A BACKGROUND OF, THE WAR

Dominion, Volume 35, Issue 171, 16 April 1942, Page 4

A BACKGROUND OF, THE WAR

The Riom Trials FARCE WITH A MORAL

The Riom trials instituted by the Vichy Government of political and military leaders held responsible for the French debacle and capitulation of 1940, have always appeared to the public as somewhat of a mystery. They have now been suspended. The fact len'ds some interest to the following comment in “Tlie Economist,” London, of February 28 last, when the trials were opened. * There is (said the writer) an air of unreality about the whole proceedings, almost an Alice-iu-Wonderland effect —if the issues were not so tragic. One could expect the 100,000 pages of evidence to have 'been collected on a slate with a squeaky lead pencil, and one of the chief witnesses for the Crown to turn out to be a lizartl. There is the same air of bewilderment, the same difficulty in distinguishing accusers from accused, the same tendency to shout “Off with ills head” on totally inadequate evidence.

The defendants themselves have been the first to point out the unconventionally, not to say flat illegality, of the trial. In one sense, they have already been condemned without a hearing. Last October, Petain’s Council of Political Justice passed judgment of “political confinement” on a number of the accused. Apparently the distinction —dear to France’s new masters—between “justice” aud “political justice” is to be grafted on to the French system. Yet the crimes are political, rather than moral. The indictment speaks of neglect of France’s armaments, failure to co-ordinate foreign policy and military strength, faulty staff work and strategy. What is to be gained by trying these political offences again, when the Committee of "Political Justice” has already spoken? What is the point of the trials at all? The Finger Of Berlin

With Vichy, it is always a useful point of departure to find out what interest Berlin has in any given point of policy; here, the connexion is obvious. As M. Daladier put it: “Germany, who is really responsible for this war, today by this trial wants to obtain proof of her innocence.” But it is not only the Nazis who are in search of scapegoats. The way in which the Riom trial is developing, with the hushing up of all military scandal, the acceptance of General Gamelin’s silence and the insistence on the faulty “political conduct of the war, all point to one thing: the building up of a French “stab-in-the-back” myth. The French Army—like the German army in 1918—was not beaten. It was betrayed, so the myth will run, by-those who stirred up —the accusation is levelled at Blum—“social disunity and class war.” The army, whose honour is in the ancient Marshal’s keeping, is to emerge intact. It is the political system that is to be the real scapegoat of Riom. Both Daladier and Blum have protested against this suppression of the military evidence. They deny that all was ill in politics and all well at the front. As Daladier pertinently remarked, Is it [the trial] to ensure impunity for the generals who capitulated in the midst of the fight? Is it that in reality today’s trial is directed against the Republic?” The Republic On Trial This is exactly what Riom is—the trial of the Republic, the grand frameup to throw on to the pre-war political and social system of France the whole blame for Germany’s invasion and Petain’s collapse. Nearly two years have passed since the melancholy capitulation. A spate of books have been written on the state of France. Witnesses have escaped from occupied and unoccupied territory. The world outside is in a better position to. judge “the truth about the tragedy of France.” Perhaps it would have been wiser if Petain had held the trials immediately when, in the confusion and terror aud recrimination, his thesis of an upright honourable enemy, an undefeated army and a swarm of cowardly, incompetent politicians might have commanded assent. Today France and the world know better.

The tragedy of France was not her political and social system so much as the incompetence of that system to stand up to totalitarian war against an enemy twice as numerous. The French Republic had errors and futilities enough, yet can it seriously be maintained that the German and Italian systems of government, designed for war and maintained for the sake of war, were to be preferred? The downfall of France was not primarily due to shaky Cabinets and an irresponsible parliament—they played their part, but millions of Frenchmen lived happy, unpolitical lives whatever Government came or went —it was due to an implacable enemy bent on world conquest and to a military and economic system incapable of meeting this enemy’s threat. Tlie indictment against tlie liepublic is that it failed to rise to the new challenge—economically, militarily and politically—not that Jt was responsible for the challenge itself. The Real Indictment

Total war is waged successfully by a certain type ot community—the totalitarian community. Germany and Russia are the supreme examples of this, Japan bids fair to be another. So far total war lias not been waged successfully by free communities. Looking back on September, 1939, the people of both France and Britain must realize how completely unfitted they were for Hie ordeal. Britain had a Channel ami tlie chance of a second wind. France relied on 'be Maginot Line and had no second chance. She cannot now contribute, save by way ot warning, to the solution of the supreme problem; but tire trial of 'lie Republic is in one sense the trial of every free Stale.