LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE POLICY OF FRANCE.
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—I have read with great satisfaction your recent articles upon France and the Ruhr Valley. The political and military leaders of the French have told their people that they are taking strong measures to compel Germany to pay for the reparation of the devastated area, which shall not be met out of French taxes. But I do not think that the leaders ever in their hearts indulged in such optimistic beliefs, and I expect that the venture will very soon be admitted to be a military one. Germany has lost the coal, the iron and the arsenals of Lorraine and Upper Silesia. If she loses Essen and the Ruhr Valley, she is really disarmed and cannot quickly rearm, besides being geographically ruptured. I do not want to minimize the misdoings of Germany before or after the Peace nor to say here that France is doing anything "
reasonable " as a neighbour of Germany. It is quite arguable that she ought not " reasonably " to have made peace before occupying Essen or Berlin. But what I desire to see you protesting against is the carrying on of the War after a Treaty of Peace has been signed. It was done with Polish arms in Upper Silesia : it is being done now on the Ruhr, and it is wrong. The public looks to you to take a high line as well as a practical one, and I think, Sir, that the moral aspect must appeal to you. I remember well how finely you wrote of our disappointment when, before 1917, the United States ex- pressed no public sympathy with the moral side of our struggle. Now again there is a great moral question on which we cannot stand neutral. Quite apart from the practical welfare of Europe, including France herself, every country that takes any responsibility for the Treaty has a heavy moral responsi- bility which should drive them to protest against the con- tinuation of the War after the signing of .Peace.—I am,
Previous page
