Chapter III · DOCUMENTARY I (continued 2)

The requirements of international law for an unorganised People’s War were then not complied with in Belgium; moreover, this war was carried on in a manner which alone would have been sufficient to have put those who took part in it outside the laws of war. For the Belgian francs-tireurs regularly carried their weapons not openly, and throughout failed to observe the laws and usages of war.

It has been shown by unanswerable evidence that in a whole series of cases the German troops were on their arrival received by the Belgian civil population in an apparently friendly manner, and then, when darkness came on or some other opportunity presented itself, were attacked with arms; such cases occurred especially in Blegny, Esneux, Grand Rosère, Bièvre, Gouvy, Villers devant Orval, Sainte Marie, Les Bulles, Yschippe, Acoz, Aerschot, Andenne, and Louvain (Appendices 3, 8, 11-13, 18, 22, 28, 31, 43; A, B, D). All these attacks obviously offended against the precept of international law that arms should be borne openly.

What, however, is the chief accusation against the Belgian population is the unheard-of violation of the usages of war. In different places, for instance, at Liége, Herve, Brussels, at Aerschot, Dinant, and Louvain, German soldiers were treacherously murdered (Appendices 18, 55, 61, 65, 66; A 1; C 56, 59, 61, 67, 73-78), which is contrary to the prohibition “to kill or treacherously wound individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army.” (Article 23, Section 1 (b) of The Hague Convention: The Laws and Customs of War on Land.) Further, the Belgian population did not respect the sign of the Red Cross, and thereby violated Article 9 of the Convention of Geneva of July 6th, 1906. In particular, they did not scruple to fire on German troops under the cover of this sign, and also to attack hospitals in which there were wounded, as well as members of the Ambulance Corps, while they were occupied in carrying out their duties (Appendices 3, 4, 12, 19, 23, 28, 29, 41, 49; C 9, 16-18, 32, 56, 66-70; D 9, 21, 25-29, 38, 47). Finally, it is proved beyond all doubt that German wounded were robbed and killed by the Belgian population, and indeed were subjected to horrible mutilation, and that even women and young girls took part in these shameful actions. In this way the eyes of German wounded were torn out, their ears, nose, fingers, and sexual organs were cut off, or their body cut open (Appendices 54-66; C 73, 78; D 35, 37). In other cases German soldiers were poisoned, hung on trees, deluged with burning liquid, or burnt in other ways, so that they suffered a specially painful death (Appendices 50, 55, 63; C 56, 59, 61, 67, 74-78). This bestial behaviour of the population is not only in open contravention of the express obligation for “respecting and taking care of” the sick and wounded of the hostile army (Article 1, Section 1, of the Convention of Geneva), but also of the first principles of the laws of war and humanity.

Under these circumstances, the Belgian civil population who took part in the struggle could of course make no claim to the treatment to which belligerents have a right. On the contrary, it was absolutely necessary, in the interests of the self-preservation of the German Army, to have recourse to the sharpest measures against these francs-tireurs. Individuals who opposed the German troops by fighting had, therefore, to be cut down; prisoners could not be treated as prisoners of war according to the laws of war, but according to the usage of war as murderers. All the same, the forms of judicial procedure were maintained so far as the necessities of war did not stand in the way; the prisoners were, so far as the circumstances permitted, not shot till after a hearing in accordance with regulations, or after sentence by a military court. (Appendices 48, D 19, 20, 37, 40, 41, 43, 44, 48.) Old men, women and children were spared to the widest extent, even when there were urgent grounds of suspicion (Appendices 49; C 5, 6, 25, 26, 28, 31, 35, 41, 47, 79); indeed, the German soldiers often looked after such persons so far as was in any way possible in the most self-sacrificing manner by taking helpless people who were in danger under their protection, sharing their bread with them and taking charge of the weak and sick, although their patience had been subjected to an extraordinary difficult test by the treacherous attacks (Appendices C 45, 47, 51-53, 55, 58, 80-86).

