In brief, Germany had planned for war. She was approximately ready for it. Under the shelter of such high-sounding phrases as "We demand our place in the sun," and "The seas must be free," the German people were educated into the belief that the hour of Germany's destiny was at hand.



GERMANY'S POSSESSIONS IN AFRICA PRIOR TO 1914

German psychologists, like other German scientists, had co-operated with the imperial militaristic government for many years to bring the Germanic mind into a condition of docility. So well did they understand the mentality and the trends of character of the German people that it was comparatively easy to impose upon them a militaristic system and philosophy by which the individual yielded countless personal liberties for the alleged good of the state. Rigorous and compulsory military service, unquestioning adherence to the doctrine that might makes right and a cession to "the All-Highest," as the Emperor was styled, of supreme powers in the state, are some of the sufferances to which the German people submitted.

German propaganda abroad was quite as vigorous as at home, but infinitely less successful. The German High Command did not expect England to enter the war. It counted upon America's neutrality with a leaning toward Germany. It believed that German colonization in South Africa and South America would incline these vast domains toward friendship for the Central empires. How mistaken the propagandists and psychologists were events have demonstrated.

It was this dream of world-domination by Teutonic kultur that supplied the motive leading to the world's greatest war. Bosnia, an unwilling province of Austria-Hungary, at one time a province of Serbia and overwhelmingly Slavic in its population, had been seething for years with an anti-Teutonic ferment. The Teutonic court at Vienna, leading the minority Germanic party in Austria-Hungary, had been endeavoring to allay the agitation among the Bosnian Slavs. In pursuance of that policy, Archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir-presumptive to the thrones of Austria and Hungary, and his morganatic wife, Sophia Chotek, Duchess of Hohenberg, on June 28, 1914, visited Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia. On the morning of that day, while they were being driven through the narrow streets of the ancient town, a bomb was thrown at them, but they were uninjured. They were driven through the streets again in the afternoon, for purpose of public display. A student, just out of his 'teens, one Gavrilo Prinzep, attacked the royal party with a magazine pistol and killed both the Archduke and his wife.

Here was the excuse for which Germany had waited. Here was the dawn of "The Day." The Germanic court of Austria asserted that the crime was the result of a conspiracy, leading directly to the Slavic court of Serbia. The Serbians in their turn declared that they knew nothing of the assassination. They pointed out the fact that Sophia Chotek was a Slav, and that Francis Ferdinand was more liberal than any other member of the Austrian royal household, and finally, that he, more than any other member of the Austrian court, understood and respected the Slavic character and aspirations.

At six o'clock on the evening of July 23d, Austria sent an ultimatum to Serbia, presenting eleven demands and stipulating that categorical replies must be delivered before six o'clock on the evening of July 25th. Although the language in which the ultimatum was couched was humiliating to Serbia, the answer was duly delivered within the stipulated time.

The demands of the Austrian note in brief were as follows:

1. The Serbian Government to give formal assurance of its condemnation of Serb propaganda against Austria.

2. The next issue of the Serbian "Official Journal" was to contain a declaration to that effect.

3. This declaration to express regret that Serbian officers had taken part in the propaganda.

4. The Serbian Government to promise that it would proceed rigorously against all guilty of such activity.

5. This declaration to be at once communicated by the King of Serbia to his army, and to be published in the official bulletin as an order of the day.

6. All anti-Austrian publications in Serbia to be suppressed.

7. The Serbian political party known as the "National Union" to be suppressed, and its means of propaganda to be confiscated.

8. All anti-Austrian teaching in the schools of Serbia to be suppressed.

9. All officers, civil and military, who might be designated by Austria as guilty of anti-Austrian propaganda to be dismissed by the Serbian Government.

10. Austrian agents to co-operate with the Serbian Government in suppressing all anti-Austrian propaganda, and to take part in the judicial proceedings conducted in Serbia against those charged with complicity in the crime at Sarajevo.

11. Serbia to explain to Austria the meaning of anti-Austrian utterances of Serbian officials at home and abroad, since the assassination.

To the first and second demands Serbia unhesitatingly assented. To the third demand, Serbia assented, although no evidence was given to show that Serbian officers had taken part in the propaganda.

The Serbian Government assented to the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth demands also.

Extraordinary as was the ninth demand, which would allow the Austrian Government to proscribe Serbian officials, so eager for peace and friendship was the Serbian Government that it assented to it, with the stipulation that the Austrian Government should offer some proof of the guilt of the proscribed officers.

The tenth demand, which in effect allowed Austrian agents to control the police and courts of Serbia, it was not possible for Serbia to accept without abrogating her sovereignty. However, it was not unconditionally rejected, but the Serbian Government asked that it be made the subject of further discussion, or be referred to arbitration. The Serbian Government assented to the eleventh demand, on the condition that if the explanations which would be given concerning the alleged anti-Austrian utterances of Serbian officials would not prove satisfactory to the Austrian Government, the matter should be submitted to mediation or arbitration.

Behind the threat conveyed in the Austrian ultimatum was the menacing figure of militant Germany. The veil that had hitherto concealed the hands that worked the string, was removed when Germany, under the pretense of localizing the quarrel to Serbian and Austrian soil, interrogated France and England, asking them to prevent Russia from defending Serbia in the event of an attack by Austria upon the Serbs. England and France promptly refused to participate in a tragedy which would deliver Serbia to Austria as Bosnia had been delivered. Russia, bound by race and creed to Serbia, read into the ultimatum of Teutonic kultur a determination for warfare. Mobilization of the Russian forces along the Austrian frontier was arranged, when it was seen that Serbia's pacific reply to Austria's demands would be contemptuously disregarded by Germany and Austria.

During the days that intervened between the issuance of the ultimatum and the actual declaration of war by Germany against Russia on Saturday, August 1st, various sincere efforts were made to stave off the world-shaking catastrophe. Arranged chronologically, these events may thus be summarized: Russia, on July 24th, formally asked Austria if she intended to annex Serbian territory by way of reprisal for the assassination at Sarajevo. On the same day Austria replied that it had no present intention to make such annexation. Russia then requested an extension of the forty-eight-hour time-limit named in the ultimatum.

Austria, on the morning of Saturday, July 25th, refused Russia's request for an extension of the period named in the ultimatum. On the same day, the newspapers published in Petrograd printed an official note issued by the Russian Government warning Europe generally that Russia would not remain indifferent to the fate of Serbia. These newspapers also printed the appeal of the Serbian Crown Prince to the Czar dated on the preceding day, urging that Russia come to the rescue of the menaced Serbs. Serbia's peaceful reply surrendering on all points except one, and agreeing to submit that to arbitration, was sent late in the afternoon of the same day, and that night Austria declared the reply to be unsatisfactory and withdrew its minister from Belgrade.

England commenced its attempts at pacification on the following day, Sunday, July 26th. Sir Edward Grey spent the entire Sabbath in the Foreign Office and personally conducted the correspondence that was calculated to bring the dispute to a peaceful conclusion. He did not reckon, however, with a Germany determined upon war, a Germany whose manufacturers, ship-owners and Junkers had combined with its militarists to achieve "Germany's place in the sun" even though the world would be stained in the blood of the most frightful war this earth has ever known. Realization of this fact did not come to Sir Edward Grey until his negotiations with Germany and with Austria-Hungary had proceeded for some time. His first suggestion was that the dispute between Russia and Austria be committed to the arbitration of Great Britain, France, Italy and Germany. Russia accepted this but Germany and Austria rejected it. Russia had previously suggested that the dispute be settled by a conference between the diplomatic heads at Vienna and Petrograd. This also was refused by Austria.

Sir Edward Grey renewed his efforts on Monday, July 27th, with an invitation to Germany to present suggestions of its own, looking toward a settlement. This note was never answered. Germany took the position that its proposition to compel Russia to stand aside while Austria punished Serbia had been rejected by England and France and it had nothing further to propose.

During all this period of negotiation the German Foreign Office, to all outward appearances at least, had been acting independently of the Kaiser, who was in Norway on a vacation trip. He returned to Potsdam on the night of Sunday, July 26th. On Monday morning the Czar of Russia received a personal message from the Kaiser, urging Russia to stand aside that Serbia might be punished. The Czar immediately replied with the suggestion that the whole matter be submitted to The Hague. No reply of any kind was ever made to this proposal by Germany.



