SOME RECOLLECTIONS
During seven weeks’ sojourn in this charming little country of Holland,
in the course of the many walks I took along the countryside, in the
woods and parks, my thoughts reverted to that prison where I had lived
for three years. My mind recalled certain conversations and certain
incidents.
I spoke a little while ago of Lieutenant Block and his courteous
manner towards me. It should not be inferred, however, from what I
stated, that Prussianism was obliterated from him. He had the Prussian
officer’s demeanor. He did not attempt to hide that he belonged to the
autocratic and irrepressible military caste.
It will be remembered that in 1916 the Kaiser issued a proclamation
pronouncing the reform of Parliamentary institutions in Prussia, and
particularly the uniformity of electoral franchise for all citizens.
Fear of the people is the beginning of political wisdom.
In Prussia, the representatives of the people are elected by three
classes of electors, and although the Social-Democrats registered a
sufficient number of votes to give them a third of the representation
in the Prussian Diet, they were only a few deputies.
The Prussian Government, in conformity with the Imperial proclamation,
had introduced a bill providing for the reform of the electoral
franchise. The majority of the Prussian Parliament refused to adopt the
projected law. At that time there was a violent controversy carried on
in the German press on this subject.
There were in Germany then several newspapers with large circulations
which could be designated as Liberal–that is to say, they were in favor
of the principle of responsible government, not in Germany alone, but
also in Prussia. They fought continually and stubbornly against the
pan-German doctrine. I may cite the Frankfurter Zeitung, the Berliner
Tageblatt, the Vossische Zeitung besides Socialist newspapers like
the Volkszeitung and the Vorwaerts. At the jail we received all the
German newspapers. I was a subscriber to the Berliner Tageblatt, and
this newspaper was the only one on my table. I had much admiration for
the publicist, whose name is well known in France–Theodore Wolfe. This
journalist repeatedly condemned German autocracy in his articles–he did
it so often that his writings became popular with all of us. He was
frequently so outspoken that we really expected to see him arrive one
fine day in our midst.
The officer during his daily visits observed the Tageblatt lying on my
table, a fact which more than once gave rise to an exchange of views
between us on the political institutions of Germany, and particularly
on the Parliamentary situation as it existed in Prussia at that time.
The Prussian Diet had just refused to adopt the draft of the bill above
referred to. That same day the visiting officer entered my cell, his
face beaming with smiles. He rejoiced–words were not strong enough, he
said, to express the satisfaction he felt at what had happened. Prussia
was to maintain her old system, the autocratic system under which this
man was convinced she had achieved prosperity and greatness; and this
it was that pleased him so much.
It is very difficult for us, accustomed, as we have become, to a
democratic system, to conceive the voluntary abdication, on the part
of a man of the standing and importance of Lieutenant Block, of all
participation in the administration of public affairs. Here was a
professor, a man between 35 and 40 years of age, who confessed and
glorified in the fact that he had never voted! And when I expressed
great surprise, and endeavored to ascertain from him what were the real
motives of his abstention, he replied, with apparent sincerity: “Have
we not got our Kaiser, who is at the same time King of Prussia, to
efficiently govern the country?”…
Another instance which reveals something of the real heart of a
Prussian officer is the following: We were at the epoch of the
catastrophe which fell upon Britain when Lord Kitchener was drowned
off the Scottish coast. This news was reported to me, like all other
news of a disquieting character, with great eagerness by the visiting
officer. Others may be amazed at the lack of tact, to say the least,
here shown, as we in the prison were each of us amazed in turn.
“Kitchener has been drowned,” announced the officer with glee.
The news drew from me a pained expression of sorrow.
“How regrettable,” I cried.
The officer drew himself up to his full height, and his eyes flashed as
he retorted, “Nicht fur uns. Nicht fur uns.” (“Not for us. Not for us.”)
“Listen,” I retorted. “The intention of my remark was to convey to you
how regrettable it is that a soldier of the worth of Lord Kitchener,
instead of finding a glorious death on the battlefield, should have
perished in the manner reported.”
“Nicht fur uns. Nicht fur uns,” the Prussian insisted.
Many months passed. The man had evidently forgotten the incident of
Kitchener’s death. One morning he came to my cell with face long,
and expression sad. “Have you heard the awful news?” he asked me.
