The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1939. A DRASTIC BLOCKADE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20044, 16 September 1939, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1939. A DRASTIC BLOCKADE

The drastic blockade which the Allies have set up in order to prevent sea-borne supplies reaching Germany has already aroused enemy protests as violent—and, it might be added, as forlorn—as those which were made by her during the World War. If anything. perhaps, the tone of the Nazi outbursts on this occasion is even more abusive. At the outset, the Nazi propaganda on the subject took the form of a pat on the back for Germany for restricting the list of articles which she would regard as contraband to such as would be of use only to the Allies’ fighting forces. No time was, however, lost by the Nazi official spokesman in roundly condemning the Allies, with all the invective at his command, on account of their decision to continue to reckon also as contraband articles which would be of great service to the noncombatants in Germany as well as to the Nazi armies. If what he averred could have been swallowed —and such a feat would be found impossible outside Germany—Nazidom had been led to protest so indignantly, not on her own behalf, but for tin* sake of her small and neutral neighbours! Hardly anybody (and certainly not any Nazi high official) could, of course, have been deceived as to the real object of the Allies’ blockade: it is designed not to strangle bona fide trade in all commodities between neutral nations, but to make certain that Germany’s neighbours are not allowed to become channels by means of which essential goods could reach her. And. now, what do we find? As Germany’s small neutral neighbours do not seem to consider that there is the slightest chance that their trade will be destroyed in consequence of the blockade—and that (to quote the Nazi spokesman) “it will bring starvation and death to their old people, women and children”—they are now not being sympathised with, on account of their “simplicity,” by Nazi officialdom, but have been warned in typical brutal Nazi style, to take care that they do not do anything that Germany may deem unneutral!

It is especially gratifying to learn, on the authority of Mr. Cordell Hull (Secretary of State), that the United States (which has reiterated that she has, of course, no intention of abandoning any of her rights under international law) has come across no evidence suggestive of anything unusual in connection with the measures which Britain and France are adopting in enforcing their blockade. The official attitude of the United States on this occasion is, assuredly, in striking contrast with that which she took up during the World War before Germany forced her into it. In the earlier stages of that terrible conflict, not a week passed without Britain receiving a Note, from tiie late President Wilson, protesting against the seizure and detention of vessels sailing under the United States flag to neutral ports in Europe. The United States, however, had to be content with the stand taken by Britain: “that only trade in contraband presumed to be destined for the enemy would be affected by the blockade.” It so happened that German U-boats began to sink even American vessels carrying only foodstuffs to Britain and, upon a protest, Germany agreed not to destroy any neutral vessel provided that it was carrying only conditional contraband. Then, for the purposes of a test case, the United States Government allowed an American ship to sail for a German port with a cargo of articles that were on Britain’s conditional contraband list. In due course, she was seized by a British worship and taken into a British port. The upshot, however, was that Britain was required to pay only for the cargo and, in addition, some compensation to the owners for detaining the vessel. Happily, the entry by the United Slates into the struggle on the side of the Allies brought to an end a lengthy period of acrimonious controversy led by her on behalf of but a very small group of the neutral nations.

There can be no question but that the Allies’ renewed blockade is already producing very dire results for Germany. On this occasion, Britain and France are immensely better equipped—in knowledge as well as in

ships of war—to cut off from Germany much-needed articles that she cannot obtain from her immediate neighbours. During the World War, many British war vessels were required to hunt down German warships and raiders operating in distant oceans, thus reducing the number of war craft available to cope with the then more numerous German and Austrian U-boats, which infested the Mediterranean Sea, the water around the British Isles, and the Atlantic. But, even so, the earlier blockade by the Allies caused trade with German and Austrian ports quickly to fall away almost to vanishing point. In vain did Germany use the United Slates to intercede for a cessation of the blockade, promising not to sink 3ritish shipping even in the British Isles war zone if Britain would permit her to receive foodstuffs. Her next move was to sell some ships interned in the United States harbours to American firms, but the first that set out for a neutral port in Europe was promptly pounced upon by a British warship, on the ground that the transfer of ownership had taken place after war had been declared, and, therefore, was contrary to international law. Incidentally, this rule will also govern the case of the huge liner Bremen, if she is no longer Ger-man-owned, unless it can be proved that she had ceased to fly the Nazi flag before hostilities broke out. There will, of course, be no letting up, on the part of the Allies, in connection with the blockade, oi Germany and, if evidence is forthcoming that .she has begun to carry out her threat to sink all neutral vessels .trading with either Britain or France, it is certain that the Allies will then arrange an effective method to protect also the shipping of friendly neutral nations.