Chapter 114 Volume 4, Chapter 4, Vote of Confidence

Political atmosphere Warning to Parliament of impending disaster Necessary demand for Ministry of Production Sir Stafford Cripps returns from Russia I ask him to be Minister of Armaments Broadcast of House of Commons and my speech I demand a vote of confidence Importance Debriefing of the Desert Campaign My tribute to Rommel Our bare hands in the Far East Our limitations on resources I accept full responsibility for the dangers ahead The friendly tone of the debate Four hundred and sixty-four votes to one Congratulations to the United States and allies Twenty Sir Stafford Cripps, six of the Liberal MPs who abstained from the post of Minister of Munitions, my letter to him on January 31st.

A full report to Congress was expected from me on my mission to Washington and on all that occurred during my five weeks' absence.There are two facts that stand out to me.The first, that the great alliance must ultimately triumph; the second, that, in the midst of the Japanese onslaught, a series of catastrophes beyond measure will befall us.All are relieved to see that as a nation, as an empire, our lives are no longer in danger.On the other hand, now that the threat of peril is largely removed, every commentator, be it good or bad, is free to point out the many mistakes that have been made.There are many who also feel that it is their duty to shorten the dreadful course by improving our method of conducting war.I myself am troubled by the failures we have suffered, and no one knows better than I that these failures are only the beginning of a catastrophe.The attitude of the Australian government, the well-informed and irrelevant comments in the newspapers, the treacherous and frequent cynicism of twenty or thirty capable MPs, and the atmosphere in the sitting room of the House of Representatives all made me feel an embarrassing and unpleasant feeling. My unanswerable but superficial opinions were coming at me threateningly from all directions.

On the other hand, I am well aware that I am in a strong position.I have done my part to keep the people alive in 1940, and I can count on them feeling good about it.I do not underestimate the loyalty of the people, which is like a magnificent tide, surrounding me forward.The War Cabinet and the Chiefs of Staff have shown me the highest loyalty. I am confident.As the circumstances required, I have made it clear to those around me that I will not tolerate the slightest reduction in my own authority and responsibilities.There was much chatter in the press that I should stay on as Prime Minister and give speeches, but leave the actual running of the war to someone else.I am determined not to make concessions to any side, and to take upon myself the first and immediate responsibility for a vote of confidence in me by the House of Commons.I still remember the famous French saying, Onne regne sur les ames que par le calme. 【１】

【1】This sentence in French means: Only calm can control the human mind.translator It is especially necessary to warn Parliament and the nation of impending calamity.In leadership work, it is the most serious mistake to raise some false hopes, but to lose them in the blink of an eye.The British people can face a crisis or a disaster with strength and optimism, but they hate being deceived, and those who are responsible for them are in an unfounded fantasy.I feel that it is necessary, not only for my own position, but for the whole command of the war, to describe the present state of affairs in the darkest terms, and thereby to despise the calamities to come.It may be done at this juncture without affecting the military situation, without shaking the basic belief in final victory that we are now entitled to feel.Despite the shocking and tense news that comes every day, I don't hesitate to spend twelve or fourteen hours concentrating my mind on a book of ten thousand words that is wide in scope and original in content; With the flames at my heels, I still had my report and judgment of our situation ready.

At this time there was a general demand for a Ministry of Production, whose ministers would join the War Cabinet.In July 1941, before my first visit to President Roosevelt, I argued at length in the House of Commons that there was no need for such an institution.However, public opinion is still trending towards this opinion, not only because of the development of the situation, but also because of the situation of the relevant personnel and departments, which makes this proposition more emphasized.For example, the President of the United States has appointed Mr. Donald Nelson to be in charge of all production.Shouldn't there be a corresponding official?All eyes were on Lord Beaverbrook, whose achievements at Washington have been described, and who had a great influence among the highest ranks of America.In the Quartermaster Department in 1917 and 1918 I was in charge of the duties now under the Quartermaster and Aircraft Production Departments.These departments are heavily entangled in raw materials and skilled labor, so it would be much more convenient to have an authority with a unified command.

