The Conduct of German Troops in Belgium - 1914

[rsm2ndbtnlf]

Mark... How about a few viewpoints on the situation which actually started the contempary rumours to the detriment of the German military cause... the reported atrocities of Liege? For the most part, other than the AH view, its been primerily discussed from the allies viepoint. That cannot be good for the Central Powers!

With your mention of a scorched-earth policy, it pricks the mind to estimate just how many of the documented instances, which fill many volumes, are actually based on fact? With such a policy in place as the norm, the figure that one arrives at is quite high indeed. A figure which is in contradiction to that which Chris mentions.

Seph

[Wolfgang]

The German conduct in Belgium during the opening phases of the war is inexcusable. The Germans overreacted to the trouble caused by a few guerrilla attacks by those justifiably upset that their country was being invaded. Lining up large numbers of innocent civilians and executing them was not only a war crime but counterproductive, just as the same measures employed by Napoleon's troops in Spain just further inflamed the populace against them. The destruction of historical buildings in Belgium was a crime against all of humanity. All that being said, the sources Seph is quoting was part of the British anti-German propaganda campaign and must be viewed in that context. Certainly there are unbiased sources which will provide the same information not through the filter of British propaganda. But Seph's source is interesting in that this was the sort of propaganda inflaming public opinion in Britain and damaged German reputation overseas, especially in America. No babies taken out of incubators, though, just carried on bayonets.

[Mark Thompson]

OOPS!...I am not saying that I suppport their actions at all! I was just throwing out a possible viewpoint.

[oskar2ndchev]

Another element to throw out here is that in terms of propaganda or even basic public relations, the Germans severely lacked the "touch" and their efforts to influence American public opinion prior to the US entry into the war were pretty much a complete failure and showed a complete insensitivity to American public opinion.

Even their attempts to create support by playing up to anti-British sentiment among many Americans of Irish descent was a failure- and that should have been a complete "gimmee", especially with the Easter Rising and the like.

In many respects it could be argued that their heavy-handed actions in Belgium combined with a complete cluelessness on how it played on American (and world public opinion) played a major role in the German defeat (i.e. America entering the war).

Also, even if acts like the destruction of various cultural sites or summary executions were caused by accidents of one kind or another (i.e. not as a result of calculated German policy), it was still as bad as if they had been calculated. As the old saying goes- "perception is reality".

[rsm2ndbtnlf]

Gentlemen, gentlemen... an official government document, sanctioned by His Gracious Majesty King George V... PROPOGANDA.. ANTI GERMAN CENTIMENT!

A good Englishman would never stoop to those lengths sir!

Erm.. Mark.. one cannot state anything so precice as one has already done, then turn upon ones heals to try ones best to rectfy and retract ones commets made in committment! Obviously a clear and dedicated student of Herr Wolfang! By that individuals statement prior to your own, he has set his oppinion in stone as fully condoning the actions of your armed forces during the initial stages of the occupation of the Belgium city of Liege. Thus verifying the reports listed as factual. To call His Gracious Majesties committee findings as 'Propoganda'.. is an outrage. He will be hunted down with great fervour by the armed forces of the crown, and dealt with accordingly! ;D God Save The King!

So, Herr Wolfgangs student... what are your honest views regarding the actions of which you so sparsely mentioned, in reference to the Imperial German scorched earth policy of occupation?

Herr Wolfgang!.. quote: "this was the sort of propaganda inflaming public opinion in Britain and damaged German reputation overseas, especially in America." end quote.

Hmmm.. damaging Germany's reputation abroad eh?
1) Shelling innocent civilians in their homes from the English Channel. An excellant way to make friends.
2) Bombing those same civilians from the air! Cementing international relations from the air, in reference to an international bank loan I presume?
3) Sinking Nuetral shipping on the high sees! Placing an order for future goods, or creating a sellers market?
4) Sinking a well publicised and world renowned Ocean Going Liner, carrying no military items, goods or persons. Stressing a point, an old cleashay... We come in Peace?

Maybe the reported atrocities in Belgium were a new slant on gaining the publics trust and admiration. In so doing, gaining much need public support in the America's?

