systematically organised massacres of the civil population,
accompanied by many isolated murders and other outrages.
"(ii) That in the conduct of the war generally innocent civilians,
both men and women, were murdered in large numbers, women violated,
and children murdered.
"(iii) That looting, house burning, and the wanton destruction of
property were ordered and countenanced by the officers of the
German Army, that elaborate provision had been made for systematic
incendiarism at the very outbreak of the war, and that the burnings
and destruction were frequent where no military necessity could be
alleged, being indeed part of a system of general terrorisation.
"(iv) That the rules and usages of war were frequently broken,
particularly by the using of civilians, including women and
children, as a shield for advancing forces exposed to fire, to a
less degree by killing the wounded and prisoners, and in the
frequent abuse of the Red Cross and the White Flag.
"Sensible as they are of the gravity of these conclusions, the
Committee conceive that they would be doing less than their duty
if they failed to record them as fully established by the evidence.
Murder, lust, and pillage prevailed over many parts of Belgium on a
scale unparalleled in any war between civilised nations during the
last three centuries."
The Report makes it plain that apart from the first outbreak of outrages
intended to cow the Belgians into submission, fresh bursts of plunder
and rapine took place on specific occasions when the Germans suffered
defeat. Cowardly vengeance was thus wreaked on the innocent Belgian
civilians for the defeat of German arms. For example, on August 25,
1914, the Belgian Army, sallying out from Antwerp, drove the enemy from
Malines. The Germans promptly massacred and burnt at Louvain, "the
signal for which was provided by shots exchanged between the German Army
retreating after its repulse at Malines and some members of the German
garrison of Louvain, who mistook their fellow-countrymen for
Belgians."[109] Similarly when a successful sortie from Antwerp drove
the Germans from Aerschot, they retaliated by a blood-vendetta upon the
civil population.
The Germans have endeavoured to justify their brutal excesses by
bringing counter-charges against Belgian civilians. For instance, the
Chancellor of the German Empire, in a communication made to the press on
September 2, 1914, and printed in the _Nord Deutsche Allgemeine
Zeitung_, of September 21, said: "Belgian girls gouged out the eyes of
the German wounded. Officials of Belgian cities have invited our
officers to dinner, and shot and killed them across the table. Contrary
to all international law, the whole civilian population of Belgium was
called out, and after having at first shown friendliness carried on in
the rear of our troops terrible warfare with concealed weapons. Belgian
women cut the throats of soldiers whom they had quartered in their homes
while they were sleeping."
Upon this Lord Bryce's Committee make the comment: "No evidence whatever
seems to have been adduced to prove these tales."[110]
Of both individual and concerted acts of barbarity, the report
teems--for example:--[111]
"It is clearly shown that many offences were committed against
infants and quite young children. On one occasion children were
even roped together and used as a military screen against the
enemy, on another three soldiers went into action carrying small
children to protect themselves from flank fire. A shocking case of
the murder of a baby by a drunken soldier at Malines is thus
recorded by one eye-witness and confirmed by another:--
"'One day when the Germans were not actually bombarding the town I
left my house to go to my mother's house in High Street. My husband
was with me. I saw eight German soldiers, and they were drunk. They
were singing and making a lot of noise and dancing about. As the
German soldiers came along the street I saw a small child, whether
boy or girl I could not see, come out of a house. The child was
about two years of age. The child came into the middle of the
street so as to be in the way of the soldiers. The soldiers were
walking in twos. The first line of two passed the child; one of the
second line, the man on the left, stepped aside and drove his
bayonet with both hands into the child's stomach, lifting the child
into the air on his bayonet and carrying it away on his bayonet, he
and his comrades still singing. The child screamed when the soldier
struck it with his bayonet, but not afterwards.'"[112]
The following brief extracts of German atrocities are taken from
Official Reports issued by the Belgian Legation:--[113]
"On the evening of the 22nd" (August, at Tamines) "a group of
between 400 and 450 men was collected in front of the church, not
far from the bank of the Sambre. A German detachment opened fire on
them, but, as the shooting was a slow business, the officers
ordered up a machine gun, which soon swept off all the unhappy
peasants still left standing. Many of them were only wounded, and,
hoping to save their lives, got with difficulty on their feet
again. They were immediately shot down. Many wounded still lay
among the corpses," and some of these were bayoneted....
