WAR BLOCKADE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 18 September 1939, Page 7

WAR BLOCKADE

NAZI EFFORTS TO GET SUPPLIES RELIANCE ON RUSSIA AND RUMANIA. REPERCUSSIONS OF BRITISH ACTION. By Telegraph—Press Association —Copyright NEW YORK. September 16. The Germans are battering a direct road to Rumania and to Russia, on which they are dependent for supplies of oil and food, thereby aiming to defeat the British blockade, says the Berlin correspondent of the “New York Times." Russia does not conceal her determination to provide Germany with overseas products. Rumania has no choice. There is already discussion regarding the rapid construction of an oil, pipeline from Rumania to Germany, assuring the continued operations of the German air force. Germany appears anxious not to emphasise the British blockade, the coun-ter-blockade and Western fighting. The submarine campaign is not mentioned officially, and is scarcely mentioned in the Press, except for rescues showing the chivalry of submarine crews. Germany appears to be preparing. if necessary, to use the air force as a blocking weapon. ITALIAN FEARS. The “New York Times” Rome correspondent says that Italy is most worried about the effect of the French and British blockade on Italian commerce and even general welfare. Clearly all European countries are going to suffer, whether belligerents or neutrals.

It is realised that Britain intends unparalleled measures and if’is believed that the traditional rules of neutrality will not apply. Nations will not be able to declare neutrality and then help one side materially instead of militarily. Italy is convinced that Britain intends to. apply different forms of blockade and search against European and American ships, being stricter with nations bordering Germany than with a country like Brazil. One of’ the main reasons why Italy stayed out of the Great War so long was her vulnerability to blockade. Italy has made enormous strides toward autarchy, since 1935. She does not claim to be self-supporting, but foodstuffs are assured. UNITED STATES ATTITUDE. The Washington correspondent of the “New York Times” says that President Roosevelt defined the nation’s territorial -waters as “extending the war to sea as our interests require,” but he gave a strong hint that there was no question of right of belligerent blockadefs to search and seize cargoes of American ships bound for adjacent neutral ports.' Though the statement on the latter point was vaguely phrased, international lawyers-expressed the view that it would only mean conceding the doctrine of continuous voyage which the Federal Government originated in the Civil War in 'order to seize cargoes sent to the Confederacy, via Nassau Island, which was applicable to Britain's present blockade of Germany. If the Administration intends to follow this doctrine it will be a great comfort to Britain, since it will remove ■a potention source of diplomatic controversy similar to that which arose between Britain and the United .States before America’s entrance to the Great War. ,Jt would mean that insofar as the British blockade was. concerned, America would not raise the issue of her neutrality on the high seas.