I move—

1. (1) Sittings and adjournments: The House shall meet at eleven o’clock a.m. on each sitting day; business shall be suspended at a quarter to one o’clock p.m.; and at a quarter to seven o’clock p.m. if business be not sooner concluded Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House.
2. (2) Precedence of Private Members’ business on Tuesdays and Fridays: On days on which private members’ business has precedence (viz.: Tuesdays and Fridays) if such business be under consideration at a quarter past four o’clock p.m. the House shall proceed to the consideration of Government business standing on the Order Paper next after private members’ business.
3. (3) Application of “Eleven o’clock rule”: In the application of the foregoing sessional orders resort shall be had mutatis mutandis, to the provisions of paragraphs (1) to (4) of Standing Order No. 26 and paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 102.
4. (4) Sittings of Select Committees: In terms of Standing Order No. 242 Select Committees shall have leave to sit during the sittings of the House.

This motion revives the sessional standing order which was in force last year, and there is a good reason for reviving it this year also. The position is this, as hon. members know, that from the third week of the session the House sits at night, but owing to the curfew regulations in force, it will be most awkward, if not impossible, to have any effective night sittings during this session, and under those circumstances it is advisable to drop night sittings and to institute the morning sittings which we had last year. The House will therefore under this motion, when passed, sit in the mornings from 11 o’clock till 12.45 and then in the afternoon and not at night. The House will sit till 6.45 p.m. in the evening. On the two days, Tuesdays and Fridays, which are private members’ days, the business for private members will be suspended at 4.15 and from then the Government business will proceed for the rest of these days. So far as possible, therefore, the rights of private members are reserved intact under the change which has been made, and they will have the usual opportunity of dealing with matters entrusted to them. I understand that this motion has been agreed to by the various parties in the House as being entirely in the public convenience and in the convenience of members. I therefore beg to move.

I second.

We have no objection to the motion proposed by the Prime Minister. We have agreed that in the circumstances the procedure proposed will be the most suitable, but I should like once again to raise a question in regard to the general arrangement of the work, a question which I also raised last year. We received an assurance from the Minister of Finance last year that the Government would do its best to meet our objections regarding the arrangement of the work, but nothing happened. The Government has a habit every year of coming forward with some of the most important work during the last few days of the session, and then to push that work through when members are tired, when they have had to sit for long hours and when the majority of the Members of Parliament have already left. Look at the way the Estimates were handled last year. Last year the whole of the Railway Estimates were disposed of, the last night of the session, in less than two hours. There was no time to deal with these estimates during the general budget debate. Members had to wait for the finance bills. At 10 o’clock at night we started to deal with the most important question of the Railway Estimates, and by about 12 o’clock the matter had been disposed of. In those circumstances it was absolutely impossible to deal thoroughly with the subject. I asked the Minister of Finance, as the man who usually arranges the work of the House so to arrange matters that the estimates could be dealt with by the House at a reasonable hour and that they should not be brought up for discussion late at night during the last day or two of the session. Some of the most important votes appear at the end of the Estimates, not because those votes are of minor importance, but because those votes have been entrusted to junior Ministers. They appear at the very fag end of the Estimates and although they are important votes it means that we have not got the necessary time to consider them in the way they should be considered. In addition, there are important bills which are held over for discussion during the final stages of the session. It is absolutely wrong to hold over important bills and to have them read a second time in the last few days of the session, or to ask the House to deal with important votes on the Estimates in addition to the whole of the Railway Estimates, on the last day of the session. We are only asking the Government to see to it that the work of the House is so arranged that important matters will have precedence, and proper time be given for the discussion on important votes on the Estimates. The Minister of Finance will recollect the way things went last year. It is agreed, or it is decided, that the session is to end on a specific day. It is true that members of the Opposition can be refractory and can raise objections to more than one stage of the Bill being taken on the same day, but we are not anxious to do that. Last year, however, we were almost forced to do so. The Prime Minister thereupon came and talked nicely to me and we decided to let matters go on. I said that we did not want to hold up matters but that if things were to go on in that way we would be obliged to raise objections. I want to ask the Prime Minister to give us the assurance that this year, and in future years, better arrangements will be made for the disposal of important Bills and important votes on the Estimates, so that we will not have a repetition of the state of affairs whereby those matters have to be disposed of in a hurry on the last night of the session.

There is a further difficulty which I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister of Finance in connection with hours of sitting, because I understand that he usually drafts the Order Paper. In ordinary circumstances, when we sit in the afternoons and the evenings, members arrive here at 9 o’clock, they see the Order Paper, and they have the whole forenoon in which to prepare themselves for the work of the day. Now, however, with morning sittings, the position is different. They come here in the mornings, they see the Agenda, and then they have only an hour or two to prepare themselves for the work of the day. Now, I would like to suggest, I would like to ask the Minister, whether it would not be possible for him to draft the Order Paper three quarters of an hour or an hour earlier in the afternoon, so as to have the Order Paper pasted up here even if it is only five minutes before the House rises. That would help a great deal. If it is impossible, at any rate let him draft the Order Paper as early as possible so that the Whips can get it. That would also help a lot.

I feel there is a good deal to be said for what the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has suggested. It undoubtedly is a fact that at the moment it is more difficult for members to find the time to prepare themselves for the work of the afternoon and we shall certainly do our best to arrange the Order Paper as early as possible during the previous afternoon. The hon. member probably knows that when the Order Paper has been made up it is handed to the Clerk and hon. members can hear from the Clerk what the Order Paper is. Whether it will be possible to paste it up is a matter which the officials of the House will have to decide. So far as I am concerned I shall do my best to place the Order Paper in the hands of the Clerk as early as possible. In regard to the points raised by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart), I only want to point out that it is extremely difficult not to have important work disposed of during the last few days of a session. We should remember that Parliament consists of two Houses. If, for instance, we were to conclude the Estimates three days before the time in this House, we would have to take up those three days with legislation, and we should then find, as we have often found in the past, that during the last few days in the Other Place important legislation is proposed and the Senate will then be expected in one day to dispose of all this important legislation. For that reason we have tried so to arrange and dispose of our Bills that there is a reasonable chance left for discussion in the Other Place. It is extremely difficult to take account of the convenience of both Houses in regard to such matters. I want to assure my hon. friend that we do our best to do so. During the past few years we have succeeded in this matter better than before, and so far as I am personally concerned I shall do all in my power to meet hon. members, but those difficulties arise from the fact that account has to be taken of the convenience of both Houses and not merely of this House. In regard to the order of the votes on the Estimates I do not know whether we can bring about any change in that.

I have not raised any objections to that.

The hon. member has raised objections to the Railway Estimates coming at the end.

I have raised objections to the Railway Estimates having to be disposed of on the last night.

I am afraid that it is impossible to avoid the final parts of the Estimates having to be disposed of on what is practically the eve of the session. We cannot get away from that. If we do not do that it means that all kinds of other difficulties will be created. I can only say that we shall do our best to try and meet the objections of my hon. friend.

We may perhaps be forced to raise objections to more than one stage being taken in one day.

I appreciate the position and I think it will be best for us to remain in touch with each other at that stage of the session. If my hon. friend will do that he will realise the difficulties which exist, and he will be satisfied with our line of conduct. My hon. friend at this stage of the session can discuss matters with me and we shall do ah in our power to meet any reasonable objections.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

I second.

I object, Mr. Speaker. I know that it is unusual when leave is asked to introduce a Bill for an objection to be raised.

Most unusual.

But there are special circumstances in this case which, to my mind, make it necessary. I want to submit to the House four grounds of objection. My first ground requires the short history of a Bill of similar import.

Under the privileges conferred on me by Rule 40, I put the Question:

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 11th February.

I move—

1. (a) that any war aim which contemplates the destruction, crippling or elimination of such countries as Germany, Italy, Poland, the Baltic States or Finland, which formed a bulwark against the communistic avalanche and may in the future continue to be so, is in conflict with the true and lasting interests of Europe and the Western European Christian civilisation in which America, England and also our own South Africa share;
2. (b) that a stable and just world peace cannot be brought about or maintained by the domination of the so-called leadership of any combination of victorious great powers supported by their own armed forces;
3. (c) that such world peace can be developed and maintained only on the basis of territorial demarcation which above all takes into consideration ethnographical and national boundaries and the right of self-determination of the peoples concerned and further upon the basis of a policy of general disarmament and international co-operation, promoted and guided by an inclusive Union of Free Nations in which the small nations of the world will have equal status and authority with the great nations, and which the Union of South Africa will then also be prepared to join; and
4. (d) that in view of the changed international position of England as well as in view of our own internal solidarity South Africa’s interests demand that its existing constitutional status should be further developed and converted into that of a free independent Republic, separated from the British Crown and Empire, based upon the principles of popular government and the equal language and cultural rights of both sections of the European population, anti-capitalistic and anti-communistic by nature, and made safe for the European race and Christian civilisation as well as for the development of the non-European population according to their own character and ability by the loyal maintenance of the principles of separation and trusteeship.

