House of Commons on Tuesday follows along lines to be expected after the recent meeting of the Supreme War Council, and as far as the unity of purpose of the Allies is concerned adds but little to what was already known. His references to the economic blockade, however, open up new vistas of activity, and the promise that the blockade will be tightened up, will be welcomed by those who see in it the most powerful weapon of war at present in use. In this connection it is, perhaps, as well to deal with the mealy-mouthed complaint which the Nazi propaganda organs are continually uttering about the Allies starving Germany's women and children by the cutting off of imports of goods which have been declared contraband. The fact is that Germany possesses enough fats and similar materials to serve the needs of her people. If the Reich decides to devote those goods to the production of war material, instead of using them to feed the people, that is the business of the Reich, and to suggest that the Allies are doing something unutterably cruel in cutting off further supplies, is to make a suggestion which cannot be justified. If Germany's present stores of mineral oils and fats are being used in the manufacture of munitions, if sugar and potatoes are being turned into glycerine and alcohol respectively for purposes of war, the Allies cannot be expected to lift the blockade sufficiently to permit imports to make up the deficiency. German women and children are not being starved by the Allies, but by the determination of their rulers to plunge their country into war as they have done. The contraband which is being prevented from reaching Germany is for the purpose of making up deficiencies in the food supply due entirely to the devotion of what she already possesses to the prosecution of that war.
That being the position, what about the neutrals adjacent to German borders? There is all the evidence in the world that they, either willingly for profit, or under the enormous pressure which Germany is exerting upon them, are importing, and re-exporting into Germany much larger quantities of contraband goods than they normally do in times of peace. That has got to be stopped. If it leads to a closer Allied control of neutral imports and corresponding inconvenience to them, it is much to be regretted. On the other hand it has to be remembered that the Allies are fighting the battle of all the European democracies, and the neutrals, being such, stand in the most grievous peril if by any mishap the Germans were to win in this struggle. They have seen what has happened to Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland, and they must realize that, if the present masters of Germany ever succeeded in bringing this present war to a successful conclusion, they, in their turn, would be standing naked before their enemies. It is not suggested for one moment that the neutrals should come out into the open and align themselves formally with the Allies. To do so would be to subject their peoples to sufferings similar to those which the Belgions underwent during the years of German occupation of their country between 1914 and 1918. That is precisely what the Allies do not desire and will do their utmost to prevent. They can, however, with complete justice demand that the neutrality of these smaller nations shall be a complete and balanced neutrality, that there shall be no modification of the neutrals' attitude towards either Great Britain, France or Germany. If the neutrals are unable to carry out such a programme, it is the paramount duty of the Allies to do everything possible to ensure that they shall not be able to benefit Germany by the adoption of an attitude of benevolent neutrality, amounting almost to passive belligerency, by means of which Germany is permitted to fulfil those economic needs which will become all the greater as the blockade becomes increasingly efficient. There cannot be the slightest possible objection to the neutrals supplying Germany with precisely the same goods in quality and quantity which they do during normal peace years. Directly they exceed those levels they are in fact assisting Germany, and contributing to what may eventually be their own destruction.
If the neutrals have to be saved from themselves by the action of the Allies it will be because of the exigencies of the situation. They will have to be put in a position from which they will be unable to forward to Germany the additional supplies which that country is undoubtedly receiving from them, and that can only be done by the institution of the strictest possible control over the import and export trade, ensuring the neutrals shall receive their normal supplies, but also making quite sure that there shall be no surplus for re-export to Germany. It is possible io have every sympathy with the neutrals in the most unfortunate position in which they find themselves. That, despite every care which the Allies might have of their interests, these smaller nations must suffer to some extent has regretfully to be admitted. Their geographical positions makes them particularly vulnerable so far as Germany is concerned, but it is quite apparent that if successful Allied action prevents them from being able to contribute to German needs, the responsibility is not theirs but that of the Allies, who will most cheerfully shoulder any further necessary responsibility entailed in prosecuting a successful war upon the common enemy. Mr. Chamberlain made it quite clear in his speech that not only the naval blockade was being utilized for this purpose, but that British finance was doing its share in the Balkans by purchasing what might otherwise be sold to Germany. That is a perfectly permissible form of extending the blockade, and if carried to a successful conclusion might lead to desperate measures on the part of Germany, to endeavour to obtain by force what the ability of the British financial structure is able to withhold by purchase. Should that occur Herr Hitler will defeat his own ends, for the Balkans reduced to a state of war by German action would be in no position to supply Germany with anything, and the second state of that country would undoubtedly become worse than its first.
An Answer Wanted In the correspondence columns of toda issue will be found a brief preliminary election address from the pen of Mr. Ranald G. Mc-Donald. It is very much along the lines to be expected, but it is to be wondered whether Mr. McDonald really imagines he stands to gain much by the type of mud-slinging to which he has apparently resorted. He will not escape the necessity, which his action in presenting himself for election, after having been defeated in the straw vote, of explaining just why he sees fit at this juncture to disregard the gentlemen's agreement to which all candidates for British suffrages in the straw vote in the past have subscribed by their behaviour after learning the results of this preliminary test of a man's acceptability to the British community as a councillor. The issue was put to Mr. McDonald quite plainly in this column yesterday that he has in fact broken such an agreement, and he does himself less than adequate justice when he seeks to evade the issue by declaring as he does in his last paragraph that "I strenuously maintain that the "British" straw vote should be utterly disregarded and treated as an evil, un-British, undemocratic and unrepresentative farce." Is it to be assumed that had the straw vote resulted differently Mr. McDonald would have found it a proceeding much more to his liking? That seems to be a justifiable deduction, for it must obviously be true that if before the straw vote was held he even then held the views he says he does now, it was obviously his duty to have had nothing whatever to do with it and to have said so quite openly in order that there might be no possibility of his attitude being misjudged. If Mr. McDonald had informed the British Election Committee prior to holding the straw vote that he intended to stand for the Council no matter what the result, and after that had not presented himself as a possible candidate there could not be the slightest criticism of his action in now coming forward. He did not do that, and while his preliminary election address may prove of some interest, a very considerable section of the British community will still want to know why he has followed the peculiar course he has adopted. That is a plain question to which he should be able to give a plain answer. It has to be put very straightly to Mr. McDonald as to why, it he always disapproved of the straw vote, and not now of its particular results, he ever allowed his name to go forward in connection with it.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.