Ложь во время войны

Chapter III - THE INVASION OF BELGIUM AS A CAUSE OF THE GREAT WAR

Whatever may have been the causes of the Great War, the German invasion

of Belgium was certainly not one of them. It was one of the first

consequences of war. Nor was it even the reason of our entry into the

war. But the Government, realizing how doubtful it was whether they

could rouse public enthusiasm over a secret obligation to France, was,

able, owing to Germany's fatal blunder, to represent the invasion of

Belgium and the infringement of the Treaty of Neutrality as the cause of

our participation in it.

We know now that we were committed to France by an obligation of honour,

we know now that Sir Edward Grey would have resigned had we not gone in

on the side of France, and we also know that Mr. Bonar Law committed the

Conservative Party to the support of war before the question of the

invasion of Belgium arose.

"The Government already know, but I give them now the assurance on

behalf of the party of which I am Leader in this House, that in

whatever steps they think it necessary to take for the honour and

security of this country, they can rely on the unhesitating support

of the Opposition". (Quoted in "_Twenty-Five Years_" by Viscount

Grey).

The invasion of Belgium came as a godsend to the Government and the

Press, and they jumped to take advantage of this pretext, fully

appreciating its value from the point of view of rallying public opinion.

"We are going into a war that is forced upon us as the defenders of

the weak and the champions of the liberties of Europe". ("_The

Times_," August 5, 1914).

"It should be clearly understood when it was and why it was we

intervened. It was only when we were confronted with the choice

between keeping and breaking solemn obligations; between the

discharge of a binding trust and of shameless subservience to naked

force, that we threw away the, scabbard.... We were bound by our

obligations, plain and paramount, to assert and maintain the

threatened independence of a small and neutral State" [Belgium].

(Mr. Asquith, House of Commons, August 27, 1914.)

"The treaty obligations of Great Britain to that little land

(Belgium) brought us into the war". (Mr Lloyd George, January 5th 1918)

Neither of these, statements by successive Prime Ministers is true. We

were drawn into the war because of our commitment to France. The attack

on Belgium was used to excite national enthusiasm. A phrase to the same

effect was inserted in the King's Speech of September 18, 1914.

"I was compelled in the assertion of treaty obligations deliberately

set at naught ... to go to war".

The two following extracts put the matter correctly:

"They do not reflect that our honour and our interest must have

compelled us to join France and Russia even if Germany had

scrupulously respected the rights of her small neighbours, and had

sought to hack her way into France through the Eastern fortresses".

("_The Times_" March 15, 1915).

SIR D. MACLEAN: "We went into the war on account of Belgium."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN: "We had such a treaty with Belgium. Had it been

France only, we could not have stayed out after the conversations

that had taken place. It would not have been in our interests to

stay out, and we could not have stayed out without loss of security

and honour". (House of Commons, February 8, 1922.)

But in addition to the attack on Belgium being declared to be the cause

of the war, it was also represented as an unprecedented and

unwarrantable breach of a treaty. To this day "the Scrap of Paper" (a

facsimile of the treaty) is framed on the walls of some elementary schools.

There is no nation which has not been guilty of the breach of a treaty.

After war is declared, treaties are scrapped right and left. There were

other infringements of neutrality during the war. The infringement of a

treaty is unfortunately a matter of expediency, not a matter of

international morality. In 1887, when there was a scare of an outbreak

of war between France and Germany, the Press, including the _Standard_,

which was regarded at that time more or less as a Government organ,

discussed dispassionately and with calm equanimity the possibility of

allowing Germany to pass through Belgium in order to attack France. The

_Standard_ argued that it would be madness for Great Britain to oppose

the passage of German troops through Belgium, and the _Spectator_ said:

"We shall not bar, as indeed we cannot bar, the traversing of her soil."

We were not more sensitive to our treaty obligations in 1914 than we

were in 1887. But it happened that in 1887 we were on good terms with

Germany and on strained terms with France. The opposite policy,

therefore, suited our book better.

Moreover, the attack on Belgium did not come as a surprise. All our

plans were made in preparation for it. The Belgian documents which were

published disclosed the fact that the "conversations" of 1906 concerned

very full plans for military co-operation in the event of a German

invasion of Belgium, but similar plans were not drawn up between Belgium

and Germany. The French and British are referred to as the Allied

armies, Germany as "the enemy." Full and elaborate plans were made for

the landing of British troops.

Politically the invasion of Belgium was a gross error. Strategically it

was the natural and obvious course to take. Further, we know now that

had Germany not violated Belgian neutrality, France would have. The

authority for this information, which from the point of view of military

strategy is perfectly intelligible, is General Percin, whose articles in

'Ere Nouvelle' in 1925 are thus quoted and commented on in the

_Manchester Guardian_ of January 27, 1925.

"VIOLATION OF BELGIAN NEUTRALITY INTENDED BY FRANCE. ALLEGATIONS BY A

FRENCH GENERAL."

"From our own Correspondent.

"PARIS, Monday."

"Immediately before Great Britain's entry into the war in 1914 the

British Government inquired both in Berlin and Paris whether Belgian

neutrality was going to be respected. Was the addressing of this

inquiry to France a pure matter of form?

"If General Percin, the well-known Radical non-Catholic French

General, is to be believed, apparently not, for he declares

authoritatively in a series of articles that he has begun in the

_Ere Nouvelle_ that the violation of Belgian neutrality had for many

years been an integral part of the war plans of the French General

Staff and even of the French Government.

"The controversy that has started, it need hardly be said, is of

world importance, for it disposes in a large moral degree of the

Scrap of Paper stigma against Germany.

"General Percin, it must be admitted, is an embittered man, though

no one has yet been found to question his honour or capacity. He is

a Protestant--a rare thing in the high ranks of the French Army--and

has always been at loggerheads with the military hierarchy

of the General Staff. That is little wonder, for he was chief of the

Cabinet to General André, Minister of War in the Combes Cabinet,

when in the Dreyfus affair a more or less vain effort was made to

purge the High Command. General Percin's principal interest was in

artillery, and the German papers during the war credited him with

having been principally responsible for the adoption of the famous

.75. The deposition of General Percin from the military command at

Lisle in the first few weeks of the war has never been clearly

explained. It seems to have been part of a vendetta. At any rate,

that no disgrace was implied was shown by the later grant to him of

the Grand Cordon of the Legion of Honour".

A DISCOVERY OF 1910.

General Percin's evidence in '_Ere Nouvelle_' dates from the time when

he was one of the chiefs of the Superior Council of War.

"I took a personal part," he writes, "in the winter of 1910-11 in a

great campaign organized in the Superior Council of War, of which I

was then a member. The campaign lasted a week. It showed that a

German attack on the Alsace-Lorraine front had no chance of success;

that it would inevitably be smashed against the barriers accumulated

in that region, and that (Germany would) be obliged to violate

Belgian neutrality.

"The question was not discussed whether we should follow the German

lead in such violation and if necessary anticipate it ourselves, or

whether we should await the enemy on this side of the Belgian

frontier. That was a question of a Governmental rather than of a

military kind. But any commander of troops who in time of war learns

that the enemy has the intention of occupying a point the position

of which gives him tactical advantage has the imperative duty to try

to occupy that point first himself, and as soon as ever he can. If

any of us had said that out of respect for the treaty of 1839 he

would on his own initiative have remained on this side of the

Belgian frontier, thus bringing the war on to French territory, he

would have been scorned by his comrades and by the Minister of War

himself.

"We were all of us in the French army partisans of the tactical

offensive. It implied the violation of Belgian neutrality, for we

knew the intentions of the Germans. I shall be told that on our part

it would not have been a French crime, but a retort, a riposte to a

German crime. No doubt. But every entry into war professes to be

such a riposte. You attack the enemy because you attribute to him

the intention of attacking you."

"On August 31, 1911, the Chiefs of the French and Russian General

Staffs signed an agreement that the words 'defensive war' should not

be taken literally, and then affirmed 'the absolute necessity for

the French and Russian armies of taking a vigorous offensive as far

as possible simultaneously.'"

"According to General Percin, that vigorous offensive meant French

violation of Belgian neutrality. Could we take a vigorous offensive

without the violation of Belgian neutrality? Could we really deploy

our 1,300,000 on the narrow front of Alsace-Lorraine?"

VIOLATION OF BELGIUM INEVITABLE.

He asserts categorically that in the mind of the French General Staff

the war was to take place in Belgium, and, indeed, six months after the

signature of the agreement between the French and Russian General Staffs

quoted above, Artillery-Colonel Picard, at the head of a group of

officers of the General Staff, made a tour in Belgium to study

utilization, when the time should come, of this field of operations.

General Percin concludes: "The treaty of 1839 could not help but be

violated either by the Germans or by us. It had been invented to make

war impossible. The question that we have to judge upon, then, is this:

Which of the two, France or Germany, wanted war the most? Not which

showed most contempt for this treaty. The one that willed war more than

the other could not help but will the violation of Belgian territory."

A number of extracts might be given to show that the invasion of Belgium

was expected. Yet no steps were taken in the years before the war to

reaffirm the obligations under the old treaty of 1839 and make them a

great deal more binding than in actual fact they were.

The invasion of Belgium was not the cause of the war; the invasion of

Belgium was not unexpected; the invasion of Belgium did not shock the

moral susceptibilities of either the British or French Governments. But

it may be admitted that, finding themselves in the position which they

had themselves largely contributed to create, the British and French

Governments in the first stages of the Great War were fully justified,

and indeed urgently compelled, to arrange the facts and, distort the

implications as they did, given always the standard of morality which

war involves. To colour the picture with the pigment of falsehood so as

to excite popular indignation was imperative, and it was done with

complete success.

Chapter IV - GERMANY'S SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WAR

The accusation against the enemy of sole responsibility for the war is

common form in every nation and in every war. So far as we are

concerned, the Russians (in the Crimean War), the Afghans, the Arabs,

the Zulus, and the Boers, were each in their turn unprovoked aggressors,

to take only some recent instances. It is a necessary falsehood based on

a momentary biased opinion of one side in a dispute, and it becomes the

indispensable basis of all subsequent propaganda. Leading articles in

the newspapers at the outbreak of every war ring the changes on this

theme, and are so similarly worded as to make it almost appear as if

standard articles are set up in readiness and the name of the enemy,

whoever he may be, inserted when the moment comes. Gradually the

accusation is dropped officially, when reason returns and the

consolidation of peace becomes an imperative necessity for all nations.

It is hardly necessary to give many instances of the universal

declaration of Germany's sole responsibility, criminality, and evil

intention. Similar declarations might be collected in each country on

both sides in the war.

It [the declaration of war] is hardly surprising news, for a long

chain of facts goes to show that Germany has deliberately brought on

the crisis which now hangs over Europe. "_The Times_." August 5. 1914.

Germany and Austria have alone wanted this war. (Sir Valentine

Chirol, "_The Times_," August 6, 1914.)

And with whom does this responsibility rest? ... One Power, and one

Power only, and that Power is Germany. (Mr. Asquith at the

Guildhall, September 4, 1914.)

(We are fighting) to defeat the most dangerous conspiracy ever

plotted against the liberty of nations, carefully, skilfully,

insidiously, clandestinely planned in every detail with ruthless,

cynical determination. (Mr. Lloyd George, August 4, 1917.)

Lord Northcliffe, who was in charge of war propaganda, saw how essential

it was to make the accusation the basis of all his activities. "The

whole situation of the Allies in regard to Germany is governed by the

fact that Germany is responsible for the war," and again, "The Allies

must never be tired of insisting that they were the victims of a

deliberate aggression" (Secrets of Crewe House).

Among the few moderate voices in August 1914 was Lord Rosebery, who wrote:

"It was really a spark in the midst of the great powder magazine

which the nations of Europe have been building up for the last

twenty or thirty years .... I do not know if there was some great

organizer .... Without evidence I should be loath to lay such a

burthen on the head of any man."

So violently and repeatedly, however, had the accusation been made in

all the Allied countries, that the Government were forced to introduce

it into the Peace Treaty. "Article 231. The Allied and Associated

Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and

her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and

Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a

consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany

and her allies."

When war passions began to subside, the accusation was gradually

dropped. The statesmen themselves even withdrew it.

"The more one reads memoirs and books written in the various

countries of what happened before August 1, 1914, the more one

realizes that no one at the head of affairs quite meant war at that

stage. It was something into which they glided, or rather staggered

and stumbled, perhaps through folly, and a discussion, I have no

doubt, would have averted it." (Mr. Lloyd George, December 23, 1920.)

"I cannot say that Germany and her allies were solely responsible

for the war which devastated Europe...That statement, which we

all made during the war, was a weapon to be used at the time; now

that the war is over it cannot be used as a serious argument...

When it will be possible to examine carefully the diplomatic

documents of the war, and time will allow us to judge them calmly,

it will be seen that Russia's attitude was the real and underlying

cause of the world conflict." (Signor Francesco Nitti, former

Premier of Italy.)

"Is there any man or woman let me say, is there any child who does

not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and

commercial rivalry?...This was an industrial and commercial

war." (President Woodrow Wilson, September 5, 1919.)

"I do not claim that Austria or Germany in the first place had a

conscious thought-out intention of provoking a general war. No

existing documents give us the right to suppose that at that time

they had planned anything so systematic." M. Raymond Poincaré, 1925.

"I dare say that the belief in the sole guilt of Germany is not

possible even to M. Poincaré. But if one can construct a policy

based upon the theory of Germany's sole guilt, it is clear that one

should grimly stick to this theory, or at least give oneself the

appearance of conviction." (General Subhomlinoff (Russian Minister

of War). Quoted by M. Vaillant Conturier in the Chamber of Deputies

("_Journal Officiel_," July 5th 1922).

The Press and publicists also changed their tone.

"To saddle Germany with the sole responsibility for the war is from

what we already know--and more will come--an absurdity. To

frame a treaty on an absurdity is an injustice. Humanly, morally,

and historically the Treaty of Versailles stands condemned, quite

apart from its economic monstrosities" (Austin Harrison, Editor

"_English Review_")

"Did vindictive nations ever do anything meaner, falser, or more

cruel than when the Allies, by means of the Versailles Treaty,

forced Germany to be the scapegoat to bear the guilt which belonged

to all? What nation carries clean hands and a pure heart?" (Charles

F. Dole.)

In 1923 the representatives of the nations assembled on a Temporary

Mixed Commission to draft a Treaty of Mutual Assistance under the

auspices of the League of Nations. Fully aware of what had been declared

to be by their Governments a flagrant and indisputable instance of

unprovoked aggression on the part of Germany, they found themselves

quite unable to define "unprovoked aggression." The Belgian, Brazilian,

French, and Swedish delegations said, in the course of a memorandum:

"It is not enough merely to repeat the formula 'unprovoked

aggression,' for under the conditions of modern warfare it would

seem impossible to decide even in theory what constitutes a case of

aggression."

This view was practically adopted and the Committee of Jurists, when

consulted, suggested that the term "aggression" should be dropped. The

future case under the Covenant of the League of Nations of a nation

which refused the recommendation of the Council or the verdict of the

Court and resorted to arms was substituted as constituting a war of

aggression.

In 1925, in the preamble of the Locarno Pact drawn up between Germany,

France, and Great Britain, there is not the faintest echo of the

accusation; on the contrary, a phrase is actually inserted as follows:

"Anxious to satisfy the desire for security and protection which

animates the peoples upon whom fell the scourge of the war 1914-1918

(les nations qui ont eu ŕ subir le fléau de la guerre)."

This is no place to enter into the question of responsibility, to shift

the blame from one nation to another, or to show the degree in which

Germany was indeed responsible. Sole responsibility is a very different

thing from some responsibility. The Germans and Austrians were busy, not

without good evidence, in accusing Russia. But the disputes and

entanglements and the deplorable ineptitude of diplomacy on all sides in

the last few weeks were not, any more than the murder of the Archduke,

the cause of the war, although special documents are always produced to

give the false impression.

The causes were precedent and far-reaching, and it is doubtful if even

the historians of the future will be able to apportion the blame between

the Powers concerned with any degree of accuracy.

Lord Cecil of Chelwood recently put his finger on the most undoubted of

all the contributory and immediate causes. Speaking in the City in 1927,

he referred to "the gigantic competition in armaments before the war,"

and said:

"No one could deny that the state of mind produced by armament

competitions prepared the soil on which grew up the terrible plant

which ultimately fruited in the Great War."

The above series of quotations will suffice to show how the sole

culpability of the enemy is, as always, a war-time myth. The great

success of the propaganda, however, leaves the impression fixed for a

long time on the minds of those who want to justify to themselves their

action in supporting the war and of those who have not taken the trouble

to follow the subsequent withdrawals and denials. Moreover, the myth is

allowed to remain, so far as possible, in the public mind in the shape

of fear of "unprovoked aggression," and becomes the chief, and indeed

the sole, justification for preparations for another war.

