Chapter IV: Part 4

Historically speaking, there are in Alsace-Lorraine three parts: there is Lorraine, there is Alsace, and there is the southern part of Alsace including the town of Mulhouse.

As regards the town of Mulhouse, the question is most simple and clear. The town never, at any time, belonged to Germany or to the Germans. It belonged to Switzerland and, at the end of the 18th century, during the French revolution, the town, after a referendum, decided to become French. A delegation was sent to Paris, to the French Parliament, then called the _Conseil des Cinq-Cents_, and the delegation expressed publicly, officially, the desire of Mulhouse to be part of the French territory. There was a deliberation, and unanimously the _Conseil des Cinq-Cents_ voted a motion couched in the following terms: "_The French Republic accepts the vow of the citizens of Mulhouse._"

A few weeks later the French authorities, among scenes of unparalleled enthusiasm, made their entry into the town, and the flag of Mulhouse was wrapped up in a tricolor box bearing the inscription: "The Republic of Mulhouse rests in the bosom of the French Republic."

Alsace--the rest of Alsace--became French in 1648, more than two centuries before the war of 1870. It became French according to a treaty. The treaty was signed by the Austrian Emperor, because Alsace belonged to the Austrian Imperial Family. And it is not without interest to quote an article (article 75) of the treaty:

The Emperor cedes to the King of France forever, _in
perpetuum_, without any reserve, with full jurisdiction and
sovereignty, all the Alsatian territory. The Austrian
Emperor gives it to the King of France in such a way that no
other Emperor, in the future, will ever have any power in
any time to affirm any right on these territories.

When today one reads that treaty, one has the impression that more than two centuries ago the Austrian Emperor had already a sort of apprehension that later on another Emperor would interfere in the matter and create mischief!

Fifty-three years after that treaty, the Prussians, who dislike seeing anything in some one's else possession, tried to recover Alsace. Their own ambassador tried to dissuade them, and in 1701 Count Schmettau, ambassador of Prussia in Paris, wrote to his king:

"_We cannot take Alsace, because it is well known that her inhabitants are more French than the Parisians_...."

Could anything answer better the affirmation that "Alsatians are of German tendency?"

Lorraine became French in 1552, more than three centuries before the war of 1870. Lorraine became French not after a war and as the result of a conquest, but according to a treaty signed by all the Protestant Princes of Germany, in which we find the following sentence, which is really worthy of meditation: "_We find just that the King of France, as promptly as possible, takes possession of the towns of Toul, Metz, and Verdun, where the German language has never been used._" So that the Germans themselves put on the same line the towns of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, and recognized that the town of Metz was not German.

All this is extremely simple and clear. What happened several centuries later is equally clear.

When, in 1871, on February 16th, the deputies of Alsace-Lorraine learned that their provinces would be given up to Germany, they assembled, and in an historical document which was signed by all of them--there were thirty-six--they protested in the following terms:

Alsace and Lorraine cannot be alienated. Today, before the
whole world, they proclaim that they want to remain French.
Europe cannot allow or ratify the annexation of Alsace and
Lorraine. Europe cannot allow a people to be seized like a
flock of sheep. Europe cannot remain deaf to the protest of
a whole population. Therefore, we declare in the name of our
population, in the name of our children and of our
descendants, that we are considering any treaty which gives
us up to a foreign power as a treaty null and void, and we
will eternally revindicate the right of disposing of
ourselves and of remaining French.

And, three years later, in January, 1874, when for the first time Alsace and Lorraine had to elect deputies, they reiterated the same protest. They elected fifteen new deputies; some were Protestants, some were Catholics, one of them was the Bishop of Strasbourg, but they unanimously signed a declaration which was read at the Tribune of the German Reichstag. The declaration was the following:

In the name of all the people of Alsace-Lorraine, we protest
against the abuse of force of which our country is a
victim.... Citizens having a soul and an intelligence are
not mere goods that may be sold, or with which you may
trade.

The contract which annexed us to Germany is null and void. A
contract is only valid when the two contractants had an
entire freedom to sign it. France was not free when she
signed such a contract. Therefore our electors want us to
say that we consider ourselves as not bound by such a
treaty, and they want us to affirm once more our right of
disposing of ourselves.

I beg to call the attention of the reader to two sentences of this protestation:

"Europe cannot allow a people to be seized like a flock of sheep," wrote the deputies of 1871. "People are not mere goods which may be sold or with which you may trade," proclaimed the deputies of 1874. Now you will find, nearly word for word, the same thought expressed in the message of President Wilson to Congress, when he wrote: "No right exists anywhere to hand peoples about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were property."

That right does not exist, and it is because that right was outrageously violated in 1871 that France wants Alsace-Lorraine to come back to her. It is because, in 1871, Right has been wronged that today Right must be reinstated.

Some people have spoken of a referendum. Why a referendum? Was there any referendum in 1871? And how could there be a referendum? How could you include in this referendum the hundreds of thousands of Alsatians who have fled from German domination? How could you exclude from this referendum the hundreds of thousands of Germans who have come to Alsace?

