My Life

My Life - Oswald Mosleyand what to relinquish in the interests of Europe as a whole. This could have beendone without any abrogation of the jealously guarded national sovereignties, ifanything approaching a true European spirit had existed. There was no cause forrivalry in the Middle East, once we had decided together where and how we couldensure the oil supplies for all Europe; a wide choice, since there were alternatives asfar apart as the Sahara and Canada; only the will to common action was entirelylacking. Except for oil supplies which could at worst, or possibly best, be securedelsewhere, our only interest in the Middle East was to prevent a conflagration.Writing in August 1958, I said that it was the common duty of Europe to prevent themassacre or ill-treatment of a million and a half Jews if that contingency arose, or ofany other comparable community of any people, if it lay within the power of unitedEurope within its own sphere of influence to prevent a catastrophe both inhuman anddangerous to peace. Again history has moved on and reversed this risk; the Arabs nowappear the more likely victims, but the same principles apply. The dual method ofprivate negotiation with the latent alternative of public debate would again in thatregion secure the assent of the Soviets to a humane policy, for they could not beplaced in the pillory of publicly willing the atrocious events which remain possible.A united Europe could have kept the peace in that sphere or in any other vital to ourinterest, and a reasonable settlement of outstanding problems would have followedinevitably from the strength of union and the wisdom of Europe in its exercise.Similarly, an effective alternative could have been devised to piecemeal defeat indetail throughout our previous imperial possessions, an orderly retreat or a firm standwhere vital interests were involved. Again and again I have urged Europeans todecide where they will stand firmly together, instead of taking pleasure in each other'sdiscomfiture while complacently attending their own downfall. The world was at ourfeet, but the will was lacking.Even with the dominant American power it does not appear that a common long-termplan of action has ever been seriously considered to cover the whole globe in detail.Have Americans and Europeans ever sat down together and worked out acomprehensive plan of the positions we should hold and those we should relinquish?Have we ever got beyond wondering what the Soviets wanted to do, with the sole ideaof getting there first to stop them doing it? Our attitude to Soviet policy has been nomore scientific than that of the old woman who leans over the stairs and cries:'Children, whatever you are doing, stop it'. We are repeating the classic blunder ofcircumventing the strong opponent on all fronts to stop him moving in any direction:the most certain formula for world explosion.Hold Europe., leave Asia—Power of guerrillasMy own policy throughout has been clear: Hold Europe, leave Asia. It rests on thesimple, realistic premise that we can hold Europe but cannot hold Asia, for reasonslong foreseen and now in course of being proved true. Would you then abandonIndia?—a question arises which is bitter to an Englishman. My answer is that I wouldnot fight for India or any Asian country, if that is what is meant by abandoning them;we simply cannot fight for everyone, everywhere. We must make it clear where wewill intervene by force of arms, and where we will not. My definition of the sphere weshould thus defend is Europe, its overseas territories and communications, the BritishDominions, our vital interests in Africa, and America to honour a mutual guarantee ifit were attacked in its homeland; nowhere else.396 of 424