[To thc Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sin,—In considering the question of the Ruhr, we shall come to no useful conclusion unless we bear the facts in mind. Germany, without excuse, sprang the War of 1914 upon the world. Already we seem to have forgotten how she fought. We believed that we had won ; but the will of Germany remained unbroken and her whole aim since the Armistice has been to escape punishment and evade reparation for her crimes. We must all now realize how successful she has been. Regarding French action in the Ruhr I express no opinion, except to say that if it should fail it will have been worse than useless. I am neither financier nor economist, and only a plain man anxious to do right and to see right done.
But in the article by "Eye-witness," as in much of the comment which the situation has called forth, I find a basic fallacy—the old confusion between post and propter. Your contributor founds his argument on the assumption that what has happened in the Ruhr is the inevitable consequence of the French occupation. It is not so. Certainly, what we witness has followed the action of France ; but it has been caused solely by the action of Germany, still impenitent. Germany deliberately willed what we deplore and caused it to happen, without ruth, for her own purposes, namely, to frustrate victory and shatter the Entente. Nine years ago, no doubt many of those who are now suffering from the policy of their own Government rushed to arms with enthusiasm, and would have thrown their caps in the air had they won. The thief who struggles with the policeman has no right to complain of a dislocated arm. Even this is not a perfect parallel, for Germany took care to dislocate the limb herself.—
Previous page
