Chamberlain keeps his seat

Chamberlain retained his parliamentary seat yesterday. In East Norwich, he had enough votes even with a decreased majority.

F. Medlicott, a Liberal National who supports the Prime Minister, was elected to the House of Commons with 18,257 votes. The opposition, N.R. Tillett, had 10,785 votes. This was a majority of 12,647 votes for the government in the 1935 election.

House of Commons backs Chamberlain

Parliament took 4 days of discussion and debate to decide whether to back Chamberlain and the Munich Agreement of September 29th. There were detractors and MPs who voiced scathing criticism and disastrous predictions.

Winston Churchill, one of Chamberlain's own Conservative Party, has never been on the same page as the Prime Minister. He has been the leader of a group called the Churchill Group which consistes of himself and two other members, Duncan Sandys and Brendan Bracken. They are also referred to as "The Old Guard". These MPs are largely anti-appeasers and favor a stronger foreign policy.

Churchill, as expected, was one of those who gave a speech in condemnation of the agreement.

We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat...you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi régime. We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude...we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road...we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: "Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting". And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.

He also declared this of Neville Chamberlain and his agreement with Hitler:

You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.

Not all are as vocal as Churchill. Anthony Eden, another Conservative, was believed to be a rallying point for many MPs who opposed Chamberlain's actions, has kept quiet and avoided confrontation. He even abstained from the vote.

However, the vote was held and the Prime Minister won handedly with a final tally of 366 to 144. With a margin of 222, there is little chance the Prime Minister is going anywhere anytime soon.

Regardless of recent events, rearmament of Great Britain continues on the same pace it has been.

British Politics in the wake of the Munich Agreement

The British are still celebrating their escape from war, in their different ways. The King has thanked his people for their steadfastness and his prime minister for his peacemaking. The churches were packed with thanksgivers yesterday, ‘Peace Sunday’.

Chamberlain is still "The Man of the Hour". The new Westminster Hospital has been endowed with £1,000 for a bed, to be named ‘The Neville Chamberlain Bed’, ‘in perpetual remembrance of great efforts made by the Prime Minister in the cause of European peace’. Lucio, in the Manchester Guardian quotes some of the more fulsome paeans of praise from the press, for example this one from James Douglas in Saturday’s Daily Express:

God has raised up in Neville Chamberlain a deliverer. Are we going to waste him? Are we as great as he is? Are we as noble? Are we as pure in heart? Beware of the old evil that is lurking within us, thirsting to destroy us.

More prosaically, there is speculation that if the House of Commons is hostile to Chamberlain’s report on Munich today, then he may take the country to a general election to capitalise on his popularity among the people. (An election isn’t due until 1940.) Chamberlain has already lost one minister over Munich, Duff Cooper, the First Lord of the Admiralty. His resignation speech, if fiery enough, could spark a revolt among those backbenchers who think too high a price has been paid for peace. Certainly Labour will be critical: one prominent Labour MP, Harold Nicolson, spoke in Manchester on Saturday and said

We have betrayed a valiant little country and a great democratic idea. There are many people who feel that in so doing we have achieved peace for a generation. They are wholly mistaken. We have not achieved peace for a generation: we have achieved it only for eight months.

And the ‘Peace Pact’ which Chamberlain signed with Hitler was "not worth the paper it is written on".

The preparations for war are winding down. But there are still political activities after the Agreement. Sydney King-Farlow, in a letter to the editor of The Times, describes the disaster which has been averted:

Had war come upon us, and it was hanging on a hair, it would have begun with repeated attacks by fleets of aircraft which speedily would have converted the capital cities of Europe into heaps of smoking rubble. The noblest works of man which belong not only to particular countries but to the whole world would have disappeared for ever and the destruction of human life would have been appalling.

He asks if this is not an opportune moment to try to reach an international agreement to prohibit the bombing of architectural and historical treasures in the great cities?

House of Commons on the Munich Agreement

The British House of Commons begins to discuss the Munich Agreement. The House will vote on the agreement in the very near future

Debate over Neutrality Act

Today was an exciting day on Capital Hill. Senate Joint Resolution No. 173 was debated by both chambers of Congress and later voted on. This controversial legislature was finally passed.

There of course was criticism of Roosevelt and this course of action. Senator Tom Connally, Democrat from Texas went on Congressional record on the saying

Is it an expression of neutrality to say to two warring nations, one of which has ambitions for territorial conquest, the other unprepared, the other weak, the other trying to pursue its own destiny—is it neutral to say to those nations, "We shall give arms to neither of you," thereby insuring the triumph of the prepared nation, the covetous nation, the ambitious nation, the nation which seeks by force of arms to impose its will on a weaker and defenseless nation?

Mr. President, that is not neutrality; that is a form of unneutrality. That is a form of declaration which announces that the United States will take the side of the strong and powerful against the weak, the unprepared, and the defenseless. Why not leave that determination to the President of the United States when and if, in his conduct of our foreign relations, it becomes a sound American policy for him to take a position in a crisis of that kind?

We cannot now put the United States into an international strait jacket and thereby keep out of war. We cannot by an act of Congress put the United States into a concrete cast internationally which will fit all future occasions and solve all future problems

Across the Atlantic Ocean in Great Britain there has also been critics. Liberal member David Marshall Mason remarked that the Neutrality Act was pre-emptive. He said "No act of war so far has been committed by Italy against Ethiopia, therefore the resolution is premature."

Later, he seemed to go back on this statement when he said "...it is a direct encouragement to Italy to proceed with her war of aggression against Ethiopia by proclaiming to the world that in such an event the United States intends to remain neutral. I trust the powers composing the League will carry out the resolutions of the League and that powers outside the League, such as Germany and Japan, will act sympathetically."

Mister Mason continued his statement with a conditional: "Should the powers stand up to the their covenant, I pray and trust peace will be preserved, and such a decision does not rule out the possibility of still meeting the just aspirations of Italy for an honorable settlement."

It's a provocative statement on the times but the fate of a sovereign nation is still within the hands of those duly elected to serve it. The League has not the power to force a nation to create war when it wishes not to.