LAND & WATER 
July 26, 1917 
nations into his arms; there was the peculiar position of the 
United States. There was the shortest and easiest com- 
munication with our Russian Ally, and so forth. But in the 
main the motive was that imderlying the whole effort of the 
Entente, the preservation of Europe with its tradition and its 
conscience intact. For that is in the last analysis the great 
distinction between the two parties to this enormous quaCrel. 
Prussia wholeheartedly, and with a greater or a less degree of 
reluctance her group of Allies, stands for the destruction of 
European traditions as being somethingin the way of Prussian 
power and expansion. Tlic Entente stands for the preservation 
of that tradition. And that is why the war, quite apart from 
national patriotism, appears to the detached onlooker as a 
fight for the salvation or dissolution of Cliristendom. 
That things will be quite the same after the war in this 
respect as they were before the war is unfortunately not to be 
hoped for. It will never be possible in future to leave the 
chances of a violation of frontier out of account. But we may 
reasonably hope that the novel infamy which Prussia has in- 
troduced into European warfare will be restricted within 
tolerable bounds. 
We have an historical parallel for such a thing in three 
other enormities, each of which is associated with the name 
of Prussia : Attack upon a peaceful power without declaration 
of war (Frederick the Great's boast at the beginning of his 
career) ; the destruction of existing power by mere occupation, 
(Prussia's detestable partition of Poland — to use Frederick 
the Great's own phrase his " communion upon the body of 
Poland-") ; and the shooting of imnocent hostages— of which 
1870 was the precedent. All these things were introduced 
into practical war by Prussia, yet none of them permanently 
entered into our European morals. 
A fourth might be added : The use of forgery in diplomatic 
relations. The war of 1870, for instance, was brought about 
by a deliberate forgery, the crime of Prince Bismarck who 
forged a telegram, purporting to come from the French authori- 
ties, in order to force war. Here was a precedent established 
in 1870 and one that went unpunished, nevertheless it did not 
enter into the general morals of European diplomats. 
On the contrary, the tendency of the decent nations was rather 
to forget that such a thing had happened. I well remember 
how, in the House of Commons some years ago, I pointed 
out that when Prussia next undertook a raid upon Europe she 
would probably do some gross breach of morals in the belief 
that such a breach would give her an advantage. But when I 
cited Bismarck's forgery in proof of this many dissented from 
this undoubted historical truth ; many had not heard of it — 
so short is political memory. Perhaps after the war the nature 
of the animal and the necessity for destroying it will be 
better understood. Yet there would seem to be quite a 
number of fairly educated men going about who have not 
yet learnt the lesson, and who would trust a democratised 
Prussia (what a phrase !) for the third time, and observe with 
interest the continuation of that Power still strong in Europe. 
H. BelloC 
Mr. Arthur Pollen, our Naval Writer, is giving a series 
of lectures in the United States. Next week we look forward 
to publishing a special article from his pen reviewing naval 
events and policy throughout the last year. He returns to 
England early in the autumn, when his naval articles 
will he resumed in these columns. 
The Food Situation in Holland 
By John C. van der Veer (London Editor of the Amsterdam Telegraaf) 
•N 
OT long ago a Dutchman said to me: "Coming 
from Holland to England seems coming from 
war to peace." In other words, he found in this 
I , country, after her three years war, the food question 
far less severe than it is in Holland, which all the time remained 
at peace. The same tale was told by many sailors of tor- 
pedoed Dutch steamers on their return to Holland. The 
Germans never believed us when we ridiculed their boast of 
being able to starve the British Islands by their illegal and 
barbarous submarine warfare. But they learned that homely 
truth recently from those returning Dutch sailors, who had 
perforce been living in England for a couple of y^ars, until a 
Dutch steamer came to fetch them. Here they found plenty 
to eat, but a scarcity of food in their own country. 
This striking fact is encouragement for the British people. 