The referendum was rendered by Mulhouse in 1798. Will that town be obliged to vote again? And how many times will it be obliged to vote for France? The referendum was rendered by the whole of Alsace and Lorraine in 1871 and 1874, by their elected deputies, when they unanimously protested against the German annexation.

It was rendered twenty years ago by the census which was taken by the Germans themselves in Alsace. According to that census, in 1895, notwithstanding the fact that the teaching of French was prohibited in the public schools, there were 160,000 people in Alsace speaking French. And five years later, in 1900, according to another census there were 200,000 people in Alsace speaking French. And of these 200,000 people, there were more than 52,000 children.

The referendum was also rendered by Alsatians who, before this war, engaged themselves in the French Army, and became officers. According to the official statistics of the French War Department, there were in 1914 in the French Army 20 generals, 145 superior officers, and 400 ordinary officers of Alsatian origin. On the other side, in the German Army in 1914, there were four officers of Alsatian origin.

And finally the referendum was rendered only one year before the present war, in 1913, when Herr von Jagow, then Prefect of Police in Berlin, made the following extraordinary declaration: "We Germans are obliged in Alsace to behave ourselves as if we were in an enemy's country...." What better referendum could you wish than such an admission by a German statesman?

Moreover, the question of Alsace-Lorraine is not only a French question, but also an international question. It is not only France who has sworn to herself to recover Alsace-Lorraine--it is all the Allies who have sworn to France that she should recover it.

"We mean to stand by the French democracy to the death," solemnly declared Mr. Lloyd-George on the 5th of January, 1918, "in the demand they make for a reconsideration of the great wrong of 1871, when, without any regard to the wishes of the population, two French provinces were torn from the side of France and incorporated in the German Empire."

And, three days later, using nearly the same words, President Wilson, in his luminous message to Congress, said: "_The wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871, in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all._"

All the statesmen who have spoken since the beginning of the war in the name of the Allied Powers have attested that this war is not only a struggle for the liberty of nations and the respect due to nationalities, but also an effort toward definite peace. Their words only appeared fit for stirring up the enthusiasm of the crowds, and fortifying their will of sacrifice, because they gave expression to their feelings and prayers. If they are forgotten by those who uttered them they will be remembered by those who heard and treasured them.

In September, 1914, Winston Churchill said: "We want this war to remodel the map of Europe according to the principle of nationalities, and the real wish of the people living in the contested territories. After so much bloodshed we wish for a peace which will free races, and restore the integrity of nations.... Let us have done with the armaments, the fear of strain, intrigues, and the perpetual threat of the horrible present crisis. Let us make the regulation of European conflicts just and natural." The French republic, of one mind with the Allies, proclaimed through its authorized representatives that this war is a war of deliverance. "France," said Mr. Stephen Pichon, Foreign Minister, "will not lay down arms before having shattered Prussian militarism, so as to be able to rebuild on a basis of justice a regenerated Europe." And Mr. Paul Deschanel, the President of the Chamber, continued: "The French are not only defending their soil, their homes, the tombs of their ancestors, their sacred memories, their ideal works of art and faith and all the graceful, just, and beautiful things their genius has lavished forth: they are defending, too, the respect of treaties, the independence of Europe, and human freedom. We want to know if all the effort of conscience during centuries will lead to its slavery, if millions of men are to be taken, given up, herded at the other side of a frontier and condemned to fight for their conquerors and masters against their country, their families, and their brothers.... The world wishes to live at last, Europe to breathe, and the nations mean to dispose freely of themselves."

These engagements will be kept. But they will have been kept only when Alsace-Lorraine--the Belgium of 1871, as Rabbi Stephen Wise has called it--has been returned to France. Then, and only then, will there be real peace. Then, and only then, will the "Testament" of Paul Derouléde have been executed:

When our war victorious is o'er,
And our country has won back its rank,
Then with the evils war brings in its train
Will disappear the hatred the conqueror trails.

Then our great France, full of love without spite
Sowing fresh springing-corn 'neath her new-born laurels,
Will welcome Work, father of Fortune,
And sing Peace, mother of lengthy deeds.

Then will come Peace, calm, serene, and awful,
Crushing down arms, but upholding intellect;
For we shall stand out as just-hearted conquerors,
Only taking back what was robbed from us.

And our nation, weary of mourning,
Will soothe the living while praising the dead,
And nevermore will we hear the name of battle
And our children shall learn to unlearn hate.

Just as France will not accept peace without restitution, she will not accept peace without reparation.

Germany can never make reparation for all the ruin, all the destruction, all the sacrilege she has wrought. There can be no reparation for the Cathedral of Rheims, for the Hotel de Ville at Arras, for the deaths of thousands of innocent beings, for the slaughter of women and children.

But there can be reparation for the damage done to machinery. The treasures of art which, contrary to all law and right, Germany has taken into her own country, can be returned. They can return the funds illegally stolen from the vaults of municipalities, banks and public societies. They can pay off the receipts which they themselves have signed for the objects they have compelled the owners to hand over to them.

