LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
FRANCE AND GREAT BRITAIN : AN AMERICAN CRITICISM.
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sut,—In case you have not seen some recent numbers of the New York Outlook I am enclosing extracts from articles which deal with the problem of the Ruhr. The Outlook has all along taken the French side, arguing that England's attitude is simply one of business. One article refers to you by name as putting this matter of business " with the Englishman's customary moral earnestness over a matter that concerns his material worth." Another criticism is that, while England is concerned that France should " change her spirit," not a word is said by Mr. Strachey and journalists of all political faiths " about a change of spirit in Germany " and " not a word about any real effort on the part of Germany to repair the damage she has wrought." The result of this is that American interests are said to be " not the same as Britain's," and that if the United States must choose between England's policy of business and France's policy of justice and security, " it is to our interest to choose the latter." I should much like you to discuss these two articles, which appeared in the Outlook for July 18th and 25th.—I am, Sir, &c., W. H. GRIFFITH THOMAS
(formerly Principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford).
129 Maplewood Avenue, Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa, U.S.A.
[It is very difficult to argue with, and much more difficult to convince, the man who suspects your motives. We believe that we are perfectly sincere in condemning the French policy because it is not in accordance with the tolerance which for at least two hundred years has been the British policy towards beaten nations. At the same time. it is true that Englishmen are much concerned about their trade. We live on trade and on nothing else, and we are probably not mistaken in attributing the delay in our national recovery—and not only the delay but the actual setback which appears in the recent trade returns—to the confusion in Europe caused by French policy. Although we do not expect the New York Outlook to accept our arguments we should like to make two remarks on this subject. The first is that when trade thrives among nations it is largely because there are -peaceful conditions which promote general confidence. Flourishing trade postulates peace. We cannot aim at one without aiming at the other. Our second remark is that, in circumstances where we can hardly demand a verdict in favour of our motives on the precise issue presented to us, we are justified in pointing to collateral evidence which indicates the spirit in which we wish to act. Such collateral evidence may be found in the proposal of the British Government that if the French will accept our proposals and leave the Ruhr we shall be willing to remit the money owed to us by our Allies. This surely suggests that the mercenary English are willing to give up a great deal for the sake of peace. France, on the other hand, whose policy the Outlook describes as " just," is not willing to give up anything, and so far as we can judge from M. Poineare's latest speeches is not willing even to pay what she owes.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