Chapter V - PASSAGE OF RUSSIAN TROOPS THROUGH GREAT BRITAIN

No obsession was more widespread through the war than the belief in the

last months of 1914 that Russian troops were passing through Great

Britain to the Western Front. Nothing illustrates better the credulity

of the public mind in war-time and what favourable soil it becomes for

the cultivation of falsehood.

How the rumour actually originated it is difficult to say. There were

subsequently several more or less humorous suggestions made: of a

telegram announcing the arrival of a large number of Russian eggs,

referred to as "Russians "; of the tall, bearded individual who

declared from the window of a train that he came from "Ross-shire"; and

of the excited French officer with imperfect English pronunciation who

went about near the front, exclaiming, "Where are de rations." But

General Sukhomlinoff, in his memoirs, states that Sir George Buchanan,

the British Ambassador in Russia, actually requested the dispatch of "a

complete Russian army corps" to England, and English ships were to be

brought to Archangel for the transport of these troops. The Russian

General Staff, he adds, came to the conclusion that "Buchanan had lost

his reason."

Whatever the origin may have been, the rumour spread like wild-fire, and

testimony came from every part of the country from people who had seen

the Russians. They were in trains with the blinds down, on platforms

stamping the snow off their boots; they called hoarsely for "vodka" at

Carlisle and Berwick-on-Tweed, and they jammed the penny-in-the-slot

machine with a rouble at Durham. The number of troops varied according

to the imaginative powers of the witness.

As the rumour had undoubted military value, the authorities took no

steps to deny it. A telegram from Rome appeared giving "the official

news of the concentration of 250,000' Russian troops in France." With

regard to this telegram the official Press Bureau stated: "That there

was no confirmation of the statements contained in it, but that there

was no objection to them being published." As there was a strict

censorship of news, the release of this telegram served to confirm the

rumour and kept the false witnesses busy.

On September 9, 1914, the following appeared in the _Daily News_:

"The official sanction to the publication of the above (the telegram

from Rome) removes the newspaper reserve with regard to the rumours

which for the last fortnight have coursed with such astonishing

persistency through the length and breadth of England. Whatever be

the unvarnished truth about the Russian forces in the West, so

extraordinary has been the ubiquity of the rumours in question, that

they are almost more amazing if they are false than if they are

true. Either a baseless rumour has obtained a currency and a

credence perhaps unprecedented in history, or, incredible as it may

appear, it is a fact that Russian troops, whatever the number may

be, have been disembarked and passed through this country, while not

one man in ten thousand was able to say with certainty whether their

very existence was not a myth."

The Press on the whole, was reserved, fearing a trap, and the _Daily

Mail_ suggested that the Russian Consul-General's statement that "about

5,000 Russian .reservists have permission to serve the Allies" might be

at the bottom of the rumour. Like a popular book, the rumour spread more

from verbal personal communications than on account of Press notices.

On September 14, 1914, the _Daily News_ again returned to the subject:

"As will be seen from the long dispatch of Mr. P. J. Philip, our

special correspondent, Russian troops are now cooperating with the

Belgians. This information proves the correctness of the general

impression that Russian troops have been moved through England."

("_Daily News_," September 14, 1914).

(Dispatch)

"To-night, in an evening paper, I find the statement 'de bonne

source' that the German Army in Belgium has been cut...by the

Belgian Army reinforced by Russian troops. The last phrase unseals

my pen. For two days I have been on a long trek looking for the

Russians, and now I have found them--where and how it would not

be discreet to tell, but the published statement that they are here

is sufficient, and of my own knowledge I can answer for their presence."

An official War Office denial of the rumour was noted by the _Daily

News_ on September 16, 1914.

The _Daily Mail_, September 9, 1914, contained a facetious article on

the Russian rumour, concluding:

"But now we are told from Rome that the Russians are in France. How are

we all going to apologize to the Bernets, Brocklers, and Pendles--if

they were right, after all ?"

MR. KING asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can

state, without injury to the military interests of the Allies,

whether any Russian troops have been conveyed through Great Britain

to the Western area of the European War?

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mt. Tennant): I am uncertain

whether it will gratify or displease my hon. friend to learn that no

Russian troops have been conveyed through Great Britain to the

Western area of the European War. (House of Commons, November 18, 1914.)

Chapter VI - THE MUTILATED NURSE

Many atrocity stories were circulated which were impossible to prove or

disprove, but in the early months of the war the public was shocked by a

horrible story of barbarous cruelty, of which a complete record can be

given. It is a curious instance of the ingenuity of the deliberate

individual liar.

From "The _Star_," September 16th, 1914.

"A NURSE'S TRAGEDY."

"DUMFRIES GIRL THE VICTIM OF SHOCKING BARBARITY."

"News has reached Dumfries of the shocking death of a Dumfries young

woman, Nurse Grace Hume, who went out to Belgium at the outbreak of

war. Nurse Hume was engaged at the camp hospital at Vilvorde, and

she was the victim of horrible cruelty at the hands of German

soldiers. Her breasts were cut off and she died in great agony.

Nurse Hume's family received a note written shortly before she died.

It was dated September 6th, and ran: 'Dear Kate, this is to say

good-bye. Have not long to live. Hospital has been set on fire.

Germans cruel. A man here had his head cut off. My right breast has

been taken away. Give my love to ---- Good-bye. GRACE.'"

"Nurse Hume's left breast was cut away after she had written the

note. She was a young woman of twenty-three and was formerly a nurse

in Huddersfield Hospital.

"Nurse Mullard, of Inverness, delivered the note personally to Nurse

Hume's sister at Dumfries. She was also at Vilvorde, and she states

that Nurse Hume acted the part of a heroine. A German attacked a

wounded soldier whom Nurse Hume was taking to hospital. The nurse

took his gun and shot the German dead." ("The _Star_," September

16th, 1914.)

LETTER DELIVERED BY NURSE MULLARD TO MISS HUME.

"I have been asked by your sister, Nurse Grace Hume, to hand the

enclosed letter to you. My name My name is Nurse Mullard, and I was

with your sister when she died. Our camp hospital at Vilvorde was

burned to the ground, and out of 1,517 men and 23 nurses, only 19

nurses were saved, but 149 men managed to get away. Grace requested

me to tell you that her last thoughts were of--and you and that

you were not to worry over her, as she would be going to meet her

Jack. These were her last words. She endured great agony in her last

hours. One of the soldiers (our men) caught two German soldiers in

the act of cutting off her left breast, her right one having been

already cut off. They were killed instantly by our soldiers. Grace

managed to scrawl the enclosed note before I found her, but we all

say that your sister was a heroine. She was out on the fields

looking for wounded soldiers, and on one occasion, when bringing in

a wounded soldier, a German attacked her. She threw the soldier's

gun at him and shot him with her rifle. Of course, all nurses here

are armed. I have just received word this moment to pack to

Scotland. Will try and get this handed to you, as there is no post

from here, and we are making the best of a broken-down wagon truck

for a shelter. Will give you fuller details when I see you. We are

all quite safe now, as there have been reinforcements."

A condensed account appeared in the _Evening Standard_ with the note:

"This message has been submitted to the Press Bureau, which does not

object to the publication and takes no responsibility for the

correctness of the statement."

"A story which attracted particular attention both because of its

peculiar atrocity and because of the circumstantial details which

accompanied it, was told in several of the evening papers on

Wednesday. It was first published, we believe, in the '_Dumfries

Standard_' on Wednesday morning and related to an English nurse, who

was said to have been killed by Germans in Belgium with the most

revolting cruelty. This nurse came from Dumfries and, according to

the '_Dumfries Standard'_, the story was told to the nurse's sister

in Dumfries by another nurse from Belgium, who also gave an account

of it in a letter. Further, the '_Dumfries Standard_' published a

facsimile of a letter said to been written by the murdered nurse

when dying to her sister in Dumfries. The story therefore appeared

to be particularly well authenticated and, as we say, it was

published by a number of London evening papers of repute, including

the _Pall Mall_ and _Westminster Gazette_, the _Globe_, the _Star_,

and the _Evening Standard_. But late on Wednesday night it was

discovered to be entirely untrue, since the nurse in question was

actually in Huddersfield and had never been to Belgium, though she

volunteered for the front. The remaining fact is that her sister in

Dumfries states, according to the Yorkshire Post, that she was

visited by a 'Nurse Mullard,' professing to be a nurse from Belgium,

who told her the story and gave her the letter from her sister in a

handwriting that resembled her sister's. ("_Times_" Leader,

September 18, 1914.)

_The Times_ goes on to call for an inquiry and to suggest that the story

may have been invented by German agents in order to discredit all

atrocity stories.

"Kate Hume, seventeen, was charged at Dumfries yesterday, before

Sheriff Substitute Primrose, with having uttered a forged letter

purporting to have been written by her sister, Nurse Grace Hume in

Huddersfield. She declined to make any statement, on the advice of

her agent, and was committed to prison to await trial. ("_The

Times_," September 30, 1914.)

The case came before the High Court at Dumfries, and it was proved

that Kate Hume, (the sister), had fabricated the whole story and

forged both the letter from her sister and that from "Nurse Mullard"

and had communicated them to the Press. ("_The Times_" December 29th

and 30th, 1914.)

Chapter VII - THE CRIMINAL KAISER

HAVING declared the enemy the sole culprit and originator of the war,

the next step is to personify the enemy. As a nation consists of

millions of people and the absurd analogy of an individual criminal and

a nation may become apparent even to moderately intelligent people, it

is necessary to detach an individual on whom may be concentrated all the

vials of the wrath of an innocent people who are only defending

themselves from "unprovoked aggression." The sovereign is the obvious

person to choose. While the Kaiser on many occasions, by his bluster and

boasting, had been a subject of ridicule and offence, nevertheless, not

many years before, his portrait had appeared in the _Daily Mail_ with

"A friend in need is a friend indeed" under it. And as late as October

17, 1913, the _Evening News_ wrote:

"We all acknowledge the Kaiser as a very gallant gentleman whose

word is better than many another's bond, a guest whom we are always

glad to welcome and sorry to lose, a ruler whose ambitions for his

own people are founded on as good right as our own."

When the signal was given, however, all this could be forgotten and the

direct contrary line taken. The Kaiser turned out to be a most promising

target for concentrated abuse. So successfully was it done that

exaggeration soon became impossible; every crime in the calendar was

laid at his door authoritatively, publicly and privately; and this was

kept up all through the war. His past was reviewed, greatly to his

discredit. Over his desire to fight Great Britain while we were engaged

in the Boer War, however, there was an unfortunate contradiction in

point of fact, as the following two extracts show:

"Delcassé, with the help of the Czar, thrust aside German proposals

for a Continental combination against us during the Boer War."--_The

Times_, October 14, 1915 (editorial on Delcassé's resignation).

"At the time of the South African War, other nations were prepared

to assist the Boers, but they stipulated that Germany should do

likewise. The Kaiser refused." (General Botha, reported in the

"_Daily News_," September 3rd 1915.)

But over his criminality in the Great War there was no difference of

opinion. He had called a secret Council of the Central Powers at Potsdam

early in July 1914, at which it was decided to enforce war on Europe.

This secret plot was first divulged by a Dutch newspaper in September

1914. The story was revived by _The Times_ on July 28, 1917, and again

in November 1919. It was believed even in Germany, until reports were

received from various officers in touch with the Kaiser showing how he

spent these days, and it was finally disposed of and proved to be a myth

by the testimony of all those supposed to have taken part in it. This

was in 1919, after the story had served its purpose.

Only a few of the thousand references to the Kaiser's personal

criminality need be given.

"He (the enemy) is beginning to realize the desperate character of

the adventure on which the Kaiser embarked when he made this wanton

war." ("_Daily Mail_," October 1st 1914.)

The following letter from the late Sir W. B. Richmond, in the _Daily

Mail_ of September 22, 1914, is a forcibly expressed example of the

accepted opinion:

"Neither England nor civilized Europe and Asia is going to be set

trembling by lunatic William, even though by his order Rheims

Cathedral has been destroyed.

"This last act of the barbarian chief will only draw us all closer

together to be rid of a scourge the like of which the civilized

world has never seen before.

"The madman is piling up the logs of his own pyre. We can have no

terror of the monster; we shall clench our teeth in determination

that if we die to the last man the modern Judas and his hell-begotten

brood shall be wiped out.

"To achieve this righteous purpose we must be patient and plodding

as well as energetic.

"Our great England will shed its blood willingly to help rid

civilization of a criminal monarch and a criminal court which have

succeeded in creating out of a docile people a herd of savages. Sir

James Crichton Browne has said, in Dumfries: 'A halter for the

Kaiser'; shooting him would be to give him the honourable death of

a soldier. The halter is the shrift for this criminal."

"Lord Robert Cecil said that for the terrible outrages, the

wholesale breaches of every law and custom of civilized warfare

which the Germans had committed, the people who were responsible

were the German rulers, the Emperor and those who were closely

advising him, and it was upon them, if possible, that our punishment

and wrath should fall." ("_The Times_," May 15, 1915.)

"Cities have been burned, old men and children have been murdered,

women and young girls have been outraged, harmless fishermen have

been drowned, at this crowned criminal's orders. He will have to

answer 'at that great day when all the world is judged' for the

victims of the _Falaba_ and the _Lusitania_." (Leader on depriving

the Kaiser of the Order of the Garter, "_Daily Express_" May 14, 1915.)

A _Punch_ cartoon in 1818 depicted the Kaiser as Cain. Under it was put:

"More than 14,000 non-combatants have been murdered by the Kaiser's

orders."

There was a poster portrait of the Kaiser, his face composed of corpses,

his mouth streaming with blood, which could be seen on the hoardings.

The equivalent of this in France was "Guillaume le Boucher," the Kaiser

in an apron with a huge knife dripping with blood. Throughout he was a

good subject for the caricaturist, as he was so easy to draw.

The fiction having become popular and being universally accepted in the

Allied countries, it became imperative for the Allied statesmen to

insert a special clause in the Peace Treaty beginning:

"The Allied and Associated Powers publicly arraign William II, of

Hohenzollern, formerly German Emperor, for a supreme offence against

international morality and the sanctity of treaties..."

and going on to describe the constitution of "the special tribunal"

before which he was to be tried.

Having committed themselves to the trial of the Kaiser by a clause in

the Peace Treaty, the Allies were obliged to go through the formality of

addressing a note to the Netherlands Government on January 16, 1920,

dwelling on the Kaiser's "immense responsibility" and asking for him to

be handed over "in order that he may be sent for trial." The refusal of

the Netherlands Government on January 23rd was at once accepted and

saved the Allied Governments from making hopeless fools of themselves.

But before the decision was publicly known, and after it had been

privately ascertained that the Government of Holland, whither the Kaiser

had fled, would not give him up, the "Hang the Kaiser" campaign was

launched, and in the General Election of 1918 candidates lost votes who

would not commit themselves to this policy.

But the campaign had been launched before the decision of the

Netherlands Government was made public.

"The ruler (the Kaiser), who spoke for her pride and her majesty and

her might for thirty years, is now a fugitive, soon to be placed on

his trial (loud cheers) before the tribunals of lands which, on

behalf of his country, he sought to intimidate." (Mr. Lloyd George,

House of Commons, Julv 3, 1919.)

As a matter of fact, there was not the smallest intention of doing

anything so absurd as try the Kaiser. Nor did anyone with knowledge of

the facts believe him to be in any way personally responsible for

starting the war. He was, and always had been, a tinsel figure-head of

no account, with neither the courage to make a war nor the power to stop

it.

His biographer, Emil Ludwig, ('_Kaiser William II_', by Emil Ludwig.)

has written the most slashing indictment of William II that has appeared

in any language, showing up his vanity, his megalomania, and his

incompetence. But so far from accusing him of wanting or engineering the

war, the author insists, time after time, on the Emperor's pacific

attitude. "In all the European developments between 1908 and 1914, the

Emperor was more pacific, was even more far-sighted, than his advisers."

At the time of the Morocco crisis "the Emperor was peacefully inclined,"

and in the last days of July 1914, speaking of Germany, Austria, and

Russia, Ludwig says:

"Three Emperors avowedly opposed to war were driven by the ambition,

vindictiveness, and incompetence of their Ministers into a conflict

whose danger for their thrones they all three recognized from the

first and, if only for that reason, tried to avoid."

Even Lord Grey says, now that it is all over:

"If matters had rested with him (the Kaiser) there would have been

no European War arising out of the Austro-Serbian dispute."

