What Germany Thinks Part 16

Father, and maintain that the foul, diseased imaginations which could invent such monstrous horrors are also capable of perpetrating them.

They did not spring from the imagination of an Edgar Allan Poe, but arose in the minds of Germany's brutal peasantry and bloodthirsty working cla.s.ses, who together every year commit in times of peace 9,000 acts of brutal, immoral b.e.s.t.i.a.lity, and maliciously wound 175,000 of their fellow German citizens.[129]

[Footnote 129: _Vide_ Vol. 267 _Vierteljahrshefte_, published by the Berlin Government, 1914.]

To-day Germany shouts in ecstasy that she is the chosen power of G.o.d; that her _Kultur_ will regenerate the world. Let it first regenerate the "Augean Stable" known to the world as Germany. Without further comment readers are left to form their own opinion of a Press which breeds such filth, and the cultural level of a people which consumes such garbage.

But the world owes a debt of grat.i.tude to the Rev. Bernhard Duhr, S.J., and the "Pax" Society in Cologne.

The accusations of plundering on the part of German soldiers is naturally denied _in toto_ by all parties in the Fatherland. Indeed, it has been discovered that the British army was guilty of wilful destruction in Belgium. A certain Major Krusemarck, commanding the 2nd battalion of the 12th Infantry Reserve Regiment, is responsible for the story. "On October 10th I entered Wilryk, near Antwerp, and took up my quarters in the Italian Consulate. All the houses had been deserted by the inhabitants. Immediately after entering the house I perceived that English soldiers had been here and behaved in a barbarous manner.

Mirrors, valuable objects of art, etc., had been smashed in a way which betrayed purpose." The major's report continues: "The destruction which I have described had undoubtedly been perpetrated by members of the English army, and as proof of this I may state that in one of the rooms about a dozen visiting-cards were found with the name: Major E.L.

Gerrard, Royal Marine Light Infantery (sic).

"During the subsequent pursuit of the Belgian and English armies we heard repeated complaints from the inhabitants that especially the English troops had acted in the most inconsiderate manner, purposely destroying furniture, etc., in civilian houses."[130]

[Footnote 130: Richard Gra.s.shoff: "Belgien's Schuld," p. 84.]

Without doubt the story belongs to the group of legends exposed by the "Pax" Society, for which reason it is quoted here, as a fitting supplement to them. Yet it is psychologically interesting to note how difficult it is for Germans who burn, destroy and violate in their own country to believe that they behave otherwise than as lambs when playing the role of invaders.

One quotation from a large number will ill.u.s.trate sufficiently the respect which the German troops felt for civilian homes in the territories occupied by them: "We got into the house by a back-door.

Orders had been issued that only food and s.h.i.+rts were to be taken. The cellar was full of wine and champagne. A corporal brought us some of the latter. After half an hour the rooms looked very different; all the cupboards had been emptied in order to get at the jams and jellies.

Several pots of fruit preserved in wine were divided as honestly as the greed of the individual allowed.

"All the underclothing was seized upon, obviously only the best being taken. Many a dirty Pole put on such a s.h.i.+rt as he had never dreamed of before. Even ladies' chemises were commandeered, and some of the men a.s.sured me that a French chemise is quite comfortable--in spite of the short sleeves.

"If there is a sterner s.e.x in France, which is exceedingly doubtful, they do not seem to possess pants; so the men resorted to the corresponding article worn by ladies."[131] (This writer refers in other parts of his book to "mementoes" which he carried home to the Fatherland, after being wounded at the Marne.)

[Footnote 131: H. Knutz: "Mit den Konigin-Fusilieren durch Belgien," p.

42.]

CHAPTER IX

THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM AND GERMANY'S ANNEXATION PROPAGANDA

"Afterthoughts" is the term which would perhaps designate most concisely the section of German war literature treating of Belgium's violated neutrality. Should that designation appear unfitting, then the author has only one other to suggest--"whitewash."

In order to apprehend clearly the method and aims concealed beneath the "afterthoughts," readers must bear in mind that every attempt to protest against the annexation of Belgium by Germany is prohibited by the German censor. The Social Democratic organs emphasize the fact almost daily that they are not permitted to print anything contrary to the principle of annexation.

On the other hand, numerous writers are allowed to make a most extensive propaganda by suggesting that annexation is necessary in the interests of their racial-brothers the Flemings. By order of the German Government a geographical description of the country has been published,[132] in which every detail of Belgium's wealth in minerals, agriculture, and so on, is described, with no other possible purpose than the desire to whet German Michael's appet.i.te.

[Footnote 132: "Belgien, Land und Leute," Berlin, 1915.]

