Part 19

The state of prisoners coming from the big Somme battle in the first week of the present month was deplorable. Their wounds had not been dressed in many cases for more than ten days. Owing to the lack of dressing, British comrades bandaged their wounds with old towels and shirts.

It was formally announced by the German authorities in Camp Bonn on April 13 last that two British soldiers, R. and B., had been shot near Minden for not stopping talking when ordered to do so.

In November, 1917, men were brought into the hospital at M. continually, having been wounded by shrapnel from behind the lines. Wounded men lay for three or four weeks unattended and grossly neglected.

Much of the sworn evidence is so repugnant that it could not be published. There has been talk of reprisals on American prisoners, and even foreigners born in America are included in these threatened reprisals.

Total Destruction of Rheims

By G. H. Perris

_With the French Armies, April 20, 1918_

The great fire at Rheims has nearly burned itself out. Having thrown in a week 50,000 explosive and an unknown number of incendiary and gas shells, the German gunners ceased as suddenly and inexplicably as they had begun, and when I entered the city this morning the silence of death brooded over it.

The written word is powerless to describe such a spectacle, and it is no more adequate for being unmeasured. But when men of faith, men who love the old and beautiful, write under the fresh, stunning impression of such a sight, is it strange that some loose phrases escape them?

I am very familiar with the ruins of Rheims. From the first bombardment, which destroyed the exquisite sculptures of the north tower and the façade of the cathedral three and a half years ago, I have been able to watch the mischief extending step by cruel step. At first, with normal British reluctance to credit the outrageous or incomprehensible, one was chiefly concerned to find out whether, after all, there was not some sort of military excuse. I severely cross-examined every one who could be supposed to know anything about the matter. There never was any shadow of excuse.

It remained only to record from time to time the progress of a crime as deliberate as any in the annals of the war, and in its own kind particularly damnable--a blackhearted crime such as a Comanche chief or a Congo cannibal would not have had the wickedness to conceive.

And if there be still any rationalist obstinate enough to ask for the reason why of this last outburst of vandalism, I can only hazard the guess that it may have been planned, like the long-distance bombardments of Paris, as a terroristic accompaniment of the Hindenburg offensive. It may have been supposed that the tales of the refugees would help to demoralize Paris and the rest of the country. So little after these terrible years has the boche learned of the people he set out to conquer.

Well, the Cathedral of St. Louis is not falling. Wonderful was the work of the builders. More buttresses, pinnacles, gargoyles, and stone railings have been shattered, more statues chipped, and rain, entering freely by a large rent in the roof, has worked invisible damage since my last visit in November. The cathedral has been struck again. The uplifted sword of Joan of Arc in the bronze equestrian statue before the cathedral has been cut in half.

If this were all, we should have after the war at least a worthy memorial to leave to posterity. It is said that it would now cost a million sterling to restore the finest Gothic fane in France. I hope nothing of the kind will be attempted, nothing more, that is, than the construction of a new roof, new windows, doors, and furnishings, and the necessary strengthening of the structure.

For as it stands, gashed and discolored, the vast shell has a strange magnificence and a piteous loveliness like that of some of the broken splendors that remain to us from the ancient world. Let Rheims speak to the future generations as the ruins of the Acropolis and the Forum have spoken to our fathers and us.

But the city itself raises a different and a more difficult problem. It is now no exaggeration to say that as a whole it is destroyed beyond hope. Till a fortnight ago large parts of it were not beyond the possibility of repair. Remember that Rheims was not a small town like Ypres or Arras, but a wealthy and dignified community of 120,000 souls, occupying a space equal to one-fifth of that of Paris.

There is now from end to end probably not a single house whose walls are not more or less broken. The northern and eastern quarters were already in ruins. Now the centre of the city is gutted. Of the public buildings the central squares built in the time or after the Counts of Champagne, the cloth warehouses and workshops, the private residences, bazaars and shops, nothing stands but rows of smoking walls, half buried in fallen rafters and masonry.

The Abomination of Desolation

An Episode in France

_Dr. Norman Maclean, an eminent Scottish scholar, whose articles from the front have appeared in The Scotsman of Edinburgh, penned this touching picture of the war-devastated Somme region a few days before the Germans again swept over it in March, 1918:_

They stood side by side on a heap of rubbish inside the door of the ruined church in the midst of the ruined town--a man and woman garbed in humble, rusty black. The survivors of the erstwhile population were being brought back as shelters were prepared and work provided for them; these had obviously just returned, and had come straight to the church. When they fled before the flood of death, the church stood scatheless, built immovably upon the rock of the centuries. It was a shrine of beauty and a haunt of peace. But as they now stood on the mound of fallen masonwork inside the west door, what they saw was this--the roof lying in an undulating ridge piled on the floor, the sacred pictures torn and tattered; the pillars shattered; the altar buried under a great mass of débris, and a figure of the Christ, uninjured, looking out through the broken arches on the dead town, and on the land beyond, where the white crosses gleam o'er the multitudinous dead.

