The Rape of Belgium

[BMoorhouse]

This is (hopefully) an objective question?

When the BEF soldiers were waiting for the advancing German troops at LeCateau they reported seeing the horison glowing from burning villages. Was this the result of the rear guard actions after Mons, or was it part of a pattern of general destruction?

Brendon.

[Neil Burns]

Andy H.,

Thank you.

Take care,

Neil

[Guest CGI]

It's a proven fact that the Germans committed quite some atrocities in 1914. In how far these were exactly enlarged afterwards, is more difficult to say. Apart from exaggerations for propaganda purposes, there is another factor in play though : at a moment when lines of communication break down for the press, stories from hearsay take over and these show the natural tendency to 'inflate' every time the story is told.

In a Belgian diary of a soldier, who in October 1914 was fleeing west, I found references to the news of the day, that were most remarkable. Just two examples :

"The fighting at Charleroi had been so ferocious that the bodies of people who got killed in the streets, could not fall down, but remained in an upright position, as there were so many."

"People and especially children should be extremely careful not to pick up anything from the street, as German aeroplanes were rumoured to drop loads of poisonous pralines."

To determine the extent of the German cruelties, consultation of contemporary newspapers might seem a good idea, but again, even in quality papers with an international reputation, the truth might be far away. Another example :

About the fall of Antwerp in 1914 (my transl.) :

1. "Kölnische Zeitung" : When the fall of Antwerp became a fact, the church bells were ringing (The author meant : in Germany as a sign of victory).

2. "Le Matin" : According to the Kölnische Zeitung, the priests in Antwerp were forced to ring the church bells after the fall of the town.

3. "The Times" : According to a report sent to Le Matin from Cologne, Belgian priests who refused to ring the church bells after the Fall of Antwerp, were deprived of their office.

4. "Corriere della Sera" : According to information The Times got from Cologne via Paris, the unfortunate priests who had refused to ring the bells after the fall of Antwerp, were convicted to forced labour.

5. "Le Matin" : According to information gathered by the Corriere della Sera via London, we have received confirmation of the fact that the barbarian conquerors of Antwerp punished the unfortunate priests, who heroically had refused to ring the bells, by attaching them head-down as living clappers in their bells

[Guest July1]

Like mentioned earlier on, this has been an interesting topic.

If all these atrocities really toke place, I may never have been born as my

grandparents surely must have been with the victims.

Sure, senseless murdering of civilians has taken place, no doubt about that.

But I'm afraid that "nosy" reporters and journalists, under the banner of "freedom of press" surely liked to exagerate things slightly and sell a few newspapers more.

I'm having some trouble with the piont raised that civilians fired weapons

at the invading Germans. Come on ! This was Belgian 1914, not Texas

or the USA were everybody has a firearm tucked between his trousers !

Study social life in this country from those days. Rural areas were people

worked 18 hours on the field, had never been to a major town, and lived under pressure of the local landlord. What would they know about Germans uniforms?

My grandmother was 18 in 1914, and even when she was in her 80's, could not remember having seen many Germans then (she did so in the years 1940-1945)

And what's wrong with the so called "Francs tireurs" ?(snipers)

At best, we fielded a couple of 100.000 troops against the Germans more than

a million. A pitch battle was out of the question, regardless that the Belgian

army gave the Germans a bloody nose at Halen on 12th august.

Since German tactics at the time were massed infantry attacks, what was there to stop them. The only thing the Belgians could do was slow down actions, hoping the French and British could prepare and come into action.

Our army went to war with 19th century uniforms and equipment, barely any machineguns. By october, after the fall of Antwerp, which was a major army depot,

there were no uniforms left or any equipment, resulting in "uniformes de fortunes",

giving a rather civilian silhouet.

Now in defence of the Germans, not that I agree with their actions, should these

indeed been ordered by high command or the government, are they to blame?

Both in WW1 and WW2, our government remained neutral. This may seem a noble position, but is it really ? Especially when you know they WILL invade your country.

Was this to provoke something else ?