All suggestions and negotiations looking forward to peace were brought to a tragic end on the following day, Tuesday, July 28th, when Austria declared war on Serbia, having speedily mobilized troops at strategic points on the Serbian border. Russian mobilization, which had been proceeding only in a tentative way, on the Austrian border, now became general, and on July 30th, mobilization of the entire Russian army was proclaimed.

Germany's effort to exclude England from the war began on Thursday, July 29th. A note, sounding Sir Edward Grey on the question of British neutrality in the event of war was received, and a curt refusal to commit the British Empire to such a proposal was the reply. Sir Edward Grey, in a last determined effort to avoid a world-war, suggested to Germany, Austria, Serbia and Russia that the military operations commenced by Austria should be recognized as merely a punitive expedition. He further suggested that when a point in Serbian territory previously fixed upon should have been reached, Austria would halt and would submit her further action to arbitration in the conference of the Powers. Russia and Serbia agreed unreservedly to this proposition. Austria gave a half-hearted assent to the principle involved. Germany made no reply.

The die was cast for war on the following day, July 31st, when Germany made a dictatorial and arrogant demand upon Russia that mobilization of that nation's military forces be stopped within twelve hours. Russia made no reply, and on Saturday, August 1st, Germany set the world aflame with the dread of war's horror by her declaration of war upon Russia.

Germany's responsibility for this monumental crime against the peace of the world is eternally fixed upon her, not only by these outward and visible acts and negotiations, not only by her years of patient preparation for the war into which she plunged the world. The responsibility is fastened upon her forever by the revelations of her own ambassador to England during this fateful period. Prince Lichnowsky, in a remarkable communication which was given to the world, laid bare the machinations of the German High Command and its advisers. He was a guest of the Kaiser at Kiel on board the Imperial yacht Meteor when the message was received informing the Kaiser of the assassination at Sarajevo. His story continues:

Being unacquainted with the Vienna viewpoint and what was going on there, I attached no very far-reaching significance to the event; but, looking back, I could feel sure that in the Austrian aristocracy a feeling of relief outweighed all others. His Majesty regretted that his efforts to win over the Archduke to his ideas had thus been frustrated by the Archduke's assassination.

I went on to Berlin and saw the Chancellor, von Bethmann-Hollweg. I told him that I regarded our foreign situation as very satisfactory as it was a long time indeed since we had stood so well with England. And in France there was a pacifist cabinet. Herr von Bethmann-Hollweg did not seem to share my optimism.

He complained of the Russian armaments. I tried to tranquilize him with the argument that it was not to Russia's interest to attack us, and that such an attack would never have English or French support, as both countries wanted peace.

I went from him to Dr. Zimmermann (the under Secretary) who was acting for Herr von Jagow (the Foreign Secretary), and learned from him that Russia was about to call up nine hundred thousand new troops. His words unmistakably denoted ill-humor against Russia, who, he said, stood everywhere in our way. In addition, there were questions of commercial policy that had to be settled. That General von Moltke was urging war was, of course, not told to me. I learned, however, that Herr von Tschirschky (the German Ambassador in Vienna) had been reproved because he said that he had advised Vienna to show moderation toward Serbia.

Prince Lichnowsky went to his summer home in Silesia, quite unaware of the impending crisis. He continues:

When I returned from Silesia on my way to London, I stopped only a few hours in Berlin, where I heard that Austria intended to proceed against Serbia so as to bring to an end an unbearable state of affairs. Unfortunately, I failed at the moment to gauge the significance of the news. I thought that once more it would come to nothing; that even if Russia acted threateningly, the matter could soon be settled. I now regret that I did not stay in Berlin and declare there and then that I would have no hand in such a policy.

There was a meeting in Potsdam, as early as July 5th, between the German and Austrian authorities, at which meeting war was decided on. Prince Lichnowsky says:

I learned afterwards that at the decisive discussion at Potsdam on July 5th the Austrian demand had met with the unconditional approval of all the personages in authority; it was even added that no harm would be done if war with Russia did come out of it. It was so stated at least in the Austrian report received at London by Count Mensdorff (the Austrian Ambassador to England).

At this point I received instructions to endeavor to bring the English press to a friendly attitude in case Austria should deal the death-blow to "Greater-Serbian" hopes. I was to use all my influence to prevent public opinion in England from taking a stand against Austria. I remembered England's attitude during the Bosnian annexation crisis, when public opinion showed itself in sympathy with the Serbian claims to Bosnia; I recalled also the benevolent promotion of nationalist hopes that went on in the days of Lord Byron and Garibaldi; and on these and other grounds I thought it extremely unlikely that English public opinion would support a punitive expedition against the Archduke's murderers. I thus felt it my duty to enter an urgent warning against the whole project, which I characterized as venturesome and dangerous, I recommended that counsels of moderation he given Austria, as I did not believe that the conflict could be localized (that is to say, it could not be limited to a war between Austria and Serbia).



Photos from International Film Service. THE GERMAN CHANCELLORS On the right is Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg who is held responsible in large measure for bringing on the war. On the left is Prince Maximilian of Baden, the Kaiser's camouflage chancellor who was appointed in a vain attempt to fool the American people into thinking that a democratic government had been set up in Germany.



Copyright Press Illustrating Service. THE DEPOSED RULERS OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY The ex-Emperor Charles and his wife, the ex-Empress Zita, in deep conversation with Hungarian leaders who are explaining the distressing situation confronting the country.

Herr von Jagow answered me that Russia was not prepared; that there would be more or less of a rumpus; but that the more firmly we stood by Austria, the more surely would Russia give way. Austria was already blaming us for flabbiness and we could not flinch. On the other hand, Russian sentiment was growing more unfriendly all the time, and we must simply take the risk. I subsequently learned that this attitude was based on advices from Count Pourtales (the German Ambassador in Petrograd), that Russia would not stir under any circumstances; information which prompted us to spur Count Berchtold on in his course. On learning the attitude of the German Government I looked for salvation through English mediation, knowing that Sir Edward Grey's influence in Petrograd could be used in the cause of peace. I, therefore, availed myself of my friendly relations with the Minister to ask him confidentially to advise moderation in Russia in case Austria demanded satisfaction from the Serbians, as it seemed likely she would.

The English press was quiet at first, and friendly to Austria, the assassination being generally condemned. By degrees, however, more and more voices made themselves heard, in the sense that, however necessary it might be to take cognizance of the crime, any exploitation of it for political ends was unjustifiable. Moderation was enjoined upon Austria. When the ultimatum came out, all the papers, with the exception of the Standard, were unanimous in condemning it. The whole world, outside of Berlin and Vienna, realized that it meant war, and a world war too. The English fleet, which happened to have been holding a naval review, was not demobilized.

The British Government labored to make the Serbian reply conciliatory, and "the Serbian answer was in keeping with the British efforts." Sir Edward Grey then proposed his plan of mediation upon the two points which Serbia had not wholly conceded. Prince Lichnowsky writes:

M. Cambon (for France), Marquis Imperiali (for Italy), and I were to meet, with Sir Edward in the chair, and it would have been easy to work out a formula for the debated points, which had to do with the co-operation of imperial and royal officials in the inquiries to be conducted at Belgrade. By the exercise of good will everything could have been settled in one or two sittings, and the mere acceptance of the British proposal would have relieved the strain and further improved our relations with England. I seconded this plan with all my energies. In vain. I was told (by Berlin) that it would be against the dignity of Austria. Of course, all that was needed was one hint from Berlin to Count Berchtold (the Austrian Foreign Minister); he would have satisfied himself with a diplomatic triumph and rested on the Serbian answer. That hint was never given. On the contrary, pressure was brought in favor of war....

After our refusal Sir Edward asked us to come forward with our proposal. We insisted on war. No other answer could I get (from Berlin) than that it was a colossal condescension on the part of Austria not to contemplate any acquisition of territory. Sir Edward justly pointed out that one could reduce a country to vassalage without acquiring territory; that Russia would see this, and regard it as a humiliation not to be put up with. The impression grew stronger and stronger that we were bent on war. Otherwise our attitude toward a question in which we were not directly concerned was incomprehensible. The insistent requests and well-defined declarations of M. Sasanof, the Czar's positively humble telegrams, Sir Edward's repeated proposals, the warnings of Marquis San Guiliano and of Bollati, my own pressing admonitions were all of no avail. Berlin remained inflexible—Serbia must be slaughtered.

