also not a little annoyance owing to their importunity.
Fortunately, during my activity in connection with the school
children's gymnastic society at ---- I have gained so much
patience that I never permit myself to lose my temper. While I
am writing this already ten or twelve children have invaded my
room asking for bread. Everyone of them got something. I am now
almost reduced to beggary myself, and whatever I can get hold of
is given to the children, so that they may enjoy themselves. I
got from a friend a few packets of ginger cakes. I gave them all
away, and I do not even know how they tasted.
And when I show them photographs of my children's gymnastic
society there is almost a riot. How I wish I could understand
them better! A little girl of 13, who always reminds me of my
own second daughter, has won my heart completely. Every day she
says to me a couple of German words which she has picked up
somewhere: "I don't know," "Potatoes without salt are no good,"
"Benzine is dangerous," and phrases like that. I cannot realise
that these children belong to an enemy nation. I should have
dearly loved to roam about with them through forest and field,
as I used to in Berlin.--(Quoted in the _Daily News_, December
20, 1915.)[40]
THE CHILD IN NO MAN'S LAND.
The story of the child adopted by the Bedfordshires will be remembered
by many. She was found in a ditch by the men on their way to the
trenches, and was perforce for some time with them there.
The German trenches were about 150 yards off, and the level,
open space between the two lines wasn't healthy. No man who
valued his life would go there unnecessarily, or recklessly put
his head above the parapet. One morning, to their horror the
men, through the periscope, saw the child standing above the
trench on the German side. Cries came from the enemy, but they
were not hostile. The sight of the girl, little more than an
infant, has touched their sentimental side, and she had offers
of chocolate and invitations to go and see them.
After that the girl went over the parapet quite often. She was
as safe in that danger zone as if she had been behind the lines.
No German would harm her, and once she went close up to their
first-line trench.--(_Daily News_, February 17, 1916).
AUSTRO-HUNGARIANS IN CETINJE.
When the Austro-Hungarian troops entered Cetinje there was already
serious famine:
The children in the streets were begging bread from the passing
soldiers, who shared their tiny brown loaves with the hungry
little children, and the military authorities at the barracks
were besieged from the morning till late in the evening by the
starving population.
There were some fifty or sixty well-to-do better class families,
who had been in Government positions before, or prominent
business people, who suffered as terribly as their poorer
brethren. Among those who went begging for bread to headquarters
were wives of ex-Ministers and women who were ladies-in-waiting
at the Royal Court only a few weeks previously. For their
children's sake they were all ready to beg for something to eat.
It must be admitted that the military authorities put the
soldiers on quarter rations and distributed all the available
food among the suffering population. The bad condition of the
roads and the consequent lack of supplies in the army itself
made it impossible for them to do more.--(_Daily News_, February
21, 1916.)
_On quarter rations_--that is worth remembering.
NOT ALL BARBARIANS, NOR ALL CHIVALROUS.
We have all of us heard many stories from our soldier friends. Many
statements and opinions we cannot in these days publish, but some are
allowable. Such as the following: "Some of our men were hung up on the
German barbed wire. We could do nothing to get at them. We saw the
Germans trying to make signs from their trenches and we couldn't at
first make out what they meant, but presently some of them ventured out
and took in our wounded. I turned to my mate and said, 'They tell us all
the Germans are barbarians, but that doesn't look much like it.' It was
difficult to keep some of our men from firing on the Germans even then."
The last statement will surprise only those who have not been told the
truth about war. Passion gets the upper hand of humanity, and indeed
reason may support passion, for is not destruction of the enemy one of
the chief aims of war? Shall we spare the enemy when rescuing their
_own_ wounded? By war logic that would be inconceivably foolish. Hence
such incidents as the following: A lieutenant of Hussars wrote on
October 22, 1914, of his work in a loft which he had previously
loopholed. The letter is both frank and generous, and as usual with
soldiers' letters, without any of the malicious sanctity which so besets
the civilian. The letter was published in the _Times_, November 26,
1914. "When I got up I could see crowds of Germans advancing. I think
they have learnt a lesson from us, for they didn't advance in masses,
but in extended order like we do. They were jolly good, too.... One
fellow was jolly brave. I saw him carrying back a wounded man on his
back, and it made a very good target. Though we didn't succeed in
hitting him, he had to drop his man.... We were having jolly good fun."
