THE GERMAN ARMY
IN BELGIUM
THE WHITE BOOK OF MAY 1915
TRANSLATED BY
E.N. BENNETT
Late Capt. 4th Batt. Oxford & Bucks Light Infantry,
formerly Fellow of Hertford College, Oxford
WITH A
FOREWORD ON MILITARY REPRISALS
IN BELGIUM AND IRELAND
NEW YORK
B.W. HUEBSCH, INC.
MCMXXI
FOREWORD
The Allied case against Germany with respect to the conduct of theKaiser's troops in Belgium rests mainly on four publications. (1)"The Report of the Belgian Commission of Inquiry." (2) The Belgian"Rapports sur la Violation du Droit des Gens en Belgique." (3) TheBelgian "Reply to the German White Book." (4) The "Bryce Report." Itwas the last of these which mainly influenced British and Americanopinion. This famous compilation owed much to the reputation of theeminent scholar who presided over the Enquiry, and to the namesof Messrs. Fisher, Harold Cox and others who were members of theCommission. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that our experienceduring the storm and stress of the war does not indicate that ourliterary and intellectual leaders have as a class shown either greaterfidelity to principle or less susceptibility to the evil influences ofwar-fever, than the ordinary man in the street; and now that the moresalient symptoms of this fever are abating and prejudice is slowlybeing replaced by reasoned judgment, the Bryce report can no longerretain unchallenged its claim to present a critical and convincingrecord of unquestioned facts. The numerous statements which it embodieswere mainly derived from Belgian refugees who had reached our shores.Very many of these men and women were naturally in a state of nervousexcitement and full of bitter indignation against the invaders of theirsoil. Such mental conditions are never conducive to the presentationof accurate and veridical evidence. Further it is obvious thatsome of these refugees were not eye-witnesses of the outrages theydescribe, for they had fled from their homes and merely record theirown inferences as to events which had occurred during their absence.Another serious weakness in the Report arises from the fact thatthe various barristers and others who were sent round to interviewthese refugees were with very few exceptions quite unable to conversefluently in French and wholly ignorant of Flemish. Finally, none ofthe evidence was taken on oath. Here then we have an ill-digested massof unsworn statements—some merely at second-hand—made by excited andangry Belgians, and transmitted by interpreters, themselves unsworn,which is presented to the world as final and conclusive proof ofGermany's guilt, while at the same time the publication in this countryof a plain translation of Germany's official defence against thesecharges was forbidden by the Censor. The testimony of the Bryce Reportserved its purpose and aroused a volume of indignant and scandalisedopinion which provided one of the sharpest weapons employed against ourchief enemy; but it must be admitted that the methods by which it wascompiled were so lax and uncritical that the results sink far below thelevel ordinarily demanded by the serious historian.
The definite and fundamental contention of both the Bryce and theBelgian Reports is that, with the possible exception of a very fewand very doubtful cases, no civilian attacks were made on the Germantroops. This point is strongly and repeatedly emphasised.
"The German Government" says the Bryce Report, page 31, "have soughtto