So long as her armies were fighting the invader, so long as her towns
and countryside were ruined by German frightfulness, so long as her
martyrs, men, women and children, were falling side by side in the
market-place before the firing party, so long as every symbol, every
word of patriotism was forbidden her, Belgium could remain vanquished
but unconquered, bleeding but unshakeable. She enjoyed, in the face of
her oppressors, all the privileges of the Christian martyrs of the
first centuries; she could smile on the rack, laugh under the whip and
sing in the flames. She remained free in her prison, free to respect
Justice, in the midst of injustice, to treasure Righteousness, in spite
of falsehood, to worship her Saints, in the face of calumny. She was
still able to resist, to oppose, every day and at every turn, her
patience to the enemy's threats and her cheerfulness to his ominous
scowl. She had a clear conscience and her hands were clean.
There is one thing that can be said for the Roman emperors, they seldom
starved their victims to death. Popular imagination revels in their
cruelty, and the _Golden Legend_ displays to us all the grim splendours
of a chamber of horrors. But the worst of all tortures--starvation--is
not often inflicted. The idea is, I suppose, that the conversion must be
sudden and striking. But Belgium's oppressors do not any longer want to
convert her. They have tried and they have failed. They merely want to
take all the food, all the raw materials, all the machines and--last but
not least--all the labour they can out of her. Their fight is not the
fight of one religion against another. It is the fight of material power
against any philosophy, any religion which stands between it and the
things which it covets. The Germans do not sacrifice Belgium to their
gods. Such an ideal course is far from their thoughts. They sacrifice
Belgium to Germany--that is, to themselves. It matters very little
whether a slave is able to speak or to think, as long as he is able to
work.
Here again, in spite of the wholesale plundering of the first days of
occupation, and of the enormous fines imposed on towns and provinces, I
do not suppose that the German plan was deliberately to ruin the
country. It might even have been to develop its resources, as long as
there was some hope of annexing it, though this benevolent spirit had
scarcely any time to manifest itself. After the Marne and the Yser,
however, when it became evident that anyhow the whole of Belgium could
never be retained, and when the attitude of the people showed clearly
that they would always remain hostile to their new masters, the
systematic sacking of the country began without any thought for the
consequences.
* * * * *
The best way of coming to some appreciation of the work accomplished
during these two years is to remember that, before the war, Belgium was
the richest country in Europe in proportion to her size. Relatively she
had the greatest commercial activity, the richest agricultural
production, and she was more thickly populated than any other State,
with the exception of Saxony. Nowhere were the imports and exports so
important, in proportion to the number of the population, nowhere did
the average square mile yield such rich crops, nowhere was the railway
system so developed. Pauperism was practically unknown, and, even in the
large towns, the number of people dependent on public charity was
comparatively very small. To this picture of unequalled prosperity
oppose the present situation: Part of the countryside left without
culture for want of manure and horses; scarcely any cattle left in the
fields; commerce paralysed by the stoppage of railway and other
communications; industry at a complete standstill, with 500,000 men
thrown out of work and nearly half of the population which remained in
Belgium (3,500,000) on the verge of starvation and entirely dependent
for their subsistance on the work of the Commission for Relief.
It is said that the tree must be judged by its fruit. Such then is the
fruit of the German administration of Belgium. When he arrived in
Brussels, Governor von Bissing declared that he had come to dress
Belgium's wounds. What would he have done if he had meant to aggravate
them?
There is an insidious argument which must be met once and for ever. We
have seen how Germany is trying to throw the responsibility for the
misery prevailing in Belgium and for the present deportations on the
English blockade, which paralyses the industry and prevents the
introduction of raw materials. But, if this were the case, the situation
ought not to be worse in Belgium than in Germany. On the contrary,
thanks to the splendid work of the Commission for Relief, she ought to
be far better off. How is it then that--according to General von
Bissing's own declaration made to Mr. Julius Wertheimer, correspondent
of the _Vossische Zeitung_ (September the 1st, 1916)--how is it that
"the average cost of life is much higher in Belgium than in Germany,"
and that "a great number of inhabitants (tens of thousands of them) have
not eaten a piece of meat for many weeks?"
