. They will understand that I mean the impulse of the original leaders of Communism, the original expounders of Communism, the original apostles of Communism, that impulse of theirs to spread their doctrine over the whole world. That impulse these recent authorities seem to show has decidedly weakened in recent years.

But it is not dead.

Well, we will see about that. Of course, that was really the origin of the quarrel between Trotsky and Stalin. That feud between Trotsky and Stalin was to a certain extent a rather sordid contest for personal supremacy in Russia, but there was also a much deeper motive behind that contest than the mere rivalry for personal supremacy. There was also a deep divergence of opinion between Trotsky and Stalin about this very missionary impulse of Communism. Trotsky thought as Lenin had thought, and as all the original prophets of Communism had thought that the first thing was to spread the doctrine of Communism far and wide. Stalin, on the other hand, who is a very realistic person, was convinced that the first thing to do was to establish firmly the power of the Soviet system in Russia itself, and to build up a large protective machine which would be able to resist an attack upon Russia and preserve the Soviet system within the borders of Russia. That quarrel between the two men became a quarrel to the death. Stalin won, and I think we are justified in saying that since Stalin has been in supreme power in Russia, very little emphasis has been laid on this doctrine of spreading the Soviet faith to the outside world. That is a very important point from our point of view, as hon. members will observe, for if that missionary impulse of Communism is weakened, it follows automatically that whatever Communist agitation there may be here is not so powerfully supported from Moscow as it used to be. Now the second thing which these authorities seem to show is that within Russia itself the original milk of the word of the doctrine of Communism has been considerably watered down under the Stalin regime. And here I want to quote only one authority, but I think it is a pretty good authority, to establish that contention, that under the Stalin regime there has been a considerable weakening not only of the missionary impulse of Communism, but of the original purity of Communist doctrine. The authority which I am going to quote is a book written by Mr. Joseph Davies. He was the American Ambassador to Russia during the years 1936 to 1938. The book is called “Mission to Moscow”. Now, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Joseph Davies proved himself a pretty wise old bird when he was in Russia. He went round and spent a good deal of time on inspecting conditions all over Russia, factories, war preparations, and everything of that kind, and in 1937, in the middle of his mission, he wrote an official report to Mr. Cordell Hull, the Secretary of State for America, who was his official chief. I may say incidentally also that Mr. Joseph Davies committed himself at that time to two predictions. The first prediction was that it was quite likely that there would be a pact between Hitler and Stalin. He made that prediction in 1937, and most people who heard that prediction scoffed at it, and thought it was outside the realms of possibility that these two men who had abused each other so violently, and these two countries which had been traditional enemies, should ever make a pact with each other. But Mr. Joseph Davies proved to be right. In 1939 there was an actual pact made between Hitler and Stalin, and Mr. Davies’ reputation as a prophet deservedly rose pretty high in his own country. But he also made another prediction which was equally remarkable. He also predicted that if Russia should ever be attacked by an outside power, her army would give a very good account of itself and would prove to be a very formidable machine. It is within our knowledge that when Hitler attacked Russia in 1941 almost without exception the experts of the civilised world said: “Russia’s army is quite worthless: the purge has taken the soul out of the Russian army; the Russian army will never be able to stand up to the German army.” But Mr. Davies, who had seen that army four years before, had then made a prediction that if Russia was attacked the Russian army would give a good account of itself. So on those two predictions, which were made a good many years before these events took place, and which were made in direct opposition to the best expert opinion, I think we can say that Mr. Joseph Davies, as American Ambassador in Moscow, proved that his head was screwed on the right way. Here is what he says in his report to his Secretary of State in Washington on the 15th March, 1937, page 89 of his book “Mission to Moscow”. He says—

I think the House will agree with me that, coming from a man who has proved his wisdom so well as Mr. Davies has, that is a very remarkable pronouncement, made in the month of March, 1937. Mr. Davies is a very fair-minded man and he goes out of his way in his book to admit that the Soviet leaders themselves won’t agree with him that they have departed in any way from the true milk of the doctrine of Communism. He quotes their arguments against these conclusions, and answers those arguments. I should like to go into those arguments because they are very interesting, but unfortunately I have not the time now. Anybody who likes to read them can get from our library this book “Mission to Moscow”, and read them there for himself. From those two points which recent authorities on Russia suggest—that the missionary impulse of Communism has considerably faded away in Russia itself, and the fact that the present-day leaders of Soviet Russia have been compelled by human nature to water down the true doctrines of Communism—we may, I think, justifiably assume that the danger—if we may call it a danger—or the influence of Communistic propaganda in South Africa is likely not to be very powerful for some years to come. If I may point out to the hon. member for Beaufort West, the moment when that Communist propaganda was really dangerous was the moment when Russia was allied to Germany; that was the time, because then you had undoubtedly a considerable impulse from Russia itself, which was allied with Germany, to do everything it could to help Germany by stirring up trouble through Communist influence in the United States, in Great Britain and in other parts of the world, including South Africa. But curiously enough, it was during that very period, when the Communist danger in South Africa—if you can call it a danger—when the Communist influence was powerful through the alliance of Germany and Russia, that a singular silence on the Communist danger fell upon the members of the Opposition. The hon. member pointed out in his speech that for years they have been warning this country about the dangers of Communism, and he quoted a speech he made many years ago. I agree there have been constant warnings from that side of the House, but during the period when Germany was allied with Russia a pall of silence fell upon the Opposition. I am glad to say the hour of this debate has been extended, so that we can go on ad lib. and hon. members will have ample opportunity to reply to me. Now I want to come to another point which the hon. member for Beaufort West made in his speech. Towards the end of his speech, the hon. member said that after this war, after Germany is beaten in this war, the dominant influence in Europe would be Russia, and that that would involve a considerably increased danger from our point of view of Communist doctrine being propagated in South Africa. I agree that if it was true, if it turns out to be true, that after this war Russia is the dominant power in Europe, then it is quite possible—it is indeed likely—that the missionary impulse of Communism will revive, and that the Soviet Government, finding itself secure within its own borders, if it becomes the dominant power in Europe, will be very likely to return to the original impulse of the first leaders of Bolshevism and try to spread that doctrine; but I doubt very much whether after Germany has been defeated it will be found that Russia is the dominant power in Europe. I wish to say nothing against her. I wish to guard myself very carefully against saying anything which might seem to detract from the achievements of the Russian army in its fight with Germany. I have the greatest admiration for what the Russian army has done, but we must consider the after-war situation in Europe from the point of view of the nations which have been subjected to the horrible tryranny of Germany.

What about Russia herself?

They are the people who are going to decide which will be the dominant power in Europe, and what is their point of view towards Russia likely to be? Take France.

Take Finland.

I give the hon. member Finland. He actually supports my argument. I had not thought about Finland, but what is Finland likely to feel after the victory of the United Nations? Is she going to feel particularly friendly towards Russia, Finland that was invaded by Russia when Russia was an ally of Germany? It is a very good illustration, and I thank my hon. friend for his intervention, but that also applies to practically every country in Europe which is now under the iron heel of Germany. Take France. France had been a friend of Russia’s for many years. In Europe she had always regarded her friendship with Russia as a great bulwark against Germany, and suddenly in 1939 she found that Russia had turned round and made a pact with Germany. What are the French people likely to feel about Russia? Are they going to feel particularly friendly to the Russia which, by her pact with Germany, laid them open to invasion by Germany? What about the Baltic States, Lithuania and Estonia? They too found that at the moment of their most desperate need, Russia was not their friend. What about Poland, which, when it was overrun by the invading German army and was trying to make a desperate last stand, suddenly found that from the rear came in a horde of Russians to help the Germans? What about the Balkan States, where Russia has always been the leader of the Slav people? What about Rumania, which found that, at the moment when German influence was becoming particularly formidable, again powerful Russia suddenly stretched out her paw and grabbed a large piece of Rumanian territory? What about Jugoslavia, which always regarded Russia as her friend and champion? She found when the thunderbolt fell upon her that not a finger was lifted by Russia to help her. Throughout Europe, after Germany’s defeat, when the captive nations are released from their terrible captivity, there is going to be no very friendly feeling towards Russia. There will no doubt be a feeling of admiration for the way in which Russia has resisted and thrown back the German invasion, but there will be a very very distinct line drawn, in my opinion, by those nations of Europe, between their admiration for the achievements of the Russian army and their memories, which will be ugly memories, of the policy of Joseph Stalin. And if that is so, then again I think we are justified in arguing that the hon. member has exaggerated the influence which Moscow is likely to have after the defeat of Germany, in propagating Communist doctrines in South Africa. Russia will have something much more serious to do. After having established the prestige of her military power, she will then have to re-establish the prestige of her diplomacy, and that will not be an easy thing for Russia to do. She will not have much time to spare to devote to the energy for propagation of Bolshevism in South Africa.

It will be a rude awakening for you.

I want to say one further thing. The hon. member’s motion, he will tell me, is not really directed against Soviet Russia or Moscow, but it is directed against the local Communists. He wants the Government to declare the local Communist Party illegal, and to prohibit speeches, books, films etc. which propagate Communism, and to deport and prohibit the entrance of aliens who are known to hold Communistic doctrines and so on. In fact, he wants the Government immediately to start a kind of specially vindictive programme against the local Communists.

Even they have done it without sabotage.

I agree with my hon. friend the Minister of Justice. That would be a very unwise and even a very foolish thing for this Government to do. [Time limit extended.] I thank the House, Mr. Speaker, and I apologise for going on so long.

You have not come to the point yet.

I was saying that I agree with the hon. the Minister of Justice, that that would be a very unwise thing to do. It will also, in my opinion, be a very foolish thing, because I really do not think that the local Communists, as they exist in South Africa today, are worth powder and shot from this Government.

That is what they think of you, maybe.

Only the other day we had a very good illustration of the futility of the Communist Party. They held a meeting in the Banqueting Hall in Cape Town on Tuesday night, in which they delivered themselves of extremely violent denunciations of the speech made by the hon. member for Beaufort West. The chief speaker spoke at length upon that subject, and then he turned to describe the wonderful liberties which the citizens of the Soviet Union enjoyed. At that moment a rude fellow in the audience suddenly interrupted him. The speaker at once entirely lost his temper. He said that he would not tolerate interruptions. He told the interrupter to go to the devil, and he said: “If you do not stop I will throw you out.” Well, the interpreter at once got up and replied that he at least knew how to behave as a gentleman, and he walked out; he removed himself from the meeting before he could be thrown out. I ask hon. members, is a party that can behave like that through one of its principal representatives in Cape Town, worth all this apparatus of prohibition and prosecution, and even deportation, which the hon. member suggests to the Minister in his motion he should put in force against these local Communists? No, I agree with the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood), who, I thought, made an extremely good point in his speech when he said that if you are going to ask the Government to put the whole machinery of the law into operation against anyone who makes speeches, or does things which you disagree with, then you will not be able to stop with the Communist, you will have to prosecute members opposite for making speeches in favour of a republic.

You will be in the same boat some day.

You cannot put this machinery into operation against one section with whose opinions you disagree. You cannot have selective tolerance. You must either decide to let people say what they like, so long as public order or safety are not threatened, or you must go in for a policy of suppressing all speeches an opinions which you disagree with, wherever they come from. And I ask the House whether that argument used by the Minister and the hon. member for Vereeniging is not a perfectly sound one? The one way, the way which the Government is adopting, is the democratic one. The other way of suppressing anyone from saying anything with which you disagree is the way of autocracy.

It is the way of Stalin.

It is the way which is followed in Germany and in Italy.

And in Russia.

Yes, in Russia. The Government has chosen, and I think rightly chosen, as events have proved—it has chosen to have full and universal tolerance, not selective tolerance. It is not prepared to put the machinery of the law into operation against people who say what they think, so long as these speeches are not carried to the length of being a threat to public law and order, and for that reason I cannot support the motion.

I think I can best describe the impression I received from the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down by saying that if we ever had a modern Rip van Winkle in South Africa, he is one. Just like a Rip van Winkle, he had not the least idea of what had been happening here in South Africa in the last few years. If I may say something further about the hon. member’s speech, then it is that I have never seen an advocate for the defence, while he tried to build a case up, break it down himself again in so effective a manner. He completely destroyed his own case. I shall give a few examples of it. I just want to say this first. The impression that he tried to create was that there is no longer any danger for South Africa in Communism. One really wants to put this question: What was it that brought him and his spiritual companions, the other Imperialists and English in South Africa, to the conclusion that there is no longer any danger for South Africa in Communism? The hon. member has apparently forgotten that until the other day there was among the ruling classes in England, not only on the part of Churchill—we know what his point of view was—but among the ruling classes and in the Government there was such a strong point of view against Communism, that even a Communist paper named the Daily Worker was suppressed. Has he forgotten it? I do not know whether that newspaper is now allowed. Notwithstanding the strong pressure on the part of the Labour Party in England, and I remind the hon. member as a full-blooded Englishman of it, that newspaper was suppressed, and now he wants to come and convince us here that the danger of Communism has suddenly disappeared. If the hon. member does not understand me, what I am now going to read to him will perhaps get home to him. I have here an extract from the “Daily Worker”, and it will show the House what a deep rift there exists in England between the Communist and the ordinary average Englishman. I quote from what appeared in the “Daily Worker” on November 29, 1943—it was the day on which the Duke of Kent and Princess Marina of Greece were married—

And now I want the hon. member to listen—

That is the spirit of Communism in England. I read it to remind the hon. member of the deep rift in England between the average Englishman like him and Communism as it held sway at that period. Now I want to read another quotation. It is a quotation from the report of the thirteenth congress of the Communists in England—

I hope that the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens (Mr. Long) will realise why his spiritual companions in England regard Communism as an extremely dangerous thing. They regarded it as so dangerous that they suppressed the Communist newspaper in England, and, as far as I know, it is still suppressed today. Notwithstanding the alliance with Russia, the English government is still deeply under the impression of the tremendous danger of Communism, if they were simply to leave it alone and put no limit on Communist propaganda.

The British government has raised the ban.

If they have raised the ban on the issuing of the “Daily Worker” it must have happened during the last few months.

It was done during the last three months.

