German Atrocities: An Official Investigation

by J. H. Morgan

II
THE GERMAN CASE—A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE GERMAN WHITE BOOK

On May 10th—some five days before the publication of the Bryce Report—the German Government drew up a voluminous White Book purporting to be a Report on Offences against International Law in the conduct of the war by the Belgians. It may be described as a kind of intelligent anticipation of the case they might have to meet; the actual case, as presented in the Bryce Report, they have never attempted to meet, and to this day that report has never been answered. The German White Book—of which no translation is accessible to the public in this country—has attracted very little attention over here, and I propose to make a close and reasoned analysis of it, for no more damning and incriminating defence has ever been put forth by a nation arraigned at the bar of public opinion. In doing so I shall rely on the German Report itself and shall make no attempt to refute it by drawing upon the evidence of the English and Belgian Reports, convincing though that is, because to do so might seem to beg the question at issue, which is the relative credibility of the parties.

German Invocation of The Hague Conventions.

The case which the German Government had avowedly to meet was the wholesale slaughter of Belgian civilians, and the fact of such slaughter having taken place they make no attempt to deny. They enter a plea of justification and, in a word, they attempt to argue that the levée en masse or “People’s War” of the Belgian nation was not conducted in accordance with the terms of the Hague regulations relating to improvised resistance in cases of this kind. I will not here go over the well-trodden ground of Belgian neutrality; it is enough that in a now notorious utterance the Imperial Chancellor has admitted that the German invasion was a breach of international law.[4]

The substance of the Hague Convention[5] is that the civil population of a country at war are entitled to recognition as lawful belligerents if they conform to four conditions. They must have a responsible commander; they must wear a distinctive and recognisable badge; they must carry their arms openly; and they must conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. In the case, however, of an invasion, where there has been no time to organise in conformity with this article, the first and second conditions are expressly dispensed with, provided there is compliance with the third and fourth. Now, not only have these rules been subscribed by the German representatives and, according to Baron Marschall von Bieberstein, their principal spokesman at the Hague Conference, such subscription was absolute and unconditional;[6] but the principle which they embody has been accepted by all the leading German jurists. “There exists no ground for denying to the masses of a country the natural right to defend their Fatherland ...; it is only by such levies that the smaller and less powerful States can defend themselves.”[7] The same authority argues that no State is bound to limit itself to its regular army; it could, he adds, call up civil guards or even women and children, who in such case would be entitled to the rights of lawful belligerents.[8]

What then is the German justification for the massacre of the Belgian civilians? Its main contention is that the Belgian Government “had sufficient time for an organisation of the People’s War as required by international law”;[9] in other words that a spontaneous and unorganised resistance in Belgium could not claim the immunities of Article 2 of the Hague Regulations. The effrontery of this contention is truly amazing. The Belgian Government had, at the most, two days—two days in which to organise a whole nation for defence. The German ultimatum to Belgium was issued on August 2nd; the violation of Belgian territory took place on August 4th. How could a little nation with a small standing army organise its whole population on a military basis within two days against the most powerful and mobile army in Europe, equipped with all the modern engines of war? The German Government do, indeed, attempt to support their contention by urging further that “the preparation of mobilisation began, as can be proved, at least a week before the invasion of the German Army.”[10] Now, granting—and it is granting a great deal—that a week would be sufficient to organise untrained civilians for defence, it would still remain to be proved that the Belgian Government did begin to mobilise a week beforehand. The German White Book does not prove it; the Belgian Grey Book disproves it. The Belgian Government, relying on the plighted faith of Germany, had not even begun to mobilise on July 29th—six days before the invasion.[11] Indeed, it was only on July 24th that they were sufficiently alarmed to address interrogatories to the Great Powers, Germany among them, for assurances as to the immunity of Belgium from attack.[12] As late as July 31st the German Government effectually concealed its intentions.[13] It is, in fact, a matter of common notoriety that the German move against Belgium was as sudden in execution as it was premeditated in design. She entered like a thief in the night.

Charges against the Belgian Government.

The main contention of the German Government therefore falls to the ground. What remains? It is here that the German answer betrays itself by its disingenuousness. There is an old rule of pleading, familiar to lawyers, which says a traverse must be neither too large nor too narrow. This is just the error into which the German contention falls. The apologies are too anxious to prove everything in turn as the occasion suits, forgetting that one of their contentions often refutes the other. In the introductory memorandum they argue that Belgium had time to organise and did not. In their excuse for the massacre at Dinant, and their zeal to prove that the military exigencies were overwhelming, they say that “the organisation”—of civilian resistance—“was remarkable for its careful preparation and wide extent”; “that the guns were only partly sporting guns and revolvers but partly also machine guns and Belgian military weapons proves that the organisation had the support of the Belgian Government.”[14] In other words, in one part of the White Book they insist that the resistance was ruthlessly punished because it was not organised; in another that because it was organised it had to be ruthlessly repressed. In another place,[15] having to justify their peculiar principle of vicarious responsibility by which the innocent have to answer for the guilty, they say that the Belgian Government and the municipal hostages whom the Germans executed ought to have stopped “this guerilla warfare,” and did not do so. Now it is well known, and the German Government admits it, that the public authorities issued proclamations ordering the people to abstain from hostilities and to surrender their arms. How does the German Government meet this? The only evidence they can produce in the whole of their pompous dossier is (1) the deposition of a German Jew, resident in Brussels, to the effect that, seeing the proclamation, he sent his servant to the Belgian authorities to deliver up a revolver, and that the servant came back and said that the Commissioner of Police had told him not to trouble as “one need not believe everything that is in the papers”;[16] (2) the deposition of a German lieutenant that an officer (not named) once showed him a document (not produced), which, “according to his own account” he had found in the town hall of a neighbouring village (not indicated), containing an invitation on the part of the Belgian Government, addressed to the population, to render armed resistance in return for payment.[17] On such flimsy hearsay evidence, tendered by two Germans, rests the whole of the German case against the Belgian Government.

Belgian “Atrocities.”

Like a defendant who has no case, the German Government attempt to plead generally in default of being able to plead specifically. They therefore put forward a sweeping generalisation to the effect that, quite apart from the question whether the Belgians did or did not comply with the formal requirements of the Hague Convention, they violated all the usages of war by “unheard of” atrocities. “Finally it is proved beyond all doubt that German wounded were robbed and killed by the Belgian population, and indeed were subjected to horrible mutilation, and that even women and young girls took part in these shameful actions. In this way the eyes of German wounded were torn out, their ears, nose, fingers and sexual organs cut off, or their body cut open.”[18] Let us consider the depositions with which this accusation is supported.