SYSTEMATIC PILLAGE AND THEFT. ROBBING THE WOUNDED AND THE DEAD
THE GERMAN IDEA OF WAR-BOOTY
The cherished idea of the German soldier is that war permits and excuses
everything. Consequently the property of the inhabitants of the territory
he invades does not seem to him to be immune from his cupidity. If the
lust of possession seizes him, he thinks it is a brilliantly won booty,
which rewards him for his efforts.
Nevertheless, international law only recognises as booty what is taken
from a _state_; in all other cases it is pillage, and Bluntschli, the
well-known German jurist, stigmatises it as emphatically as any one.
Let us add that it is not merely the German private soldier who shows
that he is capable of this violation of law. The officer and even the
general share this view, and commit this crime. In the majority of these
cases pillage was not an accident, but a system, and has taken place
under such conditions that it could not have been carried out if the
officers had not approved of it. In many cases it was they who set the
example. Pillage was reduced by them to the movements of a military
operation. The narratives which will follow will make that clear. For the
present, we shall quote the letter of the wife of a German officer living
in Berlin, which the Spanish Embassy at Berne received during the month
of January, in which this woman admitted that she was in possession of
a quantity of _objets d’art_, of which she supplied an inventory. These
articles her husband had sent her after the sack of a château in France.
She added that her husband had taken these articles to leave them in
safety with her, that her conscience would not allow her to keep them
without giving a list of them, and that she wished to see them restored
to their owner after the conclusion of hostilities.
In conformity with this evidence, the French Commission of Inquiry
declared that “in every place through which a company of the enemy
passed they gave themselves up to a methodically organised pillage, in
the presence of their leaders, and sometimes even with their active
assistance.”
THE OBJECTS OF PILLAGE
Pillage covered everything, everything at least that could be carried
away. What could be consumed was used at once, letters were everywhere
pillaged. “Strong-boxes,” said the Commission of Inquiry, “have been
gutted, and considerable sums robbed or taken by violence from them. A
large quantity of silver and jewels, and also of pictures, furniture,
_objets d’art_, linen, bicycles, women’s clothes, sewing-machines, and
even children’s toys, have been taken away and put on wagons, to be
brought to the frontier.”
The _Temps_ gave an inventory of articles found in two trunks carried off
in a motor by German soldiers. This booty came from Belgium.
“First trunk: four table-cloths marked M. S., one sheet, one woman’s
chemise marked M. B., two petticoats, one white-and-red bodice, one
dress-bodice and velvet skirt marked ‘Maison Richard Ruelens, rue
des Joyeuses-Entrées 36, Louvain’; two blouses, a skirt and jacket of
velvet, four gowns, a muff, a woollen necktie, the back of a pedestal,
two electroplated teapots, a silver coffee-pot, a porcelain article, a
teacup, table-knives with silver handles, and a dessert-knife.
“Second trunk: a bronze figure of a Cossack with inscription in Russian
characters, four cases containing table-knives, a silver tray, two nickel
candlesticks, a small mirror, two revolvers, four swords, seven pairs of
ladies’ boots, two pairs of high-heeled shoes, a notebook in which was
written on the first page ‘_21st July: paid 10 fr. 80_’; a registration
book of the State Railway Co.; two white petticoats, four of which were
marked L. S.; two muffs, a stole, five dress-bodices, one of which was
marked ‘Maison Richard Ruelens, rue des Joyeuses-Entrées 36, Louvain’; a
black evening cloak, a woman’s nightgown marked M. B., two table-cloths,
two ostrich feathers, an evening dress, a child’s embroidered dress, four
pairs of stockings, a reticule with the price 1.35 marked on a label, an
overcoat with silk lapels marked ‘Maison Février, Maubeuge.’”
The result of such acts was that the not-too-opulent inhabitants of
Belgium and north-east France lost all they had. The looters carried
off what was not devoured by the flames, and it must be added that the
work of pillage, no less than of massacre, rape and arson, was carried
out with even greater fury when the inhabitants thought they had stalled
it off by their entreaties. The fact has been noticed, especially in
Belgium, that houses which bore inscriptions like “Please spare,” or
“Decent people; do not plunder them,” were sacked and pillaged first.
The most conspicuous acts of this kind took place in Belgium at Louvain,
Aerschot and Dinant; in France at Lunéville, Clermont-en-Argonne, and
Château-Thierry.
PILLAGE A GENERAL PRACTICE
Other towns and villages saw acts like these repeated many times. Here
are some examples taken at random.
In the Province of Aisne, the village of Brumetz was sacked; in that of
Jaulgonne, the Prussian Guard emptied cellars and carried off linen:
theft and destruction combined resulted in loss to the extent of
250,000 francs. At Charmel similar incidents occurred. At Péronne, the
inhabitants had to endure levies imposed on them without ceasing. All
inhabited houses were searched from cellar to attic and stripped bare.
Shops that were found shut were forced open. Whole trains full of stolen
furniture were brought away to Germany.
At Baccarat it was the same. Everything that the German soldier thought
right to take was taken. They took wine and flour. At the glassworks the
finest articles, cut-glass services, were packed up with a care which
showed every characteristic but blind violence, and packed on wagons
directed to Sarrebourg. Carts laden with furniture also took the same
road.
At Barbery and at Charmont men forced their way into the rooms of private
houses, having first turned out the residents. Furniture and family
property—all were taken, and thrown out of the windows or carried off.
The village of Bussières, near Château-Thierry, was completely destroyed,
of set purpose. The Prussians pillaged there everything they could find.
