BOOKS.

■■•■■••••••■•

GERMANIA MENDAX.* AMIDST, the abundant war literature of the day, no publication calls for more serious consideration, both from the public and the leading politicians of this country, than the scathing indictment framed against Germany by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Report of Lord Bryce's Committee, which has practically remained unanswered, has already familiarized the public with the proceedings of the German Army in Belgium. The French Report shows that the brutality of those proceedings was rivalled by the conduct of the German troops in France. But the French Report does more than this. It brings vividly home to the mind of any one who reflects on its contents the extreme gravity and perplexity of the problems which will have to be discussed when the war is over, and the enormous difficulties which will have to be encountered before any satisfactory solution of those problems can be found. Two conclusions may confidently be drawn from the French statement. Both rest on incontrovertible evidence—in many cases on the testimony of German officers and soldiers. The first of these conclusions is that Germany's violation of all her most recent and solemn engagements has been flagrant. The second is that these breaches of good faith are the result of a policy deliberately adopted by the German Government. This latter point hi, as Mr. Bland says in his preface to the English translation, "all-important." The flimsy apologies offered by the German authorities for their own behaviour are wholly based on allegations, which are advanced without a shadow of proof, that the Allies were themselves neglectful of treaty obligations, and that, therefore, retaliation was in self-defence not only justifiable but also necessary. That individual French, English, or Belgian soldiers may have committed.' acts which are worthy of blame is both possible and probable. There must be many men fighting on both sides who never heard of the Conventions framed at Geneva and elsewhere, or who, even if they had heard of them, had not the moral sense of duty which would have enforced obedience to their provisions. Amidst the whirlwind of passions evoked by the present contest, it can be no matter for surprise that, in individual cases, all sense of the distinction between right and wrong should for the time being have been quenched. But it is absurd to contend that the occurrence of isolated cases of this sort, ,which are part of the inevitable horrors of war, affords any sufficient plea for the systeinapo violation of treaty engagements of which the German Government and the highest German military authorities have certainly been guilty. Moreover, although the truth of the accusation is obviously incapable of being absolutely proved, there is very good reason for holding that the moral guilt of the German Government is of even a deeper dye than is to be inferred from the actual violation of its engagements. A very strong suspicion exists that those engagements were taken with what casuists call a mental reserve that they need not and would not be respected. In 1902 a manual was issued to the German Army under the authority of the General Staff in which German officers were expressly warned against adopting the "humanitarian ideas" embodied in the Geneva, Brussels, and Hague Conventions, and it was urged that "custom and the hereditary tradition of the German Army" were safer guides for conduct than provisions elaborated in time of peace by "jurists." The German Government has, indeed, so far repudiated these doctrines as to recognize that atonement may be made for any violation of the Hague rules by pecuniary payments, but no amended edition of the manual has ever been issued, nor has it been replaced by any new manual. A few instances will suffice to show that the violation of treaty obligations has been not casual or accidental, but systematic.

The Hague Convention explicitly forbids the slaughter of prisoners or the issue of orders directing that no quarter shall be given. In the face of this engagement the German General Stenger issued the following order :— " From and after to-day no morb prisoners are to be taken. All prisoners are to be massacred. The wounded, whether with or ' Germany's Violations of the Laws. of War, 1515.15. Compiled under the auspices of the French Ministry of Poreign Affairs. Translated, with an Intr.:dui:Aloe, by J. 0. P. Bland. London: William lieitiemanu. [5s. net.1

without arms, are to be killed off. Even when prisoners are in regularly constituted units they are to be killed. No living enemy must be left behind us."

The testimony of German prisoners shows that this order was ruthlessly obeyed. A note-book found in the possession of a German non-commissioned officer contains the following entry :— "We had to camp at Kessel (to the east of Antwerp). The captain called us round him and said : 'In the fort we are going to take there will very probably be English soldiers. Bat I don't wish to see any English prisoners with my company.' A general Bravo ! of approval was the answer."

It is impossible to read without shuddering the accounts given in the French Report of the manner in which both prisoners and wounded men were deliberately murdered. The conduct of the German soldiers contrasts very unfavourably with that of the French troops during the early stages of the Revolutionary Wars, who, to their infinite credit, absolutely refused to obey the brutal orders issued by Barrere that no English prisoners were to be taken.

The Hague Convention lays down in very express terms that the inhabitants of a country who take up arms to resist an invading force are to be treated as belligerents, andyfurther, that family honour and rights, individual life, and private property are to be respected. The manner in which this provision was interpreted by the German authorities is sufficiently illustrated by what took place at Reims. Hostages were taken. The population were warned that they must "remain absolutely quiet, and refrain from attempting in any way to take part in the battle." The following notice was then issaed

" On the slightest attempt at disorder these hostages will be hanged. In the same way, should any violation occur of the instructions above laid down, the city will be entirely or partially burnt and its inhabitants hanged."

The note-book of a German soldier who had been fighting in Belgium contains the following entry : "The.Xing having directed the people to defend the country by all possible means, we have received orders to shoot the entire male population." M. Charles Barbe, a French officer of the police, thus describes the proceedings of the Bavarian troops at Nomeny :— "Some German soldiers fired at all the passers-by ; they killed a child, to me unknown, which could not have been more than two years of age. I saw this child, clad in a red-and-white striped dress ; it fell stone dead. I also saw a woman sixty years of age killed in her garden, an invalid who had come out to get a little fresh air."

