The Pittsburgh Press (January 16, 1946)
Simms: Peace treaty
By William Philip Simms
WASHINGTON – Failure of the Allies to conclude peace has left a dozen powder barrels wide open – in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East and the Pacific. A spark accidentally or purposely dropped into any one of them could cause an explosion which would rock the world.
Europe, breeding place of world wars, has more than its share of these danger spots. And while a peace conference sometimes before May 1 was agreed upon at the Molotov-Bevins-Byrnes meeting in Moscow during Christmas week – a conference at which all of the principal nations which had fought against the Axis would be present – little, if any, spadework has yet been done.
Britain, for one, is becoming impatient. The London foreign office is known to be prodding her allies. A beginning may be made this week, after the belated arrival of Vice Commissar Vishinsky, head of the Soviet delegation.
Even so, there are no signs that Britain, Russia and the United States soon will take up the question of peace with Germany. The proposed May 1 conference, according to the Moscow agreement, will only deal with Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland. Germany, the big problem, will not be discussed. Nor, of course, will Japan.
Signing of peace treaties necessary
As Secretary Byrnes admits, the signing of peace treaties is necessary to permit the withdrawal of troops from occupied territories. Only then “can the people have an opportunity to start on the long road to economic recovery. And only by the economic recovery of other countries can we in America hope for the full employment of our labor and our capital in this inter-dependent world.”
For some strange reason not yet fully explained, the Big Three have not yet seen fit to take France into their European councils. Russia, comprising one-sixth the habitable globe, with 190 million population, has expressed anxiety regarding a German comeback.
Accordingly, she has taken unilateral action to safeguard her own security from that quarter. She has annexed half of Poland; moved the German frontier back half-way to Berlin to permit what is left of Poland to expand; absorbed, with Poland, all of East Prussia, and so on.
But when France, with one-fortieth the area, and less than one-fourth the population of Russia, asks for security against another German invasion she is given the run-around.
France still awaits answer
After the Big Three’s announcement concerning the peace conference – probably to be held at Paris – France requested a clarification of her position. Did the Big Three propose to continue functioning as a Big Three, or was France to be allowed to join their company? As this was written, she was still awaiting an answer.
The peace of Europe depends primarily on peace with Germany. And peace with Germany without France as a full participant, is unthinkable. Living Frenchmen have witnessed three German invasions. That alone entitles France to equality with Russia, Britain and the United States at the peace table.
France alone cannot be held accountable for her defeat in 1940. Had Britain been willing to help her throw Hitler out of the Rhineland in 1936 and keep the Nazis from rearming, there would have been no war. Had Russia joined the Anglo-French peace front in 1939, Hitler would not have dared attack. France was crushed because the great powers permitted Hitlerism to grow up and because she adjoins the Rhineland. That she should now insist, therefore, on a voice in the German peace is hardly surprising and France’s traditional friend, the United States, should be the first to recognize it.