CHAPTER II

VIOLATIONS OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION

A.--The "Reprisals against Francs-tireurs."

Under the pretext that France was making ready to attack her, Germany hastened to invade Belgium and Luxemburg. But France was not preparing to invade the Rhine provinces of Prussia, and this pretended threat of aggression was merely a trick, intended to frighten Parliament, and to obtain a vote approving the actions of the Ministry and giving it _carte blanche_. The manoeuvre completely succeeded; the Government received a unanimous vote, in spite of the Chancellor's admission: "We are committing an injustice, and we are violating the law of nations; but when one is driven into a corner as we are, all means are good."

We discovered immediately, alas! what these words meant. Hardly had the German soldiers crossed the frontier, when they began to burn and massacre.

_Murders committed by the Germans from the outset._

On the very day of the invasion--the 4th August--a motor-car carrying four German officers arrived at Herve, and then pulled up. One of the officers demanded information of a youth of sixteen, one Dechêne; the latter did not understand, or perhaps refused to reply (which was his right, and even his duty towards his country); we do not know, but in any case the officer shot him with his revolver.

On the 4th of August, too, the Germans shot peaceful citizens at Visé, when the 2nd battalion of the 12th regiment of the line, under Major Collyns, had the audacity to resist them. Of course they pretended that the civilians took part in the fighting. A few days later they burned the church and the greater part of the town.

One sees plainly from these, and too many other examples, what was the object of our enemies: (_a_) They wished to terrorize the population, in order to make them more amenable to requisitions and demands of all kinds; (_b_) they wished to make their own troops believe that in fighting the Belgians--which they at first did with great unwillingness--they were merely defending themselves against treacherous attacks; (_c_) they wished to multiply opportunities of pillage; (_d_) finally, perhaps, they reckoned that by displaying to the Belgian Government the horrors to which its first refusal had exposed the country, they would induce it to reconsider its position and could obtain from it a free passage.

_Were there any "Francs-tireurs"?_

It would be impossible at this moment to state that the Belgians never, at any point of the frontier, fired upon the invaders. Let us remark, moreover, that if they did they would have been, from the purely human point of view, perfectly excusable.[14] What! here is Germany, who, pretending to be in a state of legitimate defence, falls unawares upon an inoffensive third party! And this third party had no right to oppose force to violence! In all logic, was it not Belgium that was in a state of legitimate defence; was it not for Belgium that all means were good? And notice, please, that it was not against an imagined and imaginary menace that we were defending ourselves: the Germans had most undeniably invaded Belgium. Would it have been astonishing if the Belgians, exasperated by this unspeakable aggression, had seized their rifles? In sane justice, one could not regard such action as a grievance; on the contrary. Does this mean that we believe in the story of civilians attacking the German army? Most certainly not; because we know from reliable sources that in _every_ case where it has been possible to hold an inquiry, this inquiry has shown that the "francs-tireurs" were merely the pretext; the real motive for all the devastation and massacre was the desire to terrorize the population. It is, therefore, in a fashion entirely theoretical, and with the most express reserves, that we admit, in default of opportunity to investigate, in each case, the affirmations of our enemies, that in some cases, certainly extremely rare, isolated civilians, or small groups of civilians, may have been taken with arms in their hands. But our enemies will please admit also that the attitude of these civilians would have been amply excused by the more than brutal fashion in which the Germans behaved from the very first moments of the war. Let us add that when one erects terror into a system, as the Germans do, one should understand the defensive reflexes of the victims.

What were the rights of our enemies in these exceptional cases? They could, as they themselves proclaim, have shot the individual offenders, and, for once in a way, have burned their houses. But nothing in the world could justify the executions _en masse_ and the wholesale burnings to which the Germans surrendered themselves.

_The Obsession of the "Franc-tireur" in the German Army._

One point at first remained obscure to us in the German "reprisals": how did the German officers induce their men to commit this horrible carnage? Very simply: their minds were worked upon beforehand; they were crammed with legends of francs-tireurs dating from the war of 1870-71, and were made to believe that the Belgian population was revoltingly brutal. So as soon as they set foot on our territory they expected to be attacked by civilians, and, very naturally, prepared to sell their lives dearly.

Nothing is more typical in this respect than the collection of soldiers' letters published for the edification of the German nation in _Der Deutsche Krieg in Feldpostbriefen_.--_I. Lüttich, Namur, Antwerpen._ In more than half is there mention of "francs-tireurs"; but scarcely ever does the writer speak of having himself seen them. Read, for example, the first letter (that is No. 2 in the volume, for Letter No. 1 is not a soldier's letter). The writer, an officer, asserts that during the attack on the forts of Liége, on the night of the 6th of August, the night was so dark that it was impossible to distinguish friends from enemies, and that the Germans were firing on one another. Nevertheless, as they were fired on, and as they saw three men running, they immediately shot them as "francs-tireurs." During this same night their baggage-column having been surprised (he does not say by whom), a village was burned and the inhabitants were shot.

The whole mentality of the German soldier in respect of civilians is reflected in this letter; it is so dark that the Germans fire on one another, but that does not prevent them from recognizing that those attacking them are "francs-tireurs," even though their men are "falling _en masse_," which excludes all idea of francs-tireurs.

Francs-tireurs! From the very first days of the war it is a fixed idea, an obsession, engendered by previous reading and conversation, and carefully nourished by the leaders.

_The Obsession of the "Franc-tireur" in the Literature of the War._

Francs-tireurs! This idea invades the whole of their contemporary literature. All the books on the campaign in Belgium and France swarm with tales of this kind. Let us add that the authors do not assert that they themselves have seen the attacks of the "francs-tireurs." But they have been told of them, and they hasten to repeat the story without the slightest means of verification.

Thus, in _Kriegsfahrten_, by Herren Koester and Noske, there is mention of "francs-tireurs" on pages 10, 12, 13, 20, and 22; and they return to the subject in the last chapter (p. 113).

Herr Fedor von Zobeltitz, in _Kriegsfahrten eines Johanniters_, also constantly heard mention of attacks by Belgian civilians: at Tirlemont (p. 39), at Louvain (pp. 39, 53, 54, 91), at Malines (p. 49), at Eppeghem (p. 86), and in Antwerp (p. 154).

The volume entitled _Die Eroberung Belgiëns_ is full of stories of the same sort. Thus, of thirty-eight illustrations, which are neither maps nor portraits, ten are devoted to the attacks of Belgian civilians.

It is interesting to compare the tales of people who have not been present in the battles fought in Belgium, and who speak only from hearsay, with the narrative of Herr Otto von Gottberg, _Als Adjutant durch Frankreich und Belgiën_. He took part in September in the battles which accompanied the siege of Antwerp. Nowhere did he see francs-tireurs. Yet he by no means loves the Belgian civilians, and he certainly would have been tremendously pleased to shoot down a few. Read, for example, what he says of the provocative attitude of the people of Brussels, and above all of the women of Brussels (p. 55), and of passing through the streets of Lebbeke (near Termonde), where his soldiers proposed to fall upon the inhabitants who scowled at them (p. 65). However, he says, he did not burn a single house (p. 67). We may remark that Herr Gottberg's companions showed themselves less amiable, or at least equitable, than he, for the "reprisals" against Lebbeke were particularly atrocious (see _9th Report_). It is, however, highly improbable that the inhabitants would have deprived themselves of the pleasure of firing on the little patrol led by Herr Gottberg, afterwards to take up arms against troops which were much more numerous. However it may be, the legend of the "francs-tireurs" of Lebbeke was willingly accepted by Herren Koester and Noske (_Kriegsfahrten_).

_The Obsession of the "Franc-tireur" in Literature and Art._

The obsession of the "franc-tireur" is also found outside the limits of military literature properly so-called. Herr Bredt has just published a book on _Le caractère du peuple belge révélé par l'art belge_. The illegal attacks of the Belgian population upon the regular German troops, he says, were not in the least surprising to those who were acquainted with the productions of Belgian art.

It would be difficult to surpass, in this respect, an article which appeared in the January number of _Kunst und Künstler_. It gives the reproduction of an engraving by Callot: a camp in which musketeers are putting to death condemned men bound to stakes. "Execution of francs-tireurs," says the legend in German. That there should be a question of "francs-tireurs" in the time of Callot, who died in 1635, may in itself seem somewhat strange. But the engraver has taken care to inscribe, under his work, some lines describing the scene which it represents, which may be translated as follows:--

"Those who to give their evil nature sway, Failing in duty, take the tyrant's way, Infringing right, delighting but in ill, Whose acts are full of treason and self-will, Cause in the camp full many a bloody brawl, So die this death, the end of traitors all."

It is enough to read this legend to realize that they are traitors who are being punished; but the German mind of to-day is so steeped in the idea of "francs-tireurs" that the artists no longer understand what their predecessors wrote, and, like the soldiers, they see francs-tireurs everywhere.

_Responsibility of the Leaders._

But it is above all the great massacres of Andenne, Tamines, Dinant, Termonde, Aerschot, Louvain, and Luxemburg, which are for ever inexcusable, and will remain, an eternal disgrace, as a stain upon the German flag. Their appetite whetted by the atrocities committed during the first days of the invasion, the soldiers themselves invented or simulated attacks of "francs-tireurs," in order to have the pleasure of afterwards repressing them, killing, pillaging, and burning entire cities. Let us say, to be just, that not the soldiers but their leaders will bear, before the bar of history, the responsibility of this revival of the monstrosities of barbarism. Is it not obvious that in an army as highly disciplined as the German, an army in which the officers drive their men into battle under the threat of their revolvers, and in which the soldiers obey such injunctions, such deliberately prepared tragedies as that of Louvain are possible only with the complicity of the officers, or rather by their orders? How else can we conceive that soldiers would post themselves in a garden and thence fire their rifles into the streets? (_N.R.C._, 10th September, 1914, evening edition). And it is not the subaltern officers that we have to call to account for these butcheries, but the generals, such as Baron von Bissing, since become Governor-General of Belgium, who counsels the soldiery to show themselves pitiless, and not to allow themselves to be swayed by any humanitarian consideration, for compassion would be an act of treason (_compare_ p. 336). The soldiers are advised that it is permissible for them "to make the innocent suffer with the guilty" (p. 84); that they may hang, without further ceremony, those who have committed the crime of being found present, for whatever reason, in a house where munitions or arms have been found (p. 335); and also those who have attempted to escape while they were being held as hostages (p. 151). The previous Governor-General of Belgium announced that soldiers need not be sure whether suspects are accessories or not, but that "if any hostility is displayed towards them they may raze a city to the ground." Such is the fate that General von Bülow promised the city of Brussels. The same general thought it incumbent upon him officially to inform the people of Brussels, Liége, and Namur that it was with his consent that the town of Andenne was burned, and about one hundred persons shot (_6th Report_, IV).

By these proclamations and others equally sanguinary the military authorities wished to influence both the Germans and the Belgians. The former were absolved beforehand of the horrors they committed, and were assured of impunity for all the "reprisals" they might be pleased to undertake. Moreover, they were kept in perpetual horror of "francs-tireurs." Are they assailed unexpectedly by soldiers of the enemy's army? They fall back without assuring themselves of what has really happened, and return with the main body of the army to expend their rage against the "francs-tireurs." This is what took place at Tamines where more than four hundred citizens were shot down by rifle or machine-gun fire, and also in a dozen villages of Bas-Luxembourg, which were razed to the ground, and in which a thousand inhabitants were shot.

_Animosity toward the Clergy._

The military chiefs bear an especial grudge against the clergy. In the manifestoes against "francs-tireurs" the priests are specially mentioned, which amounts to recommending them quite specially to the savagery of the troops. The latter are convinced that the priests incite their flocks from the pulpit, and that they place machine-guns in the belfries. So, in the sack of a village, the worst treatment is always reserved for the priests and the churches.

The pastoral letter of His Excellency Cardinal Mercier gives a list of forty-three priests shot or executed.[15]

There is no ignominy the troops have not inflicted on the priests. A few examples among hundreds will suffice.

They forced members of the Louvain clergy to lie naked in the dung of a pig-sty.

The curé of Pont-Brûlé was beaten, by order of the German soldiery, by his own parishioners.

The January number of _Kunst und Künstler_ gives a drawing representing a curé hanging from a tree.

At Cortemarck it was the priests who were punished because an inhabitant was in communication with the enemy (read, "the Belgians").

On the 30th August, 1914, the Germans arrested the dean and vicar of a village in Brabant, under the pretext that they had made luminous signals from the church tower. Now the priests had been prisoners since 2.0 o'clock of the afternoon; how then could they have ascended the tower at 5.30 p.m.? Despite their protestations they were taken to Louvain, whence a so-called Council of War sent them to Germany. Arriving in a prisoners' camp, they were accommodated in the latrines, which consisted of a trench and a plank perforated with holes. Each time a German soldier had to satisfy his need, he took the opportunity of insulting the priests in the most filthy manner. A German major sent for them and informed them that they were about to be shot. The vicar asked that he might confess. "No," he was told, "hell is good enough for you." They were led away to die ... but were sent to a seminary, where they remained prisoners until January 1915.

_Animosity toward Churches._

Against the churches their rage was unloosed with even greater fury. In the part of Brabant that lies north of Vilvorde there is hardly a belfry left erect: Beyghem, Capelle-au-Bois, Haecht, Humbeek, Pont-Brûlé, Sempst, Eppeghem, Houtem, Weerde, Hofstade, Elewijt, Werchter, Boortmeerbeek, etc., are all burned.

At Termonde all the churches have been either burned or profaned. But in the midst of this city, where twelve hundred houses were burned out of fourteen hundred, the Béguinage remained intact, an oasis of calm isolated amid the calcined ruins. On the grassy plain that surrounds the bright little houses of the béguines stood the chapel. This did not find favour with the Germans, and its blackened walls attest that Kultur has passed that way. Were the béguines perhaps "francs-tireurs"?