Their hardships caused by the war are actually less than 
those endured by the people of neutral countries, who in time 
to come will be ashamed of having stood outside this great 
struggle for right and liberty. And their shame will be more 
penetrating, when they realise their ignominious acts of 
sustaining the universal enemy by supplying him so prodigally 
with foodstuffs and other things which he badly needed for 
carrying on the war. It deeply pains me to say, that Holland has 
in that respect sinned very much against the Allies, and 
particularly against Great Britain, whose honourable inter- 
vention in the war actually saved her from falling after 
Belgium a prey to German ambition. But the whole of our 
people, overwhelmingly as they are and remain in sympathy 
with the Allies, must not be blamed for the export policy, 
which sustained and even encouraged Germany in her struggle. 
On the contrary, the bulk of the Dutch people deserve more 
pity than reproach, for that very export policy has victimised 
them not less than it thwarted the object of the Allies. That 
is what I want to explain here. 
I do not want to defend myself against the imputation of 
harming Holland. I claim to have my country's honour 
and highest interests far more at heart than some of my 
countrymen, who for the sake of private gain have during 
the war conducted a roaring trade with Germany, filling their 
own pockets but depriving the Dutch people of sufficient 
foodstuffs which their own soil produced, and at the same 
time provoking resentment among the Allied nations. 
In view of the fact that Germany wantonly provoked this 
wat, and carried it on atrociously, every nation ought to have 
boycotted her. Such moral policy does not agree with what 
is called neutrality. But the neutral countries of Europe 
have not even followed strict impartiahty towards both 
groups of belligerents. Their export policy favoured Germany 
iar more than the AUics. simply because Germany, being driven 
in a corner, offered them the highest prices. According to 
our official statistics, the total quantities of principal Dutch 
products in 1915 and 1916 exported to Germany and England 
were in metric tons (one metric ton is equivalent to "984 
British ton) as follows : 
To Germany. To England 
Potatoes .'. .. .. 334,559 ^3,6oQ 
Potato Meal .. .. 128,514 13,857 
Meat ' .. .. , 131,467 25,445 
l^ish 316.219 747 
Butter 68,088 • 4,657 
Cheese 139,521 15,257 
Eggs 55.548 8,535 
1,176,916 
72,087 
The figures omit the great quantities of foodstuffs smuggled 
into Germany during the last two years. But it shows that 
in that time Germany received of Dutch foodstuffs sixteen 
times more than England. The quantities were in the first 
quarter of this year far less unequal. Then Germany 
received from Holland 20,028 metric tons of meat, fish and 
dairy produce, and England 13,660 tons. The proportions 
were in the last two years scandalously in favour of Germany. 
Yet, she has not only destroyed a large part of the Dutch 
mercantile fleet and .the finest ships, she has threatened the 
independence of Holland. On the other hand, Great Britain 
has not only at sea protected Dutch ships against German 
mines and submarines, she also safeguards Ihe independence 
of Holland and her colonial possessions. Is it then any 
wonder that numerous Dutchmen feel very bitter about an 
export policy which has been favouring Germany far vtoo 
much ? My paper (the Amsterdam Telegraaf) has constantly 
opposed and denounced that export policy.and for commenting 
not the least too strongly on it, the Editor, Mr Schroeder, 
was arrested in December, 1915. 
Now, what has Holland gained by that extraordinary 
large export of her own foodstuffs to Germany ? Holland 
to-day is flooded with German money. It is true that she is to 
some extent dependent on Germany, particularly for coal and 
iron. But Germany intentionally made Holland dependent 
on her for those things, by sinking numerous Dutch ships 
and preventing our country getting coal from England. It is, 
however, not an exchange to which the trade between 
Holland and Germ.any points, it is rather profiteering 
on the part of some of our producers and commercial men. 
•At the end of last year, the statistical Dutch weekly In-en 
Uitvoer (Import and Export) calculated, that during the first 
nine months of 1916, Holland sold to Germany between 
£23,000,000. and £25,000,000 more than Germany sold to 