The motion which is now before the House is the Party Motion of this side of the House. The fact that it has been raised at the first opportunity which we have for introducing motions indicates the importance which we on this side of the House attach to it. This motion has three characteristics. The first is that we try, in regard to the matter which we are dealing with here, to find common ground, common ground between the two sides of the House in regard to this matter. That common ground we find in the important declaration made by the Prime Minister on a certain occasion. The second characteristic of this motion is that it is partly negative in its tendency; that is to say, on what we regard as the common ground the Prime Minister has taken up a certain attitude which we on this side of the House cannot associate ourselves with, and that is why we oppose him. The third characteristic of this motion is that it is positive; that is to say, that, as against what we regard as the wrong attitude, the wrong policy of the Prime Minister, we on this side of the House lay down our own positive policy. Those are the three characteristics of this motion. It is self evident that the motion proposed by us on this occasion concerns itself with the war, and not only with the war, but at the same time it will concern itself with the stage which the war has now reached — the stage to which it has progressed so far. I say that it deals with the war because the war today still overshadows everything in this House, in this country, and in the world. It takes into account the stage which the war has reached now, a definite stage, because one’s thoughts no longer go back so much neither in this House nor in the country, to the declaration of war and the question whether that declaration of war was right or wrong. One’s thoughts today tend to cast themselves ahead, and the question which one asks oneself is what this war is all about, especially so far as this country is concerned, what is it going to lead to, what is going to be the end? The question is where are we as a world, where are we as South Africa, going to land at the end of this war? What, judging from what we can see today, is going to happen at the end of the war, what really have we been fighting for, what is it that so many precious treasures have been sacrificed for and what is it that so much blood has been shed for? The veil in regard to this aspect of the matter has latterly been lifted, partly lifted, by the course which the war has taken, but on the other hand it is also a matter of importance to us that the veil was lifted by our own Prime Minister on a certain occasion while he was in Europe. It is of particular importance to us on this side of the House, not merely because that was done by our own Prime Minister, but by a man who in regard to the declaration of war, on the merits of that declaration, radically differed from us. I therefore say that the first characteristic of this Motion is that it seeks for a common ground between the various camps in this House. We on this side differ from the Prime Minister and other Parties on the question of the declaration and the merits of the war. We radically differ from each other. My attitude, and that of members on this side of the House on this subject was this: We have in South Africa our own nation, we are a sovereign nation, we had the right, we had complete right, even if the British Commonwealth, or if England is involved in a war, to keep out of it, and we are of opinion that it was to our interests to make a practical use of that right in the same way as another Dominion, Ireland, has made use of it, and we look upon the fact of our having been dragged into the war as a calamity to South Africa. The attitude adopted by the Prime Minister and the other side of the House was this: The British Empire is a unit, and because the British Empire is a unit — and that has always been his attitude so far—because it is a unit, we had to take part in the war. That unit, according to the Prime Minister, has extended itself so far that if England is involved in war South Africa, neither theoretically nor practically, can afford to keep out of it. That unity of the British Empire drew us practically automatically into the war, and if we here in our own Parliament decide whether we are going to take part in the war “yes” or “no” then so far as he is concerned it is merely a question of name, it is merely a formal question; in other words, it practically amounts to this, that his attitude is that if England is at war, rightly or wrongly, then our honour and duty demands our participation in that war. On that issue, therefore, we differed and differed radically. But now at this stage of the war, and particularly after the Prime Minister’s statement on a certain occasion overseas, there is, as far as we can see, a common ground between us and him, and it is a matter of importance to try and clearly define that common ground, because it may be a step forward in the political history of South Africa if we can find that common ground, and if we can try on that common ground to build further together. Now, what, according to that statement, is that common ground concerned with? It is concerned with the relative position of strength and power of the different nations, the principal nations of the world. It concerns the respective positions of power of the various nations. Everybody will realise at once that much of Europe’s future, and of the world, depends on the answer given to that question on the basis of the facts existing in connection with this matter. That question has been asked by the other side of the House in regard to the position of power and the relations of Germany towards other nations. It is on that question that war was declared. When the war is over and the Allies have won the war then the question will be, and it will be just as important a question, what now is the position of power and the relations between the various nations? The future of the world depends just as much on the answer to that question as it depends on the previous question. In this motion I refer to the declaration made by the Prime Minister of the Union not long ago before the British Members of Parliament, a declaration which was subsequently published, as we understand, with the consent of the British Government, and which in that way was made known to the world and discussed in various countries. Now let me say this at once in passing, that it is a great pity that the Prime Minister did not make a statement of that kind in his own country— a statement which has been recognised as being of the greatest importance. Even if he had not had the opportunity—and he did not have that opportunity of making a statement in Parliament,—we could still rightly have expected him to make a statement in his own country and in the first instance to his own people. But I quite appreciate it. The Prime Minister we know for a fact has put himself at the service of another nation, and having placed his services at the disposal of another nation, these matters, as he himself has sometimes told us, are of minor importance. Matters affecting our vital interests are part of those minor questions according to the Prime Minister. All I can say in that regard is this, that it is high time South Africa should come first, should count first both with the Prime Minister and his Government. But before going any further I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister on his frankness in that part of his declaration, and on his realism. It is true that what he said shocked many people. We realise that his remarks were explosively shocking, and I do not know whether he himself has yet got over that shock, but undoubtedly his remarks came as a shock to his supporters. There is no doubt that in the camp of his supporters people are upset at what he said. In the camp of his supporters the question is asked today:—If that is to be the effect of the war, then tell us what we are fighting for? Tell us whether all those sacrifices and all this bloodshed is worth while? The cause of this uneasiness in his own camp, and among his own supporters, is to be found in the declaration of their leader. I assume that the Prime Minister must have known beforehand that his declaration was going to shock people, that he made the declaration because he knew that what he said was fact, and that he made the declaration because he felt that the time had come to state these facts clearly and openly. In his speech he himself pleaded for realism, for a realistic contemplation of the position. But when he pleaded for realism we assume that what he told the British Members of Parliament, and what he gave the world as facts, he himself regarded as being serious facts and true facts. There are two facts which the Prime Minister emphasised more particularly. The first was Russia’s position after an allied victory, and alongside of that England’s position towards Russia, and towards the United States of America; in other words, the position of England in Europe and in the world. Now, as far as Russia is concerned I say that we thoroughly agree with what he said there. He called Russia the colossus of Europe. After an allied victory Russia will be the colossus of Europe. That is to say, in comparison with Russia, which will be all dominating in Europe, every one of the other nations will be puerile and weak. He went further and said: “Cast your eyes over the history of Europe and you will see that at the end of this war Russia will occupy a position in Europe such as no other nation has ever occupied before.” There is no need for me to go into this matter at any length. I think that anyone who reads the newspapers can see it for himself, can see it very clearly for himself. In the first place that is the position from a military point of view. Without the slightest doubt Russia in this war has developed a strength, has developed its military strength in a manner that no one else has done, in a manner which not even any of her Allies could ever have imagined. Russia undoubtedly had that potential power and strength, also from a military point of view, beforehand. That fact emanates from the knowledge that Russia has a population which not only is larger than that of any other country in Europe, but she has a population as large as the whole population of the rest of Europe taken together. She has a population as large as that of England and America together. That potential strength used to be undeveloped. Russia used always to be regarded as a backward nation, a nation which had not displayed any ontstanding military ability. But things have changed. Russia has developed a power and a strength such as has never been suspected before, and Russia today is creating the impression— and successfully so—that if the war is won by the allies, then it will not be the allies who will win it, it is not England and America who are winning the war, but Russia is winning it, and what is assisting Russia in creating that impression is the echo of the demand, the continuous demand, for a second front, which includes the allegation that the Allies are not doing their duty, which includes the intimation that Russia is right, and that it is busy winning the war, not by herself, but that it is the foremost among the allies engaged in winning the war. Now, it is not only its military strength which has to be taken into account, but also its territorial demands. There is Poland. Russia makes no secret of the fact that she demands part of Poland which she desires to incorporate into Russia. One reads that every day in the newspapers.

What does Germany say?

Russia’s other two allies, in the very nature of things, cannot remain silent. If they were simply to allow this without any protests, then I ask you what the results of the war in the eyes of the whole world, in their own consciences, is going to be. War was declared, so it was stated, for the sake of the rights of small nations, more particularly for the sake of the inviolability of Poland. When the Germans made their demand for the annexation of part of Poland a cry of indignation went up from England and America. Can they allow Russia when the war is over simply to annex part of Poland? They cannot do it. But what is the effect of their protest. They ask for mediation. The offer of mediation was made by the second most powerful among the three, the United States. So far Moscow has not replied to that offer, and the question is whether it will reply. In any case, the statement has been made—it was made quite a long time ago—that so far as Russia’s Western boundaries are concerned, it was not a matter for America or England, or anyone else, to say what they were to be.… So far as Russia’s Western boundaries are concerned it is a matter for Russia alone to determine. In regard to the other small nations, these three Baltic States and Finland, which Russia makes a similar claim to, the allies don’t even utter a word of protest. Russia, so far as these matters are concerned, is pursuing her own course. There is the ideological sphere. In fighting Germany we were concerned—I am now speaking your own language—with two powers which had combined; the one was the power of Imperialism, Imperialistic military, and on the other hand one had to deal with what hon. members over there themselves regarded as a dangerous ideology. Those two were in combination with each other, and that is why it was said that Germany’s power was a power to be afraid of; that is why war was declared. The question now is: If the position is as the Prime Minister has described it, if the position which is as the Prime Minister has described it, if the position which we will be faced with at the end of the war, is to be as the Prime Minister has described it, what then are we going to be faced with? My answer to that question is this, that we shall be faced with just the same kind of Imperialistic power, military Imperialistic, combined with an ideology more dangerous than anything Europe has ever been faced with. I need not explain to hon. members what the dangers of Communism are. The danger of Communism has been recognised by the very allies who are now in alliance with England. It is a well-known fact that since the last world war the United States of America declined to have any diplomatic relations whatever with Soviet Russia, and that was simply because the United States regarded Russia’s ideology as dangerous, and the United States in that way wanted to show that they were opposed to that ideology. Those relations were only resumed immediately before the outbreak of the present war. Take the Prime Minister of England, Mr. Churchill. Is there anyone in the world who has expressed himself more strongly again Communism and the dangers of Communism to the world than he has done? Did not our own Prime Minister, not so long ago, when the war had already started and when the churches, among others, through a deputation, complained to him of the unrestrained Communistic propaganda in this country— did not he himself admit that it was a danger, and that, as a result of this Communistic propaganda unrest was being stirred up in this country? We know Communism. We know its attitude towards Christianity; we know its cruelty which was advertised by nobody less than Russia’s present day allies. We know its attitude towards the racial question, and we know that the attitude of the Communist towards racial relationship in South Africa must affect South Africa, and that it is a matter of the greatest importance to South Africa. Once Communism becomes a dominating influece in South Africa, once Communism is allowed to get a hold here, once it is allowed here, once it is allowed to do as it likes, and particularly once it is allowed to get a hold among the non-European races in the country it will mean an end to South Africa as a white man’s country—a final ending to it! This danger of Communism has been realised by those whom I have mentioned, and when Germany before the outbreak of this war was a bulwark against this self same Communism, those nations I have mentioned clearly expressed themselves on the subject. Let that bulwark disappear and I ask: What will the position be, and what will the effects be? There is something else I want to mention in this connection. The Communism with which we now have to deal in Russia is not quite the same Communism as that which used to prevail there in the past.

Have you only found that out now?