There can be no doubt that the Belgian Government was essentially to blame for the illegal attitude of their population towards the German Army. For apart from the fact that a Government has, under all circumstances, to bear the responsibility for deeds of this kind which give a general expression of the popular will, the serious charge must at least be made against them that they did not stop this guerilla war, although they could have done so (Appendices 33, 51-53; D 42, 43, 48). It would certainly have been easy for them to provide their officials, such as the Burgomasters, the soldiers, members of the “Guarde Civique,” with the necessary instructions to check the violent excitement of the people which had been artificially aroused. Full responsibility, therefore, for the terrible blood-guiltiness which rests upon Belgian attachés to the Belgian Government.

The Belgian Government has made an attempt to free itself from this responsibility by attributing the blame for the events to the rage of destruction of the German troops, who are said to have taken to deeds of violence without any reason. They have appointed a Commission for investigating the outrages attributed to the German troops, and have made the findings of this Commission the subject of Diplomatic complaint. This attempt to pervert the facts into their opposite has completely failed. The German Army is accustomed to make war only against hostile armies, and not against peaceful inhabitants. The incontrovertible fact that from the beginning a defensive struggle in the interests of self-protection was forced upon the German troops in Belgium by the population of the country cannot be done away with by the inquiry of any commission.

The narratives of fugitives which have been put together by the Belgian Commission, and which are characterised as the result of careful and impartial investigation, bear the stamp of untrustworthiness, if not of malicious invention. In consequence of the conditions of things, the Commission was not in a position to test the reports which were conveyed to it as to their correctness or to grasp the connection of events. Their accusations against the German Army are, therefore, nothing but low calumniations, which are simply deprived of all their weight by the documentary evidence which is before us.

The struggle of the German troops with the Belgian civil population at Aerschot did not, as is suggested on the Belgian side, arise through the German officers violating the honour of the Burgomaster’s family, but because the population ventured on a well-considered attack on the Commanding Officer, and murdered him treacherously (Appendix A). At Dinant it was not harmless, peaceful citizens who fell as a sacrifice to the German arms, but murderers who treacherously attacked German soldiers, and thereby involved the troops in a struggle which destroyed the city (Appendix C). In Louvain the struggle of the civil population did not arise through fleeing German troops being by mistake involved in a hand-to-hand contest with their comrades who were entering the town, but because the population, blinded as they were and unable to understand what was going on, thought they could destroy the returning German troops without danger (Appendix D). Moreover, in Louvain, as in other towns, the conflagration was only started by the German troops when bitter necessity required it. The plan of the destruction of Louvain (Appendix D 50) shows clearly how the troops confined themselves to destroying only those parts of the city in which the inhabitants opposed them in a treacherous and murderous manner. It was indeed German troops who, so far as was possible, tried to save the artistic treasures, not only of Louvain, but also of other towns. On the German side, a Special Commission has shown to what a high degree works of art in Belgium were protected by the German troops.

The Imperial German Government believes that by the publication of the material contained in this work, they have shown that the action of the German troops against the Belgian civil population was provoked by the illegal guerilla war, and was required by the necessity of war. For their part, they expressly and solemnly protest against a population which has, with the most despicable means, waged a dishonourable war against the German soldiers, and still more against the Government which, in complete perversion of their duties, has given rein to the senseless passions of the population, and even now does not scruple to free itself from its own heavy guilt by mendacious libels against the German Army.

Berlin, May 10th, 1915.

VIII MASSACRE OF BRITISH PRISONERS BY GERMAN SOLDIERS AT HAISNES ON SEPTEMBER 25TH, 1915

I, Captain J. E. A——, 8th Batt. —— Highlanders, make oath and say as follows:—

(1) I command C Co. of the 8th Batt. —— Highlanders. My company took part in the attack on September 25th, 1915. Between 5 and 6 p.m. on that day we were attacked and compelled to retire from an advanced position about Haisnes. We moved into Pekin Trench, and later to Fosse Alley. The battalion commenced to reorganise there.

(2) Just before 8 p.m. 2nd Lieut. G. T. G——, of my battalion, reported to me that Sergeant D. M——, who had been attached to my company for the day, had just returned in an exhausted condition, and that he reported that the Germans had collected our wounded and prisoners and bombed them.

