In many quarters of the world, especially in certain sections of
the British public, people believed that the German nation was led
blindly into the World War by an unscrupulous military clique. Now,
however, there is ample evidence to prove that the entire nation
was thoroughly well informed of the course which events were
taking, and also warned as to the catastrophe to which the national
course was certainly leading.

Even to-day, after more than twelve months of devastating
warfare, there is no unity of opinion in Germany as to who caused
the war. Some writers accuse France, others England, while many lay
the guilt at Russia’s door. They are only unanimous in charging one
or other, or all the powers, of the Triple Entente. We shall see
that every power now at war, with the exception of Germany and
Italy, has been held responsible for Armageddon, but apparently it
has not yet occurred to Germans that the bearer of guilt for this
year’s bloodshed—is Germany alone!

It is true that the conflict between Austria and Serbia forms
the starting point. Whether or not Serbia was seriously in the
wrong is a matter of opinion, but it is generally held that Austria
dealt with her neighbour with too much heat and too little
discretion. Austria kindled the flames of war, but it was Germany’s
mission to seize a blazing torch and set Europe alight.

When the text of Austria’s ultimatum became known, a very
serious mood came over Germany. There was not a man who did not
realize that a great European War loomed on the horizon. A
well-organized, healthy public opinion could at that period have
brought the governments of the Germanic Powers to recognize their
responsibility. Had the German Press been unanimous, it might have
stopped the avalanche. But there were two currents of opinion, the
one approving, the other condemning Austria for having thrown down
the gauntlet to Serbia and above all to Russia.

One paper exulted over the statement that every sentence in
Austria’s ultimatum “was a whip-lash across Serbia’s face;” a
phrase expressing so aptly the great mass of popular opinion. This
expression met with unstinted approval, for it corresponded with
German ideals and standards in dealing with an opponent. Yet there
was no lack of warnings, and very grave ones too. A glance at
German newspapers will suffice to prove this statement.

On July 24th, 1914, Krupp’s organ, the
Rheinisch-Westfälische Zeitung, contained the
following: “The Austro-Hungarian ultimatum is nothing but a pretext
for war, but this time a dangerous one. It seems that we are
standing on the verge of an Austro-Serbian war. It is possible,
very possible, that we shall have to extinguish East-European
conflagrations with our arms, either because of our treaties or
from the compulsion of events. But it is a scandal if the Imperial
Government (Berlin) has not required that such a final offer should
be submitted to it for approval before its presentation to Serbia.
To-day nothing remains for us but to declare: ‘We are not bound by
any alliance to support wars let loose by the Hapsburg policy of
conquest.'”

The Post wrote on the same date: “Is that a note? No! it
is an ultimatum of the sharpest kind. Within twenty-four hours
Austria demands an answer. A reply? No! but an absolute submission,
the utter and complete humiliation of Serbia. On former occasions
we have (and with justice) made fun of Austria’s lack of energy.
Now we have a proof of energy which terrifies us. This ‘note’
represents about the very uttermost which can be said to any
government, and such things are only said when the sender of the
‘note’ has absolutely determined upon war.”

The principal organ of Germany’s largest political party, the
Social Democrats, contained a still more emphatic protest on July
25th. A telegram from the Belgrade correspondent of the
Vorwärts runs: “Since the presentation of Austria’s
note, public opinion has become exceedingly serious, although the
city is still very calm. The general view held is that Austria’s
ultimatum is unacceptable for a sovereign State. In Belgrade no one
doubts that Russia will stand by Serbia. Everyone is certain that
in consequence of Austria’s excessively sharp tone, Russia will not
remain inactive should Austria resort to armed force. The populace
is prepared for war.”

In view of the subsequent attitude of Germany’s Social
Democrats, an official proclamation, published in all their
seventy-seven daily papers on July 25th, is of supreme importance.
At that date they had apparently no doubt whatever as to the guilty
party. The change of front in the Reichstag on August 4th would
seem in the light of this proclamation, as nothing other than a
betrayal of conscience. Further, the split which has arisen in
their ranks during the war leads to the supposition that
Liebknecht, Kautsky and Bernstein have been troubled by the inward
voice.

This is the full text of the proclamation as it appeared in the
Vorwärts:

“An Appeal! The Balkan plains are still
steaming with the blood of thousands of murdered; the ruins of
desolate towns and devastated villages are still smoking after the
Balkan War; hungry, workless men, widowed women and orphan children
are still wandering through the land, and yet again Austria’s
Imperialism unchains the War Fury to bring death and destruction
over all Europe.

“Even if we condemn the doings of the
Greater-Serbian Nationalists, still the wicked war-provocation of
the Austro-Hungarian Government calls forth the most stinging
protest. The demands made by this government are so brutal, that in
the history of the world their like has never been presented to an
independent State, and they can only be calculated to provoke
war.

“Germany’s proletariat, conscious of its
mission, raises herewith, in the name of humanity and civilization,
the most fervent protest against this criminal action of the war
party (Kriegshetzer). It (the Social Democratic Party)
demands imperatively that the German Government should exercise all
its influence on the Austrian Government to preserve peace, and in
case this infamous war cannot be prevented then to abstain from any
warlike interference. No single drop of blood of a single German
soldier may be sacrificed to gratify the lust for power of the
Austrian autocracy, the Imperial profit-interests.

“Comrades! we call upon you to give
expression to the working-classes’ unshakable will for peace in
mass meetings. This is a serious moment, more solemn than any in
the last few decades. There is danger in delay. A world war
threatens us. The ruling classes who enslave, despise and exploit
you in times of peace desire now to misuse you as cannon-fodder.
From all sides the cry must ring in the ears of those in authority:
We don’t want war! Down with war!

“Long live international brotherhood!

“Berlin, July 25th, 1914.

“The Leaders of the Party.”

Two days later the Leipziger Tageblatt announced that the
Public Prosecutor had commenced proceedings against the editors of
Vorwärts for having distributed the above appeal in
pamphlet form in the streets of Berlin. From this fact we may
conclude that the charges thrown out by the Social Democratic Party
were by no means congenial to the plans of the German
Government.

The Liberal Berliner Tageblatt (July 24th), gave its
unreserved support to Austria’s action. “The Austrian Government
has voiced its demands in a calm and serious tone which contains
nothing offensive to the Serbian monarchy. Everyone who has
considered the results of the inquiry into the tragedy of Serajewo,
and the burrowing of Serbian propagandists in Austria, must give
his absolute sanction to the latter’s demands. Much as every
right-thinking man must desire that peace should be preserved,
still he must admit that Austria could not have acted
otherwise.”

Even the Vossische Zeitung, the organ of army circles,
was more conservative in its judgment. In the issue for July 24th a
leading article runs: “It cannot be denied that nearly every point
raised by Austria in her note is an encroachment on Serbia’s
sovereign rights. Austria appears as the policeman, who undertakes
to create order in Serbia, because the Serbian Government,
according to Austria’s claim, is unable to hold in check those
‘subversive elements’ within its frontiers, which disturb Austria’s
peace. But only in this manner can Austria protect herself against
the criminals who are sent from Serbia to the territories of the
Hapsburg monarchy. No consideration whatever can be shown to
Serbia, as Austria’s first duty is self-defence.”

In the German Press two widely-differing opinions found
expression with regard to the equity of Austria’s demands, but the
Press and people were unanimous in believing that if these demands
were ruthlessly pressed home they could only lead to a European
conflagration.

In view of this latter danger, national opinion was again
divided into two camps: the first against war, the second
determined to support Austria and pursue the path chosen by the
Berlin Government, no matter what the consequences might be. The
latter party included the vast bulk of the nation; and Chauvinism
dominated in the Press, theatres, concert-halls, churches and
music-halls. “Patriotic” demonstrations were held before Austrian
consulates, in restaurants and coffee-houses. The Berlin Government
was overwhelmed with telegrams from all kinds of
bodies—especially those with a military colouring, such as
veterans’ clubs, societies of one-year volunteers, university
societies, etc.—calling upon it to defend Germany’s honour
against Slavonic murder and intrigue. In short, all Germany gave
itself up to a veritable Kriegsrausch (war intoxication)
which found expression in the wildest attacks on Russia and a
perfervid determination to see the matter through, should Russia
venture to intervene in any way to protect Serbia from whatever
measures Austria thought proper to take.

It is little to be wondered at that Russia in face of this
spontaneous outbreak did take military precautions, for all Germany
made it perfectly clear that no kind of intervention on Russia’s
part in the Austro-Serbian dispute would be tolerated by Germany.
It is true that, late in the day, Austria avowed that she had no
intention of annexing Serbian territory, a declaration which
Germans did not believe, and certainly one which Russia had no
reason to accept after Austria’s annexion of Bosnia and Herzegowina
in 1908.

Furthermore, Austria gave Russia every reason to cherish
suspicion as to her intentions. On July 25th Austria issued
official orders for the mobilization of eight of her sixteen army
corps, in addition to which a part of the Landsturm was
called up. The corps mobilized were: one each in Upper and Lower
Austria, Dalmatia, Buda-Pest, Croatia and Bosnia and two Bohemian
corps. Three-eighths of the forces called up were thus placed very
near to the Russian frontier.

Vienna was wild with war-enthusiasm which found expression in
demonstrations lasting all through the night, July 25-26th.
Austrian officers, who have always been hated by the populace, were
cheered, embraced and carried shoulder-high wherever they were met.
The effect which this had in Berlin may be seen from the
Berliner Tageblatt of July 26th: “An enormous mass of people
gathered before the Russian Embassy last night between the hours of
twelve and one. The crowd howled and hissed, and cries were raised:
‘Down with Russia! Long live Austria! Down with Serbia!’ Gradually
the police cleared the masses away.”

Russia ignored the incident, but when about a hundred Frenchmen
demonstrated before the Austrian Embassy in Paris at exactly the
same time, the Ambassador at once protested at the Quai d’Orsay and
the Director of the French Foreign Office immediately
apologized.

On the whole the reports of excesses in various parts of Germany
against any and all who dared to show any anti-war sympathies
proves clearly that the blood-lust aroused by the German
Government’s policy had already passed beyond the control of the
authorities. In Munich one of the most modern coffee-houses
(Café Fahrig) was completely gutted because the proprietor
endeavoured to keep the demonstrants within reasonable bounds.
Serbs and Russians were attacked and ill-treated. One such incident
occurred at mid-day, Sunday, July 26th, in Munich, of which a full
description is given in the München-Augsburger
Abendzeitung for the following day.

A few days later (August 2nd) the Princess Café, Berlin,
was demolished because the guests believed that there were Russians
in the band. In Hamburg on the following day a newly-opened
restaurant was completely destroyed because a young Dane had failed
to stand up when the national hymn was being played. “Yesterday a
young Dane remained sitting during the singing of the national
hymn, for which reason the persons in the hall became greatly
excited. ‘Russian, stand up!’ was shouted to him. In the same
moment blows began to rain down upon him, so that, streaming with
blood, he was carried out.” (Berliner Zeitung am Mittag,
August 4th.)

These are only a selection of many such incidents which show
that the national brutishness was appearing through the veneer. In
the light of such events where, on German soil, Germans murderously
attacked their fellow-countrymen on such ridiculous pretexts, it
requires little imagination to explain the outburst of brutality
against Belgians who dared to defend hearth and home.

Meanwhile the smaller party which desired peace had not been
entirely idle. On July 28th the Social Democrats held thirty-two
mass meetings in Berlin to protest against war. “The attendance was
in every case enormous, but the meetings were all orderly and calm.
The police had taken extensive precautionary measures. The speakers
were mostly members of the Reichstag or the Berlin Town Council.
Throughout they were guilty of the most fiery and tactless attacks
on Austria, to whom alone they ascribed the guilt for the
warlike developments. Each meeting adopted a resolution against
war. The chief of police had forbidden all processions or
demonstrations to take place after the day before. In spite of
this, many of the Socialists who had attended these meetings tried
to form processions, especially in Unter den Linden. As large
bodies of troops had closed the streets, small parties of the
Socialists managed to reach the Linden by means of trams and
omnibuses. At about 10 p.m. hisses and cries of ‘Down with the war
party!’ were heard before the Café Kranzler. In a moment the
number of Democrats swelled to large proportions and the workmen’s
Marseillaise was struck up, followed by a short, sharp order. The
mounted police advanced with drawn swords against the rioters; the
air was filled with shouts and cries of Pfui! (Shame!). On
the other side of the road the crowd sang the national hymn. The
masses clashed together, and the police advanced again and again
till the street was cleared. At the corner, however, the Socialists
formed up again, and began to demonstrate anew, so that the police
were compelled to attack them without any consideration in order to
preserve the peace. They cleared the pavements and galloped up the
promenade. Again the cry echoed ‘Down with war!’ and as answer came
‘die Wacht am Rhein.’ But it was some considerable time before the
struggle ceased to surge to and fro.” (München-Augsburger
Abendzeitung, July 29th.)

Thus the great Socialist-International-Pacifist movement, with
four and a quarter million German voters behind it, fizzled out on
the pavements of Unter den Linden. Probably there were
demonstrations in other parts of Germany, but this much is certain,
that the members of Catholic and Protestant
Arbeiterverbände (Workmen’s Societies) held meetings
and demonstrated in favour of war. On the other hand the Women’s
Union of the German Peace Society in Stuttgart sent a telegram to
the Kaiser, begging him in the name of “millions of German mothers”
to preserve the peace.

The most interesting protest against the war movement is
undoubtedly the following: “This, then, is the cultural height to
which we have attained. Hundreds of thousands of the healthiest,
finest, most valuable forces in the nation are trembling from
anxiety that chance, or a nod of Europe’s rulers, malevolence, or a
fit of Sadism, a Caesar-madness or a business speculation, an empty
word or a vague conception of honour, will drive them to-morrow out
of their homes, from wife and child, from all that which they
treasure and have built up with so much pain and trouble—into
death. The mad coincidence may arise to-day, may call them
to-morrow, or at any minute, and all, all of them will
go—obeying damnable necessity, but still obeying. At first
they will whine on seeing their bit of earthly happiness snatched
away, but soon, however—although their consciences may not be
quite clean—they will be possessed by the general frenzy to
murder and be murdered.” Franz Pfemfert in die Aktion.

Although this article appeared on August 1st, it had evidently
been written before the proclamation of martial law. It was one of
the last political articles which the paper published, for the next
number but one contains the announcement that “the Aktion
will in future only publish articles on art and literature.” The
reasons are not far to seek.

In justice to the pacifist elements it must be stated that they
were up against bayonets. The only pity is that British public
opinion, or any section of it, had been led to believe that it
could ever have been otherwise. Austria had committed an
unpardonable act of provocation, which at first reasonable opinion
in Germany openly condemned. Simultaneously the German Government
set in motion an avalanche of racial feeling to play off against
the just and moderate measures taken by other powers to checkmate
Austrian aggression. In addition to the racial hostility, which had
been lashed into bitterness during the spring of 1914, came
Germany’s morbid conception of national and personal honour. Lastly
the fear of a Russian invasion was astutely inoculated into the
nation.

It is the author’s firm conviction, and the military events in
Poland and Galicia have only strengthened this opinion, that from
the very beginning Germany could have prevented any Russian
invasion of her territory, but she did not desire that end, but
rather that the fear of Russia should complete the “Kriegsrausch”
of the German nation. After frightening the people the Berlin
Government struck its blow in the direction of their political
ambitions—to the West, and after the Russians had been
allowed to penetrate German territories they were hurled over the
Eastern frontiers at the end of August. While the Kaiser was
sending peaceful telegrams to Petrograd and Vienna, the Press was
full of horrible pictures of Cossack barbarism and the dread
terrors of the Russian knout, both of which—the public was
led to believe—were about to strike Germany.

In this manner the Kaiser and his advisers created a national
psychology which left open only two alternatives: the absolute
humiliation of Russia and the consequent hegemony of Germany in
Europe—or war.

CHAPTER II

ON THE LEASH

Russia gave the world to understand by an official declaration,
issued on Friday, July 24th, 1914, that she was not an indifferent,
but a keenly interested spectator to the Austro-Serbian conflict.
On the following day Russia’s declaration was published in almost
the entire German Press, and from that moment the same Press was
flooded with all kinds of attacks directed against the Eastern
neighbour. Russia was frankly told to mind her own
business—the quarrel did not concern her.

The German public immediately accepted this point of view, so
that every subsequent move on Russia’s part appeared in the light
of an unwarrantable offensive. Undoubtedly the Bismarckian tactics
of publishing inspired articles in all parts of Germany were
employed, and their colouring left no doubt on the public mind that
the much-talked-of Slavonic danger had assumed an acute form.

A request on Russia’s part, made on July 25th, that the space of
time (forty-eight hours) allowed to Serbia for an answer should be
extended, only increased popular irritation in the Germanic
Empires. This irritation was accompanied by an unmistakable
bellicose spirit which called forth its natural counterpart in
Petrograd.

Nevertheless the fact remains that up till July 25th Russia had
only asked for time, and the reply given by the Berlin mob (?)
during the following night, was echoed throughout Germany. The view
that Russia had no right to interest herself on behalf of Serbia
(passing over Russia’s right to preserve the newly-established
balance of power in the Balkans) is untenable. If Canada had a
quarrel—just or unjust—with the United States, it would
be ridiculous to assert that England had no right to intervene.

This was, however, not the first occasion on which Germany had
advanced so preposterous a claim. During the tariff conflict
between Germany and Canada some years ago, a wave of indignant
anger went over the whole Fatherland, because England ventured to
interfere.

In any case, during the last week before war broke out, the
German Government succeeded in imposing upon public opinion the
feeling that the quarrel was a racial one; together with the
conviction that Russia was interfering in order to protect a band
of murderers from just punishment, and had neither rights nor
interests at stake in the quarrel. This conspiracy succeeded, but
the whole German nation must still be held responsible for the
outbreak of war, because, as has been shown in the preceding
chapter, the nation had already been warned by newspapers of
various political parties. They had been plainly told that Austria
had exceeded the limits of all diplomatic dealings between two
sovereign States, and that Austria’s provocation could easily
kindle a world war.

Warnings and truths were alike forgotten, and the voices which
uttered them were now raising another hue and cry.[1] Racial hatred was ablaze; the warlike instincts of
a military people were calling for action, and a diseased
conception of national honour was asking why Berlin did not act
against the Russian barbarians. In one paper the author remembers
reading a violent demand for action against Russia before the
national ardour had time to cool down.

[Footnote 1: The last
mention of Austria as the guilty party is the account of the Social
Democratic demonstrations in Berlin on July 28th; reported in the
papers of the following day.]

On July 26th Austrian mobilization was in full swing, and Russia
admittedly took precautions of a similar nature soon after that
date. We may be sure that Russia understands her neighbours better
than the inhabitants of the British Isles understand them. In 1909
she had suffered a severe diplomatic defeat and corresponding loss
of prestige, because she could only use words in dealing with
Germany and Austria.[2] Now she was faced
with the alternative of withdrawing from her declared attitude
(July 24th) or taking measures of a military character. In order
not to sacrifice her position as a European power and her special
position as the leader of the Slavonic peoples, Russia chose the
latter course, the only honourable one open to her. German papers
and public speakers retorted that Russia is the patron and
protector of assassins—a calculated distortion of the facts
intended to have due effect on public opinion. On all sides it was
said that Russia had given Serbia secret assurances of help which
caused her to become stiff-backed and unrepentant. Fortunately, it
is possible to refute the accusation through the pen of a German
journalist, who described Belgrade’s desperate position on July
25th, the day when the ultimatum expired.

[Footnote 2: “The
interests of Russian and German imperialism have continually
clashed during the last ten years, and more than once Russia has
had to beat a retreat before Germany’s threats.” Dr. Paul Lensch,
member of the Reichstag, in his “German Social Democracy and the
World War,” p. 35. Published by “Vorwärts Co.” Berlin,
1915.]

“At last the inhabitants of Belgrade have become aware of their
serious situation. ‘We are lost! Russia has left us in the lurch!’
is being shouted in the streets. Journalists, who at 2.30 p.m. had
assured me that Russia had intervened in Vienna with success,
succumbed now to the general depression. The people believe that
they have been betrayed and sold; rumours of assassination pass
from mouth to mouth. The ministerial council has been characterized
by violent recriminations, ending in blows. Others asserted that
the Crown Prince Alexander had been stabbed by a leader of the
war-party. Another whispers that King Peter is dying from an
apoplectic fit or as the result of an attentat. The reports
become wilder, and each increases the dread of some unutterable,
imminent catastrophe.

“The streets are crowded with terror-stricken citizens. Curses
resound on all sides. Certainly a most unusual struggle is going on
between the two parties for peace and war. Shortly after three
o’clock it seems to be settled that Austria’s demands will be
fulfilled. It is true the mobilization decree has been posted up on
all public buildings, but that means nothing. We still have nearly
three hours in which all can be righted. How will this
gallows-respite be employed?

“It is four o’clock. Messengers rush from one Embassy to the
other. In the coffee-houses the rumour goes round: ‘Italy is our
saviour in distress.’ Cries of ‘shame!’ against Russia are raised,
while the ‘vivas!’ for Italy sound louder and louder. The
crowd marches to the Italian Embassy, but are received with long
and astonished faces. No! there is nothing to hope for from Italy.
Next they go to the French Embassy; now there are about two
thousand of us. Another disappointment! A young diplomat receives
the thronging masses and talks empty nothings, including a great
deal about France’s sympathy for Serbia. But in this dark hour
sympathy is of no avail. Downcast and silent, the people go next to
the representative of Albion—who declines to appear.

“The confusion in the minds of the masses caused by the
Government’s indecision increases from minute to minute;
indescribable scenes are witnessed before the General Post Office.
It is alleged that thousands and thousands of telegrams have
arrived from Russia, begging the members of Serbia’s royal family
not to give way to Austria. It may easily be possible that the
Russian telegrams all emanate from one person and have been forged,
in order to counteract the disposition to yield on the part of the
royal family. Without doubt both the King and Crown Prince have
lost all personal influence on the final decision. They are being
slowly carried along by the conflagration-party which obtained the
upper hand soon after four o’clock.”[3]

[Footnote 3:
München-Augsburger Abendzeitung, July 28th.]

This picture gives no support to Germany’s accusation that
Russia had stiffened Serbia into resisting Austria’s unacceptable
demands. It rather leads one to consider that an action which
drives a weak nation to arrive at a decision on so awful an issue
in so short a time, is an action discreditable to a stronger, and
impossible on the part of a morally great, power. If Serbia chose
wrongly in refusing to bite the dust, then the guilt is still
chargeable to Austria for forcing her little neighbour to take a
choice in haste. Sir Edward Grey emphasized in his speech of July
27th the shortness of the time which all the Powers had had at
their disposal to formulate a plan, by which the conflict could be
restricted to the East, or amicably settled.

The leaders of the Germanic States had purposely willed it so.
Several unsuccessful attempts had been made to break up the Triple
Entente, the only barrier to the Germanization, i.e.,
Prussianization, of Europe, and in the tragedy of Serajewo the
Central Powers (or, at least, the dominating factor of the two)
believed they had found a lever with which to break down the
opposition by diplomacy. If that failed an immediate appeal to the
sword should follow. The diplomatic forty-eight hours’
coup-de-main failed, and the programme contained no other
item except war. In a few words this means that the dastardly crime
of Princip and his fellow conspirators was exploited by Germany,
acting through Austria, to disturb the European balance of power
under the guise of a just vengeance.

Sir Edward Grey formulated and circulated his conference
proposal on the next day, July 26th. Some persons to whom I spoke
at the time welcomed the idea; they belonged principally to the
lower middle classes. One well-known Pan-Germanist (Dr. Beckmann,
professor of history in Erlangen University) said that the proposal
was an admission of a diplomatic defeat and a sign that the Entente
Powers were afraid to draw the sword. If the three Powers in
question were prepared to pocket this smack in the face, then
Germany would be satisfied, because such a defeat would mean that
the Triple Entente would never be able to work together again.

It is interesting to compare with this opinion those of two
leading newspapers:

(1.) “We understand that the German Government is not absolutely
hostile to England’s endeavours to bring about a mediation between
the contending Powers by those not directly interested in the
conflict. But the German Government makes its participation in the
mediation dependent upon whether Austria-Hungary would accept this
procedure, and in which respect Austria wishes the mediation to
follow. The German Government cannot support any action which
Austria-Hungary does not desire, as that would mean exercising
pressure.

“From Sir Edward Grey’s declaration in the House of Commons it
is clear that he was not thinking of mediation between Austria and
Serbia, but between Austria and Russia. This shade of meaning
requires attention. We think that any attempt at mediation between
Austria and Serbia would have no prospect of success, because in
Vienna they do not seem inclined to accept such an action.
Diplomatic relations have not been broken off; the Russian Minister
for Foreign Affairs confers still with the Austrian Ambassador, and
it is not easy to see why the other Powers Should not further this
discussion in a mediative sense.

“But then Sir Edward Grey gave his idea more exact form and
proposed a conference between the German, Italian and French
ambassadors and himself. This conference of ambassadors is to seek
a basis for an agreement and then submit the result to the cabinets
in Vienna and St. Petersburg. In his yesterday’s speech he
emphasized the point that no hostilities may take place till the
conference has concluded its work.

“Here, of course, is the difficulty which mars his plan, for it
is questionable whether Austria will consent to a postponement of
her military operations. Negotiations concerning Sir Edward Grey’s
proposal are at present occupying the cabinets, and it is to be
hoped that a means will be found to make it acceptable to the
Powers most interested in the conflict.”[4]

[Footnote 4:
Berliner Tagtblatt, July 28th.]

(2.) “Germany not only cherishes, in a platonic manner, the
desire of the Western Powers to prevent the conflict between
Austria and Serbia spreading to the great Powers, but the Berlin
cabinet has already been active in more than one European capital
in favour of a mediation which will secure European peace. In this
respect we are pleased (Man begrüsst es hier) that, in
consequence of Sir Edward Grey’s initiative, the mediation idea has
assumed an official form and is open for public discussion. There
is, however, reason to doubt whether a conference between four
great Powers as an organ for the mediation is the most suitable way
out of the difficulty. Everyone is quite agreed that the details of
the Austro-Serbian conflict, which concerns these two States alone,
cannot be brought before the forum of a conference; but as regards
the removal in good time of any difficulties which may arise
between Austria and Russia, the question must be raised as to
whether the Governments of these States are willing to entrust an
official mediation to a conference of four other great Powers. For
the success of the mediation proposal it would be more practical if
the means to this end were made as simple as possible, and that use
was made of the current diplomatic discussions, in immediate
communication with the capitals of the Empires in question, in
order to carry through a mediatory action to the result desired on
all sides.

“In the employment of these means Germany would not fail to
support the Western Powers as she has already done up to the
present.”[5]

[Footnote 5:
Kölnische Zeitung, July 28th.]

I have carefully searched the official publications of the
Central Powers (Germany’s White Book; Austria’s Orange Book), and
can find no record in them of any pacific action on Germany’s part
in either of the European capitals; hence the claims made in the
above article seem to be an exaggeration.

It appears incredible that these Powers should have omitted to
give proof of such action when making their case public for the
sole purpose of proving their innocence before the world. On the
other hand, the impression given by these books is that Germany and
Austria’s attitude was:

To SERBIA: The conditions must be accepted ad hoc to the
smallest tittle and comma. Alternative, war.

To RUSSIA: What we have determined upon is unalterable and
inevitable, and you must submit to this decision. Alternative,
war.

The Görlitzer Nachrichten published the following
paragraph on July 30th: “Vienna, July 29th. After having made
inquiries in official circles, the morning papers make this
announcement: Count Berchtold has informed the English Ambassador
that the Austro-Hungarian Government is grateful for Grey’s
mediation proposal, and appreciates the good intentions of the
British Government. A peaceful solution of the conflict with Serbia
is, however, no longer possible, as the declaration of war had
already been signed.”

Before leaving this all-important episode, it is instructive to
compare three other versions of the reason for refusing a
conference. Sir Edward Grey mooted the proposal for a conference to
the ambassadors in London on Friday, July 24th. On the afternoon he
requested the British Ambassador in Berlin to propose the
conference to the German Government.

In spite of this, document No. 12 in the German White Book, a
telegram from the German Chancellor to Prince Lichnowsky in London
runs: “We know nothing here of a proposal from Sir Edward Grey to
hold a conference of four in London, etc.” Another telegram,
document No. 15, bearing the same date and likewise from
Bethmann-Hollweg to Lichnowsky is as follows: “We have immediately
commenced the mediatory action in Vienna in the sense desired by
Sir Edward Grey. Furthermore, we have informed Count Berchtold of
M. Sasonow’s desire to communicate with him direct.”[6]

[Footnote 6: This
message leads to the assumption that direct communications between
Vienna and Petrograd had already ceased, although the
Kölnische Zeitung told the German public on the
following day that they had not.]

The next document in the German White Book is dated July 28th.
It is a telegram from the German Ambassador in Vienna to the German
Chancellor in Berlin. “Count Berchtold begs me to express his
thanks to you for communicating the English mediation proposal. He
replies, however, that in consequence of the commencement of
hostilities by Serbia and after the declaration of war which has
meanwhile been made he must look upon England’s step as being too
late.”

In the Austrian Orange Book, p. 122, we find this passage in a
telegram from Count Berchtold to the Austrian representative in
London: “When Sir Edward Grey speaks of the possibility of avoiding
an outbreak of hostilities he is too late, for yesterday Serbians
shot at our frontier guards, and to-day we have declared war on
Serbia.”

There are two points in these telegrams which require
explanation. Firstly, why should Sir Edward Grey’s proposal take so
long to reach Vienna. Apparently it took from Monday to Wednesday
to go by telegram from London via Berlin to Vienna. Two German
newspapers (already quoted) knew of this conference idea on the
27th of July and commented upon it in their morning editions of the
following day.

The other point is the Austrian statement that Serbia commenced
hostilities. If this were the case, one would expect that
Austria-Hungary, in declaring war subsequently to the alleged
shooting by Serbians at frontier guards, would make mention of the
acts as a casus belli. On p. 117 of the Red Book the text of
the declaration of war is given in full, but there is no mention of
any resort to arms on the part of Serbia.

We are forced to the conclusion that Germany and Austria are
mutually responsible for preventing the conference; they desired
war, and a conference might have preserved peace. During the
present summer (1915) an important work has been published in
Germany from which the following passage is taken:

“Grey thought the time had now arrived to formulate a mediation
proposal. This idea was from the very beginning unacceptable to
Austria, because that would indirectly be a recognition of Russia
as an interested Power in the Austro-Serbian conflict. Only those
who have followed the development of mutual obligations between the
Entente Powers are able to understand the role which Russia’s two
comrades (France and England)—to say nothing at all of
Italy—would have played in this conference. During its
sittings Russia would have continued her military preparations,
while Germany would have been pledged not to mobilize. Finally,
nobody could assert that the man (Sir Edward Grey) who would have
presided over these negotiations, could have been impartial. The
more one thinks about this mediation proposal the more clearly one
recognizes that it would have made for a diplomatic victory of the
Triple Entente.”[7]

[Footnote 7:
Professor Hermann Oncken: “Deutschland und der Weltkrieg,” pp.
545-6.]

Even the claim that Austria showed some inclination to permit
mediation on the points in her ultimatum to Serbia which were
incompatible with Serbia’s sovereignty, has been categorically
denied. The Vienna Fremdenblatt for September 24th, 1914,
contains this official announcement:

“Vienna, September 24th. In a report of the late British
Ambassador published by the British Government, there is a passage
which maintains that Austria-Hungary’s Ambassador, Count Szapary,
in St. Petersburg had informed Monsieur Sasonow, Russia’s Minister
for Foreign Affairs, that Austria-Hungary ‘was willing to submit
the points in her Note to Serbia which seemed incompatible with
Serbian independence, to mediation.’

“We have been informed officially that this statement is
absolutely untrue; according to the nature of the step taken by the
monarchy in Belgrade, it would have been absolutely unthinkable.
The passage cited from the British Ambassador’s report, as well as
some other phrases in the same, are evidently inspired by a certain
bias. They are intended to prove, by asserting that Austria-Hungary
was prepared to yield on some points at issue, that German
diplomacy was really responsible for the outbreak of war.

“Such attempts cannot obscure the truth, that Austria-Hungary
and Germany concurred in the wish to preserve European peace. If
this wish has not been fulfilled, and a European conflict has
arisen out of a local settlement, it can only be ascribed to the
circumstance that Russia first threatened Austria-Hungary and then
Germany by an unjustifiable mobilization. By this she forced war
upon the Central Powers and thus kindled a general
conflagration.”

In dealing with Germany’s endeavours for peace Professor Oncken
writes on p. 546 of “Deutschland und der Weltkrieg” (“Germany and
the World War”): “The work of German diplomacy took the form of
giving warnings and peaceful explanations.” On July 26th she
pointed out to the Russian Government that “preparatory military
measures on Russia’s part would compel Germany to take
corresponding steps, viz., the mobilization of the army.
Mobilization means war.” Oncken does not quote any of the “peaceful
explanations” (friedliche Erklärungen), and much as the
present writer would like to fill up this gap in his work, he must
admit his utter inability, because in the diplomatic correspondence
he can only find exasperating threats, thrown out to Russia by the
two Germanic Empires.

The whole problem allows of a very simple digest: On July 23rd,
Austria-Hungary handed her ultimatum to Serbia, therein stating her
demands, and on the following day informed all the European powers
of her attitude. The neutral Press of the world and an unusually
large section of the German Press, immediately pronounced Austria’s
position to be indefensible and untenable. The German Government,
in spite of these facts, gave its official and unreserved support
to Austria’s attitude on July 26th. After eight weeks of war (on
September 25th), Austria officially declared that she had never
swerved from her original claims, nor ever felt any inclination to
do so.

It is true that the usages of everyday life do not always hold
good in diplomatic dealings, but it is instructive to state the
case in the terms of everyday affairs. Mr. A. (Austria) informs Mr.
B. (Serbia) that he has a quarrel to settle with him and states his
demands. Mr. C. (Russia) who is a relation, patron and friend of
B.’s, interferes to see fair play. Whereupon Mr. D. (Germany), a
friend and relation of A.’s, informs C. in unmistakable fashion
that he must neither speak nor act in the affair or he will be
immediately thrashed. Messrs. A. and D. are unanimous in this view
and repeat the threat in mutual form. Meanwhile A. attacks B. Mr.
C, seeing that they will not accord him a hearing, takes steps to
compel them to hear him, at which point Mr. D. fulfils his threat
and falls upon C.

It is not yet clear whether Austria would have permitted Russia
to take over the rôle of adviser and second to Serbia in her
unequal struggle with Austria. But from the moment Germany appeared
on the scene the situation becomes perfectly simple: Russia has
absolutely no right either to speak or move in the matter. On this
rock of immovable Germanic obstinacy the Russian ship of State, was
intended to meet with diplomatic shipwreck. Should Russia attempt
to avoid this fate, then the German sword could be trusted to
arrange matters in the way desired by Germany.

The German language contains a very expressive phrase,
Stimmungsmacherei, which means creating or preparing a
certain frame of mind. How Germany’s public opinion was tuned to
the war melody is seen by a study of the German newspapers
published between July 25th and August 1st. A great part of the
German nation had welcomed Austria’s expressed determination to
compel Serbia “to lick her shoes,” as a London paper put it at the
time. Only the Social Democratic Party persisted in asserting that
Austria was the provocative and guilty party down to the evening of
July 28th.

But three days earlier the process of educating public opinion
against Russia commenced. In fact, it required little tuning to
arouse a national chorus, which was swelled subsequently by the
Social Democratic voices, demanding that Russia too must bite the
dust.

At the psychological moment the terms of the alliance between
Germany and Austria were launched in the Press. One paper[8] wrote: “It is interesting at the present moment to
call to mind how the treaty existing between Germany and Austria
regulates the question of mutual support.” Then the various
paragraphs are cited, and the article concludes: “That is to say:
(1.) Assuming Austria attacks Serbia, and Russia as a precautionary
measure sends troops to the Austrian frontier without commencing
hostilities against the latter, then Germany is under no obligation
to intervene. (2.) Assuming that Serbia is the attacking party, and
Russia gives her support by military measures which threaten
Austria, then the German Empire must immediately assist the
Hapsburg monarchy with the whole of her military forces.

[Footnote 8:
München-Augsburger Abendzeitung, July 27th.]

“Hence it all depends upon who attacks; the interpretation of
‘attack,’ however, is debatable both in politics and international
law. Again and again it has been asserted that that Power which
declares war is not the attacker, but the one which makes a
continuance of peaceful relations impossible.”

Innumerable notices of Russia’s alleged mobilization appeared
and, probably with a view to encouraging Germans to stand fast,
ghastly pictures of the weakness and unpreparedness of the Russian
army, in a word Russian rottenness and corruption. Persistent
rumours of revolutions in Russia were current.

A Vienna telegram published in Berlin[9]
informed the German public that: “News received from Warsaw deny
the rumours that a revolution has broken out in Russian-Poland, but
it is true that yesterday the entire citadel in Warsaw was blown
up. Official Russian reports endeavour to prove that the explosion
was caused by lightning. The extent of the damage is not yet known,
but in any case it amounts to hundreds of thousands of roubles. It
is also not certain whether any or how many lives were lost.”

[Footnote 9:
Vossische Zeitung, July 29th.]

A few days later the German official organ Norddeutsche
Allgemeine Zeitung and the semi-official Kölnische
Zeitung published the following report of the explosion.
“According to the statement of the Governor of Warsaw it was caused
by revolutionaries. No proof of this was forthcoming, therefore it
was ascribed to lightning, and as nobody believed this
explanation—there was not a cloud on the sky at the
time—the guilt remained finally with the revolutionaries.

“Now it has been proved, not to the satisfaction of the Russian
authorities of course, that Russian officers of high rank blew the
magazine up, because they would have to supply the troops with
ammunition after the mobilization—and the ammunition was not
there. The money for the same had found its way into the officers’
pockets.”

On July 30th the Vossische Zeitung announced: “To-day
even more alarming news has been in the air than in the last few
days. The Lokal Anzeiger stated during the afternoon that an
order for the mobilization of the army and navy had been signed by
the Kaiser. On making inquiries in official quarters, we were
informed that the ‘news’ is false. At three o’clock Wolff’s Bureau
issued an official dementi: ‘We have received an official
statement to the effect that the news published in an extra edition
of the Berliner Lokal Anzeiger that the Kaiser had ordered
the general mobilization is untrue.’ Great excitement was caused by
the Lokal Anzeiger’s announcement, and the public visibly
disquieted.”

The above report refers, of course, to incidents which happened
on the preceding day. The 30th of July was marked by the
suppression of three Berlin papers, including the Berliner
Neuester Nachrichten, for divulging the fact that the 1st, 5th
and 17th Army Corps had been mobilized. An account of this faux
pas appeared on July 31st in the Kreuz Zeitung and
concluded, after denying the truth of the mobilization, with the
following paragraph: “If bodies of troops have been moved to
various points of our Eastern frontier, then it only means the
so-called frontier protection (Grenzschutz), which has been
made necessary by our Eastern neighbour strengthening his customary
frontier guards by troops of the line. Frontier protection is not
generally intended to prevent a serious attack, but means rather a
kind of police action.”

Two other passages will suffice to illuminate the mobilization
question. “Yesterday Russia gave official notification in Vienna
and Berlin of mobilization against Austria. Is it to be wondered at
that a feeling of disquietude is spreading throughout all classes
of the nation. By delay on our side, valuable military advantages
may be lost if the people once suspect that there is an absence of
that firmness and joy of responsibility
(Verantwortungsfreudigkeit) which marked the action of the
Austrian Government and was hailed with jubilation by the German
nation.

“Summa summarum: The German Government has taken honest
pains during the last week in showing its peace-loving disposition
and in seeking a peaceful solution to the crisis. Nevertheless the
political situation on all sides and in every respect, has become
worse from day to day through the fault and according to the
intention of the Triple Entente.”[10]

[Footnote 10:
Kreuz Zeitung, July 31st.]

“The others are mobilizing. We—issue denials. We deny
everything which might mean mobilization or look like preparation
for that step. It is done for the sake of ‘peace,’ so that Russia,
who is gathering her national strength together in masses, may not
be offended. Are we being led? We look to the Kaiser. The Peace
Societies and some of Germany’s enemies are looking to him.

“Can we remain indifferent in our hour of dread need, when the
gleaming promise of a bright future appears in the distance, if the
inability to resolve and dare has made Berlin its headquarters. All
efforts are for ‘peace’ with honour. But in politics one must be
able to recognize when it is impossible to continue at peace; when
peace is at the cost of our friends, our own security, and the
future of European peace. In view of this one must be able to
act.”[11]

[Footnote 11:
Deutsche Zeitung, July 31st.]

The internal tactics of the German Government had been
successful all along the line. Insignificant Serbia had dropped out
of the reckoning. Russia must be humbled. The German nation,
believing itself entirely peaceful, and convinced that its leaders
had done everything possible for peace, now demanded in no
unmistakable voice—action! mobilization! war!

Announcements of mobilization on all sides (Switzerland,
Holland, Belgium) doubtless added to the popular belief that
Germany desired above all things—peace. Still, in spite of
the warlike spirit of the nation and the burning desire to settle
off Russia once and for all, there was an undercurrent of
overstrained nervousness. A Dresden paper of July 30th relates that
between the hours of two and four on the preceding afternoon a
Berlin newspaper had been asked thirty-seven different questions on
the telephone relating to rumours of assassinations, mobilization,
etc.

The process of inspiring national confidence, however, had by no
means suffered through neglect. France was represented as being
unprepared and, together with England, desiring only peace. As
early as July 27th in the Tägliche Rundschau the public
had been told that Italy, had officially declared herself ready and
willing to stand by the Central Powers as an ally.

Even Japan was used to stiffen Teutonic courage. The
Deutscher Kurier told its readers in a telegram from New
York (?) that Americans fully expected Japan to attack Russia in
the back and Japanese ministers were holding conferences all day
and night. According to the Weser Zeitung, August 1st, Japan
was arming for war, while the München-Augsburger
Zeitung published details of an alliance concluded between
Austria and Japan in Vienna on the afternoon of July 30th.
According to this source Japan had pledged herself to support
Austria in case the latter was attacked by Russia, while Austria
declared her absolute disinterestedness in the Far East. On August
1st the Berliner Tageblatt repeated this legend; but advised
its readers to exercise reserve in accepting it.

“During the evening (August 2nd) the news spread in the streets
of Berlin that Japan was mobilizing and had already declared war on
Russia. Huge crowds flocked to the Japanese Embassy and spent hours
in cheering Japan, Germany, and the Triple Alliance.”[12]

[Footnote 12:
Der Montag, August 3rd.]

Meanwhile Russia, having failed to get her simple rights
recognized and knowing that Germany had made extensive military
preparations, decided on July 31st to mobilize her entire forces.
The German Ambassador immediately informed his Government of this
step, and the Kaiser placed Germany under martial law. On the same
day the Emperor proceeded from Potsdam to the Imperial Palace in
Berlin.

CHAPTER III

THE DOGS LET LOOSE

“Just after three o’clock a company, at war strength, from the
‘Alexander’ regiment marched under the command of a young
lieutenant, down Unter den Linden. Drums were beaten; a huge crowd
listened in solemn silence as the lieutenant read the articles
placing the German Empire under martial law. The crowd was fully
alive to the awful sternness of this historic moment.

“After the proclamation was ended a deep silence ensued, then a
loud voice cried: ‘The Kaiser! Hurrah!’ Three times the shout rang
to the heavens. ‘The German army! Hurrah!’ Once more the caps were
swung three times. The boy-like lieutenant, with head erect, sword
in hand, commands: ‘Attention! Slope arms!’ The regular beat of
marching men follows as they proceed in the direction of the
Imperial Residence. Berlin is under martial law!”[13]

[Footnote 13:
Deutscher Kurier, July 31st.]

“During the afternoon enormous masses of people collected in the
streets and open spaces of Berlin. Unter den Linden, in expectation
of the Kaiser’s return, was overfilled with excited, waiting
throngs. Just before a quarter to four a great movement was seen
from the direction of the Brandenburger Tor, which spread like a
wave along the street. Everybody rushed on to the road, and the
police were pushed aside. Then the suppressed excitement of the
last few days gave vent to a hurricane of hurrahs as the populace
greeted their monarch. The Emperor was wearing the uniform of the
Garde-Kürassiere; beside him sat the Empress. His
countenance was overshadowed by deep gravity as he returned the
welcome of his subjects. At a quarter to four the Kaiser was in the
royal castle, and immediately the Imperial Standard was fluttering
aloft.”[14]

[Footnote 14:
Vossische Zeitung, July 31st.]

The next twenty-four hours are so full of fateful events that
they seem one big blur on the memory. Although everyone was
convinced that an appeal to the sword was inevitable, there was
still a tense feeling of dread expectation hanging like a cloud
over the land. During the whole of that long night the author was
an observer from an overcrowded train which left Nuremberg at 9
p.m. and rumbled dismally into Cologne the next morning at ten
o’clock. Every station, great and small, was crowded with anxious,
expectant crowds; the smaller stations full of spectators and
relatives bidding farewell to departing soldiers, and the greater
ones crowded with fleeing tourists.

On the platforms at Frankfort and Cologne many tons of luggage
were stacked in huge piles. It would be interesting to know what
became of them.[15] Few Germans could have
slept that night; the anxiety was too great. The whole railway line
was guarded by patrols, many of whom were in civilian attire. Here
and there a “field-grey” uniform was visible. On many stations
armed guards awaited the arrival of reservists and gave them
conduct to the barracks.

[Footnote 15: The
Königsberger Hartungsche Zeitung contained a paragraph
on August 7th to the effect that 120,000 trunks and portmanteaux
had been collected on Berlin stations alone.]

The Kaiser spoke words of cheer from a window of the royal
palace on Friday evening, after which the restless crowd thronged
to the official residence of the Chancellor to receive as a
watchword the words which Prince Friedrich Karl had spoken on a
memorable occasion to his Brandenburger troops: “Let your hearts
beat to God, and your blows on the enemy.”

An ultimatum was despatched to St. Petersburg and presented at
midnight to the Russian Government. The latter was requested to
cancel all mobilization orders within twelve hours, or war would
ensue. Simultaneously the French Government was asked what its
attitude would be in case of a Russo-German war. In these measures
it is safe to conclude that the German nation was heart and soul
behind the Government, otherwise the tremendous outbreak of
national enthusiasm throughout the length and breadth of the land
would be entirely inexplicable.

Throughout the day the nation awaited, under tense strain, an
answer from Russia. “At five o’clock the excitement of the masses
in Unter den Linden had increased to a degree almost beyond
endurance. The crowd surged from side to side when a court carriage
or an officer drove by in a motor-car. Everyone felt that the
fateful decision might fall at any minute, when the German nation
would know its fate.

“Suddenly motor-cars full of officers appeared from the gates of
the royal residence. They shouted to the excited crowd that the
general mobilization had been ordered. One officer waved his drawn
sword, another his handkerchief, while others stood up and waved
their caps. Then an indescribable scene of jubilation followed; the
parole ‘mobilization’ was passed on by the police, and in less time
than it takes to write, the hundreds of thousands of human beings
surging to and fro between the monument to ‘Old Fritz’ and the
Lustgarten, knew that Germany would now speak with her
sword.”[16]

[Footnote 16:
Berliner Tageblatt, August 2nd.]

“Our hour of destiny has struck! Germany, the strongest and most
peaceful nation on earth, appeals to the sword. The last call which
we sent across the Eastern frontier has remained unanswered. The
enemy is mute. Now Germany speaks!

“The Kaiser calls the Empire to arms! Our King will lead
Bavaria’s armies to him. The nation is ready, armed to the teeth.
Challenged by a dishonest opponent who envies us the fruit of our
peaceful toil, the hands of German men leave their work and grasp
the sword. Our enemy shall learn to his terrible cost, what it
means to summon a nation in arms to the battlefield. The German
army goes out to fight for our country, in a cause which is more
stainless and pure than the light of the sun. The disgraceful
Muscovite conspiracy, creeping in the footsteps of Serbian
murderers, believes the moment has arrived in which they will be
able to fall upon, overthrow and plunder us; Russia desires to
kindle a world war.