We have already stated that the peculiar irritation of the Germans against the clergy and their sanctuaries was due to the fact that they regarded the curés as the leaders of the "francs-tireurs." The falsity of this allegation was recognized by Dr. Julius Bachem, the editor of the _Kölnische Volkszeitung_, one of the most prominent Catholic newspapers in Germany. Dr. Bachem published, in the issue for April 1915 of the _Süddeutsche Monatshefte_, which was principally devoted to Belgium, an article on the religious problem in Belgium. He based his proofs on the authority of Baron von Bissing, Commandant of the 7th Army Corps, at present Governor-General in Belgium, and also on the special inquiry undertaken by the Union of the Catholic Priests of the Rhine, _Pax_. This inquiry, mostly conducted with the aid of the present military authorities in Belgium, proved that the clergy was absolutely innocent, and that all the accusations brought against it were purely imaginary.[16]

The Emperor did not wait for the confirmation of the crimes attributed to the priests before making violent accusations against them in his telegram to the President of the United States. He has not retracted these.

_Intentional Insufficiency of Preliminary Inquiries._

Never was there the least justification for reprisals. Read the Reports of the Commission of Inquiry, and the narratives of ocular witnesses, and you will find that the most horrible things are continually done without any pains being taken to verify the facts. Soldiers greedy for pillage say, without justification, _Die Civilisten haben geschossen_; and that is enough. The order is given to kill the men and reduce the neighbourhood to ashes. Or shots have really been fired on the Germans; the civilians are suddenly accused, and without listening to the unhappy prisoners, who offer to prove that the shots were fired by Belgian or Allied soldiers, the Germans proceed to execution.

A very typical case is that of Charleroi. We knew that French troops were still occupying the town when the Germans entered. But these last immediately accused the civilians, since, they said, shots were fired from the interior of the houses, as though their adversaries had not the right, quite as much as they, to take cover in the buildings. Moreover, when they later were confronted with the proof that the French were there, they merely remarked that the latter's mission was to organize and to discipline the civic guards and "francs-tireurs"[17] (_see_ Heymel's article, p. 196). Could one imagine a finer example of preconceived opinion?

M. Waxwieler insists emphatically on the unspeakable frivolity with which the Germans carry out "reprisals." He cites notably the case of Linsmeau (p. 256) and that of Francorchamps (p. 270). As this is an essential point, I may perhaps be permitted to relate a few more cases.

On entering Wépion on the 23rd August the Germans pretended that the citizens had fired on them, and they shot, then and there, six of them, among whom were the two younger Bouchats. Now those who had fired were Belgian soldiers armed with machine-guns, who were covering the retreat of the Belgian troops. A moment's reflection would have enabled the Germans to realize their error, since civilians obviously had no machine-guns at their disposal. While they were being led to their death, one of the Bouchats begged a glass of water of their mother. But the Germans refused to allow it to be given him: "It's not worth the trouble now," they said.

In August 1914 a French patrol and a German patrol came into collision at Sibret (Belgian Luxembourg) and exchanged shots; they then retired, leaving a wounded German on the ground. Two inhabitants of Sibret carried the wounded man toward an ambulance; the clerk to the _Justice de Paix_ of Bouillon, M. Rozier, accompanied them. He was carrying the rifle slung over his shoulder and the soldier's knapsack in his hand. A German patrol came up and questioned M. Rozier, telling him, no doubt, to raise his hands or throw down his rifle. As neither M. Rozier nor any of his companions understood German, and were unable to comply with the order, the Germans fired on M. Rozier, killing him.

Every time it has been possible to obtain any kind of inquiry from the Germans it has resulted in their confusion; at Huy the bullets found in the bodies of Germans were German bullets; the General was forced to stop the burning of the village; he even admitted that a mistake had been made.

An example of another kind, also taken from the _N.R.C._, is equally characteristic. During the night a German soldier fired a rifle-shot, no one knew why, in a village of Western Flanders. Great alarm immediately. "The village is going to be burned!" But before they had time to get to work an important piece of evidence, the empty cartridge-case, proved that it was really a German soldier who fired. However, if by chance this blessed cartridge-case had not come to hand the village would have burned. Too often, alas! the German army does not trouble to postpone the reprisals awhile ... and the houses are in ashes before the falsity of the accusations has been proved. It is to be remarked, indeed, that it is never the Germans who prove the truth of their allegations, but the Belgians who have to prove the Germans in error. It is justice reversed.

It is easy to understand that a _non-lieu_ does not please the German authorities. In fact, their object is not to render justice but to terrorize the population; and if it were necessary to examine the _bona-fides_ of their accusations they would not be able to exercise "reprisals," which would not suit them at all!

If the accusations had really been justified by the attacks of "francs-tireurs" the Germans would have taken care to establish their existence irrefutably. For we must not forget that according to Article 3 of the Hague Convention they ought to indemnify us for all the burnings and massacres commanded by them.

_A "Show" Inquiry._

They know, however, how contrary these summary executions are to the spirit of justice, and they sometimes attempt to lay a false trail. Read, for example, the chapter devoted by Dr. Sven Hedin to the "francs-tireurs." The great Swedish geographer, of whose wonderful Asiatic journeys every one has heard, made a tour along the Western front. He therefore visited the occupied portion of France and Belgium, and wrote an enthusiastic book on the German Army, _Ein Volk in Waffen_. In the course of this work, he describes the manner in which an inquiry is held into the circumstances of an attack by "francs-tireurs." Everything is done as regularly as possible, and the affair ends in an acquittal. Was the tribunal authentic, or was it merely a parody?[18] It matters little; the essential thing for us is that it was desired to prove to Dr. Hedin that the Germans are not barbarians, and that they observe the forms of justice even while on campaign.

_Mentality of an Officer charged with the Repression of "Francs-tireurs."_

Let us now compare with the account of Dr. Hedin that of a German officer entrusted with the repression of "francs-tireurs." Captain Paul Oskar Höcker gives a few curious details in his interesting book, _An der Spitze meiner Kompagnie_. He had to clear of "francs-tireurs" a portion of the territory comprised between the German frontier and the Meuse. His mission consisted in this: to present himself at houses, to ask if there were arms, and in case of a reply in the negative, to search the house; if arms were discovered the householder was shot on the spot; in case of resistance the house was burned (p. 83). The first farm he visits is Jungbush, near Moresnet; the inhabitants assure him they have no arms. They are told that if they are hiding one rifle they will be punished with death; they repeat that they have none. And now the soldiers bring up a boy of fifteen who was hiding under the straw with a Belgian rifle and five cartridges. He is shot without further inquiry (p. 26). It is permissible to ask whether it would not have been juster and more humane to have looked into the matter a little more closely. The remainder of the book instructs us as to the psychology of Captain Höcker. At the house of the vicar of Thimister, where he passed the first night in Belgium, his bedroom door did not lock, and this was enough to make him shake with fear (p. 29). On the following morning he had a pigeon shot, which he suspected of being a carrier of despatches to "francs-tireurs"; "and in truth," he says, "the pigeon bore a stamp on the left wing" (p. 30). This proof is perhaps somewhat slender in a country where all pigeons which take part in matches have a mark of this kind. He confiscates all the small-arms and parts of arms in the establishments of the innumerable armourers of the district, and smashes everything in their workshops. On one such occasion he burns a house whose owner does not consent with good grace to the destruction of his plant (p. 30). On the same day he finds that all the houses from which shots were fired have been burned; in his satisfaction he does not even ask himself whether those who fired were soldiers or civilians (p. 31). Neither has he a word of reprobation for the fury which the Germans display against Belgium: Belgium, forced to take the side of the Allies when her territory was violated by Germany. He reaches Visé at the moment of its burning; he accepts immediately the legend according to which the bridge has been destroyed by "francs-tireurs" (p. 34). According to him, the Belgians of good society do not become soldiers; he is convinced that substitution is still in force with us, and that for 1,600 francs (£64) one can escape from one's military obligations (p. 39). To him, therefore, all civilians appear cowards, and he is not surprised to see them become "sneaking francs-tireurs." When he passes through the streets of Louvain he listens to the story that Germans have that very day been fired upon (p. 47). Further on he admits without hesitation that the German soldiers taken prisoners before Liége must have expected to be shot by the Belgians (p. 71).

We do not question the sincerity of Captain Höcker. But why was so credulous and so suggestible a person selected to search out and punish "francs-tireurs"? Assuredly because it was desired that "reprisals" should be carried out without previous discussion, and by some one whose conscience should, nevertheless, be at rest.

_Drunkenness in the German Army._

We have just seen that massacres very frequently took place without any pretext having been brought forward to excuse them. In nearly all cases alcoholism was the cause of these, for the German soldiers, and above all the officers, are scandalously addicted to drink.

The first thing requisitioned by the officers is always wine, by hundreds of bottles at a time.

Turn over a collection of German illustrated papers: every time a meeting of officers is photographed there are bottles and glasses on the table. At the ambulance installed in the Palais de Justice of Brussels the military surgeons have not been ashamed to steal the wine of the wounded men, wine offered by the citizens of Brussels. The general and his staff who installed themselves on the 21st August, 1914, in the Palais Royal of Laeken levied such vast contributions on the cellars of the Palais that on the following morning an officer was found, in the costume of Adam, dead-drunk in front of a bath which he had not had the strength to enter. When they left the Palais they took with them many hampers of wine, and a few days later they had a search made for further hampers of the vintages which were their preference. The cellars were soon empty.

They were drunken soldiers who provoked the burning of Huy, the assassinations at Canne (_N.R.C._, 23rd August, 1914, morning edition), and in part at least the massacres of Louvain. When they occupied Gand the police had to collect them, dead-drunk, on the very first morning; they had already begun to fire revolver-shots.

It was after a tavern brawl between drunken soldiers that the burning of a portion of Tongres was decreed (_N.R.C._, 22nd August, 1914, morning edition). In Brussels, on the 28th September, 1914, some drunken soldiers in a German cabaret situated in the Rue de la Grande Ile, were firing rifle-shots to amuse themselves; bullets lodged in the house-fronts opposite. The officer whom some one went to fetch that he might witness this misbehaviour believed that an attack was being delivered by "francs-tireurs," and, trembling like a leaf, refused to go thither. The _N.R.C._, 28th January, 1915 (morning edition) states that a young girl of Eelen was arrested as a "franc-tireur" because rifle-shots had been fired by drunken soldiers.

Let us add that drunkenness might have had harmless consequences if the authorities had not exerted themselves to make the troops believe that every unexpected shot is necessarily fired by a "franc-tireur," and that so black a crime can only be paid for by a general massacre accompanied by the burning of the village concerned.

* * * * *

There is only one fashion of explaining the horrors committed by the Germans: it is to admit that they are modelled beforehand according to a carefully devised system of intimidation: the systematic inhumanity of their treatment of the enemy population being intended to facilitate other military operations.

_Cruelties necessary according to German Theories._

Compare, for example, the laws of war according to the German Great General Staff[19] with the stipulations of the Hague Convention. As the last is based on humanitarian considerations and seeks to lighten the scourge of war for non-combatants, so the Germans systematically refuse to make war less cruel; on the contrary, they start with the principle that the more terrible the war the more swiftly and surely will its object be attained. Read the chapter, "The Object of War," and you will be edified. Even jurists like Baer, blinded by warlike passions, dare to maintain that all must yield to military necessities, including--what blasphemy!--the law of nations. The characteristic theory that war should be "absolute" and barbarous is the idea underlying the manifesto of von Bissing which has already been cited (p. 70). In fewer words Hindenburg says the same thing[20] (p. 206). So that Belgium might realize the fate that awaited her the German authorities made haste to advertise their opinion. It is true that they have since then posted up reassuring phrases as to the humanitarian sentiments of the German Army for the moment. Had our butchers renounced their attempts at terrorization?

_Terrorization: "Reprisals" as a "Preventive."_

According to this hypothesis, that the great "reprisals" undertaken at the outset of the war would serve as examples, the Germans wished to instil terror into the very marrow of our bones, so that they might then be able to rule us with a small garrison of Landsturm. Reflect, for example, that Brussels, an agglomeration of 700,000 souls, has never had a garrison of more than 5,000 men, and has often had only 1,000.

Such a calculation is so abominable, so fundamentally inhuman, that we shrank from the harshness of this supposition, and accepted it with all manner of reservations.[21] Well, our hesitation was futile. In an article whose frankness is calculated to make one's hair stand on end, Captain Walter Blöm, adjutant to the Governor-General, published in the officially-inspired _Kölnische Zeitung_ of the 10th February, 1915, the confirmation of that which we hardly dared to imagine. Here are his exact words:--

"The principle according to which the whole community must be punished for the fault of a single individual is justified by the _theory of terrorization_. The innocent must suffer with the guilty; if the latter are unknown the innocent must even be punished in their place; and note that the punishment is applied not _because_ a misdeed has been committed, but _in order that_ no more shall be committed. To burn a neighbourhood, shoot hostages, decimate a population which has taken up arms against the army--all this is far less a reprisal than the sounding of a _note of warning_ for the territory not yet occupied. Do not doubt it: it was as a note of warning that Battice, Herve, Louvain, and Dinant were burned. The burnings and bloodshed of the opening of the war showed the great cities of Belgium how perilous it was for them to attack the small garrisons which we were able to leave there. No one will believe that Brussels, where we are to-day as though in our own home, would have allowed us to do as we liked if the inhabitants had not trembled before our vengeance, and if they did not continue to tremble. War is not a social diversion."

Any commentary would weaken the force of these declarations.

_Incendiary Material._

We are not in the confidence of the German Staff, and we can only form hypotheses as to its mentality. But here are two facts, easy to verify and interpret, which show that the atrocities were committed with premeditation.

Firstly, the existence of various incendiary materials. When a town is condemned to be burned the execution of the command is confided to a special company of the engineers. (The _carnet_ of an officer of an "incendiary company" was picked up in a commune of Hainaut.) Generally a first squad breaks the windows and shutters; a second pours naphtha into the houses by means of special pumps, "incendiary pumps"; then comes the third squad, which throws the "incendiary bombs." These last are of many different kinds. Those most commonly employed in Brabant and Hainaut include discs of gelatinous nitro-cellulose, which jump in all directions. Thanks to the inflammable vapours which fill the houses, the latter catch fire on all their floors simultaneously. It took only half an hour to set fire to the Boulevard Audent at Charleroi.

