Nothing, when one analyses it, could be imagined more thoroughly
characteristic of Prussia than the particular stroke of policy by
which a large proportion of the male population of Belgium--as also
in a somewhat lesser degree of Northern France--was separated from
its family ties and hurried away into exile in Germany, there to be
compelled to work for the profit of enemies.
It had all the marks of Prussianism.
Firstly, it was a violation of the civilised and Christian tradition
of European arms. By the rules of such warfare the non-combatant was
spared, wherever possible; not only his life but his property and
liberty were secure so long as he did not abuse his position.
Secondly, it was an affront to decent human sentiment quite apart from
technical rules; the man, guilty of no offence save that of belonging
to a country which Prussia had invaded without justice and ravaged
without mercy, was torn from his family, who were left to the mercy of
their opponents. We all know what that mercy was like.
Thirdly, it was an insult to the human soul, for the unfortunate
victims were not only to be exiled from their country, but to be driven
by force and terror to serve against it.
Fourthly, and finally, like all the worst Prussian crimes, it was a
stupid blunder. Prussia has paid already a very high price for any
advantage she may have gained from the mutinous and unwilling labour
of these men, and for the swelling of her official return for the
edification of her own people and of neutrals by the inclusion of
“prisoners of war” of this description. To-day, when she knows not
where to turn for men, she is obliged to keep a huge garrison tied up
in Belgium to guard her line of retreat. And when the retreat itself
comes, the price will rise even higher, and the nemesis will be both
just and terrible.