“We believe that he will not succeed; but should it thus fall
out, we Germans will defend not only our land and ourselves; but,
in this war which has been forced upon us in the basest manner
possible, we shall defend the civilization of the world, the
culture of the earth, against debased ‘unculture’ and the spreading
roots of decay. This is a lofty and tremendous task. If we are
victorious, as we confidently trust, then the ever-increasing
number of civilized peoples honestly toiling in the blessings of
peace, will thank us for centuries to come.

“Brothers! Sisters! such an hour has come that the history of
the world has never witnessed before. In the struggle which now
begins—a deadly grapple frivolously conjured up by Russia’s
monarch—the whole earth will groan. The German people,
however, will prove that it is worthy to retain and develop its
leading place in the intellectual and cultural progress of the
world. Our enemy envies us this position because in his land,
stupidity and confusion reign supreme; his own uncivilization and
barbarism cannot be rooted out.

“We will prevent him from throwing Europe back to the conditions
in which he and his likes dwell. May God grant that the civilized
peoples of Europe may have true understanding for this historic
hour, just as their heroic ancestors understood the danger when
they hurled themselves against the invasions of the Mongols.

“First of all the German nation will march against the armies of
the East, and, hand in hand with our ally, we hope will so grip the
enemy that he will lose all desire ever to attack us
again.”[17]

[Footnote 17:
München-Augsburger Abendzeitung, August 2nd.]

The last lines of this perfervid article, give an instructive
clue. A mere quibble had arisen between the Central Powers and
Russia. The former immediately adopted an arrogant, even
threatening, attitude which thoughtful Germans condemned. Russia’s
willingness to submit the question to an arbitration conference
consisting of four neutral ambassadors seems only to have
intensified Teutonic lust to humiliate the opponent. In any case,
it is interesting to note that between July 24th and 31st the whole
German nation had been converted to the uncompromising attitude of
the Government.

Further, it is evident that the German people believed they were
about to march against Russia. The very last remark which I heard
from German lips as we entered the train to leave Erlangen on July
31st was: “Jetzt werden die Russen abgeklöpft.” (“Now the
Russians will get a whacking.”)[18]

[Footnote 18: We
left Erlangen at 3.30 p.m. Martial law had been proclaimed some
time previous to that. But the proclamation in Berlin occurred at
3.30 p.m. on the same day. The Berliner Abendblatt published
on the same evening states that the Kaiser had been waiting and
hoping for a peaceful answer from Russia. The Bavarian authorities
could not have taken so serious a step without an order from the
Highest War Lord, which leads to the conclusion that it was a
device to get military preparation well under way.]

The Berlin cabinet mobilized Germany’s armed strength, as they
alleged, against Russia, and the Government succeeded in arousing
and enlisting national enthusiasm against the Eastern neighbour.
Yet when the time came to strike, Germany’s might was hurled
against neutral Belgium and unwilling France, while Russia was left
free to overrun the Eastern part of Germany. The blood-guilt rests
in the first place with the Kaiser and his Government, and in the
second place (although in no less a degree) with the German people,
because they condoned the crime and acquiesced in the
duplicity.

While the war fury seethed through the nation the cry echoed on
all sides: “We want peace! We have worked for a peaceful solution!”
Yet a study of the workings of the national mind as revealed in the
German Press, and of diplomatic doings as shown in the German White
Book, affords not a single instance—excepting the Socialists’
demonstrations—of any tangible, concrete effort made either
by the German people or its representative diplomacy to avoid a
catastrophe. On the other hand it must be said that the latter
(German diplomacy) deliberately baulked the only practical proposal
(Sir Edward Grey’s) which could have brought about a solution. The
German nation did desire peace, but only on the condition
that their opponents granted Germany and Austria’s arrogant claims
down to the smallest tittle.

Exactly at six minutes to one (midday) on August 1st, a telegram
left Berlin instructing the German Ambassador in St. Petersburg to
declare war on Russia at 5 p.m. if the latter State had not given a
satisfactory answer to Germany’s ultimatum by that time. Count
Pourtalès performed this duty, and therewith the sands of
fate ran out.

On the previous day summonses had been issued calling a meeting
of the Reichstag for Tuesday, August 4th. The opening ceremony took
place at 1 p.m. and all the political parties were present, except
the Social Democrats, who, according to their traditions, did not
appear, and thus escaped the famous hand-shaking scene. The Kaiser
and two of his sons appeared in field-grey uniform. His theatrical
appeal for the leaders of each party to swear fidelity to the
national cause by shaking hands with him, as well as his saying
that “Now there are only Germans,” may have been spontaneous; but
it is far more probable that they were meant to be a diplomatic
appeal to the sentimental vanity of the German nation.

It would be superfluous to deal with the speech from the throne
in this place, but at the close of the ceremony an incident
occurred which deserves mention. “After taking leave of the
Reichstag’s representatives the Kaiser stretched out his hand to
the famous professor of jurisprudence in Strasbourg University, Dr.
van Calker. The Kaiser looked steadily at Professor van Calker for
a moment, then, after the handshake, clenched his fist and struck
downwards uttering these words: ‘Nun aber wollen wir sie
dreschen!'[19] (‘Now we will jolly well
thrash them!’); nodded to the professor and walked away.”[20]

[Footnote 19: This
utterance has since become a common theme for composition exercises
in German schools.]

[Footnote 20:
Tägliche Rundschau, August 5th.]

The sitting in the Reichstag was a solemn event. On that
occasion the Chancellor expressed himself at length in defining
Germany’s position.

“A tremendous fate has fallen upon Europe. While we have
endeavoured to maintain the prestige of the German Empire in the
eyes of the world, we have lived for forty-four years in peace and
protected European peace. In this work of peace we have become
strong and mighty—therefore we are envied. We have suffered
with long-enduring patience; while in the East and West, under the
excuse that Germany is lusting for war, hatred for us has been
nourished and fetters wrought where-with to bind us. The wind which
blows there has now become a storm.

“We desired nothing but to live on in peaceful toil, content
with an unspoken oath that was echoed from the Emperor down to the
youngest recruit. Our sword shall only leap from its sheath in
defence of a just cause. (Loud applause.) The day on which we must
draw it, has dawned against our will and contrary to our honest
endeavours. Russia has set a burning torch to the house of peace.
(Loud cries of ‘Quite true.’) We stand to-day in a forced war with
Russia and France.

“Gentlemen, a number of documents, collected in the haste caused
by these overwhelming events, have been laid before you. Permit me
to emphasize the facts which characterize our attitude.

“From the moment that the Austrian conflict broke out we have
striven and worked to limit the quarrel to Austria-Hungary and
Serbia. All the cabinets, in particular England, accept this view;
only Russia has declared that in the settlement of this conflict,
she must be allowed to express her wishes. Therewith the danger of
European complications raised its threatening countenance.

“As soon as the first certain news of Russian military
preparations reached us, we caused it to be made known in St.
Petersburg, in a friendly but unmistakable manner, that warlike
measures and military preparations would compel us also to take
corresponding steps. But mobilization is next to war. Russia
assured us in a friendly tone (cries of indignation) that she was
making no military preparations against us.

“Meanwhile England tried to mediate between Vienna and St.
Petersburg and was warmly supported by us. On July 28th the Kaiser
telegraphed to the Czar begging him to remember that it was
Austria-Hungary’s right and duty to stop the Greater-Serbian
agitation, as this threatened to undermine Austria’s existence.
(Cries of indignation.) The Kaiser pointed out to the Czar the gulf
between monarchical interests and the outrage at Serajewo; he
begged him to give his personal support to the Kaiser’s endeavour
to smooth out the antithesis between Vienna and St. Petersburg.

“Just before this telegram came into the Czar’s hands, the Czar,
on his side, begged the Kaiser for his help: the Kaiser should
advise Vienna to be more moderate. The Kaiser undertook the task of
mediator, but the action ordered by him was hardly in motion, when
Russia began to mobilize all her forces against Austria-Hungary.
(Excited shouts of indignation and disgust.) But Austria had only
mobilized certain army corps against Serbia, besides which she had
only two corps, and these were far from the Russian frontier.

“At this juncture the Kaiser informed the Czar that the
mobilization of his armies against Austria would increase the
difficulties of mediation, a task which he had undertaken at the
Czar’s express wish, and perhaps render it impossible.
Nevertheless, we continued our mediatory action in Berlin, and
indeed in a form which went to the limits permitted by our
alliance. (Great excitement.) During this time Russia renewed her
assurances that she was taking no military measures against us.

“We come to July 3ist. In Vienna a decision was to be arrived at
on that day. By our representations we had already brought it about
that Vienna, which for a time was not in direct communication with
St. Petersburg, had commenced direct discussion again. But before
Vienna could come to a final decision, the news came that Russia
was mobilizing—i.e., against us too—her whole
forces. (Cries of indignation.) The Russian Government, although
fully aware from our repeated representations what a mobilization
on our frontiers means, did not notify this step to us, and gave us
no explanations concerning it.

“As late as the afternoon of July 31st a telegram came from the
Czar to the Kaiser in which the former pledged himself that his
army should take up no provocative attitude against us. (Great
excitement.) But the hostile mobilization on the Russian frontier
was in full swing during the night July 30th-31st. While we were
mediating in Berlin the Russian armies appeared on our long and
almost entirely open frontier. France was not yet mobilizing, but,
as she admits, was already taking precautionary measures.

“And we? Up till then we had not—the Imperial Chancellor
spoke with great emotion and repeatedly struck the table while
uttering these words—called up a single reservist, out of a
loving regard for the peace of Europe. (Loud cries of ‘Bravo!’)
Were we then to wait on in patience till the Powers between which
we are wedged should choose their moment to strike? (A hurricane of
voices, ‘No!’) To expose Germany to this danger would be a crime.
(Stormy, general and long continued cries of ‘Quite true!’ and
‘Bravo!’ in which the Social Democrats joined too.)

“Therefore on July 31st we requested Russia to demobilize as the
only measure which could save the European peace. (Loud applause.)
The Imperial Ambassador in St. Petersburg further received
instructions to inform the Russian Government, that in case our
demand was rejected, we should consider ourselves in a state of war
with Russia. The Imperial Ambassador has carried out these
instructions.

“What answer Russia accorded to our demand for demobilization we
do not know even to-day. Telegraphic announcements on this point
have not reached us, although matters of far less importance have
been sent over the wires. Hence, long after the expiration of the
stated time, the Kaiser saw himself compelled to mobilize our
forces at 5 o’clock on August 1st.

“Simultaneously, it was necessary for us to inquire regarding
France’s attitude. In answer to our definite question whether, in
case of a Russo-German war, France would remain neutral, the French
Government has replied that they will act as their interests
dictate. (Laughter.) This was at least an evasion, if not a
negative answer to our question.

“In spite of this, the Kaiser ordered that the French frontier
should be respected. This order was strictly obeyed with one single
exception. France, who mobilized at the same time as ourselves,
declared that she would respect a ten-kilometre zone along her
frontiers. (Cries of indignation.) And what happened in reality?
Their airmen have thrown bombs, cavalry patrols have violated our
territory, and companies have broken into Alsace-Lorraine.
(Indignation.) Therewith, France, although war has not yet been
declared, has attacked our territories.

“As regards the single exception which I have referred, I have
received the following report from the Chief of the General Staff:
In respect to French complaints of violations of her frontiers,
only one case is admitted. Against express orders an officer with a
patrol from the 14th Army Corps crossed the French frontier on
August 2nd. Apparently they were shot down; only one man has
returned. But long before this single instance occurred, French
airmen had penetrated into Southern Germany and dropped bombs, and
French troops had attacked our frontier-protection-troops in the
Schlucht Pass. Up till now our soldiers have confined themselves
entirely to protecting the frontier.

“So far the report from the Chief of the General Staff.

“We are now in a position of self-defence, and necessity knows
no law![21] (Cries of ‘Quite right!’) Our
troops have occupied Luxembourg, perhaps they have already entered
Belgium. (Loud applause.) That is a breach of international law.
The French Government, it is true, had declared in Brussels that
they would respect Belgian neutrality so long as their opponent
respected it. But we knew that France stood ready to invade it.
(Cries of indignation.)

[Footnote 21: This
sentence seems so important that I give the original: “Wir sind
jetzt in der Notwehr, und Not kennt kein Gebot!”]

“France could wait, we could not; and a French attack in our
flank on the Lower Rhine might have been disastrous for us. Thus we
were compelled to ignore the protests of the Luxembourg and Belgian
Governments.

“The injustice which we commit thereby, we shall try to make
good again as soon as our military goal is attained. Anyone who
fights for the highest, as we do now, may only think of how he may
hack his way through. (Hurricanes of applause; long continued
hand-clapping in the whole house and on the tribune.)

“Gentlemen, we are standing shoulder to shoulder with
Austria-Hungary. Concerning England’s attitude, the declaration
made by Sir Edward Grey in the House of Commons yesterday has made
the standpoint which the English Government takes up quite
clear.

“We have declared to the English Government that as long as
England remains neutral, our fleet shall not attack the North Coast
of France. Further, that we shall not disturb the integrity and
independence of Belgium. I repeat this declaration before the whole
world and I may add that if England will remain neutral, we are
prepared—assuming mutual treatment—to undertake no
hostile operations against France’s commercial marine.
(Applause.)

“Gentlemen, so much for events up till now! I repeat the words
of the Kaiser: ‘We enter the struggle with a clear conscience!’
(Great enthusiasm.) We are fighting for the fruits of our labours
in peace, for the heritage of a great past, and for our future. The
fifty years are not yet ended within which Moltke said we should
stand at arms to defend the heritage and the achievements of 1870.
The hour of great trial has struck for our nation. But we look
forward to it with absolute confidence. (Tremendous applause.)

“Our army is in the field, our fleet is ready, and behind them
the entire German nation (roars of never-ending applause and
hand-clapping in the whole house)—the whole German nation!
(These words were accompanied by a gesture towards the Social
Democrats.—Renewed outburst of applause, in which the Social
Democrats also joined.)

“Gentlemen, you know your duty in its entirety. The vote of
credit requires no further argument, I beg you to pass it quickly.
(Loud applause.)”[22]

[Footnote 22:
Berliner Tageblatt, August 5th.]

Unfortunately this eloquent exposition of Germany’s case
contains inaccuracies which can only be described as conscious
untruths. I have already made myself responsible for the statement:
“Lying has always been the foundation stone of German
policy.”[23] Earl Cromer, in commenting on
this, gives additional evidence of its veracity.[24]

[Footnote 23: “Soul
of Germany,” p. 192.]

[Footnote 24:
The Spectator, August 7th, 1915, p. 169.]

The German Chancellor, when he justified his policy by the
dictum: “Necessity knows no law,” evidently meant that necessity
also recognizes no law of truth. In any case, he remained faithful
to the traditions of his country. Although the German Press is both
venal and supine, we shall see that it has done the world a service
and played its own Government a foul trick. (Der deutschen
Regierung einen bösen Streich gespielt.)

When Bethmann-Hollweg was thumping the table before him, and
assuring his immediate hearers and the world in general that the
Berlin cabinet had not called up a single reservist before five
o’clock on Saturday, August 1st, he was guilty of a deliberate
falsehood. On July 31st, I left Erlangen by the 3.31 train for
Nuremberg; travelling in the same train was Dr. Haack, professor of
the history of art in Erlangen University. He was accompanied by
his wife and various colleagues, including Professor Busch, who
bade him farewell on the platform. Dr. Haack is an artillery
reserve officer, and he was then going to join his regiment. At
8.30 p.m. on the same day, we spoke to Frau Haack on Nuremberg
station. The lady’s face was very tear-stained and she was about to
return to Erlangen alone. She told us in a broken voice that her
husband had been called up.

In “The Soul of Germany” I have given names and dates of other
cases. I do not propose to disgrace my word of honour by playing it
off against the German Chancellor. But acting on the principle of
“Set a thief to catch a thief,” I shall adduce some instances from
German newspapers.

The Paris correspondent of the Kölnische Zeitung
travelled home via Brussels; his adventures are related at length
in the K.Z. for August 4th. On August 1st he was in Brussels
and complained bitterly, in his article, about the hotel service,
and excuses it by writing: “The German waiters had all left
Brussels the day before (July 31st) to join the army.”

An article dated Strasbourg, August 3rd, was published in the
Frankfurter Zeitung on the 6th of the same month. The writer
describes the martial scenes which he had witnessed during the
preceding week, and mentions that the officers in the garrison had
received a special order to send their wives and children away from
the city several days before martial law was proclaimed. Friday,
presumably, the order came for the garrison to march to the French
frontier, for on Saturday the regiments were entrained and left
Strasbourg. Our good German friend describes the scene in the
streets: “Alongside the ranks were the wives and children of the
called-up reservists, trying to keep step with the quickly moving
troops. Before sunset the regiments, all on a war-footing, had left
the city.”

Every layman knows that a reservist cannot enter a barracks in
civilian attire, and emerge five minutes later in full war-kit
ready for the march. The German Imperial Chancellor affirms that
not one of them had been called up before five o’clock in the
afternoon of that day. It is true that neither the age of miracles
nor the age of lies has passed away. Perhaps Herr Bethmann-Hollweg
could explain why it was impossible to send trunk-messages on
Germany’s telephone system during the last three days of July,
1914. At least, the local papers in Bavaria asserted that that was
the case.

The Elbinger Zeitung, August 13th, contained a
reservist’s letter with this illuminating passage: “During the last
few days everybody was in readiness; our linen, etc., had been
packed and sent off in advance. On Friday, July 31st, the order
arrived that I should present myself; mobilization had begun. With
feelings of joy I changed into my uniform and rushed to join my
company. The streets were full of frightened people with tears in
their eyes. We officers pressed each others’ hands and with ardent
glances exclaimed: ‘At last it has come!'”

The Chancellor based his assertion that French troops had
crossed the German frontier, on the report from the Chief of the
General Staff. This authority admitted that German soldiers on
August 2nd (Sunday) had violated the French frontier and continues
with these words: “But long before that French airmen had dropped
bombs in Southern Germany, and French soldiers had attacked our
frontier-guards in the Schlucht Pass.”

The Frankfurter Zeitung, July 31st, gives
Bethmann-Hollweg and the Chief of the General Staff the lie direct.
The paragraph is dated July 30th, Kolmar, and runs: “The Schlucht
Pass has just been barricaded by German frontier guards. This is to
prevent motor-lorries and such-like vehicles from entering French
territory without our permission. Several papers have announced the
alleged occupation of the Schlucht (gorge) by French troops. The
report is an absolute invention. (Die Meldung ist völlig aus
der Luft gegriffen.) I have taken the trouble to look round, and
may say that the usual tourist traffic is going on as usual.”

The remainder of the charge is that “long before August 2nd,”
French airmen had dropped bombs on South German towns. The towns in
question are Frankfort and Nuremberg. The Kölnische
Zeitung contained this paragraph on August 2nd: “A military
report has just come in, stating that French airmen dropped bombs
in the neighbourhood of Nuremberg this morning. As war has not yet
been declared between France and Germany, this is a breach of
international law.”

Two remarks are necessary to supplement the above “news.”
Firstly, in the Reichstag, the Chancellor said this attack had
occurred “long before August 2nd.” Secondly, the Cologne
Gazette received the report from the military
authorities. That betrays the source from which all these lies
emanated.

The author has in his possession a Nuremberg paper
(Fränkische Tagepost) for the whole of August, 1914. It
contains absolutely no mention of any air raid on or near
Nuremberg. If bombs had been dropped in the vicinity, it is quite
unthinkable that the local papers should contain no report of the
affair.

President Poincaré, on July 15th, 1915, declared the
Nuremberg flight to be a fable. The Fränkischer Kurier
(a Nuremberg newspaper) on August 1st, 1915, contains an article
which states that the news of these alleged airmen, whom nobody
saw, was spread throughout the length and breadth of the German
Empire. This same paper ridicules the whole affair.

Another extract gives the key to the whole mystery. “Yesterday
(Monday, August 3rd), at 8 p.m., the following official
announcement was given out for publication.

“Up till now, the German troops, in obedience to orders given,
have not crossed the French frontier. In contrast to this
since yesterday (August 2nd) French troops have attacked our
frontier posts without any declaration of war. They have crossed
the German frontier at several points, although only a few days ago
the French Government assured us that they would keep a zone ten
kilometres wide free from their troops. Since last night
French troops hold German places in occupation. Since
yesterday bomb-dropping airmen have come into Baden and Bavaria;
further, by violating Belgian neutrality, they have fled over
Belgian territory into the Rhine province and tried to destroy our
railways. Thus France has begun an attack upon us, and thereby
created a state of war. The safety of the Empire compels us to take
defensive measures. The Kaiser has given the necessary orders. The
German Ambassador in Paris has been instructed to demand his
passports.”[25]

[Footnote 25: From
the Berliner Lokal Anzeiger of August 4th.]

Germany had no earthly excuse to begin war on France, and
imitating the noble example of Bismarck in forging the notorious
Ems telegram which precipitated the 1870 war, the German military
authorities forged the “news” of alleged attacks by French airmen
and French troops. The German Official Press Bureau completed this
vile, criminal work.

Although the point is proved, a few more examples of the
“airmen” legend will be of interest. “Berlin, August 2nd. Last
night a hostile airship was observed flying from Kerprich to
Andernach. Hostile aeroplanes were observed flying from Düren
to Cologne. A French aeroplane was shot down by Wesel.” (From the
München-Augsburger Abendzeitung, August 3rd.)

The Frankfurter Zeitung, August 4th, contains three
separate detailed accounts of French airmen dropping bombs on
Frankfort railway station during the previous night. The third
account will suffice.

“The military authorities in Frankfort were informed last night
that a hostile airman was flying in the direction from Darmstadt to
Frankfort. At ten minutes past one the noise of the propellers as
well as bursting bombs was heard by those standing on the
command-bridge of the Central Station. In the dark night it was
impossible to see the flying-machine. As it approached the station,
where all lights were out, fifty to sixty soldiers stationed on the
command-bridge fired at the aeroplane, which soon moved off in the
direction of the Southern Station. There, too, it came under a
heavy fire from soldiers and policemen. Nothing whatever has been
found on the ground or at the station, not even parts of the bombs.
It is assumed that the hand-bombs exploded in the air.”[26]

[Footnote 26: Yes,
they burst in the air, aus der sie gegriffen worden sind!
Author.]

In peace times no German editor would dare to refuse any
contribution sent to him by the military authorities. The above
airman-story sufficiently illustrates the state of affairs in war
time.

“Chemnitz, August 4th. During the past night, between 3 and 4
a.m., a French airman dropped bombs on Chemnitz. Bombs exploded in
the streets without, however, doing any damage. Apparently the
shots fired at the aeroplane were unfortunately without result.”
Magdeburgische Zeitung, August 5th.

This is an excellent example of how the Press trick is worked. A
lying report is published in a city hundreds of miles away from the
scene of the alleged occurrence. The extract where it was alleged
that a French airman was shot down at Wesel, on the Dutch frontier,
was published in a Munich paper, four hundred miles away.

The last and supreme lie in Bethmann-Hollweg’s speech is the
most insidious of all. The Chancellor sketched a truly moving
picture of Germany beseeching Austria to find a modus
vivendi between herself and Russia. Germany claims that up to
the last minute of the last fatal week she was working for peace.
Bethmann-Hollweg insinuates that on July 31st a last decision was
to have fallen in Vienna; he does not tell us what that decision
would have been, but he maintains that Russia’s military
preparations forestalled it and so the decision was never arrived
at. Thus Russia destroyed the last hope of peace; the Chancellor
falsely led his hearers to believe that it was a certain hope and
that the European peace would have been saved.

It is useless to choose one’s words in writing of German
diplomacy. This is a base lie. Austria arrived at her decision
previous to sending her ultimatum to Serbia. This momentous
decision was, that Russia had no right to intervene in the quarrel,
which means, in other words, that Russia had absolutely no right to
speak or use her influence in a crisis affecting the destiny of the
Slavonic peoples, neither had Russia any right to move in a crisis
which would disturb the balance of power in the Balkans and in
Europe. It was merely these rights which Russia throughout the
crisis endeavoured to establish; if they had been recognized there
would have been no war.

In order to prove what the Austro-German standpoint was, and
that from first to last never changed, reference must be made to
the Austrian Red Book.[27] On page 24: Sir
Edward Grey was informed by Count Mensdorf on July 24th, “and I
(Mensdorf) repeated to him (Grey) many times, that we should stick
to that view.”

[Footnote 27:
Oesterreichisch-ungarisches Rotbuch. Vienna, 1915.]

Page 25. Count Czécsen in Paris informed French Minister:
“It is a question which can only be settled between Serbia and
ourselves,” on July 24th.

On the same day the Austrian Ambassador emphasized the same
point in an interview with the Russian Foreign Minister—pp.
27-8.

During the evening Monsieur Sasonow had interviews with both the
German and Austrian Ambassadors. The latter telegraphed to Vienna:
“My German colleague at once pointed out to M. Sasonow that Austria
would not accept any interference in her differences with Serbia
and that Germany would also not permit it.”—p. 29.

That gives the situation in its simplest form, and without
making further quotations, it will suffice to cite the dates on
which it was re-emphasized:

Moreover, no less a personage than the Kaiser’s brother
confirmed this view. In Prince Heinrich’s telegram to the King of
England, July 30th, the following passage occurs: “If you really
and sincerely wish to prevent this terrible misfortune (a European
war), may I propose that you should exercise your influence on
France and Russia to keep them both neutral (in the Austro-Serbian
quarrel). In my opinion this would be of the greatest service. I
consider this a certain means and perhaps the only possibility
of preserving European peace.”

Prince Heinrich expressed no hope that Austria could be
persuaded to make any concession, but merely requested King George
to exercise his influence to get Russia to accept a position
impossible to herself and incompatible with the balance of power in
Europe.

The rock of Germanic obstinacy was seated in Vienna, whether
Germany was the prime mover in erecting it remains to be proved.
Germany knew full well that European peace would be shattered on
that rock, yet there is no fragment of evidence to show that she
tried to remove it; but there is overwhelming proof that she
encouraged Austria to stand by it, thus causing a European
conflagration.

And as if the above were insufficient to prove that the German
Imperial Chancellor was guilty of conscious falsification, Austria
put one more nail in the coffin of European peace on September
24th, 1914, when it issued an official communication to the Press,
reiterating that Austria had never dreamed of departing from the
attitude which she first took up.[28]

[Footnote 28: “Die
Schuld am Weltkriege” (“The Guilt for the World War”), by an
Austrian. Vienna, 1915, p. 59.]

Germany’s aim was to employ the Serajewo crime as a lever to put
Russia, as a vital force, out of the domain of European politics.
In spite of denials, there is reason to believe that Austria was
inclined to listen to reason, but Germany forestalled and prevented
this by despatching an ultimatum to Russia and then declaring
war.

A few other points in Bethmann-Hollweg’s speech deserve brief
notice. He quotes Germany’s threats, but not one word from the
peaceful overtures which were so often mentioned. He fails to cite
any single point which Austria had yielded at Germany’s advice.
Further, no proof of Germany’s vaunted “mediatory action” is
discoverable either in the speech or the diplomatic documents
published by the Central Powers.

In regard to his justification of the violation of Belgian
neutrality, the civilized world has already passed judgment, and in
this place it only remains to point out that the four hundred
members of the Reichstag cheered the Chancellor’s announcement.
This alone is a sufficiently severe comment on the conceptions of
right and justice which direct the proceedings of Germany’s highest
legislative body.

It evidently did not occur to the Reichstag or Germany’s
Imperial Chancellor that, if necessity knows no law which respects
a neutrality guaranteed by Germany, then at a later date necessity
would also recognize no law which protected Belgian territory after
Germany had conquered it. A lamb in the jaws of a lion is in a
truly dangerous position, and although the outlook may be black, it
is still wiser for the lamb to try and avoid the lion’s jaws.

Bethmann-Hollweg saw the mote of Greater-Serbianism in Serbia’s
eye, but he was peculiarly anxious not to perceive the beam of
Pan-Germanism which has blinded Germany’s vision for a generation,
and is the one and only cause for the rapid increase in European
armaments.

Before consigning the German Chancellor’s Pecksniffian oration
to well-deserved oblivion, there is one other fact to state,
because it is of immediate interest to Great Britain. In the person
of Bethmann-Hollweg the German Government stood before the world on
August 4th, 1914, and endeavoured to prove that Germany was
attacked, and that her conscience was clear. There are even Britons
who have got stuck in Bethmann-Hollweg’s peace-lime. Yet it would
be interesting if the German Government would explain why the
civilian population was ordered to leave Heligoland on the
afternoon of Friday, July 31st. They were allowed twenty-four hours
within which to leave the island, and one who was in the exodus
describes the scene in the Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten for
August 12th. Early on Saturday morning the civilians proceeded on
to the landing-stage, where several steamers were waiting.
“Suddenly the Königin Luise started off without taking
any passengers on board, and soon disappeared under full
steam.”

This was the boat which laid mines round the mouth of the
Thames. Although the German Chancellor protested his desire for
peace with England as late as August 4th, it seems quite evident
from the events in Heligoland that war with this country had been
decided upon on July 31st.

CHAPTER IV

MOBILIZATION

“Munich.—Evening after evening masses of people thronged
the streets. The heavy, oppressive atmosphere weighed upon the
spirit—a leaden pressure which increased with every hour.
Then came the stirring events on the evening of July 3ist, when the
drums beat ‘general march’ on the Marienplatz, and a commissioner
read the articles of war to a crowd numbered by thousands. Thirty
drummers and commissioners in motors rushed through the streets of
the city.

“On Saturday evening, August 1st, the general order for
mobilization was proclaimed from the offices of the
Münchener Neuesten Nachrichten. A deep solemnity fell
upon the masses of spectators and the crowd fell into rank to march
to the Royal Palace, from a window of which King Ludwig spoke words
of comfort and inspiration. Still singing the ‘Wacht am Rhein,’
this river of humanity flowed on to the ‘Englischen Garten,’ at the
corner of which stands the Austrian Legation. A gentleman addressed
the representative of our beloved ally, who sounded in his reply
the note of ‘faithfulness unto death.’

“And now from out the stifling depression of the leaden weight
of the previous days there arose a terrible, united will, a single
mighty thought. The whole of a great and powerful people was
aroused, fired by one solemn resolve—to act; advance on the
enemy, and smash him to the earth!

“Dresden.—I was sitting in the garden of a suburban
restaurant; above me were the dark masses of chestnut trees, while
before us, above the railway, was a long strip of bright,
summer-night sky. There seemed to be something gloomy and uncanny
in the air; the lamps blinked maliciously; a spirit of still
expectation rested on the people; furtive glances were cast from
time to time at the near embankment. Military trains were expected,
and we listened nervously to the noises of the night. The first
troop-transports; where were they going—against Russia or to
the French frontier? It was whispered that the troops would only be
transported by night.

“At last a pounding thud came through the stillness of the
night, and soon two colossal engines were silhouetted against the
sky, like fire-spitting monsters. Their roar seemed more sinister
than usual. Heavy forebodings rumbled out in the rocking and
rolling of the endless coaches—the clang of a future,
pregnant with death and pain. Suddenly the tables were empty;
everyone rushed towards the lighted compartments of the train, and
a scene of indescribable jubilation followed as train after train
of armed men rushed by into the night.

“Sometimes a troubled father was heard to exclaim: ‘If only the
first battles were fought and won!’ Yet calm confidence prevailed
from the very beginning. But the sight of the quiet, machine-like
completion of the mobilization strengthened our trust, even though
a justifiable indignation and rage filled our hearts at Europe’s
dastardly attack on the Central States. Hate flamed highest,
however, when England declared war against us.

“There are several reasons for this. In the north of Germany,
the Englishman is looked upon as the European who stands nearest
the German, and with whom we have the most sympathy. His personal
reliability and the manly firmness of his bearing, the culture of
English social life, English art and style, have given Imperial
Germany many points of contact and grounds for sympathy. Our
historical interests have never collided. Then we suddenly became
aware that this country, under the mask of friendship, had egged on
the whole of Europe to attack us. Not because we had injured
English feelings or interests, but solely to destroy a competitor
and divide his coat of many colours.

“No political necessity compelled modern Carthage to declare war
on us, but merely the avowed aim to do a good piece of business by
the war. Without England’s intrigues Europe would never have dared
to attack us. In our case, therefore, hate has sprung out of
disappointed love. England has become our mortal enemy, just as
Russia is Austria’s. In a word, the two Central Powers are inspired
by moral superiority over their enemies, and are determined to wage
war on them to the last drop of blood, and if fate permits it, to
settle them off and settle up with them once for all.

“At the commencement of the mobilization the railway time-tables
in force were cancelled; railway traffic ceased, and only slow
local-trains ran, stopping at every station to pick up the men.
During the nights a gigantic transport of troops went on to the
frontiers. From that moment the sale of alcohol on the stations was
prohibited. The publication of news concerning troop movements was
suppressed, in order to veil our objective and to keep secret our
strength on the various frontiers.

“The trains in the Tyrol were decked with wreaths and flowers.
They bore Germans from the most southerly corners of our neutral
ally—Italy. Members of the Wehrkraftverein (Boy
Scouts) inspected the trains at every station, and it is said that
a Serb was found bound fast underneath one of the carriages.
Serbian scoundrels were found on all sides; if one of them had
succeeded in destroying the Brenner line the whole plan of
mobilization would have been disturbed. Therefore sentinels were
placed along the whole line and strong guards protected every
tunnel. At night all lights were put out and those on the engines
covered up; even the stations were not illuminated—everywhere
darkness.

“Slowly feeling its way, the train crept over the
Brenner—it took twelve hours; in Innsbruck the station was
crowded with Germans to welcome the warriors, and the ancient hills
echoed again and again the ‘Wacht am Rhein.’ The solemnity which
had marked the first days in Munich had given place to boisterous
joy. Thousands of men in mountain costume had flocked into Munich
to offer themselves as volunteers, and the streets and station rang
with their jodeln! (the peculiar cry of Alpine
herdsmen).

“Outside the station lay vast quantities of materials for the
Flying Corps, and innumerable motor-cars. A regiment of artillery
was just leaving, while a band was in the centre of the station;
the rhythm of the kettle-drums rolled mightily, and the music
clashed in the huge central hall; thousands of voices joined in,
then helmets, hats, caps, rifles and swords were waved and the
train moved off amid shouts: ‘Go for them! Cut them down!’ (‘Drauf
auf die Kerle! Haut sie zusammen!’)”[29]

[Footnote 29:
Colonel Frobenius: “Durch Not und Tod” (“Through Distress and
Death”). Leipzig, 1915, p. 12 et seq.]

“If I live to be a hundred I shall never forget these days. They
are the greatest in our history. We never dreamed that anything so
overwhelming could be experienced on earth. Only three weeks ago
and we should have been quite incapable of imagining its like. The
feeling that we have experienced something overpowering, something
which we cannot utter, overwhelms us all. We see it in each other’s
faces and feel it in the pressure of a hand. Words are too weak, so
each is silent about what he feels. We are conscious of one thing
alone: Germany’s heart has appeared to us!

“At last we see each other as we are, and that is the
indescribable something—the birth of this great time. Never
have we been so earnest and never so glad. Every other thought,
every other feeling has gone. What we have thought and felt before
was all unreality, mere ghosts; day has dawned and they have fled.
The whole land bristles with arms and every German heart is filled
with trust. If we were always as we are to-day—one heart and
one voice—then the whole world would have to bow before us.
But we no longer knew ourselves, we had forgotten our real nature.
We were so many and so divided, and each wanted only to be himself.
How was it that such madness could have blinded us, and discord
weakened us?

“Now we realize our strength and see what we can achieve, for in
spite of all we have retained our integrity; we have suffered no
injury to the soul. Germany’s soul had slept awhile and now awakes
like a giant refreshed, and we can hardly recollect what it was all
like only three weeks ago, when each lived for himself, when we
were at best only parties, not a people. Each knew not the other,
because he knew not himself. In unholy egoism everyone had
forgotten his highest will. Now each has found his true will again,
and that is proved—for we have only one.

“In all German hearts flames the same holy wrath. A sacred wrath
which sanctifies and heals. Every wound heals; we are again healthy
and whole. Praise be to God for this war which delivered us on the
first day from German quarrelsomeness! When the days of peace
return we must prove that we deserve to have lived through this
holy German war. Then no word must be spoken, no deed done on
German soil which would be unworthy of these sublime days.

“Groups stand at the street corners reading the latest news. One
counts aloud how many enemies we have: there are already six. A
silence ensues,
till someone says: ‘Many enemies,
great honour, and we shall win, for our cause is just!’ Such
utterances can be heard every day. That is German faith; human
might does not decide, but God’s justice! That is the Supreme
blessing of this great time; we put our trust in the spirit. Modern
Germans have never breathed before so pure an atmosphere, for
Germany’s soul has appeared to us.

“I am going to pronounce a blessing on this war, the blessing
which is on all lips, for we Germans, no matter in what part of the
world we are, all bless, bless and bless again this world war. I do
not intend to become lyrical. Lyric is so far from me that in all
these three months I have not composed a single war poem. No, I
shall endeavour to count up quite calmly, unlyrically, what we have
seen during these three months: point for point, the whole list of
surprises, for they have all been surprises, one after the
other.

“Only a few days ago a high State official said to me: ‘Let us
confess at once that in all Europe nobody believed in this war;
everybody had prepared for it, but nobody thought it
possible—not even those who wanted war.’

“All thinking men considered that the interwoven economic
dependence on each other among the nations, was so strong that none
dare commit suicide by commencing a war. Thus we spoke to each
other, and that seemed an axiom. Further, it seemed to be true that
even if a madman let loose the dogs of war, then it would be all
over in a fortnight. The man in the street imagined that it would
be a kind of parade (Aufmarsch), a mobilization test, and
the power which succeeded best would be the victor, for no country
in the world was strong enough to stand the enormous cost for
longer than three weeks.

“Now three months have gone, and we have stood the strain, and
we can bear it for another three, six months, a year, or as many
years as it must be. The calculation was wrong, all the
calculations were wrong: the reality of this war surpasses
everything which we had imagined, and it has been glorious to
experience on so grand a scale that reality always surpasses the
conception. Even that is not true which we learned in all the
schools and read in all the books—that every war is an awful
misfortune. Even this war is horrible; yes, but our salvation. It
seems so to us, and so it has appeared to us from the very first
day onwards.

“That first day will remain in our memories for ever; never in
all our lives had we experienced anything so grand, and we had
never believed it possible to experience anything so magnificent.
Word for word Bismarck’s prophecy (1888) has come true: ‘It must be
a war to which the whole nation gives its assent; it must be a
national war, conducted with an enthusiasm like that of 1870, when
we were ruthlessly attacked. Then all Germany from the Memel to
Lake Constance will blaze up like a powder-mine and the whole land
bristle with bayonets.’ The war which Bismarck prophesied was this
war, and what he foretold came to pass, and we saw it with our
eyes. We saw the German mobilization with eyes which since then
have been consecrate.

“All enthusiasm is splendid, even in an individual, be he who he
may and for whatever cause you like. In enthusiasm everything good
in a man appears, while the common and vulgar in him sinks away.
Any enthusiasm either of groups or societies in which the
individual ego loses itself is grand, but the mighty enthusiasm of
a powerful people is overwhelming. This was, however, an enthusiasm
of a peculiar sort—it was well disciplined, an enthusiasm
combined with and controlled by the highest order.

“In this the fundamental secret of German power was revealed: to
remain calm in enthusiasm, cold amidst fire and still obedient to
duty in a tornado of passion. Then we were all inspired by the
thought and feeling: ‘Nobody can achieve that, for in order to be
able to do it we have had to perform a huge intellectual and
spiritual task. It is not alone the result of the last century and
a half; no, that work has been going on for nearly a thousand
years.’

“What is the spirit of our German mysticism, the spirit of
Eckhart and Tauler, except: Drunkenness of the soul in a waking
condition? The accepted law on which all great German deeds rest,
is: to dovetail enthusiasm with discipline and order. From our
Gothic, through German barock to Frederick the Great and
Kant, on to the classical period—what does all that mean if
it is not the architecture of one huge feeling? The soul runs riot
in its imaginings and therewith the intellect builds. The ravings
of the soul provide the materials with which the mind builds.

“What is German music from Bach to Beethoven and from Beethoven
to Wagner—yes, even to Richard Strauss—but enthusiasm
with discipline? German music has been our mobilization; it has
gone on just as in a partitur by Richard
Wagner—absolute rapture with perfect precision!

“Hence when we saw the miracle of this mobilization—all
Germany’s military manhood packed in railway trains, rolling
through the land, day by day and night after night, never a minute
late and never a question for which the right answer was not ready
and waiting—when we saw all this, we were not astonished,
because it was no miracle; it was nothing other than a natural
result of a thousand years of work and preparation; it was the net
profit of the whole of German history.

“At the German mobilization not only our brave soldiers,
reserves and militia (Landwehrmänner und
Landstürmler) entered the field, but the whole of
Germany’s historic past marched with them. It was this which
inspired the unshakable confidence which has endured from the first
day of war. In truth, the dear Fatherland has every reason to be
calm.

“In the meantime something more has happened: all in a moment we
became Germans! We held our breaths when the Kaiser uttered these
words. This too arose out of the deepest depths of Germany’s
yearnings; it sounded like an eagle-cry of our most ancient
longings. Germany’s soul has long pined to tear itself from its
narrow confines (verwerden, as Eckhart, or sich
entselbsten, as Goethe put it), to lay aside self-will and
sacrifice itself, to be absorbed in the whole, and yet still to
serve (Wagner). And this eternal German yearning had never reached
fulfilment, but self-interest and egoism have always been stronger;
every German has been at war with all the others. ‘For every man to
go his own way,’ said Goethe, ‘is the peculiar characteristic of
the German race. I have never seen them united except in their hate
for Napoleon. I am curious to see what they will do when he is
banished to the other side of the Rhine.’ And Goethe was right: no
sooner was the land freed from the oppressor, than each began again
to think and act only for himself. Hence, when we first learned of
the Kaiser’s words we felt almost a joyous fear. If it were only
true that now there were only Germans! But on the very next day our
eyes saw and our ears heard that at last there were only Germans,
and with that, all pain and fear was forgotten. If war is awful,
even a just war, a holy war—even for the victor too, we will
endure all that, for it is as nothing; no sacrifice is too great
for this prize—that we are all only Germans.

“Since the Emperor spoke those words three months have passed,
and there have only been Germans in the land. These three months
have brought much sorrow to German hearts, for there is hardly a
home which does not lament a father, a son, or a brother.
Nevertheless, one may say that since our existence as a nation,
Germany has never been more joyous, in the best sense of the word,
than in this time of suffering. Through our tears the noblest joy
has shone; not alone at the success of our arms; it is not from
pride at fighting against a world of enemies; it is not the fact
that we are now assured of a future which in July last we could not
have imagined; it is not the feeling of power, of which even we
ourselves did not know. That shining joy springs from deeper
reasons. We are glad because we have found each other; we did not
know each other before. Indeed, no one knew himself. Now we know
each other, and above all, each knows himself.

“It was Bismarck who uttered these terrible words: ‘When the
unoccupied German must give up the struggle and strife which has
become dear to him, and offer the hand of reconciliation, then he
loses all joy in life. Civil war is always the most terrible thing
which any land can have. But with us Germans it is still more
terrible, because it is fought out by us with more love for the
strife than any other war.’

“Does it not sound truly horrible for the greatest benefactor of
a nation, which has to thank him for having realized its
century-old dream of unity, to say in all calm and as something
quite obvious, that his own nation engages in a civil war ‘with
more love’ than any other war? And wherever we look in Bismarck’s
speeches, the same complaint is found which had been the eternal
lamentation of Goethe—the lament over the lack of faith and
will of the Germans.

“How will it be this time? Will it be as after the Seven Years’
War, after the War of Liberation, after 1870? Will it be again all
in vain? As soon as the Fatherland is secure, will every German
once again cease to be a German in order to become some kind of
-crat or -ist or -er? This time it will be more difficult, for from
this war he will return no more into the same Fatherland. It will
have expanded; the German Fatherland will be greater. Arndt’s poems
must be written over again: no longer merely ‘as far as the German
tongue is spoken.’ Germany will stretch beyond that limit, and in
it the German will have work to do.

“In his speech Bismarck spoke of the ‘unoccupied’; but in all
probability after this war, for years to come, there will be no
‘unoccupied’ Germans. They will be fully occupied with the new
organization. What the sword has won, we shall keep. ‘The pike in
the European carp-pond,’ said Bismarck once, ‘prevent us from
becoming carp. They compel us to exertions which voluntarily we
should hardly be willing to make. They compel us to hold together,
which is in direct contradiction to our innermost nature.’

“As we cannot change our nature, it will be good if we take over
for good and all a number—a very considerable
number,—of these European pike. That will occupy the German
peasant and give an outlet to his superfluous energies. There will
be no leisure-energy to discharge itself in party strife. Further,
we must build Europe up again. It stood on rotten foundations, and
now it has fallen to pieces. We shall erect it again on a German
basis, and there will be work enough.”[30]

[Footnote 30:
Hermann Bahr: “Kriegssegen” (“The Blessings of War”). Published in
Munich, 1915, p. 5 et seq.]

CHAPTER V

WARS AND RUMOURS OF WARS

It would be more than human if the German nation had actually
realized the lyrical picture painted by two well-known writers in
the preceding chapter. German newspapers, it is true, prove that
the national unity so loudly acclaimed was no empty word; moreover,
they show conclusively that grumblers and half-hearted enthusiasts
were not lacking. It would probably be more correct to describe
them as “sober-minded patriots.” These elements had, however, to
use a colloquialism, an “exceedingly rough time.”

The author has already contended that the German is innately
brutal, and in proof thereof quoted the awful statistics of brutal
crimes published by the Imperial Statistic Office, Berlin. The
present work will contain a picture of the natural unfolding of
this “innate brutality” in Germany itself during war time, and on
the battlefields of Belgium and France.

There is no doubt whatever that a systematic,
officially-organized press campaign was carried on to madden the
people and arouse blood-lust, successively against Russians,
Belgians, French and English. One is almost inclined to exclaim:
Providence caused some of the fruits of this blood-lashing to be
reaped in Germany!

“Yesterday evening in the Riebeckbräu another free fight
took place, and quieter guests who refused to take part in the
patriotic screaming of the students and other mob elements were
badly ill-treated. Beer-glasses, ash-trays, chairs and other
missiles were thrown about freely. One man was struck on the back
of the head with a beer-glass, causing the blood to flow in
streams. Helpless women, too, were beaten and threatened.”[31]

[Footnote 31:
Leipziger Volkszeitung, August 1st, 1914.]

Three days later the same journal contained a public appeal from
the Mayor of Leipzig, begging the inhabitants to preserve public
order: “If the disturbances in the streets, public houses, etc.,
should—contrary to our expectations—continue, then we
shall be compelled to take severe steps to suppress them.”

On the same page there is another report of similar scenes, in
one of which a workman was “horribly ill-treated” by eight others.
The army authorities were compelled to issue a still more drastic
warning on August 6th.

A victim reported his adventures in another Leipzig
paper[32]: “I have just read your article
admonishing the ‘hot-heads’ to keep cool. The General commanding
Leipzig has also warned members of the public not to allow
excitement to lead them to ‘deeds of brutality and crime.’ I am a
good German patriot, and yet nearly lost my life at the hands of my
own countrymen.”

[Footnote 32:
Leipziger Neuesten Nachrichten, August 9th.]

