Dear
Al: Your judgment is correct, the gal is a charmer.1 Too bad that her husband has not more of that quality, even though he is an acceptable sort. But he has a job in France that needs all of the pursuasive talents that can be developed in one person; while he did not impress me as a man to be the savior of the world, I am clear in my own mind that another and sudden change in the French government would be a sad thing for the free world.
Mendès-France is Churchillian in his attitude toward "dependent peoples." He has the same obsession as a Washington bureaucrat does--that his prestige is lowered if he should lose one iota of the area or function over which he exercises some degree of influence or control. Of course in his case his views are unquestionably colored by his domestic political problems. Consequently he may feel that unless he makes certain of continued French domination of North Africa, he would immediately become an "ex." This is probably true, but it again shows the short-sightedness of the people who would throw him out. In this day and time no so-called "dependent people" can, by force, be kept indefinitely in that position. The next time you are over here, I will show you a very long and, of course, persuasive letter that I once wrote to Winston on this subject.2 My steel struck no spark from his flint. He is completely victorian in this regard, even though he is absolutely right in his contention that a number of these peoples who are screaming for independence are not yet equipped to support it, and that by now laying down British responsibility in this regard, he would be merely contributing to further unrest and possibly the spread of Communism in the world. My own belief is that colonialism should be militantly condemned by the colonial powers, especially Britain and France. The attempt should be made to transform a necessity into a virtue, so each should insist upon the independence of all these peoples and announce in glowing language a great program of preparing these people to support independence, with all its obligations and costs, as well as its satisfaction of the spirit of nationalism. They should state that after a period of twenty-five years, they would no longer assume any responsibility for these people unless so requested; that by that time everyone of these peoples should have attained the intellectual and economic capacity to serve their own needs.
My own belief is that their experience would be much like ours with Puerto Rico--in most cases, faced with such prospects of responsibilities and increased costs, these peoples would insist upon retaining their connections with the mother country.3
Immediately after he became President of the Council, Mendès-France went to Tunisia, and I thought then that he was correctly interpreting the writing on the wall and was moving intelligently to meet this problem. But over here his attitude was very considerably different; I repeat that in my belief it is because he took a new reading on the political temper of the National Assembly.4
So you can see why I think that the French Premier needs not only all the brains that he presumably has, but all of the charm of his wife.
You will be interested in knowing that in the last few encounters with the great Allen, he has suffered bloody and damaging defeats, even though I think there is something to the battle cry of the Robinson-Allen team--"We are the most improved bridge players in the world."5
Incidentally, in my last bridge game I got into a prolonged post-game argument with a man who claims to be an authority on the propriety of a three bid. I wish that the argument were not too long to present here. Someday I should like to discuss it with you.
Give my love to Grace. As ever
