Authors: Winston Churchill
Never Give In! (75 page)
The central and almost the most serious problem which glares upon the Europe of today is the future of Germany. Without a solution of this problem, there can be no United Europe. Except within the framework and against the background of a United Europe this problem is incapable of solution. In a continent of divided national States, Germany and her hard-working people will not find the means or scope to employ their energies. Economic suffocation will inevitably turn their thoughts to revolt and to revenge. Germany will once again become a menace to her neighbours and to the whole world; and the fruits of victory and liberation will once more be cast away. But on the wider stage of a United Europe German industry and German genius would be able to find constructive and peaceful outlets. Instead of being a centre of poverty and a source of danger, the German people would be enabled to bring back prosperity in no small measure, not only to themselves, but to the whole continent.
Germany today lies prostate, famishing among ruins. Obviously no initiative can be expected from her. It is for France and Britain to take the lead. Together they must, in a friendly manner, bring the German people back into the European circle. No one can say, and we need not attempt to forecast, the future constitution of Germany. Various individual German States are at present being recreated. There are the old States and Principalities of the Germany of former days to which the culture of the world owed much. But without prejudice to any future question of German federation, these individual States might well be invited to take their place in the Council of Europe. Thus, in looking back to happier days we should hope to mark the end of that long trail of hatred and retaliation which has already led us all, victors and vanquished alike, into the pit of squalor, slaughter and ruin.
The prime duty and opportunity of bringing about this essential reunion belongs to us and to our French friends across the Channel. Strong bonds of affection, mutual confidence, common interest and similar outlook link France and Britain together. The Treaty of Alliance which has lately been signed only gives formal expression to the community of sentiment that already exists as an indisputable and indestructible fact. It is true that this task of reconciliation requires on the part of France, which has suffered so cruelly, an act of faith, sublime in character; but it is by this act of faith and by this act of faith alone that France will regain her historic position in the leadership of Europe.
There is also another leading member of our family of nations to be held in mind. There is Italy. Everything that I have said about the imperative need of reaching a reconciliation with the German race and the ending of the fearful quarrels that have ruined them, and almost ruined us, applies in a less difficult degree to the Italian people, who wish to dwell happily and industriously within their beautiful country, and who were hurled by a dictator into the hideous struggles of the North. I am told that this idea of a United Europe makes an intense appeal to Italians, who look back across the centuries of confusion and disorder to the glories of the classic age, when a dozen legions were sufficient to preserve peace and law throughout vast territories and when free men could travel freely under the sanction of a common citizenship. We hope to reach again a Europe purged of the slavery of ancient days in which men will be as proud to say ‘I am a European’ as once they were to say ‘Civis Romanus sum’. We hope to see a Europe where men of every country will think as much of being a European as of belonging to their native land, and wherever they go in this wide domain will truly feel ‘Here I am at home’. How simple it would all be, and how crowned with glory, if that should ever arise.
It will of course be asked: ‘What are the political and physical boundaries of the United Europe you are trying to create? Which countries will be in and which out?’ It is not our task or wish to draw frontier lines, but rather to smoothe them away. Our aim is to bring about the unity of all nations of all Europe. We seek to exclude no State whose territory lies in Europe and which assures to its people those fundamental personal rights and liberties on which our democratic European civilisation has been created. Some countries will feel able to come into our circle sooner, and others later, according to the circumstances in which they are placed. But they can all be sure that whenever they are able to join, a place and a welcome will be waiting for them at the European Council table.
When I first began writing about the United States of Europe some 15 years ago, I wondered whether the USA would regard such a development as antagonistic to their interest, or even contrary to their safety. But all that has passed away. The whole movement of American opinion is favourable to the revival and re-creation of Europe. This is surely not unnatural when we remember how the manhood of the United States has twice in a lifetime been forced to re-cross the Atlantic Ocean and give their lives and shed their blood and pour out their treasure as the result of wars originating from ancient European feuds. One cannot be surprised that they would like to see a peaceful and united Europe taking its place among the foundations of the World Organisation to which they are devoted. I have no doubt that, far from encountering any opposition or prejudice from the Great Republic of the New World, our Movement will have their blessing and their aid.
We here in Great Britain have always to think of the British self-governing Dominions – Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa. We are joined together by ties of free will and affection which have stood unyielding against all the ups and downs of fortune. We are the centre and summit of a world-wide commonwealth of nations. It is necessary that any policy this island may adopt towards Europe and in Europe should enjoy the full sympathy and approval of the peoples of the Dominions. But why should we suppose that they will not be with us in this cause? They feel with us that Britain is geographically and historically a part of Europe, and that they also have their inheritance in Europe. If Europe united is to be a living force, Britain will have to play her full part as a member of the European family. The Dominions also know that their youth, like that of the United States, has twice in living memory traversed the immense ocean spaces to fight and die in wars brought about by European discord, in the prevention of which they have been powerless. We may be sure that the cause of United Europe, in which the mother country must be a prime mover, will in no way be contrary to the sentiments which join us all together with our Dominions in the august circle of the British Crown.