"Next day, Sunday, the 23rd, about 6 o'clock in the morning,
another party consisting of prisoners made in the village and the
neighbourhood were brought into the square, ... in the square was a
mass of bodies of civilians extending over at least 40 yards by 6
yards. They had evidently been drawn up and shot.... An officer
asked for volunteers to bury the corpses. Those who volunteered
were set to work and dug a trench 15 yards long, 10 broad and 2
deep. The corpses were carried to the trench on planks.... Actually
fathers buried the bodies of their sons, and sons the bodies of
their fathers.
"There were in the square both soldiers and officers. They were
drinking champagne. The more the afternoon drew on the more they
drank.... We buried from 350 to 400 bodies." ... A wounded man was
buried alive, a German doctor having apparently ordered his
interment....
"About 9 in the morning" (at Dinant, August 23) "the German
soldiery, driving before them by blows from the butt-end of rifles,
men, women, and children, pushed them all into the Parade Square,
where they were kept prisoners till 6 o'clock in the evening. The
guard took pleasure in repeating to them that they would soon be
shot. About 6 o'clock a captain separated the men from the women
and children. The women were placed in front of a rank of infantry
soldiers, the men were ranged along a wall. The front rank of them
were told to kneel, the others remaining standing behind them. A
platoon of soldiers drew up in face of these unhappy men. It was in
vain that the women cried out for mercy for their husbands, sons,
and brothers. The officer ordered his men to fire. There had been
no inquiry nor any pretence of a trial. About 20 of the inhabitants
were only wounded, but fell among the dead. The soldiers, to make
sure, fired a new volley into the heap of them. Several citizens
escaped this double discharge. They shammed dead for more than two
hours, remaining motionless among the corpses, and when night fell
succeeded in saving themselves in the hills. Eighty-four corpses
were left on the square and buried in a neighbouring garden."
"On Friday, August 21st, at 4 o'clock in the morning" (at Andenne,
between Namur and Huy) "the" (German) "soldiers spread themselves
through the town, driving all the population into the streets and
forcing men, women, and children to march before them with their
hands in the air. Those who did not obey with sufficient
promptitude, or did not understand the order given them in German,
were promptly knocked down. Those who tried to run away were shot.
It was at this moment that Dr. Camus" (the Burgomaster), "against
whom the Germans seemed to have some special spite, was wounded by
a rifle shot, and then finished off by a blow from an axe. His body
was dragged along by the feet for some distance....
"Subsequently the soldiers, on the order of their officers, picked
out of the mass some 40 or 50 men who were led off and all shot,
some along the bank of the Meuse, and others in front of the Police
Station.
"The rest of the men were kept for a long time in the Place. Among
them lay two persons, one of whom had received a ball in the chest,
and the other a bayonet wound. They lay face to the ground with
blood from their wounds trickling into the dust, occasionally
calling for water. The officers forbade their neighbours to give
them any help.... Both died in the course of the day.... In the
morning the officers told the women to withdraw, giving them the
order to gather together the dead bodies and to wash away the
stains of blood which defiled the street and the houses."
FOOTNOTES:
[109] Cd. 7894, p. 14.
[110] Cd. 7894, p. 26.
[111] Professor J. H. Morgan, Representative of the Home Office,
attached to the Headquarters Staff of the British Expeditionary Force,
states in a letter to the _Times_, dated May 20, 1915:--
" ... There has lately come into my hands--unfortunately too late
for use by the Committee--evidence which establishes beyond
reasonable doubt that the outrages upon combatants in the field are
committed by the orders of responsible officers, such as Brigade and
Company Commanders, and that British and Belgian soldiers are the
objects of peculiar malignancy.... _There is some evidence to show
that the East Prussian and Bavarian regiments are the worst
offenders. The French military authorities, who have been of great
assistance to me in my inquiries, informed me that they have now a
very considerable 'black list' of this character. When the time
comes to dictate terms of peace and to exact reparation that list
will be very useful...._ In the earlier stages of the war there was
a widespread disinclination on the part of our officers and men to
credit stories of 'atrocities.' Nothing has impressed me more than
the complete change of conviction on this point, especially among
our officers. As a Staff Officer of the highest eminence said to me
lately, 'The Germans have no sense of honour in the field.' Any
sense of the freemasonry of arms has practically disappeared among
them, and deliberate killing of the wounded is of frequent
occurrence."
