The Press TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15,' 1942. Crisis in Vichy

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23743, 15 September 1942, Page 4

The Press TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15,' 1942. Crisis in Vichy

The present policy of the Vichy Government appears to be causing as much anxiety and annoyance in Berlin as in London and Washington. To judge by the tone of its propaganda broadcasts, the German Government feels that Vichy has been weak over Madagascar; and the recall of M. de Boisson, Vichy High Commissioner in West Africa, gives colour to rumours that Hitler, contending that Vichy is incapable of defending its colonial empire, wants to send German troops r,o Dakar. A far more serious cause of German dissatisfaction with Vichy is the manifest failure of efforts to recruit Frenchmen for labour in Germany, since Germany’s chances of averting a decline in her war production depend mainly on the extent to which she can draw on foreign labour. Laval’s appeal for volunteers, backed by German promises to release one French prisoner of war for every French worker who went to Germany, had little result. The next step was to close certain French factories on the plea of a shortage of raw materials, the displaced workers being advised that there was employment for them in Germany. Now Vichy is conscripting for labour service all males between 18 and 50 and all unmarried females between 21 and 35, notwithstanding that Laval and other Vichy Ministers have until recently been complaining of the severity of unemployment in unoccupied France. Conscription for labour service, it is clear, is one step towards forced labour for Frenchmen in German factories and farms. In the meantime, the British and United States Governments are attempting to counteract Hitler’s pressure op Vichy by applying pressure themselves. British propaganda now attacks Laval as violently as if he were the head of an enemy State; and Fighting France, with the British Government’s approval, is cooperating with underground organisations in unoccupied France whose objective is the overthrow of the Vichy regime. At the week-end Mr Cordell Hull came close to denouncing Vichy when he publicly endorsed a protest by M, Herriot and M. Jules Jeanneney against the Vichy Government’s unconstitutional assumption of dictatorial powers. Since the State Department has alwpys dealt gently with Vichy, and since the United States still-has diplomatic relations with Vichy, his outspokenness has caused a sensStion. It would, however, be unwise to assume, with some commentators, that a severance of relations between the United States and Vichy France is just round the corner. Ever since the fall of France, the State Department has acted on the assumption that the Vichy regime can be persuaded, by a judicious mixture Qf encouragement and admonition, to assert its independence as against the Axis. Thus, although Mr Hull finds it necessary to rebuke M. Laval and Marshal Retain for trampling on French democracy, it is only a few weeks since United States ships resumed the supply of essential commodities to French North Africa.' It would be difficult to show that what the State Department has done or has nut done has had any effect on Vichy’s policy or actions. On the contrary, it is becoming increasingly clear that, because unoccupied France is militarily helpless, Vichy’s policy on all important issues is determined by Berlin. When the tragedy of Vichy has been played out to its inevitable conclusion, the verdict will probably be that, while the State Department did little to strengthen Vichy, it confused and weakened those groups of Frenchmen inside and outside France who were working for the regeneration of theif country.