Now that everything is getting bigger and bigger, this demand is getting stronger and stronger.Beaverbrook, whom both Russians and Americans trusted, seemed more competent and happy to lead such a large combined institution. Since his transfer from the Aircraft Production Department to the Munitions Department there has been much friction, some unavoidable, between these two business-related departments; The combination of these two great branches of production would not only restore harmony but also increase efficiency; he already had this position.I think he could be Minister of Production.And now Colonel Moore Brabazon, Minister of Aircraft Production, and Sir Andrew Duncan, who I consider adequate to be Minister of Munitions, may serve as two of his staff.Both had enormous originality and all-round judgment; while all this was still going on in my mind, a new figure appeared.

Sir Stafford Cripps had long wanted to end his mission in Russia.Both British and Americans who were appointed ambassadors to the Soviet Union, both during and after the war, found the mission very unattractive.In the period before Hitler's offensive brought Russia to our side, our envoys were almost completely ignored in Moscow.He had rare access to Stalin, and Molotov treated him and the other Allied ambassadors coldly.During the December crisis, when the diplomatic center of the Soviet Union was moved from Moscow to Kuibyshev, the unpleasant and futile situation in Moscow not only reappeared, but worsened.Later, I dealt directly with Stalin, and now the President of the United States has dealt directly with Stalin again, doing a lot of things, and the post of ambassador is increasingly separated from the decisive affairs.Stafford, who was at home when the Germans invaded, had offered me his intention to leave office, but he accepted and agreed with me that he should not be recalled at the time of Russia's first calamity.It has been almost eight months since then, and there is certainly nothing inappropriate for a politician of his stature to ask to return to the House of Commons, the center of our political life.Therefore, at the beginning of January, I agreed to his transfer and sent Sir Archibald Clarke Kerr to replace him.

On January 23, Cripps returned from Russia.By this time he was an important political figure who had left the Labor Party, which had expelled him years earlier for opposing his extremism.The national enthusiasm for Russia's heroic resistance was associated with his ambassadorship, and his popularity was enhanced.The British Left and their press have created the argument that Russia has done more to enter the war, on the side of lonely, hard-working England, than anyone else in his day.Some on the extreme left thought he was worthy of a campaign as an alternate prime minister; some in these circles said he would lead a new group of government critics who they hoped would form a significant parliamentary force.Knowing and liking him personally, I would have liked to have him in the government, where we need all the help we can get.Since his former Labor colleagues had no objections, I looked for opportunities.

I was well informed as to what the Left thought, but I acted entirely on the basis of what was right or wrong.When I was Minister of Munitions in the First World War, Cripps was the deputy director of the largest explosives factory in the British Empire, and he performed his task brilliantly.He combined this practical administrative experience with outstanding intellect.It seemed to me that it was in the public interest that he should be placed in charge of the Quartermaster Division, and that this would form part of the grand plan for the establishment of the Production Division.Sir and Lady Stafford Cripps dined with me at Checkers on 25th January.

He had a nice long talk with me that afternoon.I made clear proposals to him and explained the position of this position in the overall picture of military production.He said he would consider it and reply later. On January 27th the debate began and I raised the question to the House of Commons.I could see that they were still full of anger; I had requested on my return that my forthcoming report be taped for broadcast to the British Empire and the United States, and they made all sorts of things that had nothing to do with the situation at the time. Relevant grounds to object.I therefore withdrew my petition, though such a request would never have been refused in any other parliament in the world.In such an atmosphere, I stood up and spoke.