Let me tell hon. members the difference there is today in that Communism. The Communism which we had to deal with before was not national, it was international. And that was why it fought Nationalism in any country, even in Russia itself. It used to be an ideology, and it was not much more than just an ideology. But a change has come about in Russia. Russia has become more Nationalist and not only that, it has also become Imperialistic. Communism today is even being supported by the military power, also because it is an Imperialistic power in Russia today. The Communist today does not fight only for Communism, he fights for Russia. What, however, is the danger in those circumstances —what in those circumstances is the danger of the ideology of the Communist? It permeates into other nations in the world. Communism for its ideology obtains potential allies in other countries, while it—Communism itself—has become Nationalistic and Imperialistic. And for that reason it creates, in spite of it all, paralysis in the nationalism and unity of other countries. And what is the result of it? It is that Europe in those circumstances is laid open to Russia. Stalin knew what the position was going to be in connection with Spain and France. France is no stranger to Communism. Even before the war France had a Communistic government and it can quite easily go over to that side again. Spain for four years had a civil war in order to suppress Communistic activities, and it it is quite easy and possible that in Spain, too, there may be a turn over to the side of Communism. Russial is engaged in getting a bigger and bigger grip on Central Europe. An alliance has been entered into with Czechoslovakia. The declaration by the Czechoslovakia Minister of External Affairs Maseryk, simply amounts to this—what else could we have done? Russia is the strongest, by far the strongest power in Europe, and we have to adjust our attitude accordingly, and we have to creep under Russia’s wings. The same is happening in Jugoslavia. There we have a struggle between two sections, and Russia has openly declared herself in favour of the Tito section. In other words, Russia supports the Communistic section in Jugoslavia. As to Poland, if Russia cuts up Poland and annexes part of it, what then will become of the other part? Today already, in spite of England and America, Russia refuses to recognise the lawful Polish Government in London, the Government which is not communistic, and it is engaged in the creation of a provisional government for Poland in Russia. It is doing so because it does not want to have anything to do with the other government, and it is getting a bigger and bigger grip on the various countries of Europe. So far as Germany and Italy are concerned, if they lose the war then Russia will undoubtedly know.….

This is the first time you have said that.

If there is one thing which Russia knows it is that the alternative in Germany and the alternative in Italy to the ideology which they have held on to is not the democracy of Western Europe, but Communism such as is found in Russia today. What is more,—after this war we are going to have a depression. One can say what one likes but one cannot get away from it. In Europe there is going to be poverty on a great scale and unemployment such as there has not been before, and that will apply not only to Europe but to other parts of the world. Is there a more fertile ground for the Communistic ideology than such a condition of depression, such a condition of poverty and starvation? In those circumstances I say that Europe is lying open to Russia—there the Prime Minister was correct. At its back Russia has Asia which, at least so far as China and India are concerned, is Communistic. And if Russia with its Communism gets a foothold in the Mediterranean, which it will undoubtedly claim,—because it has already said that it has an interest in the Mediterranean,—if it becomes a Mediterranean power through the opening of the Dardenelles, then not only will Africa and Europe be open to it, not only will Russia be backed up by Asia, but the teeming millions of Africa will be lying there a ready prey to Russia, and Russia will be in a position to do throughout Africa what it is already trying to do here in the Union.

That’s a bogey.

Verily, as the Prime Minister has said, Russia will be the colossus after this war; Russia is the colossus of Europe and we have to take account of it. Germany in this war prepared to do battle with a tiger, and while it was fighting that tiger it was attacked from behind by a Rhinoceros. The next point touched on by the Prime Minister was England’s position. The Prime Minister very openly declared that after this war England would be economically exhausted to its very roots. And he added: “England will be very poor.” He put it very strongly, and he said that that would be England’s position, not merely in relation to Russia but also in relation to the United States of America. And therefore if one was to get an alliance in Europe, especially between England and Russia, it would be a very unequal alliance. I don’t want to say what England’s position after this war is going to be; if I were to do so, I would probably again be accused from the other side of the House of using words which were animated by pure enmity towards England.

And that’s true.

If that charge is made against me because of the facts which I am going to mention, then I say that hon. members should make that charge against the Prime Minister himself. I just want to touch on a few points which will make that position clear, just as it is clear to me the Prime Minister in his description of England’s position after the war was perfectly correct. This is a very expensive war; it is twice and three times more expensive than the last war, and the last war proved to be almost fatal to England. In this war England is spending from £13,000,000 to £15,000,000 per day, and we are already in the fifth year of the war. It can only mean the complete economic exhaustion of England. Then we have the lease lend measures which have been taken to assist England in its dire need. I am speaking of lease lend. What is being given to England does not belong to England, and has to be returned by England. It will mean that England for generations to come will be economically and financially dependent on America; it will tie England hand and foot. Where are Englands investments abroad. Those investments helped England through her troubles after the last world war. The fact that England had investments in other parts of the world helped her because even though her balance of trade was an adverse one for some time, owing to the fact that she was unable to export to the same degree as before through industries having sprung up in other parts of the world, England’s collapse was prevented by the fact of her having revenue coming in from her overseas investments. But what is the position today? At the end of the second year of the war, one third of England’s investments had disappeared. Those investments had been repatriated to England where they were needed for war purposes. The total amount of her overseas investments was £4,200,000,000, and at the end of the second year of the war those investments were exhausted, and because of the fact that those investments had become more and more exhausted and had been taken away, America had to intervene and extend a hand in order to assist England financially. It is true that England used to enjoy a very substantial income from her shipping. Before the war England had twice as many commercial ships as the United States of America. That is no longer the case today. Today America is by far the greatest producer of ships and in all probability will continue to occupy that position. While the war lasts it is self evident that that position will remain. We have already been told that America is in the lead now, and that it is going to avail itself of that position. President Roosevelt has stated that America’s prosperity is bound up with the prosperity of the rest of the world. Therefore, if America looks at its own prosperity after the war, it will also have to see to the prosperity and welfare of other countries. Very well, but how? By investing American money in various parts of the world, by using American money to develop other countries in the world. That means the relative retrogression and cutting out of England which so far has occupied that position. Politically and internationally that must also have its effect. England, for years, for generations, almost for centuries, has followed a policy in Europe which has contributed not merely towards securing England’s position, but also contributed to its power; I am now referring to England’s policy of the balance of power. England has always had the balance of power in Europe. She has always had some strong ally in Europe with whom she has combined, and combined with whom she was able to hold her own against even the strongest other nations. That policy of the balance of power was England’s salvation. It was England’s strength. Now I ask this: if it is true what the Prime Minister stated in the British House of Parliament, that Russia is going to be the colossus of Europe, how is England going to stand in relation to that colossus? I ask what of this century old policy of England’s, of seeking its salvation and its strength through the balance of power? That policy must end then. England after this war, will stand by herself without a strong ally in relation to that country which is as powerful as no other country in Europe has ever been. And that is not all. We already have a displacement going on within the British Empire itself. There is an overwhelming force coming from outside, and new forces from inside. What are these forces which are working from inside? It is that the different parts of the British Empire in these new conditions find that combination with England is no longer safe so far as they are concerned. One finds it for instance in the fact that Canada for all practical purposes belongs more to the Pan-American alliance than to the British Empire. The British Empire to Canada in future is not going to mean that England’s foreign policy and England’s wars must necessarily also be Canada’s foreign policy and Canada’s wars. We find the same thing in Australia and in New Zealand. Australia is not being protected by England; Australia herself has a large army in the field, but the general in charge of the Australian Army is not a man from Australia, nor is he an officer of the British Army. The General Officer in Command is an American. That indicates what the position is. It simply shows that we are dealing here with facts and consequences which the British Empire cannot escape from. I say again that in regard to this position of the British Empire we agree with the Prime Minister. We are in entire agreement with what he has said; what he has said is based on facts. Now we come to his remedy. He has suggested two remedies. The first is that he continues to try and hold on hysterically to the idea of the balance of power, even though that balance of power is not as effective as it used to be. Very well, I have no objection to that; but now we come to the way in which he tries to do it. His scheme of doing so is hopelessly impracticable. What does he want to do? He tries to induce the small nations of Western Europe, those which have the same lookout as England, to agree to a closer alliance with England. How far he wants to go is not quite clear—he has not worked it out. According to some of his statements he even considered that they should be incorporated with the British Empire, certainly as regards foreign policy and the question of war and peace. I say it is hopelessly impracticable. I need not go into it because hardly had he expressed that thought when it was definitely and emphatically rejected by these countries themselves, and nobody has done so more emphatically than Van Kleffens, the Minister of External Affairs of Holland. It amounts to this, that those nations, even with the experience they have had, take up the attitude that they want to retain their right of neutrality when normal conditions return, and they say: “We do not want to enter into any alliance with big powers, and we are prepared in spite of our experience, to take the risk.” That is what it amounts to. As against what the Prime Minister has proposed on this point I have embodied something in my motion. It is not that I disapprove of the balance of power; I only say that we must go further. I say that in today’s war we regard certain countries of Europe with hostility. But we should not forget that it has happened over and over again in the history of the world that todays enemy may be tomorrow’s friend, whose assistance one may require.

Have you only found that out now?

That is the basis on which we should think about those matters today. It would be realistic to do so. The Prime Minister has spoken about realism in connection with these matters, and I want to approach that point in this spirit. I say that Germany is England’s natural ally.

Is that the reason why you want Germany to win?

In 1940, shortly after the outbreak of war, I said something in this House in regard to which I have not changed at all, and I take the liberty of reminding the House again of what I said on that occasion—