The “good patriot” then relates that during the week he had
spent an evening at a concert in a beer-garden. Patriotic music was
the order of the day, and as each national song was sung he stood
up with the rest of the company. Towards the close of the evening
he felt unwell and remained sitting, an indiscretion which he
truthfully says “nearly cost him his life.” Three skull wounds
several inches long, his body beaten black and blue, and ruined
clothes, was the punishment for not joining in with the
“hurrah-patriots.”

Dozens of similar instances might be cited, but for the sake of
impartiality it is preferable to allow a German to generalize: “The
rage of the populace has found vent not only against foreigners,
but also against good German patriots, indeed even against German
officers.”[33]

[Footnote 33:
Leipziger Volkszeitung, August 12th.]

Probably one of the most glaring instances of German
indifference to brutality is afforded by the following incident. A
commercial traveller named Lüderitz, aged twenty-three,
murdered his sweetheart in a Leipzig hotel by strangling her with
his necktie. He alleged that he had killed the girl at her wish,
and the judge sentenced him to three years, six months’
imprisonment—not even penal servitude! The report
concludes[34]: “As the accused has been
called up to serve in the army, he was allowed to go free for the
present.” Which means that if he survives the war he may be called
upon to undergo his sentence.

[Footnote 34:
Ibid., August 28th.]

A South German newspaper[35] advised
“German wives and maidens to avoid wearing striking costumes,
dresses and hats. Such restrictions are not only desirable in the
serious time through which our dear Fatherland is passing, but such
precautions are urgently necessary in the interests of personal
safety. For amidst the excitement which has unfortunately taken
possession of our people, ladies are not safe, either from insult
or assault, in spite of the fact that the police do their best to
protect them.”

[Footnote 35:
München-Augsburger Abendzeitung, August 5th.]

These are the bare facts, in a very limited selection, as
regards German brutality towards Germans. In the light of these
events the question suggests itself: How did foreigners fare in the
midst of this Kulturvolk? The answer is simple and
expressive: “Not half has ever been told;” yet the German
newspapers contain more than sufficient materials to prove that the
floodgates of barbarism were opened wide.

When martial law was proclaimed the Berlin Government caused
official announcements to be issued throughout the whole country,
requesting the public to assist in preventing tunnels, bridges,
railways, etc., from being destroyed by foreign agents and spies.
The whole country at once became a detective office of madmen!

Ample proof is at hand to show that this lashing of the public
mind into brutal fury was the calculated work of the German
authorities. “We are now absolutely dependent upon reports issued
by the authorities; we do not know whether they are correct or
whether they are merely intended to inflame public opinion. Thus
reports have been officially circulated of Russian patrols crossing
our frontiers, and from Nuremberg of French airmen dropping bombs
on the railways in that neighbourhood, whereupon diplomatic
relations with both countries were broken off.”[36]

[Footnote 36:
Leipziger Volkszeitung, August 3rd.]

The whole Press, with the exception of at least some Social
Democratic organs, joined in a chorus of hatred and suspicion
against Russians residing in Germany. In bitterness towards the
Russian State the Socialist journals were solid in their hostility,
but the author has only discovered expressions of abhorrence in
their columns concerning the ill-treatment, even murder, of
innocent foreigners in Germany. This fact must be recorded to their
honour.

“Certain circles of Leipzig’s population are at present
possessed by patriotic delirium and at the same time by a spy-mania
which luxuriates like tropical vegetation. In reality, love of
Fatherland is something quite other than those feelings which find
expression in the present noisy and disgusting scenes. These mob
patriots must remember that in their mad attacks on ‘Serbs’ and
‘Russians’—that is to say, everybody who has black hair and a
beard, whom they at once conclude must belong to those
nations—they are endangering the lives of hundreds of
thousands of Germans in France and Russia.”[37]

[Footnote 37:
Ibid., August 4th.]

On the following day the same journal contained another detailed
report: “In spite of official appeals to the public to display
self-possession in these serious times, the nationalist mob
continues to behave in the most scandalous manner, both in the
streets and public restaurants, etc. The wildest outbreaks of
brutal passions occur, and no one with black hair and dark
complexion is secure from outbursts of rage on the part of the
fanatics. Shortly before 5 p.m. yesterday a gentleman in the
uniform of a German artillery officer was sitting with a lady in
the Café Felsche; apparently somebody ‘denounced’ him for a
Russian officer in disguise. The police accompanied by army
officers arrested and led him into the street, where they were
received by a yelling crowd. The enraged mob forced its way past
the guards and beat the ‘spy’ with sticks, umbrellas, etc., till
streams of blood ran down his face, his uniform being torn to
shreds. The officers and police guarding him drew their weapons,
but were unable to protect him from further brutal treatment;
indeed, it was with the greatest difficulty that they succeeded in
bringing him to a place of safety.”[38]

[Footnote 38: The
unfortunate suspect was in truth a German officer.]

On the last page of the same edition there is an advertisement
which helps to explain why the appeals for cool blood were
useless.

“APPEAL!”

“Among the foreigners in our country,
especially Russians, there are a large number who, it is to be
feared, are guilty of espionage and attempts to disturb our
mobilization. While the Russians engaged in work on our farms may
be allowed to continue their work in peace, it is necessary to
watch carefully those who are studying here, or are permanent
residents.

“I call upon the inhabitants to take part in
the task of observation, and when strong suspicion is aroused to
see to it that the suspects are arrested and handed over to the
civil authorities.

“The protection of our railway lines and
stations, telegraph wires, etc., demands the most careful attention
during the next few days.

“VON LAFFERT,
“General in Command.
“Leipzig, August 4th.”

An interesting contrast to the above is a police order, issued
by the Director of the Stuttgart police.[39]

[Footnote 39:
Leipziger Neuesten Nachrichten, August 9th.]

“Policemen! The populace is going absolutely
mad. The streets are crowded with old women of both sexes who have
nothing else to do but disgrace themselves. Each sees in his
neighbour a Russian or French spy, and imagines that it is his duty
to thrash both him and the policeman who intervenes, till
the blood flows; if not that, then at least to cause an enormous
crowd to gather in giving the alleged spy over to the police.
Clouds become hostile airmen, stars are mistaken for airships and
the cross-bars of bicycles are thought to be bombs; bridges have
been blown up, telegraph and telephone wires cut in the middle of
Stuttgart; spies have been shot and water supplies poisoned! It is
impossible to imagine what will happen when serious events really
come.

“It has been proved that up till now there
has not been the slightest reason for all this alarm; but yet,
judging by appearances, we are living in a huge lunatic asylum.
Everyone, if he is not a coward or a dangerous idler, should be
quietly doing his duty, for the times are already serious
enough.

“Policemen! continue to keep your heads cool.
Be men as you were formerly, and not women. Do not allow yourselves
to be frightened at straws; keep your eyes open and do your
duty!

“BILLINGER,

“Director of Police.

“Stuttgart.”

It is not surprising that this humorous police commander
expressed his indignation in the forceful Swabian manner. Here are
a few telegrams which had been sent to Berlin from Stuttgart, or
still more probable, manufactured by the official Press Bureau in
Berlin.

“A considerable number of Russians and French—including
several women—have been arrested in Stuttgart to-day under
the suspicion of practising espionage. One of these arrests was
made in the top-floor of the Central Post Office, where the
apparatus connected with the telegraph office are to be found.

“More arrests are about to be made in the environs. It has been
established that numerous attempts have been made during the last
few days to blow up the railway bridges. In Freudenstadt a gypsy’s
wagon was seized which contained a quantity of
explosives.”[40]

[Footnote 40:
Berliner Tageblatt, August 3rd.]

“Some of our contemporaries (Oh, shade of
Pecksniff!—Author) announced yesterday that in Stuttgart
eighty, according to other reports, ninety millions in French gold
had been seized. In answer to our inquiry at the principal office
of the Würtemberg State Railways we were informed that the
statements are pure inventions.”[41]

[Footnote 41:
Berliner Lokal-Anzeiger, August 4th.]

Another Socialist paper which denounced this campaign of lies in
its columns deserves quotation. “The spy-mania luxuriates; every
Russian is in danger of assault by over-heated patriots. The
nation, however, ought to know that the Russians in our midst are
labourers, students, travellers and business men; it is exceeding
rare for one of this class, to sell himself to the scoundrels who
follow the dirty practices of espionage.

“Civilization and good-breeding demand that everyone should
respect the dictates of international law, and treat the peaceful
citizens of a land with which we are at war, with decency.

“Especially those wretches deserve to have their knuckles rapped
who circulate such infamous bear-baiting news as the alleged
attempt on the Crown Prince’s life by Russian students.”[42]

[Footnote 42:
Vorwärts, August 7th.]

“The General commanding the Leipzig district has issued the
following reply in answer to an inquiry by the civil authorities:
We know nothing at all of an alleged attempt on the life of the
Kaiser or the Crown Prince. The commanding General von Laffert has
never uttered the words ascribed to him, that the Kaiser had been
murdered. These reports must be contradicted with the greatest
energy.”[43]

[Footnote 43:
Leipziger Tageblatt, August 3rd.]

The following extracts are of the greatest importance, for they
prove beyond doubt the source of these lies, and the cold-blooded,
calculated manner in which they were circulated by the German
authorities:

“The decision as to what may be published in newspapers, is now
in the hands of the military commander in each district.

“The regulations issued by the military authorities, force
certain restrictions upon us and threaten the existence of our
journals. As regards our principles and convictions no change has
taken place.”[44]

[Footnote 44: The
editor of the Vorwärts to his readers on August
1st.]

“Berlin, August 10th.—Major Nicolai, director of the Press
department of the General Staff, received representatives of the
Press to-day and communicated to them, inter alia, the
following details: Our army commanders decline to enter into
competition with the lie-factories abroad. They will convince the
world that truth is on our side, and that we spread neither lies
nor coloured reports. We hope in a short time to be able to prove
how much our enemies have sinned against the truth.

“What have we achieved up till now? The dreaded invasion of
Russian cavalry was broken up by our frontier guards alone. Indeed,
in many cases only the Landwehr was needed to throw back the
invaders. What about the destruction of important buildings,
railways, bridges and such like? Nothing at all has
happened.”[45]

[Footnote 45:
Condensed translation of the report in the Leipziger
Volkszeitung, August 11th.]

On another page of the same issue a long official army order to
the Press is given in which this paragraph occurs: “All news given
out by Wolff’s Telegraph-Bureau may only be quoted literally as
they stand and the source named by the initials W.T.-B.”

It is thus clear that the news-agency mentioned performs two
separate functions, although the German army authorities do not
draw this distinction. First, the circulation of reports issued by
the Army Headquarters in the field, for the truth of which the
Berlin General Staff guarantees. Secondly, the spreading of their
own news, and information supplied to them by other German
Government departments. All news published by the agency has thus
received the stamp of official authority, and the German public is
too ignorant to recognize the palpable fraud.

“Metz, August 3rd.—A French doctor, accompanied by two
officers in disguise, was caught yesterday while trying to infect
the water supply with cholera bacilli. He was at once shot under
military law.”[46]

[Footnote 46:
Deutsche Tageszeitung, August 3rd.]

“The report of the Metz water supply being infected, which was
given out by Wolff’s Bureau yesterday, proves to be a pure
invention. The agency informs us that there is no ground for
uneasiness, but the state of affairs at present makes it imperative
to exercise great care.”[47]

[Footnote 47:
Berliner Tageblatt, August 4th.]

“Coblence, August 2nd.—The Government-president in
Düsseldorf reports that twelve motor-cars containing eighty
French officers in Prussian uniforms tried this morning to cross
the Prussian frontier by Walbeck, west of Geldern. The attempt
failed.”[48]

[Footnote 48:
Ibid., August 3rd.]

Referring to this episode another paper wrote: “The alleged
attempt of whole caravans of French officers, masquerading as
German lieutenants, to enter the Rhine province as spies is too
adventurous to be believed. Especially as it is known that the
Dutch frontier is very strictly guarded.

“But Wolff’s Bureau, which at present takes every precaution,
circulated the news. Hence we have here an instance of France
violating Dutch neutrality.”[49]

[Footnote 49:
Kölnische Volkszeitung, August 3rd.]

As far as the author is aware, the German Government has not yet
protested to the Dutch authorities for this breach of their
neutrality.

The poisoned-water-supplies lie deserves further attention. It
was scattered broadcast throughout the land, and millions of
credulous Germans reduced to a state of absolute panic
and—what was intended by those who spread the lie—blind
hate against Germany’s opponents. I have before me a number of
descriptions of scares in various parts of the Fatherland. A few
notices will suffice as illustrations.

“A most terrifying report spread like wild-fire through the town
last Monday morning, and reached to the farthest suburbs. The
waters of the Mangfall had been poisoned by Russian spies, and
everyone’s life was in danger. It is hardly possible to conceive
the effect of this terrible rumour. Messengers of despair rushed
from house to house, knocking at strangers’ doors in order to
spread the warning. ‘That is a devilish deed!’ stammered the white
lips of women. ‘Only barbarians wage war in this manner!’ hissed
the men, trembling with rage and hate.”[50]

[Footnote 50: The
full report of this Munich scare occupies more than a column in the
München-Augsburger Abendzeitung, August 10th.]

The Breslauer-Morgenzeitung for August 10th contains an
announcement from the Breslau municipality warning the inhabitants
that the waters of the Oder have possibly been poisoned, and
appealing for every precaution to be taken before drinking from the
town supply, till a fresh supply can be provided.

“The authorities in Danzig have declared the waters of the
Weichsel to be under suspicion of having been infected with cholera
bacilli. It is presumed that cholera is raging on the upper
Weichsel in Russia, and that the Russians have not allowed this to
become known. Water from the river must not be used for any
purposes connected with human food or drink.”[51]

[Footnote 51:
Leipziger Neuesten Nachrichten, August 20th. A lying report
put in circulation hundreds of miles away from Danzig.]

Finally the originator of these rumours piously contradicts them
all and announces, “lieb Vaterland magst ruhig sein,” in the
following words:

“Wolff’s Bureau reports: There is absolutely no reason for
anxiety on account of the alleged poisoning and infection of
rivers, water supplies and springs which have been reported
unauthoritatively from all parts of the country, and published in
the Press. These rumours, which have caused grave anxiety, on
closer investigation have all proved to be utterly
unfounded.”[52]

[Footnote 52:
Leipziger Volkszeitung, August 27th.]

The war had lasted for four weeks, and although no rivers had
been poisoned, the same could not be said of the currents of
popular opinion.

“While I was walking down a street in Breslau a tram suddenly
stopped, loud cries proceeding from within it. The occupants had
discovered a Russian, dragged him out and handed him over to a
policeman who led the man away. But the official was unable to
protect him, and blows with fists and sticks literally rained on
the defenceless fellow. The couple, surrounded by a howling crowd,
had just moved away, when a nun attracted the attention of the
crowd. On account of a report that a Russian spy disguised as a nun
had been arrested the same morning, the people imagined the nun to
be a man in disguise.

“Smiling at the ridiculous supposition and the maddened howls of
the ever-increasing throng, the lady endeavoured to enter a tram.
Men placed themselves in front of the car, others dragged the
frightened woman out again and with blows and kicks she was driven
before them to the next police station. But the saddest part of
these excesses—and I am only describing a few of which I was
accidentally a witness—is that members of the so-called
educated classes participated in them.”[53]

[Footnote 53: A
special correspondent in the Frankfurter Zeitung, August
7th.]

“On one of the most frequented open places in Breslau a soldier
approached a lady and looked searchingly into her face. She
understood him, and remarked with a smile: ‘I am not a spy!’ The
man replied: ‘But you have short hair. I am sorry, you must come
with me.’

“She at once recognized that the wisest plan was to accompany
him, and turned to do so. The movement worked like a signal; the
bystanders immediately threw themselves in blind rage upon the
defenceless woman. In vain the single soldier tried to protect her,
and equally in vain was the assistance of two policemen who had
come up. Her cries to be taken into a neighbouring house for safety
met with no response.

“Her garments were literally torn from her body, a spectacle
which finally proved to her persecutors that she actually was a
woman, but that fact no longer protects her. Brutal instincts, once
let loose, are mad and unrestrained. Blows continue to fall on her
head and kicks rain against her body. She only tries to shield her
eyes. ‘Take her to the police station’ was shouted, but that is
some distance away. And any second may mean death—a horrible,
disgraceful death.

“Having arrived in the guard-room the officials are soon
convinced that they have to do with an absolutely innocent woman.
Outside the throngs yelled in triumph.”[54]

[Footnote 54:
Breslauer Generalanzeiger, August 6th.]

A German officer wrote the following account to the Berliner
Zeitung am Mittag (August 5th): “May I supplement your article
‘Spies and Spy-hunting’ with a few facts from my own personal
knowledge. On August 3rd no fewer than sixty-four spies (?) were
brought into the police station at the Potsdamer Railway Station
(Berlin). Not one was kept in arrest, for the simple fact that they
were all innocent German citizens.

“Among others who were ‘captured’ and threatened with death by
the raging crowd on the Potsdamer Platz were: A pensioned Prussian
major, who was waiting for his son; a surgeon in the Landwehr; a
high official from the Courts of Justice; and lastly, a pensioned
Bavarian army officer who, on account of his stature, was thought
to be a Russian. A drunken shop-assistant egged on the crowd
against this last suspect, so that his life was really in danger.
He was rescued by four Prussian officers, who pretended to arrest
their Bavarian colleague, and were in this way able to lead him
into safety.”

This twentieth-century reign of terror is not, however, without
a ray of humour. The semi-official Kölnische Zeitung
(August 4th) contained a legend which set all Germany hunting for
French motor-cars. “Several motor-cars with ladies in them, taking
gold to Russia, are on their way across Germany. They must be
stopped and a communication sent to the nearest military or police
station.”

“The occupants of the motor-cars carrying gold to Russia are
said to have transferred the precious metal to cyclists dressed as
bricklayers.”[55]

[Footnote 55:
Das Kleine Journal (Berlin), August 5th.]

“The official announcement that French and Russian motor-cars
had been seen on our country roads has aroused the otherwise
leaden, heavy imaginations of the country people to the most
incredible delirium. We will limit ourselves to a single instance.
One of our cars met a peasant with a hand-waggon near Nerchau. As
soon as he perceived the motor he bolted in mad fright into a
neighbouring corn-field.

“Our man called in a friendly voice: ‘My good fellow, what are
you running away for?’ Then the hero answered in a trembling voice:
‘I thought it was a French motor!'”[56]

[Footnote 56:
Leipziger Volkszeitung, August 6th.]

On August 6th every important paper in the German Empire
contained the following paragraph issued by the “Army Direction” in
Berlin:

“The hunt for alleged hostile motor-cars must stop. It endangers
the motor-car communications so necessary to our armies.”

This warning was repeated in stronger terms on the following
day, and the roll of murdered victims began to leak out.
“Unfortunately through this hunt several persons have been
wrongfully shot. In Leipzig a doctor and his chauffeur have been
shot, while between Berlin and Koepenick a company of armed
civilians on the look-out for Russian motor-cars tried to stop a
car. The chauffeur was compelled to put the brakes on so suddenly
that the motor dashed into a tree, with the result that the
occupants—several persons connected with the army—were
hurled on to the road and received dangerous injuries.

“In Munich a chauffeur was shot dead by a sentinel because he
did not stop soon enough. Even children are not spared in this
degrading fear of spies.

“Near Büren (Westphalia) the twelve-year-old daughter of
Town Councillor Buddeberg in Bielefeld was returning with her
mother from Marburg in a motor. Somebody must have telephoned that
the car was suspect, for the Landwehr Society placed armed
sentinels at various points on the road. They cried ‘Halt!’ to the
chauffeur; just as the car was stopping, shots were fired, and the
girl sank dead in the arms of her mother.

“Even the nationalist journals have expressed their astonishment
that a civilian society is permitted to hold the public highways
with armed guards. At Coblence a teacher and organist named Ritter
was shot by a sentinel.”[57]

[Footnote 57:
Leifziger Volkszeitung, Supplement I., August 7th. Here we
have proof that Germany allowed armed civilians to murder supposed
Frenchmen, a fact to be remembered when weighing Germany’s
accusations against Belgian civilians. The German Government has
published a White Book (328 quarto pages) during the summer, 1915,
indicting Belgian civilians with all kinds of atrocities. Waiving
the point that if Germany first laid aside international law she
had no right to expect Belgium to respect its dictates, it may be
safely assumed that the evidence cited by the Germans is of little
or no value. The oath which German soldiers are compelled to take
precludes the possibility that they would or could give evidence
which reflected on the conduct of the German army either in peace
or war, even if the evidence is absolutely true. “In the interests
of military discipline” the truth must be suppressed. The same oath
is, however, proof that the German soldier must be prepared to lay
down either his life or his honour in defence of the army,
and in a later chapter irrefutable evidence from German sources
will be adduced to show that the White Book in question contains
“sworn lies” emanating from members of the German army.]

In its issue for August 11th the same newspaper gave the names
of four more victims who had been shot in Westphalia. Among them
was a poor woman of weak intellect; she was near a bridge, and
failing to comply with a sentry’s challenge, was shot. The bullet
passed through her leg and killed a little girl who was working
near her.

Wolff’s Bureau in Berlin reports: “In spite of the most urgent
appeals which the Army Direction has issued during the last few
days, begging the public not to place hindrances in the way of
motor-cars, blundering mistakes are still being made every hour in
all parts of Germany, accompanied by the most serious
consequences.

“The morning papers again contain reports of gold-motors having
been captured. There are neither gold-motors nor foreign motors in
Germany. Anyone who interferes with motor traffic is committing a
sin against the army.”[58]

[Footnote 58:
Leipziger Volkszeitung, August 10th.]

Another warning appeared in all the papers of August 12th in a
still more imperative form. Yet a section of the public seemed to
find a source of humour in this tragic hunt. A correspondent of the
Berliner Tageblatt gave an interesting report of his
motor-ride (joy-ride?) from Lindau to Munich.

“We were hardly two kilometres out of Lindau when we were
stopped by a barricade of hay-wagons. On each side peasants stood
with threatening mien, armed with pitchforks, revolvers and ancient
carbines at full-cock. ‘Hands up!’ First visitation; we show our
papers, everything in order. Off again.

“About every two kilometres this scene was repeated: road jammed
with huge, long wagons, the same excitement, the same discussion,
but now and then somewhat sharper. In some villages the duty to
defend the Fatherland has turned into madness.

“‘Here, get out! Where was this paper stamped? Yes, it is
possible to forge!’ They refuse to believe anything; not even a
passport from the Chief in Command, nor papers proving me to be a
German and my companion a German officer. When I tell them that I
am an author and journalist from Berlin, they parry with a ‘What
the devil is that?’

“These brave peasants defend their Fatherland well. Once we had
to wait half an hour till a gendarme came and ended the
comedy with a few short words. Then we are allowed to get in again,
and as I turn round a peasant shouts a last greeting: ‘Really, I
took you for a common hussy in disguise!’

“They threaten us from the houses. Now and then the trigger of a
gun clicks as it is levelled at us from a window. The roads are
lined with peasants armed with all sorts of weapons, iron spikes,
dung-forks, clubs, scythes, and old swords from the time of our
great-grandfathers.

“Up to the suburbs of Munich they stand at every village by day
and by night to see that nothing happens to the Fatherland! And
even if we were stopped twenty-eight times in this short distance;
even if we did have to put up with hard words and black
looks—we suffered all this gladly. We rejoiced to see with
our own eyes how valiantly our peasants defend the frontiers of
their Fatherland.”[59]

[Footnote 59:
Edmund Edel in the Berliner Tageblatt, August 9th.]

In due time the bloodthirsty Pecksniff who had set the avalanche
in motion appeared to express his holy indignation.

“Wolff’s Bureau has circulated the following warning. Berlin,
August 14th. This fatal hunt for motor-cars has claimed yet another
victim. Recently an Austrian countess was shot while working for
the Red Cross, and now a cavalry captain and his chauffeur have
been killed by a forest-keeper on the look-out for Russian
automobile.

“The General Staff has again and again issued the most urgent
demands that this unhappy hunt for foreign motorists—which
has already caused the death of several good Germans—should
cease.

“It is unadulterated madness (es ist heller Wahnsinn) to
search for enemy motors in our land. Neither enemy officers, nor
cars loaded with gold, are driving around in Germany. Would that
our people would stop this horrible murder of their own countrymen
and lend an ear to the warning voice of our Army Direction. Our
Fatherland needs every single man in this serious hour.”[60]

[Footnote 60:
Leipziger Volkszeitung, August 15th.]

Only one more nail requires to be driven home to prove the
blood-guilt of the German authorities for the murder of their own
citizens.

“Innumerable reports are in circulation about the capture of
spies and the prevention of plots against persons and buildings. In
spite of the fact that the military authorities have repeatedly and
urgently appealed for the exercise of the greatest discretion in
publishing such reports, the nationalist Press exploits every
opportunity to disquiet the masses and excite them to senseless
delirium.

“It is obvious that we shall not join in this game. We exercise
our most careful judgment before publishing anything; in these
serious times we must decline to speculate in the thirst for
sensation which has been bred in the public. Rather, on the
contrary, we must beg our readers always to accept all news, WHICH
NOW EMANATE ALMOST ENTIRELY FROM OFFICIAL SOURCES,[61] with the necessary reserve.”[62]

[Footnote 61: The
emphasis is mine. Author.]

[Footnote 62:
Leipziger Volkszeitung, August 7th.]

The author has ventured to lead his readers on a mad-brained
chase after non-existent motor-cars and mythical French gold. He
hopes that his readers’ patience has not been exhausted, because
the ride may prove an instructive education in German methods and
the standards of truth accepted in a country where only might is
right.

The object in view, in submitting these modern fairy-tales to
the British public, is to lay bare the pillars of truth which
support the Fatherland. During the first month of the war there was
an outbreak of brutality in Germany; contemporaneously with these
horrors some million members of the same nation flooded Belgium
with dread deeds of an indescribable nature. This is a noteworthy
coincidence.

We have seen how Germans treat Germans, which makes it easier to
comprehend how Germans treated Belgians. The present chapter gives
a picture of how the German Press is worked, how popular opinion is
created and blood-lust awakened. When dealing with Germany’s
defence of her Belgian horrors, we shall find that her entire case
rests alone upon the utterances of her oracles of truth: Wolff’s
Telegraphic Bureau and Germany’s venal, lying newspapers.

That was the reason for this mad joy-ride from end to end of the
German Empire, and that is the only apology which the author has to
make for introducing the latest contributions to Germanic mythology
into an otherwise serious work.

Incidentally we have observed that German civilians were
permitted to bear arms and did not hesitate to use them “in defence
of the Fatherland,” as Edmund Edel put it. The civilians were
doubtless inspired by the noble desire to grab French gold. Yet
when Belgian civilians—as Wolff’s Bureau alleges—dared
to defend their homes, wives and children against the most
treacherous and dastardly invasion in the world’s
history—then, of course, Germany was perfectly justified in
murdering all and sundry, burning towns and hamlets and laying
waste a fertile land.

CHAPTER VI

THE DÉBÂCLE OF THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATS

In the second paragraph of the Social Democratic programme
published after the Halle Congress in 1890, we read: “The German
workmen’s socialistic party, although working for the present on
national lines, is aware of the international character of the
workmen’s movement, and is determined to fulfil all duties accruing
thereby to the working classes, in order to make the brotherhood of
all men a reality.”

At that meeting—the first to be held after the repeal of
Bismarck’s anti-socialist law—the president claimed that they
had secured more votes at the Reichstag election than any other
party; they were the strongest political party in Germany.

Since that year they have consistently increased their power,
till in the present Reichstag they have no fewer than one hundred
and eleven members, giving them almost an absolute majority.

It seems an irony of fate that at Halle in 1890 one of the
speakers who dilated on international brotherhood and the
inseparable bonds which bound Belgian and German workmen—was
a Belgian delegate! Singer, in reporting on the doings of the
representatives in the Reichstag, said: “We consider peace among
the nations to be an indispensable preliminary for the improvement
of social conditions. We vote against expenditure for military
purposes, because we are convinced that this continuous arming,
accompanied by the constant improvement of murderous weapons, must
be ended. It is contradictory to the civilizing task of the nations
for them to be armed to the teeth, lying in wait for the moment
when they can devour each other.

“Militarism is an evil for the nations; its burdens cannot be
borne for ever, and even to-day the nations are collapsing under
them. Modern conditions are unbearable; out of them spring
ever-increasing armaments, and at last a time will come when war
must break out, because the state of modern armed peace will one
day have become impossible.”

Another authoritative pronouncement from the report[63] of the Social Democratic Congress in Erfurt,
1891, deserves mention. It is a passage from a speech delivered by
the elder Liebknecht in the Reichstag: “As regards the defence of
the Fatherland all parties will be united when it is necessary to
meet an outside enemy. In that moment no party will shirk its
duty.”

[Footnote 63:
“Protokoll über die Verhandlungen des Parteitags der Soz. Dem.
Partei Deutschlands zu Erfurt, 1891.”]

This is an instance of what Germans call
Rückversicherung, or a covering insurance. Having
pledged themselves never to leave the Fatherland in the
lurch—and the pledge was repeated on many
occasions—they were free to babble to French, English and
Italian Socialists about the blessings of internationalism, general
strikes, and eternal peace. But there is no single instance on
record to show that German Socialists considered any other benefits
of internationalism, except those which served the purposes of
their own nationalism.

At Halle, 1890, Liebknecht said: “These ideas are indisputably
correct. Nobody,[64] no matter how
enthusiastic he may be for the international cause, will dare to
maintain that we have no national duties. National and
international are not opposing principles. The word ‘national’ must
be rightly understood. It includes only a certain, limited portion
of international humanity. The part belongs to the whole, and
international merely means going beyond the boundary-posts of the
nation, the narrower limits of the native land; to extend one’s
horizon to include the whole; to consider humanity as one family
and the world as a home.”

[Footnote 64:
Liebknecht was wrong. There are dupes who hold that their
international obligations come before their national duties, and
unfortunately in the ranks of these traitors, English M.P.’s may be
found, who receive £400 per annum from the British State,
presumably to aid them in injuring the British cause.]

The error into which British Socialists have fallen—or
been led—is their attitude towards militarism. German
Democrats have never denounced the bearing of arms; they have
admitted that arms will always be necessary, pre-supposing that the
world continues along the same lines of development as
heretofore.

They have only objected to the existing form[65] of militarism, but otherwise they have always
been unanimous that military training should be compulsory and
universal. Their British Genossen (comrades) have either
misunderstood or wilfully perverted these teachings. German
Socialists have unswervingly insisted upon every man learning the
use of arms, while their British followers have preached absolute
disarmament and done their utmost to betray this country into
weakening herself below the minimum necessary to guard the land,
and to maintain the country’s pledges to the world.

[Footnote 65:
Kautsky: “Die Internationalität und der Krieg” (Vorwärts
Publishing House, Berlin, 1915), p. 26. “We have fought against the
military system not to make the land defenceless, but in order to
introduce another system in its place, which will give us the
necessary guarantees that the army will always be the tool of the
civil authorities and never their master. When the latter is the
case we call such a condition ‘militarism,’ and it is against that
alone that we fight.” Seeing that military power is absolutely
subordinated to the civil authorities in the case of Great Britain
(Mutiny Acts), then according to the principles of German
Socialists their British colleagues were wrong in all the efforts
which they have made against the armed powers of these
islands.]

In Halle, Herr Bebel made this statement: “I have already made
it clear that I consider the efforts of the so-called peace friends
towards disarmament to be useless (aussichtslos), because it
is unthinkable that the rival States would agree to legal
restrictions concerning disarmament. If such were made, each would
endeavour by secret preparations to out-do the other. War and
national enmity are necessary products of society, and the existing
class distinctions.”

The Germans were quite logical in this matter; in effect they
said—the existing States and forms of government make
militarism necessary, and war inevitable. Therefore we declare war
to the knife on every existing government, including Russian
Czarism, British constitutionalism, German autocracy and American
republicanism. They are one and all rotten, unjust and inhuman. Our
programme includes their complete overthrow and the erection in
their stead of a Volksstaat (People’s State).

The position is perfectly simple, and to those who are
sufficiently ignorant and naïve this programme promises an
universal salvation, as delirious in its joy as that expected by
African races when bending the knee before images of wood and
stone. German Socialists are pledged just as irrevocably to the
doctrines of brute force as are the Junker and military powers in
the German Fatherland. What is their industrial and class warfare
but an attempt to enforce the doctrine of might is right?

In the official programme drawn up at Erfurt, 1891, there is a
paragraph stating a claim for uneingeschränktes
Koalitionsrecht (absolute and unlimited right of coalition),
which means that the masses may unite to enforce what they will,
and annihilate whom they please. The same rights of coalition are
denied to anyone else, and in the coal-strikes in South
Wales[66] we have a lurid example—such
instances could not be found in Germany—of the absolute and
unlimited right of coalition at the risk of undoing any and every
other right.

[Footnote 66: The
strikes during the present war.—Author.]

The point is this: German Socialists have declared their
intention to give no allegiance to any existing form of government
and to overthrow them at the earliest possible moment. Do British
Socialists accept this part of the programme?

Throughout German Social Democratic literature we find Mr.
Ramsay Macdonald referred to as Genosse Ramsay Macdonald,
which means that he is considered a full member of the brotherhood.
If that is really the case, and if he accepts their programme as
one to be followed here he would be favouring the substitution of
the volksstaat for the British constitutional monarchy.

In face of this it may be asked why do British members of the
Socialist party take an oath on entering the House of Commons, and
why do they accept £400 per annum to support a national
State, if they have pledged themselves internationally to overthrow
it?

The author admits his inability to solve the riddle, but during
the years 1902-1914 he has heard members of all non-Socialist
German parties assert that the German Socialists do not recognize
any religious oath, and sections of the Socialists admit this
position. As a party they are professedly atheistic; therefore when
the might of the German State compels them to take an
oath—they take it with an inward
Rückversicherung.

In a word, false-swearing is permitted, when one is obliged by
circumstances, to take an oath to authorities whose right and might
the oath-taker does not admit. So long ago as 1892 the Social
Democrats were publicly charged with condoning perjury in order to
rescue fellow members from the results of breaches of the law.
Judge Schmidt in a court at Breslau said in that year: “Social
Democrats have never concealed the fact that they are hostile to
any religious form of oath. For them the religious importance and
responsibility of an oath has no meaning whatever.” Numerous German
judges and authors have expressed themselves in a similar
strain.

Readers who are interested in the point are referred to the
report[67] of the Socialist Congress held in
Berlin, October, 1892. The party leaders endeavoured to gloss the
matter over with righteous indignation and ambiguous phrases, but
it nevertheless remains a fact that the desire to counteract
effectively, a tendency to perjury among Socialists led the German
Government a few years later to make perjury punishable by penal
servitude up to ten years.

[Footnote 67: All
these reports may be seen in the British Museum Reading Room. Press
mark is: 08072d.]

Before leaving the Volksstaat the author only wishes to
state that it lays the axe on every conception of morality,
religion and social order which we esteem. In the place of existing
conditions, it would erect a mob tyranny more degrading to the
individual than Czarism or Republicanism. The mines of Siberia and
the tinned-meat factories of Chicago may enslave the body, but the
Volksstaat, as portrayed by Socialist writers and speakers,
promises an intellectual tyranny—hopeless alike to body and
soul; and those who have had an opportunity to observe the brutal
tyranny called “party discipline” which rules the German Social
Democrats, will bear the present writer out in saying that its
like, could only be found inside the German army.

The strongest, best organized and most thoroughly disciplined
political party in the world has repeatedly expressed its
unalterable determination to place national before international
interests, whenever these two should seem to be at variance. In the
light of these declarations, the action of German Socialists in
giving unreserved support to the German Government in this war, is
not altogether surprising.

Furthermore, this foundation-stone in their policy ought never
to have been left out of consideration when pondering over their
ecstatic utterances on peace and internationalism.

The communistic manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,
first published in London in the German language in 1847, contains
the following: “Men say that we Communists wish to destroy the
nationality of the native land. Workmen have no Fatherland. It is
impossible to take away what they do not possess. The Communists
scorn to conceal their views and intentions. We declare openly,
that their aims can only be attained by the violent overthrow of
all existing social orders. Let the ruling classes tremble before a
communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing but their
chains to lose, while they have a world to gain.”[68]

[Footnote 68: “Envy
and greed are the two powerful levers by which the Social Democrats
are endeavouring to lift the world off its hinges. They live by the
destruction of every ideal.” Treitschke in the “Preussische
Jahrbücher,” vol. 34.]

German Socialists have incorporated these principles in
theory in their programme, but in practice they do not
hold them, especially if their own skins are endangered, together
with the Government which is threatened by “violent overthrow.”
That is the sum total of their extensive defence—literature
published since the outbreak of the present war. In its
naked reality that is what the guarantee-insurance policy covered.
So long as no danger threatened their own lives, goods and
chattels, such eloquence as the following extracts were shouted
into the world; but when they personally stood face to face with
the Moloch upon which for years they had heaped contemptuous abuse,
then national (i.e., personal) interests came first.

Herr Fischer, in his capacity as president of the Socialist
Congress in Berlin, 1892, said:

“The reception of French delegates at Halle, and of Liebknecht
at Marseilles, have proved incontrovertibly that the struggling
French proletarians are of one mind and heart with German Social
Democracy. Let the chauvinists, burning with hate on this and that
side the Rhine, urge us on to war; let the diplomats and
Governments of both countries sacrifice the well-being of the two
nations to militarism and the war-bogey. The working-men in the two
countries stretch out their hands to each other over the frontiers
as pioneers of true culture and morality. They are convinced that
there is only one enemy which separates them, and that it is their
common task to fight against and annihilate this one
enemy—capitalism.”

“Now as ever, we Social Democrats reply to the Government’s
military and economic policy this parole: Not a man and not a
farthing will be voted for this system!”[69]

[Footnote 69:
Social Democrat members of the Reichstag in their report to the
annual congress held in Cologne, 1893.]

These quotations have been intentionally taken from speeches,
etc., published in the early nineties of the last century. If
necessary, it would be an easy matter to fill several volumes of
similar matter from the annual congress reports down to 1913; from
the vast mass of German Social Democratic literature published
between 1890 and 1914; and from the hundred party newspapers and
reviews circulated in the Fatherland, Yet in the face of all these
assurances it seemed to us that the German Socialists had
shamefully betrayed their principles on August 4th, 1914, by giving
their unreserved support to “Germany’s Holy War.”[70]

[Footnote 70: In
all Germany, and among all classes, this has become the popular
designation of the European war: “Unser heiliger
Krieg.”]

Probably the betrayal was not so shameful as it seemed, because
the fact was not made known in this country that the German
Socialists had but imitated Bismarck’s policy with Russia and
Austria. (Bismarck concluded a treaty, with the one Power, then
behind that Power’s back he concluded a
Rückversicherungsvertrag with the other, i.e., a
covering insurance policy intended to protect him against all
risks.)

During a quarter of a century, German Social Democrats have been
the most ardent and insistent pioneers of internationalism and
anti-militarism. But it has not been so generally known that they
too have protected their rear by a Rückversicherung:
(1.) They have consistently taught that every man must learn to
bear arms, and that both man and woman must be prepared to make any
sacrifice for their Fatherland. (2.) They have always held that
national interests must be considered before international
palaver.

In Chapter I. we have seen that up till July 28th, 1914, the
German Social Democratic Party considered Austria and Germany to be
entirely responsible for the European crisis. They had then no
shadow of doubt, that Austria alone was guilty for bringing the
danger of a European war to their very doors; from that point we
again take up the story.[71]

[Footnote 71: In
all the mass of literature published by German Socialists during
the war I have found only one mention of their first attitude to
the war danger. On the first anniversary of the ultimatum to Serbia
(July 23rd, 1915) the Leipziger Volkszeitung contains these
lines in a leading article: “To-day we may not repeat that which we
wrote about the ultimatum in our issue of July 24th, 1914. But
there was no doubt in any section of the Press, that Europe stood
on the brink of war from the moment that ultimatum was
despatched.”]

Three days later they tacitly agreed that Russia was the guilty
party and acquiesced in the mobilization of the German army. On
August 1st this proclamation occupied the front page of their
seventy-seven daily papers:

“PARTEIGENOSSEN! Military law has been
proclaimed. Any hour may bring with it the outbreak of the world
war. Thereby the severest trials will be imposed upon, not only our
nation, but upon the whole of our continent.

“Up till the last minute the
internationalists have done their duty, and on the other side of
our frontiers every nerve is being strained to preserve peace and
to make war impossible.

“If our earnest protests, our repeated
endeavours have been without success, it is because the conditions
under which we live have once again proved stronger than our will,
and the will of our workmen brothers. Hence, whatever comes, we
must now face it with firmness.

“The horrible self-laceration of the European
peoples, is the cruel confirmation of our warnings to the ruling
classes for more than a generation; we have spoken admonishingly
and in vain.

“Parteigenossen (comrades), we shall
not live through coming events in fatalistic indifference; we shall
remain true to our cause; we shall hold firmly together, permeated
by the sublime greatness of our cultural mission.

“The women, on whom the burden of events
presses two and threefold, have above all, in these serious times,
the task of working in the spirit of Socialism for the high ideals
of humanity, so that a repetition of this dreadful catastrophe may
be averted, and this war may be the last.

“The stern regulations of martial law strike
the workmen’s movement with terrible force. Imprudent actions,
useless and falsely-conceived sacrifices, damage in this moment not
only the individual, but also our cause.

“Comrades, we appeal to you to persevere in
the unshakable confidence that the future belongs, in spite of all,
to nation-binding Socialism, to justice and humanity.

“DER PARTEIVORSTAND.
(The leaders of the party.)

“Berlin, July 3ist, 1914.”

With these words, millions of German Socialists, represented by
four and a quarter million voters and a hundred and eleven members
of the Reichstag, tacitly denied their previous protestations, that
Austrian Imperialism was letting loose the war-fury on Europe.
There are rumours of a secret consultation with the German
Chancellor, but that is of little import in this place. The leaders
of this huge party proclaimed on July 25th that Austria was the
blood-guilty power and maintained this attitude in spite of
bloodshed till 11 p.m. on July 28th. By what lightning-change
Austria’s original guilt was transferred to Russia by July 31st is
not recorded.

With regard to the text of the above proclamation, there are
variations to be noted. In the Vorwärts it runs “within
and without our frontiers” in the second paragraph; the text as I
have given it is taken from the Leipziger Volkszeitung. In
the fifth paragraph the Nuremberg Fränkische Tagespost
gives “capitalistic” for “fatalistic.”

A few extracts from Socialist newspapers will suffice to
illustrate the complete change of front which happened in three
days:

“We Social Democrats in this solemn hour are at one with the
whole German nation, without distinction of party or creed, in
accepting the fight forced upon us by Russian barbarism, and we are
ready to fight till the last drop of blood for Germany’s national
independence, fame and greatness.” Der Folksfreund
(Karlsruhe), August 1st.

“We desired peace and we have done everything humanly possible
to secure that end. But when war is forced upon us by Russian
Czarism, then, whatever the final decision may be, we must drop all
class distinctions and differences of every kind, to form a single,
determined people, prepared to defend Germany’s independence and
greatness against the enemy—even to the last drop of blood.”
Volksstimme (Mannheim), July 31st.

“A defeat would mean collapse, annihilation and horrors most
dreadful for all of us.[72] Our imaginations
revolt at such a possibility. Our representatives in the Reichstag
have unanimously declared on innumerable occasions that the Social
Democrats could not leave their Fatherland in the lurch when the
hour of destiny strikes; the workmen will now redeem the promise
given by their representatives. The ‘Fatherlandless
fellows'[73] will do their duty, and in
doing it, will allow themselves to be surpassed in no wise by the
patriots,” Münchener Post, August 1st.

[Footnote 72: These
sentiments did not occur to this journalist when Germany began a
ruthless war of invasion on Belgium.—Author.]

[Footnote 73: A
phrase of contempt employed by the Kaiser when speaking of the
Social Democrats in 1889, and which became proverbial.]

“Whatever our opponents have done to us, at this moment we all
feel the duty to fight against Russian knout-rule. Our women and
children shall not be sacrificed to Russian bestiality, nor the
German people become a booty for the Cossacks.” Die
Volksstimme (Chemnitz), August 2nd.

It is possible that even at the end of the war no explanation
will be forthcoming for this astounding change of attitude. Some
have suggested that the Russian or Slavonic danger caused it. Yet
just these journals, and this party, had maintained, so long as any
degree of free speech was permitted, that Austria had provoked the
danger, and they were fully aware that the German Government had
from first to last approved of and openly assisted in provoking,
nay challenging, Russia on a question which involved the latter’s
prestige and diplomatic existence.

Bethmann-Hollweg gave the alleged Russian mobilization as the
immediate cause of the war, but doubtless the Social Democrats knew
full well that for several days before Russia’s mobilization was
announced, Germany had been secretly mobilizing her army. From July
26th till July 30th German papers contained many reports that
Russia was mobilizing; they may have been true or not, but the
diplomatic correspondence published by Austria and discussed on
page 63 shows conclusively that the Central
Powers were baiting Russia into taking that step, and when the
greatest Slavonic power had made the desired move, Germany replied
with an ultimatum which brought about the war, so ardently desired
by the great majority of Germany’s warlike tribes.

Britishers who sympathize with German Social Democracy may
advance the plea: If Germany’s military preparations were secret,
how could the Social Democrats know of these proceedings? The
answer is direct and simple: Every individual Social
Democrat—and men, women, and children, they number some
twenty millions—has for years past been a spy and informer in
the interests of the Umsturzpartei (overthrow-party). All
the happenings of the workshop, barracks, farmyard, shop and office
have been systematically reported to the local Press, and local
committees of the Democratic Party; the ammunitions thus obtained
have been just as systematically employed to fire insidious
paragraphs and Press articles at governments, local authorities,
employers, officers, and even the employers of servant-girls. Of
late years it has been dangerous to have a difference even with a
maid-servant; a few days later the inevitable insidious, anonymous
attack would certainly appear in one or other of the S.D.
journals.

One instance will suffice to illustrate the everyday routine of
the class-war (Klassenkampf) in which the whole energies of
the Social Democrats have been absorbed for a quarter of a century.
An acquaintance of the author’s, Major Schub, in the 19th Infantry
Regiment, stationed in Erlangen, dared some years ago to send his
orderly with a she-goat to a peasant in the district who kept the
indispensable he-goat. Two days later he was pilloried in a Furth
paper for calling upon a private soldier to fulfil such a degrading
office. German workmen do not read the Vorwärts (its
circulation is well under 100,000), but they read one or other of
the seventy purveyors of filth and class hatred which form the
stock-in-trade of the Social Democratic Party.

The author of this work, knew as early as July 25th, that
reserve officers had been warned to hold themselves in readiness;
on succeeding days he saw tangible evidence that mobilization was
proceeding stealthily, and it would be ridiculous for him to claim
greater knowledge than the hundred and eleven S.D. members of the
Reichstag, and the seventy-seven editors of their party
papers—especially when these have an army of millions of
spies at their command.

In order to obtain a correct judgment of the motives which
actuated German Social Democrats in their complete support of the
German Government it is necessary to consult the works published by
them during the war. Karl Kautsky writes:[74] “That which under these circumstances, was most
immediate and pressing in determining the attitude to war, not only
for the masses, but also many of our leaders, was the fear of a
hostile invasion, the urgent necessity to keep the enemy out of our
territory, no matter what the causes, object or results of the war
may be. This fear was never greater and more justified than on this
occasion; never have the devastating results of invasion been more
terrible. Belgium and East Prussia speak plainly.

[Footnote 74: “Die
Internationalität und der Krieg.” Berlin, 1915; p. 32.]

“The increased size of the armies greatly extends the
unavoidable desolation of war, and in addition to this a second
strongly-working popular motive decides the attitude of a nation to
war, viz., the interest of the entire people in the fate of an army
in which every family is represented.”

It thus becomes evident that no motives of justice, right or
wrong, or politics played any part in the decision arrived at, but
merely a great fear which impelled the Social Democrats to consider
first and foremost how to save their own skins.