[112] Cd. 7894. p. 32.
[113] The Commission chiefly responsible for these official Belgian
reports was composed of M. Cooreman, Minister of State (President);
Count Goblet d'Alviella, Minister of State and Vice-President of the
Senate; M. Ryckmans, Senator; M. Strauss, Alderman of the City of
Antwerp; M. Van Cutsem, Hon. President of the Law Court of Antwerp; and,
as Secretaries, Chevalier Ernst de Bunswyck, Chef du Cabinet of the
Minister of Justice, and M. Orts, Councillor of Legation.
APPENDIX D.
GERMANY'S EMPLOYMENT OF POISONOUS GAS.
The following is a copy of a Report dated May 3, 1915, by Field-Marshal
Sir John French on the employment by the Germans of poisonous gases as
weapons of warfare:--
"The gases employed have been ejected from pipes laid into the
trenches, and also produced by the explosion of shells especially
manufactured for the purpose. The German troops who attacked under
cover of these gases were provided with specially designed
respirators, which were issued in sealed pattern covers. This all
points to long and methodical preparation on a large scale.
"A week before the Germans first used this method they announced in
their official _communique_ that we were making use of asphyxiating
gases. At the time there appeared to be no reason for this
astounding falsehood, but now, of course, it is obvious that it was
part of the scheme. It is a further proof of the deliberate nature
of the introduction by the Germans of a new and illegal weapon, and
shows that they recognised its illegality and were anxious to
forestall neutral, and possibly domestic, criticism.
"Since the enemy first made use of this method of covering his
advance with a cloud of poisoned air he has repeated it both in
offence and defence whenever the wind has been favourable.
"The effect of this poison is not merely disabling, or even
painlessly fatal, as suggested in the German Press. Those of its
victims who do not succumb on the field, and who can be brought
into hospital, suffer acutely, and in a large proportion of cases
die a painful and lingering death. Those who survive are in little
better case, as the injury to their lungs appears to be of a
permanent character and reduces them to a condition which points to
their being invalids for life. These effects must be well known to
the German scientists who devised this new weapon and to the
military authorities who have sanctioned its use.
"I am of opinion that the enemy has definitely decided to use these
gases as a normal procedure, and that protests will be useless."
APPENDIX E.
EFFORTS OF GERMAN MINISTERS OF STATE TO LAY BLAME ON BRITAIN.
Since the war, both the German Imperial Chancellor, Herr von
Bethmann-Hollweg, and the German Foreign Secretary, Herr von Jagow, have
endeavoured to explain away the former's phrase: "a scrap of paper,"
which shocked the diplomatic conscience of the world. Both have
endeavoured to lay the blame for the conflict at Great Britain's
door.[114] The German Imperial Chancellor now declares that:--
"Documents on the Anglo-Belgian Military Agreement which ... we
have found in the archives of the Belgian Foreign Office ... showed
that England in 1911 was determined to throw troops into Belgium
without the consent of the Belgian Government."[115]
The true facts of the case are to be seen in the following extract from
the statement issued by the Belgian Minister in London, on March 17,
1915:--
"A month after the declaration of war the German Chancery
discovered at Brussels the reports of certain conversations which
had taken place in 1906 and in 1912 between two British Military
Attaches and two Chiefs of the Staff of the Belgian Army. In order
to transform these reports into documents which would justify
Germany's conduct it was necessary to garble them and to lie. Such
was the only way in which the German action against Belgium could
be made to appear decent.... Thus it came to pass that, with a
shamelessness for which history shows few parallels, the German
Chancery gave out that a 'Convention' had existed, by which Belgium
had betrayed her most sacred pledges and violated her own
neutrality for the benefit of England. To produce an impression on
those ignorant of the facts, 'German honesty' suppressed, when the
precis of the above-named conversations was published, the clause
in which it was set forth that the exchange of opinion therein
recorded _did reference only to the situation that would be created
if Belgian neutrality had already been violated_. The Belgian
Government gives to the allegations of the German Chancery the only
answer that they deserve--they are a tissue of lies, all the more
shameless because they are set forth by persons who claim to have
studied the original documents.