Such a position becomes difficult for any future ally to understand which side you will take. A question that bothered both French and British military, as they

feared that the Belgian government might change side, and let the Germans pass.

Or, for the Germans, will they let us pass or not (hence retaliations from the Germans afterwards probably). Afterall, our royals were from Germany anyway!

This standpiont from our government becomes much clearer during WW2.

British and French troops were not allowed to pass the Belgian border before may the 10th to take up defensive positions, losing as such an edge when war broke out. This is not a good basis to trust each other, now is it ?

MG

"it is best war is an horrible thing, we may grow to fond of it"

Robert E.Lee

[Guest AmericanDoughboy]

As many believe within their minds, these atrocities could have taken place, but possibly by a handful of German soldiers. You must remember that the public has an idea, even though they refuse it but they still believe it, that one German soldier represents the entire German Army, just as a police officer represents the entire Police Force. Thus, if that German or Police Officer does something out of order, the public gets the idea they (Germans/Police) are all bad people and the rumors explode within minutes.

Could this have possibly happened with the so-called German Atrocities? Personally, I think there is a good chance it did.

-Doughboy

[paul guthrie]

Doughboy of you believe these atrocities were the work of a few out of control men I again suggest you read the books I mentioned earlier, it will be hard for you to maintain that position. it's simply and provably untrue.

[healdav]

You may believe that the atrocities were the work of a few out of control men, I can't stop you.

However, these few men must have been some of the most mobile ever seen in the history of warfare!

They managed to commit atrocities from Liège right the way through Belgium (and in an awful lot of places) across northern france and Flanders, right down to St. Mihiel and they commited them over a period of weeks.

Apparently, no one in the German army noticed who they were, or what they were doing.

In the original posting, the rnewspaper eport says that a 'tourist' had seen an atrocity. This is not unlikely. Remember that this was August. People go on holiday in August. Even in 1914 there was an enormous tourist industry. Many thousands of Dutch went to the Ardennes on holiday. In fact, a railway was even built in Luxembourg to cater for the numbers who came.

In addition, on 2 August I have a Gendarmerie report from 2 August reporting that a Dutch tourist had been arrested as a spy for watching the German army marching through (the report gives no other details). So, tourists there were for the first few days at least.

[paul guthrie]

You can add to the reading list The Rape of Belgium by Zuckerman, it covers the whole occupation as does Helen McPhail for France in The Long Silence.

The continuing crimes after the initial massacres include mass deportation under slave labor conditions, forced labor bank extortion, extortion of the population, confiscation after confiscation and ordered slaughter of dogs. Two beautiful canines were left dead on street in Brussels with a tri color ribbon and a sign Died for Their Country.

Initial crimes included burning Louvain library, human shields, murder of priests, execution of civilians, hostage taking.

The allies overdid in in claims of rape & mutilation as policy but otherwise all happened on very wide spread basis.

The systematic destruction continued as Germans evacuated the country.

[paul guthrie]

Another excellent discussion of the early atrocities and later, forced labor, deportations etc is Understanding the Great War Stephane Audoin Rouzeau * Annetter Becker, 2002, it also won US Branch WFA prize for besat WW1 in English.

Mentioned in passing is that AH in Serbia, Russians in East Prussia and , interestingly, French in Alasace committed atrocities, this last based on a listed study ast Strasbourg U in 1988.

I think it safe to say all occupying armies do this up to today, Germany was by far the worst in WW1 but also had by far the most opportunity.

[AndyHollinger]

I think it safe to say all occupying armies do this up to today, Germany was by far the worst in WW1 but also had by far the most opportunity.

I thought we had finished this string long ago ... but your last post got me to thinking ... all occupied countries think their occupier is committing an atrocity by BEING there. Every act - wanton, planned or just silly - is seen as an atrocity.

Add to the fact that being a soldier with a loaded weapon makes a lot of Rear Guard troops walking Gods ... and stuff happens.

