OCR Text |
Show Personalities Still Affect Relationships of Nations i Strain Between FDR and De Gaulle Complicates Com-plicates Postwar Understanding Between Two Great Powers. By BAUKHAGE j News Analyst and Commentator. f 'MM -- -a WNU Service, Union Trust Building, I Washington, D. C. Some years ago that highly scientific scien-tific organization, the Smithsonian Institution, discussed the possibility of a relationship between sun spots and wars. It was carefully explained that sun spots, which are really great explosions on the sun's surface, sur-face, affected the weather on the earth and frequently bad weather in turn affected the dispositions of human hu-man -beings and might conceivably conceiva-bly render national leaders less amenable to reason and more likely like-ly to get their countries into trouble. I At first glance that seems rather far-fetched but the fact that a clash of personalities can affect the course of nations today, almost al-most as much as it did when people fought at the whim of a king, has been brought out strikingly striking-ly In Franco-American relations. There isn't much President common interests of Roosevelt France and the United States would be better served if one Franklin Roosevelt Roose-velt could "get along" better with one Charles De Gaulle. Of course, it is I Dnly fair to say that . there are others who don't "get along" with the tall, handsome and aris- fa. Vj to say. My own impression garnered gar-nered from conversations with persons thoroughly familiar with the French attitude Is that "difficulties" were expected to arise in Franco-American Franco-American relations the moment it became clear that France was not invited to participate in the counsels coun-sels of the Big Three. It was not expected that the role her armies are able to play would make her eligible to join the military councils at Yalta but the French were ardently ardent-ly desirous of having a place at the general negotiations which made up the second part of the parleys. General Gen-eral De Gaulle was in no mood, when he received the President's invitation, to brook what he considered consid-ered a further slight. It was clear, on the other hand, that the President felt he had sound, practical reasons for omitting any visit to Paris before the San Francisco Fran-cisco meeting. He also felt there were sound, practical reasons for a conversation with De Gaulle. He said there were a number of points that had to be cleared up which required re-quired French action before the United Nations meeting could be held. Indeed, I imagine, he felt that he was showing especial regard to France when he offered to review the accomplishments at Yalta personally per-sonally for De Gaulle. FDR Comments On Prima Donnas That is supposed to account for the extemporaneous remarks he inserted in-serted in his report to congress about "prima donnas." Those remarks, which were universally uni-versally interpreted as applying to De Gaulle, came as a distinct shock and immediately afterward Senator Brewster publicly labeled them "injudicious." "in-judicious." I was following the text of the official offi-cial release in the house radio gallery gal-lery as the President spoke and had noted the many departures which he tossed off as familiar asides and which helped to give his talk the intimate note he desired. But I was startled at what he said following the text as it dealt with an agreement with Yugoslavia. He read the sentence, "We hope that it is in the process of fulfillment" and then he looked up and with just a touch of what verged on sarcasm in his voice, remarked "But it is not only that, but in some other places we have to remember there are a great number of prima donnas in the world, all who wish to be heard. Before anything will be done, we may have a little delay, while we listen to more prima donnas." That startled me as I said but I must say I did not at first think he could mean De Gaulle. That seemed impossible. However, as others oth-ers mentioned it, I began to take it for granted, for I knew that until the procedure of voting as agreed upon at Yalta was approved by France the agreement could not be announced. There were other things upon which France had to be consulted con-sulted in advance of the meeting, as well. The French ambassador who was seated in the diplomatic gallery showed no sign whatever that he was affected by the words and later he is said to have told a friend that it was hardly likely that the prima donna reference could have been meant to apply to France since the President had completed his comment com-ment on what disposition of French interests had been made and had moved on to another topic, Yugoslavia. Yugo-slavia. That, of course, is a good alibi. And it is necessary that there be an alibi fpr I am convinced that had there been even unofficial admission ad-mission that the President was hitting at De Gaulle a. really difficult diffi-cult situation would arise. It is known that although many people consider the general what the French call "difficile," the French do not call De Gaulle that and his friends and admirers are warm in their loyalty and would instantly instant-ly resent any unfavorable comment on his conduct. No serious difficulties are expected ex-pected to arise between the United States and France but some of their common troubles in the past show that there is much difference between be-tween foreign relations, bolster them with protocol as you will, and personal relations, after all. Uocratic French gen- eral. It is no secret Gen. De Gaulle that one Josef Stalin, although he arranged a I highly advantageous treaty with France, including some even more advantageous private understanding with De Gaulle, had no desire to invite in-vite him to Yalta. But the Roosevelt-De Gaulle differences differ-ences seem to be recurrent and just when everybody thought, after the latter's visit to Washington when he was understood to have given his colleagues in France the impression I that the visit was highly satisfactory satisfac-tory to him, came the answer "I regret" to Roosevelt's "respondez-vous, "respondez-vous, s'il vous plais" and the meeting meet-ing on the President's cruiser off Algiers did not take place. Etiquette Poses Difficult Problem In diplomatic circles it has been I carefully explained that De Gaulle could not accept an invitation from a peregrinating president to call upon him in French territory, which It was explained was a sort of j "come down and have a picnic with me in your backyard, I'm too busy to call on you in your parlor." To which American diplomatic circles explained: it wasn't an invitation in-vitation to De Gaulle to come to Algiers,, Al-giers,, which is French territory, but an invitation to call on the President Presi-dent aboard a U. S. warship, which Is American territory. Peut-etre, was the reply, but the chief of a great power, indeed an empire, cannot be expected to be treated any better than the rulers of such minor domains as Arabia, Egypt or Ethiopia, royal-blooded though they be. (Roosevelt entertained enter-tained the gentlemen earlier.) There the discussion bogged down in mutual chagrin with all but two of the leading French newspapers newspa-pers (one conservative and one communist) insisting that De Gaulle was right and the apologists for Roosevelt explaining that the President Presi-dent could not undertake what probably prob-ably would have amounted to a visit of state and a triumphal tour of France, when he had a war to win. It was also recalled that one thing Mr. Roosevelt prides himself on avoiding is making the mistakes mis-takes Wilson did. Wilson received a wild ovation in France and Italy BEFORE BE-FORE the peace conference, and suffered the results of a most painful pain-ful reaction afterward. How great a part Roosevelt's failure fail-ure to pay a visit to De Gaulle in Paris played in motivating the general's gen-eral's refusal, or, if it were the chief cause, how much was personal pique on the part of De Gaulle and how much a feeling that his nation had been slighted, it is impossible |