New-York tribune., 1920-04-25

the occupation Of Frankfort
we have had one Of those
familiar somersaults in Allied poll
cies which have been such common
and battling circumstance from the
opening Of the Paris Conference tc
the present hour.
On one Sunday the whole world Is
shaken by the open dispute between
France and Great Britain over
French measures taken in the face
Of German violation of the Treaty
Of Versailles. On the next the press
Of the world reports that, on British
initiative, the nations which defeat
ed Germany in war-less the United
States-purpose to serve an ultima
tum upon the Germans, designed to
compel compliance with the disarm-
ament clauses Of the treaty.
Risk Versus Profit
What does this confusion, this
contradiction, this paradox Of Allied
policy, actually meant Beyond all
else it discloses the essential differ
ence in the conceptions Of the sew
eral nations. The British want to
trade with the Germans, and they
have no reason to dread further Ger
man military development A very
large fraction of the British public,
Judgment following inclination, be-
neves that a restoration of trade, of
economic. processes, would alone save
Germany from anarchy on tho one
hand and from militarism on the
Now this view translates itself
into national policy through the
sympathetic medium of Lloyd
George. More than any British
Prime Minister Of any period,
Lloyd George is a politician in the
sense that. he is alert to every shift
Of public sentiment, awake to the
political value of such a shift and
ready at all times to modify his pol
icy to popular sentiment. Thus,
every one in Paris beheld the Brit
ish Prime Minister at one moment
adopting course which was clearly
defined and unmistakable, and then,
a few weeks later, totally abandon
ing that policy and adopting one ex-
actly opposite.
This change did not represent a
betrayal Of principle, because on
foreign questions Lloyd George does
not act by conviction but by In
stinct. He is exactly the opposite
Of Mr.. Wilson, who originates a
policy and thenceforth regards It as
substantially immutable, leaving it
to the public to follow him. In
Paris one had perpetually the para,
dCx Of conference under the abso-
lutte control Of two Anglo-Saxon
statesmen-although, to be sure
Lleyd George is a Welshman-one
Of whom ignored his public and
stuck unhesitatingly to his owr
views, while the other took uE
and laid aside policy after policy
without prejudice, as he felt the pol
icy was popular or had served it,
purpose In the field Of domesti,
politics.
Wilson Ignored Warnings
The real collapse Of the Paris Con
ference lay in these two circum
stances. Mr.. Wilson refused abso
Iutely TO heed the warnings which
cane to himcfrom America that tn,
Senate would not follow his leading
and that the sentiment Of the coun
try was, to say the least, gravel,
divided over the actual form il
which the league Of nations covenan
had been drafted. Lloyd George
on the contrary, having given hi
associates at Paris every reason t,
believe he was as one with then
ina matter Of real Importance, tha
he shared their views and principles
would suddenly appear as the cham
pion Of the opposite view, and tn,
result would be instant confusion.
AS a practical matter the result
was that Mr.. Wilson, for the tim,
at least, lost control Of the legisla
tive branch Of his own government
and unmistakably suffered equa
Joss IN the marser Of public suppor
fer his polie:es. Lloyd George
u the contrary, retained his politi
sai influence. But his constan
change Of base, 80 to speak, re
suitcA - an infinite number Of dis
tuf -dng incidents in the conference
Worst Of all, when the conferenc.
had given way to q sort Of super
council, his changes Of direction LEI
to . series Of contradictions, which
kave directly produced misunder
standings between France and Great
Britain, and, in the matter Of Fiume
evoked sharp protest from Presi
dent Wils0n.