Do I believe there was horrible stuff done - yes. Do I believe it was a planned, ordered and policy level thing - no ... You have to wait till WWII for that stuff - and frankly, it probably cost them the war (but that's another string BTAS)

If one could examine any occupation - especially by a losing power ... I'd bet dollars to donuts (a tip of the hat to my Dad for his favorite expression) you'd get similar stories. Not to go into current affairs, but don't you think stories are being documented now?

When I read about how the rear guard of Sherman's army of Invasion treated us I see the same things ... War is Hell and many people are true slugs when you give them power. But, Officers, at a certain level, are detached from the day-to-day stuff and probably do their best to minimize and discourage this stuff so it probably balances out.

Belgium was a special case. GB NEEDED Belgium to be "raped" to make their sacrafice worthwhile. Add the need to insense US readers and you get the poster above and the stories. As to documentation and "history" about this stuff ... I am sure you can get it or say that you get it. In any of the above accounts are the historians really putting pressure on the unbelievable or just reporting? Crucified Canadians? C'mon ...

[Guest J L A Hartley]

[font+times]I'm very glad indeed that this thread has been kept alive!

I'm researching the use or non-use by the Germans themselves of the word _Schrecklichkeit_ before, during and after the First World War. To be frank, I have not so far come across a single use by Germans of that expression. As we all know, it was very often quoted in Allied propaganda as an undoubted German word. It was there in every German dictionary, _Schrecklichkeit_ . The inference we drew was that _Schrecklichkeit_ was the word the Germans themselves used.

When we had occasion to translate the word, we most often translated it into English as "frightfulness". I'm not sure what the Belgians and French did. I've counted twenty different English words that seem to be different writers' impression of what the Germans intended to convey by ---whatever word they used, formally or informally. What was that word?

Words such as _die Kriegsgräuel_ ("war atrocity") occasionally occur in modern works in German, and sometimes the word _der Terrorismus_ appears, but, otherwise, there seems to be what might be a careful avoidance of the use of specific terms for the state of mind inculcated into the German troops in Belgium in 1914.

I'm coming to call the word behind this principle or policy of the German authorities "Wilhelmine Zero Tolerance". Clearly, there must have been some word or another that the German authorities used in administering and inculcating this policy of zero tolerance of "irregulars" ---or, to use a term reminscent of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, "francs tireurs". What was that word?

I'm in absolutely no doubt at all that almost all the atrocities catalogued did actually take place. I have absolutely no patience with those who resist the overwhelming evidence of German atrocities in Belgium in 1914, the most cogent of which has very recently been authenticated by two dispassionate Irish scholars, John Horne and Alan Kramer, in their book German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial . I'm particularly contemptuous of those who only too readily believe everything about Lieutenant William Calley but deny everything about Belgium in 1914. Calley was a brutal murderer and richly deserved to be court martialled, but who court-martialled the pepetrators of the massacre at Dinant?

Perhaps some members of this forum could cast much-needed light on the vocabulary of the German High Command in the years leading up to the First World War.

J L A Hartley

11th October 2004

_________________________________________________________________

[Guest J L A Hartley]

________________________________________________________________________

Has Andy Hollinger recanted yet? I hope he has, but I might have missed it.

On August 4 2004 he said, on the rape of Belgium "Anything coming out of Britain about these issues before or immediately after the war, from 'official' sources should be considered with grave suspicion".

Has he yet had a chance to read German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial by the two Irish scholars John Horne and Alan Kramer?

If he hasn't read it yet, then he ought to. If he has read it and hasn't recanted his smear of August 4, then the word honor has become meaningless.

J L A Hartley

________________________________________________________________________

[Paul Hodges]

Dear J L A Hartley

I agree with you about the non-use of the word Schrecklichkeit among Germans. However, wasn't the word "barbarische" (or similar; literal translation "barbarious") the common currency for describing Allied misdeeds, in the same way German activities were described as atrocities. Of course, this wasn't used to describe their own misdeeds just as the British wouldn't describe any of their own activities as atrocities (even when apt, cf the Baralong incident).