Every château in the north of France, places such as those of the Prince of Monaco, of Mr. Balny d'Avricourt, that of Coucy, have been looted and pillaged. Antique furniture, paintings by the great masters, sculptures, historic pieces of tapestry have been carried off into Germany. Tapestries, sculptures, furniture and paintings must come back from Germany. The museums at St. Quentin and Lille have seen their collections of value to art and science carried off; these collections must come back. Factories have been robbed of their pumps, of their equipment, of their trucks; other pumps, other equipment, other trucks must be put in their place. Otherwise, nothing will prevent that in the future other expeditions will come to ransack other countries. A bold move towards Venice allowed base hands to be laid on the most beautiful works of art humanity had produced. A fortunate descent on the shores of Long Island or of New Jersey would allow the Metropolitan Museum to be looted.

At Ham, in the Somme district, the Grand Duke of Hesse, the former Empress of Russia's brother, one morning entered the shop of an antiquarian and picked out a number of ancient bibelots and vases, ordering that they be sent to his quarters. The owner thought it would be wise to state the price of the lot:

"The price," exclaimed the Grand Duke, "there's nothing for me to pay for! Everything here belongs to me."

But the owner protested, since, as he said, he did own the goods.

"Here," said the Grand Duke, "this will pay you for them."

And he handed the man his card with the words "good for so many francs" written on it; also his signature.

The number of francs mentioned on the Grand Duke of Hesse's card will have to be paid in full after the war. So will the thousands of requisitions signed by persons of less importance--governors, generals, colonels, majors, men who thought they could ransack all Belgium and the north of France with impunity, giving in exchange mere scraps of paper.

The great cities of Lille, Roubaix, Tourcoing, Laon and Mezières have been compelled to pay exorbitant levies for war purposes, which have amounted to billions of francs. This was contrary to all international law and to the Hague Tribunal's regulations. The funds thus illegally extorted will have to be repaid in full. No indemnities--that is understood and is perfectly just. It is precisely because there will not have to be any indemnities that the indemnities already extorted will have to be made good.

* * * * *

Finally, just as France cannot make peace without receiving restitution and reparation, she cannot make peace without receiving certain guarantees.

Here we approach one of the most complex and difficult aspects of the entire problem, because we find ourselves in the presence of the famous League of Nations. President Wilson, one of the most noble and generous spirits, one of the greatest figures that has appeared in the entire war, launched if not the idea at least the first definite statement thereof.... And this statement has awakened in all hearts, tired of carnage and slaughter, the same infinite hope that words of goodness, liberty and fraternity always awaken, which evoke the thought of the supreme end towards which humanity tends. The statement has done better than merely move men's emotions, it has moved men's thoughts. It has kindled in them a ray of hope which tends to shine more brightly every day in that they know that the civilized world will be truly a civilized world only when it is formed and fashioned in the likeness of a civilized nation. In a civilized nation no one has the right to kill another man, to obtain justice by using force, to commit murder, nor to raise armed bands to shoot, blow up or kill with poisoned gas other men. Tribunals exist to appease differences and to prevent fighting; every citizen is associated with every other citizen in the common cause of security and progress.

In a civilized world no nation has the right to massacre, no nation ought to have the right to resort to the use of force to obtain justice, no nation ought to have the right to attack, harm, or destroy another nation. There ought to be tribunals to appease the differences of peoples as well as those of individuals; every nation ought to be associated with every other nation to assure the progress of the entire world.

This theory is not only appealing, it is irrefutable. But it is a law for this earth that the most profoundly just and true theories, those which have been most scientifically demonstrated, encounter, when put into practice, obstacles which have not been surmounted and are often insurmountable.

President Wilson, who is not only a great jurist and a noble idealist, but who also has that genius for realization which is a characteristic of all America, has not failed to appreciate the difficulties which the League of Nations would encounter were it put into practice. And if, in his messages, he has insisted with a force that is every day more eloquent on the necessity of tackling the problem; he has never given a detailed solution for it.

He has done better than that, for he has swept aside certain factors which would have made it absolutely impossible. On the second, of April, 1917, in his immortal declaration of war, he formally declared that "no autocratic government could be trusted to keep faith within a partnership of nations or observe its covenants. It must be a league of honor, a partnership of opinion. Intrigue would eat its vitals away; the plottings of inner circles who could plan what they would and render account to no one, would be a corruption seated at its very heart. Only a free people can hold their purpose and their honor steady to a common end, and prefer the interests of mankind to any narrow interest of their own."

These are admirable words of truth and of philosophic depth, words which deserve to be graven in stone. No autocracy, then, in the League of Nations, no German militarism nor Austrian imperialism in it. No universal league of nations, even, but a limited society, a society of democracies!

Certain hasty critics have observed neither the same prudence nor logic as President Wilson. They have been farther from the truth, much farther from the truth. They have falsified his text, as do all commentators. They have desired to build complete in all details the League of Nations, which only existed in outline. They have succeeded in showing how difficult the construction would be, and they have only been able to set up a house of cards which the first breath of wind would knock down.

