What Germany Thinks Part 4

[Footnote 24: _The Spectator_, August 7th, 1915, p. 169.]

The German Chancellor, when he justified his policy by the dictum: "Necessity knows no law," evidently meant that necessity also recognizes no law of truth. In any case, he remained faithful to the traditions of his country. Although the German Press is both venal and supine, we shall see that it has done the world a service and played its own Government a foul trick. (Der deutschen Regierung einen bosen Streich gespielt.)

When Bethmann-Hollweg was thumping the table before him, and a.s.suring his immediate hearers and the world in general that the Berlin cabinet had not called up a single reservist before five o'clock on Sat.u.r.day, August 1st, he was guilty of a deliberate falsehood. On July 31st, I left Erlangen by the 3.31 train for Nuremberg; travelling in the same train was Dr. Haack, professor of the history of art in Erlangen University. He was accompanied by his wife and various colleagues, including Professor Busch, who bade him farewell on the platform. Dr.

Haack is an artillery reserve officer, and he was then going to join his regiment. At 8.30 p.m. on the same day, we spoke to Frau Haack on Nuremberg station. The lady's face was very tear-stained and she was about to return to Erlangen alone. She told us in a broken voice that her husband had been called up.

In "The Soul of Germany" I have given names and dates of other cases. I do not propose to disgrace my word of honour by playing it off against the German Chancellor. But acting on the principle of "Set a thief to catch a thief," I shall adduce some instances from German newspapers.

The Paris correspondent of the _Kolnische Zeitung_ travelled home via Brussels; his adventures are related at length in the _K.Z._ for August 4th. On August 1st he was in Brussels and complained bitterly, in his article, about the hotel service, and excuses it by writing: "The German waiters had all left Brussels the day before (July 31st) to join the army."

An article dated Strasbourg, August 3rd, was published in the _Frankfurter Zeitung_ on the 6th of the same month. The writer describes the martial scenes which he had witnessed during the preceding week, and mentions that the officers in the garrison had received a special order to send their wives and children away from the city several days before martial law was proclaimed. Friday, presumably, the order came for the garrison to march to the French frontier, for on Sat.u.r.day the regiments were entrained and left Strasbourg. Our good German friend describes the scene in the streets: "Alongside the ranks were the wives and children of the called-up reservists, trying to keep step with the quickly moving troops. Before sunset the regiments, all on a war-footing, had left the city."

Every layman knows that a reservist cannot enter a barracks in civilian attire, and emerge five minutes later in full war-kit ready for the march. The German Imperial Chancellor affirms that not one of them had been called up before five o'clock in the afternoon of that day. It is true that neither the age of miracles nor the age of lies has pa.s.sed away. Perhaps Herr Bethmann-Hollweg could explain why it was impossible to send trunk-messages on Germany's telephone system during the last three days of July, 1914. At least, the local papers in Bavaria a.s.serted that that was the case.

The _Elbinger Zeitung_, August 13th, contained a reservist's letter with this illuminating pa.s.sage: "During the last few days everybody was in readiness; our linen, etc., had been packed and sent off in advance. On Friday, July 31st, the order arrived that I should present myself; mobilization had begun. With feelings of joy I changed into my uniform and rushed to join my company. The streets were full of frightened people with tears in their eyes. We officers pressed each others' hands and with ardent glances exclaimed: 'At last it has come!'"

The Chancellor based his a.s.sertion that French troops had crossed the German frontier, on the report from the Chief of the General Staff. This authority admitted that German soldiers on August 2nd (Sunday) had violated the French frontier and continues with these words: "But long before that French airmen had dropped bombs in Southern Germany, and French soldiers had attacked our frontier-guards in the Schlucht Pa.s.s."

The _Frankfurter Zeitung_, July 31st, gives Bethmann-Hollweg and the Chief of the General Staff the lie direct. The paragraph is dated July 30th, Kolmar, and runs: "The Schlucht Pa.s.s has just been barricaded by German frontier guards. This is to prevent motor-lorries and such-like vehicles from entering French territory without our permission. Several papers have announced the alleged occupation of the Schlucht (gorge) by French troops. The report is an absolute invention. (Die Meldung ist vollig aus der Luft gegriffen.) I have taken the trouble to look round, and may say that the usual tourist traffic is going on as usual."

The remainder of the charge is that "long before August 2nd," French airmen had dropped bombs on South German towns. The towns in question are Frankfort and Nuremberg. The _Kolnische Zeitung_ contained this paragraph on August 2nd: "A military report has just come in, stating that French airmen dropped bombs in the neighbourhood of Nuremberg this morning. As war has not yet been declared between France and Germany, this is a breach of international law."

Two remarks are necessary to supplement the above "news." Firstly, in the Reichstag, the Chancellor said this attack had occurred "long before August 2nd." Secondly, the _Cologne Gazette_ received the report from the _military authorities_. That betrays the source from which all these lies emanated.

The author has in his possession a Nuremberg paper (_Frankische Tagepost_) for the whole of August, 1914. It contains absolutely no mention of any air raid on or near Nuremberg. If bombs had been dropped in the vicinity, it is quite unthinkable that the local papers should contain no report of the affair.

