Chapter 14 Volume 1 Chapter 10 Sanctions against Italy｜1935

The Second Great Strike, Battle of Adwa, Memory Prudence, A Talk at the Foreign Office, A Peaceful Vote, The Power of the British Navy in the Mediterranean, Sir Hall's Statement at the Geneva Conference and the Mobilization of the British Navy, My Statement at the Carlton Club, Ink Solini's encroachment on Abyssinia's backlash in the UK Mr Lansbury resigns as Labor leader of Parliament fake sanctions Mr Baldwin's peace decision Conservative party conference Mr Baldwin's actions on elections His huge majority Hall ｜The turmoil in the Laval Agreement Parliament I am abroad and the impact of Mussolini's conquest of Abyssinia on Europe.

World peace has now been dealt a second major blow.After Great Britain lost its air balance, Italy fell to Germany.These two things together allowed Hitler to proceed along the vicious line he had long decided. We have seen that Mussolini has done a lot of help to maintain the independence of Austria, which is of great significance to Central and Southeastern Europe.Now he's going into the opposite camp. Nazi Germany was no longer isolated either.One of the main allied powers in the First World War unexpectedly joined hands with it very quickly.I was very disturbed by this heavy shift in the balance of safety.

Mussolini's ambitions for Abyssinia were inconsistent with the ethics of the twentieth century.Such ambition is the act of the dark ages, when the white race thought it was its right to conquer the yellow, brown, black, or red race, and conquer them with superior strength and weapons.Such crimes and atrocities committed in our present civilized age which savages were afraid of, or at least were incapable of committing, are not only antiquated, but unforgivable. Moreover, Abyssinia is also a member of the League of Nations.Strange to say, it was Italy that insisted on Abyssinia's admission to the League of Nations in 1932; it was Britain that opposed it.At that time, Britain believed that the nature of the Ethiopian government, as well as the tyranny, slavery and frequent tribal wars prevailing in this barbaric area, were not suitable for membership in the League of Nations.But Italy insisted on doing so, and Abyssinia became a member of the League of Nations, with all the rights and security it could confer.

The question of Abyssinia is indeed a question to test whether this institution of world government will be able to live up to the hopes that all good men have in it. Italy's dictator was not driven solely by a desire for territorial expansion.His rule, his security, is maintained by prestige.Forty years ago, the humiliation of Italy's defeat at Ardois, when an Italian army was not only annihilated or captured, but disgracefully broken into pieces, caused the ridicule of the whole world, It makes all Italians feel pain in their hearts.They had seen how, after a few years, the British had justified their defeats at Khartoum and Mazuba.In Italy, avenging the defeat of Adova was as proud as France's taking back Alsace and Lorraine.Mussolini's desire to easily consolidate his own power, or, as he saw it, to increase Italy's prestige in Europe, without great risk and cost, seemed to be nothing more than to wash away the humiliation suffered decades earlier. , and the incorporation of Abyssinia into the territory of the recently formed Italian Empire, and nothing else.

All these ideas are wrong and despicable, but it is always wise to know other countries' views, so perhaps they can be recorded. When I felt that the terrible struggle against the rearmament of Nazi Germany was looming inexorably and striding forward, I really hated to see Italy alienate us, or even go to the opposite camp.Undoubtedly, at this time, if the attack of one member of the League of Nations on another was not reproached, the eventual destruction of the League of Nations was regarded as a factor in the mustering of forces which alone would be sufficient to control a revived Germany. power and the dreaded Hitler threat.Probably more could be gained from the preservation of the dignity of the League of Nations than Italy could give, retain, or concede.Therefore, if the League of Nations is prepared to use the combined strength of its members to resist Mussolini's policies, then it is our duty to do our part in good faith.But from all perspectives, Britain does not seem to have the obligation to take the lead.Facing Germany's rearmament, Britain had to take into account its own vulnerability to the loss of air balance, not to mention France's military status.One thing is obvious and certain:

He cannot appease if England is at the head, for appeasement, which is of no use to the League of Nations, is extremely harmful to England.If we think that a break with Mussolini's Italy is just and necessary to the law and tranquility of Europe, we must bring him down.Bringing down the smaller dictator may bring all the forces, which are still overwhelmingly overwhelming, into play so that we can contain the larger dictator and prevent a second war in Germany. These general impressions are the prelude to the description in this chapter. Since the Conference of Strezza, Mussolini's plans to conquer Abyssinia had become increasingly evident.British public opinion would obviously oppose such an act of aggression against Italy.Those of us who believed that Hitler's Germany was not only a danger to peace but to the very existence of mankind were anxious that Italy, then considered a first-class power, should fall from our side to that.I remember a dinner in which Sir Robert Vansittart and Mr. Duff Cooper were present, when Mr. Cooper was only an Under-Secretary, at which this misfortune in the balance of power in Europe was clearly foreseen. change.A plan was put forward, and some of us were invited to see Mussolini and explain to him what would inevitably happen in England if he invaded.There is no further information on this matter, even if it goes, it may not be of any use.Mussolini, like Hitler, thought of Britain as a frightened, despondent old woman who, at worst, was merely frightening, incapable of waging war anyway.His good friend Lord Lloyd had noted how deeply he had been impressed when the Oxford students in 1933 issued the Joad Resolution refusing to fight for King and Country.

