The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 1940. ANGLO-FRENCH UNITY

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20151, 22 January 1940, Page 6

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 1940. ANGLO-FRENCH UNITY

From the outset of the war a good deal has been said and written about the economic aspects of the struggle, the ioint efforts of the Allies in this direction, and Die increasing effect on Germany of the unrelenting pressure of the blockade. These, perhaps, are the immediate results of Allied unity in the economic sphere, but the possibility of carrying them further was strikingly illustrated by the statement made last week by the French Minister of Armaments. M. Dautry has been in London conferring .with the British Minister of Supply on various matters concerning the co-ordination of the economic war effort and he was able to give some idea of how much had been achieved in this direction. Britain and France, he said, had pooled their military forces, their economic wealth, and their financial means and now the process had been carried further and it had been found possible to combine the Allied science laboratories, their technical resources, their machines and their labour. These are remarkable achievements for they serve to show just how far co-operation between the two countries is possible. They mean that there will be the maximum efficiency and the minimum of waste in the war effort and they should mean, also, the elimination of those sources of friction which are apt to arise even between two countries which are fighting side by side.

In effect, Britain and France have become as one country—and that is as it should be. It is not a case of adversity making strange bed-fellows because for many years Britain and France have shared many things in common, not the least being their desire for peace and freedom among the peoples of the world. There have, however, been differences between them even as there have been differences between rival factions in each country. The first effect of the war was to resolve domestic disputes in both Britain and France. France, in particular, had been brought to a serious plight as a result of political strife and this was only eliminated when it was realised that a grave external crisis might have to be faced. Britain, too, had had her internal problems, although these were less acute than those of France, but the war served to obscure them. In both countries the people became united in their determination to resist a force that threatened their national existence, realising that unless they first made themselves secure against any possible threat of aggression no domestic reforms and no life worth living would be possible. The war, then, saw the peoples of both Britain and France united in their determination to resist the danger that was

threatening the world, but this was only the first step. Having achieved unity among their own peoples, Britain and France then directed their attention to securing unity between themselves. The result, in M. Dautry's words, is this: "There are no longer any secrets or any frontiers between us. Can one, under such circumstances, speak of collaboration? I should prefer to speak of a French and British union.” These words appeal to the imagination. Various other statesmen in recent weeks have expressed the hope that the co-operation that exists between Britain and France in their war-time effort should be the basis of a new Europe when the war has been brought to an end. M. Dautry is able to visualise what the result would be —no secrets and no frontiers. There would be no striving on the part of one nation to attain supremacy over others and no attempts to secure advantages for one people at the expense of others. Instead, there would be co-operation on the part of all for the benefit of all and the causes of international friction, and of war, would be removed. At the moment this seems, of course, to be an idealistic dream that is impossible of realisation, but if two nations like Britain aid France can make a start by removing the barriers that hitherto have divided them there is no reason why others should not join them, and every extension of the plan would bring the world nearer to that fraternity of peoples which it should, and could, be. M, Dautry’s visualisation of Britain and France as two countries without secrets and without frontiers between them provides the foundation of a great experiment in international cooperation and if a precept that has been born of war-time expediency can be translated into peace-time practice then the war will not have been fought in vain. At least M. Dautry’s words serve to focus attention on the idealistic aims of the Allies in the present struggle and if they can emerge from it with their motives unimpaired by the hardships and the sacrifices which war inevitably entails then it is possible that this time they will be able to win the peace as well as the war. And if the war provides a lesson in the value of international unity it demonstrates, also, the benefits of national solidarity. Before the war, internal differences brought France very close to disaster, and even in Britain, although there was no similar threat, lack of unity was hampering the national effort. As it was in Britain and France, so it was in greater or lesser degree in other countries. So long as a people or peoples are at cross-purposes and divided in their aims progress towards a better world must be hindered, but if there is unity of purpose, a common aim, and a determination to strive for the betterment of all then there is nothing that cannot be achieved.