One sentence shows how far removed are the ethics of war from the ethics
of peace: "I saw him carrying back a wounded man on his back, _and it
made a very good target_."
And here is a case where chivalry was remembered and forgotten. The
extract is from the _Daily News_, May 17, 1916. Most of us may get
similar information privately, but it is wisest to confine oneself to
what has already been published:
A sergeant on active service writes in the course of a letter on
his experiences: "I got stuck in a trench up to my waist in mud,
and who do you think pulled me out?--only a German about 6ft.
4in. One of my boys wanted to bayonet him.[41] I said: 'Drop
that or I shoot you.' The German said: 'Sergeant, it is not my
fault--I am only fighting for my country as you are fighting for
yours.'"
A GERMAN PRIEST.
From the _Daily News_, February 17, 1916, I take the following story of
a German priest:
Then the word came that we were to go for the enemy's first
line, and we did. Our artillery started the music, and we made
our effort.
Our lads almost lost their reason for the time being, and
heedless of shells and bullets, mounted the first German
parapet. We killed many of them, but it is fair to say they
didn't give in. They quickly had reinforcements, and we were
compelled against heavy odds to yield the trench to the enemy.
Angry fighting continued, and our game now was to lure as many
of the Germans towards our lines as possible so that we could
mow them down with our guns. On they came, many hundreds of
them, and as quickly they fell.
Our fellows got it too, and one little party was absolutely at
the mercy of the enemy. Two of our young officers and five men
were severely wounded and their position was helpless, for it
was impossible to rescue them. Despite our tremendous fire the
Germans, with fixed bayonets, tried to reach the party and their
intention was obvious. They got within a few yards of the
wounded when one of their number sprang in front of them and
flashed a crucifix. "Stop," he shouted, and then he knelt down
by the side of our men and blessed them. The other Germans
immediately withdrew.
Then we managed to reach the wounded and our officer thanked the
priest for the brave way in which he had behaved in the face of
his own men. "Take me," said the priest. "I am your prisoner."
The officer said he would not do that, but he would see that he
returned to the German lines unharmed. The promise was kept, and
before they parted the priest, falling on his knees, thanked our
officer warmly, adding: "God bless you and good luck!"
MUTUAL FEARS.
Each side fears the barbarity of the other. "Would it be good military
policy," asked a military official, "to encourage any other idea?" "'My
comrades were afraid,' said this German sergeant. 'They cried out to me
that the Indians would kill their prisoners, and that we should die if
we surrendered. But I said, 'That is not true, comrades, and is only a
tale. Let us go forward with our hands up.' So in that way we went, and
the Indian horsemen closed about us, and I spoke to one of them, asking
for mercy for our men, and he was very kind and a gentleman, and we
surrendered to him safely.' He was glad to be alive, this man from
Wiesbaden. He showed me the portrait of his wife and boy, and cried a
little, saying that the German people did not make the war, but had to
fight for their country when told to fight, like other men.... He waved
his hand back to the woodlands, and remembered the terror of the place
from which he had just come. 'Over there it was worse than death.'" Yes,
and "If any man were to draw the picture of those things or to tell them
more nakedly than I have told them, because now is not the time, nor
this the place, no man or woman would dare to speak again of war's
'glory,' or of 'the splendour of war,' or any of those old lying phrases
which hide the dreadful truth." (Philip Gibbs in the _Daily Chronicle_,
July 18, 1916.)
THE CIVILIAN'S HATE.
Yet, appalling as modern war is, there are things which some soldiers
find worse. When I spoke to an old friend of mine about a popular print
that disseminates hatred he said, "Whenever I see that paper it makes my
blood run cold." Yet in one of the charges which that man had faced only
about a quarter of his company came back. That charge was to him less
hideous than some newspaper malice--a malice which is so often a matter
of business. Since then my friend has given his life, and has left in
one heart a desolation that is worse than death. But in that heart there
is no hate, only sympathy for all the sorrow, both on this side and the
other.
