FRENCH DEBATE

Hokitika Guardian, 31 October 1932, Page 5

FRENCH DEBATE

IN* THIE CHAMBER ATTACK ON BRITAIN. fljnitej Preso Electrio 'leiegrapli—Gopyrigiii.j : PARIS, October 2S. , An attack by M/ Bouillon on Mr MacDonald and Mv ‘Herriot-s. retort enlivened the disarmament debate in the Chamber of Deputies, in which general conscription and the ’dissolution of the lleichawehr were disclosed as the salieiit points in M. Herriot’s plan. M. Bouillon declared 'that lie shuddered At the name of "MacDonald. France would be under the' German yoke if it depended on him alone. He had tried desperately in 1914 to prevent Britain participating -in the war, and had continued hit political activities during wartime. ! '• M. ’Herriot stigmatised B. Boullon’s remarks as unjust and imprudent, and increased the difficulty of • international negotiations if they wtetre let pai*s uncontradicted. Replying to M: Blum, M. Herriot denied' that General Weygand had 4elayed 1 the disarmament plan. M, Blum advocated progressive disarmament a# the only means of preventing Gerhmny from re-arming, thus leading to aft armament race and eventually war, lie iaidde& that the future of Europe, peace or War, for decades was in M, Berriot’e hands. Be urged him to seize this’last'chance and take 1 the word of Germany, which threatened to re-arm only if general disarmament were refused.' ' ; ; ; • M. Herriot rieite'rhted his faith in the Locarno Treaty and Britain’s signature to it. M. Boullon asserted that M. Hemot should not propound a. plan any morei than) % Tardiexi. 1 Germany wan not entitled to invoke/Article V. of the Treaty because s-lia had violated ail her engagements. Britain and America were doing their best to strengthen Germany. ’France had been duped ig.t Locarno and should not have gone to Lausanne. Inquiries should be miacHe as to Germany’s armaments before the negotiations wefla. continued. M. Herriot said thht the German re-armament plan,originated with Gen-, eral von Seeckt ! and the General Staff, and provided for an armv of shock troops recruited from soldiers with six years’ service and, supported by ian amy of iaU the, elements of the nation. / . FRENCH iPLAN EXPLAINED. /D\/ ■'•••' " ‘ ' "1 ”• • >ARIS, Oct. 29. ’a communique to-night, adds tw° points to M. Herriot’s proposals. The first is that France would agree to # generalisation on the reduction of the short term service for all of the metro- ■ poll tan land forces, provided that the disarmament , became niter-dependent, ns between'land and,'/sea and air armies/ It is, that the nations with respdhsibiliy for overseas territories shall retain specialised

forces. An official associated with the preparation of the plan explains that plans have been deliberately made elastic. There is no question of resuscitating people with compulsory armed assiste ice. The plan merely proposes regional mutual assistance, thus completing the Locarno policy, It' does not mean that Britain would he asked to join in an Eastcrir Locarno or to supply troops on a common army to be held in readiness to/suppress any aggression which was purely, a Con- " tinential affair. Similarly, it does not affect, the armies raised for colonial service like that of Britain *s, which is not expected to adopt conscription. The Chamber passed ,a vote of confidence in the Herriof Government by 430 votes to 20.

GERMAN VIEW ON SUBJECT. BERLIN, Oct. 29. The Germhn Govetnihent considers that M. Herriot’s .Scheme of disarmament is one acceptable as a basis for discussion. '