I have nothing to add to the opinion I expressed on that occasion, nor have I anything to retract from what I said. I can quite understand that Russia wants to destroy Germany and wants to cut it up and make it powerless for all time to come. I can quite understand that, and I hope the Prime Minister intended the speech which he made before the British members of Parliament, and which he made shortly before the Teheran Conference, where I assume this matter was discussed with Russia, to make some of the people there understand the true state of affairs. No comment has been made by Russia on the Cairo story about negotiations between England and Germany, although Russia had sent that story into the world, but no comment was made on it after the denial by England had been published. I believe that that story was Russia’s reply. I don’t say there is any truth in it; I do not believe there is any truth in it, but that was Russia’s reply—a warning to America and England, to tell them: “If you don’t completely destroy Germany and if you make peace with Germany before it is completely destroyed, if you make peace with Germany in order to secure for yourself an ally in Europe,.… if you play that game, I can also play it. The remedy lies in world organisation; you must create a world organisation in order to preserve the peace of the world. That world organisation must provide protection for England and protection for everyone, and it must be there in order to keep aggressors in check in the future.” I have no objection to that. One can only create a condition of affairs in the world under which people can live if one has the machinery to preserve peace between individual and individual—to maintain a condition under which people can exist as far as possible—I say as far as possible, and for that purpose one also requires international machinery, and for that reason I personally and my party, were opposed to the League of Nations, opposed to what the League of Nations developed into, but we were never in principle opposed to the League of Nations. But now you want to have an organisation established in such a manner that the world will be maintained in such a condition so that people can exist, and you want that organisation to be controlled by three specific powers. I mention three because China is being dragged in in passing through the backdoor. But what the Prime Minister wants is an alliance of three, and that alliance of three has to be invested with powers. They must always be armed. I assume that as far as possible they are to maintain an armed position. The Prime Minister wants them to carry on as they are today—powerful, armed nations; armed to the teeth, so that they shall have a say, practically speaking, over the rest of the world in regard to questions of that kind. And the Prime Minister bases his views on the contention that the Treaty of Versailles has fallen short in that respect. It has been tried before but the attempt has fallen short in one respect, and that is that there were no leaders among the nations; large nations did not combine—they did not arm themselves sufficiently so that by force of arms they would be able to maintain peace and order in the world. And it is now proposed to remedy that defect in the Treaty of Versailles. In passing I just want to say this, that the Prime Minister’s views about the causes of the present war have not always been what they are today; that his views have not always been that the great powers were not sufficiently armed, and that therefore they were unable to use their armed forces. The Prime Minister’s views in 1919, as disclosed in letters which have been published—I believe letters to Mr. Lloyd George, were that territorial boundaries, the creation of such areas as Danzig and the Corridor, the arrangements in regard to Poland and all those matters were responsible for the present war, and the Prime Minister made the remark that if people used their common sense the question must arise in their minds: “Are you all suffering from shellshock?” He made the remark that the seeds for a future war were again being sown. I have no high opinion of the Prime Minister as a prophet, but I congratulate him on the fact that when he made those remarks he was correct in his prophesy. Now, I at once want to mention my objections to the policy which he has laid down, the policy in regard to the domination by big powers. My first objection is that it has been tried before and it failed, and failed hopelessly. In the League of Nations in the past, there existed this leadership—first England and France, and Italy and Japan. And what did it all result in? Quarrels among themselves, and not merely quarrels among themselves, but they were powerless to do anything. Efforts were made. The League of Nations, in which those big powers had a majority, that same League of Nations, instead of promoting world peace, simply exploited the League for selfish motives. The illusion that the League of Three will be so touchingly in agreement with each other once they rule the world and lead the world, and once they are responsible for the maintenance of peace—that illusion is a false one. The interest of these powers are in conflict with each other. Take Russia and England. The idea that the nations of Europe want to compete with England clearly indicate that the interest of England and Russia on the Continent of Europe are not identical. Take England and America. There are no greater rivals for the world trade of the future than those two. Even today, while the war is going on, there is an atmosphere of distrust between the members of this triumvirate, and one can notice it every day in the reports appearing in the Press. Two of them have entered into the Atlantic Charter. They say they do not wish for any territorial changes in their own interests. They don’t want any territorial boundaries. Does that mean that there is a desire to preserve the rights of small Nations? And that is what is laid down in the Atlantic Charter. And immediately afterwards Russia comes along and acts in the way it has done in regard to Poland. The Prime Minister has said that there is not going to be a peace conference at the end of this war. Why not? Simply because they are afraid of a peace conference. They are not afraid of their military opponents but they are afraid of each other, and that is why there is to be no peace conference.

They are afraid of their friends.

They are afraid of each other. Well, if the position is to be as he sketches it — England weak, Russia the Colossus of Europe, then can we have a permanent basis for peace? Nobody with common sense can contend that one can have a permanent peace under a condition of affairs like that. I want to further say this: If a world peace has to be concluded on the basis of justice and right—and that is the basis on which it must be if it is to be lasting—then it can never be guaranteed by a combination of the Great Powers. What will happen? Each of those great powers has its own selfish aims and ambitions. They do want to have peace among themselves. Yes, very well, but how are they going to achieve that peace under those conditions? They will achieve peace, among themselves at the expense of the rights of the small nations. That has been the position in the past. Russia, Prussia and Austria, used to be rivals in the past, they used to look at each other with feelings of jealousy. How did they get peace? Simply by cutting up Poland into three parts, each taking a portion of it. Then they had peace, but at what costs? Who paid for it? And that is the way England acted in South Africa. She preserved peace,, but how? That is how Japan was left alone in spite of the League of Nations—left alone to carry on as she pleased in regard to China before the outbreak of this war. And that is how Russia and Germany acted in regard to Poland during this war when they entered into a non-aggression pact with each other. And that is the process which is going on today in regard to Poland. It is to the interest of England and America to preserve Poland’s inviolability. Russia wants to annex, and I prophesy here today that Russia will eventually get her way, and who will pay? Poland will pay for it. Just as things were in the past so they will continue in regard to these great powers in the future. You will maintain world peace by creating spheres of influence and by allowing each of the great powers to go its own way. The one is not going to interfere to any serious extent with the other. The small nations will have to pay for it. Either there will be another outburst among them, or otherwise the war which will break out among the small nations will develop into a war which will not be localised, but which will develop into a world war. And now hon. members will ask me what policy I suggest to deal with the position. My answer is the proposal contained in the motion now before the House. I call this the policy of small nations. The danger to the world does not lie with the small nations, it lies with the big nations. We, too, are a small nation, and our place is among the small nations, and we should support a policy which in truth must be a small nations’ policy and not a policy of the big nations. I understand that the Prime Minister of Canada has provisionally expressed himself in favour of such a small nation’s policy and that he has taken up an attitude directly in conflict with that proclaimed by our Prime Minister. The small nations’ policy starts off on the basis of justice which as far as possible must be laid down at the end of this war. One must recognise the small nations of the world as nations. As far as possible those of the same race must be got within the same borders, and if different races are brought together in one and the same State, then the question of deciding their own affairs must arise. It is only in that spirit that one can approach the position, and one can only approach it if the peace is based on right an justice. The one has to organise the nations, but the nations must be organised on a basis of equality with each other; equal status, equal rights—and not only should they be organised in that manner, but that organisation must be inclusive. The League of Nations of the past failed because of the fact that only some nations were included. And if, in accordance with statements made over and over again by leading statesmen, the intention is to divide the world into two sections, with those who are entirely blameless on the one side and those who are held to be guilty of all that is evil on the other side, then it means that we shall again be heading for disaster. The organisation which we need is that of a League of Nations in the true sense of the word, but if we are to have such a league it must be based on the policy of disarmament. The Prime Minister wants to arm the Big Powers or he wants them to retain their arms. Armament creates armament. As against that, disarmament creates further disarmament. That was the intention in the last Great War. Why was that intention never given effect to? Germany was disarmed after the last war, and it was solemnly laid down in the Treaty of Versailles that if Germany was disarmed, the other nations would also disarm. That, it was contended, would lead to a permanent world peace. Well, the eventual outcome was sheer deception. It was all eye-wash, and in regard to this whole matter Germany was deceived and she had a well-founded grievance about the whole business. Germany had to be disarmed, but then the others refused to disarm. Instead of there being a policy of disarmament, there followed a policy of armament and the employment of force. And who pays for all this armament? The nations have to pay for it through poverty and starvation. Stop the world from arming and look after the people. But carry on arming the world, continue along that course, and the people of the countries concerned will starve; one cannot continue to arm the world and at the same time save the people from poverty and starvation. It is an absolute impossibility to do the two things at the same time. Now let me just say a few words about the final part of my motion. I do not wish to go into any great detail there. I introduced a motion two years ago in regard to the same matter—I refer to the establishment of a South African Republic.

Hear, hear.

I merely want to say that since that time, and even today, as acknowledged by the Prime Minister, England’s international position has changed, and changed radically at that. This change must necessarily have its effect on the self governing parts of the British Empire, and it must necessarily have an effect on South Africa. The situation which has been created is a novel one. If what the Prime Minister has said is correct, then we can come to only one conclusion. England can no longer protect us. Canada is already looking elsewhere for its safety and security. I believe that Australia will to an ever increasing extent do the same thing. In those circumstances sentimental ties alone cannot keep the British Empire together. Their interests are divergent. Their safety and security lie elsewhere, and that, too, is the position in regard to South Africa. A novel situation has been created of which we have to take notice. I only want to add this in regard to the latter part of my motion. When we insist on getting a Republic our motives are misrepresented. We are always faced with venomous misrepresentations in regard to our aims and ambitions. One of those misrepresentations is that we want to have a Republic here purely because of our hostility towards England. All I can say about that is this. We are a nation. We are a nation which desires to respect itself. For that reason we are a nation which wants to have its own existence. We want to be ourselves. Every nation is entitled to that. Every nation should have that feeling, and if that is how we feel it does not signify any hostility towards England, it does not signify hostility towards any nation in the world. We are willing, if we have a republic, to live in amity with England and with all the nations in the world. Nor does it signify isolation. We are always being told that we stand for isolation. We do not stand for isolation. I have made it clear what our policy is in that respect. We as a small nation want to do exactly what other small nations in the world do, and we also want to look for our safety and security internationally in an organisation of the nations of the world. Now may I just add this, as this too is a matter on which there has been misrepresentation:—the republic which we stand for is not a republic for one section alone, it is a republic for all sections in South Africa. It is not a racial republic.

Hear, hear.

We are glad to hear it.

We have always said so.

The reaction against this side of the House is exactly what I had expected. Our policy on this question was laid down from the very beginning and it has never been changed, and has ben emphasised by us over and over again, viz. that we want to establish a republic in South Africa not only on the foundation of a national Government, but we want to establish it on the basis of equal language and cultural rights for both sections of the white population. If a party pronounces its policy and emphasises that policy from time to time, I contend that to make allegations that the party stands for a different policy, is nothing short, of dishonest.

We are accustomed to that sort of thing.

I have had some experience of the English newspapers in this country, so far as that is concerned; I have time and again explained and emphasised the position on this particular issue, and I have done so with the unanimous agreement of the Party’s Congress, and when a report of anything I have said is published in the English papers, they only report those things out of which they think they can make political capital, but they systematically suppress what I have said on this particular issue.

Disgraceful.

That they suppress. Why? Simply because they want to appeal to deception and prejudice. They have not got the courage to speak the truth on this subject. I say that they deceive and mislead their own readers on that point and they do so deliberately. [Interjections.]

Order, order!

Why do you remain silent and why do you not admit this fact? Simply because you want to make English-speaking South Africa afraid of Afrikaans-speaking South Africa, because you do not want to fight. Republicanism on its merits.

You dare not.

You dare not do it, because you realise that even in these war-elections, where every Government which is engaged in fighting the war has a great pull over other parties—even in those elections, out of the 750,000 who went to the polls, no fewer than 350,000 declared themselves in favour of the policy of the Nationalist Party. You know it is a power and it is a growing power and nothing on earth can stop it, and you have to leave English-speaking South Africa in the dark so far as this issue is concerned, and therefore English-speaking South Africa has to be hoodwinked.

Why don’t you take your licking like a man?

I need not go any further into this question. I can only say that we want to be a nation, and we can only become a nation as the result of the creation of a common patriotism in South Africa, and that common patriotism must be based on undivided loyalty to one country, and only one country, and that country is South Africa. If people decline to have that common patriotism, based on undivided loyalty and the enjoyment of their own nationhood—if people decline to build on that foundation, then it is futile to speak of bringing about national unity in South Africa; it is useless to talk about the solution of our urgent problems. On that basis, on that foundation, as laid down by us, on that and that alone can we create unity in South Africa; on that alone can we build our future.

