The Allies' Strongest Weapon.

Levin Daily Chronicle, 24 January 1918, Page 4

The Allies' Strongest Weapon.

HOW TO BRING GERMANY TO

(Mr Thomas shows how the Allies, by a threat of economic boycott, might bring the war quickly to an end.) There is one strong weapon which we have not yet used against the enemy. Why not? Whv do we not immediately make the fullest use of our "economic '' power to bring Germany to her

knees? Just think for one moment of the nations which constitute the Allies. France, Ttussia, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Bumania, Serbia, Montenegro, Brazil, China, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, South Africa, India and many Colonics, to which huge agglomeration of Powers wo have now added the United States,

I and, perhaps, the Argentine. What we may well ask is the unfortunate people pitted against such a collection of nations going to do in the |! future, if we say, AND STICK TO IT, I that none of us, under any eircumstan- < ces whatever will have any dealings ' with them for a defined period of years to come 9 I No military defeat could possibly compare with such an overwhelming disaster. Every port closed against their shipping; no products of theirs ' admitted to what practically amounts to the rest of the world, and no raw materials obtainable at all. It is appalling to think of, and, bitterly as we detest the Germans to-day, the contemplation of such an idea, which is well within our power to carry out, makes one almost sorry for them. But-why should we not use ANY weapon we possess against the barbarous nation who, thinking to sweep over the world, atoning for their atrocities only by a rapid victory, have broken every international law and every code of honour in trying to attain that end? To stop the war without having secured that for which we are fighting — the right to live in peace —is unthinkable; every day, cost w r hat it may, makes us more determined. But why should we continue it, cxcept at THEIR cost and penalty, _ when we have such enormous economic power to

our hands? Clearly we must go on until our terms are obtained, but there is not the slightest reaspn why we should not plainly set out what the

continuation will mean to our enemies. If they could conquer us from a military point of view it would be different/ but they CANNOT beat the nations arrayed against them. We are bound to win in the end, and they know it: and, knowing it, it is my firm opinion that if the Allies were to lay down a well-considered schedule of economic disabilities which the Central Powers will have to bear and bear, say, for a year for every month the war continues until they accept our peace terms in every detail —it would be a very short time before the finish came. Economically we can do anything we think it wise to do. Germany was almost bankrupt, and my contention has always been and I see no reason to ehange it, that the real reason of the war was the fact t"at she had to disarm or iight. But the war has only to go on long enough to drag the Allies into an equally parlous condition. PEACE TERMS WITH A PENALTY CLAUSE.

I am not suggesting for one moment ending the war except on our own terms, but I AM suggesting that we should state those terms NOW, and that from this stage onwards every month of war should be at Germany s future cost. . I would do more than that; I would register the bill against her for every breach of international law, whether by air, sea or land. Germany coolly marks out a danger zone at sea and says that, from a certain date, she will sink every ship, belligerent or neutral, that ventuies within that zone. What gross impertinence! Sarely some response should have been made? And I cannot think of a stronger one, and one with a moTC far-reaching effect than to reply: "Very good. Dk it; but remember this, for every ship 5 ou sink in contravention of international law, we shall definitely close an Allied port against your ships, your goods and every man of your nationality for a term f years. Not one of your race will be permitted to travel in Allied countries without a permit and a passport. None of you will 'be allowed to do business of any sort with the Allies, and whether the war goes on for two years more or twenty this will remain a part, and a part which nothing will deter us from carrying out, of the peace terms, whenev.er they may come? Such a declaration would, in my opinion, have had a v ry definite result; but how much more now, when we can include America on our side? It is no i.se saying wo will simply boycott Germany. Rather the reverse. What I suggest is to lay down th e terms oil which we will not uoycotthcr; to laj down the terms on which stand her last chance of a .peace which will be a real finish to the' war, and not a peace by which she is going to be punished in another way for years to come, a peace under which the State will become impoverished) her manufacturers bankrupt, her workmen lighting for exThat is the condition which we have the power to enforce the day peace from a military point of view is made, and if we declare it now the German people will know that for every month |of war —a war of their own making a year of servitude will result. It is the ONE weapon we possess that Germany does not. This fact alone proves that wc should use it. We ca>i do perfectly well without her. If she in, her turn announced that she would boycott the Allies we should laugh at her threats. We do not need Germany. The Al-

lied countries can supply nil the rsuv materials they require, and our exports to Germany, which never consisted of anything she cuold mal<e herself, will be compensated for by world's markets which was formerly almost a German monopoly. But does Germany need us? Yes. Where is she going to get her cotton, minerals, rubber and other raw material? Where is she going' to sell her products'? Presumably to the Turks or Bulgars. It is certain that she could no longer exist as a European Power It is appalling to th«»««- the poweT possessed by the Allies practically to crush Germany out of existence. From a military point of view it is not easy from a commercial point of view it is easy, when wc have won, as we are going to win. But why not cut short that period by telling her NOW what our programme is if our peace terms, which must be carefully set out, arc not acj cepted at a certain date in the near

' future 1 ? j Q. HOLT THOMAS.