All at once Germany has become suspiciously interested in Belgian history, in the domestic quarrels between Walloons and Flemings, in the alleged oppression of the latter (Low Germans) by the former, and propose for themselves the part of liberator and saviour for Flemish culture. They have discovered, among other things, that Belgium was merely a paper State, a diplomatic invention, an experiment, and that no "Belgian" people has ever existed, but rather two hostile elements were packed under the same roof against their will by the Conference of London--the said roof bears the name Belgium!

According to a good German-Swiss[133] the Belgians have no national feelings, no patriotism, and have never had a Fatherland. If a serious writer can make such statements after the Belgians have defended their native country so heroically, one naturally wonders whether Herr Blocher is sane, or merely a paid agent of the German authorities. In his work he denies every and any intention to justify or condemn either Germany or Belgium, and then proceeds to blacken the latter's character by quoting every Belgian utterance which may be interpreted as anti-German.

These expressions lead him to the remarkable conclusion that Belgians had already violated their own neutrality!

[Footnote 133: "Belgische Neutralitat," by Eduard Blocher. Zurich, 1915.]

Blocher states that his work is only intended to prove that Switzerland has nothing to fear from Germany's precedent in invading Belgium. But he never mentions Belgium's maritime interests, Antwerp and the extensive seacoast on the North Sea. He is oblivious to the fact that Germany's desire to possess these was the sole motive for precipitating war and invading Belgium. To Germany the coast of Belgium is the door to the world and world domination. Switzerland does not possess such a door, and therefore had nothing to fear from her powerful neighbour; but if the Allies are unable to bar this door to Germany's aggressive schemes, then the time is not far distant when Germany would remember that she has "brothers" within Swiss frontiers and insist upon their entrance into the great Teutonic sheepfold--just as her most earnest desire at present is to drive the "lost" Flemings back to their parent race.

Among the many phrases which Germans have coined to describe Belgium the following occur: b.a.s.t.a.r.d, eunuch and hermaphrodite. According to the German conception of a "State," Belgium is an unnatural monstrosity, from which one draws the natural conclusion that Germany intends to remove it from the domain of earthly affairs.

On the whole, German writers admit the existence of Belgian neutrality, and also Germany's pledge to respect it. The three most serious writers on the subject are, Dr. Reinhard Frank,[134] professor of jurisprudence in Munich University; Dr. Karl Hampe,[135] professor in Heidelberg; and Dr. Walter Schoenborn,[136] also a professor in Heidelberg University.

[Footnote 134: Reinhard Frank: "Die belgische Neutralitat." Tubingen, 1915.]

[Footnote 135: Karl Hampe: "Belgien's Vergangenheit und Gegenwart."

Berlin, 1915.]

[Footnote 136: Walther Schoenborn: "Die Neutralitat Belgien's." This is an appendix to a large work written by twenty university professors, ent.i.tled "Deutschland und der Weltkrieg," published by B.G. Teubner, Leipzig and Berlin, 1915.]

The nearer examination of these three works must be premised by two important considerations. Firstly, the three professors ignore the fact that Germany was a menace to Belgium, and make no mention of German aspirations for a coastline on or near the English Channel. Holland and Belgium form a twentieth century "Naboth's vineyard," on which the German Ahab has cast avaricious glances for upwards of forty years.

A casual acquaintance with Pan-German and German naval and military literature during the same period, affords overwhelming proof of this powerful current in German nationalism. If Naboth consulted strong neighbours as to necessary precautions against Ahab's plans for obtaining the vineyard, then Naboth acted as a wise man, and the only regret to-day is that the "strong neighbours" only offered Naboth a.s.surances and words, instead of deeds. In other words Great Britain did nothing because, as Lord Haldane expressed it, the Liberal Cabinet was "afraid" (!) to offend Germany and precipitate a crisis.

Secondly, the three professors, like all others of their cla.s.s in the Fatherland, have sworn an oath on taking office not to do anything, either by word or deed, detrimental to the interests of the German State of which they are _official_ members. An ordinary German in writing on Germany may be under the subjective influences of his national feelings, but a German who has taken the "Staatseid" (oath to the State) cannot be objective in national questions and interests--his oath leaves only one course open to him, and any departure from that course may mean the loss of his daily bread.

The author has the greatest respect for the achievements of German professors in the domains of science and abstract thought; by those achievements they have deservedly become famous, but in all judgments where Germany's interests are concerned they are bound hand and foot.[137]

[Footnote 137: Towards the close of 1913 I had a conversation with half a dozen Germans (average age twenty-five) in Erlangen Gymnasium (State Secondary School); they were candidates in training for the teaching profession, all university men. I listened patiently to their diatribes concerning the perfidy of English Statesmen, and then pointed out, giving chapter and verse in German biographies, that Bismarck's record was exceedingly tortuous; the forgery of the Ems telegram was given as an instance.