Why do not you propose a vote of no-confidence in the Government?

I say that we have reached a new stage in regard to this matter, and the Prime Minister has admitted that we have reached a new stage. There is only one of two courses for us to follow in this matter of our relationship towards England. The one course is that of loosening the bonds, of proceeding along the road of greater freedom and nationhood; let South Africa achieve and enjoy its nationhood to the full; let South Africa become what fits in with South Africa; let it have its own free Republic. In that way unity will be achieved. In that way unity will be achieved because one will get a common patriotism and it will mean putting an end to divided loyalty. The other course is the course pursued by the Prime Minister, and that other course is the only other course it is possible to pursue, and that course means drawing the bonds still closer. The attitude of the Prime Minister is that the Empire is a unit, and because it is a unit, it should be made a more solid unit. This view, according to this morning’s papers has been supported by no one less than the British Ambassador in Washington, Halifax. His views coincided exactly with those of the Prime Minister. What did he say? He said what the Prime Minister has said: England can no longer be counted among the world’s Great Powers. On her own strength and her own merits England can no longer count among those Great Powers, and England can only continue to count among the Great Powers if she has the support of what he called the League of Nations. (“Statebond.”) Only if the Dominions make it possible for England to do so, only then can England be counted as a Great Power. And what does he want now? He wants the Dominions to undertake, each one voluntarily, to carry England on their backs henceforth. That is what it amounts to. That is the course which has been suggested, and I can only tell the Prime Minister that if that is the course which he wants to pursue, he will meet with such opposition in this country as he has never met with before. All I can is this—that the course pursued by the Prime Minister is the course of disunity, of permanent disunity, and the course of disunity, of division is going to lead South Africa to disaster.

I second.

The course we are following is the course which has led to the greatest victory in South Africa, it has led to the greatest coming together of our Afrikaner people that has ever been seen in the history of South Africa, and I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that we are not scared of the disasters he has prophesied —it will be a disaster to him not to us. I listened attentively and with great interest to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. It wan as astounding effort, an hour and a half on a difficult subject, but I do not think he cast a great deal of light on the great subject which he wanted to discuss. The difficulties with which he had to contend with was that he tried to discuss one of the greatest subjects of the day, one of the greatest subjects in the world, by way of a party motion, in a party political spirit and from a party point of view, and in doing so he lost his way completely. If one wants to discuss this subject which the hon. member has introduced, if one wants to discuss the world position realistically and on its merits, then one must for a moment leave South African politics and South African party matters out of one’s mind for a moment.

England first.

What is happening here today? The Leader of the Opposition discusses the most important subject of the day, and instead of discussing the matter on its merits he gets on his old hobby horse of a separate Republic. That is the be all and end all of everything, a separate Republic. Let hon. members study what he said—one need only looy at the course of his argument to see how misguidedly he undertook the discussion of this subject, how misleading it was, and how poor it was. The conclusion which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition arrived at was that England was too weak, that England was exhausted, that England was finished.

But that is what you yourself said.

He said that we should no longer look to England, that England was no longer strong enough to help us. We must now part, and form a separated Republic. That was the basis of the hon. member’s argument and that was the spirit in which he tried to discuss one of the greatest questions in the world. What, he asks, is the use of having such a weak, exhausted and poor ally as England? Well, I want to say this, that together with this weak and exhausted ally we are striding forward towards one of the greatest victories in the history of mankind. That is my reply. In the company of this old, exhausted force, this poor England, this impoverished England who has sacrificed everything for the sake of the world, we are striding forward towards one of the greatest victories.

Russia.

Germany? Germany, which we were told had already won the war, this powerful Germany which over a period of four years was held up to us by the Leader of the Opposition and his Party, what did the hon. member tell us today about Germany? We are begged today not to destroy Germany. What has become of this German victory? I am only mentioning this to indicate that the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been on a totally wrong track.

Tell us something about Russia.

I am coming to Russia, but I want first to dispose of the argument of the Leader of the Opposition and of the picture he has painted to us of an exhausted England which it is no longer any use having as an ally. We are now to part company and stand on our own feet and say farewell to our alliance. What would have become of us, what would have become of South Africa?

What became of Ireland?

I ask what would have become of South Africa if we had followed the policy which for four years has been held up to us, the policy of German friendship and neutrality, and if we had thrown open our harbours to Germany? Where would we have stood today?

Where does Portugal stand today?

Hon. members opposite have for four years been upholding the country with which they wanted to enter into alliance, a country which is today in wreck and ruin, or will be in wreck and ruin in the near future. That is the way in which they want us to achieve a Republic. I no longer take this talk about a republic seriously. I have heard about a republic ever since the last Great War and our friends opposite were at the head of affairs for nine years. This separate republic was their policy and they had the power to put it through. For nine years they were at the head of affairs, they remained dead quiet about a republic. They sat there with all the power; they had every opportunity of carrying it out but they remained dead quiet. We heard nothing about it, and now they are again on the Opposition benches and again they come forward with this separate republic of theirs, and they want South Africa to take them seriously. I am beginning to doubt whether they are serious. I wonder whether it is not one of those underhand tricks which a worn out and weakened party wants to avail itself of in order to come into power again. I doubt whether South Africa will take them seriously. I should have thought that after the result of the last elections they would not have raised this matter again. In those elections we settled this question of a republic and the question of the future policy of South Africa, and the people gave their decision in a way they have never done before in the whole of our history. I should have thought that the Leader of the Opposition, who is an intelligent man, a man with an excellent brain, would have realised that they are on the wrong track and that he would have left it alone. I do not know whether he is too old and whether his party is just as blind as he is but they keep on, they stick to their old hobby horse and that poor old horse is getting thinner and thinner, and in the end it will meet with the disaster which he has prophesied to us.

You said the same thing before 1924.

I have paused for a moment at this party political aspect.

When are you getting to Russia.

I shall come to it. The Leader of the Opposition accuses the English newspapers and he accuses all of us of lying and of deceiving, and he says that we are placing the position of the Republic and of racial relationship in the Republic in a totally wrong light in order to keep the people of the country divided and in order to scare the English population here, but I always put this question to myself: “Why the late General Hertzog …”

Was driven out of your party.

I always put the question to myself why the late General Hertzog resigned as a Leader of the Party opposite. One of the greatest services General Hertzog rendered this country—and he has rendered great service to South Africa, particularly during the last six years of his period of office—was that he laid it down that there could be no other basis of agreement between the races for co-operation for the future than absolute equal rights between both sections of the population as equal sections. The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition speaks of the basis of equal language and cultural rights. That was what he proposed. That was the proposal of his party and it was on that that General Hertzog said: “I stand for equal rights between Afrikaans- and English-speaking South Africa, not for a majority which with its equal language and cultural rights wants to score a point over the other section.”

It was denied on his behalf immediately afterwards.

I expect nothing from the Republic. I expect nothing from the racial co-operation which the Leader of the Opposition holds out in prospect, because I know that it is based on deception, and nothing will come of it, and the longer the people of South Africa have experience of the Nationalist Party opposite and of members opposite, the more will they feel that there is no salvation to be found in that party. That party will dwindle.

Yes, you always used to say that before 1924.

I am sorry having to revert to this question, but it is the argument of the Leader of the Opposition which has induced me to do so. I do not, however, want to take up the time of the House any longer on that issue. Let me come back to what I regard as the real subject of the debate, and one of the most important subjects that can be raised in any Parliament in the world today, namely the European position and the world position— the European position today and the world position of tomorrow. I cannot imagine any more important subject for discussion either here in South Africa or in any other part of the world. I touched on that question in London in November last, and the Leader of the Opposition has taken me to task for having said that I regarded the position of the world as I saw it at the time as vague and indefinite. (Laughter.) Mr. Speaker, I am one of those people who do not pretent to know everything. I am trying to look for light in the dark in the most difficult position in which humanity has found itself for a hundred years, and I discussed certain matters on that occasion.

Are you trying to go back on what you said?

No; I discussed those matters there and the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition takes me to task for not having done so in South Africa. Was not London the right place in which to do so?

Hear, hear.

The Leader of the Opposition pretends, and that was his whole argument, that I used arguments there against England, against England’s position as a world power. Was not London the place, was not the place where I made my speech, where I had the greatest audience in the world … was not London the right place to say these things openly and frankly?

They were pretty annoyed about it.

I said these things outright and I did not come here to the backveld to say things against the English.

Is South Africa the backveld so far as you are concerned today?

The Leader of the Opposition will proceed to the backveld of Waterberg and will say things against the English people there. I thought I was saying what I had to say in the right place, and I touched on this matter there—it was a very difficult thing to deal with, and it is a matter which today is receiving the serious attention of the nations of the world. I tried to point out there the tremendous position of power occupied today by Russia. I did so on the basis of facts, and I think I was absolutely correct in what I said. But how did Russia get into that position? Who brought Russia into that position in the past two years? Who gave Russia the great impetus to get there? Was it not Germany? If there is one country that is guilty of murder so far as Europe is concerned, if there is one country which is guilty of the immense displacement in the world position of power in Europe, and to a certain extent guilty of the downfall of Europe, then it is Germany.

Was Russia an unwelcome ally to you?

Who has destroyed and wiped out. Western Europe, who has wiped out and destroyed Christian Europe? Was not it Germany? There are all those small countries in Europe with their high stage of civilisation. Where are they today? They were free countries which had reached the acme of civilisation in the world. Who plunged them into the depths, who destroyed them and almost annihilated them? Where is Czechoslovakia, where is Austria, where is Norway, where is Denmark, where is Holland, where is Belgium today?

Where is Estonia, where is Latvia, where is Lithuania today?

The whole of Western Europe with its high civilisation— by whom has that been destroyed? If it were possible today to draw up an indictment against any country, Germany would stand accused as the destroyer and the violater of order and civilisation in Europe. But they were not satisfied with that. No; naturally once one has gone to that extent one’s arrogance goes to one’s head and one becomes overbearing. Having done all that,, Germany said: “Now I am going to tackle Russia.” And it did so notwithstanding the Treaty, notwithstanding the agreement which existed between Germany and Russia. Germany at that stage felt strong enough to do so. “We were strong enough to destroy France and the rest of Western Europe, we are now strong enough to settle with Russia, and to achieve world domination.” If Russia today occupies a position such as Germany has never occupied, and such as certainly no other country in Europe has ever occupied, then Germany to a very large degree, and Germany alone, is the cause of that.

According to your argument Russia has become stronger, as a result of Germany having attacked her.

It is the victor in the battle who, after he has been attacked, has come out strong. That is the position’ We must be realistic. It is no use playing about with illusions. We in South Africa, like the United States of America and other countries in the world, must take account of the fact that in all possibility Russia is today the most powerful country in the world.