No one can suppose that so perfect an organization was improvised during the campaign. Moreover, where and how could the discs of fulminating cotton have been procured?

At Termonde the Germans probably employed cylinders of naphtha. At all events one can still see, in houses which did not catch fire, holes made in the ceilings and floors, into which holes long strips of linen are introduced to serve as wicks. The Germans sprinkled them with naphtha, and it was enough to put a match to such a wick in order to set fire to the joists of the floor overhead. At Termonde 1,200 houses were burned in a single day.

_The Two Great Periods of Massacre._

We discover, then, that the great destructive operations were conducted according to a general plan. Let us place in chronological order the most important of the massacres and the conflagrations, that is, those which could not have been carried out except by order of the officers, omitting, therefore, the killings in detail and the burning of farms and isolated houses, attributable, no doubt, to soldiers acting on their own initiative, or to small bands greedy for pillage. What do we see? That apart from the atrocities which marked the outset of the campaign, the majority of the great killings and burnings, in France as well as in Belgium, were ordered during two periods: one from the 19th to the 27th August, and one from the 2nd to the 12th September, 1914. Now it is quite certain that in a country already occupied, and deprived of means of communication, the "francs-tireurs" could not possibly have agreed among themselves as to the moment of their attacks. The only people who could transmit an order were the Germans; and the legitimate conclusion which one forms from this lamentable list is that the pretended attacks of francs-tireurs were elaborated in Berlin, whence they were ordered by telegraph to break out on a given date.

Another interesting fact revealed by a chronological list is that the so-called attacks of "francs-tireurs" very often do not coincide with the entrance of the Germans into a given locality, but break out a few days later. One might at a pinch understand that poachers, or impulsive individuals, might fire a rifle at a patrol; but it is wholly improbable that they would make their attempt at a moment when they were already impressed by the formidable warlike equipment of our enemies. This is so contrary to common sense that the Germans try to get out of it by lying. Let us cite a case. They assert that on Tuesday the 25th August, 1914, there was in Louvain only a weak garrison of Landsturm, and that the civil population profited by this circumstance to attempt an attack, which could only be repressed by incendiarism and massacre. Now the people of Louvain had been warned that very morning that 10,000 men were to arrive during the day, and that many houses which had not yet billeted soldiers would do so the following night. And, indeed, that afternoon several fresh regiments were seen to enter, notably the 53rd, 72nd, and 7th Hussars.

When, by exception, the Germans assert that the "francs-tireurs" have attacked a column on the march, one almost always remarks the three following points: (1) the attack takes place while a village is being traversed; (2) it happens when a great part of the column has already passed, so that the "francs-tireurs" are caught between two fires; (3) the "francs-tireurs" are concealed in the houses. A moment's reflection suffices to show that these are precisely the most unfavourable circumstances which civilians could choose for their attack.

_Protective Inscriptions._

All this shows that we have not to deal with acts of indiscipline, which are, God knows, the inevitable accompaniment of any war, yet which are almost excusable. We have here a maturely considered system, prepared at the Great General Headquarters, and then frigidly applied. In other words, the "reprisals against francs-tireurs" form part of the plan of campaign of the German army. If additional proof were needed that they are disciplined cruelties, as the Minister of State, M. Emile Vandervelde, remarks, it would be found in the inscriptions and placards placed upon property which is to be respected.

Besides the inscription which says simply that the house must not be burned save with the authorization of the _Kommandantur_ (at Louvain, after the great fires of the 25th and 27th August, nearly all the houses which were spared received one of these placards), there are others giving the reasons for the protection accorded to the building. Here are some of these reasons: the inhabitants are respectable (_gute_) people; they have German sympathies; they have already given the troops all they possessed; they are protected by the Legation; an officer knows them personally. The fact that with very few exceptions these houses escaped disaster well demonstrates the strength of German discipline. It is by no means astonishing, therefore, that in the localities which are still intact the inhabitants should have taken precautions; thus, there have been houses in Brussels which were provided with a protective inscription. Other buildings have been marked on a plan (_N.R.C._, 14th September, 1914, evening edition). This reminds one of the tenth plague of Egypt and the sign which the Jews had to place upon the lintel of their dwelling, that the Lord might recognize it. When the Lord passed, He spared the marked houses (Exodus xii. 7, 22). In the German plague which has settled upon our poor country, the Destroying Angel has the aspect of an officer with a single eye-glass.

_Accusations against the Belgian Government._

What makes the German accusations against the "francs-tireurs" particularly serious is, firstly, the terrifying, infernal nature of the punishments which follow these accusations; and secondly, the fact that they involve our constituted authorities.[22] "The Belgian Government has openly[23] encouraged the civil population to take part in this war," says one whose word has weight in Germany, for he is none other than the Emperor in person. And he did not content himself with telegraphing this to America; he spread this impudent assertion over the walls of our cities (p. 208). Had he at least the excuse of believing what he said? Most certainly not; for years he had been informed by his spies of the details of our military organization; he knew, then, perfectly, what Belgium was or was not doing.

At the time the first accusations of this kind were made the Belgian authorities had informed Germany that, conformably with the laws of war, they were fighting only with their regular troops (2nd _Grey Book_, Nos. 68, 69, 71). And they posted everywhere proclamations recommending the people to keep calm, forbidding civilians to take part in the fighting, and counselling the citizens to deliver their arms to the communal administrations (2nd _Grey Book_, No. 71). At the same time the principal daily papers repeated, day by day, on the first page and in large type, the text of these placards.

These appeals were heard, and our compatriots, if they owned rifles, immediately took their arms to the _maisons communales_. Would you believe it, this measure of precaution was exploited against us! For later, when the Germans occupied our _hôtels de ville_, and discovered the presence of rifles, each ticketed with its owner's name, they pretended to have brought to light a proof of premeditation (_N.R.C._, 4th September, 1914, evening edition): "Look!--say the officers--with what care the Belgian authorities have prepared for the guerilla war! Each citizen has his rifle ready to hand at the _hôtel de ville_!" The soldiers must indeed have been ridden by the "fixed idea" of the "franc-tireur," or they must have realized the poltroonery of such suggestions!

But the Germans made assertions much more extravagant than this. In Belgium repairs to buildings are effected with the assistance of scaffoldings suspended against the outer walls; and at the time of building the house openings are left immediately under the cornice, in which the cross-beams supporting the scaffolding are fixed when required. These openings are closed outwardly by some sort of decorative motive. Now, a German captain gives a detailed description of these arrangements, and arrives at the conclusion that these are _loopholes for francs-tireurs_!

What a mentality for an officer! So fantastic an explanation evidently will not bear a moment's reflection; but that matters nothing; it is none the less reprinted by the work _Die Wahrheit über den Krieg_, to be served to the Germans remaining in the country. The authors of the statement know that their compatriots have lost the critical sense and that they are ready to accept, their eyes closed, and their minds also, anything that is told them.

This example shows that while inciting the soldiers in order to bring them to the required pitch of irritation, the rulers of Germany are equally concerned to create a violent current of hatred in their own country. It was necessary, in fact, since there was nothing with which the Belgian nation could be reproached, and since nevertheless they were making war upon it, to invent a few serious motives of animosity.

In a preceding chapter we examined the wretched diplomatic accusations which the Germans have forged in an attempt to compromise our political circles. We shall presently deal with the abominable accusations of cruelty brought against the Belgians. Here we will content ourselves with citing yet one more fact relating to the "francs-tireurs."

When the civil population of a locality was accused--or convicted, as the butchers said--of having borne arms against the German troops, the procedure was generally as follows: The houses were fired, and the inhabitants driven towards a public square, or into the church. They were divided into two groups: one of men, the others of women, children, and old folk. Then a certain number of men were shot; often, too, a few of the women, children, and old people. After the execution, which took place in the presence of the whole village, the women, children, and old people were set free to wander amid the smoking ruins. The officers used to make it their duty to be present at these operations, as much to encourage and, at need, to assist the executioners, as to enjoy the spectacle. At Tamines they sat at table in the open, drinking champagne, while the victims were being buried. The Germans themselves realized what disgust such behaviour excited; they tried to deny the facts, but these were proved.

_Treatment of Civil Prisoners._

What was done with the men not killed? They were sent into Germany in order to show the "francs-tireurs" to the people. One can easily imagine what the journey was like: in cattle-trucks, where they remained packed together for several days, without even having room to sit down; tortured by hunger and thirst to the point of losing their reason--which meant being shot there and then. The stoppages in the railway stations, when the population came to insult them, making gestures of cutting their throats ... one can picture it all. Then the life in camp, where they are even less well treated than the soldiers, for at least these latter are regarded as prisoners of war, and, in that quality, as being protected, up to a certain point, by the Hague Convention; while the "francs-tireurs" are criminals in common law, who are given, for food, scarcely anything but soup made of beet, fish-heads, and slaughter-house offal.

It is extremely difficult to obtain information as to their sojourn in Germany from those who have returned. Before leaving, it seems, they were forced to make a promise to reveal nothing, under penalty of being sent back to Germany. We know, however, that certain of these prisoners, coming from an agricultural district, were forced to go down the coal-pits of Essen (_N.R.C._, 10th October, 1914, evening edition), while others were made to gather in the harvest in Westphalia. When they refused to go to work they were beaten with sticks; a young man on the outskirts of Brussels still bears the marks of such treatment.

This is a revival of the deeds of antiquity. The ancients also reduced the able-bodied inhabitants to slavery, employing them in agriculture or the mines. It only remains for the Germans to sell us at auction, as Julius Cæsar did in the case of the 53,000 Belgians captured at Atuatuca (_De Bello Gallico_, ii. 33).

They sent not only "francs-tireurs" into Germany. They made prisoners also in localities where nothing had happened. Thus they took all the inhabitants of the non-active civic guard of Tervueren. The list bore 135 names; as many of the men had left the commune, the Germans completed the number by taking the first civilians who came to hand; for they had to have 135 prisoners from Tervueren to exhibit in Germany.

On several occasions it happened, during the period of the great massacres, from the 20th to the 27th August, that bands of prisoners taken into Germany were not accepted and were sent back to Belgium. Such was the case with numerous prisoners from Louvain, who were taken back to Brussels, then taken to near Malines, and there left in the open country; the same was done with several hundreds of men, women, children, and old folk from Rotselaer, Wesemael, and Gelrode. Here, in a few words, is their Odyssey. To begin with, they were expelled from their houses, that these might be burned, on the 25th and 26th August. Then they were driven by the troops as far as Louvain, and there crammed by force into cattle-trucks, which in two days conveyed them to Germany. There they were witnesses of a violent dispute of which they were the object, and finally, after they had been given a little food in the railway station, they were put back into their trucks. They reached Brussels on the 31st August, where they were restored to liberty; that is, they were told: "Get out of here, and be off with you." And there were these unhappy folk, turned out of the railway station, dejected, bewildered, their glances vacant, almost dead with drowsiness and fatigue, the men supporting the old people, the women carrying the children. The people of Brussels who saw this lamentable procession go by will never as long as they live forget the impression of misery which they received. Assistance was organized immediately, and our poor compatriots were given shelter in the various public establishments of Saint-Josse-ten-Noode. They remained there several weeks before daring to return "home."

How many civil prisoners were there in the various camps of Germany: Celle, Gutersloh, Magdeburg, Münster, Salzwedel, Cassel, Senne, Soltau, etc.? The lists which have been published in _Le Bruxellois_ are very incomplete. On the other hand, persons who were believed to be prisoners in Germany have in reality been shot. Thus, in the little garden facing the railway station of Louvain a trench was opened on the 14th and 15th January, 1915, in which were found a Belgian soldier of the 6th line regiment and twenty-six civilians of Louvain, who were believed for the most part to be in Germany; among them were two women and the curé of Herent.

Many of the people of Tintigny, Rossignol, and other localities, who had been taken away as civil prisoners, were shot by the roadside. Those of Musson escaped only because the order had come from Germany not to kill any more prisoners: by July 1915 they were not as yet repatriated.

_The Return of Civil Prisoners._

In November and December there returned to their "homes" (we mean to their native towns, not to their houses, which were burned) about 450 inhabitants of Dinant, more than 400 of Aerschot, and several hundred people of Louvain, of the 1,200 which had been taken away.

Many of them bore, painted in white oil paint on the back of their waistcoats the words: _Kriegsgefangene-Münsterlager_. Until March 1915 those living at Dinant had to present themselves regularly before the military authorities.

On the occasion of their return the communal administration of Dinant was compelled publicly to thank the Germans.

CITY OF DINANT.

On the occasion of the return of a portion of our civil prisoners, I believe it my duty to invite the whole population to observe the most absolute calm. Any demonstration might be severely repressed.

The return of a portion of our fellow-citizens, held in captivity for nearly three months, constitutes an act of benevolence, an act of generous humanity on the part of the military authorities, to whom we offer the thanks of the administration and those of the people of Dinant. By its tranquillity the latter will endeavour to manifest its gratitude.

I also beg the returning prisoners immediately to resume their labours. This measure is necessary, as much in the interest of their families as in the interest of society.

For the Burgomaster, absent, E. TAZIAUX, _Communal Councillor_. DINANT, _the 18th November, 1914_.

At the end of January 1915 about 2,500 inhabitants of Brabant were sent back in a body. They had left the camps on Sunday, the 24th January, and they reached Louvain on Friday the 29th, and Brussels and Vilvorde on Saturday the 30th. During this five days' journey they had not been allowed to leave the trucks into which they were crammed; for all nourishment they received some black bread and water, and on occasion a turnip or a beet. The Louvain prisoners had the greatest trouble in the world to walk as far as the ruins of their houses. Those from beyond Assche were set down at the Gare du Nord in Brussels; they had to be carried as far as the tram for Berchem; their swollen feet refused all service. These unhappy people were still wearing the light clothes which they were wearing in August, when they were dragged from their villages, and since then they had never had a fire. Those from Tervueren were taken from the trucks at Schaerbeek; they were driven home in carts.

