The Great War and How It Arose Part 7

During the evening of September 25, the railway line and the telegraph wires were destroyed on the line Lovenjoul-Vertryck. In consequence of this, these two localities have had to render an account of this, and had to give hostages in the morning of September 30.

In future, the localities nearest to the place where similar acts take place will be punished without pity; _it matters little if they are accomplices or not_. For this purpose _hostages have been taken_ from all localities near the railway line thus menaced, and at the first attempt to destroy the railway line, or the telephone or telegraph wires, _they will be immediately shot_.

Further, all the troops charged with the duty of guarding the railway have been ordered to shoot any person who, in a suspicious manner, approaches the line, or the telegraph or telephone wires.

The Governor-General of Belgium, (S.) BARON VON DER GOLTZ, Field-Marshal.[73]

For purposes of record it should be noted that Lord Bryce's Committee mention by name three German Generals whose armies have disgraced civilisation; they are those of General Alexander von Kluck, General von Bulow and General von Hausen.[74]

Some of the main heads of the barbarities of Germany and of the way she has violated the recognised rules of International Law, may be set out as follows:--[75]

(_a_) The treatment of civilian inhabitants in Belgium and the North of France has been made public by the Belgian and French Governments, and by those who have had experience of it at first hand. Modern history affords no precedent for the sufferings that have been inflicted on the defenceless and non-combatant population in the territory that has been in German military occupation. Even the food of the population was confiscated, until, in Belgium, an International Commission, largely influenced by American generosity and conducted under American auspices, came to the relief of the population, and secured from the German Government a promise to spare what food was still left in the country, though the Germans still continue to make levies in money upon the defenceless population for the support of the German Army.

(_b_) We have from time to time received most terrible accounts of the barbarous treatment to which British officers and soldiers have been exposed after they have been taken prisoner, while being conveyed to German prison camps. Evidence has been received of the hardships to which British prisoners of war are subjected in the prison camps, contrasting most unfavourably with the treatment of German prisoners in this country. The Germans make no attempt to save sailors from British war vessels they sink, although we have saved a large number of German sailors in spite of great danger to our men.[76]For example, on May 1, 1915, in the destroyer action in the North Sea, the Germans imprisoned two British sailors below and when their vessel was sinking, saved themselves, but left their prisoners to sink below because "time was short."

As Lord Kitchener said, Germany "has stooped to acts which will surely stain indelibly her military history and which would vie with the barbarous savagery of the Dervishes of the Sudan."[77] On the same day, in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister declared: "When we come to the end of this war, which, please G.o.d, we may, we shall not forget--and ought not to forget--this horrible record of calculated cruelty and crime, and we shall hold it to be our duty to exact such reparation against those who are proved to have been guilty agents or actors in the matter, as it may be possible for us to exact. I do not think we should be doing our duty to these brave and unfortunate men or to the honour of our own country and the plain dictates of humanity if we were content with anything less than that."[78]

(_c_) At the very outset of war a German mine-layer was discovered laying a mine-field on the high seas. Further mine-fields have been laid from time to time without warning, and are still being laid on the high seas, and many neutral, as well as British vessels, have been sunk by them.

(_d_) At various times during the war German submarines have stopped and sunk British merchant vessels, thus making the sinking of merchant vessels a general practice, though it was admitted previously, if at all, only as an exception; the general rule, to which the British Government have adhered, being that merchant vessels, if captured, must be taken before a Prize Court. The Germans have also sunk British merchant vessels by torpedo without notice, and without any provision for the safety of the crew. They have done this in the case of neutral as well as of British vessels, and a number of non-combatant and innocent lives, unarmed and defenceless, have been destroyed in this way. The Germans have sunk without warning emigrant vessels, have tried to sink an hospital ship, and have themselves used an hospital ship for patrol work and wireless. The torpedoeing of the "Lusitania" on May 7, 1915, involving the murder of hundreds of innocent civilians--British and neutral--was acclaimed with great relish in Berlin.

(_e_) Unfortified, open, and defenceless towns, such as Scarborough, Yarmouth and Whitby, have been deliberately and wantonly bombarded by German ships of war, causing, in some cases, considerable loss of civilian life, including women and children.

(_f_) German aircraft have dropped bombs on the East Coast of England, in places where there were no military or strategic points to be attacked.

(_g_) The Germans have used poisonous gases in killing Allied troops at the Front, although Germany was a signatory to the following article in the Hague Convention:--

"The Contracting Powers agree to abstain from the use of projectiles, the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases."[79]

And finally the German troops in South Africa have poisoned drinking wells and infected them with disease.[80]

FOOTNOTES:

[64] _Kriegsbrauch im Landkriege._ Berlin, 1902, in the series "Kriegsgeschichtliche Einzelschriften," published in 1905. A translation of this monograph by Professor J. H. Morgan has recently been published.

[65] Cd. 7894, page 7, 8.

[66] Cd. 7894, page 9.

[67] See Appendix C. Official Reports issued by the Belgian Legation (1914). The Commission chiefly responsible for these official Belgian reports was composed of M. Cooreman, Minister of State (President); Count Goblet d'Alviella, Minister of State and Vice-President of the Senate; M. Ryckmans, Senator; M. Strauss, Alderman of the City of Antwerp; M. van Cutsem, Hon. President of the Law Court of Antwerp; and, as Secretaries, Chevalier Ernst de Bunswyck, Chef du Cabinet of the Minister of Justice, and M. Orts, Councillor of Legation.