Do you deplore it?

When we said the same thing last year, you replied that we were seeing ghosts.

They said so last year! The question is whether what I say is true. And what are the conclusions which one has to draw then? If there is such a power then one has to be careful in what one says and in what one talks about. One must not unnecessarily make enemies. What do we see happening in America? America is another great power and they treat Russia with respect. And if I listen then to the talk on the other side of the House about the Communistic bogey and all the rest of it, I realise the stage of foolishness we have reached in this country because these things are noted and they are remembered. Let us face facts. We can quite easily knock our heads and hurt ourselves in a way that we had not imagined. We have to take account of facts, we have to bear in mind that Russia’s power has developed on a colossal scale, and that that power is making a colossal contribution to our victory. But we have also to take account of something which has happened repeatedly in history and which quite possibly may happen again now, and that is that Russia itself is in the throes of great changes. It is no longer the same Russia. For many years we have thought of Russia as the centre of Bolshevism and Communism and all those things, but we know that a country like Russia does not stand still. The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself reminded us of that when he said that while Russia at one time was internationally in its ambitions, with its international communism, Russia has now become national and prehaps Imperialistic. That is possible. Hon. members should realise that countries change in the same way as individuals change, and our experience of history is that great countries where tremendous forces are at work do not stand still but develop continually, and perhaps develop fast, and the testimony which we have been receiving from Russia of late, and from what we hear from Russia, give evidence of the fact that a tremendous change is taking place in Russia itself. The same position was experienced during the French Revolution. We know that the French Revolution was just as destructive and ruinous in the beginning as the Russian revolution, but it did not take long before a complete change came about, and a great Dictator came at the head of affairs in the person of Napoleon, and a complete change followed in the policy of France and in the French Revolution. And the same things are happening today. If we accept as truth the testimony of the Archbishop of York who visited Moscow on a church mission, and if we take the testimony not of one but of numerous experts who went to Moscow, not as Communists but to study the real and the true position so as to arrive at the truth, then one must come to the conclusion that there is something at work in Russia which perhaps has brought about a great change in the outlook of Communism itself as it started in Russia.

And Communism in South Africa, how does that compare with it?

That is nothing; it is trivial. If the hon. member wants to know what Communism in South Africa is let him consult the police reports. It is a local product due to local circumstances entirely with which we have to contend, and with which we must contend, if we do our duty in South Africa towards what is called the “underdog”, our poorer class, the people to whom social justice is not done—whatever their colour may be. If we do our duty in that respect then we shall get at the root of Communism once and for all, and rout it out. It is not a Russian product. Communism here is a South African product, and it is our duty to deal with it.

Must we fight it here?

Whatever way we may look at the position in Europe we cannot but be concerned about it.

Why?

We are entering into a world condition of affairs which is unknown to us. We are beholding a change of power, a change of strength in Europe, the results of which nobody can anticipate, and it is for that reason that I raised those thoughts, quite tentatively, I raised them as something to think about, to be gone into further and to see whether it was not possible to stand by a country like Great Britain, which still remains the bulwark of law and order in Western Europe, a country which will come forth from this war as the victor and which gives its support to everything that is good and civilised and orderly. I ask whether that was not a good policy, whether it was not a good policy that around such a country there should develop a free association of the States of Western Europe which are now lying destroyed to face whatever danger might arise, or wherever such danger might emanate from.

What danger?

Germany.

Let me say this: if I were to have the choice I would not like to be a citizen of any one of those small countries around Germany. Take all those small countries with exemplary governments which have achieved the acme of civilisation around Germany—where are they today?

We are speaking of the future.

I am also speaking of the future. If I were to have the choice I would certainly hesitate before I became a citizen in any one of the countries situated in the heart of Europe forming a girdle around Germany.

But your argument is that Germany will be finished and done with after the war.

But for how long? It was finished and done with in 1920 but within twenty years Germany again attacked the world. It is childish to come forward with that argument, and the hon.

member knows it. In view of that danger we should take heed of the faith of those small countries lying aroung Germany, countries with a high level of civilisation, countries which have achieved a high degree of development, and with which we have the deepest sympathy because they were unable to maintain their position. Even a country like France was unable to do so. Within the course of a few weeks France was knocked out, and if France was unable to hold its own how could the other smaller countries have done so?

But the Colossus will be there to maintain law and order.

The Colossus of Hollywood.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke about the remarks made by Dr. Van Kleffen. I made myself fairly familiar with the views of the smaller countries while I was in London because most of them are represented there, and I can give hon. members the assurance that the ideas which I voiced at that meeting of the Study Committee of the British Parliament are receiving a great deal more thought and consideration than I thought they would do when I made my statement.

But what about Dr. Van Kleffen’s public statement?

What he said was this. That even an association such as I had suggested would not be adequate. He said we could at the very least get the United States into it. That did not mean that he was opposed to the idea which I suggested.

McKenzie King does not agree with you.

There the hon. member is quite mistaken. No, the more I think about the ideas which I expressed the more I see that along that course there may perhaps be a way out of the difficulties which are going to be of an overwhelming nature, and possibly for a generation or two after the war so far as Europe is concerned. Those bits and pieces in Europe, and all those small defeated countries which wanted to stand on their own feet, and were unable to do so—unless one brings them together in an association with a preservation of their rights, their position and their status—unless one does that the position in Europe will remain dark and sinister for generations to come.

Where does the danger to these countries come from?

The danger will come where it comes from today.

What is your policy in regard to the Baltic States?

May I be allowed to say this: that the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition in his motion also said that we should not destroy the countries of Western Europe, or rather that we should not cripple them. I do not think there is any ground for thinking that that is the policy of the allies. In all the months that I was in England I did not hear anything which gave me the impression that it was the policy of the allies so to cripple the States in Europe as to destroy them, or that it was the intention to annihilate or wipe out some of those countries.

What about Poland?

The policy of the allies is the unconditional surrender of the enemies, and it is perhaps owing to that condition which has been laid down that the impression has been created that once we have won the war we shall go to the extreme with the defeated powers.

There is talk of extermination.

No, I see nothing of that spirit. I can say frankly and honestly that I have nowhere seen that spirit.

What about the declaration made by Van Sittart?

What about the man in the moon? What about the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw)? Who talks about them in that connection? We have very definite data to go on in this regard. We have the Atlantic Charter showing what the position in Europe will be and if hon. members would read the clauses of that Charter they will see that there is no spirit of revenge or extermination in respect, of other countries. I have not seen such a spirit anywhere.

That is something new.

Read the Charter and the hon. member will see it there. Mr. Stalin made a public statement, which was proclaimed throughout, the world, in which he stated that he was not fighting against the German people but that he was fighting Nazism. That, as far as I know, is the attitude of all the principle allies. They are not fighting nations, they are not fighting for the extermination of Germany or any other country, they are fighting for the extermination of that principle and that ideology which has caused such havoc in Europe. If that is exterminated it will be possible for a better condition of affairs to be created, and there will be no need to wipe out any country. Although the policy laid down is one of unconditional surrender there is no intention of such unconditional surrender being followed by extermination and revenge leading to the destruction of enemy countries. But the position is that the allies do not want to have any bickering and any quarreling about the terms of surrender. But as to the spirit in which this surrender will be carried out, on that I have no doubt. It will be a spirit of reconstruction, a spirit of help in order to put Europe on its feet again. It will not be a spirit of destruction of countries. The hon. member also expressed his views about the League of Nations, the body which in days to come will have to guarantee and preserve peace in Europe. I listened attentively to what he said because I take a great interest in this question; the League of Nations is close to my heart, and it is a matter of great importance in the development of the history of mankind. To a certain extent what the hon. member has said is good news to me. I was always under the impression that the Nationalist Party, generally speaking, was opposed to the League of Nations. Year after year, whenever we had to vote money for the League of Nations we had to have a terrible fight about it in this House, and strong attacks were made on the League of Nations, and now we hear today that the Nationalist Party accepts the League of Nations per-se.

We were opposed to a degenerated League of Nations.

What is the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition now proposing? What he is proposing is absolutely one hundred per cent. the existing League of Nations. I cannot find to what extent his proposal differs from the old existing League of Nations.

The old League of Nations was not inclusive.

Does the hon. member know how many countries were members of the League of Nations?

I know how many were outside the League of Nations.

How many?

A large proportion of the world.

Does the hon. member know that. 58 nations were members of the League of Nations? He does not know it. We shall never in the history of mankind secure a more inclusive all comprehensive League of Nations than the one we have; 58 nations and states belonged to it; and then the hon. member says: “Let it be a free association, and let that association go in for disarmament and such things.” Well, all these matters were part and parcel of the work of the old League of Nations with which I was acquainted—better acquainted than I am with most other things. But what did the course of events go to prove? It was not enough. That League of Nations—I stand by it and I shall stand by it to the end, was not enough. We shall have to go a little further. [Extension of time granted.] I have nearly concluded. I only want to say a few words more about the League of Nations. The course of events has proved that although theoretically the scheme was ideally conceived, although theoretically the League of Nations was a sound institution and a good institution, in practice it did not work out that way. I think we shall have to set about things in a more realistic manner. That is why I conceive the idea that there should be more leadership, that there should be greater power for the preservation of peace than we had in the old League of Nations. In the old League of Nations the maintenance of peace was the duty of all the states, and in a sense it was nobody’s duty. If we want to maintain peace then we must hold all the countries, including the small countries, responsible. We must also hold South Africa responsible. I did not want to put the question to the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition while he was speaking, but the question arises here: If we want to have a League of Nations which is to be different from the old League of Nations, what then is South Africa’s contribution going to be?

Are you in favour of all of us having an equal vote?

Yes, I am in favour of that. We had that in the old League of Nations, but I want to have something more than the old League of Nations, and that is that there shall be more leadership, more guidance. Just as the great powers take the lead in times of war, so they will also have to undertake that in the maintenance of peace. There will have to be a mechanism within the League of Nations, an organisation in which the great powers will have their share to see to it that matters are run on a sound basis, and that where the peace of the world is threatened from one side or another they will be able to jump in at once. There must be something like that. There must be a policeman, just as there is a policeman in civil life to maintain peace. If in civil life a crime is being perpetrated, if plans and enterprises are engaged upon for the disturbance of peace, there we have the policeman who can jump in at once, and I am convinced that the experience which we have had in our civil government for hundreds of years and more can also be applied in a worldly sense in the sphere of the League of Nations. And that is why I want special obligations to be placed on the great powers so that they will act as policemen in cases where a breach of the peace is threatened. Unless that is done the world will always be in danger, even with the best League of Nations, even with an ideal arrangement of the League of Nations, of something happening which will disturb the peace and cause the whole structure to collapse.

Is it your idea only to let the great nations act as policemen?

