"Revelations like these can only be described as heart-breaking to the men and women who have given their sons and brothers and husbands to the end that Germany may be brought to her knees. Now they find that some malign spell has paralysed the Navy's arm so that, instead of Germany's foreign supplies being cut off, they are in some vital respects more abundant than ever."
The Quarterly Review, January, 1916, contains a powerful article on "The Danish Agreement." It suggests how some blight has been at work in our Foreign Office for years steadily undermining our mastery of the sea. One paragraph bears particularly on the present point:
"No informed man doubts that the winter of 1916-17 must weaken to a marked degree, through lack of food, Germany's armed resistance, always assuming that she is not supplied through neutral countries. The existence of England depends on her victory over Germany. Her victory over Germany depends on the cutting off of neutral supplies. Therefore the existence of England depends on the cutting off of neutral supplies. But when, in August, 1914, the Cabinet and, above all, the Foreign Office, were confronted by this great possibility of stratagem every psychological force was set in motion against its adoption."
A telegram from Washington, U.S.A., on January 17th, 1916, to the Morning Post, set out the exports permitted to be poured into neutral countries in spite of all the efforts and protests of our Navy by our all-too-benevolent Foreign Office, and in face of Mr. Asquith's pledges to the House of Commons in March and in November, 1915, when he emphasised to loud cheering that he would stick at nothing to prevent commodities of any kind reaching or leaving Germany. That there was no form of economic pressure to which he did not consider we were entitled to win the war.
Exports to Neutral Countries
| 1913. | 1915. | ||
| To | Bushels. | Bushels. | |
| Wheat | Holland, Norway, | ||
| Sweden, Denmark | 19,000,000 | 50,000,000 | |
| Maize | Denmark | 4,750,000 | 10,950,000 |
| Holland | 6,900,000 | 11,600,000 | |
| Other neutrals | 2,100,000 | 6,400,000 | |
| ————— | ————— | ||
| 13,750,000 | 28,950,000 | ||
| ————— | ————— | ||
| Barrels. | Barrels. | ||
| Wheat | Holland | 708,000 | 1,500,000 |
| Flour | Other neutrals | 709,000 | 3,800,000 |
| ————— | ————— | ||
| 1,417,000 | 5,100,000 | ||
| ————— | ————— | ||
| lbs. | lbs. | ||
| Bacon | Holland | 3,900,000 | 9,000,000 |
| Other neutrals | 27,000,000 | 82,500,000 | |
| ————— | ————— | ||
| 30,900,000 | 91,500,000 | ||
| ————— | ————— | ||
| 1914 | 1915 | ||
| Boots | Neutrals | 462,000 pairs | 4,800,000 pairs |
| Cotton | Neutrals | 53,000 bales | 1,100,000 bales |
| Motor-} | |||
| Cars &} | Neutrals | £260,000 | £4,000,000 |
| Parts} |
The New York Journal of Commerce, quoting statistics of the U.S.A. export trade for the first ten months of 1915 under a headline, "Increase to Neutral Europe Equals German Loss," shows that "whilst shipments to Germany fell away £31,400,000 for the period named, the gain to the neutral nations on the north of Germany was £32,000,000."
What could give more confirmatory proof?
On January 24th, 1916, the Morning Post received a further cablegram from Washington, U.S.A., containing the elucidating facts that in the ten months from January 1st to October 31st, 1913, Germany imported from the U.S.A. 9,898,289 lbs. of cotton-seed oil, the Netherlands 31,867,327 lbs., and Norway 6,174,033 lbs.