AN INCONSISTENCY IN THE NOTE TO FRANCE.
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sut,—The satisfaction I experience in reading the British Note is modified by an apparent thinness in the important Clause No. 33, in which we try to maintain our consistency. The occupation of Diisseldorf and Duisberg, to which we agreed, is stated to have been in the nature of an act of war ; not of an act justified by the Treaty, but a reversion to war or a threat of war due to German breaches of the Treaty ; a supersession of the Treaty by a threat of war. This act is said to have been justified on the ground that the German failures to carry out the Treaty included failure in matters which had nothing to do with reparations. 'What were these matters and did they justify a threat of war, apart from failure in reparations, which admittedly did not ?
I think many of your readers would like to know. The French Press will probably devote some attention to this point. The French Press has coolly, over and over again, asserted its right to occupy whatever portion of Germany it thinks fit on the ground that Germany has deliberately failed to carry out the Treaty in the matter of reparations— a cynical disregard of Treaty provisions. The question is whether we are tarred with the same brush in the matter of Dusseldorf, Duisbcrg and Ruhrort.—I am, Sir, &c., E. IL B.
Previous page