That is what I said, and if it was done, it was not done out of conviction, but it was done out of fear for Russia. As I said, the hon. member completely broke up his own case which he had built up. He tried to convince himself that in later years the Communists of Russia have stopped doing missionary work in foreign countries. He knows it is not so. His own words are evidence of that, because in a speech he says: “In any case, we should know that it is not so powerfully supported by Moscow as was previously the case.” In other words, he admits that that missionary work is still being encouraged. Naturally, under the circumstances it is not as strong as before; that missionary work in foreign countries is not so prominent from Moscow at the moment. That does not detract in the least from the principle of the Communists that they must make the whole world Communist. Another point for which I am grateful to the hon. member is this. One of the most horrible aspects of Communism for us is this—and when I say “us”, I mean particularly the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population, because the conviction is stronger among us than among other elements in the population—that the Communist rejects the Christian religion. I said that the hon. member completely destroyed his own case. I will remind you that at the start of his speech he tried to justify Communism in a sense precisely by propounding this doctrine of Communism. He said: One can understand what the standpoint of the Communist is, because the Communist, in contrast to the Christian—and note this—believes that all salvation and blessing can be enjoyed in this life, while the Christian believes that it can be enjoyed in the hereafter. By that he condemned Communism as well as I and others can do it. With that first opening sentence, he himself destroyed his whole case which he tried to build up. I come to something else. He referred to the deputation of English ministers of religion who saw the Prime Minister. It is a pity that he did not quote the Prime Minister’s words. He tried to create the impression that the case which even the English ministers put was not very serious. May I now read what his words were? He put the matter thus, that the Prime Minister said: “We must not take serious notice of the feeling of unrest which exists in the country today.” What the Prime Minister said was this, and I want to read it in English—

That goes a little further than the hon. member indicated. Then the Prime Minister goes a little further—

That is something different from the watered-down idea that the hon. member tried to give of what happened there. Then the hon. member made a point of it that the agreement concluded between England and Russia provides that neither the one nor the other will interfere with the internal matters of the other, and his reasoning was that for that reason we need have no fear for the great commando of Russian representatives who are allowed here in our country—they will not interfere with the internal matters of South Africa. I want to ask the hon. member whether he is really such a Rip van Winkle? Does he not know what happened in various parts of the world where Russia was represented? Does he not know that in 1927 the Russian Ambassador in Paris had to leave France at the request of the French Government because he interfered with the internal affairs of France? I want to ask him whether he is completely unaware of what happened in England? Does he remember what a tremendous sensation was created because the Russian representatives concerned themselves with local English political affairs? Now, the hon. member comes and says that that was before this agreement. He who is acquainted with matters of this nature, does he think for a moment that Russia will take more notice of an agreement of this nature than it will take of diplomatic customs which have become established throughout generations among nations, and of which one of the first is that a diplomatic representative must not interfere with the internal affairs of the country in which he finds himself. Those customs are not only older, but they are customs which have become established between nations, and will Russia now let herself be checked by such a temporary agreement? The hon. member ought to know it, if he has not been slumbering for the past twenty years, and did not know what was going on. At the end of his speech he destroyed all that remained with this admission. He admitted, namely—

With that sentence he destroys the whole case that he tried to build up. He said clearly here that that slumbering attitude of Russia is just temporary.

But then we can do what we like.

There we now have the cat out of the bag. During the war we may do nothing; when the war is over, we may do what we like. He now admits completely by that interjection that our case is grounded, but he begs and prays us to do nothing during the war, because England is dependent on the help of Russia. It is not necessary for me to go further into the speech of the hon. member. I rather want to put my case positively as I intended to do before I decided to answer the speech of the hon. member. I do not know whether in ordinary circumstances it would be necessary for us on this side to put the standpoint of the Nationalist Party towards Communism positively again. But in view of the fact that not the least indication has come from the other side yet they understand what our position to Communism is based on. I want to put it in brief again for their edification. Our first objection to Communism is this. Communism follows the doctrine of equality between white and black. That is the doctrine which the Communist propounds in South Africa, and if that Communistic doctrine is carried out in South Africa, there is no future for the European race in this country. I wish in all seriousness to ask the members opposite, the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, whether they do not consider this doctrine of Communism dangerous, or, if they subscribe to it, is any of them prepared to apply it in practice? The Minister of Justice is also a member of the Society of the Friends of the Soviet Union. This pernicious doctrine is part of the policy of that Communistic organisation—that there should be no difference between white and black. If there is one thing that is fundamental in the philosophy of the Afrikaner, it is that there is a deep difference between white and black, and that we shall fight to our death to see the European race maintained in South Africa. Another pernicious doctrine of Communism is this, that the Communist campaigns against the existence of the Christian religion. I can understand that people who are unconcerned with regard to this matter will take no notice of the pernicious infiltration of Communism in South Africa. They proudly proclaim that they form a part of the Afrikaner nation, but they are unconcerned about this pernicious doctrine which the Communists propound in South Africa. I do not need to dilate upon this aspect of the case. The seriousness of it is clear of itself. There is another doctrine of Communism that I want to mention: the Communist undermines family life, which is the conerstone on which the Afrikaner nation is built. Then we on this side are also opposed to Communism, and that is because we do not want a dictatorship in our country, and also not a dictatorship of the proletariat. We are against every form of dictatorship, whether it is the dictatorship of a Joseph Stalin, whether it is the dictatorship of a proletariat or whether it is a dictatorship of any other ideology. It contradicts our whole national past, and for that reason we do not want Communism, which is the worst form of dictatorship, to be propagated here in South Africa to create a Communist dictatorship here. In this connection I want to draw attention to the fact that we have now to learn suddenly that Russia is democratic and that England and Russia are fighting together for democracy. I want to ask the hon. members opposite: Since when has Communism been democratic? The hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, will remember the time when a number of English engineers and technical persons had to appear in Court in Russia, and when, according to them, all right and justice was denied them; and does he remember how the English newspapers inveighed against the brutal dictatorial forces in Russia? I want to refresh his memory further. Does he remember a few years ago when Russia and Germany concluded the non-aggression agreement how Hitler and Stalin were represented by them to the world as two relentless dictators. A little later it was propounded equally strongly to the world, when Russia fought with Germany, that these two countries would make democracy impossible in the world. If Russia was then a dictator country and something pernicious, how can it now suddenly be democratic? When Russia attacked Finland, does the hon. member remember what they said then of Russia; did they then describe Russia as a democratic country? From this flows the statement that the present war is a war between two ideologies. It is said that democratic England and Russia are fighting against the dictator countries. The assertion is that this war is a war between those two ideologies. That is absolute nonsense. To put it in plain Afrikaans, it is nothing but drivel. The defence against our charge against Communism in South Africa and against the fact that we see a terrible danger in Communism is this, and the hon. member for Gardens repeated it, that Communism has now suddenly during the last few years undergone a complete metamorphosis, and that Communism is no longer out to enable its ideas to catch on the other countries. It is clear from the whole English Press that that is now their defence. I asked the hon. member where he got hold of that, and he could not prove it. We can only come to the conclusion that the only ground which they have for this is that in the years 1928—’29 a difference arose between Stalin and Trotsky. According to them, Trotsky was the man who propounded the doctrine that Communism should immediately be propounded over the whole world, and that a world revolution should be set in progress, and that against that Stalin took the point of view that it should not be done. That is not so. The difference between Stalin and Trotsky was purely one of strategy. Trotsky said there should immediately be a world Communist revolution. It should immediately be set in progress and propounded in the world, and Stalin said that they should first establish Communism strongly and firmly in Russia, and when they had done that, then they should go on with a world revolution. It was not a difference over what the ultimate aim should be, but over the immediate steps which should be taken to realise that ideal. What I want to know now is when they made that discovery. When did they make the discovery that the Communists and Joseph Stalin now no longer want to distribute the Communist doctrines over the whole world? Take the point of view of a man like Mr. Churchill. Up to a year ago he took a different point of view from that taken by our Government today. If that is their point of view, why did they refuse until the other day to have Russia’s diplomatic and consular representatives in South Africa? It was for no other reason than that those people know in their souls that what we proclaim here is the truth. There has not been the least change in the philosophy of the Communist. I want to put this question to the Minister of Justice. He is aware of the fact that the Communists here in South Africa are still in contact with the Communist Party in Russia. From time to time representatives of Communists in South Africa are sent to attend the congress of the Communist Party in Russia. If he does not know it, he ought to know it, because he is a member of the Society of the Friends of the Soviet Union. He knows it. The talk that the Communist Party in South Africa has no connection with the Communists in Russia is purely talk—it is tattle. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) gave all the proof, from the Communist authorities, from the mouth of Joseph Stalin, and from the decisions of the World Congress of the Comintern in 1935 that that connection exists. But, apart from that proof from outside, which we can get from those kinds of sources, we have the proof here in our own country that Communist money is used here to propagate Communism in South Africa, and that South Africa sends representatives to Russia to obtain personal contact with the Communist Party there. Notwithstanding that, the Government refuses to take steps to stop this evil. Notwithstanding the statement of the Prime Minister, they refuse, they attach no weight to what the churches state in this connection. I assume that the Minister of Justice is a member of the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk. If so, is he not aware of the statements made from time to time on behalf of that church, and particularly on behalf of the missionaries—not statements of individual ministers and missionaries, but statements of the church, as a whole, of the missionaries, as a whole—statements which tell us how in their own congregations that pernicious Communist doctrine is propounded from one day to the next? The Government is not unaware of that. But, in spite of all that, they refuse, and they are prepared to let matters go on in this way. They say, in the first place, there is no danger. And the second reason they give is that which we had from the Minister of Justice, that there is no evidence that Communist propaganda is allowed. That is the statement of the Minister of Justice—that there is no evidence that Communist propaganda is allowed.

I talked of subversive Communist propaganda.

I want to ask the Minister of Justice to lay on the Table of this House the statements of his own detectives, statements which they present to him daily on the subversive propaganda going on at Communist meetings. He dare not do it. He knows of all these things himself, of all the statements which are presented to him every week, but he says there is no evidence that Communist propaganda is allowed. May I just read a few little things to him? He knows of the unfortunate incident at Pretoria, when the natives in the service of the City Council of Pretoria, as a result of the Communist propaganda carried out amongst them, revolted, and a bloody fight took place. He knows that there was a Commission of Inquiry, and may I now read from the evidence given before that Commission—

He is the Secretary of the Communist Party—

In spite of that, the Minister of Justice comes here and he says that there is no evidence that propaganda of that nature is being made. Allow me to read another statement—

This Mr. Muller is a Communist and secretary of a league of 15 trade unions in Pretoria, who is paid by the Communist Party. And in spite of this, the Minister of Justice still says that there is no evidence that Communist propaganda of this nature is allowed. I still want to read one statement. On February 17 this evidence was given before the Commission—

But the Minister of Justice says there is no evidence that propaganda of this nature is being made. Seeing, he is blind; and hearing, he is deaf. We have the evidence that the Communist Party was behind all these things, that the Communist Party is directly connected with the Communist Party in Russia, and still the Minister says that there is no evidence that Communist propaganda of this nature is being conducted. I can understand the Government’s difficulty. I cannot justify it, but I can understand it. They refuse to act; and their failure to act is due to causes of a twofold nature. The first is that the Minister of Justice goes through the length and breadth of the country to seek allies. The Minister of Justice has a struggle against the Minister of Finance. It is either he or the Minister of Finance, and he does not hesitate about where he goes to seek allies and support, even if the allies are Communists. Thus, his membership of the Society of the Friends of the Soviet Union. The Minister of Justice does not hesitate to conclude an alliance with those elements. He even seeks support and help among those elements. The other difficulty is this. They dare not do anything today, which, in their opinion, will give offence to Russia. They dare not do or say anything against Communism, because they are afraid that Russia will take offence. They have manoeuvred themselves into a position where the safety of the British Empire and the Imperialists depends not on what England may say or do, but on what Russia may say or do. Their whole future is based on Russia. Russia is conducting the war for them, and if victory must be won then Russia must achieve it. Whether she will achieve it, I do not know. What we do know is that they are prepared even to sacrifice the whole future of European Christendom in South Africa for it; that they are prepared to endanger the continued existence of the European race in South Africa, as long as they can but maintain a temporary peace with Russia, so that Russia may give them that temporary support which is now indispensable for them. It cannot worry them what happens further in South Africa. Communism may hold sway here in South Africa and continue with its pernicious doctrine; Communism may propound its doctrine to the black masses, that the country belongs to the natives, which is a tremendous weapon in the hand of Communism. It is not only the enticement of equality, but the natives are told that the black proletariat in South Africa must be master, that a black Communist republic must come here. The Government is prepared to allow this propaganda to continue unhindered in South Africa. If they want to think it over, they must realise that through that the continued existence of the European race in South Africa is brought into the greatest danger. I address myself to the Afrikaners opposite. If they support the Government in this, they are prepared to allow that the foundations of the Christian belief in South Africa be undermined by that doctrine which is propounded by Communism. The difference between Communism and Christendom is this, that while the Christian expects his salvation and blessing in the hereafter, the Communist believes that he is going to get them on earth, and it seems really as if the hon. member for Gardens subscribed to this, for he said he can understand that the poor people particularly would follow that doctrine. No person who is honest towards European Christian civilisation in South Africa can condemn this attitude of the Government sharply enough. I tried to condemn it sharply, but I realise that my powers for that are not sufficient, and that no one is in a position to condemn in sharp enough language this failure of the Government to act. I hope at any rate that their conscience will eventually prod them so much that they will take steps to stop this dangerous threat to Christian civilisation.

One fact which has clearly emerged from the motion and the speech of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), and certainly from the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. J. G. Strydom), is that the official Opposition hopes to fight the next General Election on their newly found anti-Communist cry.

Certainly not newly found.

One can understand their reasons for looking round for a new battle cry, a new rallying point, because notwithstanding the inspired leadership of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan), Die Volksleier, signs are evident every day of perturbation in the ranks of the official Opposition, of an anxiety which grows greater and greater every day as the electoral day of judgment comes nearer.

That’s an old story.

I think, sir, these hon. members on the benches opposite at long last realise, with hardly disguised chagrin, that in going all out for a Hitler victory they have backed the wrong horse.

Horsey, keep your tail up!

Before the luncheon adjournment I was pointing out that it was quite obvious from the speech of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) and those who follow him, and from other indications in the Opposition Press, that the official Opposition, as a result of the extreme difficulties in which it finds itself through leadership or other causes …

What about your own?

… is now hoping to fight the next General Election on this new anti-Communistic cry. In the course of the last 3½ years they had made many attempts to show why they should form a Government in opposition to the present one, but it is quite obvious that they now realise that they have backed the wrong horse in backing Hitler. They have gone all out on that loyalty. They now realise—even the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) now realises—that they can no longer contend, as he did, that the salvation of South Africa lies in a Hitler victory. These were the words of the hon. member for Fordsburg some eighteen months or two years ago when it appeared to hon. members opposite that the end of the war was immediately in sight, that things were going wrong for the Allies—when the Allies were fighting the most magnificient rearguard actions there was no sympathy for them—but there was a statement that the hope of a Republican South Africa lay in a Hitler victory. They backed that horse, and they now realise that they have put their money on the wrong colours. I seem to remember that in last September the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) prophesied at Bethlehem that Stalingrad was about to fall, that the fall of Stalingrad was imminent, and that that was the preliminary to the doom of the British Empire and the British Commonwealth.

I do not think that is relevant.

I would submit, Sir, that you have given the hon. mover a good deal of latitude to the extent of two hours, and I shall be glad if I may be permitted to give the background to the introduction of the motion. These gloomy prophesies in regard to the fall of Stalingrad and the imminent fall of the British Empire have, by the inevitable march of events, been proved to be what they really were, hollow and extravagant wishful thinking on the part of hon. members opposite.

Especially on the part of their leader.

I am afraid that the Malanite followers in the platteland have been badly let down. The blame, of course, for that is primarily with the Fuehrer Herr Hitler, but his military achievements in Russia can hardly be attributable to the hon. member for Piquetberg and his followers. One can only say in fairness that these followers have been badly let down by what the hon. Leader of the Opposition and his followers have been telling them. They can no longer tell the electorate that they can assume the certainty of a Hitler victory and that a vote for them means the certainty of a Quisling Republic, for whatever wishful thinking might still remain in the breasts of hon. members opposite, one must not forget that even Goebbels now admits that the Fuehrer has suffered a series of terrible defeats in Russia, marked by a degree of voilence, in Goebbels’ own words, “Over-shadowing all human imagination”. We had that admission recently.

What motion are you dealing with?

I am dealing with the efforts of the hon. member for Beaufort West and the efforts of hon. members opposite to divert the minds of the electorate from the fundamental facts of the present political situation namely the carrying on of the war by the present Government.

That is what you are doing.

And I am suggesting that the main object of the introduction of this motion is to cast a red herring—a very red herring—across the trail and to try to mislead the electors by raising a bogey to divert their minds from the true issue. What is quite clear is that the Opposition wishes to forget the war. They want to forget the war and the part they have taken in it during the past three and a half years.

That would not be difficult.