Then, on the 29th, Sir Edward decided upon his well-known warning. I told him I had always reported (to Berlin) that we should have to reckon with English opposition if it came to a war with France. Time and again the Minister said to me, "If war breaks out it will be the greatest catastrophe the world has ever seen." And now events moved rapidly. Count Berchtold at last decided to come around, having up to that point played the role of "Strong man" under guidance of Berlin. Thereupon we (in answer to Russia's mobilization) sent our ultimatum and declaration of war—after Russia had spent a whole week in fruitless negotiation and waiting.

Thus ended my mission in London. It had suffered shipwreck, not on the wiles of the Briton but on the wiles of our own policy. Were not those right who saw that the German people was pervaded with the spirit of Treitschke and Bernhardi, which glorifies war as an end instead of holding it in abhorrence as an evil thing? Properly speaking militarism is a school for the people and an instrument to further political ends. But in the patriarchal absolutism of a military monarchy, militarism exploits politics to further its own ends, and can create a situation which a democracy freed from junkerdom would not tolerate.

That is what our enemies think; that is what they are bound to think when they see that in spite of capitalistic industrialism, and in spite of socialistic organizations, the living, as Nietzsche said, are still ruled by the dead. The democratization of Germany, the first war aim proposed by our enemies, will become a reality.

This is the frank statement of a great German statesman made long before Germany received its knock-out blow. It was written when Germany was sweeping all before it on land, and when the U-boat was at the height of its murderous powers on the high seas. No one in nor out of Germany has controverted any of its statements and it will forever remain as one of the counts in the indictment against Germany and the sole cause of the world's greatest misery, the war.

America's outstanding authority on matters of international conduct, former Secretary of State Elihu Root declared that the World War was a mighty and all-embracing struggle between two conflicting principles of human right and human duty; it was a conflict between the divine right of kings to govern mankind through armies and nobles, and the right of the peoples of the earth who toil and endure and aspire to govern themselves by law under justice, and in the freedom of individual manhood.

After the declaration of war against Russia by Germany, events marched rapidly and inevitably toward the general conflagration. Germany's most strenuous efforts were directed toward keeping England out of the conflict. We have seen in the revelations of Prince Lichnowsky how eager was England to divert Germany's murderous purpose. There are some details, however, required to fill in the diplomatic picture.

President Poincare, of the French Republic, on July 30th, asked the British Ambassador in Paris for an assurance of British support. On the following day he addressed a similar letter to King George of England. Both requests were qualifiedly refused on the ground that England wished to be free to continue negotiations with Germany for the purpose of averting the war. In the meantime, the German Government addressed a note to England offering guarantees for Belgian integrity, providing Belgium did not side with France, offering to respect the neutrality of Holland and giving assurance that no French territory in Europe would be annexed if Germany won the war. Sir Edward Grey described this as a "shameful proposal," and rejected it on July 30th.

On July 31st England sent a note to France and Germany asking for a statement of purpose concerning Belgian neutrality. France immediately announced that it would respect the treaty of 1839 and its reaffirmation in 1870 guaranteeing Belgium's neutrality. This treaty was entered into by Germany, England, France, Austria and Russia. Germany's reply on August 1st was a proposal that she would respect the neutrality of Belgium if England would stay out of the war. This was promptly declined. On August 2d the British cabinet agreed that if the German fleet attempted to attack the coast of France the British fleet would intervene. Germany, the next day, sent a note agreeing to refrain from naval attacks on France provided England would remain neutral, but declined to commit herself as to the neutrality of Belgium. Before this, however, on August 2d, Germany had announced to Belgium its intention to enter Belgium for the purpose of attacking France. The Belgian Minister in London made an appeal to the British Foreign Office and was informed that invasion of Belgium by Germany would be followed by England's declaration of war. Monday, August 3d, was signalized by Belgium's declaration of its neutrality and its firm purpose to defend its soil against invasion by France, England, Germany or any other nation.

The actual invasion of Belgium commenced on the morning of August 4th, when twelve regiments of Uhlans crossed the frontier near Vise, and came in contact with a Belgian force driving it back upon Liege. King Albert of Belgium promptly appealed to England, Russia and France for aid in repelling the invader. England sent an ultimatum to Germany fixing midnight of August 4th as the time for expiration of the ultimatum. This demanded that satisfactory assurances be furnished immediately that Germany would respect the neutrality of Belgium. No reply was made by Germany and England's declaration of war followed.

Chancellor von Bethmann-Hollweg, of the German Empire, wrote Germany's infamy into history when, in a formal statement, he acknowledged that the invasion of Belgium was "a wrong that we will try to make good again as soon as our military ends have been reached." To Sir Edward Vochen, British Ambassador to Germany, he addressed the inquiry: "Is it the purpose of your country to make war upon Germany for the sake of a scrap of paper?" The treaty of 1839-1870 guaranteeing Belgium's neutrality was the scrap of paper.



KING ALBERT I, QUEEN ELIZABETH, THE HEROIC RULERS OF BELGIUM



Copyright International News Service. THE RED RUINS OF YPRES Ypres, the British soldiers "Wipers," was the scene of much of the bloodiest fighting of the war. Three great battles were fought for its possession. The photograph shows what was once the market place.

With the entrance of England into the war, the issue between autocracy and democracy was made plain before the people of the world. Austria, and later Turkey, joined with Germany; France, and Japan, by reason of their respective treaty obligations joined England and Russia. Italy for the time preferred to remain neutral, ignoring her implied alliance with the Teutonic empires. How other nations lined up on the one side and the other is indicated by the State Department's list of war declarations, and diplomatic severances, which follows:

Austria against Belgium, Aug. 28, 1914. Austria against Japan, Aug. 27, 1914. Austria against Montenegro, Aug. 9, 1914. Austria against Russia, Aug. 6, 1914. Austria against Serbia, July 28, 1914. Belgium against Germany, Aug. 4, 1914. Brazil against Germany, Oct. 26, 1917. Bulgaria against Serbia, Oct. 14, 1915. China against Austria, Aug. 14, 1917. China against Germany, Aug. 14, 1917. Costa Rica against Germany, May 23, 1918. Cuba against Germany, April 7, 1917. Cuba against Austria-Hungary, Dec. 16, 1917. France against Austria, Aug. 13, 1914. France against Bulgaria, Oct. 16, 1915. France against Germany, Aug. 3, 1914. France against Turkey, Nov. 5, 1914. Germany against Belgium, Aug. 4, 1914. Germany against France, Aug. 3, 1914. Germany against Portugal, March 9, 1916. Germany against Roumania, Sept. 14, 1916. Germany against Russia, Aug. 1, 1914. Great Britain against Austria, Aug. 13, 1914. Great Britain against Bulgaria, Oct. 15, 1915. Great Britain against Germany, Aug. 4, 1914. Great Britain against Turkey, Nov. 5, 1914. Greece against Bulgaria, Nov. 28, 1916. (Provisional Government.) Greece against Bulgaria, July 2, 1917. (Government of Alexander.) Greece against Germany, Nov. 28, 1916. (Provisional Government.) Greece against Germany, July 2, 1917. (Government of Alexander.) Guatemala against Germany and Austria-Hungary, April 22, 1918. Haiti against Germany, July 15, 1918. Honduras against Germany, July 19, 1918. Italy against Austria, May 24, 1915. Italy against Bulgaria, Oct. 19, 1915. Italy against Germany, Aug. 28, 1916. Italy against Turkey, Aug. 21, 1915. Japan against Germany, Aug. 23, 1914. Liberia against Germany, Aug. 4, 1917. Montenegro against Austria, Aug. 8, 1914. Montenegro against Germany, Aug. 9, 1914. Nicaragua against Germany, May 24, 1918. Panama against Germany, April 7,1917. Panama against Austria, Dec. 10, 1917. Portugal against Germany, Nov. 23, 1914. (Resolution passed authorizing military intervention as ally of England) Portugal against Germany, May 19, 1915. (Military aid granted.) Roumania against Austria, Aug. 27, 1916. (Allies of Austria also consider it a declaration.) Russia against Germany, Aug. 7, 1914. Russia against Bulgaria, Oct. 19, 1915. Russia against Turkey, Nov. 3, 1914. San Marino against Austria, May 24, 1915. Serbia against Bulgaria, Oct. 16, 1915. Serbia against Germany, Aug. 6, 1914. Serbia against Turkey, Dec. 2, 1914. Siam against Austria, July 22, 1917. Siam against Germany, July 22, 1917. Turkey against Allies, Nov. 23, 1914. Turkey against Roumania, Aug. 29, 1916. United States against Germany, April 6, 1917. United States against Austria-Hungary, Dec. 7, 1917.