All protest meetings were cancelled on August 1st, and the Press
restricted itself to chronicling rumours and events. The sitting of
the Reichstag was awaited with impatience as that was expected to
bring more light on the crisis. The effect which Bethmann-Hollweg
produced upon his hearers was to convince them that Russia alone
was to blame. “The question of supporting the war by voting a loan
was all the easier for us to decide, because the provocation had
come, not from France or England, but from Russia. I admit openly
that while I was travelling to Berlin to the Reichstag I had very
little time to hunt for precedents in the party’s history to
determine my vote. For me the force of circumstances alone was
decisive; the material interests of the working classes and the
entire nation; common sense and the realization of a practical
policy.”[75]

[Footnote 75: “Die
Kriegssitzung des deutschen Reichstags” (“The War Sitting of the
Reichstag”), by Karl Hildenbrand, Member for Stuttgart. Published
1915; p. 13.]

“At the time of voting on August 4th, we were not in a position
to take England into consideration, because at the moment she had
not yet declared war. But by England’s intervention our attitude on
August 4th has been still more emphatically justified.”[76]

[Footnote 76:
Ibid., p. 16.]

This statement is a gross distortion of the truth. It is true
that England had not yet declared war, but Sir Edward Grey had made
England’s attitude quite clear on the previous day. His speech had
been published in the Berlin papers. Furthermore, the Chancellor
informed the Reichstag that England’s position was perfectly clear,
although he suppressed the fact that Germany had begun preparations
for war with this country five days before, by ordering civilians
to leave Heligoland, and despatching the Königin Luise
to lay mines on our coasts.

In any case, the action of the Social Democrats on that occasion
is an example of unfaithfulness to principles. Accepting the
invasion fear as a ground for voting a loan for a war of defence,
there is still no evident reason why they should vote funds for a
war of aggression against Belgium. On the surface, there is no
explanation for their cheers when Bethmann-Hollweg announced the
invasion of two neutral States by Germany’s armies.

Had they been tricked into supporting an alleged defensive war,
there was still time to protest against German hordes overrunning
two weak neighbouring countries. In spite of their terror that they
personally might suffer through the horrors of war, their vaunted
humanitarianism led to no outcry against those same horrors being
wilfully and ruthlessly forced upon their Belgian
Genossen.

The only anxiety which the speech of their chosen spokesman,
Herr Haase, betrays, is the anxiety to avoid responsibility. “In
the name of my party I am empowered to make the following
declaration: We are standing in an hour of solemn destiny. The
consequences of the imperialistic policy—which brought about
an era of armaments and made international difficulties more
acute—have now fallen upon Europe like a storm-flood.

“The responsibility for this recoils upon the leaders of that
policy; we decline to accept it. Social Democracy has fought
against this ominous development with all the forces at its
command. Up to the very last hour we have worked for the
maintenance of peace through mighty demonstrations in every land,
especially in intimate cooperation with our French brothers.
(Applause from the Social Democrats.) Our efforts have been in
vain.

“Now we are face to face with the stern reality of war. We are
threatened by the terrors of a hostile invasion. To-day we have not
to decide either for or against war, but only concerning the
necessary means for the defence of our country. Now we have to
think of the millions of our Genossen who are innocently
swept into this fate. They will suffer most through the
devastations of war. Our ardent wishes accompany also our brothers
who are called to the flag without distinction of party. (Loud
applause.)

“We think, too, of the mothers who must give their sons and of
the women and children who are robbed of their bread-winners, and
to whose fear for their loved ones is added the dread of hunger.
Tens of thousands of wounded and mutilated warriors will soon be
added to these. We consider it our most compelling duty to help
them, to lighten their burdens and relieve their distress.[77] (Loud applause.)

[Footnote 77: There
is every reason to believe that the party has worked hard to keep
this promise.—Author.]

“In case of a victory for Russian despotism, which is already
stained with the blood of Russia’s best sons, much—if not
everything—is at stake for our people and our free future. It
is a question of averting this danger, and of securing the culture
and independence of our own country. (Loud applause.)

“Now we will redeem our oft repeated pledge: In the hour of
danger we shall not leave our Fatherland in the lurch. (Loud
applause.) Thereby, we feel ourselves in unison with the principles
of internationalism which have always admitted the right of each
single people to national independence and national defence. We
condemn, as internationalism does, every war of conquest.

“We demand, that, as soon as the goal of security has been
attained and our enemies are inclined to make peace, the war shall
end by a peace that will make friendship with neighbouring
countries possible. We demand this, not only in the interests of
the international solidarity for which we have uniformly fought,
but also in the interests of the German nation.

“We hope that the cruel school of war’s sufferings will awaken a
horror for war in new millions, and win them over to the
socialistic ideal and international peace. Guided by these
principles we vote in favour of the war loan. (Loud
applause.)”[78]

[Footnote 78:
Leipziger Volkszeitung, August 5th.]

A short historical comparison will assist in making the Social
Democratic action still clearer. In 1870, when Bismarck asked the
Reichstag for a war credit to prosecute the campaign against
France, the Socialists were few and helpless. Yet Liebknecht and
Bebel refused to vote in its favour. “Their moral demonstration was
in itself perfectly logical, for Bismarck’s and Napoleon III.’s
intrigues equally deserved condemnation.”[79]

[Footnote 79:
Kautsky: “Die Internationalitat und der Krieg,” p. 19.]

Apparently it did not occur to the Democrats in 1914, that
probably Germany had again been guilty of intrigues. It is
noteworthy, however, that the small party in 1870 protested when a
national issue was at stake, while the mighty party of 1914 made no
protest whatever, although, as they had previously announced and
denounced, the issue had been raised by the unjust actions and vile
intrigues of Austrian imperialism.

The campaign against Russia conducted by the nationalist Press
up till August 1st was taken up by the organs representing Social
Democracy, immediately war broke out. Their papers were flooded
with appalling pictures of Russian (generally termed Asiatic)
barbarism, tyranny and misrule. Passages from the speeches and
writings of Bebel, Liebknecht and others were quoted to show the
fiendishness of Russian policy, and the justice of every German
doing his utmost to smash Czarism and deliver millions of fellow
workmen from its thrall. Even a blood-and-thunder story of the
Russian police was turned on as a serial story in their daily
papers.[80] In short, nothing was omitted
which goes to make Stimmung.

[Footnote 80: “Der
Polizeimeister, ein russischer Polizeiroman,” by Gabryela Zapolska.
The story commenced in the Nuremberg party organ on August 11th,
and in Kautsky’s Leipztger Volkszeitung on August 18th.]

Had they been honestly impartial a still blacker picture of
Austria, painted by one of the founders of the workmen’s movement,
might have been quoted, yet it might have been indiscreet to tell
Germans what Lassalle wrote. “Austria? Russia is a mammoth,
barbarian Empire which its despotic rulers endeavour to civilize,
just so far as suits their despotic interests. In that country
barbarism is excusable, because it is a national element. But the
case is very different with Austria. There it is the government
which represents the barbaric principle and crushes beneath it by
artifice and violence, the civilized peoples under its
rule.”[81]

[Footnote 81:
Bernstein’s edition of Lassalle’s “Reden und Schriften,” vol. I.,
p. 306.]

With the exception of a few Britishers, the Socialists of all
countries have unanimously condemned the attitude of the German
party. Not the least interesting is the condemnation expressed by
the Italian section. Dr. Südekum, Reichstag member for
Nuremberg, was sent to Italy to discuss the situation with Italian
Socialists and justify their own action in supporting the war. The
following account of the meeting appeared in the
Vorwärts for September 12th: “The meeting lasted from
3.30 p.m. till 7 p.m. Südekum declared that he had come to
inform their Italian comrades of the situation in which the German
Socialists found themselves, and in order to learn whether the
Italians had taken any steps to keep up communications with
Democrats in other lands.

“We hold firmly to the contention that the German Socialists
could have done nothing except what they did. My presence here is a
proof that we Germans are aware of our duties towards
internationalism.[82] We believed that the
German Government had given proof of its peaceful tendencies and
was forced into war against its will. Therefore, the Social
Democratic Party supported it.

[Footnote 82: There
is no evidence to show that Südekum’s Italian visit had any
other purpose than winning over the sympathies of Italian
Socialists and with them, the whole Italian nation for the purposes
of German nationalism.—Author.]

“Delia Seta answered that this was no justification for giving
their support. The Italian Socialists would not have given their
assistance under the same circumstances, just as they had refused
to vote in favour of the Libyan war.

“Dr. Südekum replied that the German Socialists were
compelled to defend their Fatherland against Czarism. Further, he
repeated Haase’s declaration in the Reichstag and continued: ‘I am
astonished that the Italian Socialists are able to believe, that so
strong a party as the German Democrats, had denied their ideals,
and been untrue to their task. You must admit that no other way was
open to us, except to grant the credit demanded.’

“After this, he asserted the nationalist Press of France and
Italy was working against Germany, and it seemed as if the Italian
comrades were in agreement with Italian nationalists in
endeavouring to maintain the existing condition of affairs[83] in Italy.

[Footnote 83: “The
existing condition of affairs” seems to mean Italian
neutrality.—Author.]

“Finally Südekum concluded by pointing out that the German
Democrats had neither the intention, nor the right, to influence
the attitude of the Italian Socialists, but were merely
endeavouring to link up hearty international intercourse again.

“In reply Delia Seta said he found it remarkable that the German
Socialists had appealed to their Italian comrades in this solemn
hour, all the more remarkable because intentions might easily be
ascribed to this intervention. ‘This is a serious motive which
impels us to state our opinions with unreserved frankness.’

“He continued: ‘Your defence does not convince us. You speak of
France being allied with us, and of England, Germany’s enemy. But
we speak of our France, revolutionary France, Jauré’s
France. The French Socialists opposed the military preparations
made by France, you Germans did not do the same in your country, or
at least, only up to the point where the imperialistic feelings of
the Kaiser and his party might be hurt.

“‘The point of view of German Democrats coincides with that of
German imperialism. German predominance means for us a far greater
danger than Czarism, because Czarism prevents the German army from
marching on Paris, and thus protects the banner of France, which in
spite of all mistakes and errors, is still the most
revolutionary.

“‘Germany’s motto is: Deutschland über alles and you
have not opposed it; but you have published in the
Vorwärts an appreciation of the Kaiser alleging that he
had worked during twenty-five years for peace.

“‘You speak of German civilization being in danger. But in this
civilization we can find no trace of culture, when you attack and
torture neutral Belgium, and complete the destruction of Louvain.
Taken as a whole, German Socialists are just as plausible and use
the same excuses as the Ministers of the German
Government.[84]

[Footnote 84: Might
not this also be said of Messrs. Morel, Macdonald, Bernard Shaw,
etc., and the Labour Leader, whose writings on the war have
been scattered broadcast throughout Germany during the last six
months?]

“‘We are enraged at the terrible fact that Germany has violated
Belgium’s neutrality, and you have not even protested. We tell you
quite openly that we honour and weep for devastated Belgium, and
tremblingly follow the fate of France.'”

Südekum had no words with which to answer this terrible
indictment, and the Vorwärts could only add the
following comment:

“We consider the judgment of our Italian comrades to be
one-sided, but for reasons easy to understand, desist from
discussing it in the present situation. Unfortunately we must
recognize the fact, however, that the Italian view is widespread
among the Socialists of other neutral countries.”

Germany’s revolutionary party lost no time in hoisting the
banner of “no annexations.” The Leipziger Folkszeitung,
second in importance only to the Vorwärts nailed down a
phrase in the Kaiser’s speech from the throne, which stated: “We
are inspired by no desire for conquest.” In commenting on this
phrase, Kautsky’s organ said:

“The part of the speech which excites most sympathy in us is the
admission that Germany cherishes no lust for conquest. At the
proper time we shall refer to that again.

“It is with sincere regret that we see the French Government on
the side of the criminal Powers, which have enslaved and robbed the
Russian people. If Germany, in a delirium of victory, should raise
claims which mean annexation, then we shall—that must be
repeated again—recall the speech from the throne of the
German Kaiser on August 4th, 1914.”[85]

[Footnote 85:
Leipziger Volkszeitung, August 4th.]

During the first year of war a split among the Social Democrats
has become evident, and it appears certain that it is the
annexation question which is causing the cleavage. In December last
Liebknecht abstained from voting when the second war loan was
granted by the Reichstag. Evidently doubts have arisen in a small
section of the party either as to the origin of the war, or in
regard to the objects which the German Government hopes to
attain.

On August 20th, 1915, Dr. Liebknecht put this question in the
Reichstag: “Is the Government prepared to enter into immediate
peace negotiations on the basis that Germany renounces all
annexation claims and assuming that the other Powers in question
are willing to negotiate?” Von Jagow replied: “I believe the great
majority of the members will agree with me, when I refuse to answer
the question, as being at present beside the purpose.”

The reply evoked a hurricane of “bravos.”

A parallel may be found in the year 1870. The central committee
of German Social Democrats passed a resolution that: “It is
absolutely necessary for the party to organize simultaneously in
all parts of the country great popular demonstrations against the
annexation of Alsace-Lorraine, and pass resolutions in favour of an
honourable peace with the French republic.”

Nothing came of the movement, for on September 9th the committee
was placed under arrest and prosecuted. If Germany should be
victorious in this war, it is to be assumed that the Socialists
would again prove powerless to prevent annexation. What the allies
cannot hinder, the Social Democrats would be still more helpless to
prevent; especially as the great majority of them are unreservedly
on the side of the Kaiser and his Government. When in need, the
latter flattered and persuaded the Democrats to vote for an alleged
war of defence; but should German arms be victorious the German
Government would neither seek, nor accept advice on her national
projects, from her quondam internationalists.

There are grounds for suspicion that the party is playing a game
desired by the Berlin Government. For some months past they have
tried every means possible to arrange personal interviews with the
leaders of the corresponding party in France—the French
“comrades” have refused to meet them. The Leipziger
Volkszeitung for July 16th, 1915, contains more than a column
about “We and the French,” in which the German party spreads the
usual Teutonic lime of sophistry and empty phrases.

One passage betrays the entire intrigue. They wish their “French
brothers” to agree to a peace without annexations, which means, in
so many words, that the French Socialists are to renounce
Alsace-Lorraine for ever. Had they been, or should they be in the
future, so foolish as to enter this German mouse-trap, then before
the war has reached a decisive conclusion, a large section of the
French nation would be pledged to renounce the lost provinces even
in case of a German defeat. This is an excellent instance of the
manner in which German Social Democracy works in an enemy country
to assist its own Government. In like manner, the Independent
Labour Party and Union of Democratic Control are forces exceedingly
sensitive to German influence, and in a decisive moment can be set
in motion by the German “comrades.”

The hundred and eleven Social Democrats in the Reichstag have no
real power in Germany. If they possess any degree of power, then
fear for their own skins, prevents them from risking its exercise.
Their real opinion concerning Alsace-Lorraine appeared in the same
journal four days later. “According to our opinion it would be a
crime, if France made the return of these provinces a condition of
peace.” In the same article an accusation of one-sidedness is made
against the Socialists in France for supporting the French
Government. After which, it is not surprising that every time the
names of the Genossen Macdonald, Snowden, Hardie and Newbold
occur in the Leipziger Volkszeitung, they are mentioned with
awe and reverence.

“Besides Ramsay Macdonald and Philip Snowden, our friend J.T.
Walton Newbold has got on the nerves of the English
patriots.”[86] These gentlemen invariably
receive polite mention, but French Socialists are evidently in
disfavour—presumably because they know too well the German
game.

[Footnote 86:
Leipziger Volkszeitung, July 23rd, 1915.]

The peace programme of the German Socialists has been published.
An official declaration of the party which appeared on August 23rd,
1915, gives the following conditions.

“While caring for the national interests and rights of our own
people, and at the same time respecting the vital interests of all
nations, German Social Democracy strives for a peace which bears
the guarantee of permanence, and will bring the European States
closer together in matters of justice, culture, and commerce. In
this sense we have drawn up the following scheme:

“I. The security of German independence and the entirety of the
German Empire, which implies the rejection of all annexation plans
on the part of our opponents. That includes the French plan to
re-incorporate Alsace-Lorraine with France, no matter in what form
that end may be sought.

“II. In order to secure free economic development for the German
nation, we demand:

“(a) The ‘open door,’ i.e., equal rights for
commercial and such-like activities in all colonial
territories.

“(b) The inclusion of the most-favoured-nation clause in
the articles of peace of all the nations now at war.

“(c) The furthering of an economic entente by abolishing
tariffs, etc., as far as possible.

“(d) The equalization and improvement of the
social-political institutions according to ideals aimed at by the
workmen’s international party.

“(e) The freedom of the seas is to be guaranteed by an
international treaty. To this end the right of capture at sea must
be abolished, and all straits and narrows of importance for world
commerce, must be internationalized.

“III. In the interests of Germany’s security and the free
exercise of commercial and economic efforts in South-Eastern
Europe, we reject all the warlike aims of the Quadruple Alliance to
weaken or disintegrate Austria-Hungary and Turkey.

“IV.—In consideration of the fact that the annexation of
territories inhabited by another race transgresses the rights of
nations to govern themselves; furthermore because thereby, the
unity and strength of Germany would be weakened and her foreign
relations seriously and permanently injured, we oppose the plans in
that direction cherished by shortsighted
conquest-politicians.[87]

[Footnote 87: There
are two and a half lines of dots at this point. Probably the German
censor has cut out a sentence.]

“V.—The terrible destruction and sufferings brought upon
humanity by this war have won over millions of hearts to the ideal
of a world peace, permanently secured by an international court of
justice. The attainment of this end must be recognized as the
highest moral duty of all those who are appointed to the work of
framing a peace. Therefore we demand that an international
arbitration court shall be created which shall settle all future
difference between the nations.”[88]

[Footnote 88:
Leipziger Volkszeitung, August 23rd, 1915.]

This imaginary peace-treaty is what Germans would call a
Zankapfel (apple of discord). It may represent the serious
opinions of Germany’s greatest political party, but the German
Government will welcome it because it will give Germany’s
sympathizers in France, England, Italy and Russia an excellent
weapon with which they can attack their respective Governments, and
hamper them in protecting their national interests. It will
doubtless be an inspiration to the members of the I.L.P. and the
U.D.C.[89]

[Footnote 89: Above
prophecy written end of August; fulfilled in the Labour
Leader October 28th.—Author.]

If the German Government seriously formulated such proposals,
the author believes that all Britishers worthy of the name would
simply answer: “Fight on!” On this assumption the proposals deserve
no discussion.

Yet the document is interesting as revealing the mind of Social
Democratic Germany. These sublime Pharisees are unconscious of
Belgium’s wrongs and Germany’s crimes. The former deserve no
compensation and the latter no penalty. Here we are on the bed-rock
of their ideas of justice and humanitarianism. Still we are not
altogether surprised, because the Democratic newspaper organs have
openly defended and justified the atrocities committed by German
soldiers, and whenever any particularly damning evidence has been
produced their parole has consistently been: “At any rate, now is
not the time to discuss it.” According to their comprehension the
only time for discussion is when Europe is under the German heel.
They are willing to discuss—when discussion can no longer
injure the Fatherland, when Germany has gained all she wants.

The most remarkable metamorphosis which the German Democrats
have undergone, is shown in their changed attitude to England. This
country gave a home to Marx and Engels; the former is buried in
Highgate cemetery. For many decades the party professed
enthusiastic admiration of British institutions and our ideals of
personal freedom. Their admiration for England was not always
convenient to the German Government, and was certainly a thorn in
the side of the Kaiser.

In 1898 the party published a “Handbook for Social Democratic
Voters,” which contains lengthy explanations of their entire
policy. Therein they justify their opposition to German naval
expansion, and while conceding that naval supremacy is vital and
indispensable to England, continue: “Boundless plans are veiled
beneath the Navy Bill (1897). The hotspurs among the water-patriots
dream of a first-class navy which might rival, yes, even surpass
the British fleet.

“For the water-patriots the Navy Bill means an instrument to
further their unlimited Weltpolitik and schemes of conquest;
a weapon with which to realize their mad imaginings of a greater
Germany. They desire to employ it as a tool for their absolutist
plans and adventurous world enterprises.

“It increases the risk of foreign conflicts. At the same time it
brightens the prospects of success of those influential circles
which—impelled by an overpowering impulse to deeds, and
inspired by a diseased longing for prestige—press on from
excitement to excitement, from daring to daring, and from crisis to
crisis.”

This remarkable prophecy has been verified by history, but with
its realization, the party which made it has been converted to the
side of their former opponents. To-day the Social Democrats are
just as hearty in the desire to see Britain overthrown and British
naval supremacy smashed as is the Kaiser’s Government.

No impartial thinker dare deny that the British fleet has been
the principal factor in preventing Europe’s subjugation to German
autocracy, and the world to German militarism. Yet the so-called
party of freedom prays earnestly that this fleet may be destroyed.
This represents the tone of their daily Press, and the change of
attitude has been proved to be scientifically correct in various
books published by their leaders during the present year. One of
these works will be quoted at considerable length, because of its
importance in showing what the “pioneers of liberty” wish, may be
the end of the “home of liberty.” The work bears the title, “German
Social Democracy and the World War;”[90] its
author is a Socialist member of the Reichstag.

[Footnote 90: “Die
deutsche Sozialdemokratie und der Weltkrieg,” by Dr. Paul Lensch,
published by the Vorwärts Publishing House. Berlin, 1915.]

In dealing with England he refers to their former admiration for
this country and proceeds to prove that it was wrong—wrong in
the interests of Germany, and the world. England’s fight against
Napoleon for European freedom Dr. Lensch disposes of in a sentence:
“Consumed by greed, England took the long-yearned-for opportunity
and fell upon her rival, France” (p. 16).

He informs his readers that England and Russia are two beasts of
prey. England’s disarmament proposals were only intended to secure
her naval supremacy, because Germany seemed to be escaping from the
strangulation cord which. England had drawn tight round her throat.
Therefore three problems present themselves to Dr. Lensch, which
the war must solve:

(1.) Shall the German people continue to exist as an independent
nation?

(2.) Shall the danger of Czarism continue to threaten West
European culture?

(3.) Shall Britain’s naval supremacy be eternalized or
overthrown, seeing that Britain only allows other nations to
develop, so far as they are compatible with her national interests?
(p. 15).

“England’s oft-praised freedom is based upon the enslavement of
the world; the peoples now recognize that England’s wealth,
freedom, and greatness are merely the corollary to their poverty,
slavery and wretchedness (p. 20).

“International Socialism has not the slightest interest in
helping to bolster up this supremacy (p. 22).

“When this monopoly is broken the English working classes will
lose their present privileged position. They will be reduced to the
same level as the workmen of other lands. Then Socialism will
flourish in England (p. 23).[91]

[Footnote 91: The
author had fondly imagined that the British workman stood foremost
as the result of his own battles. In any case, it is to be hoped
that British Socialists will be grateful for “Genosse” Lensch’s
prayers for their downfall.]

“No party stands to lose more by a British victory than Social
Democracy. The overthrow of England’s world-position would clear
the way for the continuation of the world’s progress on the right
historical lines, and its economic development (p. 25).

“In the present world war the interests of the internationalists
are bound up in a German victory. Hence a German victory would be a
victory for Marx’s internationalism, and only then, would the
hearts and heads of English workmen be open to the intellectual
schooling of the Socialistic idea (p. 27).

“As early as the eighties in the last century, Friedrich Engels
proved that the ruin of England’s industrial monopoly had begun.
What the scientist had foretold, became evident to all eyes two
decades later. The social system of the greatest, world-ruling
industrial State was shaken to its foundations. International
Socialists had every reason to welcome this peaceful downfall of
England’s world power” (pp. 21-22).

“Marx once wrote that war is like a locomotive in the history of
the world. May this war have that effect and under full steam lead
to a finish the work which peaceful development had already
commenced, i.e., the downfall of English supremacy. If the
war hastens and concludes this process, then the sacrifices in
blood and treasure will not have been in vain. A great
stumbling-block to human progress and especially to the proletarian
fight for freedom will have been hurled out of the way” (pp.
27-8).

Having failed during a peaceful fight of over forty years, to
hurl German autocracy and militarism out of the world, these
hot-headed pioneers of liberty (Kaiserdom?) wish to destroy the
very State which was their place of refuge when German “liberty”
overwhelmed them with its kindly attentions.

Still we cannot be too grateful to Dr. Lensch for his lucid
statement. It is an effective reply to Germany’s sympathizers in
this country, and if British workmen should ever see these lines,
it will interest them to know that German Socialists are anxious to
pull them down a little, in the belief that if British workmen are
cut short in their luxuries they will become better Socialists and
Internationalists.

Dr. Lensch has only one step more to take, and he will certainly
gain the highest German order—pour le mérite.
The famous Communist manifesto of Marx and Engels concludes with
the words: “Proletarians of all lands, unite!” It is much to be
desired that Dr. Lensch should amend this by adding to Marx’s
phrase a few words, so that the amended form would run:

“Proletarians of all lands, unite to sing ‘Deutschland,
Deutschland, über alles.'” By this simple means the learned
doctor would condense the entire teachings of his book into a
single sentence.

“The position to-day is that the interests of freedom and
democracy are utterly at variance with a French victory (p.
42).

“Greater Prussia was founded by the war of 1866, while the 1870
struggle established a Little Germany. Through the present war
Great Germany will be created” (p. 46).

On another page this Socialist-Chauvinist proclaims that “the
freedom of the oppressed must be the work of the oppressed
themselves,” which is a principle that the I.L.P. and U.D.C., etc.,
would do well to note. “The peculiarity of our situation is to be
found in the fact that extraordinarily advanced ideals have
penetrated into our unripe conditions.”[92]

[Footnote 92: Louis
Bamberger in an essay on German Social Democracy in the Deutsche
Rundschau, vol. 14, p. 243.]

It is to these “unripe conditions” that Lensch, Liebknecht,
David, Hildenbrand and the remaining leaders of German Social
Democracy should give their undivided attention. Last year the
Berlin Government published a record of crimes committed in
Germany. It is the most awful record of any nation in the world,
and the above gentlemen would do well to study Volume 267 of the
Vierteljahrshefte. There were hundreds of thousands of
brutal crimes committed in Germany by German proletarians during
the year 1912.

For half a century Marx, Lassalle, Bebel, Liebknecht and their
successors have been busily engaged in intellectualizing Germany’s
proletarians; now it is advisable for the Socialist party to begin
the work of humanizing them. Their efforts to internationalize the
world have resulted in a hopeless débâcle; let
them now begin the task of humanizing Germany. They have all
evidently forgotten the German proverb: Kehr vor deiner eignen
Tür! (Sweep first before your own door.)

CHAPTER VII

“NECESSITY KNOWS NO LAW”

On August 2nd, 1914, Belgium announced her neutrality in the
European war; France had already declared her intention to respect
Belgian neutrality at all costs. On the other hand we have
Bethmann-Hollweg’s word that he knew French armies were standing
ready to strike at Germany through Belgium. This statement he has
never supported by any proof, nor even mentioned his authority for
the same.[93] In view of the facts that no
military preparations had been made on the Franco-Belgian frontier,
and that the German armies first came into contact with French
forces long after the fall of Liége, we are compelled to
declare the German Chancellor’s statement to be a pure
invention.

[Footnote 93:
So-called “evidence” has been given by Richard Grasshoff in his
book “Belgien’s Schuld” (“Belgium’s Guilt”), pp. 14-20. Grasshoff
quotes the sworn statements of a German corporal who resided in
Boitsfort, near Brussels. The corporal states that he saw two
French and one English officer in Brussels on July 26th, and eight
French soldiers on July 29th.

The statements of three French soldiers, prisoners of war in
Germany, are also cited; these men maintain that they entered
Belgium on the 31st of July and the 2nd of August.

With regard to this “evidence,” we must note that Grasshoff is a
German official, the corporal a German spy, and that the Frenchmen
have made these statements in a prisoners’ camp, a place where they
were exposed to the temptation of German gold and the influence of
Teutonic bullying. Lastly, the Berlin General Staff has recorded
that the German armies first came in touch with French troops on
August 19th, near Namur.]

Moreover Germany’s excuse for invading Belgium is given in the
title of this chapter. Had Germany possessed any proof that French
officers in disguise were organizing preparations in Belgium, or
that French airmen had crossed the latter’s territories in order to
drop bombs by Wesel, etc., then Bethmann-Hollweg would have had no
reason to admit in the Reichstag that his country was committing a
breach of international law. Under such circumstances Belgian
neutrality would no longer have existed; the Chancellor, instead of
“necessity,” could have pleaded justification and the world could
scarcely have withheld its approval.

In the early hours of August 4th the Germans crossed the Belgian
frontier, although the Cologne Gazette had published a
notice three days before announcing that Germany had no intention
whatever of taking the step, and that no German troops were near
the frontier.

General von Emmich immediately issued this proclamation in
French: “To my great regret German troops have been compelled to
enter Belgian territory. They are acting under the compulsion of
unavoidable necessity, for French officers in disguise have already
violated Belgian neutrality by trying to reach Germany, via
Belgium, in motor-cars.[94]

[Footnote 94: One
wonders what military purpose these officers had in view. They
would have been inevitably arrested at the German frontier. The
fable was made public by Wolff’s Agency, and has been ridiculed
even by the German Press, vide pp.
96-7.]

“Belgians! it is my most ardent desire that it may yet be
possible to avoid a struggle between two peoples which up till now,
have been friends, formerly even allies. Remember the glorious days
of La Belle Alliance, when German arms helped to found the
independence and future of your Fatherland.

“Now we must have a free way. The destruction of tunnels,
bridges and railways will be considered hostile actions. Belgians!
you have to choose. The German army does not intend to fight
against you, but seeks a free path against the enemy who wishes to
attack us. That is all we desire.

“Herewith I give the Belgian people an official pledge that they
will not have to suffer under the terrors of war; that we will pay
ready money for all necessaries which we may have to requisition;
that our soldiers will show themselves the best friends of a nation
for which we have the highest esteem and ardent affection. It
depends upon your prudence and your patriotism whether your land
shall be spared the horrors of war.” (Appeared in the Cologne
Gazette, August 6th.)

A Dresden paper of the same date contains an illuminating
statement. “We have just received official information that the
German General Staff had been informed by an absolutely reliable
source that the French intended to march through the valley of the
Meuse into Belgium. The execution of this plan had already
commenced, therefore France was by no means prepared to respect
Belgian neutrality.”

“For years past the King of Belgium has conspired with England
behind the backs of his ministers, to damage German interests. His
telegram to the King of England was a trick planned long ago. These
facts will soon be supplemented by a large number of documentary
proofs; from this the necessity has arisen to direct Germany’s
advance through Belgium irrespective of neutrality
considerations.”[95]

[Footnote 95:
Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, August 9th.]

Here we have the first clumsy attempts to prove that Belgian
neutrality did not exist. These after-thoughts have grown during
the past year into no inconsiderable literature. Probably the two
motives which have inspired Germany—official and
unofficial—to print many volumes on Belgian neutrality have
been the indignation aroused in neutral countries and the fact that
a complete German victory was not obtained in three months of
war.

German newspapers again betray the plot against Belgium, and a
search through their files reveals in the clearest manner possible
how Wolff’s Bureau was again the source of a widespread campaign to
prove that Germany was right, and simultaneously to lash public
opinion into hatred for the Belgian “barbarians and beasts.”

In the first few days of August the Press was filled with
reports concerning the murder and ill treatment of Germans in
Belgium, before any act of war had taken place. No doubt a
justified fear for the mighty, brutal neighbour existed in the
popular imagination, and fear may be the father of ill-considered
deeds. Nevertheless, there is no proof that mob law prevailed in
Belgium, as it did in Germany. Moreover, the latter country
outlawed herself when she proclaimed the law of necessity. In the
light of this consideration the German outcry that the Belgians
were breaking both the laws of humanity and international
jurisprudence lacks sincerity and remains unconvincing.

A country which announces her intention to ignore existing laws
and “hack a way through at all costs,” should surely be the last to
declaim on the alleged offences against the laws of war by a small,
weak, unprepared neighbour. If these considerations are
insufficient, there remains the fact that Germany herself began war
against unarmed Belgian civilians.

During the night following the unsuccessful coup de main
against Liége, a Zeppelin attacked the town and dropped
bombs. “On Thursday, August 6th, at 3.30 a.m. Z6 returned from an
air-cruise over Belgium. The airship took a conspicuous part in the
attack on Liége, and was able to intervene in a markedly
successful manner. Our first bomb was dropped from a height of
1,800 feet, but failed to explode. The ship then sank to 900 feet
above the city, and a non-commissioned officer dropped twelve more
bombs, all of which exploded, setting the city ablaze in several
places.”[96]

[Footnote 96:
German official report in the Berliner Tageblatt, August
10th.]

An Austrian who was in the town afterwards described the attack
in the Grazer Tagespost. According to this witness it was
already daylight when the airship appeared, and the effect of the
bombs was truly awful. In view of the circumstance that it was
already light, Germany cannot put forward the defence that the
bombs were intended for the twelve forts which surround
Liége at a distance of some miles.

This is the earliest official record of an attack upon
civilians—and it came from the German side! The crew of Z6
were the recipients of a tremendous ovation on their return, while
the news of this dastardly murder was received with jubilation
throughout the German Empire. In Lunéville fifteen civilians
were killed by airship bombs two days earlier; shortly afterwards
followed the attack by airship on civilians in Antwerp.

The author has before him about one hundred different newspaper
reports, alleging the most awful barbarism on the part of the
Belgians. Among the numerous statements that Germans were murdered,
only two names are mentioned, and both these men are alive to-day;
the one is Herr Weber, proprietor of an hotel in Antwerp.

“We have now received full details of the murder of the German,
Weber. He had fled from his pursuers and hidden himself in a
cellar. As the raging mob could not find him they burnt sulphur in
the house, which caused Weber to break into a violent fit of
coughing. This betrayed his hiding-place; he was dragged out and
murdered.”[97]

[Footnote 97:
Hamburger Fremdenblatt, August 12th, and simultaneously in
many other journals. On the following day the Vorwärts
announced that Herr Weber had returned to Germany in the company of
their own correspondent.]

“The German pork-butcher, Deckel, who had a large business in
Brussels, was attacked in his house by a crowd of Belgian beasts
because he had refused to hang a Belgian flag before his shop; with
axes and hatchets the mob cut off his head and hewed his corpse in
pieces.”[98]

[Footnote 98:
Kölnische Volkszeitung, August 10th.]

A few days later the Berliner Tageblatt informed its
readers that Herr Deckel was residing in Rotterdam, and had
suffered no harm whatever.

Readers who are acquainted with the official record of brutal
crimes committed year by year in Germany and the haughty contempt
for civilian rights which the whole German army has consistently
shown in the Fatherland, during the orderly times of peace, will
require little imagination to conceive that this same army would
show still less consideration for civilians in a country which they
were wrongfully invading.

The German Press during the last thirty years, as well as many
books published in the Fatherland, contains ample proof of German
brutality at home, and above all, of the legal brutality of German
non-commissioned and commissioned officers. How can Germany expect
the world to believe, that these same men, were transformed into
decent human beings by the mere act of stepping over the Belgian
frontier?

Granted that vulgar elements of the Belgian population did
transgress, there still remains incontrovertible evidence that
almost unheard-of kindness was shown to the invading army, and that
Germans had displayed brutal insolence to Belgians before a state
of war had been declared. Nearly every single letter from soldiers,
published in German papers, records the fact that in the villages
through which they passed they were given water, wine and food,
while payment was in many cases refused.

It is part of Germany’s policy to blacken Belgium’s character in
order to justify her own ruthlessness—naturally Wolff’s
Agency was one of the principal tools to that end.

“Much as we condemn the excesses of the Belgians, still we must
not wreak vengeance on the whole nation as a section of our Press
demands. Have not harmless and defenceless foreigners been terribly
ill-treated in Germany without distinction of sex? Have not shops
and restaurants been demolished in hundreds, wherever a French word
was to be met? And the rage of the German masses has found an
outlet not only against foreigners, but against good German
patriots and even German officers.”[99]

[Footnote 99:
Leipziger Volkszeitung, August 12th. This journal as well as
the Fränkische Tagespost names Wolff’s Agency as their
authority in more than one issue.]

The same journal on the preceding day deplored that “we
ourselves are not free from guilt.” It recounts how German
reservists, when leaving Antwerp and Brussels, had sung their
national songs in a loud, provocative manner, and taunted the
bystanders with such remarks as: “In three days we shall be here
again!”

According to the same authority German residents had insulted
the populace by displaying their national flag; and German
employers had been among the first to discharge employees of their
own nationality, without salary in lieu of notice, thus increasing
the difficulties of German residents in Belgium.

German official pronouncements are much more reticent in their
judgment on these allegations of Belgian cruelties. None the less
the Berlin Government must be held responsible for them being
scattered throughout the land. After Germany’s official
representative had returned from Brussels to Berlin he made a
statement to the Press. Considering that von Below was in the
Belgian capital at the time, his views are instructive.

He expressed his great astonishment that such things should have
happened, and asserted that up till the very last minute he had
been treated with the greatest kindness and politeness. Neither he
nor any of his Legation Staff had experienced the slightest
unpleasantness. Further, von Below expressed the conviction that
only single instances of such excesses had occurred and these were
a result of the quarrelsome Walloon character. No village
fête passes off among them without such outbreaks,
accompanied by bloodshed.[100]

[Footnote 100:
This may be true, but von Below could have said the same with
absolute truth of German village fairs, Kirmesse,
etc.—Author.]

German papers of August 15th reported this official version, and
four days later a proclamation was issued by State Secretary Dr.
Delbrück, calling upon all persons who had been ill-treated in
Belgium to report themselves, so that the “numerous” newspaper
reports could be confirmed or refuted. The result of the inquiry
has never been published.

From a number of witnesses who testified whole-heartedly to
Belgian kindness, one will suffice. A lady reported her adventures
in the Vorwärts of September 6th, from which the
following sentences have been gleaned. “Even if it is true that
Germans were subjected to inconsideration and ill-treatment during
their flight from Belgium, still there are hundreds of Germans who,
like myself, met with generous sympathy and unstinted help.

“A Flemish servant refused her month’s wages, saying that her
employers would need it on the journey. Many Germans were offered
homes in Belgian families till the war was over. My own landlord in
Brussels placed an empty flat at my disposal for German refugees.
At parting he and his wife were as deeply moved as we, and when I
began to make excuses for being unable to pay the rent, she at once
prevented me from speaking another word. My husband was provided
with a hat which looked less ‘German;’ they filled our pockets with
provisions for the journey, and after his wife had embraced me and
my child we left the house in silence.

“German refugees whom I met afterwards, related hundreds of
similar acts of kindness. When such severe accusations are raised
against the entire Belgian people, justice demands this statement
that Belgians in hundreds of cases, uninfluenced by the prevailing
bitterness, showed themselves kindly, helpful and humane towards
the Germans.”

In the second month of the war two representatives of the Social
Democratic Party received special permission from the General Staff
to visit Belgium and the theatre of war in Northern France. Their
report has been issued by the Vorwärts Publishing
House.[101]

[Footnote 101:
“Kriegsfahrten durch Belgien und Nordfrankreich” (“Journeys in War
Time through Belgium, etc.”), by Dr. Adolph Koester and G.
Noske.]

“Concerning the events and conditions in Belgium many false
reports have been spread abroad. That is especially the case in
regard to the terrible persecutions of Germans immediately before
the outbreak of war. The civil authorities (German) are now
permitting full investigation in those parts of Belgium occupied by
our troops, and it is already obvious that many exaggerations were
circulated by German newspapers. Without doubt beer-houses and
business houses were wrecked, but the Tartar stories which were
reported in Germany and Belgium, Herr von Sandt, Chief of the Civil
Administration, puts down to hysterics, and the desire of some
people to make themselves important.”[102]

[Footnote 102:
Ibid., pp. 14-15.]

No correct judgment on the apportionment of right and wrong
between the Belgian civilians and the German army is possible
without taking into consideration the status of militarism in each
of these countries before the war. As far as Belgium is concerned,
the army was looked upon as a necessary evil. The Social Democratic
doctrines imported from Germany had obtained such a hold upon the
people that the Belgian Government experienced ever-increasing
difficulty in getting supplies voted in the House of Deputies, for
defence purposes. Belgian Socialists unfortunately played into the
hands of the German Government by doing their utmost to prevent
money from being spent for the defence of their country.
Consciously or unconsciously, German Socialists have rendered the
Kaiser and his army inestimable service. Their propaganda against
armaments has borne fruit in Belgium, England and France, but did
not prevent a single German battleship from being built, nor a
single regiment from being added to the German army.

In Germany militarism is a gospel. All classes and all political
parties have been unanimous for years past, that every man should
be a soldier. The military ethos has ruled supreme, and whenever
civilianism has dared, merely to cherish thoughts contrary to the
ideals of the ruling caste, no time was lost in seeking an
opportunity to challenge a quarrel which invariably ended in
humiliation for the civilian ethos. Characteristically, therefore,
the contemptuous phrase has become current both in the German army
and navy—”das Civil”—when speaking of the non-military
elements of the nation.

Imbued with these traditions and inspired by this contempt for
everything civilian, the German armies invaded Belgium, and it may
be safely assumed that in a country where the civilian ethos
predominated, looks, words, and even deeds, expressed hostility.
Such “provocation” would certainly rouse the military ego to a
revenge ten thousand-fold greater than that taken at Zabern. German
militarism brooks neither contempt, criticism, nor opposition from
German civilians, and much less so from the civilians of another
nation.

When it is possible to obtain cool and clear accounts of the
events in Belgium, the author has no doubt whatever, that proofs of
civilian-baiting will be forthcoming in that unhappy country. The
policy of frightfulness was not only intended to drive an enemy
into abject submission and as a punishment for resistance to
Germany’s imperious will, but it was the military ethos in strife
with the civilian spirit.

In order to hinder the march of the invaders the trees lining
the roads were cut down and formed into barriers, but the civilian
population was compelled at the bayonet’s point to remove all
obstacles and thus assist in the conquest of their native
country.

“The magnificent tall fir-trees which are so characteristic of
Belgian roads, had been felled across the highways. But all the
civilian population which could be found, without regard to age,
rank, or sex, was forced by our advancing cavalry to clear it all
away. One can imagine the joy of the Belgians in performing this
task!”[103]

[Footnote 103:
“Unser Vormarsch bis zur Marne” (“Our advance to the Marne”), by a
Saxon officer, p. 22.]

This writer, too, chronicles many instances of kindness. “I was
billeted in a peasant’s house at the western exit of the village.
Three beautiful children, trembling with fear, watched us come in,
for besides me there were twenty-four men. We had received emphatic
warnings from headquarters not to allow soldiers to be billeted
alone. The woman gave us everything she could find and it was
almost necessary to use force to get her to accept
payment.”[104]

[Footnote 104:
Ibid., p. 25.]

“A load of shot struck the ground at the feet of my horse.
Before I had calmed the animal a N.C.O. marching at my side had
finished off the dirty Belgian scoundrel, who was now hanging dead
from a roof window.

“Foaming with rage, my field-greys surrounded the house, in
which only a few of the dogs were taken captive, the others were
immediately slaughtered. A boy hardly fifteen years old was dragged
out of a wet ditch with a gun in his hand. Before being brought to
me, this youthful swine had been thrashed from head to foot.
Besides the men, two women and a girl were taken.

“Meanwhile a terrible hand-to-hand fight was going on throughout
the long, scattered village. Infantry and artillerists smashed the
doors and windows; no mercy was shown to anyone, and the houses
were set alight. An attempt to storm the church-tower failed
because the occupants fired from above. Bundles of straw were
brought, paraffin poured on them, and the tower set on fire. Above
the roar of the flames we could distinctly hear the shrieks of the
murderers shut in there.

“I gave orders to a squad to shoot our prisoners, but a deadly
bullet finished the career of the lying, scoundrelly priest as he
was trying to escape. Our losses were remarkably small, only two
men being killed and a number wounded.”[105]

[Footnote 105:
Ibid., p. 43-4.]

In all cases where German soldiers asked for water from the
inhabitants, the latter had to take a drink first. “Before tasting
the water both man and wife had to drink first, and as this scene
was repeated on innumerable occasions, it was delightful to observe
the comic desperation with which the people took their involuntary
‘water cure.'”[106]

[Footnote 106:
“Mit der Kluck’schen Armee nach Belgien” (“With von Kluck’s Army
into Belgium”), by Dr. Jos. Risse, p. 17.]

Dr. Risse’s interesting diary contains one or two important
passages illustrating the relation between conquerors and
conquered. Like many other German writers, he saw no hostile act on
the part of the civilian population, but they came to him as
rumours. “That night we slept in a barn. Here we heard that a
village near Dahlem had been burned down because the inhabitants
had cut the throat of a sleeping ambulance attendant.

“On continuing our march we suddenly entered a wide vale. The
horizon was blood-red and huge clouds of smoke drifted heavenwards.
On all sides the villages were in flames. In the last village
before Louvain the sight was terrible in the extreme; houses
ablaze; pools of blood in the street; here and there a dead
civilian; pieces of Belgian equipment, haversacks, boots and
trousers lay around; while the inhabitants stood about with their
hands raised above their heads.

“It was said that hostile cavalry had hidden in the village and
together with a part of the inhabitants had fired on our troops. We
only saw the consequences.

“After a long rest before Louvain we entered the town at 7 p.m.
Our artillery had taken up a semi-circular position on the heights
around and directed their cannon on to the town.”[107]

[Footnote 107:
Ibid., pp. 22-3.]

The above events occurred on August 19th, exactly six days
before the sack of Louvain. It strikes one as remarkable that the
German cannon were even on that day directed against an unfortified
city.

Risse was among the first German troops to enter Brussels. “Our
route took us through some of the principal streets, and various
splendid buildings including the Royal palace. Joy shone in our
faces and a feeling of pride swelled our breasts at being the first
to enter Belgium’s capital. These feelings found expression in our
talk and shouts. The man behind me shouted to every bewildered,
staring Belgian whom we passed: ‘Yes, young fellow, you are
astonished, you blockhead!’ On we marched with the air of
victors.

“The inhabitants were exceedingly kind, so that one had not at
all the feeling of being in the capital of an enemy. They brought
us water, lemonade, beer, cigars, cigarettes, etc., without asking
for any payment.”[108]

[Footnote 108:
Ibid., pp. 26-7.]

The same writer refers to similar hospitality in various parts
of his book. After passing through Brussels he continues his diary:
“Sunday, August 23rd. Nothing came of our hopes for a rest-day.
Shortly after 5 a.m. we were ready for the march. A fine rain was
falling as we passed through village after village. We saw the
villagers with frightened faces hurrying to church, carrying
prayer-books. Notices from the Belgian Government were placarded on
the houses, warning the people to avoid every kind of hostility
towards the Germans.”[109]

[Footnote 109:
Ibid., p. 31.]

From the last sentence it is evident that the Belgian
authorities did not incite the civilian population to resistance.
Other German war-writers state that the Belgian and French
Governments had organized a franc-tireur warfare long
before, and this accusation is one of the pillars of Germany’s
defence for the destruction of Louvain.

“Soon after crossing the frontier we saw the first ruined house.
Our route led us down the same road on which a few days before the
violent and bitter struggles had taken place between German troops
and Belgian soldiers, aided by the inhabitants. The Belgians have
supported their troops in a manner which can only be described as
bestial and cruel. From the houses they have shot at troops on the
march, and of course their homes have been reduced to ashes.

“The road from Aix-la-Chapelle to Liége is one long, sad
line of desolation.[110] Otherwise the
district is fertile; now, however, sadness and devastation reign
supreme. Nearly every second house is a heap of ruins, while the
houses which are still standing are empty and deserted.

[Footnote 110: On
September 8th, 1914, the Kaiser sent a long telegram to President
Wilson, in which he defended the German armies against the charges
of ruthless atrocities. He euphemistically stated that “a few
villages have been destroyed.”]