They want to forget the jibes which in past years they cast at the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister for his support of the Allied cause, the jibes about Dunkirk, the jibes about Greece, and the jibes about Norway. They want to forget these things in the light of recent events.

The hon. Minister must not forget the motion.

I can assure you, sir, that I have not forgotten the motion. If you will bear with me, I feel it is so necessary to give the background to the introduction of this motion.

You forgot Narvik.

Surely, sir, I am entitled to suggest to hon. members, and to suggest to the country, that the purpose of the introduction of this motion, the purpose of this attempt to scare the electorate of this country by setting up a skittle in order to knock it down, is to try and get away from these mistakes and follies of the past three and a half years on the part of the Opposition, and I am surely entitled to point out to the House that during the past three and a half years we have had to listen to these jibes about Great Britain? They are now trying to forget these things; they are now trying to forget their misguided efforts for a separate peace. In past Sessions their motions were for a separate peace. They no longer tell us now that the war is lost, and that the British Empire is tottering to its ruin, but we are told that there is a Communistic danger for South Africa. They want to forget that. I have no doubt that the hon. member for Piquetberg wants to forget his gullible acceptance of either assurances from Zeesen, and it is quite obvious to any unbiased thinker and observer of events that the main object of the Opposition is to switch over from these vital matters, these fundamental matters where their policy has been proved to be wrong, to some simple issue with which they hope to lull and to hoodwink the electorate of this country. And so, sir, we have this motion from the hon. member for Beaufort West. This motion is to provide a new slogan, a new and plausible rallying cry, that will catch votes and divert attention from the vital war issue that has engaged the Government for the past three and a half years. We are told that this Red menace of Communism has now overnight appeared on the horizon, and is now threatening the very life and the very foundation of our social and political and economic system in South Africa.

Exactly.

The hon. member says “exactly”. I am glad to hear that the hon. member agrees with me when I say that that is the intention of hon. members opposite. And so the country, South Africa, is now to be given this strange, fantastic theory that it is not Hitler, Hitler the aggressor, Hitler the destroyer, who is to be feared by all small nations, including ourselves, but Stalin—Stalin the man of peace.

You better ask the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Long) what he said about Stalin this morning.

Did you say Stalin the beast?

When we consider this motion it is interesting to realise that what I might term the Louw exposition of this doctrine—it is rather interesting to note how that synchronised almost to the minute with the outburst of Dr. Goebbels …

His name is Goebbels; pronounce it correctly.

Oh, I bow to the superior knowledge of my hon. friend opposite—I am sure he knows better than I do. But, still, it is very striking that just about the time when the hon. member for Beaufort West treated the House to a two hours’ academic lecture on Communism, Goebbels—I hope I am pronouncing it correctly—burst into a frenzy about what he called the holy mission of the Reich. He told the people of Germany that they had been suffering defeats in Russia in a holy cause. There was this terrible menace which Germany had to face—Germany which had dedicated itself to rescuing the world from this menace of Bolshevism and Communism. I do not know really whether it was the hon. member for Beaufort West or Dr. Goebbels who made the first move, who was the master and who the disciple. I do not know who led the way—I do not know whether it was Dr. Goebbels or whether it was the hon. member for Beaufort West. Did the hon. member for Beaufort West lead the way, and did Goebbels follow, or did Goebbels lead and did the hon. member for Beaufort West follow?

Whoever it was, it was a case of the blind leading the blind.

Anyhow they speak with one voice, and what is clear is that what Goebbels is trying to put across in Germany, the hon. member for Beaufort West is attempting to do here.

Is that a Minister speaking now?

I hope the hon. member for Beaufort West is flattered by the attention which Zeesen has given his speech. I have here two foolscap pages of the reports of the Zeesen commentary on the hon. member’s speech. Zeesen is delighted with what the hon. member for Beaufort West has said.

The hon. the Minister knows the rule of the House.

That’s a nasty blow.

May I say that Zeesen is delighted with the hon. member for Beaufort West and points out, in agreement with him, that if the Soviet helps in winning the war—if this war is won by the Allies then this will happen as a result of the Soviet’s participation in the war. And so, Zeesen says, it will be to the great detriment of England and of Europe! It is rather interesting to be told that by Zeesen—Zeesen says that if the war is won by the Allies, as a result of the participation of Russia, then it’s going to be very serious for England. Well, I had never before heard the hon. member for Beaufort West, or Dr. Goebbels, showing any marked signs of sympathy with the difficulties of the British Commonwealth in the past. At any rate the hon. member must be very highly flattered, and it must be a novel experience for him to receive such honourable mention by Zeesen, remembering that in former days as a “general” of the Ossewa-Brandwag he received rather scanty treatment from that source.

Was he a fighting general?

And Dr. Goebbels told the world that Germany’s mission is to save the world from Communism. The hon. member tells us that the world will be a bad place if the Allies win with Russian support. But neither Goebbels nor the hon. member have told us why, if this is so, if Germany’s mission is to save the world from Communism, why it was deemed necessary by Hitler before attacking Russia to attack and destroy Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium and France. Were all these things necessary as a condition precedent to the attack on this arch enemy of world peace? No, we get no explanation of these things. The hon. member for Beaufort West has not given us any explanation. But what is quite obvious from the speech of the hon. member for Beaufort West, and from the outburst of Dr. Goebbels, is that for the German Nation many anxious days lie ahead; and the fear of Communism, the fear of the Red menace, the fear of a world revolution, is not at the root of all that anxiety which now gnaws at the hearts of these German leaders. It is a fear in the light of recent events. It is a fear of that inevitable justice which an outraged world will insist on seeing meted out to these Nazi gangsters. That is the root cause of the fear shown by Hitler and Goebbels, and apparently shared by the hon. member for Beaufort West and his followers. But it is also interesting to note that it is not only Goebbels and the hon. member for Beaufort West who are worried about the Russian successes, but that these Russian successes have led to the issue of another of those lengthy and voluminous Union orders by the leader of the Ossewa-Brandwag. The Ossewa-Brandwag also seems to think that this is a matter which should engage their attention, and in one of these orders issued by the Commandant General of the Ossewa-Brandwag, Dr. Van Rensburg, it is stated—

The order says—

And then the order goes on to say that—

And then there is a nice finish. It finishes by going even further than the hon. member for Beaufort West—it places on record that it is about to show a “feeling of piety” for all these people who are fighting against the Russians on the Eastern front. I have no doubt that this will impose a great strain on the O.B.’s reserves of piety, but I point it out because I do not want the hon. member for Beafort West to feel that he is alone in his feelings about the defeat of Hitler’s troops on the Eastern front. I do not want him to feel that he stands alone in his sentiments about the errors of Hitler—he has some colleages in condolence among his former friends of the O.B. Quite apart of the hon. member’s pious front, whatever hopes he may have about the next General Election, he can hardly hope to gain any marked response from the people of this country to his motion. It has two fundamental weaknesses. First there is a very definite appearance of insincerity about the motion because one cannot forget this, that when Germany and Hitler had an agreement with Russia, neither the hon. member for Beaufort West, nor any of his friends said anything about a Communist menace. In those days there was not a word about this “red menace.” Then Hitler and “Comrade” Stalin were good friends and all was well in the best of good worlds—and the British Empire was about to fall. And I find that even in 1940 the hon. member for Piquetberg, the Leader of the Opposition, although he did describe Stalin as a man who displayed contempt for Parliamentary institutions, went on to say that “yet his attitude must be preferred to that of General Smuts.”

Who said that?

The hon. member for Piquetberg. I am not quite sure whether he took off his hat to Stalin, but there are a great many of his followers who now talk through their hats about Stalin. But he and others told the country that at any rate Stalin’s attitude must be preferred to that of Gen. Smuts.

What?

The hon. member will remember his speech in 1940. Another fundamental weakness in he motion and in the speech of the hon. member for Beaufort West was its propagandist, its blatant propagandist character. It is quite obvious that the whole theme was this—now that the Russians are with the Allies, are fighting on the side of the Allies, an attack on them is an attack on the Allied cause and is an attack on Britain and the Government. Anything to attack the Government. That was quite clear from a number of observations made by the hon. member. In the course of his opening remarks he indulged in quite a number of debating irrelevances. He made this remark. He said: “Stalin is fighting the battle of Britain.” Quite unnecessary for the purpose of this debate, but necessary in order to give a little background, a little atmosphere, to support and bolster up his anti-Allied prejudice. I have always understood that it was the R.A.F. who fought the battle of Britain, and with conspicuous success, but according to the hon. member for Beaufort West it was Stalin. And then at another stage he said: “Stalin is now making progress without any help from England or America.” Quite unnecessary for the purpose of this debate, but the hon. member seems to have overlooked the fact that convoy after convoy of merchant shipping, under the protection of the British Navy and the American Navy, has risked untold dangers to reach Russia.

Then why do they complain?

The hon. member forgets the Middle-East campaign and the North-African campaign. He forgets this, that if it had not been for the battle of Britain, if it had not been for the unprecedented stand of the British people in 1940, neither he, nor anyone else, would have been in a position to defend themselves. If it had not been for the stand by Britain, there could have been no stand by Russia or anyone else, and it seems that these sneering references to Britain are nothing but a deliberate attempt to use the Russian intervention as a means of attacking the Allied cause. Now, what did the charges about Communism in relation to South Africa amount to—when we analyse this lengthy and academic lecture to which the House was treated by the hon. member for Beaufort West? I might summarise them as follows: First of all, according to the hon. member for Beaufort West, that the aims of Soviet Russia are world Communism, world revolution, and a world proletarian dictatorship. Secondly, that the Communist Party in South Africa is part of a mighty world organisation, with unlimited funds at its disposal. Thirdly, that South Africa is riddled with Communist “cells,” directly from Moscow. Fourthly, that Communism makes no differentiation between Colours. Fifthly, that Communism is the negation of religion, and encourages a militant Atheism, And, finally, that as a result of all these factors a victory for Russia would mean a world revolution which would in turn mean a black revolution for South Africa. I notice from reading a Press report today that the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), encouraged by all these extravagances, in the course of his remarks in this House yesterday spoke of the possibilty of “our churches being burnt” and “our farms being taken away.” That is the picture painted by the hon. member. Well, he has done his best to make our flesh creep. But he has not been able to adduce one piece of evidence to show any relationship between the present Soviet Government and any disturbances, native or otherwise, which have taken place in this country. And he has not been able to do so, because no such evidence is available. It is perfectly true that in the early days of the Bolshevist revolution in Russia the Leaders hope that revolutionary Communism would be spread throughout the whole world, but later that idea was dropped. Its abandonment, the abandonment of that world-wide conception, was one of the reasons why Trotsky was sent into exile, and the Russians themselves concentrated on developing their regime in their own country, and that is the policy which they are pursuing today. The hon. member has quoted from certain documents. I am not standing here today as an advocate of Russia. I am not here to defend Communist Russia. There are others who can do that more effectively. I only want to point to some of the fallacious arguments which were put forward by the hon. member for Beaufort West. On the 28th May, 1937, Litvinov at the Council of the League of Nations told the Council: “The Government of the country which I represent has its ideology; it would, of course, be very glad if other countries were imbued with this ideology. However, it has never tried, and will never by any methods, let alone forcible ones, try to thrust its ideology on other States.” There was an open declaration by Litvinov to the Council of the League of Nations in 1937.

And you swallow that hook, line and sinker.

The hon. member is an adept at swallowing anything from Zeesen—hook, line and sinker. I merely take these things as history records them. Then we know that in the agreement with Great Britain there is an understanding that there would be no interference in the domestic affairs of other countries. That is part of the Anglo-Russian Treaty. It speaks there of the willingness of associating herself with other States having different economic systems on the understanding that there would be no interference in domestic affairs. And in 1936 Stalin in an interview with the American newspaper correspondent, Roy Howard, said—

What a contrast with Nazism which we all know from its inception has always been an exportable commodity.

When did Stalin say that?

In 1936. We in this country know how Nazism was made an exportable commodity by the Reich Government. We know of the intensity of the campaign in South Africa in pre-war days to introduce Nazi agents in all walks of life. We know of the way in which diplomatic representation was abused; we know that Nazi cells were established everywhere, and we know the efforts that were made to undermine the Afrikaans-speaking section of the community, and to get them to play the Nazi game. I have quoted on bygone occasions from those who sought even to use the Leader of the Opposition for these purposes.

Him and many others.

Even the other day orders were said to have been sent by the Reich Government to internees in the Baviaanspoort Internment Camp, when they were told that they must stop their efforts to escape because by escaping they might embarrass members of the Nationalist Party. We did not hear any protests against this from the hon. member for Beaufort West. I have never yet heard any word of disapproval from him of these sinister Nazi activities in this country. There are many young men languishing in our internment camps who have fallen to that seductive voice from Zeesen, young men led on possibly owing to the lack of disapproval from hon. members opposite. If a firmer stand had been taken by members opposite, if they had realised their responsibilities, many of these young men would not be in the position in which they are today. They were told that a victory for Hitler was just across the road. And then they would have a new republic in this country. Well, that is why they are in the position in which they are today, and hon. members, instead of making their voice heard against sinister movements of that kind, introduce motions such as we now have before us from the hon. member for Beaufort West.

You are going to get the biggest hiding today that you have ever had.

Religion has been drawn into this debate. The hon. member for Beaufort West has tried to scare the country by saying that the Soviet Government stands for “militant atheism”. Why does the hon. member do that? It is because the people of this country are naturally and traditionally religious minded.

That is why you are fighting for Christianity.

You do not know what Christianity is.

There is greater religious intolerance in Germany today than there has ever been in Russia. Let us look at the facts. The hon. member has quoted the words of a Russian leader who is alleged to have said: “We must make our people not only non-religious, but actively anti-religious.” And he tells this House and the country that that is the policy of the Soviet Government. But if the hon. member had quoted from Article 124 of the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. he would have done better.

Oh, I know all about that.

He did not quote that. He would have found these words there—

In other words, as Negley Farson has said, the best analysis of the Soviet attitude towards the orthodox church is that they neither molest nor encourage it; they just leave it alone.

Do you believe that?

That is the position there, and certainly, as I am reminded by my colleague, as appears from another article in the Constitution they do not encourage the clergy in Soviet Russia to go in for politics! We have had all this talk about religion in Soviet Russia, but why does the hon. member for Beaufort West not tell us what the position of religion is in Nazi Germany? And what might be the position in South Africa if Nazi Germany should win the war?

What has that to do with revolution?

We know very well what the Nazi Commissioner of Thann told public service officials of the Third Reich—he told them that in order to be good Nazis they must choose between Adolf Hitler or Jesus Christ.

What nonsense!

And Martin Bohrmann who succeeded Hess when the post of Deputy-Fuehrer was abolished, said this—

That was in 1942. Now, I would ask the hon. member for Beaufort West, who has so much to say about religion, why it was that the Dutch Reformed Churches of this country had to pass a resolution condemning National-Socialism? The Dutch Reformed Churches realised the danger of National-Socialism.

We never asked him for it.

