CHAPTER XV

SYSTEMATIC PILLAGE AND THEFT. ROBBING THE WOUNDED AND THE DEAD

THE GERMAN IDEA OF WAR-BOOTY

The cherished idea of the German soldier is that war permits and excuses everything. Consequently the property of the inhabitants of the territory he invades does not seem to him to be immune from his cupidity. If the lust of possession seizes him, he thinks it is a brilliantly won booty, which rewards him for his efforts.

Nevertheless, international law only recognises as booty what is taken from a _state_; in all other cases it is pillage, and Bluntschli, the well-known German jurist, stigmatises it as emphatically as any one.

Let us add that it is not merely the German private soldier who shows that he is capable of this violation of law. The officer and even the general share this view, and commit this crime. In the majority of these cases pillage was not an accident, but a system, and has taken place under such conditions that it could not have been carried out if the officers had not approved of it. In many cases it was they who set the example. Pillage was reduced by them to the movements of a military operation. The narratives which will follow will make that clear. For the present, we shall quote the letter of the wife of a German officer living in Berlin, which the Spanish Embassy at Berne received during the month of January, in which this woman admitted that she was in possession of a quantity of _objets d’art_, of which she supplied an inventory. These articles her husband had sent her after the sack of a château in France. She added that her husband had taken these articles to leave them in safety with her, that her conscience would not allow her to keep them without giving a list of them, and that she wished to see them restored to their owner after the conclusion of hostilities.

In conformity with this evidence, the French Commission of Inquiry declared that “in every place through which a company of the enemy passed they gave themselves up to a methodically organised pillage, in the presence of their leaders, and sometimes even with their active assistance.”

THE OBJECTS OF PILLAGE

Pillage covered everything, everything at least that could be carried away. What could be consumed was used at once, letters were everywhere pillaged. “Strong-boxes,” said the Commission of Inquiry, “have been gutted, and considerable sums robbed or taken by violence from them. A large quantity of silver and jewels, and also of pictures, furniture, _objets d’art_, linen, bicycles, women’s clothes, sewing-machines, and even children’s toys, have been taken away and put on wagons, to be brought to the frontier.”

The _Temps_ gave an inventory of articles found in two trunks carried off in a motor by German soldiers. This booty came from Belgium.

“First trunk: four table-cloths marked M. S., one sheet, one woman’s chemise marked M. B., two petticoats, one white-and-red bodice, one dress-bodice and velvet skirt marked ‘Maison Richard Ruelens, rue des Joyeuses-Entrées 36, Louvain’; two blouses, a skirt and jacket of velvet, four gowns, a muff, a woollen necktie, the back of a pedestal, two electroplated teapots, a silver coffee-pot, a porcelain article, a teacup, table-knives with silver handles, and a dessert-knife.

“Second trunk: a bronze figure of a Cossack with inscription in Russian characters, four cases containing table-knives, a silver tray, two nickel candlesticks, a small mirror, two revolvers, four swords, seven pairs of ladies’ boots, two pairs of high-heeled shoes, a notebook in which was written on the first page ‘_21st July: paid 10 fr. 80_’; a registration book of the State Railway Co.; two white petticoats, four of which were marked L. S.; two muffs, a stole, five dress-bodices, one of which was marked ‘Maison Richard Ruelens, rue des Joyeuses-Entrées 36, Louvain’; a black evening cloak, a woman’s nightgown marked M. B., two table-cloths, two ostrich feathers, an evening dress, a child’s embroidered dress, four pairs of stockings, a reticule with the price 1.35 marked on a label, an overcoat with silk lapels marked ‘Maison Février, Maubeuge.’”

The result of such acts was that the not-too-opulent inhabitants of Belgium and north-east France lost all they had. The looters carried off what was not devoured by the flames, and it must be added that the work of pillage, no less than of massacre, rape and arson, was carried out with even greater fury when the inhabitants thought they had stalled it off by their entreaties. The fact has been noticed, especially in Belgium, that houses which bore inscriptions like “Please spare,” or “Decent people; do not plunder them,” were sacked and pillaged first.

The most conspicuous acts of this kind took place in Belgium at Louvain, Aerschot and Dinant; in France at Lunéville, Clermont-en-Argonne, and Château-Thierry.

PILLAGE A GENERAL PRACTICE

Other towns and villages saw acts like these repeated many times. Here are some examples taken at random.

In the Province of Aisne, the village of Brumetz was sacked; in that of Jaulgonne, the Prussian Guard emptied cellars and carried off linen: theft and destruction combined resulted in loss to the extent of 250,000 francs. At Charmel similar incidents occurred. At Péronne, the inhabitants had to endure levies imposed on them without ceasing. All inhabited houses were searched from cellar to attic and stripped bare. Shops that were found shut were forced open. Whole trains full of stolen furniture were brought away to Germany.

At Baccarat it was the same. Everything that the German soldier thought right to take was taken. They took wine and flour. At the glassworks the finest articles, cut-glass services, were packed up with a care which showed every characteristic but blind violence, and packed on wagons directed to Sarrebourg. Carts laden with furniture also took the same road.

At Barbery and at Charmont men forced their way into the rooms of private houses, having first turned out the residents. Furniture and family property—all were taken, and thrown out of the windows or carried off. The village of Bussières, near Château-Thierry, was completely destroyed, of set purpose. The Prussians pillaged there everything they could find. The remainder was destroyed, pulled about, broken up, carried off, smashed to atoms by a kind of savagery. Then it was set on fire, and the flames finished the work of devastation.

