TREE-FELLING IN GERMANY
SIR,—Mrs. Buxton is hardly correct in her interpretation of my letter, as I did not view the above question merely from the point of view of material gain to this country. I just pointed out that timber was one of the few things which Germany could contribute towards European economy and thus help a little to keep down the costs which we arc incurring in our endeavour to re-establish Germany. It is truly regrettable that circumstances demand this contribution, but German forestry is quite capable of repairing the loss in the long run. I quite agree that the existence of sound forests is needed in any country, but Germany's wood wealth was regarded by its late leaders as the source of valuable war material after chemical processing. Germany certainly requires good forests for climatic reasons, but so does England, and the latest Forestry Commission Report, as commented upon in the Spectator, reveals that the position in this country is rapidly becoming desperate.
Actually the whole position, including the problem of displaced persons, seems to indicate that the administration of Germany, or even part of it, is beyond the resources of this country, particularly as we have done more for refugees than any other country. Britain can no longer afford to be the fairy godmother to the rest of Europe ; in fact, as Marshall Aid shows, we need one ourselves, and if German forests are to be pre- served then ours must be re-grown. For our survival as a nation we must have large quantities of imported timber, and a strong and prosperous Britain is at least as important to Europe as a healthy Germany. Whilst the present state of affairs continues Germany must contribute something to the common pool, if only to prevent her becoming too reliant on outside help. In passing, if timber control re-selling prices are any guide, then Germany has been well paid for her timber.—Yours faithfully, Jolts; R. MORROW. r8 Spooner Avenue, Litherland, Liverpool, 21.
Previous page
