FORMER POLICY CRITICIZED

Southland Times, Issue 23793, 15 April 1939, Page 7

FORMER POLICY CRITICIZED

MR ATTLEE WELCOMES GUARANTEES GRAVE DANGERS FACED BY BRITAIN (British Official Wireless) RUGBY, April 13. In the House of Commons the Leader of the Labour Opposition, Mr C. R. Attlee, expressed disappointment that Mr Chamberlain had not more clearly dissociated himself from his former policy of trusting the dictators, which had been proved mistaken. Mr Attlee thought that the rape of Albania was to the Anglo-Italian Agreement what the destruction of Czechoslovakia was to the Munich Declaration. It was not clear that the Prime Minister did not intend to continue to follow what had been a disastrous policy. Mr Chamberlain interrupted Mr Attlee at this point. When the latter repeated: “I thought that the Prime Minister said he intended to pursue the policy he had introduced,” Mr Chamberlain declared: “What I said was that I thought it right at the time. I did not say that the changes which had taken place would make it right to continue the same policy.” Mr Attlee said that he welcomed the fact that the British Government had undertaken these responsibilities towards Poland, Greece and Rumania, but he pointed out that in so doing it was necessarily facing grave dangers and argued that what the Government had done was at last to undertake those obligations which it had refused to accept under the League Covenant at a time when it would have ensured peace and which now brought to all the dangers which it had been formerly argued that the Covenant involved without any of the compensating advantages which it would have given. The Government was plugging the leaks here and there as they appeared, but there was still no sign that it had constructive plans for building and strengthening the dam of collective security against war. Mr Attlee emphasized the importance of associating Russia with any league of powers against aggression. Sir Archibald Sinclair, Leader of the Liberal Opposition, said that he also was doubtful if the Government was bestirring itself sufficiently at a time when it should be moving quickly and resolutely to build up a general system of collective security. Such a system must be buttressed by force and to that buttress Britain must contribute in proportion to its population, resources, and power and must give the world convincing proof that she was resolved to do so. Nobody doubted that the men could be obtained. The spirit of the British people was high and they saw the danger clearly. Sir Archibald also urged the necessity for a Ministry of Supply and was also anxious to see a closer approach to Russia. INCLUSION OF RUSSIA Mr Winston Churchill (Conservative) joined in the welcome to the assurances to Greece and Rumania, but maintained that the essence of the policy of building up of alliances against the aggressor was speed and vigour. Half measures were useless. Of first importance was the full inclusion of Russia in the defensive bloc. It was also imperative to foster unity in the Balkans. Mr Churchill also entered a plea for compulsory service. \ Mr George Lansbury asked what guarantee there was, if once more Europe were plunged into war, that masses of young men would not again give their lives in an adventure which led nowhere.

Mr R. A. Eden (Conservative) disagreed with Mr Attlee that the Government was pursuing the same old policy. It seemed to him that it was very definitely engaged upon a new policy. There could be no more serious new policy than the commitments that had been announced that day to Greece and Rumania. Britain and France, he contended, were doing what they could to build up what might be called a “peace front.” Faced with the methods which had been adopted by other States, Britain had first of all to cry halt, but she must make it absolutely plain that she was doing that not because she was filled with dislike or animosity to any people anywhere on earth, but simply because if that process went on it would be impossible to hope to preserve peace. “The object is not encirclement, but the provision of an organization affording a basis for negotiations,” said Mr Eden. “There is no hope of bettering the situation until respect for international engagements is restored.” It was a formidable task, but the policy that the House of Commons had already endorsed was the only one by which it could be achieved.

Speaking in the House of Lords, Lord Snell approved of the assurances to Greece and Rumania.

Referring to the continuance of the Anglo-Italian Agreement, he said that he did not like to assume that Britain was buying Italy from Spain by making no “noise” about the Albanian situation. The key seemed to be the British, French and Soviet declaration of peace and the intention to resist aggression, which would secure the goodwill of the United States and give new hope to the small nations. Other speakers supported the Government’s action, urging the Powers to mobilize industry, wealth and man power and emphasizing the importance of Russian support.