What Germany Thinks - Thomas F. A. Smith
The Rev. Duhr's exposure of what he calls "erlogener Schauergeschichten"
("lying horror tales") kills most of the "fairy-tales" accusing the
Russians, French and Belgians of atrocities on German soldiers. A few
illustrations will suffice to show the absence of all foundation for the
charges against the Belgians; charges, we must remember, which the
German soldiery believed, and which convinced them they were performing
a holy task at Louvain, Tirlemont, Dinant, etc.
"On October 1st, 1914, a telegraphic agency (Wolff's?) issued the
following notice: 'A high Bavarian officer writing from the front has
informed the _Muenchen-Augsburger Abendzeitung_ of this incident. South
of Cambrai a column of German motor-cars was attacked by a company of
French cyclists. For the most part the guard was killed by rifle fire,
while the cars were all burnt. Later a German patrol discovered the
remains, and on investigation, found that the dead Germans had all had
their eyes gouged out.'"
The reverend Father comments as follows: "On following up this case, it
was impossible to prove whether the patrol had seen rightly or whether
they had really made the report at all. So much is certain, however,
that in the matter of eyes being gouged out, an absolute mania of
gruesomeness broke loose. An innumerable swarm of such horrible tales
were told, passed on, and finally guaranteed as true--AND YET THEY WERE
ALL FAIRY-TALES. A few cases will suffice.
"In September, 1914, the following paragraph appeared in the papers:
'Several ladies engaged in Red Cross work on Cologne Station were
informed with every assurance of truth, that a hospital at
Aix-la-Chapelle contained a whole ward full of wounded whose eyes had
been gouged out on the battlefields of Belgium.'
"On September 26th the editor of the Catholic _Koelnische Volkszeitung_
wrote to Dr. Kaufmann, a high Roman Catholic dignitary in
Aix-la-Chapelle, begging him to ascertain whether the report were true.
Two days later that gentleman replied: 'As regards the rumour mentioned
in your letter, I beg to inform you that I at once put myself in
communication with the authorities. I inquired of the doctor in charge
of a hospital here (he is, by the way, a famous specialist for the
eyes), and he assures me that in all the local hospitals there is no
ward for wounded whose eyes have been put out, AND SUCH A CASE HAS NEVER
BEEN OBSERVED in the town, although the place is full of wounded.'
"A second report which the same journal exposed dates from October,
1914. Recently Dean A., who is the Superior in a military hospital in
the Franciscan Nunnery at S., came to us and reported that a wounded
soldier had told him that he had heard[124] that in the monastery Bl. by
V., in Holland, there were twenty-two wounded German soldiers whose eyes
had been gouged out by Belgians. The Dean begged us to write to the
Mother Superior and ask for confirmation of the story. We did write, and
the lady answered that there was no hospital at all in the cloister
Bl."[125]
[Footnote 124: The words "hear" and "heard" occur very frequently in
these legends.--Author.]
[Footnote 125: The Rev. Duhr's book, pp. 11-12.]
The same lie travelled to Bonn, Sigmaringen, Potsdam, Bremen, and was
successively nailed down by the _Volkszeitung_. Inquiries were made in
all directions wherever a case of gouged-out eyes was reported, the
result being everywhere the same--a fairy-tale.
Yet when the German Imperial Chancellor received a party of American
journalists (representatives of the United Press and the Associated
Press) on September 2nd, 1914, he communicated this statement: "The
English will inform your countrymen that German troops have burnt down
Belgian villages and towns, but they will conceal the fact that Belgian
girls have gouged out the eyes of our helpless soldiers lying on the
battlefields."
"Berlin papers informed the public that 'a large number of Belgian
civilians were prisoners in Muenster. They are the same bestial creatures
who shot from their houses on our unsuspecting troops, and who, before
the arrival of our invading armies in Belgium, had perpetrated all sorts
of cruelties on helpless German citizens. Indeed, when they were
searched on their arrival at the prisoners' camp fingers with rings on
them, which they had hacked off their victims, were found in their
pockets. Justice will soon strike down these Belgians, among whom a very
large number of priests are to be found. Twenty to thirty have already
been condemned to death by a court-martial.'