“On every side signs of destruction; furniture and house
utensils lie around; not a pane of glass but what is broken. Still
the inhabitants themselves are to blame, for have they not shot at
our poor, tired soldiers?”[111]

[Footnote 111:
“Mit den Königin-Fusilieren durch Belgien” (“With the Queen
Fusiliers through Belgium”), by H. Knutz, p. 13.]

That is the utmost sympathy which any German has expressed for
Belgium. The German public is fully informed of all that has been
done, and considers that they have been brutally, wrongfully
treated. Lord Bryce’s report as well as the French and Belgian
official reports have been dealt with at considerable length in the
German Press, but receive no credence whatever; they are lies, all
lies invented to blacken the character of poor, noble, generous
Germany!

Germans are well aware of the awful number of brutal crimes
which their men-folk commit year by year at home. Yet they are
absolutely convinced that these same men are immediately
transformed into chivalrous knights so soon as they don the
Kaiser’s uniform. They seem incapable of conceiving that a race
which debauches its own women, can hardly be expected to show the
crudest forms of respect to the women of an enemy people.

Herr Knutz—an elementary school-teacher in civilian
attire, and a non-commissioned officer when in the German
army—seems to possess some rays of human feeling. “Just as I
was leaving the fort I saw seven or eight Belgian civilians guarded
by our men with fixed bayonets. They were charged with firing on
German soldiers. I must say that the lamentations of these
men—aged from 20 to 50—made a deep impression on me.
They had thrown themselves upon their knees, and with raised hands
were weeping and beseeching that their lives might be spared.

“The villagers are exceedingly ignorant, and when their land is
in danger, believe themselves justified in seizing any old shot-gun
or revolver which lies at hand. Probably some of the more prudent
are aware that it is a mad enterprise, but the instinct of
self-defence is so innate in the simple country people that advice
does not help in the least.” (Von Bethmann-Hollweg and von Tirpitz
justify the use of gas, the sinking of merchant vessels containing
women and children, the dropping of bombs on open towns, etc.,
etc., by the plea of self-defence.—Author.)

“But it is otherwise with regard to the atrocities on our
wounded; these are a stain on Belgium’s national honour which will
not easily be wiped out. A German would never perpetrate such
monstrous crimes,[112] and that we can say
without any overweening opinion of ourselves.”[113]

[Footnote 112:
This is hypocrisy or ignorance.—Author.]

[Footnote 113:
Ibid., pp. 18-19.]

Herr Knutz offers no proof of the alleged atrocities; he has
heard of them, believes and repeats the story. I have some fifty
German books describing the war in Belgium, and in all of them
similar legends are mentioned, but in no single instance is a case
proved and nailed down. No victim is named, and the scene of the
alleged atrocity is never given, hence it seems to be the usual
German artifice to make Stimmung, i.e., to raise
feeling.

One thumb-nail picture from the teacher’s diary shows that the
Germans created only too well a Stimmung of abject terror
among the Belgians.

“This morning, August 19th, we searched a small wood for
Belgians, but found none. On leaving the wood a touching picture
met our eyes. Several families were fleeing with their children,
and the barest necessaries of life, into a neighbouring village. An
old woman on crutches was trying in vain to keep up; a young mother
with a sucking child was sobbing and pressing the babe to her
bosom. The boys were weeping bitterly and holding their hands high
to prove that they were harmless. We passed by the ruins of
Roosbeck, where civilians had shot on the 20th Artillery Regiment,
for which reason it was burnt down.”[114]

[Footnote 114:
Ibid., p. 27.]

Among the various interesting pictures of the Fatherland
sketched by German authors perhaps the following is the most
naïve: “English, French and Belgians, hand in hand; how nicely
it was all thought out; Belgian neutrality—so solemnly
pledged by all the Powers—was nothing but a screen behind
which they wrought the most devilish plans against Germany. It was
a neutrality which had long since been betrayed and sold by the
Belgian Government.

“But the German people—a pure fool-like Parsifal, who
could not conceive such treachery and knavery because it was
incapable of such things itself—toiled and worked day by day,
enjoyed the blessings of peace, was happy in its existence and
ignorant of the looming clouds gathering on its frontiers. All hail
to our chosen leaders who kept watch and ward over a dreaming
people, and did not allow themselves to be lulled into
watchlessness by the lies of our enemies, who while talking of
peace intrigued for our annihilation.”[115]

[Footnote 115:
“Von Lüttich bis Flandern” (“From Liége to Flanders”),
by Wilhelm Kotzde. Weimar, 1914; p. 5.]

The same author’s opinion of the Belgians coincides with that
expressed by many of his fellow countrymen. “What did our troops
find by the roadside? On all sides haversacks, straps, cartridges,
caps, tunics and rifles. To our soldiers this was a remarkable sign
of flight, for they are accustomed to military training of a
different sort. In the forts, it is true, they found among the
soldiers also civilians wearing patent-leather shoes. Indeed, the
whole Belgian campaign has shown how badly the army was prepared
and equipped.

“The lack of discipline and order is evident, however, in every
department of Belgium’s national life, and these virtues they
endeavoured to replace by cunning and cruelty—at least among
the Walloons.”[116]

[Footnote 116:
Ibid., pp. 61-2.]

A Knight of the Order of St. John[117]
is still more cynical in his condemnation of the conquered enemy:
“The greatest misfortune in this land is unemployment; factories
are inactive and shops closed. The horrors of famine draw nearer,
and we, as well as some neutral countries, are endeavouring to
relieve the tortures of want. But charity only encourages the
laziness of the inhabitants. Just as the refugees in Holland, the
Belgians who have remained in their land would like to put their
hands in their pockets and be fed. Of course, that is not
permissible, and the German Government does its best to rap these
lazy wretches on the fingers.”

[Footnote 117:
“Kriegsfahrten eines Johanniters,” by Fedor von Zobeltitz, pp.
86-7.]

“It was characteristic that the Belgians always placed their
hopes on foreign help and never dared to rely on the strength of
their own army. This alone is a serious symptom of national
weakness. Still, the Belgian army has fought bravely. It is true
they had not the discipline and preparation which distinguish the
German troops, but everything which a badly equipped and trained
army could achieve they have done.”[118]

[Footnote 118:
Wilhelm Kotzde: “Von Lüttich bis Flandern,” p. 71.]

It is not necessary for the author of this work to write a song
of glorification for Belgium; she has herself composed an epic of
valour and self-sacrifice written in immortal deeds. At present her
only reward seems to be a desolate land in the hands of the
conqueror, and the graves of her fallen sons. Germany’s evident
intention is the annexation of that part of Belgium where Flemish
is spoken. At the moment of writing, Goliath has vanquished David.
France and England have a supreme duty to fulfil: they are called
to avenge Belgium’s wrongs, and thereby establish the principle
that even necessity must recognize law.

CHAPTER VIII

ATROCITIES

The question of Belgian atrocities is so important that no
apology is required for giving the British public every possible
opportunity to sift evidence, and above all, to hear the German
side.

In the interests of fair play we will allow a German
lawyer[119] to state the case against the
Belgians. Herr Grasshoff is armed with two doctorates and is in
practice as an advocate in one of the higher courts of law
(Kammergericht). Chapter III of his work is entitled: “The
Belgian Outrages;” in the foregoing chapter he endeavours to show
that the Belgian Press had worked upon public opinion and lashed it
into such a state that atrocities and mutilations of Germans by
Belgian men, women, boys and girls were the natural
consequences.

[Footnote 119:
Richard Grasshoff: “Belgien’s Schuld” (“Belgium’s Guilt”).]

“That the goaded rage of the lower classes found expression in
nameless horrors is unfortunately a sorry truth. The proofs? We are
not in a position to satisfy the desire for sensation with a
cabinet of horrors. The equipment of the German army does not
include either the jars or the chemical fluids for preserving
hacked-off limbs, hence it is impossible to display exhibits as in
a museum. Our hospitals do not admit the dead.

“If Germany should be compelled to conduct a second campaign
against the cultured peoples of Western Europe, then she will not
forget to add the above articles to her equipment in any future war
against such opponents. Pitying mother earth covers the murdered
victims.”

This eloquent lawyer has overlooked the aid which the art of
photography affords, and as the German army was well equipped with
cameras, some tangible proofs could still have been
procured—assuming there were any shred of truth in Germany’s
accusations. The Berlin Government has circulated photographs of
dum-dum bullets, i.e., English and French bullets with the
points cut off. It is true no statement is offered regarding the
time and place of the points being cut off, which leaves us free to
believe that captured ammunition was “doctored” in this manner by
the Germans themselves. “Necessity knows no law” is a principle
capable of the widest application.

Grasshoff’s work was only published a few months ago, so that he
had ample time to collect facts and proofs—the result is, six
detailed cases with the names of his German informants and their
regiments. In each case the “evidence” is of an exceedingly
doubtful character; in view of the gravity of the charges, the lack
of corroboration (each case is “proved” by one witness alone), and
the partisanship of all concerned, we may safely conclude that no
court of justice would convict on it.

The same criticism applies to the official White Book, published
in June or July of the present year. Every witness had previously
sworn an oath to protect the German flag (der Fahneneid)
which precludes the probability of all impartiality in the witness
and makes bias (Befangenheit) his simple duty. Another
important factor to be borne in mind is the hysterical, morbid
self-importance of the German nation in general, which causes
police and members of the German army to shoot or cut down with the
sword their own civilians for the most trivial offences, even in
times of peace.

The White Book in question contains a six-page introduction
stating the charges against Belgian civilians, and three hundred
and seventeen pages of sworn evidence of German officers and
soldiers taken for the most part in Belgium and France. A few
extracts from the introduction will suffice to make the German side
clear.

“Finally, there is not the slightest doubt that Belgian
civilians robbed and killed German wounded; in short, mutilated
them in a barbarous manner; even women and young girls participated
in these atrocities. Hence German wounded have had their eyes
gouged out, noses, ears, fingers and genitals cut off and their
bodies cut open; in other cases German soldiers have been poisoned,
hanged on trees, or had burning liquids poured on them, causing
death in a most terrible form.

“This bestial behaviour on the part of the civilian population
is a breach of Article I., Convention of Geneva,[120] and the principles of military law, as well as
the principles of humanity” (p. 4).

[Footnote 120:
Self-proclaimed outlaws cite the law when it suits their
purpose!—Author.]

“The guilt for these transgressions of international law lies
largely at the door of the Belgian Government. The latter has made
an attempt to rid itself of responsibility by ascribing the guilt
to the rage for destruction in the German troops, who are accused
of proceeding to deeds of violence without any reason or
ground.[121]

[Footnote 121:
Certainly, just as in Germany in peace time.—Author.]

“An examining commission has been appointed by the Belgian
Government to inquire into the alleged cruelties of German
soldiers, and the evidence thus obtained has been made the subject
of diplomatic complaints. This attempt to pervert the truth has
absolutely failed.

“The German army is accustomed to wage war against hostile
troops, but not against peaceful citizens.[122] Investigations conducted by any examining
commission whatsoever, can never dispose of the irrefutable fact
that German troops were forced by Belgium’s native population to
take defensive measures in the interests of self-preservation.

[Footnote 122:
German non-commissioned officers are accustomed to kick and beat
German privates, and the behaviour of German soldiers to
fellow-subjects is aptly illustrated by Lieutenant Förster
fighting a pitched battle with a lame old cobbler in
Zabern.—Author.]

“The refugees’ tales collected by the Belgian commission and
declared by them to be the result of an impartial investigation
bear a stamp which makes them unworthy of belief. According to the
nature of things, the commission is not in a position to test the
veracity of such rumours or to apprehend the association of events.
Hence, their accusations against the German army are nothing other
than base slanders which are completely invalidated by the
accompanying documents” (pp. 5-6).

It must be assumed that readers are acquainted with the official
publications of the Belgian and French Governments accusing the
German army with waging war in an atrocious manner, as well as the
report of Lord Bryce’s commission and Professor Morgan’s report in
the “Nineteenth Century” for June. In the above extract the Berlin
Government rules them one and all out of court, which is the
author’s justification for making no use of their evidence.

Fortunately the Roman Catholic Church of Germany has published a
refutation of Germany’s White Book, and surely this authority
deserves credence. The work in question bears the title: “Der
Lügengeist im Völkerkrieg,” Kriegsmärchen gesammelt
von Bernhard Duhr, S.J. (“The Spirit of Lying in the War of the
Nations,” War Legends collected by the Rev. Bernhard Duhr,
S.J.).[123] The reverend gentleman
castigates all the nations at war with the same
offence—lying. His work should have permanent value in the
literature of war psychology, but he only undertakes to expose
German lies, and in his 72-paged booklet he proves to the hilt the
charges made in this work.

[Footnote 123:
The author hopes to publish a complete translation shortly.]

In his introduction the Rev. Duhr states that the office of the
Priests’ Society “Pax” in Cologne has taken great pains to expose
and refute lies as fast as they have appeared. The original
documents are preserved in the above office and may be seen by
anyone who cares to apply.

Probably one of the motives actuating the Society “Pax” and the
Rev. B. Duhr was the intention to refute the accusations of cruel
outrages by Belgian and French Catholic priests. Whatever their
motives may have been, one thing is certain, they have produced
most convincing proof of German mendacity. It is to be hoped that
the “Pax” will give the world the benefit of all the documents in
their possession.

Even the Kaiser had the audacity to state in his telegram of
September 8th, 1914, to President Wilson that “women and priests
have been guilty of atrocities in this guerilla warfare.” For
reasons easy to understand the reverend gentleman does not
introduce the Kaiser’s name into his booklet, but in the
introduction he remarks: “Finally the refutation of such
fairy-tales is a patriotic duty. Nothing is more essential for us
Germans, especially in war time, than unity; but this harmony is
necessarily endangered by religious bitterness and strife. Of a
necessity it must cause deep pain and embitterment to our Catholic
population when again and again ENTIRELY UNTRUE ACCUSATIONS are
made against the priesthood of their Church.”

The Rev. Duhr’s exposure of what he calls “erlogener
Schauergeschichten” (“lying horror tales”) kills most of the
“fairy-tales” accusing the Russians, French and Belgians of
atrocities on German soldiers. A few illustrations will suffice to
show the absence of all foundation for the charges against the
Belgians; charges, we must remember, which the German soldiery
believed, and which convinced them they were performing a holy task
at Louvain, Tirlemont, Dinant, etc.

“On October 1st, 1914, a telegraphic agency (Wolff’s?) issued
the following notice: ‘A high Bavarian officer writing from the
front has informed the München-Augsburger Abendzeitung
of this incident. South of Cambrai a column of German motor-cars
was attacked by a company of French cyclists. For the most part the
guard was killed by rifle fire, while the cars were all burnt.
Later a German patrol discovered the remains, and on investigation,
found that the dead Germans had all had their eyes gouged
out.'”

The reverend Father comments as follows: “On following up this
case, it was impossible to prove whether the patrol had seen
rightly or whether they had really made the report at all. So much
is certain, however, that in the matter of eyes being gouged out,
an absolute mania of gruesomeness broke loose. An innumerable swarm
of such horrible tales were told, passed on, and finally guaranteed
as true—AND YET THEY WERE ALL FAIRY-TALES. A few cases will
suffice.

“In September, 1914, the following paragraph appeared in the
papers: ‘Several ladies engaged in Red Cross work on Cologne
Station were informed with every assurance of truth, that a
hospital at Aix-la-Chapelle contained a whole ward full of wounded
whose eyes had been gouged out on the battlefields of Belgium.’

“On September 26th the editor of the Catholic Kölnische
Volkszeitung wrote to Dr. Kaufmann, a high Roman Catholic
dignitary in Aix-la-Chapelle, begging him to ascertain whether the
report were true. Two days later that gentleman replied: ‘As
regards the rumour mentioned in your letter, I beg to inform you
that I at once put myself in communication with the authorities. I
inquired of the doctor in charge of a hospital here (he is, by the
way, a famous specialist for the eyes), and he assures me that in
all the local hospitals there is no ward for wounded whose eyes
have been put out, AND SUCH A CASE HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED in the
town, although the place is full of wounded.’

“A second report which the same journal exposed dates from
October, 1914. Recently Dean A., who is the Superior in a military
hospital in the Franciscan Nunnery at S., came to us and reported
that a wounded soldier had told him that he had heard[124] that in the monastery Bl. by V., in Holland,
there were twenty-two wounded German soldiers whose eyes had been
gouged out by Belgians. The Dean begged us to write to the Mother
Superior and ask for confirmation of the story. We did write, and
the lady answered that there was no hospital at all in the cloister
Bl.”[125]

[Footnote 124:
The words “hear” and “heard” occur very frequently in these
legends.—Author.]

[Footnote 125:
The Rev. Duhr’s book, pp. 11-12.]

The same lie travelled to Bonn, Sigmaringen, Potsdam, Bremen,
and was successively nailed down by the Volkszeitung.
Inquiries were made in all directions wherever a case of gouged-out
eyes was reported, the result being everywhere the same—a
fairy-tale.

Yet when the German Imperial Chancellor received a party of
American journalists (representatives of the United Press and the
Associated Press) on September 2nd, 1914, he communicated this
statement: “The English will inform your countrymen that German
troops have burnt down Belgian villages and towns, but they will
conceal the fact that Belgian girls have gouged out the eyes of our
helpless soldiers lying on the battlefields.”

“Berlin papers informed the public that ‘a large number of
Belgian civilians were prisoners in Münster. They are the same
bestial creatures who shot from their houses on our unsuspecting
troops, and who, before the arrival of our invading armies in
Belgium, had perpetrated all sorts of cruelties on helpless German
citizens. Indeed, when they were searched on their arrival at the
prisoners’ camp fingers with rings on them, which they had hacked
off their victims, were found in their pockets. Justice will soon
strike down these Belgians, among whom a very large number of
priests are to be found. Twenty to thirty have already been
condemned to death by a court-martial.’

“The ‘Pax’ Society of Priests immediately wrote to the commander
of the prisoners’ camp, and received this reply: ‘The ridiculous
assertion of a Berlin paper that fingers had been found in the
pockets of Belgian civilians in this camp is false. Neither has any
priest or layman been condemned to death, but over one hundred
Belgian women and children have been sent home again.'”[126]

[Footnote 126:
Ibid., p. 19.]

The above extracts will suffice to show how these Roman Catholic
gentlemen proceeded. Immediately an atrocity was reported they
applied to the authorities, and in every case received an
affirmation that the deed had never taken place. Among the
monstrous lies exposed by these investigators, are reports that
Belgian priests paid eight shillings for every German head brought
to them; high treason charges against Catholic priests in Alsace;
all kinds of monstrous crimes charged to the priesthood; that a
Belgian boy was caught with a bucketful of dead Germans’ eyes;
espionage by priests etc., etc.

Yet one other case deserves quotation: “On October 5th, 1914, a
priest was travelling by rail to Mayence. In the same compartment
there were four privates from Infantry Regiment No. 94. One of them
named Rössner, related the following story to his comrades,
and then, at the priest’s request, again repeated it:

“‘In the Belgian village of Patsie the curé
welcomed a German major and his orderly into his house. Afterwards
the priest promised a boy of thirteen that he should go straight to
heaven if he would murder the two Germans. The lad perpetrated the
murder, after which he and the curé were shot under
martial law.’

“When the priest pointed out how incredible the whole story was,
the soldier swore to its truth, and became very impolite to his
auditor. An inquiry was instituted and this was the result:

“‘War Office, No. 1866. The investigations
made, in especial the hearing under oath of private Rössner
and several officers in his regiment, have resulted in the
following particulars being obtained: At the beginning of the
campaign as the troops marched into a village—name
unknown—they saw by the roadside two or three dead civilians.
One was apparently a boy of about thirteen, while the other was an
adult with a dark coat. It was not established whether this was the
body of a priest. Furthermore, we have not been able to discover by
whom, or for what reason, these people were shot.

“‘At that time the story quoted by you about
a curé and a boy, was told as a “rumour” to all the
troops marching through. It is impossible after the lapse of time
to test the truth of the narrative.

“‘Signed by order,

“‘BAUER AND WAGNER.'”[127]

[Footnote 127:
Ibid., pp. 54-5.]

The above document may be said, without presumption, to possess
historic importance. It is a frank admission by the German War
Office that Belgian civilians were actually shot down without rhyme
or reason. Apparently German soldiers (!) had a carte
blanche to shoot whom they liked, without rendering or being
expected to render a report of their doings.

The Rev. Duhr writes: “The incredible speed with which these
lying tales of horror spread on all sides must be classed as a
morbid phenomenon, a sort of blood-cult. Their consequences could
only be to act upon the national soul as a stimulant, inspiring
fear and brutality.”[128]

[Footnote 128:
Ibid., p. 9.]

The author of this work is prepared to go much farther than the
Rev. Father, and maintain that the foul, diseased imaginations
which could invent such monstrous horrors are also capable of
perpetrating them. They did not spring from the imagination of an
Edgar Allan Poe, but arose in the minds of Germany’s brutal
peasantry and bloodthirsty working classes, who together every year
commit in times of peace 9,000 acts of brutal, immoral bestiality,
and maliciously wound 175,000 of their fellow German
citizens.[129]

[Footnote 129:
Vide Vol. 267 Vierteljahrshefte, published by the
Berlin Government, 1914.]

To-day Germany shouts in ecstasy that she is the chosen power of
God; that her Kultur will regenerate the world. Let it first
regenerate the “Augean Stable” known to the world as Germany.
Without further comment readers are left to form their own opinion
of a Press which breeds such filth, and the cultural level of a
people which consumes such garbage. But the world owes a debt of
gratitude to the Rev. Bernhard Duhr, S.J., and the “Pax” Society in
Cologne.

The accusations of plundering on the part of German soldiers is
naturally denied in toto by all parties in the Fatherland.
Indeed, it has been discovered that the British army was guilty of
wilful destruction in Belgium. A certain Major Krusemarck,
commanding the 2nd battalion of the 12th Infantry Reserve Regiment,
is responsible for the story. “On October 10th I entered Wilryk,
near Antwerp, and took up my quarters in the Italian Consulate. All
the houses had been deserted by the inhabitants. Immediately after
entering the house I perceived that English soldiers had been here
and behaved in a barbarous manner. Mirrors, valuable objects of
art, etc., had been smashed in a way which betrayed purpose.” The
major’s report continues: “The destruction which I have described
had undoubtedly been perpetrated by members of the English army,
and as proof of this I may state that in one of the rooms about a
dozen visiting-cards were found with the name: Major E.L. Gerrard,
Royal Marine Light Infantery (sic).

“During the subsequent pursuit of the Belgian and English armies
we heard repeated complaints from the inhabitants that especially
the English troops had acted in the most inconsiderate manner,
purposely destroying furniture, etc., in civilian houses.”[130]

[Footnote 130:
Richard Grasshoff: “Belgien’s Schuld,” p. 84.]

Without doubt the story belongs to the group of legends exposed
by the “Pax” Society, for which reason it is quoted here, as a
fitting supplement to them. Yet it is psychologically interesting
to note how difficult it is for Germans who burn, destroy and
violate in their own country to believe that they behave otherwise
than as lambs when playing the rôle of invaders.

One quotation from a large number will illustrate sufficiently
the respect which the German troops felt for civilian homes in the
territories occupied by them: “We got into the house by a
back-door. Orders had been issued that only food and shirts were to
be taken. The cellar was full of wine and champagne. A corporal
brought us some of the latter. After half an hour the rooms looked
very different; all the cupboards had been emptied in order to get
at the jams and jellies. Several pots of fruit preserved in wine
were divided as honestly as the greed of the individual
allowed.

“All the underclothing was seized upon, obviously only the best
being taken. Many a dirty Pole put on such a shirt as he had never
dreamed of before. Even ladies’ chemises were commandeered, and
some of the men assured me that a French chemise is quite
comfortable—in spite of the short sleeves.

“If there is a sterner sex in France, which is exceedingly
doubtful, they do not seem to possess pants; so the men resorted to
the corresponding article worn by ladies.”[131] (This writer refers in other parts of his book
to “mementoes” which he carried home to the Fatherland, after being
wounded at the Marne.)

[Footnote 131: H.
Knutz: “Mit den Königin-Fusilieren durch Belgien,” p. 42.]

CHAPTER IX

THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM AND GERMANY’S ANNEXATION
PROPAGANDA

“Afterthoughts” is the term which would perhaps designate most
concisely the section of German war literature treating of
Belgium’s violated neutrality. Should that designation appear
unfitting, then the author has only one other to
suggest—”whitewash.”

In order to apprehend clearly the method and aims concealed
beneath the “afterthoughts,” readers must bear in mind that every
attempt to protest against the annexation of Belgium by Germany is
prohibited by the German censor. The Social Democratic organs
emphasize the fact almost daily that they are not permitted to
print anything contrary to the principle of annexation.

On the other hand, numerous writers are allowed to make a most
extensive propaganda by suggesting that annexation is necessary in
the interests of their racial-brothers the Flemings. By order of
the German Government a geographical description of the country has
been published,[132] in which every detail
of Belgium’s wealth in minerals, agriculture, and so on, is
described, with no other possible purpose than the desire to whet
German Michael’s appetite.

[Footnote 132:
“Belgien, Land und Leute,” Berlin, 1915.]

All at once Germany has become suspiciously interested in
Belgian history, in the domestic quarrels between Walloons and
Flemings, in the alleged oppression of the latter (Low Germans) by
the former, and propose for themselves the part of liberator and
saviour for Flemish culture. They have discovered, among other
things, that Belgium was merely a paper State, a diplomatic
invention, an experiment, and that no “Belgian” people has ever
existed, but rather two hostile elements were packed under the same
roof against their will by the Conference of London—the said
roof bears the name Belgium!

According to a good German-Swiss[133]
the Belgians have no national feelings, no patriotism, and have
never had a Fatherland. If a serious writer can make such
statements after the Belgians have defended their native country so
heroically, one naturally wonders whether Herr Blocher is sane, or
merely a paid agent of the German authorities. In his work he
denies every and any intention to justify or condemn either Germany
or Belgium, and then proceeds to blacken the latter’s character by
quoting every Belgian utterance which may be interpreted as
anti-German. These expressions lead him to the remarkable
conclusion that Belgians had already violated their own
neutrality!

[Footnote 133:
“Belgische Neutralität,” by Eduard Blocher. Zurich, 1915.]

Blocher states that his work is only intended to prove that
Switzerland has nothing to fear from Germany’s precedent in
invading Belgium. But he never mentions Belgium’s maritime
interests, Antwerp and the extensive seacoast on the North Sea. He
is oblivious to the fact that Germany’s desire to possess these was
the sole motive for precipitating war and invading Belgium. To
Germany the coast of Belgium is the door to the world and world
domination. Switzerland does not possess such a door, and therefore
had nothing to fear from her powerful neighbour; but if the Allies
are unable to bar this door to Germany’s aggressive schemes, then
the time is not far distant when Germany would remember that she
has “brothers” within Swiss frontiers and insist upon their
entrance into the great Teutonic sheepfold—just as her most
earnest desire at present is to drive the “lost” Flemings back to
their parent race.

Among the many phrases which Germans have coined to describe
Belgium the following occur: bastard, eunuch and hermaphrodite.
According to the German conception of a “State,” Belgium is an
unnatural monstrosity, from which one draws the natural conclusion
that Germany intends to remove it from the domain of earthly
affairs.

On the whole, German writers admit the existence of Belgian
neutrality, and also Germany’s pledge to respect it. The three most
serious writers on the subject are, Dr. Reinhard Frank,[134] professor of jurisprudence in Munich
University; Dr. Karl Hampe,[135] professor
in Heidelberg; and Dr. Walter Schoenborn,[136] also a professor in Heidelberg University.

[Footnote 134:
Reinhard Frank: “Die belgische Neutralität.” Tubingen,
1915.]

[Footnote 135:
Karl Hampe: “Belgien’s Vergangenheit und Gegenwart.” Berlin,
1915.]

[Footnote 136:
Walther Schoenborn: “Die Neutralität Belgien’s.” This is an
appendix to a large work written by twenty university professors,
entitled “Deutschland und der Weltkrieg,” published by B.G.
Teubner, Leipzig and Berlin, 1915.]

The nearer examination of these three works must be premised by
two important considerations. Firstly, the three professors ignore
the fact that Germany was a menace to Belgium, and make no mention
of German aspirations for a coastline on or near the English
Channel. Holland and Belgium form a twentieth century “Naboth’s
vineyard,” on which the German Ahab has cast avaricious glances for
upwards of forty years.

A casual acquaintance with Pan-German and German naval and
military literature during the same period, affords overwhelming
proof of this powerful current in German nationalism. If Naboth
consulted strong neighbours as to necessary precautions against
Ahab’s plans for obtaining the vineyard, then Naboth acted as a
wise man, and the only regret to-day is that the “strong
neighbours” only offered Naboth assurances and words, instead of
deeds. In other words Great Britain did nothing because, as Lord
Haldane expressed it, the Liberal Cabinet was “afraid” (!) to
offend Germany and precipitate a crisis.

Secondly, the three professors, like all others of their class
in the Fatherland, have sworn an oath on taking office not to do
anything, either by word or deed, detrimental to the interests of
the German State of which they are official members. An
ordinary German in writing on Germany may be under the subjective
influences of his national feelings, but a German who has taken the
“Staatseid” (oath to the State) cannot be objective in national
questions and interests—his oath leaves only one course open
to him, and any departure from that course may mean the loss of his
daily bread.

The author has the greatest respect for the achievements of
German professors in the domains of science and abstract thought;
by those achievements they have deservedly become famous, but in
all judgments where Germany’s interests are concerned they are
bound hand and foot.[137]

[Footnote 137:
Towards the close of 1913 I had a conversation with half a dozen
Germans (average age twenty-five) in Erlangen Gymnasium (State
Secondary School); they were candidates in training for the
teaching profession, all university men. I listened patiently to
their diatribes concerning the perfidy of English Statesmen, and
then pointed out, giving chapter and verse in German biographies,
that Bismarck’s record was exceedingly tortuous; the forgery of the
Ems telegram was given as an instance.

A few weeks later I met the vice-principal of the school at a
private party; this gentleman was a good friend of mine. He
reminded me of the above conversation, and gave me a friendly
warning never again to make such statements to my pupils. The
candidates had talked it over, and although they had provoked the
discussion, proposed to have me reported to the Minister for
Education for uttering such opinions. The vice-principal had
intervened and prevented the Denunziation.

If a professor of history in a German university expressed any
opinion in his academic lectures unfavourable to modern Germany, he
would be immediately denunziert to the State authorities by
his own students. Should he publish such opinions in book form, of
course the process of cashiering him would be simpler. Germans do
not desire the truth so far as their own country is concerned; they
do not will the truth; they will Deutschland über
alles, and all information, knowledge, or propaganda contrary
to their will is prohibited. If space permitted I could mention
numerous cases in which famous professors have been treated like
schoolboys by the German State—their stern father and
master.]

When a German conscript enters the army he takes the
Fahneneid (oath on, and to, the flag), which binds him to
defend the Fatherland with bayonet and bullet. In like manner it
may be said that German professors are bound by the
Staatseid either to discreet silence, or to employ their
intellectual pop-guns in defending Germany. That these pop-guns
fire colossal untruths, innuendoes, word-twistings, and such like
missiles, giving out gases calculated to stupefy and blind honest
judgments, will become painfully evident in the course of our
considerations.

That any and every German obeys the impulse to defend his
country is just and praiseworthy; but in our search for truth we
are compelled to note the fact that German professors are merely
intellectual soldiers fighting for Germany. Without departing from
the truth by one jot or tittle, readers may even call them “outside
clerks” of the German Foreign Office, or the “ink-slingers” under
the command of the German State.

These premises have been laid down in extenso because
some fifty books will be discussed in this work, which emanate from
German universities. A neutral reader may retort: You also are not
impartial, for you are an Englishman! Having anticipated the
question, the author ventures to give an answer. If he could make a
destructive attack on Britain’s policy—the attack would be
made without the least hesitation. Such an attack, if proved to the
hilt, would bring any man renown, and in the worst case no harm.
But if a German professor launched an attack, based upon
incontrovertible facts, against Bethmann-Hollweg and Germany’s
policy, that professor would be ruined in time of peace and in all
probability imprisoned, or sent to penal servitude in time of
war.

Nothing which the present author could write would ever tarnish
the reputation of German professors as men of science, but in the
narrower limits as historians of the Fatherland and propagandists
of the Deutschland-über-alles gospel they are tied with
fetters for the like of which we should seek in vain at the
universities of Great Britain or America. It would be in the
interests of truth and impartiality if every German professor who
writes on the “Causes of the World War,” “England’s Conspiracy
against Germany,” “The Non-Existence of Belgian Neutrality,” and
similar themes, would print the German Staatseid on the
front page of his book. The text of that oath would materially
assist his readers in forming an opinion regarding the
trustworthiness and impartiality of the professor’s
conclusions.

Professor Frank commences his historical sketch of Belgian
neutrality with the year 1632, when Cardinal Richelieu proposed
that Belgium should be converted into an independent republic.
Doubtless the desire to found a buffer State inspired Richelieu,
just as it did the representatives of Prussia, Russia, France,
Austria and England when they drew up the treaty guaranteeing
Belgium’s neutrality in perpetuity, at the Conference of London,
1839.

But an additional motive actuated the diplomatists of 1839,
viz., Belgium was henceforth to be the corner-stone supporting the
structure commonly designated “the balance of power in Europe.”

An objection has been made to the validity of the treaty signed
in London, viz., England herself did not consider it reliable and
binding, or she would not have asked for, and obtained, pledges
from both Prussia and France to respect Belgian neutrality in 1870.
Another objection is the claim that the German Empire, founded in
1870, was not bound by the Prussian signature attached to a treaty
in 1839. Other writers have endeavoured to show that the addition
of African territory (Congo Free State) to Belgium changed the
political status of that country, exposed it to colonial conflicts
with two great colonial Powers, and thus tacitly ended the state of
neutrality.

Each of the professors in question overrides these objections,
and Frank remarks, p. 13: “Lawyers and diplomatists refuse, and
rightly so, to accept this view.” Again, p. 14.: “There is no
international document in existence which has cancelled Belgian
neutrality.”

Germany’s alleged violation of her promise to regard Belgium as
a neutral country is justified on quite other grounds. Belgium had
herself violated her neutrality by a secret alliance with France
and England. Frank argues that a neutral State has certain duties
imposed upon it in peace time, and in support of his contention
quotes Professor Arendt (Louvain University, 1845), who wrote: “A
neutral State may not conclude an alliance of defence and offence,
by which in case of war between two other States it is pledged to
help one of them. Yet it is free and possesses the right to form
alliances to protect its neutrality and in its own defence, but
such defensive alliances can only be concluded after the outbreak
of war.”

Another authority quoted to support his point is Professor Hilty
(University of Bern, 1889). “A neutral State may not conclude a
treaty in advance to protect its own neutrality, because by
this means a protectorate relationship would be created.”

Frank continues (p. 21): “Hence Belgian neutrality was
guaranteed in the interests of the balance of power in Europe, and
I have already pointed out that the same idea prevailed when the
barrier-systems of 1815 and 1818 were established.

“Considering the matter from this point of view, the falsity of
modern Belgium’s interpretation at once becomes apparent. According
to Belgian official opinion her neutrality obligations only came
into force in the event of war, and therefore could not be violated
during peace. But this balance of power was to be maintained, above
all in time of peace, and might not be disturbed by any peaceful
negotiations whatever, especially if these were calculated to
manifest themselves in either advantageous or prejudicial form, in
the event of war.

“In this category we may place the surrender of territory. No
impartial thinker can deny that the cession of Antwerp to England
would have been a breach of neutrality on the part of Belgium, even
if it had occurred in peace time. The same is true for the granting
of occupation rights, and landing places for troops, or for the
establishment of a harbour which might serve as a basis for the
military or naval operations of another State.

“Moreover, it is unnecessary to exert one’s imagination in order
to discover ‘peaceful negotiations’ which are incompatible with
permanent neutrality, for history offers us two exceedingly
instructive examples. When a tariff union between France and
Belgium was proposed in 1840, England objected because the plan was
not in accord with Belgian neutrality. Again in 1868, when the
Eastern Railway Company of France sought to obtain railway
concessions in Belgium, it was the latter country which refused its
consent, and in the subsequent parliamentary debate the step was
designated an act of neutrality.”

From this extract it is evident that Professor Frank has
undermined his own case. Belgian neutrality was intended by the
great powers to be the corner-stone of the European balance of
power. During the last forty years Germany’s carefully meditated
increase of armaments on land and sea threatened to dislodge the
corner-stone. When the Conference of London declared Belgium to be
a permanently neutral country, there was apparent equality of power
on each side of the stone. In 1870 the Franco-German war showed
that the balance of power was already disturbed at this corner of
the European edifice. Still Germany’s pledged word was considered
sufficient guarantee of the status quo.

Since 1870 the potential energy on the German side of the
corner-stone has increased in an unprecedented degree, and this
huge energy has been consistently converted into concrete military
and naval forces. This alteration in the potential status quo
ante has been partly the result of natural growth, but in a
still greater degree, to Germany’s doctrine that it is only might
which counts.

Another German professor[138] had
defined the position in a sentence: “Germany is a boiler charged to
danger-point with potential energy. In such a case is it a sound
policy to try to avert the possibility of an explosion by screwing
down all its safety-valves?” Recognizing that Belgian neutrality
has existed for many years past solely on Germany’s good-will, it
became the right and urgent duty of the other signatory powers to
endeavour to strengthen the corner-stone. Germany absolutely
refused to relax in any way the pressure which her “potential
energy” was exercising at this point, therefore it was necessary
above all for France and Great Britain to bolster up the threatened
corner.

[Footnote 138:
Hermann Oncken (Heidelberg), in the Quarterly Review,
October, 1913. The author of the article charges Great Britain with
screwing down the valves, which is a deliberate distortion of the
truth. Britain has always opened her markets free to German goods
and admitted the same privileges to her rival—so far as these
did not run contrary to established rights—in all parts of
the world. With regard to territorial expansion a treaty had been
drawn up between the two Powers and was ready to be signed just
when war broke out. That treaty would have afforded Germany immense
opportunities for expansion, but not at the expense of Europe.
Germany, however, desired European expansion, and according to her
accepted teaching, the fate of extra-European territories will be
decided on the battlefields of Europe.]

The former Power could have achieved this purpose by building a
chain of huge fortresses along her Belgian frontier. Why this
precautionary measure was never taken is difficult to surmise, but
had it been taken, Germany would have ascribed to her neighbour
plans of aggression—and declared war.

Great Britain could have restored the balance by creating an
army of several millions. Lord Haldane has announced that the late
Liberal Government was “afraid” to do this, although the fear of
losing office may have been greater than their fear for
Germany.

The measures which England did take were merely non-binding
conversations with the military authorities of France and Belgium;
the making of plans for putting a British garrison of defence on
Belgian territory in the event of the latter’s neutrality being
violated or threatened; and the printing of books describing the
means of communication in Belgium.[139]

[Footnote 139:
“Belgium, Road and River Reports,” prepared by the General Staff,
Vol. I., 1912; II., 1913; III. & IV., 1914. Copies of this work
have been seized by the Germans in Belgium, and capital is being
made of the incident to prove a violation of Belgian neutrality. If
the British General Staff had nothing better to do than to compile
guide-books to Belgium for a non-existent British army, it appears
merely amusing. But if the late Liberal Government believed that
Germany’s potential energy could be prevented from breaking through
into Belgian territory by a barricade of guide-books—it was a
lamentable error of judgment. On the whole we are forced to call it
a tragical irony, that the only defences which Belgium possessed
against the furor teutonicus—excepting the Belgian
army—were a “scrap of paper” and a barricade of the same
material.]

As a result of these measures, Belgium stands charged by Germany
with having broken her own neutrality, and German writers are
naively asking why Belgium did not give the same confidence to
Germany which she gave to England. The German mind knows quite
well, that in building strategic railways to the Belgian frontier
she betrayed the line of direction which the potential energy was
intended to take, when the burst came. Unofficially Germany has
long since proclaimed her intention to invade Belgium; it was an
“open secret.”

The denouement of August 4th, 1914, when Belgian
neutrality was declared a “scrap of paper,”[140] was not the inspiration of a moment, nor a
decision arrived at under the pressure of necessity, but the result
of years of military preparation and planning. It had been
carefully arranged that the boiler should pour forth its energy
through the Belgian valve.

[Footnote 140:
This famous phrase was employed as far back as 1855 by a Belgian
Minister in the House of Deputies, Brussels. M. Lebeau in pleading
for greater military preparation used these words: “History has
shown what becomes of neutralities which were guaranteed, by what
may be termed a ‘scrap of paper.'”]

Or to draw another comparison, it is a modern variety of the
wolf and the lamb fable, with this difference: the wolf has first
of all swallowed the lamb, and now excuses himself by asserting
that the traitorous wretch had muddied the stream.

Belgians were painfully aware of the danger threatening them,
and would have made greater efforts to protect themselves, had not
their own Social Democrats resisted every military proposal. As the
matter stands to-day, however, all the efforts which Belgium did
make, are classed by Germany as intrigues of the Triple Entente,
threatening her (Germany’s) existence, and all the horrors which
have fallen upon this gallant “neutral” country the German
Pecksniff designates “Belgium’s Atonement.”[141] It is to be feared that sooner or later,
unless Germany’s military pride and unbounded greed of her
neighbour’s goods can be checked, German professors will be engaged
in the scientific task of proving that the waters of the upper
Rhine are unpalatable because the lamb residing in Holland has
stirred up mud in the lower reaches of the same river!

[Footnote 141:
Belgien’s Sübne, the title of a chapter describing the
desolation and havoc of war, in a book entitled “Mit dem
Hauptquartier nach Westen,” by Heinrich Binder. Berlin, 1915.]

Belgium knew that England and France had no other interest than
the maintenance of her neutrality. Belgium saw and felt, where the
storm clouds lowered, and probably sought or accepted advice from
those Powers who wished to perpetuate both the territorial
integrity and neutrality of Belgium. Germany’s afterthought on the
point is: “It was Belgium’s duty to protect her neutrality, and she
owed this duty to all States alike in the interests of the balance
of power—a conception to which she owes her existence.

“She was bound to treat all the signatory Powers in the same
manner, but she failed to do so, in that she permitted one or two
of them to gain an insight into her system of defence. By this
means she afforded the States admitted to her confidence, certain
advantages which they could employ for their own ends at any
moment.

“By allowing certain of the great Powers to see her cards,
Belgium was not supporting the European balance, but seriously
disturbing it. Even Belgium’s Legation Secretary in Berlin had
warned his Government concerning the political dangers arising out
of intimacy with England. By revealing her system of defence to
England, Belgium destroyed its intrinsic value and still
more—she violated her international obligations.”[142]

[Footnote 142:
Professor Frank’s work, pp. 29-30.]

Considering that the British army at that time was small, that
Britain had no idea of annexing Belgian territory, one naturally
wonders how the value of Belgium’s defence system had been
depreciated by conversations with British officers. In effect,
Germany maintains that Belgium should have behaved as a nonentity,
which is contrary to all reason.

The Berlin Government has always treated her small neighbour as
a sovereign State, equal in quality, though not in power, to any
State in the world. If Germany recognized Belgium’s sovereignty,
why should not England do the same, and, above all, why had Belgium
no right to think of her self-preservation, when she knew the
danger on her eastern frontier grew more menacing month by
month?

Frank concludes his dissertation with his opinion of England and
quotes Thucydides, V., 105, as the best applicable characterization
of the British with which he is acquainted. “Among themselves,
indeed, and out of respect for their traditional constitution, they
prove to be quite decent. As regards their treatment of foreigners,
a great deal might be said, yet we will try to express it in brief.
Among all whom we know they are the most brazen in declaring what
is good to be agreeable, and what is profitable to be just.”

The very offence which Germany accuses England of having
premeditated, she committed herself many years before. When France
seemed to threaten Belgium’s existence, King Leopold I. concluded a
secret treaty[143] with the king of
Prussia, whereby the latter was empowered to enter Belgium and
occupy fortresses in case of France becoming dangerous. The French
danger passed away, and its place was taken by a more awful
menace—the pressure of German potential energy; and when
Belgium in turn opened her heart (this is the unproved accusation
which Germany makes to-day—Author) to England, then she has
violated her neutrality and undermined the balance of
power.[144] There is even a suspicion that
Leopold II. renewed this treaty with Germany in 1890, in spite of
the fact that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Prince de Chimay,
in an official speech denied its existence.

[Footnote 143:
Germans love anything which is “secret.” “Geheimniskrämerei”
(“affectation of mysteriousness and secrecy”) is a national and
individual characteristic of the German people.—Author.]

[Footnote 144:
Karl Hampe: “Belgiens Vergangenheit und Gegenwart” (“Belgium Past
and Present”), p. 49.]

Professor Schoenborn’s essay on Belgian neutrality is the least
satisfactory exposition of the three professorial effusions; it is
no credit to a man of learning, and is merely the work of an
incapable partisan trying to make a bad cause into a good one.
Schoenborn commences[145] with the
customary German tactics by stating that Bethmann-Hollweg’s
“scrap-of-paper” speech, and von Jagow’s (German Secretary of
State) explanations to the Belgian representative in Berlin on
August 3rd, 1914, are of no importance in deciding the justice of
Germany’s violation of her pledged word. One is led to inquire,
When is a German utterance—whether given in the Reichstag by
the Chancellor or on paper in the form of a treaty—final and
binding?

[Footnote 145:
“Deutschland und der Weltkrieg” (“Germany and the World War”), pp.
566-8.]

Subterfuges, insinuations, distortions, even brazen falsehoods,
are scattered throughout German war literature, thicker “than
Autumnal leaves in Vallombrosa’s brook.” It is to be feared that
just as Germans have lied for a century to prove that the English
were annihilated at the battle of Waterloo, and for over forty
years to show that Bismarck was not a forger, so they will lie for
centuries to come in order to prove that the invasion of Belgium
was not what Bethmann-Hollweg called it, a “breach of international
law.”

Like his confrères, Herr Schoenborn admits that
Germany was pledged to respect the neutrality of Belgium, but the
said neutrality was non-existent, which appears somewhat
paradoxical. Yet this is not the least logical part of his case.
“The passage of German troops through Belgium was indispensable in
the interests of the preservation of the German Empire. A
successful resistance to the annihilation-plans which our enemies
had wrought for our downfall seemed possible only by this means.
The Government regretted that, by so doing, we should commit a
formal infringement of the rights of a third State (Belgium), and
promised to make all possible compensation for the
transgression.

“The judicial point of view which influenced the decision of the
German Government is perhaps, best illustrated by a parallel taken
from the ordinary laws of the country: A forester (game-keeper) is
attacked by a poacher, and in that same moment perceives a second
poacher bearing a gun at full-cock, creeping into a strange house
in order to obtain a better shot at the forester. Just as he is
about to enter the house the forester breaks the door open and thus
forestalls him—in order to surprise and overcome him. The
forester is justified in taking this step, but must make good all
damage resulting to the householder.”[146]

[Footnote 146:
Ibid., p. 575.]

The instance holds good in the land of Kultur, where law
and order affords so little protection to a civilian and his
property; but in countries where laws are based upon culture the
author believes that the forester would receive condign punishment
for breaking into another man’s house, no matter under what
pretext. Unconsciously the learned professor is humorous when he
compares Germany to a gamekeeper and Russia and France to poachers;
but he is naïve to a degree of stupidity, when he makes France
carry a weapon fully prepared to shoot the forester.

We will consult another German authority to show that France’s
weapons were not at full-cock.

“During the last ten years France has given special attention to
the fortresses on the German frontier. But those facing Belgium
have been so carelessly equipped that we see clearly to what a
degree she relied upon her neighbour. The forts are in the same
condition as they were twenty or thirty years ago. As some of these
fortifications were built fifty years ago, various points on the
frontier are strategically, absolutely useless.

