Never Give In! (64 page)

8 December 1944

House of Commons

In the wake of the Allied victories in Northern Europe, Italy and the Balkans, Greece was liberated. In Greece, gangs of Communist partisans tried to seize power in the birthplace of democracy. Churchill was having none of it and committed British troops to take control until the foundations of democratic government could be restored. He himself, while bullets were still flying, spent the last Christmas of the war in Athens to supervise developments.

Democracy, I say, is not based on violence or terrorism, but on reason, on fair play, on freedom, on respecting other people’s rights as well as their ambitions. Democracy is no harlot to be picked up in the street by a man with a tommy gun. I trust the people, the mass of the people, in almost any country, but I like to make sure that it is the people and not a gang of bandits from the mountains or from the countryside who think that by violence they can overturn constituted authority, in some cases ancient Parliaments, Governments and States. That is my general description of the foundation upon which we should approach the various special instances on which I am going to dwell. During the war, of course, we have had to arm anyone who could shoot a Hun. Apart from their character, political convictions, past records and so forth, if they were out to shoot a Hun we accepted them as friends and tried to enable them to fulfil their healthy instincts.

Mr
McGovern (Glasgow, Shettleston):
Now you are paying for it.

Mr Churchill:
We are paying for it in having this Debate today, which personally I have found rather enjoyable, so far. We are paying for it also with our treasure and our blood. We are not paying for it with our honour or by defeat. But when countries are liberated it does not follow that those who have received our weapons should use them in order to engross to themselves by violence and murder and bloodshed all those powers and traditions and continuity which many countries have slowly developed and to which quite a large proportion of their people, I believe the great majority, are firmly attached. If what is called in this Amendment the action of ‘the friends of democracy’ is to be interpreted as carefully planned
coups d’état
by murder gangs and by the iron rule of ruffians seeking to climb into the seats of power, without a vote ever having been cast in their favour – if that is to masquerade as democracy I think the House will unite in condemning it as a mockery.

‘WE DEMAND UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER’

18 January 1945

House of Commons

Fierce fighting was under way in the Ardennes, the Russians were advancing from the East into Prussia and a British/Indian Army was making headway against the Japanese in the jungles of Burma.

I am clear that nothing should induce us to abandon the principle of unconditional surrender, or to enter into any form of negotiation with Germany or Japan, under whatever guise such suggestions may present themselves, until the act of unconditional surrender has been formally executed. But the President of the United States, and I in your name, have repeatedly declared that the enforcement of unconditional surrender upon the enemy in no way relieves the victorious Powers of their obligations to humanity, or of their duties as civilised and Christian nations. I read somewhere that when the ancient Athenians, on one occasion, overpowered a tribe in the Peloponnesus which had wrought them great injury by base, treacherous means, and when they had the hostile army herded on a beach naked for slaughter, they forgave them and set them free, and they said:

This was not because they were men; it was done because of the nature of Man.

Similarly, in this temper, we may now say to our foes, ‘We demand unconditional surrender, but you well know how strict are the moral limits within which our action is confined. We are no extirpators of nations, butchers of peoples. We make no bargain with you. We accord you nothing as a right. Abandon your resistance unconditionally. We remain bound by our customs and our nature.’

There is another reason why any abrogation of the principle of unconditional surrender would be most improvident at the present time, and it is a reason by no means inconsistent with, or contradictory to, that which I have just given. We should have to discuss with the enemy, while they still remained with arms in their hands, all the painful details of the settlement which their indescribable crimes have made necessary for the future safety of Europe and of the world; and these, when recited in detail, might well become a greater obstacle to the end of the struggle than the broad generalisation which the term ‘unconditional surrender’ implies.

The Germans know perfectly well how these matters stand in general. Several countries have already surrendered unconditionally to the victorious Allies, to Russia, to Britain and to the United States. Already there is a tolerable life appointed for their peoples. Take Finland, take Italy: these peoples have not all been massacred and enslaved. On the contrary, so far as Italy is concerned, there are moments when one has almost wondered whether it was they who had unconditionally surrendered to us, or whether we were about to surrender unconditionally to them. This, at least, I can say on behalf of the United Nations to Germany: (If you surrender now, nothing that you will have to endure after the war will be comparable to what you are otherwise going to suffer during the year 1945.’

Peace, though based on unconditional surrender, will bring to Germany and Japan an immense, immediate amelioration of the suffering and agony which now lie before them. We, the Allies, are no monsters, but faithful men trying to carry forward the light of the world, trying to raise, from the bloody welter and confusion in which mankind is now plunged, a structure of peace, of freedom, of justice and of law, which system shall be an abiding and lasting shelter for all. That is how I venture to set before the Committee today the grave issue called ‘unconditional surrender’.

‘GREECE FOREVER, GREECE FOR ALL’

14 February 1945

Constitution Square, Athens

On his return from the Yalta Conference, Churchill stopped off in Greece to address a great crowd in the centre of Athens.

These are great days. These are days when dawn is bright, when darkness rolls away. A great future lies before your great country.

There has been much misunderstanding and ignorance of our common cause in many parts of the world, and there have been misrepresentations of issues fought out here in Athens. But now these matters are clearing, and there is an understanding of the part Greece has played and will play in the world.

Speaking as an Englishman, I am very proud of the part which the British Army played in protecting this great and immortal city against violence and anarchy. Our two countries have for long marched together along hard dusty roads in friendship and in loyalty.

