Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Growing Differences Between Britain And France Reviewed By French Minister Of State

Prajse For Sacrifices Of Britons, But Says They Do Not Understand

(Special N.Z.P.A. Correspondent) LONDON, Jan. 5 (Reed. 6 pm).—Differences between Britain and France are reviewed in a letter to the “Manchester Guardian” by M. Paul Devinat. Secretary of State and a member of M. Queuille’s Government. “Judging by the British press,” says Devinat, “Britain seems to have passed severe judgment on France for her political weaknesses, her social disturbances, her financial difficulties and impotence to which the Communist Party has reduced her so far.

“The austerity of Britain, which we admire but cannot imitate,” Devinat continues, “seems to make the British Press inclined to be very severe towards France as having failed to make sufficient efforts for recovery. “These factors are creating a certain glumness between our two countries which could and should be got rid of by a few explanations. PASSED THROUGH REVOLUTION “We can see that a grave mistake ia being made in Britain in judging France. This mistake is made because the British have made no departure from constitutionalism, while the French have just passed through a profound revolution which has only recently been overcome, and that only partially’’ Devinat recalls the strength of Communism in France before the war and how, through its influence in resistance movements and through its revolutionary methods, it almost came to power at the liberation. Until April, 1947, it had influential representatives in the Government. Devinat claims that France, like Italy, has "succeeded in getting rid of that party in the Government. “But its departure,” he says, “has not eliminated the malady. The curb 11 now proceeding. France, whose robust health saved her from succumbing, is unquestionably convalescent. At present France is steadily recovering.” Devinat declares: “Her recovery became possible when, in 1947, M. Ramadier succeeded in excluding the Communist Party from power. It actually began with the Government of M. Schuman and his deputy, Rene Mayer, COMMUNIST SPIRIT BROKEN “Today the Communist Party is counter-attacking, but its spirit has been broken and a return to good sense is making steady progress“Such are facts of which opinion in Britain should, in justice, take note. “Conversely, I admit the French are not sufficiently aware of the great sacrifices the British have imposed on themselves for the restoration of their country. But what interests us most ill France in the activities of the British Government is its foreign po.icy, in which we seem to see the beginning of a cleavage between the positions of the two countries. ' in the matter of Germany, for instance, British opinion attributes out-of-date views to the French. It credits us with motives simpiy of vengeance and fear, with ideas that date back to Poincare. It regards us as obsessed by the German peril and blind to the fact thigi that has been succeeded by another that needs to be faced. “Thus, regarding our attitude as . ill-founaed, British opinion seems to favov' immediate reconstitution of Germany without taking steps for final solution of the German problem. You certainly feel that the problem cannot be solved within the old framework of nation-states, but only in the organisation of Europe. And yet Britain shows clear signs of distrust of any step in the direction of that or-

ganisation. She seems to adhere still to the principle of splendid isolation, or at least to the traditional policy of maintaining between Continental States a rivalry by which she may profit. But the time has passed when such moves are permissible or even possible-” “WHAT WE WANT” Replying to his own question: “What is it that we want?” Devinat says: “In the face of the danger represented by Russia and of th e poverty of our part of the world, we think that all democratic. States of Europe should act together for the maintenance of our civilisation, to assure peace, and to secure considerable improvement in our people’s standard of living. Such objectives are unattainable without some limitation of absolute sovereignty, just as the veto (which is a manifestation of it in the United Nations) is entirely irreconcilable with close co-operation. "The quadripartite Government of Germany has proved impossible. Tripartite rule does not seem very easy. Is it conceivable that the objectives here enumerated can be attained by such procedure? I find it difficult to believe it- It is difficult to come to terms even now, with Germany denied a voice. What *UI it be like when she is given one? Should there not be a clear acceptance of a progressively closer association between the countries of Europe? And cf making that association a reality of creating European power?” The “Manchester Guardian,” in a leading article, says Devinat’s letter will be read with respect and sympathy. It continues: “Britain has suffered less than France in two wars, and it is not surprising that Frenchmen fear that British concern for restoring Germany as a contributor to Europe’s prosperity may be push/J Ito a point at whicu she may be ex- ; posing France to the danger of a third invasion.”

The “Guardian” hopes these fears may be dissipated when the Foreign Secretaries of the two countries meet in London. It believes there is ground for a hopeful view of the French prospect of combatting Communism successfully.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WC19490106.2.36

Bibliographic details

Wanganui Chronicle, 6 January 1949, Page 5

Word Count
883

Growing Differences Between Britain And France Reviewed By French Minister Of State Wanganui Chronicle, 6 January 1949, Page 5

Growing Differences Between Britain And France Reviewed By French Minister Of State Wanganui Chronicle, 6 January 1949, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert