Chapter II: Violations of the Hague Convention (2)

The Commander-in-Chief of the German Army is the Emperor. It was he, then, who recognized the innocence of the civil prisoners.

No charge, therefore, could be brought against them; these prisoners were recognized as being completely innocent; the authorities admitted that it was without any motive that they were kept five months in Germany, without care, without fire, almost without food, herded together like beasts, in perpetual fear of being shot, knowing nothing of their families--for they were unable for many weeks either to write or receive news. Some of them succumbed under their privations; others were shot; many have become insane; all were so aged and enfeebled by ill-treatment, methodically applied, that their neighbours hesitated to recognize them. Will they ever recover from such an experience?

No doubt the German authorities knew long ago that the deportation of these civilians was a judicial error; or rather that they were sent into Germany to give the people there the occasion to torment and insult the "francs-tireurs captured alive." And yet they were not repatriated until the moment when the fear of famine forced Germany to organize the seizure of foodstuffs and to ration her population. It was not at all because of a spirit of justice that the civil prisoners from Belgium were sent home (and also part of those from France); it was only a measure of economy; the authorities merely wished to prevent their eating German bread, which had become too precious; they preferred to place them in the care of the American charities.

And when they were at last sent home, how were they treated? Did the Germans at least show the consideration which the slave-dealers used to show for their black cargo? No; for the slave-dealers had a pecuniary interest in preserving the market value of their flock, while for German militarism the Belgian civilians do not count: _Es ist Krieg_.

B.--The "Belgian Atrocities."

_The Pretended Cruelty of Belgian Civilians toward the German Army._

In order to organize the massacres by means of which it expected to terrorize our country, the Great General Staff had to have at its disposal troops on which it could count without reserve, which would not shrink before the bloodiest task, and to which no repressive measures would seem excessive. The Staff had to be certain it would be obeyed without hesitation when it ordered, as at Dinant, the death of seven hundred men, women, and children. To obtain soldiers who would undertake such barbarous operations, and operations so contrary to the military spirit, the obsession of the "franc-tireur" would perhaps be insufficient; for there are soldiers even among such troops who are brave and who do not tremble at bogy-stories; there might be honest men among them to whom theft would be repugnant by whatever name one adorned it, and who would not be tempted by the bait of pillage; all were not so imbued with Kultur as that officer who proposed not to kill the "francs-tireurs" outright, but to wound them mortally, afterwards to leave them to die slowly, in agony, untended (p. 342).

But these soldiers, even the more gentle, would regard it as a sacred duty to avenge crimes committed against innocent persons. Let them be led to believe that the Belgians have tortured peaceable tradesmen, or have mutilated wounded soldiers incapable of defending themselves, or that they employ dum-dum bullets, producing frightful wounds from which recovery is almost impossible ... and immediately these soldiers will have only one thought: to make the first Belgian encountered expiate the crime of which his fellow-countrymen have been guilty. Before their thirst for vengeance all distinctions disappear: children, old people, men and women, all equally deserve to be punished. From that moment it will be needless to order reprisals, for the army will be only too ready to show itself pitiless, and to call for an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, in order to make all the Belgians indifferently pay for the offences committed upon inoffensive Germans.

_Some Accusations._

It is precisely this psychology which the rulers of Germany have exploited. Immediately after the opening of the campaign their newspapers began to publish articles describing the horrors committed by the Belgians; articles which make one's flesh creep. Belgian women pour petrol over the wounded and set fire to it; they throw out of the windows the wounded confided to their care in the hospitals; they pour boiling oil over the troops, and thereby put two thousand out of action; they handle the rifle and revolver as well as the men; they cut the throats of soldiers and stone them; they cut off their ears and gouge out their eyes; they offer them cigarettes containing powder, whose explosion blinds them. Even the little girls ten years of age indulge in these horrors. The men are no better; to begin with, they are all "francs-tireurs," even when they assume the appearance of respectable schoolmasters; besides which they crawl under motor-cars to kill the chauffeurs; they kill peaceable drinkers with a stab in the belly; they foully shoot an officer who is reading them a proclamation; they saw off the legs of soldiers; they finish off the wounded on the field of battle; they cut off their fingers to steal their rings; they fill letters with narcotics in order to poison those who open them; they set traps for soldiers in order to torture them at leisure; even the humanitarian symbol of the Red Cross does not stay their homicidal hands; they fire on doctors, on ambulance men, on motor-cars removing the wounded.

That the soldiers leaving for Belgium were made to believe that their adversaries were horrible barbarians, and that the troops were inspired with an ardent desire to avenge the innocent victims of the Belgians, is amply proved by all the tales dating from the beginning of the war. See, for instance, in the story of _La journée de Charleroi_ (p. 195) the impatience with which the author awaits the moment of entering Belgium to take part in the reprisals, and his delight when he at last sees houses burned to ashes and a curé hung from a tree.

Let us note in passing that the Austrians also, desirous of declaring war upon us, resorted to the invention of "Belgian atrocities." In its reply to the Austro-Hungarian declaration of war, our Government protested against this defamation (1st _Grey Book_, Nos. 77, 78).

* * * * *

All these stories appeared, in the first place, in the newspapers. We must not be surprised if in time of war, when men's minds are over-excited, the journalists willingly publish articles containing statements of the kind we have cited, without troubling to verify their authenticity. But it is unpardonable that they should have been reprinted in cold blood, when their falsity had become so obvious that it must have struck even the most prejudiced. We know of two pamphlets devoted entirely to atrocities committed by the Belgians: _Die Belgischen Greueltaten_ and _Belgische Kriegsgreuel_. The work already cited, _Die Wahrheit über den Krieg_, also deals at length with these atrocities. Finally, there is no lack of information concerning them in the pamphlets _Lüttich_ and _Die Eroberung Belgiëns_.

One remark occurs to us immediately. The narratives are based on details given by witnesses "worthy of credence." Now all verification is impossible, for we are never given a hint as to the date; moreover, the locality is very rarely mentioned; in _Die Wahrheit_ there are only three place-names: Gemmenich, Tavigny, and Demenis.

Demenis does not exist, and we have in vain sought to discover what locality is meant. And what did really happen in the other two communes mentioned? At Tavigny the Germans never had occasion to commit any reprisals; not a man was killed, not a house burned; the troops merely proceeded systematically to loot the place. Nor did anything more happen in any neighbouring commune which the narrator might have confused with Tavigny. Nor was there any confusion of names with Tintigny; in the latter village the Germans behaved in the most atrocious fashion, but the mode of operation was quite different. As for Gemmenich, we have no information as to what passed there, But we can assert that not a single house was burned there. Now it is very certain that if the Belgians had committed the atrocities of which the Germans tell, the latter would have set fire to the village; it is therefore highly probable that nothing happened there. In short, of the only three place-names given all three are incorrect.

We cannot be expected to refute all these allegations. Many are utterly ridiculous: for example, the story of the narcotics at the Liége Post Office; that of the fingers cut off the dead and wounded and then carefully preserved in a bag (one may well ask why); that of the boiling oil is no better: try to imagine the incredible store of oil that must have been possessed by the women who killed and wounded therewith 2,000 Germans; moreover, either the German army does not march down the middle of the street, or else the women had special apparatus to throw jets of boiling liquid to a distance without danger to themselves.

Let us confine ourselves to examining the legend of the gouged-out eyes. It is that which crops up most frequently under the pens of the German publicists, so well calculated is it to arouse horror and indignation in the readers. Well! its falsity appears from an inquiry made by the Germans themselves. Not only have their newspapers--notably the _Kölnische Volkszeitung_ and _Vorwärts_--on several occasions done justice upon this lie, but an official commission, instituted by the German Government, has also admitted that there is not _a single case_ in which a wounded German soldier has been intentionally blinded (see _Belgian Grey Books_, Nos. 107, 108).

The Germans themselves admit that the accusation is unfounded. Has their Press for that reason ceased to make use of it? We little know the Germans if we imagine that it has. The entire Press continues imperturbably to spread these abominable calumnies. The _Kölnische Zeitung_ of the 15th February (four o'clock edition), referring to an article by Étienne Girau, pastor of the Walloon community of Amsterdam, once more declares that the Belgians have ill-treated the German wounded. It is enough to make one ask whether the Belgians have not _morally_ blinded all the "intellectuals" of Germany.

Another example. In February 1915--that is, when no honest German could any longer believe in the legend of the gouged-out eyes--_Vorwärts_ protested against a little work by a Pastor Conrad, of which 150,000 examples were printed and sold at 8 pfennigs per copy to school-children, in which the Belgians were still accused of having blinded their prisoners (_N.R.C._, 12th February, morning edition).

The Berlin Government also acts as though it was ignorant of the conclusions of its own commissions of inquiry. Wishing to refuse General Leman, a prisoner in Germany, the privilege of receiving a visit from his daughter, it based its refusal on the atrocities of which German soldiers have been the victims in Belgium, and on the inhuman fashion in which the Belgians have treated the wounded and prisoners in their hands. The second accusation is as ill-founded as the first. The German soldiers taken prisoner by the Belgians were interned in Bruges; they made no complaints, far from it (pp. 56-8); as for the wounded in our hospitals, here are precise facts.

Let us quote, first of all, from the correspondence published in the _Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant_, giving a few details from letters written by the German wounded under treatment in Antwerp.

_How the Belgians treat their German Prisoners._

A private correspondent writes to us from Antwerp:--

The fact of knowing that the prisoners of war of the belligerent
States are treated as well as possible should also touch the hearts
of the Dutch.... I give you here some extracts from the letters of
wounded Germans under treatment in the hospitals of Antwerp.

I am in a very good Belgian hospital and they treat me very well.

KARL HINTZMAN, Military Hospital, Antwerp.

I am very well looked after and have very good food.

GEORG STORCK.

They treat us very well in Belgium. What the German papers said in
the summer about the Belgians is utterly untrue. The Germans could
not look after us better. Moreover, the nation is highly developed.

FRANZ CRAUWERSKI.

A number of comrades are here. We are extraordinarily well looked
after. Everybody is very kind to us.

RICHARD KUSTERMANN.

Several comrades of my company are here. I am very well looked
after. One could not look after us better in Germany.

PETERS.

We could not hope for better care.

WALTER SCHUMANN.

The medical treatment is very good. We are sounded every day, and
our wounds are dressed daily. The doctors are very capable here. We
have food in abundance; all is excellent.

HOSSBACH,
SÖLLIGER (Braunschweig).

It must not be forgotten that the majority of these prisoners fell
into the hands of the Belgians at Aerschot, where the Germans had
imprisoned several hundreds of civilians in the church, at the
time of the investment of the town. I can speak from experience.
The German prisoners are treated with fully as much kindness in
other parts of the country. At the house of the commandant of the
_service de garde_ in Bruges I saw an assortment of German books
and card games which had been sent by Mme. E. Vandervelde, who had
visited the prisoners a few days earlier in the company of her
husband, Minister of State and the Socialist leader of Belgium. The
latter wished to make sure that the prisoners lacked for nothing.

We can say that Belgium does not seek to avenge her unheard-of
sufferings by maltreating the German victims of the war. Suffering
evokes pity in a sane mind. I can only express the hope that these
proofs may fall into the hands of German readers.

(_N.R.C._, 8th October, 1914, morning edition.)

But we have something better than these documents of a private nature. The German authorities exhibited, at Spa, a statement that the German wounded there were perfectly well cared for. At the moment when the Germans dispensed with the collaboration of the clinical staff of the Red Cross in Brussels, they did homage to its devotion and competence.

SPA, _18th August, 1914_.

_To the Burgomaster of Spa._

The Commander-General of the 10th Army Corps thanks the Burgomaster
of Spa for the good reception accorded to his troops by the city
of Spa on the 11th and 12th August, 1914. Thanks to his care and
efforts, he recognizes that the wounded in the hospitals of Spa are
particularly well cared for.

HOFFMANN,
_Lieutenant-General_.

FREDERIC-AUGUST,
_Grand Duke of Oldenburg_.

(_Les Nouvelles_, published under control of the German military
authority, 22nd September, 1914.)

GERMAN GOVERNMENT,
_Headquarters, Medical Service_.

BRUSSELS, _31st August, 1914_.

_To MM. the President and Members of the Red Cross of Belgium, Rue
de l'Association, 24._

GENTLEMEN,

The German Government assures you of the expression of its grateful
sentiments for the devoted care which you have given to all the
wounded collected in the capital.

Ambulances have been organized in great numbers, and the necessity
of a concentration henceforth indispensable compels us immediately
to take the following measures....

In bringing these measures to your knowledge and in begging you to
assist us to realize them promptly, we again express to you the
thanks which we address to all the members of your association and
especially to the ladies of the Red Cross, whose complete devotion
we have appreciated.

I beg you to accept, Gentlemen, the assurance of my high
consideration.

Prof. Dr. STUERTZ,
_Oberstabarzt_.

It is useful to observe that these declarations have been made spontaneously, since it is obvious that we were powerless to exert any pressure on the Germans. They have, therefore, nothing in common with those which the Germans have forced the Belgian wounded or prisoners to sign.

_The Pretended Massacres of German Civilians._

There remain the famous massacres of Germans in Brussels, Antwerp, Liége, etc. According to witnesses "worthy of credence," inoffensive Germans, even women and children, were killed and martyred in various Belgian cities. At Liége alone more than 150 persons, of whom three-fourths were women and children, were said to have lost their lives.

As to Liége, we have inquired of inhabitants of the city, several of whom are closely connected with the administration of justice; no one had any knowledge of any such occurrences. They have therefore been invented, lock, stock, and barrel, by the "witnesses worthy of credence," and we defy the Germans to mention the name of a single one of these 150 "victims."

At Antwerp we can oppose, to the testimony of those who were "present" on the occasion of murders and serious assaults upon German women, the official report, which admits that shops were broken into by the populace, but which at the same time attests that no German was wounded. Let us add that the German Weber was _not_ assassinated, but is quietly living in Antwerp.

Let us proceed to the doings in Brussels; and let us quote, from _Greueltaten_, the most serious occurrences there mentioned. We have a story, based on hearsay, which tells, of course, of gouged-out eyes, as well as three reports of ocular witnesses. The first is that of a witness "worthy of credence" who saw a child thrown from a window and a woman dragged by the hair until she was insensible; he also witnessed the murder of a German druggist, one Frankenberg, who was betrayed by his own wife, a Belgian. The second witness is the correspondent of the Wolff Agency. He saw only what the people of Brussels themselves witnessed: that is, that the populace pillaged the German shops and cafés on the 4th and 5th August. But he had not been able to discover any acts of violence against the person; those he mentions, in a couple of words, without insisting on them, had been related to him; but he does not even add that the witnesses were "worthy of credence."

Finally we have a priest, who complains that he was arrested as a spy and beaten by the gendarmes. Perhaps he was a spy; in any case, not a few German spies disguised as priests have been discovered in Belgium.

If we confine ourselves to the really serious occurrences, to the cases in which Germans have been killed by the populace, we find that as against some 155 anonymous cases, which cannot be verified, there are only two in which names are mentioned. These names are Weber and Frankenberg. Now these two cases are apocryphal. Herr Weber has quietly reopened his hotel in Antwerp; Herr Frankenberg continues to breathe the air at Anderlecht, a suburb of Brussels. Compare with these two cases the three names of places mentioned in _Die Wahrheit_ (p. 101).

* * * * *

_Preventive and Repressive Measures taken by the Belgian Authorities._

The truth is that in the various cities of Belgium there was, quite at the beginning of hostilities, an intense popular effervescence, by which evildoers profited to pillage the German shops. These disturbances were so unexpected and assumed, with such rapidity, such large proportions, that the police were at first powerless to restrain them.

Moreover, it must be remembered that the police had just been reduced, a large proportion of the police agents and gendarmes having left for the front.

But measures were promptly taken, and by the 7th August there was no longer anywhere the least disorder of this kind. As for the "spy mania," it raged in Belgium as in all countries affected by the war.[24] But the newspapers, and the official measures taken, got the better of this fresh cause of disturbance.

The newspapers of the neutral countries, for example the _Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant_, also reported material damage, but they do not relate more serious occurrences in any part of Belgium.

We can consequently assert, in the most categorical fashion, basing our statement on the official data furnished by the courts, that no serious offence against the person has been proved either in Brussels or elsewhere. Does this mean that we excuse the fishers in troubled waters who sacked the German shops? Obviously not; but it must be owned that there are bad elements in all agglomerations, and that the populace of Berlin behaved no better than that of Brussels: witness the remarks of the British Ambassador in Berlin, and the excuses put forward by the German authorities when his windows were broken as the result of an article in the _Berliner Tageblatt_. Here we immediately perceive a contrast of mentalities: the German newspapers incite their readers against foreigners, while ours, on the contrary, do their utmost to calm popular manifestations.

A detail which we regard as symptomatic, and particularly revolting, in the German publications, is the fact that in these cases, as in the matter of the "francs-tireurs," our enemies seek to involve the legal administration of our country. Now, not only did our authorities immediately intervene to repress the disturbances and to provide a military guard for the _Deutsche Bank_ and the _Deutscher Verein_ in Brussels, but they did more than their strict duty in protecting German families, and enabling them to return to their own country. Nothing is more characteristic in this respect than that which happened in Brussels on the nights of the 8th, 9th and 10th of August, at the time of the Germans' departure from the city. The latter assembled at night in a building belonging to the city; in the trams which took them thither every one hastened to render them every imaginable service; at the place of assembly the Civic Guards prepared hot drinks for them; then, during the short journey to the Gare du Nord, the same Civic Guards helped them to carry their children and their luggage. Mr. Brand Whitlock, United States Minister in Brussels, who was looking after the interests of Germany, was present in that quality at the departure of the German families, and he expressed his gratitude to the Belgians in a letter made public at the time.

THE UNITED STATES MINISTER DOES HONOUR TO THE HEROISM AND THE
KINDNESS OF THE BELGIANS.

The German Minister, before leaving Brussels, requested the United
States Minister, Mr. Brand Whitlock, kindly to take over the
interests of Germany in Belgium.

The United States Minister consented to protect the archives of the
German Legation.

It was in this capacity that Mr. Brand Whitlock was the witness,
two days ago, of the goodness of the people of Brussels, who, with
Mme. Carton de Wiart, the wife of the Minister of Justice, and our
brave Chasseurs of the mounted Civic Guard at their head, provided
hot drinks and refreshments for the four thousand Germans leaving
Belgium who were assembled at the Royal Circus.

The spectacle profoundly affected the eminent diplomatist.
Thanking the Belgian Government, His Excellency, Mr. Brand
Whitlock, writes to the Minister of Justice:--

"The Belgians display a heroism in dying on the field of battle
which is equalled by their humanity to non-combatants."

(_Le Soir_, 11th August, 1914.)

In Germany the United States Ambassador, Mr. Gerard, had also occasion to intervene; but there it was to protect the British Ambassador from the fury of the populace.

These examples will suffice, we think, to show that the Belgians were as thoughtful in their behaviour towards their non-combatant adversaries as the Germans were violent and brutal. And what was the result of our courtesy? Our enemies picked a groundless quarrel with us in order to inflame the minds of their soldiers against us.

C.--Violations of the Hague Convention.

Nothing would be easier than to show that our enemies have not respected a single one of the articles of the Hague Convention. But it is not our intention to draw up this inventory. We prefer to confine ourselves to a few facts which no one can dream of contesting, so patent are they and so well known to every one in Belgium. And we shall refer only to those which will enable us to compare the two mentalities: that of the German, crafty and tyrannical, and that of the Belgian population, refusing to bow the head to military despotism. We exclude from our list those data which have already been recorded in other publications: Belgian _Grey Books_, _Reports of the Commission of Inquiry_, _La Belgique et L'Allemagne_, etc. Lastly, we shall deal only with what has happened in Belgium itself, so that we shall speak neither of prisoners of war nor of the wounded.

These eliminations lead us to omit the whole of Section I: _The Belligerents_. The three first articles apply to "francs-tireurs," Articles 4 to 21 relate to prisoners, the wounded, etc.

ARTICLE 22.

_Belligerents have not an unlimited choice of means of injuring the
enemy._

ARTICLE 23.

_Besides the prohibitions established by special conventions, it is
notably forbidden_:--

(_a_) _To employ poison or poisoned weapons;_

(_b_) _To kill or wound by treachery individuals belonging to the
hostile nation or army;_

(_c_) _To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or
no longer having means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;_

(_d_) _To declare that no quarter will be given;_

(_e_) _To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause
unnecessary suffering;_

(_f_) _To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national
flag, or of the military insignia or uniform of the enemy, as well
as of the distinctive signs of the Geneva Convention;_

(_g_) _To destroy or seize enemy property, unless such destruction
or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;_

(_h_) _To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible the
right of the subjects of the hostile party to institute legal
proceedings._

_A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the subjects of
the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed
against their own country, even if they were in the service of the
belligerent before the commencement of the war._

The violations of this Article are numerous. The Germans themselves cannot deny that the employment of toxic gases, such as those which were used in the attack upon Ypres on the 22nd April, falls under the condemnation of paragraph (_a_). We shall recur to this matter further on. Let us remark for the moment that we are not speaking of gas released by the bursting of shells, but of clouds of gas intentionally produced.

As to paragraph (_e_), the _7th Report_ speaks in a precise manner of the employment of dum-dum bullets. After the German occupation we shall be able to mention other irrefutable cases, of which it would now be too dangerous to speak.

The prescriptions of paragraph (_f_) have often been violated. At the fort of Boncelles, on the 7th August, and at Landelies, near Charleroi, on the 22nd, our enemies abused the white flag. At Ougrée and at Grez-Doiceau they wore Belgian uniforms to deceive their enemies. This action was repeated during the siege of Antwerp; but this time the Belgians were warned of the German mimicry, so that the "asses clad in lions' skins" were nearly all left on the battle-field.

We shall deal later on, when speaking of pillage, with the infractions of paragraph (_g_).

_Military Employment of Belgians by the Germans._

The last paragraph of Article 23 forbids belligerents to compel their adversaries to take part in operations of war directed against their own country. Let us see how the Germans respect this principle where civilians are concerned. At Liége (_N.R.C._, 23rd August, evening), at Vilvorde (_N.R.C._, 27th August, morning), at Anderlecht (_N.R.C._, 28th August, evening), at Dilbeek (N.R.C., 31st August, evening), at Eppeghem (_see_ photograph in _1914 Illustré_, No. 5), at Soignies, and at Neder-Over-Heembeek, the inhabitants were compelled to dig trenches for the Germans. A Dutchman (an extreme Germanophile, however), saw peasants from the outskirts of Spa compelled to perform the same task.

SPA, _15th August, 1914_.

... The man, who had to return home (it was about noon),
accompanied us, and, while conversing, he pointed to the road to
Creppe, parallel to that which we were following, and at some
ten minutes' distance from the latter. They were working hard at
entrenchments there, about a quarter of an hour from the city.
There were some 150 Belgian workmen there, excavating the soil
under the threat of the rifles of German soldiers placed behind
them.

(_N.R.C._, 22nd August, 1914, evening edition.)

At Bagimont, on the 24th August, 1914, the inhabitants were forced to prepare the ground for the landing of German aeroplanes. The same villagers were forced to build huts for their enemies.

We have the names (at the disposal of a commission of inquiry) of twenty-nine inhabitants of a village of Brabant, who were forced, with horses and carts, to follow the German troops for several weeks, transporting munitions and baggage. The Germans had the right to requisition horses and vehicles, but not to compel our countrymen to accompany their teams.

Let us remark, while dealing with these violations of Article 23 of the Hague Convention, that Germany signed this Convention. But on her part this was merely a comedy, for it is a rule with her rulers that they cease to follow its prescriptions as soon as they are in opposition to the _Usages of War_, according to the Great General Staff. Now among the duties which the occupier may impose on the inhabitants--according to Germany--is the supply of transport and the digging of trenches. In other words, Germany, though she readily approved of the Hague Conference, makes war according to her own principles, which are far less humane; but she none the less demands that her adversaries should observe the rules of the Convention.

* * * * *

_Measures of Coercion taken by the Germans._

On several occasions our enemies have sought to force the Belgian population to manufacture explosives and munitions for them. But the Belgians have always refused, even when their resistance inevitably condemned them to starvation. The workers of the explosives factory of Caulille, in the north of Limburg, resumed their tasks only under the most terrible threats (_K.Z._, 21st December, morning edition).

The case of Caulille, announced to its readers by a German newspaper, shows the cynicism with which our enemies violate the Hague Convention, which is in part their own work.

The same effrontery appears in the placard of the 19th November, 1914; this threatens severe penalties against Belgians who dissuade their compatriots from working for Germany. One could understand that the Germans might punish those who used force or threats to prevent any one from working for them; but to punish those who "attempt" to act by simple persuasion!

This was a mere timid beginning. On the 19th June, 1915, our enemies posted about Gand a placard stating that severe measures were about to be applied to factories which, "relying on the Hague Convention, had refused to work for the German Army."

The Communal Administration of Gand has supplied us with the following notice:--

NOTICE.

By order of His Excellency the Inspector de l'Étape,[25] I call the
attention of the commune to the following:--

"The attitude of certain factories which, under pretext of
patriotism and relying on the Hague Convention, have refused to
work for the German Army, proves that there are, in the midst of
the population, tendencies whose object is to place difficulties in
the way of the administration of the German Army.

"In this connection I make it known that I shall repress, by all
the means at my disposal, such behaviour, which can only disturb
the good understanding hitherto existing between the administration
of the German Army and the population.

"In the first place I hold the Communal authorities responsible for
the spread of such tendencies, and I call attention to the fact
that the population will itself be responsible if the liberties
hitherto accorded in the most ample measure are withdrawn and
replaced by the restrictive measures necessitated by its own fault."

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRAF VON WESTARP,
_Commandant de l'Étape_.

GAND, _10th June, 1913_.

Here, then, they declare that they are on the point of intentionally violating the Hague Convention.

Certain articles which appeared in _Het Volk_, a Christian-Democratic journal of Gand, on the 15th, 17th, 19th, and 22nd June, 1915, tell us what these measures are.

The workers of the Bekaert factory at Sweveghem having refused to make barbed wire for the Germans, the latter began by arresting three notables, of whom two were promptly released. Then, to force the men to resume work, they decided that the commune should be placed under a ban; it was forbidden to ride a bicycle or to use a wheeled vehicle, and the introduction of foodstuffs was prohibited. The men still persisted in refusing to make the barbed wire on which their sons and brothers were to be caught in the battles of the Yser. Sixty-one men were sent to prison. The rest hastened to leave the village. What did the Germans do then? They seized the wives of the fugitives, shut them up in two great waggons, and took them to Courtrai; at the same time they posted up the names of those who had fled, and enjoined them to return. Before the threat of seeing their wives remain in prison until their children perished in their empty homes, the workers, with death in their hearts, had to resume their fratricidal task. Truly _Kultur_ is a fine thing!

In Brabant they went a different way to work. They had requested M. Cousin to make barbed wire for them in his factory at Ruysbroeck (in the south of Brussels). He refused. They offered to buy his factory. He refused. They requisitioned his works. He was forced to submit. They installed themselves in the factory and tried to begin making barbed wire. But the machinery was worked by electricity, and the electricity was provided by a central station situated in Oisquercq. Naturally the Oisquercq works refused to supply current. The Germans arrested M. Lucien Beckers, the managing director of the company, and kept him several weeks in prison.

* * * * *

_Living Shields._

It remains to examine a final violation of Article 23; a violation so revolting that neither those present at the Hague Conference nor the Germans themselves in their _Kriegsbrauch_ had been willing to consider it. We are referring to the use of "living shields" (_7th Report_).

* * * * *

_A German Admission._

_Belgians placed before the Troops at Charleroi._

Our enemies are aware of the abomination of which they are guilty in placing, in front of their troops, Belgians intended to serve as a shield. They are eager to deny such acts. Unfortunately for them one of their own officers has described a case of the kind (p. 196). His first care on reaching the suburbs of Charleroi was to capture civilians in order to force them to walk in front of and among the cavalry. He waxes indignant over the lamentations uttered by the wives of these unfortunates. "If nothing happens to us," he told them, "nothing will happen to the civilians either." Could one more cynically express the idea that the Germans made use of these hostages in order to prevent their adversaries from firing on their troops? At the first volley fired by the French, who were posted behind a barricade, some of the hostages were killed. The Germans promptly replaced them by others, notably by priests.

At Nimy and Mons, the same method was employed. The burgomaster of Mons, M. Lescart, was himself placed before the German troops.

At Tirlemont, on the 18th August, 1914, during their march on Louvain, they seized upon certain "notables," including the burgomaster, M. Donny, and pushed them before them in order to obtain shelter from the Belgian bullets. They did not release them until the following day, at Cumptich.

* * * * *

_Belgians placed before the Troops at Lebbeke, Tirlemont, Mons._

More significant still was their conduct at Lebbeke, near Termonde, on the 4th September, 1914. Scarcely had they entered the village, in the early morning, when they seized as many civilians as possible--about 300--and forced them to march before them. On passing through St. Gilles-lez-Termonde they requisitioned more men to serve as "living shields." When the Belgians attacked the German troops ten civilians were killed; many were wounded (_9th_ and _10th Reports_).

The same evening the survivors were sent into Germany as "francs-tireurs."

_Belgian Women placed before the Troops at Anseremme._

At Anseremme it was behind women that the Germans took refuge. They had committed the blunder of sending all the men to Germany, as civil prisoners, on the 23rd and 24th August, so that only the women were left. They placed these in a line along the river-wall on the bank of the Meuse, and prudently hidden behind their skirts they rested their rifles on the women's shoulders in order to fire at the French on the opposite bank.

The French ceased fire as soon as they saw that they were firing on women. At night the Germans herded the unhappy women, with their children, in a field; but on the following morning they brought them out again to serve as a protective screen along the river.

Such is German heroism! As we at present understand the real sense of the words _Den Heldentod Gestorben_ (died a hero's death), which the Germans inscribe on the tombs of their soldiers, they mean that these soldiers were unable to avoid the bullets, although they heroically hid themselves behind Belgian women.

As far as we know one must go back to Cambyses, in the sixth century B.C., to find another example of the "living shield." At the time of his expedition into Egypt this prince, who was, the historians tell us, famed for his cruelty, conceived the idea of placing cats, which animals were worshipped by the Egyptians, in front of his troops. Thanks to his stratagem he prevented the Egyptians from attacking his soldiers. Neither Attila, nor Ghenghis Khan, nor Tamerlane made use of this method; it was left for the Germans of the twentieth century once more to put it into practice, with the increased ferocity suggested by _Kultur_.

_Belgians forcibly detained at Ostend and Middelkerke._

There are other circumstances also under which the Germans have made a rampart of the Belgians. From the middle of October 1914 they occupied that portion of the Belgian coast comprised between Lombartzyde and the Zeeland frontier. From time to time the British ships and aeroplanes bombarded the coast; they would undoubtedly have continued to do so if the Germans had not taken pains forcibly to retain numbers of Belgians in these localities. According to the _Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant_ of the 1st November they forbade the people of Middelkerke and Ostend to leave those towns. Obviously the British were as far as possible sparing Ostend and Middelkerke, and directing their fire by preference on the road joining these two places, and on that running from Middelkerke to Westende. The Germans were perfectly aware of this, and had precisely for this reason forbidden any Belgian to leave Ostend or Middelkerke. An officer at the _Kommandantur_, from whom our informant tried to obtain some favour for a couple of Belgians, replied as follows: "If we allowed the population to leave these places the English would hasten to bombard the two towns, and we should be the sufferers" (_N.R.C._, 1st November, 1914).

However, at the end of December they expelled all the men from Middelkerke, with the exception of four. But the means of transport placed at the disposal of the expelled inhabitants were insufficient to enable them to take their families with them, so that they had to leave many of their wives and children behind. Every time the British drop shells on the coast the Germans hasten to post up the news in Brussels, adding that the bombardment has resulted in fatalities among the Belgians.

NEWS PUBLISHED BY THE GENERAL GERMAN GOVERNMENT.

BOMBARDMENT OF COAST.