The remainder was destroyed, pulled about, broken up, carried off,
smashed to atoms by a kind of savagery. Then it was set on fire, and the
flames finished the work of devastation.
At Albert, Captain Zirgow from the 30th August authorised the soldiers
under his command to visit, so he said, unoccupied houses. This was as
much as to give them _carte blanche_ for pillage and theft. Consequently
the booty taken by the Germans in this district was of great value.
The town of Coulommiers was widely pillaged; silver, linen, boots were
taken away, especially from deserted houses, and many bicycles were
packed on motor-lorries.
At Rebais a jeweller’s shop was sacked.
At Nomény, before burning the town the Germans took out of the
dwelling-houses all that they thought worth carrying away. They sent
everything to Metz. At Beauzemont, the château was looted by officers of
the German general staff, accompanied by their wives; at Drouville, at
Hériménil, at Jolivet, there was systematic pillage. In the last locality
a sum of 600 francs was stolen by a German.
At Choisy-au-Bac, in Valois, the German soldiers, in presence of their
officers, gave themselves up to general pillage, the fruits of which
were carried off in carriages stolen from the inhabitants. Two military
doctors wearing the Red-Cross brassard with their own hands pillaged Mme.
Binder’s house.
At Trumilly the looting was carried out in perfect order. A
non-commissioned officer on the general staff of the 19th regiment of
Hanoverian Dragoons robbed Mme. Huet of 10,000 francs’ worth of jewels.
The German colonel, to whom this lady made complaint, approved of the
non-commissioned officer’s action. Another German soldier of the 91st
infantry regiment was guilty of several thefts to the value of 815
francs. And these cases were not the only ones clearly proved in this
district.
LOOTING OF LOUVAIN
During the days which followed the burning of Louvain, the houses which
remained standing and whose inhabitants had been driven out were handed
over to be looted under the very eyes of the German officers.
This pillage lasted eight days. In bands of six or eight the soldiers
forced in the doors or broke in the windows, rushed into the cellars,
soaked themselves in wine, threw the furniture about, broke open
safes, stole money, pictures, _objets d’art_, silver, linen, clothing,
provisions.
A great part of this booty was loaded on military wagons and carried off
to Germany by railroad.
LOOTING AT AERSCHOT
M. Orts, Adviser to the Legation, Secretary of the Belgian Commission
of Inquiry, stated that the town of Aerschot was partially destroyed by
fire, but that so far as the rest was concerned, he could affirm that it
had been completely sacked.
“I went into several houses,” he said, “and passed through the different
storeys. Everywhere the furniture had been thrown about, gutted, polluted
in a disgraceful manner. Paper-hangings fell in strips from the walls,
the doors of the cellars were burst in, the locks of the chests, drawers,
and all the cupboards had been picked and their contents taken. Linen,
articles of the most different kinds, and an incredible number of empty
bottles covered the ground.
“In the middle-class houses, pictures were slashed and works of art
broken. On the door of one, a huge, fine-looking building belonging
to Dr. X, the following inscription, half rubbed out, might still
be read in chalk: ‘Please spare this house, as the people in it are
really peaceable, decent folks. Signed, Bannach, Orderly.’ I went into
this building, in which I was told some officers had been billeted,
and which the kindness of one of them appeared to have saved from the
general destruction. On the threshold a faint smell of spilt wine called
attention to hundreds of empty or broken bottles, which were heaped up
in the porch or the staircase and in the court leading into the garden.
Unspeakable disorder reigned throughout the rooms; I walked on a layer
of torn clothing and tufts of wool which had fallen out of the gutted
mattresses. Everywhere furniture smashed open, and in all the rooms
within reach of the bed more empty bottles. The dining-room was heaped
with them, dozens of wine-glasses covered the large table and the smaller
ones which pressed against the slashed armchairs and sofas, while in the
corner a piano with dirty keys seemed to have been smashed with kicks
of a jackboot. Everything showed that these places had been for many
days and nights the scene of shameless debauchery and drinking-bouts.
On the Place du Marché the interior of the house of M. X, a solicitor,
presented a similar appearance, and, according to the statement made to
me by a quartermaster of gendarmerie, who, with his men, tried to restore
a little order into all the chaos, it was the same with the majority of
houses belonging to prominent families in which the German officers had
chosen to take up their quarters.
“All valuables which their owners had not had time to put in a place
of safety—silver, family jewels, loose money—disappeared, and the
inhabitants declare that arson _frequently had no other purpose_ than to
_destroy the proofs of unusually serious thefts_. Wagons, packed full
with loads of booty, left Aerschot in the direction of the Meuse.”
LOOTING AT DINANT
The Dutch journalist whom we have quoted writes in the _Telegraaf_ with
regard to this town—
“In the Banque Henri the Germans had a disappointment, for they could
not find where the safe had been concealed, but they stopped the manager
and his son at the very moment when they were trying to escape on
bicycles. As they refused to reveal the secret, they were killed with
revolver shots. At the Banque Populaire the Germans, indeed, found the
safe, but the greatest part of the money which it contained had already
been transferred to a place of safety. The brigandage carried on was
frightful, and to find a parallel to it we should have to go back to the
days of the blackest barbarism.”
LOOTING AT LUNÉVILLE
“During the early days,” says the French Commission of Inquiry, “the
Germans were content to pillage, without otherwise molesting the
inhabitants. Particularly was this the case on the 24th August, when
Madame Jeaumont’s house was stripped. The stolen articles were put in a
great cart, in which were three women, one clad in black, the other two
wearing military costumes, and having the appearance, we were told, of
canteen-attendants.