At Albert, Captain Zirgow from the 30th August authorised the soldiers under his command to visit, so he said, unoccupied houses. This was as much as to give them _carte blanche_ for pillage and theft. Consequently the booty taken by the Germans in this district was of great value.

The town of Coulommiers was widely pillaged; silver, linen, boots were taken away, especially from deserted houses, and many bicycles were packed on motor-lorries.

At Rebais a jeweller’s shop was sacked.

At Nomény, before burning the town the Germans took out of the dwelling-houses all that they thought worth carrying away. They sent everything to Metz. At Beauzemont, the château was looted by officers of the German general staff, accompanied by their wives; at Drouville, at Hériménil, at Jolivet, there was systematic pillage. In the last locality a sum of 600 francs was stolen by a German.

At Choisy-au-Bac, in Valois, the German soldiers, in presence of their officers, gave themselves up to general pillage, the fruits of which were carried off in carriages stolen from the inhabitants. Two military doctors wearing the Red-Cross brassard with their own hands pillaged Mme. Binder’s house.

At Trumilly the looting was carried out in perfect order. A non-commissioned officer on the general staff of the 19th regiment of Hanoverian Dragoons robbed Mme. Huet of 10,000 francs’ worth of jewels. The German colonel, to whom this lady made complaint, approved of the non-commissioned officer’s action. Another German soldier of the 91st infantry regiment was guilty of several thefts to the value of 815 francs. And these cases were not the only ones clearly proved in this district.

LOOTING OF LOUVAIN

During the days which followed the burning of Louvain, the houses which remained standing and whose inhabitants had been driven out were handed over to be looted under the very eyes of the German officers.

This pillage lasted eight days. In bands of six or eight the soldiers forced in the doors or broke in the windows, rushed into the cellars, soaked themselves in wine, threw the furniture about, broke open safes, stole money, pictures, _objets d’art_, silver, linen, clothing, provisions.

A great part of this booty was loaded on military wagons and carried off to Germany by railroad.

LOOTING AT AERSCHOT

M. Orts, Adviser to the Legation, Secretary of the Belgian Commission of Inquiry, stated that the town of Aerschot was partially destroyed by fire, but that so far as the rest was concerned, he could affirm that it had been completely sacked.

“I went into several houses,” he said, “and passed through the different storeys. Everywhere the furniture had been thrown about, gutted, polluted in a disgraceful manner. Paper-hangings fell in strips from the walls, the doors of the cellars were burst in, the locks of the chests, drawers, and all the cupboards had been picked and their contents taken. Linen, articles of the most different kinds, and an incredible number of empty bottles covered the ground.

“In the middle-class houses, pictures were slashed and works of art broken. On the door of one, a huge, fine-looking building belonging to Dr. X, the following inscription, half rubbed out, might still be read in chalk: ‘Please spare this house, as the people in it are really peaceable, decent folks. Signed, Bannach, Orderly.’ I went into this building, in which I was told some officers had been billeted, and which the kindness of one of them appeared to have saved from the general destruction. On the threshold a faint smell of spilt wine called attention to hundreds of empty or broken bottles, which were heaped up in the porch or the staircase and in the court leading into the garden. Unspeakable disorder reigned throughout the rooms; I walked on a layer of torn clothing and tufts of wool which had fallen out of the gutted mattresses. Everywhere furniture smashed open, and in all the rooms within reach of the bed more empty bottles. The dining-room was heaped with them, dozens of wine-glasses covered the large table and the smaller ones which pressed against the slashed armchairs and sofas, while in the corner a piano with dirty keys seemed to have been smashed with kicks of a jackboot. Everything showed that these places had been for many days and nights the scene of shameless debauchery and drinking-bouts. On the Place du Marché the interior of the house of M. X, a solicitor, presented a similar appearance, and, according to the statement made to me by a quartermaster of gendarmerie, who, with his men, tried to restore a little order into all the chaos, it was the same with the majority of houses belonging to prominent families in which the German officers had chosen to take up their quarters.

“All valuables which their owners had not had time to put in a place of safety—silver, family jewels, loose money—disappeared, and the inhabitants declare that arson _frequently had no other purpose_ than to _destroy the proofs of unusually serious thefts_. Wagons, packed full with loads of booty, left Aerschot in the direction of the Meuse.”

LOOTING AT DINANT

The Dutch journalist whom we have quoted writes in the _Telegraaf_ with regard to this town—

“In the Banque Henri the Germans had a disappointment, for they could not find where the safe had been concealed, but they stopped the manager and his son at the very moment when they were trying to escape on bicycles. As they refused to reveal the secret, they were killed with revolver shots. At the Banque Populaire the Germans, indeed, found the safe, but the greatest part of the money which it contained had already been transferred to a place of safety. The brigandage carried on was frightful, and to find a parallel to it we should have to go back to the days of the blackest barbarism.”

LOOTING AT LUNÉVILLE

“During the early days,” says the French Commission of Inquiry, “the Germans were content to pillage, without otherwise molesting the inhabitants. Particularly was this the case on the 24th August, when Madame Jeaumont’s house was stripped. The stolen articles were put in a great cart, in which were three women, one clad in black, the other two wearing military costumes, and having the appearance, we were told, of canteen-attendants.