On July 11th I expressed my concerns in Parliament: We seem to have given the impression that we ourselves are going forward, like a belled sheep or a guide, leading European opinion against Italian ambitions for Abyssinia.Some have even suggested that we go it alone.I was relieved when I heard the Foreign Secretary say that there was no basis for this claim.We must do our part, but we must act together only in accordance with obligations recognized by other nations.We are not strong enough to be the lawmakers and speakers of the world.We are to do our part, but we cannot be asked to do more than our duty on these issues

There is indeed a dark cloud hanging over the old friendship between England and Italy at the present moment; and this cloud, I do not think, will be easily dissipated, though every one does hope that it will.There is an old friendship between our two countries, and let us not forget a fact that few people know, that in the last century, when Italy joined the Triple Alliance, it specifically stipulated in the treaty that, whether in In no event shall its obligations under the Treaty of Alliance lead to an armed conflict between it and Great Britain. In August, the Foreign Secretary invited me and the Leader of the Opposition to visit him separately at the Foreign Office.

The matter of these consultations has been announced by the government.Lord Hall told me of the growing anxiety which had been caused by the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, and asked me how I should prepare to oppose it.Before replying, I wanted to know more about the internal and personal standpoint of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs under the leadership of the two ministers, so I asked Aiden what his opinion was.Hall said: I'll go get him.So, a few minutes later, Aiden came with a big smile and a very nice manner.We had a nice conversation.I said I thought the Foreign Secretary could work with the League of Nations against Italy to the extent that he could move France.But I said again that he should not put pressure on France, because France has a military treaty with Italy, and she has a mind against Germany; so in this situation, I don't think France will go very far.I then spoke of the Italian troops on the Brenner Pass, of the undefended Southern French line, and of other military situations.

In general, I firmly advise ministers not to make Britain take the lead, or to lead too prominently.My reason for this, of course, is that I feel the horror of Germany and the reduction of our national defense forces. During the first months of 1935 a peace vote was organized in favor of collective security and in support of the League of Nations Covenant.The plan was endorsed by the League of Nations Association, but initiated by an organization largely backed by the Labor and Liberal parties.The questions raised are as follows: peaceful vote 1. Should Britain remain a member of the League of Nations?

2. Do you agree with international agreements for general disarmament? 3. Do you favor the use of international agreements for the complete abolition of the Army and Naval Air Forces of all countries? 4. Should international agreements prohibit the manufacture and sale of arms for private profit? 5. If a country insists on attacking another country, do you think other countries should join forces to force him to stop the attack by (1) economic and non-military means, or (2) military means if necessary? The results of the vote were announced on June 27: more than 11 million people signed in the affirmative.At first, ministers seemed to have misunderstood the peaceful vote.Its name belies its purpose.It clearly links the two contradictory propositions of disarmament and resistance to aggression.There are many who see it as part of a peace movement.In fact, on the contrary, the fifth question proposes a positive and courageous policy, which, if implemented at this time, will surely win the support of the majority of the people in the country.Lord Cecil and the other leaders of the Association of the League of Nations, when this question was raised, were willing and determined, as soon as the facts showed, to fight for a just cause, if all necessary action were advocated by the League of Nations.In the months that followed, their estimates of the facts varied considerably.Indeed, throughout the year I tried to bring them into agreement with me on what I called a policy of equal emphasis on force and the