France and Ourselves

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXI, Issue 18786, 21 May 1923, Page 10

France and Ourselves

Plain Speaking Wanted (By ROBERT BLATCHFORD, in “Illustrated Sunday Herald”)

LET US PUT THE CARDS OX THE TABLE AND I TELL THE PEOPLE THE BEST AXD THE WORST. “The lesson of Lausanne,” writes one whose opinions are entitled to respect, “is the need for a real entente with France. What do you think?” I think, and have thought all along, that a cordial understanding with France is a matter of vital necessity to us, to France, and to the world. But how are we to get it? Like most Things desirable it is easier to wish for than to come by. A real Anglo-French entente will not

.be helped by anti-French policy or 'anti-Frcnch criticism, nor will it be made more possible by French jealousy and suspicion of Britain, nor by Anglophobe bitterness in the French Press. It does not always take two to make a quarrel, as the fable of the wolf and the lamb tes titles, but it does take two to make a. friendship, and mutual faith and loyalty are essential to a durable alliance. I am pro-French and have been : pro French for many years. 1 can quite believe that an irresolute, mis , taken British diplomacy has contributed largely to the alteration in French sentiment towards this coun try, but there is only too much evidence of the existence of faults on both sides. The French are by nature somewhat prone to suspicion, and they are quick tempered and 1 ■what we call insular: self centred. As I think, we have bkindered in bur diplomacy, and some of us have been strangely over-kind to Germany. Yet I am in sympathy with the admirable Punch cartoon of this week. ■Uncle Sam, holding out his hand for rthe money bag. says: “Stout fel[low! u ish there were more like you.” To which John Bull makes answer: “So do I.” OUR “GERMAN COMRADES”—A PROTEST. The international situation to-day is very difficult. It is not all of our making. There has been a war. Europe and Asia are financially and morally shaken. Resettlement is rendered more difficult than it need be t>y the ambitions and intrigues of Those who hope to gain profit or re venge by protracting and inflaming The general unrest. The greatest British interest is peace, and though our statesmen may have sought that interest with a zeal amounting al most to indiscretion, I think that the British Government of to-day is act uated by a desire to stand loyally by our Allies and to fulfil honourably hny agreements we may have made. There is, however, a considerable Section of British public opinion which appears to be unhandsomely suspicious of France and obstinately lenient to Germany. When it comes to the sending of messages of condolence and sympathy to our “German comrades.” and the vociferous declaration that the French occupation of German territory is an “out rage,” it is time to offer a gentle pro test and ask for a consideration of e known facts. If the lesson of is the need for a real Anglo-French entente it behoves us to be just even if we cannot be genterous to our French allies. CONSIDER THE FACTS! A common gibe of the Be-Kind-to Germany critics is the cry about French militarism. But can we {doubt that French militarism, socalled, is the direct result of Ger Inan militarism? Have we forgotten stbe war, and Germany’s avowed purpose in making war. and Germany’s {conduct of the war? The French &ave not forgotten. I think our peo j>le forget too soon. The French lave more bitter and terrible reasons to remember. The French occupation of the ■Ruhr Valley is spoken of as an outrage. What was the German invasion and and devastation of Belgium end France? One of the designs of **our German comrades” was the Commercial and industrial ruin of •France. Before we weep over the violation of the Ruhr pits and the (Essen factories let us remind ourselves of the wanton destruction of the factories and mines of France. The French have not yet served Essen or Cologne as the Germans served Amiens and Rheims and Ypres. But there exists a state of

, peace? True, there existed a state of peace in 1914 before Germany in ; vaded France and Belgium. Let I us now recall some of the effects of I that invasion. An American paper, the New York Literary Digest, recently gave a list of the French damages. Those who are shouting “out rage” over the Ruhr will do well to give this list their candid atten tion: The Germans destroyed twenty | thousand French factories. They destroyed four thousand villages and half a million homes. They destroyed of her wool production 94 per cent., of her steel

