Given the atmosphere of the time, given the passions aroused in all democracies by years of war, it would have been impossible even for supermen to devise a peace of moderation and righteousness .โ{128}ข..โ{128}ข human error is a permanent and not a periodic factor in history. Harold Nicolson, writing in I933 of the Treaty of Versailles 1 Although the period of history from 1918 to 1925 has been the subject of considerable analysis and interpretation by historians, journalists, and students of international politics, there are certain aspects of this postwar era which are greatly in need of further study and evaluation. The occupation of the Ruhr area of Germany by French and Belgian troops in 1923 is one of these. While it is not the intention of the present writer to deal definitively or exhaustively with all possible sources, either for the era in general or for the Ruhr episode itself, he does seek to note and compare some influential French, British, German, and American attitudes
CONTENT
I. The Postwar Setting -- II. Reparation or Hegemony? The Background and Development of Poincarรฉโ{128}{153}s Ruhr Policy -- III. Opposition and the Retreat from Hegemony -- IV. Britain and the Policy of Benevolent Neutrality -- V. The Abandonment of Benevolent Neutrality -- VI. Weimar Germany and the Ruhr Struggle -- VII. Stresemann and the Fulfilment Policy -- VIII. United States Policy: The Wilson Administration and the Developing Ruhr Question -- XI. Charles Evans Hughes and the Emergence of the Dawes Plan -- X. Some Conclusions -- Appendices -- Bibliographical Essay -- Selected Bibliography