It is of course alleged that all advocacy of the ideal of United Europe is nothing but a manoeuvre in the game of power politics, and that it is a sinister plot against Soviet Russia. There is no truth in this. The whole purpose of a united democratic Europe is to give decisive guarantees against aggression. Looking out from the ruins of some of their most famous cities and from amid the cruel devastation of their fairest lands, the Russian people should surely realise how much they stand to gain by the elimination of the causes of war and the fear of war on the European Continent. The creation of a healthy and contented Europe is the first and truest interest of the Soviet Union. We had therefore hoped that all sincere efforts to promote European agreement and stability would receive, as they deserve, the sympathy and support of Russia. Instead, alas, all this beneficial design has been denounced and viewed with suspicion by the propaganda of the Soviet Press and radio. We have made no retort and I do not propose to do so tonight. But neither could we accept the claim that the veto of a single power, however respected, should bar and prevent a movement necessary to the peace, amity and well-being of so many hundreds of millions of toiling and striving men and women.
And here I will invoke the interest of the broad, proletarian masses. We see before our eyes hundreds of millions of humble homes in Europe and in lands outside which have been affected by war. Are they never to have a chance to thrive and flourish? Is the honest, faithful, breadwinner never to be able to reap the fruits of his labour? Can he never bring up his children in health and joy and with the hopes of better days? Can he never be free from the fear of foreign invasion, the crash of the bomb or the shell, the tramp of the hostile patrol, or what is even worse, the knock upon his door of the political police to take the loved one far from the protection of law and justice, when all the time by one spontaneous effort of his will he could wake from all these nightmare horrors and stand forth in his manhood, free in the broad light of day? The conception of European unity already commands strong sympathy among the leading statesmen in almost all countries. ‘Europe must federate or perish,’ said the present Prime Minister, Mr Attlee, before the late terrible war. He said that, and I have no reason to suppose that he will abandon that prescient declaration at a time when the vindication of his words is at hand. Of course we understand that until public opinion expresses itself more definitely, Governments hesitate to take positive action. It is for us to provide the proof of solid popular support, both here and abroad, which will give the Governments of Europe confidence to go forward and give practical effect to their beliefs. We cannot say how long it will be before this stage is reached. We ask, however, that in the meantime His Majesty’s Government, together with other Governments, should approach the various pressing Continental problems from a European rather than from a restricted national angle. In the discussions on the German and Austrian peace settlements, and indeed throughout the whole diplomatic field, the ultimate ideal should be held in view. Every new arrangement that is made should be designed in such a manner as to be capable of later being fitted into the pattern of a United Europe.
We do not of course pretend that United Europe provides the final and complete solution to all the problems of international relationships. The creation of an authoritative, all-powerful world order is the ultimate aim towards which we must strive. Unless some effective World Super-Government can be set up and brought quickly into action, the prospects for peace and human progress are dark and doubtful.
But let there be no mistake upon the main issue. Without a United Europe there is no sure prospect of world government. It is the urgent and indispensable step towards the realisation of that ideal. After the First Great War the League of Nations tried to build, without the aid of the USA, an international order upon a weak, divided Europe. Its failure cost us dear.
Today, after the Second World War, Europe is far weaker and still more distracted. One of the four main pillars of the Temple of Peace lies before us in shattered fragments. It must be assembled and reconstructed before there can be any real progress in building a spacious superstructure of our desires. If, during the next five years, it is found possible to build a world organisation of irresistible force and inviolable authority for the purpose of securing peace, there are no limits to the blessings which all men may enjoy and share. Nothing will help forward the building of that world organisation so much as unity and stability in a Europe that is conscious of her collective personality and resolved to assume her rightful part in guiding the unfolding destinies of man.
In the ordinary day-to-day affairs of life, men and women expect rewards for successful exertion, and this is often right and reasonable. But those who serve causes as majestic and high as ours need no reward; nor are our aims limited by the span of human life. If success come to us soon, we shall be happy. If our purpose is delayed, if we are confronted by obstacles and inertia, we may still be of good cheer, because in a cause, the righteousness of which will be proclaimed by the march of future events and the judgment of happier ages, we shall have done our duty, we shall have done our best.
4 October 1947
Conservative Party Conference, Brighton
Confiscatory taxation has been applied to wealth to an extent only practised in Communist countries. All our daily life is increasingly subjected to ten thousand Regulations and Controls, in the enforcement of which a multitude of officials, larger than any army we have ever maintained in time of peace, is continually employed. Hundreds of new crimes have been invented for which imprisonment or penal servitude may be inflicted. In fact, on every side and by every means the machinery for the totalitarian grip upon British society is being built up and perfected. One could almost wonder whether the Government do not reconcile themselves to the economic misfortunes of our country, to which their mismanagement has so notably contributed, because these misfortunes give the pretext of establishing even more controls and an even larger bureaucracy. They make mistakes which make things worse. As things get worse they claim more power to set them right. Thus they move ever nearer to the scheme of the All-powerful State, in which the individual is a helpless serf or pawn.
And here I come to the remark of the Prime Minister last Saturday when he said, ‘Some do not understand the amount of Freedom which we rightly
give
to an Opposition to criticise.’ The word that struck me in this sentence is the word ‘give’. So it is Mr Attlee who
gives
us our rights to freedom of speech and political action, and we are invited to be grateful for his magnanimity. But I thought these same rights had been won for the British people beyond dispute or challenge by our forebears in bygone generations. These were the rights for which, to quote a famous Whig phrase, ‘Hampden died in the field and Sidney on the scaffold.’ And now it is Mr Attlee who thinks he has given them to us. Let him cherish these illusions, but let him not be so foolish as to try to take them away. Well was it said, ‘the price of freedom is eternal vigilance’. Small steps and graduated stages are the means by which, in the history of many countries, the freedom of great and noble races has been slowly frittered and whittled away.