BERLIN, 24th _November_ (official, noon to-day).--British vessels
arrived yesterday off the French coast and bombarded Lombartzyde
and Zeebrugge. Among our troops they caused only very slight
damage. A certain number of Belgian citizens, on the other hand,
were killed and wounded.

THE GERMAN MILITARY GOVERNMENT.

BERLIN, 28th _December_ (official telegram, noon to-day).--Near
Nieuport the enemy renewed his attempted attacks without success.
In these he was supported by firing from the sea, which however did
us no harm, but killed or wounded some inhabitants.

THE GERMAN MILITARY GOVERNMENT.

BERLIN, 26th _January_ (official telegram, noon to-day).--The
enemy yesterday fired as usual on Middelkerke and Westende. A
considerable number of inhabitants were killed or wounded by
this fire, among them the burgomaster of Middelkerke. Our losses
yesterday were very insignificant.

THE GERMAN MILITARY GOVERNMENT.

BERLIN, 13th _February_ (official telegram).--Along the coast enemy
aviators yesterday again dropped bombs, which did very considerable
damage among the civil population, while we suffered no appreciable
damage from a military point of view.

THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT IN BELGIUM.

BERLIN, 8th _March_ (official telegram, noon to-day).--Enemy
aviators dropped bombs on Ostend, which killed three Belgians.

THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT IN BELGIUM.

They therefore fully appreciate the advantage to be derived from retaining on the coast a population which serves as a living buckler.

_Belgians imprisoned in the Lofts of the Ministries._

At Brussels they behaved in a similar fashion in order to prevent the Allied aviators from bombarding the premises which they occupy in the Ministries. Inhabitants of Brussels are sent to the _Kommandantur_ on the most impossible pretexts. They first remain for several days shut up in the lofts of the Ministries. Then, after trial--and, obviously, sentence--they are again confined in the lofts until there is room for them in the ordinary prisons. Every one in Brussels knows this, and of course the Allied aviators are aware of it.

ARTICLE 25.

_The attack or bombardment, by any means whatever, of undefended
towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings is forbidden._

_Bombardment of Open Towns._

Many violations of this Article have been discovered by the Commission of Inquiry (_7th Report_). Here again clearly appears the contradiction between the fashion in which the Germans make war and that which they require of their enemies. When their dirigibles drop bombs on open, undefended districts--as they did on the night of the 26th September, at Deynze, when they wounded an old man in the hospital of the Sisters of St. Vincent de Paule--their newspapers related this prowess exultingly (_Düsseldorfer Tageblatt_, 29th September; _Düsseldorfer Zeitung_, 29th September, 1914). They may do such things, but no one else. When the Allied aviators bombarded Freibourg in Brisgau on the 10th December, 1914, the Germans denounced them amid universal indignation. One can only agree with the writer in the _Times_ who said: "If we want to know what conduct we should observe in this war it is useless to consult the laws; we must simply ask the Germans if our conduct is agreeable to them or not."

ARTICLE 26.

_The officer in command of an attacking force must do all in his
power to warn the authorities before commencing a bombardment,
except in case of assault._

General von Beseler followed the prescription of this Article during the siege of Antwerp; he announced on the 8th October that the bombardment of the city would commence at midnight (_K.Z._, 9th October, first morning edition). Everywhere else the Germans have thrown their shells without previous warning. This was notably so in the attack upon Antwerp by a dirigible on the night of 24th August; the bombs found twenty victims. It is true that Herr Bernstorff has declared that previous advice is not necessary. In this he is in agreement with the laws of warfare according to the Germans.

ARTICLE 27.

_In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken
to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to public
worship, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments,
hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected,
provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes._

Not content with setting fire to our monuments, as they did at Louvain, Dinant, Termonde, and a host of villages, the Germans never hesitate to bombard those they cannot otherwise reach.

The most characteristic example is that of the Cathedral of Reims.[26] On Tuesday, the 22nd September, we learned of the bombardment from a placard. The telegram, dated Monday, the 21st, asserted that the monument would as far as possible be spared. That was enough; we knew then that it was destroyed. And sure enough, the French newspapers smuggled through to us on the following day--Wednesday--stated that the cathedral had been burning since Saturday, the 19th.

Little by little the information received grew more precise. The French certified that they had not placed any military post of observation on the towers; neither were there batteries near the cathedral. Moreover, they declared that the cathedral should have been doubly respected, since an ambulance had found asylum there--which, be it said in passing, is denounced as an infamy by the German newspapers (_K.Z._, 4th January, morning edition; _Niederrheinische Volkszeitung_, 4th January).

The Wolff Agency reported the bombardment of Reims Cathedral as quite a natural thing, a commonplace operation. But before the indignation of the entire civilized world (_N.R.C._, 22nd September, 1914, evening edition) the Germans were forced to display a hypocritical regret and to justify their aggression.

Then official telegrams were posted up the same day; two reflected German opinion, the third professed to express the opinion of a Frenchman who had favoured the _Times_ with his confidences (placard dated 23rd September, 1914).[27] The conclusion, naturally, was that the Germans had nothing to reproach themselves with: their conscience was clear as on the first day; they bombarded the Cathedral of Reims because they were forced to do so, despite their admiration for this marvel of Gothic architecture ... but the presence of a military observation-post on the towers had left them no alternative.

Three weeks later, a fresh bombardment (placard dated 15th October). Then, after two weeks' quiet, they once more began to throw shells on what still remained standing (placard of 30th October). On the following day they announced that they had protested to the Roman Curia. A few days later they applied themselves to the destruction of the Cathedral of Soissons, but once again because the French forced them to do so.