“On the 25th August, M. Lenoir, aged sixty-seven years, was brought out into the fields with his wife, their hands tied behind their backs. After both had been cruelly ill-treated, a non-commissioned officer took possession of a sum of 1800 francs in gold which Lenoir had about him. Indeed, the most audacious theft, as we have already said, seems to have been part of the habits of the German army, who made a regular practice of it. The following is an interesting example—

“During the burning of a house belonging to Madame Leclerc, the safes of two tenants had resisted the flames. One, belonging to M. George, under-inspector of waterworks and forests, had fallen into the ruins; the other, owned by M. Goudchau, estate-agent, remained fastened to a wall on the second storey. Non-commissioned officer Weiss, who knew the town well, as he had often been well received there when he visited it before the war in his capacity as hop-merchant, came back with his men to the place, gave orders to blow up with dynamite the piece of wall which remained standing, and made sure that the two safes should be brought to the station, where they were placed in a wagon bound for Germany. This Weiss was in the special confidence and favour of the commandant. It was he who at the quarters of the commandant had the duty of administering the commune in some sort of fashion and of arranging for levies.”

LOOTING OF CLERMONT-EN-ARGONNE

Let us quote the Commission of Inquiry—

“On the 4th September, during the night the 121st and 122nd Wurtemberg regiments entered, breaking the doors of the houses as they passed, and giving themselves up to unrestrained pillage, which was to continue during the whole of the following day. Towards midday a soldier kindled the fire. When the fire had gone out, pillage recommenced in the houses spared by the flames. Articles of furniture taken from the house of M. Desforges, fabrics stolen from the shop of M. Nordman, linen-draper, were piled up in the motors. A surgeon-major took all the hospital dressing materials, and a commissioned officer, after writing at the entrance to the Lebondidier’s house a notice forbidding pillage, caused a large part of the furniture with which this mansion was furnished to be taken away in a cart, intending them, as he boasted without shame, for the adornment of his own villa.

“At the time when all these incidents took place the town of Clermont-en-Argonne was occupied by the 13th Wurtemberg corps under the orders of General von Durach, and by a troop of Uhlans, under command of the Prince of Wittenstein.”

LOOTING OF CHÂTEAU-THIERRY

Château-Thierry was looted in the presence of officers, who must even have taken part in it, if we are to judge by the example of two German doctors, surprised in town by the arrival of the French troops, and who were then included in an exchange of prisoners. Their cases were opened, and in them were found articles of clothing obtained by looting shops.

“During the whole week which the German occupation of Château-Thierry lasted,” wrote the _Temps_ of the 25th October, 1914, “shops and rooms were methodically pillaged; jewellers and bazaar owners were plundered most of all. Patients under treatment in the Red Cross hospital whose wounds did not prevent them walking, went through the town all day, thieving here and there, and then returned in the evening with their booty to sleep in hospital.

“One day they offered Mlle. X some bonbons which they had just stolen, and they appeared much surprised when the young Frenchwoman refused their present.

“Lorries loaded with stolen articles were lined up on the road to Soissons as far as the eye could reach. A non-commissioned officer and four men were seen to drag along a little English cart, nicely fitted, quite loaded with booty.

“Needless to say, the cellars were completely emptied. Not a single pot of preserve at Château-Thierry; blankets, sheets, table-cloths, napkins—everything was carried off. The Château of Belle-Vue, which belongs to M. Jules Henriet, was not burnt, but everything in it was plundered. Chests, desks, all the furniture were forced open. As for silver, for the most part it disappeared from the houses that were sacked.”

SERBIA AND RUSSIA

The same kind of thing took place in Poland and Serbia. At Chabatz the shops were broken open and the goods which they contained stolen.

In the Report of the Serbian Commission of Inquiry it is said that at Prngnavor and in the outskirts all the furniture of the inhabitants, such as beds, chests, chairs, tables, sewing-machines, and even stoves had been completely smashed and thrown outside the houses. The Commission also declared that all the domestic animals which had not been used for food or taken away were slaughtered.

THEFT OF PICTURES AND VARIOUS OBJETS D’ART

_Objets d’art_ of every kind and pictures were several times stolen in this way both in Belgium and in France. The review _Kunst und Künstler_, in an article from the pen of Professor Shaeffer, who goes so far as to specify the pictures which ought to figure in German museums, proclaimed the right to take possession of such articles and bring them to Germany.

It is true that in museums the greater part of the exhibits had been put in a place of safety. Others were surprised and looted. This was the case with the Oberot Museum at Brussels. The following is the account of the incident given by Mme. Latour, wife of the Director of the Museum.

“All the keepers had gone to the battlefield, and my husband and I were alone. Seeing that they were going to beat in the door, my husband decided to open it for them. First of all he had taken the precaution to lock the door into the galleries.

“Without paying the slightest attention to him, the officers immediately went to that in which priceless enamels of the twelfth century and magnificent jewels had usually been exhibited. Not being able to get in, they condescended to ask for the key. My husband refused. They took hold of him and forcibly deprived him of the bunch which he had in his pocket.

“Once inside, when they noticed that certain articles which they doubtless coveted had disappeared, they waxed furious. This, however, did not prevent their taking whatever they liked from the glass cases, some pictures, and some porcelain specimens, which they then compelled me to pack up for them.

