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