SEVERANCE OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS

The Nations that formally severed relations whether afterward declaring war or not, are as follows:

Austria against Japan, Aug. 26, 1914. Austria against Portugal, March 16, 1916. Austria against Serbia, July 26, 1914. Austria against United States, April 8, 1917. Bolivia against Germany, April 14, 1917. Brazil against Germany, April 11, 1917. China against Germany, March 14, 1917. Costa Rica against Germany, Sept. 21, 1917. Ecuador against Germany, Dec. 7, 1917. Egypt against Germany, Aug. 13, 1914. France against Austria, Aug. 10, 1914. Greece against Turkey, July 2, 1917. (Government of Alexander.) Greece against Austria, July 2, 1917. (Government of Alexander.) Guatemala against Germany, April 27,1917. Haiti against Germany, June 17, 1917. Honduras against Germany, May 17, 1917. Nicaragua against Germany, May 18, 1917. Peru against Germany, Oct. 6, 1917. Santo Domingo against Germany, June 8, 1917. Turkey against United States, April 20, 1917. United States against Germany, Feb. 3,1917. Uruguay against Germany, Oct. 7, 1917.



CHAPTER V

THE GREAT WAR BEGINS

Years before 1914, when Germany declared war against civilization, it was decided by the German General Staff to strike at France through Belgium. The records of the German Foreign Office prove that fact. The reason for this lay in the long line of powerful fortresses along the line that divides France from Germany and the sparsely spaced and comparatively out-of-date forts on the border between Germany and Belgium. True, there was a treaty guaranteeing the inviolability of Belgian territory to which Germany was a signatory party. Some of the clauses of that treaty were:

Article 9. Belgium, within the limits traced in conformity with the principles laid down in the present preliminaries, shall form a perpetually neutral state. The five powers (England, France, Austria, Prussia and Russia), without wishing to intervene in the internal affairs of Belgium, guarantee her that perpetual neutrality as well as the integrity and inviolability of her territory in the limits mentioned in the present article.

Article 10. By just reciprocity Belgium shall be held to observe this same neutrality toward all the other states and to make no attack on their internal or external tranquillity while always preserving the right to defend herself against any foreign aggression.

This agreement was followed on January 23, 1839, by a definitive treaty, accepted by Belgium and by the Netherlands, which treaty regulates Belgium's neutrality as follows:

Article 7. Belgium, within the limits defined in Articles 1, 2 and 4 shall form an independent and perpetually neutral state. She is obligated to preserve this neutrality against all the other states.

To convert this solemn covenant into a "scrap of paper" it was necessary that Germany should find an excuse for tearing it to pieces. There was absolutely no provocation in sight, but that did not deter the German High Command. That august body with no information whatever to afford an excuse, alleged in a formal note to the Belgian Government that the French army intended to invade Germany through Belgian territory. This hypocritical and mendacious note and Belgium's vigorous reply follow:

Note handed in on August 2, 1914, at 7 o'clock P. M., by Herr von Below-Saleske, German Minister, to M. Davignon, Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs.

BRUSSELS, 2d August, 1914. IMPERIAL GERMAN LEGATION IN BELGIUM (Highly confidential)

The German Government has received reliable information according to which the French forces intend to march on the Meuse, by way of Givet and Namur. This information leaves no doubt as to the intention of France of marching on Germany through Belgian territory. The Imperial Government cannot avoid the fear that Belgium, in spite of its best will, will be in no position to repulse such a largely developed French march without aid. In this fact there is sufficient certainty of a threat directed against Germany.

It is an imperative duty for the preservation of Germany to forestall this attack of the enemy.

The German Government would feel keen regret if Belgium should regard as an act of hostility against herself the fact that the measures of the enemies of Germany oblige her on her part to violate Belgian territory. In order to dissipate any misunderstanding the German Government declares as follows:

1. Germany does not contemplate any act of hostility against Belgium. If Belgium consents in the war about to commence to take up an attitude of friendly neutrality toward Germany, the German Government on its part undertakes, on the declaration of peace, to guarantee the kingdom and its possessions in their whole extent.

2. Germany undertakes under the conditions laid down to evacuate Belgian territory as soon as peace is concluded.

3. If Belgium preserves a friendly attitude, Germany is prepared, in agreement with the authorities of the Belgian Government, to buy against cash all that is required by her troops, and to give indemnity for the damages caused in Belgium.

4. If Belgium behaves in a hostile manner toward the German troops, and in particular raises difficulties against their advance by the opposition of the fortifications of the Meuse, or by destroying roads, railways, tunnels, or other engineering works, Germany will be compelled to consider Belgium as an enemy.

In this case Germany will take no engagements toward Belgium, but she will leave the later settlement of relations of the two states toward one another to the decision of arms. The German Government has a justified hope that this contingency will not arise and that the Belgian Government will know how to take suitable measures to hinder its taking place. In this case the friendly relations which unite the two neighboring states will become closer and more lasting.

THE REPLY BY BELGIUM Note handed in by M. Davignon, Minister for Foreign Affairs, to Herr von Below-Saleske, German Minister.

BRUSSELS, 3d August, 1914. (7 o'clock in the morning.)

By the note of the 2d August, 1914, the German Government has made known that according to certain intelligence the French forces intend to march on the Meuse via Givet and Namur and that Belgium, in spite of her good-will, would not be able without help to beat off an advance of the French troops.

The German Government felt it to be its duty to forestall this attack and to violate Belgian territory. Under these conditions Germany proposes to the King's Government to take up a friendly attitude, and undertakes at the moment of peace to guarantee the integrity of the kingdom and of her possessions in their whole extent. The note adds that if Belgium raises difficulties to the forward march of the German troops Germany will be compelled to consider her as an enemy and to leave the later settlement of the two states toward one another to the decision of arms.

This note caused profound and painful surprise to the King's Government.

The intentions which it attributed to France are in contradiction with the express declarations which were made to us on the 1st of August, in the name of the government of the republic.

Moreover, if, contrary to our expectation, a violation of Belgian neutrality were to be committed by France, Belgium would fulfil all her international duties and her army would offer the most vigorous opposition to the invader.

The treaties of 1839, confirmed by the treaties of 1870, establish the independence and the neutrality of Belgium under the guarantee of the powers, and particularly of the Government of his Majesty the King of Prussia.

Belgium has always been faithful to her international obligations; she has fulfilled her duties in a spirit of loyal impartiality; she has neglected no effort to maintain her neutrality or to make it respected.

The attempt against her independence with which the German Government threatens her would constitute a flagrant violation of international law. No strategic interest justifies the violation of that law.

The Belgian Government would, by accepting the propositions which are notified to her, sacrifice the honor of the nation while at the same time betraying her duties toward Europe.

Conscious of the part Belgium has played for more than eighty years in the civilization of the world, she refuses to believe that the independence of Belgium can be preserved only at the expense of the violation of her neutrality.

If this hope were disappointed the Belgian Government has firmly resolved to repulse by every means in her power any attack upon her rights.

The German attack upon Belgium and France came with terrible force and suddenness. Twenty-four army corps, divided into three armies clad in a specially designed and colored gray-green uniform, swept in three mighty streams over the German borders with their objective the heart of France. The Army of the Meuse was given the route through Liege, Namur and Maubeuge. The Army of the Moselle violated the Duchy of Luxemburg, which, under a treaty guaranteeing its independence and neutrality, was not permitted to maintain an army. Germany was a signatory party to this treaty also. The Army of the Rhine cut through the Vosges Mountains and its route lay between the French cities of Nancy and Toul.

The heroic defense of the Belgian army at Liege against the Army of the Meuse delayed the operation of Germany's plans and in all probability saved Paris. It was the first of many similar disappointments and checks that Germany encountered during the war.