“Moreover, they did not attempt to conceal the fact that what they were stealing would later on adorn their own houses.

“‘That would suit very well in my drawing-room, and this in my wife’s bedroom,’ said one. ‘Martha asked me to bring her some real Brussels lace,’ replied the other, ‘but I shall bring her this exquisite miniature. She will be delighted…’

“Every day for more than a fortnight they came back like that, sometimes alone, sometimes accompanied by other officers or soldiers, and every time they brought away something from the museum. They took away not less than fifty pictures.

“My husband once managed to get into conversation with one of the secretaries of the Military Governor of Brussels, and complained bitterly of the scandalous thefts committed every day at the museum. But this German official refused to listen to the description which M. Latour gave him of the officers and their uniforms. At last he brought him to the door with these words, ‘Woe to the vanquished!’”

The Germans took the furniture of the Government offices, and also all the stage properties of the Park Royal Theatre, the stage of which was converted into a motor garage.

They took away the following articles from the château at Compiègne—

Sixteen large pieces, eight in coral and eight in lava, which belonged to Napoleon I’s chessboard; a chased and gilt bronze figure of Atalanta above a clock; a chased and gilt bronze socket, part of a candelabrum on Sèvres porcelain; a chased gold and steel case containing a poniard, knife and fork, part of a collection of arms; a poniard; a Turkish dagger; a chased silvered case, adorned with precious stones, containing a hunting dagger, knife and fork; two chased stilettoes; three poniards with hollow gilt blades, and three chased and gilt bronze candlesticks, all from the same collection.

Let us add that during the last two days of the occupation three train wagons, which contained, it was said, officers’ baggage, had been shunted into the principal courtyard of the palace. The truth is that these three wagons served merely to load and to carry away valuable articles taken by the soldiers and non-commissioned officers from the houses of Compiègne. The house of M. Orsetti, in front of the palace, was completely looted in this way.

LOOTING OF CHÂTEAUX

All the fine old châteaux of the Champagne and Marne region, and all the rich estates and villas situate in that part of Lorraine which has been invaded, were also pillaged and sacked. The ironwork of the fourteenth and fifteenth century, the Gothic wainscoting, the antique furniture, were taken away. Everything which was supposed to have any value—jewels, silver, _objets d’art_, books—was stolen.

At the Moulinot Priory, the property of M. de Chauffault, and at Raon-l’Etape, where the 99th infantry regiment (to which Renter and Forstner, heroes of the celebrated incidents of Saverne, belonged), the 50th line regiment and the Baden reservists carried out a general pillage, and took away furniture, pianos, libraries, amateur collections, clocks, pictures, and brought them to the railway station, where a train under full steam was ready to take them to Germany. It was Prussian and Baden officers who, in the majority of cases, accompanied by their wives, chose, took, stole or destroyed, defiled or smashed everything, according as the article which they were examining could be removed or not.

Near the town of Meaux and some hundreds of metres from the village of Congis is the château of Gné. At the beginning of the battle of the Marne the German general staff was installed there. Of this château there remained, after the vandals had passed by, only the ruins. The chests-of-drawers were broken, the beautiful tapestries defiled, the armchairs smashed to pieces, the costly pictures slashed, even the linen of the château stolen. When the allied troops forced the Germans back and reoccupied it, only wounded were found in it, who, before the arrival of the conquerors, had taken care to ransack the whole house and to finish the work of destruction which had been begun.

We repeat that these outrages were the work of officers no less than of soldiers. And it was a captain who led the Germans at Creil when they burst into the houses of rich owners, broke the doors and windows, and gave themselves up to pillage.

The same kinds of acts were also committed by the Germans in Alsace. The case of Cernay, where the Germans drove out the inhabitants in the month of January, is an example. All these people had to leave the town at three o’clock in the morning. A manufacturer of the country who returned to his villa at 7.15, found a detachment of German soldiers engaged in taking down the pictures from the walls and packing up articles which they could not carry. When he expressed his surprise at seeing them appropriating his property, the soldiers replied that they were acting under the orders of their superiors.

ROBBING THE DEAD AND WOUNDED

The universally admitted obligation not to plunder an enemy who has fallen on the field of battle has been, like so many others, repudiated by the Germans. The personal belongings, silver, jewels, etc., of the dead and wounded have been not merely coveted, but actually plundered by them. Examples of this infamous conduct were numerous, chiefly on the battlefields of France.

On the 8th August, on the spot where a small cavalry engagement had taken place, at Beuveille (in Champagne), a French lieutenant of dragoons, who was wounded and lying unconscious on the ground, was robbed (for his own account of the incident see the _Matin_ of the 22nd August, 1914) of a sum of 250 francs in gold by the leader of a German platoon, M. de Schaffenberg, of the Trèves light infantry. His orderly, a dragoon, also wounded, lying a few paces away from the French lieutenant, was robbed of some money that he had by the same German officer. A French hussar who was attended by Dr. Weiss at the Nancy hospital told this doctor that he had broken his leg by falling from his horse, and that, as he was lying under his mount, he was attacked by Uhlans, who robbed him of his watch and chain.

Similar cases were so frequent that the French troops scarcely wondered when they captured, near Senlis, a horseman of the German imperial guard, accompanied by three German subjects who spoke French very well, and as they knew the district served him as guide and accomplices in the work of brigandage in which he engaged. The numerous articles which they found in the pockets of these wretches left no doubt on this point: they were, therefore, brought before a court-martial at the same time as several other German prisoners who had been guilty of similar thefts; in particular, a Death’s-head hussar, who had been found in possession of a roll of bills stolen in Belgium, a considerable sum of French gold, and many jewels.

