_De Stem van Haspengouw_, August 6th:--"The Germans entered Visé where
they met with a vigorous resistance not only on the part of a small
detachment of soldiers who were there but also on the part of the
civilians. The Germans completely destroyed the town."
The _Nieuwe Gazet_, August 7th:--"Some women and civilians have fired
on the Germans who have shown themselves pitiless in sparing nothing."
Another correspondent of the same paper describes what he saw at Visé:
"Young and old ran to take up arms, and if they were unable to stop
the murderous advance of the German cavalry, the inhabitants at least
resisted till the last moment. People fired from the houses upon the
Germans, who, in conformity with the laws of war, in these cases,
accorded no mercy. They penetrated into the houses from which the
shots had been fired and shot a certain number of inhabitants found
with arms in their hands."
_Nieuwe Gazet_, August 8th:--"After the German artillery had set some
houses on fire, the infantry marched to the attack. This was not
only directed against the soldiers, but also against the civilian
population who took part in the combat. People shoot from the houses,
small boys and women bombard the assailants with stones, and even some
old men from behind the doors fire on the advancing soldiers."
The paper goes on to tell us that a German Officer assembled the
inhabitants round him and was urging them to remain calm. "Scarcely
had the officer closed his mouth, when a shot suddenly fired at him
caused him to fall dead to the ground."
_Gazette de Liège_, August 5th--"The inhabitants of the country side
display a fine enthusiasm; all the peasants are in ambush, armed with
their sporting guns ready to fire on the invader."
In the face of such evidence, much of it furnished by correspondents
who were eye-witnesses of what occurred, the main contention of the
Belgian and Bryce Reports falls to the ground. The Belgian criticism
of these statements as "taken from second-rate papers," "proving
nothing," "unimportant," is obviously futile. That the German troops
were confronted with a wide-spread and determined opposition on the
part of armed civilians in flagrant violation of the Laws of War must
be accepted as a fact established by evidence varied, cumulative and
irresistible. On the other hand it is clear that no final verdict can
be passed on the vexed question of the Belgian atrocities in general,
until the unsworn evidence accumulated against the Kaiser's troops
has been met to a much fuller extent. The White Book does not cover
more than the incidents which occurred at Dinant, Aerschot, Andenne,
Louvain, and the neighbourhood of Visé. While therefore it disproves,
in conjunction with the Belgian evidence cited above, the propaganda
plea that the story of civilian attacks was a myth, it does not of
course deal with more than a portion of the ground covered by the
British and Belgian Reports. Before any complete decision can be
reached we should require official replies from the German Government
to a variety of alleged outrages in dozens of villages like Gomery,
Latour, Ethe, the horrible charge of the shooting of the Valckenaers
family at Thildonck, and so on. There were certain cases, one of them
known to the writer, in which mistakes and misunderstandings led to
the execution of innocent civilians. Full allowance, too, must be
made for the existence in all conscript armies of brutal and criminal
types--not confined to the rank and file--and for the demoralising
effects to which all the armies of the war were exposed whenever an
abundant supply of wines and spirits was easily accessible by purchase
or looting.
Nevertheless the fact that the main position taken up by the Allied
Reports is obviously untenable, coupled with the significant refusal
to allow the official German defence access to our shores, and the
deliberate and disgraceful circulation of pseudo-atrocity stories
during the war, would seem to suggest that as regards some at least
of the alleged incidents lying outside the White Book suspense of
judgment, pending further researches, may be the wisest attitude.
Some day a useful and interesting monograph may be written on the
whole question of atrocities in war. Careful investigation would, I
am convinced, yield psychological results of permanent value, and
establish the fact that the mental attitude which originates or accepts
atrocity stories is frequently based on an amazing inter-mixture of
credulity, mal-observation, megalomaniac impulses and deception,
conscious or unconscious.
Meanwhile it is evident that the immense outlay of money and energy
expended on the propaganda publications of the Entente fully
accomplished their object and contributed most effectively towards
winning what President Wilson has described as "a commercial and
industrial war." Nevertheless the impartial historian of the future
will, I think, present the story of the German invasion of Belgium in a
somewhat different light from that in which this chapter of history has
been portrayed in the official propaganda of the Allied Powers.
* * * * *
The final conclusions arrived at will perhaps be shaped on these
lines:--
(1) That the Allied propagandists adopted methods of investigation
which were often superficial and inadequate and accepted, together with
certain evidence which was valid, much that was unsound and worthless.
(2) That the official defence put forward by the enemy was to a very
large extent ignored or suppressed.
(3) That according to the recognised usages of war the German troops
were fully justified in taking reprisals on the persons or property of
those Belgian civilians who actually attacked them.