"The 'Pax' Society of Priests immediately wrote to the commander of the
prisoners' camp, and received this reply: 'The ridiculous assertion of a
Berlin paper that fingers had been found in the pockets of Belgian
civilians in this camp is false. Neither has any priest or layman been
condemned to death, but over one hundred Belgian women and children have
been sent home again.'"[126]
[Footnote 126: Ibid., p. 19.]
The above extracts will suffice to show how these Roman Catholic
gentlemen proceeded. Immediately an atrocity was reported they applied
to the authorities, and in every case received an affirmation that the
deed had never taken place. Among the monstrous lies exposed by these
investigators, are reports that Belgian priests paid eight shillings for
every German head brought to them; high treason charges against Catholic
priests in Alsace; all kinds of monstrous crimes charged to the
priesthood; that a Belgian boy was caught with a bucketful of dead
Germans' eyes; espionage by priests etc., etc.
Yet one other case deserves quotation: "On October 5th, 1914, a priest
was travelling by rail to Mayence. In the same compartment there were
four privates from Infantry Regiment No. 94. One of them named Roessner,
related the following story to his comrades, and then, at the priest's
request, again repeated it:
"'In the Belgian village of Patsie the _cure_ welcomed a German major
and his orderly into his house. Afterwards the priest promised a boy of
thirteen that he should go straight to heaven if he would murder the two
Germans. The lad perpetrated the murder, after which he and the _cure_
were shot under martial law.'
"When the priest pointed out how incredible the whole story was, the
soldier swore to its truth, and became very impolite to his auditor. An
inquiry was instituted and this was the result:
"'War Office, No. 1866. The investigations made, in especial the
hearing under oath of private Roessner and several officers in his
regiment, have resulted in the following particulars being obtained:
At the beginning of the campaign as the troops marched into a
village--name unknown--they saw by the roadside two or three dead
civilians. One was apparently a boy of about thirteen, while the other
was an adult with a dark coat. It was not established whether this was
the body of a priest. Furthermore, we have not been able to discover
by whom, or for what reason, these people were shot.
"'At that time the story quoted by you about a _cure_ and a boy, was
told as a "rumour" to all the troops marching through. It is
impossible after the lapse of time to test the truth of the narrative.
"'Signed by order,
"'BAUER AND WAGNER.'"[127]
[Footnote 127: Ibid., pp. 54-5.]
The above document may be said, without presumption, to possess historic
importance. It is a frank admission by the German War Office that
Belgian civilians were actually shot down without rhyme or reason.
Apparently German soldiers (!) had a _carte blanche_ to shoot whom they
liked, without rendering or being expected to render a report of their
doings.
The Rev. Duhr writes: "The incredible speed with which these lying tales
of horror spread on all sides must be classed as a morbid phenomenon, a
sort of blood-cult. Their consequences could only be to act upon the
national soul as a stimulant, inspiring fear and brutality."[128]
[Footnote 128: Ibid., p. 9.]
The author of this work is prepared to go much farther than the Rev.
Father, and maintain that the foul, diseased imaginations which could
invent such monstrous horrors are also capable of perpetrating them.
They did not spring from the imagination of an Edgar Allan Poe, but
arose in the minds of Germany's brutal peasantry and bloodthirsty
working classes, who together every year commit in times of peace 9,000
acts of brutal, immoral bestiality, and maliciously wound 175,000 of
their fellow German citizens.[129]
[Footnote 129: _Vide_ Vol. 267 _Vierteljahrshefte_, published by the
Berlin Government, 1914.]
To-day Germany shouts in ecstasy that she is the chosen power of God;
that her _Kultur_ will regenerate the world. Let it first regenerate the
"Augean Stable" known to the world as Germany. Without further comment
readers are left to form their own opinion of a Press which breeds such
filth, and the cultural level of a people which consumes such garbage.
But the world owes a debt of gratitude to the Rev. Bernhard Duhr, S.J.,
and the "Pax" Society in Cologne.
The accusations of plundering on the part of German soldiers is
naturally denied _in toto_ by all parties in the Fatherland. Indeed, it
has been discovered that the British army was guilty of wilful
destruction in Belgium. A certain Major Krusemarck, commanding the 2nd
battalion of the 12th Infantry Reserve Regiment, is responsible for the
story. "On October 10th I entered Wilryk, near Antwerp, and took up my
quarters in the Italian Consulate. All the houses had been deserted by
the inhabitants. Immediately after entering the house I perceived that
English soldiers had been here and behaved in a barbarous manner.