No, they never asked for it because they were so concerned with a Nazi victory, but now that a Nazi victory is no longer within the realms of possibility they raise this issue. And then the hon. member said that the Communists take the children away from their mothers at an early age—the hon. member said that home life had been broken up in Russia, that the very foundation of the State had been disintegrated and that children were no longer regarded as beloning to the parents, but that they were looked upon as the property of the State. That does not tally with the unbiased comments of persons who have visited Russia in recent years. I should like to quote two extracts, one from “My visit to Russia” by Dr. Bernard Fuller of Cape Town in which he says this:—

And then I want to quote from Eileen Bigland, who in 1937 wrote this from her personal experience:

In other words, they have established a very highly developed system of child welfare in Soviet Russia, and the suggestion that children are torn away from their mothers is merely a figment of the wishful thinking mind of the hon. member opposite. I want to come to one further allegation made by the hon. member for Beaufort West. He has drawn certain inferences from a reply I gave him to a question which he put to me. He said that there were something like 60 Soviet Consular representatives in this country. That is the inference which he put on my reply. He seeks to deduce from my reply that there is some sinister influence in this whole business. He says that the Saviet Consular representatives are here in order to promote subversive activity. Now, what are the facts? They are these. The total number of Soviet Consular officials and their domestic staff in the Union is 21. The number of wives 16, children 14, making a total of 51.

How many officials?

At Pretoria the total number of consular officials, including typists, domestic staffs, chauffeurs, cooks, etc., is 12 and in Cape Town 9. That figure includes 12 and 9, a total of 21, including typists, cooks, chauffeurs, and other domestic servants. So what becomes of this extraordinary story about 60 people who have been scattered about the country spreading Communist propaganda? There is not a tittle of evidence to show that the Russian consular representatives in South Africa have ever abused or attempted to abuse their position. If they were to do so, it is quite obvious the Union Government would take cognisance of such a fact. There is no reason whatever to think that they would allow themselves to be used by interested persons who might wish to use them for subversive activities. So, sir, that bogey is again due to the imagination of the hon. member opposite. The hon. member has not told us of the German system, under which the head of the legation was not really the head, but the third secretary was a secret Gestapo agent, who was placed there to see that the Minister was carrying out his duties. So much for those allegations. One further allegation was that I have been refusing to ban books from Soviet Russia. Why should I ban books from Russia? Why should I ban books which deal objectively with the political and economic system of Russia?

The only books you ban are Afrikaans books.

If books of an offensive nature come from Russia or from any other place, they will be banned. But are we in this country, as a nation, so frail that we must be wrapped up in cotton wool, and must not allow our citizens to read about what happens in other places? And what is there so wrong about the ideals and conceptions of Soviet Russia?

Were these books not banned before the war?

What is there so wrong about the ideals of the Soviet, which is trying to bring happiness and good to all? I thought the Bible contained doctrines of that sort. We talk about the Atlantic Charter. Well, sir, the Atlantic Charter is merely a twentieth century euphemism for the Sermon on the Mount, and there is a good deal of the Sermon on the Mount in what takes place in present-day Russia. I see no reason why books should be banned which seek to show how happiness and well-being can be brought to thousands of people. If attempts are made to introduce into this country propaganda of an offensive nature, having regard to the racial situation in this country, those books will be banned.

Were they not banned before the war? Why don’t you answer that question? You cannot.

Why do not my hon. friends over there talk about the Nazi system, under which the people are not allowed to listen to the B.B.C., and not allowed to form an independent judgment. [Interruptions.] Before I come to my final point, let me say …

You don’t dare reply to that question.

… let me say that if one analyses what has been said by the hon. member and his supporters, one cannot help wondering what the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) must have thought about all this. He has been sitting there quietly listening, and not giving any sign of approbation or disapprobation. One remembers his public expressions of opinion on the Communist and Bolshevik regime of the past. We remember, for instance, that in the days when the British Government, when Westminster did not look with approval on the Lenin and Trotsky regime; at that time the Bolshevics were good fellows as far as the hon. member was concerned. At Carnarvon in December, 1919, he said Communism had given freedom and self-government to many countries.

Where was that said?

That was said at Carnarvon. The hon. member said that Bolshevism had brought freedom to Poland, Finland and the Ukraine. The hon. member for Piquetberg, the Leader of the party which has raised this Red Bogey, said Communism had given freedom and self-government to many countries. Communism and Russia stood for the same cause as Nationalism! The hon. member was speaking in the words of his then leader. That was on December 4th, 1919, at Carnarvon.

What are you quoting from?

The hon. member was speaking in the same terms as the late Gen. Hertzog. The latter had said: “Bolshevism was the will of the people. Why was it attempted to kill Bolshevism, which meant death to Capitalism and Imperialism?” Gen. Hertzog added: “Do not let us become frightened of this thing. The idea in itself is excellent.” The hon. member for Piquetberg was repeating what was said by the late Gen. Hertzog, whose lieutenant he was. He was merely dotting the “i’s” and crossing the “t’s.” Not content with what he said at Carnarvon, he addressed a meeting at Vryburg in January, 1920. There again he took up the cudgels for Communism and said it stood for freedom, as did the Nationalist Party. Then the hon. member delivered a lecture at Graaff-Reinet to the Literary Society. There he praised Socialism, and later on he issued a pamphlet in which he said that Socialism stood for justice and establishing better wage conditions. Not only did he praise it highly, but he declared that Socialism had done Christianity a great service. These were his words—

Then the most interesting thing of all was that the hon. member for Piquetberg dealt with one of the works of Karl Marx, “Das Kapital.” The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) spoke about Karl Marx as one of the Jew-Communist intriguers. But the hon. member for Piquetberg said Karl Marx was distinguished by erudition, literary ability and competence, which placed him in the front rank of economists. That was the opinion of the hon. member on Karl Marx. Well, so much for these bogeys which are thrown up from the other side!

You dare not tell us what pamplet you are reading from.

Before I conclude, let me say, sir, that this is an attempt by the hon. members opposite to raise the Communist bogey, which is on all fours with an attempt which has been made by members of the Ossewa-Brandwag to cause a scare amongst the people. I had occasion some two years ago to intern a Union National. This Union National in June and July of 1940 was several times involved in disturbances during the noonday pause in Cape Town, and was embroiled in fighting between soldiers, sailors and civilians. Under the pretext of doing insurance business, he was a frequent visitor to the Military Camp at Wynberg, where he used to get in contact with soldiers who were not wearing the red tab. During a visit to the camp on Sunday, 20th July, 1941, just after Russia’s entry into the war, he invited two gunners and one or two others, who did not afterwards keep the appointment, to meet him in Cape Town late that night. These two met him and were taken to his car, which was parked on the Parade. They were shown a box full of small red placards or stickers bearing the symbol of the Hamer and Sickle, with the printed words calling on comrades to unite against the Nazi mad dog. This, sir, was a member of the Ossewa-Brandwag. He was engaged in seducing the members of our Union Defence Force, and getting them to assist in putting up these placards secretly. Subsequently one of these men quite rightly reported to the police, and the project failed. What was attempted to be done then is being attempted at the present time. There was an attempt to put up these placards in order to scare people. They wanted people to believe that there was a great danger, and that attempt was on all fours with the present attempt to scare the people; but it is going to have just as little success. There is no evidence at all to show that the so-called Communist Party in this country has been guilty of any subversive conduct. It would be idle to deny that some individuals, Europeans and nonEuropeans who label themselves perhaps as Communists, or wear some other label, have sought to use Russia’s participation in the war for their own ends. There are individuals who have done that, and are still doing it in order to create trouble between Europeans and non-Europeans. Wherever that is proved, the Government will act. The Government has acted in certain cases, and persons have been interned for doing that. The Government has had to take action in regard to non-Europeans, and the Government will take all steps necessary to ensure that the public security is maintained, whoever attempts to undermine it. In this regard the Government decided that it would establish an internment camp for non-Europeans, tor coloureds, natives and Indians. That camp is being opened at the present time, and persons who abuse the privileges of freedom which they have in this country, even though their methods are different from the usual Nazi methods, will be placed there. I sometimes wonder whether part of the attempt to stir up trouble amongst non-Europeans is not Nazi-inspired. There are a few persons interned at the present time, and others who come from Germany, and who call themselves refugees, who have been attempting to cause trouble amongst the natives. Evidence is accumulating to show that the Russian position is being used for Nazi purposes, but the Government is alive to these matters. The Government has seen this country through three and a half years of almost insuperable difficulties, and so long as it is in power and continues with the policy it is at present following, there is no reason to be scared by the polemics of the hon. members opposite. This Government is out to see this war through, and the peace as well, and to ensure the internal security of this country.

I think that this debate conducted here today, and where this is the third day on which it has been conducted, is certainly one of the most important and, in view of the circumstances of the country, one of the most realistic that has been conducted in this House, at least during this Session. Proof of this is inter alia that where this motion has been discussed on three separate days, even the Prime Minister agreed to give special facilities to it today. While it is important and actual, and I think that is generally acknowledged in this House, everyone will expect that not only ordinary members on both sides of the House, as also members of the Cabinet, shall participate in this debate, but that the voice of the Prime Minister will also be heard in connection with this matter. He, in the last resort is responsible for the administration of the country, and also for the safety of South Africa and of European and Christian civilisation in the country, in so far as the dangers that threaten us today are concerned. We have had replies on behalf of the Government from only two, let me say junior Ministers, and the quality of the speeches of those two Ministers justifies me in saying that it is necessary for the Prime Minister in the interest of his case and of the Government to come forward and save his case from their hands. There is a whole portion of the speech of the last Minister who has spoken that no-one in this House need treat seriously. It is the ordinary stuff we expect from him whenever he is on his feet. I can only say to the Minister, since a great deal of his speech had to do with that, that where he made sneering remarks about our party on this side—that he who bats must expect the ball. All I can say about him is this, that a rumour has been about for some time that even the Prime Minister is burdened by him in the Cabinet, and that the chances he has of remaining there are not very good. And if one listened to the quality of the speech he delivered here, then one can understand it. That Minister made a few observations here in connection with my standpoint towards Communism in the past. He quoted, or so he said, from a speech I delivered at Carnarvon in 1919. I am supposed to have glorified Communism on that occasion and to have said that it stands for freedom. I have not checked his quotation. All I can say is that it is necessary to check quotations from that side. We have had experience of this in the course of a good few years, and quotations are often employed in their pamphlets that are absolutely distorted, and not only that, but sometimes there is not an atom of truth in them. Unless I can check it properly I am not prepared to accept it. He said that I glorified Communism in 1919. I ask him if Communism, as we now know it, existed in Russia at that time? What I quite obviously meant, if I did say anything in that connection, was not Communism. Whatever the Russian Revolution was known for at that time, I obviously said that it caused the emancipation of various nations. That was perfectly correct. We had the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Russia decided to stop the war, and then as the result of the Revolution it agreed to give certain subsidiary countries their freedom, that is different small nations that previously stood under the heel of the Czar of Russia. What has this to do with the nature of Communism? It was simply an exposition of the results of the Revolution in Russia. He also gave a few quotations from a lecture I delivered in Graaff-Reinet. That was more or less in 1914, shortly after the outbreak of war. I understand from the hon. Minister of Labour that that lecture is obtainable in the Parliamentary Library in pamphlet form, and I shall be very glad if hon. members will read it for themselves. I challenge them to do so. To come and tell me that this is an extolling or an approval of the Communist system—that I leave to them to judge for themselves if they have read the pamphlet. I said on that occasion that Socialism has thrown a searchlight in different countries over the condition in which humanity finds itself, that that is a service rendered to humanity, and also a service rendered to Christianity, which also has as its object the upliftment of man as an individual and of the human community. What was wrong with that? I would still say that today. It was no lauding of Communism or Socialism. But let me say this to the hon. member. The whole point I made in that lecture was this, that whatever’ outward conformity some people may see between Socialism and Christianity there is one radical and penetrating difference, and the difference exists in the whole outlook and spirit of it. I made the remark in connection with Socialism that where Socialism is sometimes compared with the first Christianity, where a part of the community said at the time that we must have all things in common, the position is that the Christian says: All that is mine is yours. But the Socialist says: All that is yours is mine.

That is not so.

Now while I pointed to that radical difference, the Minister of the Interior now comes with a loose sentence here and there which he has plucked from its context, and he says that I acted there as the admirer of Socialism and Communism. The reply that was given by the more responsible Minister in connection with this matter, viz. the Minister of Justice, is the one to which I want to pay particular attention. You will not take it amiss if I say that that speech of his, and the reply that was given to the motion by the Minister of Justice, cannot be otherwise than simultaneously disappointing to the Prime Minister and all who follow him. I want to say that I did not want to do the Minister of Justice an injustice and therefore I did not want to go into the impression he made on me when I listened to his speech, and therefore I read through his whole speech again in Hansard and went into it carefully in order to become properly acquainted with its whole content. I must say that I have seldom heard such a superficial and frivilous statement on a serious subject such as this, with which South Africa has actually to contetnd. A large part of his speech consisted of nothing else than a disjointed rumble of words. The speech is his. At the end of his speech he moved an amendment that is not his, but that must give expression to the standpoint of the Government. It is the Government’s reply. It is the answer of that side of the House to the motion of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). It will perhaps be well to quote the amendment again—

I cannot describe this embodiment of the standpoint of the Government as anything but a hide-away amendment. It is a dodgeamendment. You run away from the actual danger to which this country is exposed, from the actual arguments employed on this side of the House. It is not only an amendment that shows very cleary that you are edging away from the real situation, but that you are running away from one of the most serious questions with which South Africa has ever had to do. It is nothing less than a proof that you dare not look the question that has been raised here by this motion, and the danger to which South Africa is exposed, squarely in the eye. Whatever the reason may be you are running away from it. You dare not look it squarely in the face. All I can say, where you crack the whip and you appeal as usual to the loyalty of your side, is that it shows a total lack of any realisation of the country’s problems and the country’s dangers. It shows that you as a party are more concerned about yourselves and your party interests than about the interests of the people. In view of that amendment and its whole character I would like to put this question in this House and outside the House: Do you possess no patriotism; do you possess no feeling of responsibility towards South Africa’s position and South Africa’s future? In this amendment the Minister comes forward and he compares this Communist danger on an equal footing with the general danger to which the country is exposed, viz., a contravention of law and order, from whatever side it may come, and he mentioned more particularly the sabotage that has taken place from time to time and that unfortunately still occurs here and there today. Now all I can say in connection with that is this: As regards that sabotage he knows quite well that it occurs sporadically. He knows quite well that so far as that sabotage is concerned the feeling of the country and not only the feeling of the country in general but so far as this House is concerned—the feeling of this side of the House is that we have guarded against it and declared ourselves unambiguously opposed to it.

Now that it has already been perpetrated.

Did you not yourself break the regulations? Did you not admit it? You said that you were now breaking the regulations and that the Government could now put you in a camp if it wanted to.

The breaking of regulations that ought not to exist is something different from undermining activities. If you make an attack on the Afrikaner as Afrikaner, if you commit an injustice against your side and you do so through emergency regulations, then I say that I am free to break those regulations.

And you said for that we could put you in the camp.

Yes. But as regards that sabotage, the Government itself does not view it as a great danger; in fact it views it as so small a danger that when subsidiaries are brought before the court and those subsidiaries say that they cut those wires, that they committed that sabotage in obedience to an instruction they got from others—and sometimes the names of others are mentioned—then the Minister does not even consider it worth while to investigate further who those others are who are more guilty and who have given those instructions. So little does he actually think of the seriousness of the danger of that sabotage. The accusation that was made here by the Minister who spoke last, that we on our side did not do our duty in connection with warnings against sabotage, against underground activities—that accusation reminds me of the incident we had here in the House, and in which that Minister who sits there also had his part, and a very important part, one of the most scandalous incidents that has ever taken place in this country or in this House, and that is because on occasion I considered it my duty, and did my duty, to warn our people against activities of that nature, then he seizes the opportunity, and with others, he comes here in the House and accuses me that I am the cause of those people being interned in the internment camps.

Shame.

It is one of the most scandalous episodes we have ever had in this House.

If you break the regulations yourself and you declare yourself guilty, then what does that mean?

