The Star. TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1928. IN SUPPORT OF FRANCE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17012, 10 April 1923, Page 6

The Star. TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1928. IN SUPPORT OF FRANCE.

'The English papers gave a deserved prominence to an interview which Mr Kudyard Kipling granted to a party of French journalists at Toulon. During the past three months, since the parting of the ways between British and French policies toward. Germany, there bas been a disposition on the part of a section of the British Press to be hostile to France. These papers have discovered that the Germany of 1923 is not the Germany of 1914, and that th:s ration which spread war, death and pestilence over Europe has had a change of heart. The official German himself has conceived such an extravagant estimate of himself that, he is r.bi© to refer to the French a* “these degenerate sons of a once chivalrous nation!” A few years ago the English Press was unanimous that Germany had furnished the world with its most striking example of “ the degeneracy of a once chivalrous nation.” Mr Rudyord Kipling, who is British to the backbone and a sound interpreter of British sentiment, was absolutely right when he said, that the great mass of British opinion never understood why Germany, which prepared and launched the war, should not pay for the damage. The British public, he added, bad not the least confidence in any programme based ou the idea of nursing Germany tenderly until she was ro atobed to wealth and power in the hope that eshe would then have a change of heart and pay some of her obligations. The truth oould not have been more directly expressed. The people of Britain are convinced that Germany can pay, and that she is trying to avoid payment. It is contrary to the British temperament to take violent measures to collect a debt, or there would have been a demand that the British Army of Occupation should cooperate with the French in the Ruhr. As it is, the action taken by the French ha-5 the moral support of the British people, who would like to sec France get something from the despoiler of her territory. There is a good deal of talk about the reconstruction of Germany but there is no compelling moral or economic reason why Britain should rush to the assistance o? her fallen enemy. The very first action of the reconstructed Germany will be to compete with British goods and labour, in an attempt to shake the trade supremacy of the British Empire. Already there are tangible tokens that Germany is coming back industrially, and when the process is completed the German manufacturer will.be again—as be was before the war —the keenest competitor that Britain has to face on land and sea. Mr Kipling says that British public opinion does not declare itself more clearly on account- of the enormous war debts and the crushing taxation, which make politicians hesitate to take any step which would increase public expenditure. That is probably a fair statement of the case, as the British taxpayers are tired of pouring treasure into the doubtful adventures in Mesopotamia- and the Near East. The opposition to France’s action in the Ruhr is based on the belief that a reconstructed Germany will be good for British trade, and that the Ruhr occupation is stopping the reconstruction. Too little attention is given to the probability that a restored Germany will be a. ruthless and serious competitor with Britain in the markets cf the Empire and the world at large. There is every reason why Britain should ponder Mr Kipling’s words. France is determined to collect her share of the reparations, and there can be no doubt that if she is successful the British bill will be the sooner discharged.