Mirrors, valuable objects of art, etc., had been smashed in a way which
betrayed purpose." The major's report continues: "The destruction which
I have described had undoubtedly been perpetrated by members of the
English army, and as proof of this I may state that in one of the rooms
about a dozen visiting-cards were found with the name: Major E.L.
Gerrard, Royal Marine Light Infantery (sic).
"During the subsequent pursuit of the Belgian and English armies we
heard repeated complaints from the inhabitants that especially the
English troops had acted in the most inconsiderate manner, purposely
destroying furniture, etc., in civilian houses."[130]
[Footnote 130: Richard Grasshoff: "Belgien's Schuld," p. 84.]
Without doubt the story belongs to the group of legends exposed by the
"Pax" Society, for which reason it is quoted here, as a fitting
supplement to them. Yet it is psychologically interesting to note how
difficult it is for Germans who burn, destroy and violate in their own
country to believe that they behave otherwise than as lambs when playing
the role of invaders.
One quotation from a large number will illustrate sufficiently the
respect which the German troops felt for civilian homes in the
territories occupied by them: "We got into the house by a back-door.
Orders had been issued that only food and shirts were to be taken. The
cellar was full of wine and champagne. A corporal brought us some of the
latter. After half an hour the rooms looked very different; all the
cupboards had been emptied in order to get at the jams and jellies.
Several pots of fruit preserved in wine were divided as honestly as the
greed of the individual allowed.
"All the underclothing was seized upon, obviously only the best being
taken. Many a dirty Pole put on such a shirt as he had never dreamed of
before. Even ladies' chemises were commandeered, and some of the men
assured me that a French chemise is quite comfortable--in spite of the
short sleeves.
"If there is a sterner sex in France, which is exceedingly doubtful,
they do not seem to possess pants; so the men resorted to the
corresponding article worn by ladies."[131] (This writer refers in other
parts of his book to "mementoes" which he carried home to the
Fatherland, after being wounded at the Marne.)
[Footnote 131: H. Knutz: "Mit den Koenigin-Fusilieren durch Belgien," p.
42.]
CHAPTER IX
THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM AND GERMANY'S ANNEXATION PROPAGANDA
"Afterthoughts" is the term which would perhaps designate most concisely
the section of German war literature treating of Belgium's violated
neutrality. Should that designation appear unfitting, then the author
has only one other to suggest--"whitewash."
In order to apprehend clearly the method and aims concealed beneath the
"afterthoughts," readers must bear in mind that every attempt to protest
against the annexation of Belgium by Germany is prohibited by the German
censor. The Social Democratic organs emphasize the fact almost daily
that they are not permitted to print anything contrary to the principle
of annexation.
On the other hand, numerous writers are allowed to make a most extensive
propaganda by suggesting that annexation is necessary in the interests
of their racial-brothers the Flemings. By order of the German Government
a geographical description of the country has been published,[132] in
which every detail of Belgium's wealth in minerals, agriculture, and so
on, is described, with no other possible purpose than the desire to whet
German Michael's appetite.
[Footnote 132: "Belgien, Land und Leute," Berlin, 1915.]
All at once Germany has become suspiciously interested in Belgian
history, in the domestic quarrels between Walloons and Flemings, in the
alleged oppression of the latter (Low Germans) by the former, and
propose for themselves the part of liberator and saviour for Flemish
culture. They have discovered, among other things, that Belgium was
merely a paper State, a diplomatic invention, an experiment, and that no
"Belgian" people has ever existed, but rather two hostile elements were
packed under the same roof against their will by the Conference of
London--the said roof bears the name Belgium!
According to a good German-Swiss[133] the Belgians have no national
feelings, no patriotism, and have never had a Fatherland. If a serious
writer can make such statements after the Belgians have defended their
native country so heroically, one naturally wonders whether Herr Blocher
is sane, or merely a paid agent of the German authorities. In his work
he denies every and any intention to justify or condemn either Germany
or Belgium, and then proceeds to blacken the latter's character by
quoting every Belgian utterance which may be interpreted as anti-German.
These expressions lead him to the remarkable conclusion that Belgians
had already violated their own neutrality!
[Footnote 133: "Belgische Neutralitaet," by Eduard Blocher. Zurich,
1915.]