This inequality between the social conditions in Germany and in Belgium,
in spite of the advantages given to the latter by the introduction of
food through the blockade with England's consent, can easily be
explained: On the one hand, German industry has transformed itself, many
factories which could not continue their ordinary work owing to the
shortage of rawstuffs having been turned into war-factories in which
there is still a great demand for labour. On the other hand, Germany has
not been submitted to the same levies in money, and requisitions in
foodstuffs and material; Germany has not been deprived, from the
beginning, of all her reserve, she has not been depleted of all her
stock.
We shall have to deal, in the next chapter, with the first question. Let
us only consider the second here.
It is impossible to give more than a superficial glance at the matter.
The particulars at hand are not complete and a full list of German
exactions has not yet been drawn up. Let us, however, try to give an
idea of the disproportion existing between the country's resources and
the demands which were made on her.
On December 12th, 1914, a poster announced to the citizens of Brussels
that the nine Belgian provinces would be obliged to pay, every month
during the coming year, a sum of forty million francs, making a total of
about 480 millions (over 19 million pounds). In order to understand the
indignation caused by this announcement it is necessary to remember:
1st. That the Belgians were at the time already paying all the ordinary
taxes, to the commune, to the province and to the State, so that this
new contribution constituted a super-tax.
2nd. That all the direct taxes paid to the State, in ordinary times,
amount scarcely to 75 millions, that is to say, to a sixth of this
contribution.
3rd. And that the new economic conditions imposed by the war had
considerably reduced the income of the most wealthy citizens.
As the Germans persist in invoking the text of the Hague Convention of
which they have again and again violated every clause, it may be useful
to point out that, according to the 49th article, the occupying power is
only allowed to raise war contributions "for the need of the army," that
is to say, in order to pay in money the requisitions which he is obliged
to make in order to supply the army of occupation with food, fodder, and
so on. As, most of the time, the Germans only pay for what they
requisition in "_bons de guerre_" payable after the war, and as, in spite
of their sound appetite, we can scarcely believe that the few thousand
"landsturmers" who are garrisoning Belgium are eating two million
pounds worth a month, the illegal character of the German measure seems
evident. Besides, if any doubt were still possible, we should find it
laid down in the 52nd article that any service required from the
occupying power must be "in proportion to the country's resources."
As the announcement had provoked strong protests, Governor von Bissing
announced a few days later that, if this contribution was paid, no
further extraordinary taxes would be required and the requisitions would
henceforth be paid for in money. Needless to say, none of these promises
have been fulfilled, and the contribution of 480 millions was renewed at
the beginning of 1915, and even increased to 600 millions lately, so
that, from that source only, the Germans have raised in Belgium, after
two years of occupation, a sum equal to one-fourth of the total State
debt of the country on the eve of the war.
This is only one example among many. The communes did not enjoy better
treatment. The reader will remember that during the period of invasion
the enemy exacted various war-taxes from every town he entered: 20
millions from Liège, 50 millions from Brussels, 32 millions from Namur,
40 millions from Antwerp, and so on. Since then, he has never lost an
opportunity of inflicting heavy fines even on the smallest villages. If
one inhabitant succeeds in joining the army, if an allied aeroplane
appears on the horizon, if, for some reason or other, the telegraph or
the telephone wires are out of order, a shower of fines falls on the
neighbouring towns and villages. In June last the total amount of these
exactions was estimated, for 1916, at ten millions (£400,000). If we add
to this the fines inflicted constantly, on the slightest pretext, on
private individuals, we shall certainly remain below the mark in stating
that Germany succeeds in getting out of Belgium over twenty million
pounds a year. Twenty million pounds, when the ordinary income of the
State amounts scarcely to seven millions! And I am not taking into
account the money seized in the banks and the recent enforced transfer
to Germany of the 600 millions (£24,000,000) of the National Bank.
If we remember that the total value of commercial transactions in
Belgium, before the war, did not exceed ten million francs (400,000
pounds) per year, we shall realise the absurdity of the German argument
which shifts on to the English blockade the responsibility for Belgium's
ruin. Even a complete stoppage of trade could not have done the country
as much harm as the German exactions in money only. But the conquerors
were not satisfied with fleecing the flock, they succeeded in robbing it
of its food, in taking away its very means of life.
