|
|
Post by rsm2ndbtnlf on Feb 1, 2009 15:58:15 GMT -8
Extracts from:
Roport of the committee on Alleged German Outrages - Appointed by His Majesties Government, and presided over by: The Right Honerable. Viscount Bryce, O.M. dated: 1915
Quote...
Liege and District.
On August 4th, the roads converging upon Liege from north-east, east, and south were covered with German Death's Head Hussars, and Uhlans pressing forward to seize the passage over the Mause. From the very beginning of the operations the civilian population of the villages lying upon the line of the German advance were made to experiance the extreme horrors of war.
"On the 4th of August," says one witness, "at Herve" (a village not far from the frontier), "I saw at about 2.ó'çlock in the afternoon, near the station, five Uhlans; these were the first German troops I had seen. They were followed by a German officer and some soldiers in a motor-car. The men in the car called out to a couple of young fellows who were standing about 30 yards away. Ther young men, being afraid, ran off, and then the Germans fired and killed one of them." The murder of this innocent fugitive civilian was a prelude to the burning and pillage of Herve and other villages in the neighbourhood, to the indescriminate shooting of civilians of both sexes, and to the organised military execution of batches of selected males.
End Quote.
Quote...
At Blegny Trembleur, on the 6th, some civilians were captured by German soldiers, who took steps to put them to death forthwith, but were restrained by the arrival of an officer. The prisoners subsequently were taken off to Battice and five were shot in a field. No reason was assigned for their murder.
End Quote.
Quote...
Entries in a German diary show that on the 19th the German soldiers gave themselves up to a debauchery in the streets of Liege, and on the night of the 20th (Thursday) a massacre took place in the streets, beginning near the Cafe Carpentier, at which there is said to have been a dinner attended by Russian and other students. The Rue des Pitteurs and houses in the Place de L'Universite and Quai des Pecheurs were systematically fired with benzine, and many inhabitants were burned alive in their houses, their eforts to escape being prevented by rifle fire. Twenty people were shot while trying to escape before the eyes of witnesses. The Liege Fire Brigade turned out, but were not allowed to extinguish the fire.
End Quote.
More to follow!
Seph
|
|
|
|
Post by rsm2ndbtnlf on Feb 1, 2009 20:47:54 GMT -8
...continued:
Andenne.
Quote...
Andene is a small town on the Mause between Liege and Namur, lying opposite the village of Seilles (with which it is connected by a bridge over the river), and was one of the earlier places reached on the German advance up the Marne.
Thus, on the evening of the 19th August a large body of German troops were in possession of the town, which they had entered without any resistance on the part of the allied armies or of the civilian population. About 4.30 on the next afternoon shots were fired from the left bank of the Mause and replied to by the Germans in Andenne. The village of Andenne had been isolated from the district on the left bank of the Mause by the destruction of the bridge, and there is nothing to suggest that the firing on the left came from inhabitants of Ardenne. Almost immediatelly however, the slaughter of these inhabitants began, and continued for over two hours and intermittently during the night. Machine guns were brought into play.
At 6.o'clock on the following morning, the 21st, the Germans began to drag the inhabitants from their homes. Men, women and children were driven into the square, where the sexes were separated. Three men were shot, and a fourth was bayoneted. A number of the prisoners were picked out, taken to the banks of the Mause, and there shot.
About 400 people lost their lives in this massacre, some on the banks of the Mause where they were shot, and some in the cellars of the houses where they had taken refuge.
End Quote.
More soon,
Seph
|
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Feb 1, 2009 21:56:32 GMT -8
Sour grapes over not making it to the party last night, Seph? Rest assured, the troops last night at German Night at the Movies were better behaved than the examples you cite, Allied attendees escaped practically unscathed, and hardly any of the neighbors houses were burned down.
|
|
|
|
Post by rsm2ndbtnlf on Feb 1, 2009 22:27:15 GMT -8
Read on... Squarebonce! ;D
...continued again:
Namur District.
Quote...
The fight round Namur was accompanied by sparodic outrages. Near Marchovelette, wounded men were murdered in a farm by German soldiers. The farm was set on fire. A German cavalryman rode away holding in front of him the farmer's daughter, crying and dishevelled.
End Quote.
Quote...
At Temploux on the 24rd August, a professor of modern lanquages at the College of Namur was shot at his front door by a German officer. Before he died he asked the officer the reason for this brutality, and the officer replied that he had lost his temper because some civilians had fired upon the Germans as they entered the village. This allegation was not proved. The Belgian army was still operating in the district. After the murder the house was burned.
End Quote.
Quote...
On the 24th and 25th of August massacres were carried out at Surice, in which many persons belonging to the professional classes, as well as others were killed.