ENORMOUS TAXES LEVIED BY THE GERMANS

The taxes levied by the Germans in several towns of Belgium and France were represented by the invaders as either fines or war contributions. If, however, we consider them a little more closely, we shall not be able to see anything in them but theft, admitted and official. It is a consequence and an extension of thefts committed on the field of battle. That such levies should be permitted, they must be represented as expenses arising out of invasion. It is within such limits only that international law recognises war levies. Such as it is, we have no doubt that this limit is stretched to some extent. Collective fines imposed for damage sustained by an invading army are manifestly a mockery. No less ridiculous is the claim to make up for the general expenses of war by levies of this kind.

The Germans had no hesitation in using these two pretexts as an excuse. Moreover, it is plain that in their view a war tax would come under the head of the system in reliance on which war makes everything permissible. In several places these levies were, practically speaking, represented as a ransom for invaded towns. It seemed that these towns had to pay for the favour done them of not being handed over to pillage. If they came and refused the money, because they did not know where to find it, at once the German commandant threatened them with fire, devastation and pillage. These levies, therefore, were reckoned in the category of methods of terrorisation. Their aim was to make the inhabitants desire peace by multiplying their sufferings.

As for openly admitted reasons, the following are taken from an article in the _Kölnische Zeitung_, which dealt with the levy imposed on Belgium and the city of Brussels and, on the other hand, from a proclamation of Lieutenant-general Nieber, with regard to a tax levied on the town of Wavre.

“The war tribute imposed on Belgium,” wrote the _Kölnische Zeitung_, “_was a punishment for ill-treatment of the Germans in Belgium_. We are now at Brussels, where not more than a fortnight ago some Germans, quietly going on with their work in a foreign country, were abandoned to the cruelty of the mob. What happened then will be a perpetual stain on the honour of the Belgian people.

“We have asked ourselves what might be demanded as _reasonable compensation for the inhuman treatment inflicted on our compatriots_, and it appears it is impossible, save by legal means, to punish those who have committed such acts.

“But another measure is possible and recognised by international law, and that is why we have imposed a very high war tax on the town of Brussels.

“This _town must bear the whole weight of the legally recognised expenses of war_, to wit: the quartering of the troops, and the supply of all the provisions needed by our army up to the point when _all the resources of the town are exhausted_, and its inhabitants have begun to realise individually and as a whole that the baiting of defenceless women is not at all the same thing as the occupation of their houses by the enemy. Whatever it be, the punishment inflicted on the Belgians for the offences of which they have been guilty will be inflicted with all the rigour permitted by the law.”

As regards the tax levied on the town of Wavre, Lieutenant-general Nieber writes on the 27th August, in a letter to the mayor—

“On the 22nd August, 1914, General von Bülow, in command of the second army, imposed on the town of Wavre a war-levy of 3,000,000 francs, payable on the 1st September, _as punishment for a surprise attack on the German troops, conduct for which no name is too bad, and which was contrary to international law and the usages of war_.

“The general in command of the second army has just instructed the general in charge of the depot of the second army to collect the aforesaid levy without delay, _which the town must pay for its conduct_.

“I command and instruct you to hand over to the bearer of the present note the first two instalments, being 2,000,000 francs in gold. I require you also to give the bearer a letter, duly sealed with the town seal, declaring that the balance of 1,000,000 francs will be paid without fail on the 1st September. I call the attention of the town to the fact that it will under no circumstances be able to count upon any extension of time, for _the civil population has put itself outside the pale of international law by firing on the German soldiers_. The town of Wavre will be fired and destroyed if payment be not made in good time, without respect of persons; the innocent will suffer with the guilty.”

GERMAN PLEAS IN DEFENCE, AND THEIR VALIDITY

It is hardly necessary to say that the principle of holding towns to ransom is not admitted by any one to-day. Bluntschli, the German jurist, writes on this head a phrase which sounds ironical: “War has become civilised…… No one has any longer the right to pillage, and still less the right to destroy, without military necessity; _therefore there can no longer be any question of buying off this pretended right_.” On the other hand, the policy of terrorisation is not admitted. It is, however, very remarkable that the _Kölnische Zeitung_ apparently caves in to it by commenting on the gravity of the situation in which the Belgians were, owing to (1) the fact “_that their houses had been occupied by the enemy_,” and (2) the exhaustion of “_the whole resources of the town_.”

Article 50 of the Hague Regulations stipulates, in fact, that no collective punishment, pecuniary or otherwise, can be enacted against the civil population by reason of individual acts for which they could not collectively be held responsible.

German generals or publicists, therefore, have no authority to set up a system of collective indemnity, monetary or other, in punishment of individual acts, and still less to impose these indemnities under threat of pillaging and burning towns.

As for the claim to recover the costs and expenses of war by a tax levied on the inhabitants of the invaded territory, the _Kölnische Zeitung_ is shamelessly lying when it says that such a claim is “recognised by international law.” Not a single authority in this sense can be quoted; on the contrary, there are express statements of the very opposite. The well-known Argentine writer, Calvo, declares that such a theory involves an abuse of force, and is “in flagrant contradiction to the principle which enacts that war is waged against a state, and not against individuals taken separately.” It was in conformity with this principle that the Germans themselves, in 1870, refused to admit that the amount of the monetary contributions previously levied in France (thirty-nine million francs) could be deducted from the five milliards imposed on France by the Treaty of Frankfurt, a confirmation as clear as it is unexpected of the principle which they are violating to-day.