* * * * *
Quite apart from any sentimental or moral reason, the last step was a
grave mistake, even from the German point of view. It would certainly
have paid the Germans better in the end if they had allowed the Allies
to send raw material to feed the Belgian factories, under the control of
neutral powers, and if they had not requisitioned the machines and
paralysed industry by the most absurd restrictions. It would have been a
most useful move from the point of view of propaganda, and, while posing
as Belgium's kind protectors, they might always have reaped the benefit
through fresh taxes and new contributions. If they have killed the goose
rather than gather its golden eggs it is because they could not afford
to wait. It was one of these desperate measures, like the violation of
Belgian neutrality, the ruthless use of Zeppelins and the sinking of the
Lusitania, which did them more harm than good. From the beginning
Germany has fought with a bad conscience, prompted in all her actions
more by the dread of being defeated than by the clear intention of
winning the game. The manifestation of such a spirit ought only to
encourage her enemies; they are the sure signs of a future breakdown. In
the meantime, they must cause infinite torture to the unfortunate
populations which are not yet delivered from her yoke.
During the first months of occupation the requisitions extended only to
foodstuffs, cattle, horses, fodder, in short, to objects which could be
used by the army. They were out of all proportion to the resources of
the country (Article 52 of the Hague Convention) and therefore
absolutely illegal, but they could still be considered as military
requisitions. In a most interesting article published in Smoller's
_Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft_, Professor
Karl Ballod admits that the requisitions made in Belgium and Northern
France have more than compensated for the harm caused by the Russian
invasion of East Prussia. Not only the army of occupation, but all the
troops concentrated on the northern sectors of the Western front, "three
million men," have been fed by the conquered provinces. Besides this,
Germany took from Belgium, at the beginning of the war, "more than
400,000 tons of meal and at least one million tons of other foodstuffs."
With Governor von Bissing's arrival the requisitions extended to
whatever raw material was needed in the Fatherland, and all pretence of
respecting the Hague Convention (Article 49) ceased forthwith: One after
another the stocks of raw cotton, of wool, of nickel, of jute, of
copper, were seized and conveyed to Germany. The administration seized,
in the same way, all the machines which could be employed, beyond the
Rhine, for the manufacture of shells and munitions. I am afraid of
tiring the reader with the long enumeration of these arbitrary decrees,
but in order to give him an idea of what is still going on, at the
present moment, I have gathered here all the measures of the kind taken
by the paternal administration of Baron von Bissing which came to our
knowledge during one month only (October last). I have chosen the period
at random, and it must not be forgotten that, owing to the difficulties
of communication, these particulars are far from complete. They will,
however, give a fair idea of the economic situation of the country after
the second year of occupation:
October 5th: The requisitions in cattle have been so frequent in
Flanders _that many farmers have not a milch cow left_.
October 6th: Owing to the lack of motors, bicycles and horses, some
tradespeople in Brussels are using oxen to draw their carts.
October 10th: All the chestnut trees around Antwerp have been
requisitioned. Potatoes cannot be conveyed from one place to another
even in small quantities.
October 17th: According to a decree dated September 27th, any person
possessing more _than 50 kilos of straps or cables_ must report it under
a penalty of one year's imprisonment or a fine up to 20,000 marks.
October 19th: The scarcity of potatoes is increasing, in spite of a good
crop. The peasants were forbidden to pull out their plants before July
the 21st, _when the greater part of the crop was commandeered_.
October 22nd: The boot factories in Brussels are forbidden to work more
than 24 hours per week.
October 24th: A decree dated October the 7th adds borax to the list of
sulphurous products which must be declared according to the decree of
September 16th.
October 29th: The Germans continue to take away the rails of the light
railways ("vicinaux"). The line from St. Trond to Hanut has been
demolished. A great deal of rolling stock has been commandeered. Owing
to the shortage of lubricating oil _it is to be feared that this last
mode of conveyance left to the Belgians will have to be stopped
shortly_.