_German Admission of the Innocence of the Civil Prisoners._

What crime had these unhappy folk committed to be treated in so terrible a fashion? None. The Germans themselves admit it; none (2nd _Grey Book_, No. 87). The German authorities communicated the following note to the Belgian newspapers--we copy it from the _Écho de la presse internationale_ of the 30th January, 1915:--

The Commander-in-Chief of the German Army has authorized the return to Belgium of the Belgian civilian prisoners: (1) against whom no inquiry of any military tribunal is in progress; (2) who have not to undergo any penalty of any kind. Consequently all the women (17) and 2,577 men will be able to re-enter the country.

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).

This is not the only case admitted by them. _Zeit im Bild_ (No. 43, 1914) reproduces on its cover a photograph of a "military post on the tower of an Hôtel de Ville." In this we see German soldiers armed with rifles, watching an imaginary enemy. This photograph was taken at the Palais de Justice in Brussels, as is proved, without possibility of error, by the church of La Chapelle, whose very characteristic tower rises in the distance. The Germans were so delighted with this violation of the Hague Convention that they reproduced the photograph in the illustrated supplement of the _Hamburger Fremdensblatt_. And what is most curious in this affair is that they boasted of an offence which they knew they had not committed. For, firstly, the soldiers were not posted "on an Hôtel de Ville"; secondly, they were not even posted _on_ the Palais de Justice, but to one side of it, as may easily be determined on the spot; thirdly, German soldiers have never been placed there to overlook an enemy!

Since mid-October of 1914 it is in Western Flanders that the fighting has taken place. Did the Germans eventually, before the universal reprobation which greeted their exploits at Louvain, Reims, and so forth, determine to respect the international agreement to which they are parties? By no means. They are far too contemptuous of conventions, as is proved by the photographs of monuments bombarded in the region of the Yser, which are published in the illustrated newspapers, notably in _Panorama_, a Dutch illustrated paper which surreptitiously enters Belgium.

Ypres: _Panorama_, 23_b_, 25_a_.

Dixmude: _Panorama_, 23_a_, 23_b_; _Berl. Ill. Zeit._, Nos. 2 and 3, 1915; _Kriegs-Echo_, Nos. 22, 24; _Zeit. im Bild_, No. 3, 1915.

Pervyse: _Panorama_, 21_a_, 21_b_, 23_a_.

Nieuport: _Panorama_, 22_a_.

Ramscapelle: _Panorama_, 23_b_.

Among the monuments destroyed artists especially deplore the marvellous Halles of Ypres, and the churches of Nieuport, Ypres, and Dixmude. This last contained a very remarkable Gothic rood-screen, of which Herr Stübben, one of the most eminent architects of modern Germany, stated that its loss would be irreparable. It escaped the shells, but not the German soldiery, who destroyed it with the butts of their rifles, after the capture of the town. Always _Kultur_!

_Pillage._

ARTICLE 28.

_The giving over to pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is forbidden._

ARTICLE 46.

_Family honour and rights, individual life, and private property as well as religious convictions and worship, must be respected._

ARTICLE 47

_Pillage is expressly forbidden._

"Family honour and rights!" The cases of rape prove the respect of the German army for these prescriptions!

"Individual life!" By the end of September 1914 the Germans had killed more civilians than soldiers. This simple statement says more than could a long exposition.

"Private property!" Theft and pillage are phenomena so commonplace that the inhabitants no longer insist upon them; if they mention the subject it is to say: "The Germans behaved well here; they only took all we had." We shall therefore confine ourselves to citing a few cases particularly typical of the German mentality.

It is indisputable that the conflagrations started under the pretext of chastising "francs-tireurs" were in reality designed to conceal the pillage committed by the German army. This was certainly the case at Aerschot (_4th Report_) and at Louvain. The officers who gave orders to start these fires were therefore accomplices of the pillaging soldiery. For that matter, how could they have disavowed the thefts of their men, seeing that they themselves largely took part in the scramble? Whole trains left Brussels, Louvain, Malines, and Verviers for Germany, loaded with "war booty for officers." During their journey to Belgium, Herren Koester and Noske, on the 23rd September, at Hubesthal, saw numerous trains passing which were laden with war booty (_Kriegsfahrten_, p. 8); there were at that time no serious battles either in France or in Belgium, so that there was no capture of war booty in the Western sense of the term.[28] The trains observed by the Socialist authors could only have been carrying the fruits of pillage; they came probably from Malines, which the Germans at this time were scrupulously emptying, as well as the numerous châteaux of the neighbourhood.

Not a district has been visited by the Germans that has not been totally despoiled. Of course, the silver was taken first. One officer, after plundering the entire store of silver of a villa at Francorchamps, confided to a neighbour that he was going to have it melted down in Germany, with the exception of one spoon, which he would keep as a "souvenir." Is it not typical and delightful, this German cult of the "souvenir" as a veneer of sentimentality on a basis of rapacity? According to the definition given by the Kaiser, this officer displayed his civilization but not his _Kultur_.

Another "requisition" of plate. In the railway station of Mons, towards the middle of February 1915, a merchant unloading a truck-load of merchandise had his attention attracted by a coffin which was being removed from a neighbouring van; suddenly he heard a metallic clink: the bottom of the coffin had given way, and an avalanche of spoons, forks, napkin-rings, and other articles of silver tumbled out!

Nothing is sacred to the Huns. They smash the tabernacles, treasuries, and poor-boxes of the churches as readily as the coffers of the People's Banks (_Maisons du Peuple_). At Auvelois they seized upon 43,000 frs. in the Maison du Peuple, this being the entire capital of the Socialist Young Guard, the Freethinkers, the newspaper _En Avant_, the Miners' Union (_syndicat_), and other mutual aid societies.

At Beyghem, near Grimberghen, before setting fire to the church, they broke open the safe in the sacristy. Being unable to perforate it, they demolished the wall dividing the church from the sacristy, in which it was imbedded, so that they were able to attack it from behind.

In most of the churches which were burned in the north of Brabant (p. 73) the strong-box and the tabernacle were broken open. It was the same in the province of Namur.

As soon as the approach of the Germans was signalled, many people hastened to pack up their furniture and valuables, in order more readily to transport them in case of evacuation. This foresight almost always failed in its object, owing to the impossibility of finding a horse and cart at the moment of departure. These packing-cases and hampers, all ready corded, presented an insurmountable temptation; the officers were never able to resist it, and the goods were sent straight to the railway station.

We are informed that at the beginning of the German occupation officers were frequently mistaken as to the actual value of the articles which they removed; so that they sent their families worthless rubbish "made in Germany." To avoid these unpleasant misconceptions, they made their inspections in the company of experts who directed their choice.

Need we add that the wine-cellars were always methodically exploited? The bottles which could not be drunk on the spot were packed for later consumption, or to be sent to Germany. In a château near Charleroi the officers had the doors--which were beautiful examples of joinery--taken off their hinges, and used to make packing-cases for the bottles.

We must not forget that drunkenness has played an important part in the atrocities committed by the German army.

The Germans were not content with making a clean sweep of the private houses and châteaux; they also stripped the Governmental offices which they occupied in Brussels of their furniture. In the Ministry of Public Works a portion of the maps of bridges, buildings, etc., was burned, and a portion sent to Germany.

_Thefts of Stamps._

As to those who despoiled the Ministries, we will give them the credit of supposing that they acted by order and in the interest of their Government; but we cannot thus excuse the conduct of one officer who, having possessed himself, goodness knows how, of a number of Belgian stamps, attempted, in a stationer's shop, to pay for 80 frs.' worth of goods by means of these stamps. Meeting with a refusal from the shopkeeper, he had to content himself with paying for only a portion of his purchases in this manner. In a neighbouring watchmaker's he did better, for he was able to get rid of 100 frs. in stamps; at a discount, of course.[29] He informed the watchmaker that he possessed 4,000 frs.' worth of Belgian stamps. The latter was not so indiscreet as to ask how he obtained them.

Better still: the Germans do not conceal the fact that they are thieves. The _Matin_ (Paris, 9th June, 1915) reproduced the photograph of an announcement published by a Swiss newspaper.

"It informs us that a thief of the German army, desiring to realize the 'war booty' which he collected in Antwerp, offers for sale unused stamps of values between 10 centimes and 10 frs. In his 'stock' of booty are 19 different stamps of a total value of 29 frs. 70 (oh, that 70 centimes of pillage!) which he offers for 3 frs. 50.--All Germany--philosophical, political, military, and commercial--is contained in this little advertisement."

At Tamines, having burned about 250 houses, on the 21st and 22nd August, 1914, and having forced the living to bury the 416 unhappy people shot on the evening of the 22nd, they sent all the survivors to Velaines-sur-Sambre. There they were given their liberty, and told that they might go to Namur or to Düsseldorf, but not to Tamines. Why not to Tamines? They understood a few days later, when they were bold enough to return despite the prohibition. The Germans had completely emptied all the shops and all the private houses in the place. It is evident that this operation can be effected in a more methodical and comfortable manner when there are no children running between your legs, or women begging you to leave them some souvenir for which they have a particular affection.

At Louvain they acted in the same manner; they proceeded to wholesale pillage only after the 27th, when they had sent all the inhabitants away.

Sometimes the love of pillage got the better of discipline. At Jumet, on the road from Brussels to Charleroi, on the 22nd August, 1914, the troops were ordered to burn all the houses, because the French of the 110th Infantry had dared to attack them with machine-guns. But some soldiers who had entered a tobacconist's amused themselves by stealing cigars and cigarettes, and were so absorbed that they forgot to set fire to the shop, so that it has remained intact in the midst of a long row of burned-out buildings.

What disgusts us most in all this pillage is not that the German troops should have marked our unhappy country for pillage; it is the indisputable complicity of the leaders of the army. Nothing more clearly proves the benevolent intervention of the military and civil authorities in the operations of brigandage than the regular transport of "war booty" into Germany. The officers make no secret of sending to their homes such things as pianos, pictures, jewels, furniture, glass, etc. They do it openly, with the obvious complicity of the railway officials. The latter are entrusted with the organization of the rapid transportation to the Fatherland of mountains of cases, containing the results of the methodical exploration of our houses and châteaux and shops and warehouses. It is a vast organization of brigandage, hierarchically regulated, in which every one steals without hiding the fact from his fellows. Who knows whether the coffin full of silver-plate which burst in the Mons railway station did not belong to some officer who had swindled his accomplices? We in Belgium have witnessed the regular working of a system of "co-operative brigandage under the august protection of the authorities."

Let us note, finally, that theft and pillage are expressly forbidden by the German _Usages of War_. Articles 57, 58, 60, 61, and 62 prohibit all destruction of private property. But we must suppose that their _Usages of War_ are applicable only in times of peace, since from the very first days of the war the German army began to pillage the regions which it occupied. This spoliation has been pursued with the systematic spirit which characterizes _Kultur_.

_Illegal Taxation._

ARTICLE 43.

_The authority of the power of the State having passed de facto into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall do all in his power to restore, and shall ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, respecting at the same time, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country._

ARTICLE 48.

_If, in the territory occupied, the occupant collects the taxes, dues, and tolls payable to the State, he shall do so, as far as is possible, in accordance with the legal basis and assessment in force at the time and shall in consequence be bound to defray the expenses of the administration of the occupied territory to the same extent as the national Government had been so bound._

ARTICLE 49.

_If, in addition to the taxes mentioned in the above Article, the occupant levies other money contributions in the occupied territory, they shall only be applied to the needs of the army or of the administration of the territory in question._

Two placards exhibited in Brussels on the evening of the 12th December (Saturday) attracted general attention.

They first convoked the Provincial Councils for the 19th December, and imposed upon them, not simply a general "order of the day," but an imperative mandate to vote a war-tax. The second gave details of this tax: 480,000,000 frs. was to be paid in monthly instalments of 40,000,000 (£19,200,000 in twelve payments of £1,600,000) (see _Belg. Allem._, p. 120).

Baron von Bissing thus advertised, seven days in advance, the decisions to be taken by the Provincial Councils. Doubtless he was made to understand that the proceeding was a little extreme, and contrary both to the law and to common sense; for on the following morning the second placard was covered with a blank sheet of paper. Better still, the "Official Bulletin of Laws and Decrees for the occupied Belgian Territory" gave in its issue of the 19th the text of the two decrees; but this number was suppressed, and in its place another placard, numbered 19, was distributed, which included only the first decree.

On the 19th December our nine Provincial Councils assembled. They could not do otherwise than vote the crushing tax of 480 millions; but several of them protested eloquently against the illegality of this proceeding.

_Speech delivered by M. François André at the meeting of the Provincial Council of Hainaut, on the 19th December, 1914, in the presence of the German Governor and Dr. Daniest, President._

... We have met by order of the German authorities to vote a war-tax; to make one word of many, we have met to furnish arms to the formidable invader of our country, to be used against our heroic little Belgian army....

We are thus assembled to vote, _by order_, a war-tax.

I wish to protest--against both the form and the substance of this tax.

As to the form, I regard this extraordinary session as absolutely illegal; the Provincial Councillors are not qualified to vote war-taxes affecting the whole country; moreover, the councillors of the various provinces, in concerting as to the measures to be taken in common, so to speak, which are matters beyond the scope of their jurisdiction, are committing an offence in Belgian law, which law no German decree has abrogated. As to the substance: Admitting that the German authorities have the right to levy taxes on the whole country, while our 120,000 soldiers are still in occupation of our territory, it is very certain that according to the terms of the Hague Convention no tax may be levied except for the needs of the army of occupation.

What is an army of occupation?

It is that which, finding itself in a conquered territory, undertakes the policing and safeguards the security of that territory.

This is why it may appear legitimate for the army to force the occupied territory to support it.