M. Georges Munier, another French police officer, after dwelling on a number of murders committed by the German troops, adds :—

"These massacres had all the appearance of being regularly organized. The Germans proceeded as follows First, they forbade any one from going into the streets on any pretext whatsoever. Then, when all the inhabitants had taken refuge in their cellars, they set fire to the houses. Those who had taken refuge were thus compelled to come out again, whoa they were shot at sight."

The Geneva Convention provides that field ambulances and the fixed establishments of the Army Medical Service should be respected and protected by the belligerents. In defiance of this engagement, ambulances flying the Red Cross flag have been deliberately made the targets of the German troops. French medical officers and their assistants have been treated with the utmost brutality.

The Hague Convention expressly forbids the use of "bullets which spread or flatten out easily in the human body." The German General Staff have publicly notified that, "notwithstanding the provisions of the Geneva Convention, the German troops will henceforward make use of dum-dum bullets, because the French and English troops have been the first to do so." This latter statement is unsupported by any sort of proof. The use of asphyxiating gases, flame projectors, and burning liquids also constitutes flagrant violations of the provisions of the Hague Convention. The attack or bombardment of undefended towns and villages is also expressly forbidden, and it is enjoined that historic buildings, places of public worship, So., should, so far as is possible, be spared. In spite of this injunction, bombs have been dropped promiscuously on towns which are wholly' undefended, thereby causing the deaths of a large

number of non-combatants, including many women and children. As for historic buildings, the views of the highest German military authorities may be gathered from the contents of a letter which General von Disfnrth wrote to the Tag. "If all the monuments and all the masterpieces of architecture which stand between our guns and those of the enemy were blown to the devil," the General says, "we should not care a straw. The thing is not worth a moment's discussion."

The Hague Convention also lays down that "a belligerent is forbidden to compel the subjects of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country." The following testimony of a Bavarian officer (Oberleutnant Eberlein) will show the extent to which this engagement has been respected :—

" We arrested three other civilians and then I had a brilliant idea. We gave them chairs and we then ordered them to go and sit out in the middle of the street. . . . The flank-fire from the houses quickly diminished, so that we were able to occupy the opposite house and thus dominate the principal street. Every living being who showed himself in the street was shot. . . . Later on I learned that the regiment of reserve which entered Saint-Di6 further to the north had tried the same experiment. The four civilians whom they had compelled, in the same way, to it out in the street, were killed by French bullets."

Moreover, French prisoners, and oven women and children, have on many occasions been deliberately used as screens to protect the German troops.

As for the "family honour" to which the Hague Convention enjoins respect, all that need be said is that in France, as in Belgium, the most brutal outrages on women have been of frequent occurrence.

The conclusion to be drawn from all these facts is that when the Allies come to discuss the terms of peace they will be treating with a Government and a nation who in the past have shown the most cynical disregard for all the engagements which they have taken, and that, therefore, no sort of reliance can be placed on any engagements which they may take for the future. The gravity of the case is greatly enhanced by the attitude which neutral nations who were parties to the Hague and other Conventions have assumed during the war. No general protest has been made against the conduct of the German Government. Notably, in spite of the great sympathy displayed in the United States for the cause of the Allies, the American Government has carefully abstained from any action save that dictated by purely

American interests. The extreme reluctance of neutrals to interfere constitutes in itself a strong printd-facie proof that the suggestion, frequently put forward, that for the future some sort of concerted international action should be arranged to prevent wars is of very doubtful utility. It is useless to

frame a law unless some penalties can be imposed in case of its infringement. All the suggestions based on international action which have so far been made break down on the point that no practical means can be devised for enforcing respect for international decisions.

Mr. Bland apparently sees the difficulty involved in this aspect of the case. "Only by a systematic process of education," he says, "can the principles embodied in the Hague Conventions become a vital force in the world. . . It will not suffice to defeat Germany in war. Unless and until a strong moral reaction against Junkerdom can be brought about in the soul of her people, humanity will be compelled to stand on guard against its over-recurring treasons, stratagems, and spoils," This may be, and probably is, quite true ; but if so, the difficulty of providing for the immediate future becomes all the more apparent. Education is a slow process. We shall have to wait for at least a generation before it can produce any decisive result. It may, however, be noted as a symptom from which some comfort may be derived that the French statement shows that in some cases individual Germans are alive to the iniquities which have been committed, and are ashamed of the conduct of their own countrymen. Thus one German soldier writes :

"Together with the righteous anger of our troops, a spirit of pure vandalism exists. In villages which are already completely deserted they set fire to the houses just as the spirit moves them. My heart grieves for the inhabitants. It may be that they make use of treacherous weapons, but if so, after all, they are only defending their country."

Another makes the following entry in his note-book : "This method of making war is absolutely barbarous. I wonder

how we can have the face to rail at the conduct of the Russians when we are behaving much worse in France ; at every opportunity, on one pretext or another, we pillage and burn." A third writes; "There is really some truth in all the talk about German barbarians."

In the meanwhile, the broad fact which will have to be faced when the war is over is that there will still be some sixty millions of very warlike and highly educated people residing in the centre of Europe who have set up a standard of civilization utterly opposed to that received by the rest of the world, and whose public policy rests on a foundation of shameless mendacity. For the time being there can be but one solid security against the menace which the existence of such a nation constitutes to its neighbours. It consists in crippling its warlike strength to such an extent as to render it impotent for at least a generation. If this is done, time will be afforded for education and moral influences to produce an effect, and it may be hoped that eventually the German nation will recover from the fit of insanity into which, under the oestrus of an arrogant sense of power and a boundless ambition, it has for the time being lapsed. We must continue the war until this object has been achieved.

CROMER.