To the Editor of the Crimson:

The naivetc of your editorial "Food for Freedom" is surpassed only by its apparent lack of facts on both sides of the issue. Here are a few points from the case against feeding the Hitler dominated countries:

1. Hitler would never agree to any proposal that wasn't to his own benefit.

2. If the program was of value only to the people being fed, Hitler would certainly not allow the prestige of the democracies to be built up at his own expense. Goebbels' propaganda would easily take the form: "America approves the New Order. By helping Germany feed the people under her sphere, America is giving active support to the New Order."

3. If the plan was advantageous in the least to the British, they are neither as stupid or preoccupied as the Hooverites claim, as not to immediately adopt the plan to approve their own position.

4. If the plan was of value in the long run, why have not King Haakon of Norway, Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, and the other official representatives of the small democracies asked for or endorsed such a program?

5. The proposal overlooks, a primary objective of a blockade--to force Germany and her vassal states to return again to the production of food instead of building up the German war machine.

6. Direct leakage of food is not an important issue. Indirect benefits to Germany are enormous. According to William Agar of Columbia "ten shiploads of wheat, say 50,000 tons, would release about 187,000 tons of potatoes, from which the Germans could make 17,000 tons of alcohol . . . enough fuel for 500 planes to raid London nightly for two months."

I am, however, in favor of feeding those countries from which the German army of occupation is withdrawn, and from which the German control of the press and radio is released. Walter J. Lear '43.