('_Twenty-Five Years_,' vol ii, P.25.)

Nevertheless, up to 1919 the Kaiser, as the villain of the piece, was

set up in the Allied countries as the incarnation of all iniquity.

This very simple form of propaganda had a great influence on the

people's feelings. There can be no question that thousands who joined up

were under the impression that the primary object of the war was to

catch this monster, little knowing that war is like chess: you cannot

take the King while the game is going on; it is against the rules. It

would spoil the game. In the same way G.H.Q. on both sides was never

bombed because, as a soldier bluntly put it, "Don't you see, it would

put an end to the whole bloody business." Finding he had unfortunately

not been caught or killed during, the war, the people put their faith in

his being tried and hanged when the war was over. If he was all that had

been described to them, this was the least that could be expected.

When, as months and years passed, it was discovered that no responsible

person really believed, or had ever believed, in his personal guilt,

that the cry, "Hang the Kaiser," was a piece of deliberate bluff, and

that when all was over and millions of innocent people had been killed,

he, the criminal, the monster, the plotter and initiator of the whole

catastrophe, was allowed to live comfortably and peacefully in Holland,

the disillusionment to simple, uninformed people was far greater than

was ever realized. It was the exposure of this crude falsehood that

first led many humble individuals to inquire whether, in other

connections, they had not also been duped.

Chapter VIII - THE BELGIAN BABY WITHOUT HANDS

Not only did the Belgian baby whose hands had been cut off by the

Germans travel through the towns and villages of Great Britain, but it

went through Western Europe and America, even into the Far West. No one

paused to ask how long a baby would live were its hands cut off unless

expert surgical aid were at hand to tie up the arteries (the answer

being a very few minutes). Everyone wanted to believe the story, and

many went so far as to say they had seen the baby. The lie was as

universally accepted as the passage of the Russian troops through Britain.

"One man whom I did not see told an official of the Catholic Society

that he had seen with his own eyes German soldiery chop off the arms

of a baby which clung to its mother's skirts." ("_The Times_"

Correspondent in Paris, August 27, 1914.)

On September 2, 1914, _The Times_ Correspondent quotes French refugees

declaring: "They cut the hands off the little boys so that there shall

be no more soldiers for France."

Pictures of the baby without hands were very popular on the Continent,

both in France and in Italy. _Le Rive Rouge_ had a picture on September

18, 1915, and on July 26, 1916, made it still more lurid by depicting

German soldiers eating the hands. _Le Journal_ gave, on April 30, 1915,

a photograph of a statue of a child without hands, but the most savage

of all, which contained in it no elements of caricature, was issued by

the Allies for propaganda purposes and published in _Critica_, in Buenos

Ayres (reproduced in the _Sphere_, January 30, 1925). The heading of the

picture was, "The Bible before All," and under it was written: "Suffer

little children to come unto Me." The Kaiser is depicted standing behind

a huge block with an axe, his hands darkly stained with blood. Round the

block are piles of hands. He is beckoning to a woman to bring a number

of children, who are clinging to her, some having had their hands cut

off already.

Babies not only had their hands cut off, but they were impaled on

bayonets, and in one case nailed to a door. But everyone will remember

the handless Belgian baby. It was loudly spoken of in buses and other

public places, had been seen in a hospital, was now in the next parish,

etc., and it was paraded, not as an isolated instance of an atrocity,

but as a typical instance of a common practice.

In Parliament there was the usual evasion, which suggested the story was

true, although the only evidence given was "seen by witnesses."

Mr. A. K. LLOYD asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether

materials are available for identifying and tracing the survivors of

those children whose hands were cut of by the Germans, and whose

cases are referred to by letter and number in the Report of the

Bryce Committee; and, if so, whether he will consider the

possibility of making the information accessible, confidentially or

otherwise, to persons interested in the future of these survivors?

Sir G. CAVE: My Right Hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this

question. In all but two of the individual cases in which children

were seen by witnesses mutilated in this manner, the child was

either dead or dying from the treatment it had received. In view of

the fact that these children were in Belgium, which is still in

German occupation, it is unlikely that they could now be traced, and

any attempt to do so at this time might lead to the further

persecution of the victims or their relatives.

MR. LLOYD: Were there not other cases brought over here to hospital?

Sir G. CAVE: Not the cases to which the Hon. Member's question refers.

(House of Commons, December 16, 1916).

Sometimes the handless person was grown up. A Mr. Tyler, at a

Brotherhood meeting in Glasgow on April 17, 1915, said he had a friend

in Harrogate who had seen a nurse with both her hands cut off by

Germans. He gave the address of his informant. A letter was at once

addressed to the friend at Harrogate, asking if the statement was

correct, but no reply was ever received.

But the most harrowing and artistically dressed version of the handless

child story appeared in the _Sunday Chronicle_ on May 2, 1915.

"Some days ago a charitable great lady was visiting a building in

Paris where have been housed for several months a number of Belgian

refugees. During her visit she noticed a child, a girl of ten, who,

though the room was hot rather than otherwise, kept her hands in a

pitiful little worn muff. Suddenly the child said to the mother:

'Mamma, please blow my nose for me.'"

"Shocking," said the charitable lady, half-laughing, half-severe, "A

big girl like you, who can't use her own handkerchief"

The child said nothing, and the mother spoke in a dull,

matter-of-fact tone. "She has not any hands now, ma'am," she said.

The grand dame looked, shuddered, understood. "Can it be," she said,

"that the Germans--?" The mother burst into tears. That was her answer."

Signor Nitti, who was Italian Prime Minister during the war, states in

his memoirs:

"To bring the truth of the present European crisis home to the world

it is necessary to destroy again and again the vicious legends

created by war propaganda. During the war France, in common with

other Allies, including our own Government in Italy, circulated the

most absurd inventions to arouse the fighting spirit of our people.

The cruelties attributed to the Germans were such as to curdle our

blood. We heard the story of poor little Belgian children whose

hands were cut off by the Huns. After the war a rich American, who

was deeply touched by the French propaganda, sent an emissary to

Belgium with the intention of providing a livelihood for the

children whose poor little hands had been cut off. He was unable to

discover one. Mr. Lloyd George and myself, when at the head of the

Italian Government, carried on extensive investigations as to the

truth of these horrible accusations, some of which, at least, were

told specifically as to names and places. Every case investigated

proved to be a myth."

Colonel Repington, in his 'Diary of the World War', vol. ii, p. 447, says:

"I was told by Cardinal Gasquet that the Pope promised to make a

great protest to the world if a single case could be proved of the

violation of Belgian nuns or cutting off of children's hands. An

inquiry was instituted and many cases examined with the help of the

Belgian Cardinal Mercier. Not one case could be proved."

The former French Minister of Finance, Klotz, to whom at the beginning

of the war the censorship of the Press was entrusted, says, in his

memoirs (_De la Guerre ŕ la Paix_, Paris, Payot, 1924):

"One evening I was shown a proof of the _Figaro_, in which two

scientists of repute asserted and endorsed by their signatures that

they had seen with their own eyes about a hundred children whose

hands had been chopped off by the Germans."

In spite of the evidence of these scientists I entertained doubts as to

the accuracy of the report and forbade the publication of it. When the

editor of the _Figaro_ expressed his indignation, I declared myself

ready to investigate, in the presence of the American Ambassador, the

matter that would stir the world. I required, however, that the name of

the place where these investigations had to take place should be given

by the two scientists. I insisted on having these details supplied

immediately. I am still without their reply or visit.

But this he obtained such a hold on people's imagination that it is by

no means dead yet. Quite recently a Liverpool poet, in a volume called

'A Medley of Song', has written the following lines in a "patriotic" poem:

"They stemmed the first mad onrush

Of the cultured German Hun,

Who'd outraged every female Belgian

And maimed every mother's son."

Chapter IX - THE LOUVAIN ALTAR-PIECE

At the Peace Conference the Belgian representatives claimed the wings of

Dietrick Bouts's altar-piece in compensation for the famous altar-piece

from Louvain, a valuable work of art which they declared had been

wantonly thrown into the flames of the burning library by a German

officer. The story was accepted and the two pictures transferred. But it

was not true.

The _New Statesman_ of April 12, 1924, gives the facts:

"The Dietrick Bouts altar-piece was not thrown into the flames by

the Germans or by anyone else. The picture is still in existence at

Louvain, perfectly intact, and the Germans were not its destroyers

but its preservers. A German officer saved it from the flames and

gave it to the burgomaster, who had it taken for safe custody to the

vaults of the Town Hall and walled in there. It has been duly

unwalled..."

Chapter X - THE CONTEMPTIBLE LITTLE ARMY

There can be no question that the most successful slogan for recruiting

purposes issued during the whole course of the war was the phrase "The

contemptible little army," said to have been used by the Kaiser in

reference to the British Expeditionary Force. It very naturally created

a passionate feeling of resentment throughout the country. The history

of this lie and of its exposure is extremely interesting.

In an annexe to B.E.F. Routine Orders of September 24, 1914, the

following was issued:

'The following is a copy of Orders issued by the German Emperor on

August 19th':

"It is my Royal. and Imperial command that you concentrate your

energies for the immediate present upon one single purpose, and that

is that you address all your skill and all the valour of my soldiers

to exterminate first, the treacherous English, walk over General

French's contemptible little army..." (HEADQUARTERS, Aix-La-Chapelle,

August 19th.)

"The results of the order were the operations commencing with Mons,

and the advance of the seemingly overwhelming masses against us. The

answer of the British Army on the subject of extermination has

already been given." (Printing Co., R.E.69.)

The authenticity of this official military declaration was naturally

never questioned, although one attempt was made to pretend that it was

an incorrect translation. The indignation roused throughout the country

was heartfelt and widespread.

_The Times_ Military Correspondent referred to the Kaiser as being in "a

high state of agitation and excitability," and the leader-writer in _The

Times_ (October 1, 1914), referring to the statement, said: "In spite of

the ferocious order of the Kaiser...to-day. French's contemptible

little army" is not yet exterminated."

On the same day _The Times_ printed a poem entitled French's

Contemptible Little Army."

"The Kaiser scoffed at the British Army and labelled it

'contemptible' because it was small. He felt grossly insulted that

any army that did not count its men in millions should dare to

assail the might of the Hollenzollerns, and against this small

British David, in a pronouncement which will certainly be historic,

he directed his Goliath legions to concentrate their energies."

(_Daily Express_, October 2, 1914.)

Mr. Churchill made great play with it in a recruiting speech at the

London Opera House on September 11th 1914.

In March 1915 _Punch_ had a cartoon of the German Eagle in conversation

with the Kaiser: "It's like this, then; you told me the British Lion was

contemptible--well---he wasn't."

And again, in 1917 (after the entry of America into the war), a cartoon

depicted the Crown Prince saying to the Kaiser (who is drafting his next

speech): "For Gott's sake, father, be careful and don't call the

American Army 'contemptible' !"

There was not a village in the land where the expression was not known

and not a provincial newspaper in which it was not quoted, until at last

the word was used as the designation of the officers and men who were in

the original Expeditionary Force. They became known as "The old

Contemptibles."

A thorough investigation of the authenticity of this order, "issued by

the Kaiser," was undertaken in 1925 with the assistance of a German

General, who had the archives in Berlin carefully searched, and of a

British General, Sir F. Maurice, who was able to throw a good deal of

light on the subject.

While the Kaiser's proverbially foolish indiscretion might account for

any preposterous utterance, it was known that he did not issue orders of

his own volition; they were prepared for him by his Staff, which was

certainly not so ignorant of its business as to tell the German Generals

to concentrate their energies upon the extermination of an army when

they could not tell them where that army was. Their ignorance of the

whereabouts of the British Army was proved by a telegram sent by the

German Chief of the Staff to Von Kluck on August 20th (the day after the

issue of the supposed order): "Disembarkation of English at Boulogne

must be reckoned with. The opinion here, however, is that large

disembarkations have not yet taken place."

It was further discovered that German Headquarters were never at Aix la

Chapelle. Headquarters moved from Berlin about August 15th. and went to

Coblenz, later to Luxemburg, from whence they moved to Charleville on

September 27th.

A careful search in the archives proved fruitless. No such order or

anything like it could be discovered. Not content with this, however,

the German General had inquiries made of the ex-Kaiser himself at Doorn.

In, a marginal note the ex-Kaiser declared he had never used such an

expression, adding: "On the contrary, I continually emphasized the high

value of the British Army, and often, indeed, in peace-time gave warning

against underestimating it."

General Sir F. Maurice had the German newspaper files searched for the

alleged speech or order of the Kaiser, but without success. In an

article exposing the fabrication (_Daily News_, November 6, 1925), he

remarks that G.H.Q. hit on the idea of using routine orders to issue

statements which it was believed would encourage and inspirit our men."

Most of these took the form of casting ridicule on the German Army....

These efforts were seen to be absurd by the men in the trenches, and

were soon dropped."

We may laugh now at this lie and some may be inclined to give some

credit to the officer who concocted it, although he made a careless

mistake about the whereabouts of the German G.H.Q. There can be no doubt

as to its immense success, nevertheless there are many who will share

the opinion of a gentleman who wrote to the Press (_Nation_ and

_Athenaeum_, August 8, 1925), who, having heard that doubt was cast on

the authenticity of the well-known and almost hackneyed phrase, remarked

on "its extreme seriousness to our national honour or to that of the

British officer originally responsible," were it proved to be an invention.

Chapter XI - DEUTSCHLAND ÜBER ALLES

A great deal of play was made throughout the war with the opening lines

of a German patriotic song: "Deutschland über Alles auf der ganzen

Welt".--(Germany above all things in the whole world.)

There must have been many people who knew sufficient German to

understand the meaning of the phrase, but no protest was made at the

mistranslation, which was habitually used to illustrate Germany's

aggressive imperialist ambitions. It was popularly accepted as meaning,

"(Let) Germany (rule) over everywhere in the whole world," i.e. the

German domination of the world.

Mr. Lloyd George used it on September 20, 1914, at Queen's Hall:

"Treaties are gone, the honour of nations gone, liberty gone. What

is left? Germany, Germany is left.

"Deutschland über Alles".

'_Punch_' kept it to the front in various cartoons:

"The Kaiser, playing on a flute, having abandoned a broken big drum

labelled 'Deutschland über Alles.'

"The Kaiser trying to blow up a pricked balloon labelled 'Deutschland

über Alles'."

The Kaiser as the High Priest of Moloch. Moloch labelled "Deutschland

über Alles."

It was constantly quoted in numberless articles in the press. When a

prominent Member of parliament used the expression in a letter to _The

Times_, the incorrect meaning he attributed to it was pointed out to

him. He admitted the error, but seemed to consider that the accepted

meaning of it justified his using it as he did.

The false meaning spread through the country and the Empire, and the

Department of Education in Ontario went so far as to order the song to

he eliminated from German school books throughout the province (_The

Times_. March 19, 1915).

Even after the war, in November 1921, a leader writer in a prominent

newspaper declared that as long as the Germans stuck to their national

anthem, "Deutschland über Alles auf der ganzen Welt," there would be no

peace in Europe.

Chapter XII - THE BABY OF COURBECK LOO

It is not often that we have a confession of falsehood, but the story of

the baby of Courbeck Loo is an illuminating example of an invention

related by its author.

Captain F. W. Wilson, formerly editor of the _Sunday Times_, related the

story in America in 1922. The following account appeared in the _New

York Times_ (reproduced in the _Crusader_, February 24, 1922):

"A correspondent of the London _Daily Mail_, Captain Wilson, found

himself in Brussels at the time the war broke out. They telegraphed

out that they wanted stories of atrocities. Well, there weren't any

atrocities at that time. So then they telegraphed out that they

wanted stories of refugees. So I said to myself, 'That's fine, I

won't have to move.' There was a little town outside Brussels where

one went to get dinner a very good dinner, too. I heard the Hun had

been there. I supposed there must have been a baby there. So I wrote

a heartrending story about the baby of Courbeck Loo being rescued

from the Hun in the light of the burning homesteads.

"The next day they telegraphed out to me to send the baby along, as

they had about five thousand letters offering to adopt it. The day

after that baby clothes began to pour into the office. Even Queen

Alexandra wired her sympathy and sent some clothes. Well, I couldn't

wire back to them that there wasn't a baby. So I finally arranged

with the doctor that took care of the refugees that the blessed baby

died of some very contagious disease, so it couldn't even have a

public burial."

"And we got Lady Northcliffe to start a cręche with all the

babyclothes."

Chapter XIII - THE CRUCIFIED CANADIAN

Like so many other stories, this one underwent considerable changes and

variations. The crucified person was at one time a girl, at another an

American, but most often a Canadian.