“On the 25th August, M. Lenoir, aged sixty-seven years, was brought out
into the fields with his wife, their hands tied behind their backs. After
both had been cruelly ill-treated, a non-commissioned officer took
possession of a sum of 1800 francs in gold which Lenoir had about him.
Indeed, the most audacious theft, as we have already said, seems to have
been part of the habits of the German army, who made a regular practice
of it. The following is an interesting example—
“During the burning of a house belonging to Madame Leclerc, the safes
of two tenants had resisted the flames. One, belonging to M. George,
under-inspector of waterworks and forests, had fallen into the ruins;
the other, owned by M. Goudchau, estate-agent, remained fastened to a
wall on the second storey. Non-commissioned officer Weiss, who knew the
town well, as he had often been well received there when he visited it
before the war in his capacity as hop-merchant, came back with his men to
the place, gave orders to blow up with dynamite the piece of wall which
remained standing, and made sure that the two safes should be brought to
the station, where they were placed in a wagon bound for Germany. This
Weiss was in the special confidence and favour of the commandant. It was
he who at the quarters of the commandant had the duty of administering
the commune in some sort of fashion and of arranging for levies.”
LOOTING OF CLERMONT-EN-ARGONNE
Let us quote the Commission of Inquiry—
“On the 4th September, during the night the 121st and 122nd Wurtemberg
regiments entered, breaking the doors of the houses as they passed, and
giving themselves up to unrestrained pillage, which was to continue
during the whole of the following day. Towards midday a soldier kindled
the fire. When the fire had gone out, pillage recommenced in the houses
spared by the flames. Articles of furniture taken from the house of M.
Desforges, fabrics stolen from the shop of M. Nordman, linen-draper, were
piled up in the motors. A surgeon-major took all the hospital dressing
materials, and a commissioned officer, after writing at the entrance to
the Lebondidier’s house a notice forbidding pillage, caused a large part
of the furniture with which this mansion was furnished to be taken away
in a cart, intending them, as he boasted without shame, for the adornment
of his own villa.
“At the time when all these incidents took place the town of
Clermont-en-Argonne was occupied by the 13th Wurtemberg corps under the
orders of General von Durach, and by a troop of Uhlans, under command of
the Prince of Wittenstein.”
LOOTING OF CHÂTEAU-THIERRY
Château-Thierry was looted in the presence of officers, who must even
have taken part in it, if we are to judge by the example of two German
doctors, surprised in town by the arrival of the French troops, and who
were then included in an exchange of prisoners. Their cases were opened,
and in them were found articles of clothing obtained by looting shops.
“During the whole week which the German occupation of Château-Thierry
lasted,” wrote the _Temps_ of the 25th October, 1914, “shops and rooms
were methodically pillaged; jewellers and bazaar owners were plundered
most of all. Patients under treatment in the Red Cross hospital whose
wounds did not prevent them walking, went through the town all day,
thieving here and there, and then returned in the evening with their
booty to sleep in hospital.
“One day they offered Mlle. X some bonbons which they had just stolen,
and they appeared much surprised when the young Frenchwoman refused their
present.
“Lorries loaded with stolen articles were lined up on the road to
Soissons as far as the eye could reach. A non-commissioned officer and
four men were seen to drag along a little English cart, nicely fitted,
quite loaded with booty.
“Needless to say, the cellars were completely emptied. Not a single
pot of preserve at Château-Thierry; blankets, sheets, table-cloths,
napkins—everything was carried off. The Château of Belle-Vue, which
belongs to M. Jules Henriet, was not burnt, but everything in it was
plundered. Chests, desks, all the furniture were forced open. As for
silver, for the most part it disappeared from the houses that were
sacked.”
SERBIA AND RUSSIA
The same kind of thing took place in Poland and Serbia. At Chabatz the
shops were broken open and the goods which they contained stolen.
In the Report of the Serbian Commission of Inquiry it is said that at
Prngnavor and in the outskirts all the furniture of the inhabitants, such
as beds, chests, chairs, tables, sewing-machines, and even stoves had
been completely smashed and thrown outside the houses. The Commission
also declared that all the domestic animals which had not been used for
food or taken away were slaughtered.
THEFT OF PICTURES AND VARIOUS OBJETS D’ART
_Objets d’art_ of every kind and pictures were several times stolen in
this way both in Belgium and in France. The review _Kunst und Künstler_,
in an article from the pen of Professor Shaeffer, who goes so far as to
specify the pictures which ought to figure in German museums, proclaimed
the right to take possession of such articles and bring them to Germany.
It is true that in museums the greater part of the exhibits had been put
in a place of safety. Others were surprised and looted. This was the case
with the Oberot Museum at Brussels. The following is the account of the
incident given by Mme. Latour, wife of the Director of the Museum.
“All the keepers had gone to the battlefield, and my husband and I were
alone. Seeing that they were going to beat in the door, my husband
decided to open it for them. First of all he had taken the precaution to
lock the door into the galleries.
“Without paying the slightest attention to him, the officers immediately
went to that in which priceless enamels of the twelfth century and
magnificent jewels had usually been exhibited. Not being able to get in,
they condescended to ask for the key. My husband refused. They took hold
of him and forcibly deprived him of the bunch which he had in his pocket.
“Once inside, when they noticed that certain articles which they
doubtless coveted had disappeared, they waxed furious. This, however, did
not prevent their taking whatever they liked from the glass cases, some
pictures, and some porcelain specimens, which they then compelled me to
pack up for them.
“Moreover, they did not attempt to conceal the fact that what they were
stealing would later on adorn their own houses.