For example, this is how one of the most eminent French socialists, M. Albert Thomas, a man who has given abundant proof of his practical experience and actual talents, formerly the French Minister of Munitions, depicts the League of Nations:

Let us suppose [he wrote on the twenty-fifth of December,
1917], as the mathematicians say, that the problem is
solved. Let us suppose that the society of nations, made up
of all the nations, had been created by common accord about
the year 1910 or 1912. What would it have accomplished?
After the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the
Hague Tribunal, or perhaps the Washington Tribunal, would
have made inquiry into the conditions of the murder. It
would have taken certain steps. And if Austria, still
dissatisfied, had invaded Serbia for the sake of revenge or
to give scope to her ambitious designs, if Germany had
joined with her in this, then all the other allied nations,
in the performance of their duty, would have entered into a
war against the central powers in order to force them to
respect the liberties and the integrity of little Serbia.
For there can be no rule without sanction therefore. No
international law is possible if there does not exist at the
service of this law the "organized force that is superior to
that of any nation or to that of any alliance of nations" of
which President Wilson speaks.

If the society of nations had existed in 1914 and if Germany
had violated its laws, the entire world would have taken
military action against Germany by means of war, economic
action by means of blockade and of depriving her of the
necessities of life. The entire world would have been at war
with her and her allies. And in order that the league of
nations might continue to exist, in order that the rule of
justice, scarcely outlined, could have continued to exist,
the victory of the entente powers would have been as
necessary as it is today. Mr. Lloyd-George and President
Wilson would have said, as they say today, "No league of
nations without victory."

The difference is that in 1914 a verdict in the case would
have been handed down by the common tribunal of the nations,
and that there would have been no possible discussion of the
violations of right committed by Germany nor on the
responsibility for having caused the war.

The difference would have been that in place of seeing the
neutral nations hesitating, frightened by German force,
disturbed by German lies, rallying only under the protection
of one of the Entente armies, at the moment when they had
seen on which side lay right, they would all, at the very
beginning, have entered into the battle in fulfillment of
their obligations not only on account of their moral
responsibility but on account of their clearly understood
interests.

Finally the difference is that, the rights of the peoples
having been defined clearly, there would have been no
moment's uncertainty nor hesitation concerning the ends of
the war.

And it is impossible to doubt that the present situation of
the war would have been decidedly different from what it is
today.

I have cited the passage at length in order to give the critic's argument its widest scope. But, alas, who does not see the argument's fallacy? Who does not perceive that this reënforced skyscraper is a cardboard column liable to fall with the first push that is given it?

Moreover, from the very beginning, the originator of the idea of the society of nations admits the hypothesis of a war and presupposes all the nations in the league are making war against another nation. Even with the society of nations there will still be wars. Even with the society of nations there will be no guarantee of absolute peace.

So we are shown the spectacle, in case of war, of all the nations making war at once, without the least hesitation, without delay, without any discussion, against the people that disturbs the peace of the world. Is it a certainty that this unanimity would result? Is it a certainty that there would be no falling away, no delay? And, granting that there would be none of this, is it a certainty that irremediable catastrophes could be avoided? To consider once more M. Thomas' example of the war of 1914, let us suppose that there had been at that time a society of nations, that England had had an army, that the United States had had an army, and that the Anglo-American army had not lost a day nor an hour. Is it a certainty that they would have prevented the Germans from being at the gates of Liège on the seventh of August, in Brussels on the nineteenth of August, and before Paris on the second of September? And if today France, England, America, Italy, Japan and four-fifths of the civilized world, in spite of the treasure of heroism and effort that has been expended, have not been able to prevent the present result, is it possible that this would have been obtained with the assistance of Switzerland, the Scandinavian nations, Holland and Spain?

"The difference," continues M. Thomas, "is that there would not have been the possibility of any discussion of the violation of rights committed by Germany, nor upon what nation rests the responsibility for causing the war." But is that so sure? How was there any discussion in 1914 of the violation of Belgium by Germany? Did not Germany herself, in the teeth of all the world, hurl the avowal of this violation when von Bethmann-Hollweg, in the Reichstag, cynically declared: "We have just invaded Belgium.... Yes, we know that it is contrary to international law; but we were compelled by necessity. And necessity knows no law." What international tribunal's verdict could have the force of this avowal from the lips of the guilty man? However, the world has not moved, the world has not trembled, the world is not now up in arms. And who would guarantee that another time when the case will be perhaps less flagrant, the crime more obscure, the aggressor less cynical, the world will tremble and rise in arms?

Moreover, is it always possible to determine the responsibility for war's origin? Is it always possible, before an international tribunal of arbitration, to throw the proper light and all the light on the course events have taken? Will the judges always be unanimous?