Seph

[oskar2ndchev]

While the truth behind both sides' actions can be debated (to a degree), the one thing that can be said with certainty is that the Germans lost the PR war in a major way and this ultimtately cost them.

That said, I think one of the reasons that the German Government was ineffective in the propaganda war/PR war was that for most of the war, policy was determined by military leaders and propaganda/public relations was an area that just didn't rate in importance. It was basically on the level of "we say this is so, so believe it! No debate! No questioning!" Given Germany's militaristic culture, this is a logical byproduct. Sure, the Germans used propaganda but it was far more effective when used on the German population rather than against neutral populations.

On the other hand, the Allied nations had a more deeply rooted tradition of Civilian control in government with civilians setting policy. In France, the US, and Britain, civilian leaders were far more sensitive to what people think since it's public opinion that put them in office and it's public opinion that can take them out of office. Far different from Germany where civilian government was weak and usually deferred to the Monarchy and the military leaders. Which in a way explains what happened in late 1918 and 1919 with the outbreaks of revolution and civil disorder once the old order was discredited by losing the war.

Basically, we're dealing with two different ways, or cultures, in how government and policy are set and these in turn are going to have an effect on how each side wages war.

Note, this doesn't excuse or justify anything that happened. Ultimately it was the all the little people- soldiers, civilians, et al that suffered for the lapses in judgement of their leaders.

[CRMichaelis]

I tend not to read as much on the political/diplomatic/civil aspects of WWI, there being far too little time to get to the battle and technical books I want to read. I am reading Tuchman's Guns of August and actually just finished the chapter on German Atrocities before Seph's initial post. Tuchman's view on Germany is that they suffered from an inferiority complex related to their relative youth (becoming a unified country only in 1870, or was it 1871??). There was a love-hate relationship with England - fellow Saxons, etc., but envious of their military (ie naval) power, their colonies, and their status in the world. To add to this there is the very flawed but interesting Kaiser Wilhelm, with his debilitated left arm, posing constantly as the military tough though actually extremely insecure about himself and his country's position. Combine this with an ineffective (at best) propaganda effort run by soldiers not PR people, and a heavy-handed policy against Belgium, and you've just laid yourself out on a platter for the British propaganda machine, which has always been highly effective. The fact that much of it is fabricated does not matter - during war you do what you have to do to win, and the British have always used propaganda to its fullest extent.

So, that leads to what was Germany to do? France wanted nothing but revenge for their debacle in 1870. Germany gets labeled as the epitome of a militaristic state, but France was actually spending more per capita on her military than Germany in the years leading up to WWI. And France had their Plan 17 in place and adhered to it much more strongly than Germany did the Schlieffen Plan. Moltke detached troops to bolster the Eastern Front, whereas Joffre continued his crusade to liberate Alsace long after it became apparent the Germans were turning his left, but I digress. Russia was gearing up its military to be ready to fight Germany in 1916, and England was thwarting German aspirations for colonization and her hopes of building a Berlin to Bagdad railroad. Add the tinderbox called the Balkans and the unsteady Hapsburg monarchy and as far as Germany goes, you're between a rock and a hard place!! Sit back, appear weak, and wait for your enemies to grow stronger or roll the dice and hope for the best!!

So they rolled the dice. Due to the Kaiser's poor handling of foreign affairs, Germany was faced with the certainty of a two-front war, with only aging Austro-Hungary and unreliable Italy for support. The Schlieffen Plan was in place and adhered to as there was no other viable alternative! It depended on everything going the way it was supposed to, and France, England, Russia and BELGIUM had to do what they were supposed to. Belgium was supposed to stand aside and let the Germans through, and when they didn't, the Germans got angry. And to add fuel to the fire, not only did the Belgium army fight a losing effort, thereby throwing off the German timetable, Belgian civilians did fire on German troops, destroy bridges and communications, etc. This activity not only slowed the Germans down, it infuriated them by its very nature of being against the rules of war and the natural order of things. The German psyche liked order! With their blood up, and with memories of 1870 francs-tireurs their reaction was extreme. While I can understand the anger and frustration, their actions were undeniably wrong. Then they go and bomb English civilians, and the British and Allied press corps had a field day.