“‘That would suit very well in my drawing-room, and this in my wife’s
bedroom,’ said one. ‘Martha asked me to bring her some real Brussels
lace,’ replied the other, ‘but I shall bring her this exquisite
miniature. She will be delighted…’
“Every day for more than a fortnight they came back like that, sometimes
alone, sometimes accompanied by other officers or soldiers, and every
time they brought away something from the museum. They took away not
less than fifty pictures.
“My husband once managed to get into conversation with one of the
secretaries of the Military Governor of Brussels, and complained bitterly
of the scandalous thefts committed every day at the museum. But this
German official refused to listen to the description which M. Latour gave
him of the officers and their uniforms. At last he brought him to the
door with these words, ‘Woe to the vanquished!’”
The Germans took the furniture of the Government offices, and also all
the stage properties of the Park Royal Theatre, the stage of which was
converted into a motor garage.
They took away the following articles from the château at Compiègne—
Sixteen large pieces, eight in coral and eight in lava, which belonged
to Napoleon I’s chessboard; a chased and gilt bronze figure of Atalanta
above a clock; a chased and gilt bronze socket, part of a candelabrum
on Sèvres porcelain; a chased gold and steel case containing a poniard,
knife and fork, part of a collection of arms; a poniard; a Turkish
dagger; a chased silvered case, adorned with precious stones, containing
a hunting dagger, knife and fork; two chased stilettoes; three poniards
with hollow gilt blades, and three chased and gilt bronze candlesticks,
all from the same collection.
Let us add that during the last two days of the occupation three train
wagons, which contained, it was said, officers’ baggage, had been shunted
into the principal courtyard of the palace. The truth is that these three
wagons served merely to load and to carry away valuable articles taken by
the soldiers and non-commissioned officers from the houses of Compiègne.
The house of M. Orsetti, in front of the palace, was completely looted in
this way.
LOOTING OF CHÂTEAUX
All the fine old châteaux of the Champagne and Marne region, and all the
rich estates and villas situate in that part of Lorraine which has been
invaded, were also pillaged and sacked. The ironwork of the fourteenth
and fifteenth century, the Gothic wainscoting, the antique furniture,
were taken away. Everything which was supposed to have any value—jewels,
silver, _objets d’art_, books—was stolen.
At the Moulinot Priory, the property of M. de Chauffault, and at
Raon-l’Etape, where the 99th infantry regiment (to which Renter and
Forstner, heroes of the celebrated incidents of Saverne, belonged),
the 50th line regiment and the Baden reservists carried out a general
pillage, and took away furniture, pianos, libraries, amateur collections,
clocks, pictures, and brought them to the railway station, where a train
under full steam was ready to take them to Germany. It was Prussian and
Baden officers who, in the majority of cases, accompanied by their wives,
chose, took, stole or destroyed, defiled or smashed everything, according
as the article which they were examining could be removed or not.
Near the town of Meaux and some hundreds of metres from the village of
Congis is the château of Gné. At the beginning of the battle of the
Marne the German general staff was installed there. Of this château
there remained, after the vandals had passed by, only the ruins. The
chests-of-drawers were broken, the beautiful tapestries defiled, the
armchairs smashed to pieces, the costly pictures slashed, even the linen
of the château stolen. When the allied troops forced the Germans back
and reoccupied it, only wounded were found in it, who, before the arrival
of the conquerors, had taken care to ransack the whole house and to
finish the work of destruction which had been begun.
We repeat that these outrages were the work of officers no less than of
soldiers. And it was a captain who led the Germans at Creil when they
burst into the houses of rich owners, broke the doors and windows, and
gave themselves up to pillage.
The same kinds of acts were also committed by the Germans in Alsace. The
case of Cernay, where the Germans drove out the inhabitants in the month
of January, is an example. All these people had to leave the town at
three o’clock in the morning. A manufacturer of the country who returned
to his villa at 7.15, found a detachment of German soldiers engaged in
taking down the pictures from the walls and packing up articles which
they could not carry. When he expressed his surprise at seeing them
appropriating his property, the soldiers replied that they were acting
under the orders of their superiors.
ROBBING THE DEAD AND WOUNDED
The universally admitted obligation not to plunder an enemy who has
fallen on the field of battle has been, like so many others, repudiated
by the Germans. The personal belongings, silver, jewels, etc., of the
dead and wounded have been not merely coveted, but actually plundered by
them. Examples of this infamous conduct were numerous, chiefly on the
battlefields of France.
On the 8th August, on the spot where a small cavalry engagement had taken
place, at Beuveille (in Champagne), a French lieutenant of dragoons, who
was wounded and lying unconscious on the ground, was robbed (for his
own account of the incident see the _Matin_ of the 22nd August, 1914)
of a sum of 250 francs in gold by the leader of a German platoon, M. de
Schaffenberg, of the Trèves light infantry. His orderly, a dragoon, also
wounded, lying a few paces away from the French lieutenant, was robbed of
some money that he had by the same German officer. A French hussar who
was attended by Dr. Weiss at the Nancy hospital told this doctor that he
had broken his leg by falling from his horse, and that, as he was lying
under his mount, he was attacked by Uhlans, who robbed him of his watch
and chain.
Similar cases were so frequent that the French troops scarcely wondered
when they captured, near Senlis, a horseman of the German imperial
guard, accompanied by three German subjects who spoke French very well,
and as they knew the district served him as guide and accomplices in
the work of brigandage in which he engaged. The numerous articles which
they found in the pockets of these wretches left no doubt on this point:
they were, therefore, brought before a court-martial at the same time as
several other German prisoners who had been guilty of similar thefts; in
particular, a Death’s-head hussar, who had been found in possession of a
roll of bills stolen in Belgium, a considerable sum of French gold, and
many jewels.