The defense of Liege continued for ten heroic days. Within that interval the first British Expeditionary Forces were landed in France and Belgium, the French army was mobilized to full strength. The little Belgian army falling back northward on Antwerp, Louvain and Brussels, threatened the German flank and approximately 200,000 German soldiers were compelled to remain in the conquered section of Belgium to garrison it effectively.

Liege fortifications were the design of the celebrated strategist Brialmont. They consisted of twelve isolated fortresses which had been permitted to become out of repair. No field works of any kind connected them and they were without provision for defense against encircling tactics and against modern artillery.

The huge 42-centimeter guns, the first of Germany's terrible surprises, were brought into action against these forts, and their concrete and armored steel turrets were cracked as walnuts are cracked between the jaws of a nut-cracker. The Army of the Meuse then made its way like a gray-green cloud of poison gas through Belgium. A cavalry screen of crack Uhlan regiments preceded it, and it made no halt worthy of note until it confronted the Belgian army on the line running from Louvain to Namur. The Belgians were forced back before Louvain on August 20th, the Belgian Government removed the capital from Brussels to Antwerp, and the German hosts entered evacuated Brussels.

During this advance of the Army of the Meuse, strong French detachments invaded German soil, pouring into Alsace through the Belfort Gap. Brief successes attended the bold stroke. Mulhausen was captured and the Metz-Strassburg Railroad was cut in several places. The French suffered a defeat almost immediately following this first flush of victory, both in Alsace and in Lorraine, where a French detachment had engaged with the Army of the Moselle. The French army thereupon retreated to the strong line of forts and earthworks defending the border between France and Germany.

England's first expeditionary force landed at Ostend, Calais and Dunkirk on August 7th. It was dubbed England's "contemptible little army" by the German General Staff. That name was seized upon gladly by England as a spur to volunteering. It brought to the surface national pride and a fierce determination to compel Germany to recognize and to reckon with the "contemptible little army."

The contact between the French, Belgian and British forces was speedily established and something like concerted resistance to the advance of the enemy was made possible. The German army, however, followed by a huge equipment of motor kitchens, munition trains, and other motor transport evidencing great care in preparation for the movement, swept resistlessly forward until it encountered the French and British on a line running from Mons to Charleroi.

The British army was assigned to a position between two French armies. By some miscalculation, the French army that was to have taken its position on the British left, never appeared. The French army on the right was attacked and defeated at Charleroi, falling back in some confusion. The German Army of the Moselle co-operating with the Army of the Meuse then attacked the British and French, and a great flanking movement by the German joint commands developed.

This was directed mainly at the British under command of Sir John French. There followed a retreat that for sheer heroism and dogged determination has become one of the great battles of all time. The British, outflanked and outnumbered three to one, fought and marched without cessation for six days and nights. Time after time envelopment and disaster threatened them, but with a determination that would not be beaten they fought off the best that Germany could send against them, maintained contact with the French army on their right, and delayed the German advance so effectively that a complete disarrangement of all the German plans ensued. This was the second great disappointment to Germany. It made possible the victory of the Marne and the victorious peace of 1918. The story of that immortal retreat is best told in the words of Sir John French, transmitting the report of this encounter to the British War Office:

"The transport of the troops from England both by sea and by rail was effected in the best order and without a check. Each unit arrived at its destination well within the scheduled time.

"The concentration was practically complete on the evening of Friday, the 21st ultimo, and I was able to make dispositions to move the force during Saturday, the 22d, to positions I considered most favorable from which to commence operations which the French commander-in-chief, General Joffre, requested me to undertake in pursuance of his plans in prosecution of the campaign.

"The line taken up extended along the line of the canal from Conde on the west, through Mons and Binche on the east. This line was taken up as follows:

"From Conde to Mons, inclusive, was assigned to the Second Corps, and to the right of the Second Corps from Mons the First Corps was posted. The Fifth Cavalry Brigade was placed at Binche.

"In the absence of my Third Army Corps I desired to keep the cavalry divisions as much as possible as a reserve to act on my outer flank, or move in support of any threatened part of the line. The forward reconnoissance was intrusted to Brig.-Gen. Sir Philip Chetwode, with the Fifth Cavalry Brigade, but I directed General Allenby to send forward a few squadrons to assist in this work.

"During the 22d and 23d these advanced squadrons did some excellent work, some of them penetrating as far as Soignies, and several encounters took place in which our troops showed to great advantage.

"2. At 6 A. M., on August 23d, I assembled the commanders of the First and Second Corps and cavalry division at a point close to the position and explained the general situation of the Allies, and what I understood to be General Joffre's plan. I discussed with them at some length the immediate situation in front of us.

"From information I received from French headquarters I understood that little more than one, or at most two, of the enemy's army corps, with perhaps one cavalry division, were in front of my position; and I was aware of no attempted outflanking movement by the enemy. I was confirmed in this opinion by the fact that my patrols encountered no undue opposition in their reconnoitering operations. The observations of my airplanes seemed to bear out this estimate.

"About 3 P. M. on Sunday, the 23d, reports began coming in to the effect that the enemy was commencing an attack on the Mons line, apparently in some strength, but that the right of the position from Mons and Bray was being particularly threatened.

"The commander of the First Corps had pushed his flank back to some high ground south of Bray, and the Fifth Cavalry Brigade evacuated Binche, moving slightly south; the enemy thereupon occupied Binche.

"The right of the Third Division, under General Hamilton, was at Mons, which formed a somewhat dangerous salient; and I directed the commander of the Second Corps to be careful not to keep the troops on this salient too long, but, if threatened seriously, to draw back the center behind Mons. This was done before dark. In the meantime, about 5 P. M., I received a most unexpected message from General Joffre by telegraph, telling me that at least three German corps, viz., a reserve corps, the Fourth Corps and the Ninth Corps, were moving on my position in front, and that the Second Corps was engaged in a turning movement from the direction of Tournay. He also informed me that the two reserve French divisions and the Fifth French army on my right were retiring, the Germans having on the previous day gained possession of the passages of the Sambre, between Charleroi and Namur.

"3. In view of the possibility of my being driven from the Mons position, I had previously ordered a position in rear to be reconnoitered. This position rested on the fortress of Maubeuge on the right and extended west to Jenlain, southeast to Valenciennes, on the left. The position was reported difficult to hold, because standing crops and buildings made the placing of trenches very difficult and limited the field of fire in many important localities. It nevertheless afforded a few good artillery positions.

"When the news of the retirement of the French and the heavy German threatening on my front reached me, I endeavored to confirm it by airplane reconnoissance; and as a result of this I determined to effect a retirement to the Maubeuge position at daybreak on the 24th.

"A certain amount of fighting continued along the whole line throughout the night and at daybreak on the 24th the Second Division from the neighborhood of Harmignies made a powerful demonstration as if to retake Binche. This was supported by the artillery of both the First and Second Divisions, while the First Division took up a supporting position in the neighborhood of Peissant. Under cover of this demonstration the Second Corps retired on the line Dour-Quarouble-Frameries. The Third Division on the right of the corps suffered considerable loss in this operation from the enemy, who had retaken Mons.

"The Second Corps halted on this line, where they partially intrenched themselves, enabling Sir Douglas Haig with the First Corps gradually to withdraw to the new position; and he effected this without much further loss, reaching the line Bavai-Maubeuge about 7 P. M. Toward midday the enemy appeared to be directing his principal effort against our left.

"I had previously ordered General Allenby with the cavalry to act vigorously in advance of my left front and endeavor to take the pressure off.

"About 7.30 A. M. General Allenby received a message from Sir Charles Ferguson, commanding the Fifth Division, saying that he was very hard pressed and in urgent need of support. On receipt of this message General Allenby drew in the cavalry and endeavored to bring direct support to the Fifth Division.

"During the course of this operation General De Lisle, of the Second Cavalry Brigade, thought he saw a good opportunity to paralyze the further advance of the enemy's infantry by making a mounted attack on his flank. He formed up and advanced for this purpose, but was held up by wire about five hundred yards from his objective, and the Ninth Lancers and the Eighteenth Hussars suffered severely in the retirement of the brigade.

"The Nineteenth Infantry Brigade, which had been guarding the line of communications, was brought up by rail to Valenciennes on the 22d and 23d. On the morning of the 24th they were moved out to a position south of Quarouble to support the left flank of the Second Corps.