"Last week a large number of Canadian soldiers, wounded in the

fighting round Ypres, arrived at the base hospital at Versculles.

They all told a story of how one of their officers had been

crucified by the Germans. He had been pinned to a wall by bayonets

thrust through his hands and feet, another bayonet had then been

driven through his throat, and, finally, he was riddled with

bullets. The wounded Canadians said that the Dublin Fusiliers had

seen this done with their own eyes, and they had heard the Officers

of the Dublin Fusiliers talking about it." ("_The Times_," May 10,

1915. Paris Correspondent.)

"There is, unhappily, good reason to believe that the story related

by your Paris Correspondent of the crucifixion of a Canadian officer

during the fighting at Ypres on April 22, 1923, is in substance

true. The story was current here at the time, but, in the absence of

direct evidence and absolute proof, men were unwilling to believe

that a civilized foe be guilty of an act so cruel and savage.

"Now, I have reason to believe, written depositions testifying to

the fact of the discovery of the body are in possession of British

Headquarters Staff. The unfortunate victim was a sergeant. As the

story was told to me, he was found transfixed to the wooden fence of

a farm building. Bayonets were thrust through the palms of his hands

and his feet, pinning him to the fence. He had been repeatedly

stabbed with bayonets, and there were many punctured wounds in his

body. I have not heard that any of our men actually saw the crime

committed. There is room for the supposition that the man was dead

before he was pinned to the fence and that the enemy, in his

insensate rage and hate of the English, wreaked his vengeance on the

lifeless body of his foe.

"That is the most charitable complexion that can be put on the deed,

ghastly as it is.

"There is not a man in the ranks of the Canadians who fought at

Ypres who is not firmly convinced that this vile thing has been

done. They know, too, that the enemy bayoneted their wounded and

helpless comrades in the trenches." (_The Times_, May 15, 1915.

Correspondent, North France).

MR. HOUSTON asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has

any information regarding the crucifixion of three Canadian soldiers

recently captured by the Germans, who nailed them with bayonets to

the side of a wooden structure.

MR. TENNANT: "No, sir; no information of such an atrocity having

been perpetrated has yet reached the War Office."

MR. HOUSTON: "Is the Right Hon. Gentleman aware that Canadian

officers and Canadian soldiers who were eyewitnesses of these

fiendish outrages have made affidavits? Has the officer in command

at the base at Boulogne not called the attention of the War Office

to them?"

MR. HARCOURT: "No, sir; we have no record of it." (House of Commons,

May 12, 1915.)

Mr. HOUSTON asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he

has any official information showing that during the recent

fighting, when the Canadians were temporarily driven back, they were

compelled to leave about forty of their wounded comrades in a barn,

and that on recapturing the position they found the Germans had

bayoneted all the wounded with the exception of a sergeant, and that

the Germans had removed the figure of Christ from the large village

crucifix and fastened the sergeant, while alive, to the cross; and

whether he is aware that the crucifixion of our soldiers is becoming

a practice of Germans.

MR. TENNANT: The military authorities in France have standing

instructions to send particulars of any authenticated cases of

atrocities committed against our troops by the Germans. No official

information in the sense of the Hon. Member's question has been

received, but, owing to the information conveyed by the Hon.

Member's previous question, inquiry is being made and is not yet

complete. (House of Commons, May 19, 1925).

The story went the round of the Press here and in Canada, and was used

by Members of Parliament on the platform. Its authenticity, however, was

eventually denied by General March at Washington.

It cropped up again in 1919, when a letter was published by the _Nation_

(April 12th) from Private E. Loader, 2nd Royal West Kent Regiment, who

declared he had seen the crucified Canadian. The _'Nation'_ was informed

in a subsequent letter from Captain E. N. Bennett that there was no such

private on the rolls of the Royal West Kents, and that the 2nd Battalion

was in India during the whole war.

Chapter XIV - THE SHOOTING OF THE FRANZÖSLING

This is one of the lies which arose from a mistranslation. On September

30, 1914, a communication was issued by the Press Bureau, which was

published by _The Times_ the following day. It was said to be a copy of

the _Kriegschronik_ "seized by the Custom House authorities at ports of

landing." The extract given was as follows:

"A traitor has just been shot (in the Vosges), a little French lad

(ein Französling) belonging to one of those gymnastic societies

which wear tricolour ribbons (i.e. the Éclaireurs, or boy Scouts), a

poor young fellow who, in his infatuation, wanted to be a hero. The

German column was passing along a wooded defile, and he was caught

and asked whether the French were about. He refused to give

information. Fifty yards further on there was fire from the cover of

a wood. The prisoner was asked in French if he had known that the

enemy was in the forest, and did not deny it. He went with a firm

step to a telegraph post and stood up against it, with the green

vineyard at his back, and received the volley of the firing party

with a proud smile on his face. Infatuated wretch! It was a pity to

see such wasted courage."

Mr. J. A. Hobson wrote, in _The Times_ of October 5, 1914, to point out

an inaccuracy in the account of German atrocities issued by the Press

Bureau and published by _The Times_.

The passage describes how "a little French lad (ein Französling)" was

shot for refusing to disclose the proximity of some French soldiers. The

word "Französling," Mr. Hobson wrote, "does not mean a little French

boy," but is "used exclusively to describe German subjects with French

proclivities. In Alsace and Lorraine there exist societies of these

Französlings, who wear the French colours. They are not boys but grown

men."

"Constant Reader" wrote to _The Times_ on October 6, 1914:

"You publish on page 6 of your issue of this morning a note

communicated by a Mr. J. A. Hobson, which insinuates that the young

victim of a German firing party in the Vosges, whose fate was

described in a German soldier's letter printed last week, may have

been a grown man 'and not a lad.' At least, Mr. Hobson says that

"The societies of these Französlings; who wear the French colours

are not boys but grown men." But he has evidently not seen the

original letter, which calls the victim an 'armer junger Kerl'--a

poor lad; and a 'Junge Verräter'--a young traitor. Moreover, it is

clear that if this had been a grown man of military age, he would

have been doing military service and not have been at large upon the

roads."

This letter must have been from the Press Bureau, as _The Times_

original note made no reference to its being from a German soldier's

letter, nor quoted the. German text. "Constant Reader" had evidently

been reading elsewhere.

Mr. J. A. Hobson wrote to _The Times_ on October 8, 1914

"In reply to 'Constant Reader,' may I point out that the object of

my note upon the 'Französling' incident was to state that the word

meant a 'pro-French German' and not, as translated by the Press

Bureau, 'a little French lad?' That he was 'a young fellow' is not

in dispute, but that affords no justification for calling him a Boy

Scout."

It does not seem to have been pointed out that no body of Boy Scouts

called Éclaireurs, and wearing tricolour ribbons, could have existed in

German Alsace.

The Press Bureau tells us that an official paper circulated among the

German troops chuckled with satisfaction at the killing of a French boy

who refused to divulge to the enemy the whereabouts of French forces.

("_Daily Express_," October, 1914).

The Press Bureau story headed "Little French Hero" was printed in the

same issue. The whole object of the Press Bureau was to incense public

opinion against the Germans for shooting a boy. The shooting of spies

was not condemned, as _The Times_ itself reported also from the Vosges

that Germans caught red-handed in acts of espionage were

court-marshalled. Among others were the mayor and postmaster of Thann,

who were shot.

People may be further mystified in looking up this case by finding it in

_The Times_ index under the heading "Shooting of Franz Osling."

Chapter XV - LITTLE ALF'S STAMP COLLECTION

A clergyman, while lunching in a restaurant in 1918, was informed by a

stranger that the son of a friend of his was interned in a camp in

Germany. A recent letter, he said, had contained the passage, "The stamp

on this letter is a rare one; soak it off for little Alf's collection."

Though there was no one in the family called Alf, and no one who

collected stamps, they did as they were told. Underneath the stamp were

the words, "They have torn out my tongue; I could not put it in the

letter" (the news presumably, not the tongue). The clergyman told the

man the story was absurd, and that he ought to be ashamed of himself for

repeating it, as everyone knew that prisoners' letters did not bear

stamps. If his friend had managed to put a stamp on his letter, it was

the best possible way of attracting attention to what he was trying to

hide. But the stranger, no doubt from patriotic motives, indignantly

refused to have his story spoiled, and it was widely circulated in

Manchester. ("Artifex," in the _Manchester Guardian_.)

The interesting point about this lie is that it was also used in Germany

with variations. A lady in Munich received a letter from her son, who

was a prisoner in Russia. He told her to take the stamp off his letter

"as it was a rare one." She did so, and discovered written underneath,

"They have cut off both my feet, so that I cannot escape." The story was

eventually killed by ridicule, but not before it had travelled to

Augsburg and other towns.

It was probably one of the stories that are used in every war.

Chapter XVI - THE TATTOOED MAN

Towards the end of 1918 a statement was circulated, supported by

photographs, that English prisoners had been tattooed with the German

Eagle, a cobra, or other devices on their faces. The interesting.

feature in this lie is that it seems to have emanated from quite a

number of different individuals, each one eager to embroider some

entirely unsubstantiated rumour which had spread.

TATTOOING CHARGES NOT CONFIRMED.

"On December 7th a statement appeared in the Press that a ship's

fireman named Burton Mayberry had arrived at Newcastle bearing on

his cheeks tattoo marks representing heads of cobras, which he

alleged had been inflicted by two sailors by order of a German

submarine commander in mid-Atlantic, on the occasion of the

torpedoing of Mayberry's ship in April 1917. Pictures of Mayberry,

showing the head of a cobra on each cheek, have also appeared in

various illustrated papers.

"The matter has been investigated, and it has been ascertained that

on November 13th Mayberry applied for registration as a seaman

preparatory to offering himself for employment in the British

mercantile marine, and that, in making his application, he stated

that he had had no previous sea service. He has now disappeared, and

it seems that his disappearance took place after receiving a request

to attend in order to receive his registration certificate. Former

associates of Mayberry state that he never made any allusion to the

alleged outrage.

"Frequent statements have recently appeared in the Press with regard

to the alleged branding of British soldiers by the Germans, but the

responsible authorities have been unable to obtain any confirmation

of these allegations." ("_The Times_" December 23rd 1918)

The following extract from the _Manchester Guardian_ and the statement

of "Artifex" (the pseudonym of a well-known Manchester ecclesiastic)

give other versions of the story more fully.

"Our contributor "Artifex" ventured to suggest last week that the

story of the prisoner who had been tattooed on the cheek by the

Germans, which had gained through a section of the Press a wide

currency among simple people, was not established by any credible

evidence. He tells us today that he has since been deluged with

letters enclosing accounts of just how the man was tattooed, and

giving details of his former history and of his present occupation

and domestic relations. Each of the correspondents who sent these

letters was no doubt confirmed, by the cutting he sent, in his

belief in the truth of the tale and in the wilful blindness of

"Artifex." Unfortunately for their authors, the stories vary so

profoundly in essential facts as to make it clear to anyone who

correlates them, as "Artifex" has done, that they are born of a

myth, rapidly spread, and gathering variety as it goes. If that were

not enough, there is yet more irrefutable evidence. The camera, it

is said, cannot lie. Yet on December 9th two different newspapers

published photographs of the victim. Each picture represents his

whole right profile. The one shows his cheek marked with a

full-length snake, in black, the other decorates it with a snake's

head in outline. But a tattoo is a permanent mark which years cannot

alter or deface. Any jury confronted with these conflicting pictures

would be forced to agree that the disfigurement was daily reapplied

by the sufferer, and that he had omitted the precaution of having

the same device repeated. Now this story must have added vastly to

the anxieties of many families who have prisoners in enemy hands.

Early in the war the authorities did not hesitate to recommend the

suppression of the many reports of chivalrous treatment of our

soldiers by the Turks. That, in the light of the Turkish

Government's record as a whole, may have been reasonable, we suggest

that they should be at least not less active to prevent the spread

of stories about the treatment of prisoners which are as dubious as

this one. ("_Manchester Guardian_," December 19, 1918)

Extract from 'Artifex' comments:

Not indeed that I ought to complain, in this case, of lack of

corroborative evidence. I have been assured the man, while working

in a dockyard on the Tyne, has

(1) undergone skin-grafting in Salford Royal Hospital,

(2) gone mad with horror in Leaf Square Hospital,

(3) by his awful appearance the premature confinement and death of

his young wife at Levenshulme,

(4) thrown delicate twelve-year-old daughter into fits at Stockport

(5) lived for nine months in a house in Weaste without coming out

except after dark, which is why none of neighbours have ever seen

him, and

(6) resided for whole time also at Gorton, Swinton, Pendlebury and

Tyldesley.

Chapter XVII - THE CORPSE FACTORY

A series of extracts will give the record of one of the most revolting

lies invented during the war, the dissemination of which throughout not

only this country but the world was encouraged and connived at by both

the Government and the Press. It started in 1917, and was not finally

disposed of till 1925.

(Most of the quotations given are from _The Times_. The references in

the lower strata of the Press, it will be remembered, were far more lurid.)

"One of the United States consuls, on leaving Germany in February

1917, stated in Switzerland that the Germans were distilling

glycerine from the bodies of their dead". (_The Times_, April 16,

1917.)

"Herr Karl Rosner, the Correspondent of the _Berlin Lokalanzeiger_,

on the Western front...published last Tuesday the first definite

German admission concerning the way in which the Germans use dead

bodies.

"We pass through Everingcourt. There is a dull smell in the air as

if lime were being burnt. We are passing the great Corpse

Exploitation Establishment (Kadaververwertungsanstalt) of this Army

Group. The fat that is won here is turned into lubricating oils, and

everything else is ground down in the bone mill into a powder which

is used for mixing with pig's food and as manure---nothing can be

permitted to go to waste". ("_The Times_," April 16, 1917).

There was a report in _The Times_ of April 17, 1917, from _La Belgique_

(Leyden), via _L'Indépendance Belge_, for April 10, giving a very long

and detailed account of a Deutsche Abfallverwertungs-gesellschaft

factory near Coblenz, where train-loads of the stripped bodies of German

soldiers, wired into bundles, arrive and are simmered down in cauldrons,

the products being stearine and refined oil.

In _The Times_ of April 18, 1917, there was a letter from C. E. Bunbury

commenting and suggesting the use of the story for propaganda purposes,

in neutral countries and the East, where it would be especially

calculated to horrify Buddhists, Hindus, and Mohammedans. He suggested

broadcasting by the Foreign Office, India Office, and Colonial Office;

there were other letters to the same effect on April 18th.

In _The Times_ of April 20, 1917, there was a story told by Sergeant

B-----, of the Kents, that a prisoner had told him that the Germans boil

down their dead for munitions and pig and poultry food. This fellow told

me that Fritz calls his margarine 'corpse fat' because they suspect

that's what it comes from.

_The Times_ stated that it had received a number of letters "questioning

the translation of the German word Kadaver, and suggesting that it is

not used of human bodies. As to this, the best authorities are agreed

that it is also used of the bodies of animals." Other letters were

received confirming the story from Belgian and Dutch sources (later from

Roumania).

There was an article in the Lancet discussing the "business aspect" (or

rather the technical one) of the industry. An expression of horror

appeared from the Chinese Minister in London, and also from the

Maharajah of Bikanir, in _The Times_ of April 21, 1917.

_The Times_ of April 23, 1917, quotes a German statement that the report

is "loathsome and ridiculous," and that Kadaver is never used of a human

body. _The Times_ produces dictionary quotations to show that it is.

Also that both Tierkörpermehl and Kadavermehl appear in German official

catalogues, the implication being that they must be something different.

In _The Times_ of April 24, 1917, there was a letter, signed E. H.

Parker, enclosing copy of the _North China Herald_, March 3, 1917,

recounting an interview between the German Minister and the Chinese

Premier in Pekin:

"But the matter was clinched when Admiral von Hinke was dilating

upon the ingenious methods by which German scientists were obtaining

chemicals necessary for the manufacture of munitions. The admiral

triumphantly stated that they were extracting glycerine out of their

dead soldiers! From that moment onward the horrified Premier had no

more use for Germany, and the business of persuading him to turn

against her became comparatively easy."

The following questions in Parliament show the Government evading the

issue, although they knew there was not a particle of authentic evidence

for the report--a good instance of the official method of spreading

falsehood.

MR. RONALD McNEILL asked the Prime Minister "if he will take steps

to make it known as widely as possible in Egypt, India, and the East

generally, that the Germans use the dead bodies of their own

soldiers and of their enemies when they obtain possession of them,

as food for swine."

