teacher should surely be to avoid stimulating those feelings of hatred
which might obscure the chances of future peace. On the whole, the
German school-books I have before me seem to fulfil this duty, or at
least to aim at fulfilling it.[46] There are, of course, many stories of
the achievements and the courage of the German soldiers. All peoples
have dwelt on physical courage in too primitive a way. But these books
scarcely encourage hate. A letter from France tells how German soldiers
tried to help the starving people. The writer is very obviously sincere.
"In one village near our fortifications the people were crying with
hunger. It was woeful. I gave them all the bread I had. The children
were always asking for more, and kissed our hands. That moved us all
greatly. Naturally we told the Commandant." As a result, twelve women
were allowed to pass through the lines blindfolded to fetch food from
----. This story is not one to encourage hate, and again and again there
are stories of German sympathy with the enemy.
A sad account of incidents of the Russian invasion begins: "Of course,
not all Russians are barbarians, most of the misdeeds are due to the
Cossacks." (I could not help on reading this calling to mind some of the
wilder anti-German outbursts. An official in a rather responsible
position said to me that he could not see "a single redeeming feature in
any one of them." It was a childish outburst, but childishness in a
position of authority becomes cruelty.) A story one German school-book
tells of a wounded Belgian sounds only the note of pity, and there is a
wonderful little picture of a wounded German's suspicion of a wounded
Russian. The story is finely told, but I cannot reproduce it all here.
The Russian is in pain and thirst, the wounded German hesitates between
suspicion and pity, but pity gets the upper hand, and he crawls with his
water bottle to the Russian. Later, as he lies helpless, his fears are
aroused by seeing the Russian fumble with something in his breast. Is it
a revolver? The wounded German, overstrained with suffering, waits in
terror, but the Russian dies before his hand can bring out what it
sought. When the stretcher bearers come the German asks the leader to
look for the revolver which he feared the Russian was trying to get out.
The leader goes to look. He brings back what the Russian's dying hand
was seeking. No revolver, but the portrait of his mother. This rebuke of
hatred and suspicion would live in a child's mind for long.
The effects of the anti-German outbursts can be traced even in these
books. When an officer finds the Sisters of a nunnery in want, his ready
help is accompanied by the words: "This little kindness is the act of
German barbarians, who refuse all thanks. As long as we are here, each
barbarian soldier will give up a little, so that you may have their
savings every three days, and then you will have plenty.... Enjoy it,
and be as happy as you can."
BELGIUM AND WAR AIMS.
Professor Martin-Rade of Marburg University is a Protestant Liberal
Theologian and a man well known in his own country on account of his
literary and political activities. He writes as follows in the
_Christliche Welt_, a widely-circulated magazine of which he is the
editor: "I can only deplore the manner in which the Chancellor in his
speech ... has treated the question of neutral countries, for there was
no need for him to have recourse to the proverb, 'Necessity knows no
law.' With that proverb I cannot convince these who behold in the
existence of neutral States a triumph of the rights of man. That is why
it is a pity--for which it is hard indeed to make reparation--that the
German Empire should not have abstained altogether, at the very outset,
from the sin ... which it has committed against Belgium. Whoever accuses
my view of being unpatriotic I challenge, by whatever test he likes, to
show that he loves his Fatherland better than I do." (From a letter in
the _Nation_, November 28, 1914.)
Again, as early as December, 1914, at a meeting of the Socialist Party
in the Reichstag a resolution was proposed in favour of (_a_) the
evacuation of Belgium, and (_b_) the setting up of plebiscites in
Schleswig and Alsace-Lorraine to determine the future government of
those districts. It was defeated, but twenty four members voted for it.
(_Nation_, January 23, 1915.) To estimate the full value of this we
must try to envisage the state of mind of a nation at war. This is
notoriously difficult. We cannot picture our _own_ state of mind,
because it is obviously impossible at one and the same time to be
intensely moved and to picture this emotion without emotional bias. And
our bias renders us perhaps equally incapable of envisaging the mind of
the enemy. It will be necessary therefore somewhat wilfully to
exaggerate an analogy in order to see how Germans may feel. Let us
conceive, then, twenty-four members of the House of Commons proposing
(in the midst of the war) (_a_) the raising of all blockade restrictions
against neutrals, the evacuation of all neutral territories (whether
Grecian or Persian), and (_b_) the setting up of plebiscites in Ireland,
India and Egypt, to determine the future governments of those districts.
