Wednesday, September 21st.—As the Chief had recovered from his indisposition, we had plenty to do, and though most of it cannot be made public, I am now at liberty to quote the following passage from my diary:—
“The imperial emigrants in London have established an organ, La Situation, to represent their interests. Its contents are to be reproduced in the newspapers we have founded in the eastern districts of France, but the sources are to be so indicated as not to identify us with the views therein expressed: i.e., it must be understood that we are not endeavouring to promote the restoration of the Emperor. Our object is merely to maintain the sense of insecurity and discord between the various French parties, which are all equally hostile to us. The retention of the imperial symbols and formulas in despatches will prove of service in this respect; otherwise Napoleon or a Republic is a matter of indifference to us. We merely desire to utilise the existing chaos in France. The future of that country does not concern us. It is the business of the French themselves to shape it as best they can. It is only of importance to us in so far as it affects our own interests, the furtherance of which must be the guiding principle in politics generally.” Under instructions from the Chief I telegraphed in the above sense to the principal officials at Nancy and Hagenau.
At tea some further particulars were given of the last conference between the Chancellor and Jules Favre. Favre was, it seems, informed that we could not communicate to him the exact conditions of peace until they had been settled at a conference of the German Powers engaged in the war. No arrangement could be come to, however, without a cession of territory, as it was absolutely essential to us to have a better frontier as security against French attack. The conference turned less upon peace and its conditions than on the nature of French concessions, in consideration of which we might agree to an armistice. On the mention of a cession of territory Favre became terribly excited, drew a deep sigh, raised his eyes to heaven, and even shed some patriotic tears. The Chief does not expect that he will return. Doubtless an answer in this sense has been forwarded to the Crown Prince, who telegraphed this morning to ask whether he should attend the negotiations.
Thursday, September 22nd, evening.—The French are indefatigable in denouncing us to the world as cruel and destructive barbarians; and the English press—particularly the Standard, which is notoriously hostile to us—willingly lends them its assistance. The grossest calumnies respecting our conduct towards the French population and the prisoners in our hands are circulated almost daily by that newspaper, and always purport to come either from eye-witnesses or other well-informed sources. Thus, for instance, the Duc de FitzJames recently drew a horrible picture of the abominations of which we had been guilty in Bazeilles, adding the assurance that he exaggerated nothing; and a M. L., who represents himself to be a French officer whom we had captured at Sedan and subjected to ill-treatment, complains in a lamentable tone of Prussian inhumanity. Bernstorff sent the article in question to the Chief, with the suggestion that the charges should be refuted. The complaint of M. L. might, perhaps, be left to answer itself, but that of the Duke is calculated to affect even those across the Channel who are disposed in our favour. Besides, impudent calumny is always apt to leave some traces behind it. A refutal of these shameful slanders is accordingly being despatched to-day to certain London newspapers that are friendly to us. As the greater part of this communication was dictated by the Chief, it is worthy of special attention.
“In this war, as in every other, a great number of villages have been burned down, mostly by artillery fire, German as well as French. In these cases women and children who had sought refuge in the cellars and had not escaped in time, lost their lives in the flames. That was also the case in Bazeilles, which was several times stormed by our infantry. The Duc de FitzJames is only an eye-witness so far as the ruins of the village are concerned, which he saw after the battle, just as thousands more saw and regretted its fate. All the rest of his report is based on the stories of the unfortunate and exasperated villagers. In a country where even the Government has developed an unexampled talent for systematic lying, it is not to be expected that angry peasants, standing on the ruins of their homes, would bear truthful witness against their enemies. It is established by official reports that the inhabitants of Bazeilles, not in uniform but in their blouses and shirt-sleeves, fired out of their windows at our troops and wounded soldiers, and that they killed whole batches of the latter in their houses. It has been likewise proved that women armed with knives and guns were guilty of the greatest cruelty towards the fatally wounded, and that other women, certainly not in the uniform of the National Guards, took part in the fight with the male inhabitants, loading their rifles and even firing themselves, and that, like the other combatants, some of them were in these circumstances wounded or killed. Naturally these particulars were not communicated to the Duc de FitzJames by his informant. They would have fully excused the burning of the village even if it had been done intentionally with the object of forcing the enemy out of that position. But there is no evidence of any such intention. That women and children were driven back into the fire is one of those infamous lies with which the French terrorise the population, and incite their hatred against us. In this way they cause the peasants to fly on our approach. The latter return, however, as a rule, a few days after the entrance of the Germans, and are astounded to find that they are better treated by them than by the French troops. When this sort of terrorism is not sufficient to force the inhabitants to flight, the Government sends a mob of armed civilians, sometimes supported by African troops, to drive the peasants from their homes at the point of the sword, and to burn down their houses as a punishment for their want of patriotism. The letter of ‘an imprisoned officer’ (Bouillon, September 9th) also contains more falsehood than truth. With respect to the treatment of the prisoners, Germany can call 150,000 better witnesses than this anonymous and mendacious officer, whose whole communication is merely an expression of the vindictive disposition which will for a long time to come inspire the vain and arrogant elements of the French people, by whom, unfortunately, that country allows itself to be ruled and led. From this spirit of revenge arises the certainty of further attacks on the part of France, for which Germany must be prepared. We are thus unquestionably compelled to think solely of the security