Take the case of the last Balkan War in 1912. Is it possible today, from a six years' perspective, to establish with any degree of certitude the reasons for its outbreak and determine without hesitation the responsibility for it? Can you affirm with any degree of certainty that a court composed of American, European and Asiatic jurists would be unanimous in condemning Turkey and exonerating Bulgaria? And tomorrow, if the Ukraine should suddenly hurl itself against the Republic of the Don, or if Finland invaded Great Russia, with your international court would you be really in a way to pronounce a verdict within five days? And if Sweden took Finland's part and Germany took Great Russia's, could you guarantee that Argentina, Japan, Australia and even France would consent to mobilize their fleets and their armies to settle the question of a frontier on the banks of the Neva? Can you guarantee that every war of every Slav republic would have for a correlative the mobilization of the entire world?

And then are you certain that the idea of a society of nations is exactly a new one? Are you certain that there did not exist a society of nations before the outbreak of the present war? Have you never heard that, on the fifteenth of June, 1907, at The Hague, forty-four nations of the civilized world (and Germany was one of the number) assembled and met together to form such a league? Have you never heard of the treaty that was signed then which, according to the wording at the treaty's head, had for its object "fixing the laws and usages at war on the land"? Have you never read the terms of this convention, have you never glanced through the sixty-odd articles which today, in the presence of the nameless horrors in which we lend a hand, offer a prodigious interest to actuality?

Glance over these articles--and let us see how they have been applied:

ARTICLE 4 provides that "_prisoners of war must be humanely
treated. All their personal belongings, except arms, horses,
and military papers, remain their property_." Now all the
prisoners held by Germany have, without exception, been
spoiled of their money, of their portfolios, of their rings,
of their jewels, of their eyeglasses.

ARTICLE 6 says that "_the state may employ as workmen the
prisoners of war_," but it is careful in stipulating "_that
the work must not be excessive and must have nothing
whatever to do with operations of war_." ARTICLE 7 says
that "_prisoners of war shall be treated as regards board,
lodging, and clothing on the same footing as the troops of
the Government who captured them_." Each of these two
articles has been violated since the beginning of the war by
the Germans. After the Battle of the Marne, when the
advancing French troops of Joffre arrived on the Aisne they
found French civilians captured by the Germans and compelled
by them to work in the trenches. Moreover, an official
report emanating from Mr. Gustave Ador, President of the
International Red Cross, now member of the Swiss Federal
Council, called the attention of the belligerents as soon as
October, 1914, to the bad treatment of the French prisoners
in Germany. Each French officer had, as prisoner, a salary
of one hundred marks per month, which was not even half of
the pay of an under-officer.

ARTICLES 23, 25, 27, and 28 are so interesting that they
must be quoted _in extenso_:

ARTICLE 23. In _addition to the prohibitions provided by
special conventions, it is especially forbidden_:

(a) _To employ poison or poisoned weapons._

(c) _To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his
arms, or having no longer means of defense, 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 and uniform of
the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva
Convention._

(g) _To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such
destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the
necessities of war._

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

ARTICLE 25. _The attack or bombardment, by whatever means,
of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are
undefended is prohibited._

ARTICLE 27. _In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps
must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings
dedicated to religion, 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._

ARTICLE 28. _The pillage of a town or place, even when taken
by assault, is prohibited._

It seems that the men of The Hague, when they wrote those
articles, had a sort of prescience of the future cruelties
of war and that they wanted to avoid them. Let us see how
far they have succeeded.

It was forbidden to employ poison or poisoned weapons. No
later than last spring when the Germans evacuated certain
parts of the north of France instructions emanating from the
German general headquarters were found in the pocket of many
German prisoners or on the dead, and those instructions
indicated how the water of the wells was to be poisoned:
"Such and such a soldier," ran instructions, "will be in
charge of the wells, will throw in each one a sufficient
quantity of poison or creosote, or, lacking these, all
available filth."

It was forbidden to declare that no quarter would be given.
And here is the order of the day issued on August 25, 1914,
by General Stenger, commanding the Fifty-eighth German
Brigade, to his troops: "After today no more prisoners will
be taken. All prisoners are to be killed. Wounded, with or
without arms, are to be killed. Even prisoners already
grouped in convoys are to be killed. Let not a single living
enemy remain behind us."

It was forbidden to pillage a town or locality, even when
taken by assault. And on the corpse of the German private
Handschumacher (of the Eleventh Battalion of Jägers,
Reserve) in the very earliest days of the war, was found the
following diary: "August 8, 1914. Gouvy (Belgium). There, as
the Belgians had fired on the German soldiers, we at once
pillaged the goods station. Some cases, eggs, shirts, and
all eatables were seized. The safe was gutted and the money
divided among the men. All securities were torn up."

In fact, pillage and robberies went on on such a high scale
during the first months of the war that considerable sums of
money were sent from France and Belgium to Germany. A German
newspaper, the _Berlin Tageblatt_, of November 26, 1914,
implicitly avowed it when, in a technical article on the
military treasury ("_Der Zahlmeister im Felde_"), it wrote:
"It is curious to note that far more money-orders are sent
from the theater of operations to the interior of the
country than _vice versa_."