No; not they alone. Everyone will have to contribute his share—South Africa too. I am pleased to hear from the Leader of the Opposition that he, on behalf of his party, is prepared also to contribute his share.

Then you should accept the motion.

The trouble is that when there is a disturbance of the peace, interference by the League of Nations sometimes comes too late. If forces have to be moved from one part of the world to another part of the world to arrive on the scene where the danger threatens then it may possibly be too late. For that reason I feel that the idea which I uttered in London has a lot to be said for it. I feel that it will find general approval, that so far as the preservation of peace is concerned special steps should be taken in connection with which special duties shall be imposed on the great powers. They will have armies at their disposal immediately to extinguish the fire. That is all I wanted to say in reply to the motion of the hon. member. I feel that here in South Africa, too, that idea deserves our most serious consideration. The whole development and orientation of mankind, the approach to the ideals of mankind —all these are among the greatest subjects deserving our attention, they are matters also affecting us here in South Africa. There is no doubt that mankind can be organised on the basis of war, and I feel that we should go further, that we should organise mankind also on the basis of peace, so that we can do away with war as the means of deciding the fate of nations. And if after the experience which we have had in our generation we are not prepared to make that effort, then verily the future must be dark. We have had two great world wars in one generation, and if we have not yet learned wisdom, if we are not yet ripe for the making of plans to prevent such wars, well, then the future of mankind is indeed dark and sinister. That experience which we have had will, I hope, lead all of us in South Africa, as well as in other countries in the world which are in dire distress today, to agree to the establishment of something which not only theoretically looks fine and beautiful, and sound, but something that is practical and will enable us to set ourselves against wars at the moment when wars threaten the world, and not merely months afterwards. Such an organisation is feasible, and that is what I have suggested. And I want to express the hope that such a project will yet be fulfilled and be given practical effect to. It will assist towards securing the future of mankind.

May I express my appreciation at being given the opportunity and the privilege to take part in such an important discussion in this House after an absence from the House of about ten years. I do not propose replying to the speech by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. I appreciate that the mover of the resolution, the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition, will get an opportunity later on to reply to the arguments and the statements, and consequently he will be able to avail himself of the occasion to reply to the various points raised by the Prime Minister. I merely wish to say that I am grateful that the Prime Minister while addressing the House altered the spirit of his speech. I am convinced that in the beginning of his remarks he did not do justice to himself in his judgment of the attitude of the Opposition in this House, and I say that he does not realise how much in earnest we are in introducing this motion in regard to conditions prevailing in this world. I have always deduced from the speeches of the Prime Minister, with his well known position in world politics, that he would at least concede to us in this House, even if we are only representatives of South Africa, that we are in earnest so far as the interests of South Africa are concerned, and that we regard South Africa as part of the world, and not the other way about. I do not wish to reply to his speech, but I wish to emphasise a few aspects of the motion of the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition. After the Prime Minister had made his speech in England he said in an interview—I do not know whether he did so in the spirit of a joke—that the thoughts which he had expressed were explosive thoughts. The Prime Minister himself will best be able to judge of the effects of his speech on his immediate environment. I can only tell him that among the people who give a thought to happenings in the world, among the people who are thirsting for peace, among those who want to see a world peace, and who are anxiously looking forward to a world peace, a feeling of depression was caused when they heard the conclusions of the Prime Minister on that occasion. I assume that the Prime Minister did not speak merely on his own behalf, that because of the environment in which he found himself he was in contact with other people in authority. It is important to us, however, that instead of putting before the world something which to a war weary world looking ahead keenly to a world peace, offers a hope of peace, he came forward with ideas which were most depressing to our minds. In the first place he openly admitted that the world must be satisfied with the hegemony of Russia in Europe; that certain nations which have made great contributions in the past towards civilisation, and which are still doing so today and will continue to do so in future, countries which also include some allies are to be left to themselves to get along in the world of the future as best they can. In this connection he referred particularly to Italy and France. The other aspect which was particularly depressing was that the future upbuilding of Europe is to be subject to the principles and the basis on which Communism rests. And finally, what was most depressing of all was the statement that the future of world peace will be nothing but a peace enforced by power. We cannot help reminding ourselves of the ideals which were proclaimed at the beginning of the war. With astonishment we have found that although the preservation of Christianity was put forward as one of those ideals, allies have been called in who are Atheists; they have been called in to assist in the protection of the high principle of democratic government and Christian civilisation. We like to show every possible respect to all nations, but when foundations are laid down and ideals are set up for which the world has been set aflame, and because of which propaganda has been made in order to achieve those high ideals, then our first duty is to see to it that those ideals are not going to be so many empty words, so much hot air, but that they will really be aimed at, especially where tremendous cost and sacrifices such as we behold today are involved. I say that the world today is still asking itself why the nations have been plunged into this destructive war. The question is today still being asked, what is mankind fighting for? Latterly that question is less often being asked openly, but at the beginning of the war it was often asked. What is the aim, what are the ideals of the allies in this war, the most destructive war History has ever known, a war which is shaking the very foundations of civilisation, and in which nations which have always been peace loving have degenerated and turned over to militarism, and in which they are being led in a direction which unquestionably is in conflict with those Christian principles which every Christian nation strives for. I can only say that we have a position today in which a war weary world is thirsting for peace, and in which people are asking the leaders in this war when the day of peace will dawn, when the war will come to an end. It is for that reason that great disappointment was felt when the world heard the statements of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister when he was in London. A great deal more had been expected; a war weary world expects plans for the future as a result of which peace will be perpetuated for all time to come so far as it is humanly possible to do so, plans under which there will be an opportunity for the development of mankind under which it will be possible for civilised nations to carry out the principles of Christianity. Instead of that we were told about a peace based on strength and power, we were told about a hegemony of a nation based on foundations and on a conception of life based on principles which the world, especially the Christian world, has always looked upon with a feeling of nervousness and fear. That is why these days are of such great significance and importance, and that is why I say that I was disappointed that the Prime Minister, so far as the basic principles of Bolshevism are concerned, did not pay more attention to the general condition of affairs prevailing here in South Africa, and to the possible effects of those basic principles—which apparently have taken a hold in Europe—on South Africa. We are not isolated in this world. I shall try later on to show more specifically in what respect, even if only on a small scale, we shall perhaps be able in future to take part in the development of the world; but the destruction of the foundations on which our civilisation is based is a matter of far-reaching importance to South Africa. We know that those foundations are also laid in this country, and they are of vital importance to our continued existence as a Christian civilised people. That is what we feel concerned about and that is why we are so concerned at the fact that the Prime Minister, according to his statement in London, apparently acquiesces in this alarming condition of affairs. It is unnecessary for me to go into those principles. But it is a matter of vital importance to us in South Africa because we in our country must primarily be the people to maintain and uphold a Christian civilisation. In South Africa, where the doctrines of Communism are taking an increasingly strong hold—a fact of which the Government is well aware—the position is causing considerable alarm. One Minister will say in reply to deputations that he realises the danger of Communism, and another one again will state that he knows nothing about it. We do not know where the Government stands, and it is high time the Government considered in all seriousness what the fundamental revolution which is taking place is going to signify. It is unnecessary to go into details but I am anxious that the Prime Minister and his supporters should explain to South Africa the fundamental significance of these things which unavoidably must happen. It is not merely the downfall of Europe which we are anxious about, but also the downfall of our own civilisation in South Africa. The first indication is the materialism which is in conflict with the cornerstone on which our civilisation rests and which endangers that cornerstone. A second indication is that those doctrines are being promoted and fostered without taking any account of the Christian principles which we cherish here in South Africa. On the contrary, not only are those principles not taken into account, but the basis of Communism is Atheism. Let the world realise it, let South Africa, with its institutions and convictions, be informed of this through the Government and through the Prime Minister—let South Africa be told that so far as this aspect is concerned we must submit to the position existing in Europe with all its consequences to South Africa. But what is even more dangerous to us is the third cornerstone of Communism, and that is the negation of all racial distinction. At the time of the last elections a speech was made here in Cape Town which caused some of us to shudder. Where we are dealing with a handful of whites and a white population which is convinced of the right of its existence, a white population which feels that its existence is threatened by the maintenance of that principle, there it is our duty seriously to consider the position. That handful of whites is being exposed to an agitation which primarily aims at the removal of the colour distinction, and a movement which aims at achieving its object by the well known principle of racial strife. In view of the fact that in South Africa the white man, at any rate the major portion of the white population, can be regarded as bourgeois, and all the other millions in the eyes of the Communist must be regarded as the proletariat, and in view of the fact that they want to wage a war between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, there is no prospect for the existence of the white man if that basic principle has once taken hold. Because of that I say it is a crime towards South Africa that no steps are taken to stop this. Once the battle has been joined between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat there can be but one result, and that is death. The Prime Minister told us a little earlier on that we are not conversant with the developments which are taking place in Russia at the moment. He told us of only one authority on whom he bases his contentions that a change is taking place. And because of that the Prime Minister tells us that we are not conversant with what is going on. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister could have assisted us a great deal more by telling South Africa which one of the fundamental principles of Marxism is no longer applicable in Russia. I do not know what the Prime Minister was thinking of. In vague words he mentioned the possibility of internal reforms which might perhaps be taking place in Russia on the pattern and the model of the French Revolution. I ask if we can go into the future with any confidence if we know that the dangerous basic principles of Communism are still applicable. The Prime Minister surely does not expect that of us. Surely he does not expect that because of the dissolution of the Third International we are to come to the conclusion that Bolshevism no longer is a danger to the world, no longer threatens the subjugation of the world, no longer threatens the future of the world; that Bolshevism no longer threatens the subjugation of Europe to the colossus which within a not distant date in all probability will have one foot on the West Coast of Europe and the other foot on the East Coast of Asia. As long as the basic principles of Marxism constitute the basis of their conception of life, so long will Bolshevism be a danger to the existence of Christianity. That is why we on this side of the House, who can rightly say that we speak on behalf of the Nationalist-minded section of South Africa, protest against not merely Europe but the rest of the world being left to the mercy of Bolshevism. In view of the fact that we have not been consulted I need not say that we do not accept the Prime Minister’s contentions and outlook. Those conceptions are foreign and hostile to our conceptions. On the contrary we declare for the whole world to know that we are not going to take any responsibility for those conceptions. I further think that all of us realise that in a time like the present when the whole world is being steeped in the greatest welter of blood that history has ever known, that in a time like the present all of us are seeking for means by which a degree of peace can be achieved for the future. I do not think that the task in this year, 1944, is going to be in any way as simple as it was in 1918 and 1919. The world has been disillusioned by the false foundation on which the 1919 peace was based. I should like to associate myself with a remark made by my Leader regarding the creation of a League of Nations for this world. Here, again, the Prime Minister has very little to offer the world by way of comfort as to what may be the best that can be achieved. On account of the fact that the ideals of the past no longer suit the present according to him we have to arrive at a peace based on power and strength. If I correctly followed the Prime Minister and correctly interpreted him I should say that he has now taken up a different point of view from what I deduced on reading what he said overseas. If I am wrong in my conclusions I shall be glad to be put right. But if my conclusions are right then I believe his view is that the nations forming an alliance, the nations he has mentioned, must have the power to maintain and preserve the peace of the world. If I am correct in my deductions a police force has to be established for the maintenance of peace. Well, there is a good deal to be said for the latter suggestion, but so far as the former suggestion is concerned I say that the future holds much care and alarm for everyone if peace has to be preserved on that basis—a power in the hands of three powers, perhaps four powers which themselves have been built up by means of violence and force with the exception, perhaps, of the United States of America. In the past those nations were developed by means of violence and force until they acquired the position of power which they now occupy, and if we are to be dependant on a “power peace’ ’in their hands, then surely one must feel disposed to give up in despair. Those four nations which are in the Prime Minister’s mind are armed to the teeth today, and according to the statements which we have had, they will probably remain armed to the teeth. What hope is there for the world if in such circumstances they are to be the dictators of the world and have to lead the world? I am prepared to give the most careful consideration to the Prime Minister’s views, but if he is unable to take us any further than the point that the world must submit to the power position of three or four powers, while we know that so far as one or two of them are concerned they cherish certain ideas which we completely reject, then I must say that we have got to a position where we are left with the choice of self destruction, or violent death. I think the Prime Minister must realise that if he puts this illusion to us the highest ideal, this illusion that the world must submit itself to violence, it will not satisfy us, even if he leaves us the alternative of self destruction—the consolation that ons is going to be destroyed not by others but by oneself. The world requires guidance, and the world and the Prime Minister in 1918 came to the conclusion that it was only on the basis of justice that one could arrive at a world peace of a lasting nature. In his speech in London in November last the Prime Minister did not once speak of justice. He spoke of democracy, of leadership, of freedom, of power freedom. Democracy without principles, without the highest principles, without the basis of justice, signified nothing. Leadership may be the leadership of the underground. For that reason leadership without the basis of justice must be condemned as undesirable and so far as freedom is concerned, after all, the freedom facing mankind with the power position offered by the Prime Minister is the freedom of death. But what proves to me clearly that the Prime Minister himself does not believe in such a peace is that he has said that there will not be one conference but a series of conferences from year to year. That admission in his speech is proof to me that he himself does not expect peace by means of negotiation. There will be continual quarreling and discord, and new groups will be formed—power groups—the enemy of today will be the friend of tomorrow, and so far as the next generation is concerned, that generation can only look forward to sorrow, fear and worry. That is what we have been told by the Prime Minister himself. The nations of the world expect more from the leaders of the world than what we have been told by the Prime Minister. Why is the Prime Minister afraid of the League of Nations? Only recently I read of his high idealism on the occasion of the establishment of the League of Nations, and I should like to bring those words to his notice again: “Not only is the human brain prepared for the new peaceful world conditions, but the abolition of a system of States in Europe leaves room for the new institution. The need in political and psychological spheres is compulsory; the opportunity is unique, and it is only the blindness of Statesmen which can prevent the coming into being of those new institutions which more than anything else will reconcile the nation to the suffering they have had to endure in this war. That will be the only suitable monument to our heroic action.” That, according to him, would be the only suitable monument to all the sacrifices that have been made. I should also like to quote the words which he spoke at that time:

