MYTHS
The European war zone at the beginning of hostilities was as busy a
fable factory as were San Juan and Santiago during the Spanish-American
conflict when "yellow journalism" was supposed to have reached its
zenith. It was a great pity, for the truth of the European war is
stupendous enough. Newspaper myths and yellow faking have never had
less excuse. In many cases it may take years to properly classify the
facts.
Not all of the myths have been deliberate ones. At the outbreak of the
war rumor followed rumor so swiftly, and was so often attested by the
statements of "eye-witnesses," that inevitably it was transformed _en
route_ from fancy into fact. Sometimes a tense public itself raised
definitely labeled rumors to the rank of official communications. In a
few instances war correspondents have deliberately faked.
The censorship, generally unintelligent, sometimes incredibly stupid,
is responsible for a great many myths. "Beating the censor" was a
gleeful game for some correspondents until it became clear that the
censor always held the winning hand, and that he could even suppress
their activities altogether. The "half truths" of the official
communications have also been responsible for much flavoring of the
real news with fiction.
The similarity in names of the river Sambre and Somme, the one being in
Belgium and the other in France, undoubtedly had much to do with the
wording of the French communiqués when France was first invaded. Day
after day the despatches laconically referred to "the fighting on the
Sambre." Then one Sunday morning, when it was considered impossible
to keep back the truth much longer, a casual communiqué mentioned the
fighting line "on the Somme." The press of the world, which had been
deliberately kept in the dark for days, can scarcely be blamed for
losing its head a trifle and printing scare headlines unprecedented
since news became a commodity.
The greatest of all war fakes, and one that had not the slightest
foundation of truth, is the story of the Russian army rushed from
Archangel to Scotland, thence through England to France to aid at the
battle of the Marne. This story is entirely discredited to-day, but it
died hard, and no wonder, for there never was a story with so many
"eye witnesses," so much "absolute proof" of its authenticity. From
the highlands of Scotland to the hamlets of Brittany peasants were
awakened at night by the tramp of marching feet. Upon investigation the
Cossacks of the Czar were revealed hurrying on their way to the western
battle line. I have never heard where the story originated, but every
correspondent with the Allied forces believed it. A friend living near
a French seaport whose honesty I can not question, wrote to me telling
in detail of the landing of an entire Russian army corps. I talked with
officers of both the English and French armies who swore to a definite
knowledge that Russians were then in France and would soon be fighting
in the front line. To my recollection the story was never denied, and
only the fact that the Russians never did reach that front line where
they were so eagerly awaited, brought the story into the classification
where it belonged.
Another great fake, but different from this one in that it had a slight
foundation of truth, is the story of the French taxicab army under
General Galliéni, that swept out of Paris forty to eighty thousand
strong (accounts differed) and which fell on the flank of the Germans
and saved the city. This story became the most popular of the entire
war, and it is still implicitly believed by thousands of persons. I
saw that taxicab army and am therefore able to state that about ninety
per cent. of the story written about it is fiction. The ten per cent.
fact is that the army of General Manoury was in process of formation
for days before the battle of the Marne. The troops were sent around
and through Paris to occupy a position west of Compiégne. I watched
thousands of them, the Senegalese division, march through Paris on
foot during the latter days of August, 1914. It was the methodical,
though hasty, creation by the General Staff of a new army. At the same
time the General Staff was conducting, under General Joffre, the great
retreat from Charleroi.
At the beginning of the battle of the Marne a few regiments were still
in Paris. The Military Governor, General Galliéni, was instructed to
rush them north by any means available. The northern railways were in
German hands, and the only way was to send them in taxicabs. So many
chauffeurs had been mobilized that Paris had then probably not more
than two thousand taxis. At the tightest squeeze not more than four
soldiers with heavy marching equipment, could have been carried in one
of the small Paris taxicabs. The taxicab army, therefore, may have
numbered four regiments, or eight thousand men, while the real figures
may possibly be less. It was not the army of Paris gallantly rushing
out to save the city. The army of Paris had instructions to remain in
the city and to defend it. The taxicab army was a fine and dramatic
piece of news, expanded to fit the imagination of an excited world.
The fable factory actually began operations before the declaration of
war, when with the sudden shortage of money, tales of starving and
otherwise suffering American tourists were cabled to New York by the
yellow press. But the Paris papers, and the general press, awaited
mobilization orders before becoming graphic without the support of
facts.
On the first day of hostilities several papers printed thrilling
details of the airman Garros having brought down a Zeppelin. Garros was
then waiting for military orders at his Paris apartment and laughed
heartily at the story when I telephoned to him.
Four times during the first month of the war I read of the death of the
airman Vedrines. Six months later I met him on one of my trips to the
front. The death of Max Linder, the comedian, was also dramatically
related by the Paris press, but a few nights later I found Linder on
the _terrasse_ of a boulevard café relating his very live adventure in
getting there.
Leaving out of consideration the feelings of the men's families
these were after all comparatively harmless and unimportant fakes. A
more sinister story, hinted at for weeks and finally openly printed,
was that a certain French general had been shot for treachery while
stationed near the Belgian frontier. So persistent was this report
that it was finally necessary for General Joffre himself to issue a
statement that the general in question was alive and well and had
merely been removed to another field of active service.
Of all the fakes and all the fakirs, I believe the French authorities
will admit that the greatest offenders have been their own papers. The
English correspondents were always fairly reliable, while the accounts
furnished the American papers have received the least criticism of
all--and the greatest praise. The most outstanding example of incorrect
information appearing in the British press was a story early in the war
that the British expeditionary force had been entirely destroyed. It
is only just to state that the writer of the story was ignorant of his
facts and not a wilful fakir. Nevertheless he has since been _persona
non grata_ in France and has confined his activities to the Russian
front.
Not all of the American accounts have been free from faking. One
American correspondent printed an "exclusive interview" with President
Poincaré which he declared was arranged and took place on the
battlefield. This story was entirely false, the correspondent merely
seeing the President reviewing the troops, a dozen other correspondents
having the same privilege.
The most glaring example of inaccuracy upon the part of an American
writer was an account of the battle of Ypres which appeared in both
English and American publications. This account, giving the entire
credit for the victory to the English, with faint praise for the
French, was resented by both the English and French officers, the
former as sportsmen not wishing undue praise, and the latter naturally
piqued that a story having such wide circulation should not have been
based more materially upon facts. This correspondent was later denied
the privilege of visiting the French front and has retired from the
zone of military activity.
Most of the fakes, as I have shown, occurred at the beginning of
the war, or during the first six months, when all the world was in
a state of great excitement, and when correspondents, the majority
of whom had never seen a war before, should have been forgiven for
sometimes letting their imaginations run riot. During the past twelve
months, since organization has taken the place of chaos in so many
activities related to the war, and when correspondents have acquired
experience and perspective, I know of scarcely any cases of wilful
misrepresentation of the truth. During the battle of Champagne in
September, 1915, one correspondent did attempt to project his astral
body to the battlefield for the purpose of writing an "eye witness"
account of the fighting; but he paid dearly for the indiscretion.
He was at once crossed off the official list of correspondents at
the French war office and all his credentials were withdrawn for the
duration of the war.