ARTICLE 50 of this Hague Convention states that "_no general
penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the
population on account of the acts of individuals for which
they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally
responsible_." Side by side with this article, it is
interesting to reproduce an extract from a proclamation of
General von Bülow, posted up at Liège on August 22, 1914:
"The inhabitants of the town of Andenne, after having
protested their peaceful intentions, treacherously surprised
our troops. It is with my full consent that the general in
command had the whole place burned, and about a hundred
people were shot." Moreover, here is an extract from a
proclamation of Major-Commander Dieckmann, posted up at
Grivegnée on September 8, 1914: "Every one who does not obey
at once the word of command, 'Hands up,' is guilty of the
penalty of death." And finally here is an extract from a
proclamation of Marshal Baron von der Goltz, posted up in
Brussels on October 5, 1914: "In future all places near the
spot where such acts have taken place [destruction of
railway lines or telegraph wires]--no matter whether guilty
or not--shall be punished without mercy. With this end in
view, hostages have been brought from all places near
railway lines exposed to such attacks, and at the first
attempt to destroy railway lines, telegraph or telephone
lines, they will be immediately shot."

ARTICLE 56 of the Hague Convention provides that "_the
property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated
to religion, charity, and education, to the arts and
sciences, even when state property, shall be treated as
private property. All seizure of, destruction, or willful
damage done to institutions of this character, historical
monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and
should be made the subject of legal proceedings._"

Four names, which will be eternally remembered, are here
sufficient to answer: there is Rheims and its Cathedral,
Louvain and its library, Arras and its Town Hall, Ypres and
its bell tower.

In the course of this war, Germany has disavowed her signature any number of times and has broken her pledges just as often as she has made them. Germany is a proven perjurer not only in the eyes of the nations at war with her, but also in the regard of the forty-four countries signatory of the Hague Convention. However, we have never heard that a single one of these nations lodged a protest against her actions. The Hague Convention has been torn into shreds, and not one of its signers has entered the slightest protest.

Is the next society of nations to be modeled on the same principles? Is the next society of nations going to draw up articles of the same kind as the Hague society? Is the future society of nations to accept among its members the same Empire of Germany which in 1914 declared bankruptcy? Will the future act of the society of nations be a simple scrap of paper, like the last act of 1907?

But let us cease asking these questions. There is no gain in asking certain questions to gain certain replies. There is no gain in examining certain problems to make the difficulties of the solution more apparent.

There is no doubt that the society of nations will exist some day. For the honor of humanity we must hope that it will exist. But it is not one day's work, nor the speaking of a single discourse nor the writing of one article that will build it. In M. Clemenceau's words, right can not be firmly established as long as the world is based on might. To bring about the rule of Right, Might must be destroyed and driven out as the very first move in the campaign for ultimate liberty.

German Might will not be destroyed by international compacts to which Germany will be party. Recall the treaty guaranteeing Belgium's integrity, which was one that Germany signed. Recall the Hague Conventions, signed by this same Germany. The men are fools who will not recall these things, who will not profit by them as examples. German might will only be destroyed by international agreements to which Germany is not a party, and which shall place German might beyond the regions in which it can play a dangerous part.

Now we are not building this upon sand, but upon a foundation of solid rock.

Germany needs two things to continue her national existence. She must import from other countries certain products necessary to her existence. For example, there is wool, of which she was obliged to import 1,888,481 metric quintals in order to manufacture her sixteen thousand grades of woolen fabrics. There is copper, of which Germany imported 250,000 tons in 1913 (200,000 tons came from America), in order to sell the merchandise she finds has a good market in foreign countries. Considering all Germany's exports for the period from 1903-1913, we find that their total has passed from 6,400 millions to 12,600 millions, an increase of nearly one hundred per cent.

There lies the best, the true, indeed the only means whereby the Allies can compel Germany to disarm. We do not demand that the economic war shall continue after the actual warfare is at an end, but we can demand that the Allies shall not lay aside their economic arms when the Germans shall have laid aside their fighting arms. In other words, we can demand that the Allies do not give Germany wool, copper and money if they know that this wool, money and copper are to feed the war machine. This war machine cost the German Empire nearly four hundred millions of dollars according to the budget of 1914. Suppose the Allies said to Germany, "As long as you have a military and naval budget of four hundred millions of dollars, we regret that we shall be unable to sell you wool and copper. We regret that we shall be unable to buy anything from you. But, if you reduce this budget by half, we are willing to give you one million metric quintals of wool and 125,000 tons of copper. Likewise, we are disposed to make purchases in your market totalling one billion dollars. If your military and naval budgets fall to nothing, we are willing to go much farther and buy and sell everything with you in unlimited quantities." Suppose the Allies make these proposals to Germany. Suppose they are put into effect. Will they not be a better guarantee of universal peace than all the Conventions and all the courts of arbitration in the world?

Then let no one disturb the peace of the world for his selfish purposes. Left to themselves, the little Balkan States and Slav States will not start great, long wars, just as the lone robber posted at the edge of a woods will not endanger a province's communications for very long. The formidable thing is the great country that is arranged and planned along the lines of war, where everything is organized with a view to war; just as the formidable thing for a city is the small band of malefactors who are able to terrify half the citizens by the use of highly perfected arms.