"With the assistance of the cavalry Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien was enabled to effect his retreat to a new position; although, having two corps of the enemy on his front and one threatening his flank, he suffered great losses in doing so.

"At nightfall the position was occupied by the Second Corps to the west of Bavai, the First Corps to the right. The right was protected by the Fortress of Maubeuge, the left by the Nineteenth Brigade in position between Jenlain and Bry, and the cavalry on the outer flank.

"4. The French were still retiring, and I had no support except such as was afforded by the Fortress of Maubeuge; and the determined attempts of the enemy to get round my left flank assured me that it was his intention to hem me against that place and surround me. I felt that not a moment must be lost in retiring to another position.

"I had every reason to believe that the enemy's forces were somewhat exhausted and I knew that they had suffered heavy losses. I hoped, therefore, that his pursuit would not be too vigorous to prevent me effecting my object.

"The operation, however, was full of danger and difficulty, not only owing to the very superior force in my front, but also to the exhaustion of the troops.

"The retirement was recommenced in the early morning of the 25th to a position in the neighborhood of Le Cateau, and rearguards were ordered to be clear of the Maubeuge-Bavai-Eih Road by 5.30 A. M.

"Two cavalry brigades, with the divisional cavalry of the Second Corps, covered the movement of the Second Corps. The remainder of the cavalry division, with the Nineteenth Brigade, the whole under the command of General Allenby, covered the west flank.

"The Fourth Division commenced its detrainment at Le Cateau on Sunday, the 23d, and by the morning of the 25th eleven battalions and a brigade of artillery with divisional staff were available for service.

"I ordered General Snow to move out to take up a position with his right south of Solesmes, his left resting on the Cambrai-LeCateau Road south of La Chaprie. In this position the division tendered great help to the effective retirement of the Second and First Corps to the new position.

"Although the troops had been ordered to occupy the Cambrai-Le Cateau-Landrecies position, and the ground had, during the 25th, been partially prepared and intrenched, I had grave doubts, owing to the information I had received as to the accumulating strength of the enemy against me—as to the wisdom of standing there to fight.

"Having regard to the continued retirement of the French on my right, my exposed left flank, the tendency of the enemy's western corps (II) to envelop me, and, more than all, the exhausted condition of the troops, I determined to make a great effort to continue the retreat until I could put some substantial obstacle, such as the Somme or the Oise, between my troops and the enemy, and afford the former some opportunity of rest and reorganization. Orders were, therefore, sent to the corps commanders to continue their retreat as soon as they possibly could toward the general line Vermand-St. Quentin-Ribemont.

"The cavalry under General Allenby, were ordered to cover the retirement.

"Throughout the 25th and far into the evening, the First Corps continued its march on Landrecies, following the road along the eastern border of the Foret de Mormal, and arrived at Landrecies about 10 o'clock. I had intended that the corps should come further west so as to fill up the gap between Le Cateau and Landrecies, but the men were exhausted and could not get further in without rest.

"The enemy, however, would not allow them this rest, and about 9.30 P. M. a report was received that the Fourth Guards Brigade in Landrecies was heavily attacked by troops of the Ninth German Army Corps, who were coming through the forest on the north of the town. This brigade fought most gallantly, and caused the enemy to suffer tremendous loss in issuing from the forest into the narrow streets of the town. This loss has been estimated from reliable sources at from 700 to 1,000. At the same time information reached me from Sir Douglas Haig that his First Division was also heavily engaged south and east of Maroilles. I sent urgent messages to the commander of the two French reserve divisions on my right to come up to the assistance of the First Corps, which they eventually did. Partly owing to this assistance, but mainly to the skilful manner in which Sir Douglas Haig extricated his corps from an exceptionally difficult position in the darkness of the night, they were able at dawn to resume their march south toward Wassigny on Guise.

"By about 6 P. M. the Second Corps had got into position with their right on Le Cateau, their left in the neighborhood of Caudry, and the line of defense was continued thence by the Fourth Division toward Seranvillers, the left being thrown back.

"During the fighting on the 24th and 25th the cavalry became a good deal scattered, but by the early morning of the 26th, General Allenby had succeeded in concentrating two brigades to the south of Cambrai.

"The Fourth Division was placed under the orders of the general officer commanding the Second Army Corps.

"On the 24th the French Cavalry Corps, consisting of three divisions under General Sordet, had been in billets north of Avesnes. On my way back from Bavai, which was my 'Poste de Commandement' during the fighting of the 23d and 24th, I visited General Sordet, and earnestly requested his co-operation and support. He promised to obtain sanction from his army commander to act on my left flank, but said that his horses were too tired to move before the next day. Although he rendered me valuable assistance later on in the course of the retirement, he was unable, for the reasons given, to afford me any support on the most critical day of all, viz., the 26th.

"At daybreak it became apparent that the enemy was throwing the bulk of his strength against the left of the position occupied by the Second Corps and the Fourth Division.

"At this time the guns of four German army corps were in position against them, and Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien reported to me that he judged it impossible to continue his retirement at daybreak (as ordered) in face of such an attack.

"I sent him orders to use his utmost endeavors to break off the action and retire at the earliest possible moment, as it was impossible for me to send him any support, the First Corps being at the moment incapable of movement.

"The French Cavalry Corps, under General Sordet, was coming up on our left rear early in the morning, and I sent an urgent message to him to do his utmost to come up and support the retirement of my left flank; but owing to the fatigue of his horses he found himself unable to intervene in any way.

"There had been no time to intrench the position properly, but the troops showed a magnificent front to the terrible fire which confronted them.

"The artillery, although outmatched by at least four to one, made a splendid fight, and inflicted heavy losses on their opponents.

"At length it became apparent that, if complete annihilation was to be avoided, a retirement must be attempted; and the order was given to commence it about 3.30 P. M. The movement was covered with the most devoted intrepidity and determination by the artillery, which had itself suffered heavily, and the fine work done by the cavalry in the further retreat from the position assisted materially in the final completion of this most difficult and dangerous operation.

"Fortunately the enemy had himself suffered too heavily to engage in an energetic pursuit.

"I cannot close the brief account of this glorious stand of the British troops without putting on record my deep appreciation of the valuable services rendered by Gen. Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien.

"I say without hesitation that the saving of the left wing of the army under my command on the morning of the 26th of August, could never have been accomplished unless a commander of rare and unusual coolness, intrepidity, and determination had been present to personally conduct the operation.

"The retreat was continued far into the night of the 26th and through the 27th and 28th, on which date the troops halted on the line Noyon-Chauny-LaFere, having then thrown off the weight of the enemy's pursuit.

"On the 27th and 28th I was much indebted to General Sordet and the French Cavalry Division which he commands for materially assisting my retirement and successfully driving back some of the enemy on Cambrai.

"This closes the period covering the heavy fighting which commenced at Mons on Sunday afternoon, 23d August, and which really constituted a four days' battle.

"It is impossible for me to speak too highly of the skill evinced by the two general officers commanding army corps; the self-sacrificing and devoted exertions of their staffs; the direction of the troops by divisional, brigade, and regimental leaders; the command of the smaller units by their officers; and the magnificent fighting spirit displayed by non-commissioned officers and men.

"I wish particularly to bring to your Lordship's notice the admirable work done by the Royal Flying Corps under Sir David Henderson. Their skill, energy, and perseverance have been beyond all praise. They have furnished me with the most complete and accurate information, which has been of incalculable value in the conduct of the operations. Fired at constantly both by friend and foe, and not hesitating to fly in every kind of weather, they have remained undaunted throughout.

"Further, by actually fighting in the air, they have succeeded in destroying five of the enemy's machines."

The combined French and British armies, including the forces that had retreated from Alsace and Lorraine, gave way with increasing stubbornness before von Kluck. That German general disregarding the fortresses surrounding Paris, swung southward to make a junction with the Army of the Crown Prince of Germany advancing through the Vosges Mountains. General Manoury's army opposed the German advance on the entrenched line of Paris. General Gallieni commanding the garrison of Paris, was ready with a novel mobile transport consisting of taxicabs and fast trucks. The total number of soldiers in the French and British armies now outnumbered those in the German armies opposed to them.