End Quote.
Quote...
Namur was entered on the 24th August. The troops signalled their entry by firing on a crowd of 150 unarmed, unresisting civilians, ten alone of whom escaped. A witness of good standing who was in Namur describes how the town was set on fire systematically in six diffeent places. As the inhabitants fled from the burning houses they were shot by German troops. Not less than 150 houses were burnt.
End Quote.
More follows,
|
|
|
|
Post by CRMichaelis on Feb 1, 2009 23:40:52 GMT -8
Not sure what prompted our beloved Seph to get onto this subject, but it is one that has always interested me. I personally find it difficult to find sources that seem reliable. Any report written by the Brits or French, especially in 1914-15 is extremely suspect to me as to its accuracy. I remember reading about a boy with his hands cut off who was paraded as being a victim of German barbarism. Truth came out later that he had lost his hands in a machine accident BEFORE the war broke out... I have a book called German Atrocities 1914: A History of Denial by John Horne and Alan Kramer. I've tried to read it several times but just can't get through it. It appears to be a scholarly work, fully documented with footnotes, etc., but time after time the authors state as fact happenings that "appear" this way or that. A young Belgium man is detained and is found to have three cartridges in his pockets. He is executed by the Germans. The authors don't suppose that this guy even might have been a francs-tirieur since he's got bullets on him after the proclamations have come out to turn in weapons, etc. They never give credence to the fact that he did have cartrdges and MIGHT have been shooting at German soldiers. No - the Germans were just barbarians and killed him for no reason! If there's two versions of a story, both unsubstantiated, the Germans are always wrong. The authors' anti-German bias is quite apparent throughout the book. I've found the same thing recently while reading Barbara Tuchman's Guns of August. She crows about being unbiased but goes out of her way repeatedly to denigrate and flat out ridicule Germans in a manner not used for British, French or Beligums. Not to mention that she completly leaves out anything to do with Austro-Hungary - how do you write a book on the start of WWI without including the guys who started it!! It's a fact that the Germany violated Belgium's borders. However, given the history of civilian guerrilla warfare in 1870 and the appearance of it again in 1914, I think it's a little more complicated than simply buying the Allied propaganda that Germans were marching with babies on their bayonets and cutting off the hands of 14 year old boys and worse. Did they execute civilians and burn towns? Yes. Was this wrong? Of course. It's just hard to get to the truth through all the layers of propaganda that Britain, France and Belgium put out. Where's the outrage for Britain's illegal naval blockade of the Central Powers that resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians...  |
|
|
|
Post by rsm2ndbtnlf on Feb 2, 2009 1:00:57 GMT -8
At last.. an honest discussion! I was beginning to think that I would have to twist a few arms, and stretch a couple of facts to get things going! ;D
I have several period documents which deal with the pre and initial stages of the Great War... from the one I've been quoting, to the 1st edition Treaty of Versailles - 1919.
The uforia of the early days of the war, especially from 1914, blatantly stretch the truth in most cases as to what was actually happening over in mainland Europe. Attacks on the German military by Belgium civilians.. as Chris has mentioned... were rife, and the German military rightly took exception to this form of attack upon their armed forces. There were exceptions to the rules I don't doubt. But when all is said and done, both sides at the initial stages were just as much to blame for what went on, and for the stories that transpired due to it. Anti-German propaganda was a natural progression by France and Great Britain, to get the rest of the world to turn their backs on Germany for violating Belgiums neutrality, thus giving a legitimate excuse to go to war. The linked treaties that were in place at the time, were so complex, its no small wander that so many nations were drawn into the conflict whether they wanted to or not.
I also have a British Government volume - 1915, of collated Diplomatic Documents... messages passed between: Germany, France, Belgium, Holland, Russia and Great Britain... dealing with the diplomatic phases leading up to the beginning of hostilities. The political sniping, and fault calling that is being done by all nationalities is amazing.
Chris, from the books that you have read on the subject, is there any one that you think may actually have had a snippet of truth in regards to the reasons behind the sniping at Germany and the alleged atrocities in Belgium: 1914?
|
|
|
|
Post by oskar2ndchev on Feb 2, 2009 6:14:22 GMT -8
I haven't delved too heavily into this part of WWI but from what I've read, it seems that much of it was either exagerrated or outright fabrication- basically anti-German propganda. I do believe incidents of guerilla activity did occur and the German forces were withing their rights, as international law stood i those days, to execute offendes.
One thing to bear in mind is that the German Army has always had an intense dislike/fear of guerilla warfare that goes back at least to the Franco-Prussian War because it both violates the convnetions of way (armies fight armies- period) and is a distraction from the central battles (having to divert troops away from the front to deal with guerillas).
