The Wanganui Chronicle. THURSDAY, AUGUST 24, 1944. CAPITALS AND KINGS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 88, Issue 202, 24 August 1944, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. THURSDAY, AUGUST 24, 1944. CAPITALS AND KINGS

W"™ Marshal Badoglio took command of Italy’s affairs he stated that the moment the capital of Rome was relieved of the presence of the enemy he would turn the Government over to others. Rome has been relieved, but there appears to be no sign of a new government being set up. It is also true that very little is now being heard of Badoglio. He has a following because of his military prowess and his unwillingness to run with the Fascists. It is no easy task, however, to set up a democratic regime in Italy. Too few people there are capable of operating a government. The masses are not looking to run their own affairs on the wider scale but desire to be allowed to tend their own fields and to leave the running of the country to others. There are plenty of Liberals in Italy, but one of the defects of an autocracy is that it impoverishes a country of the political elements and when the autocracy goes this impoverishment is all too apparent. It, should occasion no surprise, therefore, if some time elapses before a Parliamentary government is established in Italy. In France conditions are different and yet similar in some respects. The French people, like the Italians, left too much to their politicians and concentrated their individual attention upon the cultivation of their own gardens. The result was that politics, without the stimulus of public opinion, wilted and the Government, made up of a large number of groups without party discipline, became unstable. There were continual regroupings and national policy suffered in consequence. Because of inability to achieve sound results Parliament fell into disrepute and the chief concern of the public .was that there should be no increase in taxation. The great problem of national security became obscured. The result was that during the years which preceded the commencement of the second war France found itself incapable of organising its defences adequately. In the debacle which followed the attack General de Gaulle stood out as a strong personality in his endeavours to bring France into line. He- had seen clearly that the tank would be used in attack by the Germans and he proposed that tank should match tank. Ignored in this and unheeded when chaos settled over France, he was yet strong enough to continue to assert that France still lived and that Vichy had no mandate from the French people. Unfortunately neither had he. He could not have, for the French people had ceased to give mandates to anyone. During the years that followed de Gaulle was an uncomfortable bedfellow because he never ceased from asserting that he was France. French Africa seemed to be not too enthusiastic on this point, but time seemed to decide the issue, for . there appears at the moment to be none other to compete with him in the claim to authority to speak for France. There appears to be, too, no one else who can claim the same measure of support that is his, and so it seems natural to accept the situation as a working proposition that de Gaulle shall be regarded as the personification of France.

It is now proclaimed that, when Paris is relieved, de Gaulle shall be given the task of civil government administration. This may be the present determination, but the significant fact about the present situation is that de Gaulle has not been given a share in the task of bringing back liberty to France. The American and British forces dominate and the French forces are co-operating with them, but the initiative is decidedly in Anglo-American hands and all that pertains to military operations. “French and American,” writes Joseph C. Hsrsch in the Christian Science Monitor, “have been traditional friends. They have every reason to draw together when the undertaking to liberate France commences. Instead of doing that . . . there is shoddy, cheap squabbling over money. There is Washington’s dogged, peevish, resentful refusal to recognise the French Committee. There is de Gaulle’s unconscionable, petty withholding of most of his officers trained to accompany the invasion forces. In the questions of currency and the French liaison officers in France, statements have been made by General de Gaulle’s spokesmen which are saved from being untruths only by quibbles over words. But that indictment of their behaviour must be balanced by the extreme provocation from Washington which roused it.” The cause of this breach between Americans and the French of de Gaulle was the Vichy policy of the United States, whereby the Vichy regime was recognised diplomatically and a United States representative was accredited to Vichy. There were real- advantages in maintaining this nexus and the United Kingdom approved of the policy. Unfortunately de Gaulle felt rebuffed, naturally enough, and a persecution complex seems to have developed in the minds of himself and his following. This has stood in the way of complete harmony being established. De Gaulle’s visit to A\ ashington seems to have borne satisfactory, if limited, results and the measure of co-operation that has been secured is all to the good. During the invasion, however, it has become plain that the fears entertained in some quarters that de Gaulle will not be acceptable to some Frenchmen within France have had some foundation in fact. While Frenchmen are willing to fight to free their country they should not have their minds disturbed concerning the future political set-up of France. Until the major task has been completed it would be as well for no fuel to be added to the internecine fire which has smouldered in French politics for decades. It is to be hoped that in the future France will have more stability in her political set-up, and that means more party discipline such as exists in the United Kingdom and in New Zealand. There is a tendency in New Zealand, particularly amongst those who admit they do not study politics, to belittle party politics, but the alternative has been written in blood and tears in France for all to see. Some people, however, will never learn simply because they do not desire to do so. The situation that is developing in France will have to be closely observed on the spot, and if there is a modification of the proposal to establish de Gaulle in command of the French nation when Paris is relieved it should occasion no surprise and charges of breaches of faith on this matter should be ignored. Some things demand more attention than the armour propre of individuals and groups of individuals.