ENORMOUS TAXES LEVIED BY THE GERMANS
The taxes levied by the Germans in several towns of Belgium and France
were represented by the invaders as either fines or war contributions.
If, however, we consider them a little more closely, we shall not be
able to see anything in them but theft, admitted and official. It is
a consequence and an extension of thefts committed on the field of
battle. That such levies should be permitted, they must be represented
as expenses arising out of invasion. It is within such limits only that
international law recognises war levies. Such as it is, we have no doubt
that this limit is stretched to some extent. Collective fines imposed for
damage sustained by an invading army are manifestly a mockery. No less
ridiculous is the claim to make up for the general expenses of war by
levies of this kind.
The Germans had no hesitation in using these two pretexts as an excuse.
Moreover, it is plain that in their view a war tax would come under the
head of the system in reliance on which war makes everything permissible.
In several places these levies were, practically speaking, represented as
a ransom for invaded towns. It seemed that these towns had to pay for the
favour done them of not being handed over to pillage. If they came and
refused the money, because they did not know where to find it, at once
the German commandant threatened them with fire, devastation and pillage.
These levies, therefore, were reckoned in the category of methods of
terrorisation. Their aim was to make the inhabitants desire peace by
multiplying their sufferings.
As for openly admitted reasons, the following are taken from an article
in the _Kölnische Zeitung_, which dealt with the levy imposed on Belgium
and the city of Brussels and, on the other hand, from a proclamation of
Lieutenant-general Nieber, with regard to a tax levied on the town of
Wavre.
“The war tribute imposed on Belgium,” wrote the _Kölnische Zeitung_,
“_was a punishment for ill-treatment of the Germans in Belgium_. We
are now at Brussels, where not more than a fortnight ago some Germans,
quietly going on with their work in a foreign country, were abandoned to
the cruelty of the mob. What happened then will be a perpetual stain on
the honour of the Belgian people.
“We have asked ourselves what might be demanded as _reasonable
compensation for the inhuman treatment inflicted on our compatriots_, and
it appears it is impossible, save by legal means, to punish those who
have committed such acts.
“But another measure is possible and recognised by international law, and
that is why we have imposed a very high war tax on the town of Brussels.
“This _town must bear the whole weight of the legally recognised expenses
of war_, to wit: the quartering of the troops, and the supply of all the
provisions needed by our army up to the point when _all the resources
of the town are exhausted_, and its inhabitants have begun to realise
individually and as a whole that the baiting of defenceless women is not
at all the same thing as the occupation of their houses by the enemy.
Whatever it be, the punishment inflicted on the Belgians for the offences
of which they have been guilty will be inflicted with all the rigour
permitted by the law.”
As regards the tax levied on the town of Wavre, Lieutenant-general Nieber
writes on the 27th August, in a letter to the mayor—
“On the 22nd August, 1914, General von Bülow, in command of the second
army, imposed on the town of Wavre a war-levy of 3,000,000 francs,
payable on the 1st September, _as punishment for a surprise attack on
the German troops, conduct for which no name is too bad, and which was
contrary to international law and the usages of war_.
“The general in command of the second army has just instructed the
general in charge of the depot of the second army to collect the
aforesaid levy without delay, _which the town must pay for its conduct_.
“I command and instruct you to hand over to the bearer of the present
note the first two instalments, being 2,000,000 francs in gold. I require
you also to give the bearer a letter, duly sealed with the town seal,
declaring that the balance of 1,000,000 francs will be paid without
fail on the 1st September. I call the attention of the town to the fact
that it will under no circumstances be able to count upon any extension
of time, for _the civil population has put itself outside the pale of
international law by firing on the German soldiers_. The town of Wavre
will be fired and destroyed if payment be not made in good time, without
respect of persons; the innocent will suffer with the guilty.”
GERMAN PLEAS IN DEFENCE, AND THEIR VALIDITY
It is hardly necessary to say that the principle of holding towns to
ransom is not admitted by any one to-day. Bluntschli, the German jurist,
writes on this head a phrase which sounds ironical: “War has become
civilised…… No one has any longer the right to pillage, and still less
the right to destroy, without military necessity; _therefore there can
no longer be any question of buying off this pretended right_.” On the
other hand, the policy of terrorisation is not admitted. It is, however,
very remarkable that the _Kölnische Zeitung_ apparently caves in to it
by commenting on the gravity of the situation in which the Belgians
were, owing to (1) the fact “_that their houses had been occupied by the
enemy_,” and (2) the exhaustion of “_the whole resources of the town_.”
Article 50 of the Hague Regulations stipulates, in fact, that no
collective punishment, pecuniary or otherwise, can be enacted against the
civil population by reason of individual acts for which they could not
collectively be held responsible.
German generals or publicists, therefore, have no authority to set up
a system of collective indemnity, monetary or other, in punishment of
individual acts, and still less to impose these indemnities under threat
of pillaging and burning towns.
As for the claim to recover the costs and expenses of war by a tax levied
on the inhabitants of the invaded territory, the _Kölnische Zeitung_
is shamelessly lying when it says that such a claim is “recognised by
international law.” Not a single authority in this sense can be quoted;
on the contrary, there are express statements of the very opposite.