Instructed Lieut. G—— to bring Sergeant M—— to me at once. This was done. 2nd Lieut. G. T. G—— has since died of wounds.

(3) Sergeant M—— reported to me that he and a party of men had been collected in a traverse by the Germans and bombed from both sides, that he and a Highlander had jumped out of the traverse, and that he had escaped into a shell hole, whilst the Highlander had been shot.

The Sergeant, D. M——, was very exhausted and covered with mud and water up to the neck. He was not in an excited condition.

He carried on with his duties reorganising the company.

(4) The story as told to me by Sergeant M—— at that time has been adhered to by him ever since without any material alteration.

This Sergeant is a most reliable man in every way.

(Signature of Deponent) J. E. A——, Captain.

Sworn at Poperinghe in Belgium on active service this first day of October, 1915.

Before me, A. M. H. S——, Captain, D.A.A.G., 1st Army, Commissioner for Oaths.

I, No. 6546, Sergeant D. M——, of D Co., 8th ---- Highlanders, make oath and say as follows:

(1) On September 25th, 1915, I was attached to C Co., 8th —— Highanders. I took part in the attack on Haisnes on that day.

About 5 p.m. the part of this company commanded by Lieut. A—— with which I was in trenches just west of Haisnes, and was going to retire.

Lieut. A—— ordered me to collect stragglers from Pekin Trench.

(2) I went 400-500 yards along Pekin Trench and found about twenty wounded men of various regiments, all Scottish, whose names I did not know.

I left these men sitting down and went about 100 yards further on and found about twenty men of the —— Highlanders, about ten of whom were wounded.

(3) It was now 5.15 p.m., and I could see that the Germans had cut me and all these men off from our own troops. I took the men of the —— Highlanders back to where the others were. I now had about forty men with me. For the sake of the wounded men we decided to surrender.

(4) We all took off our rifles and equipment and put them on top of the parapet.

I stood on top of the parapet and held up my hands.

A large party of Germans then advanced both in the open and by the trenches towards us.

When they drew near I said, “We surrender.” One German, speaking English, said, “All right. Come along this way, every one.” We all followed him up Pekin Trench towards the north, helping the wounded along, and leaving our rifles and equipment behind. It now began to pour in torrents of rain.

(5) The German who spoke English was dressed in dark khaki and wearing a cape down to his thighs. He had khaki trousers with a thin red stripe and long black boots. He wore a helmet with a dark khaki cover on it. He had no badges showing. His cape blew open and I saw a figure 6 in red on his shoulder and, I think but am not sure, a figure 2 in part of it, making 26.

All these Germans were big men and were dressed alike, quite clean and fresh as though they had only just come into the trenches. I did not notice anyone in command of them.

Their manner was not threatening.

(6) About thirty of these Germans led us into a circular traverse in Pekin Trench, and the English-speaking German said, “Pack in there and stay.” All the Germans then went out of sight. The wounded men sat on the fire-step and the unwounded remained standing. It was now about 5.30 p.m.

(7) After we had been there about two minutes a bomb was thrown into the traverse where we were, one bomb from one side and one from the other.

I shouted to the men to clear out if possible. Only one man and myself jumped over the parapet. I seized an English rifle lying on the parapet and fired down the trench. I then jumped into a shell hole about 15 yards from the traverse. It was almost full of water, in which I stood up to my neck. The other man was shot.

I heard the Germans bombing this circular traverse continuously for about fifteen minutes. At first the men I left were crying out, but after about ten minutes this ceased.

(8) I was over an hour in the shell hole, and left it after dark.

2nd Lieut. G. T. G——, of D Co., 8th —— Highlanders, was the first person to whom I told my experiences. This was at about 7.45 p.m.

(9) The second person to whom I told them was Capt. J. E. A——, also of the 8th ——, whom I saw at about 8 p.m. the same evening.

(Signature of deponent) D. M——, Sergeant.

Sworn at Poperinghe in Belgium on active service this first day of October, 1915.

Before me, G. M. H. S——, Captain, D.A.A.G., 1st Army, Commissioner for Oaths.