There will be no lasting peace until the most terrible war machine the world has ever known shall have been destroyed, reduced to an impotent state of non-existence. Ideals will not destroy this machine, but practical means and getting down to the facts of the case will do so. Pasteur did not overcome hydrophobia by writing treatises and dissertations. He met poison with poison, he injected the healing serum into the veins of the maddened dog. Now Germany is the mad dog, and Germany must be inoculated. After that there will be time to pass hygienic measures for the regiment of the entire world. Today Germany must be killed or cured. Germany is the cancer that must be cut out, lest it eat up the world.

It has been a matter of life and death for Liberty and Civilization. Both of them have been sick unto death. Clutched foully by the throat, they have heard their own death rattle; they themselves thought they might not survive. Now they stand on their feet, so weak, so pale, and so feeble that their life might still be despaired of. If we do not obtain definite guarantees against the monster who has barely failed to strangle them and to force the entire world back into the darkness of slavery, we shall have failed in our task, and the blood shed in the fight for Liberty will have been shed in vain.

* * * * *

APPENDICES

The following irrefutable documents, selected from among thousands of others which history will record, prove better than any other means how the Germans understand war and peace. They deserve a place in this volume because they demonstrate why and against what France is fighting.

APPENDIX I

HOW GERMANS FORCED WAR ON FRANCE

Answering to the Pope, in September, 1917, Kaiser Wilhelm II declared "_that he had always regarded it as his principal and most sacred duty to preserve the blessing of Peace for the German people and the world_." More recently, driving through the battlefield of Cambrai, the Kaiser, according to the war correspondent of the Berlin _Lokalanzeiger_, exclaimed: "God knows what I have not done to prevent such a war!"

A document made public by M. Stephen Pichon, French Foreign Minister, shows exactly how, in the last days of July, 1914, the Kaiser tried "to preserve the blessings of Peace for the German people and the world" and what he did "to prevent such a war."

Speaking at the Sorbonne, in Paris, on March 1, 1918, M. Pichon said:

I will establish by documents that the day the Germans
deliberately rendered inevitable the most frightful of wars
they tried to dishonor us by the most cowardly complicity in
the ambush into which they drew Europe. I will establish it
in the revelation of a document which the German Chancellor,
after having drawn it up, preserved carefully, and you will
see why, in the most profound mystery of the most secret
archives.

We have known only recently of its authenticity, and it
defies any sort of attempt to disprove it. It bears the
signature of Bethmann Hollweg (German Imperial Chancellor at
the outbreak of the war) and the date July 31, 1914. On
that day Von Schoen (German Ambassador to France) was
charged by a telegram from his Chancellor to notify us of a
state of danger of war with Russia and to ask us to remain
neutral, giving us eighteen hours in which to reply.

What was unknown until today was that the telegram of the
German Chancellor containing these instructions ended with
these words:

_If the French Government declares it will remain neutral
your Excellency will be good enough to declare that we must,
as a guarantee of its neutrality, require the handing over
of the fortresses of Toul and Verdun; that we will occupy
them and will restore them after the end of the war with
Russia. A reply to this last question must reach here before
Saturday afternoon at 4 o'clock._

That is how Germany wanted peace at the moment when she declared war! That is how sincere she was in pretending that we obliged her to take up arms for her defense! That is the price she intended to make us pay for our baseness if we had the infamy to repudiate our signature as Prussia repudiated hers by tearing up the treaty that guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium!

It was explained that the above document has not previously been published, because the code could not be deciphered: the French Foreign Office succeeded only a few days before in decodifying the document.

Moreover, Herr von Bethmann Hollweg, on March 18, 1918, acknowledged the accuracy of M. Pichon's quotation and contented himself to declare that "his instructions to Von Schoen were justified."

APPENDIX II

HOW GERMANS TREAT AN AMBASSADOR

This document is quoted from the French "Yellow Book," page 152:

_From Copenhagen_
_French Yellow Book No. 155_

M. Bapst, French Minister at Copenhagen, to
M. Doumergue, Minister for Foreign Affairs.

COPENHAGEN, AUGUST 6, 1914.

The French Ambassador at Berlin, M. Jules Cambon, asks me to
communicate to your Excellency the following telegram:

I have been sent to Denmark by the German Government. I have
just arrived at Copenhagen. I am accompanied by all the
staff of the Embassy and the Russian Chargé d'Affaires at
Darmstadt with his family. The treatment which we have
received is of such a nature that I have thought it
desirable to make a complete report on it to your Excellency
by telegram.

