Evening Post. THURSDAY, MAY 10, 1923. THE STATE OF GERMANY

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 110, 10 May 1923, Page 6

Evening Post. THURSDAY, MAY 10, 1923. THE STATE OF GERMANY

Some sections of the French Press, and some of France's friends, have not hesitated to blame Britain for the Ruhr deadlock. It is not the French expedition to the Suhr that threatens disaster, they say, but the British refusal to share in that expedition. Germany now is encouraged to resist by the belief that ultimately Britain will come to her assistance. A writer in the "Figaro" has gone so far as to make a deliberate and reasoned attack on the Entente, as a useless diplomatic instrument no longer founded on the common interests of the two nations. The present and the late Governments of Britain are denounced as selfish British traders, and France is advised to seek new alliances in order to carry out her policy clearly and resolutely. It is not surprising that the resemblance of the phrase "selfish British traders" to the Napoleonic sneer should lead some British people to see in the present French attitude a revival of the Napoleonic tradition, especially as the "Figaro" writer is supposed to be a person of high, and perhaps the highest, authority. This attitude of France unofficially, supported as it is by overt official acts (such as the despatch of a separate reply to the German Note), cannot fail to arouse apprehension as to the ultimate consequences. It is being seriously asked whether France is not deliberately shutting her eyes to the real state of affairs in Germany, and attributing to British hesitation and German official inspiration the resistance which is in* great part expressive of the German national feeling.

Captain Duvert, in the Krupp prosecution, stated: "The Germans are a disciplined people, who never act on their own initiative." The French reply to the German Note made a similar charge, and attributed the non-collaboration of German engineers, workers, and traders entirely to orders from Berlin. Yet it was only in March that Germany gave evidence of the imperfection of her discipline. A dangerous Monarchist plot was discovered, and prompt measures by the Central Government were necessary to avert a rising. Unquestionably there are forces and authorities in Germany who would glory in a renewal of open warfare. The belief in Germany.as a super-nation has been aired quite recently in a book written by one Oswald Spengler, who brings out the old Hohenzollern theories andplans for world domination. And this book is stated to have had a wide popularity in Germany. Popularity may, however, be deceptive. A book that is widely read and even widely applauded may yet fall far short of expressing the true national sentiment.

An English reviewer in a journal which has no pro-German leanings takes the view that Spengler's book does not portray German feeltion of Germans—a militarist section of Germany—a militarist section which has its counterpart in other countries, even in England. He affirms that there is undisputed evidence of the existence of an anti-militarist element in Germany, and if that element has not prevailed one reason is that Allied policy has given it no opportunity, but has strengthened the extremes of monarchical militarist and revolutionary. The danger of Germany reverting to monarchical militarism or rushing to Bolshevism is not a new one. There was much talk of it soon after the Armistice, and .the French then, as now, held Bolshevism to be a bogey displayed merely to scare away the reparations collector. So sweeping a judgment may easily be mistaken. Even in Germany, discipline has broken down, and it may breakdown again. After all, discipline is but the habit of a generation or two, for before the* Prussian domination the Germans had little of that order and responsiveness to authority which afterwards became manifest. They were but ordinary men and women, moved by the impulses and emotions of plain people. Without Prussian leaders they may become such again. The heart of the question is: Who are now the German leaders and what are their motives ? Are they the representatives of democracy, disguised militarists, or the puppets of commercial magnates? And do they lead national feeling or follow where the people lead 1