DEPORTATIONS FROM FRANCE

165

of hostility, and it attracted little attention outside the countries from which they were deported. It was not until the summer of 1915, when some twenty-five thousand of the inhabitants of Lille, Roubaix, Tourcoing, and other French cities were suddenly arrested and deported by the Germans to other occupied regions of France, where they were dispersed throughout the rural districts, principally in the departments of the Aisne and the Ardennes, that the voice of the neutral world was raised in protest.1

It appears that in the early days of April notices were placarded by the German military authorities in the cities mentioned offering to settle unemployed families, the number of which according to the German version was very large, in the occupied departments of the North of France where they would be given work, for which they would be paid regular wages. The response to this invitation for volunteers not being satisfactory to the German military authorities, they decided upon the drastic remedy of forcible deportation and compulsory labor with a view to reducing the number of unemployed and to diminishing the alleged heavy burden of feeding the civil population, a burden which, it was asserted, had been greatly increased through the operation of Great Britain's "starvation blockade." Thereupon notices were posted requiring all the

2

1 My principal sources of information regarding the French deportations are a French yellow book dealing with the conduct of the Germans toward the inhabitants of the invaded districts, issued in the summer of 1916. It contains the texts of the various German orders, notices, and proclamations posted in the three cities mentioned above together with M. Briand's communication of July 25, 1916, addressed to the powers, and various other documents. It also contains the sworn depositions of some two hundred inhabitants, most of whom were victims or eye-witnesses. Much of this material may be found in English in a book entitled The Deportation of Women and Girls from Lille. (Geo. H. Doran and Co., New York, 1916.) I have also made use of numerous press despatches published in the New York Times and the London Times; the New York Times Current History Magazine for October, 1916; a brochure by M. Basdevant entitled Les Déportations du Nord de la France et de la Belgique en Vue du Travail Forcé et le Droit International (Paris, 1917), and various articles in Clunet's Journal and in the Rev. Gen. de Droit Int. Public.

* The German pretext was thus stated in a proclamation posted at Lille on April 29, 1916, by the German military governor, von Graevenitz: "The attitude of England renders it increasingly difficult to feed the population. To lessen misery, the German authority has recently asked volunteers to work in the country. This offer has not had the success which was expected. Consequently the inhabitants will be removed by compulsion and transported to the country. Those removed will be sent into the interior of French occupied territory far behind the

inhabitants, except children under fourteen years of age, their mothers, and elderly persons, to prepare to be immediately deported, in some cases within an hour and a half.

$415. Manner of Execution of the Measure. Members of families were directed to assemble in front of their houses, and all were forbidden to be absent from their homes between 9 o'clock at night and 6 o'clock in the morning (German time) without a permit. An officer would designate the particular members of each family to be deported. Each person designated was advised "in his own interest" to provide himself with utensils for eating and drinking, a woollen blanket, good shoes, and a supply of linen. The people were advised to "remain calm and obedient," and they were informed that any attempt to evade removal would be "pitilessly punished."

The execution of these measures began during Easter week. Officers accompanied by detachments of troops went around during the night or early morning hours from house to house in certain quarters of each of the three cities mentioned and picked out certain members of each family for deportation.1 Their orders were to select males of military age, able-bodied males not of military age who were not engaged in any permanent trade or occupation, families entire who were without employment or means of support, and unemployed females. Special effort was to be made to select individuals who were either familiar with farm work or suited to the performance of such labor. Women were to be selected to do the cooking for the men or to work in French families who might be in need of domestic servants. The result of this mode of selection was to dismember many families, and its execution led to many pathetic scenes. Husbands and fathers were torn away from their homes, young girls were mixed promiscuously with persons of varying social ranks and moral character, and all were herded into railway coaches and carried away to destinations of which they and their relatives were ignorant. Here they were held

front, where they will be employed in agriculture and in no way in military work. By this measure the opportunity will be given them to better provide for their support."

The "raids" on Lille took place at about 3 o'clock in the morning. The streets were guarded at both ends by troops and defended by machine guns.

in a virtual state of slavery and compelled to work under the supervision of the military authorities at such tasks as they designated and subject to such conditions as they chose to prescribe.1

§ 416. Protests against the Deportations. Shortly after the posting of the notices at Lille, the mayor from his sick-bed addressed a protest to the military governor calling his attention to official declarations which had been earlier posted by the military authorities on the walls of the city to the effect that Germany was not making war upon the civilian inhabitants and promising to respect their rights of person and property, so long as they should conduct themselves peaceably and commit no acts of hostility against the German military authority. "To destroy and break up families," the mayor concluded, "to tear from their homes thousands of peaceable citizens, to force them to abandon their goods without protection would be an act of a nature to arouse general reprobation."