October 30th: A decree dated September 30th makes the measures for the
requisition of metals still more severe. All the steel material--_in
whatever shape it may be (including tools)_--must be declared to the
_Abteilung für Handel und Gewerbe_ in Brussels, under a penalty of five
years of imprisonment (25,000 marks).
October 31st: The commune of Anderlecht has voted a credit of 40,000
francs for the purchase of _wooden shoes as the shortage of leather
prevents most of the people from buying boots_.
November 1st: A decree dated October 14th prepares for the seizure of
all textile materials, ribbons, hosiery, etc. No more than one-tenth of
the stocks can be manufactured, under a penalty of 10,000 marks. A
decree dated October 17th makes the declaration of poplars all over
Belgium compulsory.
It was scarcely necessary to underline some passages of this report.
However bad may be the impression it causes, it would be twenty-six
times worse if we had the leisure to follow step by step the progress of
German economic policy in Belgium. It is evident that the German
administration, in spite of its former declarations, is resolved to ruin
Belgian industry and to throw out of work the greatest number of men
possible. All raw material must go to Germany in order to be worked
there. As it has become evident that the Belgian workers will not submit
to war work so long as they remain in their surroundings, they must be
torn away from their country and compelled to follow the materials and
machines over the frontier. Labour has become an inanimated object
necessary to the prosecution of the German war. It is as indispensable
to Germany as cotton, nickel and copper. It will be treated as such. If
the men resist, they will be crushed. If the soul of Belgium will not
yield to persuasion, it will be taken away from her, like her cattle,
her corn, her iron and her steel. And so Belgium will become a weapon in
Germany's hands, a weapon which will strike at Belgium. And the only
thought of the deported worker turning a shell in a German factory will
be, as is suggested by Louis Raemaekers' cartoon, "Perhaps this one will
kill my own son?"
V.
THE MODERN SLAVE.
I. THE CREEPING TIDE.
We must now deal with the second factor which makes the conditions worse
in Belgium than in Germany. While German peace-factories, ruined by the
blockade, have been turned into war-factories, the majority of Belgian
industries have remained idle. In spite of the high wages offered by the
Germans--some skilled workmen were offered as much as £2 and £2 10s. per
day--the workers resisted the constant pressure exerted upon them and
preferred to live miserably on half-wages or with the help given them by
the "Comité National" rather than accept any work which might directly
or indirectly help the occupying power. If a few thousands, compelled by
hunger or unable to resist their conquerors' threats, passed the
frontier, all the rest of the working population kept up, under the most
depressing conditions, a great patriotic strike, the "strike of folded
arms." If they could not, as the 20,000 young heroes who crossed the
Dutch frontier, join the Belgian army on the Yser; they could at least
wage war at home and oppose to the enemy the impenetrable rampart of
their naked breasts. It should not be said, when King Albert should
return to Brussels at the head of his troops, that his subjects had not
shared the sufferings of his soldiers. They should also have their
wounds to show, they should also have their dead to honour.
* * * * *
When, at the beginning of November last, the protests of the Belgian
Government and the "Signal of Distress" of the Belgian bishops made
known the slave raids which had taken place, most of the outside world
was shocked and surprised. It had lived, for months, under the
impression that "things were not so bad" in the conquered provinces.
After the outcry caused by the atrocities of August, 1914, there came a
natural reaction, a sort of anti-climax. Fines, requisitions, petty
persecutions do not strike the imagination in the same way as the
burning of towns and the wholesale massacre of peaceful citizens. It had
become necessary to follow things closely in order to understand that,
instead of suffering less, the Belgian population was suffering more and
more every day. Besides, news was scarce and difficult to check. When
alarming reports came from the Dutch frontier, it was usual to think
that the newspaper correspondents spread them without much
discrimination.
