The Project Gutenberg EBook of The German Army in Belgium, the White Book of May 1915, by E. N. Bennett This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license Title: The German Army in Belgium, the White Book of May 1915 Author: E. N. Bennett Release Date: March 7, 2017 [EBook #54296] Language: English Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GERMAN ARMY IN BELGIUM *** Produced by Brian Coe, Graeme Mackreth and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.) THE GERMAN ARMY IN BELGIUM THE WHITE BOOK OF MAY 1915 TRANSLATED BY E.N. BENNETT Late Capt. 4th Batt. Oxford & Bucks Light Infantry, formerly Fellow of Hertford College, Oxford WITH A FOREWORD ON MILITARY REPRISALS IN BELGIUM AND IRELAND NEW YORK B.W. HUEBSCH, INC. MCMXXI FOREWORD The Allied case against Germany with respect to the conduct of the Kaiser's troops in Belgium rests mainly on four publications. (1) "The Report of the Belgian Commission of Inquiry." (2) The Belgian "Rapports sur la Violation du Droit des Gens en Belgique." (3) The Belgian "Reply to the German White Book." (4) The "Bryce Report." It was the last of these which mainly influenced British and American opinion. This famous compilation owed much to the reputation of the eminent scholar who presided over the Enquiry, and to the names of Messrs. Fisher, Harold Cox and others who were members of the Commission. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that our experience during the storm and stress of the war does not indicate that our literary and intellectual leaders have as a class shown either greater fidelity to principle or less susceptibility to the evil influences of war-fever, than the ordinary man in the street; and now that the more salient symptoms of this fever are abating and prejudice is slowly being replaced by reasoned judgment, the Bryce report can no longer retain unchallenged its claim to present a critical and convincing record of unquestioned facts. The numerous statements which it embodies were mainly derived from Belgian refugees who had reached our shores. Very many of these men and women were naturally in a state of nervous excitement and full of bitter indignation against the invaders of their soil. Such mental conditions are never conducive to the presentation of accurate and veridical evidence. Further it is obvious that some of these refugees were not eye-witnesses of the outrages they describe, for they had fled from their homes and merely record their own inferences as to events which had occurred during their absence. Another serious weakness in the Report arises from the fact that the various barristers and others who were sent round to interview these refugees were with very few exceptions quite unable to converse fluently in French and wholly ignorant of Flemish. Finally, none of the evidence was taken on oath. Here then we have an ill- digested mass of unsworn statements—some merely at second-hand—made by excited and angry Belgians, and transmitted by interpreters, themselves unsworn, which is presented to the world as final and conclusive proof of Germany's guilt, while at the same time the publication in this country of a plain translation of Germany's official defence against these charges was forbidden by the Censor. The testimony of the Bryce Report served its purpose and aroused a volume of indignant and scandalised opinion which provided one of the sharpest weapons employed against our chief enemy; but it must be admitted that the methods by which it was compiled were so lax and uncritical that the results sink far below the level ordinarily demanded by the serious historian. The definite and fundamental contention of both the Bryce and the Belgian Reports is that, with the possible exception of a very few and very doubtful cases, no civilian attacks were made on the German troops. This point is strongly and repeatedly emphasised. "The German Government" says the Bryce Report, page 31, "have sought to justify their severities on the ground of military necessity and have excused them as retaliation for cases in which civilians fired on German troops. There may have been such cases in which such firing occurred, but no proof has ever been given, or to our knowledge attempted to be given of such cases, nor of the stories of shocking outrages perpetrated by Belgian men and women on German soldiers." The Belgian Reply to the White Book (p. 7) is still more emphatic. "As a matter of fact the so-called Belgian francs- tireurs were non-existent.... The theory of an armed resistance on the part of the Belgian civil population to the German troops is utterly opposed to the facts." The following statement of Monseigneur Haylen is quoted: "We declare in concert with the whole Belgian people that the story of Belgian francs-tireurs is a myth, an invention and a calumny. We do not hesitate most solemnly to defy the German Government to prove the existence of a single group of francs- tireurs.... We have no knowledge even of an isolated case of civilians having fired on the troops.... In no single case was the supposed culprit named." Such is the position definitely taken up by the official Reports and adopted by an overwhelming majority of people in Great Britain and America, to go no further. Nevertheless I have always found it difficult to accord unquestioning acceptance to the popular belief. From an a priori point of view it is difficult to believe that German troops, probably the most sternly disciplined and best educated soldiers in the world, should have deliberately gone out of their way to shoot innocent civilians in Belgium and destroy their property for no apparent reason at all. To embroil themselves wilfully with the civilian inhabitants at a time when every minute was precious in their scheme of a rapid advance against the Anglo-French forces was obviously the last thing the invaders would desire. The supposition that the Germans indulged in appalling and indiscriminate acts of terrorism against quite innocent people in order to secure the safety of their lines of communication is ridiculous on the face of it. In short, the current view of "Belgian atrocities," admirably as