Not sure you need to castigate Andy - it is perfectly possible to accept fully the Horne and Kramer argument but still note that contemporary British sources should be treated as suspect. Much of the detail (astonishingly gory, sadistic and sexual) of the Bryce Report for example. One of the few weaknesses of A History of Denial is that it concentrates on the larger scale atrocities (if I recall correctly, those where ten or over were killed) and does not cover isolated incidents. This is something my current thesis is aiming to look at, although it is a very difficult area to study, both in its evidence base and historiography.

Paul

[Guest bonza]

Paul

On a couple of current threads there is a suggestion that the total death toll in the Belgian Army was less than 14,000. That figure is dramatically less than usually quoted. If it were anywhere near the mark, might it suggest that the Germans concentrated their attention on the citizens & not the soldiers of Belgium. Has such a possibility arisen in the Thesis research you have undertaken.

Pat

[AndyHollinger]

________________________________________________________________________

Has Andy Hollinger recanted yet? I hope he has, but I might have missed it.

On August 4 2004 he said, on the rape of Belgium "Anything coming out of Britain about these issues before or immediately after the war, from 'official' sources should be considered with grave suspicion".

Has he yet had a chance to read German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial by the two Irish scholars John Horne and Alan Kramer?

If he hasn't read it yet, then he ought to. If he has read it and hasn't recanted his smear of August 4, then the word honor has become meaningless.

J L A Hartley

________________________________________________________________________

Nope ... After reading your rather excited attack ... my Honor being questioned ... I re-read the old posts (August) and the resumption posts (Sept) ... and now the October posts ... I still stand by my position ... I doubt stuff from official channels during the extremely important British Propaganda offensive of 1914 - 15.

Remeber American trade with German was at about the $350M mark and, although the trade with the Allies was somewhere around 5 or 6 times that amount the disruption of that amount of $s makes for a lot of upset Americans ... we have a habit of going to war over Freedom of the Seas (read the freedom to make a profit where we want.) There was also the matter of the increasingly necessary War Loans and Credits from US Banks to the Allied Powers to pay for stuff - all of which had to be approved by the fastidiously neutral Wilson ... It was crucially important that Germany become the Hun.

What I said was with this sort of motivation ... we should look very closely at anything coming from official British sources ... I also said the perpretrators of these events would be lower-level German officers and non-coms ... not exaclty the type of people would could cut off the breasts of a Nun one moment and write home asking about the kids the next. I always try to keep things in the perspective of reality. While we're not angels, most men are not monsters ... Even the Einsatzgruppen had to send signficant numbers home who could not take the constant cruelty ... so much so that the Germans outsourced this to the Ukrainians (not Poles) ...

I also said dealing with irregulars is a no-win situation ... stuff happens on both sides and it is often nasty and goes nastier when told by the victim ... I have always said that atrocities occured and I am sure the current history books cited which I have not readm do their best to document them and put them in perspective ... adding more fibers to the fabric of history.

I see no need to recant ... and do not see any issue that is an "Honor" issue ...

All that said ... I realize there are many issues too close to the heart to take in the spirit of intellectual or acedemic conversation ... look at mine about Lee ... so I will apolgize if my effort to be reasonable is/was misconstrued as being insensitive or crass.

Andy

[Guest bonza]

___________________________________________________Andy Hollinger recanted yet? I hope he has, but I might have missed it.

Depends on how you define IT!

Maybe you n Andy could decant something, and have a good day.

ooRoo

Pat

[Guest J L A Hartley]

________________________________________________________________________

I apologize for being excited but not for repeating my question: Has Andy Hollinger yet had a chance to read German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial by the two Irish scholars John Horne and Alan Kramer?

[Guest J L A Hartley]

______________________________________________________________________

Dear Paul Hodges

Thank you for your reply.

Perhaps I could just clarify my point.

I take it as a given that the German forces in Belgium in 1914 behaved, as a body of armed men under orders, in a deplorable fashion towards the Belgian population. If further proof than that of the last ninety years is needed, surely it's to be found in the recent book German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial by the two impartial Irish scholars John Horne and Alan Kramer!

As a corrollory to that abundance of proof of organized, systematized and institutionalized brutality, I believe that there were *also* isolated instances of atrocities perpetrated by individuals not under orders.