But to those who were familiar with the policy pursued by the German
administration since the spring of 1915, the bad news which they
received lately only confirmed the fears which they had entertained for
a long time. As the war went on, it became more and more evident that
Germany, whose man-power was steadily decreasing, would no longer
tolerate the resistance of the Belgian workers, and would even attempt
to enrol in her army of labour all the able-bodied men of the conquered
provinces. The slave-raids coincide with the "levée en masse" in the
Empire and with the organisation of the new "Polish Army": "If every
German is made to fight or to work, ought not every Belgian, every Pole,
to be compelled to do the same? The fact that they should turn their
arms or their tools against their own country is not worthy of
consideration, as it is supposed already to enjoy the blessings of
German rule and has become an integral part of the Fatherland."
There is a great deal to be said for the slavery of ancient times. It
was at least free from cunning and hypocrisy. The conqueror ill-treated
the vanquished, but he spared him his calumnies. The only law was the
law of the stronger, but the stronger did not pretend to be also the
better. The tyrant was always right, of course, but he did not pretend
to show that the victim was always wrong.
Now the worst aspect of the German policy is that it associates the
subtlest dialectics with the most insane brutality. When the time comes,
they act with the blind fury of the bull, but they have already thought
it all over with the wisdom of the serpent. That is why the popular
appellation of "Huns" is so misleading. It suggests merely the brutality
of primitive men, which is not always so dangerous and so depraved as
the brutality of civilised men. Brutality does not exclude honesty and
pity. Attila listened to the prayers of the Pope and spared Rome. The
Kaiser's lieutenant does not listen to Cardinal Mercier's protests. The
Huns, as most strong men, made a point of keeping their word. The
Germans seem to make a point of breaking theirs. When I compared the
fight of Belgium and Germany to the unequal fight of Jack and the Giant,
of David and Goliath, I was forgetting that David and Jack were cleverer
than their antagonists. Folklore and fairy-tales always equalize the
chances by granting more wit to the small people than to the big ones.
It is a healthy inspiration. But we are confronted to-day with a new
monster, a wise giant, a cunning dragon, a subtle beast.
We must therefore not imagine that Governor von Bissing got up one fine
morning, called for pen and ink, like King Cole for his bowl, and wrote
a proclamation to the effect that all Belgians of military age would be
reduced to slavery and obliged, under the penalty of physical torture
and under the whip of German sentries, to dig trenches behind the
Western front or to turn shells in a German factory. Any fool--any
Goliath--might have done that.
Every German crime is preceded by a series of false promises and
followed by a series of calumnies. Between such a prelude and such a
finale, you may perform a symphony of frightfulness with Dr. Strauss'
orchestration--it will sound as innocent and artless as the three notes
of a shepherd's pipe. The violation of Belgian neutrality is bad enough,
but if you begin to lull Belgium to slumber by repeating, on every
occasion, that she has nothing to fear, and if you end by declaring to
the civilised world that Belgium was plotting with England and France a
traitorous attack against Germany, then it becomes quite plausible. To
massacre 6,000 civilians and burn 20,000 houses in cold blood looks
rather harsh, but if you begin by giving "a solemn guarantee to the
people that they will not have to suffer from the war" (General von
Emmich's first proclamation) and end by saying that women have emptied
buckets of boiling water on the heads of your soldiers and that children
have put out the eyes of your wounded, it becomes almost a kind
proceeding. In the same way, to seize and deport hundreds of thousands
of men and compel them to work in exile against their country seems the
act of Barbarians, but if you accumulate assurances that "normal
conditions will be maintained" and that nobody need fear deportation,
and if you end by declaring that the Belgian working classes are
exclusively composed of loafers and drunkards, it becomes a measure of
providence and wisdom for which your victims in particular, and the
whole civilised world in general, ought to be deeply grateful.
The promise testifies to your good intentions and the calumny explains
how you were regretfully obliged not to fulfill them. The promise keeps
your victims within reach, the calumnies shift to them the
responsibility for your crime. Who doubts that every town visited by a
Zeppelin is fortified, that every ship sunk by a U boat carries troops
or guns? The old Hun killed everything which stood in his way; the
modern Hun does the same and then declares that _he_ is the victim. The
old Hun left the dead bodies of his enemies to the crows; the modern Hun
throws mud at them. The old Hun tried to kill the body; the modern Hun
tries to ruin the soul.
* * * * *