"But what are the documents which Germany produces in order to
prove Belgium guilty? They are two in number:--
"(1) The narrative of certain interviews which took place between
Lieutenant-General Ducarne and Colonel Barnardiston in 1906. In the
course of these interviews the British officer set forth his views
as to the way in which England could help Belgium _in case the
latter were attacked by Germany_. One phrase in the document
clearly proves that Colonel Barnardiston is dealing with a
hypothetical case--viz., 'the entry of English troops into Belgium
would only take place after a violation of Belgian neutrality by
Germany.' The translation in the _Norddeutsche Zeitung_ of November
25 _omits this clause_, the phrase which gives its exact scope and
significance to the document. Moreover, the photograph of General
Ducarne's report contains the words, 'The officer with whom I spoke
insists that our conversation has been absolutely confidential.'
For the word _conversation_ the _Norddeutsche Zeitung_ substitutes
the word 'convention.' Colonel Barnardiston is made to say that
'our convention' has been absolutely confidential![116]
"Such proceedings need no commentary.
"(2) The second document is the report of a conversation on the
same subject in April, 1912, between Lieutenant-General Jungbluth
and Lieutenant-Colonel Bridges. In the course of the conversation
the former observed to the latter that 'any English intervention in
favour of Belgium, if she were the victim of German aggression,
could only take place with our consent.' The British Military
Attache raised the point that England might perhaps exercise her
rights and duties, as one of the Powers guaranteeing Belgium,
without waiting for the appeal to be made to her. This was Colonel
Bridges' personal opinion only. The British Government has always
held, as did the Belgian Government, that the consent of the latter
was a necessary preliminary.
"The Belgian Government declares on its honour that not only was no
'Convention' ever made, but also that neither of the two
Governments ever made any advances or propositions concerning the
conclusion of any such convention. Moreover, the Minister of Great
Britain at Brussels, who alone could contract engagements in her
behalf, never intervened in these conversations. And the whole
Belgian Ministry are ready to pledge themselves on oath that no
conclusions arising from these conversations were ever brought
before the Cabinet, or even laid before one single member of it.
The documents which the Germans discovered give evidence of all
this. Their meaning is perfectly clear provided that no part of
them is either garbled or suppressed.
"In face of calumnies repeated again and again, our Government,
faithfully reflecting Belgian uprightness, considers that it is its
duty to inflict once more on the spoiler of Belgium the brand of
infamy--his only legitimate reward. It also takes the opportunity
of declaring, in answer to allegations whose malevolence is
obvious, that:--
"(1) Before the declaration of war no French force, even of the
smallest size, had entered Belgium.
"(2) Not only did Belgium never refuse an offer of military help
offered by one of the guaranteeing Powers, but after the
declaration of war she earnestly solicited the protection of her
guarantors.
"(3) When undertaking, as was her duty, the vigorous defence of her
fortresses, Belgium asked for, and received with gratitude, such
help as her guarantors were able to place at her disposition for
that defence.
"Belgium the victim of her own loyalty, will not bow her head
before any Power. Her honour defies the assaults of falsehood. She
has faith in the justice of the world. On the day of judgment the
triumph belongs to the people who have sacrificed everything to
serve conscientiously the cause of Truth, Right, and Honour."
In the foregoing connection, the following extract from a statement
authorised by Sir Edward Grey on January 26, 1915, is of interest:--
"As regards the conversation ... the Belgian officer said to the
British: 'You could only land in our country with our consent,' and
in 1913 Sir Edward Grey gave the Belgian Government a categorical
assurance that no British Government would violate the neutrality
of Belgium; and that 'so long as it was not violated by any other
Power we should certainly not send troops ourselves into their
territory.'