I could go on about submarine warfare and the illegal British blockade, but that's another thread for later. Bottom line, Germany broke the rules when it suited them and cried against others breaking the rules when it suited them. But in this they were like every other nation - they all did it. It's downplayed now, but there was actually a lot of friction between Britain and America over the naval blockade. It was only later when American interests forced her to enter on the Allied side that this was hushed up. Getting back to Belgium, poor German choices in regards to handling Belgium civilians early on put the onus on them and their inept propaganda and diplomatic efforts could not recover. And don't forget - the victors write the history books, and Britain has written and rewritten the history of the First World War ad infinitum to her benefit!!

Just my two-pfennigs. ;D

[CRMichaelis]

On a lighter note, I have an MP3 collection of WWI songs, and there's one that deals with Belgium early in the war. Starts out with a comedy routine about concerns here in America and then talks about how everyone's doing something for the Belgians and then breaks out into song. Here's an excerpt:

Here I am, going around with my pants held up with a ten penny nail and a clothespin and a flag of truce fluttering from the rear while my wife and gals are sewing for Belgians. Gosh, I wish I was a Belgian."

(song)
All the folks at our house as busy as can be
Sewing for them Belgians that live across the sea
I've got nothing left to wear
Not much between me and the air
If I grumble, they don't care
Gosh, I wish I was a Belgian
Gosh, I wish I was a Belgian
I'd have lots of things to wear
Gosh, I wish I was a Belgian
People sewing for me everywhere
With all those clothes and a brand new shirt
I'd be a regular gosh-darn flirt
Gosh, I wish I was a Belgian.

So in 1914-1915 not all Americans were that sympathic to Belgium, at least they hadn't read all the propaganda yet! ;D

[rsm2ndbtnlf]

Excellant Chris.. Superb placing of an alternate point of view.

To di-gress a little... Are the songs on your MP3 of period contempary recordings, or modern renditions? From what countries do they originate from?

Back to the meaty bits... Propagana.. there is more where those atrocities stated are from! Coming soon.. ;D

The political and propaganda areas of the Great War have always interested me, as they seem so unavoidably interlinked. Its like learning a new set of dirty tricks when one reads the differing methods that each county adopted. Germany did have its own propaganda machine, but it lacked the finess of the British or French systems. As has been mentioned by both Chris and Adam, this lack of attention to detail (which was out of charactor for the Germans) led to the eventual downfall of not only the German War Machine, but the abdication and exile of the Kaiser himself.

I'm not certain if this can be milked for much more, so I'll call it a day at this point, unless there is someone who can add a little more to either sides viewpoint?

Thank you all who contributed, for this is what debate is all about, and I for one have thoroughly enjoyed it. By eck though, you chaps take a hell of a dig to get things going!

Seph ;D

[oskar2ndchev]

I'll just leave the propaganda item on this note:

For the Americans, many of the people who worked on developing American prograganda during the war went on to become very successful advertising people during the 1920s and 30s. If it's one thing the Americans grasped was that propaganda was the art of selling and in this case, it was selling a war.

P.S. I always liked the song "Don't bite the hand that feeds you". Kind of applies to today also.

[forty8r]

As one of my favorite heroes. W. T. Sherman (Uncle Billy for short) said "War is hell" The bottom line in the American Civil War is the Union denied food and supplies to the Confederate Armies and destroyed the slave society at the same time. Without this infrastrture the rebellion collapsed.

As far as WWI goes books published in America during 1915 were quite remarkable neutral about Germany and focused more about atrocities on the Eastern front. Of course three years later books were filled with the terrible Hun atrocities.

Another war axiom "The first casualty of war is the truth".

[CRMichaelis]

I'll have to dig out the disk again. From what I remember it has a ton of songs, and I've only downloaded a few to CD.

[rsm2ndbtnlf]

I'll look forward to seeing the listing!