But our country--as Field-Marshal von der Goltz has declared, and as is perfectly obvious--our country has become the basis of military operations against the Allies. According to the spirit of the Hague Convention, there is no army of occupation, properly speaking, in our country, and in any case the 35,000 men concentrated in Namur and the artillery assembled at Liége cannot in any respects be regarded as making part of an army of occupation.

It is, therefore, contrary to law and contrary to reason that these 480,000,000 frs. are demanded from the country.

Are we then going to vote this formidable war-tax?

Assuredly if we listened only to our hearts we should reply: No, no; 480,000,000 times no.

For our hearts would tell us:

We were a small nation, happy to live by its labour; we were an honest little nation, having faith in treaties and believing in honour; we were a confident little nation, and unarmed, when suddenly, violently, Germany hurled two million men upon our frontier, the greatest army that the world has ever seen, and she told us: "Betray your given word; let our armies pass that I may crush France, and I will give you gold." But Belgium replied: "Keep your gold; I would rather die than live without honour."

History will one day reveal the greatness of the action which forever magnifies us in the eyes of the future. For nothing in the annals of the past equals the sacrifice of this people, which, having nothing to gain and all to lose, preferred to lose all in order that honour should be saved, and deliberately cast herself into an abyss of distress, but also of glory.

The German army thus invaded the country in violation of solemn treaties.

"It is an injustice," said the Chancellor of the Empire; "the destinies of the Empire forced us to commit it; but we shall repair the wrong done to Belgium by the passage of our armies...."

This, then, is how they mean to repair that wrong:

Germany will pay----

But no! Belgium will pay Germany 480,000,000 frs.! Vote this money!

As a matter of penal legislation, the Germans have systematically ignored Article 48, as is proved by the eloquent protest of the President of the Bar of Brussels.

Yet another typical instance of the manner in which Germany disregards our laws. At Aerschot the Germans provisionally invested a German, Herr Ronnewinkel, who had inhabited the district for several years, with the functions of Burgomaster. On the 6th November, 1914, they proclaimed him permanently burgomaster.

Here was a German appointed burgomaster by the will of the district commander, although by the terms of the law only a Belgian appointed by the Government could be burgomaster. Moreover, they did the same at Andenne. The communal autonomy of which Belgium was so proud was thus trampled underfoot.

We see, then, that in despite of Articles 43 and 48 of the Hague Convention and Article 67 of their own _Usages of War_ the Germans have shown no respect whatever for the legislation in force. We cite here only the most flagrant of these illegalities, those which any person of common sense can understand and judge.

ARTICLE 44.

_A belligerent is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of territory occupied by it to furnish information about the army of the other belligerent, or about its means of defence._

This article was not accepted by Germany; she remains faithful to her _Usages of War_: Article 53, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs, and applies their principles with extreme severity.

Nothing better illustrates the severity with which the Germans act than the little manual of conversation which terminates the _Tornisterwörterbuch_, published by the Mentor publishing house in Schöneberg, Berlin. It is a small dictionary, costing 60 pfennigs, and intended, as the title indicates, to be carried in the soldier's knapsack. The French dictionary and the English are conceived according to the same method; after information concerning the country in question they give a summary of the rules of grammar; then comes the dictionary properly so-called, with phonetic pronunciation; finally, a few common phrases, which to us are the most interesting part of the book, since their choice naturally reflects the requirements of those expected to employ them. Here are a few passages from paragraph 4: _Service of Outposts and Patrols_. In each passage we copy all the phrases without exception, so as to avoid misrepresenting the spirit of the work; and this spirit, as will be seen, is ferocious. The volume is not dated; but the 42nd edition, from which we quote, describes (p. 44) the French campaigning uniform of 1912. These phrases were therefore printed at least five years after the second Hague Conference (18th October, 1907). They show clearly that the acts of cruelty committed by the patrols against those who refused to betray their country were not improvised by the cavalry taking part in these reconnaissances, but were systematically premeditated.

P. 175--

Silence! Speak only when I question you! You seem to me a suspicious person. Where is your pocket-book? I must search it. Remain here for the moment. At the first attempt at flight you will be shot. Sir, where does this road lead?

P. 176--

Is this village occupied by the French? When did the troops arrive there? What is roughly their composition? Roughly? Two or three companies? How many officers, roughly speaking? Have they any artillery? How many guns? Have you seen cavalry too? Tell us the truth. The least lie might cost you your life!

P. 177--

Has the village been placed in a state of defence? Are there no cross-roads leading to the windmill? Remain by my horse. On the first attempt at flight, or if you try to mislead me, I shall send a bullet after you. Stop here! I will call the miller myself. Hey! Miller! Have any French troops passed this way? You lie! Here are visible traces, and quite fresh ones.

A little manual of conversation costing 20 pfennigs--_Deutsch-Französischer-Soldaten-Sprachführer_, by Captain S. Th. Hoasmann, is conceived on the same lines. Here are a few examples. The soldier, making a reconnaissance, declares: "Speak the truth or you will be killed!" In the chapter on "Posts and Telegraphs" we find the phrase: "It is forbidden (on pain of death) to send telegrams." And the sentinel should be able to say: "If you lie you will be shot," etc.

ARTICLE 50.

_No collective penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible._

This article proclaims the principle that in no case must the innocent suffer with the guilty, nor in their place. We have already seen that our enemies oppose this idea; they maintain that the innocent should suffer with the guilty, and even that if one cannot lay hands on the guilty one may punish the innocent in their place (p. 84). It was by the application of this German principle of collective punishment that Louvain, Dinant, Termonde, and other towns were burned.

The placard of 1st October, 1914, clearly displays the German mentality; it states that villages will be punished without mercy, whether guilty or not.

NOTICE.

On the evening of the 25th September the railway and telegraph lines were destroyed between Lovenjoul and Vestryck. In consequence of which the two localities mentioned were, on the morning of the 30th September, called to account and forced to supply hostages.

In future the localities nearest the spot at which such acts have been committed--no matter whether they are guilty of complicity or not--will be punished without pity. To this end hostages have been taken from all localities adjacent to railway lines threatened by such attacks, and at the first attempt to destroy the railway lines, or telegraph or telephone wires, they will immediately be shot.

Moreover, all troops charged with the protection of railways have received orders to shoot any person approaching railway lines or telephone or telegraph wires in a suspicious manner.

THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL IN BELGIUM, BARON VON DER GOLTZ, _General Field-Marshal_.

BRUSSELS, _1st October, 1914_.

Fully to appreciate the horrible nature of this placard we must recall the fact that during the siege of Antwerp (which terminated only on the 9th) Belgium patrols were penetrating into the midst of the German troops, venturing thirty-five miles and more from Antwerp, their mission being to harass the enemy's communications and to destroy the railways and the telegraph and telephone line. It was one of these bodies of Belgian cyclists which cut the railway and telegraph line between Louvain and Tirlemont on 25th September, 1914. Von der Goltz was evidently aware that this destruction was a perfectly legitimate military operation, so that his placard was intended simply to embarrass our military authorities by showing them that in defiance of all justice Germany intended to hold the Belgian civilians responsible for the activity of our army. In short, instead of saying "no matter whether these localities are guilty of complicity or not," von der Goltz would have given a greater proof of sincerity had he said, "although I know that these localities are in no way guilty of complicity."

Here are two other placards, printed in Germany, which show plainly that it is according to a system that our oppressors hold the entire community responsible for the act committed by a single person; or rather, as we shall see, for the acts of the Belgian army.

PLACARD PRINTED IN GERMAN, FRENCH, RUSSIAN, AND POLISH, SURROUNDED BY A BORDER OF THE GERMAN COLOURS.

NOTICE.

Any person who shall have damaged a military telephone or telegraph will be shot.

Any person removing this notice will also receive the severest punishment. If the guilty person is not found, the severest measures will be taken against the commune in which the damage has been caused or the present notice removed.

THE GENERAL COMMANDING THE ARMY CORPS.

(_Posted at Bieghem, copy made 22nd October, 1914._)

NOTICE.

All damage done to the Telegraph, Telephone, or Railway lines will be punished by the Military Court. According to the circumstances, the guilty person will be condemned to death.

If the guilty person is not seized the severest measures will be taken against the commune in which the damage has been done,

THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT.

Printed by H. A. Heymann, Berlin, S.W.

(_Posted at Tervueren, copy made 15th April, 1915._)

Very frequently the penalties with which the community is threatened are not specified in these placards. One may suppose that it would consist of a fine; this is indeed the punishment most frequently applied, doubtless because it is the most productive. Here are some examples, for cutting the telegraph wires, various localities in Flanders were forced to pay fines in December 1914.

The military chest does not lack for money; for in a garrison command a fine may be inflicted more readily than elsewhere. Here is an example. An officer was choosing some music in a shop; and found, amidst a heap of pieces of music, a copy of the _Marseillaise_. Now it has never been stated that one must not possess the _Marseillaise_. Result: the shopkeeper was condemned to pay a fine of 500 marks or to twenty days' imprisonment. "I prefer the imprisonment," said the unfortunate man. "But, my good fellow, you can avoid going to prison! Pay the fine!" "I know, but I have not got 500 marks. I could only scrape together 150 frs. at most." "All right, give them to me!"

* * * * *

_Fines for Telegraphic Interruptions._

The military chest is also replenished by the fines paid because the telegraph and telephone do not work properly. Now it has often happened during the last six weeks that communication has been obstructed in Flanders. The smallest communes have been forced to pay fines.

Here is a brief list of such fines:

Gand 100,000 marks Ledebourg 5,000 " Destelbergen 30,000 " Schellebelle 50,000 " Sweveghem 4,900 " Winckel Sainte-Croix 3,000 " Wachtebeke 3,000 "

_(N.R.C._, 30th January, 1915, evening edition.)

_Fines for "Attacks by Francs-tireurs."_

We may observe, in passing, that in September 1914 the accusation--the accusation, we say, not the offence--of having allowed a telegraph wire to deteriorate was punished, in Brussels, by a stoppage of the telephone service; but in December the Germans preferred to fill their treasury. The same observation is true of Mons and Bilsen; the accusation of "francs-tireurs," which in September 1914 would have ended in a massacre of the inhabitants and the burning of the town, was in October the motive for a tax of 100,000 frs. At that time it no longer seemed essential to terrorize; the Germans no longer required blood, but money.

ON BEHALF OF THE GERMAN MILITARY AUTHORITIES.

WARNING.

The City of Mons has been forced to pay a tax of 100,000 frs. because a private person fired upon a German soldier.

(_Posted at Louvain._)

And indeed it is money that is demanded everywhere--5,000 frs. from the commune of Grenbergen, near Termonde, because an inhabitant allowed his pigeons to fly. 5,000,000 frs. was required of Brussels because a police agent maltreated a German spy (p. 157). It was with a money fine that Mons was threatened should an Englishman be discovered on its soil (placard posted at Mons, 6th November, 1914), and the city of Mons and the province of Hainaut if any inhabitant retained for his own use any benzine or a motor-bicycle (placard posted at Mons, 6th October, 1914). At Seraing, in February 1915, it was again money that was demanded, because a bomb had burst within the limits of the commune. The more surely to obtain the sum, a few hostages were imprisoned, with the promise that they would be sent to a fortress in Germany if the communal treasury did not pay their ransom; but the hostages themselves advised the commune to refuse. The Germans, fearing to be left in the lurch, reduced their demands by half; finally, having obtained nothing, they released the hostages. Singular justice, to regulate its penalties not by the gravity of the offence, but according to the temper of the victims! We are waiting for the German newspapers to publish a schedule of penalties as affected by the docility of the victims and the season.

Here is an amusing instance of a penalty which was inflicted upon Antwerp. When the Germans posted up a statement that they had captured 52,000 Russians and 400 guns in Eastern Prussia, a playful citizen replaced the first letter of _Russians_ in the Flemish text by an M and concealed the two first letters of _canonen_. The new version announced that the Germans had captured 52,000 sparrows and 400 nuns. The Germans were annoyed and imposed a fine of 25,000 frs. on the city. At Tirlemont, where the same pleasantry was perpetrated, the Germans contented themselves with making vague threats.

The adventure of Eppeghem also deserves to be told in a few words.

In November 1914 a German soldier walking in the country fired at a hare or a pigeon. An officer turned up and questioned the soldier. As all sport is reserved for officers, the soldier, to avoid punishment, threw the blame on to the peasants. The matter was referred to Brussels, and on the following day officers arrived with forty Uhlans. A fine of 10,000 frs. was inflicted on the commune.

Some women living in a house which had by chance remained standing, near the field in which the soldier had fired, asserted that no inhabitant had fired a shot, but that they had seen the soldier fire. No one listened to them. "We must have 10,000 frs., and at once." But in this village, ruined from end to end, where scarcely a house was habitable, from which all the men had been deported into Germany, there was no means of collecting such a sum of money. "Since that is so, hostages will be taken," said the officers. The Uhlans organized a hunt, and seized the curé and three laymen, the only ones they could find; and even of these one was an inhabitant of Vilverde, who had obligingly been acting as a citizen policeman at Eppeghem. They were taken to Brussels, but on passing through Vilverde the inhabitant of that place was released, owing to the protests of his fellow-citizens. After ten days' imprisonment Baron von der Goltz, finding that there was nothing to be extracted from the communal treasury of Eppeghem, and that the curé and his two parishioners were being kept and fed at a loss, set them at liberty.

_Hostages_

The taking of hostages is also in flagrant opposition to the provisions of Article 50, but in conformity with the German _Usages of War_. The hostage guarantees with his own life that his fellow-citizens, with whom he has no influence, shall faithfully execute the orders of the German authorities.

The first care of enemy troops arriving in any locality is always to demand the provision of hostages; these are usually the curé, the burgomaster, the notary, the schoolmaster, and a few other notables. We may recall Liége, where the bishop, Mgr. Rutten, was taken hostage; Spa, Louvain, Charleroi, Gand, and Mons. In Brussels they demanded the delivery of 100 hostages, but afterwards withdrew the demand.

