British Secret Service During the Great War Part 35

From Germany. From Great Britain.

1914 861 660 1915 Nil 6,591 1916 Nil 12,273

BARLEY FOR MALT

In 1916 Great Britain exported to Holland about fifteen times more barley than normal pre-war exports, so diminis.h.i.+ng our home supplies that the British working-man was deprived of his national beverage through shortage and prohibitive prices. Whisky also was similarly affected.

TOBACCO

The Christian spirit of "love your neighbours and your enemies better than yourselves" had apparently no limits with the British Government.

Their loyal and hard-suffering subjects were deprived of a full supply of the soothing weed on the excuse of economising freight room, but no effort seems to have been made to curtail _Dutch supplies_, which were _thirty-five times greater than the pre-war exports_.

In 1914 Hamburg and Bremen exported 4,544 tons of tobacco to Holland, but in 1915 and 1916 neither of these towns exported any at all.

The amounts exported by Holland from January to June in tons were as follows:

To Great Britain. To Germany.

1914 1,611 31,891 1915 1,672 54,456 1916 923 96,931

The figures published by the German Steel and Iron Manufacturers a.s.sociation for the first six months of each respective year show the following outputs, thanks to Sir Francis Oppenheimer's previous Netherlands Overseas Trust, which permits iron ore in millions of tons to proceed direct to Krupps' and other blast furnaces in Germany without let or hindrance to be used against us.

PIG IRON Tons 1915 5,530,000 1916 6,497,000

STEEL

1915 6,187,000 1916 7,756,000

The _Lokal Anzeiger_, July 28th, 1916, remarked: "These figures const.i.tute a most gratifying state of affairs in respect of the _requirements of the German Armies_." No wonder the captured German officer remarked: "You English will always be fools, whilst we Germans can never be gentlemen"!

In August[25] a Mr. E. Bell, of 12, Yarborough Road, Lincoln, wrote to the Press as follows:

"The talk of tightening the blockade of Germany is rather futile in face of the following Board of Trade figures referring to cotton yarn exported from the United Kingdom to the following neutral countries:

JUNE Sweden Norway Denmark Holland Switzerland 1914 108,900 218,700 106,400 3,220,800 722,600 1915 260,800 348,300 204,700 4,493,300 1,788,800 1916 279,200 508,200 598,400 7,539,800 1,304,100

"Germany is obviously getting the surplus."

The values[26] of New York exports taken for the week July 30th to August 5th are equally startling:

1915. 1916.

New York to Norway 1,884 137,176 Holland 713 717,601 Holland and Scandinavia 123,327 970,255

On August 26th, 1916, an agreement was signed between the Dutch Fis.h.i.+ng a.s.sociation and the British Government regarding the release of some 120 to 150 Dutch fis.h.i.+ng-boats laid up in Scottish ports, whereby not more than 20 per cent. of their catch shall be permitted to go to Germany. Of the remainder twenty per cent. was to be retained for home consumption, and sixty per cent. sold to neutral countries. On each barrel of this sixty per cent. the good, kind, benevolent British Government agreed to pay a subsidy of 30s. to the Dutch boat-owners.

Now the D.F.A. owned about 850 vessels and 1,000 barrels is a good average season's catch!

In addition to this arrangement the British Government agreed to pay full compensation for their loss of part of the season, to be calculated on the basis of the returns on an average season. They also agreed to pay for any damage which might have happened to the interned boats.[27]

One wonders what British fishermen whose vessels have been commandeered had to say when they were informed of these facts.

The _Hamburger Nachrichten_ of August 23rd, 1916, published a telegram from its Hague correspondent declaring that the semi-official German Central Purchase Company was seizing Dutch food in enormous quant.i.ties; that local merchants were in a state of alarm and threatening Government interference; and their correspondent defiantly stated: "The Netherlands Government will hardly dream of interfering with the activity of the Dutch Bureau of the German Central Purchase Company, the operations of which are a.s.suming larger and larger dimensions."

To add further proof of the utter futility and hollow sham of the alleged blockade safeguards, namely, the Danish a.s.sociation Agreement and the Netherlands Overseas Trust, Sir Henry Dalziel informed the House of Commons on August 22nd, 1916, that in June Denmark imported _over ten times as much cotton yarn_ as in June, 1913, and that in the first six months of the present year Holland exported to Germany _over twenty times as much b.u.t.ter_ as in the first six months of 1914, nearly _eight times as much cheese_, and _over seven times as much meat_.

The unfortunate Lord Robert Cecil in mid-August gave quite a eulogistic report upon his stewards.h.i.+p as Blockade Minister, which was immediately followed by the arrival from New York of the Custom House returns showing that during the week ending August 5th the value of the exports to Holland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark was _eight times_ as _great_ as in the corresponding week of the preceding year. To Holland the exports had increased in value _a thousandfold_ and to Norway _seventy-fivefold_.

On September 1st, 1916, the Government, through the War Trade Statistical Department, issued to the Press an official Memorandum on the question of the efficacy of the British blockade.

It barely amounted to the proverbial half-truth, and was pitiably feeble. It was more than unfortunate that the Government should rush into print just before the United States export figures were due for publication--only a week later.

These latter reliable statistics showed an extraordinary state of affairs:

EXPORTS FROM U.S.A.

1914. 1915. 1916.

To Norway 1,813,400 7,815,000 10,735,600 " Sweden 2,928,800 15,654,800 10,387,800 " Denmark 3,134,000 15,964,800 11,132,400 " Holland 22,443,200 28,653,400 19,852,600 " Switzerland 204,000 547,200 1,631,200

The _Telegraaf_, Amsterdam's leading journal, on September 11th, 1916, quoted Governmental statistics to account for the excessive rise in price of her home products, concluding by the statement that "Holland has sold her livelihood for greater war profits"; whilst all the Dutch Press seemed to deplore mildly the vast and unmanageable manner in which the smuggling of goods over the German frontier was permitted to continue.

The figures for meat, cheese, eggs, vegetables, and b.u.t.ter showed an average _increased export of seventy-five per cent._ on preceding years.

Practically every ounce went to Germany or to territory under her rule.

On September 12th, 1916, Reuter's representative at the Hague was able to announce that: "The Dutch Overseas Trust had obtained the release of 420 tons of Kapok, Java cotton, and had also succeeded in removing the difficulties in the way of the importation of cocoa-beans."

Such paragraphs as the above could be found repeatedly by anyone who chose to search the Press. No wonder the smouldering wrath of the long-suffering British public became fanned to a flame and its confidence in its so-called representative Ministers correspondingly decreased.

On September 9th, 1916, the Foreign Office issued a notice that no further export licenses or further facilities would be given by H.M.G.

for the importation of certain specified commodities until further notice. The list embraced scores of foods, but, in fact, was merely another patch to the very ragged mantle covering the so-called blockade.

On September 12th, 1916, the War Trade Statistical Department made another feeble attempt in public to refute the statistics quoted by the Press. It set out specious and plausible arguments why general conclusions should be drawn in a light more favourable to our interests.

It gave no denials nor suggested that the figures quoted were not correct. It was a fretful official apology, a tacit admission of weakness and inefficiency.

A casual remark was made by a really able German in the Wilhelmstra.s.se on English policy in regard to Germany, to Mr. D. T. Curtin, as reported by him in the _Times_, October 21st, 1916.