Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-11-24
BY FRANK H. SIMONDS.

A
~ President Hoover that in future
"A wars food ships should be i'm
4 4 mune from interference-should
in fact enjoy the privileges now
accorded to hospital craft-has aroused
| general discussion and sharp divergence
of opinion in Europe as in the United
States. OF the many lines Of opposition
two at least invite attention.
Thus it is argued, in the light of the
experience of the World War, that to
permit the free flow of foodstuffs might
result in a very material prol2ngation
| of the conflict. In the case of Germany
! it was the hunger blockade more than
any other single factor that in the last
year of the struggle broke the morale
| alike of the German army and the Ger
man public AS early as the great
break through of March, 1918, Luden-
dorff complained that his victorious
troops turned aside from pursuit to
| plumber the food supplies of the British.
1t was the civilian population, how
ever and not the army, that suffered
most acutely and it was the tales Of the
misery of their families and parents at
| home that fatally undermined the de-
| termination of the soldiers at the front,
| That there was enormous exaggerat1on
| as to the condition of German food sup
/ ply in the first two years of the struggle
| is certain, but with the third year pri-
| vation became universal.
In the same way the German subma-
! rine blockade very nearly achieved de-
cision. In the first months, after the
unlimited undersea warfare began, the
British government, and the informed
amongst the British people were brought
| face to face with the fact that If the
| sinkings continued at the current rate,
| Britain would be starved into Submis-
/ sion. For long time the British were
literally within six weeks Of disaster.
Navy Employed to Starve Fighters.
If seapower cannot employ the block
| ade to starve the enemy population, 1t
has little real value in the wars of the
| future Now that wars have become
| the struggle not of small professional
armies, but of the whole populations Of
! countries, and millions are under arms,
! the chance of Immediately decisive vic
tories is slight We have passed, SEEM
! ingly forever, the day of quick decision
such as Waterloo and Sedan, Koniggratz
! and Jena.
| Certain countries, too, notably Ger
many and Italy. must be regarded-in
view of numbers and industrial
strength on the German side and in
| view of numbers and strength OF the
| natural frontiers on the 1talian-aS i'm
pregnable to invasion. Yet both are
| bound to fall easy victims to any sys-
tenn of blockade that can cut off food
| imports, for both are utterly incapable
of feeding themselves.
Today Great Britain exercises an I'M
4 mistakable control over Italy, thanks to
her naval domination at the Straits of
| Gibraltar and at the Suez Canal. Now
! that Russia is, for long years, elimi-
mated as a source of food, Italy must
draw upon the Americas and Australia,
But the gateway to either world can be
shut at will by Britain. Nor is the
present German position less inpossi-
Bile. Once the British fleet loses the
right to hold up food supplies. however,
| Germany and Italy, the former tenn
! porarily disarmed, the latter steadily re-
! inforcing its army, will escape from all
| real threat of British coercion. More
over. this question is not limited to
| the personal and private interests
| of the British. On the contrary, the
whole policy OF the League of Nations
is called into question.
| For it is the present theory of the
| League that, in case of aggression by
any nation. action by the League pow
J ers will be largely confined to naval
| operations. The League has always
| counted upon the British fleet as the
chief force behind the covenant The
| TACT that Italy ana Germany, to say
nothing of smaller states, would be vul-
nerable in the extreme were they to
enter upon an aggressive war, vulnera-
BILE through the use of sea power to
| interrupt their importation Of food sup
| plies, has besn taken as one of the few
real guarantees Of peace on the mate
rial side.
British thought, and League opinion
as well, has moved in quite the oppo-
! site direction from Mr.. Hoover. Both
| have sought some understanding with
! the United States by which, in case of
aggressive war, the United States would
stand aside and waive its rights as
neutral to trade with the aggressor ma