What respect for the Hague Convention! How touching the solicitude displayed toward monuments of art and religion! Only in the very last extremity do the Germans resolve to smash them to bits; still protesting, of course, against the violence done to their æsthetic feelings! Still more touching is their sincerity. On the 10th November they announce that the Vicar-General of Reims has admitted that the towers have been used for military operations, and that the Chancellor has communicated this avowal to the Vatican (_Le Réveil_, 11th November, 1914); on the 17th they are forced to note the Vicar-General's denial, but they maintain their accusations.

To estimate at their true value the German declarations concerning Reims Cathedral, it is enough to compare one of the three placards of the 23rd September with the "official communiqué" which they forced upon _L'Ami de l'Ordre_. Here are these two documents:

NEWS PUBLISHED BY THE GERMAN GENERAL GOVERNMENT.

BERLIN, _23rd September_ (official telegram, yesterday
evening).--In spite of these facts we have been able to verify the
presence on the tower of a post of observation, which explains the
excellent effect of the fire of the enemy's infantry opposing our
infantry....

THE GERMAN MILITARY GOVERNMENT.

MILITARY OPERATIONS IN FRANCE.

(_Official Communiqué._)

ANTWERP, _27th September_ (communicated by the French
Legation).--The French Minister has received from M. Delcassé the
following telegrams....

II. The German Government having officially declared to various
Governments that the bombardment of the Cathedral of Reims
was undertaken only because of the establishment of a post
of observation on the basilica, General Joffre asserts, in a
telegram communicated by the Ministry of War, that no French
observation-post was placed on this building.

P.S.--The German Government did not invoke the presence of an
observation-post on the cathedral, but the presence of pieces of
artillery behind this church, so that it was impossible to reach
these guns without firing in the direction of the cathedral and
hitting the latter.

This was necessary to dislodge the French artillery.

(_L'Ami de l'Ordre_, 29th September, 1914.)

On the 23rd September they pretended that there was an observation-post on the tower. On the 27th they declared that they had never made any such statement. German sincerity!

On the 7th July they placarded Brussels with a document in which they made a display of their artistic feeling. We asked ourselves what fresh crime they were about to commit. Next day our curiosity was satisfied; the newspapers informed us that the German army had set fire to the cathedral at Arras.

* * * * *

_Bombardment of the Cathedral at Malines._

Let us now consider how they behaved in Belgium. The commander of the army besieging Antwerp three times bombarded Malines without any strategical excuse, for the town was absolutely empty of Belgian troops. He had informed the Belgian authorities that his troops would not fire upon monuments so long as these latter were not serving any military purpose (_N.R.C._ 13th September, 1914, evening edition). Better still, he published, in the German newspapers, a statement that he could not bombard Malines for fear of touching the Cathedral of Saint-Rombaut, but that the Belgians had not the same scruples. What truth was there in the last assertion? None, of course; if the Belgians dropped shells on the outskirts of the town it was while the German troops were there, a fact which our enemies themselves recognized. For the rest, it is easy to discover whether the damage done to the cathedral was the work of Germans or Belgians. The Belgians were to the north and west of the town; the Germans to the south and east. Now all the damage done to the cathedral is without exception on the south and east faces. The reader may draw his own conclusion. Here we have a reappearance of the usual German system, which consists in blaming others for their own misdeeds. At Dinant, too, they pretended that the collegiate church was destroyed not by them but by the French.

_The Pretended Observation-post on Notre-Dame of Antwerp._

Of course they accused the Belgians of using their belfries as observation-posts. The accusation is false. We may cite Malines as an example (_N.R.C._, 25th November, evening edition), and Courcelles (_Die Wochenschau_, No. 46, 1914); but the most typical case is that of Antwerp. They reproduced in their illustrated journals (_Die Wochenschau_, No. 48, 1914; _Kriegs-Kurier_, No. 7) a photograph--or properly speaking, a drawing--published by an American newspaper (New York _Tribune_, 22nd October, 1914) representing a military observation-post on the tower of Notre-Dame.

Even if we grant the picture a documentary value which it does not possess, it proves nothing, for according to the American journalist (_N.R.C._, 15th November, evening edition), the military post existed on the tower at a period when Antwerp was not besieged, nor even in danger of being so; the city had then to defend itself only against dirigibles, which on two occasions paid it nocturnal visits, with the accompaniment of bombs. It will be understood that the _Wochenschau_ does not inform us of this; it pretends that the soldiers were on the tower to observe the German troops and their heavy artillery during the siege.

_German Observation-posts admitted by the Germans._

Let us now see whether our enemies have abstained from employing monuments for military operations. The _Algemeen Handelsblad_ (Amsterdam) of the 3rd January states that machine-guns are placed on the belfry of Bruges and on other towers of the city. This fact is confirmed by M. Domela Nieuwenhuys Nyegaard, a pastor of Gand, a convinced Germanophile, who witnessed an attack by British aviators, upon whom the machine-guns installed on the tower of the Halles opened a violent but ineffectual fire (_Uit mijn Oorlogsdagboek_, p. 319, in _De Tijdspiegel_, 1st April, 1915).

Perhaps the Germans will contest this statement. Here is another. Those who require of their adversaries so scrupulous a respect for Article 27 of the Hague Convention placed an observation-post on the tower of St. Rombaut, during the siege of Antwerp, in order to control their fire upon the Waelhem fort. And this at least is indisputable, for in their cynicism or lack of conscience (let them choose whichever they please) they published a photograph of this infraction of the Hague Convention in the _Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung_ (No. 44, 1914, p. 752).