THE CHIEF EXAMPLES IN BELGIUM OF THIS BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

The Germans imposed on the town of Liège a payment of ten million francs, and demanded fifty millions from the province. The provinces of Brabant and Brussels were assessed at 50 and 450 million francs respectively, “as a war contribution.” Moreover, it was declared in the note signed in the name of General Arnim by Captain Kriegsheim, of the general staff of the 4th army corps in presence of M. Max, Mayor of Brussels.

At Louvain, the German authorities, represented by the commandant, Manteuffel, demanded a payment of 100,000 francs “as a war indemnity”; after negotiation they reduced the amount to 3000 francs. At Tournai on the 25th August an officer entered, revolver in hand, into the hall where the mayor and the members of the municipal council were in conference, and, on the plea that “civilians had fired on German soldiers,” declared, in spite of the mayor’s protests, that if “_two million francs were not sent him by 8 p.m. on the same day, the town would be bombarded_.” The sum was paid, but this did not prevent the Germans from taking as hostages the mayor, his deputies, and the bishop, who were sent to Ath and Brussels, where their liberty was restored on presentation of the receipt for two million francs.

Antwerp fell on the 9th October. The town was ordered to pay a war contribution which amounted to the grotesque sum of half a milliard of marks (625 million francs).

From the town of Wavre the Germans demanded, under the conditions mentioned in the letter of Lieutenant-general Nieber, previously quoted, a sum of three millions, which raised the total of the levies imposed by the Germans in Belgium to 1,180,000,000 francs. By distributing this amount equally over the Belgian population we find that each inhabitant of this country, ravaged, burnt, pillaged, and, in short, stripped of all its resources, was mulcted in an average payment of 158 francs.

This colossal theft, though it was ordered, could not be carried out so easily. The Mayor of Brussels paid a first instalment of five millions of the fifty millions imposed on the town of Brussels, and covered another fifteen millions by municipal bonds. But when, in the closing days of September, the military governor of Belgium, Marshal von der Goltz, who had been appointed in the meantime, demanded payment of the outstanding balance of thirty millions, M. Max informed the German authorities that the public treasury had been transferred to Antwerp, and forbade the banks to pay the sum demanded. The mayor was not at all to blame for this, as the German authorities had decided, on the pretext that payment was late, that requisitions would not be paid for. The Germans regarded the refusal of M. Max as a failure to keep engagements made, and the arrest of the mayor took place in violation of every principle of international law.

The _Kölnische Zeitung_ of the 30th September made it appear that the attitude of M. Max was explained by the latter’s confidence that the Germans would soon be defeated; moreover, this same paper postdated the German authorities’ decision not to pay for requisitions in order to palm it off as a reply to M. Max’s refusal. Thus, open prevarication was added to extortion and violence.

None the less, all these difficulties had the effect of inducing the German Government to modify their method of demanding payment. A monthly war tax of forty million francs was substituted for all the levies in the occupied area.

EXAMPLES OF THE SAME BREACH OF LAW IN FRANCE

The following is the notice which informed the inhabitants of Lunéville of the tax in which they had been mulcted—

“On the 25th August, 1914” (runs the notice), “the inhabitants of Lunéville made an attack by ambuscade on German columns and trains. On the same day the inhabitants fired on medical sections wearing the Red Cross. Moreover, they fired on German wounded, and on the military hospital, which included a German ambulance. _On account of these hostile acts a contribution of 650,000 francs is levied on the Commune of Lunéville._ The mayor was ordered to pay this sum in gold (and in silver up to 50,000 francs) on the 6th September at 9 a.m., into the hands of the representative of the German military authority. Any objection will be considered null and void. No delay will be allowed. If the commune does not punctually carry out the order to pay the sum of 650,000 francs _all the property that can be requisitioned will be seized. In case of non-payment, a house-to-house investigation will be made and all the inhabitants will be searched. Whoever knowingly conceals money, or tries to secure his property from being seized by the military authority, or who tries to leave the town, will be shot._ The mayor and hostages taken by the military authority will be held responsible for the exact carrying out of the orders given herewith. The mayor’s staff are ordered to make known these instructions at once to the Commune.

“Commandant-in-Chief VON FOSBENDER.

“Hénaménil, 3rd September, 1914.”

“A perusal of this ineffable document,” says the Report of the French Commission, “entitles one to ask whether the arson and murder committed at Lunéville on the 25th and 26th August by an army which was not acting under the excitement of battle, and which had refrained from killing during the previous days, were not deliberately ordered for the purpose of adding verisimilitude to an allegation which was to serve as a pretext for the demand for an indemnity.”

The town of Lille was mulcted in a contribution of ten millions; Roubaix and Tourcoing in ten millions; Armentières in half a million; Valenciennes in three millions. The excuse given by the Germans, so far as Valenciennes was concerned, was that a song, entitled “William’s Last Will and Testament,” which was considered to be disrespectful to the Kaiser, had been seized in the town. This justified a fine of two millions. The third million was imposed because the town had not supplied the quantity of flour demanded by the German troops. The threat was made that, if the money was not paid, the mayor, M. Tanchon, would be shot.

