The Washington herald., 1916-02-27
by JOHN L. BALpERsToN.


blockade controversy between Eng
land and America. IL is necessary to
grasp certain fundamental facts which
are generally slurred over, ignored or
buried beneath masses of statistics
hurled at one another by the diplo-
matte warriors. Nothing can be more
tiresome to the ordinary reader than
trade figures, but the critical nature
of the situation that will follow the
receipt in Washington of Sir Edward
Grey's forthcoming note refusing TO
comply with President Wilson's de-
mands will make the present wrsngle
of more interest to Americans than
any commercial dispute for fifty ytars.
The elements of the blockade prob
lem, as whole. considered in rela-
ton TO all the neutrals affected, are
presented here in plain terms with
out statistics from the British point
OF view. Whether rightly or wrongly.
diplomats in Europe believe that plain
| speech In international discussion Of
tends foreigners, SO much of this article
| must consist of my own interpreta-
| tion Of diplomatic reservations and
circumlocutions and significant ST.
lences.
Great Britain, in attempting to OBJ
tain her object of preventing all
| trade with the German empire, is to
| some extent bluffing the hve neutral
powers Observation-Disclosures, Holland,
| Sweden. Norway, and Denmark. Be-
\ fore taking up the Anglo-American
| controversy in more detail that state
ment must be explained.
Every one knows-but people some
times forget-that back Of diplomacy is
always the implied threat OF force, OF
some sort of compulsion to be applied in
\ the last resort. In business, there is the
law to appeal to, but when nations dis
pute they cannot 80 to law, because al
present what is called international law
is merely international usage. The law
is changed by the creation of new prece-
dents-that is, by successful violations OF
| previous usage. Nations may threaten tc
gain their ends either to go to war or use
some form of economic pressure. The
fate of China and Persia shows whai
ha ppens to nations whose diplomacy Il
not backed by potential force.
/ In saying that Britain's arrest Of neu'
trail ships and interference with neutra
1 commerce are a blum, I mean that Il
any one of the i've countries named
above threatened Britain with war Il
she did not modify her procedure tbs
government here would back down pro
vided II were convinced that the protest
ing neutral intended to fight But Brit
aims blufr is most unlikely to be called
for her statesmen keep their fingers or
the pulse Of popular feeling In the neu
trail countries, knowing that no govern
ment of the five nations concerned viii
threaten war unless its people want war
and taking care to do nothing that viii
arouse the war fever against the mis-
tress of the seas
The Importance to the allies of stopping
leakage through neutral countries int
Germany is very great but the amour
|, of leakage which would result in tn
event of the grievances of the North SCI
neutrals being met would not be 8
great as to justify. Britain in permitting
new army to enter the field against tn
Entente. This discussions Is academic
but important. There is not one chanc
in a hundred of any one of the five coun
tries mentioned. excepting Sweden, 60
! ing to war with England. but the mill
tary impossibility must be considered be
cause it underlies present and futur
diplomacy.
, If Britain refused to meet an ultimatur
. from Sweden demanding that interior
ence with her commerce stop, the Swed
: ish army of some 400, 900 men would al
: tack not England, but Russia, and /
defend the grand duchy of Finlan
against a host. which might menac
even Petrograd, would be a forniidabl
, task for the Cars armies under pres
emit conditions. 1t seems plain that
p
: entente she will not push Sweden I
extremes, even II goods do cross tn
e Baltic from Sweden to Germany. owede
e is treated with much more considerable
q than Denmark and Norway, becaus
there is a war party in Swden due not S
. much to the British blockade as to di.
!, trust of Russia Attacks by Germa
: submarines on Norwegian and DAMS
d ships and severe treatment by Britai
q of the commerce of those countries ar
nortoriously due to the fact that there
d practically no war party in either cour
=. TRY, and that neither alliance fear
o trouble no matter what the provocatio
given.
The same consideration applies to Ho
r, Hand. To complete the military surve
: with a somewhat incredible suppositiol
y Great Britain would go to far create
q extremes to avert war with AmeriC
o than with any other neutral. becau!
the American navy, Joined with the Gel
p man, might prove a match for the gran
l. feet in a simultaneous attack. the Anne
lean ships entering the North Sea fro
the north as the Germans left Helg,
land. And such a possibility, for Britsi
would be more serious than the certal
defeat by Germany Of herself and h,
allies on land-the land of the latter.
So unthinkable on both sides of Il
Atlantic Is war between America ar
Britain that this contingency enters int
diplomatic relations to a very small e.
tent, and harsh words from Washing
ton arouse no fear here of a naval a
tack which, II 1t were conceivable, wou
be greatly dreaded because Of the ext
10 tence of the unbeaten German fleet
lie American Menace Formidable.
But when the second threat underlyiI
le diplomatic negotiations is considered, Il
Oh threat Of economic pressure, the Anne
81 lean menace to Britain and her ALI
or becomes formidable, while that Of Swed
and the other three neutrals sinks
- comparative insignificance. My stateme
C. that the British blockade is a bluff mea
C. only that Britain would relax the pre-
'r. sure rather than fight a neutral, not tn
E. the neutral would necessarily triumph
y, an embargo. Sweden has already put
m embargo on the expectation Of wood pu
k as a reprisal against England, to viii
X, this country promptly replied by prohibt
n ing its Importation and warning all pu
Is, locations that they must be prepared
II. reduce their consumption of pap
aEcopor,io rreesure's in this case DrOv