My Life

My Life - Oswald Mosleythat process our army will cost less, but will be the most modern effective strikingforcein the world.' (June 15, 1934.) I also advocated a national defence loan for threepurposes: 'To give Britain immediate air strength. To modernise and mechanise ourarmy. To put the fleet in proper condition to defend our trade routes.' (July 12, 1934.)Our agitation for rearmament continued ceaselessly in these years from everyplatform and in all our publications. I denounced the Conservative Party on October15, 1938, for their failure to rearm in the following terms: 'The state of our nationaldefence has alarmed the Tory Party. The state of these defences is a national scandaland disgrace. The Tory Party is, therefore, right to be alarmed; and having been inpower for the last seven years, they should be ashamed.' In an article at the same timeI stated a fact which seemed to me obvious and was afterwards proved to be true:'Modern wars are won by airmen and mechanics, not by masses of barrack-squareinfantry'.Action was then a journal supporting British Union. In it on October 15, 1938, it wasstated: 'Action disagrees with Mr. Churchill on nearly every subject under the sun,and particularly in recent years for his foreign policy. But we agree with hisindictment of the gross neglect of British defences. British Union pressed rearmamenton the government long before they began it, and long before even Mr. Churchilladvocated it.... Britain should be in a position to defend herself against the attack ofany nation in the world.'What was the attitude of the parties at that time to the defence of our country, theparties which later put us in jail on the pretence that we might be a danger to the State?They neglected the defences of our country while we struggled to secure its properarmament. Mr. Baldwin said in the House of Commons: 'I put before the whole Housemy own views with an appalling frankness. From 1933 I and my friends were all veryworried about what was happening in Europe. You will remember at that time thedisarmament conference was sitting in Geneva, and there was probably a strongerpacifist feeling running through this country than at any time since the war. I amspeaking of 1933 and 1934. You will remember the election at Fulham in the autumnof 1933, when a seat which the National Government held was lost by about 7,000votes on no issue but the pacifist, and that the National Government candidate, whomade a most guarded reference to the question of defence, was mobbed for it. Thatwas the feeling in the country in 1933. My position as the leader of a great party wasnot altogether a comfortable one. I asked myself what chance was there within thenext year or two of that feeling being so changed that the country would give amandate for rearmament. Supposing I had gone to the country, and said that Germanywas rearming, and that we must rearm—does anybody think that this pacificdemocracy would have rallied to that cry at that moment? I cannot think of anythingthat would have made the loss of the election from my point of view more certain.'Baldwin risked the loss of his country in war rather than risk the loss of his party in anelection. In foreign and defence policy he played politics with the life of Britainthrough his squalid electoral calculations; in his home policy he bequeathed to thenext generation our present industrial structure through his lazy timidity which soughtto avoid trouble at all costs. The doom of defeat was averted despite Baldwin, but thenemesis of the Baldwin epoch still haunts our country. It appears that theConservative leadership still cherishes his memory.317 of 424