France Looks at Germany

Maurice Schumann, head of France's progressive Catholic M. R. P. (Mouve-ment Republican-Populaire) made an extraordinary impression at Cleveland--perhaps because he is so young (35) to be a serious contender for the French presidency, perhaps because his appearance and personality so well symbolized his nation's present position. A threadbare grey jacket covered his hunched shoulders; the crystal of his wrist watch was shattered, the frame of his hornrimmed glasses was broken; he looked 20 Ibs. underweight. Yet he was vigorous, concise--and interesting. He said:

"It is probable that if I had been an American 15 or 20 years ago I would have been an isolationist, by instinct if not by conviction. Naturally, I would have been wrong. But I would have been one just the same. It would not have seemed normal to me to have to cross an ocean and leave an invulnerable country in order to save from disaster my defaulting debtors. Little by little I would doubtless have understood that if Europe and Africa were handed over to German militarism, Asia to Japanese militarism, America would inevitably become a battlefield and that, consequently, I would be saving my own home from destruction in defending London and in liberating Paris. . . .

In--or Around? "What is your aim, what is ours? To prevent Europe again becoming a battlefield. ... To reach this aim, it is necessary to build a Europe. Then--we are first to proclaim it--integrate Germany in this Europe. But, on the other hand, we must not try to build Europe around Germany. . . .

"If you remain with us, and if you play the role which we expect of you, a European community will be built in which there will be room for a German community. On the contrary, if you draw away from us ... Britain will be (or will consider herself) obliged to rebuild Germany against Russia, while Russia will be (or will consider herself) forced to rebuild Germany against Britain. In either case, Europe, instead of becoming a virtual community, will become a virtual battlefield.

"We must . . . ask ourselves if [the] Germans themselves are any different from their predecessors. I have read . . . with the hope of not being disappointed, the most important statements of the chiefs of all political parties constituted or reconstituted on Germanic territory. I have not found in them a single word of individual or collective remorse. . . .

One World-- or Two? "[The] great sources of wealth on German soil should be exploited for the benefit of all the European community, including Germany, instead of being exploited by Germany against the European community, as was the case until now. . . . Is it fair and reasonable that you should be obliged to send us coal . . . when the Ruhr is at our gates? ... In order that a it is European necessary that . . community . be the Ruhr [be] constituted, <| placed under international authority. . . .

"I believe that certain well-meaning people are opposed to the installation of an international authority in the Ruhr because they see therein a possibility of bringing Russia into the West. 'The Russians are already on the Oder and on the Spree,' one of my British friends said to me the other day, 'Why do you need to bring them also on the Rhine?' "My reply is that without international control of the Ruhr there is no German disarmament. It is equally clear that everything which concerns German dis armament directly interests Russia. But if it is fair that the Russians should be with us in the Ruhr and on the Rhine, it is equally fair that we should be with them in Silesia and Saxony and on the Danube. I would even say that one of the essential merits of international con trol of the Ruhr is that it demands reciprocity. . . .

"We have a choice between two great policies: to accept that the world be divided in two zones of influence (that is, in two camps) ... or else to ...

organize interpenetration.

"What we expect, above all, from America is that not only she choose the second of these two alternatives, but that she also be able to induce all to make the same choice. She can do so.

For if America had the means for victory America has also the means for peace.

As a matter of fact, the means are the/ same. It is better to employ them today for peace than tomorrow for victory."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.