On the morning of Monday, the 3rd of August, after I had, in
accordance with your instructions, addressed to Herr von
Jagow a protest against the acts of aggression committed on
French territory by German troops, the Secretary of State
came to see me. Herr von Jagow came to complain of acts of
aggression which he alleged had been committed in Germany,
especially at Nuremberg and Coblenz by French aviators, who
according to his statement "had come from Belgium." I
answered that I had not the slightest information as to the
facts to which he attached so much importance and the
improbability of which seemed to me obvious; on my part I
asked him if he had read the note which I had addressed to
him with regard to the invasion of our territory by
detachments of the German army. As the Secretary of State
said that he had not yet read this note I explained its
contents to him. I called his attention to the act committed
by the officer commanding one of the detachments who had
advanced to the French village of Joncherey, ten kilometers
within our frontier, and had blown out the brains of a
French soldier whom he had met there. After having given my
opinion of this act I added:

"You will admit that under no circumstances could there be
any comparison between this and the flight of an aeroplane
over foreign territory carried out by private persons
animated by that spirit of individual courage by which
aviators are distinguished.

"An act of aggression committed on the territory of a
neighbor by detachments of regular troops commanded by
officers assumes an importance of quite a different nature."

Herr von Jagow explained to me that he had no knowledge of
the facts of which I was speaking to him, and he added that
it was difficult for events of this kind not to take place
when two armies filled with the feelings which animated our
troops found themselves face to face on either side of the
frontier.

At this moment the crowds which thronged the Pariser Platz
in front of the Embassy and whom we could see through the
window of my study, which was half open, uttered shouts
against France. I asked the Secretary of State when all this
would come to an end.

"The Government has not yet come to a decision," Herr von
Jagow answered. "It is probable that Herr von Schoen will
receive orders today to ask for his passports and then you
will receive yours." The Secretary of State assured me that
I need not have any anxiety with regard to my departure, and
that all the proprieties would be observed with regard to me
as well as my staff. We were not to see one another any more
and we took leave of one another after an interview which
had been courteous and could not make me anticipate what was
in store for me.

Before leaving Herr von Jagow I expressed to him my wish to
make a personal call on the Chancellor, as that would be the
last opportunity that I should have of seeing him.

Herr von Jagow said that he did not advise me to carry out
this intention as the interview would serve no purpose and
could not fail to be painful.

At 6 o'clock in the evening Herr von Langwerth brought me my
passports. In the name of his Government he refused to agree
to the wish which I expressed to him that I should be
permitted to travel by Holland or Belgium. He suggested to
me that I should go either by way of Copenhagen, although he
could not assure me a free passage by sea, or through
Switzerland via Constance.

I accepted this last route; Herr von Langwerth having asked
me to leave as soon as I possibly could it was agreed, in
consideration of the necessity I was under of making
arrangements with the Spanish Ambassador, who was
undertaking the charge of our interests, that I should leave
on the next day, the 4th August, at 10 o'clock at night.

At 7 o'clock, an hour after Herr von Langwerth had left,
Herr von Lancken, formerly Councilor of the Embassy at
Paris, came from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to tell me
to request the staff of my Embassy to cease taking meals in
the restaurants. This order was so strict that on the next
day, Tuesday, I had to have recourse to the authority of the
Wilhelmstrasse to get the Hôtel Bristol to send our meals to
the Embassy.

At 11 o'clock on the same evening, Monday, Herr von
Langwerth came back to tell me that his Government would not
allow our return by way of Switzerland under the pretext
that it would take three days and three nights to take me to
Constance. He announced that I should be sent by way of
Vienna. I only agreed to this alteration under reserve, and
during the night I wrote the following letter to Herr von
Langwerth:

"BERLIN, AUGUST 3rd, 1914.

"M. LE BARON;

"I have been thinking over the route for my return
to my country about which you came to speak to me
this evening. You propose that I shall travel by
Vienna. I run the risk of finding myself detained
in that town, if not by the action of the Austrian
Government, at least owing to the mobilization
which creates great difficulties similar to those
existing in Germany as to the movements of trains.

"Under these circumstances I must ask the German
Government for a promise made on their honor that
the Austrian Government will send me to Switzerland,
and that the Swiss Government will not close its
frontier either to me or to the persons by whom I
am accompanied, as I am told that that frontier has
been firmly closed to foreigners.

"I cannot then accept the proposal that you have
made to me unless I have the security which I ask
for, and unless I am assured that I shall not be
detained for some months outside my country.

"JULES CAMBON."

In answer to this letter on the next morning, Tuesday the
4th August, Herr von Langwerth gave me in writing an
assurance that the Austrian and Swiss authorities had
received communications to this effect.

At the same time M. Miladowski, attached to the Consulate at
Berlin, as well as other Frenchmen, was arrested in his own
house while in bed. M. Miladowski, for whom a diplomatic
passport had been requested, was released after four hours.

I was prepared to leave for Vienna when, at a quarter to
five, Herr von Langwerth came back to inform me that I would
have to leave with the persons accompanying me at 10 o'clock
in the evening, but that I should be taken to Denmark. On
this new requirement I asked if I should be confined in a
fortress supposing I did not comply. Herr von Langwerth
simply answered that he would return to receive my answer in
half an hour. I did not wish to give the German Government
the pretext for saying that I had refused to depart from
Germany. I therefore told Herr von Langwerth when he came
back that I would submit to the order which had been given
to me but "that I protested."

I at once wrote to Herr von Jagow a letter of which the
following is a copy:

BERLIN, AUGUST 4, 1914.

"SIR: