In order to save Antwerp, two things were necessary: first, effective defence of the fortress line; and second, free uninterrupted communication with the sea. The first was tolerably well provided for by the Belgian Army which could easily be reinforced by British Territorial troops. But the second essential, the free communication with the sea, was a larger matter, and in it were involved our relations with the Dutch. I proposed that we should request the Dutch Government to give a free passage up the Scheldt to Antwerp for whatever troops and supplies were needed. I pointed out further that it was impossible to try to supply an army at Antwerp by Ostend and Ghent; that the appeals which the Belgians were then making to us to send 25,000 troops to co-operate with an equal number of Belgian troops for the purpose of keeping open the line Antwerp-St. Nicholas-Ghent-Bruges-Ostend was a counsel of despair.
‘It involves practically a flank position for a line of supply protected by forces large enough to be hit hard and perfectly powerless against any determined German attack which it is thought worth while to deliver. At any moment a punch up from Brussels by a German division or larger force would rupture the line, and drive the troops trying to hold it to be disarmed on neutral Dutch territory or into the sea.’
I dwelt on the disadvantages to the Allies of a neutrality which kept the Rhine open for Germany and closed the Scheldt to Antwerp.
As these questions are still of some delicacy I have thought it better to summarise rather than reprint my memorandum. But I draw the reader’s attention to the date—September 7.
I still think that strong representations to the Dutch Government might well have induced them to grant this relief to Antwerp and the Belgian nation in their agony. The original guarantee of Belgian neutrality was given to the Government of the Netherlands, and it would have been a natural and legitimate demand that they should put no needless obstacle in the way of its fulfilment. The sympathies of Holland for the sufferings of Belgium were naturally restrained by the fear of sharing her fate. But a neutral Holland was of far more use to Germany than a hostile, a conquered, or even an allied Holland. Once Holland was attacked by or allied to Germany we could close the Rhine, and if we were in alliance with Holland, the Texel and other Dutch islands of enormous strategic importance would become available for the forward action of the British Navy. We should in fact have that oversea base without which a British naval offensive was impossible. I do not therefore believe that if Holland had agreed to open the Scheldt for the succour of Antwerp, Germany would have declared war upon her. There would have been a long argument about interpretations of neutrality in which the Germans, after their behaviour, would have started at a great disadvantage. I still think that if Holland could have said to Germany ‘the English are threatening us with a blockade of the Rhine if we do not open the Scheldt,’ Germany would have accepted the lesser of two evils.
The Foreign Secretary did not, however, feel able to put this grave issue to the Dutch Government. Neither did Lord Kitchener wish to use the British Territorial Divisions in the manner proposed, and while adhering to my own opinion I certainly do not blame him. He would not send any Territorials into Antwerp, nor was anything effective done by the Allies for the city during the whole of September. From the moment when German Main Headquarters had extricated and reformed their armies after the failure at the Marne, the capture of Antwerp became most urgently necessary to them. Accordingly on the afternoon of September 9, as is now known, the German Emperor was moved to order the capture of that city. Nothing was apparent to the Allies until the 28th. The Belgian and German troops remained in contact along the fortress line without any serious siege or assaulting operations developing. But on the 28th the Germans suddenly opened fire upon the forts of the Antwerp exterior lines with 17–inch howitzers hurling projectiles of over a ton.
Almost immediately the Belgian Government gave signs of justified alarm. British intelligence reports indicated that the Germans were seriously undertaking the siege of Antwerp, that their operations were not intended as a demonstration to keep the Belgian troops occupied or to protect the lines of communication. Information had come from Brussels that the Emperor had ordered the capture of the town, that this might cost thousands of lives, but that the order must be obeyed. Large bodies of German reserve troops were also reported assembling near Liége. In view of all these reports it was evident that the rôle of our small British force of marines, omnibuses, armoured cars, aeroplanes, etc., operating from Dunkirk was exhausted. They had no longer to deal with Uhlan patrols or raiding parties of the enemy. Large hostile forces were approaching the coastal area, and the imposture whereby we had remained in occupation of Lille and Tournai could be sustained no longer.
Lord Kitchener was disquieted by the opening of the bombardment upon the Antwerp forts. He immediately sent (on September 29) a staff officer, Colonel Dallas, into the city to report direct to him on the situation. On the evening of October 1 this officer reported that:—
‘The Belgian War Minister considered the situation very grave. Did not think that resistance to the German attack could be maintained by defensive measures only within the fortress. That the only way to save Antwerp from falling was by a diversion from outside on the German left flank. That the French had offered a division and that he looked forward to co-operation by an English force also if that could be arranged.’
The minister had also said