I say that we must have a reply, not from junior Ministers; we must have a reply to this motion from the Prime Minister himself. The motion is worth it. The danger with which the country is confrontetd demands it of him, and we can expect it all the more from him because where the Minister of the Interior practically delivered a plea here this afternoon for Communism, because he practically defended Communism, there the Prime Minister has at least realised enough of the seriousness of the matter in the country, and where he had an interview with the deputations from the English churches—there he at least gave an inkling—no, he actually said in so many words that we have to do here with a matter that is an increasing danger for South Africa. The Minister of Justice who is chiefly responsible in connection with this matter—I am now dealing more particularly with the replies we have received from the side of the Government benches—has called the whole matter put forward by this side of the House in connection with Communist propaganda, spook stories.

He looked into the mirror and saw a spook there.

What I want to ask in this connection is: Does the hon. Minister not know that for years and years and after the revolution that took place in Russia, countries—a considerable number of countries—but more particularly countries such as England and America, severed all diplomatic relations with Russia, and so far as America is concerned, these relations were not restored before this war started. Did England and America, where they studied the Communist danger properly and became acquainted with it, where they sat in greater safety as regards their internal conditions against Communist propaganda than South Africa with its great nonEuropean population, did they, when they would not adopt diplomatic relations with Russia, also see spooks? Was all that of no significance? Were they not serious about the matter? We cannot accept that for a single moment.

You and I co-operated with the Communists.

Where was that? So little does the hon. Minister know about that self-same organisation to which he belongs. He apparently means our co-operation with the Labour Party.

And the Communists in the Labour Party.

Does he not know that the Labourites stand for it that they do not want Communists in their party?

Now, but not then.

I do not think the hon. Minister was awake. He did not know what was going on. The Communists and the Labourites in South Africa were two separate organisations, and two organisations that were fighting each other.

Not at the time when we had that agreement.

Now, tell us who were Communists and who were Labourites.

The organisation was full of them.

Mention us a few names.

We now come nearer home, near South Africa itself—spook stories! Has there ever been a time in the whole history of South Africa when there was so much agitation among the non-European population? And has that agitation among the non-European population simply originated from nothing, without them having any leaders, without them having incitors? Did the hon. Minister of Labour not tell us in this House in reply to a question put to him that of late there had been no fewer than 37 separate strikes among natives? Is the hon. Minister unaware of the fact that meetings of Communists—held in the biggest meeting halls of cur country, such as Cape Town and Johannesburg—are being perpetually held and that hostility is being revealed not only towards the capitalist system as such, but towards the policy that has been pursued in this country for years and years, the fixed policy of the country, and that hostility is being revealed from the Communist standpoint, a standpoint of equality with the white man as such. Is he unaware of this? Communism is a danger to the world in general; Nazism is the bulwark thrown up by the German Empire against Communism; it is a danger to Western Europe; if that bulwark falls away then Western Europe will be overrun. But if Communism is a danger to the world it is a much greater danger to a country such as South Africa with its great non-European population and particularly with its great native population. The Communists in Russia have long since seen this and for that reason they are concentrating on South Africa, more particularly on that section of the population. The whole economic system of the natives is Ccmmunistic. The native knows no personal private ownership of land. His land belongs to the tribe. It is joint ownership. A great proportion of the native population are landless. They belong to the working class, and for that reason they are a fruitful field for the propaagnda, the deadly propaganda of the Communists. And if there are great things at stake as a result of Communist propaganda in other parts of the world, then in South Africa not only that is at stake, but also the continued existence of the white race and the survival of white civilisation. For this reason this motion is not only very important, but it is also of actual interest for South Africa. Now, just a word about the standpoint taken up by the other side of the House, by the hon. Minister and others who participated in the debate. A tendency has been revealed, particularly by the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens. (Mr. Long), who participated in the debate today, to judge gently on Communism, a gentle judgment than they themselves expressed earlier. The hon. member went so far as to say that in essence—I think those were more or less his words—there is no tangible difference between Communism and Christianity. And the reason he gave is this: There is only one difference; where both desire to improve the destiny of humanity, there Christianity seeks an improvement in the destiny of mankind in the life hereafter, while Communism is more practical, and seeks the improvement of mankind in this world. That is in effect what he says. All I want to ask him is this: Does he do justice to Christianity in the first place? Is it right to come here and say that Christianity seeks an improvement of the destiny of mankind only hereafter, and that Christianity has really nothing to do with the destiny of humanity in this world? Does he know nothing of the history of Christianity? Does he know nothing of the fact that it is Christian principles that have led to the emancipation of the slaves? Does he know nothing of the fact that Christianity not only preaches mercy of man towards man, but that Christianity also demands justice as regards man towards man? There is no power in this world today, and there never has been, a power in the world that has done so much for the improvement of the lot of humanity than Christianity. Now, the hon. member says that Christianity does not fulfil the requirements that exist; Christianity cares for the requirements of man only in the life hereafter; it has to do only with the world hereafter, but the other differs in spirit. I have already given this reply in answer to the Minister of the Interior, and it is, viz., this: The spirit of Christianity is that “what is mine is yours”, and the spirit of the Socialist is “what is yours is mine.” That is the spirit on the two sides that differs as far as the two poles are apart. Well, everyone knows that Christianity is based on belief in God, and in the character of God. Socialism, Communism, is based on the grossest materialism that has ever been preached in this world, and therefore by its very nature Communism is anti-religious. No less a person than Karl Marx, the prophet of Socialism and Communism, used this expression in one of his works, “Religion is the Opium of the People”. Away with religion because religion tries to make mankind satisfied and happy. He is essentially anti-religious. Now, hon. members—there is a whole series of them who did it—come with this argument: You speak of the Russia that was; we have nothing to do with the Russia that was, but we have to do with Russia as she is today, and Russia has undergone a radical change in the past few years. I do not know if the hon. members have really studied Communism and understand what it is in its basic principles. I want to summarise it briefly, and then I want to put the question whether Russia has changed one iota or tittle. The first doctrine of Communism is this: That there must be only one class in the human community, just one class. It is usually expressed as follows: They strive after the dictatorship of the Proletariat; Communism is a wrong appellation. I do not even know if Russia uses that name. The real thing, the kernel of their whole standpoint, is dictatorship of the Proletariat. They recognise only the Proletariat, and they want to give only the Proletariat power. That must govern the country, and no other Power and no other class.

You yourself stood for it.

Number two is this: There must not be such a thing as private ownership. The third is that it is anti-religious—not only negatively, but positively anti-religious. The fourth is this: Communism is aggressive in its whole being and its entire action; the method it follows is the method of revolution. The fifth point is this: It stands for the equality of all races and colours, no matter under what circumstances. I want to recapitulate these points one by one, and to ask if Russia has changed in connection with the basic principles of the Communist doctrine. The first is: One class, and the second is that there must be no private posessions. [Extension of time allowed]. We do not have to appeal to one or other who has visited Russia and who has given his impressions; how deeply that investigation has gone, no one can say; the only authoritative judgement we can get is from the Russian Constitution itself. That is authoritative, not so? Clause 2 of the Russian Constitution, the U.S.S.R.—that has not been altered—reads as follows—

Where is the Premier Stalin now?

Here we still have clearly in the Constitution of the Soviet Union a dictatorship of the Proletariat. The third Clause reads—

They must have all power in their hands. The fifth Clause, relating to private ownership, reads—

In connection herewith the following Clause—

That is the official constitution of the Soviet Union, not only as it existed, but as it exists today.

What about your Premier Stalin now?

We now come to the anti-religious standpoint of the Soviet Union. It is a matter of great interest here in South Africa. The State here in South Africa, if I understand it rightly, is not irreligious; this House has incorporated in the Constitution of the Union recognition of the supreme authority of Almighty God. Why? Because there it was recognised that the State in South Africa is a religious State, and that it recognises the supreme authority of God in our national life. Now you get this with the Communists: I want to quote here also from someone who has visited Russia. It is a book that was published at the beginning of the war, but shortly before the beginning of the war this visit was brought to the Soviet Union, and there a thorough investigation was instituted by the person. I think he was an American. A thorough investigation was instituted into various aspects of the position in Russia. In connection with religion, it is said—

That is the law in Russia. And then it goes on—

Tell us what the position in Germany is.

The hon. Minister now seeks refuge in flight. All I can say is that he cannot mention one single case where a single church in Germany has been destroyed. I am no advocate of Nazism, but I say that Nazism is not a destroyer of religion, whatever may be said of certain aspects of its doctrine. There we now have a clear picture of what is going on in Russia in the sphere of religion. This book appeared shortly after the outbreak of war, but now hon. members on the other side, simply because this is now a war in which it is in the interests of England that Russia should win it for her, come forward with the allegation that Russia has undergone a radical change in this short space of time. The other point in the doctrine of Communism is that it acts aggressively. Some hon. members on the other side of the House have tried to make us believe that the aggressive action on the part of Russia and of Communism no longer exists. I would like to quote from the same book of the American who paid a visit to Russia. Listen to what he says in connection with this point—

Then he goes further and says this—

Who wrote that?

This book was published after the outbreak of the war, but the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens (Mr. Long) said that he was reading out to us quotations written later, and the Minister of the Interior also read quotations. He quoted from the same book that I now have in my hand, but it does not suit his purpose to read what I am now going to read. It is an interview with Stalin himself during the war. Here it is—

Stalin says he is sorry that he did not take the necessary steps in 1931 to make Germany Communistic. Then he goes further—

And now he comes to France and England, and this is what he says—

That is Lenin. And further—

That is the book and it appeared during the war. That is the same book from which the Minister of the Interior quoted, and what I quoted was an interview that took place with Stalin, in which he set out his object. I will not go further. I only want to explain that Russia, that Communism, is still as aggressive as ever, and if it now takes the standpoint for the moment that, it is not going to interfere with the internal affairs of other countries, then it is simply because for the time being it does not suit him. But the war has also gradually changed the position for Russia and for Stalin, and the further the war progresses one sees the ideas that were at the back of Stalin’s head, emerging again. As a result of the fact that Russia is becoming the saviour—the saviour certainly in the mind of Stalin—of Europe, of England, and of America, we see that Stalin is gradually beginning to act aggressively again. We see it in his whole attitude towards the other Allied Powers. If they have a discussion at Casablanca, even though Russia is one the Allies, then he does not go there. He knows that whatever they may decide there, they must come hat in hand to him, and they also concluded by singing a hymn of praise to Russia and the Russian system and the Red Army. He can wait, and he is busy—one sees it by his whole attitude—to impress the idea on all humanity that he is the saviour of England and of America, and of Western Europe. That is his intention. Do you now understand why he perpetually insists on the opening of a second front? It is not always because he considers the opening of a second front so important from a military point of view. He represents the matter as if this is so, but he insists on the opening of a second front because he wants to create the impression: “You are leaving me in the lurch, you are not doing your duty, or if you are doing your duty you are too weak to save me or to save yourselves; it is Russia that is saving you.” The whole idea is that he now wants to pave the way for his propaganda to make the world Communistic. That is the position today. I have said enough previously about the dangers that are threatening us here in South Africa as a result of Communism with its doctrine of equality and of the destruction of everything for which the Voortrekkers stood, the destruction of the whole policy that this country has followed for years, particularly in view of the position of the white races. I only want to say this: We are standing before great problems in the country. There are the race problems. The relation between white and white in the country is already a serious problem, and because South Africa has been dragged into the war, this problem has become much more serious with us. We stand before a position of economic exhaustion as we have never had in our whole history, an exhaustion that makes it impossible to do what should be done to improve the living conditions of our people. It is a serious problem. It is often said that if Japan should win the war, or should land troops here in South Africa and occupy the country, then that would be a catastrophe. Of course, it would be a catastrophe. It would be a catastrophe that I cannot but compare with the catastrophe that overtook a great part of Europe at the conquest of Southern Europe by the Moors, when a non-European race brought a European race to its fall. But there the non-European race was ultimately thrown out of Europe. If Japan should occupy South Africa, then we realise that the foreign Power will also have to relinquish its hold on South Africa ultimately, and on Africa. That danger has often been used here as a bogey, but if it should happen it would be a catastrophe of the first magnitude. But I say this to you: A greater catastrophe than the one I have mentioned here will occur when here inside our own boundaries the non-European population, who number so many more millions than the European races, continue to preach what they are now openly preaching in the Cape Town City Hall, where they are demanding equality in every respect with the Europeans, and if necessary to obtain this through force of arms. If this must go on and develop under Communistic leadership and Communistic influence then it will be a catastrophe for South Africa of unprecedented magnitude, greater than anything that has ever struck us or that can ever strike us in the future. I do not like to make all sorts of prophecies, but I want to say to you that I cannot’ see how anything else can happen in South Africa if this development continues than the shedding of blood in the future, not as between white and white man, but blood between white man and non-European in the country. For that reason I am glad that the motion has been introduced here, and that we have had the discussion in the House, and, in spite of what the other side says, we shall proceed on the same lines in warning the country. It is necessary that the country should awake, and that the country should awake before it is too late.

I am very glad the hon. member has at last sat down. I was beginning to think he would never finish.

And I am sorry you ever began.

The hon. member has quoted from books, of which there have been thousands written about Russia, and I take my stand on that which was read by the hon. Minister of the Interior, because I know it is the case that there is absolute freedom of religions in Russia.

I will give you something else later on.

He has been to Russia, and you have not.

Russia has always been on the border line of Christianity. Great writers and thinkers in Russia up to a century ago and later, were, whether we like it or not, practically all atheists. That being the case, religion there must be regarded from a totally different angle from other countries. The hon. member who introduced this motion so smothered his introduction with quotations, that if you take them out there is really very little left, and is is very difficult to get at the hon. gentleman’s meaning.

Ask him to speak in Irish next time.

I am ignoring you for the moment. No country in the world has issued so many publications during the last twenty or twenty-five years as Russia, and if the hon. member had come to me I could have given him something much more damning of Russia than he has produced. It would not be true, of course, but that would not matter. This all means that these quotations are all quite valueless. I think the hon. member has shown bad taste—he will know what that is—in his references to the Friends of the Soviet Union. I did not know much of them until quite recent times, but I will say that they have rendered magnificent service during this war.

Making propaganda; that is their chief object.

Well, I should give it another name. I have seen greater liberality amongst this small body of people than I have seen amongst our own people. Therefore I think to brush them aside and despise them, as the hon. gentleman did, is very wrong. I believe that the people of this country, like myself, do appreciate what the Friends of the Soviet Union have done, and I am glad to be able to bear testimony to their great efforts. Then the hon. gentleman has had something to say to the Dean of Canterbury. The Dean of Canterbury, of course, wrote that book; it is a great book, “The Sixth of the World.” Whether you agree with it or not, it is a worthy effort. Now, the hon. member said in effect that he was taken by the Russians on a free trip, he was taken on one of these conducted tours, with the result that he only saw what they wanted him to see. I say that a statement like that is unworthy. But it goes further than that. Over all these long years I have heard people say: “The Russians show you what they want you to see—Communism shows you what it wants you to see.”

They don’t show you the shooting, for instance.

Well, it is not true. I shall give hon. members the evidence which not only I myself had, but those accompanying me also had: We were not guests, no one knew us from a crow, the only official thing I did was to call on the British Ambassador. I shall tell the hon. member this, that we travelled from East to West; we travelled from the North to the South of the Ukraine; we went to every city of importance; we went to every slum—and there were many of them; we went to the great factory of Herschoff, which has since made the hon. member sit up with its munitions, and I know of no place where we could not go.

Did you go to the concentration camps?

The only place where we could not go was the Kremlin. That was explained to us—owing to a visitor having shot a member of the Government there the place was closed.