General Joffre, in supreme command of the French, had chosen the battleground. He had set the trap with consummate skill. The word was given; the trap was sprung; and the first battle of the Marne came as a crashing surprise to Germany.



CHAPTER VI

THE TRAIL OF THE BEAST IN BELGIUM

Germany's onrush into heroic Belgium speedily resolved itself into a saturnalia that drenched the land with blood and roused the civilized world into resentful horror. As the tide of barbarity swept forward into Northern France, stories of the horrors filtered through the close web of German censorship. There were denials at first by German propagandists. In the face of truth furnished by thousands of witnesses, the denials faded away.

What caused these atrocities? Were they the spontaneous expression of dormant brutishness in German soldiers? Were they a sudden reversion of an entire nation to bestiality?

The answer is that the private soldier as an individual was not responsible. The carnage, the rapine, the wholesale desolation was an integral part of the German policy of schrecklichkeit or frightfulness. This policy was laid down by Germany as part of its imperial war code. In 1902 Germany issued a new war manual entitled "Kriegsbrauch im Landkriege." In it is written this cold-blooded declaration:

All measures which conduce to the attainment of the object of war are permissible and these may be summarized in the two ideas of violence and cunning. What is permissible includes every means of war without which the object of the war cannot be attained. All means which modern invention affords, including the fullest, most dangerous, and most massive means of destruction, may be utilized.

Brand Whitlock, United States Minister to Belgium, in a formal report to the State Department, made this statement concerning Germany's policy in permitting these outrages:

"All these deliberate organized massacres of civilians, all these murders and outrages, the violation of women, the killing of children, wanton destruction, burning, looting and pillage, and whole towns destroyed, were acts for which no possible military necessity can be pleaded. They were wilfully committed as part of a deliberately prepared and scientifically organized policy of terrorism."



From a Painting by F. Gueldry to illustrate an official report. GERMAN ATROCITIES At Senlis, Department of Oise, on September 2,1914, French captives were made to walk in the open so as to be hit by French bullets. Many were killed and wounded. The townsman on the left was struck in the knee. A German officer asked to see the wound and shot him through the shoulder. On the right a German officer is seen torturing a wounded French soldier by beating him in the face with a stick.



Copyright Underwood and Underwood, N. Y. THE SUPREME EXPONENTS OF GERMAN FRIGHTFULNESS On the left, General van Bossing, military commander of Belgium. On the right, Grand Admiral van Tirpitz, who inspired the German submarine campaign.

THE TRAIL OF THE BEAST IN BELGIUM 91

And now, having considered these outrages as part of the German policy of terrorism, let us turn to the facts presented by those who made investigations at first hand in devastated Belgium and Northern France.

Let us first turn to the tragic story of the destruction of Louvain. The first document comes in the form of a cable sent from the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs under date of August 8,1914:

"On Tuesday evening a body of German troops who had been driven back retired in disorder upon the town of Louvain. Germans who were guarding the town thought that the retiring troops were Belgians and fired upon them. In order to excuse this mistake the Germans, in spite of the most energetic denials on the part of the authorities, pretended that Belgians had fired on the Germans, although all the inhabitants, including policemen, had been disarmed for more than a week. Without any examination and without listening to any protest the commanding officer announced that the town would be immediately destroyed. All inhabitants had to leave their homes at once; some were made prisoners; women and children were put into a train of which the destination was unknown; soldiers with fire bombs set fire to the different quarters of the town; the splendid Church of St. Pierre, the markets, the university and its scientific establishments, were given to the flames, and it is probable that the Hotel de Ville, this celebrated jewel of Gothic art, will also have disappeared in the disaster. Several notabilities were shot at sight. Thus a town of 40,000 inhabitants, which, since the fifteenth century, has been the intellectual and scientific capital of the Low Countries is a heap of ashes. Americans, many of whom have followed the course at this illustrious alma mater and have there received such cordial hospitality, cannot remain insensible to this outrage on the rights of humanity and civilization which is unprecedented in history."

Minister Whitlock made the following report on the same outrage:

"A violent fusillade broke out simultaneously at various points in the city (Louvain), notably at the Porte de Bruxelles, Porte de Tirlemont, Rue Leopold, Rue Marie-Therese, Rue des Joyeuses Entrees. German soldiers were firing at random in every street and in every direction. Later fires broke out everywhere, notably in the University building, the Library, in the old Church of St. Peter, in the Place du Peuple, in the Rue de la Station, in the Boulevard de Tirlemont, and in the Chaussee de Tirlemont. On the orders of their chiefs, the German soldiers would break open the houses and set fire to them, shooting on the inhabitants who tried to leave their dwellings. Many persons who took refuge in their cellars were burned to death. The German soldiers were equipped with apparatus for the purpose of firing dwellings, incendiary pastils, machines for spraying petroleum, etc. . . .

"Major von Manteuffel (of the German forces) sent for Alderman Schmidt. Upon the latter's arrival, the major declared that hostages were to be held, as sedition had just broken out. He asked Father Parijs, Mr. Schmidt, and Mgr. Coenraedts, First Vice-Rector of the University, who was being held as a hostage, to make proclamations to the inhabitants exhorting them to be calm and menacing them with a fine of twenty million francs, the destruction of the city and the hanging of the hostages, if they created disturbance. Surrounded by about thirty soldiers and a few officers, Major Manteuffel, Father Parijs, Mr. Schmidt and Mgr. Coenraedts left in the direction of the station, and the alderman, in French, and the priest, in Flemish, made proclamations at the street corners.. . .

"Near the statue of Juste-Lipse, a Dr. Berghausen, a German surgeon, in a highly excited condition, ran to meet the delegation. He shouted that a German soldier had just been killed by a shot fired from the house of Mr. David Fishbach. Addressing the soldiers, Dr. Berghausen said: 'The blood of the entire population of Louvain is not worth a drop of the blood of a German soldier!' Then one of the soldiers threw into the interior of the house of Mr. Fishbach one of the pastils which the German soldiers carried and immediately the house flared up. It contained paintings of a high value. The old coachman, Joseph Vandermosten, who had re-entered the house to try to save the life of his master, did not return. His body was found the next day amidst the ruins. . . .

"The Germans made the usual claim that the civil population had fired upon them and that it was necessary to take these measures, i. e., burn the churches, the library and other public monuments, burn and pillage houses, driving out and murdering the inhabitants, sacking the city in order to punish and to spread terror among the people, and General von Luttwitz had told me that it was reported that the son of the burgomaster had shot one of their generals. But the burgomaster of Louvain had no son and no officer was shot at Louvain. The story of a general shot by the son of a burgomaster was a repetition of a tragedy that had occurred at Aerschot, on the 19th, where the fifteen-year-old son of the burgomaster had been killed by a firing squad, not because he had shot a general, but because an officer had been shot, probably by Belgian soldiers retreating through the town. The story of this tragedy is told by the boy's mother, under oath, before the Belgian Commission, and is so simple, so touching, so convincing in its verisimilitude, that I attach a copy of it in extenso to this report. It seems to afford an altogether typical example of what went on all over the stricken land during those days of terror. (In other places it was the daughter of the burgomaster who was said to have shot a general.)

"The following facts may be noted: From the avowal of Prussian officers themselves, there was not one single victim, among their men at the barracks of St. Martin, Louvain, where it was claimed that the first shot had been fired from a house situated in front of the Caserne. This would appear to be impossible had the civilians fired upon them point blank from across the street. It was said that when certain houses near the barracks were burning, numerous explosions occurred, revealing the presence of cartridges; but these houses were drinking houses much frequented by German soldiers. It was said that Spanish students shot from the schools in the Rue de la Station, but Father Catala, rector of the school, affirms that the schools were empty. . . .

"If it was necessary, for whatever reason, to do what was done at Vise, at Dinant, at Aerschot, at Louvain, and in a hundred other towns that were sacked, pillaged and burned, where masses were shot down because civilians had fired on German troops, and if it was necessary to do this on a scale never before witnessed in history, one might not unreasonably assume that the alleged firing by civilians was done on a scale, if not so thoroughly organized, at least somewhat in proportion to the rage of destruction that punished it. And hence it would seem to be a simple matter to produce at least convincing evidence that civilians had fired on the soldiers; but there is no testimony to that effect beyond that of the soldiers who merely assert it: Man hat geschossen. If there were no more firing on soldiers by civilians in Belgium than is proved by the German testimony, it was not enough to justify the burning of the smallest of the towns that was overtaken by that fate. And there is not a scintilla of evidence of organized bands of francs-tireurs, such as were found in the war of 1870."

