I would like to have a little more information from the First Lord on the program, as far as it is known to date, about the Russian building in the Far East. It is quite difficult, but the technical position of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics puts them in a slightly different position than someone else.” On this issue of armaments, I still find it a pity that new categories of ships are being introduced. We`ve probably never made a major mistake – I don`t know what the good 2015 hon. Mr. Member for Epping would say about this – when we seemed to introduce a new ship before the war, which led to the pre-war race. And being wedged between the 6-inch class “B” cruiser and the Class A 8-inch cruiser is a new series of 7-inch gun cruisers that is extremely difficult, because the one that has to compete with the Soviet system`s 7-inch gun cruiser must have a superior gun according to the treaty. Of course, I agree that Germany has reasonably stated, with regard to the written word, that it will not yet define the two additional “A” cruisers in category “A”, for which, as I have been reminded, it would not have been a public agreement, but a secret agreement which seems to have been concluded between that country and the German Admiralty in July. , 1935. At the same time, I will be pleased to learn whether it is proposed to subject the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the possibility of a reversal of the special category of 7-inch guns to the actual qualitative restrictions that the Treaty applies to all other powers as soon as possible – and I recognise their technical difficulties. , light surface vessels, category “A,” “B” and “C” cruisers. This would make it much easier to organize our relative strength.
I`ll go back to the Navy contract. I would like to stress that if treaties are to be concluded, there must be a solid basis for that, and this treaty has absolutely no basis. It is only a pen that wanders in international affairs. Even the minister has apologised for it, because it is essential for the peoples of a country. There is an urgent need to rapidly reduce arms spending and the most widespread spending on the construction of domestic life and human well-being. That is why I am saying that we should put this treaty out of the way and look for an effective treaty. We should try to bring together the nations that are for peace. If they were prepared to unite their troops and resources, they could conclude a real peace treaty of 2048, with real naval and other restrictions. One member of Parliament told us that he wanted Britannia to rule the waves, and there were general cheers, but the fact is that she does not govern the waves.
There is no question of Britannia fighting. When it comes to exchanging information on details that can be kept secret, I do not think that any country concerned, including our own, will be bound by this provision. Will the information on our shipbuilding, which must be entrusted to other powers before being given to this House, be given to them or will it go beyond the information that will be brought to this House? I have the idea that we will come to the absurd situation that we will give, under these treaties, to other powers whose Members of this House will be deprived. I note that not only does Russia not need to give information on its construction of the Far East, but, if it feels threatened by Japan, it can interrupt all consultation and delay processes related to the leak clauses.