The Southland Times. TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 1940. France Accepts Her Chains

Southland Times, Issue 24161, 25 June 1940, Page 4

The Southland Times. TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 1940. France Accepts Her Chains

HITLER has repeatedly denounced the Versailles Treaty as the instrument of a brutal and repressive settlement. He and his propagandists have said so much about it, indeed, that their opinions have been echoed in British countries by well-meaning persons who have never examined the maligned document. These persons should lose no time in comparing the Treaty of Versailles with the outrageous terms imposed. on the Bordeaux Government. They should remember, too, that the terms are nqt for a peace settlement, but for an armistice, and that the Nazis will be at liberty to do what they will with the territory, lives and property of a disarmed nation. It may be true that mistakes were made at the Paris Conference of 1919. Some of the conditions were needlessly harsh, although Frenchmen who believed then that Germany should have been made incapable of ravaging their country in another 20 years’ time may now feel that they were not harsh enough. The Germans have a way of destroying other people’s property and then shouting theii’ indignation to the skies at any suggestion of restraining their lust for destruction. Hitler had an opportunity to prove to the world that Germany’s resentment towards a treaty which was sufficiently moderate to allow her, in so short a time, to recovei’ and exceed her previous military strength, was based on the elementary principles of justice. He has shown instead (and nobody will be surprised) that the Germans have been thinking all along in terms of “justice” for themselves and enslavement for their enemies. Premature Surrender

If there are still misguided persons who believe that the present terms are harsh only because the Treaty of Versailles was not mild enough, they should examine the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, forced on Russia in the last war when the German armies were victorious on the Eastern Front. When Germany is beaten she is allowed to retain the greater part of her territory and complete freedom of self-government. But when Germany is victorious she reduces her enemy to bondage within a miserable remnant of his former country. The terms agreed to by the Bordeaux Government are merely the preliminaries to a crushing and vindictive “peace.” Their harshness is so obviously incompatible with the faintest shadow of national existence that it is difficult to understand why France, even in her present extremity, could pretend to find them acceptable. It can be argued, no doubt, that the military situation has become utterly hopeless. But although organized fighting on a large scale may be out of the question, it should still be possible for the French to sell their country dearly, so that islands of resistance could remain after most of the country was occupied, and vigorous efforts could be made to retard the German occupation and to prevent or weaken the organization of industrial resources for an attack on Britain. Pacification is a comparatively simple matter in a defenceless country: it can be prolonged and only partly successful while guerrilla warfare continues. France has nothing to lose, and everything to gain, from a continued resistance. A peace imposed after a long and costly pacification is not likely to be much more severe than the peace that will now be attained through a shameful capitulation. Moreover, the only chance for ultimate salvation rests with Britain. By surrendering at this stage, the French are making it harder for Britain to free them from oppression. They are extending the period of their slavery and betraying the cause and future of their country.

Political Opportunism? It is a tragic thing that AngloFrench solidarity, which was to have been the framework for post-war reconstruction, should have collapsed so early in the struggle. Recriminations can only make matters worse, and against the French people there will be no word of condemnation. They have fought with heroism and suffered with fortitude. And their sufferings, alas, are only beginning. But there is no need to withhold criticism of the Government which has so shamefully betrayed them. The impressive figure of Marshal Petain, unwisely brought from retirement by M. Reynaud, and urged towards a cruel responsibility by the new Government, cannot prevent the world from suspecting that there has been political opportunism of a dubious kind at Bordeaux. It has now been reported that M. Laval, a sinister figure in French politics, has become Vice-Premier. The Cabinet is composed predominantly of leaders who in the past have represented a small but powerful minority with pronounced leanings towards the extreme Right. With such men the Nazis know

how to reach an understanding. Even if this judgment is premature, and based on insufficient evidence, it is quite plain that the mass of the people finds committed to capitulation by men who have no democratic, and only the thinnest constitutional, right to speak for the entire nation. The true voice of France is to be heard in London, where General de Gaulle has formed a French National Committee, in the Middle East and in all parts of the French Colonial Empire. As time goes on there will be a growing support for these new leaders within France herself. Unfortunately the time for effective protest is now; and it is idle to expect it from a people weary and bewildered after the shocks of invasion and defeat. With the help of Britain, France will recover her freedom. But the struggle will be harder and longer than it need have been if there had been leaders who knew how to save the honour of France in deeds instead of words.