Sunday, March 24, 1940

DALADIER OUT, REYNAUD IN -- FOR NOW. Over the past four days France has seen the resignation of one premier, Edouard Daladier. And the authority of his successor, Paul Reynaud, is already in jeopardy. P.J. Philip has the story in Thursday’s New York Times on the Daladier resignation, which came in the wake of widespread criticism in the Chamber of Deputies over his conduct of the war, and a confidence vote in which only 239 deputies supported the government, while 300 abstained. The Times sums up his downfall -- “He has lacked initiative and imagination, his critics say, and the failure to support Finland quickly enough has been taken as an example, not because any one seriously believes that more could have been done directly for Finland, but as an indication of what might happen elsewhere if the same tempo of doing things were continued.”

But Mr. Philip also laments the fact that such an important change was made during a secret session of the Chamber, and after “a very confused vote.” This makes it possible, he reports, that Premier Raynaud could well fail in forming a government. And if that happens, President Lebrun might in the end ask M. Daladier to take the premiership once again.

Meanwhile, the new Reynaud cabinet has gotten off to a “sorry start,” according to John Elliott in Saturday’s New York Herald Tribune. In a Friday vote of confidence, the government prevailed by 268-156 with 111 abstentions -- an absolute majority of only one vote. Premier Reynaud received wide support from his own Radical Socialists and other parties on the Left, but was opposed by Center and Right groups. Mr. Elliott says the new government’s “prestige has been badly shaken at the very outset. Not since the war have so many votes in opposition to a Cabinet been recorded in the French Chamber. Still, Premier Reynaud has at least ten days in which to show what he can do and attempt to win additional support, for Parliament went into recess today until April 2.”

RUSSIANS FORBID FINNISH ALLIANCE. Forget the talk about Finland protecting herself from the Russian bear by forming a defensive alliance with her neighbors, Sweden and Norway. Apparently the alliance won’t stop the Russians from future aggression against the Finns for one reason -- Stalin refuses to permit it.

That was one of two shocks a Finnish peace delegation received after arriving in Moscow, according to Harold Callender in the New York Times. The other shock was when their Russian counterparts presented a map with the new Russo-Finnish border -- in which the newly negotiated frontiers had been unilaterally altered in several places in Russia’s favor. “It was as if, reports Mr. Callender, “Moscow had deliberately underlined Prime Minister Chamberlain’s speech on Tuesday by substantiating his warning that the north was still -- or more than ever -- in danger.”

So much for the wistful hope expressed in a Times editorial a week ago that the Russians would think twice about conquering the rest of Finland because of the probability that the Allies and the Finns' Scandinavian neighbors would rush to fight alongside them. It turns out all the Soviets have to do is say “boo”, and suddenly the Norwegians say they now believe an alliance to be “extremely difficult, it not impossible”, while the Swedes respond, with meek mock-defiance, that staff talks with Finland will continue, “whether a formal pact were signed or not.” Can anyone now doubt that the Russians will seize the rest of Finland before the end of this year?

A GERMAN ATTACK THROUGH HOLLAND? Last week’s New Republic has an editorial doubting the chances of two much-discussed scenarios in the war. As to the possibility of a German offensive in the Balkans or Scandinavia, “it is as a source of supply that these regions are most important to [Germany],” say the editors. As to the chances of a Nazi flanking attack on France through Switzerland or Belgium, “the French are now about as well prepared there as in the center.” But the editors see one other very real possibility --

“From underground Germany comes word that the plan is for a Blitzkrieg through Holland alone, in order to gain closer access to Britain, and capture Holland’s gold. It is thought by those who adhere to this theory that Holland would not call in Allied or Belgian help, and would not offer serious resistance. Such a move would accord with Hitler’s traditional ‘artichoke plan’ of conquest, by which the smaller nations are eaten one leaf at a time. And it might open the way for a still more daring adventure in the future -- invasion and conquest of Britain itself. Psychologically, the guess seems to fit what we have learned about Hitler.”

...OR NO GERMAN ATTACK AT ALL? Meanwhile, in the current New Republic, Genevieve Tabouis writes from Paris that knowledgeable French sources don’t believe the Germans have the ability to carry out a big offensive this year --

“It is authoritatively said in France that at the beginning of January Hitler convoked his High Command and outlined his war plans for this year and next, specifying that no mass offensive should be undertaken before 1941. During the spring of 1941, it is said, he is to reconsider the possibilities of a total war on the western front and whether the chances are favorable for the German army. If not, the troops are to retire behind the Third Siegfried Line. The Fuehrer is reported to have stressed the point that by then he would have solidly based his economy on exploitation of the Balkans and Russia, and he would be in no danger of having to capitulate. It is also said in Paris that Hitler did not give these orders willingly, but because -- despite appearances -- he was obliged to do so for two reasons: the shortage of war material necessary for an offensive, and the shortage of reserves.”

ALLIES IMPATIENT WITH THE “SIT-DOWN WAR.” Barnet Nover writes in his Washington Post column Friday that France’s new premier is no appeaser, and that his ascension might indicate an increased determination in both Britain and France to defeat Hitler --

“Paul Reynaud has for long been an ardent opponent of the Munich policy. He stands for the most vigorous possible prosecution of the war. He is opposed, as Edouard Daladier was equally opposed, to a negotiated peace that would leave Hitler in possession of his gains and in a position, after a few months of uncertain peace, to launch of Blitzkrieg against the demoralized Allies. And the same desire for action that was behind the replacement of Daladier by Reynaud is to be found in Great Britain. There Neville Chamberlain remains master of the situation. But a shake-up of the cabinet is imminent. Popular impatience with the ‘sit-down war’ may lead the French and British governments to undertake ill-considered ventures that may prove disastrous. That is a real danger. But, in the meantime it is of more than passing significance that the most serious defeat suffered by the Allies since Poland was overrun, namely, the collapse of Finland, far from wrecking the morale of the British and French people has only resulted in increasing their determination to fight it out.”