it served its purpose as valuable propaganda, contains within itself so many difficulties that no fair-minded historian of the future could accept it as it stands. We have seen the evidence adduced to prove Germany's misdeeds in Belgium. Why have we been prevented from seeing Germany's defence against these charges? In any civilised society, even the vilest criminal is allowed to defend himself. What is the use of "defying Germany" to prove a single case of franc-tireur action and at the same time depriving the public of all access to the German White Book with its long list of specific outrages supported by sworn evidence? Here then is presented for the first time in Great Britain Germany's official reply to the charges formulated against her troops during their passage through Belgium. The reader can judge of the evidence for himself. To refuse it a hearing on the a priori assumption that, as Mr. Bonar Law declared in the House of Commons, it was "full of lies," or that nothing that a German states could be true, is scarcely worthy of a sane and judicial mind. Nor do I hesitate to say in this respect that any Englishman who knew his Europe in pre-war days would have regarded the sworn testimony of a German as at least quite as trustworthy as the unsworn evidence of a Belgian. But apart from the Bryce and Belgian Reports on the one hand and the German White Book on the other there exists a mass of evidence hitherto almost unknown in Great Britain or America—I refer to the evidence of the Belgian Press in the early days of the invasion. Here are some extracts from well-known newspapers:— The Het Handelsblad of Antwerp, August 6th, 1914:—"A furious struggle without mercy, which roused in a portion of the civilian population of the Low Countries, disturbed in its peaceful work of the fields, a veritable and violent desire to defend the natal soil against the Prussian traitors.... It is incontestable that from the air-holes of the cellars, loopholes in the roofs made by removing tiles, from houses, farms and cabins a terrible fire was directed on the Uhlan and Silesian assailants." Nieuwe Gazet, August 8th:—De Burgerij Schiet Mee Op Den Indringer. ("The citizens also fire on the invaders.") "At Bernot the outposts had to fight against the civilians who fired like madmen at the invaders from houses, roofs and windows. Some women even took part in the struggle. A young girl, eighteen years of age, armed with a revolver, fired at an officer.... The peasants and inhabitants kept up a regular fusillade against the Germans." Het Handelsblad, No. 190:—"The peasants seized their sporting guns and killed the officer who was commanding the detachment and several men." Nouveau Précurseur, Antwerp, says à propos of the massacre of Berneau:—"The priest of the village gives the signal to fire with a sporting gun from the belfry of the village. He was surrounded, forced to descend and shot." This is given as the account of an eye-witness. Matin, Antwerp, No. 225:—"At Dormael the three brothers Sevenans who had fired on the Germans were shot; their bodies were pierced by lance-wounds and their house was burnt down." Nouveau Précurseur, No. 223:—"It is no laughing matter. All the people, soldiers, Gardes Civiques or armed villagers take their task seriously.... It is no longer a question of soldiers or of the regular Gardes Civiques. These are villagers and retired members of the Garde. The majority are armed with sporting guns, several have revolvers and a few have sabres in addition." This is followed by the following advice from an officer of the Belgian Staff to a civilian correspondent:—"Take care not to fall into the hands of the Uhlans.... Never abandon your revolver; if you see them, fire at them but do not stop for a moment, it would mean death." Burgerwelzijn, Bruges, No. 95, gives the following account of the fighting at Herstael:—"Some 2,000 Germans had penetrated as far as the National Arms Factory and were received by a hail of bullets. All the houses, even the smallest, had been transformed into veritable fortresses. In addition to this, barricades had been erected in the streets, behind which soldiers and civilians were posted ready to fire. Women and children brought up the supplies of ammunition. The resistance lasted until all the men and women were hors de combat. The Germans then penetrated into the village, no longer fighting under command, but firing independently. They sheltered themselves behind a few remaining bushes, for the inhabitants had burned and destroyed everything which could serve as cover. Their trumpets rallied them, at least those who survived, and they retired on Vivegnies. It was with real joy that the inhabitants had seen the enemy disappear, when the sound of a trumpet was suddenly heard. The Uhlans had remounted and were advancing on the village at a trot while the infantry at the same time wheeling to the right attacked the village from the flank. The population allowed the assailants to approach. The attack of the Uhlans was terrible, no less terrible the resistance of the villagers. Men, women and children opened such a frightful fire on the enemy that the first ranks tumbled one on the other. The Germans nevertheless entered the village streets, cavalry in front, infantry behind, while the exasperated populace did not cease to overwhelm the enemy with its fire. The women poured boiling oil and water on the German soldiers who rolled on the ground howling with the pain. It will be some time before the people in Germany learn what the assailants of the village of Herstael went through; one can, in fact, count on five fingers those who escaped alive from the carnage." La Presse, Antwerp, No. 213:—"Fighting in the streets of Liège": "Liège is resisting marvellously. The inhabitants uniting with the Garde Civique are fighting in the streets." La Métropole, Antwerp, August 8th:—"Some of the inhabitants of Liège broke open the window of a gunsmith's shop, seized guns, revolvers and cartridges and pursued the Uhlans to the outskirts of the town." Nouveau Précurseur, No. 225, apropos of the battle of Haelen:—"Lieutenant Van Doren, 4th Chasseurs-à-cheval, charged