[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.]
Sm,—Some days ago I read with much interest the substantial article of Monsieur VVladimir d'Ormesson, and Herr Kircher's reply, which were published in The Spectator.
Perhaps you will allow an average French citizen to have his say in this controversy. You will not find the signer's name in the " Bottin gondain " nor in the lists of the Paris social clubs. He is merely a middle-class Frenchman, without any official connexions, who spent forty-one months at the front, as did nearly all those of his age, and still remembers it—for several reasons.
For the last eighteen years, Germany has not ceased to promise us her friendship, always on the condition that we would give her satisfaction on a certain point, and that that point would be her last request. As soon as she gets satis- faction, however, she demands something else, again stating that this is her last request. She has used this trick successively for the evacuation of Ruhr ; the evacuation of the Rhineland; the abolition of reparations; the acknow- ledgement of the "equality of rights " ; the retrocession of the Saar Basin, to mention some of the chief points conceded. However, we are still waiting for her friendship. Now this friendship depends, it appears, upon our cancellation of the Franco-Sovietic agreement. We know what this means.
The great majority of the French people heartily wish, you may be sure, that a genuine and loyal friendship should take the place of the everlasting contention which, for generations, has been poisoning Franco-German relations. We know and appreciate the qualities of the Germans. We would be deeply gratified to see a mutual sympathy growing between us. We fully realise that such an understanding would mean, for Europe, a long era of peace. There is no exaggeration in saying that a pact based on true friendship between France and Germany would gratify the desires of nearly all Frenchmen, and that the day when it was signed all of France would be overjoyed.
However, such a friendship should be based on reciprocal sincerity or it would be a. farce. Where can any traces of Germany's sincerity be seen ? She proposed six months ago a mutual protestation of peace for the coming twenty years. We would be only too glad to have such a guarantee for an even longer period. But, since 1914, on the pretence that "necessity has no law," Germany has not missed any opportunity 'to violate all the treaties which she has signed :' for example—the treaty of 1881 guaranteeing the neutrality of Belgiuni ; the covenants of The Hague ; the peace treaty of Versailles ; the treaty of Locarno. She alleges, it must be admitted, that the treaty of Versailles was a "diktat." She obviously has forgotten the " diktat " which she would
have imposed upon the Allies if she had been victorious. Likewise, she has forgotten the " diktat " of Brest Litowsk and the " diktat " of Bucharest by which the Baltic States, Ukraine, Poland and Rumania, were to be nothing more or less than German colonies. In short, she claims that all the rights are on her side, denying them to others, she repudiates her signature and intends to teach morality to all nations. How can we now believe in the word of Germany ? Who can trust an obdurate perjurer ?
Germany speaks unceasingly of her honour. What, indeed,
is her conception of honour ? According to the Oxford dictionary, honour is "an allegiance to a conventional standard of conduct." It is not possible to reconcile honour and breaches of contract. In polities as well as in business it is unwise to put one's trust in someone who does not enjoy an unquestioned reputation for honesty. Should Germany discontinue breaking her word and signature on all occasions, it might be possible to believe in her. Last May the British Cabinet put several. questions to Germany, among which appeared the following : "Has Germany the will to faithfully observe in the future the treaties signed by her ? " Six months have elapsed and Germany has not ,yet answered. Probably she will never answer.
In compensation, she again denounced unilaterally, these last days, another clause of the treaty of Versailles for the -only reason that it seemed "insufferable to •her." Is that . her answer ?
Today, as yesterday, Germany does not consider herself -bound to any degree by the contracts which she has signed. For her, all treaties remain "'scraps of paper," and all book- sellers, all over Germany, 'continue to sell abook Mein Kampf, reputed now to be the official Bible of the Germans, where anybody may read that "the pitiless enemy of the German people is France," and that "the French hydra must be' destroyed once for all with a brutal fist." The author, a's everybody knows, is the Reichsffilicer hiniself..* And so, how can Herr Kircher pretend that by again, restoring an immense army, "Germany' does not intend to. attack anybody," that "in Germany there is no-hate against France," that "Germany wishes a loyal discussion with France," "an honest discussion, full of fairness and good will" ?
Which is the truth ? Mein Kampf or Herr Kircher's statements ?
If it is the latter why has • Germany delayed her answer to the questions of the British Cabinet.? Why. .,does not, she prove, by facts, 'her- "loyalty," "fairness", and "good .
will " ? . -
When this is done, and not before, France would be ready. to give- her friendship to the Reich -on.the condition that it . would be a fair and sound • bargain not involving,. of .course, the sacrifice of any of her interests or friends—big or little. —on the altar of a Franco-German reconciliation.
You may believe that this is the firm opinion of 80 per cent, at least, of the French people.—Sincerely yours,"
Previous page