MR. DILLON asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer "whether his

attention has been called to the reports widely circulated in this

country that the German Government have set up factories for

extracting fat from the bodies of soldiers killed in battle;

whether these reports have been endorsed by many prominent men in

this country, including Lord Curzon of Kedleston; whether the

Government have any solid grounds for believing that these

statements are well-founded; and if so, whether he will communicate

the information at the disposal of the Government to the House."

LORD R. CECIL: "With respect to this question and that standing in

the name of the Hon. Member for East Mayo, the Government have no

information at present beyond that contained in extracts from the

German Press which have been published in the Press here. In view of

other actions by German military authorities, there is nothing

incredible in the present charge against them. His Majesty's

Government have allowed the circulation of facts as they have

appeared through the usual channels."

MR. McNEILL: "Can the Right Hon. Gentleman answer whether the

Government will take any steps to give wide publicity in the East

to this story emanating from German sources?"

LORD R. CECIL: "I think at present it is not desirable to take any

other steps than those that have been taken."

MR. DILLON: "May I ask whether we are to conclude from that answer

that the Government have no solid evidence whatever in proof of the

truth of this charge, and they have taken no steps to investigate

it; and has their attention been turned to the fact that it is not

only a gross scandal, but a very great evil to this country to allow

the circulation of such statements, authorized by Ministers of the

Crown, if they are, as I believe them to be, absolutely false?"

LORD R. CECIL: "The Hon. Member has, perhaps, information that we

have not. I can only speak from statements that have been published

in the Press. I have already told the House that we have no other

information whatever. The information is the statement that has been

published and that I have before me (quoting _'Times'_ quotation

from _'Lokalanzeiger'_). This statement has been published in the

Press, and that is the whole of the information that I have."

MR. DILLON: "Has the Noble Lord's attention been drawn to the fact

that there have been published in the _Frankfurter Zeitung_ and

other leading German newspapers descriptions of this whole process,

in which the word 'Kadaver' is used, and from which it is perfectly

manifest that these factories are for the purpose of boiling down

the dead bodies of horses and other animals which are lying on the

battlefield--(an HON. MEMBER: "Human animals!")--and I ask the

Right Hon. Gentleman whether the Government propose to take any

steps to obtain authentic information whether this story that has

been circulated is true or absolutely false. For the credit of human

nature, he ought to."

LORD R. CECIL: "It is not any part of the duties of the Government,

nor is it possible for the Government, to institute inquiries as to

what goes on in Germany. The Hon. Member is surely very unreasonable

in making the suggestion, and as for his quotations from the

_Frankfurter Zeitung_, I have not seen them, but I have seen

statements made by the German Government after the publication of

this, and I confess that I am not able to attach very great

importance to any statements made by the German Government."

MR. DILLON: "I beg to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman whether, before

a Minister of the Crown, a member of the War Cabinet, gives

authorization to these rumours, he ought not to have obtained

accurate information as to whether they are true or not."

LORD R. CECIL: "I think any Minister of the Crown is entitled to

comment on and refer to something which has been published in one of

the leading papers of the country. He only purported to do that, and

did not make himself responsible for the statement (an HON. MEMBER:

"He did!"). I am informed that he did not. He said: "As has been

stated in the papers."

MR. OUTHWAITE: "May I ask if the Noble Lord is aware that the

circulation of these reports (interruption) has caused anxiety and

misery to British people who have lost their sons on the

battlefield, and who think that their bodies may be put to this

purpose, and does not that give a reason why he should try to find

out the truth of what is happening in Germany?" (House of Commons,

April 30, 1917).

In _The Times_ of May 3, 1917, there were quotations from the

_Frankfurter Zeitung_ stating that the French Press is now treating the

Kadaver story as a "misunderstanding."

_The Times_ of May 17, 107, reported that Herr Zinimermann denied in the

Reichstag that human bodies were used; and stated that the story

appeared first in the French Press.

In reply to a question in the House of Commons on May 23rd, Mr. A.

Chamberlain stated that the report would be "available to the public in

India through the usual channels."

A corpse factory cartoon appeared in _Punch_.

KAISER (to 1917 recruit): "And don't forget that your Kaiser will

find a use for you alive or dead." (At the enemy's establishment for

the utilization of corpses the dead bodies of German soldiers are

treated chemically, the chief commercial products being lubricant

oils and pig food.)

View of the corpse factory out of the window.

The story had a world-wide circulation and had considerable propaganda

value in the East. Not till 1925 did the truth emerge.

"A painful impression has been produced here by an unfortunate

speech of Brigadier-General Charteris at the dinner of the National

Arts Club, in which he professed to tell the true story of the

war-time report that Germany was boiling down the bodies of her dead

soldiers in order to get fats for munitions and fertilizers.

"According to General Charteris, the story began as propaganda for

China. By transposing the caption from one of two photographs found

on German prisoners to the other he gave the impression that the

Germans were making a dreadful use of their own dead soldiers. This

photograph he sent to a Chinese newspaper in Shanghai. He told the

familiar story of its later republication in England and of the

discussion it created there. He told, too, how, when a question put

in the House was referred to him, he answered it by saying that from

what he knew of German mentality, he was prepared for anything.

"Later, said General Charteris, in order to support the story, what

purported to be the diary of a German soldier was forged in his

office. It was planned to have this discovered on a dead German by a

war correspondent with a passion for German diaries, but the plan

was never carried out. The diary was now in the war museum in

London". ("_The Times_," October 22, 1925. From New York Correspondent.)

Some opinions of politicians may be given.

LLOYD GEORGE: "The story came under my notice in various ways at the

time. I did not believe it then; I do not believe it now. It was

never adopted as part of the armoury of the British Propaganda

Department. It was, in fact, "turned down" by that department."

MR. MASTERMAN: "We certainly did not accept the story as true, and I

know nobody in official positions at the time who credited it.

Nothing as suspect as this was made use of in our propaganda. Only

such information as had been properly verified was circulated."

MR. I. MacPHERSON: "I was at the War Office at the time. We had no

reason to doubt the authenticity of the story when it came through.

It was supported by the captured divisional orders of the German

Army in France, and I have an impression it was also backed up by

the Foreign Office on the strength of extracts from the German

Press. We did not know that it had been invented by anybody, and had

we known there was the slightest doubt about the truth of the story,

it would not have been used in any way by us."

A New York correspondent describes how he rang General Charteris up, and

inquired the truth of the report and suggested that, if untrue, he

should take it up with the _New York Times_. On this he protested

vigorously that he could not think of challenging the report, as the

mistakes were only of minor importance. ("_Daily News_." November 5. 1925.)

There was a _Times_ article on the same subject quoting the _New York

Times_' assertion of the truth of their version of the speech.

"This paper makes the significant observation that in the course of

his denial he offered no comment on his reported admission that he

avoided telling the truth when questioned about the matter in the

House of Commons, or on his own description of a scheme to support

the Corpse Factory story by "planting" a forged diary in the

clothing of a dead German prisoner--a proposal which he only

abandoned lest the deception might be discovered.

"Brigadier-General Charteris, who returned from America at the

week-end, visited the War Office yesterday and had an interview with

the Secretary of State for War (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans)

concerning the reports of his speech on war propaganda in New York.

It is understood that the War Office now regard the incident as

closed and that no further inquiry is likely to be held.

"General Charteris left for Scotland later in the day, and on

arrival in Glasgow issued the following statement:

"On arrival in Scotland I was surprised to find that, in spite of

the repudiation issued by me at New York through Reuter's agency,

some public interest was still excited in the entirely incorrect

report of my remarks at a private dinner in New York. I feel it

necessary therefore to give again a categorical denial to the

statement attributed to me. Certain suggestions and speculations as

regards the origins of the 'Kadaver' story, which have already been

published in 'These Eventful Years' (British Encyclopaedia Press)

and elsewhere, which I repeated, are, doubtless unintentionally, but

nevertheless unfortunately, turned into definite statements of fact

and attributed to me.

"Lest there should still be any doubt, let me say that I neither

invented the Kadaver story nor did I alter the captions in any

photographs, nor did I use faked material for propaganda purposes.

The allegations that, I did so are not only incorrect but absurd, as

propaganda was in no way under G.H.Q. France, where I had charge of

the Intelligence Services. I should be as interested as the general

public to know what was the true origin of the Kadaver story. G.H.Q.

France only came in when a fictitious diary supporting the Kadaver

story was submitted. When this diary was discovered to be

fictitious, it was at once rejected.

"I have seen the Secretary of State this morning and have explained

the whole circumstances to him, and have his authority to say that

he is perfectly satisfied." (_The Times_, November 4, 1925).

LIEUT.-COMMANDER KENWORTHY asked the Secretary of State for War if,

in view of the feeling aroused in Germany by the recrudescence of

the rumours of the so-called corpse conversion factory behind the

German lines in the late war, he can give any information as to the

source of the original rumour and the extent to which it was

accepted by the War Office at the time.

SIR L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: "At this distance of time I do not think

that the source of the rumour can be traced with any certainty. The

statement that the Germans had set up a factory for the conversion

of dead bodies first appeared on April 10, 1917, in the

_Lokalanzeiger_, published in Berlin, and in _L'Independance Belge_

and _La Belgique_, two Belgian newspapers published in France and

Holland. The statements were reproduced in the Press here, with the

comment that it was the first German admission concerning the way in

which the Germans used their dead bodies.

"Questions were asked in the House of Commons on April 30, 1917, and

the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs replied on behalf

of the Government that he had then no information beyond that

contained in the extract from the German Press. But shortly

afterwards a German Army Order containing instructions for the

delivery of dead bodies to the establishments described in the

_Lokalanzeiger_ was captured in France and forwarded to the War

Office, who, after careful consideration, permitted it to be published.

"The terms of this order were such that, taken in conjunction with

the articles in the _Lokalanzeiger_ and in the two Belgian papers

and the previously existing rumours, it appeared to the War Office

to afford corroborative evidence of the story. Evidence that the

word Kadaver was used to mean human bodies, and not only carcasses

of animals, was found in German dictionaries and anatomical and

other works, and the German assertion that the story was disposed of

by reference to the meaning of the word Kadaver was not accepted. On

the information before them at the time, the War Office appear to

have seen no reason to disbelieve the truth of the story".

LIEUT.-COMMANDER KENWORTHY: "I am much obliged to the Right Hon.

Gentleman for his very full answer. Does he not think it desirable

now that the War Office should finally disavow the story and their

present belief in it ?"

SIR L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot believe any public interest is

served by further questions on this story. I have given the House

the fullest information in my possession in the hope that the Hon.

Members will be satisfied with what I have said. (HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.)

LIEUT.-COMMANDER KENWORTHY: "Does not the Right Hon. Gentleman think

it desirable, even now, to finally admit the inaccuracy of the

original story, in view of Locarno and other things ?"

SIR L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: "It is not a question of whether it was

accurate or inaccurate. What I was concerned with was the

information upon which the War Office acted at the time. Of course,

the fact that there has been no corroboration since necessarily

alters the complexion of the case, but I was dealing with the

information in the possession of the authorities at the time."

(House of Commons, November 24, 1925.)

This was a continued attempt to avoid making a complete denial, and it

was left to Sir Austen Chamberlain to nail the lie finally to the

counter. In reply to Mr. Arthur Henderson on December 2, 1925, asking if

he had any statement to make as to the Kadaver story, he said:

"Yes, sir; my Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War told

the House last week how the story reached His Majesty's Government

in 1917. The Chancellor of the German Reich has authorized me to

say, on the authority of the German Government, that there was never

any foundation for it. I need scarcely add that on behalf of its

Majesty's Government I accept this denial, and I trust that this

false report will not again he revived."

The painful impression made by this episode and similar propaganda

efforts in America is well illustrated by an editorial in

_Times-Dispatch_, of Richmond, U.S.A., on December 6, 1925.

"Not the least of the horrors of modern warfare is the propaganda

bureau, which is an important item in the military establishment of

every nation. Neither is it the least of the many encouraging signs

which each year add to the probability of eventual peace on earth.

The famous Kadaver story, which aroused hatred against the German to

the boiling point in this and other Allied nations during the war,

has been denounced as a lie in the British House of Commons. Months

ago the world learned the details of how this lie was planned and

broadcasted by the efficient officer in the British Intelligence

Service. Now we are told that, imbued with the spirit of the Locarno

pact, Sir Austen Chamberlain rose in the House, said that the German

Chancellor had denied the truth of the story, and that the denial

had been accepted by the British Government.

"A few years ago the story of how the Kaiser was reducing human

corpses to fat aroused the citizens of this and other enlightened

nations to a fury of hatred. Normally sane men doubled their fists

and rushed off to the nearest recruiting sergeant. Now they are

being told, in effect, that they were dupes and fools; that their

own officers deliberately goaded them to the desired boiling-point,

using an infamous lie to arouse them, just as a grown bully whispers

to one little boy that another little boy said he could lick him.

"The encouraging sign found in this revolting admission of how,

modern war is waged is the natural inference that the modern man is

not overeager to throw himself at his brother's throat at the simple

word of command. His passions must be played upon, so the propaganda

bureau has taken its place as one of the chief weapons.

"In the next war, the propaganda must be more subtle and clever than

the best the World War produced. These frank admissions of wholesale

lying on the part of trusted Governments in the last war will not

soon be forgotten."

Chapter XVIII - THE BISHOP OF ZANZIBAR'S LETTER

There are two things which cannot be permitted during war. Firstly,

favourable comment on the enemy--instances of this have been given in

the Introduction. Secondly, criticism of the country to which you belong

cannot be publicly expressed. Suppression of opinion of this kind is all

very well, but the deliberate distortion of it is a peculiarly malicious

form of falsehood.

The late Dr. Weston, Bishop of Zanzibar, a great champion of the African

natives, wrote an open letter to General Smuts, in which he said:

"It is political madness at this time of day to try and subject a

weaker people to serfdom, or to slavery...It is moral madness....

Thirdly, it is so definitely an anti-Christian policy that no one

who adopts it can any longer justify the Gospel of Christ to the

African peoples...."

In a pamphlet quoted in the Church Times, October 8, 1920, the Bishop of

Zanzibar wrote:

"When I wrote my open letter to General Smuts I called it 'Great

Britain's Scrap of Paper: Will She Honour It?' I was alluding to her

promise of justice to the weaker peoples. The Imperial Government

took my letter, cut out some inconvenient passages, and published it

under the title, 'The Black Slaves of Prussia.' I suggest that East

Africans have now become the 'Black Serfs of Great Britain.'"

In the Life of the Bishop of Zanzibar, published in 1926, the letter

appears in its garbled form as the Bishop's opinion of the German

treatment of their "black slaves."

This is a good instance of a quite deliberate perversion by the

Government and also an instance of how difficult it is for the truth,

even when published, to overtake a lie and to reach the people most

concerned.

Chapter XIX - THE GERMAN U-BOAT OUTRAGE

A monstrous story of fiendish cruelty on the part of a German U-boat

commander was circulated in the Press in July 1918. It is an instance of

how people in positions of semi-official authority were either ready

deliberately to invent or to elaborate some vague rumour and give it the

stamp of authentic information.

It appeared in more or less the same form in all the newspapers:

"Staff-Paymaster Collingwood Hughes, R.N.V.R., of the Naval

Intelligence Division of the Admiralty, lecturing yesterday at the

Royal Club, St. James's Square, said that one of our patrol boats in

the Atlantic found a derelict U-boat. After rescuing the crew our

commander inquired of the Hun captain if all were safely aboard, as

it was intended to blow up the U-boat.

"Yes," came the reply, "they are here. Call the roll." Every German

answered. The British commander was about to push off before

dropping a depth charge, when tapping was heard.

"Are you quite sure there is no one on board your boat?" he repeated.

"Yes," declared the Hun captain.

But the tapping continued, and the British officer ordered a search

of the U-boat. There were found in it, tied up as prisoners, four

British seamen. The rescued Germans were going to allow their

prisoners to be drowned. ("_Daily Mail_," July 12, 1918)

The story was repeated by Commander Sir Edward Nicholl at a public

meeting at Colston Hall, in Bristol, at which the Parliamentary

Secretary to the Admiralty was present.

COLONEL WEDGWOOD asked the First Lord of the Admiralty "Whether one

of our patrol boats recently rescued the crew of a derelict U-boat,

the captain of which deliberately left on board four British seamen,

who would have been drowned if they had not been heard knocking and

been rescued; and if this is so, what steps have been taken to deal

with the captain of the U-boat."

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): "The

Admiralty have officially stated in the public Press that they have

no knowledge of this reported incident and that the statement was

made without their authority."

COLONEL WEDGWOOD: "Are we to understand that this statement is

absolutely without any basis of fact and is, in fact, a lie?"