Blocher states that his work is only intended to prove that Switzerland
has nothing to fear from Germany's precedent in invading Belgium. But he
never mentions Belgium's maritime interests, Antwerp and the extensive
seacoast on the North Sea. He is oblivious to the fact that Germany's
desire to possess these was the sole motive for precipitating war and
invading Belgium. To Germany the coast of Belgium is the door to the
world and world domination. Switzerland does not possess such a door,
and therefore had nothing to fear from her powerful neighbour; but if
the Allies are unable to bar this door to Germany's aggressive schemes,
then the time is not far distant when Germany would remember that she
has "brothers" within Swiss frontiers and insist upon their entrance
into the great Teutonic sheepfold--just as her most earnest desire at
present is to drive the "lost" Flemings back to their parent race.
Among the many phrases which Germans have coined to describe Belgium the
following occur: bastard, eunuch and hermaphrodite. According to the
German conception of a "State," Belgium is an unnatural monstrosity,
from which one draws the natural conclusion that Germany intends to
remove it from the domain of earthly affairs.
On the whole, German writers admit the existence of Belgian neutrality,
and also Germany's pledge to respect it. The three most serious writers
on the subject are, Dr. Reinhard Frank,[134] professor of jurisprudence
in Munich University; Dr. Karl Hampe,[135] professor in Heidelberg; and
Dr. Walter Schoenborn,[136] also a professor in Heidelberg University.
[Footnote 134: Reinhard Frank: "Die belgische Neutralitaet." Tubingen,
1915.]
[Footnote 135: Karl Hampe: "Belgien's Vergangenheit und Gegenwart."
Berlin, 1915.]
[Footnote 136: Walther Schoenborn: "Die Neutralitaet Belgien's." This is
an appendix to a large work written by twenty university professors,
entitled "Deutschland und der Weltkrieg," published by B.G. Teubner,
Leipzig and Berlin, 1915.]
The nearer examination of these three works must be premised by two
important considerations. Firstly, the three professors ignore the fact
that Germany was a menace to Belgium, and make no mention of German
aspirations for a coastline on or near the English Channel. Holland and
Belgium form a twentieth century "Naboth's vineyard," on which the
German Ahab has cast avaricious glances for upwards of forty years.
A casual acquaintance with Pan-German and German naval and military
literature during the same period, affords overwhelming proof of this
powerful current in German nationalism. If Naboth consulted strong
neighbours as to necessary precautions against Ahab's plans for
obtaining the vineyard, then Naboth acted as a wise man, and the only
regret to-day is that the "strong neighbours" only offered Naboth
assurances and words, instead of deeds. In other words Great Britain did
nothing because, as Lord Haldane expressed it, the Liberal Cabinet was
"afraid" (!) to offend Germany and precipitate a crisis.
Secondly, the three professors, like all others of their class in the
Fatherland, have sworn an oath on taking office not to do anything,
either by word or deed, detrimental to the interests of the German State
of which they are _official_ members. An ordinary German in writing on
Germany may be under the subjective influences of his national feelings,
but a German who has taken the "Staatseid" (oath to the State) cannot be
objective in national questions and interests--his oath leaves only one
course open to him, and any departure from that course may mean the loss
of his daily bread.
The author has the greatest respect for the achievements of German
professors in the domains of science and abstract thought; by those
achievements they have deservedly become famous, but in all judgments
where Germany's interests are concerned they are bound hand and
foot.[137]
[Footnote 137: Towards the close of 1913 I had a conversation with half
a dozen Germans (average age twenty-five) in Erlangen Gymnasium (State
Secondary School); they were candidates in training for the teaching
profession, all university men. I listened patiently to their diatribes
concerning the perfidy of English Statesmen, and then pointed out,
giving chapter and verse in German biographies, that Bismarck's record
was exceedingly tortuous; the forgery of the Ems telegram was given as
an instance.
A few weeks later I met the vice-principal of the school at a private
party; this gentleman was a good friend of mine. He reminded me of the
above conversation, and gave me a friendly warning never again to make
such statements to my pupils. The candidates had talked it over, and
although they had provoked the discussion, proposed to have me reported
to the Minister for Education for uttering such opinions. The
vice-principal had intervened and prevented the _Denunziation_.
If a professor of history in a German university expressed any opinion
in his academic lectures unfavourable to modern Germany, he would be
immediately _denunziert_ to the State authorities by his own students.