production 90 per cent., of her sugar production 70 per cent. They destroyed 55 per cent, of her electrical energy and 33 per cent, of her coal production. And these things were not done through the accidents of war. but largely in cold blood for The set purpose of crippling a trade rival. “Outrage!” What have the French done in Germany? And these are American figures. Some of the most valuable and productive provinces of France have been rendered unfit for cultivation or habitation. Of personal property the French had destroyed or stolen by our “German comrades” 840 mil lion pounds worth. And France's loss in killed is estimated at a million and a-half of men. If the French are bitter, if they arc revengeful, if they are sceptical, who can blame them? For my own part, I have wondered at their patience and re straint. GERMANY'S RICHES. Nor can we pretend that feelings of hatred and revenge have prompted the occupation of the Ruhr. No. When Germany was defeated and peace was signed, it was agreed that the Germans should pay a stipulated amount in reparations. They have not paid. The French are convinced that they can pay and are determined to make them pay. 1 see no outrage here. 1 see only the firm resolve of an injured nation to demand the payment of damages due to them. 1 regret that our Government has not been equally firm. The late Govern ment won a General Election on a promise to make Germany pay. But she cannot pay? No? I find that too hard a strain on my credulity. German trade is good, Ger man taxes are low, Germany has no unemployed problem. British trade is bad. British taxes are the heaviest in the world. Britain has mortthan a million unemployed. And we have to pay America, not only the 900 millions we owe, but, interest added, a total of more than two thousand millions. If we can pay that vast sum how is it Gerrhany can pay nothing? An American man of business, resident in Germany, furnishes the answer.

He says that Germany is the richest country in the world. richer even than the United States; but he explains that while the nation is rich the Government pretends to be bankrupt. The German Government, he says, flatly refuses to collect any taxes on tobacco, or spirits, or beer, or to charge economically sound fares or freights on the railways, or to make any tax approaching to our income-tax. And, he tei.s us, Ger many exports her wealth to South America and other places where the Allies cannot reach it. I need not go into further details. We in this country are cruelly taxed to pay for the war. and the taxation handicaps us in trade. Germany, who has suffered no national loss or injury to buildings- or dwellings or machinery. is so lightly taxed that her Government has no money with which to pay the reparations they agreed to pay. It is a most flagrant and impudent case of fraud. Germany does not pay, because she does not mean to pay, and nothing but force will compel her to change her measures. In 1871 the Germans held on to French territory until France paid the last penny of her indemnity. Why should not France follow the example? THE RUHR HOWL. Some of our people preserve a child like faith in German comrades. Our German comrades were much in evidence before the war. When war came they vanished. The war sw’allowed them up. I am unable to credit the miracle of their resurrec tion. I do not know those German comrades.

But I remember that German rut ers and trades and officials will wriggle and lie and pour out croco dile tears, and that the men who I shrieked the gospel of frightfulness in 1914 will now whine and protest over the French outrage in trying to collect the money due to them. The Germans have not altered. Witness the howl over the alleged famine in the Ruhr. I have just been reading the testimony of a British investigator in the Evening Standard. This gentlemen has officially visited the Ruhr and found that no want or shortage exists. He says. “There were no soldiers about. The whole place ex haled prosperity.” That is not a French statement. It is British evidence. No. So far as the French action in the Ruhr is concerned no English man has the staallest excuse for con demnation. Whether or not the French will succeed in getting their money remains to be seen. Not being a financial expert, I will not presume to judge. But, speaking as a layman, I do not see any reason why France should fail to get the money if she will squeeze hard enough. And I heartily wish her every success.

And, if I may say so without be ing condemned as a mercenary groveller, I wish our Government was a little less ready to let our own people pay more than their share oi the cost of Germany’s war. But the Ruhr question is not the only problem which stands In tnc way of a cordial Anglo-French understanding. There are other causes for difference of sentiment or interest between ourselves and our Allies. Into those questions I do not feel moved to enter because of a feeling that there are facts beyond my cognisance. One may, however, go so far as to suggest that had out rulers or leaders been a little less generous to Germany and more gen erous to France the situation might have been easier. And it is obvious enough that so long as any difference persists between Britain and France the enemies of both nations —German, Russian, and Turkish —will make the most of that lack of unlsou and will presume upon the weakness due to our division. What is needed, perhaps, above all, in Alglo-French diplomatic dealings is plain but friendly speaking. Why not put the cards on the table and let the French and British people know the best and the worst of the matter? The great need of the world to-day, as well as the great need of the Allies, is a solid and durable AngloFrench entente. Errors and misunderstandings having been removed, it ought not to be impossible for the French and the British, by mutual concession, to arrange a modus Vivendi. If a true and loyal alliance was possible under the stress of war it ought to be within our power to restore it in the time of peace. Faults the French have, doubtless, as have other people, but surely they have never been ungenerous, and I cannot accept the pessimistic assertion that they will not listen to reason. In 1914 our interests and those of France were identical. We were both concerned to defeat the unprovoked aggression of our German comrades. Whose fault is it if our interests have since diverged, or why has it happened? Failure to restore the unity of purpose and cordiality of understanding would be a universal calamity. It must not happen.