Freedom and prosperity and happiness are dear to all nations of the British Commonwealth and Empire. We who have been associated with you in the very long struggle for Greek liberty, we will march with you till we reach the end of the dark valley, and we will march with you till we reach the broad highlands of justice and peace.

Let no one fail in his duty towards his country. Let no one swerve off the high road of truth and honour. Let no one fail to rise to the occasion of this great moment and of these splendid days. Let the Greek Nation stand first in every heart. Let it stand first in every man and woman. Let the future of Greece shine brightly in their eyes.

From the bottom of my heart I wish you prosperity. From the bottom of my heart I hope that Greece will take her proper place in the circle of victorious nations – of nations who have suffered terribly in war. Let right prevail. Let party hatreds die. Let there be unity, let there be resolute comradeship.

Greece forever. Greece for all.

THE YALTA CONFERENCE

27 February 1945

House of Commons

The Yalta Conference on Russia’s Crimean coast took place from 4 to 11 February. This was to be the final meeting of the ‘Big Three’ war leaders: Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin. The discussions centred around the future of Europe once Germany was defeated. The future of Poland, in whose defence Britain and France had drawn the sword in September 1939, was discussed at length and Stalin gave fulsome promises of democracy and fair elections. Tragically, the fate of the Polish nation was already sealed by the fact that their country had been ‘liberated’ by Russia’s Red Army, and Stalin was determined to install his own puppet government; meanwhile Roosevelt was already a desperately sick man, and within ten weeks of death.

The recent Conference of the three Powers in the Crimea faced realities and difficulties in so exceptional a manner that the result constituted an act of State, on which Parliament should formally express their opinion. His Majesty’s Government feel they have the right to know where they stand with the House of Commons. A strong expression of support by the House will strengthen our position among our Allies. The intimate and sensitive connections between the Executive Government and the House of Commons will thereby also be made plain, thus showing the liveliness of our democratic institutions, and the subordination of Ministers to Parliamentary authority. The House will not shrink from its duty of pronouncing. We live in a time when equality of decision is required from all who take part in our public affairs. In this way also the firm and tenacious character of the present Parliament, and, generally, of our Parliamentary institutions, emerging as they do fortified from the storms of the war, will be made manifest. We have therefore thought it right and necessary to place a positive Motion on the Paper, in support of which I should like to submit some facts and arguments to the House at the opening of this three days’ Debate.

The difficulties of bringing about a Conference of the three heads of the Governments of the principal Allies are only too obvious. The fact that, in spite of all modern methods of communication, fourteen months elapsed between Teheran and Yalta is a measure of those difficulties. It is well known that His Majesty’s Government greatly desired a triple meeting in the Autumn. We rejoiced when, at last, Yalta was fixed, On the way there, the British and United States delegations met at Malta to discuss the wide range of our joint military and political affairs. The combined Chiefs of Staff of the two countries were for three days in conference upon the great operations now developing on the Western Front, and upon the war plans against Japan, which it was appropriate for us to discuss together. The Foreign Secretary, accompanied by high officials and assistants, some of whom unhappily perished on the way, also met Mr Stettinius there. On the morning of 2nd February the cruiser which bore the President steamed majestically into the battle-scarred harbour, A plenary meeting of the combined Chiefs of Staff was held in the afternoon, at which the President and I approved the proposals which had been so carefully worked out in the preceding days for carrying our joint war effort to the highest pitch, and for the shaping and timing of the military operations. . . .

After that, we all flew safely from Malta to the airfield in the Crimea, and motored over the mountains – about which very alarming accounts had been given, but these proved to be greatly exaggerated – until we found shelter on the Southern shore of the Crimea. This is protected by the mountains, and forms a beautiful Black Sea Riviera, where there still remain undestroyed by the Nazis
a
few villas and palaces of the vanished Imperial and aristocratic régime. By extreme exertions and every form of thoughtfulness and ingenuity, our Russian hosts had restored these dwellings to good order, and had provided for our accommodation and comfort in the true style of Russian hospitality. In the background were the precipices and the mountains; beyond them, the devastated fields and shattered dwellings of the Crimea, across which the armies have twice surged in deadly combat. Here on this shore, we laboured for nine days and grappled with many problems of war and policy while friendship grew. . . .

On world organisation, there is little that I can say beyond what is contained in the Report of the Conference, and, of course, in the earlier reports which emanated from Dumbarton Oaks. In the Crimea, the three Great Powers agreed on a solution of the difficult question of voting procedure, to which no answer had been found at Dumbarton Oaks. Agreement on this vital matter has enabled us to take the next step forward in the setting-up of the new world organisation, and the arrangements are in hand for the issue of invitations to the United Nations Conference which, as I have said, will meet in a couple of months at San Francisco. I wish I could give to the House full particulars of the solution of this question of the voting procedure, to which representatives of the three Great Powers, formerly in disagreement, have now wholeheartedly agreed. We thought it right, however, that we should consult both France and China, and should endeavour to secure their acceptance before the formula was published. For the moment, therefore, I can only deal with the matter in general terms.

Here is the difficulty which has to be faced. It is on the Great Powers that the chief burden of maintaining peace and security will fall. The new world organisation must take into account this special responsibility of the Great Powers, and must be so framed as not to compromise their unity, or their capacity for effective action if it is called for at short notice. At the same time, the world organisation cannot be based upon a dictatorship of the Great Powers. It is their duty to serve the world and not to rule it. We trust the voting procedure on which we agreed at Yalta meets these two essential points, and provides a system which is fair and acceptable, having regard to the evident difficulties, which will meet anyone who gives prolonged thought to the subject. . . .