Mr. Frederick Niven tells us the impressions of a wounded soldier who
saw the Zeppelin burned at Cuffley. "What stuck in his mind was the
roars that occurred when the airship took fire and began to come sagging
and flaming down. 'It reminded me of what I have read of "Thumbs down"
in the arenas of ancient Rome. It was the most terrible thing I have
heard in my life. I've heard some cheering at the front, but this was
different. Nothing out there had quite the same horrible sound.'" The
difference can be explained. "These men," says Mr. Niven, "have seen the
procession of the maimed, grey propping khaki, khaki propping grey, all
trooping down to the dressing station." (_Daily News_, October 9, 1916.)
And here is a letter from a brave young officer, since killed. "I
drifted into the ---- Parish Church last evening to hear the organ and
the singing. I was pushed into a pew up in the front, and so could not
escape until the end of the service. I could have wept when I heard the
sermon; it was a dreadful medieval picture of Heaven and Hell, and a
dreadful curse on all the German people as being ready for 'Hell.' ...
The whole service was as artificial as one could imagine--so heartless
and so soulless. It made me feel so very sad that, as I said before, I
could have wept openly. Do you think that the congregation, a large one,
would take in and believe all that they heard from the pulpit? It seems
too dreadful!"
AND CIVILIAN KINDNESS.
Yet even civilians, even German civilians, do not always hate.
There is a better Germany, but it is only occasionally that we are
allowed glimpses of it now, and we must go usually among unknown people,
and read unpopular or comparatively obscure publications if we seek a
wider range of vision. In December, 1914, Mrs. Jackson, wife of a golf
professional, returned from Germany to Clacton-on-Sea. Her husband had
been in the employ of the Cologne Golf Club. "Do you think," she was
asked, "the German hatred of England is general?" "No," replied Mrs.
Jackson. "Of course, the Germans hate England fiercely as a nation, but
I do not think they do as individuals. Everyone treated us extremely
well, although they knew our nationality, and my husband's employers are
anxious for him to go back again to them when the war is finished."
"Does Germany know the truth?" "I do not think so. We could not get any
British newspapers, and only heard the German side of the question. I
was quite thunderstruck when I heard England had joined in, and I am
sure the German people were, too. The Germans are confident of victory,
and so much is this so that some of my friends did not want me to go
back, saying that I should be much safer where I was." I take this
report from the _Clacton Graphic_ of February 20, 1915.
Of course, there has been much kindness on this side, and much gratitude
for it in Germany, but I confess that some things I have heard from the
other side have given me twinges of patriotic jealousy. I should like to
feel that my country is always first in generosity. When Chaplain
O'Rorke walked unattended and in khaki through the streets of Burg,
there was no offensive remark.[42] Three English ladies travelling in
Germany in war-time tell me that they never suffered from one unpleasant
word. Miss Littlefair tells of some anti-English demonstrations, but of
far more kindness, and when her unpopular nationality became known in a
railway carriage, there was no change in the friendliness of its
occupants.[43] Again, a Canadian Chaplain has been allowed to travel
free, and in his uniform, and to visit his men in different camps. He
seems to have had no difficulty with the populace. As regards walks on
parole, we hear from Crefeld, "There has been no trouble of any kind
with the inhabitants."[44]
SOME GERMAN NEWSPAPERS AND OTHER GERMAN COMMENTS.
The _Frankfurter Zeitung_ is one of those German newspapers which has
often at least worked for sanity in the national attitude. We may differ
from some of its conclusions, but we must admire its stand against the
flood of foolish, indiscriminate hate. On February 27, 1915, it asked:
"What sense is there in German professors declaring that they will no
longer collaborate with this or that scientific institution in
England?... Salutations such as the celebrated 'God punish England' are
not only fundamentally tasteless and theatrical, but are quite
ridiculous.... We are deep in war, and we have to collect all our
strength to beat our enemies, and especially to subdue our most
dangerous enemy, England; but after the war must follow a peace which
shall render possible calm and assured work. This work must be performed
in conjunction with other peoples which we cannot exterminate." ...