The province of Marne was mulcted in a fine of thirty millions, twenty-two of which were for the town of Reims and eight for Châlons-sur-Marne. The German commissary-general agreed to accept from Châlons 500,000 francs merely as an instalment. The remainder had not to be paid, as the Prince of Saxony and his headquarters staff left Châlons three days afterwards, followed two days subsequently by all the German troops who were fleeing before the French.

Epernay had to pay 175,000 francs. But the town came by its money again, thanks to a French surgeon, Dr. Véron, the only one available in this district, who demanded for the treatment he had given a German prince the sum which the town had paid.

In Serbia, the Austrian troops did the same at Losnitza, where a contribution of 100,000 dinars had to be paid _to avert destruction by fire_. The payment of the money, however, did not prevent hostages being taken away, the town destroyed, and nineteen peasants shot.

REQUISITIONS

In recognition of the necessities of troops in the field, the right of requisition is allowed, but it must, as far as possible, be exercised with moderation. Supplies must be paid for in ready money, or else must be acknowledged by receipts, and in any case payment must take place as soon as possible. The German publicist, Bluntschli, even imposes on the occupying troops the obligation to pay on delivery for supplies for which demand is made.

In violation of this established principle, the Germans have taken supplies without payment not only in Belgium, but also in France. As they were taking without payment their demands were unmeasured. On several occasions the amount of their demands was simply preposterous. Being thus forced to denude themselves far beyond their means, the inhabitants were a prey to famine, whilst the German troops were gorging themselves, and even allowing what they had taken to be lost and go bad. Under such conditions the inhabitants found they were compelled to take to flight.

At Brussels, the requisition of large quantities of provisions was ordered. These provisions had to be delivered on the 20th, 21st, 22nd and 23rd August, by virtue of a note sent by Captain Kriegscheim, acting in the name of General Sixtus Arnim, in command of the 4th army corps, in presence of the mayor. If these deliveries did not take place by certain fixed times the town would be obliged to pay double the amount, based on the market price. These large quantities of provisions could not be used. Although they had been scraped together by so painful efforts they were simply squandered. Four thousand kilos of meat had to be thrown out, as well as piles of rolls of butter, and quantities of coffee and sugar, which the troops were unable to consume.

It appears that in several cases these requisitions were merely made as an excuse for pillage. In this way the works at Herstal, near Liège, were ordered by the German headquarters staff to deliver 50,000 rifles and three million cartridges. Of course the manager of the works refused. Then the German headquarters staff assembled again the board of administration of the company. There was a fresh refusal, and no less energetic, to do what the enemy demanded. The board urged the authority of the clauses of the Hague Convention. _Consequently, and in revenge for this opposition_, the German headquarters staff ordered that the armouries should be pillaged.

At Amiens, as the town was unable to supply the enormous quantity of provisions demanded by the Germans, twelve inhabitants were taken as hostages, and transferred to Clermont. There they had to appear before a sort of court-martial, which condemned them to pay 20,000 francs. This sum was paid by the municipality.

At Epernay, 50,000 bottles of wine were requisitioned to enable the German soldiers to get tipsy. At Antwerp, requisitions were made of provisions which were intended to be consumed on the spot. These provisions were sent by rail to an unknown destination.

At Lille, in the month of November, the mayor was obliged to deliver 1,500,000 francs’ worth of food produce. On the 25th of the same month General Heindrich warned him by official letter that Germany could no longer meet the needs of the population, and that if “England could not make up her mind to allow provisions from over seas to come in for the support of the occupied provinces of France, it would be chiefly the French population who would have to bear the result of this state of things.” The amount of requisitions of food produce imposed on Lille was so great, according to the declaration of the mayor of Lille, dated 27th November, 1914, addressed to General Heindrich, that “if the situation continues, the town would suffer an absolute famine, which would affect thousands of families, composed mainly of women and children.”

General Heindrich also made some show of remedying this state of affairs by advising the mayor of Lille to ask for the assistance of the Swiss Government. The mayor of Lille attempted this application on the 28th November, but the German authorities took care not to transmit it (see the _Temps_ of the 20th December).

The fact that the German requisitions amounted to pillage was recognised by the American Commission of Relief for Belgium, which gratuitously distributed ten to twelve million francs’ worth of provisions a month.

On the advice of Sir Edward Grey, Mr. Hoover, President of this Commission, asked the German Government to abstain from requisitioning provisions of any kind, as otherwise American subscriptions would have the effect of indirectly contributing to the support of the German army, which would take pains to pillage officially the provisions sent for poor Belgians. The German Government replied that it would _consent to refrain from requisitioning provisions to the east of Ghent_. This was as much as to confess that the German military authorities had taken away from the inhabitants of Belgium provisions of which they stood in need.

OTHER EXAMPLES OF OFFICIAL PILLAGE

Examples of official pillage of every kind practised by Germany are to be had in abundance. Sometimes it was the military authorities who shamelessly seized the deposits in private banks. This was shown to have taken place at Liège, Dinant, and Louvain, where quite a large sum of money was taken from the Bank de la Dyle and 12,000 francs from the Banque Populaire. At Lille the savings bank was robbed. Sometimes pillage took the form of fining newspapers. In this way the _Croix du Nord_ had to pay 150,000 francs for having described the German army in one of its articles as “a flood of Teutons.”