IX REPORTS RELATIVE TO THE USE OF INCENDIARY BULLETS BY GERMAN TROOPS96

To: The Commanding Officer, 2nd Batt. The —— Regiment. From: 2nd Lieut. L. E. S——, B Co., 2nd —— Regiment.

18/6/1915.

Use of Incendiary Bullets by the Enemy

Sir,—I have the honour to report as follows:

During the action on 15th to 16th instant my platoon occupied the right of the old German trench running from —— to —— between 7.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m., 15th instant. Seventy-five yards to my front I saw six or seven men lying down in the grass. One of them attracted my attention immediately as he appeared to be smoking or to have lit a small fire. I observed him carefully and saw that his clothes were smouldering. Later on they were entirely charred black: he did not move and was apparently dead. The enemy were sniping at these men, unquestionably using incendiary bullets, as I saw three or four of these strike the ground and set the grass around on fire. The flames could be seen distinctly.

About 9 p.m. one of these bullets struck the bottom of the parapet of the trench, and burned with a brilliant white flare for about fifteen seconds, at the same time giving off heavy phosphorus fumes and burning the sand-bags which it had struck.

I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, (Signed) L. E. S——, 2nd Lieut.

The following statements were made by N.C.O.’s of the 2nd Batt. —— Regiment and 2nd Batt. —— Regiment (7th Division), relative to the alleged use by the enemy on June 15th, 1915, of incendiary bullets:

C.S.M. G. M——, C Co., 2nd Batt. —— Regiment, states:

On the night of the 15th and 16th I saw German rifle bullets cause a flash as they struck the ground. The flash seemed to rise about 2 feet from the ground. My attention was called to this by an Officer of the 3rd Co. (?) Grenadier Guards. The Guards were on my left and I was near ——. It was some time between 11 p.m. and 12 midnight.

(Signed) G. M——, C.S.M., C Co., 2nd ——.

Sergeant N——, B Co., 2nd —— Regiment, states:

Just before dusk on the evening of the 15th I was in the disused German trench ——, and saw a man fall in front of the trench hit by a bullet. As he lay on the ground he seemed to be on fire in the right shoulder and breast, and was clawing the ground in agony. (The grass, which was green, was set on fire round him.) He was not more than 100 yards from me—hardly that. I could not do anything for him as the Germans had been following me and were almost on top of me, and I was nearly alone at the time.

Very shortly afterwards I saw another man (a Lance-Corpl. in the —— I think), run out apparently to fetch in the first man. He slewed off, and must have seen the Germans, who were then crawling through the grass. He fell, seemingly hit in the stomach, and whilst rolling about on his back, his right knee and his puttees down to his boot caught fire. I think he must have been hit in the knee. He too seemed to be in agony, and the grass caught fire round him also. I could not swear that his second wound was not caused by a bomb, though I did not see any bomb burst there.

(Signed) E. H. M. N——, Sergeant.

Corporal D——, B Co., 2nd Batt. —— Regiment, states:

Shortly after the bombardment on the evening of the 15th instant, I was just on the left of the crater (near ——)—about 30 yards from the crater—and saw a man on fire in the grass in front of and below me. Another man ran out of a disused trench towards the first man, when he appeared to be hit in the chest. He fell forward on his chest, and as he did so flames spurted out of his chest. As he lay on the ground he was burning all over, and the cartridges in his bandolier went off. He burned for about an hour and the grass was set on fire. Both men were rather less than 100 yards from me. I called the attention of my Officer Mr. L. J—— (subsequently wounded) to the second man. I am quite sure the second man was hit by a bullet, not a bomb.

(Signed) J. W. D——, Corporal.

X

DEPOSITIONS RELATIVE TO THE EMPLOYMENT BY THE GERMAN TROOPS OF RUSSIAN PRISONERS ON THE WESTERN FRONT97

(a) Statement of a German Prisoner (Translation) Captured in Northern France.

I, the undersigned Stephan Grzegoroski, a recruit in the 6th Co. (5th Section) 2nd Batt. No. 143 Infantry Regiment, XV. German Army Corps, hereby declare on oath that in the course of the month of October, I have frequently seen Russian prisoners of war in Russian uniform employed upon the construction of the third line trenches of my regiment.