The well-known Argentine writer, Calvo, declares that such a theory
involves an abuse of force, and is “in flagrant contradiction to the
principle which enacts that war is waged against a state, and not against
individuals taken separately.” It was in conformity with this principle
that the Germans themselves, in 1870, refused to admit that the amount
of the monetary contributions previously levied in France (thirty-nine
million francs) could be deducted from the five milliards imposed on
France by the Treaty of Frankfurt, a confirmation as clear as it is
unexpected of the principle which they are violating to-day.
THE CHIEF EXAMPLES IN BELGIUM OF THIS BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
The Germans imposed on the town of Liège a payment of ten million francs,
and demanded fifty millions from the province. The provinces of Brabant
and Brussels were assessed at 50 and 450 million francs respectively, “as
a war contribution.” Moreover, it was declared in the note signed in the
name of General Arnim by Captain Kriegsheim, of the general staff of the
4th army corps in presence of M. Max, Mayor of Brussels.
At Louvain, the German authorities, represented by the commandant,
Manteuffel, demanded a payment of 100,000 francs “as a war indemnity”;
after negotiation they reduced the amount to 3000 francs. At Tournai on
the 25th August an officer entered, revolver in hand, into the hall where
the mayor and the members of the municipal council were in conference,
and, on the plea that “civilians had fired on German soldiers,” declared,
in spite of the mayor’s protests, that if “_two million francs were
not sent him by 8 p.m. on the same day, the town would be bombarded_.”
The sum was paid, but this did not prevent the Germans from taking as
hostages the mayor, his deputies, and the bishop, who were sent to Ath
and Brussels, where their liberty was restored on presentation of the
receipt for two million francs.
Antwerp fell on the 9th October. The town was ordered to pay a war
contribution which amounted to the grotesque sum of half a milliard of
marks (625 million francs).
From the town of Wavre the Germans demanded, under the conditions
mentioned in the letter of Lieutenant-general Nieber, previously quoted,
a sum of three millions, which raised the total of the levies imposed
by the Germans in Belgium to 1,180,000,000 francs. By distributing this
amount equally over the Belgian population we find that each inhabitant
of this country, ravaged, burnt, pillaged, and, in short, stripped of all
its resources, was mulcted in an average payment of 158 francs.
This colossal theft, though it was ordered, could not be carried out so
easily. The Mayor of Brussels paid a first instalment of five millions of
the fifty millions imposed on the town of Brussels, and covered another
fifteen millions by municipal bonds. But when, in the closing days of
September, the military governor of Belgium, Marshal von der Goltz, who
had been appointed in the meantime, demanded payment of the outstanding
balance of thirty millions, M. Max informed the German authorities
that the public treasury had been transferred to Antwerp, and forbade
the banks to pay the sum demanded. The mayor was not at all to blame
for this, as the German authorities had decided, on the pretext that
payment was late, that requisitions would not be paid for. The Germans
regarded the refusal of M. Max as a failure to keep engagements made, and
the arrest of the mayor took place in violation of every principle of
international law.
The _Kölnische Zeitung_ of the 30th September made it appear that the
attitude of M. Max was explained by the latter’s confidence that the
Germans would soon be defeated; moreover, this same paper postdated the
German authorities’ decision not to pay for requisitions in order to palm
it off as a reply to M. Max’s refusal. Thus, open prevarication was added
to extortion and violence.
None the less, all these difficulties had the effect of inducing the
German Government to modify their method of demanding payment. A monthly
war tax of forty million francs was substituted for all the levies in the
occupied area.
EXAMPLES OF THE SAME BREACH OF LAW IN FRANCE
The following is the notice which informed the inhabitants of Lunéville
of the tax in which they had been mulcted—
“On the 25th August, 1914” (runs the notice), “the inhabitants
of Lunéville made an attack by ambuscade on German columns
and trains. On the same day the inhabitants fired on medical
sections wearing the Red Cross. Moreover, they fired on German
wounded, and on the military hospital, which included a German
ambulance. _On account of these hostile acts a contribution
of 650,000 francs is levied on the Commune of Lunéville._ The
mayor was ordered to pay this sum in gold (and in silver up
to 50,000 francs) on the 6th September at 9 a.m., into the
hands of the representative of the German military authority.
Any objection will be considered null and void. No delay will
be allowed. If the commune does not punctually carry out the
order to pay the sum of 650,000 francs _all the property that
can be requisitioned will be seized. In case of non-payment,
a house-to-house investigation will be made and all the
inhabitants will be searched. Whoever knowingly conceals money,
or tries to secure his property from being seized by the
military authority, or who tries to leave the town, will be
shot._ The mayor and hostages taken by the military authority
will be held responsible for the exact carrying out of the
orders given herewith. The mayor’s staff are ordered to make
known these instructions at once to the Commune.
“Commandant-in-Chief VON FOSBENDER.
“Hénaménil, 3rd September, 1914.”
“A perusal of this ineffable document,” says the Report of the French
Commission, “entitles one to ask whether the arson and murder committed
at Lunéville on the 25th and 26th August by an army which was not acting
under the excitement of battle, and which had refrained from killing
during the previous days, were not deliberately ordered for the purpose
of adding verisimilitude to an allegation which was to serve as a pretext
for the demand for an indemnity.”
The town of Lille was mulcted in a contribution of ten millions;
Roubaix and Tourcoing in ten millions; Armentières in half a million;
Valenciennes in three millions. The excuse given by the Germans, so far
as Valenciennes was concerned, was that a song, entitled “William’s
Last Will and Testament,” which was considered to be disrespectful to
the Kaiser, had been seized in the town. This justified a fine of two
millions. The third million was imposed because the town had not supplied
the quantity of flour demanded by the German troops. The threat was made
that, if the money was not paid, the mayor, M. Tanchon, would be shot.