DR. MACNAMARA: "We have stated that we have no information in

confirmation of the statement which was made." (House of Commons,

July 15, 1918.)

In reply to subsequent questions Dr. Macnamara stated he was getting

into communication with the officer responsible for the statement.

COLONEL WEDGWOOD asked the First Lord of the Admiralty "whether the

story about the derelict U-boat has yet been reported on, and, if

so, what conclusion has been come to; and whether the story was

first told by a naval officer at a meeting at the Colston Hall about

five weeks ago, at which the Parliamentary Secretary himself was

present."

DR. MACNAMARA "We have endeavoured to trace this story to its

origin. Fleet-Paymaster Collingwood Hughes appears to have heard it

from more than one source. He should certainly have taken the

opportunity afforded him in his official position to verify it. In

our opinion the story is without foundation. As regards the second

part of the question, Commander Sir Edward Nicholl, Royal Naval

Reserve, certainly told the story in the course of a speech at a

meeting at Bristol, at which I was present. I learn from him that he

was present at an earlier meeting addressed by Mr. Collingwood

Hughes in South Wales and heard the story recited by him on that

occasion." (House of Commons July 23, 1918.)

But, of course, in this, as in other cases, for one person who noticed

the denial there were a thousand who only heard the lie.

Chapter XX - CONSTANTINOPLE

The evasions and concealments necessitated by the existence of the

Secret Treaties cover too large a ground to be dealt with here. Evasion

is a more insidious form of falsehood than the deliberate lie. One

point, however, which was of considerable interest to the people of

Great Britain may serve as an illustration. It concerned the fate of

Constantinople.

Asked in the House of Commons on May 30, 1916, whether Professor

Miliukoff's statement in the Duma was correct, that "our supreme aim in

this war is to get possession of Constantinople, which must belong to

Russia entirely and without reserve," Sir Edward Grey replied that "It

is not necessary or desirable to make official comments on unofficial

statements," and being further pressed, added, "The Honourable Member is

asking for a statement which I do not think it desirable to make."

From the point of view of the Government, the Foreign Secretary was

quite right to evade the question. In the first place we had not taken

Constantinople, and in the second place it must have appeared doubtful

to the Government whether the British soldiers and sailors would be

enthusiastic in sacrificing their lives in order to give Constantinople

to Russia, the strains of the old jingo song of 1878 not having quite

died away:

"We've fought the Bear before, we can fight the Bear again,

But the Russians shall not have Constantinople."

But on March 7, 1915, a year before Sir E. Grey gave this answer in

Parliament, M. Sazonov had telegraphed to the Russian Ambassador in London:

"Will you please express to Grey the profound gratitude of the

Imperial Government for the complete and final assent of Great

Britain to the solution of the question of the Straits and

Constantinople in accordance with Russian desires."

On December 2, 1916 M. Trepoff declared in the Duma:

"An agreement, which we concluded in 1915 with Great Britain and

France and to which Italy has adhered, established in the most

definite fashion the right of Russia to the Straits and

Constantinople...I repeat that absolute agreement on this point

is firmly established among the Allies."

On January 5, 1918 (National War Aims Pamphlet No. 33), the Prime

Minister declared that we were not fighting "to deprive Turkey of its

capital." He could say this because the Russian Revolution had taken place.

By subterfuges and evasions the British Government were anxious to

screen the truth from the country, because they knew how unpopular it

would be.

Chapter XXI - THE "_LUSITANIA_"

The sinking of the _Lusitania_ was a hideous tragedy and one of the most

terrible examples of the barbarity of modern warfare, but, from the

point of view, suffering and loss of life, was not to be compared with

many other episodes in the war. The very crucial political significance

of the catastrophe, however, gave it special propaganda value in

inflaming popular indignation, especially in America. Here obviously was

the necessary lever at last to bring America into the war. That Germany

should not have recognized this would be the result of such action on

her part was one of the many illustrations of her total inability to

grasp the psychology of other peoples.

From the point of view of propaganda it was necessary to show that the

Germans had blown up a defenceless, passenger ship flying the American

flag and bearing only civilian passengers and an ordinary cargo. This

was represented as a breach of international law and act of piracy. The

unsuccessful attempt to suppress certain facts which emerged leads

naturally to the conclusion that other attempts were successful. No

inquiry such as the Mersey inquiry, conducted in war-time with regard to

the action of the enemy, can in such circumstances be regarded as

conclusive.

The whole truth with regard to the sinking of the _Lusitania _will

probably never be cleared up. Four points may be considered here:

(a) Whether she was armed.

(b) Whether she was carrying Canadian troops.

(c) Whether she had munitions on board.

(d) Whether a medal was issued in Germany to commemorate the sinking

of the Lusitania.

(a) On this point there was a conflict of evidence.

The _Lusitania_ was registered as an auxiliary cruiser. The Germans

declared she was carrying concealed guns. This was categorically

denied by the captain in the inquiry. "She had no weapons of offence

or defence and no masked guns." Lord Mersey therefore found this

charge to be untrue.

(b) The same may be said about the charge made by the Germans that she

was transporting Canadian troops.

(c) These two denials would be readily acceptable, were it not for the

fact that at first a denial and then a suppression of the fact that she

was carrying munitions was attempted.

It is equally untrue that the _Lusitania_ was carrying ammunition on

its final voyage. ("_Daily Express_," May 11, 1915).

In America there was a threat to expel Senator La Follette from the

Senate because he had stated that the _Lusitania_ carried munitions.

But Mr. Dudley Field Malone, collector at the port of New York,

confirmed this charge as true.

D. F. Malone revealed that the _Lusitania_ carried large quantities

of ammunition consigned to the British Government, including 4,200

cases of Springfield cartridges. The Wilson administration refused

to permit the publication of the fact. One of the principal charges

upon which the attempt to expel R. M. La Follette from the Senate

was based was that he had falsely declared that the _Lusitania_

carried ammunition, and the prosecution of the Senator was dropped

when Mr. Malone offered to testify on his behalf. (_The Nation_

(New York), November 20 1920)

It was eventually admitted that the _Lusitania_ carried 5400 cases

of ammunition. The Captain at the inquest at Kinsale said: "There

was a second report, but that might possibly have been an internal

explosion." The foreman of the Queenstown jury protested that all

the victims were not drowned. "I have seen many of the bodies, and

the people were killed; they were blown to pieces."

The ship sank in eighteen minutes, which accounted for the loss of

so many lives. The Germans, in their reply to the American note,

referred to this point and stated:

"It is impossible to decide, for instance, the question whether the

necessary opportunity was given to the passengers and crew to

escape, until it has been determine whether or not the _Lusitania_

provided bulkheads and boat as ordered by the Titanic Conference for

corresponding emergencies in peace-time, and whether or not

ammunition or explosives carried in defiance of the American laws

accelerated the sinking of the ship, which might otherwise have been

expected either to get out the boats safely or reach the coast."

Included in her cargo was a small consignment of rifle ammunition

and shrapnel shells weighing about 173 tons, Warnings that the

vessel would be sunk, afterwards traced to the German Government,

were circulated in New York before she sailed. ("_The World

Crisis_," by the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, M.P.).

(d) The event having been condemned as a barbarous act of piracy, it

became necessary to show that the Germans gloried in it.

The first rumour was that a special medal had been bestowed on the

crew of the U-boat which sunk the _Lusitania_ as a reward for

gallantry. This was dropped when the medal turned out to be a

commemoration medal, not a decoration.

It was then stated that the German Government had had a medal struck

in commemoration of the event, but after the armistice had it

withdrawn from circulation. In 1919 it was found in a shop in

Berlin. In 1920 a traveller in Berlin, Frankfurt, and other parts of

Germany could find no one who had ever heard of it or seen it,

whereas in England the medals were well known and very easily

obtained. It turned out that the medal was originally designed in

Munich by a man of the name of Goetz and represents the _Lusitania_

as carrying arms. Goetz may be described as a cartoonist in metal;

his work was not official, and his _Lusitania_ medal had a very

limited circulation. Few Germans appear to have heard of its

existence. The large number of casts of the medal, which gave the

impression here that they must be as common as pence in Germany, was

explained by Lord Newton, who was in charge of propaganda at the

Foreign Office in 1916.

"I asked a West End store if they could undertake the reproduction

of it for propaganda purposes. They agreed to do so, and the medals

were sold all over the world in neutral countries, especially in

America and South America.

"After some initial difficulty a great success was achieved. I

believe it to have been one of the best pieces of propaganda."

("_Evening Standard_," November 1, 1926).

The Honorary Secretary of the Medal Committee stated that 250,000 of

the medals were sold, and the proceeds were given to the Red Cross

and St. Dunstan's. Each medal was enclosed in a box on which it was

stated that the medals were replicas or, the medal distributed in

Germany "to commemorate the sinking of the Lusitania." But many of

them in England could be purchased without any box.

In addition to the medal, leaflets were circulated with pictures of

the medal. In one case in Sweden a sentence was printed from the

_Kölnische Völkzeitung_: "We regard with joyous pride this newest

exploit of our fleet." This sentence had been torn from its context

and had been originally used in quite another connection.

It therefore became clear that:

(1) No medal was given to the crew of the German U-boat.

(2) No medal was struck in commemoration of the event by the German

Government.

(3) The German Government could not have withdrawn a medal it never

issued.

(4) A metal-worker in Munich designed the medal which was always

rare in Germany.

(5)The large number of medals in circulation was due to the

reproduction of Goetz's medal in Great Britain.

The propaganda value of the medal was great, as Lord Newton

admitted. The impression it created was absolutely and intentionally

false.

Chapter XXII - REPORT OF A BROKEN-UP MEETING

There were official eavesdroppers, telephone-tappers, letter-openers,

etc., by the score. We are not concerned with their activities here. But

it may be imagined what a large crop of spy stories and "authentic"

tales they originated. An amusing instance may be given of an official

who was sent to attend and report on a meeting of the Union of

Democratic Control, held at the Memorial Hall in November 1915. Major R.

M. Mackay (Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders) was Assistant

Provost-Marshal, and sent in a report, most of which was read out in the

House of Commons by Mr. Tennant, Under-Secretary at the War Office, on

December 7th. Attention was called to the meeting, because it was broken

up by soldiers who had obtained forged tickets. The Assistant

Provost-Marshal's report was so fantastic that it almost appeared as if

he could not have been at the meeting at all. But, of course, the

evidence of such a high-placed official was accepted as conclusive. He

accused Mr. Ramsay MacDonald of having provoked the soldiers by sending

a message to have some of them ejected. There was not a shred of truth

in this. He reported that someone "whose name I could not ascertain"

had used provocative language. He described stewardesses "who not only

appeared to be Teutonic but could be classified as such from their

accents," whose remarks he overheard. Needless to say, there was no

Teuton or anyone with a Teutonic accent in the building.

On a subsequent occasion, when Mr. Tennant attempted to explain away

parts of the report he had read out, the following comment appeared in

the _Westminster Gazette_:

"Mr. Tennant explained that his answer, with its references to

stewardesses with 'Teutonic accents' and its attribution to Mr.

Ramsay MacDonald of words which were never used, was read hurriedly

from a report made to him. Ministers are compelled to depend on such

reports, but the language ought to be severely edited before it

comes before the House of Commons. If that precaution is neglected,

Ministers lay up for themselves an amount of irritation and

resentment which is wholly unnecessary."

In 1917 the reliable Provost-Marshal was accused of wrongful arrest. In

May 1918 he was charged with "lending" soldiers as gardeners, etc., to

his personal friends, misuse of public money, etc. Some of the many

charges against him were dismissed, but later n the same year it was

announced that he was "Dismissed the service by sentence of General

Court Martial" (London Gazette Supplement, August 12, 1918).

It came out in evidence that he had been deaf for years.

Chapter XXIII - ATROCITY STORIES

War is, in itself, an atrocity. Cruelty and suffering are inherent in

it. Deeds of violence and barbarity occur, as everyone knows. Mankind is

goaded by authority to indulge every elemental animal passion, but the

exaggeration and invention of atrocities soon becomes the main staple of

propaganda. Stories of German "frightfulness" in Belgium were circulated

in such numbers as to give ample proof of the abominable cruelty of the

German Army and so to infuriate popular opinion against them. A Belgian

commission was appointed, and subsequently a commission, under the

chairmanship of Lord Bryce, who was chosen in order that opinion in

America, where he had been a very popular ambassador, might be

impressed. Affidavits of single witnesses were accepted as conclusive

proof.

At best, human testimony is unreliable, even in ordinary occurrences of

no consequence, but where bias, sentiment, passion, and so-called

patriotism disturb the emotions, a personal affirmation becomes of no

value whatsoever.

To cover the whole ground on atrocity stories would be impossible. They

were circulated in leaflets, pamphlets, letters, and speeches day after

day. Prominent people of repute, who would have shrunk from condemning

their bitterest personal enemy on the evidence, or rather lack of

evidence, they had before them, did not hesitate to lead the way in

charging a whole nation with every conceivable brutality and unnatural

crime. _The Times_ issued "Marching Songs," written by a prominent Eton

master, in which such lines as these occurred:

He shot the wives and children,

The wives and little children;

He shot the wives and children,

And laughed to see them die.

One or two instances of the proved falsity of statements made by people

under the stress of excitement and indignation may be given.

It was reported that some thirty to thirty-five German soldiers entered

the house of David Tordens, a carter, in Sempst; they bound him, and

then five or six of them assaulted and ravished in his presence his

thirteen-year-old daughter, and afterwards fixed her on bayonets. After

this horrible deed, they bayoneted his nine-year-old boy and then shot

his wife. His life was saved through the timely arrival of Belgian

soldiers. It was further asserted that all the girls in Sempst were

assaulted and ravished by the Germans.

The secretary of the commune, Paul van Boeckpourt, the mayor, Peter van

Asbroeck, and his son Louis van Asbroeck, in a sworn statement made on

April 4, 1915, at Sempst, declared that the name given to the carter,

David Tordens, was quite unknown to them; that such a person did not

live in Sempst before the war and was quite unknown in the commune; that

during the war no woman or child under fourteen was killed in Sempst,

and if such an occurrence had taken place they would certainly have

heard of it.

Another report published was that at Ternath the Germans met a boy and

asked him the way to Thurt. As the boy did not understand them, they

chopped off both his hands. (Quoted in _Truth: "A Path to justice and

Reconciliation,"_ by 'Verax').

Statement by the Mayor of Ternath, Dr. Poodt, on February 11, 1915:

"I declare there is not a word of truth in it. I have been in

Ternath since the beginning of the war, and it is impossible that

such an occurrence should not have been reported to me; it is a pure

invention."

After the publication of the various reports, five American war

correspondents issued the following declaration:

"To let the truth be known, we unanimously declare the stories of

German cruelties, from what we have been able to observe, were

untrue. After having been with the German Army for two weeks, and

having accompanied the troops for over one hundred miles, we are not

able to report one single case of undeserved punishment or measure

of retribution. We are neither able to confirm any rumours as

regards maltreatment of prisoners and non-combatants. Having been

with the German troops through Landen, Brussels, Nivelles,

Buissičre, Haute-Wiherie, Merbes-le-Château, Sorle-sur-Sambre,

Beaumont, we have not the slightest basis for making up a case of

excess. We found numerous rumours after investigation to be without

foundation. German soldiers paid everywhere for what they bought,

and respected private property and civil rights. We found Belgian

women and children after the battle of Buissičre to feel absolutely

safe. A citizen was shot in Merbes-le-Chateau, but nobody could

prove his innocence. Refugees, who told about cruelties and

brutalities, could bring absolutely no proof. The discipline of the

German soldiers is excellent; no drunkenness. The Burgomaster of

Sorle-sur-Sambre voluntarily disclaimed all rumours of cruelties in

that district. For the truth of the above we pledge our word of

honour as journalists."

(Signed) Roger Lewis, Associated Press; Irwin Cobb, _Saturday

Evening Post, Philadelphia Public Ledger,_ Philadelphia; Harry

Hansen, _Chicago Daily News_, Chicago; James, O'Donnell Bennett,

_Chicago Tribune_; John T. McCutcheon, _Chicago Tribune_, Chicago.

In the issue of the _New York World_ of January 28 1915, appeared the

following dispatch:

"Washington, January 27th.--Of the thousands of Belgian refugees

who are now in England, not one has been subjected to atrocities by

German soldiers. This, in effect, is the substance of a report

received at the State Department. The report states that the British

Government had investigated thousands of reports to the effect that

German soldier had perpetrated outrages on fleeing Belgians. During

the early period of the war columns of British newspapers were

filled with the accusation. Agents of the British Government,

according to the report of the American Embassy in London, carefully

investigated all these charges; they interviewed the alleged

victims and sifted all the evidence. As a result of the

investigation, the British Foreign Office notified the American

Embassy that the charges appeared to be based upon hysteria and

natural prejudice. The report added that many of the Belgians had

suffered hardships, but they should be charged up against the

exigence of war rather than to brutality of the individual German

soldiers."