Did you travel alone, or were you on a Cook’s tour?

Now, it is desirable that this should be known. People think that Russia has some device of hiding the true state of affairs. It is not so. I have given the evidence which causes me to know that it is not so. It is my personal evidence. Now, I want to make one or two statements. And the first thing I want to say is that a bad Government lasting for any length of time can bring about Communism. You could bring Communism to this country after ten years of bad Government, with perfect ease. Russia at one time was the greatest slave country in the world. It is within the recollection of many of us that fifty thousand starving Russians went to Petersburg to appeal for more land. The petition asked that more land should be given “to fill our children’s bellies with something”. What happened? In front of the Winter Palace 10,000 of these people were shot down, and today you see a monument there which will tell you the whole story of that. And when Tsar Nicolas was married he met a deputation on his wedding day which asked him that the law should be applied to the nobles as well as to the workers. What was his reply? And here you see the cause of Communism: Be it known to all men that I intend to preserve the autocracy maintained by my father, and that meant condemning millions of Russians to starvation and to death during his reign. I am as sure as I am of anything that what I have related is true. Now, it is a statistical fact that more citizens of Russia passed over to Siberia in the last twenty years of Tsarism, than in the 20 years following. It is true that many purges and executions took place. When the white guards surrendered at the Kremlin Russia was free. Yes, free, but poor. Russia had nothing. Russia’ had been built up from nothing, and among its people were not only many nobles and grand dukes, but there were all the isms which opposed Lenin and Marxism There were large numbers of executions. Purges did take place, and because of that, what have you today? You have unquestionably Russia which is a hundred per cent. Russian. I know that that is so. The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) told us the other day of the purges which have taken place. That is perfectly true. Now, there is a new Russia and that is where Communism comes in. There was no Communism under the Tsar. There was no Communism when you had these poor people in their thousands at Petrograd shot down because they asked for something. There was no Communism when it was announced that autocracy which meant starvation to the people would be continued. The earliest thing I can remember is Lord Salisbury appointing a Commission to enquire into the position of the Irish tenantry. They were in a very bad way. That Commission reported—and I have it in my mind how—they said the Irish tenantry were the worst fed, the worst housed and the worst clothed people in the world except the Russians. God only knows what the Russians were like in those days. That is something we cannot get away from. Their lives have been terrible for countless years. I saw Moscow—it is a great city. It may not be so beautiful but it is a great City. I arrived there and left and came back again a few months later, and I found Moscow springing up and building as never anywhere in the world before. What was it for? The greatest possible efforts were being made to put up buildings there to get the people out of the slums. The breath of freedom had come to them. I was there from the middle of 1935 to the end of the year, and what strikes one is this, I am not a Communist, but it grows on you. You find no one out of work, you find no one looking for work. No one’s hungry, no one begging.

Are you sure you are not a Communist?

I am going that way a bit perhaps. You find no one hungry I was there for about five months and I never saw one man drunk. It was almost pathetic. I remember giving an address in about 1936 and I said one thing which I thought this new liberty gave r— this new freedom gave—was freedom from fear and freedom from anxiety. That was the great thing. I think those who have seen it can realise what it meant. That is the great thing in Russia today. It is not that their bellies are filled, but they were relieved from anxiety and to me it is peculiar that in this social security code we are using the same phrase as that which was given under the U.S.S.R. rule. I remember going to a great concert in the Red Banner Hall in Moscow and I heard such music there as only belongs to Russia and during that evening one man was brought forward who was born in a slum and he said in the days of the Tsar: “I had meat never more than once a year, now I have meat twice a week, and I am hoping to get into our new quarters next year.” The whole hope of these people was to get to the new quarters. Well, all that has been stopped by Hitler’s attack. And I feel today that to look upon these beautiful buildings, higher than anything in Johannesburg or Cape Town—I suppose today they have been raised to the ground but to look upon these buildings was to create new hope for the people who had lived in slums all their lives. That was the hope of those people, that was their outlook, to get into their new buildings. And the second hope they had was to have twenty years of peace. A good friend of mine who used to be Chairman of the Arop Company said to me: “Give us twenty years peace and Russia will be great, and Russia’s people will be housed.” Well, that was in 1935. There is no question that their one fear was an attack by capitalists, and of course, it was an attack by Germany which they were afraid of. And their fear has been proved well founded. And look at the loyalty of these people.

Didn’t Russia go to war before Germany attacked them?

There is a loyalty in Russia, which one cannot fail to appreciate. Now, on one occasion when I was there I was in the great Comintern Hall in Moscow and I saw these words there: “We don’t want one foot of territory belonging to any other nation, but we shall defend that which belongs to ourselves.”

What about Finland and Lithuania?

Those words were written in English. Does the hon. member who introduced this motion want to tell me that this is all humbug, and let me just say this: that Russia was perfectly justified in acting as she did—she saw that Finland was associating with Hitler. When you sup with the Devil you must have a long spoon. I can quite understand the Russians doing anything to save themselves. They realised that the beast of Europe would attack them later, and what they did was done to save themselves and they had every right to do what they did. Russia presents a strange spectacle to us. When I got there and I saw the way things were going it looked to me like 200 million people all dealing with one shop. There is no bargaining, there are no middlemen and there are no distributors—they are all gone—and there are no lawyers.

And there is no Henderson & Co. there.

It is a new creation and do not let us lightly condemn that great undertaking. For the people of Russia it is a new Heaven and a new Earth. Any country has the right to say that there will be no private ownership of property if it wishes to do so. I don’t believe in it myself—I have a little property myself of course, but I cannot withhold my admiration from Russia. It has brought about a wonderful improvement in the condition of these people. And the heroic actions of the Red Army are characteristic of the new spirit that pervades Russia. I believe myself that Russia the new Russia will be a new country, which will enter into a new world with the other nations of the world, and as years roll on Russia will become greater and greater.

If there was ever evidence of what danger Communism has already become in South Africa, and to what extent it has already grown, then we have that evidence in the speech of the hon. members on the other side. I am not speaking so much of the speech of the Minister of the Interior. He has delivered his praise of Communism. That is what we expected from him. But what surprised me, was that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson), a man with experience and for whom we can have respect, made a speech here to give the House the impression that everything is Canaan in Russia; everything that Russia has done, all the crimes that she has committed, make no difference. Her invasion of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Bessarabia, make no diffrence. Unfortunately the hon. member’s memory is very short. When Russia attacked Finland Stalin was described here as the biggest bit of dirt, as a scoundrel, as a murderer. The English newspapers protested against him and against Russia. Now the reason is given: Yes, but he was then associated with Hitler. If the moon were to stop shining, then those friends would attribute it to Hitler. The position is this. It is a question of fact that Russia attacked Finland and Poland in spite of what Germany expected. To say that Hitler inspired it, is nonsense, and we do not expect this from a member like the hon. member for Hospital.

The hon. member must withdraw that word.

I cannot hear; what word must I withdraw.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “nonsense.”

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it not permissible for an hon. member to say that another hon. member is talking nonsense. Perhaps you did not quite understand the word in its ordinary use in Afrikaans. The word “onsin” means “nonsense,” and if we are not allowed to say that hon. members are talking nonsense, then it would be very difficult for us to describe most of the speeches.

The hon. member may continue.

The hon. member tried to describe to us what prosperity and what a heaven exists in Russia. He says that Russia has made great progress, that there is no starvation, and that the conditions under which the people live have been greatly improved. He visited Russia in 1936.

He said that he saw it there.

What the hon. member says here now supports the contention that I want to make, and which I want to prove. They show the visitor just what they want to show him. I want to quote to the hon. member something written by a person who is not pro-Hitler. It is the American journalist, Ralph Ingersoll. He is a prominent journalist in America, and he wrote a book about Russia after a tour which he made through Russia some months ago. He is an American journalist, and he can therefore not be regarded as pro-Hitler and anti-Russian. What he writes here, also applies as an answer to my hon. friends on my left, who usually are inclined in their speeches to indicate that our natives are treated so badly and that we in South Africa should bring about the conditions that exist in Russia. What does Ingersoll tell us about the wages of the Russian worker? I quote from page 151 of his book—

He tells us the following, that the Russian rouble at that time was quoted at a rate of 120 roubles to the pound. In other words, the Russian worker received £1 10s. a month. The hon. member told us here what beautiful buildings were being erected in Russia, especially in Moscow. What does Ingersoll say about living conditions in Russia? Or let me first tell what he says about general conditions in Russia. He writes this—

The hon. member said that no one in Russia went hungry. Certainly, you can fill your stomach with black bread and cabbage, but is that a civilised standard of living? Ingersoll continues and says this—

I repeat that this book was written some months ago. It was written in 1942. He goes further and says in connection with housing conditions—

He gives this significant example of the domestic conditions in Moscow—

Those are the conditions that are found in Russia. I merely quoted it here to show that everything is not so lovely in the garden as hon. members would like to make out. The impression which hon. members on the other side create, and the mentality they have revealed, reminds me of what Mr. Churchill said some years ago in an interview with an American periodical, the well-known periodical “Life”. In that interview they asked him whether he was willing to co-operate with Stalin. And what was his answer? He said that he would rather co-operate with the devil if he could save the British Empire. That is just what those hon. members are doing. They will co-operate with the devil if only they can save Britain.

What is wrong with that?

The hon. member gives away the whole secret. They will sacrifice everything, and they will even sacrifice the whole of South Africa, if they can assist Britain. We, however, are not prepared to do this. Then I want to pause for a moment with what the hon. Minister of the Interior said. I do not think that it is worth while taking too much notice of the speech which the hon. Minister has made here, but I want to say this in all seriousness that the speech that he has made is definitely proof of how far the Communist danger has penetrated not only in the country but even in this House. In 1926 this House passed legislation to combat Communist propaganda in South Africa. To-day we find that a Minister of the Crown gets up and makes a plea for Russia and for Communism such as Stalin himself could not make. I am convinced that the local Communists will be very satisfied with the Minister, and that they will certainly send him an invitation to the dance to which they refer in the newspapers. I am certain that the Minister will be the guest of honour at that dance, and I just want to remind the House that there will be no colour bar at that dance. The fact that South Africa is participating in this war has already demanded great sacrifices from South Africa and I want to say with emphasis today that one of the greatest sacrifices that has been asked from us, is to give our approval to the attitude which the Government adopts towards Communism, an attitude which in the future will yet have fateful consequences for South Africa. We are not saying this now for the first time. I am speaking now essentially for the group of which I am a member. We are not saying it now, as the Minister has expressed it, because we have found an election cry; we have already issued our first anti-Communist publication 18 months ago. Then already we issued our first warning against the Communist danger. To say now that this warning against the threatening danger of Communism is an election cry, is simply nonsense. A question that is often put to us across the floor of the House is this: Why did you not criticise Russia when Russia was not in the war, when there was a sort of understanding between Russia and Germany. My answer to that is this: in the first place we on this side of the House did not regard it necessary to inveigh against Russia, because members on the other side of the House themselves did so good and properly. As I have already said before, and no one can deny it a Russia that is actively in the war is quite a different problem from a Russia that is outside the war. Today Russia is taking active part in this war, while she had an agreement with Germany, she was not in the same danger as she has become now. Here is a third reason why we did not warn against a Russian danger: If Russia succeeds in winning the war—we do not believe that she will do so—then Germany will be conquered in such a manner that she will have absolutely no say in Europe after the war, and Communist influence will overrun the whole of Europe. America and Britain will not be in a position to oppose the Communist danger, while if Russia had remained neutral, Germany after the war would be able to serve as a bulwark in Eprope against the spreading of Communism. For this reason we emphasise the Communist danger today. I have indicated that Communist propaganda is not only being made by Ministers today, but that it has a free hand in the country. Inciting speeches are being made all over the country; the Government is apparently powerless to suppress them, and then the Minister comes here with an amendment which we can describe as nothing less than that it reveals the greatest criminal negligence, not only that, but is an amendment which definitely proclaims an untruth. I will give evidence of this. The amendment has already been read by the hon. Leader of the Opposition and I will not do so again. In the first place the amendment says that we must express our disapproval of all forms of hooliganism and lawlessness. I assume that Communistic lawlessness is also included. If this is the case, is the Miniser going to make an effort to put an end to it, or is he simply going to leave it at the amendment. Is it merely going to remain at an expression of disapproval, or is the Minister going to take steps against that propaganda, or is he going to simply let it remain at the motion: I ask if nothing more drastic will be done than merely accepting this motion. If the Minister of the Interior is of the opinion that the passing of that amendment is going to put an end to the propaganda that is being conducted, he is going to make a big mistake. To tell the truth, the Communist propagandists in South Africa are simply ridiculing the Minister. On what gounds do I say this? Since that amendment was proposed, two Communist meetings have been held in Cape Town—many other Communist meetings have been held, but I want to speak about the two meetings held in Cape Town of which I know. The one was held last Tuesday night. There a certain Mr. Sachs definitely made an inciting speech, if one can accept what one reads in the newspapers. He not only made an inciting speech, but he definitely pleaded for social as well as political equality. Last night another meeting was held at Wynberg, at which Europeans as well as non-Europeans were present. A certain Sam Kahn addressed the meeting. He pleaded for non-European condidates for Parliament. He pressed for equality between European and non-European; the arming of non-Europeans, and allowances for children of non-Europeans, and equal promotion. This was part of his plea. This is a speech that was made last night at Wynberg. A certain woman also spoke. She not only made an inciting speech, but she said things that were definitely blasphemous. She referred to the achievements of the Red Army. Someone asked her what would happen if the Red Army were beaten. Someone in the audience thereupon said: “God help us.” To this the woman said: “I do not depend too much on God; He has left us in the lurch in the past and He will again leave us in the lurch in the future.” That is the kind of speech that is made, and then the Minister comes along and asks us to accept a motion in which the House merely expresses its disapproval. Merely to express disapproval will not help in any way. What is the effect of this kind of speech, especially on our coloured people and the native population of South Africa. What is the effect? Let me quote a letter that I have here. I have received several letters but here is a letter I have received from a man in my constituency. I can give the Minister the assurance that he is a reliable man. He writes:—

This is the position we find on the platteland today. [Laughter.] Hon. members may laugh but it is so. It is a result of the sort of propaganda that is allowed by the Minister of Justice. I said here that the amendment of the Minister propounds a barefaced lie and I will prove it. He said this is his amendment: We must express our thanks to the Government for the manner in which it has maintained order. I say that these meetings that are being held here are definitely in conflict with the law of the country. I want to quote here from the law in regard to riotous meetings. What does that law say—Act No. 19 of 1930? Article One (4) reads as follows—

1. (a) By the assembly of any public gathering in any place to which the public has access; or
2. (b) If a particular person were to attend such a gathering,

Then the article continues and says further what the Minister can do. The Minister says that we must confirm that he is doing everything in his power to maintain law and order. I ask the Minister now, I ask this House whether these Communist meetings can be reconciled with that article? Or let me put it like this: Will the Minister for a single moment claim that feelings of hospility are not being aroused between Europeans and non-Europeans by the speeches that are made at those meetings? At those meetings even his own leader has been abused. Is it acceptable, can one believe that no trouble can be created where a plea is made for the equality of Europeans and non-Europeans, where the natives are told that they are being threatened with general extermination, that they are being threatened with exploitation, and that they are threatened with oppression. Is that not creating trouble between Europeans and non-Europeans? Is that not in contravention of the law? Then the Minister asks us here to give our approval that he has maintained law and order in the country.

He is a member of the Society of the Friends of the Soviet Union.