with the defence of the town of Diest, had not a single soldier at his disposal. He appealed to the volunteer firemen of Diest. These as one man demanded to march to the firing line.... Three of the firemen were slightly wounded; their names are Emil Kneuts, Louis Van Attenhoven and Leandre Segars." With regard to the incidents at Visé:— De Stem van Haspengouw, August 6th:—"The Germans entered Visé where they met with a vigorous resistance not only on the part of a small detachment of soldiers who were there but also on the part of the civilians. The Germans completely destroyed the town." The Nieuwe Gazet, August 7th:—"Some women and civilians have fired on the Germans who have shown themselves pitiless in sparing nothing." Another correspondent of the same paper describes what he saw at Visé: "Young and old ran to take up arms, and if they were unable to stop the murderous advance of the German cavalry, the inhabitants at least resisted till the last moment. People fired from the houses upon the Germans, who, in conformity with the laws of war, in these cases, accorded no mercy. They penetrated into the houses from which the shots had been fired and shot a certain number of inhabitants found with arms in their hands." Nieuwe Gazet, August 8th:—"After the German artillery had set some houses on fire, the infantry marched to the attack. This was not only directed against the soldiers, but also against the civilian population who took part in the combat. People shoot from the houses, small boys and women bombard the assailants with stones, and even some old men from behind the doors fire on the advancing soldiers." The paper goes on to tell us that a German Officer assembled the inhabitants round him and was urging them to remain calm. "Scarcely had the officer closed his mouth, when a shot suddenly fired at him caused him to fall dead to the ground." Gazette de Liège, August 5th—"The inhabitants of the country side display a fine enthusiasm; all the peasants are in ambush, armed with their sporting guns ready to fire on the invader." In the face of such evidence, much of it furnished by correspondents who were eye-witnesses of what occurred, the main contention of the Belgian and Bryce Reports falls to the ground. The Belgian criticism of these statements as "taken from second-rate papers," "proving nothing," "unimportant," is obviously futile. That the German troops were confronted with a wide-spread and determined opposition on the part of armed civilians in flagrant violation of the Laws of War must be accepted as a fact established by evidence varied, cumulative and irresistible. On the other hand it is clear that no final verdict can be passed on the vexed question of the Belgian atrocities in general, until the unsworn evidence accumulated against the Kaiser's troops has been met to a much fuller extent. The White Book does not cover more than the incidents which occurred at Dinant, Aerschot, Andenne, Louvain, and the neighbourhood of Visé. While therefore it disproves, in conjunction with the Belgian evidence cited above, the propaganda plea that the story of civilian attacks was a myth, it does not of course deal with more than a portion of the ground covered by the British and Belgian Reports. Before any complete decision can be reached we should require official replies from the German Government to a variety of alleged outrages in dozens of villages like Gomery, Latour, Ethe, the horrible charge of the shooting of the Valckenaers family at Thildonck, and so on. There were certain cases, one of them known to the writer, in which mistakes and misunderstandings led to the execution of innocent civilians. Full allowance, too, must be made for the existence in all conscript armies of brutal and criminal types—not confined to the rank and file—and for the demoralising effects to which all the armies of the war were exposed whenever an abundant supply of wines and spirits was easily accessible by purchase or looting. Nevertheless the fact that the main position taken up by the Allied Reports is obviously untenable, coupled with the significant refusal to allow the official German defence access to our shores, and the deliberate and disgraceful circulation of pseudo-atrocity stories during the war, would seem to suggest that as regards some at least of the alleged incidents lying outside the White Book suspense of judgment, pending further researches, may be the wisest attitude. Some day a useful and interesting monograph may be written on the whole question of atrocities in war. Careful investigation would, I am convinced, yield psychological results of permanent value, and establish the fact that the mental attitude which originates or accepts atrocity stories is frequently based on an amazing inter-mixture of credulity, mal-observation, megalomaniac impulses and deception, conscious or unconscious. Meanwhile it is evident that the immense outlay of money and energy expended on the propaganda publications of the Entente fully accomplished their object and contributed most effectively towards winning what President Wilson has described as "a commercial and industrial war." Nevertheless the impartial historian of the future will, I think, present the story of the German invasion of Belgium in a somewhat different light from that in which this chapter of history has been portrayed in the official propaganda of the Allied Powers. The final conclusions arrived at will perhaps be shaped on these lines:— (1) That the Allied propagandists adopted methods of investigation which were often superficial and inadequate and accepted, together with certain evidence which was valid, much that was unsound and worthless. (2) That the official defence put forward by the enemy was to a very large extent ignored or suppressed. (3) That according to the recognised usages of war the German troops were fully justified in taking reprisals on the persons or property of those Belgian civilians who actually attacked them. (4) That in some cases this right was exercised with unreasonable severity, and without adequate discrimination. (5) That in certain instances, e.g., the shooting of the hostages at