[60] A fairly adequate account of this controversy during the Peace Conference can be pieced together from the following passages: Baruch, _Making of Reparation and Economic Sections of the Treaty_, pp. 45–55; Lamont, _What really happened at Paris_, pp. 262–265; Tardieu, _The Truth about the Treaty_, pp. 294–309. [61] For these figures see Tardieu, _op. cit._, p. 305. [62] It is of these passages that M. Clemenceau wrote as follows in his preface to M. Tardieu’s book: “Fort en thème d’économiste, M. Keynes (qui ne fut pas seul, dans la Conférence, à professer cette opinion) combat, sans aucun ménagement, ‘l’abus des exigences des Alliés’ (lisez: ‘de la France’) et de ses négociateurs.... Ces reproches et tant d’autres d’une violence brutale, dont je n’aurais rien dit, si l’auteur, à tous risques, n’eût cru servir sa cause en les livrant à la publicité, font assez clairement voir jusqu’où certains esprits s’étaient montés.” (In the English edition, M. Tardieu has caused the words _fort en thème d’économiste_ to be translated by the words “with some knowledge of economics but neither imagination nor character”—which seems rather a free rendering.) [63] At about the same date, the German Indemnity Commission (_Reichsentschädigungskommission_) estimated the cost at 7228 million gold marks, also on the basis of pre–war prices; that is to say, at about one–seventh of M. Dubois’ estimate. [64] The details of this claim, so far as they have been published, are given in Appendix No. 3. The above figure comprises the items for Industrial Damages, Damage to Houses, Furniture and Fittings, Unbuilt–on Land, State Property, and Public Works. [65] See M. Loucheur’s speech in the French Chamber, May 20, 1921. [66] For this rate to be justified the exchange value of the franc in New York must rise to about 11 cents. [67] M. Loucheur’s statement to the French Chamber implied that the rate of conversion was applicable to material damage as well as to pensions, and I have assumed this in what follows; but precise official information is lacking. [68] The figures of damage done, given by M. Briand, are generally speaking rather lower than those given ten months earlier (in June 1920) in a report by M. Tardieu in his capacity as President of the Comité des Régions Dévastées. But the difference is not very material. For purposes of comparison, I give M. Tardieu’s figures below together with those of the amount of reconstruction completed at that earlier date: Destroyed. Repaired. Houses totally destroyed 319,269 2,000 Houses partially destroyed 313,675 182,000 Railway lines 5,534 kilos. 4,042 kilos. Canals 1,596 ” 784 ” Roads 39,000 ” 7,548 ” Bridges, embankments, etc. 4,785 ” 3,424 ”