Covenant of Nations. Throughout the summer, Italian troop carriers passed through the Suez Canal; large numbers of troops and supplies were concentrated along the eastern frontier of Abyssinia.After my talk at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a very strange incident happened suddenly, which surprised me.On August 24, the Cabinet made a decision and announced that Britain would abide by the treaty and the obligations of the League of Nations.This created an immediate crisis in the Mediterranean; and as the Foreign Secretary had only recently consulted me, I thought it appropriate to ask him to give me a clear account of the naval situation. Mr Churchill to Sir Hall August 25, 1935 I am sure you will be careful not to make the grave mistake of putting diplomacy ahead of naval deployment.We noticed this problem in 1914. Where is our fleet?Are they doing well?Are they powerful enough?Can they concentrate quickly and fully?Are they safe?Were they alerted in advance?Don't forget that you're putting extreme pressure on a dictator who may be desperate to do anything.He is likely to measure the belly of a gentleman with the heart of a villain.He may at some point in the next fortnight think you have more designs than the present Cabinet can foresee.When you are talking of wise creeds precisely prescribed, perhaps he will act violently; it is better not to plant temptations in his way. I read in the papers that the Mediterranean Fleet was leaving Malta for the Isle of Levan. (for the sake of the fleet) It would certainly be wise to leave Malta, as I know Malta has no air defense at all.The Mediterranean Fleet, based at Alexandria, etc., is statistically (and this is all we can rely on) much weaker than the Italian Navy.Today I took some time to look up the construction of cruisers and destroyers in both countries since the Great War.I think we are less than half as strong as Italy in terms of modern cruisers and destroyers, let alone modern submarines.I therefore think it necessary to ask the Admiralty what is the state of the British Fleet at Ile Levan.It has the potential to fail us miserably.Does it have enough strength to defend itself?To use the Atlantic Fleet and the Home Fleet to support it, it would take more than three thousand miles to sail.Many things must have happened before these fleets sailed to join them.I do not doubt, and indeed dare not doubt, that the Admiralty has given any thought to this disposition.I hope you will be satisfied with their appropriate answers to these questions. Earlier I had heard talk of a plan to withdraw the fleet from the Mediterranean in case of war with Italy, and to hold only the Straits of Gibraltar and the Red Sea.It seems that sending the Mediterranean Fleet to Levan Island now is part of this policy.If true, I hope the plan is well thought out.If we were once in a state of war or semi-war with Italy, if we abandoned the Mediterranean at that time, we would have little power to prevent Mussolini from making a large-scale landing in Egypt and seizing the Suez Canal.Only France has such power.Should this happen, can the Admiralty be sure that France will come forward? George Lloyd now agrees with me that, in view of the urgency of the situation, I should send this letter to you.I am not asking for a detailed answer from you; I only hope that the Admiralty's disposition is indeed to your satisfaction. Reply of the Foreign Secretary on 27 August: All the questions you have raised have been and are being discussed seriously, please rest assured.I am aware of all the dangers you mention, and I will try to watch them, and never neglect them.If you think it is necessary to make some suggestions or warnings, please do not hesitate to let me know.You know as well as anyone about a dangerous situation like this, and you know as well as anyone else, at least among those outside the government, the current state of our defense. Mr Eden is Secretary of State for the League of Nations, almost on equal footing with the Foreign Secretary.He had been in Geneva for several weeks.He called a meeting of the League of Nations in Geneva to discuss a policy of sanctioning Italy should it invade Abyssinia.Mr. Eden's assignment to this office, and the nature of it, caused him to focus his attention more heavily on the Abyssinian question than on other matters.The so-called sanctions refer to cutting off all financial aid and economic supplies to Italy, and giving such aid to Abyssinia.For a country