Precarious Neutrality in World War I
That the Netherlands was able to stay out of World War I was little less than a miracle, beset as it was by so many dangers and difficulties. A small country and militarily weak, it nevertheless possessed important colonial territories in both Asia and America. The livelihood of many of its people was gained from the operation of a merchant fleet which was one of the largest in the world. A large transit traffic, especially with the German industrial hinterland, was of great importance in the economic life of the country. Geographically the country was precariously situated. Its eastern and southern borders were of a character to invite aggression in case of hostilities between its neighbors. A tongue of Dutch territory jutted downward between Germany and Belgium, extending half the distance to the Luxembourg border. A narrow strip of territory south of the Scheldt gave the Netherlands control over a river which is essentially Belgian and on which is situated the great ocean port of Antwerp. In the Rhine, Holland controlled the mouth of another international river— one of the utmost importance to one of the major belligerents. Still another international river, which emptied into the seas from Dutch territory, was the Meuse. After the occupation of Belgium the Netherlands had to guard its entire land frontier against belligerent violation. Across a comparatively narrow sea lay another belligerent, England, whose fleet dominated the seas.
Relations with Belgium
The relations between the Netherlands and Belgium after the separation in 1839 were much better than might have been expected. Both peoples realized that a separate existence and development was the best for each, consequently the separation left no brooding hostility on either side. But neither did the relations between the two peoples develop any warmth, at least not until after 1936 when Belgium moved out of the French orbit in foreign politics and adopted the Dutch policy of neutrality and independent action. For a decade after World War I relations between the two countries were strained, for reasons that will appear later.
The Fortification of Flushing
The van Heeckeren van Kell affair would not have attracted the attention nor caused the uproar that it did if it had not been for the plan of the Netherlands Government, first announced in the Speech from the Throne in 1909, to strengthen the coast defenses. In Holland, as well as in Belgium, France and England, the plan for improving the coast defenses was linked with the alleged letter of the German Emperor to the Queen. Dr. Kuyper had long advocated improvement of the coast defenses; during his ministry a commission to study the problem had been appointed. The full report of this commission was never published; parts of the report dealing with the political phases were kept secret. French and Belgian papers were very critical of the Dutch plans, especially that part of them which gave priority to the fortification of Flushing. Some of them loudly insinuated that the proposal was the result of pressure from Germany. It was contended that the purpose of strongly fortifying Flushing, which controls the mouth of the Scheldt, was to prevent a British fleet from going up the river to the aid of Antwerp in case of a German invasion of Belgium. The fact that the plan included no provision for strengthening the Eastern defenses, which were said to be “notoriously weak,” caused suspicion and distrust. The French were apparently also disturbed by the fact that the Netherlands Government had placed its order for artillery with Krupp instead of with the French firm of Schneider.1