The Bombardment of the Cathedral of Reims is Inexcusable
In the words of M. Delcassé, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, in the protest addressed by him to the governments of neutral states on the morning after the first bombardment, the Germans committed this crime “without being able to appeal even to the appearance of military necessity and for the mere lust of destruction.”
Nevertheless the Germans tried to justify it by alleging—
(1) That by means of strong entrenchments the French had made Reims the chief corner-stone of their defence, and thus forced Germans to attack the town by every means.
(2) That by the order of the German higher command, the cathedral was to be spared as long as the enemy did not utilise it to his own advantage; but in spite of the white flag which had been hoisted upon it from the 20th September, the Germans declared that there was on the cathedral towers an observation post which assisted the operations of the French artillery.
(3) That as soon as this post was destroyed the German field artillery ceased firing.
(4) That only the roof of the cathedral was burnt, while the towers and the framework of the building were uninjured. (This statement goes back to the 21st September and emanates from the German chief headquarters.)
(5) Finally, that the fire was due to the scaffolding erected in front of the cathedral to carry out some repairs, and that when beams which had caught fire had fallen on the roof, the French had done nothing to put out the fire.
These several excuses are worthless—
(1) General Joffre has formally declared that “at no time did the military commandant of Reims place any observation post on the towers of the cathedral.”
(2) It was not on the 20th, but on the 4th September, on the day of the first bombardment of Reims by the Germans, that the white flag was hoisted on the cathedral.
(3) One wants to know to what moment the Germans assign the destruction of the alleged observation post on the cathedral. According to them, if this observation post had been destroyed they would have stopped the bombardment. Now, although for a long time every observation post had been made impossible, the fire still continued.
(4) The report, quoted above, of the Commission des Beaux Arts, refutes the German assertion about the seriousness of the damage caused up to the evening of the 21st September.
(5) Do not let us forget to recall the fact that, ten days before the bombardment, the German censorship permitted the Frankfurter Zeitung (of the 8th September) to recommend respect for French cathedrals, “especially that of Reims, which is one of the finest in the world, which, since the Middle Ages, has been especially dear to Germans, since the master of Bamberg was inspired by the statues on its portals to design several of his figures, and which, like the other magnificent churches of France, must be respected and treated with veneration by the Germans, as was the case with their fathers in 1870.” However, the censorship did not prevent the appearance of the sinister warning, three days previously, in the Berliner Tageblatt, in these words: “The western group of the Imperial Armies has already passed the second line of forts, except Reims, whose royal splendour, dating from the time of the white lily, will surely and soon crumble in the dust under the strokes of our 420 howitzers.”
The criminal responsibility of the commandant of the German forces has, therefore, been proved in this matter.