like Italy, once a war breaks out, many necessary supplies have to be imported from foreign sources, so this kind of sanctions is indeed a huge deterrent for it.Aiden's enthusiasm and his speech, and the principles he laid out, dominated the meeting.On September 11 Sir Hall, Foreign Secretary, arrived in Geneva and addressed the Conference: I want to reiterate my government's support for the League of Nations and the concerns of the British people for their collective security.The ideas embodied in the Covenant of the League of Nations, especially the aspiration to establish the rule of law in international affairs, have become part of our national conscience.Britain has shown that it is not any other special gesture to which it will stick, but the principles of the League of Nations.If we look at it differently, it will not only underestimate our faith, but also tarnish our sincerity.In order to abide by its clear and distinct obligations, the League of Nations has given strong support to the collective maintenance of the integrity of the Covenant, especially the resolute collective opposition to all unprovoked acts of aggression.And we, the UK, stand unswervingly with the League of Nations. In spite of my anxiety over Germany and dissatisfaction with the way things were handled in my country, I cannot forget how moved I was when I read this speech in the sunshine of the Riviera.This speech inspired everyone and caused a sensation all over the United States.It also brought together those factions in Britain who boldly advocated for justice and strength.This is at least a policy.If the speaker had known at that time how great it would be to unleash the power in his hands, I am afraid he would have led the whole world at that time. The great force of this statement is that it has the backing of the British Navy; and so have many causes which have in the past been of real importance to the progress and liberty of mankind.For the first and last time, the League of Nations seemed to wield a permanent weapon.This is the power of the international police, relying on its supreme authority to exert various pressures or persuade diplomatically and economically.On September 12, the day after this speech was delivered, the battlecruisers Hood and Renown, accompanied by the Second Cruiser Squadron and a Destroyer Squadron, sailed for Gibraltar.All parties believe that the UK will back up its rhetoric with actions.Domestically, there was immediate and strong support for such policies and actions.It is not without reason to think that the Admiralty must have carefully planned how many warships would be required in the Mediterranean to fulfill our mission, or else this statement would not have been made, and the fleet would not have been mobilized. At the end of September, I spoke at the Carleton Club, an influential Orthodox organization.I want to warn Mussolini.I trust he will read my speech.I said: Going against the good wishes of the whole world and without commanding the sea, an army of 250,000 excellent Italians was sent to a deserted coast 2,000 miles away. A series of battles, attacking a nation, and that area, no conqueror has thought it worth conquering for four thousand years, this is indeed an adventure that has never been done in the history of the country. Austin Chamberlain wrote to me approving my speech.I wrote back to him: October 1, 1935 It pleases me that you agree with the line I have taken on the Abyssinian question; but this question displeases me.It would be a terrible act to bring down Italy, and it would cost us dearly.How strange that after all these years we have begged France to reconcile with Italy, we are now forcing France to choose between Italy and my country!I don't think we should lead the world with such drastic methods.We should have warned Mussolini two months earlier if we had had such a strong aversion to the subject.The wise approach would be to gradually increase the strength of the Mediterranean Fleet in early summer to let him know that the problem is serious.What steps will he take now?If war (in Abyssinia) breaks out, I expect the spirits to rise considerably. In October, Mussolini, unimpressed by the belated mobilization of the British navy, mobilized Italian troops to attack Abyssinia.On the 10th, at the General Assembly of the League of Nations, the sovereign nations adopted a fifty-to-one resolution to take collective measures against Italy and to form a committee of eighteen to make further