DEFEAT OF GERMANY

Evening Star, Issue 25422, 1 March 1945, Page 5

DEFEAT OF GERMANY

DESTRUCTION OF NAZISM-NQT PEOPLE MR CHURCHILL'S SPEECH DEBATED RUGBY; Feb. 27. In the deba'te following the Prime Minister's speech, Mr Arthur Greenwood (Lab.) congratulated Mr Churchill on one of the most masterly speeches he had heard in his life. He fully supported that section of the motion before the House on the defeat of Germany. The destruction of the foul ideas of Nazidom did not necessarily involve the destruction of a people. It would be wrong to think of our problem in these terms. What was certain was that we must destroy any hope of an opportunity for the people in peacetime, to develop a war potential. That did not necessarily mean impoverishment of the German people. No country in the world could profit by the impoverish-, merit of 60,000,000 to 80,000,000 people, but the fact that we must draw the second teeth of the Germans must still stand. He did not believe this need involve crippling the Germans' peace-time capacity for peace-time production. It might be that there would be a necessity to take a measure of international control. It should inmade clear to the Germans after the war that in no circumstances could the United Nations permit her. to. develop her capacity and resources which could in any circumstances be used for warlike purposes. Reparation afforded the only means of bringing home to the people of Germany the crimes that had been committed, and of getting them to put right, what they had, put wrong. The "Big Three " must not regard themselves as overlords of Europe. He did not think the.y should decide the fate of small nations, which did not have the economic resources or military power we had. On the question of Poland, Mr Greenwood, said he thought it was contrary to the principles of British justice for the fate of a nation to be decided in its absence behind its back. There should be in Eastern Europe a bright and living beacon, a Poland free and independent, as a warning note against future aggression bv Germany. He did not think the Polish Government had been too well treated by the British Government. " 1 really feel that before the decision was taken Poland might have been consulted." - In conclusion, Mr Greenwood said that the comradeship forged in the hour of common peril ought to be strong enough to sustain the strains of peace. Unless unity was preserved into the days of peace Hitler would have won the war, and in the hell into which he deserved to go he would gloat ovi" Sir William Beveridge (Con.) said he had no hesitation in supporting the Curzon line as the basic boundary on the east, but he \ did not feel happy about the suggestion that Poland should be encouraged to.extend westward into German territory other than East Prussia and Danzig. He was opposed to partition and indefinite dismemberment of Germany. Captain J. H. McEwen (Con.) said he refused to agree with the arrangement made on the Polish question, and if we stuck to the Polish Government in London we would at least have no cause to be ashamed. If it were said that would have resulted in dinlomatic isolation, he could only say that wo had still not learnt the lesson of 1940 —that it was a little thing to stand alone if we were convinced that we were standing for what was right.