If he is a member of the Soviet Union then one can understand everything. He will not place an obstacle in the way of his friends. As I have already said at the beginning of my speech I am convinced, as the hon. leader of the Opposition has also emphasised that if this kind of propaganda is allowed, it is going to have far-reaching and malicious results in South Africa. The Minister must realise that if this sort of propaganda is made amongst the natives, it will yield bitter fruits. I associate myself entirely with what the hon. leader of the Opposition said, that it will eventually appear that only bloodshed will be able to eliminate the evil that is being sown. The tragedy of the whole state of affairs is this, and with this I want to conclude, that the Minister of Justice and his leader are getting old; they will not be there for long; in five or ten years time they will disappear from the scene, but the seed that they are sowing today will be reaped by posterity. They simply shrug their shoulders; so long as they can achieve their immediate aim they are satisfied, but what the result of the policy is going to be for posterity, of this they do not concern themselves. If we allow this sort of propaganda to be made amongst the natives, it must sooner or later lead to a very serious clash between the Europeans and the non-Europeans in South Africa.

Hon. members on the opposite side have not touched upon any new points that were not covered by the lenthy statement of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) some weeks ago. The hon. member who has just spoken, criticised what was a very interesting and very inspiring speech by the hon. member for Hospital Hill (Mr. Henderson), who spoke from personal knowledge of conditions that exist in the Soviet Union. The member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) quoted: Mr. Ingersoll, a very good journalist who went to Russia in 1942, to show that the economic conditions were not very satisfactory there, and were in fact very bad. I am one of the first to admit that conditions there are not satisfactory, and I think no one on this side will suggest that Russia is today a paradise, nor are we compelled to face that issue. The fact is, and I think even hon. members on the other side will admit, whatever literature they read, that conditions in the Soviet Union, economically, have improved by hundreds per cent. to what they were in the days of the Tzar. That was really the point that was being made by the hon. member for Hospital Hill. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) in an eloquent and bloodcurdling speech, made the points that he opposed Communism because it stood for collective ownership and with it the end of exploitation of the many by the few neither of which will appeal to the poor whites and landless people of South Africa. I wonder how many of them would be interested? What have they to lose? What they want is to be freed from the grip that capitalism and the big landowners have upon them; what they want is to deprive the rich man and the landowner of the power to exploit them. There is another aspect of this matter, which the Minister of the Interior has already touched upon. The hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) has unsuccessfully attempted to answer it. I refer to the time when Communism suddenly became a menace to South Africa. How is it that from August, 1919, until the 22nd June, 1941, that is to say, during the whole of the period of the Hitler-Stalin pact, there was no talk of this menace of Communism? We never heard a word in those days of warning to anybody about the menace of Communism. I will tell you why. Our friends on the other side were not really concerned with Communism; they were really concerned with a victory for Germany; they were really the mouthpiece, consciously or unconsciously, of Zeesen and Hitler. Directly Hitler instructed the Press of Germany to stop its attack on Communism, our friends opposite also stopped. I have’ in front of me an article which appeared in “Die Burger” on the 2nd October, 1942, and in that article occurs the following passage—

Since when has “Die Burger” been written in English?

I am reading it in English because my pronunciation of Afrikaans is even worse than that of the hon. Minister of Railways. The article goes on, and I do not wish to inflict it upon the aesthetic ears of our friends opposite—

But for the fact that Nazism stands in danger of being wiped out, I doubt very much whether we would have heard much about this menace of Communism. Our business is to examine whether it is a menace to South Africa. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has given the House a number of quotations which were based on the conditions which existed in the early days of the Soviet, when the Soviet believed in world-wide revolution. But, as the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Long) pointed out, a complete change has come over the whole position, and it has been shown conclusively that the idea of Stalin was not a world-wide revolution, but to deal merely with the situation so far as Russia was concerned. The situation would be very much more serious if Germany should happen to be victorious; Russia has no interest in Africa, but Germany and Italy have a very definite interest in the African Continent, and Japan in the Indian Ocean and in the Pacific Ocean. The menace to the Union would not come if the Allies were victorious, but if Germany should be victorious. The menace would come from Germany, Italy, and from Japan, as we all know only too well. Russia with the other United Nations is bound by the Atlantic Charter, and there is also this fact to be borne in mind, that Russia over a period of years has shown her desire to honour her obligations, obligations, which, as the hon. member for Gardens has told us, are definitely laid down in her treaty with Great Britain. There is one other point I wish to mention. The hon. member for Beaufort West, quite unnecessarily, mentioned a number of Jews in this country who were Communists, and he spoke of the efforts, which he alleged were being made by the Communists, with whom he associated the Jews, towards bringing about a world revolution. I wish to say at once that I do not stand for revolution; I believe in gradualism; I am opposed to revolution; at the same time, I want to say this—that I want to congratulate other members on the Opposition benches in not associating themselves with the hon. member for Beaufort West and not following his example, in introducing the racial element into this debate. In this connection I wish to draw the attention of the House to the objective article which appears in “Die Burger” from which I have already quoted in which the writer says this:

Now there is an objective article written by someone who knows and admits the position, and I hope the hon. member for Beaufort West will follow the lead of the hon. member for Piquetberg and of other hon. members who have spoken and deal with the matter from an objecive point of view, and not with the object of creating racial prejudice, because there he is again following the policy of the Nazis. Again for his benefit, I want to quote from the same article in “Die Burger.”

You seem to be reading “Die Burger” rather regularly.

I do, I always want to see what the Opposition have to say: this is what the article says:

Our friends over there speak about “Britse Joodse Imperialisme” and of “Joodse Kommunisme.” That is what has been done by the hon. member for Beaufort West. He takes a number of issues which have nothing to do with each other, he lumps them together in one issue and tries to frighten the public. I take one other point, the bogey of godlessness. I need hardly say to this House that the Jewish people are the founders of Religion as we know it today in the world, that the Jewish people still; with very few exceptions, stand for the principle of Godliness and religion. The hon. member suggests that Communism is opposed to Godliness. The Minister of the Interior nas already read to him from the Constitution of the Soviet Republic a statement, showing that the Soviet has nothing to do with the question of Godliness, that it is a “disestablished country” so far as religion is concerned, and that people have the right to preach religion or otherwise.

Tell that to the Marines.

The hon. member may just as well say that because Bradlaugh M.P. got into Parliament more than half a century ago and advocated a policy of atheism that therefore Great Britain was going in for a policy of Communism. He knows perfectly well that in the United States of America one of the great writers, Ingersoll, for years has been preaching agnosticism; does that mean that America is a country which stands for Atheism? I prefer to accept the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Dean of Canterbury and the Archbishop of Cape Town as judges of what is Godliness and Godlessness rather than the hon. member for Beaufort West. I want to take one other point and with that I shall conclude. The hon. member for Piquetberg said that his party was opposed to Communism because it stood for the abolition of private ownership of land. I say that the menace to this country is not the menace of Communism but the economic causes which may produce it; the danger we are faced with in this country of getting changes which are possibly more violent than desirable is due to the economic conditions of the vast majority of the people. And that is not a political view. I read to this House from the Inter-departmental report of the Committee on social health and economic conditions of urban natives—issued not by a politician, not by a propagandist, but by heads of departments of State, who, I may say, as a general rule look at things from a conservative point of view. And what does that report say? It is a report which has aroused the conscience of South Africa, although, evidently, the consciences of our friends over there are still dulled. That report says this:

And they make certain suggestions by way of remedy. One suggestion is that native trades unions should be registered. And unlike our friends there who are out to smash up Trade Unionism, that Committee in Clause 39 reported as follows—

Right throughout that report it is shown that what is essential in this country is to raise the standard of life, to raise the lot of the people, the majority of the people, the non-European people. And as I have said, before, the same thing to a considerable extent applies to the poor section of the European population who today are oppressed and suppressed and exploited, and we have to see that the poverty the malnutrition and the starvation and the slums in which they live are done away with if this country is to be safe from any menace, whether it is Nazism or Communism. The Opposition wanted exploitation by Afrikaans Capitalism instead of by other sections of the populations, and it is because our friends opposite are afraid of a progressive policy of economic development, because they are afraid that under the new spirit abroad in South Africa, Afrikaans capitalism may not get a chance of carrying out that exploitation which they object to in other capitalists—and rightly object to—it is because of that that hon. members over there come along and talk about this so-called menace of Communism. Many of them may have seen a film dealing with the subject of landlessness in America. In that film a land owner, a great proprietor, is continually talking about these God damn Reds, and some innocent fellow standing by one day turned to him and said, “Who are these God damned Reds?” to which the land owner replied: “A God damned Red is a man who asks for 30 cents per week when I am only prepared to give him 25 cents.” And I say that unless we make progress—and I believe that the United Party and its allied parties are prepared to make progress and see that capitalism is modified to the extent that it shall not exploit people—the great majority, not only of the native people, but also a large number of Europeans would always be exploited no matter which party was in power and we shall have the menace of Communism, but not because of the speech and the reasons mentioned by the hon. member for Beaufort West.

It has become very clear during the discussion of this motion how the war spirit has engulfed the body and soul of the party on the other side, so that they can no longer think normally about the internal problems and even world problems. If we analyse the speeches on the Government side, we must really come to the conclusion that Soviet Russia in Russia itself has no stronger propagandists than the Union of South Africa, as represented on those benches. Time and again they have referred in the debate to how wonderful the government of Russia is, how wonderfully she has uplifted her people, how wonderfully the working people live, and they have even gone so far as to say that they consider that the Russians to a certain extent are even religious people. They have conveniently forgotten what their great leader in this war, Mr. Churchill, said about Russia just before the war, they have forgotten what the Archbishop who was quoted here by the last speaker, said about Russia in connection with religion. All these things have been completely forgotten. The Minister of the Interior tries to tell this side of the House, and especially the official Opposition: You said this here, and you said that here, and all the time he tried to lay a smokescreen, and behind the screen they plead for Russia. That is what you get if you weigh your anchors and allow yourself to drift on the happenings in the world, without taking into account the independent life of your people, which even in time of war must remain anchored. They have no longer any perspective of value, no longer any perspective of spiritual values, but for them it is only the present that counts. The last speaker said something with which I agree entirely, namely that it is the economic conditions, the terrible economic conditions which will eventually assist Bolshevism and establish it in our country. But let him and other members on the other side add that it is the present Government that takes the money of the country and that blows away the millions of the country in a war of a foreign country, and that it is for this reason that our country cannot provide for the poor and wretched people who cannot make a living. Let him do this and then he is at least honest. Let the Government side get up today and tell the oppressed people of South Africa, the natives, that the Europeans in the country have always been well-disposed towards you, but they have never had the money to uplift you, because the money of the people is being spent on the wars of countries outside in Europe. Then they will be telling the truth. Then they will be giving the reason why large sections of the people live in poverty and misery. It is clear to me that even the Prime Minister of Britain is silent today on this point, that he does not want to accept Soviet Russia; he does not want to do that. It would be imprudent politics to say today what he thinks. Russia is today his ally. But let us also look at what the other ally says today, America. I want to quote here no one other than the wife of the President of America, Mrs. Roosevelt. When they were busy recently with the reconstruction of trade unions in America, the reorganisation of them, then she expressed herself in public and said that she would certainly throw in her weight against the Communist elements in America, to prevent them from getting the say in trade unions, because—to say the least of it—she would not be in favour of the workers of America taking their instructions from another country. Can our Government say the same? Will they endorse or reject this? The Government side today does not appear to care whether the workers of our country get their instructions from Russia or not. It is a pity that the Minister of Labour and his people are in the Government today, but I think they yearn for a similar statement from one of the members of the Ministry. We know today that in the labour world, in the trade unions, there is great friction and that the Communist element is active everywhere in the trade unions, that they want to create native trade unions, in order to unseat the leader of the Labour Party as leader of the party. He knows that just as well as I do, and also the member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) knows this well. They yearn for the Government to make a statement like that of Mrs. Roosevelt. It is a pity that the Labour Party is coupled to the Government today, and that it has not the right today to speak and to vote freely in the real interest of the country. But I want to quote yet another example, that of the Labour Party in Britain itself. Our Government is so fond of formulating its policy according to the example of Britain, while it should govern the country according to the traditions of our people. But the Labour Party in Britain was recently approached by the Communists there: “Come, let us all work together,” they said. What was the answer? “No, thank you; our ideals are not the same as your ideals. Our ideals differ from your ideals. Thank you, we will not go with you.” There is again an example that can be followed by the workers in this country, by the Labour Party, if it has the courage of its convictions. If the Government does not now attempt to look conditions in the face and to take action, the day will come when a clash will take place, in the first place, between the Labour Party, as it exists today, and the Communist element which eventually wants to swallow the Labour Party, and it will be a bloody clash. We know the elements that are being exploited today by the Communist Party, in order to break up the existing trade unions, and they will to a large extent make use of the non-Europeans in the country, and the non-Europeans are still children, and they will go to the extreme, and the Government will be responsible for the state of affairs. What will be the result of such a clash between white and black? What will be the effect on the decent natives on the farms, who today do not feel for these things? It will be an evil day for South Africa. It will disturb the racial relationship, and cause tremendous difficulties. I want to tell the Minister of Justice that I feel very unhappy about the recent happening at Vereeniging. A meeting was to be held in the location and the magistrate prohibited it, and the police arrested the people who wanted to hold the meeting. After a deputation the Minister refused to prosecute. By such an attitude the Minister makes the magistrate ridiculous and powerless, and he undermines the judiciary. But I want to make another point in this connection. I have the evidence here of the Commission of inquiry as it appeared in the newspaper, the Commission of inquiry in connection with the disturbances in Pretoria. It appears that there was a secretary or an organiser of the Communist Party, I think his name is Muller, a young man of 19 years, and he was allowed to enter the compounds and hold meetings. Before the Soviet entered the war, this sort of thing was prohibited. No man could enter and hold meetings. But now, since Russia has entered the war, they can go in and hold meetings. There ’is no longer any law and order and rule. What did this man advocate? His attitude before the Commission was rather cheeky. While the Government now has the power under the Emergency Regulations, why is the type of man who incites not interned? I want to make yet a further point in connection with this. The Emergency Regulations say that you may not ridicule or attack one section of the people. I assume that those regulations were made especially for the protection of the Jewish population of the country. The man who attacks the Jewish population or the Greek population, renders himself liable to prosecution under the Emergency Regulations, and to internment. A Communist leader, a certain Harmel, made a speech and threatened the leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Order that it was time that the Government should hang them. Are they not also a part of the population, and why does the Minister not apply the Emergency Regulations to such agitators? Or are there just certain people who may not use inciting language; is it only the children of our people who may not do so. It is time that the Government realises its position towards the population and realises its responsibility. It is no use for the Government to try to gloss over the position. Great supporters have come to me and asked: Why is it that the Minister of Justice approves of the Communist Party in South Africa and says that people who oppose them are Fascists? How can the Government go and protect those people who want to exploit our people in this way? Great supporters of the Government speak to us and they say clearly to us that they do not agree with this sort of thing. Again I want to say that it is time that the Government revises its position, and no longer think just about the war,’ but that it should also think of after the war, that there will still be a nation left. It is said that we will fight to the last man and the last shilling. But women and children will still remain; also the great native population will remain. I say that it is time that the Government realises what its responsibilities are towards the country. They speak about the plans they are going to make for after the war; plans for a better life in the country, and is it then not now the time for the Government to take action to put a stop to those things? It should not wait until after the war, when it does not know whether they will again get into power.