efforts towards a peaceful settlement.Under these circumstances, Mussolini issued a very sharp and clear statement. He did not say that Italy would meet the sanctions with war, but said: Italy will meet the sanctions with discipline, economy and sacrifice.At the same time, however, he hinted that he would not tolerate any sanctions imposed on him to prevent his invasion of Abyssinia.If his cause is jeopardized, he will fight anyone who stands in his way.He said: Fifty countries!Fifty countries, led by only one country!That's the situation a few weeks before Britain dissolves Parliament and calls a constitutional general election. The bloodshed in Abyssinia, the hatred of Fascism, the sanctions imposed by the League of Nations, all these things caused unrest in the British Labor Party.People on the trade union side, including the famous Mr. Ernest Bevan, are not at all pacifist in temperament.Hardened wage labor unanimously expressed a strong desire to wage war on the Italian dictator, demanding decisive sanctions and, if necessary, the dispatch of the British fleet.They made fiery and brutal speeches at furious rallies.Mr. Bevan once complained: I am quite weary of having Lansbury's conscience carried in a carriage from meeting to meeting.Many Labor members in parliament share trade union sentiment.On a larger scale, all the leaders of the Association of the League of Nations felt that they had to uphold the purposes of the League of Nations. Questions have been raised about Article 5 of their peaceful vote.Here are some principles, if obeyed, even a lifelong humanitarian must be prepared to die, and if he is to die, he must kill.On October 8, Mr. Lansbury resigned as leader of the Labor Party in Parliament, and was succeeded by Major Attlee, who had repeatedly made military exploits. This national awakening, however, did not coincide with Mr. Baldwin's views and intentions.It was only a few months after the election that I began to get a sense of the principles underlying the sanctions.The Prime Minister had declared that sanctions meant war; secondly, he was determined that there would be no more wars; and thirdly, he had decided to resort to sanctions.It is obviously impossible to reconcile these three conditions.Under the guidance of Britain and the pressure of Laval, the Commission of the League of Nations, which was in charge of formulating the sanctions program, ruled out all factors that might lead to war.A large number of commodities, some of which are military supplies, are prohibited from being imported into Italy, and a grandiose embargo program has been drawn up.But the gasoline necessary to sustain the war in Abyssinia flowed uninterruptedly into Italy, because it was understood that an embargo would mean war.The United States is not a member of the League of Nations, but it is the world's major oil supplier. Although its attitude is kind, it is not clear.Not only that, but stopping gasoline shipments to Italy would stop gasoline shipments to Germany.Shipping aluminum ore to Italy is strictly prohibited; but aluminum ore is almost the only metal in Italy's mines that produces more than it needs.As for the importation of scrap iron and iron ore to Italy, it was resolutely vetoed for the sake of public justice, but since the metallurgical industry in Italy can only use a small amount of scrap iron and iron ore, while steel plates and pig iron are not restricted, this regulation has no Italy is not much in the way.In this way, such colossal measures are not a real sanction capable of paralyzing the aggressor country, but only a half-hearted sanction that the aggressor country can endure, because these measures, in spite of their many names, are in fact But it is enough to inspire the war spirit in Italy.Therefore, the League of Nations' assistance to Abyssinia was based on the principle that it should not hinder the Italian invading army.At the time of the UK general election, the public was not aware of these facts. They sincerely supported the policy of sanctions as a sure way to end the Italian invasion of Abyssinia. His Majesty's government has never considered the use of the fleet.Rumors abounded that the Italian death-bombers were going to descend on the decks of our warships and blow them to pieces.The British fleet at Alexandria is now reinforced.It only needs to put on a posture to make the Italian transport ship retreat from the Suez Canal. As a result, it may have to challenge the Italian Navy.It is said