"The Chancellor's method of misusing documents may be illustrated
in this connection. He represents Sir Edward Grey as saying 'he did
not believe England would take such a step, because he did not
think English public opinion would justify such action.' What Sir
Edward Grey actually wrote was:--'I said that I was sure that this
Government would not be the first to violate the neutrality of
Belgium, and I did not believe that any British Government would be
the first to do so, nor would public opinion here ever approve of
it.'
"If the German Chancellor wishes to know why there were
conversations on military subjects between British and Belgian
officers, he may find one reason in a fact well known to him,
namely, that Germany was establishing an elaborate network of
strategical railways, leading from the Rhine to the Belgian
frontier, through a barren, thinly-populated tract--railways
deliberately constructed to permit of a sudden attack upon Belgium,
such as was carried out in August last. This fact alone was enough
to justify any communications between Belgium and other Powers on
the footing that there would be no violation of Belgian neutrality
unless it were previously violated by another Power...."
FOOTNOTES:
[114] Interview with Herr von Jagow, by the _New York World_, March 28,
1915; interview with Herr von Bethmann-Hollweg, by the Associated Press,
in New York papers, January 25, 1915.
[115] No such "conversations" took place in 1911. A passing reference
only to the Morocco situation of 1911 was made in the 1912
"conversations." This appears to be the German Chancellor's sole
foundation for his assertion. Cd. 7860, p. 360.
[116] In a letter to the _Morning Post_ of February 8, 1915, Mr. A.
Hamon, Professor de l'Universite, Nouville de Bruxelles, writes:--
"In October and November last (13th and 24th) the _Norddeutsche
Allgemeine Zeitung_ published the documents seized by the Germans
in the Belgian archives. The German Government then published a
Dutch edition of these documents, accompanied by a photographic
reproduction of the said documents. The pamphlet bears the name of
R. W. E. Wijnmalen as publisher, in the town of Den Haag (The
Hague). On the photographic document we read in the margin: 'The
entry of the English into Belgium would only take place after the
violation of our neutrality by Germany.' Now, this extremely
important note is omitted in the Dutch translation. It was also
omitted in the German translation. This is a falsification through
omission, a very serious falsification, as it modified the meaning
of the document.
"But we have worse still. On the top of page 2 of General Ducarne's
letter to the Minister, he says: 'My interlocutor insisted on this
fact that "our conversation was quite confidential...."' In the
Dutch translation, instead of 'conversation,' there is 'convention'
(overeenkomst)! The mistake is great and cannot be but purposely
made. The German Government thus changes into a convention, that is
to say, an agreement, what is but a simple conversation."
APPENDIX F.
LIST OF PARLIAMENTARY PUBLICATIONS RESPECTING THE WAR.
Correspondence respecting the European Crisis. Misc. No. 6 (1914).
Rupture of Diplomatic Relations with the German Government. Despatch
from His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin. Misc. No. 8 (1914).
German Organisation for Influencing the Press of other Countries.
Despatches from His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin. Misc. No. 9 (1914).
Rupture of Diplomatic Relations with the Austro-Hungarian Government.
Despatch from His Majesty's Ambassador at Vienna. Misc. 10 (1914).
Documents respecting Negotiations preceding the War published by the
Russian Government. Misc. No. 11 (1914).
Papers relating to the Support offered by the Princes and Peoples of
India to His Majesty in connection with the War. (I.O. paper.)
Diplomatic Correspondence respecting the War published by the Belgian
Government. Misc. No. 12 (1914).
Correspondence respecting Events leading to the Rupture of Relations
with Turkey. Misc. No. 13 (1914).
Despatch from His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople summarising
Events leading up to Rupture of Relations with Turkey and Reply. Misc.
No. 14 (1914).
Diplomatic Correspondence respecting the War published by the French
Government. Misc. No. 15 (1914).
Despatch to Sir H. Howard containing instruction respecting his Mission
to the Vatican. Misc. No. 1 (1914).
Temperance Measures adopted in Russia since the outbreak of the War.
Despatch from Petrograd enclosing Memo. Misc. No. 2 (1915).