Les Rivages, the invaders acted in a manner condemned by the general consensus of civilised opinion. The civilised world was invited to condemn the German reprisals of 1914 in Belgium. What verdict will it record with reference to British reprisals in Ireland six years later? The analogies inevitably suggested between the two cases are not as clear as they might at first sight appear to be. (1) The civilians who fired on the invaders in Belgium were irregular combatants wholly distinct from the recognised Belgian Army. They were in fact francs-tireurs and nothing else. The men who are fighting against the troops of the Crown in Ireland constitute the only hostile force we have to meet. They are certainly not francs-tireurs: the question is, are they rebels or, as they have consistently claimed to be, combatants in civil war? If the former, they are technically outlaws and cannot claim belligerent rights. But the Prime Minister has himself definitely stated that "civil war" is being waged in Ireland and this statement appears to be in strict accord with international law, which makes a clear distinction between "rebellion" and "civil war."[1] Rebellion is action undertaken by sporadic groups of individuals with little organisation and hopelessly inferior in numbers to the forces of the existing Government. The Irish Republican troops on the other hand are organised in Divisions, Brigades and Battalions, are controlled by responsible leaders, and greatly outnumber the military and armed police forces opposed to them. Their claim therefore to be combatants engaged in civil war and, as such, to be treated in accordance with the rights and usages of war, seems well grounded. Had this claim been admitted from the commencement, the hideous death-reprisals indulged in on both sides would probably never have occurred. Such acts as the ambushing of troops in lorries or on foot are of course perfectly legitimate methods of offence in ordinary warfare. (2) As far as can be gathered from the White Book, the francs-tireurs who fired on Belgian troops were, even when caught flagrante delicto, usually accorded a drum-head court-martial or summary trial. But many instances have occurred in Ireland when unarmed men have been shot dead in or near their homes and sometimes in their beds, without even the semblance of a trial. (3) Military reprisals in Belgium were, at any rate, regular in one respect: they were carried out under orders. According to the "Manual of Military Law," compiled for the use of our own Army, no reprisals are legitimate unless ordered by an officer. It is obvious that in very many cases Irish reprisals have been executed by the rank and file on their own responsibility, in total disregard of military discipline, but with complete immunity from punishment. Certain of these reprisals, e.g., the shooting down of men, women and children at Croke Park, far exceed in atrocity anything proved against the Germans in Belgium. (4) Although houses were frequently destroyed by the Germans the pretext in every case was that from these houses civilians had fired upon the troops. No parallel, as far as I can see, exists for the amazing Order issued in Cork to the effect that houses with their furniture are to be burnt because the occupants "must have known of ambushes" in the neighbourhood and "ought to have informed the authorities." Nor again is any parallel found in the White Book to the reckless destruction in Cork of public and private buildings, including the Free Library, as a reprisal for an ambush outside the city, or for the burning of creameries, factories, farms and haystacks in a general campaign of vengeance. It seems clear that fresh precedents are here established which are certainly not covered by the rules of civilised warfare, and run counter to the ordinary laws of reason and humanity. (5) The use of hostages has been adopted in Ireland, as in Belgium, for there is little discrimination in principle between shooting hostages and exposing them to death on military lorries from the fire of their compatriots. Although the question of hostages is not covered by the Regulations of either Geneva or the Hague, the claim to inflict injury or death on innocent persons in order to bring pressure to bear on an enemy force is now generally condemned as a barbarous and obsolete usage of war, and as such is expressly discountenanced by our "Manual of Military Law" (page 306). Vide Sir T. Barclay, "Laws of War" (Encyc. Brit.). Even rebels, when fighting for a political object, are, according to high authorities like Bluntschli and Fiore, entitled to belligerent rights, and must not be treated as a "crowd of criminals" (eine Masse von Verbrechern). Cf. Bluntschli (Das moderne Völkerrecht VIII. 512).—Wird sie dagegen nur strafrechtlich verfolgt, so wird dadurch der tatsächliche Kampf verwildert und es ist Gefahr dass die beiden streitenden Parteien in die Barbarei versinken und einander mit grausamen Represalien zu überbieten suchen. What a prophetic picture of Ireland in 1921! PREFACE Immediately after the outbreak of the present war, the Belgian civil population began a wild contest against the German troops, which constitutes a flagrant violation of international law, and resulted in the most serious consequences for [1] Belgium and its people. This struggle of a populace governed by the rudest passions raged during the entire forward march of the German Army through Belgium. When the Belgian Army had retired before the German troops, after obstinate combats, the Belgian civil population in the unoccupied parts of the country endeavoured to hinder the German advance by every possible means; moreover, even in the places which had been in possession of German troops for a long time, the inhabitants had no hesitation in trying to damage and weaken the German forces by cowardly and treacherous attacks. The full extent of this armed popular resistance can be gauged from the accompanying sketch-map (App. 1), wherein the German lines of advance and the Belgian places in which the civilian fighting took place are marked. That along these routes and at these places the Belgian civil population