The New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1920. THE ENTENTE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10562, 13 April 1920, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1920. THE ENTENTE

It turns out that the blow struck by the British Government at the Alliance which has done so much was even more severe than certain report*; made it. There is now no doubt that the Gov. erilment used the language of quarrel in upholding its case., rather than the language of conciliation. This, according to one account, was duo to Mr Lloyd George, who insisted on,the uso of strong language. The French Government is amazed, and the French public is urged by the Press to expect consolation from the British public and the British Parliament. This plainly on the ground that the British Minister is master neither of the facts of the case nor of his temper in dealing with them. Whatever the merits of the case may be, the French public is awaro that this is not the first exhibition of Mr Lloyd George's temper. It has, in fact, very recently been reminded of his exhibition of spleen in 191" against the military chiefs whoso success in tho Somnic campaign of 1916 he totally failed to see, the success whiflfh was so bitterly acknowledged by Ludendorff in his memoirs. To this was added the proof that the strategy imposed by the British Prime Minister with the aid of M. Painleve, the inept Prime Minister of France, not only proved- disastrous, but added, there is much reason to believe, a year t'o tho duration of the war. Very naturally, Mr Lloyd George, who'has been at least once flagrantly in tho wrong, is,, in the present difference between the British and French Governments, regarded by French opinion as certainly in the wrong again.

Tho King of .the Belgians and his Government have plainly indicated their preference for the French side of the controversy by placing a division of their "Rhine army at the disposal of tho French command. It is a quiet, dignified, and wordless condemnation of tho conduct of tlio British Government. Nothing could be devised more contemptuous. At the * same time, coming from the King -whoso clearnoss of vision, sense of justice, courage, and nobility of character havo stood tho test of the war with a success that is one of the leading features of the war's history, coming from such a quarter tho very fact of the rebuke is a strong suggestion of tho correctness of the French viow. Tho French and the Belgians know tho Bocho intimately through that tyrannous schemer's occupation of their country,- whereas Mr Lloyd George's country never saw a hostile soldier on its soil, and was not in daily contact for four years, with the most arrogant and untruthful military chiefs who ever disgraced tho profession of arms. To them no protestations of the authors 'of tho "deportations" can havo any value except as foundations for suspicion. Tho statement of the Red chief at Essen is, in their eyes, naturally tho statement, if not of a fact, at least of a strong probability. It is that the army called "Bed" was but the army which followed Kapp until it discovered his monarchic leanings. It is not a Bolshevik or a Soviet or a Spartacist army, but an army of- democratic Germans determined against Kaiserisrn, militarism, and Prussianism. The Reich6Wehr,-on the contrary,, arc, according to this authority, troops of reaction. These fired on the so-called Reds treacherously, and thero are 800,000 of them ready to do the bidding- of Noske at the right moment. The case of Franco and Belgium, who never paltered with the Boche, is clear enough. What as the case on the British sido? One paragraph of the French reply to the intemperate British dispatch puts it in a nutshell. It declares that, through British vacillation, tho Bocho has so frequently been- permitted to break the Treaty, that the time has urgently come for France, at all events, to say "No more." Of which the meaning plainly is that the case for the British who have paltered with the Boche from tho first is bad. The British dispatch declares that the whole question is 6no of policing; that tho'Treaty noser contemplated tho prevention of policing German territory 6y German troops; that, therefore, there ought to have been no interference at all; and, moreover, that if one of tho Allies thought otherwise, that one ought not to have acted without the consent of the others. The whole of this argument Belgium, as wo have 4101'nted out, has rejected without a word. As to the German "policing," in which neither tho Belgians nor the French heliovc, certain conditions wero laid, down by tho Allies on which this "policing" could be done; and theso conditions wero ignored by tho Germane, even according to the British Note. Is there any meaning in words? Are conditions only things meant to be broken? Is tho Treaty to go on slipping from broach to breach until nothing is loft? Is it really intended that, tho hugo German armies maintained against" the Treaty shall ever bo reduced? The plain fact is that tho French advance to seize tho crucial strategic position was not only an act of prudence in presence of an untrustworthy enemy, hut a protest against tho apparently interminable paltering of- tho British Government. Therefore' tho scream of rage which Mr Lloyd Georgo compelled his Cabinet to rniso. Nevertheless, the French advance has forced Wis hand, for it is not thinkable that after tho of Belgium, tho Parliament,

and public of Britain will permit tho dispute to continue, or submit to endanger what is left of • tho fruits of victory. It does not seem likely that Parliament will interfere, for, according to shrewd judges, the Coalition just at present dominates the House of Commons. At all events, tho latest news is that while there is no sign of weakening on the French side, there is a general expectation that an agreement will shortly be arranged between the British and French Governments.