The following passage occurs in a review by the _New York Times_

Literary Supplement of March 19, 1918, of "Brave Belgians," by Baron C.

Buttin, to which Baron de Brocqueville, the Belgian Minister of War,

contributed a preface commending its truth and fairness:

"The work gives eye-witness accounts of the first three months of

the invasion of Belgium, and is made up of reports told by various

people who did their share in that extraordinary

resistance---colonels, majors, and army chaplains, lieutenants, etc.

There is scarcely a hint of that "bugbear," German atrocities, or

the nameless or needless horrors described in the report of the

Bryce Commission."

An amazing instance of the way atrocity lies may still remain fixed in

some people's minds, and how an attempt may be made to propagate them

even now, is afforded by a letter which appeared as recently as April

12, 1927, in the _Evening Star_, Dunedin, New Zealand. The writer, Mr.

Gordon Catto, answering another correspondent on the subject of

atrocities, wrote:

"My wife, who in 1914-15 was a nurse in the Ramsgate General

Hospital, England, actually nursed Belgian women and children

refugees who were the victims of Hun rapacity and fiendishness, the

women having had their breasts cut off and the children with their

hands backed off at the wrists".

Here was almost first-hand evidence noting both time and place. An

inquiry was accordingly addressed by a lady investigator to the

Secretary of the Ramsgate General Hospital, and the following reply was

received:

"Ramsgate General Hospital, 4, Cannon Road, Ramsgate, 11.6. 27.

"DEAR MADAM,

"I am at a loss to know how the information about atrocities to

women and children, committed by the German soldiers, could have

originated in respect to Ramsgate, as there were no such cases

received."

"Yours faithfully,

"(Signed) SYDNEY W. SMITH."

An instance of a man being genuinely misled by the information given

him, not having any desire himself to propagate lies, can be given in

the case of a Baptist minister of Sheffield, who preached on atrocities.

On February 28, 1915, preaching in Wash Lane Baptist Chapel, Letchford,

Warrington, he told the congregation that there was a Belgian girl in

Sheffield, about twelve years old, who had had her nose cut off and her

stomach ripped open by the Germans, but she was still living and getting

better.

On inquiry being made as to whether he had made this statement, he replied:

"I have written to our Belgian Consul here for the name and address

of the girl whose case I quoted at Letchford. If all I hear is true,

it is far worse than I stated.

"I am also asking for another similar instance, which I shall be

glad to transmit to you if, and as soon as, I can secure the facts."

The Belgian Consul, in a letter of March 11th, wrote:

"Although I have heard of a number of cases of Belgian girls being

maltreated in one way and another, I have on investigation not found

a particle of truth in one of them, and I know of no girl in

Sheffield who has had her nose cut off and her stomach ripped open.

"I have also investigated cases in other towns, but have not yet

succeeded in getting hold of any tangible confirmation."

The minister accordingly informed his correspondent:

"I am writing a letter to my old church at Letchford to be read on

Sunday next, contradicting the story which I told on what seemed to

be unimpeachable authority. I am glad I did not give the whole

alleged facts as they were given to me.

"With many thanks for your note and inquiry".

It is to be feared, however, that his first congregation, satisfied with

pulpit confirmation of the story, circulated it beyond the reach of the

subsequent denial.

Atrocity stories from the foreign Press could scarcely be collected in a

library. A glance through any foreign newspaper will show that hardly a

page in hardly an issue is free from them. In Eastern Europe they were

particularly horrible. They were the almost conventional form of

journalistic expression on all sides. The brutalization of the European

mind was very thoroughly carried out. But moral indignation and even

physical nausea were checked by the surfeit of horrors and the blatant

exaggerations. There can be no more discreditable period in the history

of journalism than the four years of the Great War.

A neutral paper (_Nieuwe Courant)_, published at The Hague, summed up

the effect of propaganda on January 17, 1916:

"...The paper war-propaganda is a poison, which outsiders can

only stand in very small doses. If the belligerents continue to

administer it the effect will be the opposite to that expected. So

it goes with the stream of literature on the Cavell case, and the

varied forms in which the Baralong poison is presented to us. We

leave it with a certain disgust, after tasting it, and are only

annoyed at the bitter after taste--the promised reprisals..."

Chapter XXIV - FAKED PHOTOGRAPHS

To the uninitiated there is something substantially reliable in a

picture obviously taken from a photograph. Nothing would seem to be more

authentic than a snapshot. It does not occur to anyone to question

photograph, and faked pictures therefore have special value, as they get

a much better start than any mere statement, which may be criticized or

denied. Only long time after, if ever, can their falsity be detected.

The faking of photographs must have amounted almost to an industry

during the war. All countries were concerned, but the French were the

most expert. Some of the originals have been collected and reproduced:

("How the World Madness was Engineered," by Ferdinand Avenarius).

Descriptions of a few of them may be given here:

In _Das Echo_, October 29, 1914, there was a photograph of the German

troops marching along a country road in Belgium. This was reproduced by

_Le Journal_ on November 21, 1914, under the title: "LES ALLEMANDS EN

RETRAITE. Cette photographie fournit une vision saississante de ce que

fut la retraite de L'armée du général von Hindenburg aprčs la bataille

de la Vistule."

A photograph taken by Karl Delius, of Berlin, showed the delivery of

mailbags in front of the Field Post Office in Kavevara.

This was reproduced in the Daily Mirror of December 3, 1915, with the

title: "MADE TO WASH THE HUNS' DIRTY LINEN. The blond beasts are

sweating the Serbians, who are made to do the washing for the invaders.

Like most customers who do not settle their bills, they are full of

grumbles and complaints. Here a pile has just arrived from the wash."

Several photographs were taken during the pogrom in Russia in 1905;

some of these were circulated by Jews in America. One of these

photographs represented a row of corpses with a crowd round them, and

was reproduced in _Le Miroir,_ November 14, 1915, with the title:

"LES CRIMES DES HORDES ALLEMANDES EN POLOGNE."

Several others of these were similarly reproduced in newspapers. The

_Critica_, a newspaper in the Argentine, exposed German atrocities by

this means.

A photograph was taken in Berlin of a crowd before the royal palace on

July 13, 1914 (before the outbreak of war). This was reproduced in _Le

Monde Illustré_, August 21, 1915, with the heading: "ENTHOUSIASME ET

JOIE DE BARBARES", with an explanation that it was a demonstration to

celebrate the sinking of the _Lusitania_.

A photograph which appeared in the Berlin _'Tag'_, on August 13, 1914,

represented a long queue of men with basins. Under it was written: "How

we treat interned Russian and French; lining up the interned before the

distribution of food". This was reproduced in the _Daily News_ on April

2, 1915, with the title: "GERMAN WORKERS FEEL THE PINCH. The above crowd

lining up for rations is a familiar sight in Germany. It reveals one

aspect of our naval power."

A photograph of German officers inspecting munition cases was reproduced

by _War Illustrated_, January 30,1915, as "German officers pillaging

chests in a French chateau."

A photograph of a German soldier bending over fallen German comrade was

reproduced in _War Illustrated_, April 17, 1915, with the title:

"Definite proof of the Hun's abuse of the rules of war, German ghoul

actually caught in the act of robbing a Russian."

In the _Berlin Lokalanzeiger_ of June 9, 1914, a photograph was

published of three cavalry officers who had won cups and other trophies,

which they are holding at the Army steeplechase in the Grunewald. This

was first reproduced in _Wes Mir_, a Russian newspaper, with the title

"The German Looters in Warsaw," and also, on August 8, 1915, by the

_Daily Mirror_ with the title: "THREE GERMAN CAVALRYMEN LOADED WITH GOLD

AND SILVER LOOT."

Faked photographs were, of course, sent in great numbers to neutral

countries.

A German photograph of the town of Schwirwindt after the Russian

occupation, was reproduced in _Illustreret Familieblad_ (Denmark) as, "A

French City after a German Bombardment."

A photograph from '_Das Leben in Bild_', in 1917, of three young German

soldiers laughing, was entitled: "Home again. Three sturdy young Germans

who succeeded in escaping from French imprisonment."

This came out in a Danish family paper on May 2, 1917, as:

"Escaped from drumfire hell. Three German soldiers apparently very

happy to have become French prisoners of war."

The citadel at Brest-Litovsk was fired by the retreating Russians, and a

photograph appeared in _Zeitbilder_, September 5, 1915, showing Germans

carrying out the corn in sacks.

This was reproduced in the _Graphic_, September 18, 1915, as, "German

soldiers plundering a factory at Brest Litovsk, which was fired by the

retreating Russians."

_Illustrated War News_, December 29, 1915, gave a photograph of war

trophies. A sergeant is holding up a sort of cat-o'-nine-tails whip.

"WHAT WAS IT USED FOR? A GERMAN WHIP AMONG A COLLECTION OF WAR TROPHIES.

These war trophies captured from the Germans in Flanders have been

presented to the Irish Rifles by a sergeant. The presence of the whip is

of curious significance."

The "whip," as a matter of fact, was an ordinary German carpet-beater.

A Russian film represented German nurses in the garb of religious

sisters stabbing the wounded on the battlefield.

A picture, not a photograph, which had a great circulation, was called

"Chemin de la gloire" (the Road of Glory) in the "Choses Vues" (Things

Seen) series.

In the background is a cathedral in flames, a long road is strewn with

bottles, and in the foreground is the body of a little boy impaled to

the ground by a bayonet.

But if pictures and caricatures were to be described, there would be no

end of it. Undoubtedly the cartoonist had a great influence in all

countries, especially Raemakers and _Punch_. The unfortunate neutral

countries were bombarded with them from both sides.

A remarkable series of photographs was taken by a Mr. F. J. Mortimer,

Fellow of the Royal Photographic Society, and published in 1912. They

were widely reproduced in illustrated periodicals. Among them was a

photograph of the 'Arden Craig' sinking off the Scilly Isles in January

1911. On March 31, 1917, a popular illustrated weekly devoted a page to

"Camera Records of Prussian Piracy," and this particular photograph was

reproduced in a succession of pictures to illustrate "a windjammer

torpedoed off the English coast by the criminally indiscriminate U-boat

pirates."

Mr. Mortimer's photographs of British ships were also reproduced in

Germany under the heading of "Scenes from the German Navy."

On September 28, 1916, the _Daily Sketch_ gave a photograph of a crowd

of German prisoners under the heading "Still They Come!" "Between 3,000

and 4,000 prisoners have been taken in the past forty-eight hours."

(Official.)

On October 10, 1918, the _Daily Mirror_ reproduced precisely the same

photograph, under which was printed: "Just a very small portion of the

Allies' unique collection of Hun war prisoners of the 1918 season."

Chapter XXV - THE DOCTORING OF OFFICIAL PAPERS

Press lies and private lies may in certain circumstances carry much

weight. At the same time there are often sections of the public who are

less credulous, and therefore more suspicious. But when printed

documents appear with an official imprimatur--in this country the

royal arms and the superscription "Presented to Parliament by command of

His Majesty," or "Printed by order of the House of Commons"--everyone

believes that in these papers, at any rate, they have got the whole

truth and nothing but the truth. Only a minority, perhaps, study them,

but this minority writes and furnishes the Press with indisputably

authentic information from "command papers." The blue books, yellow

books, white books, orange books, etc., become the basis of all propaganda.

It comes as a shock therefore to those who patriotically accept their

Government's story to find that instances of suppression abound in the

form of passages carefully and intentionally suppressed from published

official documents.

This practice, of course, did not originate during the Great War. It is

an old diplomatic tradition, justified conceivably in cases where the

concealment of injudicious language on the part of a foreign statesman

may prevent the inflammation of public opinion, but carried to

unjustifiable lengths when a concealment or distortion of the facts of

the case is aimed at.

Sir Edward Grey's speech on August 3rd was a very meagre and incomplete

recital of events given to a House which had been deliberately kept

ignorant for years. But it was well framed to have the desired effect.

Amongst the omissions was the German Ambassador's proposal of August

1st, in which he suggest that Germany might be willing to guarantee not

only Belgian neutrality but also the integrity of France and that of her

colonies, and the Foreign Secretary further omitted to mention that in

this interview he had definitely refused to formulate any conditions on

which neutrality of the country might be guaranteed, though the

Ambassador requested him to do so. But by far the most serious omission

was his failure to read to the House the last sentence in his letter to

M. Cambon, a sentence of vital importance. The sentence ran:

"If these measures involved action, the plans of the General Staff

would at once be taken into consideration, and the Government would

then decide what effect should be given to them."

This omission is far from being satisfactorily explain in _Twenty-Five

Years_ by the casual statement, "Perhaps I thought the last sentence

unimportant."

The speeches of Ministers in the other Europe Governments concerned at

the time were, of course, patriotically distorted, and any information

with regard to facts which might qualify or mitigate the iniquity of the

opposite party was carefully suppressed.

The omission of dispatches or suppressions of passages in the official

books of all the Governments concerned were far too numerous even to

give as a list.

Some of the British suppressions are now apparent since the publication

by the Foreign Office of further diplomatic documents. Only a couple of

examples need be given.

In a telegram of July 24, 1914, from our Ambassador at St. Petersburg, a

passage was completely suppressed, in which he indicated the agreement

arrived at between France and Russia during the visit of the President,

according to which they settled not to tolerate any interference on the

part of Austria in the interior affairs of Serbia. In view of what was

going on in Serbia, this was highly significant.

A telegram appeared in the White Paper of 1914 from the French

Government, dated July 20th, saying that "reservists have been called up

by tens of thousands in Germany." But a telegram from the British

Ambassador in Berlin of August 1st, saying that no calling up of

reserves had yet taken place (404), was suppressed.

Special official reports had to be given the necessary war bias. Here is

an instance from one of the Dominions:

"A unanimous resolution was adopted on June 29, 1926, by the Council

of South-West Africa. This body consider the Blue Book of the South

African Union directed against the administration of German

South-West Africa merely as an instrument of war, and asked the

Government to destroy copies of the book existing among official

documents or in the bookshops. In his reply, the Prime Minister of

South Africa, General Hertzog, declared that he and his colleagues

in the Government could appreciate the causes of the Council's

resolution, and that he was prepared to fall in as far as possible

with its wishes. In his opinion, the unreliable and unworthy

character of this document condemned it to dishonourable burial,

together with all kindred publications of the war period." (Dr.

Schnee's complaint re mandated African territories. "_The Times_,"

May 16. 1927).

The French Yellow Book was a mass of suppressions, mutilations, and even

falsifications. As a French writer _(L'Évangile du Quai d'Orsay_, by

George Demartial). who has carefully examined this whole question writes:

"The Government cut out of the Yellow Book everything which

concerned the Russian mobilization, like a criminal obliterates all

traces of his crime."

M. Demartial devotes a volume to the various ways in which this official

record was tampered with in order to deceive the French people, and he

asks: "If the French Government is innocent with regard to the war, why

has it falsified the collection of diplomatic documents which expose the

origins?"

There were omissions, too, in the German official White Book, as, for

instance, a telegram from the Czar in which he proposed to submit the

Austro-Serbia dispute to arbitration.

A famous case of falsification was the report issue by the Kurt Eisner

revolutionary Government in Munich in November 1918 which purported to

give the text of a dispatch from the Bavarian Minister at Berlin. As

published, this report showed the German Government cynically

contemplating the explosion of world war as the result of Austria's

proposed coercive measures against Serbia. The incident gave rise to a

libel action. Twelve foreign authorities examined the document, and all

of them came to the conclusion that there had been falsification. The

French Professor of the Sorbonne, M. Edouard Dujardin, declared:

"I am of opinion that the text such as published by the _Bayerische

Staatzeitung_ is one of the most manifest and most criminal

falsifications known to history."

The full text showed that the German Government was contemplating not a

world war but a localized war between Austria and Serbia.

But whatever may be said about suppressions by other Governments, there

is nothing to equal the doctoring and garbling of the Russian Orange

Book. The omission not only of passages but of a whole series of

important telegrams and dispatches which passed between the Russian

Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sazonov, and the Russian Ambassador in

Paris, Isvolsky, shows the determination to conceal the real attitude of

Russia and France during the critical days, and the insertion of these

suppressed documents, which was subsequently made possible, puts a very

different complexion on the origins of the outbreak of war than that

which was accepted at the time. (The text of the suppressed documents is

given in "Duty to Civilization", by Francis Nielson).