“Richthofen has fallen.”
Richthofen, Germany’s most famous aviator, was dead after seventy-five
great aerial victories.
“Yes, Richthofen has fallen,” the officer repeated. “Is it not
regrettable?”
“Nicht fur uns. Nicht fur uns,” I answered without hesitation.
“How can you say that?” he said. “Is it not a matter of regret that a
great hero like Richthofen should disappear?”
“Nicht fur uns,” I said again, not knowing what might be the outcome of
my boldness.
“Why do you talk like this?” the officer asked.
“I am merely following your example,” I told him. “When I ventured to
express my regret at Lord Kitchener’s death, regret that a soldier of
his valor had been drowned, and not killed in the manner of the valiant
soldier he was, you made use of this expression. To-day Richthofen
has fallen, but he fell in the arena where his skill and genius and
valor earned for him an immortal name. Acknowledge that his loss is
regrettable for Germany, but you cannot expect the countries at war
with Germany will experience regret in the same sense that you feel
it, although I am sure they will pay just tribute to his valor as an
aviator.”
The officer left me a few minutes afterwards. I do not know if he
appreciated the appropriateness of my remarks.
One day I had a sharp discussion with Captain Wolfe, of the
Kommandantur at Berlin. This officer occupied the position of a
judicial war counsellor and held a high and responsible office at the
Kommandantur. He was naturally vested with considerable authority.
Nobody realized this fact more than those who were detained against
their will, and in spite of just protests, in the jail on Dirksen
street. Well, on the day to which I am referring Captain Wolfe visited
the jail and condescended to hear me. That was his manner of answering
the numerous petitions I had addressed to the military authorities
during the previous months. Periodically I would undertake against the
authorities what may be called an “offensive” for liberty. On this
occasion I submitted to Captain Wolfe the fact that I had been arrested
in a neutral country–that is to say, Belgium. I said that no foreign
subject could lawfully be made a prisoner there, at least not until the
military authorities had given all foreign subjects a fair opportunity
to leave the territory.
“But Belgium is not, and was not, a neutral country,” Captain Wolfe
protested.
“I do not understand you,” I said.
“Belgium,” he answered, “had become the ally of Britain and the enemy
of Germany.”
“I still fail to understand you,” I said.
“Have you not read the documents which were taken from the archives at
Brussels?” he asked. “These official documents constitute a solemn
confirmation of my pretension that Belgium was allied with Britain.”
As a matter of fact, the Gazette de l’Allemagne du Nord (Die Nord
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung), a semi-official newspaper, did publish
during the course of the winter of 1914-1915 a series of documents
alleged to have been found in the archives of Brussels. No doubt these
documents were likewise published in all the allied countries. They
purported to contain the draft of a convention between a military or
naval officer of Britain and the Belgian authorities concerning an
eventual landing of British troops at Ostend. I had previously taken
cognizance of these documents and incidentally of a commentary by
a Belgian military expert to the following effect: “The landing of
British troops in Belgium was only to take place _after the violation
of Belgian neutrality by Germany_.” This correction removed from the
documents all vestige of hostility against Germany.
After the publication of these documents comments from official
sources were published in the press, and it was said, amongst other
things, that _the contents were known to the competent authorities in
Germany before the declaration of war_. I accordingly asked Captain
Wolfe if this were true?
“It is,” he answered.
“Then how is it,” I further asked, “that the Imperial Chancellor, Von
Bethmann-Hollweg, on August 4, made the following declaration before
the Reichstag: ‘At the moment I am addressing you German troops have
perhaps crossed the frontier and invaded Belgium’s territory. It must
be acknowledged that this is a violation of the rights of the people
and of international treaties. But Germany proposes and binds herself
to repair all the damages caused to Belgium so soon as she shall have
attained her military designs’?”
It is impossible to describe the officer’s embarrassment.
“Well,” he mumbled, in an effort to submit more or less of an
explanation, “it was because Belgium also peremptorily refused to let
us pass.”
The tone and manner of his “explanation” indicated plainly enough that
Captain Wolfe was capitulating.
In the pan-German newspapers more particularly, this attitude of Von
Bethmann-Hollweg before the Reichstag was much criticized. It was
declared that such a statement constituted a sufficient reason for his
immediate release from Chancellorship.