The man stood motionless, with a face like a mask. But in a moment the woman shook as if stricken by an ague. She turned and stumbled toward the doorway, where there is no door, the tears coursing down her cheeks and a sob in her throat. The man turned and followed her. He took her hand in his, and they walked away with bowed heads in silence. It is strange how the human heart is moved. It was the tremulous face of that black-robed woman, and the lifting of her hands as if to hide the abomination of desolation from her sight, and the stumbling flight from a scene intolerable, that made me feel the horror spread before me. For I saw it with her eyes.

What she saw was infinitely more than what I could see. She had experienced in her own soul that this was holy ground. In happy days of childhood heaven seemed to lie here; she had come hither to be received, in white, into the holy fellowship; hither to be married; hither to dedicate her children at the sacred font. And when the burden of life was heavier than could be borne, how often had she come hither; and as she fell on her knees at the elevation of the Host, the very God seemed to fold her in the Eternal Embrace, and her troubles fled as morning mists before the sun.

And when the war came, and the men went forth, and with them her sons, how often did she come softly to this sanctuary and dip her hand in the holy water at the door and cross herself, and bow toward the altar, and kneel and pray that they might be saved. In and out all day they came then, men and women, and they prayed for their own, and for France, and their prayers were as the moaning of the winds. * * * And now this! Nothing is left. Home and town and children and sanctuary are all overwhelmed in the one flood. And the Christ from the broken pillar gazes upon a perishing world. It is with her as with those of old, who fell under the heel of the oppressor and who cried: "Zion is a wilderness, Jerusalem a desolation; our holy and our beautiful house where our fathers praised Thee is burned with fire, and all our pleasant things are laid waste."

There is that in man which enables him to meet every blow of fate with unblanched face--save one. When the blow is aimed at his soul, then he shrivels. It was in her soul that this woman was smitten, as she saw the house of her God thus. And that is why there in the land of death the churches and cathedrals are all in ruins. To make the altars of Arras gaze on the clouds and the stars, and make the winds wail through the colonnades of Rheims, was deemed the surest and swiftest way of spreading terror and affright. So the devotées of Odin declared war upon God. For a little while the tribal deity and the belligerent dynast reign supreme. The homeless and bereft, the great multitude who are as those standing on the rubble-heap, are verily left with nothing but their eyes to weep with.

It is amazing how soon one gets assimilated to the most horrifying environment. In a few days one can walk through a town which has been turned into heaps without even a shock of wonder, just as at home one reads the war news and the list of the dead without any realization. In these days we need to be stung broad awake now and then. A city in ruins becomes deadly monotonous--until one is wakened.

One day, when the sun broke forth heralding the Spring, the promise of green on a clump of tangled rose bushes tempted me to turn into the garden of a shattered villa. It was as thousands of others: the hearthstones looked upward to the clouds, and the household goods lay piled tier on tier of rotting lumber as floor fell on floor. In the centre of the green a shell hole took my eye, and I picked my way toward it. Out of the earth at the bottom of the hole there obtruded the bones of a man's arm. In haste, the dead had been thrown into the shell hole and lightly covered. And the rains had washed so much of the earth away. And that bone brought the realization that I stood in the midst of one vast cemetery.

Everywhere and all around under the feet are the nameless dead--men, women, and little children. These last are the nightmare of this horror. Formerly nations recovered from war swiftly; the cradles filled up the gaps. But here the children are dead. To the eye of faith the Star of the East shines still with splendor over every spot where a babe lies. But that Star has been extinguished in this region of doom. The altar is buried, the hearthstone is in the rain, and amid the welter of rubbish you can see the children's cots twisted and rusting and woeful. A woman breaking into sobs inside a ruined church door; a body in a shell hole in a garden, a child's cot rusting on a rubbish heap--these open the eyes and make them see.

