DIVIDED FRANCE
Sta,—" Simple Sailor's " letter dealing with your review of Hitler Divided France abounds with those clichés which have been so freely expressed about France since the Armistice of 194o. He refers to the military defeat of France as a desertion of her allies, and to collaboration with the Germans in North Africa as though it were something the French desired. Anyone familiar with the conditions prevailing in North Africa at the time of the Allied invasion can vouch for how much the French gained from this so-called collaboration. The chanters in Hitler Divided France deal with the French point of view on these accusations which have so thoughtlessly been levelled against France since the Armistice.
The passage quoted in criticism of the authors was one which they only submit as a possible effect of the attentiste policy of the Vichy Government. They do not say that the Vichy Government came into being to further this policy, but rather that it became possible as a result of its existence. A sailor would naturally concentrate on the maritime aspect of any operations the Germans might have undertaken against North Africa had French resistance continued in that territory. While their argument is purely hypothetical, would not the Germans have attacked the Iberian Peninsula and in t940 have taken Gibraltar with the same ease with which the Japanese took Singapore just over a year later? Whatever the strength of the British or French navies in the Mediter- ranean, the loss of Gibraltar would have rendered impossible the recent North African and subsequent Sicilian campaigns.
Many of the views in the book are very debatable, but at least they do state the Frenchman's point of view as a counterblast to much of the anti-French propaganda heard in this country since the Armistice. Any- thing which will lay a better foundation for future Anglo-French relations is to be welcomed, as France will yet have a leading part to play in the
future of Europe.—Yours faithfully, L. MAXWELL. Clifton Keynes, Bucks.