New-York tribune., 1921-12-29
The French Case

AAS - . ~AA$>Ah >>SNsSS
The Allied powers having neglect
ed. under circumstances that amount
TO a refusal, to guarantee France
against a future attack by Germany
or to give France assurances of COM
mon action to compel Germany to
meet her reparation obligations,
France, in turn, will not agree to
the American proposals for limita-
tion Of submarine armament. The
two things are to be connected as
cause and effect.
= Since the signing Of the Versailles
Treaty the major interest Of France
has been in reparations. The re-
public during the war .solemnly
Pledged itself to making good all
the losses. of its citizens and has
already spent hundreds of millions
of francs in restoration, borrowing
the money and thus swelling the
public debt. The agreement being
that Germany, in part at least,
Should furnish money or goods Or
labor to recoup the French treasury,
the issue is the simple one of wheth-
;er unwrecked Germany or wrecked
France is to carry the reparation
burden.
But from the beginning, first on one
excuse and then on another, Germany
showed a welshing spirit. So COM
pulsion had to be considered. But
when this point came up the Keynes
or Manchester doctrine Of letting
Germany off affected British policy.
France was naturally and properly
irritated. France, not being a fool,
recognizes that the economic resto-
ration of Germany is desirable for
all, but why, she asks, is German
.welfare put ahead of French well
fare? If Germany doesn't pay, then
France needs must, and how will
trade be better helped by German
than by French prosperity?
: So friction arose between Great
Britain and France, and always the
Teparation question was at the back
Of the trouble. Clemenceau went
out of power because it was believed
that he had not stood stif1y enough
Tor the legitimate claims of France.
Millerand and BRAND came in
pledged not to place on France the
restoration bill properly payable by
Germany. But though yielding when
particular crises have arisen, British
pressure has been steadily exerted
toward lifting the burden from Ger
many and placing it on France.
Behind the various specific ques-
tlons which have arisen has always
been the reparation issue. France,
pressing her case, has naturally not
been inclined to be entirely agreeable
to British proposals. In retort
France has been falsely accused, es-
pecially by those Of pro-German
minds, of being militaristic.
So the injurious wrangle goes on,
the latest manifestation being the
difficulties that have arisen over sub
hnarine limitation. Let justice be
fone to France with respect to
reparations, and this impediment
ito peace will disappear, whereas if
security and justice are denied a
situation is created which compels
France to equip herself to protect
paerself and to be ready to enforce the
peace terms on Germany. Has not
education proceeded far enough for
jail to see this patent fact?
Any one who really would have
lrecenenting of the Ally ties, with
put which peace is necessarily un-
stable, should enlist in favor of secur-
png by common action the payment
by Germany of the moderate repara.
zion bill sent to her. AS long as
Nermany is encouraged to think she
FWiu not be coerced she will naturally
keep herself On the verge Of bank
kuptcy.
Those who regret the failure to
ARRIVE at submarine agreement.
pnstead Of merely bewailing the fact
For laying the blame on France.
should perceive whence the failure
proceeds and Low its cause is remov-
liable.