As to the fate which awaits the hostages if the German army is attacked, it is plainly stipulated in the proclamations: they will be shot, "without previous judicial formalities." Thus, it would have been enough for a Belgian patrol to renew its usual activities near Forest, and two hostages would have immediately been shot "without previous judicial formalities."

GENERAL GOVERNMENT IN BELGIUM.

TO THE PEOPLE OF FOREST.

Despite my repeated warnings attacks have again been made during the last few days by the civil population of the neighbourhood against German troops, and also upon the railway between Brussels and Mons.

By the order of the Military Governor-General of Brussels each locality must consequently provide hostages.

Thus at Forest the following are arrested:

(1) M. Vanderkindere, Communal Councillor. (2) M. le curé François.

I proclaim that these hostages will immediately be shot without previous judicial formalities if any attack occurs on the part of the population upon our troops or the railway lines occupied by us, and that moreover the most severe reprisals will be carried out against the commune of Forest.

I request the population to keep calm and to refrain from all violence; in this case it will not suffer the slightest harm.

THE COMMANDANT OF THE LANDSTURM, HALBERSTADT BATTALION, VON LESSEL.

FOREST, _26th September, 1914_.

If hostages try to escape they will be hanged and their village burned.

WARNING.

As fresh attempts at assassination have been made upon persons forming part of the German army I have had persons from many localities arrested as hostages. These will guarantee with their lives that no inhabitant will again dare to commit a malevolent action against German soldiers or attempt to damage the railway, telegraph or telephone line, or other objects useful to the operations of our army.

Persons not belonging to the army surprised in committing such actions will be shot or hanged. The hostages of the surrounding localities will suffer the same fate. I shall then have the neighbourhood burned to the last house, even if important towns are in question. If the hostages attempt to escape the locality to which they belong will be burned, and if captured the hostages will be hanged.

All inhabitants who give proof of their goodwill toward our troops are assured of the safety of their lives and property.

THE COMMANDANT ENTRUSTED WITH THE PROTECTION OF THE RAILWAYS, FREIHERR VON MALZAHN.

(_Posted at Spa, Aywaille, Châtelineau.... 17th August, 1914._)

We do not know if hostages were shot or hanged in Belgium. But in the north of France, according to a military correspondent of the _K.Z._, at least one hostage was killed; this assassination was the more criminal in that it punished not a hostile act of the inhabitants, but a perfectly normal and regular operation of war: a bombardment.

A WAR PICTURE.

... A château stands beside the highway, at the back of a courtyard protected by a French spear-headed railing. It is intact, and shelters the staff of an infantry regiment. Facing it is the ruined façade of an incredibly pretentious building on whose pediment sprawls in letters of gold the one word, "Bank." Beside it is a wholesale corn-chandler's and a wholesale wine-merchant's. All this belonged to a single man. It was necessary to shoot him as hostage, because the French were persisting, despite all warnings, in throwing shells into the neighbourhood. In the wine-cellars stores of unexpected importance were found; according to the estimates there are more than half a million litres of red and white wine of very good quality. A great part of the wine was pumped out of the tanks and received, like an old acquaintance, by the comrades far and near.

The rich man of this quarter of the town had a companion who was more lucky, who in due time sought safety in flight.

(_K.Z._, 21st February, 1915.)

A very curious case of the punishment of innocent people in the case of "guilty" ones is the following: On the 7th October, 1914, the Germans posted statements that the militia-men of the occupied regions could not rejoin the Belgian army, and that in case of disobedience the young men would expose themselves to the risk of being sent into Germany as prisoners of war. So far, nothing illegal. But the placard then declared that in case of the departure of any militia-man his family would be held responsible. Now, how are the parents guilty, if their son intends at all costs to fulfil his obligations to his native country? On the 30th December, 1914, there was an aggravation of this measure: the burgomasters also were to be punished. On the 28th January, 1915, a new notice appeared: all Belgians between the ages of sixteen and forty years were to be regarded as capable of military service. So when a man of forty goes to join the Belgian army the members of his family will be punished! Truly the notice might have stated whether children would be punished for not preventing their father's departure!

Have there been cases of repression? The _N.R.C._ states that at Hasselt the Germans actually arrested the fathers and mothers of the young men who escaped.

The _Tijd_ learns from Ruremonde:

At Hasselt and in the neighbourhood the Germans have hunted down the fathers of those young men who, liable to be called to the colours, have been able, in spite of strict prohibition and active supervision, to enter Holland, there to pass through England and France with the intention of eventually joining the army.

But as soon as they heard that the fathers were being arrested, these latter also crossed the frontier, and the Germans found that a great many birds had flown.

They did not stop then: the mothers were arrested in their place.

At the same time the Germans made it known that all these people would be transferred to the well-known camp at Münster, and warned the women to provide themselves with as much body-linen as possible. The whole of the little town was in consternation. Later arrived a telegram from General von Bissing, announcing that the departure for Münster was postponed for a week, and the prisoners were taken to Tongres.

(_N.R.C._, 3rd February, 1915.)

A last example of punishment inflicted upon the innocent, when the "guilty" person had already suffered punishment. A Belgian, having made signals to the enemy (that is, to the Belgian army), was killed while being arrested. Immediately the curé and the vicar were sent to Germany as being responsible for the members of their parish.

IMPORTANT NOTICE.

Alidor Vandamme, inhabitant of Cortemarck, committed espionage by making signals to the enemy. Resisting arrest, he was killed by a rifle-bullet.

The German authority has taken the following measures of coercion in consequence of the crime committed by Vandamme:

1. The curé Blancke and the vicar Barra, responsible for the members of their parish, will be deported as prisoners of war to Germany.

2. The commune of Cortemarck must pay a fine of five thousand marks (5,000 M.).

(_Posted at Thielt_, _Termonde_, _etc._)

This iniquity was not enough for the German authorities: they advertised it all through Flanders (we copied it at Thielt and Termonde), and forced _Le Bien Public_ to give it publicity. Through lack of conscience or insolence?

_Contributions and Requisitions._

ARTICLE 51.

_No contribution shall be collected except under a written order, and on the responsibility of a General in command._

_The collection of the said contribution shall only be effected in accordance, as far as is possible, with the legal basis and assessment of taxes in force at the time._

_For every contribution a receipt shall be given to the contributories._

ARTICLE 52.

_Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from local authorities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country. Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied._

_Contributions in kind shall as far as possible be paid for in ready money: if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible._

The last paragraph of Article 23, already cited, in reality presupposes that passage in Article 52 which forbids the occupant to force the inhabitants to do work which would assist operations directed against their country (p. 112).

Among the forms of contribution included in Article 49 we must give first place to that which fixes the value of the mark. The _Düsseldorfer Zeitung_ of the 4th September announces that the military commander of the occupied portion of Belgium and France fixed the value of 100 marks at 130 frs. And indeed placards posted at Charleroi, Saint-Trond, Namur, and Liége required the Belgians to accept German marks at this exaggerated tariff, which has caused certain of our merchants to lose considerable sums.

PROCLAMATION.

The circulation of German money having given rise to perplexities, _the value of the German mark has been fixed at 130 centimes_.

The attention of the public is called to the fact that all German paper money must be accepted in financial transactions at the same rate as German coin.

THE GOVERNOR. _The 25th August, 1914._

(_Posted at Liége._)

The fraudulent intention in this measure was only too evident. A month later Baron von der Goltz made it known that until further notice the mark was to be valued at the lowest at 1 fr. 25 (placard of the 3rd October, 1914). In reality the mark was worth only 1 fr. 08 to 1 fr. 15, so that the Belgians naturally endeavoured to refuse German notes; whereupon fresh placards were exhibited, compelling their acceptance (placards of the 4th and 15th November, 1914). We must mention an unhappy phrase in a placard posted at Mons; it states that the mark must be accepted _at the actual value of the coin_, and further on fixes this value at 1 fr. 25, which is obviously incorrect.

_Contributions demanded from the Cities._

Let us now consider the pecuniary contributions demanded from the cities. The most important were: Liége, 20 million frs.; Namur, 32 millions; Antwerp, 40 millions; Brussels, 45 millions. The discussions excited by this last contribution are extremely instructive; they have been reported by the _N.R.C._ We learn how the Germans violated, successively, all the different agreements which they concluded with the city; finally they imposed a fine of 5 millions, which enabled them, in spite of everything, to complete the sum of 50 millions which they had promised themselves they would extort from the capital.

CONTRIBUTION IMPOSED UPON BRUSSELS.

FROM ONE OF OUR WAR CORRESPONDENTS

... In the course of this journey I once more heard people speaking of the reasons which resulted in the city of Brussels being fined the sum of fifty millions of francs, as every one knows. What I relate here I had from one of the most eminent members of the magistracy:--

At the time of their entry here, the Germans demanded fifty millions from the city, and--don't cry out at this--450 millions from the province of Brabant. The communal council of Brussels tried to demonstrate that the city could not pay this tax, and that the tax imposed on the province was utterly exorbitant, seeing that Brabant, which draws on the budget for an annual sum of five to six millions, employed this money before it was paid, and could not, therefore, pay a fine, since the province had first to provide for its expenditure.... Having discussed the matter at great length, the Germans finally released Brabant from this war-tax, and at the same time gave the communal council a week to find the fifty millions, during which period they would suspend all other requisitions.

Burgomaster Max then had posted the well-known placard announcing that for the coming week no requisitions whatever would be made by the German authorities.

But on the following day the burgomaster was called upon to justify his action, and although he produced the written convention before the new Governor of the city, the latter gave him to understand that his predecessor might possibly have granted such a delay, but that he, being of superior rank, did not recognize the clause at issue. Fresh negotiations were commenced, and it was at last arranged that twenty millions should be paid in five instalments of four millions each. Four of these instalments were punctually paid, and the fifth was about to be paid, when Max was summoned by the Governor, who asked him what his arrangements were concerning the remaining thirty millions.

Max did not conceal his extreme surprise, stating that he fully understood that the remainder of the tax had been remitted, and that the twenty millions constituted the whole amount.

The German Governor was by no means of this opinion, and demanded the remaining thirty millions. Thereupon Max immediately sent an order to the bank to suspend payment of the last four millions, which were ready for payment, until he was certain that the Germans would accept them as the final instalment. There was then on either side an equal degree of obstinacy. The Governor maintained that Max was breaking his engagements; Max, on the other hand, maintained that the Germans had failed to keep their word. The result was that the burgomaster was arrested, and he is at the present moment imprisoned in a fortress at Glatz in Silesia.

The communal council was then warned that it would be deprived of its functions, and that the Germans would take over the administration of the city if the war-tax was not paid.

There were again interminable negotiations, and it was arranged that in all forty-five millions should be paid.

The sum was paid. Still the Germans wanted to get hold of the five remaining millions, so a police agent who had shown lack of respect for an officer was condemned to five years' imprisonment, while Brussels was fined five million francs.

One might ask whether, if the Germans continue to act in this fashion, the city of Brussels will be forced to pay a fine each time one of its functionaries is guilty of offence: for it is impossible that the city can control all its employés.

In this case the German officer who was insulted was in civilian clothes. Now to a complaint of the communal council the Governor had replied, some time previously, that there were no secret agents at work in civilian clothing; so that the police agent could not have known that he was dealing with an officer, since the latter was not in uniform.

It may be imagined that lively protests were made, but once more the Germans threatened to assume the direction of the commune if the sum was not paid by the 10th November at latest; so, although the council presented a memorandum on the affair, it was nevertheless forced to pay in order to pursue its mission in peace.

(_N.R.C._, 9th November, 1914.)

_Exactions of a Non-commissioned Officer._

Fines without rhyme and reason, and exorbitant war contributions have become so normal and so customary that the Germans have finally learned to exploit the situation. The _N.R.C._ for the 21st May, 1915, reported that the Council of War in Coblenz had condemned to eighteen months' imprisonment the non-commissioned officer Garternich, who had demanded from several occupied Belgian communes a war contribution of 3 frs. per head, and had thus acquired, for his own personal profit, a sum of 27,393 frs. Does not this simple fact reveal the habitual squeezing to which our poor country is subjected? Eighteen months' imprisonment for having emptied the communal treasuries already officially despoiled by the authorities--that truly is not much; especially when we compare this sentence with those pronounced upon the communes when a telegraph wire breaks down: the threat of burning a whole neighbourhood or a formidable fine.

_Requisitions of Raw Materials and Machinery._

_Requisitions may only be demanded_, says Article 52, _for the needs of the army of occupation_. Now our enemies have removed from Belgium enormous quantities of raw material, and machinery which evidently cannot be of use to the army of occupation (see _Belg. Allem._, pp. 113, 116, 117). What can the army do with raw cotton, wools, spun cotton, nickel, jute, etc.? It can be of use only to the industries of Germany, paralysed by the suppression of the mercantile marine. Among these requisitions are included machine-tools for the manufacture of shells (notably those removed from the national arsenal at Herstal and the royal cannon foundry at Liége), and metals, such as copper, which are indispensable to the manufacture of munitions; so that the articles which have been taken from us, contrary to Article 52 of the Hague Convention, subscribed to by Germany, are thus directly employed in fighting against us.

The Germans cannot pretend that these requisitions of machinery were made by over-zealous officers ignorant of the laws, for Baron von Bissing himself, in his quality of Governor-General, signed the proclamation of the 17th February ordering the despatch of our machine-tools to Germany. Moreover, in Berlin even people are perfectly aware of these requisitions, and of their destination (_N.R.C._, 22nd February, 1915, morning edition).

We must insist on the fact that all these raw materials of industry, all this machinery, etc., is not bought, but requisitioned. There is here no case of a commercial transaction, nor even an expropriation; for we have no redress against the decision arrived at in Berlin as to the prices which will be paid after the war. It is a theft, to express the matter in a word.

_Requisitions in kind and in services ... shall be in proportion to the resources of the country_, says Article 52; which evidently means that requisitions must not exhaust the country to the point of jeopardizing the lives of the inhabitants. If this stipulation had been respected we should not have to deplore the famine which is ravaging our country, and to which we shall return later on.