I can imagine somewhat heated or contemptuous treatment of this
comparison. Just so: the Germans are heated too, and they no longer see
clearly. And we must never forget that they have had long training in
obedience to government. There are not wanting English politicians who
would like to see similar training introduced here. It leads however to
the hypnotic response of which Colonel Maude has written interestingly
in his "War and the World's Life." The Government in Germany called for
the defence of the Fatherland, the Government declared the invasion of
Belgium as unavoidable. The hypnotic response followed, but at least
twenty-four members of the national legislature woke from the trance and
_thought_. I have attempted in my comparison only to suggest how much
independence, how much cutting of bonds and attachments that thought
required. I press the analogy no further. What is noticeable is that
this thought, voiced so early and unmistakably, has been gaining wider
and wider utterance. It appears that in December, 1914, Herr Haase,
speaking in the Reichstag for the Social Democrats, declared that the
party were unanimously of opinion that the facts which had come to
light since the beginning of the war were not sufficient evidence for
them to adopt the Imperial Chancellor's view that the violation of the
neutrality of Luxemburg and Belgium was justified by military reasons.
The party had come to the conclusion and had agreed that the violation
of Luxemburg and Belgium must be regarded as a violation of justice. The
above declaration seems to have been suppressed in the German papers. It
reached the _Labour Leader_ from Holland.
AGAINST ANNEXATION.
We have all of us read the celebrated manifesto issued by the National
Executive of the German Social Democratic Party which the _Vorwärts_ was
suppressed for publishing. Let us remind ourselves of a few passages in
that document. It was issued in June, 1915. "When in recent years the
threatening clouds of war gathered on the political horizon, the German
Socialists stood with all their strength up to the last hour, for the
preservation of peace. To the misfortune of the peoples, the Socialists
in all countries were not yet strong enough to hold back the terrible
fate which has come upon Europe. The torch of war flared up sharply and
set the whole world on fire.
"When the Cossacks of the Tsar passed over the frontiers, plundering and
burning, the German Socialists proved true to the word which their
leaders had given to the German people. They put themselves at the
service of their country and voted the means for its defence....
"The Parliamentary Party and the Party Executive have always unanimously
opposed the policy of conquests and of annexations. We raise once more
the sharpest protests against all attempts to secure the annexation of
foreign territories and the violation of the rights of other peoples,
particularly as they have been expressed in the demands of great
Capitalist Federations and in the speeches of leading capitalist
politicians. To make such attempts delays more than ever the peace which
is strongly desired by the whole people. _The people do not want any
annexations. The people want peace._--THE EXECUTIVE OF THE SOCIAL
DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF GERMANY. June 23, 1915, Berlin."
When we remember that the Social Democrats of Germany number about four
millions,[47] the importance of this manifesto becomes clearer. It is a
tremendous fact. The loud-voiced threats of crushing, boycott, etc., by
influential sections on this side have been one of the greatest
hindrances to the Social Democrats, and one of the greatest aids to
German militarists.