A few weeks later I met the vice-princ.i.p.al of the school at a private party; this gentleman was a good friend of mine. He reminded me of the above conversation, and gave me a friendly warning never again to make such statements to my pupils. The candidates had talked it over, and although they had provoked the discussion, proposed to have me reported to the Minister for Education for uttering such opinions. The vice-princ.i.p.al had intervened and prevented the _Denunziation_.

If a professor of history in a German university expressed any opinion in his academic lectures unfavourable to modern Germany, he would be immediately _denunziert_ to the State authorities by his own students.

Should he publish such opinions in book form, of course the process of cas.h.i.+ering him would be simpler. Germans do not desire the truth so far as their own country is concerned; they do not will the truth; they will _Deutschland uber alles_, and all information, knowledge, or propaganda contrary to their will is prohibited. If s.p.a.ce permitted I could mention numerous cases in which famous professors have been treated like schoolboys by the German State--their stern father and master.]

When a German conscript enters the army he takes the _Fahneneid_ (oath on, and to, the flag), which binds him to defend the Fatherland with bayonet and bullet. In like manner it may be said that German professors are bound by the _Staatseid_ either to discreet silence, or to employ their intellectual pop-guns in defending Germany. That these pop-guns fire colossal untruths, innuendoes, word-twistings, and such like missiles, giving out gases calculated to stupefy and blind honest judgments, will become painfully evident in the course of our considerations.

That any and every German obeys the impulse to defend his country is just and praiseworthy; but in our search for truth we are compelled to note the fact that German professors are merely intellectual soldiers fighting for Germany. Without departing from the truth by one jot or t.i.ttle, readers may even call them "outside clerks" of the German Foreign Office, or the "ink-slingers" under the command of the German State.

These premises have been laid down _in extenso_ because some fifty books will be discussed in this work, which emanate from German universities.

A neutral reader may retort: You also are not impartial, for you are an Englishman! Having antic.i.p.ated the question, the author ventures to give an answer. If he could make a destructive attack on Britain's policy--the attack would be made without the least hesitation. Such an attack, if proved to the hilt, would bring any man renown, and in the worst case no harm. But if a German professor launched an attack, based upon incontrovertible facts, against Bethmann-Hollweg and Germany's policy, that professor would be ruined in time of peace and in all probability imprisoned, or sent to penal servitude in time of war.

Nothing which the present author could write would ever tarnish the reputation of German professors as men of science, but in the narrower limits as historians of the Fatherland and propagandists of the _Deutschland-uber-alles_ gospel they are tied with fetters for the like of which we should seek in vain at the universities of Great Britain or America. It would be in the interests of truth and impartiality if every German professor who writes on the "Causes of the World War," "England's Conspiracy against Germany," "The Non-Existence of Belgian Neutrality,"

and similar themes, would print the German _Staatseid_ on the front page of his book. The text of that oath would materially a.s.sist his readers in forming an opinion regarding the trustworthiness and impartiality of the professor's conclusions.

Professor Frank commences his historical sketch of Belgian neutrality with the year 1632, when Cardinal Richelieu proposed that Belgium should be converted into an independent republic. Doubtless the desire to found a buffer State inspired Richelieu, just as it did the representatives of Prussia, Russia, France, Austria and England when they drew up the treaty guaranteeing Belgium's neutrality in perpetuity, at the Conference of London, 1839.

But an additional motive actuated the diplomatists of 1839, viz., Belgium was henceforth to be the corner-stone supporting the structure commonly designated "the balance of power in Europe."

An objection has been made to the validity of the treaty signed in London, viz., England herself did not consider it reliable and binding, or she would not have asked for, and obtained, pledges from both Prussia and France to respect Belgian neutrality in 1870. Another objection is the claim that the German Empire, founded in 1870, was not bound by the Prussian signature attached to a treaty in 1839. Other writers have endeavoured to show that the addition of African territory (Congo Free State) to Belgium changed the political status of that country, exposed it to colonial conflicts with two great colonial Powers, and thus tacitly ended the state of neutrality.

Each of the professors in question overrides these objections, and Frank remarks, p. 13: "Lawyers and diplomatists refuse, and rightly so, to accept this view." Again, p. 14.: "There is no international doc.u.ment in existence which has cancelled Belgian neutrality."

Germany's alleged violation of her promise to regard Belgium as a neutral country is justified on quite other grounds. Belgium had herself violated her neutrality by a secret alliance with France and England.

Frank argues that a neutral State has certain duties imposed upon it in peace time, and in support of his contention quotes Professor Arendt (Louvain University, 1845), who wrote: "A neutral State may not conclude an alliance of defence and offence, by which in case of war between two other States it is pledged to help one of them. Yet it is free and possesses the right to form alliances to protect its neutrality and in its own defence, but such defensive alliances can only be concluded after the outbreak of war."