These things did not come by the arbitrament of war. It wasn't shrapnel and high explosives that wrought the desolation. From the battlements of the old citadel one can see the dead town lie spread, and the houses hit by shells are few and far between. The houses destroyed wantonly by the enemy ere they retreated are easily recognized, for the walls fell outward by the internal explosions. Ninety-five per cent. have fallen outward, and the wall of the church is likewise. This ancient sanctuary was wantonly destroyed by the retreating enemy. What amazes one is the appalling stupidity of such a crime. If the Germans destroyed the town, that was their right, the might of the sword, and their act could perhaps be justified. But to destroy the church is to destroy what even Attila spared, and so outrage the conscience and instinct of the world. There is never an excuse to seek when an outrage is perpetrated by the enemy. A hospital ship is sunk--but, of course, it is carrying munitions! A church is turned into a ruin, but its towers are used as observation posts! Poor little towers in a land of airplanes and captive balloons! If the churches had been spared, as they were spared in the world's darkest ages, humanity would know that the German soul was still alive. But now the world knows that it is up against an enemy that threatens body and soul alike--an enemy that not only kills the body, but destroys the soul! What an amazing stupidity!--but it is through such stupidity that God lays up judgment against the day of wrath.

Lloyd George and General Maurice

A Speech in Which the Premier Routed His Enemies and Revealed Some Inside Facts

A flurry arose in British Parliamentary circles early in May which for a day or so threatened to wreck the Lloyd George Government, but which resulted in a new triumph for the Premier and a humiliating defeat for those who had intrigued against him. It was precipitated by Major Gen. Sir Frederick Barton Maurice, who had been Director of Military Operations until April, 1918, when he was succeeded by Brig. Gen. Radcliffe. His removal had been due to a public utterance in which he had criticised General Foch for not coming sooner to the assistance of the British after the beginning of the German offensive.

On May 7 General Maurice published a letter in which he definitely asserted that the Premier had made a misleading statement to the House of Commons April 9, when he asserted that the British Army in France on Jan. 1, 1918, was considerably stronger than on Jan. 1, 1917; that he misstated the facts regarding the number of white divisions in Egypt and Palestine; also that Bonar Law, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had made a misstatement in denying that the extension of the British front in France had been ordered by the Versailles War Council.

A resolution was introduced by former Premier Asquith for the appointment of a committee to investigate the charges. The Lloyd George Government accepted the challenge and announced that they would regard the passage of the resolution as a vote of censure and would resign if it was carried. The debate on the resolution occurred May 9 and resulted in an overwhelming victory for the Government, the vote to uphold the Lloyd George Ministry being 293 to 106; the Irish members were not present.

In his address the Premier took up the charges in detail. Regarding the figures of the British strength he quoted from a report from General Maurice's own department, initialed by his deputy, dated April 27, 1918, which concluded with these words:

From the statement included, it will be seen that the combatant strength of the British Army was greater on Jan. 1, 1918, than on Jan. 1, 1917.

He also showed that his statements regarding the relative strength of the opposing forces in France and the number of white divisions in Egypt were based on figures furnished by General Maurice's department.

Regarding the extension of the British front in France the Premier made some interesting disclosures showing that the extension was made by agreement of Field Marshal Haig and General Pétain, and not by the Versailles Council. He said:

Before the council had met it had been agreed between Field Marshal Haig and General Pétain, and the extension was an accomplished fact. Field Marshal Haig reported to the council that the extension had taken place. There was not a single yard taken over as a result of the Versailles conference--not a single yard of extension.

In discussing this phase Lloyd George proceeded as follows:

Extending the British Line

Of course, the Field Marshal was not anxious to extend his line. No one would be, having regard to the great accumulation of strength against him, and the War Cabinet were just as reluctant.

There was not a single meeting between the French Generals and ourselves when we did not state facts against the extension, but the pressure from the French Government and French Army was enormous, and what was done was not done in response to pressure from the War Cabinet. It was done in response to very great pressure which Sir Douglas Haig could not resist and which we could not resist. We are not suggesting that our French allies are asking unfairly. That is certainly not my intention.

There was a considerable ferment in France on the subject of the length of the line held by the French Army as compared with our army. The French losses had been enormous. They had practically borne the brunt of the fighting for three years. There was a larger proportion of their young manhood put into the line than in any belligerent country in the world. They held 336 miles. We held a front of 100 miles.

That is not the whole statement, because the Germans were much more densely massed in front of ourselves. Not only that, but the line we held was much more vulnerable. Practically the defense of Paris was left to us, and the defense of some of the most important centres, but there was the fact that you had this enormous front held by the French Army, as compared with what looked like the comparatively small front of ours.

Shortage of Farm Labor

In addition to that, the French Army at that time was holding, I think, a two-division front on our line in order to enable us to accumulate the necessary reserves for the purposes of the attack in Flanders. That was part of the line which, I believe, was held before by the British and French.