(4) That in some cases this right was exercised with unreasonable
severity, and without adequate discrimination.
(5) That in certain instances, _e.g._, the shooting of the hostages at
Les Rivages, the invaders acted in a manner condemned by the general
consensus of civilised opinion.
* * * * *
The civilised world was invited to condemn the German reprisals of
1914 in Belgium. What verdict will it record with reference to British
reprisals in Ireland six years later?
The analogies inevitably suggested between the two cases are not as
clear as they might at first sight appear to be.
(1) The civilians who fired on the invaders in Belgium were irregular
combatants wholly distinct from the recognised Belgian Army. They were
in fact _francs-tireurs_ and nothing else. The men who are fighting
against the troops of the Crown in Ireland constitute the only hostile
force we have to meet. They are certainly not _francs-tireurs_: the
question is, are they rebels or, as they have consistently claimed
to be, combatants in civil war? If the former, they are technically
outlaws and cannot claim belligerent rights. But the Prime Minister
has himself definitely stated that "civil war" is being waged in
Ireland and this statement appears to be in strict accord with
international law, which makes a clear distinction between "rebellion"
and "civil war."[1] Rebellion is action undertaken by sporadic groups
of individuals with little organisation and hopelessly inferior in
numbers to the forces of the existing Government. The Irish Republican
troops on the other hand are organised in Divisions, Brigades and
Battalions, are controlled by responsible leaders, and greatly
outnumber the military and armed police forces opposed to them. Their
claim therefore to be combatants engaged in civil war and, as such,
to be treated in accordance with the rights and usages of war, seems
well grounded. Had this claim been admitted from the commencement, the
hideous death-reprisals indulged in on both sides would probably never
have occurred. Such acts as the ambushing of troops in lorries or on
foot are of course perfectly legitimate methods of offence in ordinary
warfare.
[Footnote 1: _Vide_ Sir T. Barclay, "Laws of War" (_Encyc. Brit._).
Even rebels, when fighting for a political object, are, according to
high authorities like Bluntschli and Fiore, entitled to belligerent
rights, and must not be treated as a "crowd of criminals" (eine Masse
von Verbrechern).
_Cf._ Bluntschli (Das moderne Völkerrecht VIII. 512).--Wird sie dagegen
nur strafrechtlich verfolgt, so wird dadurch der tatsächliche Kampf
verwildert und es ist Gefahr dass die beiden streitenden Parteien
in die Barbarei versinken und einander mit grausamen Represalien zu
überbieten suchen. What a prophetic picture of Ireland in 1921!]
(2) As far as can be gathered from the White Book, the _francs-tireurs_
who fired on Belgian troops were, even when caught _flagrante delicto_,
usually accorded a drum-head court-martial or summary trial. But many
instances have occurred in Ireland when unarmed men have been shot dead
in or near their homes and sometimes in their beds, without even the
semblance of a trial.
(3) Military reprisals in Belgium were, at any rate, regular in one
respect: they were carried out under orders. According to the "Manual
of Military Law," compiled for the use of our own Army, no reprisals
are legitimate unless ordered by an officer. It is obvious that in very
many cases Irish reprisals have been executed by the rank and file on
their own responsibility, in total disregard of military discipline,
but with complete immunity from punishment. Certain of these reprisals,
_e.g._, the shooting down of men, women and children at Croke Park, far
exceed in atrocity anything proved against the Germans in Belgium.
(4) Although houses were frequently destroyed by the Germans the
pretext in every case was that from these houses civilians had fired
upon the troops. No parallel, as far as I can see, exists for the
amazing Order issued in Cork to the effect that houses with their
furniture are to be burnt because the occupants "must have known
of ambushes" in the neighbourhood and "ought to have informed the
authorities." Nor again is any parallel found in the White Book to the
reckless destruction in Cork of public and private buildings, including
the Free Library, as a reprisal for an ambush outside the city, or for
the burning of creameries, factories, farms and haystacks in a general
campaign of vengeance. It seems clear that fresh precedents are here
established which are certainly not covered by the rules of civilised
warfare, and run counter to the ordinary laws of reason and humanity.
(5) The use of hostages has been adopted in Ireland, as in Belgium, for
there is little discrimination in principle between shooting hostages
and exposing them to death on military lorries from the fire of their
compatriots.
Although the question of hostages is not covered by the Regulations of
either Geneva or the Hague, the claim to inflict injury or death on
innocent persons in order to bring pressure to bear on an enemy force
is now generally condemned as a barbarous and obsolete usage of war,
and as such is expressly discountenanced by our "Manual of Military
Law" (page 306).