FRENCH RECONSTRUCTION

Greymouth Evening Star, 21 January 1941, Page 7

FRENCH RECONSTRUCTION

PETAIN-LAVAL AGREEMENT APPEAL.FOR UlffTY [BY cable —PRESS ASSN. —COPYRIGHT.] (Recd. Jan. 21, 11.30 a.m.). LONDON, January 20. - The Associated Press Vichy correspondent states: An authorised source says that the domestic and foreign policy .of France will be un- | changed by the reconciliation between | Marshal Petain and M. Laval. Marshal Petain remains chief of France—oc- : cupied, unoccupied, and overseas. No matter who are the Ministers, they are responsible to him. [' The Vichy radio broadcast a communique, stating: “For reasons of high domestic policy, Marshal Petain decided on December 13 to dispense'with the assistance of M. Laval. These reasons were owing to circumstances that could not be clearly explained to the French nation. This led to many rumours and some unrest, which several Paris newspapers, favoured by the difficulties of the moment, did not fail to exploit and enlarge. Marshal Petain desires more than ever to avoid the danger of a division of mind, and wants more than ever to dispel misunderstandings which might prejudice the relations between. the authorities of the occupied territories and the French Government. It is for this reason that Marshal Petain insisted upon having an interview with M. Laval.” .

According to another agency, a Vichy commentator said that Marshal Petain met M. Laval “for imperious reasons of home policy, and the Marshal’s desire to strengthen the union of all the French.”

“COLLABORATION.” RUGBY, January 20. Evidence continues to reach London showing that the much advertised “collaboration” between France and Germany is a very one-sided affair. One example is arrangements made for compensation to be paid to persons whose goods are requisitioned by the German Army. The rate fixed is generous, but according to a recent decree by the Vichy Finance Minister (M. Bouthillier) it is France who pays. Whether the cost of this compensation is reckoned as part of the immense daily charges which France has fo pay in respect of the Germans’ occupation or whether in exchange for paying out francs the Vichy Government obtains a further credit in -the recently produced clearing ac.count, is not known; but either way the French nation, benefits little by the transaction. These payments to individuals, moreover, have an inflationary effect, since the increase in mohev is unaccompanied by an increase in goods.

SHORTAGE DUE TO GERMANS: RUGBY, January 19. ■ An analysis of figures of French production and sources of supply of certain foodstuffs cut deeply into Ger-man-inspired arguments that the food shortage in France is a result of the British blockade. With the proBritish feeling both in occupied and unoccupied France growing rapidly, it is becoming increasingly difficult to persuade the Frenchman that his privations are really caused by his erstwhile ally. They are, in fact, caused by German rapacity. tn June, 1940, when this aspect was not so important to Nazi propaganda as it has since become, the “Deutsche Allgemein Zeitung”—possibly to allay any suspicion that the Nazi victory over France might increase privation among the German people should the war go on over the Winter—pointed out that on a calory basis France was normally self-sufficient to the extent of 83 per cent., which could be increased to 150 per cent, if the productive forces were more fully developed. An analysis of figures for French food production and imports, set out in the last available International Year Book of Agricultural Statistics, which is published in Rome, go far to support this opinion. These reveal that in 1938 France imported less than 1 per cent, of the total potato supply, 4 per cent. of. wheat, 5 per cent, of barley, 12 per cent, of sugar, and less than 5 per cent of eggs. Both in 1937 and 1938 there was a small net export of milk and butter. In these circlmstances, it is difficult to see how the blame can be cast on the British for any shortage. Neither is the case made stronger by figures published on January 8 by the Vichy Information Secretariat, which stated that French imports of potatoes amounted in 1938 to 158,500 tons, with the implication that the cutting of these imports by the British blockade had caused a shortage. This statement overlooked the fact that in 1938 France exported 90,000 tons of potatoes and this figure should, of course, be used to offset the figure for imports. In any event, however, these figures were insignificant fractions of France’s total domestic output of potatoes. The same results are reached in consideration of a Vichy statement that in 1938 France had to import 316,900 tons of sugar. Here French exports were 1,930,600 tons, leaving a net shortage of only 12 per cent. In addition, France was in the habit, of carrying, stocks equal to 25 per cent of the total requirements. Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland are all large exporters of sugar, and the-normal sources of French imports of this commodity, so here again the British blockade has no influence on any . French sugar shortage- . ~ The real reason fpr the privations existing in countries occupied by Nazi arms has been given by the German propaganda machine itself. On January 7 of this year, the TransOcean News Agency stated: “Feats hitherto never performed have been carried out in connection with the defeat, of . Belgium, Holland, and France, such, as the removal of enormous quantities of booty.” In view.of. the present .propaganda policy, on this subject, it is interesting to recall German reiterations, pre- ; sumably designed for home consumption, r of Europe’s ability to feedher- | self. The organ-of the German Institute for Economic Research went so far as to say in December last: “The greatly increased production capacity of the Reich in the present war- as well as the splendid organisa-tion-for distribution and intimate cooperation with other countries, not only make Germany blockade-proof, ibut.the rest of the Continent, too.”-