We shall confine ourselves--in order to give some idea of the excessive and inhuman manner in which requisitions have been made--to referring the reader to certain articles written by eye-witnesses, particularly those who have seen what has happened near the frontier, and at Gand. It will at once be recognized that the requisitions made exceed that which the inhabitants can reasonably provide (see _N.R.C._, 10th January, 1915, morning; 23rd January, 1915, morning; 16th January, 1915, evening; 30th January, 1915, evening; 12th January, 1915, morning; 22nd December, 1914, evening).

The Germans have always taken good care to demand wine. They demanded enormous quantities in the little villages of the Campine of Limburg (_N.R.C._, 15th January, 1915). Elsewhere they took for their own use all the cellars of the wine-merchants and the inhabitants, without allowing the latter to make use of them (see _Belg. Allem._, p. 118).

A last point as to requisitions. They shall _as far as possible be paid for in ready money; if not, a receipt shall be given_.

Very often no receipt has been given to the owners of property taken. Elsewhere the receipts are fantastical and valueless.

It is the truth that those who do receive vouchers are requested to satisfy themselves of their accuracy, but this prescription is obviously a dead letter. Imagine, on the one hand, a peasant, Fleming or Walloon, terrorized into a condition of helplessness, and incapable of reading a voucher scrawled in German; and on the other, soldiers whose customary arguments are shooting and burning.

ARTICLE 53.

_An army of occupation shall only take possession of cash, funds, and realizable securities which are strictly the property of the State, depôts of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all movable property belonging to the State which may be used for military operations...._

From the very first days of the occupation the Germans, in defiance of law and justice, seized upon the communal treasuries and the funds deposited in the branch establishments of the National Bank, the post offices, etc. They were obliged to recognize the justice of the protests made by the Belgian Government; but their love of pillage is incorrigible; on entering Gand, on Monday, the 12th October, their first care was to lay hands on the 1,800,000 (£72,000) contained in the communal treasury.

According to Article 55 the Germans had no right to remove the furniture of the Ministries of Brussels (p. 134), since this property was not of a kind to be useful in military operations.

ARTICLE 55.

_The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, landed property, forests, and agricultural undertakings belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of such properties and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct._

The German respect for legality did not restrain them from violating this Article. From the very first days of the war they employed the churches which they consented to leave standing as stables; on reaching Liége they took possession of the Palais de Justice and made a barracks of it. Why did they expel Justice? Herren Koester and Noske tell us (p. 30), it was simply because the position is central and easy to defend (see a photograph facing p. 32). They did not take account of the fact that such employment of the building is doubly contrary to the Hague Convention, since they did not respect the nature of the monument, and exposed it to bombardment by Allied aviators on the look-out for the German garrison.

It was the same with the Palais de Justice of Brussels, which also serves as a German barracks. To adapt it to its novel use, the soldiers have destroyed a great part of the magnificent furnishings which adorned the halls; the immediate surroundings have been fortified, and the cupola serves by night as a station for signalling to dirigibles. In short, all preparations have been made with a view to the bombardment of Poelaert's masterpiece by the Allies.

It is obviously with the idea of preventing their adversaries from attacking them that they take up their quarters in our monuments; these are to serve them as artistic bucklers, just as our compatriots are employed as living bucklers.

The violations of Article 55 are past counting. We will confine ourselves to mentioning a few in Brussels; they will give us some idea of the diversity of the transformations which our property has suffered at German hands. The offices of the Ministries are transformed into bedrooms for officers. The Palais des Académies has become a military hospital; God knows in what condition we shall find its libraries. In the Parc Royal of Brussels, in the centre of the city, they have installed an automobile depôt, a riding-track, and a rifle range; on the 28th October a shot fired from this range wounded a lady through the windows of the Schlobach _magasin_ in the Rue Royale.

ARTICLE 56.

_The property of local authorities, as well as that of institutions dedicated to public worship, charity, education, and to science and art, even when State property, shall be treated as private property._

_Any seizure or destruction of, or wilful damage to, institutions of this character, historic monuments and works of science and art, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings._

The first paragraph of this Article has been scrupulously observed; the property of the communes, etc., has indeed been treated as private property has been treated: the latter has everywhere been sacked and looted, and the Germans have done the same to collective property.

As to the intentional character of these acts of vandalism, it is indubitable. How otherwise explain the fact that in numerous villages the church has been the prey of the flames, in many cases even when the surrounding houses have remained intact? A few examples will suffice. The village of Haecht was occupied on the 19th and 20th August. On the 24th the Belgians in Antwerp made a sortie which was repulsed. The Germans, infuriated, shot 17 civilians and pillaged all the houses, particularly remembering the wine in the cellars. Then the inhabitants were expelled. A fresh sortie of the Belgians took place from the 9th to the 13th September; at noon on the last day our troops fell back; in the afternoon the Germans set fire to the church and 41 houses. The strong-box of the church was broken open after the fire. The destruction of the monument did not strike them as sufficient, and they dynamited the whole on the 16th (or 17th) September. In the neighbouring village of Werchter, after the battle of the 25th and 26th August, they shot 6 civilians and burned 267 houses out of the 513 which formed the village. After the second fight, on the 15th September, they burned the church. In both villages most of the houses round the churches were spared; it will therefore be difficult for the Germans to pretend, as at Louvain, that the burning of these churches was an accident (_Brandunglück_) due to burning fragments carried by the wind (p. 220). We have already (p. 73) noted another more significant case, that of the chapel of the Béguinage of Termonde, which was alone burned, in the centre of the Béguinage, not a dwelling of which was touched.

_Conclusions--The Famine in Belgium._

Germany had need, in the conflict with France, of all the men who passed through Belgium; also she could leave in Belgium only weak garrisons of the Landsturm. To safeguard them against possible attack on the part of the Belgian population, it was necessary to terrorize the latter to such a point that it no longer dared to stir. Such was the object of the carnage and incendiarism which marked the beginning of the campaign, as was frankly admitted by Herr Walter Blöm, adjutant to the Governor-General in Belgium (p. 84). No doubt the massacres of Louvain, Andenne, Tamines, and Dinant, committed to order between the 19th and the 26th August, appeared insufficient, for a new series was organized between the 4th and 13th September.

At the news of this butchery a resounding cry of horror and indignation went up from all the nations of the earth. That the Belgian Army, on the field of battle, should have paid large tribute to the war unloosed upon us by Germany--that was to be expected, but no one would have dared to suppose that Germany, after participating in the second Hague Conference, would display towards our civil population such an implacable cruelty, such exterminating fury, as history has never recorded since the Thirty Years' War. But facts are facts; one must needs submit to the evidence; the German Army has destroyed our treasures of art and science, has shot down in cold blood, often by machine-gun fire, hosts of men, women, even old people and children; it has ordered the burning of thousands of houses; it has turned whole districts into deserts.

Still, some semblance of motive was necessary; with a mathematical regularity the pretext of "francs-tireurs" was alleged. "_Man hat geschossen_"--that was enough; immediately the neighbourhood was given over to massacre, pillage, and fire. Never was any inquiry made, no matter how summary. Yet when it was desired to show a foreigner of note--for example, Dr. Sven Hedin--how they proceeded in the matter of punishing "francs-tireurs," a regular Council of War was constituted ... which brought in a verdict of _non-lieu_ (p. 78). We defy the Germans to cite a single case in which a tribunal of this kind has sat _before_ reprisals. In the few rare cases when witnesses, etc., have been questioned the examination has taken place _after_ the firing of houses and the shooting of inhabitants. This is why we declare without the slightest reservation that _not one single attack by civilians_ has been established by any kind of proof.

_The Flight of the Belgians._

The inhabitants of our towns and our countryside soon realized to what they were exposing themselves if they awaited the arrival of the Germans in their own homes. So, as the Germans advanced, a void appeared before them. After the taking of Antwerp, the majority of the peasants of the "Campine" of Antwerp fled in all haste toward Holland. If to them we add the people of Antwerp, who had been driven out by the bombardment, and above all the innumerable villages of Brabant, Limburg, and the provinces of Liége and Antwerp, whose homes had been pillaged and reduced to ashes, we shall not be astonished to find that in October there were more than a million Belgian refugees in Holland.[30] To our northern neighbours we owe our profoundest gratitude for the fraternal manner in which they welcomed our unfortunate compatriots.

_The Causes of the Famine._

The horror provoked by the butchery at Dinant, Aerschot, etc., relegated to the background the purely material crimes. But these--the pillage, methodically conducted, of our towns, villages, farms, and châteaux--the outrageous requisitions of provisions and of the raw material of industries--the formidable taxes which drain us of coin--the fines which rain upon the communal administrations and on private persons--and many other infractions of the Hague Convention--have exercised on our economical life an extremely depressing effect, but have produced no echo abroad: doubtless because only those can understand the whole extent of our misery who daily rub shoulders with the thousands of starving and unemployed people who drag themselves from one end of the town to the other in quest of work that is not to be found, or who mingle with the interminable files of women who go in search of rations of bread and soup for their families.

Let us briefly consider the principal causes of famine which prevails in Belgium.

1. Exaggerated requisitions, out of all proportion to the resources of the country. They are of two kinds:--

Firstly, those which have emptied the country of grain, cattle, forage, and other foodstuffs.

Then the requisitions of the raw materials intended for the factories, which have completely paralysed industry, especially in the Flanders. One example will suffice. All the workshops of Termonde were burned save one--the Escaut-Dendre establishment, which makes boots and shoes. But the Germans sent into Germany both the leather and the shoes which were in the warehouse. The factory is thus condemned to stand idle for lack of raw material, and also for lack of funds. Those industries of which the machinery has been removed are also, of course, doomed to paralysis. The German authorities threaten to despoil our factories of all the copper forming part of the machinery, which would reduce them one and all to impotence. It is an ironical fact that this measure was announced by a propagandist leaflet addressed to the Belgians.

2. Having made a clean sweep of the greater portion of all that was indispensable to us, the Germans have been careful to take our money from us. Under every imaginable pretext, and often without any pretext at all, they have imposed crushing taxes upon us. The regular payment of these taxes showing that the public coffers were not yet quite empty, the Germans hastened to impose fines upon us, which vary from 5 frs. to 5 millions. The private banks, too, are threatened every moment with the removal of a portion of their funds.

3. It is needless to insist on a third cause, which reduces our working-class families to idleness and poverty: the destruction of an enormous number of factories--some bombarded, but most of them burned of set purpose.

4. We have already seen that many factories which remained intact are condemned to inactivity by the lack of raw material, or because they have been deprived of their machinery. The others are equally paralysed.

The stoppage of traffic on the railway lines, the impediments of all kinds placed in the way of inland navigation, the absence of maritime navigation, are causes more than sufficient to prevent the importation of raw materials and the exportation of manufactured products. Of all these obstacles the most important is assuredly the suppression of goods traffic on the railways. "Why," say the Germans, "do not Belgian employés return to their work, since our military trains would in any case be run by our own men?" Hypocrites! The slowness and irregularity of the trains is highly inconvenient to the German army, and it would much like to see them resume their normal speed; but for this it requires the assistance of the Belgian staff. Is it not obvious that if our railway-men resumed their labours they would at the same time facilitate the transport of German troops and munitions?

Let us again cite the prohibition of "circulation" between 8 or 9 o'clock and 6 o'clock, which is an obstacle to night work, which is quite indispensable to the large industries; and the suppression of the special trains by which the workers travelled.

5. Commerce has suffered no less than industry. There is no telegraph, no telephone, no posting of closed letters; that is, no means of sending or receiving orders. No railway, no horses, no motor-cars to deliver goods or to supply customers. And, to cap all, the slightest journey necessitates all sorts of exaggerated expenses: there is the acquisition of a passport, the train journey at the rate of 10 cm. per kilometre, hotel expenses, etc. The expenditure might be a minor matter, but what of the waste of time? Before 1st July, 1915, any one going from Liége to Brussels for business purposes had first of all to waste one or two days in procuring his passport; the journey occupied at least half a day; and after interviewing his client he would find that there was no train back to Liége on the same day. In short, he would have to allow four days for a journey which in normal times took half a day.

* * * * *

Other causes of famine are:

The scarcity and high cost of provisions.

The financial difficulties in which the public powers are involved.

The paralysis of industry and commerce, resulting in unemployment--that is, in suppression of wages.

In short, a diminution of resources, accompanied by an increase of expenditure; so that the public coffers are almost powerless to come to the aid of private distress.

That is how we stand in Belgium.

It is not our intention to depict the poignant distress which has overwhelmed our country. We shall merely explain briefly how we try to cope with it; this will suffice to give some idea of it.

_Creation of Temporary Shelters._

Let us first of all consider the country districts. Even when a few houses only of a village have escaped incendiarism the inhabitants have returned thither and have resumed their customary labours. Must they not plough and sow, under penalty of preparing for themselves another year of wretchedness? Where houses exist no longer they live in a cellar, or an outhouse to which some kind of roof has been improvised; families passed the winter of 1914-15 in a potato-silo,[31] under the shelter of a few mats of straw. In the ruined villages the first anxiety of the public powers and the relief committees was therefore to provide provisional shelter.

In the towns and industrial districts the most urgent necessities are of another kind. What is lacking most particularly is employment. The administrations have therefore set themselves to provide the unemployed with paid occupations which do not demand apprenticeship--the clearing of ruins, the levelling of soil, the digging of reservoirs, etc. The communal coffers being empty, communal vouchers are issued. _L'Événement Illustré_, in its fourth issue, gives reproductions of some of these vouchers, of which, it states, there are more than 500. In the communes near Louvain, where the poverty is particularly poignant, it has been necessary to create vouchers for 2 centimes (at Wilsele) and 5 centimes (at Herent).

From the outset stringent measures were taken to make up for the insufficiency of provisions and to prevent speculators from obtaining possession of existing stocks. The most important of these regulations are the following:--

(_a_) Fixing of maximum prices.

(_b_) Prohibition of the exportation of provisions from the commune.

