PROGRAM OF IMPORTATIONS
II. NORTHERN FRANCE 16,000 tons of flour
I. BELGIUM
The demands made by His Majesty's Government in their note of December 31st are here taken seriatim, with comments upon the replies made by the German authorities.
1. His Majesty's Government demanded that "the export of all foodstuffs and substances fit for use as food whatsoever, including livestock and fodder of all kinds, and also all fertilisers, seeds, and agricultural stock of every sort, shall be absolutely prohibited from the territory administered by the Governor-General of Belgium to any destination whatever, with the one exception that the Commission for Relief in Belgium may be allowed to export to Northern France, for distribution there by them, foodstuffs of which there is a clear surplus over and above the
present or future needs of Belgium."
In reply the German authorities agree, but without any mention of "agricultural stock" in general, and subject to three reservations:
a) That certain Belgian produce, of which there is a sufficiency in the country, and which Belgium normally exports, such as chicory, shall be exempted. His Majesty's Government recognise that there is some ground for this exemption, but they do not understand it in present circumstances in view of the German decrees of August 13th, September 16th, and October 23d ordering the seizure of all chicory roots and placing them under the control of the"Zentral-Einkaufsgesellsehaft für
Belgien";and in view of the notorious efforts made by the German authorities to buy up chicory, vegetables, and fruit for German use. The German authorities in fact place an export tax on chicory and only allow its export to Holland "on proof of corresponding imports from Holland provided the condition of the German market allows it." If Belgium is so rich in such vegetables, it is clearly out of the question that His Majesty's Government should continue to allow large quantities of beans and peas to be imported into Belgium while native produce is being
exported. The utmost concession which His Majesty's Government can make in this respect is that the export of such produce shall be allowed to neutral countries after the Commission for Relief in Belgium and the Comité National have had full opportunity to purchase all that is needed for the destitute.
b) That the German authorities shall still be free to take native foodstuffs by
purchase for the use of the occupying army. It appears from this stipulation that the German authorities now openly and avowedly repudiate the guarantees given by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Berlin to the United States
Ambassador on December 8th and December 31st, 1914, and General von Bissing's decree of January 21st, 1915, against requisitioning of foodstuffs and fodder. The promise of purchase in forced paper currency makes not the slightest difference to the fact of requisition. His Majesty's Government absolutely refuse to accept this proposal or to acquiesce in this attempt to make the Hague Conventions a charter of spoliation.
c) That certain stocks, said to be the property of the German Government, shall be exempted and shall be immediately exported from Belgium. As the 3,000 head of cattle mentioned in the list of these stores are the only things stated to be of
German origin, it is to be presumed that the remaining items are of Belgium origin.
They thus furnish further evidence of the violation of the German guarantees against requisitions referred to above. The 27,400 tons of fodder mentioned are doubtless the product of the last Belgian harvest. His Majesty's Government raise no objection to the export of the 3,000 head of cattle, if these are in fact of German origin, but if any of the other articles are exported, the Commission's imports will immediately be reduced by an equivalent amount.
The use of Belgian pasture for German cattle is absolutely inadmissible. When coupled with the wholesale requisitioning of the Belgian fodder crop, it represents an inhuman policy which, if continued, His Majesty's Government must publish for the information of the neutral world.
2. His Majesty's Government demanded that "the export of all articles of clothing and of all raw material for their manufacture shall be prohibited except to neutral countries, and then only after full provision has been made for the present and future needs of the civil population including the destitute."
The German reply is confined to a guarantee of clothing or clothing materials imported by the Relief Commission. The German authorities can hardly have misunderstood the clear demand of His Majesty's Government for a guarantee of domestic textiles precisely similar to that demanded in the case of foodstuffs, fodder, etc. His Majesty's Government insist on that guarantee.
3. His Majesty's Government demanded that "none of the articles above mentioned shall on any account be used by the German army of occupation in Belgium."
The direct refusal of this demand has already been dealt with above. Consent on the part of the German authorities is a conditionsine qua nonof the continuance of the work.
4. His Majesty's Government demanded that "these prohibitions shall be rigorously maintained without exception of any kind."
It may perhaps be assumed that consent to this is implicit in the German reply, within the limits of that reply.
5. His Majesty's Government demanded that "the Commission shall be allowed to exercise any control over the stocks mentioned in the preceding paragraphs which may be necessary in order to conserve them for the future, or make them available for the present needs of the population."
This is answered by a vague expression of willingness to concede the "control materially necessary." The object of the control demanded, so far as present
necessities are concerned, is to make immediately available to the civil population and especially to the destitute such native products as pork and potatoes. His
Majesty's Government attach no importance to words in this matter, but they cannot allow importations of such articles so long as the Comité National and the
Commission for Relief in Belgium are unable, for whatever reason, to obtain existing native supplies.
The German reply contains a list showing the increase of livestock in Belgium.
Annexed to the present memorandum is another list showing a strange decrease in the number of animals slaughtered in Belgium, in all cases except cows. His
Majesty's Government do not recognize such figures as signs of prosperity nor can they accept the German figures, but it is clear that, if, as shown on the German list, the pigs in Belgium have increased by fifty-six per cent, there can be no valid reason for the present high price of pork in Belgium and no need for importations of bacon and lard by the Relief Commission, since Belgium does not in ordinary times of peace, when her stock of pigs is apparently less than in war time, import any considerable quantity of such articles. His Majesty's Government therefore propose entirely to stop such importations unless within a fortnight the Commission can show reason for their continuance.
Finally, the German reply is made conditional on undertakings from His Majesty's Government to leave the Commission complete freedom of importations and not to requisition ships chartered by them. If this condition were accepted, the German authorities would be free with impunity to turn every American out of Belgium and to impose all sorts of restrictions upon the grant of relief, such as are foreshadowed in one of the letters attached to the German reply.
His Majesty's Government must therefore absolutely refuse to give any
undertakings whatever beyond those already given, and they will certainly retain the right to requisition at any time any ship flying the British flag.
It is unnecessary to draw attention to the extremely serious situation created by the German reply, nor to the urgency of securing a frank assent to the reasonable demands of His Majesty's Government in view of the extent of the infractions of previous undertakings revealed in that reply. It may be well to add that His Majesty's Government are in no way impressed by the anxiety displayed by the German authorities to ensure adequate importations by the Commission for Relief in Belgium in the interests of the Belgian population, nor will they be deterred by such expressions of solicitude from still further reducing the importations of the Commission below the new figures they have just been obliged to fix, if the German authorities delay any longer the conclusion of a proper arrangement.
.
DOCUMENT NO. 78 Letter,
HOOVER TO MINISTER HYMANS, describing the effect on the Belgian ration of the new British restrictions
LONDON, 2 March 1916 His Excellency Paul Hymans Belgian Minister, London DEAR MR. HYMANS:
With respect to your enquiry as to the effective difference between the imports into Belgium as set out in the recent Foreign Office note and our previous quantities, we may give you the following notes.
The principal difference lies in the restriction of fodder and fat imports, with a view to pressure on the Germans. The question of human food is inextricably entangled with that of food for animals in its results as to local supplies of meat, milk, butter, etc., and it appears to us that the Foreign Office note is based on the assumption that the present negotiations with the Germans for the effective protection of the cattle will not succeed. If they did succeed there would surely be no reason for putting restrictions on the import of any foodstuffs into Belgium so long as they are actually and advantageously consumed by the civil population.
If we are to assume that the negotiations mentioned above will not succeed, the question becomes a matter of state policy as to the restrictions on certain
commodities, in order to force an immediate consumption by the civil population of the whole of the animals, and you will agree with us that this is not a matter of dietetics.
There is another important change in the basis of relief implied in the Foreign Office note. It is now proposed that the relief be divided into two parts:
1. A supply of bread to the whole population.
2. The limitation of all other commodities imported to the sole consumption of the 3,250,000 wholly or partially destitute people. This question is one of a somewhat more involved character than might appear on the surface and we do not think anything can be gained by going into it. We will do the best we can with this basis.
We give you below a table showing the comparative distribution to the 3,250,000 under the program now proposed and that which we have had, in a general way, in use previously. We term one the "new ration" and the other the "old ration."
COMPARATIVE DISTRIBUTION
NEW RATION OLD RATION Total
(tons per month)
Per diem (grams)
Total (tons per month)
Per diem (grams) Flour 29,250 300 29,250 300 Maize 4,000* 40 8,000 80
Rice nil nil 5,000 50
Peas and beans
3,000 30 4,000 40
Bacon and lard
2,400 8 16
1,665 3,350
16.6 33.5
*The yield for human consumption.
The new ration [also includes] 500 tons of condensed milk [for children exclusively].
We have had the dietetics of these two so-called rations worked out, with the following results:
COMPARATIVE VALUES New
ration
Old ration Total grams
per diem
394 520
Total protein 49.1 59.2 Total fats 39.5 56.5 Total
carbohydrates
256.1 328 Total
calorific value
1,552 1,865
All experts differ on these points, but we are advised that the nominal minimum necessary to keep a population in health should be 2,500 calories. The difference between this and the amounts given above, i.e., 1,552 in one case and 1,865 in the
other, must be made up from native foodstuffs, such as potatoes and vegetables.
The whole question, therefore, degenerates into one simply of judgment as to what and how much the poorer classes in Belgium can obtain in supplement to the ration.
As neither of these rations is sufficient without some such supplement, our judgment is that the larger ration is nearer the minimum which the people can possibly supplement with native supplies.
There is another general point in the whole of this thing and that is that there seems to be some misconception about forcing the consumption of native meat. If the whole imports of bacon and lard were suppressed tomorrow very few of the
3,250,000 lower strata of society would ever consume any of the native animals, as these products are out of their reach and in consequence nearly the whole of these people would be denuded of fats.
Altogether, between the conflicting positions it seems to us that it is simply a matter of good judgment, prudence, and more or less compromise. If we were asked to compromise between these various situations we should make the following suggestions: i.e., on the hypothesis that cattle and export negotiations with the Germans will be unsuccessful:
a) That we group the whole of the cereals, wheat, maize, peas, beans, and rice, and place the total imports of cereals at 70,000 tons per month, exclusively for human consumption (except the milling by-products), leaving it to our judgment as to what proportion of each cereal we shall from time to time send in. This would be an increase of about 5,000 tons per month on the cereals permitted by the recent note, so as to include rice, which has been eliminated.
b) We would suggest an increase of the bacon and lard by 1,600 tons per month.
This would permit a ration of 40 grams of fats per diem, instead of 24 grams as provided in the new ration and 50 grams in the old.
If the negotiations with the Germans to protect the whole of the meat and cattle in Belgium are successful, there can be no reasonable objection to our importing fodder, bacon, lard, etc., on the old basis.
Yours faithfully
(Signed) HERBERT HOOVER .
Belgium was as dependent on foreign sources for clothing as for food. The early appeals of the Commission for gifts of used clothing brought a generous response, and very considerable quantities were shipped into Belgium during the first months of relief. By January 1916 textiles and leather had practically disappeared in the
occupied regions. The Commission purchased new textile materials, which with some accumulated stocks of used clothing were in Rotterdam and just about to be forwarded into Belgium, when on the 14th March the British Government forbade all textile imports for the reasons given in Document 79. Hoover did not accept this decision as irrevocable and continued to work for permission to forward the
clothing supplies which the Belgians needed so badly. He won a considerable concession on the 14th June 1916, when the British consented to the import of the stocks accumulated in Rotterdam and elsewhere on condition that the C.R.B.
establish complete control of manufacture and distribution of clothing and with the understanding that there be no further imports until the Germans reversed their policy of requisition of Belgian textiles.(54) In spite of this latter condition, the Commission succeeded in persuading the British authorities to permit additional clothing supplies in the later months of 1916.(55)
.
