THE RIQM TRIAL

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIII, Issue 44, 21 February 1942, Page 7

THE RIQM TRIAL

CHARGES IN DETAIL

ALLEGED BETRAYALS

(By Telegraph—Press Association —Copyright.)

LONDON, February 19.

When the trial, on war guilt charges, of the pre-Armistice French leaders began at Rlom today, M. Blum vehemently accused Marshal Gamelin of being the man mainly responsible for the defeat of France.

Marshal Gamelin told the Court that he had often considered resigning, but felt it his duty to remain at the head of the army. He concluded by saying that he considered it now his duty, in the interests of France and the army, to maintain silence throughout the trial.

The Court comprises seven Judges and three substitutes, under the presidency of M. Pierre Caous, former president of the Criminal Court.

- M. Daladier entered the court smoking the eternal cigarette, and M. Blum and Marshal Gamelin smiling.

The charges were, firstly, of betrayal of charges entrusted to them; and, secondly, attempts against the security of the State. The main ground on which the charges are based are that on September 2,1939, the French land and air forces were not ready to carry out the missions devolving on them; that as regards the land army there were inadequate training, insufficient armaments and equipment of all kinds, and lack of preparation for industrial mobilisation; that it would appear that France had a number of modern aeroplanes much below what the Supreme Air Council declared would constitute the minimum for the security of the country; that in particular she could not put into the air a single modern bomber. It is alleged that as a result of statements by witnesses these deficiencies would be attributed wholly or partly to the accused.

Special blame, it is alleged, attaches to M. Daladier for having displayed incompetence in the preparation of the national mobilisation, particularly industrial mobilisation, in the organisation and training of the army, and in the manufacture of armaments; for failure to ensure the manufacture of heavy artillery; for failure to prevent propaganda adversely affecting deliveries from the factories; and for making incorrect statements on military preparations. It is charged that M. Blum compromised the work of national defence by the enforcement of labour legislation which made practically impossible the : working of overtime; and that by' weakness when he was faced with revolutionary agitation he brought about a diminution in the production. Marshal Gamelin, it is alleged, proved incompetent in the training of the army and took jno action with a view to making the necessary armaments, especially heavy artillery, antitank weapons, and anti-aircraft material. It is charged that he took no steps to remedy inadequate supplies of equipment, and that in the course of hostilities he brought about the adoption of a defensive organisation by the High Command. , CASE FOR PROSECUTION. The prosecution alleged that M. Cot gave proof of incompetence in the organisation of the air force, displayed weakness in dealing with revolutionaries, and delivered to the Spanish Republican Government aeroplanes which were intended for the French air-force, especially modern planes; that M. La Chambre, by weakness, aggravated the inadequacy of production and presented misleading information regarding production; and that M. Jacomet proved incompetent in the supervision of the manufacture of armaments. At a meeting on August 23, 1939, it was stated, the military chiefs were interrogated on the point whether France could look on with indifference to the loss of Boulogne and whether France's aeroplane resources were sufficient to prevent such an event. Marshal Gamelin, without making any reservation or revealing any inadequate point in the defence preparations, answered that the army was ready. M. La Chambre declared that the progress in the air force made it unnecessary to regard deficiencies in the air force seriously at the time of Munich. M. Daladier allowed Marshal Gamelin and M. La Chambre to make these replies, leading the Foreign Minister to conclude that no military consideration need influence French foreign policy. There was thus sufficient presumptive evidence that the accused . betrayed their duties', and therefore the Court had ordered the trial. Counsel for Marshal Gamelin said it was unfair to make one man, namely, Marshal Gamelin, bear the responsibility for the fall of France. Gamelin's intended silence, he said, was due to his spirit of self-sacrifice, in order to protect subordinates. Counsel blamed the essential confusion of democracy for the fall of France. M. BLUM'S EVIDENCE. M. Blum said in evidence that he was surprised that in the proceedings, in which the defeat of the French army was the basis of events, the war had been excluded. "I and the other accused," he said, "appear before this court in contradiction of the very principle of justice and'human trust, and have been condemned in advance by the sentence of the Chief of State, based on the advice of his political counsellors. The Court wants to reject the evidence of the army, whereas the responsibility of the High Command is overwhelming. Whatever may have been the supplies of equipment and the.morale, I question the independence of this Court. It has already been relieved of its future verdict, but we will take up the struggle and will bring the whole truth to light." (Rec. 9 a.m.) LONDON, Feb. 19. M. Blum's counsel, M. Le Trocquer, read instructions which were issued to the Press in which it was stated that certain aspects of the trial should be emphasised and others should- be omitted. "I protest most strongly," he said, "against pressure being thus brought to bear." M. Daladier's counsel argued that a Court established in July, 1940, could not judge offences committed before then. He also claimed that the constitution of the Court was illegal. I\l. Daladier said that already, in the decisive year 1934, France was disarming, and she continued to do so in--1935, when Germany was increasing her armaments. The Minister of War then used only part of his credits. "I took over the War Ministry in 1936," he said, "and after- that France made as great an effort as possible. I will call testimony by high military leaders who never doubted the value of the French army. Why was France defeated so quickly that the Germans were astonished? Why forbid determination of the responsibility of our military chiefs for defeat? They left unused an immense mass- of material in the rear. Why were so many scattered tanks and so many arms, in the rear when the battle was raging? Why am I refused access to documents which alone can reveal the causes of the disaster? Is this to ensure immunity for generals who capitulated in the midst of the fight? Is this trial in reality directed against the Republic? Vive la Republique. I have done my duty." .. - '■

The Court adjourned and the accused returned to theiu cells.