The province of Marne was mulcted in a fine of thirty millions,
twenty-two of which were for the town of Reims and eight for
Châlons-sur-Marne. The German commissary-general agreed to accept from
Châlons 500,000 francs merely as an instalment. The remainder had not to
be paid, as the Prince of Saxony and his headquarters staff left Châlons
three days afterwards, followed two days subsequently by all the German
troops who were fleeing before the French.
Epernay had to pay 175,000 francs. But the town came by its money again,
thanks to a French surgeon, Dr. Véron, the only one available in this
district, who demanded for the treatment he had given a German prince the
sum which the town had paid.
In Serbia, the Austrian troops did the same at Losnitza, where a
contribution of 100,000 dinars had to be paid _to avert destruction by
fire_. The payment of the money, however, did not prevent hostages being
taken away, the town destroyed, and nineteen peasants shot.
REQUISITIONS
In recognition of the necessities of troops in the field, the right of
requisition is allowed, but it must, as far as possible, be exercised
with moderation. Supplies must be paid for in ready money, or else must
be acknowledged by receipts, and in any case payment must take place as
soon as possible. The German publicist, Bluntschli, even imposes on the
occupying troops the obligation to pay on delivery for supplies for which
demand is made.
In violation of this established principle, the Germans have taken
supplies without payment not only in Belgium, but also in France. As they
were taking without payment their demands were unmeasured. On several
occasions the amount of their demands was simply preposterous. Being
thus forced to denude themselves far beyond their means, the inhabitants
were a prey to famine, whilst the German troops were gorging themselves,
and even allowing what they had taken to be lost and go bad. Under such
conditions the inhabitants found they were compelled to take to flight.
At Brussels, the requisition of large quantities of provisions was
ordered. These provisions had to be delivered on the 20th, 21st, 22nd and
23rd August, by virtue of a note sent by Captain Kriegscheim, acting in
the name of General Sixtus Arnim, in command of the 4th army corps, in
presence of the mayor. If these deliveries did not take place by certain
fixed times the town would be obliged to pay double the amount, based on
the market price. These large quantities of provisions could not be used.
Although they had been scraped together by so painful efforts they were
simply squandered. Four thousand kilos of meat had to be thrown out, as
well as piles of rolls of butter, and quantities of coffee and sugar,
which the troops were unable to consume.
It appears that in several cases these requisitions were merely made
as an excuse for pillage. In this way the works at Herstal, near
Liège, were ordered by the German headquarters staff to deliver 50,000
rifles and three million cartridges. Of course the manager of the works
refused. Then the German headquarters staff assembled again the board of
administration of the company. There was a fresh refusal, and no less
energetic, to do what the enemy demanded. The board urged the authority
of the clauses of the Hague Convention. _Consequently, and in revenge
for this opposition_, the German headquarters staff ordered that the
armouries should be pillaged.
At Amiens, as the town was unable to supply the enormous quantity of
provisions demanded by the Germans, twelve inhabitants were taken as
hostages, and transferred to Clermont. There they had to appear before a
sort of court-martial, which condemned them to pay 20,000 francs. This
sum was paid by the municipality.
At Epernay, 50,000 bottles of wine were requisitioned to enable the
German soldiers to get tipsy. At Antwerp, requisitions were made of
provisions which were intended to be consumed on the spot. These
provisions were sent by rail to an unknown destination.
At Lille, in the month of November, the mayor was obliged to deliver
1,500,000 francs’ worth of food produce. On the 25th of the same month
General Heindrich warned him by official letter that Germany could no
longer meet the needs of the population, and that if “England could not
make up her mind to allow provisions from over seas to come in for the
support of the occupied provinces of France, it would be chiefly the
French population who would have to bear the result of this state of
things.” The amount of requisitions of food produce imposed on Lille was
so great, according to the declaration of the mayor of Lille, dated 27th
November, 1914, addressed to General Heindrich, that “if the situation
continues, the town would suffer an absolute famine, which would affect
thousands of families, composed mainly of women and children.”
General Heindrich also made some show of remedying this state of affairs
by advising the mayor of Lille to ask for the assistance of the Swiss
Government. The mayor of Lille attempted this application on the 28th
November, but the German authorities took care not to transmit it (see
the _Temps_ of the 20th December).
The fact that the German requisitions amounted to pillage was recognised
by the American Commission of Relief for Belgium, which gratuitously
distributed ten to twelve million francs’ worth of provisions a month.
On the advice of Sir Edward Grey, Mr. Hoover, President of this
Commission, asked the German Government to abstain from requisitioning
provisions of any kind, as otherwise American subscriptions would have
the effect of indirectly contributing to the support of the German army,
which would take pains to pillage officially the provisions sent for poor
Belgians. The German Government replied that it would _consent to refrain
from requisitioning provisions to the east of Ghent_. This was as much as
to confess that the German military authorities had taken away from the
inhabitants of Belgium provisions of which they stood in need.
OTHER EXAMPLES OF OFFICIAL PILLAGE
Examples of official pillage of every kind practised by Germany are
to be had in abundance. Sometimes it was the military authorities who
shamelessly seized the deposits in private banks. This was shown to
have taken place at Liège, Dinant, and Louvain, where quite a large sum
of money was taken from the Bank de la Dyle and 12,000 francs from the
Banque Populaire. At Lille the savings bank was robbed. Sometimes pillage
took the form of fining newspapers. In this way the _Croix du Nord_ had
to pay 150,000 francs for having described the German army in one of its
articles as “a flood of Teutons.”