Why has the Prime Minister surrendered the high ideal, the ideal which he had when the League of Nations was established? Because all the nations of the world with the exception of those which out of self interest deliberately disturb the peace of others are seeking for peace. Why has the Prime Minister surrendered those high ideals? He wants to be realistic and realism leads him to the conclusion that one has to leave the future of the world to some great powers which have overwhelmed others. Let me tell the Prime Minister what my own conclusions are in regard to the failure of the first League of Nations with which he has had so much to do. We want to be fair to the Prime Minister and to his effort in those days to established something which would be of value to world peace in the future. That League of Nations was not founded on justice. That is why it dis appointed the world and why it has been condemned today. It was a League of Nations which was based on principles which conflicted with the basis laid down by the late President Wilson; the foundation on which a just peace was to be built was ignored and the League of Nations was erected on a different foundation, instead of the desire of the world for peace and justice. Secondly the germ of its downfall was inculcated in the League of Nations when it created a power position and not a position of equality. Probably it was the Prime Minister’s intention to give the nations an equal say in the League of Nations. Anyhow, that was not given effect to, and the germ of its downfall was laid in its very formation. The third cause of its failure was that while the League of Nations laid down justice as the basis for the preservation of peace, some of its members from the very start violated that good intention. I have in mind the invasion of Poland, Silesia, and Italy on the Adriatic Sea, and Greece and Turkey—the Prime Minister knows more about these historical events. The result was that the world gradually lost its confidence in the League of Nations. As a result of the League of Nations failing in its duties the world became tired and indifferent towards it, and in this House there was more than one member, including myself, who objected to our continued membership of the League of Nations. In the long run we even arrived at a stage where members of the League of Nations, even some of those who had been responsible for its creation, started to agitate against the League of Nations. I am referring now to the neglect of duty of the League in 1930, and, afterwards, when Japan was given a free hand, and so on. And years after supporters of the League of Nations themselves violated the basic idea of the League so far as the mandate system was concerned, and proclaimed the doctrine: “We hold what we have.” Originally, the idea was that the League should be based on right, justice and fairplay, but it degenerated to such an extent that not only had the world no longer any confidence in it but the League itself completely forfeited its very right of existence. Hence its downfall. But let the Prime Minister recover his faith in mankind. The people of this world are still the same people. There is a group which never wants peace, but the majority like he himself and I want peace, and mankind wants to build up a new monument for the future, a monument which will assure the world that henceforth right and justice will be victorious, and not violence and injustice. We on this side of the House feel very strongly on the implications of the motion of the Leader of the Opposition; we want the world to realise that we are alarmed at the future, and we are convinced to the very depth of our being that on the basis of the expectations of the Prime Minister, the sacrifice of blood and life, of life and material, has not been justified. Let us declare to the world our belief in the League of Nations. We do not believe in violence and destruction; we want to see created a foundation on which a new peace and a new world can be built. We Nationalists are often accused here in South Africa of being isolationists. We are not. We are part and parcel of the world. We have our share in the civilisation of the world. We can say with gratitude that our ancestors have contributed greatly to the enrichment of the world, and even today we have men who can contribute to it. We do not want to be isolated, but on the other hand we definitely do not want to be isolated in a small group like the British Empire. Seeing that we are portrayed to the world as isolationists we want to deny that we are isolationists and we want to declare that we do not want to be incorporated either into a small group. If Holland declares that it does not want to be incorporated into that group, then why should South Africa not take up the same attitude? I want to ask the Prime Minister, too, never to be frivolous again about the deep sentiments of his own people in favour of a republic in South Africa. A republic is in their souls, it is part of their very being, and neither he nor anybody else will eradicate it—not even if violence is applied. We want to contribute to the best of our ability to the peace of the world, and to the upbuilding of the nation, but we want to do so as a free nation, a nation with its own ways of life, its own customs and conceptions, and with full responsibility towards our country. Only then will we be able to contribute to the peace of the world. I notice that quite a number of my English speaking friends, whom I would have liked to have seen here, are absent for the moment. To my astonishment, to my pleasant astonishment, I have been told that I have always been regarded as a fairly moderate Nationalist. I do not know whether that is still so. I leave it to the judgment of hon. members. But because of that feeling on the part of members I want to make an appeal to the other side of the House not to hurt those here who are convinced Nationalists, not to show contempt for our desire for a certain form of government in South Africa, and not to ridicule it. It would be dangerous. We ask you jointly with us to foster a love for South Africa, for the good of South Africa in this world. Hon. members will recollect the old saying in the days of Rome, “Carthaga delenda est”. I want to appeal to hon. members to avoid our being forced to say, in regard to the British Empire, “Imperium delendum est”. Do not stir us up to that point. We have a great respect for those of our English speaking fellow citizens who want to maintain their relationshop with the British Isles. I can sympathise with their position. I can never understand their lack of patriotism so far as South Africa is concerned, but let me say this to them, that if they carry on in the way they are doing today, if they do not take up a different attitude towards South Africa, then one day I shall feel justified in saying, “Britannia delenda est.”

I am glad to hear from the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals), who, like myself, has for many years been a member of this House, and with whom I have sat in the same party for many years—I am glad to hear him say such a lot about the joint patriotism which we must build up and the respect which he has for the English-speaking section of the population in this country fighting on the side of England. The hon. member did not say anything about the Afrikaans-speaking section which is fighting side by side with the English-speaking section. The hon. member said that they on the other side of the House were speaking on behalf of “National South Africa.” I ask, who is “National”? The man who hides behind neutrality, or the man who takes his gun and defends his country? We, as Afrikaans-speaking members, and this applies particularly to the old members of the Nationalist Party who on the 4th September took their stand by the English-speaking section and joined the Prime Minister, we have for four years been eating bitter fruit, and one would have thought that after the result of the last elections hon. members opposite would have shown some respect for the will of the people of South Africa.

You also are one of those who has got back here with the aid of the coloured vote.

After everything, they come back here on the first day of the session with their plea for the establishment of a Republic.

Are you not in favour of that?

Have we not got sufficient social and economic problems—is it necessary for them to come here again after the unequivocal judgment of the people, with their talk about a Republic? Do not they realise that their own people are laughing at them? And then the hon. member for Ceres comes here to tell us that we must respect their opinion! I wonder who is more “National”—who is the better Nationalist, the hon. member or I. I ask him ot have respect for our opinion too. I ask the hon. member for Ceres also to have respect for the feelings of those who have gone through the Boer War, who have shared in the bitterness of the combat and who are now fighting side by side with the English-speaking section of the population because the freedom and the very existence of our people are in danger. It is late now and I therefore want to move—

I second.

Before you put the question, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, or some other responsible Minister, how the Agenda is going to be arranged? We are discusing an important motion and many other hon. members want to take part in the debate and we should like to know whether the Government will give some facilities so that the motion can come up for discussion again. We should like to know that in giving consideration to this motion for the adjournment of the debate.

The Government is anxious to proceed tomorrow and the day after tomorrow with financial business which is really urgent and which the Senate is waiting for, but we hope to be able to continue the debate a little later, and to place it on the Order Paper for Friday. As soon as other urgent business is disposed of we will see whether we can bring up the motion again for discussion.

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 28th January.