of every grade, age, and sex took part with the greatest bitterness and fury in the fights against the German troops can be proved from existing and weighty material, supported by official documents containing the results secured by examinations on oath and official reports. A selection from this material is given in the various Appendices, which, however, only deal with the most important events, and can be supplemented at any time by further extracts. According to the accompanying material the Belgian civil population fought against the German troops in many places in the provinces of Liège (Apps. 2-10), Luxembourg (Apps. 11-30), Namur (Apps. 12, 17, 31-42), Hainault (Apps. 3, 7, 10, 40, 43-46, 49), Brabant (Apps. 47-49), East and West Flanders (Apps. 49, 50). The fights were of a particularly dreadful character in Aerschot, Andenne, Dinant, and Louvain, and about these places special reports were delivered by the Military Court of Examinations, instituted by the Ministry of War for the purpose of inquiring into the violations of the laws of war (Apps. A, B, C, D). According to these reports, men in all stations of life—workmen, factory owners, doctors, teachers, even priests, not to speak of women and children—were arrested with weapons in their hands (Apps. 18, 20, 25, 27, 43, 47; A5; C18, 26, 29, 31, 41, 45, 48); in districts from which the Belgian regular troops had long since retired the Germans were fired on from houses and gardens, roofs and cellars, fields and woods. In the fighting, methods were employed to which regular troops would certainly not have resorted, and large quantities of sporting-guns and ammunition, out-of-date revolvers and pistols were also found (Apps. 6, 11, 13, 26, 36, 37, 44, 48, 49; A2; C52, 81; D1, 2, 6, 20, 37); in consequence, there were numerous cases of wounds caused by small-shot, and also by scalding with hot tar and boiling water (Apps. 3, 10; B2; C5, 11, 28, 57; D25, 29). In view of all these facts, there can be no doubt that the uprising in Belgium was not undertaken by isolated civilians, but by large masses of the population. The methods of fighting employed by the civilian population were absolutely incompatible with the universally recognised rules of international law, as laid down in Articles 1 and 2 of the Hague Convention (Laws and Customs of War on Land), which had also been accepted by Belgium. These rules differentiate between organised and unorganised civilian warfare. In an organised People's War (Article 1) the militia and volunteer corps, in order to be recognised as belligerents, must observe the four following regulations: They must have responsible leaders at their head; they must wear a distinctive badge, also visible at a distance; they must carry their weapons openly; and must conform with the laws and usages of war. The unorganised People's War (Article 2) need not fulfil the first two of the above conditions, but must strictly adhere to the two latter ones: it may only be carried on in territory not yet occupied by the enemy, and only then if no time has been left to arrange for an organised People's War. The two special conditions laid down for organised civilian warfare were certainly not carried out by the Belgian francs- tireurs, because all the German military reports are unanimous in stating that the civilians found fighting had no responsible leaders, and wore no military badges (Apps. 6, 49; C4-7, 12, 15, 22, 24, 25, 31; D). The Belgian francs- tireurs can therefore not be looked upon as organised militia or volunteer corps according to the meaning of the laws of war. The fact that apparently Belgian soldiers and members of the Garde Civique also took part in their enterprises does not alter the case, because, as these persons too did not wear military badges, but mingled with the population in civilian dress (Apps. 6; A3; C25; D1, 30, 45, 46), they forfeited the rights of belligerents. The whole of the Belgian People's War can therefore only be regarded as an unorganised armed opposition of the civilian population. Being as such only permissible in unoccupied territory, it was without doubt absolutely against international law, when carried out in places already in the possession of German troops, as, for instance, in Aerschot, Andenne, and Louvain. But also in those places not yet occupied by German troops unorganised civilian war was not permissible, as the Belgian Government had had ample time to organise civilian war in accordance with international law. The Belgian Government had reckoned with the fact for many years, that in the event of an outbreak of war between Germany and France they would be drawn into the conflict; the preparations for their mobilisation were, as can be proved, commenced at least a week before the entry of the German troops. The Government were therefore in the position to provide those members of the civilian population they proposed to make use of for fighting purposes with military badges, and give them responsible leaders. If the Belgian Government made known to the German Government through the mediation of a neutral Power that they had taken the necessary measures, this only proves that they were in a position to comply with the conditions as laid down; in any case, however, such steps were not taken in those parts of the country traversed by the German troops. The requirements of international law for an unorganised People's War were, according to this, quite disregarded in Belgium, and, moreover, it was carried on in a manner which alone would have sufficed to have put those who participated in it outside the laws of war. For the Belgian francs-tireurs regularly carried their weapons in a concealed fashion, and failed to observe the laws and usages of war throughout. On unimpeachable evidence it has been proved that, in a large number of cases, the German troops were received by the inhabitants on their arrival in an apparently friendly manner, and then, when darkness set in, or some other opportunity presented itself, were surprised by an armed attack; such cases occurred especially in Blegny, Esneux, Grand Rosière, Bièvre, Gouvy, Villers devant Orval, Sainte-Marie, Les