Should he publish such opinions in book form, of course the process of
cashiering him would be simpler. Germans do not desire the truth so far
as their own country is concerned; they do not will the truth; they will
_Deutschland ueber alles_, and all information, knowledge, or propaganda
contrary to their will is prohibited. If space permitted I could mention
numerous cases in which famous professors have been treated like
schoolboys by the German State--their stern father and master.]
When a German conscript enters the army he takes the _Fahneneid_ (oath
on, and to, the flag), which binds him to defend the Fatherland with
bayonet and bullet. In like manner it may be said that German professors
are bound by the _Staatseid_ either to discreet silence, or to employ
their intellectual pop-guns in defending Germany. That these pop-guns
fire colossal untruths, innuendoes, word-twistings, and such like
missiles, giving out gases calculated to stupefy and blind honest
judgments, will become painfully evident in the course of our
considerations.
That any and every German obeys the impulse to defend his country is
just and praiseworthy; but in our search for truth we are compelled to
note the fact that German professors are merely intellectual soldiers
fighting for Germany. Without departing from the truth by one jot or
tittle, readers may even call them "outside clerks" of the German
Foreign Office, or the "ink-slingers" under the command of the German
State.
These premises have been laid down _in extenso_ because some fifty books
will be discussed in this work, which emanate from German universities.
A neutral reader may retort: You also are not impartial, for you are an
Englishman! Having anticipated the question, the author ventures to give
an answer. If he could make a destructive attack on Britain's
policy--the attack would be made without the least hesitation. Such an
attack, if proved to the hilt, would bring any man renown, and in the
worst case no harm. But if a German professor launched an attack, based
upon incontrovertible facts, against Bethmann-Hollweg and Germany's
policy, that professor would be ruined in time of peace and in all
probability imprisoned, or sent to penal servitude in time of war.
Nothing which the present author could write would ever tarnish the
reputation of German professors as men of science, but in the narrower
limits as historians of the Fatherland and propagandists of the
_Deutschland-ueber-alles_ gospel they are tied with fetters for the like
of which we should seek in vain at the universities of Great Britain or
America. It would be in the interests of truth and impartiality if every
German professor who writes on the "Causes of the World War," "England's
Conspiracy against Germany," "The Non-Existence of Belgian Neutrality,"
and similar themes, would print the German _Staatseid_ on the front page
of his book. The text of that oath would materially assist his readers
in forming an opinion regarding the trustworthiness and impartiality of
the professor's conclusions.
Professor Frank commences his historical sketch of Belgian neutrality
with the year 1632, when Cardinal Richelieu proposed that Belgium should
be converted into an independent republic. Doubtless the desire to found
a buffer State inspired Richelieu, just as it did the representatives of
Prussia, Russia, France, Austria and England when they drew up the
treaty guaranteeing Belgium's neutrality in perpetuity, at the
Conference of London, 1839.
But an additional motive actuated the diplomatists of 1839, viz.,
Belgium was henceforth to be the corner-stone supporting the structure
commonly designated "the balance of power in Europe."
An objection has been made to the validity of the treaty signed in
London, viz., England herself did not consider it reliable and binding,
or she would not have asked for, and obtained, pledges from both Prussia
and France to respect Belgian neutrality in 1870. Another objection is
the claim that the German Empire, founded in 1870, was not bound by the
Prussian signature attached to a treaty in 1839. Other writers have
endeavoured to show that the addition of African territory (Congo Free
State) to Belgium changed the political status of that country, exposed
it to colonial conflicts with two great colonial Powers, and thus
tacitly ended the state of neutrality.
Each of the professors in question overrides these objections, and Frank
remarks, p. 13: "Lawyers and diplomatists refuse, and rightly so, to
accept this view." Again, p. 14.: "There is no international document in
existence which has cancelled Belgian neutrality."
Germany's alleged violation of her promise to regard Belgium as a
neutral country is justified on quite other grounds. Belgium had herself
violated her neutrality by a secret alliance with France and England.
Frank argues that a neutral State has certain duties imposed upon it in
peace time, and in support of his contention quotes Professor Arendt
(Louvain University, 1845), who wrote: "A neutral State may not conclude
an alliance of defence and offence, by which in case of war between two
other States it is pledged to help one of them. Yet it is free and
possesses the right to form alliances to protect its neutrality and in
its own defence, but such defensive alliances can only be concluded
after the outbreak of war."