(Quoted in the _Times_, March 2, 1915.) On April 11, 1915, there
appeared another telling little article, "English and German, according
to Professor Sombart." The article is quietly ironical over Professor
Sombart, who brings us before the court on the old charge, that we are a
nation of shopkeepers. "The traders' spirit, that is Englishdom." I
confess that as an Englishman I have always felt there was an
uncomfortable amount of truth in this sneer. We are surely a somewhat
stodgy, money-making people with far too little receptivity for new
ideas. "I have long thought and preached," wrote Lord Haldane in the
_Nation_ of August 7, 1915, "that the real problem in this country is
the development of thought and ideas." Dr. Drill does not in his review
concern himself with this charge. He remarks in passing that it is quite
possible for a tradesman to be a hero and for a minister of war to be a
tradesman, and then goes on to point out the futile absurdity of all
such general charges. He cites an amusing attack on German culture by a
lecturer at Bedford College. "We smile over his attack," says Dr. Drill.
"May we not be afraid that educated Englishmen do the same about
Professor Sombart?" The review tears the book to tatters, and the
reviewer sums up the opinion of the thoughtful by declaring that the
publication of such a piece of writing at this time of crisis is
altogether scandalous. The course of journalists during this war has so
often been down steep places that we are refreshed whenever we come,
either in England or in Germany, upon so brave a stand for a sane view
of the enemy. Karl Bleibtreu (as quoted in the _Daily News_, July 8,
1915) writes in the _Kölnische Zeitung_, "Such foolish effusions as that
of Professor Sombart's 'Traders and Heroes,' revealing no conception of
the more profound movements of the soul, must be regarded as an error.
The true perception is here blurred by a confusion of the British
private character, which is worthy in every way of the highest respect,
with the State policy which is dominated by a national megalomania." We
are told that Bleibtreu abuses France. Well, we have known rather
distinguished Englishmen abuse France, too. The _Frankfurter Zeitung_
has spoken of "the really heroic bravery" of the Black Watch. The
_Kölnische Zeitung_ reproduced a spirited article from the Austrian
_Danzers Armee Zeitung_ in which that paper said the generous thing
about Serbian, Belgian and Russian armies alike. This article also was a
protest against the lower tone which has prevailed by no means only
amongst the newspapers printed in German. The Serbians are spoken of as
"an enemy who can hardly be surpassed in keenness and untiring energy."
No one has any right, the article says, to abuse the Belgians who had a
right to fight and who fought very well, notwithstanding the notoriously
unmilitary character of their country. Of the Russians we are told, "We
must admit that these armies are well led, excellently equipped, and
splendidly armed.... There have been individual cases of disregard of
the Red Cross, and one hears of occasional plunderings, but, as regards
the majority, it is an honourable and chivalrous enemy that is facing
us." The love of fair play is after all not confined to Englishmen, or
to the opponents of Germany.
The _Daily News_ of March 26, 1918, quotes from the _Kölnische Zeitung_,
which writes of the British enemy as "defending himself with
extraordinary determination and bravery.... Our men speak in terms of
the highest praise of the attitude of the enemy. The Englishman is an
extremely brave soldier." I confess I should be glad to read tributes of
like generosity in certain popular newspapers on this side. The
_Deutsche Tageszeitung_ is also quoted as saying that the British
defended every one of their points of support determinedly and bravely,
giving way only step by step. Again, von Ludendorff (March 27) is quoted
as saying: "The English use and distribute their machine guns very
cleverly," and there is something out of keeping with the attributed
Ludendorff character in the remark: "The district over which the
offensive has passed is pitiable."
On April 4, 1918, the _Daily News_ contained the following under the
heading, "A Respectful Greeting sent per balloon by the Germans":
In a dispatch from the front Reuter's special correspondent says
there is a certain sporting element in the German army, and
relates the following incident:
During the thick of the first clash a small balloon came
floating down to where our men were making a splendid
resistance. On being captured it was found to be carrying the
following message: "Good old 51st! Sticking it still! Good
luck!"