“A typical example of this, is Fort les Ayvelles, which is
intended to protect the bridges and Meuse crossings south of
Mézières-Charleville; the fort was levelled to the
ground by 300 shots from our 21-centimetre howitzers. It was built
in 1878 and armed with forty cannon; of these the principal weapons
consisted of two batteries each containing six 9-centimetre cannon,
which, however, were cast in the years 1878-1880, and in the best
case could only carry 4,000 yards. Then there were some
12-centimetre bronze pieces cast in 1884, and a few five-barrelled
revolver cannon.

“Besides these there were old howitzers from the year 1842;
muzzle-loaders with the characteristic pyramids of cannon ball by
the side, such as are often used in Germany at village festivals or
to fire a salute. The fort itself was a perfect picture of the
obsolete and out-of-date. Apart from the crude, primitive
equipment, the organization must have been faulty indeed.

“On the road leading up to the fort we saw some tree-branches
which had been hurriedly placed as obstacles, and higher up wire
entanglements had been commenced at the last moment. At least one
battery was useless, for the field of fire was cut off by high
trees, and at the last minute the garrison had tried to place the
guns in a better position.

“Our artillery which fired from a north-westerly position
displayed a precision of aim which is rare. One battery had had
nearly every gun put out of action by clean hits. In several cases
we saw the barrel of the gun yards away from its carriage, and only
a heap of wheels, earth, stones, etc., marked the place where it
had stood.

“Another proof of the excellent work done by the artillery, was
the fact that hardly a shell had struck the earth in the 500 yards
from the battery to the fort. After the former had been disposed
of, the artillery fire was concentrated on the fort, which was
reduced to a heap of rubbish. The stonework and the high
walls—yards thick—had tumbled to pieces like a child’s
box of bricks.

“A garrison of 900 men had been placed in this useless cage, and
they had fled almost at the first shot. Instead of putting these
men in trenches, their superiors had put them at this ‘lost post’
and allowed them to suffer the moral effects of a complete,
inevitable defeat.

“Near the fort I saw the grave of its commander, the unfortunate
man who had witnessed the hopeless struggle. He lived to see his
men save their lives in wild flight—and then ended his
own.”[147]

[Footnote 147:
Heinrich Binder: “Mit dem Hauptquartier nach Westen,” pp.
107-9.]

Here we have a sorry picture of the poacher whom Germany feared
so much. The world knows now that neither Britain, France nor
Russia were prepared for war, which excludes the probability that
they desired or provoked a conflict. But Germany knew that, and
much more, in the month of July, 1914. Bethmann-Hollweg when
addressing the Reichstag drew a terrifying picture of French
armies[148] standing ready to invade
Belgium, but he knew full well that the necessary base-fortresses
were lacking on the Franco-Belgian frontier.

[Footnote 148:
Richard Grasshoff in his work “Belgien’s Schuld” (“Belgium’s
Guilt”), p. 14 et seq., reproduces several confessions
alleged to have been made by French soldiers, prisoners of war in
Germany, stating that they entered Belgian territory on July 31st,
1914. At present it is impossible to test the value of this
evidence. Cf. p. 151.]

As regards the alleged plans which Germany’s enemies had made to
annihilate Germany, it will be necessary for Professor Schoenborn
to prove that the Entente Powers had: (1.) Caused the murder in
Serajewo; (2.) Despatched the ultimatum to Serbia; (3.) Prepared
themselves for war. Until he proves these three points the world
will continue to believe that it was Germany alone who cherished
“annihilation-plans.”

Schoenborn mentions too, Britain’s refusal to promise her
neutrality even if Germany respected the neutrality of Belgium.
This offer was made to Sir Edward Grey, who declined it. According
to Professor Schoenborn Germany’s final decision to invade Belgium
was only taken after that refusal. It is a striking example of the
immorality which prevails both in Germany’s business and political
life. She gave her solemn pledge in 1839, yet endeavoured to sell
the same pledge in 1914—for Britain’s neutrality!

The author once made an agreement with a German, but soon found
that the arrangement was ignored and wrote to the person in
question: “You have employed our arrangement merely as a means for
making further incursions into my rights.”

That summarizes the Teutonic conception of a treaty, either
private or national. It is only a wedge with which to broaden the
way for a further advance. Usually a man signs an agreement with an
idea of finality, and looks forward to freedom from further worry
in the matter. Not so the German; with him it is an instrument to
obtain, or blackmail, further concessions; and as individuals,
instead of occupying their thoughts and energies in the faithful
fulfilment of its terms, they plot and plan in the pursuit of
ulterior advantages.

Heidelberg’s great scholar seems to have had doubts concerning
his simile of the gamekeeper; hence in his last footnote he makes
the innocuous remark: “Because the house-breaking gamekeeper fired
the first shot, it is not usual to draw the conclusion that the
poacher had only defensive intentions” (p. 590).

All in all, Professor Schoenborn’s attempt at partisanship is a
miserable failure, and as an academic thesis it is doubtful whether
the faculty of law in any German university would grant a student a
degree for such a crude effort.

Various facts indicate Germany’s intention to annex Belgium, if
not the entire country, then those districts in which Flemish is
spoken. Germany has suddenly remembered that the Flemings are a Low
German people and that they have been “oppressed” by the Walloons.
The hypocrisy of the plea becomes evident when we recall German
(including Austrian) oppression of the Poles, Slavs and
Hungarians.

One writer[149] has even endeavoured to
prove that the House of Hesse has a legitimate historical claim to
the province of Brabant. But as the following extracts will show,
there is method in this madness. No pains are being spared to stir
up racial feeling between the two peoples (Flemings and Walloons)
who form King Albert’s subjects. All the internal differences are
being dished up to convince the inhabitants of Flanders that they
will be much better off under the German heel.[150]

[Footnote 149:
Dr. Karl Knetsch: “Des Hauses Hessen Ansprüche auf Brabant”
(“The House of Hesse’s Claims to Brabant”). Marburg, 1915.]

[Footnote 150:
The Münchner Neueste Nachrichten for September 19th,
1915, contains a long account of a petition which was presented to
Herr von Hissing, General Governor of Belgium, by a branch of the
General Union of the Netherlands. The branch society is in Lierre
(a town occupied by the Germans), and the petition is a statement
of Flemish national and language aspirations. Unfortunately the
document in question “makes a bitter attack on Franco-Belgian
endeavours to rob the Flemings of their rights.” It is superfluous
to quote more; this sentence alone shows the origin of the petition
to be German.]

Forgetting their tyrannous efforts to stamp out the Polish
language and Polish national feelings, the Germans are now
sorrowing over the alleged attempts of the Walloons to suffocate
the Flemish dialect. German war books breathe hate and contempt for
the Walloons, but bestow clumsy bear-like caresses (no doubt
unwelcome to their recipients) on the Flemings.

In a work[151] already cited the
following passages occur, in addition to three whole chapters
intended to supply historical proof that Flanders is by the very
nature of things a part of the German Empire.

[Footnote 151:
Wilhelm Kotzde: “Von Lüttich bis Flandern” (“From Liége
into Flanders”). Weimar, 1914.]

“The German people committed a grave crime, when they fought
among themselves and left their race-brothers on the frontier,
defenceless and at the mercy of a foreign Power. Therefore we have
no right to scold these brothers (the Flemings), but should rather
fetch them back into the German fold” (p. 40).

Kotzde reports a conversation which he had with an educated
Fleming last autumn. “‘We do not like the French and English,’ said
the Fleming. ‘But what about Brussels?’ I remarked. ‘They are a
people for themselves. The Flemish capital is Antwerp’ he
answered.

“Our paths led in different directions, but we parted with the
consciousness that we are tribal brothers. So much seems certain,
that when the Flemings are freed from the embittering influence of
the Walloons and French, then this Low German tribe will again
learn to love everything German—because they are German.
Furthermore, that will make an end of the French language in
Flemish districts” (p. 84).

“German infantry marched with us into Antwerp. How deeply it
touched me to hear them sing the ‘Wacht am Rhein’ and then
‘Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,’ in the very city which
was to serve as an English base for operations against our dear
Fatherland. And my Flemish companion softly hummed this splendid
German song of faith.

“In that moment a spasm of pain went through my heart, that the
Flemings should have to fight against us in this great struggle for
the existence of Germany: these, our lost brothers, of whom so many
yearn to be with us again” (p. 86).

“With the fall of Antwerp, Flanders—the land of the German
Hanse period, of Ghent, Ypres and Bruges—became German once
more” (p. 147).

Kotzde concludes his work as follows:—

“Holland was compelled to bow before the might of France and
consent to Belgium becoming an independent State. From that moment
the Flemings, cut off in every way from their German brothers, were
delivered up to the Walloons, behind whom stood the French.

“The Germans at that time lacked a Bismarck to unite them and
interest them in the fate of their outlying brother tribe. This war
has freed our hands, which hitherto had been bound by the dictates
of conscience. Of himself the German would never have kindled this
world conflagration, but others have hurled the torch into our
abode—and our hands are free!

“We do not yet know what Belgium’s fate will be, but we can be
perfectly sure that the Flemings will never again be left to the
mercy of the Walloons and French. They have had a wild and
chequered history; and although they have often shown signs of
barbarism in the fight, they have not waged this war with the
devilish cruelty of the Walloons.

“They lack the discipline which alone a well-ordered State can
bestow. The training and education of the German military system
and German administration, will be a blessing to them. Even to-day
many Flemings bless the hour of their return into the German
paternal home” (p. 190).

“In a struggle which has lasted for nearly a century, the
Flemings have displayed their unconquerable will to maintain their
national peculiarities. Without outside aid, and with little or no
deterioration, they have maintained their nationalism. Now the
horrors of war have swept over the lands of the Flemings and
Walloons. The Belgian army, consisting of 65 per cent. Flemings,
has been decimated by German arms. North and south of the Meuse a
wicked harvest of hate has sprung up. But the most remarkable point
is that this hate is not directed against the Germans alone; the
mutual dislike of Flemings and Walloons has turned into hatred. The
Walloons cherish bitter suspicions of the Flemings; they scent the
racial German, and are promising that after the war they will wage
a life and death feud against the German part of the Flemish
nature.”[152]

[Footnote 152:
Ulrich Rauscher: “Belgien heute und morgen” (“Belgium to-day and
to-morrow”). Leipzig, 1915; p. 35.]

The same writer claims that the Germans had conquered Antwerp
before its fall, by peaceful penetration. “In 1880 the British
share of Antwerp’s trade was 56 per cent., Germany’s 9 per cent.;
in 1900, British 48 per cent., German 23-1/2 per cent. Not only had
the British flag been beaten in percentages but also in absolute
figures; in the year 1912-1913 German trade to Antwerp increased by
400,000 tons, while that of Great Britain decreased by 200,000
tons. The commercial future of Antwerp will be German!”[153]

[Footnote 153:
Ibid., p. 64.]

“To-day Antwerp is the second largest port on the Continent,
with over 400,000 inhabitants, and now Germany’s war banner waves
above its cathedral. Germany’s maritime flag has waved during the
last twenty years above Antwerp’s commercial progress. Antwerp’s
progress was German progress.”[154]

[Footnote 154:
Ibid., p. 68.]

After which follows a glowing account of Belgium’s mineral
wealth. “It is Belgium’s mission to be a gigantic factory for the
rest of the world,” and of course this mission will be directed
by—Germany!

“Those who had warned us for years past that England is our
greatest enemy were right. To-day every German recognizes who is
our principal opponent in this world war. Against Russia and France
we fight, as the poet expresses it, ‘with steel and bronze, and
conclude a peace some time or other.’ But against England we wage
war with the greatest bitterness and such an awful rage, as only an
entire and great people in their holy wrath can feel. The words of
Lissauer’s ‘Hymn of Hate’ were spoken out of the innermost depths
of every German soul.

“When Hindenburg announces a new victory we are happy; when our
front in the Argonne advances we are satisfied; when our faithful
Landsturm beats back a French attack in the Vosges, it awakes a
pleasurable pride in our breasts. But when progress is announced in
Flanders, when a single square yard of earth is captured by our
brave troops in the Ypres district, then all Germany is beside
herself with pure joy. The seventy millions know only too well,
that everything depends upon the development of events in Flanders,
as to when and how, we shall force England to her knees.

“Hence of all the fields of war, Belgium is the most familiar to
us, and we love best of all to hear news from that quarter. May God
grant that in the peace negotiations we shall hear much more and
good tidings about Flanders.”[155]

[Footnote 155:
Dr. Fritz Mittelmann: “Kreuz und Quer durch Belgien” (“Round and
about Belgium”). Stettin, 1915: p. 8. Dr. Mittelmann is a personal
friend of the Liberal leader, Herr Bassermann, who accompanied him
on some of his journeys.]

Dr. Mittelmann’s book is a prose-poem in praise of Germany’s
ineffable greatness. He sees in the present war, “a holy struggle
for Germany’s might and future,” and like all his compatriots,
makes no mention of Austria. If the Central Powers should be
victorious, there is no doubt that Germany would seize the booty.
In justifying the destruction of churches, cathedrals, etc., Herr
Mittelmann asserts that “one single German soldier is of more worth
than all the art treasures of our enemies” (p. 12).

His book deserves to be read by all Britishers who imagine that
we can win Germany’s love and respect—by weakness and
compromise. “In this war Germans and English soldiers are opposed
to each other for the first time. All the scorn and hate which had
accumulated for years past in the German nation has now broken
loose with volcanic force. Whoever assumes that the English were
ever other than what they are—is wrong. They have never had
ideals, and seek singly and alone their own profit. Whenever they
have fought side by side with another nation against a common foe,
they have done their best to weaken their ally and reap all the
glory and advantage for themselves.”[156]

[Footnote 156:
Ibid., p. 29.]

Pity for the Belgians suffering through Germany’s brutal war of
aggression does not appear to be one of Dr. Mittelmann’s
weaknesses. “The principal industrial occupation of the inhabitants
seems at present to be begging. In spite of their hostile glances
the crowd did not hesitate to gather round as we entered our car,
and quite a hundred greedy hands were stretched towards us for
alms. But in Liége, without the shadow of a doubt the best
of all was the magnificent Burgundy which we drank there; perhaps
we had never relished wine so much in our lives.”[157] One wonders whether these pioneers of
Kultur relished the wine so much because they knew
themselves to be surrounded by thousands of hungry, “greedy”
Belgians.

[Footnote 157:
Ibid., p. 44.]

On page 93, Mittelmann relates at length his genuine Prussian
joy at humiliating a Belgian policeman before the latter’s
compatriots. None enjoy having their boots licked, so much as those
who are accustomed to perform that service for others.

Our author pays the customary compliments to the Flemings. It
must be remembered that the above incident took place in
Liége among the Walloons, but it would seem that the Germans
try to behave with decency when among their Low German
brothers.

“One feels at home in the house of a Flemish peasant; the racial
relationship tends to homeliness. The painful cleanliness of the
white-washed cottages makes a pleasant contrast to the homes of the
Walloons. War and politics are never mentioned, as these delicate
subjects would prevent a friendly understanding.”[158]

[Footnote 158:
Ibid., p. 90.]

“A dream. An old German dream. A land full of quaintness which
the rush of modern life has left untouched. On all sides
cleanliness and order which makes the heart beat gladly. And this
joyful impression is doubly strong when one comes direct from the
dirty, disorderly villages of the Walloons.

“Just as a mother may give birth to two children with entirely
different natures, so Belgium affords hearth and home to two
peoples in whose language, culture and customs there is neither
similarity nor harmony. The Flemings are absolutely German, and in
this war they treat us with friendly confidence. Their eyes do not
glitter with fanatical hate like those of the Walloons.”[159]

[Footnote 159:
Heinrich Binder: “Mit dem Hauptquartier nach Westen,” p. 102.]

Herr Binder’s meditations on the slaughter in the valley of the
Meuse are not without interest. “A vale which has been won by
German blood! In recent days the waters of the Meuse have often
flowed blood-red. Many a warrior has sunk into these depths.
Longing and hope rise in our hearts: May destiny determine that all
these dead, after a triumphant war, shall sleep at rest in a German
valley!”[160]

[Footnote 160:
Ibid., p. 122.]

CHAPTER X

SAIGNER À BLANC.[161]

[Footnote 161:
“To bleed white.” Bismarck employed this phrase on two occasions in
addressing the Reichstag; his purpose could have been no other than
to bully France.—Author.]

It would be superfluous to review here the history of
Franco-German relations during the last half century; other writers
have already performed the task. Yet the whole trend of development
in the relations between the two powerful neighbours may be defined
by two watch-words: saigner à blanc in Germany, and
the revanche idée in France. But there is this
difference: the former has become ever more and more, and the
latter less and less, a factor in European politics.

While the German nation has been gradually and systematically
leavened with the teaching that might alone is right, the French
revenge party has been weakened year by year by national
prosperity, colonial expansion and the growth of a powerful
anti-military party. Whatever may be said of French chauvinists,
this much remains an immovable fact—the party was incapable
of providing adequate national defences against the Germanic
neighbour, while plans of reconquest can only be assigned to the
domain of myths.

On every occasion that the revanche cry has been
resuscitated, the direct cause is to be sought in Germany. Having
displaced France in 1870 from her position of the first military
power in Europe, Germany has endeavoured by fair and foul means to
prevent her neighbour from again raising her head, and that policy
alone is to blame for the suspicion and hatred which have marked
Franco-German relations during the whole period and plunged Europe
into an era of armaments, ending in a world war. England and Russia
prevented Bismarck from annihilating France in 1875, an incident
which aroused justified fear throughout France and gave an impulse
to the revenge party.

In 1881 the Iron Chancellor told the French Ambassador: “Outside
Europe you can do what you like.” Bismarck’s intention was to
divert reviving French energies to colonial work, and if possible
involve her in conflicts with the other Colonizing Powers. In both
of these plans he succeeded, but the common sense and loyalty of
Great Britain and Italy prevented the conflicts from assuming a
dangerous form—war—as desired by the Government in
Berlin.

As soon as the latter perceived that French genius and
persistency were bearing fruit in a magnificent colonial empire,
the innate jealousy and greed of the German nation led to a policy
of colonial pinpricks on the part of the Kaiser’s Government. This
seems the most probable explanation of Germany’s attitude during
the last decade before 1914. The natural consequence was that those
powers which had most to fear through German ill-will were welded
together more firmly in a policy of self-protection.

Germany cannot, or will not, recognize that the causes of the
above-mentioned development are to be found solely and alone in her
own actions. On the contrary, she designates the “consequences” a
world-wide conspiracy against German interests. In naval affairs
she adopts the same naïve line of argument. First and foremost
Germany committed herself to a policy of unlimited—even
provocative—naval expansion. When the Power most
concerned—Great Britain—took precautionary measures to
guarantee British interests in view of Germany’s “peaceful”
development, then the latter Power declared the consequences of her
own actions to be a hostile initiative directed against her.

A defence of this kind may be convincing for those who observe
events in the German perspective, but it will be unable to
withstand impartial historical criticism. Boxers expect a rebound
when they “punch the ball,” but none of them would be so foolish as
to deny having delivered a blow when the rebound takes place. Yet
that is the unscientific defence which Germany has adopted in her
endeavours to explain away her aggressive attitude to Belgium,
France, and Great Britain.

In a word, the principles underlying saigner à
blanc have grown during the past four decades into a possible
avalanche possessing huge potential energy; the momentum was given
to it in August, 1914.

If it were necessary, a picture of German popular opinion might
be projected, showing how that opinion was influenced and formed
during the critical days at the close of July last year. But from
considerations of space only the outlines of the picture can be
given. Before the war German newspapers abounded in reports of
French unpreparedness and chaos. The German public was informed
that France dreaded and feared war with Germany.

“Without any exaggeration it may be said that a state of nerves
has seized the French nation, such as we should seek for in vain at
the time of Tangiers and Agadir. There is tremendous excitement,
which in many reports suggests absolute panic.”[162]

[Footnote 162:
Dresdner Neueste Nachrichten, August 1st.]

The Paris correspondent of the Kölnische Zeitung
(August 4th) on returning to Cologne wrote: “Conditions in France
afford a striking picture of bad organization. War rage possesses
the people; but such an enthusiasm as I found in Germany on my
return is unknown to them.”

On the same day the Hamburger Nachrichten reported: “A
German refugee who has returned from the French capital says that
there is no enthusiasm in Paris. Men and women may be seen weeping
in the streets, while the crowds are shouting: ‘Down with war!’ ‘We
desire no war!'”

Probably there is no better way to incite a ferocious bully than
to tell him that his opponent is weak, unprepared and afraid.
Almost simultaneously false reports of French troops crossing the
frontier and of French airmen dropping bombs on Nuremberg were
spread by the Berlin General Staff, and thus an excuse found for a
declaration of war on France.

From the French point of view events appeared quite different.
“This morning German troops have violated French territory at three
different points: in the direction of Longwy by Lunéville,
at Cirey and by Belfort. War has thus been declared, and the
endeavours for peace as described in the President’s proclamation
have been in vain. For the last eight days Herr von Schoen (German
Ambassador in Paris) has lulled us to sleep with endearing
protestations of peace. Meanwhile Germany has mobilized troops in a
secret and malevolent manner.

“The war upon which we must enter is for civilization against
barbarism. All Frenchmen must be united not merely by the feeling
of duty, but also in hatred for an enemy who seeks no other goal
than our annihilation—the destruction of a nation which has
always been a pioneer of justice and liberty in the world.

“To-night our five covering-corps will take up their positions
and face the enemy till our plan of concentration is completed.
Russia is with us.

“MESSIMY,

“Minister for War.”

From the moment that Germany declared war on France, new tactics
were adopted in the Press. A campaign of calumny began which is the
exact counterpart of that against Belgium and the Belgians.
Uncorroborated tales of Germans having been ill treated in all
parts of France were spread broadcast. According to one
journal[163] sixty to eighty Germans had
been murdered on the platforms of the Gare de l’Est in Paris.

[Footnote 163:
Kölnische Volkszeitung, August 5th.]

Still there is one accusation which even German newspapers have
never dared to make, viz., that Frenchmen murdered and ill-treated
Frenchmen, or that war delirium led them to destroy property on a
wholesale scale. On the other hand, the picture obtainable of
Germany during August, 1914, proves that similar peaceful
conditions did not prevail in the great nation of “drill and
discipline.”

France was even “convicted” of having caused the war; instead of
being unprepared, she had laid the fuse and was the guilty power in
causing the European explosion. “The German Government has now
obtained absolute proof that France has been standing at arms,
ready to fall upon Germany, for many weeks past.”[164]

[Footnote 164:
Hamburger Fremdenblatt, August 13th.]

Above all, President Poincaré has been marked down in
Germany’s senseless, unnecessary hunt for a scapegoat upon whom to
fix her own guilt. Even in the year 1915 there is a section of the
German public[165] which believes that the
French President—a native of Lorraine—has worked for
years past in building up a revanche conspiracy ending in
the European war.

[Footnote 165:
Dr. Max Beer: “Tzar Poincarew, die Schuld am Kriege” (“Czar
Poincarew, the War-guilty”). Berlin, 1915.]

Germany despised France and has tried in vain to patronize her.
For many years past the average German has held that the French are
a nation of “degenerate weaklings.” Inspired by these sentiments,
with a mixture of hate, the German troops invaded France, and it is
a promising symptom that during twelve months of war respect for
French valour has taken the place of contempt.

The first engagements are described in the official telegrams
from the German army head-quarters. “August 11th. Enemies’ troops,
apparently the 7th French army corps and an infantry division from
the Belfort garrison, were driven out of a fortified position by
Mülhausen. Our losses were inconsiderable, those of the French
heavy.

“August 12th. Our troops attacked a French brigade by Lagarde.
The enemy suffered heavy losses and was thrown back into the Paroy
forest. We captured a flag, two batteries, four machine guns and
about seven hundred prisoners. A French general was among the
killed.

“August 18th. The fight by Mülhausen was little more than a
skirmish. One and a half enemy corps had invaded Upper Alsace
before our troops could be collected and placed on a war-footing.
In spite of their numerical inferiority they attacked the enemy
without hesitation and hurled him back in the direction of
Belfort.

“Meanwhile an artillery contingent from Strasbourg has suffered
a check. Two battalions with cannon and machine guns advanced from
Shirmeck on the 14th. They were attacked by hostile artillery fire
while passing through a narrow pass. The cannon, etc., were badly
damaged and therefore left. No doubt they were captured by the
enemy.

“The incident is of no importance and will have no influence on
our operations, but it should serve as a warning to our soldiers
against over-confidence and carelessness. The men mustered again
and reached the fortress in safety: they had lost their guns but
not their courage. Whether treachery on the part of the inhabitants
had any part in the affair has not yet been ascertained.

“August 22nd. Our troops are in pursuit of the French army
defeated between Metz and the Vosges. The enemies’ retreat became a
flight. Up till now more than ten thousand prisoners have been
taken and at least fifty cannon captured. The French had eight army
corps in the field.

“August 24th. Yesterday the German Crown Prince, advancing on
both sides of Longwy, achieved a victory over the opposing forces
and hurled them back.

“The troops under the leadership of the Bavarian Crown Prince
have also been victorious and crossed the line
Lunéville-Blamont-Tirey. To-day the 21st army corps occupied
Lunéville.

“The pursuit has brought rich booty. Besides numerous prisoners
and standards the left wing of the Vosges army has already captured
150 cannon.

“To-day the German Crown Prince’s army has continued the pursuit
beyond Longwy.

“The army under Duke Albrecht of Württemberg has advanced
on both sides of Neufchâteau and completely defeated the
French army which had crossed the Semois. Numerous cannon,
standards and prisoners—among the latter several
generals—were captured.

“West of the Meuse our troops are advancing on Maubeuge. An
English cavalry brigade which appeared on their front was
defeated.

“August 27th. Nine days after the conclusion of our
concentration the armies in the West have gained victory after
victory and penetrated the enemy’s territory from Cambrai to the
Southern Vosges. At all points the enemy has been driven out of his
positions and is now in full retreat.

“It is not yet possible to estimate, even approximately, his
losses in killed, prisoners and booty; the explanation for this is
the enormous extent of the battlefields, broken by thick forests
and mountainous country.

“General von Kluck’s army defeated the English at Maubeuge and
to-day has attacked them in an encircling move south-west of that
place.

“After several days’ fighting about eight army corps of French
and Belgian troops between the Sambre, Namur and the Meuse were
completely defeated by the German armies under Generals von
Bülow and von Hausen.

“Namur has fallen after two days’ cannonade. The attack on
Maubeuge has commenced. Duke Albrecht’s army pursued the defeated
enemy over the Semois and has now crossed the Meuse.

“On the other side of Longwy the German Crown Prince has
captured a fortified enemy position, and thrown back a heavy attack
from the direction of Verdun. His army is advancing towards the
Meuse. Longwy has fallen.

“New hostile forces from Nancy attacked the Bavarian Crown
Prince’s army during its pursuit of the French army before it. The
attack failed.

“General von Heeringen’s army is pursuing the enemy in the
Vosges, and driving him southwards. Alsace has been cleared of
enemy forces.

“Up till the present the lines of communication have been
guarded by the various armies; now the troops left behind for that
purpose are urgently required for our further advance. Hence His
Majesty has ordered the mobilization of the Landsturm.

“The Landsturm will be employed in protecting the lines of
communication and for the occupation of Belgium. This land which
now comes under German administration will be utilized for
supplying all kinds of necessities for our armies, in order that
Germany may be spared as much as possible.”

During the first month of hostilities on the Western front, the
Germans claimed that their captures amounted to 233 pieces of heavy
artillery, 116 field guns, 79 machine guns, 166 wagons and 12,934
prisoners. On September 8th General Quartermaster von Stein
announced: “Maubeuge capitulated yesterday; 40,000 prisoners of
war, including four generals, 400 cannon and immense quantities of
war materials fell into our hands.”

A German war correspondent, who was present at the fall of
Maubeuge, wrote:[166] “The march out of the
prisoners began on the same day at 2.30 p.m. and lasted over six
hours. They were conducted to trains and despatched to Germany.
Some of the infantry made a good impression, while the pioneers and
artillery can only be classed as passable.

[Footnote 166:
Heinrich Binder: “Mit dem Hauptquartier nach Westen,” p. 96.]

“To the great disappointment of our troops there were only a
hundred and twenty English among the prisoners who had been cut off
from the main army; young fellows about eighteen to twenty years of
age. When marching out these English youths were so stupid as to
offer the hand to their German victors in token of the
gentlemanlike manner in which they accepted defeat. In accordance
with Albion’s ancient boxing custom, they desired to show the
absence of any bitter feeling by a handshake; just as one does
after a football match.

“Our men returned a few cuffs for this warlike behaviour,
whereupon the English—richer in experience—drew back
astonished at German unfriendliness.”

Germany’s rush for Paris reached as far as the Marne; they claim
that patrols penetrated to within seven kilometres of the French
capital. The report announcing the turn of the tide is worthy of
quotation.

“Chief Headquarters, September 10th. Our army in their pursuit
of the enemy in the direction east of Paris had passed beyond the
Marne. There they were attacked by superior forces between Meaux
and Montmirail. In two days’ heavy fighting they have kept the
enemy back and even made progress.

“When the approach of new, stronger hostile forces was announced
our wing was withdrawn; the enemy made no attempt at pursuit. Up
till now the booty captured in this battle includes fifty cannon
and some thousands of prisoners.

“West of Verdun the army is engaged in an advancing battle. In
Lorraine and the Vosges district the situation is unchanged.”

This seems to be all that the German nation has heard from
official sources of the German defeat on the Marne and the hurried
retreat to the Aisne. Almost every report issued by the German
headquarters during the succeeding three weeks informed the world
that a “decision had not yet fallen.”

Evidently the nation awaited and hoped for a decision which
would leave Paris at the mercy of the invading army. They are still
awaiting that decision, but whether the waiting is seasoned by hope
cannot easily be determined.

A soldier present at the battle of the Marne has chronicled his
experiences.[167] “We passed over long,
undulating hills and valleys, and towards 1 p.m. obtained our first
glimpse down the beautiful vale of the Marne. Standing on the
heights of Château Thierry, we beheld the town nestling on
both sides of the river in the valley below.

[Footnote 167: H.
Knutz: “Mit den Königin-Fusilieren durch Belgien und
Frankreich,”, p. 49 et seq.]

“Then we entered the town and saw on all sides the tokens of
street fighting. All the windows were smashed by shell fire; some
houses had been entirely gutted. Dead Frenchmen lay around in
heaps, some corpses so mutilated by shrapnel as to appear hardly
human. With a shudder we turned our eyes from this horrible
scene.

“Crossing the Marne by a sand-stone bridge, we climbed the
opposing heights under a burning sun. At the top we deployed, but
for that day our artillery sufficed to drive the enemy in headlong
flight to the south; the night we spent under the open sky.

“Sunday, September 6th. Before breakfast we intended to bathe in
a stream, when our dreams of a rest-day were dispelled by an order
to hold ourselves ready for the march. ‘The 17th division is under
heavy rifle fire and the 18th must advance to their support.’
Meanwhile, the chicken soup was almost ready, but the order ‘form
ranks’ resounded, and with empty stomachs we marched through Neuvy
up a hill and dug ourselves in behind a wood.

“The thunder of the enemies’ artillery is terrible; shrapnel is
bursting on our left. Captain von Liliencron discusses the
situation with the major and then turns to us. ‘Our regiment
attacks! go for the dogs, children!’ he exclaims with gleaming
eyes.

“Next we advance round the wood and lie down behind a hedge;
axes are held in readiness to hack a way through the latter. Five
steps from me a machine gun hammers away at full speed; it is now
impossible to hear commands, so they are roared from man to
man—it could not be termed shouting. ‘Ambulance to the
right!’ somebody is severely wounded, but the ambulance men have
more than they can do on the left.

“The hell-music is at its loudest; shrapnel is bursting in the
wood behind us; suddenly there is an awful explosion half a dozen
yards away; I hear the screams of my comrades, then we rush
forwards. The rush across the field was awful—flank fire from
the right. Here and there a comrade bites the grass.

“At last I throw myself down, but there is no cover; the wounded
crouch there too. None of my company are there; it seems that the
two last shells have played havoc with them. The enemies’ (French)
main position is nearly a mile away in a forest.

“Up the next slope our dead lie thick around, and here too a
deadly bullet had found the breast of our heroic captain. But in
the strip of forest French and Turko bodies are still thicker. The
cat-like Turkos have climbed into the trees and are shot down like
crows. A maddening infantry and artillery fire greets us as we
reach the top. Every ten to twenty yards shells strike, and
shrapnel bursts, filling the air with earth, dust, smoke and
smell.

“Forward! till almost exhausted I throw myself down again; a
hundred to a hundred and fifty Fusiliers form a firing-line.
Columns of infantry pour a murderous fire on to us from the forest.
It cannot go on thus; one after the other is wounded or killed. We
have advanced nearly eight hundred yards over open ground. On the
right there is a small thicket of reeds. Some of the company have
already sought shelter there, and I make a rush there with the same
hope.

“‘For heaven’s sake, lie down, corporal,’ screamed a man as I
came up. In fact, the reeds afford no cover whatever. Wounded and
dead lie there and bullets keep hitting them. In front of me lay a
man from the fourth company; a bullet had entered his chest and
passed out of his back; the blood was oozing out of a wound about
the size of a shilling. The horror was too much for me, and I crept
to the other end of the strip.

“There I found everything far worse, but I cannot describe the
terrors which I saw. One poor fellow begs for a drop of water;
there is just another draught in my bottle. With grateful eyes he
hands it back to me, and in the same moment I feel a stinging pain
in the shoulder. My arm is numbed and helpless; hardly one of us
who is not wounded.

“We can offer no resistance to the enemy; but the awful way
back! At last the run back over eight hundred yards of open field
begins. Now and again a comrade sinks to the ground, never to rise
again. My breath is nearly gone; one last effort, and in truth I
have escaped from the hail of bullets.”

It is remarkable and noteworthy that German writers charge the
French armies with looting and destruction in their own country.
Probably this is merely a device to get rid of unpleasant
accusations raised against the German army. Furthermore, the most
reckless charges of uncleanliness are made. In commenting on the
lot of the Landsturm troops quartered in the villages of Northern
France, one author[168] writes: “The
Landsturm men pass their time as best they can in these holes,
whose most conspicuous quality is their filth.”

[Footnote 168:
Erich Köhrer: “Zwischen Aisne und Argonnen” (“Between the
Aisne and the Argonnes”), p. 25.]

The same author gives his impressions of a visit to Sedan. “Only
one house has been completely and another partly destroyed,
otherwise appearances are peaceful, and as far as possible, life
goes on as usual. Here, too, many of the inhabitants have left
their homes and fled. The stupidity of this flight becomes evident
at every step. In numerous small hotels whose proprietors have
remained, one sees German soldiers buying bottles of splendid
Burgundy wine at a shilling a bottle.

“But in another hotel whose proprietor had fled, is it a matter
for surprise that the men caroused on discovering a cellar
containing three thousand bottles of wine? On the route I have
myself purchased some of the oldest and best wines from our men at
a price of three cigars a bottle, and the recollection of them
belongs to the pleasantest memories of my sojourn at the front.

“Certainly the owner of Château Frenois, situated a few
minutes’ walk from the town, will be more unpleasantly surprised on
his return than the hotel proprietor. In his home, French marauders
and plunderers have destroyed and devastated the entire contents.
It is impossible to comprehend the senselessness of this conduct,
for which no reasons of military necessity can be advanced.

“Ancient family pictures which could not be taken out of their
frames have been ruined by bayonet stabs, and from the shape of the
cuts they were certainly the work of French bayonets. Even the
library, which contained a valuable collection of old prints, had
been robbed.

“Not far from this scene of desolation stands Château
Bellevue, where King William met Napoleon in 1870. There, too, the
traces of French plunderers are painfully evident; it was left to
the ‘Hun-Kaiser’ to save this historic spot from complete
annihilation. In September Wilhelm II. visited the château
and seeing the signs of rapacity, ordered the place to be strictly
guarded to prevent further desecration.”[169]

[Footnote 169:
Ibid., pp. 22-3.]

It did not occur to Herr Köhrer to connect the carousals
with the plundering; in one sentence he admits that French soldiers
respected the wine-cellars and in the next accuses them of stealing
books, etc. Every German writer, in describing the German advance,
comments on the immense number of haversacks, weapons and equipment
thrown away by the French in their “wild flight.” Yet they desire
their readers to believe that the same soldiers had time to rob and
destroy, indeed, carry their plunder with them!

Since September no French troops have been in the district, yet
the Kaiser found it necessary to place guards round Château
Bellevue. Is it not more reasonable to assume that the precaution
was taken against the predatory instincts of his own soldiery, who,
admittedly, are in occupation of the province?

Herr Köhrer finds it almost beneath his dignity to reply to
charges of barbarism and Hunnism; yet he devotes several pages to
the art of white-washing. “The inhabitants who remained in their
homes, and those who have returned since the
flight—unfortunately it is only a small part of the
entirety—have recognized long ago that the German soldier is
not a barbarian. The terrible distress which prevails among the
French is often enough relieved by the generosity of the German
troops. Throngs of women and children from the filthy villages of
the Argonne and the Ardennes gather round our field-kitchens and
regularly receive the remains of the meals; while many a German
Landsturm man, recollecting his own wife and children, fills the
mouths of dirty French children instead of completely satisfying
his own hunger.”[170]

[Footnote 170:
Ibid., p. 34. Herr Köhrer has evidently never visited many
Bavarian villages: otherwise he would be more careful with his
adjectives when describing the villages of
France.—Author.]

No one disputes the presence of kindly Germans in the Kaiser’s
armies, and it is pleasing to read about these acts of generosity
in relieving distress which is entirely the result of Germany’s
guilt. But the point which all German writers miss is the
explanation of positive evidence of brutal deeds. Their kindly
incidents and proofs of German chivalry are all of a negative
character, and do not overthrow one jot or tittle of the opposing
positive evidence.

Iron crosses have fallen in thick showers on the German armies;
during the month of July, 1915, no fewer than 3,400 of these
decorations were awarded to the Bavarian army alone. Still, as far
back as November of last year, Herr Köhrer wrote: “In the
villages on the slopes of the Argonnes and on the banks of the
Aisne, nearly every second soldier is wearing an iron cross. One
has the certain conviction that it is not an army of fifty or sixty
thousand, but a nation of heroes which occupies the plains of
France and fights for us.

“They are all heroes at the front, including those who do not
wear the outward symbol of personal bravery. When we see how our
men live, it would seem that the earliest days of the human race
have returned. They have become cave-dwellers, troglodytes in the
worst form. Our heavy batteries are placed on the slopes of the
Argonne forest, while the light field-howitzers occupy the
summits.

“Near them holes have been dug in the wet clay or chalk, and
meagrely lined with straw; these dark, damp caves are the dwellings
of our officers and men for weeks at a time, while the shells from
the enemy’s artillery whiz and burst around. In them the
differences of rank disappear, except that one sometimes sees a
couple of chairs provided for officers. When duty does not call
them to the guns, they are free to remain in the open exposed to a
sudden and awful death, or to spend their time in the womb of
mother earth. Yet one never hears a word of complaint; rather the
hardships of this strange existence are borne with rough
good-humour.”[171]

[Footnote 171:
Ibid., p. 28.]

Contrary to the expectations of other nations, the war seems
only to have increased the popularity of the military Moloch.
Writers who look upon the Allies as deliverers who will free
Germany from the degrading slavery imposed upon that country, will
be disappointed to learn that Germans worship the bunte Rock
(gay uniform) more than ever.

At a meeting of the National Liberal leaders held in Dortmund,
July, 1915, a resolution was passed calling upon the Government to
pursue a still greater naval and army programme. Both the Liberals
and Conservatives have adopted the motto: Deutsche Machtpolitik
frei von Sentimentalität (A German policy of might free
from sentimentalism).

“This war of the nations, which has overthrown so many accepted
standards and created new ones, will also give a new basis to the
privileged position of German officers in public life. Millions of
German men have seen how in this war the German lieutenant has
again merited his special position for some generations to come. I
wish to emphasize this point over and over again.

“During the first two months of hostilities nearly forty
thousand iron crosses were awarded. To many of those at home this
appeared to be overdoing it, like the many exaggerations in the
domain of orders and honours with which we have become familiar
during the last decade.[172] As a matter of
fact, the number of crosses given was too small.

[Footnote 172:
Vide “The Soul of Germany,” Chapter XIII.]

“Not forty thousand heroes are at the front, but a nation of
heroes. In emphasizing why the work of our officers is so splendid
I must lay down these premises. The bravery and joyous spirit of
self-sacrifice in our men is above all praise, but the officers
have higher and more responsible duties. They have not only to set
an example of physical courage, but they must possess the mental
capacity to lead and spur on their men—and that under
conditions so hard and rude that the man at home has no conception
of them.

“I have been in the trenches on the slopes of the Argonnes,
where officers lie side by side with the men in clay and chalk,
unwashed and filthy cut off from the outside world, exposed to
continuous fire and thrown entirely upon themselves. I have seen
them in the artillery positions on the Aisne, in the mud-caves of
the heavy batteries, where they sit in the dark on empty
packing-cases, listening to the music of exploding shells and
whistling bullets. And everywhere I received the same impression:
the men are enthusiastic in praise of their leaders.

“Many a one who has never voted for any other party than the
Social Democrats has exclaimed: ‘Lieutenants! Donnerwetter,
yes! Hats off to them!’ For the lieutenant is not only the first in
the fight, but he is the soul of the company; untiring in his
efforts to keep up their spirits in the intervals between the
fighting.

“And when we again witness the scenes which often disgusted us
before the war—the monocled young gentlemen in gay uniform,
walking through the streets, nose in the air—when we see all
this again, and perhaps a bit of iron pinned on the breast, then we
must remember that for their life of danger and hardship in
Argonnes clay, and Russian mud, no earthly compensation can be too
great.

“No nation can ever imitate our lieutenant, and in this war of
masses and technical perfection it is still the value of individual
personality which will decide the issue. We may affirm that this
value stands very high in our army—both as regards officers
and men.

“Only he who has seen for himself the burnt villages, devastated
towns and desolate land of France can comprehend the full meaning
of the awful word Krieg (war). Mere words cannot express
what it means to Germans and Germany that the horrors of war have
been carried almost alone into the enemy’s territory.

“But then a spirit of irresistible ardour goes through the ranks
of our warriors. From every eye, in every word, burns the deepest,
most unbounded faith in victory. In the trenches, batteries and
hospitals there is no doubt, no fear. One great thought hovers
victoriously above all hardships, distress and suffering: Germany
to the front in the world!

“And from out the blood which flows—and that is shed
plenteously, very plenteously—(this is the sacred faith which
I brought back from the battlefields) out of this blood the proud
harvest will grow, whose blessings we shall all feel—the
world dominion of the German idea!”[173]

[Footnote 173:
Ibid., p. 50 et seq.]

In spite of Köhrer’s assurances that the relationship
between officers and men in the German army is an ideal one, there
is evidence that such is not always the case. The Social Democratic
paper Karlsruhe Volksfreund (July 23rd, 1915) contained a
long article by “comrade” Wilhelm Kolb, attacking the
anti-annexation fraction of his party. Kolb accused the opposition
with “speculating on the question of food-prices and the
ill-treatment of soldiers at and behind the front. The power of the
censor makes it exceedingly difficult, or even impossible, to
ventilate this matter.”

German writers are careful to impress their readers that the
losses of the French were appalling, but here and there a stray
word or sentence lifts the veil and discovers their own.

“Just before me are the graves of some German officers adorned
with wooden crosses and helmets, and a little farther on a
Massengrab (large common grave) containing several hundred
German soldiers. At this point (Sedan) the battle raged with awful
fury, and the Germans had to make heavy sacrifices. It seems almost
incredible that the Germans could have forced the position.

“The country is hilly; not a tree or bush offered cover from the
French bullets. French trenches at distances of from thirty to
fifty yards, stretched across the land, and between them were wire
entanglements and other obstacles. Besides which they had an open
firing-range of over a mile in extent, with their artillery to
cover them from a steep hill on the other side of the Meuse.

“At 5 a.m. the attack commenced, and by the afternoon the French
had been hurled across the river. Then came the most difficult part
of the operations. From the Meuse the ground rises gradually to a
steep hill, on which the French artillery and machine guns were
placed. The only bridge over the river, at Donchery, had been blown
up at the last moment by the enemy, and although our pioneers had
hastily constructed a bridge of tree-trunks—what was this for
so many regiments!

“Many tried to ford or swim the stream. The French fire was
murderous in its effect. Several times the ranks wavered, but again
and again they pressed forward, till the heights were stormed and
the enemy in flight. The battle raged on into the night and then
the remains of the regiments gathered at the foot of the hill. They
had won a costly but glorious victory. Those who have seen the
successes which our troops have gained, even under the most
difficult conditions, need have no fear as to the ultimate result
of this war.

“I stood long at this spot on the blood-drenched soil of France,
just where the regiments from Trier[174]
had fought so bravely and suffered so heavily. Serious thoughts
arose in me as I gazed at the battlefield. What a dispensation! Two
gigantic battles on the same spot in such a short space of time;
two great victories over the French. And most remarkable of all,
the nation which for forty-four years had desired revanche
for Sedan, was again completely defeated at the same
place—almost on the anniversary of the first battle.

[Footnote 174:
The writer, Dr. W. Kriege, is a Roman Catholic priest from Trier
(Trèves). His book “Bilder vom Kriegsschauplatz” (Pictures
from the Seat of War”), published in 1915, is both interesting and
illuminating.]

“Twilight shadows fall deep upon the quiet fields where the dead
rest. Squadrons of white clouds drift down the valley, as if to
cover the sleeping heroes with a shroud of white. Above Sedan’s
heights appears the shining crescent of the moon and sheds a
ghostly light over the wide field of death—the battlefield of
Sedan.”[175]

[Footnote 175:
Dr. W. Kriege: “Bilder vom Kriegsschauplatz,” p. 45 et
seq.]

“At last we arrive at our destination—Somme-Py. But what a
sight! Nothing remains of the once beautiful, spacious village but
a heap of rubbish. A few black-burnt walls are still standing and
about three houses; among them, fortunately, the house occupied by
Kaiser Wilhelm I. in 1870-71, when the victorious German army was
marching on Paris. At present it serves as a field-hospital. Yes,
this is the second time that a German army has marched this way;
but the battles were never so bloody as this time.

“Somme-Py and the country round has a special meaning for us
folk in Trier. For here our Trier regiments—above all the
29th and 69th—have fought with splendid valour, and here they
have buried many a dear friend and comrade. Immediately before
Somme-Py one of the largest mass-graves of the whole campaign may
be seen.

“A simple iron railing surrounds the spot where hundreds of
those rest who lived so happily in our midst, who marched so gaily
and to whom we waved farewell greetings as they tramped through our
streets.

“The fight for the village had been particularly fierce and
bloody; the inhabitants had no time to flee. Half-burnt men and
animals, soldiers and civilians, filled the houses and streets, or
lay buried under the ruins—awful sacrifices to the war Fury!
We must thank God and our brave soldiers that they have preserved
our hearths and homes from such horror and misery.”[176]

[Footnote 176:
Ibid., pp. 78-80.]

It is cheering to find a growing feeling of respect for the
French in German war literature. One of many such expressions will
be sufficient to quote here. The writer of it is a German author
who enjoys much esteem in his own country, and was a guest at the
German Crown Prince’s headquarters in May, 1915.

“In conversations with numerous French prisoners I have found no
traces of hate and rage either in their looks or words. The most
are glad to have escaped in an honourable manner from the
nerve-racking, trench warfare. In an honourable manner? Yes, for I
have heard on all sides—from the highest officers and the
simplest soldiers—that the French have fought well. For the
most part they are well led—and always filled up with
lies.”[177]

[Footnote 177:
Rudolf Presber: “An die Front zum deutschen Kronprinzen” (“At the
Front with the German Crown Prince”), p. 33.]

