FRANCE AND THE RUHR.
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—If I may intervene briefly in this interesting and important correspondence, I would submit that Sir Graham Bower has omitted the crux of the question. The occupation of the Ruhr by the French was simply to obtain the reparation payments for her wantonly devastated areas. It is true we have let off Germany the indemnity for war costs, but it does not follow that France should show a parallel leniency by excusing Germany what legally, as well as morally, France is entitled to. France has said over and over again that if Germany will pay her debts the whole question is settled. But Germany shows no disposition to pay unless forced to do so. Can France be blamed for resorting to the only practicable measure of getting her rights ? If our industrial areas had been as wantonly ravaged and some of our noblest churches destroyed, should we sit still under it ? Not unless the British people have lost the resolute spirit they have always shown under wrong and oppression.
As to Germany's capability to pay. Those who have lately returned from Germany (like Mr. John Pollock) tell us that while the intelligentsia (as professors and members of literary and artistic societies) are suffering grievously, with all in receipts of fixed incomes and pensions, the rest of Germany is in a condition of " superabundant prosperity." If we choose to trust the Germans, why should France ?
Previous page