I cannot allow this motion to pass by silently, particularly in view of the fact that the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) made his usual attack upon the Jews. For that reason I feel it my duty to say a few words. I look upon this motion as a smokescreen which has been spread abroad since the disaster to Germany on the Russian front. Since then we have been warned from England to beware of Zeesen propaganda against Russia which is now going on in an attempt to get the Western world to say “Help Germany, because Germany is the only saviour of Europe against Bolshevism.” It is a concerted attempt. Let me say at once I am not surprised at that. As soon as this disaster occurred on the Russian front, we found this sort of propaganda going on all over the world in neutral and belligerent countries, in an attempt to get everybody to come round and say: “Germany is the saviour of civilisation, let us forget the past and help her against Russia.” A more hypocritical standpoint one could not imagine, to come now just when Germany is facing disaster at the hands of Russia, to come now and ask us to regard Germany as the saviour of civilisation against Bolshevism. I cannot understand how it can deceive anybody. After all, when Hitler and Russia were arm-in-arm hon. members opposite had not a word to say against Germany’s alliance with Russia.

That is not true.

Now the feeble excuse is put forward that they did not do this because we were doing everything against Russia at that time. The fact is that it was only when Germany was defeated at the hands of Russia, that these people began to talk about Bolshevism; they never uttered a word against Hitler when he made a treaty with Russia. The hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) had to get up and tell the House this afternoon quite seriously that Germany, in alliance with Russia, or rather Russia in alliance with Germany, was no such great danger to the world as when Russia was fighting Germany. As I was saying, that argument will deceive nobody; it is purely a smokescreen, and I am very much surprised that the hon. member has forgotten the article in “Die Burger” of last October 2nd, which was read in English by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). I shall read a few of the passages from that article in the original Afrikaans, because they are a complete answer to the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), particularly in his attack upon the Jewish community. This is not a leading article, but one which appears periodically in “Die Burger” dealing with affairs outside South Africa. It is in fact a political review, and I shall quote in Afrikaans some of the passages which my hon. friend has already given the House—

How the hon. member can expect us to treat this motion seriously when this Opposition organ in October, long before this question was debated in this House, printed this article, I do not understand. The writer goes on to say what a change has come over the scene since Germany attacked Russia. Now I want to deal with this point of the hon. member’s when he made his attack upon the Jewish community as being the Communists of the world. He was fair enough to say that there were members of the English- and Afrikaans-speaking communities among them. Now is anybody going to say that because certain Afrikaners and English-speaking people are Communists, that that makes the whole of the Afrikaners and English people Communists? No one would dream of coming to such an absurd conclusion. There are individuals amongst the Jews who are Communists, and there are Afrikaners who are Communists, but you cannot for that reason charge the whole community with being Communists. I myself was opposed by a Jewish Communist at the last Election, but that does not prevent the hon. member for Beaufort West from attacking me and everybody in this House who happens to belong to the Jewish community, as Communists. He ignores the fact that I gave my opponent a very good trouncing in the Election. I am not a Communist, nor do I believe in Communism, and I strongly object to this grouping of the whole community as Communists. That is the Nazi propaganda method. They say: “We hate the Jews and we hate the Bolshevists and we put them all together as though they were one body.” That is the propaganda suggested by Hitler in Mein Kampf. I have read the Jewish reference in “Die Burger.” That is what the hon. member has done, put the Jews and the Bolshevists into one camp, according to the teaching of Hitler. What I am surprised about is this, that with this article in “Die Burger” last October, in which the whole thing is exposed, the hon. member should expect to be successful in deceiving the House by bringing forward the same old bogey that was exposed in this particular article. It is a very well written article, and quite impartial, and quite by chance I came to know about it. I can only say this, that “Die Burger” has completely debunked the hon. member’s motion, and I think even hon. members opposite, after the words I quoted, must be aware that they are backing the wrong horse.

Won’t you give the hon. member for Beaufort West time to reply?

I will give him time to reply, but I am entitled to my say.

There was an arrangement.

The hon. member who introduced this motion took two hours, and I am only given a few minutes. I was told nothing about the arrangement at the time it was made.

Give him a chance to reply.

You have already wasted a few minutes, and taken a few minutes from me. These interruptions will not put me off my stroke. I want to draw attention to the fact that the hon. member the mover, said he was moving his motion in the name of the official Opposition. I say the hon. member has chosen unwisely in bringing this motion before the House, and he has been unwise in making one more of his periodical attacks upon Jewish South Africans; he has been unwise in trying to make this country believe that there is this bogey. We are all engaged together in one of the greatest conflicts the world has ever seen. Russia is our Ally, and so is China, and that does not make any difference as far as our feelings are concerned. We are engaged in a life and death struggle with persons who want to dominate the world, and who upon evidence which is quite clear from official documents, have massacred millions of people and are keeping Europe in a state of dreadful oppression. Russia is helping in this great struggle, and China is helping in this great struggle, and I say that these Allies who are fighting with us, are all fighting in a great and good cause, and their own political complexions and forms of government have nothing whatever to do with us. A victory of the Allies will bring freedom not only to the oppressed countries but to the whole world, and to bring forward this bogey at this particular time, is doing no good to South Africa or to the world. It is purely a smoke screen, and the best thing the House can do will be to reject it by a decisive vote, such a decisive vote that this gogga will not appear in the House again.

Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that the hon. member who has just spoken did not see fit to observe the terms of the agreement which was arrived at between the two parties. I do not in the least blame the Whips, they have done their utmost. The arrangement was that I should be able to reply at 6 o’clock, but the hon. member has not seen fit to abide by that. That is more or less what I would have expected from the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander). However, I am not going to waste much time on the hon. member, except to say that he seems very much perturbed at my reference to the fact that the Jews are the instigators and the leaders of Communism. Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said in my original speech, and the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, is unable to deny the truth of that statement. The fact is that both in Russia at the time of the Communist revolution, and here in South Africa, the Jews are the leaders of Communism. In every report of Communist gatherings, you will find that the chief speakers are Jews. A meeting was held in Cape Town the night before last, and on that occasion also the chief speaker was a certain Dr. Sachs, who said that he made no apology for the fact that Jews were active in Communism. Unfortunately, lack of time does not enable me to reply as I had intended to do. Looking back upon this debate, and particularly upon what has been said today, one receives certain impressions, and the first is the particularly weak defence put up by speakers on the Government side. But, Mr. Speaker, the most outstanding impression is the manner in which every speaker on the Government side has tried to avoid the real issue of this debate. Every speaker, from the Minister of Justice, when he replied on the first day, and every speaker today, has tried to draw the red herring of Nazism or the O.B., or what not, across the trail, so as to avoid having to discuss this question of Communism. Another impression, and a very significant one, is gained from the laboured attempt made by every speaker here today to show up the Soviet Government and Communism, in a favourable light. The hon. member who has just spoken had the temerity to speak about a smoke screen; he spoke about hypocrisy in connection with this matter. Well, sir, if ever there was a case of hypocrisy in connection with this debate, then it has been the manner in which Government speakers attempted to draw this red herring across the trail. As regards the hon. Minister for Defence, I entirely agree with what my leader said here today, when he said the Minister had put up a very poor showing. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there has ever been an occasion when a Minister of the Crown has shown up to greater disadvantage as when the Minister of Justice replied to this debate on the first day. What did he say? Mr. Speaker, it was merely a general denial. Like a small boy, he continued to say: “It is not true”. He made no attempt to controvert my arguments; he made no attempt whatever to show that any of my statements were incorrect. He questioned the authenticity of some of my quotations, and, like all the other Government speakers, he was continually trying to get away from the issue. It rather reminded me of what one sees in the streets sometimes—a lady with a dog on a leash, and the dog trying to get away, straining at the leash. That was the position of the Minister of Justice, straining at the leash, trying to get away from this issue of Communism, and trying to drag it down to a question of Nazism and the O.B. Sir, he even promoted me to a general, whereas I was a very humble private in that organisation! He took up the attitude that I had not proved anything. I gave him certain facts regarding Communistic propaganda amongst the natives, but he evidently expects me to come along and lay a definite charge at the police office. He evidently expects us to undertake the arrest of Communistic agitators in South Africa. I quoted to the hon. member the words of his own Prime Minister, which have also been quoted by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), in which his own Prime Minister said there was Communistic agitation and propaganda going on in South Africa on a very considerable scale; and when he turns round and says there is no such thing, what is he doing but repudiating the statement of his own leader. I quoted to him police evidence. He said in his speech that there is no tittle of evidence, and, that in spite of the fact that I quoted to him his own police evidence from one of the police inspectors in Natal, who said those particular disturbances there had been caused by Communistic agitators. I quoted pamphlets which had been issued by a native agitator, and I referred him to investigations made by one of his predecessors in office, the present member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). I referred him to those investigations and to affidavits which are at present in the files of the Police Department; I quoted newspaper reports of inflammatory speeches made at meetings throughout the country; and yet the Minister turns round and says I have not produced a tittle of evidence. What does he expect me to do? Does he expect me to go round and arrest these people? We have given him the information, and it is for him to take a serious view of it, and to find out whether or not that information is correct or not. I have told him what Communism stands for, and, what is more, I quoted from Communistic sources. One of the complaints against me which was also made by the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, (Mr. Long) is that I had not quoted some of the more recent books on Communism. Mr. Speaker, may I say that I do not think the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, has taken the trouble to go through the library. If he had he would find that there are very few very recent books on Communism. What I particularly set out to do was to give quotations from Communistic sources. I particularly avoided to giving quotations from what Mr. So-and-so said, or statements from Cook’s tourists, descriptive of what they saw in Russia, such as we have heard today from the hon. member for Hospital Hill (Mr. Henderson). The main argument we have had, also from the press of the other side, is that there has been a certain change in Communism, and that it is no longer the same thing. But, Mr. Speaker, I told the hon. Minister what the Communistic policy was, and I quoted to him what Mr. Joseph Stalin said as late as 1932, about the methods to be employed, namely, strikes and demonstrations, leading afterwards to civil war; I say to the hon. Minister of Justice, that he should take note of what is happening in other countries, the methods employed in other countries, and when he sees those methods being employed here, it is time for him as the responsible Minister to see that the same sort of thing does not happen here. If you know there is a storm coming, you do not wait until it is upon you. The Minister of Public Health when he knows there is danger of an epidemic takes the necessary precautions, and does not wait. To wait, however, is unfortunately the policy which the hon. Minister of Justice wants to follow. I have not the time to reply to what the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, said, I would like to have done so, because I have a very sincere regard for his opinions. But in any case he was so effectively demolished by the hon. member for Waterberg, that there is very little left for me to reply to. I do want, however, to refer to one point which he said was a very important one, namely, the fact that a treaty was entered into between Russia and Great Britain in 1942. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has already dealt with that point, may I now be allowed to quote to the hon. member for Gardens something which I think should be quoted, from a report in the “London Times.” In view of the fact that I was told that in my speech I gave no quotations later than 1935, I took the trouble to spend a few days in the Public Library among the files of the “London Times” — and I know no one has greater respect for the “London Times” than the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, and I admit the “London Times” is a great paper. Here is something which appeared in that paper in the year before the outbreak of war, so now we are right op to 1938. Under the heading “Questions in the House,” on March 3rd., 1938. There is an extract from the report of the Parliamentary proceedings. Let me read it to hon. members—

That quotation which I have just read serves as a reply to two questions. It serves as a reply to the argument that there has been some change in Communism, some change for the better, but it also serves to reply to the hon. members who said that Russia had entered into a treaty and that he had no doubt that the Soviet would naturally observe that treaty. Time does not allow me to deal with his other argument, nor can I deal with the Minister of the Interior who with heavy humour and sarcasm tried to defend his case. Now I come to the chief argument used on the other side of the House, and also used by the English Press in South Africa, ever since this motion was introduced, the one argument to which they cling like a straw—this great argument that it is not the same Russia. It rather reminded me of the old refrain, “The old grey mare she ain’t what she used to be.” They tried to convey the impression that Russia had entirely abandoned her sinful ways and that she has suddenly become a quiet, lovable, peaceful country. Russia, the reformed rake—that is the impression which they tried to convey, viz., that Russia has changed its ways, it no longer aims at world revolution, it no longer aims at dictatorship of the proletariat. Russia now has suddenly become a decent member of the family of nations, and is now received in the best society by all the nice people! That is the idea which they tried to create on that side of the House. May I again be allowed to quote from the “London Times”, and I want to quote from what Lord Lothian who later on became Ambassador to the United States of America wrote in a letter to the “London Times” on the 26th August, 1937—

I am sure the hon. member for Gardens and other hon. members over there will respect Lord Lothian’s views.

When did he say that?

That was in August 1937. Time does not permit me to quote other statements from 1937 and I shall get right down to 1938. And now I want to quote someone else whose opinion I am sure will have weight and will be respected on the other side of the House. I am now getting down to October 17th, 1938. That is less than a year before war broke out. This is with reference to Communism which we are now told is such a harmless thing. It is an extract from a speech by a gentleman whom hon. members opposite know very well Winston Churchill.

Do you know him?

It is an extract from a speech sent over by radio to the United States of America. It is most interesting and I hope hon. members will listen carefully—_

Mr. Churchill then proceeded to mention these human rights and standards of conduct. And then he went on—

That is what Mr. Churchill said in October, 1938. His attack is on Nazism. But listen to his words: “For they are the same thing spelt in different ways.” Now, what are the true facts about this change in Soviet-policy? This story about this so-called change relates to the time of the difference between Trotsky and Stalin. The hon. member for Waterberg has already dealt with that question. The difference between Trotsky and Stalin was on two grounds. First of all it was in connection with the attitude to be adopted towards the rich peasants. But the main point of difference was not on the question whether the ultimate aims of Communism were to remain the same, but on the question of the methods and tactics to be employed. There was not an iota of a change in the principles of Communism. Trotsky stood for the policy of immediately organising a world revolution in all the countries of the world, whereas Stalin said: “No, let us first make Russia strong, let us first organise Russia. Russia with a strong Red Army, and a strong Red Fleet would be in a better position to aid in establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat, in bringing about a world revolution in other parts of the world.” That was the policy. Stalin said: “Let us put an end to the isolation of Russia. Let Russia enter the League of Nations.” I, myself, on behalf of the previous government, had to sign that invitation to Russia much against my will, asking her to enter the League of Nations. Why did Russia decide to enter the League and to break with the policy of isolation. Why? Because she would then be able as an admitted member of decent society to raise the necessary loans, to get the necessary supplies of raw material, to build up her industries, to make herself strong, politically strong, and in that way be able to increase her power, and to spread Communism throughout the world. That is the difference between 1939 and now. I say this, that when members on the other side of the House come and tell us that there has been a real change in the attitude of Russia, then I can only say that their statements are due either to ignorance—and I do not believe the hon. member for Gardens is so very ignorant on these matters—or it is due to political dishonesty and political hypocrisy. I am afraid my time is up, and in the circumstances I cannot continue. It is the fault of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander) in not keeping to the agreement arrived at between the Government and Opposition Whips.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—36:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Bosman, P. J.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Grobler, J. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wilkens, Jan.

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

Noes—54:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Solomon, B.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tothill, H. A.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren. C. M.

Waterson S. F.

Tellers: W. B. Humphreys and A. E. Trollip.

Question accordingly negatived and the words omitted.

Substitution of the words proposed by the Minister of Justice put.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—54:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen. F. B.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Solomon, B.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tothill, H. A.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg M. J.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: W. B. Humphreys and A. E. Trollip.

Noes—36:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Bosman, P. J.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Grobler, J H.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wilkens, Jan.

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

Words proposed to be substituted by the Minister of Justice accordingly agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and the House divided:

Ayes—53:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Solomon, B.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tothill, H. A.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: W. B. Humphreys and A. E. Trollip.

Noes—35:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Bosman, P. J.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Grobler, J. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Viljoen, J. H.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wilkens, Jan.

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