At Châlons-sur-Marne, the German commandant asked M. Servès, deputy mayor, “to have all the shops in the town opened, so that the soldiers might buy what they needed.” When M. Servès remarked that it would be well that sentries should be stationed before the shops, the German officer replied that it was for the police of the town to keep order. M. Servès replied that there were no longer any police. Then the commandant came in in a towering rage and shouted: “There should have been. It is not fair that people who remain in the town should alone have to bear the burden. Those who have fled must bear their part. Consequently our soldiers will be instructed to break open the doors of shops and take what they want.” And pillage, officially ordered, began. To mitigate the odium of it General Seydewitz warned the town that he was reviving the security of 500,000 francs, which had been demanded on the first day of occupation as a guarantee for the requisitions. But this half-million was taken again as an instalment of the monetary contribution levied on the town.

THE CHAPTER OF GERMAN ADMISSIONS

As far as concerns pillage carried on by way of requisitions we have the evidence of proclamations, letters, and other official communications issued by the German authorities. In no other documents could the chapter of admissions be so explicit.

As for theft and pillage committed by soldiers or by officers in their private capacity, the following is evidence supplied by Germans themselves.

A German reservist who died in France, _privat-docent_ of a university, married, and father of a family, carefully notes in his pocket-book, which was found by the French, the parcel he sent to his wife of jewels which he found in an empty house. Another day he confesses he stole a microscope. “The Frenchman” (he wrote) “bought it in Germany, and I took it back again.”

Another German soldier, Gaston Klein (1st Landsturm company), describes the sack of Louvain in the following terms: “At first only a few troops went back to the town, but afterwards the battalion marched into the town in close ranks _to break into the first houses_ to plunder—I beg pardon, to requisition—wine and other things as well. Like a company which had been disbanded, every one went where he pleased. The officers went on in front and set us a good example. One night in barracks, many men drunk, and there the story ends. This day filled me with a disgust which I could not describe.”

The Saxon officer of the 178th regiment, who supplied us with so much precious evidence about German crimes, writes in his pocket-book: “Herpigny-Baclan (17th August). I visited the little château, which belongs to a secretary of the King of the Belgians. Our men behaved like Vandals: first they ransacked the cellar, then they burst into the rooms and threw everything upside down: attempts were even made to burst open the safes; our men carried off heaps of useless things for the mere pleasure of marauding.”

“At Rethel,” continued the same officer, “the interior of the house is charming. The furniture was magnificent. Now everything is in pieces. _Vandals could not have done more damage. The leaders of the columns were responsible—they could have prevented pillage and destruction. The damage may be reckoned in millions. Safes were burst open. In an attorney’s house a collection of old pottery and oriental_ objets d’art _was broken into a thousand pieces_.”

In spite of protests made to the German troops and their leaders, the Saxon officer at length succumbed to the contagion and followed their example. “As for myself,” he naïvely writes, “I could not help being carried away to this side and that by little souvenirs. I found a magnificent waterproof cloak and a photographer’s apparatus which I am going to give to Felix.”

“In a village near Blamont,” writes another soldier, Paul Spielmann, 1st company, 1st Infantry Brigade of Guards, “_everything was given up to pillage_.”…

Private Handschuhmacher (11th Battalion reserve light infantry) also writes: “8th August, 1914, Gouvy (Belgium). The Belgians having fired on the German soldiers, we at once began to pillage the goods station. Some cash-boxes, eggs, shirts, and everything which could be eaten was taken away. The safe was gutted and the gold distributed amongst the men. As for bank-bills they were torn up.”

“The enemy,” wrote another non-commissioned officer (Hermann Levith, of the 160th regiment of infantry 7th corps), “occupied the village of Bièvre and the outer-fringe of the wood in the rear. The third company advanced as a first line. We took the village, _then pillaged almost all the houses_.”

“The second battalion,” wrote a third (Schiller of the 133rd infantry, 19th corps) “entered into the village of Haybes (Ardennes), _ransacked the houses and pillaged them_.”…

One thing which must be remembered as a feature of German character is that German doctors took part in pillage. This is what we learn from a letter of Private Jean Thode (4th reserve regiment): “Brussels, 5. 10. 14. A motor came up to the hospital and brought some war booty: a piano, two sewing-machines, many albums, and all sorts of other things.”

Some admissions are couched in the form of indignation. “They do not behave like soldiers,” writes a soldier of the 65th Landwehr infantry, “but like highway robbers, bandits, and brigands, and they are a disgrace to our regiment and to our army.” “_No discipline_,” writes another, (a lieutenant of the 77th reserve infantry); “_the pioneers are not much good; as for the artillery they are a band of robbers_.”

But if this particular lieutenant blames the conduct of his men, others, on the contrary, deliberately order them to pillage. Like the soldier who writes at Louvain that the officers set a good example, four other German soldiers, named Schrick and Weber (of the 39th Prussian infantry), Waberzech (of the 35th Brandenburg), and Brugmann (of the 15th Mecklenburg hussars), on whom were found a quantity of French paper money, watches and jewels, all taken from houses in Senlis and Chantilly, confessed before the French court-martial that it was their officers who should have been blamed. “If I had not taken the jewels” (said one of them) “one of my officers would have taken them.”… “We got from our leaders” (the others declared) “the order to pillage the houses.”