Bulles, Yschippe, Acoz, Aerschot, Andenne, and Louvain (Apps. 3, 8, 11-13, 18, 22, 28, 31, 43; A, B, D). All these surprise attacks obviously offend against the precept of international law that weapons are to be carried openly. The chief burden of blame which rests on the Belgian people is, however, their unheard-of violation of the usages of war. In several places, for instance Liège, Herve, Brussels, Aerschot, Dinant, and Louvain, German soldiers were treacherously murdered (Apps. 18, 55, 61, 65, 66; A1; C56, 59, 61, 67, 73-78), which is absolutely against the prohibition which forbids the "treacherous killing or wounding of individuals belonging to the enemy people or army" (Article 23, Section 1 (b) of the Hague Convention: The Laws and Customs of War on Land). Further, the Belgian population did not respect the sign of the Red Cross, and thereby offended against Article 9 of the Geneva Convention of July 6th, 1906; in particular, they did not hesitate to fire upon the German troops under the protection of this sign, and also to attack hospitals in which there were wounded, as well as members of the Ambulance Corps, while they were carrying out their duties (Apps. 3, 4, 12, 19, 23, 28, 29, 32, 41, 49; C9, 16-18, 32, 56, 66-70; D9, 21, 25-29, 38, 47). Finally, it is absolutely certain that German wounded were plundered and killed by the Belgian population, and indeed in many cases horribly mutilated; and that even women and young girls took part in these shameful actions. In this way the eyes of German wounded were torn out, ears, noses, fingers, and sexual organs cut off, or their bodies slit open (Apps. 54-66; C73, 78; D35, 37); in other cases, German soldiers were poisoned, hung on trees, deluged with burning fluid or otherwise burnt, so that they died a particularly agonising death (Apps. 50, 55, 63; C56, 59, 61, 67, 74-78). This bestial behaviour on the part of the population is not only absolutely contrary to the express obligation laid down in Article 1, Section 1 of the Geneva Convention regarding the "respect and care of" the wounded and sick of the enemy army, but also to the first principles of the laws of war and humanity. Under these circumstances, the Belgian civil population who took part in the fights could of course make no claim to the treatment due to belligerents. On the contrary, it was absolutely necessary for the preservation of the German Army to have recourse to the sharpest measures against these francs-tireurs. Individuals who fought against the German troops had therefore to be cut down; prisoners could not be treated as prisoners of war, according to the laws of war, but as murderers. All the same, the forms of judicial procedure were complied with, in so far as they were compatible with the necessities of war; the prisoners were, when the circumstances permitted, only shot after a hearing in accordance with the regulations, or after sentence by a military court (Apps. 19, 20, 37, 40, 41, 43, 44, 48). Old men, women, and children were spared to the widest extent, even when gravely suspected (Apps. 49; C5, 6, 25, 26, 28, 31, 35, 41, 47, 79); and indeed the German soldiers, although their patience was put to an extremely hard test, looked after such people, whenever possible, sometimes in the most self-sacrificing manner, taking the helpless under their protection when in danger, sharing their bread with them, bringing the sick and weak to places where they could be cared for (Apps. C45, 47, 51-53, 55, 58, 80-86). That the Belgian Government are largely to blame for the illegal attitude of their population towards the German Army is indisputable. For apart from the fact that a Government has, under all circumstances, to bear the responsibility for actions of this kind, which are the expression of the popular will, the serious accusation must be made against them that they did not put an end to this guerilla war, although they could have done so (Apps. 33, 51-53; D42, 43, 48). It would certainly have been easy for them to give the necessary instructions to their officials, such as the Burgomasters, members of the Garde Civique, and the soldiers, in order to check the passionate excitement of the people, which had been artificially aroused. Therefore the full responsibility for the terrible blood-guiltiness which rests upon Belgium must be attached to the Belgian Government. The Belgian Government have made the attempt to free themselves from this responsibility by attributing blame for the occurrences to the destructive rage of the German troops, who are said to have committed deeds of violence without any reason. They have appointed a Commission for the investigation of the alleged German outrages, and have made the findings of this Commission the subject of diplomatic complaint. This attempt to pervert the facts has failed utterly. The German Army is accustomed to make war only against hostile armies, and not against peaceful inhabitants. The incontestable fact that from the commencement a defensive struggle was forced on the German troops in the interests of self-protection by the population of the country cannot be argued away by the investigations of any Commission. The narratives of fugitives gathered together by the Belgian Commission, which are characterised as being the result of scrupulously impartial investigations, bear the stamp of untrustworthiness, if not of malicious misrepresentation. In view of the existing conditions the Commission was not in a position to test the correctness of the reports brought before it, or to grasp the connection of events. Their accusations against the German Army are therefore nothing but low calumnies, which cannot stand before the documentary evidence possessed by us. The struggle of the German troops with the civil population of Aerschot did not arise because German officers attacked the honour of the Burgomaster's family, as is suggested on the Belgian side, but on account of a well-thought-out attack on the Commanding Officer of the place by the civil population, who treacherously murdered him (App. A). At Dinant it was not innocent, peaceful inhabitants who fell victims to the German arms, but