President Poincare, on July 15th, 1915, declared the Nuremberg flight to be a fable. The _Frankischer Kurier_ (a Nuremberg newspaper) on August 1st, 1915, contains an article which states that the news of these alleged airmen, whom n.o.body saw, was spread throughout the length and breadth of the German Empire. This same paper ridicules the whole affair.

Another extract gives the key to the whole mystery. "Yesterday (Monday, August 3rd), at 8 p.m., the following official announcement was given out for publication.

"Up till now, the German troops, in obedience to orders given, have not crossed the French frontier. In contrast to this _since_ yesterday (August 2nd) French troops have attacked our frontier posts without any declaration of war. They have crossed the German frontier at several points, although only a few days ago the French Government a.s.sured us that they would keep a zone ten kilometres wide free from their troops.

_Since_ last night French troops hold German places in occupation.

_Since_ yesterday bomb-dropping airmen have come into Baden and Bavaria; further, by violating Belgian neutrality, they have fled over Belgian territory into the Rhine province and tried to destroy our railways.

Thus France has begun an attack upon us, and thereby created a state of war. The safety of the Empire compels us to take defensive measures. The Kaiser has given the necessary orders. The German Amba.s.sador in Paris has been instructed to demand his pa.s.sports."[25]

[Footnote 25: From the _Berliner Lokal Anzeiger_ of August 4th.]

Germany had no earthly excuse to begin war on France, and imitating the n.o.ble example of Bismarck in forging the notorious Ems telegram which precipitated the 1870 war, the German military authorities forged the "news" of alleged attacks by French airmen and French troops. The German Official Press Bureau completed this vile, criminal work.

Although the point is proved, a few more examples of the "airmen" legend will be of interest. "Berlin, August 2nd. _Last night_ a hostile airship was observed flying from Kerprich to Andernach. Hostile aeroplanes were observed flying from Duren to Cologne. A French aeroplane was shot down by Wesel." (From the _Munchen-Augsburger Abendzeitung_, August 3rd.)

The _Frankfurter Zeitung_, August 4th, contains three separate detailed accounts of French airmen dropping bombs on Frankfort railway station during the previous night. The third account will suffice.

"The military authorities in Frankfort were informed last night that a hostile airman was flying in the direction from Darmstadt to Frankfort.

At ten minutes past one the noise of the propellers as well as bursting bombs was heard by those standing on the command-bridge of the Central Station. In the dark night it was impossible to see the flying-machine.

As it approached the station, where all lights were out, fifty to sixty soldiers stationed on the command-bridge fired at the aeroplane, which soon moved off in the direction of the Southern Station. There, too, it came under a heavy fire from soldiers and policemen. Nothing whatever has been found on the ground or at the station, not even parts of the bombs. It is a.s.sumed that the hand-bombs exploded in the air."[26]

[Footnote 26: Yes, they burst in the air, _aus der sie gegriffen worden sind!_ Author.]

In peace times no German editor would dare to refuse any contribution sent to him by the military authorities. The above airman-story sufficiently ill.u.s.trates the state of affairs in war time.

"Chemnitz, August 4th. During the past night, between 3 and 4 a.m., a French airman dropped bombs on Chemnitz. Bombs exploded in the streets without, however, doing any damage. Apparently the shots fired at the aeroplane were unfortunately without result." _Magdeburgische Zeitung_, August 5th.

This is an excellent example of how the Press trick is worked. A lying report is published in a city hundreds of miles away from the scene of the alleged occurrence. The extract where it was alleged that a French airman was shot down at Wesel, on the Dutch frontier, was published in a Munich paper, four hundred miles away.

The last and supreme lie in Bethmann-Hollweg's speech is the most insidious of all. The Chancellor sketched a truly moving picture of Germany beseeching Austria to find a _modus vivendi_ between herself and Russia. Germany claims that up to the last minute of the last fatal week she was working for peace. Bethmann-Hollweg insinuates that on July 31st a last decision was to have fallen in Vienna; he does not tell us what that decision would have been, but he maintains that Russia's military preparations forestalled it and so the decision was never arrived at.

Thus Russia destroyed the last hope of peace; the Chancellor falsely led his hearers to believe that it was a certain hope and that the European peace would have been saved.

It is useless to choose one's words in writing of German diplomacy. This is a base lie. Austria arrived at her decision previous to sending her ultimatum to Serbia. This momentous decision was, that Russia had no right to intervene in the quarrel, which means, in other words, that Russia had absolutely no right to speak or use her influence in a crisis affecting the destiny of the Slavonic peoples, neither had Russia any right to move in a crisis which would disturb the balance of power in the Balkans and in Europe. It was merely these rights which Russia throughout the crisis endeavoured to establish; if they had been recognized there would have been no war.

In order to prove what the Austro-German standpoint was, and that from first to last never changed, reference must be made to the Austrian Red Book.[27] On page 24: Sir Edward Grey was informed by Count Mensdorf on July 24th, "and I (Mensdorf) repeated to him (Grey) many times, that we should stick to that view."