that our strength is not sufficient to deal with this enemy.I raised this issue at the beginning, but I was reassured by others.Our battleships are of course very old, and now it seems that we have no aircraft cover, and anti-aircraft gun ammunition is also very insufficient.It was reported, however, that the admiral had been greatly annoyed by the suggestion that his fleet was not adequate for naval warfare.It appears that before His Majesty's Government made its first decision against Italian aggression, it had made a careful study of the methods and means to be adopted, and had made up its mind. As far as we know now, if we take decisive measures at that time, we will certainly be able to cut off the communication between Italy and Abyssinia, and we will also be able to win the naval battle that may ensue.I have never been in favor of the UK taking isolation action, but having gone so far, the consequences of going backwards would be serious.Not only that, but Mussolini dared not fight a resolute British government.Almost the whole world was against him, and if he fought England alone, he would be throwing his dominion at the stake, for the naval battle in the Mediterranean would have been the decisive test from the outset.How can Italy fight this war?Apart from a slight advantage in modern light cruisers, its navy is only a quarter of Britain's in size.Its vast army of conscripts, boasting millions, was incapable of fighting.Its air force is even worse than ours, which has a small establishment, both in quantity and quality.Italy will be blocked immediately if there is a war.The Italian Army in Abyssinia was short of supplies and ammunition.Germany was also unable to give effective assistance at this time.For the sake of justice, one can take the smallest risk to deal a fatal blow to the opponent. If there is such an opportunity in the world, the opportunity is here and now.The fact that the courage of the British government was not able to keep up with the situation at that time can only be excused by their love of peace.In fact, the British government played a role in the development of the situation in the far more dire direction of war.From the fact that Mussolini's blustering intimidation succeeded, an all-important bystander drew an all-important conclusion.Hitler had long made up his mind to use war to open up territories for Germany.Now he concluded that Great Britain was in decline, and although Britain tried to rise up later, it was too late for peace and to prevent Hitler's aggression.There are also brooding spectators in Japan. On the one hand, our country is gradually uniting to meet the urgent problems of the moment, while on the other hand, the ongoing general elections bring the various political parties to conflict, and these two opposing processes go hand in hand.The situation favors Mr. Baldwin and his supporters.The government's manifesto for the general election read: "The League of Nations remains the foundation of British foreign policy as ever.Preventing war and establishing world peace will always be the most fundamental interests of the British people.The League of Nations is the instrument established for these ends, and we look to it for these ends.Therefore, we must continue to do our best to maintain the League of Nations, maintain and improve the effectiveness of the League of Nations.The present unfortunate dispute between Italy and Abyssinia will not alter our consistent policy. In the Labor Party, on the other hand, great divisions arose.Most of them were pacifists, but Mr. Bevin's activity had won him so much support among the Labor masses that the official leaders of the Labor Party, in order to please all, proposed two simultaneous proposals. On the one hand they demanded decisive action against the Italian dictator; on the other they condemned the policy of rearmament.In this way, on October 22, Mr. Attlee said in a speech in the House of Commons: We need effective sanctions, and they must be effectively enforced.We support economic sanctions.We embrace the League of Nations system.In the same speech, however, he added later: We do not believe that the accumulation of large quantities of weapons leads to security.We do not believe that there is such a thing as national defense at this (time).We believe that you must continue to reduce armaments and not accumulate weapons.During elections, neither side usually has much to be proud of.The Prime Minister himself is of course aware that the