“Then we dined with the Crown Prince; soup, roast goose, fresh
beans and dessert. The conversation was lively. In our small
company—although the bravery of the enemy and his excellent
leadership receives full recognition—there is not one who
does not reckon with absolute conviction on complete victory on
both fronts.”[178]

[Footnote 178:
Ibid., p. 61.]

Herr Presber’s book is free, neither from adulation nor
hero-worship. He is a poet, sentimentalist, and evangelist for
Greater Germany. His book is a collection of incidents,
reflections, and conversations, carefully assorted and arranged, so
as to allow the limelight to glare on the statuesque figure of a
mighty Germanic hero, fresh from Walhalla—incarnated in the
Crown Prince.

The Crown Prince’s birthday dinner-party affords an excellent
opportunity for the German nation to see the mighty one replying to
the toast of his health. Presber affirms that the moment when his
royal host raised his glass and uttered the words: “Ein stilles
Glas den Toten!” (“A glass in silence to the memory of the fallen”)
will for ever be “most solemn and sacred” in his memory.

With genuine German inquisitiveness Herr Presber hunted through
the various cupboards and drawers in his room and found a map of
France as it was before the loss of Alsace-Lorraine. “The map is
wrong and useless, and so I use it to line a drawer before placing
my linen therein. This makes me think of the many changes which
will be marked in the atlases which German children are now
carrying to school in their satchels—after the cannon have
ceased to roar. How the colouring of the maps has changed since I
went to school, and yet once more a great ‘unrest of colour’ is
about to change the map of Europe. And as far as I can see, large
notes of interrogation must be placed not alone round the Poles and
in Central Africa!”[179]

[Footnote 179:
Ibid., p. 101.]

“I spoke of the good understanding between the natives and our
soldiers. Probably that is not so easy to attain everywhere. We
drove long distances from the Prince’s headquarters and once passed
through a famous town which sees the German conquerors for a second
time. (No doubt Sedan is meant.—Author.)

“Most of the inhabitants know it is the Crown Prince by the
signs of reverence shown him on all sides, by officers and men
alike. But the citizens of the twice-conquered town bite their
lips, turn their heads aside, and pretend indifference. The women
too—many of them in deep mourning—turn away, or
sometimes stand and stare as if with suddenly aroused interest.
Here the ancient hate glowers in silence.

“It seems as if a parole of mute non-respect has been passed
round. This town, which has become world-famous on account of the
débâcle of the Third Empire, lives to see with
gnashing of teeth the downfall of the Republic. But they do not
believe it yet.”[180]

[Footnote 180:
Ibid., p. 108.]

“French and Russian prisoners are working on the roads, wheeling
barrows of stone and filling the holes made by shell fire. Some of
them, without thinking, touch their caps when their guards stand
stiffly at the salute. (And how few guards are necessary to watch
this tame herd!) Others gaze at our car as it rushes past without
giving any salute; their faces express astonishment, curiosity, but
no excitement.”[181]

[Footnote 181:
Ibid., pp. 107-110.]

Another illuminating page tells of the Crown Prince’s anger on
hearing that Italy had joined the Allies, and how they went for a
motor-ride as an antidote to the royal rage.

German humour is generally unconscious and mostly unintentional.
After a policy of bullying towards France for forty-four years,
Germany has discovered during the course of the war that France is
the cat’s-paw of Russia and Great Britain—principally the
latter.

One writer,[182] in some fifty pages of
venom, endeavours to show that England is France’s executioner.
Another[183] gives our ally the advice
“awake!” After Germany has played the saigner-à-blanc
game in Northern France for more than a year, the advice seems
rather belated.

[Footnote 182:
Walter Unus: “England als Henker Frankreichs.” Braunschweig,
1915.]

[Footnote 183:
Ernst Heinemann: “Frankreich, erwache!” Berlin, 1915.]

Herr Heinemann writes, p. 33: “France is not fighting for
herself, but for England and Russia.

“Poor deceived France! She has given fifteen milliards of francs
to Russia so that she may at last draw the sword in defence of
Russo-Serbian and British commercial interests. She has placed her
money and her beautiful land at the disposal of her so-called
friends—for the sake of a mad idea which these friends have
cleverly exploited (revanche idée).

“England has declared that she will continue the war for twenty
years, twenty years—on French soil. If under these
circumstances the French broke with their allies—who have
exploited France for the last twenty-five years, and who have
plunged her into this war—-in order to arrive at a reasonable
understanding with Germany; then they would only show that they do
not intend to accept the final consequences of the mistakes
committed by the French Government.

“No one is compelled to eat the last drop of a soup prepared by
false friends. In this sense, to seduce France to a direct breach
of faith with her allies, would in truth, only mean the protection
of France’s best interests” (pp. 51-2).

One other writer deserves mention—a lecturer in history,
Bonn University—because he presents an opinion the exact
contrary to the one last quoted. According to Dr. Platzhoff, France
herself is the guilty party, who has tricked Russia and Great
Britain into the service of revenge for 1870.

“Therefore France found it necessary to extract herself from
isolation, and acquire allies against her neighbour (Germany). In
several decades of painful effort, French diplomacy has solved the
problem in brilliant fashion. Revanche—and alliance
policy are inseparable conceptions.”[184]

[Footnote 184:
Dr. Walter Platzhoff; “Deutschland und Frankreich,” p. 18.]

In contrast to most German authors, Platzhoff admits that the
Entente Cordiale was called into being by Germany herself.
“This development caused great anxiety in Germany. But it seems
certain that Germany could have prevented it by one means
alone—an open agreement with England. And Berlin, after
considering the matter carefully, had declined the
latter.”[185]

[Footnote 185:
Ibid., p. 22.]

“That France would enter the field on Russia’s behalf is a
logical consequence not only of the Dual Alliance treaty, but also
of the policy pursued during recent decades. In vain French
ministers have protested their love of peace and their innocence in
causing this war. The policy of alliances and revenge was certain
to end in a world conflagration.

“Already voices make themselves heard which prophesy a
revolution in French policy and a later entente with
Germany.”[186]

[Footnote 186:
Ibid., pp. 26-8.]

Many such passages might be cited to prove that Germany would
like to see a split among the allies. But France’s honour and
welfare are in her own hands, and it appears a futile hope that
Germany, after failing to bring France to submission and
self-effacement by threats of saigner à blanc, will
succeed in her purpose by the reality.

CHAPTER XI

THE INTELLECTUALS AND THE WAR

Mention has already been made that a large number of Germany’s
war books has emanated from the universities. Not the least
important of these efforts is “Deutschland und der Weltkrieg”
(“Germany and the World War.”)[187] Twenty
well-known university professors have contributed to the work; the
fact being emphasized that special facilities have been accorded to
them by the German foreign office. For British readers the chapters
by Professors Marcks and Oncken are the most interesting, viz.,
“England’s Policy of Might” by the former, and “Events leading up
to the War” and “The Outbreak of War” by the latter. They take up a
fifth of the 686 pages of which the entire work consists.

[Footnote 187:
“Deutschland und der Weltkrieg,” herausgegeben von Otto Hintze,
Friedrich Meinecke, Hermann Oncken und Hermann Schumacher. Leipzig
und Berlin, 1915.]

The purpose of Professor Marcks’ essay is to prove on historical
and scientific lines the lessons which have been taught in German
schools for nearly half a century, i.e., England is an
astute but ruthless robber who respects no right, and no nation
which stands in her way.

“England’s modern history begins with the Tudors and her world
policy with Elizabeth. First of all, England had to liberate
herself, economically and politically, from a position of
dependence on the other Powers; then she took up her particular
attitude to the world. Her separation from the Roman Catholic
Church was exceedingly rich in consequences; this step assigned to
her a peculiar place in the camp of the nations, and exercised a
deep influence upon her intellectual development. It gave her an
impetus towards internal and external independence.

“But the determining factor for England’s future was her insular
position; this has been the case from the time Europe entered the
ocean-period. Since the year 1600 England, by her commerce and
politics, has influenced Europe from without, while she has
maintained for herself a position of independence, and directed her
energies across the ocean into the wide world. Successively she
seized upon the Baltic, North Sea, and Atlantic Ocean; gradually
she became the merchant and shipbuilder for most of the European
nations.

“The sea has given her everything—independence, security
and prosperity—both in treasure and lands. The sea protected
her and spared her the unpleasantness of mighty neighbours. It was
the ocean which permitted free development to her internal life,
parliament, government and administration, and saved her from the
continental form of Government—a strong, armed monarchy.

“The sea has allowed the English to develop, undisturbed, the
peculiarities of their race—personal energy, trained by
contact with the ocean; personal freedom, favoured but not
oppressed by the living organism of the State. The sea afforded
them liberty of action in every direction without fear of attack
from behind. Freed from the chains which bound Europe, England went
out into the wide world.

“Yet she remained constantly associated with the continent, not
only because Europe was her field of action. English statesmen have
always seized upon every opportunity to influence European policy;
at first this was from motives of defence, but afterwards from an
ever-increasing spirit of aggression. The balance of power on the
continent has always been one of the premises for England’s
security and existence.

“She is indebted to her insular position for the supreme
advantage of being able to exercise her influence in Europe without
allowing her forces to be tied to the continent; European countries
were bound by their own conflicts and differences, enabling England
to exert her influence upon them without active participation.
England has become thoroughly accustomed to a state of affairs
under which she has no neighbours and never permits any—not
even on the sea. She has come to consider this her God-given
prerogative.

“The barriers of geographical position which hampered other
lands, nature did not impose upon England; the security afforded by
her girdle of waves seemed as it were to impel her to strike out
into the unbounded, and to look upon every obstacle as a wrong.
There is a thread of daring lawlessness running through all
England’s world-struggles, through all periods of her history,
right down to the present day.

“When England speaks of humanity she means herself; her
cosmopolitan utterances refer to her own nationality. She forgets
too easily that other nations have arisen on the earth who esteem
their own distinguishing traits and are inspired by the ardent
desire to uphold their own institutions, forms of Government and
culture. England believes all too easily that the world’s map
should be all one colour. But the soul of the modern world demands
variety.”[188]

[Footnote 188:
Ibid., 297 et seq.]

There is no important objection to raise against Professor
Marcks’ statement of English history and Britain’s favoured
position on the surface of the globe. Germany did not choose her
own geographical situation in the world—it is hers by nature
and the right of historical succession. Britain has never envied
her or endeavoured to deprive her of the advantages consequent upon
her “place in the sun.”

Neither did the British select their island home; destiny and
history were again the determining factors. But it would be a
travesty of the truth to assert that Germany has not envied her
that position, together with the advantages arising from it. Yet in
the same degree as the inhabitants of these islands have used the
“talents” entrusted to them through their favourable position,
Germany’s jealousy seems to have become more bitterly angry. By
right of birth and national necessity Germany demands the
domination of the Rhine, but she fails to recognize that right of
birth and the demands of national existence compel Britain to claim
the domination of the seas.

The remainder of Professor Marcks’ essay is devoted to proving
that “the freedom of our world requires that it shall not be so in
future.” Whatever motives actuated Germany in precipitating the
war, this much is now evident—it is her supreme desire and
the aim of her highest endeavour to destroy Britain’s favoured
situation and every advantage accruing to her from it.

To-day the issue is clear and simple for Germany—the
annihilation of British power and influence in the world. Literally
hundreds of German war books echo that cry, and, above all else, it
is the hope of attaining this aim which has aroused the bitterest
war fury in the entire German nation—man, woman and child.
Reduced to first principles, this difference of geographical
position and the varying advantages arising therefrom are the prime
causes—if not the cause—of the present
world-struggle.

It was solely the fear of perpetuating British
supremacy[189] which has led Germany
consistently to reject the extended hand of friendship. Standing
side by side with Great Britain, either in friendship or alliance,
Germany would have given her approval to Britain’s historical
position in the world. When this country departed from the policy
of “splendid isolation” repeated attempts were made to establish
more intimate relations with Germany (1898-1902).

[Footnote 189:
Graf Ernst zu Reventlow: “Der Vampir des Festlandes (“England, the
Vampire of the Continent”). Berlin, 1915, p. 117. “England’s
withdrawal from the policy which sought to establish a mutual plan
of procedure in world politics between Germany and Britain dates
from the time when Britain recognized that Germany would not allow
herself to be employed against Russia. In Germany to-day, voices
may be heard proclaiming that von Bülow chose wrongly in
refusing England’s offer, especially as Russia has repaid our
loyalty and friendship with iniquitous ingratitude. The latter
represents the truth.

“But in judging the policy of that period two factors must be
borne in mind. The acceptance of Great Britain’s offer would have
placed a tie upon the German Empire which would have been
unendurable. Germany would have become the strong but stupid Power,
whose duty would have been to fight British battles on the
continent. Besides which the choice concerned Germany’s world
future, above all the development of the German war fleet.”]

But as Professor Marcks (p. 315) observes: “Germany refused the
hand extended to her.” Count Reventlow and a host of other writers
have chronicled the fact too, yet on September 2nd, 1914, the
German Chancellor dared to say to representative American
journalists: “When the archives are opened then the world will
learn how often Germany has offered the hand of friendship to
England.”

It is only one more confirmation that the “law of necessity” is
incompatible with the truth. The truth is that Germany preferred to
drive Britain into another and hostile camp rather than have her
friendship. Germany preferred British hostility rather than
relinquish her plans for unlimited naval expansion—which she
believed to be the only means of destroying Britain’s position, and
with that resolution already taken the Kaiser presented his
photograph to a distinguished Englishman with this significant
remark written on it with his own hand: “I bide my time!”

Although Britain drew the sword to defend Belgium, the supreme
issue—and the only one which occupies the German mind
to-day—is whether this country shall continue to hold the
position allotted to her by destiny and confirmed by history, or
whether she is to be supplanted by Germany. That is the one
political thought which permeates German intelligence at this
moment, and no other considerations must be allowed to darken this
issue.

Professor Oncken reviews the events of the period 1900-1914 in
considerable detail, and to him the policy of ententes
appears to be the main cause leading up to the world war. From this
alone it is obvious that, consciously or unconsciously, he is
wrong; the ententes in themselves are results, not prime
causes. The prime causes leading to these political agreements are
to be found in Germany’s attitude to the rest of Europe. In a word
they were defensive actions taken by the Powers concerned, as a
precaution against German aggression.

German aggression consisted in committing herself to unlimited
armaments, cherishing the irreconcilable determination to be the
strongest European power. According to her doctrine of might,
everything can be attained by the mightiest. British advances she
answered with battleships, simultaneously provoking France and
Russia by increasing her army corps. The balance of power in
Europe, Germany declares to be an out-of-date British fad, invented
solely in the interests of these islands.

In secret Germany has long been an apostate to the
balance-of-power theory; the war has caused her to drop the mask,
and it was without doubt her resolve never to submit to the chains
of the balance in Europe, which forced three other States to waive
their differences and form the Triple Entente. Simply stated this
is cause and result. But Professor Oncken maintains—and in
doing so he voices German national opinion—that the entire
entente policy was a huge scheme to bring about Germany’s
downfall.

He goes further and proclaims that the Hague Conference (1907)
was a British trick to place the guilt of armaments on Germany’s
shoulders. “England filled the world with disarmament projects so
that afterwards, full of unction, she could denounce Germany as the
disturber of the peace. At that time the Imperial Chancellor
answered justly: ‘Pressure cannot be brought to bear on Germany,
not even moral pressure!'”[190] And in that
sentence German obstinacy and sullen irreconcilability is most
admirably expressed.

[Footnote 190:
“Deutschland und der Weltkrieg,” p. 495.]

Having seen that Professor Oncken has failed to recognize the
prime causes which provoked the entente policy, it is not
surprising to find him equally in error when discussing the
diplomatic clashes between the rival camps. The professor calls
them Machtproben (“tests of power”); but how he can dare to
state that these diplomatic trials of strength were engineered by
Great Britain—remains his own secret.

“King Edward’s meeting with the Czar at Reval in June, 1908, was
followed by a far-reaching Macedonian reform programme, the
commencement of the division of European Turkey. What Britain had
failed to induce Germany to help her in executing, was to be
attained with the sword’s point directed against Germany. And
Britain proceeded in cold blood to conjure up an era of
might-struggles, which, in the island language, is called
preserving the balance of power.”[191]

[Footnote 191:
Ibid., p. 297.]

The trials of strength recounted by Oncken are the Bosnian
crisis, the Morocco question, and the Austro-Serbian quarrel which
led to the present war. It seems banal to have to point out that
Bosnia was unlawfully annexed by Germany’s vassal—Austria;
that Germany, herself, brought Europe to the verge of war by
sending the Panther to Agadir; and that the final
catastrophic Machtprobe was likewise provoked by Germany’s
eastern vassal.

For good or evil Germany has been convinced for nearly two
decades that the balance of power in Europe was an obstacle to her
world future. Furthermore, she believed that the balance imposed
fetters upon her which only mighty armaments could break. All
Germany’s energies in the domain of diplomacy have been set in
motion to make the balance of power a mere figment of the
imagination.

In pursuing this end it has suited her purpose to declare all
attempts at maintaining the outward appearances of equality between
the Powers of Europe to be Machiavellian schemes against her
existence; or to cite the Kaiser’s own words, “to deprive Germany
of her place in the sun.”

Britain’s entente policy was the only one calculated to
preserve our own existence, and to restrain Germany from
establishing a hegemony in Europe. She was completely convinced
that the domination of Europe belonged to her by right of mental,
moral and military superiority over her neighbours. Not in vain
have Germany’s educational institutions inculcated the belief in
her population that the British Empire is an effete monstrosity
with feet of clay; France a rotten, decaying empire, and Russia a
barbarian Power with no new Kultur to offer Europe except
the knout.

Inspired by such conceptions, together with an astoundingly
exaggerated idea of Germany’s peerlessness in order, discipline,
obedience, morality, genius and other ethical values, as well as an
unshaken belief in Germany’s invincibility by land and
sea—the entire nation, from Kaiser to cobbler, has long since
held that by right of these virtues—by right of her absolute
superiority over all other nations—Germany could and must
claim other rights and powers than those which fell to her under an
antiquated balance of European power.

In few words that is the gospel of Deutschland, Deutschland,
über alles. These are the motives which inspired Germany’s
naval expansion and forbade her to accept a compromise. The same
ideals led to her endeavours to shatter the ententes, and it
is alone the general acceptance of this gospel, which explains the
remarkable unanimity with which the German nation has stood behind
the Kaiser’s Government in each trial of strength. They have
learned to consider all attempts of the lesser peoples (Britain,
France and Russia included) to maintain themselves against the
Teutonic onset as impudent attacks on sacred Germany, which also
illuminates the fact that Germans call the present
struggle—”Germany’s holy, sacred war.”

German statesmen were quite clear as to the national course at
least fifteen years ago. Hence they have persistently pursued a
policy of no compromise and no agreements. A compromise recognizes
and perpetuates, in part at least, the very thing which stands in
the way. An agreement with Britain in regard to naval armaments
would have perpetuated British naval supremacy, as well as
recognized its necessity. Likewise an agreement, or the shadow of
an understanding with France on the question of Alsace-Lorraine
would have been a recognition of French claims. Hence on these two
questions—which are merely given as examples illustrative of
German mentality—every attempt at an agreement has been a
failure.

A cardinal point in Germany’s programme has been the consistent
manner in which she has tried to separate her European neighbours
from Britain in order to deal with them separately or alone. That
her endeavours ended in failure is due to the instinct of
self-preservation which has drawn Germany’s opponents closer
together, in exact proportion to the increasing force of her
efforts. Both in peace and war, Germany desired and endeavoured to
switch off Britain’s influence in Europe.

The diplomatic battles of 1905, 1908 and 1911 were a few of the
efforts to dislodge Great Britain from her ententes, while
her repeated attempts to buy this country’s neutrality, down to the
eve of war, are proof that Germany wanted a free hand in
Europe.[192] If she had succeeded in her
purpose, it is exceedingly doubtful whether any Power could have
prevented her from exercising a free hand in the whole world.

[Footnote 192:
Professor Schiemann: “Wie England eine Verständigung mit
Deutschland verhinderte” (“How England prevented an Understanding
with Germany”). Berlin, 1915; pp. 20-21: “From the very
commencement Berlin was convinced that the probability of a
combined Franco-Russian attack was exceedingly small, if England’s
entrance to this Germanophobe combination could be prevented.
Therefore we endeavoured to secure England’s neutrality in case of
war (1909), that is, if an Anglo-German alliance could not be
achieved—an alliance which would have guaranteed the world’s
peace.” (Schiemann’s insinuation that Germany desired an alliance
is an instance of suggestio falsi. Germany had decided in
1902 never to conclude an alliance with this
country.—Author.)]

Coming down to the last trial of diplomatic power, we are
confronted by the immovable fact, that it too was a challenge on
the part of the Central Empires. The conditions seemed peculiarly
favourable to them, for the British Ambassador declared to the
Russian Government on July 24th, 1914, that Britain would never
draw the sword on a purely Serbian question. Moreover, in the
preceding year, a British minister, says Professor Schiemann, had
given what we may style a remarkable semi-official promise that
Great Britain would never go to war with Germany.

“On February 18th, 1913, Mr. Charles Trevelyan, M.P., paid me a
visit, and assured me with the greatest certainty that England
would under no circumstances wage war on Germany. A ministry which
made preparations for war, would be immediately
overthrown.”[193]

[Footnote 193:
Ibid., p. 27. In the light of this revelation it would be
interesting to know what was the real motive which induced Mr.
Trevelyan to resign his office when war broke out. Either he was
conscious of having seriously compromised his position as a
Minister of the Crown, or he conscientiously believed that Britain
was drawing the sword in an unjust cause. Unfortunately a section
of the British public accepted the latter interpretation. In any
case, Mr. Trevelyan’s indiscretion affords overwhelming proof that
he had an utterly false conception of Germany.—Author.]

Professor Schiemann affirms that his good impression was
strengthened by a visit to London during March and April, 1914, and
reports a conversation which he had with Lord Haldane when dining
privately with the latter in London. After returning to Berlin, he
says he received a letter from Lord Haldane dated April 17th, 1914,
but from Schiemann’s quotation it is not evident whether the
following is an extract or the entire letter:

“It was a great pleasure to see you and to have had the full and
unreserved talk we had together. My ambition is like yours, to
bring Germany and Great Britain into relations of ever-closer
intimacy and friendship. Our two countries have a common work to do
for the world as well as for themselves, and each of them can bring
to bear on this work special endowments and qualities. May the
co-operation which I believe is now beginning become closer and
closer.[194]

[Footnote 194:
Lord Haldane has stated during the war that his visit to Berlin in
1912 had filled his mind with doubt and suspicion in regard to
Germany.—Author.]

“Of this I am sure, the more wide and unselfish the nations and
the groups questions make her supreme purposes of their policies,
the more will frictions disappear, and the sooner will the
relations that are normal and healthy reappear.[195] Something of this good work has now come into
existence between our two peoples. We must see to it that the
chance of growth is given.”[196]

[Footnote 195: A
word or phrase appears to have been dropped in this
sentence.—Author.]

[Footnote 196:
Professor Schiemann’s book, pp. 27-8.]

It is not difficult to conceive that such utterances, on the
part of two British ministers, would raise hopes in the German
mind, for it would be useless to imagine that Professor Schiemann
would keep them secret for his own private edification. And it is
possible that they led the German Government into a false reckoning
as to what this country would do under certain circumstances, and
so encouraged Germany into taking up an irreconcilable attitude in
the crisis of July, 1914.

Whatever Germany expected must, however, for the present, remain
a matter of conjecture. Schiemann’s comment on the above letter
leaves no doubt that he expected Lord Haldane[197] to resign. “When one remembers that Lord
Haldane belonged to the inner circle of the Cabinet, and was
therefore privy to all the secret moves of Sir Edward Grey, it is
hard to believe in the sincerity of the sentiments expressed in
this letter. Besides, he did not resign like three other members of
the Cabinet (Lord Morley, Burns and Charles Trevelyan) when Sir
Edward’s foul play lay open to the world on August 4th.”

[Footnote 197:
Lord Haldane seems to have injured his reputation both in Great
Britain and Germany. Professor Oncken designates him: “the one-time
friend of Germany, the decoy-bird of the British cabinet.”
Vide “Deutschland und der Weltkrieg,” p. 561.]

The most regrettable side of the whole incident is that the
resignation of the above gentlemen has been proclaimed by
innumerable German writers as proof of Sir Edward Grey’s double
dealing, and proof that Britain is waging an unjust war. Still, it
may console these gentlemen to know that the nation which wages war
on women and children acclaims them to-day “all honourable men,”
and doubtless without the Shakespearian intonation.

By reason of the above incidents, and more of a similar nature,
Germans accuse the late Liberal Government with perfidy of the
basest kind. The author is not in the least inclined to admit the
charge, but thinks, rather, that the Government in
question—individually and collectively—was
astonishingly ignorant of European conditions and problems,
especially those prevailing in the Germanic Empires.

To what a degree Germany was obsessed by the idea that Britain
was trying to strangle her by an encircling policy, is apparent in
a diplomatic document quoted by Professor Oncken. Its author’s name
is not given, and it was doubtless a secret report sent to the
German Foreign Office in 1912; its freedom from bias is also
questionable. Moreover, it is probable that it belongs to the same
category of documents as those quoted in the French Yellow
Book—reports intended to exercise due influence on the mind
of the Emperor.

“French diplomacy is succeeding more and more in entangling
England in the meshes of her net. The encouragement which England
gives, directly or indirectly, to French chauvinism may one day end
in a catastrophe in which English and French soldiers must pay with
their blood on French battlefields for England’s encircling policy.
The seeds sown by King Edward are springing up.”

Another link in the chain of proof of Britain’s guilt, is found
in the documents seized by the Germans in Brussels. The enemy seems
to attach great importance to them, for they are being employed in
much the same way that parliamentary candidates use pamphlets
during an election. Yet they do not contain a particle of proof
that Britain had hostile intentions against Germany, but only
confirm the presence of the German menace.

The documents[198] in question are
reports sent by the Belgian Legation Secretaries in London, Paris
and Berlin to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Brussels. These
gentlemen held opinions identical with those expressed again and
again in German newspapers, and even in some British and French
organs. Messieurs Comte de Lalaing (London), Greindl (Berlin),
Leghait (Paris), evidently believed that the activities of the
Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente endangered the peace of
Europe.

[Footnote 198:
Published by the Berlin Government as supplements to the
Nord-deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, July 29th and 31st; August
4th, 8th and 12th, 1915.]

Further they believed the latter constellation to be the more
aggressive of the two, and formally reported these convictions to
the Belgian Government. If read as a modern edition of “Pepys’
Diary” they form entertaining literature, but by no stretch of the
imagination could they be classed as historical sources. A
gentleman who reports to his Government that King Edward took
breakfast in company with M. Delcassé and that the Press had
neglected to chronicle the incident, can hardly rank as an
historian.

Moreover, it is by no means clear why the German Press should
laud M. Greindl as a gentleman of German origin. If this be true it
would probably explain everything which deserves explanation in the
said documents, and would probably account for the intimate,
confidential treatment which M. Greindl received at the hands of
German officials.

German newspapers are gloating over the fact that the British
Government has not deigned to reply to these “revelations.” There
is really nothing to which it can reply; three observers expressed
their opinion on contemporaneous happenings during the years
1905-1911. But a brutal sequence of events in 1914 showed
them—if they had not been convinced during the preceding
three years—that they had drawn false conclusions from their
observations.

To return to the last trial of strength between the two groups
of European Powers, it is interesting to note that Professor Oncken
denies German participation in formulating the ultimatum to Serbia,
or that Germany was aware of its contents. Germany merely left
Austria a free hand in the matter. Oncken endeavours to show that
Austria’s demands were not excessive, and expresses astonishment
that the opposing Powers found them exorbitant. He does not mention
the fact that a large section of the German nation held the same
opinion on July 25th, 1914.

His comment on Sir Edward Grey’s efforts for peace is
characteristic: “England claims that she did everything possible to
preserve the peace. It cannot be denied that Grey made a series of
mediation proposals. But mere good-will is not everything. It is
much more important to weigh their practical importance, and the
goal at which they aimed: Whether they were intended to preserve
the world’s peace under conditions honourable for all parties, or
calculated to obtain for the Entente a one-sided diplomatic
victory which would have established its future
predominance.”[199]

[Footnote 199:
“Deutschland und der Weltkrieg,” p. 544.]

“Grey considered the moment suitable for a mediation proposal.
On the evening of July 26th, after obtaining Russia’s consent, he
proposed to the Governments of France, Germany and Italy that their
London ambassadors should meet in London to confer on a peaceful
solution of the conflict.

“The proposal was unacceptable to Austria, because it would have
been an indirect recognition on her part of Russia’s interest in
the conflict.

“Only those who had followed the growing intimacy of the mutual
obligations between the Entente Powers, and their organization to a
‘London Centre’ during the summer of 1914, are able to estimate the
role—to say nothing of Italy—which Russia’s two
comrades would have played in the conference. During its course
Russia would have continued her military preparations, while
Germany would have had to pledge herself not to mobilize.

“Finally, no unprejudiced observer would dare assert that the
man (Sir Edward Grey) who was ready to transform himself at a
suitable opportunity into an ally of Russia, would have been an
impartial chairman in a conference held under the pressure of a
Russian mobilization. The more one thinks about this mediation
proposal the more convinced one becomes, that it would at least
have worked for a diplomatic victory for the Entente Powers.

“Grey put the whole machinery of the Triple Entente in motion in
order to force back Germany and Austria-Hungary along the whole
line.”[200]

[Footnote 200:
Ibid., p. 545 et seq.]

An analysis of Professor Oncken’s theses gives the following
results: First, Britain’s efforts to preserve peace are admitted,
but he fails to mention any friendly advances to meet them.
Secondly, the fundamental principle underlying the Germanic
attitude is again exposed, viz., that Russia had no right to
intervene in a question affecting the balance of power in the
Balkans and in Europe (vide, p. 63). Thirdly, a diplomatic
struggle was in progress along the whole line, between the two
groups of Powers.

In weighing the second point it would be wrong to assume that
the Central Empires were not fully aware of the presence of a far
more vital question behind the Austro-Serbian conflict. They knew
it from the very beginning and had already expressed threats in St.
Petersburg, hoping to achieve the same effect as in the Bosnian
crisis. If Austria had been allowed to destroy Serbia’s military
power the material forces of Europe would have been seriously
disturbed; the ineffectiveness of the Triple Entente finally
established, and its dissolution the inevitable consequence.

If these considerations are correct then the statement
attributed by M. de L’Escaille (see p. 281) to Sir George Buchanan
that Britain would never draw the sword could only have served to
strengthen the resolution of the Germanic Powers in enforcing their
point Germany above all desired that the balance of power theory
should be finally smashed, and it may be safely assumed that an
Austro-Serbian conflict seemed to her a most fitting opportunity to
realize her purpose.

The third point suggests two questions. Who provoked the
diplomatic conflict, and who would have benefited most by a
diplomatic victory? A reply to the first question is superfluous,
and the answer to the second is obvious from the preceding line of
reasoning. Germany would have reached the goal towards which she
had striven for more than a decade—the removal of all
diplomatic hindrances to the unlimited assertion of her will in
Europe. It may even be doubted whether the Dual Alliance would have
survived the shock.

Another phase of Professor Oncken’s work is the open attack on
Sir Edward Grey. Only three years ago this statesman was acclaimed
in Germany as a man of peace—the man who had prevented
the Balkan War from becoming a European conflagration. To-day he is
accused by the same nation of being the originator of the world
war.

Oncken[201] goes back to the year 1905
and states that Sir Edward Grey initiated only two members of the
Cabinet—Mr. Asquith and Lord Haldane—into the details
of the agreement with France, and these three gentlemen he refers
to as the “inner circle.” King Edward, and afterwards Sir Edward
Grey in continuing the late King’s policy, succeeded in harnessing
the revanche idée and the spirit of Russian
aggression to the chariot of British Imperialism. All offers of
friendship made by this country were insincere. (The professorial
pleader does not say so, but he leaves his readers to infer that
sincerity is a German monopoly.) Concerning the British Minister’s
declaration in Parliament that no secret treaty existed with
France, Oncken remarks: “The declaration was just as true formally
as it was a lie in essentials.”

[Footnote 201:
The authorities (?) most frequently cited by Professor Oncken in
making out his case are Messrs. Morel, Macdonald, Hardie, G. B.
Shaw and the Labour Leader.—Author.]

Following the development of events after the conference
proposal had been dropped, Oncken writes: “Meanwhile the Russian
Government endeavoured to persuade England’s leading statesman that
the opinion prevailed in Germany and Austria, that England would
remain neutral in every case, in consequence of this delusion the
Central Powers were obdurate. England could only dispel the danger
of war by destroying this false conception, i.e., openly
joining Russia and France.

“It is noteworthy how quickly Grey assimilated this train of
thought. Disregarding the suggestions of the British Ambassador in
St. Petersburg, he did nothing to exercise a moderating influence
upon Russia and thereby further the success of the conversations
between Vienna and St. Petersburg. On the other hand, he proceeded
to take steps which probably in his opinion, were calculated to
damp the supposed desire for war on the part of Germany.
Practically, the result of all his actions was to exercise
one-sided pressure upon Germany and Austria and simultaneously,
through unmistakable declarations concerning England’s eventual
attitude, to encourage Paris and St. Petersburg to energetic
measures.

“But all hopes for peace were destroyed at a single blow by
Russia. On the evening of July 30th after the conversations with
Austria-Hungary had been resumed, Sasonow increased his
demands—and in truth with England’s co-operation—to
such a degree that their acceptance would have meant the complete
submission of the Dual Monarchy.

“And as if this were insufficient, a few hours later, before a
reply had been received and while negotiations were proceeding in
Vienna, Russia suddenly broke off the communications with a
momentous decision (mobilization). The certainty which she had
gained from the moves of English diplomacy, that in case of war she
was sure of France’s support and with it England’s, turned the
scale—against peace.

“That this calculation was decisive for Russia’s change of front
is confirmed by a witness whose impartiality even our opponents
will admit.”[202]

[Footnote 202:
“Deutschland und der Weltkrieg,” pp. 553-4.]

Professor Oncken then supports his argument with quotations from
a letter written by the Belgian Legation Secretary in St.
Petersburg to his Government. The letter was doubtless stolen while
in transit by the Berlin postal authorities. Monsieur B. de
l’Escaille wrote the letter on July 30th, despatched it by courier
to Berlin, where it was posted on the following day. The outside
envelope was addressed to Madame Costermans, 107 Rue Froissard,
Bruxelles; inside was a letter addressed to M. Darignon, Minister
for Foreign Affairs. German writers state that no letters were
forwarded to foreign countries after martial law was proclaimed on
July 31st (a statement which is untrue), thus it fell into their
hands.

Overwhelming importance is attached to this document by German
war writers. The more important passages of the despatch run as
follows: “The last two days have passed in the expectation of
events which are bound to follow[203] upon
Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war against Serbia. The most
contradictory reports were in circulation, without any possibility
of confirming their truth or falsity.

[Footnote 203:
Thus the impartial witness whom Germans quote to prove their
innocence definitely states that Russia had no other course left
open to her by Austria’s actions.—Author.]

“One thing is, however, indisputable, viz., that Germany has
done everything possible both here and in Vienna[204] to find a means of avoiding a general
conflict, but has only been met with the determination of the
Vienna cabinet, on the one hand, not to yield a single step, and on
the other hand Russian distrust of Vienna’s declaration that they
merely intend a punitive expedition against Serbia.

[Footnote 204:
How could M. de l’Escaille know what had passed in
Vienna?—Author.]

“One must really believe that everybody wants war, and is only
anxious to postpone the declaration in order to gain time. At first
England gave out, that she would not allow herself to be drawn into
a conflict. Sir George Buchanan said that definitely. But to-day
they are firmly convinced in St. Petersburg, indeed they have
received an assurance, that England will stand by France. This
support is of extraordinary importance, and has contributed not a
little to the war-party gaining the upper hand.

“In the cabinet sitting held yesterday, there were differences
of opinion, and the mobilization order was postponed. This morning
at four o’clock mobilization was ordered.

“The Russian army feels itself strong, and is full of
enthusiasm. The reorganization of the navy is still so incomplete
that it would be out of the count in case of war. For that reason
England’s assurance of help was of the greatest
consequence.”[205]

[Footnote 205:
“Kriegs-Depeschen, 1914” (“German War-Telegrams, 1914”). Berlin,
1914; p. 96 et seq.]

If Professor Oncken is correct in stating that Sir Edward Grey’s
measures were calculated to exercise a pressure on Germany and
Austria, then he merely confirms what this country has hitherto
believed—Sir Edward Grey acted rightly. Where else should he
have exerted pressure except in the quarter from whence a
provocative, insolent challenge had proceeded?

With regard to the assertion that Russia—stiffened by
England—took a “momentous decision” on the evening of July
30th, Professor Oncken is guilty of distortion. The decision to
mobilize had been taken earlier, and as M. de l’Escaille wrote, was
made public at four o’clock on the morning of July 30th.

Whether Russia had increased her demands (“peremptorily
sharpened” are Oncken’s words) the reader can judge for himself by
comparing the two texts.

I: “If Austria, recognizing that the
Austro-Serbian question has assumed the character of a European
question, declares herself ready to eliminate from her ultimatum
the points which infringe the sovereign rights of Serbia, Russia
engages to stop her military preparations.” (Russian Orange Book,
No. 60.)

II: “If Austria agrees to stay the advance of
her troops on Serbian territory, and if, recognizing that the
Austro—Serbian dispute has assumed the character of a
question of European interest, she admits that the Great Powers
shall examine the satisfaction which Serbia might give to the
Austro—Hungarian Government without affecting her sovereign
rights and independence, Russia undertakes to maintain her waiting
attitude.” (French Yellow Book, No. 133.)

Oncken, in making this comparison, comments: “It is most
remarkable that the original formula chosen by Sasonow had been
peremptorily sharpened (einschneidend verschärft) on
July 31st at the request of the British Ambassador. This
interference by England in the formulation of the proposal must
arouse the gravest doubt regarding the peaceful tendencies of
England’s policy. Sasonow had every reason to thank Grey ‘for the
firm, amicable tone which he has employed in his pourparlers with
Germany and Austria.'”[206]

[Footnote 206:
“Deutschland und der Weltkrieg,” p. 553. Oncken’s quotation in the
last lines taken from the Russian Orange Book, No. 69.]

Sir Edward Grey had proposed five days earlier (July 26th) that
all military measures should cease pending a settlement. Hence the
introduction of this clause is not a new demand. Moreover, in the
meantime Russia and Germany—in spite of the latter’s
denial—had commenced to mobilize; Austria had mobilized and
commenced hostilities against Serbia. Thus there were far more
urgent reasons to include the cessation of military measures on
July 31st than before. Lastly, it was the only acceptable pledge of
Austrian sincerity which Russia could accept. Whether the formula
would have met with Austria’s approval cannot be determined, for
Austria was saved from what Oncken terms “complete submission” by
Germany’s ultimatum to Russia, despatched on the same day, July
31st.

It is impossible to get rid of the suspicion that Germany
thought Austria might accept the proposal; in any case, Germany
deliberately shattered the last chance of a settlement by her
demand that Russia should demobilize.

If Germany outwardly worked for peace in St. Petersburg, as M.
de l’Escaille states, it would be quite in harmony with the methods
of German diplomacy. But, as the same gentleman testifies: “Austria
would not yield a step”—the conclusion must be drawn that
Germany had ordered her to stand firm. Austria did not yield a
single inch, and so it is a matter of indifference as to the
sincerity or otherwise of Germany’s peace endeavours.

Oncken further mentions Britain’s refusal to remain neutral in
return for a promise that French territory should not be annexed,
but he omits the question of French colonies. His analysis of the
Belgian question deserves quotation: “Grey was seeking an excuse
for war, and he found one in the question of Belgian neutrality. It
was just such a reason as he required in order to carry away the
Cabinet, Parliament and public opinion. And since then that reason
has been much discussed, accompanied by appeals to international
law and humanity, by England’s and the world’s Press.

“But there is more than one irrefutable proof at hand, to show
that this reason for war, was merely a veil covering the real ones.
Anticipating Grey’s intentions, before the German Government had
finally declared themselves on the subject,[207] Prince Lichnowsky put the question to Sir
Edward Grey on August 1st, as to whether England would remain
neutral if Germany undertook to respect the neutrality of
Belgium.

[Footnote 207:
Britain had asked Germany a day or two before, whether she would
respect Belgium’s neutrality.—Author.]

“Grey, however, refused to give the pledge with which he
could—if he was really concerned about Belgium—have
spared that unhappy land its terrible fate. But by these means the
trump card of Belgian neutrality had been taken from our opponent’s
hand in advance. Yet Grey actually considered it permissible to
conceal this offer from the British Cabinet. Yes, he dared even
more.

“After the matter had been mentioned by Ramsay Macdonald in the
Labour Leader, Keir Hardie asked a question in the House of
Commons on August 27th, as to whether Lichnowsky’s proposal had
been submitted to the Cabinet, and why the same had not been made
the basis of peaceful negotiations with Germany. Grey made a weak
attempt to discriminate between official proposals made by a
government, and a private question asked by an ambassador.

“When the inconvenient questioner asked for further information,
he was cried down. The Oxford theologian Conybeare gained the
impression from this Parliamentary incident: ‘That all Sir Edward
Grey’s answers to Mr. Keir Hardie’s questions are examples of
suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.’ His later
revocation of this judgment does not alter its value as objective
evidence.

“After Grey’s refusal, Prince Lichnowsky pressed him to
formulate England’s conditions for her neutrality. At the same time
the Ambassador increased his offer of July 29th by proposing to
guarantee the integrity of France and her colonies in return for
England’s neutrality. Grey suppressed this proposal too before the
Cabinet, as any negotiation on this basis would have thwarted his
pre-conceived plans. Only an immovable determination for war can
explain this behaviour.

“Even before he could assume that Belgian neutrality was in
danger, he pledged English policy to the wishes of France. On the
afternoon of the same August 1st, he gave the French
Ambassador—who was anxiously pressing for a
decision—reason to believe that he would be able to give a
formal promise on the following day. At the Cabinet meeting on
August 2nd—the same in which he suppressed Germany’s
offer!—he got a motion accepted empowering him to assure
Cambon that if Germany attacked the French coast, England would
intervene.”

It is necessary to return to Germany’s proposal in regard to
Belgian neutrality. In simple language it means that Germany wanted
to sell her pledged word, given in 1839, for British neutrality in
1914. In view of the fact that Professor Oncken looked upon this as
a legitimate bargain, one wonders in silence at his standard of
morality and honour. Is he not a scoundrel who first gives his word
of honour and afterwards tries to strike a bargain with the same?
Stripped of all verbiage that is Germany’s proposal in its naked
immorality, and the author chronicles with pleasure that the House
of Commons cried down even its discussion. It recalls to his memory
the fact, that the Reichstag—Germany’s highest legislative
assembly—cheered to the echo Bethmann-Hollweg’s announcement
that German armies, in violating the dictates of moral and
international law, by breaking Germany’s word of honour, had
occupied Luxembourg and entered Belgium. The two incidents are
drastic, concrete illustrations of the gulf which separates British
and German conceptions of right and wrong.

Furthermore, there are two questions of a disciplinary nature
arising out of this incident which “the man in the street” has a
perfect right to raise. Assuming that Sir Edward Grey exercised his
discretion and concealed the “infamous proposal” from the Cabinet,
which of his colleagues afterwards betrayed the fact and from what
source—German or English—did he obtain his
information?

Full knowledge on these points would probably be of great
assistance in destroying the “trail of the serpent” (i.e.,
German influence and intrigues) in the political and national life
of Great Britain.

Professor Oncken praises German disinterestedness in offering to
guarantee the integrity of French continental and colonial
territories in case Germany gained a victory in the war. Sir Edward
Grey’s refusal to guarantee British neutrality in return for this
promise, the professor considers supreme and final proof that
Britain was bent on war. The nation has rightly approved of this
policy and the point need not be argued in this place; but
Professor Oncken in the seclusion of his German study would do well
to weigh two problems:

If Germany had gained a victory—and in August, 1914, she
was absolutely convinced that France and Russia would succumb if
they faced her alone—then Germany would have obtained the
long sought upper and “free hand” in Europe. What earthly powers
could have compelled her in that moment to respect her promise in
regard to French territories? Certainly Germany’s sense of honour
could not be counted upon to do so.

The second problem refers to the bull and the china-shop.
Presuming that the bull could talk, would Professor Oncken advise
the guardian of the proverbial china-shop to accept the bull’s
promise to respect the status quo ante of his property,
before letting him (the bull) run amock amongst the china?

Lastly, readers are advised when studying the German “case” to
remember that Germany never offered to respect the integrity of
French territories and, the neutrality of Belgium. Although
German writers—with malice aforethought—seek to give
that impression. Yet, had this combined offer been made, the author
submits that in spite of such a promise, it would still have been
ruinous to British interests to stand aside and see Germany gain
the upper and “free hand” in Europe. Having obtained that, all else
would have followed to the desire of Germany’s heart.

CHAPTER XII

THE LITERATURE OF HATE

“The English are wretched scoundrels.”—Frederick the
Great.

“It must come to this, that not even a German dog will accept a
piece of bread from an Englishman.”—Heinrich von
Treitschke.

“England, the Vampire of Europe,” by Count Reventlow.

“Down with England,” by Admiral Valois.

“England, our Enemy in the Past, Present and Future,” by Erich
von Kabler.

“A German Victory, Ireland’s Hope,” by Dr. Hans Rost.

“England, the Scourge of Humanity,” by Germanicus.

“The Poisonous Press,” by Germanicus.

“England against England,” by Mathieu Schwann.

“A Woman’s War Letters,” by L. Niessen-Deiters.

“Albion’s Death Struggle,” by Eugen Detmolder.[208]

[Footnote 208:
Written by Detmolder (a Belgian) during the Boer
War.—Author.]

“How John Bull recruits his Hirelings,” by Dr. Herbert
Hirschberg.

“Advance on England! The Destruction of Britain’s World Power,”
Anonymous.

“In English Captivity,” by Heinrich Norden, late missionary.

“British versus German Imperium,” by an Irish-American.
Introduction by Sir Roger Casement.

“Lousyhead goes on Lying.” The latest war news of Messrs.
Grandebouche (France), Lousyhead (Russia), and Plumpudding
(England), by Karl Ettlinger.

“England and Germany,” by Houston Stewart Chamberlain.

“Cable Warfare and the Campaign of Lies,” by Dr. Meister,
Professor in Münster University.

“England and Continental Interests,” by Captain H. Schubart.

“The Annihilation of England’s World Power,” Essays by
twenty-three different authors, including Professors Haeckel,
Eucken and Lamprecht; State Secretary Dr. Dernburg; Dr. Sven Hedin,
etc.

“German Misery in London,” by Carl Peters.

“The English Face,” by six university professors;
Frischeisen-Köhler (Berlin); Jastrow (Berlin); von der Goltz
(Greifswald); Roloff (Giessen); Valentin (Freiburg); von Liszt
(Berlin).

“Starvation, England’s Latest Ally,” by Friedrich Simon.

“England and the War,” by Professor Lujo Brentano.

“Against France and Albion,” by A. Fendrich.

“The Land of Unlimited Hypocrisy,” by Spiridion Gopevi.[209]

[Footnote 209:
Probably the most scurrilous and vulgar work of its type; but the
writer of it is not a German.—Author.]

“England”; “England and America,” Süddeutsche
Monatshefte (South German Review) for January and May,
1915.

“England’s Tyranny and former Supremacy of the Seas,” by Admiral
Kirchoff.

“England’s Blood-Guilt against the White Peoples,” by Woldemar
Schütze.

“The Greatest Criminal against Humanity; King Edward VII. of
England. A Curse-pamphlet,” by Lieut.-Col. R. Wagner.

“England, tremble!” by J. Bermbach.