There were some 150 to 200 Russians altogether so employed. During the course of their work they occasionally came under fire. Two were killed and four wounded. Seven Russians tried to escape—two succeeded: one was shot dead, and four were retaken.

The men were guarded by soldiers of my regiment.

I spoke personally with some of the Russian prisoners, and they complained that they had much work to do, but only very little to eat.

(b) Statement of Two Russian Soldiers (Translation) taken down in November, 1915, at British Headquarters in France.

Michael Klokoff, Russian soldier, private in the Novo Skolsky Regiment; taken prisoner by the Germans on the Bzura on December 26th, 1914 / January 8th, 1915; and Andrei Slizkin, Russian soldier, private in the 41st Siberian Regiment, taken prisoner by the Germans near Prasnysz on January 29th/February 11th, 1915, declare that: we were interned as prisoners of war at Strzalkowo until October 7th/20th, 1915. We then came with 2,000 other Russian prisoners to Belgium. Some of the prisoners were taken to build railways; others, among them ourselves, were employed to dig trenches. During our work we came under shell fire and sustained casualties.

We escaped on October 31st, and reached the British lines on November 2nd. We were promised pay, but did not receive any.

(c) Statement of Two Russian Soldiers (Translation) taken down in December 1915, at British Headquarters in Northern France.

Anastasius Nietzvetznie, 231 Dragoon (Infantry) Regiment, and Nicholas Nevaskov, 210 Infantry Regiment, declare: When we were prisoners with the Germans we worked at digging trenches. Each day we were under English artillery fire. We received 30 pfennigs per day, and we worked against our will. When we refused to work, we got twenty-five strokes with an iron rod, and were tied up with our hands behind our backs in a cold room with windows open and nothing to eat.

(Signed) Anastasius Nietzvetznie,98 231 Dragoon Regiment. (Signed) Nicholas Mikhailovitch Nevaskov,98 210 Infantry Regiment.

A REVIEW OF GERMAN ATROCITIES BY THE RT. HON. VISCOUNT BRYCE Published in The Westminster Gazette, London, March 20, 1916

A FRESH EXAMINATION OF GERMAN WAR METHODS99

Professor Morgan, whose bright little book, called “Sketches From the Front,” has given to us some of the most fresh and vivid pictures of the actualities of warfare in France, presents in the present volume the evidence he has been busy in collecting regarding the behaviour of the German troops in the western theatre of war. Some of this has already been made known to the public by what he published in the Nineteenth Century and After in June, 1915, and also by the depositions which he obtained under the instructions of the Home Office and submitted to the British Committee on Alleged German Outrages. (Many of these were published in the Appendix to their Report last May.) Since that time he has spent four or five months in collecting further important data and still more months in collating the results of the facts he has collected, having been granted by the British Headquarters Staff in France those facilities for moving to and fro along the front and getting into touch with eye-witnesses which were essential for arriving directly at the facts. The evidence thus obtained is supplemented by several diaries of German soldiers never before published in England, and by some extracts from documents issued by the Russian Government describing cruelties committed by the Germans in the fighting on the Eastern front. As respects the data he has himself collected, Professor Morgan explains, in his introduction, the methods he has followed in taking evidence and testing its value, showing himself sensible, as a lawyer ought to be, of the need for care and caution in such a matter. The large experience which his months of work at the front have given him adds weight to his assurance that what he submits is worthy of all credence as well as to the conclusions at which he has arrived. But before adverting to these conclusions a preliminary question deserves to be considered.

It has been asked—and it is natural that it should he asked—“What is the use of multiplying tales of horror?” “Why do anything that can aggravate the bitterness of feeling, already lamentably acute, between the belligerent nations? All war is horrible; why add fresh items to the list of offences which are making us think worse of human nature than we supposed two years ago we ever could think?”

These questions need an answer. Such a painful record as the present book contains, such a record as can be found in the reports already officially published by the Belgian, French, and British Governments, might, perhaps, have been better left unpublished if it did not serve some definite tangible aim, looking to some permanent good for mankind.