We heard much in 1915 of the "annexation split" in Germany. The
Delbrück-Dernburg-Wolff Memorial represented, to my thinking, nothing
strange, or new, or abnormal, but rather the voice of natural and normal
Germany making itself heard again amidst the clamour of foolish hatred
and silly bombast in which present-day crises seem always to involve the
contending nations. "Germany did not enter the war with the idea of
annexation"--thus the Memorial opens. It is easy to scoff at this
statement, because it is always easier in a crisis to be swayed entirely
by bias. Frankly, as regards _Germany_, that is (if this word is to have
any meaning), as regards the mass of the German people, I believe this
statement to be true. Whatever the militarist and commercial schemers
may have contrived, Germany as a whole did not enter the war with the
idea of annexation, but, as the Memorial goes on, "in order to preserve
its existence, threatened by the enemy coalition against its national
unity and its progressive development. In concluding peace, Germany
cannot pursue anything that does not serve these objects." Who were the
signatories to this Memorial? Amongst the 82 names are those of
Professor Hans Delbrück, Dr. Dernburg (the ex-Minister), Professor
Adolf von Harnack (the theologian and General Director of the Royal
Library at Berlin), Theodore Wolff (Editor of the _Berliner Tageblatt_),
Dr. Oppenheim (who holds an important position in the dye industries),
Carl Permet (Judge of the Berlin Commercial Courts), Prince von
Hatzfeld, Franz von Mendelsohn (President of the Berlin Chamber of
Commerce), Prince Donnersmarck, Count von Leyden (ex-ambassador), Dr.
August Stein (Editor of the _Frankfurter Zeitung_), Major von Parseval
(the designer of the famous airship). These are representative names.
They stand, I think, with the Social Democrats for the real Germany.
The _Berliner Tageblatt_ has returned again and again to the charge.
Here, for instance, is an extract from an article by Herr Theodore Wolff
as given in the _Daily News_ of February 4, 1916:
Since August 4, 1914, the Belgian question has been withdrawn
from public discussion, and only the advocates of a boundless
policy of grab are now and again impelled by their temperament
to throw off all restraint. Because these voices are alone
audible, the Paris papers and those Belgian papers which are
published in London are able constantly to din into the ears of
the war-weary Belgians and the world at large that Belgium has
only the choice between the continuation of the war and complete
destruction. In this way, by asserting that in Germany at most
only a few Socialists and pacifists without influence are
opposed to the policy of annexation, they succeed in stifling
again and again any aspiration towards peace. It is therefore
necessary and useful at least to proclaim from time to time that
this assertion, as will be demonstrated on the very first day
when free discussion is allowed, is absolutely incorrect.[48]
GERMANY AND CONTRACTS.
The real German is not simply a brute, though the brute lies perdu in
every civilised man. Mr. Herbert Hoover, formerly Chairman of the
Commission of Relief in Belgium, said, "The German authorities place no
obstruction in the way of relief, and, as far as can be ascertained, not
one loaf of bread or one spoonful of salt supplied by the Relief
Commission has been taken by the Germans." (_Times_, c. December 6,
1914).
It has often been said in this country that according to German rules
contracts with enemy subjects are cancelled by the mere fact of war. The
_Kölnische Zeitung_ published a legal opinion disposing of this
statement. No law to this effect exists, and none has been enacted.
"Only the right of enemies to secure enforcement of contracts by means
of legal process has been curtailed. Moreover, the making of payments to
England, France or Russia has been prohibited. But these last-named
prohibitions presuppose the legal validity of the contracts themselves,
since they declare the payments due under them to be merely postponed."
(_Daily News_, August 20, 1915.)
An old friend of mine was in process of negotiating patent rights in
Germany for an invention of his at the time that war broke out. He was
allowed to complete the claim to the patent, and it was granted him
after Germany and Britain were at war.
"FRIGHTFULNESS."
Not every one in Germany is obsessed with a conviction of the efficacy
of "frightfulness." This is plain from the fact that the _Frankfurter
Zeitung_ published articles from its neutral correspondent in England
which point out that each phase of frightfulness had precisely the
opposite effect of that which was intended. The bombardments of coast
towns, the use of asphyxiating gases, the sinking of the Lusitania all
led, he remarks, to increased recruiting and intensified war feeling.
Each act of frightfulness has of course been represented to the German
public in a very different light from that in which it has been
presented to us,[49] and it is therefore the more striking that so
influential a newspaper should publish such an opinion. When the
Lusitania was sunk, both the _Berliner Tageblatt_ and the _Vorwärts_
maintained an absolute silence, and these are the two most influential
organs in Berlin.
THE BROTHERHOOD OF ENEMIES.