Among the suppressions were a telegram stating that "Germany ardently

desired the localization of the conflict" (July 24th)--"Counsels of

moderation...We have to reject all these at the outset"; telegrams

showing the German Ambassador's anxiety for peace; telegrams showing the

warlike spirit of France and instructions to the Russians to continue

their preparations as quickly as possible (July 30-31). "The French

Government have firmly decided upon war and begged me to confirm the

hope of the French General Staff that all our efforts will be directed

against Germany and that Austria will be treated as a 'quantité

négligeable.'" In some cases sentences were omitted and in many cases the

whole telegram was suppressed.

Statesmen in all countries, whom it would be foolish to describe as

dishonourable men, would shrink with disgust from falsifying their own

private or business correspondence. Were they to do so, they would be

convicted by their own law courts as criminals and condemned by public

opinion. Yet, acting on behalf of their country, with issues at stake of

such vast significance, they do not hesitate to lend themselves to a

deliberate attempt to mislead their people and the world, and to

endeavour to justify their attitude by resorting to the meanest tricks.

Chapter XXVI - HYPOCRITICAL INDIGNATION

Gas warfare and submarine warfare offered instances of violent outbursts

of indignation on the on the part of the Press, which events showed were

gross hypocrisy.

This is an attitude rather than an expression of falsehood.

"We must expect the Germans to fight like savages who have acquired

a knowledge of chemistry." (_Daily Express_, April 27, 1915.)

"This atrocious method of warfare...this diabolical contrivance...

The wilful and systematic attempt to choke and poison our

soldiers can have but one effect upon the British peoples and upon

all the non-German peoples of the earth. It will deepen our

indignation and our resolution, and it will fill all races with a

horror of the German name". ("_The Times_," April 29, 1915).

But it turned out that the Germans had not been the first to use poison

gas. M. Turpin's discoveries in poison explosives had been advertised in

the French Press before this date, and the French War Ministry's

official instructions with regard to the use of gas hand grenades had

been issued in the autumn of 1914.

In May 1915 Colonel Maude wrote in '_Land and Water_':

"All shells, all fires, all mining charges, give out asphyxiating

gases, and from some shells the fumes are poisonous. The uses of

these has been discussed for years, because the explosive that

liberates the deadly gas is said to possess a quite unusual power;

but the reason why many of these types were not adopted was because

they were considered too dangerous for our gunners to transport and

handle, not that when they burst they would have poisoned the enemy.

At this time this quality of deadliness was defended on the ground

of humanity, as the death inflicted would be absolutely certain and

painless, and hence there would be no wounded. In any case, at the

beginning of this war it was stated in all the French papers that

the difficulty of handling these shells had been overcome, and that

they had been employed on certain sectors of the French front with

admirable results. When the time comes to defend their use, shall we

really have the effrontery to claim for our shells that they poison

but do not asphyxiate? Moreover, is not poisoning also covered by

the Hague Convention? In spirit it undoubtedly is; but as I have not

the text at hand to refer to, it may possibly leave a loophole on

this question, through which our international lawyers might escape."

Subsequently, of course, we adopted gas warfare and perfected it.

MR. BILLING: Is it not a fact...that we have a better gas and a

better protection and that now the Huns are squealing?

MR. BONAR LAW: I wish I were as sure of that as the Honourable

Member. (House of Commons, February 25, 1918.)

Their (the British and French) gas masks to-day are more efficient

than the German; their gas is better and is better used. ("_Daily

Mail_," February 15, 1918.)

The Allies vied with one another in the production of poison gas, and

the following article, by Mr. Ed. Berwick, an American, shows the extent

to which it had reached before the end.

"There were sixty-three different kinds of poison gas used before

the war ended, and in November 1918 our chemical warfare service

(established in June of that year) was engaged in sixty-five 'major

research problems,' including eight gases more deadly than any used

up to that date...One kind rendered the soil barren for seven

years, and a few drops on a tree-trunk causes it to 'wither in an

hour.' Our arsenal at Edgewood, Maryland, and its tributaries was

turning out 810 tons weekly against 385 tons by France, 410 tons

Britain, and only 210 Germany.

"It was almost ready to increase its output to 3,000 tons a week...

Congress had appropriated 100,000,000 dollars for this chemical

warfare service and allotted 48,000 men for its use. The armistice

rendered needless both allotment and appropriation in such

magnitude." (_Foreign Affairs_, July 1922.)

Poison gas of incredible malignity, against which only a secret mask

(which the Germans could not obtain in time) was proof, would have

stifled all resistance and paralysed all life on the hostile front

subject to attack. ("What War in 1919 Would Have Meant," by Mr. Winston

Churchill, "Nash's Pall Mall Magazine" September 1924).

Since the war, research and experiments have continued, and Great

Britain is now said to lead the way in this "atrocious method of

warfare, 'this diabolical contrivance,' the weapon of 'savages."

Submarine warfare produced the same effect. "Germany cannot be allowed

to adopt a system of open piracy and murder." (Mr. Churchill, House of

Commons, February 15, 1915).

"To-day for the first time in history one of the Great Powers in

Europe proposes to engage in the systematic conduct of maritime war

by means hitherto condemned by an nations as piratical." ("_The

Times_," February 18, 1915).

"It is unnecessary to multiply the instances of violent and

righteous indignation on the part of the Press and individuals. But

long before this event the other side of the question had been put

by no less a person than Sir Percy Scott, who, writing in reply to

Lord Sydenham in _The Times_ on July 16, 1914, that is, before the

outbreak of war, gave the following quotation from a letter written

by a foreign naval officer, and his comment on it:

"If we went to war with an insular country depending for its food

supplies from overseas, it would be our business to stop that

supply. On the declaration of war we should notify the enemy that

she should warn those of her merchant ships coming home not to

approach the island, as we were establishing a blockade of mines and

submarines.

"Similarly we should notify all neutrals that such a blockade had

been established, and that if any of their vessels approached the

island they would be liable to destruction either by mines or

submarines, and therefore would do so at their own risk."

Commentary furnished by Sir Percy Scott:

"Such a Proclamation would, in my opinion, be perfectly in order,

and once it had been made, if any British or neutral ship

disregarded it they could not be held to be engaged in the peaceful

avocations referred to by Lord Sydenham, and, it they were sunk in

the attempt, it could not be described as a relapse into savagery or

piracy in its blackest form. If Lord Sydenham will look up the

accounts of what usually happened to the blockade-runners into

Charleston during the Civil War in America, I think he will find

that the blockading cruisers seldom had any scruples about firing

into the vessels they were chasing or driving them ashore, and even

peppering them, when stranded, with grape and shell. The mine and

the submarine torpedo will be newer deterrents."

In one of his characteristically facetious letters (addressed to Admiral

Tirpitz on his resignation, March 29, 1916), Lord Fisher wrote:

"I don't blame you for the submarine business. I'd have done the

same myself, only our idiots in England wouldn't believe it when I

told 'em".

There was the same outburst over air-raids. We were given the impression

that the Huns were the first to rain down death from the sky. But among

the lantern lectures for propaganda purposes given in 1918 by the

National War Service Committee, there were slides illustrating

bomb-dropping on German towns. The printed synopsis of one of these

slides ran:

"These early raids by R.N.A.S. were the first examples of

bomb-dropping attacks from the air in any war, and the pity is that

we had not enough aeroplanes at the beginning of the war."

Lord Montagu said in the House of Lords in July 1917 that "It was

absolute humbug to talk of London being an undefended city. The Germans

had a perfect right to raid London. London was defended by guns and

aeroplanes, and it was the chief centre of the production of munitions.

We were therefore but deluding ourselves in talking about London being

an undefended city, and about the Germans in attacking it being guilty

of an act unworthy of a civilized nation. That might be an unpopular

thing to say at the moment, but it was the actual fact of the situation.

The right line for the Government to take was to say to the civil

population: "This is a war of nations, and not alone of armies, and you

must endeavour to bear the casualties you suffer in the same way as the

French and Belgian civil populations are bearing the casualties

incidental to this kind of warfare."

Raids on German towns such as Karlsruhe were undertaken by the Allies,

and all talk of inhumanity was dropped.

"Who does not remember the fierce indignation in Great Britain at

the news that the Germans had sunk to such unspeakable depths as to

use poisonous gases? The British censors gladly passed the most

horrifying details to the suffering caused by this new method of

torture. Soon the London censor forbade further reference of a kind

to the use of gas, which meant, of course that England was going to

do a little poisoning on her own account. Today the use of gas by

the British is hailed, not only without shame, but with joyous

satisfaction. Like the Allied killing of innocent women and children

in German towns by their fliers, it shows again how rapidly one's

ideals go by the board in war." ("_New York Evening Post_," June 30,

1916.)

Chapter XXVII - OTHER LIES

With such profusion was falsehood sown that it would be impossible at

this already distant date to gather in the whole crop. A mere assertion,

even from a private individual, was often enough to set the ball

rolling. The Press was only too grateful for any suggestion which might

release another flood of lies, and the Government, when it was not

concerned with its own subterfuges, was always ready, by disowning

responsibility, to avoid direct denial of popular lies.

A few cases of some less important and some more ridiculous tales may be

given.

THE GOVERNESS.

Almost every foreign governess or waiter in the country was under grave

suspicion, and numberless were the stories invented about them. The best

edition of the governess story is given by Sir Basil Thomson ('Queer

People' by Sir Basil Thompson):

"A classic version was that the governess was missing from the

midday meal, and that when the family came to open her trunks, they

discovered under a false bottom, a store of high-explosive bombs.

Everyone who told this story knew the woman's employer; some had

even seen the governess herself in happier days: "Such a nice,

quiet person, so fond of the children; but now one comes to think of

it, there was something in her face, impossible to describe, but a

something."

THE WAITER.

A Swiss waiter who had drawn on a menu-card a plan of the tables in the

hotel dining-room where he was in charge was actually brought in hot

haste to Scotland Yard on the urgent representations of a visitor to the

hotel, who was convinced that the plan was of military importance.

A German servant girl at Bearsden, near Glasgow, with a trunk full of

plans and photographs, was another fabrication.

ENAMELLED ADVERTISEMENTS.

There was a report that enamelled iron advertisements for "Maggi soup,"

which were attached to hoardings in Belgium, were unscrewed by German

officers in order that they might read the information about local

resources which was painted in German on the back by spies who had

preceded them. Whether this was true or not, it was generally accepted,

and screwdriver parties were formed in the London suburbs for the

examination of the backs of enamelled advertisements.

CONCRETE PLATFORMS.

The emplacements laid down for guns at Maubeuge, made in the shape of

tennis-courts, led to an amazingly widespread belief that all hard

courts, paved back gardens, or concrete roofs were designed for this

purpose. Anyone who possessed one of these came under suspicion, not

only in the British Isles but in America, and the scare actually spread

to California.

The 'Bystander' had a cartoon in March 1915 of Bernhardi writing his

books, a sword in his teeth and a revolver in his left hand, on the wall

a plan labelled "proposed concrete bed at Golders Green."

THE TUBES.

The Tube as a refuge from Zeppelin raids naturally came in for

attention. Sir Basil Thomson gives one of the forms of an invention in

this connection.

'An English nurse had brought a German officer back from death's

door. In a burst of gratitude, he said, at parting, "I must not tell

you more, but beware of the Tubes (in April 1915)." As time wore on

the date was shifted forward month by month. We took the trouble to

trace this story from mouth to mouth until we reached the second

mistress in a London boarding-school. She declared that she had

heard it from the charwoman who cleaned the school, but that lady

stoutly denied she had ever told so ridiculous a story.'

BOMBING OF HOSPITALS.

In May 1918 the Press was filled with articles of the most violent

indignation at the deliberate bombing of hospitals by the Germans. _The

Times_ (May 24, 1918), said: "It was on a par with all the abominations

that have caused the German name to stink in the nostrils of humanity

since the war began, and will cause it to stink while memory endures,"

and recommended, after they had been vanquished, "ostracism from the

society of civilized nations." There was a _Punch_ cartoon, and the rest

of the Press yelled. The soldiers, however, as usual, did not indulge in

hysterics, and explained the matter of the bombing of the hospitals at

Etaples, after which the following appeared in a leader published by the

'_Manchester Guardian_.'

"Towards the end of last month and the beginning of this public

opinion here--and, for the matter of that, we imagine in most

other countries too--was horrified by messages from

correspondents in France who described the deliberate bombing of

British hospitals by German airmen. In one case the correspondent

asserted categorically that there could have been no mistake; the

hospitals, and not anything of military value, were the objects at

whose destruction the raiders aimed. Well might such news cause even

a fiercer fire of indignation than now burns against the Germans,

since inhumanity could reach no lower depth than an attack on the

sick and wounded and those who minister to them. There was no

apparent room to doubt the accuracy of these reports, for there is a

censorship in the field which not only prevents the correspondent

from saying anything that it disapproves, but can overtake an error

if by some mischance he has fallen, as he may easily do, into

inaccuracy. So long, then, as these reports arrived and went

uncorrected, it was right to suppose that they represented the

facts. But we believe it is the view of the military authorities

that there is no sufficient evidence to show that these were

deliberate attacks on hospitals. The military view is that hospitals

must sometimes, on both sides of the front, be placed near objects

of military-importance, such as railways or camps or ammunition

dumps, and that in a night raid hospitals run the risk of being hit

when the military objects round them are attacked. But if this is

the authoritative military view, how comes it that correspondents

were allowed to send misleading messages to this country, or that

when messages had been sent, steps were not taken to remove the

impression they had caused? Our case against the Germans is strong

enough in all conscience, and thoroughly established. We can afford

to do justice even to them, and we ought to do no less." ("

_Manchester Guardian_," June 15, 1918.)

The constant assertion that on no occasion were hospital ships used for

the carrying of any war material or soldiers was contrary to fact.

THE CROWN PRINCE.

The German Crown Prince, when he was not dead, was always represented as

stealing valuables from French chateaux. The following is a sample of

what it was thought necessary to write on this subject:

"The Crown Prince of Prussia may yet be immortalized as a prince

among burglars and a burglar among princes! ... Germany makes war in

a manner that would have commended itself to Bill Sikes, and the

Kaiser's eldest son, in his eagerness to secure the "swag." has

merited the right to be considered an imperial Fagin...This

modern Germany, whose spirit is epitomized in the Crown Prince,

fights like a valiant blackguard. It will die like a hero, but it

will murder like an apache and will steal like a mean pickpocket".

(Thefts by the Crown Prince," _Daily Express_, November 1, 1914).

An article appeared in _La Nouvelle Revue_ in 1915, written by an Irish

lady whose friend had witnessed a secret ceremony at Menin at which "the

German Crown Prince was crowned King of Belgium in the marketplace."

This was reproduced in the English Press.

TUBERCULOSIS GERMS.

The Germans were accused of having inoculated French prisoners with

tuberculosis germs. So emphatic was this assertion that a question was

asked in Parliament on the subject on April 24, 1917. The Government,

however, disclaimed having any information on the subject, and the story

was dropped.

THE PATRIOTIC LIAR.

The method of the patriotic liar can be illustrated by the case of a

clergyman, who informed the Manchester Geographical Society on October

7, 1914: "You will hear only one hundredth part of the actual atrocities

this war has produced. The civilized world could not stand the truth. It

will never hear it. There are, up and down England to-day, scores--I

am understating the number--of Belgian girls who have had their hands

cut off. That is nothing to what we could tell you." Later in the same

month the reverend gentleman wrote to the _Daily News_, asking, "Will

anyone who has actually seen such cases here in England send me full

particulars?"

He had made his statement first and was endeavouring to get his evidence

afterwards.

MINERS BURIED ALIVE.

On August 29th the 'Daily Citizen' of Glasgow had a paragraph headed

"Miners Buried Alive! Enemy Block Shafts of Belgian Pits." On

December 1st the 'Daily Citizen' (without heading the paragraph)

gave the statement of M. Lombard (General Secretary of the Belgian

Miners) to the Executive of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain,

in which he "denied that there was any truth in the rumour

circulated so freely in this country that the Germans had shut up

the pit mouths in various places, thus suffocating miners underground."

WAR NEWS FOR THE U.S.A.

A former agent of the Standard Oil Company, living at Crieff, Scotland,

supplied "war news" to the U.S.A. The '_Strathearn Herald_', in December

1914, gave some samples. There was, of course, the handless Belgian baby

who had arrived in Glasgow.

"Over a hundred Germans were found with cages full of homing pigeons

in Glasgow and Edinburgh."

But the most elaborate bit of news was that when the British Army had to

retreat in France about a month ago, General French asked for