IPF - international peace force

IPF - international peace force

Article. Describes political and economic mechanisms for control of Germany after the war. Mentions that America, Britain, France and Russia would be responsible for separate zones of occupation. Goes on to discuss means to prevent recurrence of war. Mentions Atlantic Charter and suggests unified peace force in the future.

One newspaper cutting

IBCC Digital Archive

This content is available under a CC BY-NC 4.0 International license (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0). It has been published ‘as is’ and may contain inaccuracies or culturally inappropriate references that do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the University of Lincoln or the International Bomber Command Centre. For more information, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ and https://ibccdigitalarchive.lincoln.ac.uk/omeka/legal.

SValentineJRM1251404v10127

I.P.F.

[inserted] . . . stands for International Peace Force, here outlined by Major PHILIP GRIBBLE, News Chronicle Military Critic. He envisages the Army of Occupation as a corps d’elite, chosen from the cream of the fighting men of the United Nations.
It must be emphasised that this proposal is only the police side of constructive peace-making. [/inserted]

THE Crimea Conference has destroyed many doubts. The three Powers are at one in recognising the sacred obligation of unity. Complicated mechanism, both political and economic, has been designed and will soon be in motion.

The fighting Services of America, Britain, Russia and France are to become responsible for separate zones of occupation. These nationally-occupied zones are to be integrated through a Central Control Commission of Allied Commanders-in-Chief. This control will have its headquarters in Berlin. The pursuit of the Central Control Commission’s policy will in this way be ensured in all zones.

HERE is a fine beginning. The beginning must not be the end. Clearly in the early stages of the post-war period the procedure proposed for the Allied occupation of Germany represents the only practical course. The Allies have fought as separate entities, though in a common cause, and the division of their responsibilities in the occupation of ex-enemy territory, again in the service of a common cause, again underlines the spirit of nationalism.

Has five years’ suffering been borne to perpetuate the errors of the past? I will not believe it.

War through science has become universal. The range of its weapons, its ravages and destruction have become world wide. No one is spared. There is no need to stress its horrors. In 1945 these are only too well known. Enlightened self-interest, if no higher impulse, must spur the peoples of the world to find the means to prevent the recurrence of disaster.

How can this be done? By many re-education is breathed around and thought to be a panacea. But re-education must go further than the attempt to stun Nazism with domesticity. Do we know what we have to teach? Am I right in believing that in professing the creed of the Atlantic Charter we must set an example in thinking and co-operate in helping the world to think on the planetary plane?

THERE are no longer counties but countries, no longer countries but continents. The thought of tomorrow must not be circumscribed by the frontiers of the continent but include the globe.

What contribution will th[missing letter] armies of occupation make to this end? Can force applied in even a benevolent suppression produce and nurture a spirit of understanding? It can do nothing of the kind. The function of the armies of occupation is to provide the necessary time and the temporary security in which to discover the real means through which world peace can be won.

I DO not believe that it is the impracticable suggestion of a visionary when it is recommended that eventually the Allied armies of occupation shall become fused as a single force animated by a single aim, under international control. Only such a force could earn the title of an Army of Peace. As the International Peace Force it would be acclaimed throughout the world.

The Peace Force should be a corps d’elite. It would include in appropriate proportions the men of all three Services. Selection for service with the Peace Force would be recognised as a high privilege. Only picked men representing the cream of the Armed Forces of the United Nations would be chosen. All countries should be represented. The period of service with the Peace Force should be limited to three years, except on the higher administrative levels.

THIS limitation of service would result in a constant flow of the youth of all nations through the ranks of the Peace Force. It would ensure the mixing of the world’s young men and inspiring in them a sense of responsibility for the maintenance of world security in the service of humanity.

Men serving with the Peace Force would automatically learn to think and feel on the planetary plane. On joining their national uniforms would be exchanged for the uniform of the Peace Force.

The past 12 years have shown how easily youth is led. The force represented by youth and misapplied in Germany can be tapped in much the same way among the United Nations and the imperishable strength and enthusiasm of youth be harnessed in the service of world peace.

It has been done before on a less ambitious scale. Baden-Powell on the child-level built up an international force founded on the highest ideals. The Germans in their youth movement employed much the same technique to an evil end.