DOCUMENT NO. 79 Letter,
PERCY TO HOOVER, directing discontinuance of C.R.B. imports of clothing and textiles into Belgium as result of German seizure of Belgian wool
FOREIGN OFFICE, LONDON 14 March 1916
DEAR MR. HOOVER:
There has just been brought to our notice a decree issued by the German
Government in Belgium commanding the seizure of all raw or manufactured wool.
All the stocks of these articles must be declared to the German authorities by the 15th of February under heavy penalties, and the whole must be sold to the German purchasing association at Brussels (Kriegswollbedarf-Aktiengesellschaft).
This decree coming some time after our demand that the export of textiles from Belgium should be prohibited, and synchronizing with General von Bissing's reply to our demands recently presented by the Marquis Villalobar, which totally
disregards this particular condition, creates the very gravest situation, and we have no choice but to take appropriate measures at once. We must therefore ask you to stop absolutely, until the revocation of the decree, all imports by you of clothing materials into Belgium.
I am sending a copy of this letter to the United States Ambassador, the Spanish Ambassador, and the Belgian and Netherlands Ministers.
Yours sincerely
(Signed) EUSTACE PERCY .
While the matter of clothing imports was still in suspense the Commission by strenuous efforts secured an acutely needed increase in the "permitted imports."
This increase the British granted after the Germans had been brought to agree to stop the shipment of animals, produce and fodder from Belgium to Germany and after Hoover had shown the Foreign Office the disastrous effects on the Belgian civilians of the recent import restrictions.
.
DOCUMENT NO. 80 Letter,
HOOVER TO PERCY, describing Belgian food situation and recommending increase of permitted imports
LONDON, 5 April 1916 Lord Eustace Percy
The Foreign Office, London DEAR LORD EUSTACE:
BELGIAN PROGRAM OF IMPORTS
I wish to put before you the result of my investigations into the food position in Belgium as the result of my recent inspection. I may say that I had the advantage of discussions with the whole of our forty American district and staff managers, as well as with the Belgian committees and authorities. As a result we earnestly recommend the following changes in the permitted imports:
Menu of Feb.
23d (tons
per mo.)
Menu to destitute(grams
per diem)
Increases recommended*(tons
per mo.)
Whole population, wheat
54,000 300 (Flour) nil
Impoverished (3,250,000) Bacon and lard
2,400 22 1,600
Peas and beans
3,000 30 nil
Maize 8,000 50 nil
Rice nil . . . . 5,000
Condensed milk (for children)
500 . . . .
Yeast materials
250 . . . . 1,000
68,150 . . . . 7,600
Total 75,750
*Impoverished 5,000,000.
We strongly recommend that all cereals be made interchangeable as we simply cannot arrange precise shipments, and specific limitation on individual cereals has the effect of frequently decreasing the ration. The reasons for asking for these increases are two in number:
1. The enormous effective increase in impoverishment due to the extraordinary rise in prices in native foodstuffs during the last three months.
2. The diminution in local supplies of potatoes, etc., and the necessity for supplying a wider social area with substitutes.
The commodities other than flour are issued from our magazines upon cartes de ménage(specimen of which is attached), this being issued by the local committees to those members of the communities either destitute or of limited means. The number ofcartes de ménagehad gradually increased during January and February and in your order to thoroughly revise the whole position and reduce consumers to a number comparable with those included in your order of February 23d, the old cards were called in and a new set issued, but despite all restrictions on the issue the total of these new cards outstanding is a little over 5,000,000. This means that the ration calculated above for the 3,250,000 is being spread over 5,000,000 and the increases proposed above are mostly to carry out mathematically the increased social range necessary to cover, with the exception of rice, which had to be