of our frontier in concluding peace. It is true, as stated in the letter of this imprisoned officer, M. L., that there was a scarcity of provisions after the surrender of Sedan, not only for the prisoners, but also for the victors, who shared with them what they had. When their own stock was exhausted the prisoners also had to do without. L.’s complaint that he had been obliged to bivouac in the rain and mud furnishes the best evidence that he is no officer, and has not even followed the campaign up to that point. He is some hireling scribe who has never left his own room, and one must therefore assume that the man’s whole story of his imprisonment is an invention; as, had he been an officer in the field, he would have known that most of his comrades (that is certainly the case with the Germans) have spent at least thirty nights out of the forty or so that have elapsed since the beginning of the war under similar conditions. When it rained in the night they had to lie in the rain, and when the ground was muddy they had to lie in the mud. Only one who had not followed the campaign could have any doubt or manifest any surprise on that score. That M. L. prides himself on having retained his leather purse is the clearest proof that he was not plundered. There can hardly be a single soldier, who, if he happens to have money, does not carry it just as M. L. carried his, and in just such a purse; so that if our men had wanted his money, they must have known very well where to find it. The few Germans who fell into French hands can tell how quickly their opponents could open a prisoner’s tunic, and if his purse was a little too firmly fastened on, hack it off with their sabres or a knife, without paying too much regard to his skin. We declare the assertions respecting the ill-treatment of prisoners at Sedan to be wilful and audacious lies. A great number of the French prisoners, perhaps one-fourth, were in a state of bestial drunkenness, having during the last few hours before the capitulation plundered the wine and brandy stores in the town. It is obvious that it is not so easy to manage men in a state of drunkenness as when they are sober, but such ill-treatment as the article describes occurred neither at Sedan nor elsewhere, owing to the discipline which prevails amongst the Prussian troops. It is well known that this discipline has won the admiration of the French officers themselves. Unfortunately one cannot speak as highly of the French soldiers in this respect as with regard to their gallantry in action. The French officers have on several occasions been unable to prevent their men from murdering severely wounded soldiers, even when individual officers of high rank endeavoured at the risk of their own lives to defend the wounded, and that was not merely the case with African regiments. It is known that the German prisoners who were taken into Metz were spat upon and struck with sticks and stones on their way through the streets, and on their release had to run the gauntlet of a double line of African soldiers, who beat them with canes and whips. We can prove these facts by official records, which have more claim to credence than the anonymous letter of M. L. But are such things to be wondered at when the newspapers of a city like Paris, which now implores considerate treatment on the hypocritical plea of civilisation, can propose, without eliciting the slightest protest, that when the French troops are unable to take our wounded with them they should split their heads open; and further, that the Germans should be used like dead wolves to manure their fields? The utter barbarism of the French nation, covered with a thin veneer of culture, has been fully disclosed in this war. French insolence formerly said, ‘Grattez le Russe et vous trouverez le barbare.’ Whoever is in a position to compare the conduct of the Russians towards their enemies in the Crimean War with that of the French in the present campaign, can have no doubt that this statement recoils upon its authors.”
When he had finished, the Minister added: “Write to Bernstorff that I decline in future to notice any suggestion for entering into a controversy with English newspapers. The Ambassador must act on his own responsibility.”
Just as we sat down to table, one of the Court officials announced that the Crown Prince proposed to come to dinner and to stay for the night. The Prince’s secretary at the time asked that the bureau and the large salon next the Chancellor’s room, should be prepared for the five gentlemen who accompanied his Royal Highness. The Chief replied, “We cannot give up the bureau, as we want it for our work.” He then placed his dressing room at their disposal, and further proposed that either Blumenthal or Eulenburg should sleep in his bedroom. He required the salon for the reception of the French negotiators and any Princes who might call upon him. The Court official went off, pulling a long face, and was impertinent enough to make some remarks in the corridor about “discourtesy” and so forth.
Count Lehndorff dined with us, and the conversation was very lively. Some allusion having been made to Frederick the Great’s statue in Unter den Linden, which had been decorated with black, red and yellow flags, the Minister condemned Wurmb for allowing this controversy to be stirred up. “This stupid quarrel about the colours should not have been reopened, and it once more proves Wurmb’s incapacity. For me the question is settled and done with since the North German flag has been adopted. Otherwise this battle of colours is a matter of indifference to me. As far as I am concerned they may be green, yellow, and all the colours of a fancy dress ball, or they can take the banner of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Only the Prussian soldier will have nothing to do with the black, red, and yellow.”
The Chief then spoke of the peace, which he still considered remote, adding: “If they (the French Government) go to Orleans, we shall follow them there, and further—right down to the sea shore.” He read out some telegrams, including one giving a list of the troops in Paris. “There are supposed to be 180,000 men in all, but there are hardly 60,000 real soldiers amongst them. The mobile and national guards with their snuffboxes (a reference to their obsolete weapons) are not to be reckoned as soldiers.”
I asked if I should telegraph about the report of artillery and rifle-fire in the streets of Paris, which people fancied they had heard. He said I was to do so. “But not yet, I suppose, about the negotiations with Favre?” “Yes,” he replied, and then went on as follows: “First at Haute-Maison, near Montry, then the same evening at Ferrières, and next day a third conversation, but without effect, as regards the armistice and the peace. Other French parties have also entered into negotiations with us,” he said, and gave some indications from which I gathered that he referred to the Empress Eugénie.