government's foreign policy has the backing of growing strength.But in any case, he has decided not to get involved in the war under any circumstances.Looking at it from the outside, I feel that what he is eager to get as much support as possible is to start rearmament on a small scale. It was on the very day that Mussolini began his attack on Abyssinia and bombed Ardois that the British Conservative Party Congress was held at Burnmouth.Seeing this situation, and being on the eve of the general election again, all of us, as members of the same political party, are united. I support a resolution passed unanimously, which is: (1) Correction of serious shortcomings in the defense forces of the Reich, and above all the transformation of our industry so that it can be rapidly transformed into a defense industry if necessary. (2) A new effort to bring our air force into a position equal to that of the most powerful foreign air force whose attack power can reach our shores. (3) To rebuild the British Fleet and strengthen the Royal Navy to ensure the supply of our food and necessities and to preserve the integrity of the British Empire. In the past few years, I have never wanted to be an official. I have done enough to be an official, and I am against the government’s India policy. Obstacles are removed.The growing threat from Germany made me very tempted to take a job with our military establishment.I now feel acutely what is about to happen.A bewildered France and a cowardly, peace-loving England would soon be challenged by European dictators.I deeply sympathize with the change of attitude of the Labor Party.This is an opportunity to build a government of true national unity.Everyone knows there is a vacancy in the Admiralty and I would love to be in the Admiralty if the Conservatives were back in government.Of course, I know very well that some of Mr. Baldwin's leading colleagues do not want me to join the government.I represent a policy, and everyone knows that I will work hard to implement it no matter whether I am in the government or in the opposition. They would be very happy if they could get rid of me.However, this matter depends more or less on whether they can maintain a majority. During the general election, the Prime Minister emphasized the need for rearmament, and in his major speeches, he specifically referred to the shortcomings of the state of our navy.But now that he had achieved all his immediate goals in the program of sanctions and rearmament, he was anxious to appease the professional peace-loving elements of the country from the horrors which might arise from his speaking of the needs of the navy. .On October 1, two weeks before the vote, he addressed the Peace Society in the Guildhall hall in London, in which he said: I assure you that there will be no great armaments.It was indeed a strange promise that he could say that when the government had information about Germany's great preparations for war.Thus the prime minister has the votes of those who want the country to be prepared against future dangers, and those who believe that peace can be kept by praising the virtues of peace. In the constituency of Epping, I debated the need for rearmament and the imposition of a strict, genuine policy of sanctions.I am generally a supporter of the government, and although my constant criticism of the government's conduct displeased many of my friends in the Conservative Party, the vote turned out to be a huge majority for me.In announcing the results of the vote, I took it for granted to maintain my position.I said: In view of the speeches I have made, I feel from your votes that you expect me to exercise my independent judgment as a member of Parliament, and that I, in the noblest traditions of the British Parliament, freely and without Unafraid to offer opinions drawn from my own knowledge and experience.The result of the general election was a victory for Mr Baldwin.He got 247 more votes than the other parties combined, and after five years in office he had a personal power unmatched by any prime minister since the end of the war.他憑著熟練而幸運的謀略來應付國內政治，而由於他的聲望又受到人們的普遍尊敬，這就使他又一次取得信任投票的勝利，使那些在印度問題上或防務的疏忽上反對過他的人都顯得愚蠢可笑。 這一個在我國有史以來最不祥的、有著種種錯誤和缺點的政府，卻受到全國的歡呼。但這一筆帳是要償還的，新的下院幾乎用了十年的工夫才把它償還。 當時人們盛傳我將參加政府，擔任海軍大臣。但是當鮑德溫先生的勝利公佈之後，他就迫不及待地通過總部宣佈他無意要我參加政府。他用這個辦法來償付他欠和平主義者代表的債務，這筆債是他在大選前幾天向他們舉借的。當時的報紙對我沒有被邀參加政府一事，大大譏笑一番。但是現在可以看到，我是多麼的走運。在我頭頂上有幾個肉眼看不見的有翅膀的天使保佑著我。 而且我另有愉快的慰藉。我不等議會開會，就帶著我的畫盒到溫暖的地方旅行去了。 鮑德溫先生取得勝利之後，發生了一件使他很為難的事情。