Broun Sees Fascism in French Developments; Lippman Takes Opposite View

Sharply differing viewpoints on the recent political trend in France and England were projected here yesterday by two noted nationally syndicated columnists, Heywood Broun of the New York World Telegram and Walter Lippmann of the N.Y. Herald Tribune. While Mr. Broun saw in the smashing of the general strike by the military route in France a definitely Fascist development, Mr. Lippman termed “poisonous nonsense” assertions of that nature.

Writing in his World Telegram column, “Fair Enough,” Mr. Broun declared: “Both in Berlin and New York the Bonnet-Daladier attempt at a military coup is hailed as a ‘triumph of law and order.’ The peace of Munich begins to flourish and grow crimson berries. It was said when the pact was made that, after all, even a harsh compromise would be better than to have the youth of France blown to bits by the Nazi aviators. But now French workers find that they have escaped the threat of possible bombs from across the border only to face the reality of bayonets commandeered by a dictatorial group in their own land. And they may very well find that French Fascism can be just as fatal to their interests and their lives as that of the Nazis. Bullets made at home can scarify as much as any molded in a foreign land.”

Commenting on the contention that by their action the French leaders “have saved democracy from communism,” the columnist concluded: “Dictatorship as a preservative for democracy ranks with prussic acid as a headache cure.”

Allegations that the heads of the British and French governments sought to impose Fascist regimes on their countries were described as “poisonous nonsense” by Mr. Lippmann in his column, “Today and Tomorrow.” On the basis of a three-month study of conditions in Europe, Mr. Lippmann also expressed the conviction that the “French and British working classes are not Communist and that the governing classes are not Fascist.”

Mr. Lippmann developed the thesis that the underlying issue in France and Great Britain today was the deep attachment of the people of both nations to “their free and easy-going civilian way of life” and their consequent shrinking from “the sacrifices and the discipline that are indispensable if they are to defend their national interests.” He ridiculed the theor that the difficulties were of an “ideological” character involving a struggle in those countries “between communism and fascism, or between democracy and authoritarianism or between proletariat and capitalists.”

Expressing the belief that national independence was “more fundamental than personal liberty,” Mr. Lippmann declared in conclusion: “Before a people can be free, they must be independent, and once they lose their independence they lose their freedom too. The Czechs maintained their liberties. But they lost their independence. They are now losing their liberties as well. Therefore, a people that loves freedom and understands it, and is worthy of it, must in the final test be willing to accept discipline and sacrifice in order to maintain its independence. For while nations may be independent without being free, no people is ever free if it is not independent.”