What is interesting is that while much of the war in general was non-ideological as compared to WWII, as the war went on, it was envisioned by German political and mlitary leaders that Belgium would be integrated into the Reich, both poltically and economically and the occupation regime was fairly harsh in this regard. OK, I wander a bit here.
One has to take these varous stories with a large grain of salt.
Lastly, I can say that all the powers engaged in varous policies that resulted collateral damage against civilians- nobody is completely clean there and that's something that makes makes the war all that more horrific (although the scale of civilian deaths was nowhere what it was during WWII). Modern war was coming into it's own and I don't think the leaders completely realized it until much too late.
Just my dos centavos.
|
|
|
|
Post by rsm2ndbtnlf on Feb 2, 2009 8:45:18 GMT -8
Great imput Adam.
What most people think of WW1 is only the military side of things, and they as individuals are not, in all reality, learning their subject. The military aspect is just the runover from an iceburg of reasons below it.
The Great European War.. as it was initially known.. was fought using the ideaology of two differing centuries. It was also fought for many reasons, some of which were coverups in order to carry out another.
For Germany, it was a mixed bag. To settle old scores and expansionism. Even in the Balkans, Germany had aspirations on expanding empire. The same grumblimgs that existed prior to and during the initial stages, still exist today, and has come to the fore in recent history.
Germany as we all know, is and has always been a militaristic nation, and with Prussia at its head was destined to butt heads with like minded but underestimated (in their eyes) apponants.
As a follow on from the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, the Schliefflan Plan was in place in order to give France a very bloody nose, and swifly. It was intended to be carried out to the letter in typical German efficiency, and woe betide anyone who stood in the way. Unfortunatelly, Belgium did just that, and I think that Germany showed a little bit of the 'Bully' attitude in the execution of the situation.
I fully believe that there were unfortunate incidents which occured around Liege... Belgiums key city. But for the majority of supposed reportings that occured after that event.. Who knows?
England, for her part, stood by the old 19th century treaty to defend Belgiums neutrality, which Germany had genuinely violated. Thus opening a broken draw.. spilling others into the fray. However, her placing of a total blockage on German channel ports, was a direct answer to Germany's shelling of the English southern coastal towns, followed by the bombings (again on the southern coast) by German Airships - Zepplins! An atrocity that cannot be covered up with the label of... 'Propaganda'. Innocent civilians were killed in those raids by German military. Those raids on English coastal towns and cities were a catolist for quite a bit of anti-German propaganda.. and rightly so. For the actual or so called atrocities committed on Belgium soil.... it actually makes one stop and think... True or False?
Seph
|
|
|
|
Post by Larry Dunn on Feb 2, 2009 9:34:24 GMT -8
Belgian neutrality was the fig leaf the British used justify their entry into the war. The British high command had contingency plans in place for their own invasion of Belgium (see Niall Ferguson's "The Pity of War"), so Belgian neutrality was hardly sacred to Whitehall. Here's some food for thought--the Royal Navy kept the blockade of the Central Powers in place for several months after the war was over, contributing to the deaths of thousands of civilians due to malnutrition and disease during the winter of 1918-19.
-Larry
|
|
|
|
Post by rsm2ndbtnlf on Feb 2, 2009 9:53:45 GMT -8
Your correct about the British blockade Larry. However, you do not state nor hint the reason for its continued existance.
The Treaty talks at Versailles were not concluded until July of 1919, and at times it was forseen that the talks would break down. The surrender of the Imperial German Navy (an agreement of the treaty) was not fully complied with until after the Verailles treaty was signed.
The British blockade was seen as a nessessity to be kept in place as a security incase of failed talks. The decision was not wholly one made by Great Britian alone, but with the vote of all allied powers involved in the hostilities. So... not an atrocity, but a security against renewed hostilities.
What must be remembered is the Germany stepped up the war by the introduction of ... All out submarine warfare... thus bringing America into the latter stages of the war with the sinking of the Lucitania!
We digress however, for this thread is concerned with The Conduct of German Troops in Belgium - 1914... not latter stages of the conflict.
Seph
|
|
|
|
Post by oskar2ndchev on Feb 2, 2009 9:56:39 GMT -8
One thing that's interesting is that the way the political/military class viewed waging the war was a combination of old and new. On the one hand, under the Hindenburg/Ludendorff regime, they ruthlessly organized the German economy and society towards maximizing war production with all else taking a back seat (well, maybe except for the housewives rioting over the cost of bread) and in many way pioneered the idea of the "nation at war". Many concepts developed then are still applied to today.