為了把這件事情說清楚，我們不妨暫時不管時間的順序。 他的外交大臣霍爾爵士，在一次很難得的溜冰假日中，路經巴黎到瑞士去，在巴黎他曾和那位仍然當法國外交部長的賴伐爾先生進行會談，結果在十二月九日訂立了霍爾｜賴伐爾協定。現在來看看這一著名事件的背景，也是很值得的。 認為英國正領導著國際聯盟反抗墨索里尼對阿比西尼亞的法西斯侵略這一想法，使全國情緒大為高漲。但是，選舉一旦結束，大臣們覺得他們已擁有多數，可能執政五年，不由得想到許多麻煩事。其根源就在於鮑德溫先生所說的一定不會有戰爭和一定不會有大量的軍備。這位出色的黨務經理人曾以領導世界反抗侵略的名義，取得了選舉的勝利，後來又極力主張必須不惜一切代價來維護和平。 不但如此，現又有一個來自外交部的、力量巨大的衝擊。 范西塔特勳爵始終目不轉睛地注視著希特勒的禍害。在這一點上，他和我彼此一條心。而現在英國的政策，已迫使墨索里尼站到對面去了。德國已不再孤立。歐洲四個強國，從前是三對一，現在卻變成二對二了。我國事務的這種顯著惡化，使法國更為焦慮。法國政府早在一月間就訂立了法意協定，跟著又同意大利訂立軍事條約。據估計，這個軍事條約，可以使法國抽出駐在法意邊界上的十八個師調到與德國接壤的邊界去。賴伐爾先生在他同意大利的談判中，肯定向墨索里尼表示，而不是暗示，說法國決不會自找麻煩去干預在阿比西尼亞可能發生的任何事情。法國人很有理由同英國大臣們爭論。第一，幾年來我們一直要他們裁減他們生存所繫的陸軍； 第二，英國領導國際聯盟反對墨索里尼而大受歡迎，並因而贏得選舉的勝利，而在民主國家中，選舉是很重要的事情；第三，我們曾締結一個被認為對我們自己十分有利的海軍協定，據說可以使我們除了潛艇戰以外，在海上已十分安全，可以大為放心。 但是法國的戰線又怎樣呢？它應該怎樣進行部署來抵抗日益增長的德國軍力呢？如果打起仗來，在最初六個月內，英國所能派出的軍隊只有兩個師，而且還有許多保留條件，所以他們的確不應多說話。現在，英國政府出於戰鬥的、道德的和對於世界的熱烈情緒，由一個國家領導著五十個國家，正在同意大利結不共戴天之仇。法國有許多令它擔憂的事情，只有最愚蠢的人才會對這種情形置之不顧，而在每一個國家裡這種人是很多的，假使英國已運用它的海軍力量來封鎖蘇伊士運河，並在一次全面戰爭中擊敗意大利的海軍，那麼，它也許就有權利在歐洲發號施令了。但是，恰恰相反，它竟明確宣稱，無論發生什麼事情，決不為阿比西尼亞而戰。正直的鮑德溫先生：在選區中獲得勝利的投票；有可靠的保守黨多數，使他能再執政五年；作出義憤填膺的種種表現，可是不要戰爭，不要戰爭！所以，法國人強烈地感到，他們不能因為英國突然爆發了反對墨索里尼的強烈情緒就永遠同意大利疏遠。何況，他們還記得英國在地中海曾向意大利海軍的挑戰屈服，而且法國如果一旦遭受德國的侵犯，英國在開始時所能派出的軍隊，充其量只有兩個師。賴伐爾先生在這個時候的觀點，當然是不難理解的。 到十二月分，出現了一套新的議論。有人私下議論，說墨索里尼受到了制裁的巨大壓力，又在由一個國家領導的五十個國家的嚴重威脅之下，會願意在阿比西尼亞事件上妥協。毒氣戰爭雖然對付落後的阿比西尼亞極為有效，但肯定不會提高意大利在世界上的聲譽。阿比西尼亞人正在被擊敗。 據說他們並不準備作重大的讓步和割讓大片的土地。如果滿足意大利的侵略所要求的東西，讓阿比西尼亞保持其帝國的五分之四的領土，是不是就可以取得和平呢？外交大臣路過巴黎的時候，范西塔特剛巧也在巴黎，因此便參預這件事。但不要對范西塔特作錯誤的判斷；他對德國的威脅始終念念不忘。他希望英法兩國為了對付這個主要危險而成立最有力的聯盟，同時在他們背後的意大利要成為他們的朋友，而不是敵人。 但是英國民族不時出現聖戰熱情的高潮。世上沒有一個國家比英國更少為了某種宗旨或某種主義而進行戰鬥的了。 因為它在內心深處深信決不能從這種衝突中獲得任何實際利益。鮑德溫先生和他的大臣們由於在日內瓦反對墨索里尼，已把英國的地位抬得很高。他們已經走得很遠了，現在只有繼續幹下去才能夠在歷史的面前獲得拯救。除非他們準備用行動來支持他們的言論和姿態，否則倒不如像美國一樣，什麼也不管，聽其自然，看看發生了什麼事情。這是一個可以提出來供大家議論的計劃，但不是他們所採取的計劃。他們已經向千百萬人民呼籲，而這些一向對政治漠不關心的、沒有武裝的千百萬民眾的答覆，卻是壓倒一切的呼聲，他們大聲呼喊：是的，我們必須為了反對邪惡而進軍，我們現在就要進軍，給我們武器！ 新的下院朝氣蓬勃。鑒於此後十年所面臨的一切問題，它也必須是如此。因此，正當他們因大選結果而興奮的時候，他們接到了霍爾爵士和賴伐爾先生在阿比西尼亞問題上達成協議的消息，大為震驚。這個危機幾乎犧牲了鮑德溫先生的政治生命。它從根本上動搖了議會和整個國家。一夜之間，鮑德溫先生幾乎從公認的全國領袖這個高峰上跌下來，跌到被人譏笑和鄙視的深淵。在這些日子裡，他在議會裡的處境實在可憐。他從來沒有想到為什麼人民竟然為了這些討厭的外交事務而操心。他們已經有一個擁有多數的保守黨，又沒有戰爭。他們還想要什麼呢？可是有經驗的領航員卻已感到和計算出這個風暴的全部力量了。 十二月九日，內閣批准了霍爾｜賴伐爾計劃，這個計劃是讓意大利和阿比西尼亞皇帝共分阿比西尼亞的領土。十三日，霍爾｜賴伐爾建議的全文提交國際聯盟。十八日，內閣放棄了霍爾｜賴伐爾建議，接著霍爾爵士就提出辭職。在十九日的辯論中，鮑德溫先生說： 我認為這些建議走得太遠了。人們在這方面所表示出的感情，我一點也不感到驚訝。我沒有料到的是，我國各地人民對於我可以稱之為良心和榮譽的基礎卻有著更深厚的感情。每當我遇到這種情形，我就知道激發我國國民感情最深處的事情已經發生了，並在他們的靈魂深處引起了迴響，發表了一些意見。我重新檢查我所做的一切，我覺得這些建議不可能獲得我國人民的支持，即使作為談判的條件也是不成的。現在，非常明顯，這些建議已經絕對地、徹底地壽終正寢了。本政府肯定不準備使它復活。如果出了什麼風暴，而我又認為我自己是正確的，我就寧可讓它來衝擊我，我或者安然無恙，或者被衝倒。如果我經過自我檢查，發覺在那個風暴中有什麼東西足以表明我曾經做過不明智或不正確的事情，我就會向它低頭。 下院接受了這個申辯。危機過去了。艾登先生從日內瓦回來，首相召他到唐寧街十號，討論霍爾辭職後的局勢。艾登先生當即建議邀請奧斯汀‧張伯倫爵士任外交大臣，還表示如有必要，願意在他的領導下效勞。鮑德溫先生回答說，他已經考慮過這一點，並且已經通知奧斯汀爵士本人，說他認為不宜委他掌管外交部。這也許是因為奧斯汀爵士健康狀況不佳。十二月二十二日，艾登先生出任外交大臣。 我和我的妻子是在西班牙的巴塞羅那度過這個激動人心的星期的。當時我的一些最要好的朋友曾勸我不要回國。他們說，如果我介入這個激烈的衝突，那就是自找苦吃了。我們住的那所舒適的巴塞羅那旅館，是西班牙左派聚會的地方。 在我們吃午飯和晚餐的那個講究的餐廳，經常有一群群身穿黑色衣服、神情熱烈的青年在那裡聚會，他們目光炯炯，談論著不久就要使千百萬西班牙人陷於死亡的西班牙政治情況。回想起來，我倒覺得應該回國。我很可能促使反政府的各派勢力作出決定和聯合起來，從而結束鮑德溫的統治。也許這時奧斯汀‧張伯倫爵士領導下的政府也成立了。但是，我的朋友卻嚷著說：最好站開點，如果你回來，人們就會認為你個人要向政府提出挑戰。這個勸告雖然不是奉承話，我也不喜歡聽，但說我不能對事情有所幫助，我倒是承認的。於是，我就繼續待在巴塞羅那，在陽光之下隨便畫點油畫。後來林德曼來找我，和我在一起。我們同乘一艘很漂亮的汽船，沿著西班牙東岸游弋，然後在丹吉爾登岸。在丹吉爾，我遇到羅瑟米爾勳爵和一群快活的人。他告訴我，勞合‧喬治先生在馬拉喀什，那邊的氣候很好。我們就坐汽車到那裡去。我在那討人喜歡的摩洛哥繪畫作樂，留連忘返，直到一月二十日，英皇喬治五世突然逝世時才返國。 阿比西尼亞的抗戰失敗，意大利把這整個國家吞併了，這在德國的輿論中產生了無法挽救的後果。甚至那些本來不贊成墨索里尼的政策和行動的人，也對意大利進行戰爭時那種似乎是神速的、高效率的和無情的方式驚歎不已。在德國，一般人都認為大不列顛已徹底衰敗。它受到意大利不可消釋的仇恨；它把斯特雷扎陣線一下子摧毀了；它在世界上喪失了威信，這正好同新德國日益增長的實力和聲譽成對比。我國在巴伐利亞的一位代表寫道：這裡各方面的人談到英國時的輕蔑語調，給我留下深刻的印象值得擔心的是，今後德國在西歐問題上以及在歐洲的和歐洲以外的更為普遍的問題上同我們進行談判時，將會採取強硬的態度。 《慕尼黑新聞》（一九三六年五月十六日）刊登了一篇文章，其中發人深省的幾段是： 英國人喜歡過一種比我們德國人的標準更為舒適的生活，這並不是說英國人不能進行持久的努力，而是說，只要不損及他們個人的和國家的安全，他們總是極力避免進行這種努力的。他們掌握了生產手段和財富，使他們和我們大大不同，能在大約一個世紀之間多少是自動積累起他們的資本。 在大戰中，它只是在開始時有些猶豫，但終於表現出驚人的精力；可是在大戰之後，在世界各地英國先生們卻認為他們應該休息一下了。他們全面地解除了武裝在人民生活中甚至比陸軍和海軍中來得更為徹底。它甘心情願放棄相當於兩大國（海軍）加起來的水平，接受同美國相等的地位陸軍怎樣呢？空軍又怎樣呢？為了建立地面的和空中的防衛力量，英國所需要的，不僅是金錢，最必需的是人，以及為了帝國國防所要付出的英國公民的生命。它的新的空軍計劃，共需要一萬一千人，但實際上還缺七千人。還有，小規模的正規軍也大量缺額，大約缺少一整個師。它的地方軍（為業餘軍人而設的像安息日聖經學校一類）遠遠沒有達到所規定的名額，無論如何不能算作有效的戰鬥力量。不久以前，鮑德溫先生自己就說過，他無意把募兵制改為徵兵制。 旋風正在震撼歐洲，而且的確也震撼整個世界，在這種情況下，採取一種以因循不決來取得成功的政策就難望頂住這個旋風。在英國，現在沒有幾個人能夠從國家的立場而不是政黨的立場對政府的優柔寡斷和曖昧的態度表示憤慨，要求它對帝國在不知不覺中逐漸陷入的危險負起責任。英國群眾對於政府所謂局勢可以逐步改善，所謂用小規模的調整和審慎周到的策略就能恢復均勢，似乎都深表贊同。 今天，整個阿比西尼亞已不可改變地、全部地和最後地只屬於意大利的了。在這種情況下，不論日內瓦和倫敦都深信，只有使用特殊的力量才能把意大利趕出阿比西尼亞，但是我們現在還沒有看到有使用這種力量的權力和勇氣。 所有這些話，都說得太正確了。英皇陛下政府曾輕率地提出要維護偉大的世界事業。他們曾大言不慚地要領導五十個國家前進。可是，鮑德溫先生遇到殘酷的事實就退回來。長期以來，他們在制定政策時，與其說是考慮歐洲形勢的實際情況，不如說是為了滿足在國內輿論上有勢力的分子。由於同意大利疏遠，他們已打亂了歐洲的均勢，而對阿比西尼亞卻毫無幫助。他們使國際聯盟遭到慘敗，就算還沒有使這個機構的生命力遭受致命打擊的話，也至少使它大受摧殘。