Under date of September 12, 1917, Minister Whitlock, in a report to the State Department of the United States, made the following summary: "As one studies the evidence at hand, one is struck at the outset by the fact so general that it must exclude the hypothesis of coincidence, and that is that these wholesale massacres followed immediately upon some check, some reverse, that the German army had sustained. The German army was checked by the guns of the forts to the east of Liege, and the horrors of Vise, Verviers, Bligny, Battice, Hervy and twenty villages follow. When they entered Liege, they burned the houses along two streets and killed many persons, five or six Spaniards among them. Checked before Namur they sacked Andenne, Bouvignies, and Champignon, and when they took Namur they burned one hundred and fifty houses. Compelled to give battle to the French army in the Belgian Ardennes they ravaged the beautiful valley of the Semois; the complete destruction of the village of Rossignlo and the extermination of its entire male population took place there. Checked again by the French on the Meuse, the awful carnage of Dinant results. Held on the Sambre by the French, they burn one hundred houses at Charleroi and enact the appalling tragedy of Tamines. At Mons, the English hold them, and after that all over the Borinage there is a systematic destruction, pillage and murder. The Belgian army drive them back from Malines and Louvain is doomed. The Belgian army failing back and fighting in retreat took refuge in the forts of Antwerp, and the burning and sack of Hougaerde, Wavre, Ottignies, Grimde, Neerlinter, Weert, St. George, Shaffen and Aerschot follow.



AN OBSERVATION POST Watching the effect of gun fire from a sand-bagged ruin near the German lines.



Photo by Trans-Atlantic News Service KING ALBERT AT THE HEAD OF THE HEROIC SOLDIERS OF BELGIUM It is universally agreed that the Belgian monarch was no figurehead general but a real leader of his troops. It was these men, facing annihilation, who astonished the world by opposing the German military machine successfully enough to allow France to get her armies into shape and prevent the immediate taking of Paris that was planned by Germany.

THE TERRIBLE FLANDERS MUD A German battery endeavoring to escape from a British advance sinks in the mud. The gunners are endeavoring to pull the gun out with ropes.

"The Belgian troops inflicted serious losses on the Germans in the South of the Province of Limbourg, and the towns of Lummen, Bilsen, and Lanaeken are partially destroyed. Antwerp held out for two months, and all about its outer line of fortifications there was blood and fire, numerous villages were sacked and burned and the whole town of Termonde was destroyed. During the battles of September the village of Boortmeerbeek near Malines, occupied by the Germans, was retaken by the Belgians, and when the Germans entered it again they burned forty houses. Three times occupied by the Belgians and retaken by the Germans Boortmeerbeek was three times punished in the same way. That is to say, everywhere the German army met with a defeat it took it out, as we say in America, on the civil population. And that is the explanation of the German atrocities in Belgium."

A committee of the highest honor and responsibility was appointed by the British Government to investigate the whole subject of atrocities in Belgium and Northern France. Its chairman was the Rt. Hon. Viscount James Bryce, formerly British Ambassador to the United States. Its other members were the Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick Pollock, the Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Clark, Sir Alfred Hopkinson, Mr. H. A. L. Fisher, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sheffield, Mr. Harold Cox and Sir Kenelm E. Digby.

The report of the commission bears upon its face the stamp of painstaking search for truth, substantiates every statement made by Minister Whitlock and makes known many horrible instances of cruelty and barbarity. It makes the following deductions as having been proved beyond question:

1. That there were in many parts of Belgium deliberate and systematically organized massacres of the civil population, accompanied by many isolated murders and other outrages.

2. That in the conduct of the war generally innocent civilians, both men and women, were murdered in large numbers, women violated, and children murdered.

3. That looting, house burning, and the wanton destruction of property were ordered and countenanced by the officers of the German army, that elaborate provision had been made for systematic incendiarism at the very outbreak of the war, and that the burnings and destruction were frequent where no military necessity could be alleged, being, indeed, part of a system of general terrorization.

4. That the rules and usages of war were frequently broken, particularly by the using of civilians, including women and children, as a shield for advancing forces exposed to fire, to a less degree by killing the wounded and prisoners and in the frequent abuse of the Red Cross and the white flag.

The Bryce Commission's report on the destruction of Dinant is an example of testimony laid before them. It follows:

"A clear statement of the outrages at Dinant, which many travelers will recall as a singularly picturesque town on the Meuse, is given by one witness, who says that the Germans began burning houses in the Rue St. Jacques on the 21st of August, and that every house in the street was burned. On the following day an engagement took place between the French and the Germans, and the witness spent the whole day in the cellar of a bank with his wife and children. On the morning of the 23d, about 5 o'clock, firing ceased, and almost immediately afterward a party of Germans came to the house. They rang the bell and began to batter at the door and windows. The witness' wife went to the door and two or three Germans came in. The family were ordered out into the street. There they found another family, and the two families were driven with their hands above their heads along the Rue Grande. All the houses in the street were burning.

"The party was eventually put into a forge where there were a number of other prisoners, about a hundred in all, and were kept there from 11 A. M. till 2 P. M. They were then taken to the prison. There they were assembled in a courtyard and searched. No arms were found. They were then passed through into the prison itself and put into cells. The witness and his wife were separated from each other. During the next hour the witness heard rifle shots continually and noticed in the corner of a courtyard leading off the row of cells the body of a young man with a mantle thrown over it. He recognized the mantle as having belonged to his wife. The witness' daughter was allowed to go out to see what had happened to her mother, and the witness himself was allowed to go across the courtyard half an hour afterward for the same purpose. He found his wife lying on the floor in a room. She had bullet wounds in four places but was alive and told her husband to return to the children and he did so.

"About 5 o'clock in the evening, he saw the Germans bringing out all the young and middle-aged men from the cells, and ranging their prisoners, to the number of forty, in three rows in the middle of the courtyard. About twenty Germans were drawn up opposite, but before anything was done there was a tremendous fusillade from some point near the prison and the civilians were hurried back to their cells. Half an hour later the same forty men were brought back into the courtyard. Almost immediately there was a second fusillade and they were driven back to the cells again.

"About 7 o'clock the witness and other prisoners were brought out of their cells and marched out of the prison. They went between two lines of troops to Roche Bayard, about a kilometer away. An hour later the women and children were separated and the prisoners were brought back to Dinant passing the prison on their way. Just outside the prison, the witness saw three lines of bodies which he recognized as being those of his neighbors. They were nearly all dead, but he noticed movement in some of them. There were about one hundred and twenty bodies. The prisoners were then taken up to the top of a hill outside Dinant and compelled to stay there till 8 o'clock in the morning. On the following day they were put into cattle trucks and taken thence to Coblenz. For three months they remained prisoners in Germany.

"Unarmed civilians were killed in masses at other places near the prison. About ninety bodies were seen lying on the top of one another in a grass square opposite the convent. A witness asked a German officer why her husband had been shot, and he told her that it was because two of her sons had been in the civil guard and had shot at the Germans. As a matter of fact, one of her sons was at that time in Liege and the other in Brussels. It is stated that besides the ninety corpses referred to above, sixty corpses of civilians were recovered from a hole in the brewery yard and that forty-eight bodies of women and children were found in a garden. The town was systematically set on fire by hand grenades. Another witness saw a little girl of seven, one of whose legs was broken and the other injured by a bayonet. We have no reason to believe that the civilian population of Dinant gave any provocation, or that any other defense can be put forward to justify the treatment inflicted upon its citizens."

The Bryce Commission reports the outrages in a number of Belgian villages in this terse fashion:

"In Hofstade a number of houses had been set on fire and many corpses were seen, some in houses, some in back yards, and some in the streets. Two witnesses speak of having seen the body of a young man pierced by bayonet thrusts with the wrists cut also. On a side road the corpse of a civilian was seen on his doorstep with a bayonet wound in his stomach and by his side the dead body of a boy of five or six with his hands nearly severed. The corpses of a woman and boy were seen at the blacksmith's. They had been killed with the bayonet. In a cafe, a young man, also killed with the bayonet, was holding his hands together as if in the attitude of supplication.