Since my return, I have come to the conclusion that I must ask the House of Commons for a vote of confidence in my support, which is a perfectly normal, constitutional, democratic procedure.Opening up the debate on war has been brought up.So I set aside three full days for the debate in the most hands-off, free-flowing way possible.Any member of Parliament is free to say what he thinks fit to say, about or against the Cabinet, or against the composition or individual persons of the Government, so long as military secrecy is preserved, and the House of Commons has always been careful to observe this.Have you ever been freer than this?Do you have anything more democratic than this?Few other countries have such a solid system, which can be maintained at a time when the nation is engaged in a life-and-death struggle. It is my duty to explain to the House of Commons why I am asking for my extraordinary support at this time.It was suggested that we should have three days of such a debate, in which the government would no doubt be savagely attacked by those with lesser burdens, and at the end the meeting would be dismissed without a vote being cast.That way, that part of the press that is hostile, some that has been openly hostile, will say that the government's credibility is bankrupt, and even hint, after it's all over and all the discussions have been held, that I have been told privately that I would be reckless in asking for a vote of confidence in Parliament. We have received a lot of bad news from the Far East recently, and I think there may be a lot of bad news coming, and I will explain the reasons later.Bad news will also contain many accidents that show mistakes and shortcomings in perception and action. No one would put on airs and say that there were no mistakes or shortcomings for these misfortunes to happen.All this seems to me to be rolling in upon us, and that is another reason why I am calling for a formal and serious vote of confidence in the House of Commons, which has never backed down from this struggle.If the House of Commons does not insist on two things, the first is free debate; the second is a clear, honest and candid vote in the future, then there is a lack of responsibility.Then we shall all know where we are, and all those with whom we have to deal, at home and abroad, friends and foes, will know where we are and what they are.Since we hold a free debate, there may only be 20 or 30 MPs who can participate in the debate, so I asked the 400 or 500 MPs who were sitting silently to express their opinions. I'm asking for a vote of confidence because things are bad and worse is yet to come.If a member of Parliament wants to make salutary criticisms of the Ministry, and even harsh reprimands, which are exactly in line with his views on the Ministry, he can go further and be more violent.But if a respectable gentleman is so dissatisfied with the government, and feels that it is in the public interest that it should be overthrown, he should have the manliness of a man to make his case in Parliament.There is no objection to making things clear, or even more clearly, in straightforward terms, and the Government will do its best to meet the standards established during the course of the debate.But in debates, no one has to say nice words, and no one has to be timid when it comes to voting.I have voted against the governments I was elected to support, and sometimes looking back I am glad I did.During this difficult period, everyone should recognize their own responsibilities and fulfill their responsibilities. I gave them some reports on the fighting in the desert. General Auchinleck required five months of preparation for his campaign, but on November 18 he struck the enemy.For more than two months, the scattered teams equipped with the latest weapons launched the most intense and continuous battles in the desert area. They searched for each other every morning and fought desperately all day long. late at night.The battle fought here turned out to be quite different from what was expected. Everything is scattered and chaotic.Most depended on individual soldiers and junior officers.Mostly, but not all; for the campaign would have ended on the 24th of November had it not been for General Auchinleck himself, changing command, ordering that the attack must be sustained at any cost, and exerting relentless pressure. Failed.Were it not for this bold decision, we would have by this time retreated to the old front on which we started, or would have retreated a little further.Tobruk may have fallen, Rommel may have advanced to the Nile.Since then, the war has become clear.Cyrenaica was recovered, and that place had to be defended.We have not yet been able to wipe out Rommel's army, but almost two-thirds of them were wounded, taken prisoner, or dead. 【１】 [1] The verified figures, together with post-war information on the number of enemy casualties, are contained in Volume 3, Chapter 30, page 511 (original book page number, the same below. Translator). The total number of British casualties is one 17,704, the total number of enemy casualties was about 33,000. Parliament certainly did not appreciate the significance of Rommel's successful counteroffensive, since they could not have heard of the larger plans that were about to be revealed following the swift British conquest of Tripolitania.The fall of Benghazi and Ajdabiya was already well known, and it seemed to be an episode of uncertain victories in desert warfare.And, as the telegram reproduced here points out, I have no correct intelligence as to what happened and why. I cannot fail to say a few words of praise to Rommel. I cannot say what is the current situation on the Western Front in Cyrenaica.We had a very daring and skillful adversary, and if I leave aside the ravages of war, he was a great general.He must have had reinforcements.Another battle, even now going on, and as to how it turns out, I have a rule never to make a prophecy about a battle.I am often relieved