Mgr. Charost, the bishop of Lille, likewise addressed a protest to the governor in which he described the German deportation proceedings as "a policy of wholesale kidnapping of women and young girls and the carrying of them away to unknown places without judicial inquiry and without cause. This was not war,

but the worst of torture and a violation of the most sacred rights of family among a people who cherish intensely the sacred

1 The scenes in some instances were so heart-rending that officers of humane feeling are said to have broken down and refused to carry out their orders, for which a number of them were imprisoned in fortresses for disobedience. See an article by Cyril Brown in the New York Times of August 19, 1916, where the "press-gang" methods of the Germans are described. Women and girls of all ranks, he says, were seized in the dead of night and herded together with roughs and prostitutes. Ambassador Gerard in his book My Four Years in Germany (p. 335) states that he was told by Americans who were familiar with the facts that the deportation order was carried out "with the greatest barbarity"; that a man would come home at night and find that his wife or children had disappeared, and no one could tell him where they had gone, except that the neighbors would relate that German non-commissioned officers and a file of soldiers had carried them off. "That night at dinner," he adds, "I spoke to the Chancellor about this and told him that it seemed to be absolutely outrageous; and that without consulting with my government I was prepared to protest in the name of humanity against a continuance of this treatment of the civil population of France. The Chancellor told me that he had not known of it, that it was the result of orders given by the military, that he would speak to the Emperor about it and that he hoped to be able to stop further deportations. I believe that they were stopped but twenty thousand or more who had been taken from their homes were not returned until months afterwards."

ness of the family-relation." The minister of foreign affairs on June 27 requested the French ambassador to Switzerland to acquaint the Spanish ambassador at Berlin with these facts and to urge him to intercede "with all possible energy" with the German government to induce it "to put an end to this state of things and return to their homes the victims of these arbitrary acts." These and other protests, however, appear to have had no effect, and the deportations proceeded until, as stated above, some twenty-five thousand inhabitants were removed. On July 25, 1916, M. Briand, president of the council of ministers, requested the diplomatic representatives of France abroad to call the attention of the governments to which they were accredited to the treatment to which the German authorities had subjected the inhabitants of the three cities mentioned and to lay before them a note which contained a large amount of documentary evidence (much of which was German) concerning the details with which the deportation measures had been carried into execution.

§417. Treatment of the French Déportés. Regarding the treatment which the déportés received at the hands of the Germans in the localities to which they were taken and the character of the work they were required to perform, the French Yellow Book makes many serious charges. It contains hundreds of depositions made before justices of the peace, besides letters and other documents, alleging that they were compelled to perform work which was directly or indirectly connected with military operations. Thus in the department of the Aisne each female déportée was required to make twenty-five sand bags a day for use in the trenches. Other deponents alleged that they were forced to make barrows for breaking the force of cavalry charges, to work in munitions factories, to drive artillery wagons, and the like. The larger number, however, were set at work in the fields, orchards, and gardens. Many women were employed as domestic servants and were required to milk cows, clean the streets, cook and wash for the soldiers, or serve as orderlies for German officers. There were, of course, many complaints of brutal treatment, insufficient feeding, long hours, excessive tasks, assignments to work to which the déportés were unsuited, work under degrading conditions, the 1 Annexe II to the French Yellow Book.

THE GERMAN DEFENCE

169

lodging of women promiscuously with men, and the like. The Germans, of course, denied most of the charges regarding the ill treatment of the déportés.1

$418. The German Defence. As has been said, the German government defended its policy of deportation in this particular instance as a legitimate military measure adopted mainly in the interest of the inhabitants themselves, for whom it desired to find employment, and with a view to reducing the burden of providing food for those who had no means of support. The argument also appears to have been put forward that it was essential to relieve the pressure on the military railways by reducing the amount of food which it was necessary to ship into the three cities mentioned. It would perhaps be going too far to say that the German authorities were not animated to some extent by the desire to ameliorate the condition of the unemployed population, but there can be little doubt that the chief reason was the desire to find farm laborers to harvest the bountiful crops in the occupied rural districts, upon which the occupying forces were largely dependent for their subsistence. In an official statement published in the Norddeutsche Zeitung 2 the policy of the German government was declared to be entirely in accord with the rules of international law. Reference was made to article 43 of the Hague convention respecting the laws and customs of war which declares that "After the legal authority has actually passed into the hands of those occupying the country, the latter are under obligation to take all the measures possible to restore public order and safety."

"There is no doubt," the statement continued, "that provision for the insuring of the feeding of the population belongs to the work of maintaining public order and public life. But owing to the circumstances prevailing this could only be done through the agricultural output of the occupying territory itself. In the case at hand, the only way to do away with a state of distress was to compel a part of the population to work in their own interest. Appeals having been made to the inhabitants to volunteer for work in the regions where their services were needed, without satisfactory re

1 The Norddeutsche Zeitung declared that the persons "transplanted," in so far as they were families, women, and children, were quartered with the inhabitants of the districts to which they were taken and set to work under the supervision of the local authorities and in pursuance of an understanding with them, while single men were brought together in labor colonies. Quoted in New York Times, November 9, 1916.

* English text in the New York Times of November 9, 1916.