murderers, who treacherously attacked German soldiers, and in this way involved the troops in a struggle which destroyed the city (App. C). In Louvain the fight with the civil population did not arise because fleeing German troops were involved by mistake in hand-to-hand contests with their comrades who were entering the town, but because a deluded population, unable to grasp the course of events, thought they could destroy the returning German soldiers without danger (App. D). Moreover in Louvain, as in other towns, the burning torch was only applied by German troops when bitter necessity demanded it. The plan of the destruction of Louvain (App. 50) shows clearly how the troops confined themselves to destroying only those parts of the city in which the inhabitants opposed them in a treacherous and murderous manner. It was indeed German troops who took care, whenever possible, to save the artistic treasures, not only of Louvain, but of other towns; a special German Commission has shown to what a large extent German troops protected the art treasures of Belgium. The Imperial German Government believe that by the publication of the material contained in this work they have proved in a convincing manner that the action of the German troops against the Belgian civil population was provoked by the illegal guerilla war, and was required by the necessities of war. On the other hand, they level a solemn and emphatic protest against a population which has, by the most despicable means, waged a dishonourable war against the German soldiers and still more against a Government which, in complete perversion of its duties, gave rein to the senseless passions of the population, and now does not scruple to endeavour to free itself from its own heavy guilt by mendacious libels upon the German Army. Berlin, May 10th, 1915. THE GERMAN ARMY IN BELGIUM APPENDICES 2-66— DOWN THE EASTERN FRONTIER App. 2. Statement of Lieutenant of Reserve Max von Amelunxen, Jäger Battalion No. 4 (at the time attached to the Headquarters Staff, 2nd Army). I took part in the sudden outbreak of hostilities at Liège as Reserve officer of my battalion. When during the advance upon Liège a stoppage occurred on the line of march, I rode out through the village of Battice to discover the cause. At the very first houses, I was fired upon, and saw clearly two civilians shooting from a window in the roof, whose fire I returned. One of them I must have killed with my Mauser carbine, for he fell to the ground at once. I believe I hit the other also. At the same time from different sides—in my estimate there were at least from 15 to 20 guns—fire was opened on myself and the cavalry men, who had in the meantime arrived on the scene. I received a light gunshot wound in the lower part of my body, while many pellets passed through my valise. The persons who fired were certainly civilians. The houses, from which they had been fired at, were set alight by the troops who had arrived. I myself had meanwhile ridden on farther. The incident must have occurred on the 4th or 5th of August. During later motor-car journeys on military duties I was fired at by civilians on countless occasions. In France up to the present nothing of the kind has ever happened to me. Signed: v. Amelunxen. App. 3. Statement of Colonel von Gottberg, Infantry Regiment Freiherr von Sparr (3rd Westphalian), No. 16, 14th Division. Guignicourt, September 29th, 1914. On the 5th August 1914, just before dark, violent gun-fire was directed against our heavy baggage from many windows by the inhabitants of the village of Blegny. Lieutenant Hahn deposes that troops were fired upon at night by the inhabitants from the very same houses in Blegny in which they had been entertained during the day. Musketeer Gocheln of the 6th Company was killed in this way; Musketeer Hochgrafe of the 7th Company was wounded by a shot in his shoulder. Both companies were witnesses to this. These incidents were repeated during the night, and in this way Musketeers Maiworm and Epping of the 5th Company were wounded. Lieutenant Edler von Daniels testifies that in a Belgian village near Blegny his patrol was fired upon from ambush. This took place in a street where the 9th Company had bivouacked for a day and a night. At Troisfontaines the 11th Company was fired upon from the houses by civilians. Musketeers Meister and Schwaffertz were wounded. In this same place men belonging to this company were in the daytime entertained with cigars and food, and particularly by an elderly man; this same man fired by night and wounded a man of the company. Staff-Surgeon Dr. Falk, who, with the ambulance party of the 1st Battalion, wanted to push forward to the wounded on August 5th, 1914, was fired upon by civilians, so that he was forced to take shelter. Non-commissioned Officer Voss of the 4th Company was killed by three shots from civilians. He could not be fetched, as the street had been brought under fire by the inhabitants. Lieutenant Hahn was an eye-witness of what took place. In Anderlues shots were fired from a house by a French soldier and a civilian. An Acting-Sergeant-Major and non- commissioned officer were seriously wounded, a musketeer of the 11th Company was killed. A witness of this occurrence is Captain Eckhardt. The soldier and civilian were shot. Signed: von Gottberg. App. 4. Military Court Examination of Staff-Surgeon of Reserve Dr. Rehm, Infantry Regiment No. 165. Cherisy, November 23rd, 1914. Court of the 7th Infantry Division. President of the Court, Dr. Welt. Secretary, Lorenz. There appeared as witness Staff-Surgeon of Reserve Dr. Rehm, 3rd Battalion, Infantry Regiment No. 165, who, after the importance of the oath had been pointed out to him, made the following statement: On the 6th of August 1914 I reached at Retinne a military ambulance station, where the staff was very busily occupied. The character of the station was clearly made known by its Red Cross flags, and in view of the whole nature of its activities no doubt could exist as to its real character. In the immediate vicinity no fighting had taken place; on the contrary, our troops had already advanced to Bellaire. Nevertheless our