The soldier's attitude is often that of Captain Ball, the boy who did
such wonders in the air fight:--
I attacked two Albatross scouts and crashed them, killing the
pilots. In the end I was brought down, but am quite O.K. Oh, it
was a good fight, and the Huns were fine sports. One tried to
ram me after he was hit, and only missed by inches. Am indeed
looked after by God, but oh! I do get tired of always living to
kill and am really beginning to feel like a murderer. Shall be
so pleased when I have finished.
Quoted in the _Daily News_, May 7, 1918. Captain Ball has finished the
killing in the only way boys can finish the killing now, for he is dead.
The last words, _Requiescat in pace_, have a new poignancy in days when
children are growing up who have never known peace.
Yet underneath all the wild recriminations prompted by fear and hate,
there is brotherhood. For at the worst what do all these charges mean?
That a few foolish men without vision have slipped into power and direct
the great beast-machine that kills. That Frankenstein is apt at all
times to wild, primitive cruelty. What may it be when foolish, hard
theorists are its masters? Yet, for all that, the people out of whom
Frankensteins are made are of one flesh, are all brothers, all parts of
the great Life which some call God. Now and then, amidst their fiercest
fighting, this becomes plain. It sometimes seems as if the main concern
of rulers were to prevent any permanent realisation of this truth; for
if the peoples should realise their oneness, war would cease, and there
is nothing that stops awkward questions as war does. Yet some day these
awkward questions will be asked again, I hope, and Hans and Jack and
François and Ivan may come to realise their brotherhood. Let us remind
ourselves how now and then they can realise this even in war. "Who will
not recall in this connection," writes Prince Eugéne Troubetzky in the
_Hibbert_ (July, 1915), "the touching description of the Christmas
festival in the trenches, when the Germans, hearing the English singing
their hymns, went out to meet them and heartily shook their enemies by
the hand? Similar scenes have occurred more than once between the
Russians and the Germans. At the present moment there lies before me the
letter of a Russian soldier which refers to them: 'What I am going to
tell you,' he says, 'is a true miracle.' The 'miracle' which had so
appealed to his imagination was that, during an armistice, there were
'handshakes and hearty acclamations on both sides, to which no
description could do justice.' ... From the very heart of war there
issues this mighty protest of life against the destructive force of
death. But whenever life asserts itself, its object is always to
re-establish a living unity. The more violently unity is threatened by
war, or by the mutual hate which would tear it asunder, the more
powerful becomes the answer of this spiritual force in its effort to
re-establish the integrity of mankind. In this we have the explanation
of a fact, which at first sight seems incredible, that in time of war
the perception of the universal solidarity of mankind reaches a degree
of elevation which would hardly be possible in time of peace."
"On Christmas Eve," writes a member of the London Rifle Brigade, "the
Germans burned coloured lights and candles along the top of their
trenches, and on Christmas Day a football match was played between them
and us in front of the trench. They even allowed us to bury all our dead
lying in front, and some of them, with hats in hand, brought in some of
our dead officers from behind their trench, so that we could bury them
decently. They were really magnificent in the whole thing, and jolly
good sorts. I have now a very different opinion of the German. Both
sides have started the firing, and are already enemies again. Strange it
all seems, doesn't it?" (_Nation_, January 2, 1915.)
"These Germans were enduring the same hardships, and the same squalor.
There was only pity for them and a sense of comradeship, as of men
forced by the cruel gods to be tortured by fate. This sense of
comradeship reached strange lengths at Christmas, and on other days.
Truces were established and men who had been engaged in trying to kill
each other came out of opposite trenches and fraternised. They took
photographs of mixed groups of Germans and English, arm-in-arm. They
exchanged cigarettes, and patted each other on the shoulder, and cursed
the war.... The war had become the most tragic farce in the world. The
frightful senselessness of it was apparent when the enemies of two
nations fighting to the death stood in the grey mist together and liked
each other. They did not want to kill each other, these Saxons of the
same race and blood, so like each other in physical appearance, and with
the same human qualities.... The monstrous absurdity of war, this
devil's jest, stood revealed nakedly by those little groups of men
standing together in the mists of Flanders.... It became so apparent
that army orders had to be issued stopping such truces."