Now such a definite, tangible, practical aim does exist, and seems to justify, and, indeed, to require, the publication of the facts contained in this book and also in the reports which have been published by the Belgian, French, and British Governments. It is an aim which can be stated quite shortly; and the need for pursuing it is shown by what has happened during the last twenty months.

In most parts of the ancient world, and among the semi-civilised peoples of Asia till very recent times, wars were waged against combatants and non-combatants alike. Even in the European Middle Ages indiscriminate slaughter of combatants and non-combatants alike sometimes occurred, especially where, as in the case of the Albigenses, religious passion intensified hatred. As late as the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries there were campaigns in which frightful license was allowed to soldiery, private property was pillaged or ruthlessly destroyed, and women were habitually outraged.

A reaction of sentiment caused by the horror of the Thirty Years’ War, coupled with a general softening of manners, brought about a change. During the last two centuries, though every war was marked by shocking incidents, there was a growing feeling that non-combatants should be protected, and a serious purpose to restrain the excesses of troops invading a hostile country. The wars of the eighteenth century were less cruel and destructive than those of the seventeenth, and the wars of the nineteenth showed some improvement on those of the eighteenth. The war of 1870-71, if those of us in Britain who remember it can trust our recollection, seemed better in both the above-named respects than had been the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars between 1793 and 1814. Till the outbreak of the present conflict men who sought for signs of the progress of mankind were cheered by the hope that war would hereafter be waged only between regular disciplined forces on each side; that these forces would abstain from needless cruelty, that women would be protected from lust, and that the lives of non-combatants would not be endangered. There was even a prospect that private property would not be destroyed except in so far as a definite military aim made its destruction unavoidable, as when a hostile force had to be shelled out of its shelter in a village. The Hague Convention had passed rules which ameliorated the practices of war as regards the combatant forces and had solemnly proclaimed the duty of respecting the lives and property of non-combatant civilians.

The present war has, however, brought a rude awakening. The proofs are now overwhelming that in Belgium and Northern France—as to other regions the evidence is not fully before us—non-combatants have been slaughtered without mercy by the orders of the German military authorities, while the mitigations of war usages as regards combatants have been openly and constantly disregarded. Private property has been constantly destroyed where no specific military reason existed, but only for the sake of terrorising the civil population, or perhaps out of sheer malice. A license has been practised by, and in many cases obviously permitted to, the soldiers which has led to acts of wanton cruelty. Outrages upon women have been far more numerous than in any war between civilised nations during the last hundred years. One crime deserves special condemnation, because it is done deliberately and is justified by its perpetrators. This is the practice of seizing innocent non-combatants, usually the leading inhabitants of a town or village, calling them hostages and executing them in cold blood if the population of the town or village whom “the hostages” cannot control, fail to obey the commands of the invaders. Civilians who fire upon invading troops without observing the requirements which the Hague Convention prescribes may, no doubt, be shot according to the customs of war; but there must be some proof that these particular civilians have done so. To put to death a quarter or more of the adult male inhabitants of a village because some shots have been fired, or are supposed by an excited soldiery to have been fired, out of its houses, is mere murder. All the paragraphs in the Manual of War issued by the German Staff cannot make it anything else.

Though we may hope, and indeed must hope, that the horror caused by this war may lead to measures which will diminish the risks of war in the future, he must be indeed a sanguine man who can think that war, the oldest of the curses that have afflicted mankind, is likely to be eradicated within this century. It is therefore an urgent duty to do all that can be done for a regulation of the methods of war and a mitigation of the sufferings that it causes.

Now the cruelties that have been perpetrated on land, no less than the ruthless murder of innocent passengers on unarmed vessels at sea, are an aggravation of those sufferings. They are a reversion to the ancient methods of savagery, a challenge to civilised mankind, to neutral nations as well as to the now belligerent States. Neutral nations ought to be fully informed of the facts of these methods, for they are themselves concerned. The same methods may be used against them if they are attacked by Germany or by some other nation which sees that Germany has used them with impunity. If the public opinion of the world does not condemn these methods, war will become an even greater curse than it has been heretofore. Unless an effort is made as soon as ever the present conflict ends to regulate the conduct of hostilities between combatant forces, and, which is of even greater importance, to provide more effective safeguards for non-combatants, there may be a terrible relapse towards barbarism everywhere.