ambulance station was persistently fired upon; continually, for the whole day long, single shots fell amongst us, coming from the houses close at hand, and mostly, as a matter of fact, from the roofs. The shots which fell upon the hospital could only have proceeded from civilians, as there were no longer any enemy troops in the place. As I could not for the time being secure any troops for the protection of the ambulance station, I armed the lightly wounded and allowed them to return the fire—for the moment, however, with little success, as we could not see our well-concealed adversaries. When in the evening some detachments of troops arrived at Retinne and were also fired at, the houses were systematically searched. From some houses dozens of men were dragged out. It was noticeable that in the houses were only one or two women and no children at all, so that I formed the impression that the firing had been arranged beforehand. The men fetched out of the houses were without exception civilians of various ages. Read over, approved, signed. Signed: Staff-Surgeon Dr. Rehm. Proceedings closed. Signed: Dr. Welt. Signed: Lorenz. App. 5. Statement of Lieutenant Zielsche, Machine-gun Company, Infantry Regiment No. 42. Waldrieder, August 17th, 1914. 1. At Visé the inhabitants carried out a surprise attack upon the 18th Pioneers on the night of the 15th-16th August. 2. Between Visé and Warsage my platoon was continuously fired at from the immediate surroundings from about 10 o'clock in the evening till 3 in the morning. A column of army bakers retired from Visé and was also fired at. We could see nothing of the inhabitants. When in the morning I passed through Warsage in order to secure provisions, it was empty, with the exception of one or two houses. Signed: Zielsche, Lieutenant. App. 6. Military Court Examination of Non-commissioned Officer of Reserve Rasch (Reserve Regiment No. 74). Hanover, November 20th, 1914. Present: President of the Court, Lindenberg. Secretary, Lühe. There appeared as witness Dentist Rasch, Non-commissioned Officer of Reserve, now in Reserve battalion, Infantry Regiment No. 74, who stated: As to Person: My name is Gustav. I am 29 years old; Lutheran. As to Case: When the mobile Infantry Regiment No. 74 was marching on Liège in August 1914, I received the order to remain behind with a detachment of the 9th Company for the protection of the baggage collected in the market-place at Poulseur. There were also available a few infantry soldiers and hussars as escort. Amongst the officers personally known to me was an Artillery Lieutenant of Reserve, Hildebrandt, who came from Hanover. When the regiment itself had already advanced from Poulseur in the direction of Liège, and night had fallen, the baggage and the escort beside it in the market-place were suddenly fired upon from all the surrounding houses. This hostile firing had clearly been planned and concerted beforehand, for immediately before the fire began the lights in the surrounding houses were simultaneously extinguished, and at the same moment came firing from all sides. We did not know what was happening to us. Moreover, we were not only fired at from the houses, but assailed with cartridges of dynamite or some similar explosive, which possibly were derived from one of the mines in the neighbourhood of Poulseur. The firing continued, with certain intervals, the whole night through. We on our side of course opened fire and tried as far as possible to find shelter behind the baggage waggons. Nevertheless we had dead and wounded; among these was a Lieutenant of Reserve of a hussar regiment, whom we placed in an inn belonging to a German. I myself took part with my men in storming a number of houses. During this process persons who actually opposed us in the houses with weapons in their hands were shot down. Where we found arms and munitions in the houses, we brought the occupants into the market-place. I can affirm with absolute certainty that all those who resisted us or were brought to the market- place wore no uniforms; on the contrary, they were, without exception, civilians. Next morning when we had proceeded with the baggage to the outskirts of the town there arose from the town an extremely violent series of crackling sounds which served to indicate the existence of thousands of cartridges. Some of the men said that the countless cartridges which had been found in the Burgomaster's house were exploding. Further, when the baggage of Regiment No. 74 withdrew on the following day through Poulseur from the direction of Liège, we were again fired upon. Read over, approved, signed. Signed: Rasch. The witness was sworn. Verified. Signed: Lindenberg. Signed: Lühe. App. 7. Statement of Captain Haupt, Commander of the Heavy Commissariat Column No. 2, X. Army Corps. At midday on August 14th, at Louveigné, an artillery munitions column marching behind the commissariat column was fired on by civilians. The number of the column I cannot now remember. On August 28th, at Gerpinnes, Driver Pook, who was looking for food in an abandoned house, was fired at from a neighbouring house, and wounded slightly in the hand. The search among the neighbouring houses for the assailant was unsuccessful. Signed: Haupt, Captain and Column Commander. App. 8. Military Court Examination of Sergeant-Major Mävers, Non-commissioned Officer Kielholz, Corporal Fruth, Lieutenant Schliep, Acting-Sergeant-Major Horn, and Corporal Niebeln, all of Infantry Regiment No. 73. Pontgivart, November 12th, 1914. Present: President of the Court, Fuhse. Secretary, Hensen. There appeared as witnesses the under-mentioned persons, who, after the importance of the oath had been pointed out to them, made the following statement: 1. Sergeant-Major Mävers, 4th Company, Infantry Regiment No. 73. As to Person: My name is Wilhelm Mävers. I am 27 years old; Protestant. As to Case: On the afternoon of August 7th, 1914, somewhere between 6 and 7 o'clock, our company had to secure the eastern exits of Louveigné. We took up a position before a farm at the exit of the village. Suddenly—it was still quite light—a shot was fired near us; the bullet whistled close past my ear. T...