I believe the Bryce Report fairly covered both species of atrocity. The incidence of isolated, spontaneous and indiciplined atrocities by no means disproves the existence of a calculated *official* policy on the part of the German High Command. Both existed co-terminously. The Bryce Report recognized that. (There was a real fear that naming withnesses would provoke reprisals. There was nothing sinister in the suppression of names in the Bryce Report.)

My point is really a very precise one. Eveyone knows that the Allies used the German word Schrecklichkeit to characterized what they, the Allies, considered to be the salient feature of the German's attitude of mind towards the civilian population of occupied territories, in particular Belgium. It was most often translated as "frightfulness".

But what abstract noun or nouns did *the Germans themselves use*?

From other contexts than this Forum I've had suggestions comprising Schrecken (the gerund), Grauan, Grausamkeit, Greuel, Terrorismus, Barbarismus, and Schreckenherrshaft, but no-one has been able to provide the actual word (or perhaps more than one word) used by the German authorities themselves when they wished to refer to their policy by name.

In other words, what was the Wilhelmine equivalent of "zero tolerance"?

Best regards

J L A Hartley

______________________________________________________________________

[De Petrowski Alexander]

I would point out that Nurse Cavell did "ask" for it, in a roundabout way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

She admited in helping some 200 Allied soldiers to evade capture and accross the Dutch-Belgian border into neutral Holland. Strictly speaking the Germans had a point when they convicted her and gave here a death sentence.

Be that as is may, the Germans were not very smart when they decided to carry out the death sentence, during the same trial 2 Belgian Lady accomplices Countess Jeanne de Belleville and teacher Louise Thuliez had also been convicted and given the death sentence, in the same period the French had conviced 2 German nurses to death (I do not know their names or the reasons for their sentences)

It would have been a lot smarter had the Germans decided to contact the French through a third party and arranged an exchange, Edith Cavell, Countess de Belleville and Louise Thuliez (or at least Cavell and one of the others) for the 2 German Nurses.

There would have been no martyr, the Germans would have been able to impress the enemy with the death sentence, showing that they would convict even women, but that they would not execute them if it could be avoided. Being reasonable instead of brutal.

[truthergw]

She admited in helping some 200 Allied soldiers to evade capture and accross the Dutch-Belgian border into neutral Holland.  Strictly speaking the Germans had a point when they convicted her and gave here a death sentence.

...........

There would have been no martyr,  the Germans would have been able to impress the enemy with the death sentence, showing that they would convict even women, but that they would not execute them if it could be avoided.  Being reasonable instead of brutal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What if the Germans involved wished to demonstrate that they could be brutal when the occasion demanded? That is the whole point of reprisal in place of punishment.

[Doug Johnson]

Hi Guys,

Sorry to butt into a fine argument and I do not want to fight the war all over again but I would like to make the following observations

Firstly, there is a body of evidence that suggests that atrocities or whatever you want to call them, by German soldiers, were not down to individuals but were officially sanctioned or perhaps even officially organised. Secondly, not all Germans believed such behaviour was justified and some even reported cases to the American Ambassador.

Private Simmons in his account of his experiences (Three times and Out by Nellie McClung, available free on the internet) Called the Germans ‘spotty’ by which I assume he meant patchy in modern parlance. There were those German soldiers who seem to have believed that promotion depended on extreme cruelty (and this went right up the ranks), but also there were German soldiers who placed themselves at risk by being kind to him. His account is well balanced even though he does not hide his feelings at times.

James Gerard in his book, my four years in Germany (also available free on the internet) says that ‘in the first days of the war it was undoubtedly and unfortunately true that prisoners of war taken by the Germans, both at their time of capture and in transit to the prison camps, were often badly treated by the soldiers, guards or the civil population. The instances were too numerous, the evidence too overwhelming, to be denied’. These words appear to be the restrained words of the politician that James Gerard was.