The Allied belligerent nations who are now fighting in the cause of humanity are called upon to take up this matter and deal with it effectively. So are neutral nations. It is a pity that they did not protest long ago. But a word may be said regarding the German people also. Professor Morgan thinks that they share in all the guilt of their Government, but the reasons he gives for this belief do not warrant so melancholy a conclusion. The behaviour of the mobs that were wont to insult and ill-treat the prisoners of war led through the streets of German towns, and the ferocious language of creatures like Von Reventlow and some other writers in the German Press, shocking as they are, cannot be taken as evidence of the sentiments of a whole people. Neither can we suppose that the declarations of professors, victims of a doctrine and a practice which compels them to approve every act of the State are more to be accepted as expressing what may be felt by the less vocal Germans. We must remember how severe is the German censorship, how accustomed the Germans are to believe what their Government tells them, how habitually mendacious the military authorities have been in the accounts they supply of the conduct of the Allied Powers and their troops. The German mind has had little but falsehood to feed upon ever since the outbreak of the war, and it now believes, absurd as the belief is, that it is the innocent victim of an unprovoked aggression. When any voice is raised in Germany to proclaim even a part of the truth and to plead for humanity and good feeling, that voice is instantly silenced. Silence will doubtless be enforced as long as the war lasts. But we may well venture to hope that when, after the war, the facts hitherto concealed from the people have become known and can be reflected on with calmness, there will be a condemnation of the practices I have described, and that in Germany and Austria, as well as in all neutral countries, there will be a wish to join in the efforts which both the Allies and the leading neutral Powers are sure to make to regulate and mitigate the conduct of war. In order to call forth these efforts by showing how great is the need for strengthening the existing rules of war, and providing more effective means of securing their observance, it is essential that the facts should be made known and studied, and that the world should see how the present rules, imperfect as they are, have been trampled under foot by the German authorities. This is what makes it right and necessary to publish the data contained in the Reports already referred to, and those data also which have been gathered by Professor Morgan with such earnest labour.

So much for the justification—an ample justification—which exists for publishing the horrible record which this book contains. I need not here analyse it or quote from it or comment upon it. The facts speak for themselves. Professor Morgan’s general conclusions as to the behaviour of the German troops in France seem to be borne out by the facts which he adduces. They are further supported by the facts set forth in the Belgian, French, and British Reports. This accumulation of testimony is convincing, and it becomes even abundantly more convincing when one remembers that the German Government has scarcely attempted to deny the contents of those reports. To the French report, strengthened as it is by numerous extracts from the diaries of German soldiers (translated by M. Joseph Bédier), in which they describe, sometimes with shame, sometimes with satisfaction, the conduct of their comrades, no answer seems to have been made, although a few trivial objections were raised to the translations. Neither has the German Government ventured to meet the British report, except by a vaguely worded general contradiction in a semi-official newspaper. As regards the Belgian reports, no more to them than to the others has any examination and specific contradiction been vouchsafed. But a White Book has been published which tries to turn the tables by accusing Belgian civilians generally of firing on German troops and committing outrages upon them. Professor Morgan, in one of the most illuminative parts of his book, subjects this White Book to a critical analysis, exposes its hollowness, and shows conclusively that while it does not prove the German case against the civilian population and the Government of Belgium, it virtually admits, in its attempts to justify, the shocking cruelties perpetrated by the German Army upon that population. As the lawyers say, habemus confitentem reum.

Let me add that he who wishes to understand German military ideas and military methods, ought to read along with this book (and the reports already referred to) another book, the German “Manual of the Usages of War on Land,” of which Professor Morgan has published a translation, under the title of “The German War Book.” Each of these is a complement to the other. The “War Book” sets forth the principles: this book and the Reports display the practices. The practice shocks us more, because concrete cases of cruelty rouse a livelier indignation; but the principles are a more melancholy proof of the extent to which minds of able men may be so perverted by false ideals and national vanity as to lose the common human sense of right and wrong.