On the other hand, many of these same leaders also expected things to follow more traditional forms, with the "old rules" to be observed. One example is here with the German attitude towards guerilla warfare (anyone non-military waging war is to be dealt with summarily). Also was the idea of "one more big push and it's all over". Both sides found out that the war wasn't going to be decided by one or two big battles.
It's this strange mix of old and new that makes things interesting, and at the same time tragic.
Finally, like all wars, events have a way of spinning out of control and/or going in directions that nobody could have forseen or planned on, or for that matter would have WANTED to follow. WWI is a good example and the impacts are great because of the sheer scale of the conflict.
In many ways Kaiserzeit Germany was militaristic to the point where the Generals devised plans that were completely divorced from civilian leadership and control. The Schieffen Plan was a good example of this- it was a plan devised simply to win a campaign, which is fine as far as that goes but it fails to account for the political and economic impacts.
OK, back to Belgium. Unfortunately for Belgium, it was a speed bump for the Germans. At the same time, while going through Belgium helped the immediate goal of campaigning against France, it also brought the British in. It would have been a harder sell for the British Government to bring the country into the war had it not happened.
OK, I've yakked on long enough on this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Larry Dunn on Feb 2, 2009 10:23:31 GMT -8
OK, sticking to Belgium, there's no arguing that the German occupation was harsh and probably unnecessarily harsh. It is likely that some of the alleged atrocities took place, while much of the rest is either wildly exaggerated or fabbricated. One thing to bear in mind is that the Allies spent almost the entire war on their own territory, with the local population supporting their cause. One wonders how the French might have behaved if they had occupied the Rhineland in 1914.
-Larry
|
|
|
|
Post by rsm2ndbtnlf on Feb 2, 2009 11:00:06 GMT -8
A very good point, and one of.. turning the other shoe so-to-speak!
In answer, I can only comment that France would not have had the same natural harsh instinctive attitude that the Germans showered upon the Belgium inhabitants. France had been ripped inside out by initially the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, and then the defeat in 1870 by Germany. Both nations incidentally.. England and Germany... instrumental in the defeat of Napoleon.
On the other hand, deeply imbedded revenge would have been the deciding factor at play, should the tables have been reverced. Even so, in taking away France's greatest icon since Joan-of-Arc.. the defeat of Napoleon irrevercably destroyed part of the French cykie.
Revenge is vastly underestimated, and little undertood, so one can only surmise as to the severity or not of any French turn-of-the-tables situation.
On looking deeper into the German aims to give France a bloody nose by capturing Paris, and the in-place schedule to carry this through, it becomes increasingly evident that Germany was inflexible. What I mean by that, is that there were no alternative plans should things not go according the main timetable. Histories report on this is blatant as the title alone... World War One.. indicates.
In a way and in hindsight, Germany was blinkered to her own forcast success... thus, her inevertable downfall.
The guerilla fighting stand against an invading force was one situation that possibly the German military had forseen, but not planned against. Maybe thinking it to trivial to worry about in the overall plan of operations. After all, what can a few armed civillians do against the millitary might of the German War Machine.. 2.1/2 million strong? Oh dear, how great the mighty fall!
It would be superb if we could search for the reported atrocities that were actually - spontanious reactions from two differing force of arms!
Seph
|
|
|
|
Post by oskar2ndchev on Feb 2, 2009 12:27:10 GMT -8
As an aside, for an example of the French misbehaving, there's the occupation of the Ruhr in 1923. The French were particularly vindictive to the point of deliberately using primarily African colonial troops (mostly Senegalise, IIRC) as the occupation force to rub in the idea of "defeat" and "occupation" even more (i.e., non-Whites ruling over Germans). The use of the colonial troops definately hit a nerve with the locals, to say the least. Compared to that, the US occupation was pretty benign with the US soldiers sharing their rations with the locals.
The French occupation of the Ruhr was one of many issues that the Nazis exploited in their rise to power.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark Thompson on Feb 2, 2009 15:58:25 GMT -8
thing to bear in mind is that the Allies spent almost the entire war on their own territory, with the local population supporting their cause. One wonders how the French might have behaved if they had occupied the Rhineland in 1914. -Larry Excellent point. Think of the Scorched Earth policy enacted by the Union during the American Civil War. Total warfare was declared on Southern land...the destruction of all government, public, military, and private property. Part of this is that if you are trying to occupy foreign territory, you need to do what is necessary to keep control for the sake of your cause. Germany basically never fought on German land, and therefore needed to establish their reign. The Japanese in the pre-WW2 era had a horrible reputation of brutality due to their idea of being the superior Asian race. There are so many analogies and possible comparisons for this kind of activity that it seems rather common. The Germans perhaps saw it good for control, and the allies for propoganda (the Hun= reference to Atilla of ancient times). Just wanted to throw something into the pot.
|
|
