“Angora....” He shrugged bluffly. “Well, yes, Angora. That is, perhaps, a pity. We are—we are in the soup with Angora.” He passed it off with a disarming grin. “But, après tout, what can you expect of Bouillon? We shall settle all that.... And it is not Angora that threaten our Entente, M’sieu. Ah, no! That is a small thing. A few Kemalist do not imperil Anglo-French relations. Pouf!...”
His face grew troubled and sad.
“M’sieu, you know perfectly. It is Germany. Yes. You talk a lot of the separate peace with Turkey. In the letter that is so; but in the spirit you make a separate peace with Germany. Oh, yes. This is not epigram—it is truth. Germany, she does not intend to pay. Perhaps she cannot pay. I do not know. It is possible she cannot; but you in England pretend to her that she cannot pay and to us that she will pay. Ménager la chèvre et le chou! Is that entente cordiale?...”
“You see,” I endeavoured to explain, “this is a subject on which there are two views in England. One side holds that Germany can pay something—the precise sum varies according to the knowledge and dispassion of the thinker. The other party contends that she can pay nothing at all—that it would be wiser in the general interest of Europe to cancel the whole debt; and that view, not widely held, is gaining ground——”
“At the expense of France,” he interjected sharply. “Yes. Not at your expense, my generous friend, but at the expense of France.”
“That,” I answered, “is partly true; but not entirely true. Viewed in its immediate context, it may be so; but taken in perspective, the trade revival in Germany——”
“Ah,” he cried, “Ah, ça, M’sieu! The trade revival in Germany. And then, M’sieu, and then? The political revival of Germany. The military revival of Germany. The German hegemony. Mittel Europa. Merci, M’sieu! And France, what of France?”
“France,” I began, “is a member of the League of Nations.”
“And Germany,” he replied, “is not. And America is not. And Russia, with her army of two millions, is not. Thank you for your League of Nations, M’sieu. What will it be in ten years? Perhaps the great co-ordinating harmoniser of the whole world. Perhaps not. What is America wishing since I leave Washington. They will have a new League, with no Covenant. C’est à dire nothing that binds—nothing that give security to such as France. Just a lot of amiable pleasantry, that you interpret as you please. Much of your Press are support them. Do that give confidence to France?... First we are to have the Tripartite Treaty—England, America, France. Then that is not ratify. And our English friends say, ‘Never mind. You have it all in Article 10. The League of Nations will protect you.’ Now, perhaps, the League will follow the Tripartite Treaty. Oh, yes, I know they say the Association will be side by side with the League. But how can you have that? It is a rival system. They say it will be found upon The Hague Tribunal. Then what comes to the International Court? It is to make of international politics a kind of bouillabaisse.... Non, M’sieu! I am head of a Government. I am responsible to a nation. Do you seriously advise me to trust in the League of Nations?”
“I advise you,” I answered, “to trust more in ideas, and less in things. Ideas let loose in the world cannot be destroyed. The League of Nations is an idea—not an office at Geneva. Civilisation is an idea; religion is an idea. What banded the nations together for the Great War? The strength of an idea.”