(_c_) It is forbidden to give animals provisions intended for human beings.

(_d_) Collective exploitation. Many communes have set up in business as bakers, butchers, restaurant-keepers, coal merchants, dealers in colonial produce, etc. They prepare bread and soup daily, and these are provided gratuitously to the poorest, or sold at a low price to those who still have a few savings. In the Brussels district there had been distributed by the 31st January, 1915, to adults, 30,060,608 rations, comprising soup and bread, and to the children 932,838 rations, consisting chiefly of milk, phosphatine, and powdered milk.

Certain communes also sell meat; others have installed communal stores for the sale of all kinds of provisions, especially preserved foods, dried vegetables, salt, potatoes, etc.; almost everywhere coal is sold retail; petroleum was sold as long as it could be obtained. Moreover, the collectivities are distributing enormous quantities of clothes; in the Brussels district alone by the end of January 660,865 frs. worth of clothing and footwear had been given to the necessitous. Abuses have as far as possible been guarded against, (1) by the "household card," the _Carte de ménage_, which indicates the number of persons composing each family; and (2) by the limitation of the quantity of each kind of goods which the household can obtain during the week.

The basis of alimentation is bread. Therefore particularly Draconian rules have been elaborated for the bakeries.

_The National Relief Committee._

Many problems presented themselves simultaneously, and with an extreme urgency. In all communes local committees have been set up, entrusted with the equitable distribution of provisions among all the inhabitants. We say "all the inhabitants," for the reader must not form any illusions as to our condition: there is not a single Belgian family which, if left to itself, could obtain its daily bread; the general rationing to which the whole population is subjected makes rich and poor equally dependent on the National Committee of Relief and Alimentation.

To organize the feeding of the public would have been a task above our strength if Belgium, in her present distress, had been abandoned to her own resources. But the misfortunes which have come upon us because we could not consent to comply with the orders of a tyrannical and perjured neighbour--the poverty which cripples us more completely day by day, as requisitions, pillage, taxes, and fines deprive us of our last resources--the massacres and the incendiarism which have turned into deserts the most fertile and most densely peopled provinces of Europe--the molestations and annoyances which have reduced to unemployment a working population whose activity is proverbial--in short, the unmerited misfortune which _Kultur_ has inflicted upon us--all this has awakened, in all the civilized nations, a current of sympathy and solidarity with poor Belgium.

By Germany our country was condemned to perish of starvation. The miracle which alone could save us has been effected by the charity of Spain, Scandinavia, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the Argentine Republic, Brazil, and, above all, the United States. Since the month of November 1914 vessels laden with provisions have been regularly leaving the American ports for Rotterdam, whence the food is despatched, principally by means of barges, into Belgium, and distributed, in the smallest villages even, by the care of the National Committee of Relief and Alimentation. This Committee is an extension throughout the whole country of a commission which was formed early in September 1914 to succour the Brussels district; it is under the patronage of their Excellencies the Marquis of Villalobar, the Spanish Minister, and Mr. Brand Whitlock, the United States Minister. In January and February 1915 the Committee was induced to concern itself also with the country round Maubeuge, and the Givet--Furnay--Sedan district.

The mission of the National Committee is equitably to distribute relief and provisions. But it does not itself collect these resources; as they derive more particularly from the United States it is an American Committee, the "Commission for Relief in Belgium," which undertakes to collect and administer funds. It is the American Committee which despatches to Rotterdam, from American ports, the steamers carrying food and clothing. In each province the American Commission has a delegate who supervises the distribution of provisions and relief; he assures himself that nothing is diverted to the use of the German army. The Commission for Relief in Belgium sits in London, its chairman being Mr. Herbert Hoover.

* * * * *

A serious difficulty cropped up immediately. Foreign beneficence was eager to aid the Belgians, but not, obviously, the butchers who occupy our country. It was therefore necessary at all costs to prevent the German army from seizing the provisions and subsidies despatched by America.

On the 16th October, 1914, the German authorities undertook to exempt from all requisitions the provisions imported by the National Committee. But this promise was promptly violated. The Germans, it is true, did not requisition the wheat, but they did requisition the bread made from that wheat. Moreover, they pretended that their engagement of the 16th October, 1914, general as it was, did not affect Flanders, a _territoire d'étape_ not subject to the Governor-General. This is the effect of their letter of the 21st November, 1914. Up to the present it has been impossible to get them to keep the engagements to which they subscribed on the 16th October; for although they have extended to cattle-foods the promise that nothing should be requisitioned by the troops placed under the orders of the Governor-General--the _territoire d'étape_ being thus excluded--they have, on the other hand, forced the communes of Flanders to open grain markets, in which they make purchases, thus continuing to impoverish the food-stores of the country.

While they exclude Flanders from the region exempted from requisitions, they take care not to breathe a word of this exemption in their own newspapers. The _K.Z._, on the 4th January, and _Der Volksfreund_ on the 5th declared that requisitions of foodstuffs were suspended throughout Belgium.

Despite the difficulties raised by the Germans, the National Committee of Relief and Alimentation has rendered our country inestimable services, which only those who have visited our towns and rural districts and have seen the work of the local Committees can form any conception.

We borrow from the report of the Executive Committee for the month of January 1915 (published in Brussels 15th February, 1915) a few figures (_see_ table, p. 176) as to the distribution of relief during the month of January.

But the National Committee extends its beneficent action over many departments which are not mentioned in this table.

Here, according to the same report, is the list of these departments:--

I. Department of Alimentation (Foodstuffs). II. Agricultural Section of the National Committee. III. Relief Department: 1. Subsidies to Provincial Committees. 2. Construction of Refuges (100,000 frs. for Luxemburg) 3. Organizations patronized: A. Central Refugee Committee. B. Assistance and support of families of officers and under-officers deprived of their means of sustenance by the war (first subvention 50,000 frs.). C. Assistance and support of Belgian physicians and druggists ruined by the war (first subsidy of 10,000 frs.). D. Assistance and support of artists (first subsidy 10,000 frs.). E. Assistance and support of infantile charities. F. Assistance and support of destitute persons. G. Assistance and support of the homeless (Accommodation section). H. Assistance and support of destitute churches (two subsidies of 5,000 frs. each). I. Assistance and protection of the unemployed. J. Assistance and protection of lace-makers (subsidy of 129,749 frs.). K. Union of Belgian Towns and Communes. L. Belgian Intelligence Agency for Prisoners of War and Persons Interned (monthly subvention of 3,000 frs.). 4. Co-operative Society for Loans and Advances. 5. Advances to Provinces and Communes. 6. Clothing.

DISTRIBUTION OF FOODSTUFFS, CLOTHING, AND SUBSIDIES IN MONEY, IN THE PROVINCES

NATURE OF MERCHANDISE.

_Quantities in Tons._

+------+------+----+-----+-----+----+---+-----+----+-------+--------- Despatched|Wheat | Flour|Rice|Peas | Salt|Po- |Ba-|Maize|Sun-|Cloth- |Subsi- or | | | |and | |ta- |con| |dry | ing | dies to Remitted | | | |Beans| |toes| | | | (value|Provin to-- | | | | | | | | | | in | cial | | | | | | | | | |Francs)|Commit- | | | | | | | | | | | tees (in | | | | | | | | | | | France) ----------+------+------+----+-----+-----+----+---+-----+----+-------+--------- Province | | | | | | | | | | | of | | | | | | | | | | | Antwerp | 3,525| 1,247| --| 126| --| 2| --| 713| --|100,880| 300,000 Brussels | | | | | | | | | | | and | | | | | | | | | | | District | 3,371| 1,329| 13| 247| 6| --| --| 90| 82|379,058| 300,000 Brabant | 2,962| 1,486| --| 31| 116| 4| 24| 548| 57|101,916| -- Western | | | | | | | | | | | Flanders | 542| 519| 59| 48| 20| --| --| --| 23| 41,059| 170,000 Eastern | | | | | | | | | | | Flanders | 4,419| 1,982| 37| 46| 4| --| 3|1,120| 14| --| 300,000 Hainaut | 5,602| 3,739| 258| 350| --| 74| --| 181| 293| 81,493| 550,000 Liége | 3,356| 1,242| --| 5| --| --| --| 200| 80| 4,860| 280,000 Limburg | 1,539| 1,466| 11| --| --| 22| --| 200| 35| 41,477| 160,000 Luxemburg | 209| 853| 1| 58| --| --| --| --| --| 16,656| 160,000 Namur | 1,011| 346| --| 60| --| --| --| 150| 89| 95,307| 203,000 General | | | | | | | | | | | Stock, | | | | | | | | | | | Brussels | 446| 119| --| 8|2,268| 38| --| --| 239| --| -- Various | | | | | | | | | | | Charities| --| --| --| --| --| --| --| --| --| 9,687| -- ----------+------+------+----+-----+-----+----+---+-----+----+-------+--------- Totals |27,476|14,338| 359| 979|2,414| 140| 27|3,202| 912|822,379|2,423,000 ----------+------+------+----+-----+-----+----+---+-----+----+-------+---------

Since the month of January 1915 the National Committee has not ceased to extend its activities. But it is impossible to give more precise data. The German authorities no longer permit the Committee to publish its reports. In their dry, official manner they show us only too clearly what we are to think of the present "prosperity" of Belgium and the "normal state of the situation."

* * * * *

It will be seen that the activities of the National Committee are fruitful and extensive. But more and more money is required, as savings are exhausted and as the public coffers are emptied by the Germans.

In January 1915 the Sovereign Pontiff surrendered the Belgian contribution to Peter's Pence.

As 40 million frs. per month (£1,600,000) is being paid to the Germans, poverty is rapidly increasing. The number of Belgians deprived of all resources and obliged to live entirely on charity had risen by February to 1,500,000. It was estimated that by June it would be 2,500,000, or more than one-third of the total population. In February the nourishment of this famishing host already demanded 10 million frs. (£400,000) per month; soon it will demand 12 to 13 millions. In this conjuncture Mr. Hoover, the President of the American Commission, went begging to the British Government, which promised £100,000 per month provided Germany would cease to make requisitions in Flanders and levy the tax of 40 millions. Germany refused. How will it end?

_Belgium's Gratitude to America._

Belgium knows that she owes her relief to the United States. Without American charity our country would perish in the distress into which the German exactions have plunged her. No one in Belgium will ever forget this, and it is in the name of the whole nation that King Albert has publicly thanked America.

It was in sign of homage, and also of gratitude, that on the 22nd February, 1915, on the anniversary of American Independence, the Belgians wore in their buttonholes a medallion of the Stars and Stripes, while thousands of the citizens of Brussels left their cards at the hotel of His Excellency Mr. Brand H. Whitlock. Baron von Bissing spoke of this as childishness; at Liége German officers even snatched the American colours from women and young girls. Massacre and arson are more familiar to _Kultur_ than gratitude.

FOOTNOTES:

[14] And also justified by the laws of warfare as affecting invasion. Moreover: "The rules which affect a _levée en masse_ (a general rising of the people to repel invaders, without organization) should be generously interpreted. The first duty of a citizen is to defend his country, and provided he does so loyally he should not be treated as a marauder or criminal." The Germans could not at the outset know that there was no _levée en masse_.--(TRANS.)

[15] The Germans have tried to persuade Rome that these priests were not assassinated but killed in battle.

[16] To give an idea of these accusations, it was said that in the cellars of a Louvain convent the corpses of fifty German soldiers were discovered, murdered by the monks.

[17] If organized and disciplined, the civic guards and francs-tireurs would have formed part of the Belgian forces, provided they wore a recognizable sign and bore arms openly.--(TRANS.)

[18] We shall see later (p. 221) that at Louvain Dr. Hedin was shamefully deceived by the military authorities who were guiding him through the city. It is this which makes us fear that there may also have been deceit in the case of the villagers tried as "francs-tireurs."

[19] _Kriegsbrauch im Landkriege._ Professor J. H. Morgan has published a translation, with an introduction (John Murray). For a comparison between German, French, and English usages see _Frightfulness in Theory and Practice_, by Charles Andler, ed. Bernard Miall (T. Fisher Unwin).

[20] They are all, with a truly German lack of originality, with the genuine intellectual slavishness of the "blonde beast," simply repeating the words of Clausewitz, as all German military philosophers have done for the best part of a century.--(TRANS.)

[21] A perusal of Clausewitz, von Hartmann, and the _Kriegsbrauch_ would have dispelled all doubt. None of these theories is new: how often does a German develop a _new_ theory? This peculiarly bloodless, mechanically ferocious barbarism is nearly a century old. The French had seen it in action before.--(TRANS.)

[22] The Germans even accuse the Belgian Government of paying its "francs-tireurs" "by the piece"; that is, so much per German killed.

[23] If it had _openly_ encouraged the civil population it would merely have ordered the _levée en masse_, which it had a perfect right to do: as Germany did in 1813. But it is interesting to note that in 1813 the German francs-tireurs were required _not_ to wear distinctive uniforms or badges, and were allowed to use any weapons and any means of injuring the enemy. Germany invented the franc-tireur, and now expects Belgium to do what she would do in a like case. _The bogy so feared by the German soldier is, indeed, his own shadow._ Actually, of course, the Belgian Government called upon civilians to keep quiet and to surrender arms.--(TRANS.)

[24] Thus _Der Grosse Krieg_, pp. 51 and 52, published a Wolff telegram on the 3rd August, 1914, saying that many spies had already been shot in Germany, but that the public should none the less be careful to report suspects, particularly those who spoke a foreign language.

[25] _Étape_ (_etappen_, Germ.), stores, rations, or a halting-place.--(TRANS.)

[26] If we mention Reims it is because the Germans have on eight occasions posted placards in Belgium bearing declarations relating to this crime against civilization.

[27] We have not been able to verify the authenticity of the quotation from the _Times_.

[28] In Germany the phrase has a meaning _sui generis_.

[29] Names will be published later.

[30] See photographs in _Panorama_, 9B (26th August, 1914), 17A (16th October, 1914), 18A (16th October, 1914).

[31] A pit for storing potatoes in good condition.