England and the Ruhr

(The Crimson invites all men in the University to submit signed communications of timely interest. It assumes no responsibility, however, for sentiments expressed under this head and reserves the right to exclude any whose publication would be palpably inappropriate.)

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

Most of the English visitors to this country are past masters in the art of creating a good impression. Instead of trying to do our thinking for us or to give us ready-made conclusions, as the Gormans generally tried to do, they compel us to like them personally. In other words, they labor to put us in a favorable mood by means of their engaging personalities. When in that frame of mind it is difficult for us to reach conclusions that are unfavorable to British plans and policies.

All this is a propos of Mr. Philip Kerr's address in the Union last night. No one could help liking him, or even admiring him for his simplicity, modesty and transparent sincerity. Nevertheless, some of the suggestions which he left with us are very misleading.

On the subject of the French occupation of the Ruhr, the impression he left was that it was an act of military aggression on the part of France, and that France was wholly responsible for any evil results that might follow. It is, however, perfectly obvious, to any one who thinks clearly, that if England had not deserted her ally on the question of reparations, France would not have needed to try to collect her debt in this way. By this act of perfidy, Germany was encouraged to believe that, by holding out, she could escape her just debt. This left nothing for France to do but to back down or go forward. She chose the only wise and honorable course that was left to her. The responsibility is England's. T. N. CARVER.

January 26, 1923.