that I have made this rule.Of course, no one said we didn't have a chance. When I mentioned Rommel's words, it passed smoothly.I heard later that some people felt unhappy.They can't understand that it is necessary to point out the strengths of an enemy general.Such stinginess is natural in human nature, but this kind of mood is contrary to the spirit of winning the war or establishing a lasting peace. I then moved on to the more important question of our bare hands in the Far East. I have reported to the House of Commons what has happened in the past few months. Dear members of parliament, you can see from this how tight our resources are. Until now, it is really hard for us to survive. Good luck we can't take credit for it.If we had heeded the clamor three or four months ago that we should attack France or the Low Countries, I do not know where we would be now.We can still see the slogan written on the wall: Open up the second front immediately.Who has not felt the appeal of this statement?But consider what our position would be if we had accepted this ardent temptation.Every ton of our ships, every flotilla, every plane, the whole force of our armies is at work, and on the coasts of France, or the coasts of the Low Countries, in a desperate struggle .All the disasters in the Far East and the Middle East will pale in comparison to the Dunkirk problem, which is even worse. I imagine that some of those who have spoken out, talked, and even yelled about opening a second front in France will now regroup and tactfully ask why we are fighting in Malaya, Burma, Would Borneo and Celebes not have enough troops? In two and a half years of war we could barely get by. We just saw our future.It seems that we are in a very difficult time; but, if we are united, if we put our last ounces of strength into play, it seems clearer than ever that we are on the way to victory. Since we are dealing with Germany and Italy here and in the Nile Valley, we are bound to have no strength to prepare for the defense of the Far East.Maybe this or that could have been done but not done, but we will certainly not be able to prepare for the defense of the Far East against Japanese aggression.The Cabinet policy has always been to avoid conflict with Japan at almost any cost until we are sure that the United States will also enter the war.The House of Commons will remember that when we were at our last resort, we even put our heads down and blocked the Burma Road for several months.I remember some of our current critics being very angry about it, but we couldn't help it.There has never been a time, and there can never be a time, when Great Britain or the British Empire was able to single-handedly fight Germany and Italy, to engage in British campaigns, Atlantic campaigns, and Middle Eastern campaigns, while at the same time being widely engaged in Burma, the Malay Peninsula The Far East is fully prepared to deal with the impact of a huge military empire like Japan, which has more than 70 mobile divisions, the world's third largest navy, and a huge air force, and to deal with the 80-90 million strong and warlike Asia. human aggression.Had we begun by spreading our military forces across the vast expanse of the Far East, we would have been wiped out long ago.We would be doing something completely wrong if we moved large numbers of troops, which are desperately needed on the front lines, to areas where there is no or never will be.Then we would miss an opportunity (which now appears to be more than just an opportunity) to bring us all safely out of the dire situation we have found ourselves in. The decision taken was to make our contribution to Russia, try to defeat Rommel, and form a stronger front from the shores of the Mediterranean to the Caspian.According to this decision, all we can do is to make a moderate and partial preparation in the Far East to meet the supposed danger of a Japanese onslaught.Sixty thousand soldiers are indeed concentrated in Singapore, but the modern air force, tanks, anti-aircraft guns and anti-tank artillery units are all given priority to supply the Nile River Basin. I take full responsibility for this decision, both in its broad strategic aspects and in relation to Russia's foreign policy.If we mismanage our resources, I am more at fault than anyone else.If we don't have huge modern air forces and tanks ready tonight in Burma and Malaya, I am more responsible than anyone else.So why should I accept the demands, find a scapegoat, and put the blame on the generals or the Airmen or the Navy?So why am I accepting demands to throw out my loyal and reliable colleagues and friends as a way to silence certain sections of the British and Australian press or to offset our defeat in Malaya and the Far East and the fact that we still have to be there What about the punishment for continuing to accept it? I had to tire the House of Commons for almost two hours.They accept everything they hear without enthusiasm.My impression, however, is that they were not indifferent to the arguments.In view of what I saw coming, I thought I should conclude my speech with the worst possible scenario, without despair or promise. Although I feel the surging momentum of victory and liberation, which will bring us and the suffering peoples of all nations safely to our ultimate goal, I must confess that I feel the burden of war on me more than in 1944. The thrilling summer of 2009 will come even harder.With so many fronts already opened, so many weak points to defend, so many inevitable calamities, and so many harsh voices, we can now speak more frankly of these intricacies of war up.I therefore feel that I have a right to come here as a servant of the House of Commons, and to ask that no pressure should be exerted on me to strengthen my position by acting against my conscience and against my better judgment, by finding a scapegoat; Please don't put pressure on me to do things that are grandstanding for a while and will not help the war in the end.On the