[68] Meeting of Edinburgh Obstetrical Society, December 9, 1914.

_Lancet_, December 19, 1914, page 1, 440.

[69] Reports on the Violation of the Rights of Nations and of the Laws and Customs of War in Belgium.

[70] _German Atrocities from German Evidence._ One of the series of "Studies and Doc.u.ments on the War." Publishing Committee: Mm. Ernest Lavisse, of the Academie francaise, President; Charles Andler, professor of German literature and language in the University of Paris; Joseph Bedier, professor at the College de France; Henri Bergson, of the Academie francaise; Emile Boutroux, of the Academie francaise; Ernest Denis, professor of history in the University of Paris; Emile Durkheim, professor in the University of Paris; Jacques Hadamard, of the Academie des Sciences; Gustave Lanson, professor of French literature in the University of Paris; Charles Seign.o.bos, professor of history in the University of Paris; Andre Weiss, of the Academie des Sciences morales et politiques.

[71] _German Atrocities from German Evidence._ See footnote on page 32.

[72] Reports on the Violation of the Rights of Nations and of the Laws and Customs of War in Belgium.

[73] Reports on the Violation of the Rights of Nations and of the Laws and Customs of war in Belgium.

[74] Cd. 7894, page 10.

[75] Most of the points referred to in the following record are to be found in Sir Edward Grey's reply to the U.S. Note--dated March 15.

[76] Cd. 7921, issued May 19, 1915, shows that although 1,282 men had been rescued by the British from German warships, not a single rescue had been effected by German men-of-war.

[77] House of Lords, April 27, 1915.

[78] House of Commons, April 27, 1915.

[79] See Appendix D.

[80] Report _re_ Swakopmund, issued by Secretary of State for Colonies.

_Times_, May 6, 1915.

GERMANY'S ATTEMPTED BRIBERY.

We thus see with what an easy conscience Germany tears up her treaties and how she repudiates her most solemn pledges. In light of these facts let us examine the rush of promises Germany was prepared to give in order to ensure our neutrality in the War.

On July 29, 1914, Germany, having decided on the War in conjunction with Austria against Russia and France, made what our Amba.s.sador at Berlin called "a strong bid for British neutrality," to which reference has been made, on page 14. Provided that Britain remained neutral Germany stated that every a.s.surance would be given to Great Britain that the German Government aimed at no territorial acquisitions at the expense of France in Europe, should they prove victorious. Germany categorically stated that she was unable to give a similar undertaking with reference to the French colonies. She made a statement with regard to the integrity of Holland, and said that it depended upon the action of France what operations Germany might be forced to enter upon in Belgium, but that when the War was over Belgian integrity would be respected if she had not sided against Germany. In other words, Great Britain was to stand by and

=See Belgium invaded and, if she resisted, annexed by Germany;=

=See all the French Colonies taken by Germany;=

=Acquiesce in France, our neighbour and friend, being crushed under the iron heel of Germany, and, as Bismarck threatened, bled white by a war indemnity when all was over.=

As Sir Edward Grey replied on July 30: "From the material point of view such a proposal is unacceptable, for France, without further territory in Europe being taken from her, could be so crushed as to lose her position as a Great Power, and become subordinate to German policy.

Altogether, apart from that it would be a disgrace for us to make this bargain with Germany at the expense of France, a disgrace from which the good name of this country would never recover."[81]

That is the "infamous bargain" which Britain spurned and to which the Prime Minister referred on August 6 in the House of Commons, in the following words:--

="What would have been the position of Great Britain to-day ... if we had a.s.sented to this infamous proposal? Yes, and what are we to get in return for the betrayal of our friends and the dishonour of our obligations? What are we to get in return? A promise--nothing more; a promise as to what Germany would do in certain eventualities; a promise, be it observed--I am sorry to have to say it, but it must be put upon record--given by a Power which was at that very moment announcing its intention to violate its own treaty and inviting us to do the same. I can only say, if we had dallied or temporised, we, as a Government, should have covered ourselves with dishonour, and we should have betrayed the interests of this country, of which we are trustees."=[82]

This suggestion of Germany is not the only infamous proposal she has made to Great Britain. She has made them with a persistence worthy of a better cause. In February, 1912, Lord Haldane went to Berlin on behalf of the Cabinet in order to obtain the basis of a friendly understanding between the two countries. What transpired is made clear in a speech delivered by Mr. Asquith, at Cardiff, on October 2, 1914, when the Prime Minister said:--

"We laid down in terms, carefully approved by the Cabinet, and which I will textually quote, what our relations to Germany ought, in our view, to be. We said, and we communicated this to the German Government:--

'Britain declares that she will neither make, nor join in, any unprovoked attack upon Germany. Aggression upon Germany is not the subject, and forms no part of any Treaty, understanding, or combination to which Britain is now a party, nor will she become a party to anything that has such an object.'

"There is nothing ambiguous or equivocal about that. But that was not enough for German statesmanship. They wanted us to go further.