[Wolfgang]

Oh, Sephie-poo, guess what I found regarding the Bryce Report, from which you have been quoting liberally:

“A committee of lawyers and historians under the chairmanship of Lord Bryce, a former ambassador to the United States, produced a report, which was translated into thirty languages, in which it was stated that the Germans had systematically murdered, outraged, and violated innocent men, women, and children in Belgium. “Murder, lust and pillage,” the report said, “prevailed over many parts of Belgium on a scale unparalleled in any war between civilized nations during the last three centuries.” The report gave titillating details of how German officers and men had publicly raped twenty Belgian girls in the market place at Liege, how eight German soldiers had bayoneted a two-year old child, and how another sliced off a peasant girl’s breasts in Malines. Bryce’s signature added considerable weight to the report, and it was not until after the war that several unsatisfactory aspects of the Bryce committee’s activities emerged. The committee had not personally interviewed a single witness. The report was based on 1,200 depositions, mostly from Belgian refugees, taken by twenty-two barristers in Britain. None of the witnesses were placed under oath, their names were omitted (to prevent reprisals against their relatives), and hearsay evidence was accepted at full value. Most disturbing of all was the fact that, although the depositions should have all been filed at the Home Office, they had mysteriously disappeared, and no trace of them has been found to this day. * (*The task was not easier by the fact that all propaganda files and records were deliberately destroyed after the war.) Finally, a Belgian commission of enquiry in 1922, when passions had cooled, failed markedly to corroborate a single major allegation in the Bryce report. By then, of course, the report had served its purpose. Its success in arousing hatred and condemnation of Germany makes it one of the most successful propaganda pieces of the war.”

Source: “The First Casualty” by Phillip Knightley, published by Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1975.

‘As one British general pointed out after the war: "to make armies go on killing one another it is necessary to invent lies about the enemy". ‘ I am still trying to identify the British general in question.

Those interested in the official German stand on the Imperial army's activities in Belgium, as well as Belgian resistance activities, consult ‘The White Book’ AKA ‘The Belgian’s People War’ published by the German government five days after the Bryce Report was issued. One supposes it too will found a one-sided document with questionable regard for veracity, but since the topic has been opened for discussion….

ozebook.com/osc/product_info.php?products_id=128
Also currently on Ebay...

[rsm2ndbtnlf]

Case re-opened!

Herr Sweetypie Wolgang.. thats a very interesting counter to my earlier listings, and most excellently put.

Yes, when one carries out research as to the authenticity of certain period documents, it does become apparent that original verification has become classed within one of three criteria...
1) No records could be found due to unoficial or unrecognised references.
2) No official records found.
3) Records note that documented references destroyed during enemy action (refering to the Blitz of 1940/41)

Incidentally, I have reference extracts from the following diplomatic documents that you mention: French Yellow Book, Russian Orange Book, Belgian Grey Book, Serbian Blue Book, German White Book, Austo-Hungarian Red Book, and of course the British White Paper. **Note: The colour reference was labelled for British Parlimentary use, and has since been taken internationally for reference to these documents.

The context of the various documents is generally concerned: from June 20th to December 14th... of the international position, ie;, side picking, of the various world powers from prior to the Arch Dukes Assasination, to the Italian and Serbian situations.

Prior to Germany's actual crossing of the Belgium border, Great Britain (Mr. Asquith) was trying to act as mediator, desparatelly requesting that Germany review their current plans militarally; asking Belgium to remain docile and not to over-react; imploring Russia to scale down her mobilisation, and requesting that Serbia calm her claims in Croatia.

Claims and counter claims abound, but the subject of German atrocities carried out in the Liege region of Belgium and then nationally.. initially.. was hardly touched apon. However, there are snippets of what is to come by examples of German 'Heavy-handedness' administered in the Grand Ducchy of Luxemburg.

Example:
Note handed in by the German Ambassador in Paris, 2nd August 1914.
Quote...
The German Ambassador has just been instructed, and hastens to inform the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that the military measures taken by Germany in the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg do not constitute an act of hostility. They must be considered as purely preventive measures taken for the protection of the railways, which, under the treaties between Germany and he Grand Duchy of luxemburg, are under German administration.
End quote.

What had just happened, is that Germany had violated the Treaty of London 1867, between Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg.. by invading the said Grand Duchy and placing armed German military guards upon all rail systems within... and then the preverbial ball started to roll a little faster!

Seph