“England as Sea-Pirate State,” by Dr. Ernst Schultze.

“In the Pillory! Our Enemies’ Campaign of Lies,” by Reinhold
Anton.

“London’s Lie Factory: Renter’s Office,” by A. Brand.

“England’s Wicked Deeds in the World’s History,” by A. Kuhn.

“Our Settlement with England,” by Professor Hermann Oncken.

“England’s Betrayal of Germany,” by M. Wildgrube.

“England’s Guilt,” by Gaston von Mallmann.

“English Character,” by Professor Arnold Schröer.

“England and We,” by Dr. J. Riessner, President of the Hanseatic
League.

“How England prevented an Understanding with Germany,” by
Professor Th. Schiemann.

“God Punish England,” published by Simplicissimus.

“Perfidious Albion,” by Alfred Geiser.

“Our Enemies among Themselves,” Caricatures from 1792-1900
collected by Dr. Paul Weiglin.

“Words in Season,” Poems, including the “Hymn of Hate,” by Ernst
Lissauer.

About sixty-five other titles might be added to those given
above, but the author has restricted the list to books in his
possession. Some of them are scurrilous and obscene, deserving no
further attention than a record of their existence. Yet the
fundamental idea running through these works is identical,
differing only in the mode of expression.

Hate in itself is a confession of weakness, to a certain extent
an admission of defeat. The presence of hate in a nation or an
individual may be explained as resulting from the desire to remove
or destroy an obstacle, which has proved to be immovable and
indestructible. A healthy, well-balanced mind admits defeat and
endeavours to make a compromise—to adjust itself to the
inevitable.

But assuming other conditions—a false sense of honour, a
morbid conception of self-importance—then hate seems to be a
natural, although unhealthy result. Unfortunately there is evidence
that these factors influence modern Germany. One of the roots of
tragedy is to be found in the inequality between the will and power
to perform. In its helplessness the will recoils upon itself,
turning to gall and bitterness, or seeks a solution in
self-destruction.

It is noteworthy that some thirteen thousand individuals commit
suicide every year in Germany. Unwilling or unable to adjust
themselves to the phenomena of life, they choose death in
preference to the compromise—life. A leaning towards the
tragic characterizes the German of to-day; an inclination not to
compromise, not to admit defeat, thereby admitting the “will” to be
incapable of transformance into actuality.

Between Germany and Britain fate has placed such a rock of
destiny, i.e., this country’s position in the world, above
all, her naval supremacy. Germany has held that this rock hinders,
even endangers, her just and historical development in the world.
With wonderful energy, perseverance, self-sacrifice and heroism,
Germany has endeavoured to surmount or destroy the obstacle. The
united will of the nation was expressed in the momentum of the
onslaught—in vain. And as no reconciling influences are at
work, no tendency to accept the inevitable—Germany hates.

Outside Germany there is, probably, no one who doubts the
invincibility of the British Navy and the unchangeable will of the
British (strengthened by the danger of the past year) to maintain
its supremacy. Yet even to-day responsible Germans are appealing to
their nation to fight till “modern Carthage” is finally
destroyed.

“In spite of the publications of our enemies, we in Germany,
from the highest to the lowest, will believe unto all eternity that
this war was caused by England alone. All Germany replied to
England’s declaration of war with a cry of indignation. The hate
for the hypocritical island kingdom was so bitter that it took the
form of demonstrations against the British Embassy, while the
representatives of the other enemy countries were able to depart
unharmed.[210]

[Footnote 210:
Admiral Valois appears to be unaware that both ladies and gentlemen
from the Russian Embassy were beaten with sticks, fists and
umbrellas before leaving Berlin.—Author.]

“Up till then political England was little known in Germany, but
now the bitter hate which reigns throughout the land characterizes
her as the incarnation of all that is base and vile. It brings back
to our minds the saying of the old Hanseatic towns:

‘England, thou land of shame,
Why hast thou, Satansland,
The name of Angel-land?’

“No sacrifice and no effort will be too great, for us to drag
her from her imagined height into the dust. By force of arms,
starvation and the power of lies, they hoped to force us back to
unimportance, and now the issue is: Whether the categoric
imperative of the East Prussian Kant, or the hypocrisy of British
cant, shall gain the victory.

“We are unalterably convinced that England is our mortal enemy,
and that all endeavours to find a modus vivendi will be in
vain. Still our present naval forces are unequal to the task of
overthrowing her. This will make it easy for the German Government
to obtain even the greatest sums from the Reichstag in order to
increase our fleet. Every other aim—no matter what it
is—must be laid aside, till this one is attained: Down with
England!

“It is to be hoped that this attempt on England’s part to get
rid of a competitor will be the last. We Germans anticipate the
future with an unshakable belief in victory. Possibly sooner or
later, England’s present allies will see that in reality they are
serving English interests. When this unnatural alliance has
crumbled to pieces under the might of our blows, then we shall at
last stand face to face with England—alone!

“Our life-work will then begin—to settle up with the
pioneers of hypocrisy so that they shall never again cross our
path! If at any time this high endeavour seems to slacken, then
think of East Prussia! Remember that a third of the province was
laid waste; that men, women and children were murdered and
violated; that the lists of the missing contained the names of
nearly fifty thousand fellow-countrymen. And all this had to happen
so that every Englishman might become a few pounds richer.

“Think of it as long as you live, and pass it on to your
descendants as an inheritance. Give all your strength and your last
farthing to increase our fleet and any other necessary means to
attain our goal: Down with England!”[211]

[Footnote 211:
Admiral Valois: “Nieder mit England!” (“Down with England!”) p. 5
et. seq.]

“Truly it is no longer necessary either in this assembly or in
all Germany to create popular opinion for the cry ‘Nieder mit
England!’ It re-echoes daily from the lips of every German. But
still we must continue to point out its necessity—it is a
commandment which must banish every weak inclination to yield, and
make us strong to hold out to the bitter end.

“To some it may appear ‘one-sided,’ but yet it is a moral duty
to emphasize and strengthen our hate for England. Not only because
we will hate, but because we must. Hatred ennobles
when it is directed with full force against the evil and bad. And
what is the evil? For an answer consider how the English
pedlar-spirit with cunning and lies, has subjugated the world and
holds it in bondage.

“Even in the upper classes (English), ignorance reigns supreme.
In their famous schools, e.g., Eton College, the young
people—besides sports and so-called gentlemanlike
behaviour—learn exceedingly little. Except in regard to
purely English affairs most Englishmen possess an almost
inconceivable ignorance of history and geography. The view held by
so many Germans that the majority of the English nation, especially
the so-called ‘upper ten,’ have enjoyed a thorough
education—is utterly false. But in spite of this, English
conceit and unexampled pride leaves little to be desired.”[212]

[Footnote 212:
Vice-Admiral Kirchhoff: “England’s Willkur” (“England’s Tyranny”),
p. 1 et seq.]

All German naval writers whine in unison concerning the
“protection of private property in naval warfare.” The shoe appears
to pinch at that point, but the complaints sound hollow when made
by a nation which has shown so little respect for private property
in land warfare.

“Turkey was compelled to hand over Cyprus; in return she
received an assurance of protection from England. What the latter
understands by ‘protection’ we have learned from her recent
actions. The behaviour of England’s last naval commission in
Constantinople speaks volumes. The very men who were in Turkey’s
pay, destroyed the weapons (ships, i.e., cannon, machinery,
etc.) entrusted to their care.”[213]

[Footnote 213:
Ibid., p. 31.]

Besides Kirchhoff, several other writers charge the British
naval officers who were in Turkey’s service before the outbreak of
war, with acts of sabotage. Another writer (Heinrich Norden,
late missionary in Duala, German Cameroons) sinks a little lower
and states that English officers were guilty of thieving when Duala
was captured.

“Indeed, it is not saying too much when I maintain that the true
historical purpose of this war, is only half fulfilled if we do not
bring England to her knees—cost what it may in blood and
treasure. That much we owe to our children and their children. We
will not only be victorious, victory is only half the work; we must
annihilate the power of our enemy.

“All our dearly-bought victories in East and West will be of no
avail if, at the conclusion of peace, we have not conquered and
compelled England to accept our terms. There can never be justice
or morality on earth, or keeping of treaties, or recognition of
moral international obligations, till the power of the most
faithless, hypocritical nation which ever existed, has been finally
broken and lies prostrate on the ground. So long ago as 1829 Goethe
said to Förster: ‘In no land are there so many hypocrites and
sanctimonious dissemblers as in England.’

“We must wait in patience and with confidence in our leaders for
the final settlement which the future will bring. The men in our
navy are burning to imitate the deeds of their comrades on land.
Whenever an opportunity has arisen, they have shown themselves
equal to the enemy. Our navy knows, and that is a consolation for
the men during inactivity, that the lofty task of breaking
England’s power will fall to their share. The men know that the
final purpose of this world war can only be attained with their
help, they know what is before them, and that the enormous stake
demands and deserves all they have to give.

“In this time of trial we can best help by waiting in patience.
The fleet’s turn will come; the fleet created by our Kaiser will
fulfil its mission. Everyone of us recognizes that a
well-thought-out plan is behind all this; even the enemy has
premonitions of it.

“In regard to England’s downfall there can, may, and must be
only one opinion. It is the very highest mission of German
Kultur. Our war, too, is a ‘holy war.’ For the first time
England’s despotic power is opposed by an enemy possessing power,
intelligence and will.”[214]

[Footnote 214:
Ibid., p. 37 et seq.]

Another of the fundamental reasons for German hate must be
sought in the different conceptions of life and its duties in the
two nations. In its chief results this has found expression in two
totally different beings. Professor Engel (Berlin) once wrote that
from the cradle to the grave, the German is “on the line,” or, in
other words, the State directs his every action.

Probably it would be more correct to look upon the German State
as a Teutonic Nirvana—with this distinction, that it is a
negation of personal individuality, but at the same time a huge,
collective positive. The individual German fulfils his life’s
mission by absorption into Nirvana and by having all his activities
transformed in the collective whole for the benefit of the State.
The will of the State is supreme; individuals exist in, through,
and for, the whole. And, above all, the State’s motto has been
thoroughness and efficiency in every department of its manifold
life; knowledge and power its aims.

Britain’s development has been along other lines; the widest
possible room has been left to the individual, and the ties binding
him to the whole have been loose in the extreme. German discipline
is replaced by British liberty, with its advantages to the
individual and corresponding disadvantages for the State. Liberty
implies the right to rise by honest endeavour, but does not exclude
the possibility of a wilful surrender to slothful inactivity,
e.g., the human flotsam and jetsam of British cities, the
casual ward and similar institutions. These and other phenomena of
life in our islands have aroused bitter contempt among Germans.
Contempt has been succeeded by envy and hatred. Rightly or wrongly
the German has argued that the people who prefer sport to
knowledge, self-will to a sense of duty to the community,
selfishness to sacrifice,[215] wire-pulling
and patronage to efficiency—this people is no longer worthy
of the first place among the nations. By right of merit, morality
and efficient fitness—that place belongs to Germany.

[Footnote 215: An
article by the present writer on “Some German Schools” in the
Times Educational Supplement, October 5th, 1915, gives some
faint idea of the unprecedented sacrifices made by German schools.
During the war all classes of the population have voluntarily
renounced a part of their earnings for war charities. In the
Fränkischer Kurier for October 13th, 1915, the
Burgomaster of Nuremberg announced that the voluntary reduction of
salaries agreed to by the municipal officials of that city had
resulted in 264,000 marks (£13,000) going to charitable
funds. The author could cite dozens of similar instances, but it
would interest him most of all to know whether any town in the
British Isles can show a better record than Nuremberg, with a
population of 350,000.]

Unfortunately the present war has brought many proofs that there
is no small amount of truth in this indictment, and most
unfortunate of all, neutral countries too accept Germany’s version
that Britain is unorganized, self-interested, inefficient and
effete. And to just the same degree they are convinced that Germany
is thorough. They love Britain’s humanitarian idea, but admire
German efficiency—although they fear the latter’s
militarism.

Still when they are driven to choose to whom they shall confide
their vital interests, i.e., future existence, they prefer
to lean on successful German thoroughness, than on Britain’s
humanitarianism unsupported by the strong arm. At the moment of
writing there is wailing and gnashing of teeth throughout the
British Empire at the diplomatic failure in Bulgaria and the
previous fiasco in Turkey. Sir Edward Grey has dealt with the
question in Parliament, but he has not mentioned the true
reason.

The true reason is that this country has fallen into the habit
of sending diplomatic representatives abroad who have not been keen
enough to obtain a mastery of the language, or a full knowledge of
the feelings and national aspirations of the peoples to whom they
were accredited. Instead of being living ambassadors of the British
idea, they have often been concrete examples before foreign eyes of
British inefficiency. An example of the language question which
came under the author’s personal notice, deserves mention.

In the spring of 1914 there seemed to be a danger that a German
would be appointed British Consul in Nuremberg, and in order to
prevent this the author wrote to a British Minister stationed in
Munich. He was greatly surprised to receive a reply—the
latter, of course, was in English—addressed on the outside
to:

“Dr. T. Smith,
“On the top of the University of Erlangen.”

That is to say, the German preposition auf was employed
instead of an. A mistake which even an elementary knowledge
of German should have made impossible. In the British Legation at
Munich there was a German-British Consul—a Munich
timber-merchant. If readers imagine that Munich was an unimportant
city in the diplomatic sense, then they are recommended to study
the French Yellow Book, which contains final proof that an
efficient French Minister was able to make important discoveries at
the Bavarian Court.

British prestige, confidence in British efficiency and power
among neutrals has gravitated dangerously in the direction of zero,
while admiration for Germany has correspondingly risen. That there
is only too much reason for the change, the course of the war has
given ample proof, and therein lies the hope of Britain’s future.
The war will reveal to the British both their strength and
weakness, and if the war does not destroy the dry rot in the land,
then it is merely the precursor of Britain’s final downfall.

There can be no greater mistake than closing one’s eyes to the
good points in a resolute enemy. As far as this war is concerned
they can be summarized under two heads: (1.) The German Board of
Education, which has developed and mobilized the last ounce of
German brains and directed them into the service of the
Fatherland.[216] (2.) The German War
Office, which has mobilized Germany’s physical and technical
forces.

[Footnote 216:
Five years ago the present author wrote in the September number,
1910, of Macmillan’s School World:—”Educational
reforms and plans must come from the schoolmen; they never spring
of themselves from out of the people; and this is perhaps the most
deplorable admission of all, that modern England has no great
educationist or statesman capable of formulating a national system
of schools which shall develop the intellectual material of the
nation to its highest powers, and direct those powers into the best
channels. For several decades school inspectors, etc., have visited
continental countries to study their educational systems, and have
returned home with innumerable fads—but no system. Everything
of the fantastic has been copied, but no foundations have been
laid; with the result that England’s educational system to-day
resembles a piece of patchwork containing a rich variety of colours
and a still greater variety of stuff-quality. It were better for us
to have done with educationists who preach about ‘the rigid
uniformity of system which is alien both to the English temperament
and to the lines on which English public schools have developed.’
The said public schools have hopelessly failed to meet the
necessity of a national system of education, or to form the nucleus
from which such a system could or can develop itself. That the
Falls of Niagara, however, dissipate untold natural forces is just
as true as that England wastes immeasurable intellectual force
because her forces are allowed to dissipate through not being
disciplined and bridled by a fitting educational mechanism.
Therefore let England turn to the prosaic work of organising!”]

No other State possesses institutions to compare with them. They
are the foundation of Germany’s strength, and the present author’s
only regret is, that the overwhelming forces obtained by bridling
the Teutonic Niagara of brains and muscle, have been directed by a
false patriotism into the wrong channels. Still that is what
Britain is up against, and Britain can only secure an honourable
victory by surpassing them. And this much may be admitted even at
this stage of the struggle: one part of the “German idea” is
certain of complete victory along the whole line—German
thoroughness and self-sacrifice.

Because only by adopting that ideal is it possible for Germany’s
enemies to beat her. Political intrigues, hunger caused by
blockade, cant, wire-pulling, hiding the truth, etc., etc., will
break down before the German onslaught like waves break upon a
rock. Britain has got to hark back to Strafford’s watchword
“thorough” and season it with the spirit of Cromwell’s
Ironsides.

To-day Germans are seriously discussing measures by which
Britain’s financial supremacy—and therewith her naval
supremacy—can be overthrown, after the present war. One
writer proposes a return to Napoleon’s Continental system, and
concludes his plea:

“The British Empire can and must be overthrown, so that the
Continent of Europe may flourish and develop according to the
dictates of Europe’s will. According to Herbert Spencer’s view,
Europe must exercise the highest ethics, viz., ‘give the highest
possible total of human beings, life, happiness and above all
harmony of work.’

“England has never comprehended what ‘the harmony of work’
means. Her entire heroism consisted in brutally suppressing the
weaker, and avaricious exploitation of everything foreign by means
of cunning treaties and business tricks. Even an Englishman, Sir J.
Seeley, in his book, ‘The Growth of British Policy,’ has defied
this characteristic with objective clearness.

“For sixty years England struggled against Holland—after
which the latter lay prostrate before her. Now England’s battle
against her greatest and mightiest rival has
commenced—against Germany. This struggle will last sixty
years and longer if Great Britain does not succumb before. Every
peace will only mean preparation for new battles, till the final
result is attained; English history affords proof of this.

“Shall Germany, the latest rival, be broken too? Or shall it be
her mission to awaken Europe to war against greed and avarice,
hypocrisy and theft, robbery and violence? Lands which have slept
and dreamed for centuries, do not easily awake. And a part of
Europe still dreams deeply under the hypnotic influence of English
cant and altruism, or at least of her God-ordained hegemony.

“This must be the goal of German statecraft and German
diplomacy. The dream must be dispelled, and the mask torn from the
hypocrite’s face. If Germany desires to exist, then the weak,
faltering expediency-policy of the German Empire must be at an end.
Our one and only aim must be: Down with England!

“Germany, however, may not strive to enter into England’s
heritage—that must fall to the Continent. England’s heir
shall be Europe, which will then be able to progress and develop as
history intended.”[217]

[Footnote 217:
Captain H. Schubart: “England und die Interessen des Kontinents”
(“England and Continental Interests”), p. 50.]

German hate has been fed by stories of British atrocities,
ill-treatment of German civilians, the alleged use of dum-dum
bullets by British soldiers, and the employment of coloured troops
from India etc. A book has been published under the style of “The
Black Book of Atrocities committed by our Enemies.”[218] The charges concerning the use of dum-dum
bullets by the British are dealt with on pp.
39-43.

[Footnote 218:
“Das Schwarzbuch der Schandtaten unserer Feinde.” Berlin,
1915.]

In spite of the fact that von Treitschke advocates the
employment of all available troops, irrespective of colour, by a
State at war, and in spite of the fact that Germany has herself
employed native troops in this war (Cameroons, etc.), their
employment by Britain has aroused a wave of bitter hatred in
Germany. As a justification for this indignation the Black Book
quotes Earl Chatham’s speech against the employment of Red Indians
in the war with the American colonies.

It is impossible to suppose that some of the charges of
ill-treatment of Germans by the British are more than the squeals
of the bully on feeling the pinch. Carl Peters’ book “Das deutsche
Elend in London” (“German Misery in London”) must certainly be
dismissed as belonging to the squeals. Another booklet[219] may perhaps be quoted, though with all
reserve, because it involves the charge of endangering the white
man—above all, the honour of white women—in Africa.

[Footnote 219:
“In Englischer Gefangenschaft” (“In English Captivity”), by
Heinrich Norden, late missionary in Duala, Cameroons.]

“In declaring my willingness to relate our experiences during
the defence and surrender of Duala and my experiences in English
captivity, my motive was not to add fuel to the fires of hate
against England. But it would be an injustice if we were silent
concerning English outrages. Thousands of our brother Germans lie
in English prisoners’ camps; their hands are tied and their mouths
closed by the force of circumstances. But with inward wrath they
endure in silence. Yet their position demands that we, who have
suffered with them and have luckily escaped, should speak for
them.

“It is our bounden duty to the Fatherland to reveal the truth
about English atrocities, and I am all the more conscious of that
duty because some circles betray a certain amount of mistrust
concerning the reports of English horrors.

“On Sunday, September 27th, after all the necessary preparations
had been made, the white flag was hoisted. In a few hours the town
was teeming with black and white English and French landing
parties, who were received with indescribable joy by the natives.
The latter followed the soldiers about like dogs, and in real
dog-manner began to show their teeth (against the Germans).

“Everything remained quiet on Sunday, but on the following day
robbery and plundering began in a way which we had never believed
possible. Still less were we prepared for the brutal treatment
which the English practised on us defenceless Germans. At first
they made sure of those who had borne arms; with lies and deceit
they were enticed into a trap. They were requested to give in their
names, whereupon they would be set at liberty. However, when the
English thought that the majority had been collected, the victims
were driven on to a steamer which took them to French Dahomey.

“During the months of our imprisonment I had ample opportunity
to observe how the Germans have been ill-treated by the blacks. The
English incited them like a pack of hounds to worry their own
race—and looked on with a laugh. Yet the Germans bore all
this degradation with proud calm, and with the consolation that a
day will come when all this shame will be wiped out.

“On the way to the harbour I met about twenty Germans; our
company increased from hour to hour. Women were weeping who did not
know the fate of their husbands, but this had not the faintest
effect on the brutal hearts of the English. At last night fell; we
were tortured by hunger and burning thirst. We were in anguish as
to what would become of us. Why were our enemies so inconceivably
bitter?[220] Why did they tell us no word
of truth? They declared openly that everything German was to be
destroyed, German thrones overthrown and the German devils driven
out.

[Footnote 220:
Norden has had ample opportunities to learn the story of Belgium,
but he and all other Germans writers, in apparently holy innocence,
look upon all bitterness against their nation as a cruel
injustice.—Author.]

“Albion’s heroic sons were only able to capture the Cameroons
with the aid of native treachery. The blacks showed them the ways,
betrayed the German positions, and murdered Germans in cold blood
wherever opportunity occurred. The English even paid a Judas reward
of twenty to fifty shillings for every German, living or half-dead,
who was brought in by the natives.

“Later I met various prisoners whose evidence corroborated the
inhuman tortures which they had endured. Herr Schlechtling related
how he was attacked at Sanaga by natives with bush-knives, just as
he was aiming at an English patrol. Herr Nickolai was captured by
blacks and his clothes torn from his body and numerous knife wounds
inflicted on his body. The natives took him to an English steamer
whose captain paid them twenty shillings.

“Another German, Herr Student,[221] was
compelled to look on while the natives drowned his comrade (Herr
Nickstadt) in a river, while he himself was afterwards delivered up
to the English. Yet another, Herr Fischer, was surprised while
taking a meal, bound hand and foot, beaten and then handed over to
the English.”[222]

[Footnote 221:
Four of these men are still in British captivity. Another Teuton
who has sent blood-curdling tales to Germany may be found in the
person of Martin Trojans, prisoner on Rottnest Island. It would be
good to give these men an opportunity of making statements in
London before a commission of neutral
diplomatists.—Author.]

[Footnote 222:
“In englischer Gefangenschaft,” pp. 1-30.]

After all, the picture does not seem so terrible as this good
missionary would make out. In any case he has failed to make out a
case which will bear comparison with that already proved against
the German army in Europe, or even so bad as the treatment dealt
out by German civilians to their fellow-countrymen during August,
1914. Furthermore it may be safely assumed that the bitterness of
the natives is to be ascribed to German tyranny, which culminated,
as Norden relates on p.16 of his book, in the strangling of a
number of natives, including chiefs of tribes just before the
advent of the British.

Still his book has had due influence on German public opinion. A
German lady in a book full of hysterical hate[223] has based a foul charge upon Norden’s
statements (besides publishing his experiences the missionary has
delivered many public lectures), that the English and French left
German women to the mercies of the natives!

[Footnote 223:
Louise Niessen-Deiters: “Kriegsbriefe einer Frau” (“The War Letters
of a Woman”), p. 56.]

“In the hearts of all those Germans who in this great time, are
banished from the Fatherland and who do not know how things really
stand, there burns a great hate, hate for England and the ardent
desire to fight against her—the basest and most hated of all
our enemies.

“I have come to the end of my report, which contains only a
fraction of the outrages committed by Albion. And this nation talks
of German atrocities! If all the lies spread by the English Press
were true, even then England would have every reason to be dumb.
Only he who has felt the effects of English hate upon his own
person can understand the brutal deeds perpetrated recently on
Germans in London and Liverpool. There, England’s moral depth is
revealed only too clearly, and before the world she seeks to drag
us down to the same level.”[224]

[Footnote 224:
Norden’s book, p. 43 et seq.]

Considering that the total number of Germans captured in the
Cameroons is only equal to the number of civilians murdered or
wounded in British towns by Zeppelin bombs, at a cost of hundreds
of thousands of pounds to the German Government, one begins to
wonder whether Norden and his countrymen possess any sense of
proportion. Germans are assiduous students of Shakespeare, but have
seemingly overlooked the comedy: Much ado about Nothing.

Ireland is another text for long and windy sermons of German
hate, but the conclusion of one of these tirades[225] will suffice to show Germany’s real
motive.

[Footnote 225:
Dr. Hans Rost: “Deutschland’s Sieg, Irland’s Hoffnung” (“Germany’s
Victory, Ireland’s Hope”), p. 25 et seq.]

“At present the direction of the Irish revolutionary movement is
in the hands of Professor Evin MacNeill, Mac O’Rahilly and, above
all, Sir Roger Casement. The final acceptance of the ‘Constitution
of Irish Volunteers’ was carried on Sunday, October 25th, 1914, in
Dublin. At that congress of Irish volunteers—who to-day
number more than 300,000 well-armed men—special stress was
laid on the fact that the volunteers are Irish soldiers and not
imperialistic hirelings.

“Further the members of the organization have engaged not to
submit under any circumstances to the Militia Ballot Act, a kind of
national service law which, remarkable to say, is only enforced in
Ireland.

“The Irishmen are thronging to join the movement, and pamphlets
are being distributed, and appeals made on all sides. Besides
which, weapons are being gathered and money collected. The entire
episcopacy of Ireland has warned the young men against enlisting in
English regiments on the ground that they will be placed in
regiments to which no Catholic priest is attached. The warning has
been most successful in hindering recruiting. In order to break the
opposition of the bishops, England has appointed a special
representative to the Vatican.

“When the German Emperor took steps to appoint Catholic priests
in the prisoners’ camps where Irish soldiers are interned, the
English at once appointed forty-five Catholic priests with
officer’s rank, to the British army in France. Even this measure,
as well as the sudden diplomatic activity at the Vatican, is little
calculated to extinguish the hate for England in the Irish
mind.

“On November 24th (1914) James Larkin began a propaganda in
America. He appealed to all Irishmen to send gold, weapons, and
ammunition to Ireland, for the day of reckoning with England. ‘We
will fight,’ said Larkin, ‘for the destruction of the British
Empire and the foundation of an Irish republic; we will fight to
deliver Ireland from that foul heap of ruins called England.’ The
assembly broke into enthusiastic applause.

“At that moment the curtain was raised, and on the stage a
company of Irish volunteers and a number of German uhlans were
revealed. The officers commanding the companies crossed swords and
shook hands while the assembly sang the ‘Wacht am Rhein’ and ‘God
save Ireland.’

“Sir Roger Casement has long been a thorn in the side of the
English Government, therefore the latter has not shrunk from making
a murderous conspiracy against the life of this distinguished Irish
leader. In agreement with Sir Edward Grey, the British Minister in
Christiania, Mr. Findlay, tried to bribe Casement’s
companion—named Christensen—to murder Sir Roger. The
attempted murder did not succeed, but the original documents are in
the possession of the German Foreign Office, so that all doubt is
excluded as to the English Government’s participation—with
their most honourable Grey at the head—in this Machiavellian
plan.”

This colossal Germanism concerning a plan to murder Sir Roger
Casement has been assiduously spread throughout the German Press.
The Berlin Government allows the German people to believe that
incriminating documents are in their possession, and the vilest
statements to blacken Mr. Findlay’s character were printed in
German newspapers when that gentleman was appointed to the
Bulgarian Court in Sofia.

There are so few utterances in German war literature, which
display reason or even moderation, that the author feels glad to be
in a position to cite two. In the May number of the
Süddeutsche-Monatshefte, Professor Wilhelm Franz
(Tübingen) reviewed one of the hate-books, viz., a work
entitled “Pedlars and Heroes” by a German named Sombart. A few
passages will suffice to show that Germany is not quite devoid of
straight-forward men, who dare to castigate hate.

“Towards the end of his book, Sombart solemnly assures the
English that ‘they need not fear us as a colonizing power; we (the
Germans) have not the least ambition to conquer half-civilized and
barbarian peoples in order to fill them with German spirit
(Geist). But the English can colonize and fill such peoples
with their spirit—for they have none, or at least only a
pedlar’s.’

“It would never occur to any sane man to refute effusions of
this kind, for they cannot be taken seriously. Still I cannot but
wish that an angry English journalist with his clever and fiery
pen, would fall upon Sombart’s book and give its author a sample of
English spirit. The work teems with unjust, incorrect opinions; is
full of crass ignorance and grotesque exaggerations, which lead the
unlearned astray, injure Germany’s cause, and annoy those who know
better—so far as they do not excite ridicule.

“What is one to think when Sombart asks his readers: ‘What
single cultural work has emerged from the great shop, England,
since Shakespeare—except that political abortion the English
State?’

“If I had to answer Sombart I should say, the great shop has
given the English State practically everything which makes for
internal peace, solidarity and national health. It has enabled the
nation to exercise tolerance within, and develop splendour and
power without, which in their turn have made Britannia the mistress
of the world’s waterways, and the British the first colonial nation
in the world.

“England’s cultural development has brought all these since
Shakespeare’s time; energy, willpower, united with high endeavour
to realize great aims and overcome mighty resistance. And the basis
of this splendid progress which compels the admiration of all other
States, was what Sombart presumes to call an ‘abortion.'”

The other is taken from “Der englische Gedanke in Deutschland”
(“The English Idea in Germany,”) by Ernst Müller-Holm, p. 72.
“It is not true that all Englishmen are scoundrels. It is not true
that there is nothing but pedlar’s spirit in England, and because
it is not true it should not be said, not even in these times when
war passions run high.

“The fatherland of Shakespeare, Byron and Thackeray; the home of
Newton, Adam Smith, Darwin and Lyell will ever remain a land of
honour to educated Germans. Where would it end if I were to count
up the heroes of English intellect whose names are written in
letters of gold in humanity’s great book?”

It is well to conclude this chapter of hate with two quotations
which breathe respect. The author does not believe that German hate
will be so long-enduring as the hate-mongers would have us think.
Rather, he is convinced that mutual interest will force the two
nations together within one or two decades. Preparatory for that
day, it is Britain’s duty to compel Germany’s respect.

There are good, even magnificent forces in the German nation;
there are still noble-minded, high-thinking Germans who yearn to
work in the great civilizing world enterprises. But—and
therein lies the tragedy—”the good, the true, the pure, the
just” are not to-day the predominating powers. They must work out
their own salvation; but if the time ever comes when the finest and
best German thought directs Germany’s destinies, then there will be
no lack of sympathizers in this country, who will hail the day as
the advent of a new world era. For the present, all mutual
jealousies, all the burning ambitions, all quarrels and hate, are
submitted to the arbitrament of the sword. If Britain only wields
her sword so well and honourably, as to gain unstinted victory,
that will prove to be the firmest basis for future respect and
enduring peace.

CHAPTER XIII

“MAN TO MAN AND STEEL TO STEEL”

Mention has already been made of German disrespect, even
contempt for England and the English. One of the reasons for this
contempt was the smallness of the British army, and the fact that
our soldiers are paid servants of the country. Germans apparently
never could comprehend why a man should receive payment for serving
his country by bearing arms, and that fact appeared to them to
afford overwhelming evidence of the pedlar-soul
(Krämergeist). The second conclusion drawn, has
generally been that the Britisher is devoid of all sense of duty
and self-sacrificing patriotism. Probably the flocking of several
million men to arms in defence of the Empire, and in defence of
British conceptions of right and wrong has done something to
convince Germans that the premises of the syllogism, were not so
self-evident as they had imagined.

“Among all the great European Powers, England is the only one
which has not introduced national service and remained true to the
principle of keeping an army of paid soldiers. Hence, when in all
other lands at the outbreak of war, the entire people stands ready
to defend the national honour, England is compelled to beat the
recruiting drums before she can wage war.”[226]

[Footnote 226:
Dr. H. Hirschberg: “Wie John Bull seine Söldner wirbt” (“How
John Bull recruits his Mercenaries”), p. 3. Hirschberg reproduces
in facsimile a large number of the recruiting placards which have
decorated the British Isles since the outbreak of war. “Your King
and Country need you” is also given (English and German) with
music.]

“England wages war on business lines. It is not the sons of the
land who bleed for Britannia’s honour; mercenaries from the four
corners of the world—including blacks—carry on the war
as a trade for England’s business world and nobility. England might
well smirk as she uttered blessings on the Triple Entente, for has
she not borne the brand of perfidy for centuries? Her breast
conceals the meanest pedlar’s spirit in the, world.

“Every battle which Russia loses is a victory for England, and
every defeat which France suffers means profit for England. She can
afford to wait till her allies are beaten and then take over their
business. ‘First come, first served’ does not hold good in
England’s case; for her motto is, the last to come gets the
prize.

“Twelve Powers declared war on Germany. Then Japan, the
thirteenth, poked out her yellow face and demanded Kiau Chou. A
hyena had smelt corpses, but the blackmailing Mongol received no
reply to his ultimatum. Grim laughter was heard in
Germany—booming, bitter laughter at the band of thieves who
hoped to plunder us. And in the wantonness of their righteous
wrath, German soldiers scribbled on the barrack walls an immortal
sentence: ‘Declarations of war thankfully received!'”[227]

[Footnote 227: A.
Fendrich: “Gegen Frankreich und Albion” (“Against France and
Albion”). Stuttgart, 1915; pp. 11-12.]

“How wickedly the war was forced upon Germany! A ring of enemies
surrounded her. Envy and ill-will were their motives, but they
lacked the right measure for Germany’s greatness. Our people stand
invincible, united, staking life and everything they
have—till the last enemy lies in the dust.

“Not much longer and the goal will be attained; the many-sided
attack has been smashed and the war carried into enemy lands.
Shining glory has been won by Germany’s armies. The passionate
élan of our soldiers, their death-despising bravery
and one-minded strength, have gained victory after victory.

“Revenge begins to glow against the originator of the
world-conflagration—against false England! Mute and
astonished the world saw her baseness—wondering at her
greatness and her sin. Envy and ill-will inspired her to cast the
lives of millions into the scales, to open the flood-gates of
blood, to spread pain and unspeakable misery—herself coldly
smiling.

“What are men’s lives to England? She pays for them. Her army of
mercenaries which was to force her yoke on Europe, is paid with the
gold of blackmailers. She sends hirelings into the field to defend
the inheritance of her ancestors; paid mercenaries fight for her
most sacred possessions, while those who pay the blood-money throng
to see the masterly exponents of football. And England is proud of
her splendid sons who prefer this intellectual game to stern battle
with the enemy.

“How different it is with our men! With shouts of joy they march
forth to meet the foe, offering their lives in a spirit of glad
sacrifice for the highest and best which the world has to offer
humanity. Storming forwards with the song, ‘Deutschland,
Deutschland über alles,’ our youthful hosts, greeting death
with a smile, hurl themselves upon the enemy. Truly, wherever and
so long as men are men, the glory of our warriors will find
remembrance in brave hearts.”[228]

[Footnote 228: J.
Bermbach: “Zittere, England!” (“England, tremble!”). Weimar, 1915;
p. 5 et seq.]

“It would be neither right nor just to accuse English soldiers
of a want of courage. They have fought everywhere, by land and sea,
with respect-inspiring gallantry—for mercenaries! But the
warlike virtues of England’s armies cannot atone for the cowardice
with which she has conducted the struggle for naval supremacy.
Albion means England’s rulers. And this England of Messrs. Grey and
Churchill, has covered herself with shame for all time by the
manner of her warfare on sea.

“Albion has not changed. She has hidden her battleships in the
bays of northern Ireland, and conducts war on sea—not against
our ships and soldiers, but against those at home, German women and
children! ‘The pinch of hunger makes the heart weak,’ said the
noble-minded Churchill.”[229]

[Footnote 229:
Fendrich: “Gegen Frankreich und Albion,” p. 152 et seq.]

“According to its composition the English army is an army of
mercenaries. On that account, however, it would be a great mistake
to despise the quality of the soldiers or to cherish contempt for
them. The standard of physical fitness demanded of the recruits
was—at least up till a short time ago—more severe than
that imposed in other lands. There is no doubt, our German brothers
who have met the English on the field of battle, admit that they
fight not only with valour but with unyielding stubbornness.

“This results not so much from barrack-yard drill and field
manoeuvres, as from the practical experience of warfare gained in
many campaigns. England is occupied almost uninterruptedly, in
warlike enterprises in some part of the world or other. Further,
the officers—belonging mostly to the upper circles—have
distinguished themselves in the field by a rash bravery which was
marked perhaps, not so much by military as sportsmanlike
behaviour.

“All in all the strategic value of the English army in regard to
leadership, training, discipline and the spirit of the troops,
cannot compare with the conscript armies of other
lands—especially the German army. Yet the contempt which has
been expressed for it in the Press as an army of hirelings, is just
as little merited to-day as it was in the past when it added many a
glorious page to England’s history.

“These remarks are intended as a refutation to the reproaches
made against the English army. It is true, those unjust criticisms
did not originate with experts, or they would imply a dangerous
under-estimation of the enemy. But in consequence of the widespread
acceptance among the masses they unjustly feed the fires of
hate.”[230]

[Footnote 230:
Dr. G. Landauer: “England.” Vienna; 1915, pp. 74-5.]

“For the last ten days we have been resting to the west of Lille
not far from Armentières; an English army is opposed to us.
My battery is one of the links in the long chain of
growlers[231] which daily pour fire and
iron on to the enemy. We gave up counting the days and fights, for
every day has its battle. Besides the English there are Indian
troops, and a few French batteries in front of us.

[Footnote 231:
The Germans call their big guns “Brummer,” i.e.,
growler.—Author.]

“Every day confirms our experience that we are faced by an enemy
with incomparable powers of resistance and endurance. An enemy who
can hardly be shaken by the sharpest rifle-fire or the most awful
rain of shell and shrapnel. We gain ground slowly, exceedingly
slowly, and every step of soil has to be paid for dearly.

“In the trenches taken by storm the English dead lie in rows,
just like men who had not winced or yielded before the bayonets of
the stormers. From the military point of view it must be admitted
that such an enemy deserves the greatest respect. The English have
adapted the experiences gained in their colonial wars to European
conditions in a particularly clever manner.

“Every attempt to cross the canal was thwarted by artillery fire
and in many places the enemy was more advantageously situated than
our men. His trenches were at least dry while ours were flooded
with water. I went into the front trenches by Dixmude and found
them lined half a yard deep with faggots and wood, yet at every
step our feet sank into the water and slush.

“On the other bank of the Yser lay the enemy and fired
continuously. Anyone who saw our soldiers under these conditions
and heard their jokes will never forget the sight. All the folk at
home who grumbled at the slow progress ought to have been sent for
a single day and night into that mud-swamp!

“In those fields and canals, in this endless morass—made
impassable by flooding—many, many brave German soldiers have
sacrificed their lives. During the autumn and winter months of 1914
the whole Yser domain was transformed into a vast graveyard.

“The battle-front was determined by the nature of the land. It
stretched from the sea through Ramscapelle, Dixmude, Roulers,
Paschendaal to Ypres and the rage of battle swayed like a tossing
ship in ocean storm. Even now Germany does not know the greatness
and terror of the battles fought there. Only names are known, such
as Middelkerke, Zonnebeeke, Warneton, etc.

“The Belgians fought with the courage of despair. Their
battle-cry was ‘Louvain!’ and ‘Termonde!’ Highlanders, Indians,
Sikhs, Ghurkas, Zouaves, Turkos, Canadians, Belgians, French and
English were thrown into the line, and ever-new regiments landed at
Calais. Houses and villages were taken and re-taken at the point of
the bayonet, as many as seven times. Towns and bridges were
conquered and lost often eight times in succession, accompanied by
heavy artillery duels and incredible losses.”[232]

[Footnote 232:
Heinrich Binder: “Mit dem Hauptquartier nach Westen,” p. 123 et
seq.]

“We[233] have just gone into billets.
Not far off are the positions of the enemy—the
English. There will be a battle to-morrow and everybody is serious.
Mostly by the evening, we are too tired to think, but it is not so
to-day.

[Footnote 233:
Extracts from the diary of a German soldier, published in “Der
Weltkrieg” (“The World War”). Leipzig, 1915; p. 632 et
seq.]

“Again and again I arrive at the same conclusion—war is
too great a thing to comprehend. Now we are going into battle with
the black-white-gold band on our breasts. Greetings to you all at
home, above all to you, father. I have your blessing, haven’t
I?

“October 24th.—We are lying before the road from Ypres to
Paschendaal. The Lt. Colonel has just told us that ‘the losses
cannot go on at this rate.’ By the side of the brook, on this side
the road, English sharpshooters are in hiding. They shoot damned
straight. Our artillery is not yet up; the reason for our heavy
losses yesterday.

“The infantry advance with a rush towards the windmill, but we
no sooner top the hill than the English machine guns begin to
rattle. Our front ranks are mown down. Every attempt to advance
fails. The order was given to lie down and there we remained for
four hours. Then we rush one after the other through a hedge. When
darkness fell we had nearly reached the English trenches, but were
recalled and spent the night in our trench.

“The next morning passed quietly, except for rifle-fire. Captain
von K. was hit, and rolled over in front of the trench. Three
comrades crept out one after the other to fetch him—all three
fell. At last our wounded captain was still too—killed by a
second bullet. Being compelled to watch this scene without power to
help, was the beginning of our day.

“Just after mid-day the music began. Crash! a shell lands in our
trench on the right. A short pause, and crash follows crash as the
shells are dropped into our trench at distances of four yards.
Death walks slowly up the trench towards us. We know that he is
coming, we see him. Everybody is lying flat on the ground. We are
waiting for ‘our’ shell.

“If we had a communication trench we could escape—but
there isn’t one. We reckon the distance: twenty-five yards away
another direct hit. Crash! only twenty yards. Fifteen yards! We
have only five minutes to live. Thoughts of God and home and
parents rush through the mind; yet they are only numb feelings.
Crash! ten yards; one more and then comes ‘ours.’ But no, the next
boom was in the trench behind, and in the same manner that trench
was cleared from end to end.

“‘Lieutenant T. killed, Lieutenant K. takes command’ was passed
along. We have hardly left the trench when bullets begin to whistle
round our heads. Man after man remains behind. At last night sinks
and hides the horrors of the day. I have lost my company and spend
the night in the open with a few others.

“The next morning the sun shone brightly; the morning wind blows
coldly over the furrows and over the dead. I have no words to
describe what I saw—but my heart bled! Near Paschendaal I
found my company. Altogether there are thirty of us—out of
two hundred and fifty.”

German war literature affords a complete picture of the
transformation of German contempt for the British army into
profound respect. As witness the following:

“It cannot be denied that the English have supported Joffre’s
offensive with valour, strength and vigour. The battles which have
raged since the end of September on the front between Givenchy la
Gobelle and Armentières, have confirmed the deadly
seriousness of the English. And if they have not obtained great
successes, still, in this gigantic grapple, they have displayed
desperate courage which compels the admiration of their
opponents.

“The Commander of a division, with whom I spent the last few
days, said to me in a tone of deep conviction: ‘Nobody must talk
lightly of English soldiers in my presence. Their bravery and the
extraordinary courage of English officers compels my admiration.
Regimental commanders and staff officers advanced in the first line
of their troops. They fight and fall by the side of their men. I
saw several high officers killed myself.’ Besides, I have heard his
Excellency’s words confirmed by many of his officers.”[234]

[Footnote 234:
Julius Hirsch; War Correspondent with the German Army, in the
Fränkischer Kurier, October 22nd, 1915.]

In a previous work the author has expressed the opinion that
Great Britain must employ all her strength in this, the greatest of
all wars, and in concluding this work he repeats that warning still
more emphatically. Only a true realization of the inevitable fact
that British democracy is on trial by battle—”man to man and
steel to steel”—will give the necessary courage, endurance,
faith and hope to bring the issue to a victorious end.

THE END

INDEX

Alleged Ill-Treatment of Germans in Belgium
Appreciation, a German, of England
Atrocities
Attack on Liége by a Zeppelin
Attitude of Germany and Austria
Austrian mobilization

Battle of the Marne
Belgian kindness to Germans
Belgrade during the crisis
Bethmann-Hollweg falsely accuses Russia of causing the war
Bismarck
Britain’s position in the world
British
accused of plundering
Army
General Staff’s guide-books to Belgium
inefficiency
Navy
Socialists
Brutal treatment of foreigners in Germany

Courage of British Army

Demonstrations in Favour of War
Diplomatic battles

England’s Attitude
heir
neutrality, German offers for
Excitement in Germany

French Airmen, Alleged Attack near Nuremberg
alleged attack on Frankfort

German Brutality towards Germans
Chancellor’s speech in the Reichstag
comment on the conference proposal
Crown Prince
frontiers, alleged violation by the French
General Staff, did it conspire to bring about war?
German efficiency
invasion of France
losses
methods
mobilization
nerves
opinion of England
plundering
Press plays Germany a foul trick
provocation to Belgians before the war
State, a Nirvana
German Socialists
and conscription
and universal peace
cheer the announcement that Germany had invaded two neutral
countries
help Kaiser’s government
support the war
vote for a war of aggression
why they supported the war
German Socialists’ attitude to England
campaign against Russia
class-war
peace programme
proclamation on August 1st, 1914,
German troops enter Belgium and Luxembourg
unity
war against civilians
German White Book on atrocities by the Belgians
Germans charge French with looting
enter Brussels
invade Belgium
Germany declares war on France
declares war on Russia
made peace impossible
rejects British friendship
Germany’s alleged efforts for peace
case
case against Belgian civilians
hunt for phantom gold
hunt for spies
re-birth
ultimatum to Russia
Grey, Sir Edward
Grey’s, Sir Edward, conference proposal

Haldane Lord
Hate literature
Heligoland prepared for war

Ill-treatment, alleged, of Germans by British
Ireland and Germany
Iron Crosses
Italian Socialists condemn their German comrades

Japan

Kaiser’s return to Berlin
threat
threat to England
Königin Luise starts to lay mines round the English
coast

Lassalle’s opinion of Austria
Last protest against war
Legend of gouged-out eyes
Letter of Belgian Legation Secretary
Louvain
Lying, a foundation-stone of German policy

Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay
Martial law proclaimed in Germany
Militarism, spirit of

Necessity knows no law
Neutrality of Belgium
“Now there are only Germans”

Oncken, Professor Hermann
Opinion in France at the outbreak of war

Peace, did Germany work for?
Poisoned water-supply scare
Press, German, condemns the Austrian ultimatum
Prince Heinrich’s telegram to King George
Proclamation of the Social Democrats, July 25th, 1914
Propaganda for the annexation of Belgium

Reconciliation with Germany
Roman Catholic Church refutes German atrocity legends
Russia ignores the German ultimatum
Russia’s attitude during the crisis
military measures
right to intervene

Secret Belgian documents seized in Brussels
Social Democratic demonstrations against war
Social Democrats’ report on Belgium
Socialists, German, vote for war
Spy scare and its results
Status of German professors
Swiss Neutral on Belgian neutrality

Terms of Triple Alliance
Treatment of Belgian civilians
Trevelyan’s, Mr. Charles, remarkable promise
Tricks of the German Press

Unprepared Condition of the Franco-Belgian
Frontier

Violation of Belgian Neutrality
Volksstaat (People’s State)

War Delirium
Warsaw citadel blown up
Wolff’s News Agency