When James Gerard read of a report in a German newspaper that the civilian population of a village in northern Germany had been jailed and fined and their names published in the press for ‘inappropriate behaviour towards English Prisoners of War’, he sent an official to investigate. It turned out that these villagers had provided the English with food and water when their train had stopped at the village. Generally, in the early days of the war English prisoners had little, if any, food or water provided for them from their time of capture until they reached camp maybe some four days later. If there were French on the same train they would be provided with food and water but not the English. Such treatment and the punishment of the German civilians could not have been the work of individuals.

In WO161/97 there is an account, albeit second hand, of the death of Lt Hanson as a PoW. Apparently off his head, he thought he saw the rest of the Marine force arrive and shouted out to them. He was hit with rifle butts, one of which broke his wrist. He was then taken away. The next morning he was executed. Not the work of some individual soldier and unfortunately not an isolated incident. These WO161 records were not created for propaganda and in many cases were suppressed for fear of reprisals against British PoWs if the reports were made public.

J P Rush in his account of his experiences as a PoW at Gustrow (IWM) recounts the appearance in the camp of a Belgian Priest from Antwerp who, unable to walk and in severe pain, was carried by wheelbarrow to the far end of the camp. When the soup was being dished out he was forced to stumble the length of the camp (Gustrow was a big camp) in extreme pain and was pushed along by the guards. When British prisoners offered to get his soup for him they were ushered away. The priest with this soup was then marched all the way back to the far end where he sat down on a bale of straw. A German guard then shoved him over spilling his soup. J P Rush did not see what became of the priest as he was taken to the hospital the next day. There seems little doubt that at least one priest from Antwerp was badly treated and not just at one location, even though the form of ill treatment is in dispute.

Doug

[Gibbo]

I am a mature student doing a Masters in War Studies. According to a paper presented by one of my classmates, the German army had a great distaste for irregular & guerrilla warfare. Germany had tried unsuccessfully to have this form of warfare outlawed by the Hague Convention. Despite this failure, the official policy of the Germans was to respond to francs-tireurs with brutality & reprisals. There was no suggestion, however, of there being any truth in the more lurid stories such as the bayonetting of babies.

[Gibbo]

I've now learnt from another thread on this forum that its owner & administrator, Chris Baker, has a web page dealing with the Belgian army 1914-18. I've copied the section relevant to atrocities below but the whole article is well worth reading;

‘Man hat geschossen’

As early as 6th August, the Germans were expressing outrage at the unexpected resistance of the Belgian army, and also civil resistance. With memories of the francs-tireurs of 1870, the German newspapers called for retribution. The headlines in the Kolnischer Zeitung read: ‘The beast in Belgium’; ‘From savage Belgium’; ‘Liege atrocities’. In Liege province there were 1200 victims of German retribution. In Luxembourg 842; Namur 2000; Brabant (where on 25 to 28 August the old town and library of Leuven were set aflame, to the horror of the rest of Europe) 839. In the Henegouwen, 350. Some 16,000 houses were destroyed. The terror was wild and needless, and not at all systematic. There can be no conclusion but that the German command allowed the troops their fun. Unfortunately for the Belgian people, it was just a foretaste of 4 years of severe treatment.

[AOK4]

Hm, I have the impression that most of the people here on the forum seem to easily accept all horror stories about the Germans without any criticism.

The situation of the German Army in Belgium in 1914 can be compared to the US and British Army in Iraq nowadays. They are operating in a hostile environment with a lot of civilians with possibly hostile intentions. It is very natural that certain situation get out of hand and that civilians are harmed and civilian building etc. are destroyed.

There are a lot of stories of ill-treatment of civilians by the British army too in 1914 (especially millers).

The execution of women was not something solely done by the Germans.

The Germans did lose the war and their sins were afterwards well researched etc. while allied sins were more or less covered up.

Just a few remarks to think about perhaps...

Jan

[De Petrowski Alexander]

What if the Germans involved wished to demonstrate that they could be brutal when the occasion demanded? That is the whole point of reprisal in place of punishment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Germans did choose to be brutal and learned in time that it only worked against them.

They had been told by the Spanish and the American Ambassador in Brussels, that an execution of the women would be very badly received in their respective countries. And it did.