It is only by artificial stimulus, by artificially made ignorance, that
war can be kept going in these days. By which I do not mean to imply
that commanders and leaders are wilfully cruel men; but the leaders on
each side are afraid lest _their_ men should give up fighting first. To
be the first to acknowledge brotherhood seems like being the first to
give in, and actually does foreshadow serious dangers. And yet the time
will come when we shall have to face danger for the sake of brotherhood,
as we do now for the sake of self-assertion. The orders to avoid
friendship with the enemy were, even in these circumstances, not always
obeyed. "For months after German and British soldiers in neighbouring
trenches fixed up secret treaties by which they fired at fixed targets
at stated periods to keep up appearances and then strolled about in
safety, sure of each other's loyalty." (Gibbs, "The Soul of the War," p.
351.) Prisoners were sent back to their own trenches, and sometimes went
with great reluctance.
WOUNDED.
"He told me how on the night he had his own wound French and German
soldiers talked together by light of the moon, which shed its pale light
upon all those prostrate men, making their faces look very white. He
heard the murmurs of their voices about him, and the groans of the
dying, rising to hideous anguish as men were tortured by ghastly wounds
and broken limbs. In that night enmity was forgotten by those who had
fought like beasts and now lay together. A French soldier gave his
water-bottle to a German officer who was crying out with thirst. The
German sipped a little and then kissed the hand of the man who had been
his enemy. 'There will be no war on the other side,' he said. Another
Frenchman--who came from Montmartre--found lying within a yard of him a
Luxembourgeois whom he had known as his _chasseur_ in a big hotel in
Paris. The young German wept to see his old acquaintance. 'It is
stupid,' he said, 'this war. You and I were happy when we were good
friends in Paris. Why should we have been made to fight with each
other?' He died with his arms round the neck of the soldier, who told
me the story unashamed of his own tears." (Gibbs, l.c. p. 282) "At one
spot where there had been a fierce hand-to-hand fight, there were
indications that the combatants when wounded had shared their water
bottles." (_Sheffield Telegraph_, November 14, 1914.)
The following letter must not be forgotten. It was found at the side of
a dead French cavalry officer: "There are two other men lying near me,
and I do not think there is much hope for them either. One is an officer
of a Scottish regiment, and the other is a private in the Uhlans. They
were struck down after me, and when I came to myself, I found them
bending over me, rendering first aid. The Britisher was pouring water
down my throat from his flask, while the German was endeavouring to
staunch my wound with an anti-septic preparation served out to them by
their medical corps. The Highlander had one of his legs shattered, and
the German had several pieces of shrapnel buried in his side. In spite
of their own suffering they were trying to help me, and when I was fully
conscious again, the German gave us a morphia injection and took one
himself. His medical corps had also provided him with the injection and
the needle, together with printed instructions for its use. After the
injection, feeling wonderfully at ease, we spoke of the lives we had
lived before the war. We all spoke English, and we talked of the women
we had left at home. Both the German and the Britisher had only been
married a year. I wondered, and I suppose the others did, why we had
fought each other at all...." (_Daily Citizen_, December 21, 1914.
Quoted in Edward Carpenter's "The Healing of Nations," p. 261.)
MORE CHRISTMAS INCIDENTS.
Let us take one or two more of the Christmas experiences as quoted by
Mr. Edward Carpenter, in his book, "The Healing of Nations": "Last night
(Christmas Eve) was the weirdest stunt I have ever seen. All day the
Germans had been sniping industriously, with some success, but after
sunset they started singing, and we replied with carols. Then they
shouted, 'Happy Christmas!' to us, and some of us replied in German. It
was a topping moonlight night, and we carried on long conversations, and
kept singing to each other and cheering. Later they asked us to send one
man out to the middle, between the trenches, with a cake, and they would
give us a bottle of wine. Hunt went out, and five of them came out and
gave him the wine, cigarettes and cigars. After that you could hear them
for a long time calling from half-way, 'Englishman, kom hier.' So one or
two more of our chaps went out and exchanged cigarettes, etc., and they
all seemed decent fellows."