[Footnote 27: Oesterreichisch-ungarisches Rotbuch. Vienna, 1915.]

Page 25. Count Czecsen in Paris informed French Minister: "It is a question which can only be settled between Serbia and ourselves," on July 24th.

On the same day the Austrian Amba.s.sador emphasized the same point in an interview with the Russian Foreign Minister--pp. 27-8.

During the evening Monsieur Sasonow had interviews with both the German and Austrian Amba.s.sadors. The latter telegraphed to Vienna: "My German colleague at once pointed out to M. Sasonow that Austria would not accept any interference in her differences with Serbia and that Germany would also not permit it."--p. 29.

That gives the situation in its simplest form, and without making further quotations, it will suffice to cite the dates on which it was re-emphasized:

July 25th in St. Petersburg, p. 89 " 27th " " " p. 101 " 28th " Berlin by Germany, p. 116 " " " London by Austria, p. 123 " 29th " St. Petersburg, " p. 128 " 30th " Berlin, " p. 130 " 30th " St. Petersburg, " p. 131 " 31st " Vienna, " p. 133 August 1st " St. Petersburg, " p. 136

Moreover, no less a personage than the Kaiser's brother confirmed this view. In Prince Heinrich's telegram to the King of England, July 30th, the following pa.s.sage occurs: "If you really and sincerely wish to prevent this terrible misfortune (a European war), may I propose that you should exercise your influence on France and Russia to keep them both neutral (in the Austro-Serbian quarrel). In my opinion this would be of the greatest service. I consider this a certain means and perhaps _the only possibility of preserving European peace_."

Prince Heinrich expressed no hope that Austria could be persuaded to make any concession, but merely requested King George to exercise his influence to get Russia to accept a position impossible to herself and incompatible with the balance of power in Europe.

The rock of Germanic obstinacy was seated in Vienna, whether Germany was the prime mover in erecting it remains to be proved. Germany knew full well that European peace would be shattered on that rock, yet there is no fragment of evidence to show that she tried to remove it; but there is overwhelming proof that she encouraged Austria to stand by it, thus causing a European conflagration.

And as if the above were insufficient to prove that the German Imperial Chancellor was guilty of conscious falsification, Austria put one more nail in the coffin of European peace on September 24th, 1914, when it issued an official communication to the Press, reiterating that Austria had never dreamed of departing from the att.i.tude which she first took up.[28]

[Footnote 28: "Die Schuld am Weltkriege" ("The Guilt for the World War"), by an Austrian. Vienna, 1915, p. 59.]

Germany's aim was to employ the Serajewo crime as a lever to put Russia, as a vital force, out of the domain of European politics. In spite of denials, there is reason to believe that Austria was inclined to listen to reason, but Germany forestalled and prevented this by despatching an ultimatum to Russia and then declaring war.

A few other points in Bethmann-Hollweg's speech deserve brief notice. He quotes Germany's threats, but not one word from the peaceful overtures which were so often mentioned. He fails to cite any single point which Austria had yielded at Germany's advice. Further, no proof of Germany's vaunted "mediatory action" is discoverable either in the speech or the diplomatic doc.u.ments published by the Central Powers.

In regard to his justification of the violation of Belgian neutrality, the civilized world has already pa.s.sed judgment, and in this place it only remains to point out that the four hundred members of the Reichstag cheered the Chancellor's announcement. This alone is a sufficiently severe comment on the conceptions of right and justice which direct the proceedings of Germany's highest legislative body.

It evidently did not occur to the Reichstag or Germany's Imperial Chancellor that, if necessity knows no law which respects a neutrality guaranteed by Germany, then at a later date necessity would also recognize no law which protected Belgian territory after Germany had conquered it. A lamb in the jaws of a lion is in a truly dangerous position, and although the outlook may be black, it is still wiser for the lamb to try and avoid the lion's jaws.

Bethmann-Hollweg saw the mote of Greater-Serbianism in Serbia's eye, but he was peculiarly anxious not to perceive the beam of Pan-Germanism which has blinded Germany's vision for a generation, and is the one and only cause for the rapid increase in European armaments.

Before consigning the German Chancellor's Pecksniffian oration to well-deserved oblivion, there is one other fact to state, because it is of immediate interest to Great Britain. In the person of Bethmann-Hollweg the German Government stood before the world on August 4th, 1914, and endeavoured to prove that Germany was attacked, and that her conscience was clear. There are even Britons who have got stuck in Bethmann-Hollweg's peace-lime. Yet it would be interesting if the German Government would explain why the civilian population was ordered to leave Heligoland on the afternoon of Friday, July 31st. They were allowed twenty-four hours within which to leave the island, and one who was in the exodus describes the scene in the _Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten_ for August 12th. Early on Sat.u.r.day morning the civilians proceeded on to the landing-stage, where several steamers were waiting.

"Suddenly the _Konigin Luise_ started off without taking any pa.s.sengers on board, and soon disappeared under full steam."

This was the boat which laid mines round the mouth of the Thames.

Although the German Chancellor protested his desire for peace with England as late as August 4th, it seems quite evident from the events in Heligoland that war with this country had been decided upon on July 31st.