contrary, please give me encouragement and assistance.I never dared to predict the future.I stick to my original program: blood, toil, tears, and sweat, all that I have contributed, to which I have added, after five months, many faults, mistakes, and disappointments.But I have seen light that has shone brighter upon our path from behind the clouds, and that is why I have now grown boldly to ask the House of Commons for a declaration of confidence as a new weapon in the arsenal of the United States . The debate went on for three consecutive days.But the tone seemed unexpectedly friendly to me.There are things which the House of Commons undoubtedly will do.His colleagues in the war cabinet, headed by Mr. Attlee, supported the work of the government vigorously and even enthusiastically. On the 29th, I had to close the debate.I was worried about not getting a vote.I'm trying to aggressively force our critics into the voting corridors to oppose us without offending MPs who are now unopposed.But, dare I say it, there is nothing that will spur disaffected people in the Conservatives, Labor and Liberals to go to the polls.When it came time to vote, the Independent Labor Party contested the vote of confidence, which luckily held three seats.Two needed to be tellers, so the result was 464 votes to one.I thank Minority Leader James Maxton for making this a must.The great publicity in the press has caused telegrams expressing condolences and celebrations to pour in from all directions.American friends in the White House expressed their enthusiasm most enthusiastically.On the 60th birthday of the President, I sent a telegram to congratulate him.He called back and said: It's wonderful to be in the same decade as you.But the nagging ones in the press are not helpless.They adapt to the wind and are as nimble as squirrels.How unnecessary is it to ask for a vote of confidence!Who ever dreamed of challenging the coalition government?I call these words a raspy voice, but it's nothing more than a harbinger of impending disaster. Prime Minister to Conservative Leaders in Parliament January 31, 1942 I have voted brilliantly for the Conservative Party and have continued to do so for two years, congratulations to you. I'm going to write to the Liberal leaders about their vote.Maybe you want to check it out, and attach this letter. If there is no objection, I hope you will mail it immediately. Mr Churchill to Sir Archibald Sinclair January 31, 1942 When the Liberals voted for confidence in the House of Commons, you should notice that, out of a total of twenty, six abstained or were absent, and only fourteen represented your party.Three of these fourteen are ministers, namely yourself, Johnston and Foote.You also have a second minister in the House of Lords.In this case, the sail is really big and the boat is small.Now that the Conservative Party has cast 252, 281 and 309 votes in the three ballots under this government, I am afraid that the Conservative Party will be critical of not supporting the government. Meanwhile, the News Chronicle had become one of the sharpest, often hostile newspapers, alas, behind the dignified but do-it-yourself independence of the Manchester Guardian. I suggest to you that these situations require your serious attention.You know, I have never measured the strength of the Liberal Party by the number of seats in Parliament, and yet, with so few seats, it seems to me all the more necessary for the party to rely on its formal and solemn decision to participate in and Act in solidarity on matters of supported government. Sir Stafford Cripps, who did not speak during the debate, wrote me a friendly letter as it progressed, stating that he could not accept my offer to serve on my terms. Advice from the Minister of Armaments.At a minimum, he said, the Minister of Warlords had to take full ownership of the department, be a member of the war cabinet, and be responsible for allocating and determining priorities, at a minimum.From this you can see that I do not find it proper to accept the assignment on the terms proposed, because I feel that I cannot make the post a success but only make you and the public feel disappointment.I would have hoped that I might be able to help you with the burden you are carrying, but after the most careful and eager consideration I feel compelled to draw this negative conclusion, and I am sorry. I replied: January 31, 1942 I regret that you do not consider yourself capable of doing us any favors in the charge of the Commissary Department unless there are other conditions (which are beyond my power to grant). To have the Minister of Commissariat as a member of the War Cabinet is contrary to the policy, to which the House has recently expressed its firmness, of placing the Minister of Production in charge of the whole department of munitions.To do so would be to depart still further from the principle of a small war cabinet; this point has been strongly emphasized by public opinion both during and after the establishment of the present government.We have grown from five members to eight; if you count the minister of state in Cairo, there are nine.If (‧according to‧office‧power) the Minister of Military Supplies is added, then it is impossible to exclude the Minister of Aircraft Production.If the chiefs of the two quarters were included in the war cabinet, it was necessary to include the ministerial chiefs of the war departments they supplied.In this way, both the principles of a (small) war cabinet and a production minister were undermined.I am sure that neither the House of Commons nor the public will approve of this [1]. [1] The words "by authority" were added to my letter of February 9th to Sir Stafford Cripps. It is a pleasure that you suggest that I may meet with you from time to time.I will always be ready for your kind opinion, although what I have asked in the past is practical assistance from you.Maybe someday I'll always be able to get it. Things have settled down here, but only temporarily.