The 51st, which is one of the three first divisions to be named
in official communiqués for magnificently opposing the enemy
hordes, is known to be regarded by the Germans as one of our
most formidable corps.
On April 15 we read of Armentières: "A Berlin semi-official statement
says that despite the ever-increasing pressure of the enveloping troops
the town held out extraordinarily bravely. Only when, by a flank
onslaught of the German troops, envelopment to the west of the town was
almost completed, did the remnant of the brave garrison surrender."
And here is a letter from an Englishwoman in Germany (_Nation_, May 15,
1915): "'Gott strafe England' is a 'Spruch' in great use here, and is to
be had on rubber stamps.... School children are taught it.... This is a
fact, but all the better-thinking people deplore it, and I wonder
whether, if it is ever recorded in history, it will also be recorded
that the Kaiser has now strictly forbidden it. It will die, but
gradually. It is the idea of some silly loud-mouthed ass, and the
people, like sheep, followed it." Professor Wrangel, a German authority
on pedagogy, urges the avoidance of instilling hatred into the young,
and he tells us that the Bavarian Government has instructed its teachers
to avoid in their lessons all language insulting to the enemy. (_Daily
Chronicle_, June 19, 1915.) In July, 1915, the _Frankfurter Zeitung_
published a long article on the situation in England, written by a
neutral observer. The London _Daily News_ describes it as giving "on the
whole a fair and conscientious presentation of facts." The article
points out that the average Englishman regards the war as a war of
defence (just as the average German does). The article warmly praises
England for the way in which it won the loyalty of the Boer Republics.
In the _Montag_ (the Monday edition of the Berlin _Lokalanzeiger_) Herr
E. Zimmermann stoutly defended actions of both neutrals and enemies that
the more biased in Germany had condemned. "Reproach levelled against
America for supplying war material to our enemies is unjust. Germany
herself, at the Hague Conference, caused the rejection of the proposal
to prohibit the supply of war material to belligerents by neutral
countries. Only the prohibition of supply of war material by the
Governments of neutral States exists, while private industry is free to
act as it likes. So far America, as a State, has supplied no war
material." In his attitude towards America, says Herr Zimmermann, the
Imperial Chancellor "need take no notice of those ferocious heroes who
take care to keep themselves at a distance from the hail of bullets in
safe retreat...." We know something of those ferocious heroes on this
side too.
Again, "I cannot share in the political sentimentality which represents
England's attempt to starve us into submission as an exceedingly mean
thing. I cannot share in it because it would have been a pleasure to me
if I could apply with success the same war tactics to England. We must
not forget that it is not really a question of actually starving to
death tens of millions of men and women, but only of constraining them
to lay down their arms."
Sir Edwin Pears writes in the _Sunday Times_ of October 10, 1915:
The _Frankfurter Zeitung_ has been allowed to publish a
statement which not unfairly represents the situation. It says
that the Greek crisis raises the question: "Who is the stronger?
The King with the General Staff and the great part of the Army,
or Venizelos and the Cabinet who embody the will of the country
as represented in the Chamber?"
This is a singularly fair and frank statement of the facts of the
crisis, as they at first presented themselves. The _Frankfurter Zeitung_
is no doubt distinguished for the reasonableness of its outlook, but I
think that anyone reading the better German newspapers must (in the days
when they were available) have felt a little prick of wounded pride when
he compared them with our own. The _Kölnische Zeitung_ is, for instance,
like all belligerent newspapers, ridiculously biased; but in the earlier
days, when I was able to see it, I did not find gross misrepresentation
or absurd hate. The "not very tasteful 'Gott strafe England'" has given
the English a new word, one writer remarks (Sept. 21, 1915). Naturally,
American testimony favourable to Germany is exclusively quoted, just as
in this country we quoted exclusively that favourable to the Entente.
And some space was given to the utterances of such men as Sven Hedin and
Björn Björnson, who, as neutral observers, had formed a high opinion of
the way that German character was meeting the crisis. There was not,
however, so much of the curious sanctimonious malice which has
disfigured some of the well-known English papers.[45]
SCHOOL-BOOKS.