At Châlons-sur-Marne, the German commandant asked M. Servès, deputy
mayor, “to have all the shops in the town opened, so that the soldiers
might buy what they needed.” When M. Servès remarked that it would be
well that sentries should be stationed before the shops, the German
officer replied that it was for the police of the town to keep order. M.
Servès replied that there were no longer any police. Then the commandant
came in in a towering rage and shouted: “There should have been. It is
not fair that people who remain in the town should alone have to bear
the burden. Those who have fled must bear their part. Consequently our
soldiers will be instructed to break open the doors of shops and take
what they want.” And pillage, officially ordered, began. To mitigate the
odium of it General Seydewitz warned the town that he was reviving the
security of 500,000 francs, which had been demanded on the first day of
occupation as a guarantee for the requisitions. But this half-million was
taken again as an instalment of the monetary contribution levied on the
town.
THE CHAPTER OF GERMAN ADMISSIONS
As far as concerns pillage carried on by way of requisitions we have the
evidence of proclamations, letters, and other official communications
issued by the German authorities. In no other documents could the
chapter of admissions be so explicit.
As for theft and pillage committed by soldiers or by officers in
their private capacity, the following is evidence supplied by Germans
themselves.
A German reservist who died in France, _privat-docent_ of a university,
married, and father of a family, carefully notes in his pocket-book,
which was found by the French, the parcel he sent to his wife of jewels
which he found in an empty house. Another day he confesses he stole a
microscope. “The Frenchman” (he wrote) “bought it in Germany, and I took
it back again.”
Another German soldier, Gaston Klein (1st Landsturm company), describes
the sack of Louvain in the following terms: “At first only a few troops
went back to the town, but afterwards the battalion marched into the town
in close ranks _to break into the first houses_ to plunder—I beg pardon,
to requisition—wine and other things as well. Like a company which had
been disbanded, every one went where he pleased. The officers went on in
front and set us a good example. One night in barracks, many men drunk,
and there the story ends. This day filled me with a disgust which I could
not describe.”
The Saxon officer of the 178th regiment, who supplied us with so much
precious evidence about German crimes, writes in his pocket-book:
“Herpigny-Baclan (17th August). I visited the little château, which
belongs to a secretary of the King of the Belgians. Our men behaved like
Vandals: first they ransacked the cellar, then they burst into the rooms
and threw everything upside down: attempts were even made to burst open
the safes; our men carried off heaps of useless things for the mere
pleasure of marauding.”
“At Rethel,” continued the same officer, “the interior of the house is
charming. The furniture was magnificent. Now everything is in pieces.
_Vandals could not have done more damage. The leaders of the columns were
responsible—they could have prevented pillage and destruction. The damage
may be reckoned in millions. Safes were burst open. In an attorney’s
house a collection of old pottery and oriental_ objets d’art _was broken
into a thousand pieces_.”
In spite of protests made to the German troops and their leaders, the
Saxon officer at length succumbed to the contagion and followed their
example. “As for myself,” he naïvely writes, “I could not help being
carried away to this side and that by little souvenirs. I found a
magnificent waterproof cloak and a photographer’s apparatus which I am
going to give to Felix.”
“In a village near Blamont,” writes another soldier, Paul Spielmann, 1st
company, 1st Infantry Brigade of Guards, “_everything was given up to
pillage_.”…
Private Handschuhmacher (11th Battalion reserve light infantry) also
writes: “8th August, 1914, Gouvy (Belgium). The Belgians having fired on
the German soldiers, we at once began to pillage the goods station. Some
cash-boxes, eggs, shirts, and everything which could be eaten was taken
away. The safe was gutted and the gold distributed amongst the men. As
for bank-bills they were torn up.”
“The enemy,” wrote another non-commissioned officer (Hermann Levith,
of the 160th regiment of infantry 7th corps), “occupied the village of
Bièvre and the outer-fringe of the wood in the rear. The third company
advanced as a first line. We took the village, _then pillaged almost all
the houses_.”
“The second battalion,” wrote a third (Schiller of the 133rd infantry,
19th corps) “entered into the village of Haybes (Ardennes), _ransacked
the houses and pillaged them_.”…
One thing which must be remembered as a feature of German character is
that German doctors took part in pillage. This is what we learn from a
letter of Private Jean Thode (4th reserve regiment): “Brussels, 5. 10.
14. A motor came up to the hospital and brought some war booty: a piano,
two sewing-machines, many albums, and all sorts of other things.”
Some admissions are couched in the form of indignation. “They do not
behave like soldiers,” writes a soldier of the 65th Landwehr infantry,
“but like highway robbers, bandits, and brigands, and they are a disgrace
to our regiment and to our army.” “_No discipline_,” writes another, (a
lieutenant of the 77th reserve infantry); “_the pioneers are not much
good; as for the artillery they are a band of robbers_.”
But if this particular lieutenant blames the conduct of his men, others,
on the contrary, deliberately order them to pillage. Like the soldier
who writes at Louvain that the officers set a good example, four
other German soldiers, named Schrick and Weber (of the 39th Prussian
infantry), Waberzech (of the 35th Brandenburg), and Brugmann (of the
15th Mecklenburg hussars), on whom were found a quantity of French paper
money, watches and jewels, all taken from houses in Senlis and Chantilly,
confessed before the French court-martial that it was their officers
who should have been blamed. “If I had not taken the jewels” (said one
of them) “one of my officers would have taken them.”… “We got from our
leaders” (the others declared) “the order to pillage the houses.”