The French were pressing in order to withdraw men from the army for purposes of agriculture. I ought to explain that their agricultural output had fallen enormously, owing to the fact that they had withdrawn a very large proportion of their men from the cultivation of the fields, and they felt it essential that they should withdraw part of their army for the purpose of cultivating the soil, and they were pressing us upon these topics.

The Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Sir William Robertson, and the Cabinet felt that it was inevitable that during the Winter months there should be some extension, and we acknowledged that something had to be done to meet the French demands, and to that extent we accepted the principle that there must be some extension of the line.

At that time the Field Marshal was under the impression that the Cabinet had taken a decision without his consent. The Chief of the Imperial Staff upon that sent the following memorandum to the War Cabinet. I will read it, but first, with reference to the Boulogne Conference, I may, perhaps, say that that was the first time we had a discussion with the French Ministers. The subject of discussion was a rather important foreign office. It was not summoned in the least to discuss an extension of the lines. We never knew that was to be raised. Sir William Robertson and I represented the British Government, and M. Painlevé, the Prime Minister, and General Foch represented the French Government.

When Sir William Robertson discovered that the Field Marshal was under the impression that we had come to a decision without his consent he sent the War Cabinet a memorandum, in which he says:

"At the recent Boulogne Conference the question of extending our front was raised by the French representatives. The reply given was that, while in principle we were, of course, ready to do whatever could be done, the matter was one which could not be discussed in the absence of Sir Douglas Haig, or during the continuance of the present operations, and that due regard must also be had to the plan of operations for next year.

"It was suggested that it would be best for the Field Marshal to come to an arrangement with General Pétain, when this could be done. So far as I am aware no formal discussion has taken place, and the matter cannot be regarded as decided. Further, I feel sure that the War Cabinet would not think of deciding such a question without first obtaining Sir Douglas Haig's views. I am replying to him in the above sense."

That, I think, was on the 19th of October. The War Cabinet fully approved of the communication. Sir Douglas Haig communicated, and said that it threw a new light on the Boulogne position. I think that we have a right to complain of the way in which it has been rumored about that Sir Douglas Haig protested.

The War Cabinet's Decision

The fact that Sir William Robertson had explained and Sir Douglas Haig had stated that the explanation threw new light has never been repeated. That is how mischief is done.

On Oct. 24 this question was first formally discussed by the War Cabinet. There was further pressure from the French Government, and Sir William Robertson gave his views as to the time which the British Government ought to take, and this conclusion is recorded in the minutes of the War Cabinet as follows:

"The War Cabinet approve of the suggestion of the Chief of the Imperial Staff that he should reply to Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig in the following sense: The War Cabinet are of the opinion that in deciding to what extent the British troops can take over the line from the French regard must be had to the necessity of giving them a reasonable opportunity for leave, rest, and training during the Winter months and to the plan of operations for the next year, and, further, while the present offensive continues it will not be possible to commence taking over more line.

"Under these circumstances the War Cabinet fear that until this policy is settled it will be premature to decide finally whether the British front is to be extended by four divisions or to greater or lesser extent."

The resolution was communicated to Sir Douglas Haig by Sir William Robertson, and we never departed from it. After that came the Cambrai incident and the Italian disaster, which necessitated our sending troops to Italy. That made it difficult for the Field Marshal to carry out the promise he made to General Pétain for a certain extension of the front. Then the present French Prime Minister came in, and he is not a very easy gentleman to refuse. He was very insistent that the British Army should take over the line.

Clemenceau Suggested Versailles

We stood by the position that that was a matter to be discussed by the two Commanders in Chief. We never swerved from that position. At last M. Clemenceau suggested that the question should be discussed by the military representatives at Versailles, and that the Versailles Council should decide if there was any difference of opinion. The military representatives discussed the question, and the only interference of the War Cabinet was to this extent. We communicated with the Chief of Staff, who was then in France, and with Sir Douglas Haig to urge on them the importance of preparing their case for the other side so as to make the strongest possible case for the British view.

The military representatives at Versailles suggested a compromise, but coupled with it recommendations as to steps which ought to be taken by the French Army to assist the British if they were attacked, and by the British to assist the French if they were attacked, which was even a more important question than the extension of the front.

That recommendation came up for discussion at the Versailles Council of Feb. 1. Before that meeting Sir Douglas Haig and General Pétain met and entered into an agreement as to the extension of the front to Brissy, and Sir Douglas Haig reported that to the Versailles Council. When the discussion took place there no further extension of the line was taken at all as a result of the discussion.