My Life

My Life - Oswald MosleyThat situation for the most part still prevails without a finger having been lifted in theinterval by Britain or America to liberate those whose freedom we guaranteed. Canthey answer the indictment? 'The war was fought to prevent Germans joining withGermans; Danzig was a German city and the Polish Corridor had been regarded fortwenty years as the greatest scandal in an iniquitous treaty by every opinion in Europeand America that was worth recording. The result of a war fought in the name offreedom was to subject ten non-Russian peoples to the Soviets, at least seven of themnot even Slavonic peoples.'Are we to be told that we fought for a moral principle, but after the war were tooweak to implement it? It is now admitted that we were never in a position to honourour guarantee, not even when we signed the treaty with Poland against Germany.Does morality then consist in undertaking commitments we cannot possibly meet, insigning cheques we know will be dishonoured? At any rate, we tried, we went towar—comes the reply—it was ineffective to save Poland, but we did our best. Weanswer again: Do you only try when it is a question of a war with Germany, and neverwhen the question is a war with Russia? What are the influences or fantasies whichdetermine this disparate morality? To what a quagmire of humbug, confusion anddisaster are we led by this will o' the wisp of prejudice and passion masquerading asmorality.These metaphysicians of morality in foreign affairs will have a hard task to defendtheir thesis when the clouds of war have finally lifted and a new generation demandsclear answers. They will eventually find it still more difficult to defend their case inface of my argument at that time, which is now coming right home to the Britishpeople in the further development of this situation since 1954: 'The rise everywhere ofthe disruptive Left, is, of course, not just the consequence of Russian victory, but adevil directly inspired and controlled by a vigorous and triumphant Soviet policy. Theresult is already the break-up of everything for which Churchill once stood. A goodthing—some may say—it was out-of-date and bound to go. It is true that the old ordermust pass and give way to new forms, but it should yield only to some new form oforder, in accord with coherent ideas. The flinging of primitive populations to anarchyin the service of communism is a process which neither Churchill nor any sane man ofother opinion can approve. Yet this has been the result of England's weakness and ofEurope's prostration.'This indictment of the men who had ruled Britain for the whole of my political lifeand whom I had opposed in vain for so many years, continued in the bitterness of thisvast catastrophe to stress that in my youth they had 'founded the British Empire themightiest and wealthiest power on earth. We possessed between a fifth and a quarterof the globe; we maintained a two-power naval standard which made us twice asstrong as any other country in our vital defence sphere; our industries were sovigorous, and our position was so influential, that our exports steadily exceeded ourimports and commanded the international markets of that trading system; the resultingfavourable balance provided us with at least four thousand million pounds'* worth offoreign possessions, on which interest was paid as an annual tribute which couldconsiderably have raised the English standard of life; our Empire contained extensivemineral and raw material supplies, which only awaited direction, energy and afraction of our great resources for development; the diverse manpower and the wealthwhich the British Empire then possessed could have moulded from that superb330 of 424