Слике страница
PDF
ePub

sponse, the German authorities were justified in resorting to compulsion, and in view of the fact that the harvesting season was rapidly advancing and in view of the increasing shortage created by the internationally illegal English blockade it was necessary to act energetically and quickly."

8419. The German Defence Analyzed. The German defence is based on two assumptions neither of which appears to have been in accordance with the facts: (1) that the deportations were necessary to the maintenance of the public order, and (2) that it was a necessary measure to reduce the German burden of supporting the civilian population of the territory occupied by their forces. It does not appear that the Germans ever in fact made any charge that the alleged lack of employment had endangered the public order or threatened its security. At the time, the inhabitants were demeaning themselves peaceably, and no considerations of public order required their deportation. In the second place, the German excuse that the lack of employment in the cities mentioned entailed a burden upon the treasury of the occupying belligerent had no foundation in fact, since it is well known not only that the German authorities did not bear the cost of providing for the relief of the destitute among the civil population, but that by means of a system of requisitions which in many instances did not differ in principle from pillage, by means of huge collective fines and contributions, and by the spoliation of the occupied regions and the exportation to Germany of the available stock of raw materials, machinery, and live stock, the Germans themselves were mainly responsible for the conditions upon which they sought to justify the policy of deportation. Moreover, the burden of providing for their relief was borne not by the German government but by the charity and generosity of neutral agencies. The harsh and cruel manner in which the measure was carried out, even if it had been legally justified in principle, made it wholly indefensible.

The policy of deporting French civilians appears to have been resorted to by the German military authorities from time to time throughout the succeeding years of the war, though not on any such extensive scale as that described above.1

1 Before the evacuation of the Somme region in the spring of 1917 many of the inhabitants are said to have been carried away by the Germans. From Nesle more than four hundred women and girls and all able-bodied men over sixteen years of age are alleged to have been deported into the interior (London Times,

DEPORTATIONS FROM BELGIUM

171

§ 420. Deportations from Belgium. That the German government was not moved by the almost universal denunciation of its deportation policy in the spring of 1916 in France may be assumed from the fact that in the autumn of the same year it proceeded to resort on a still more extensive scale to the policy of deportation of the civilian population from various districts of Belgium. The attempt of the Germans to induce the inhabitants to work voluntarily having for the most part failed, they decided upon the more drastic expedient of deporting them to Germany and compelling them to work there. Accordingly, on October 3, 1916, the general headquarters issued a decree "establishing a regime of forced labor with deportation," article 1 of which provided that "persons capable of working may be constrained by force to work even away from their domicile, whenever on account of gambling, drunkenness, lack of employment, or laziness they are compelled to rely upon the assistance of others for their support." Article 3 declared that every such inhabitant called upon to work and who should refuse to perform the task assigned to him would be punished by a term of imprisonment not exceeding three years and a fine not exceeding 10,000 marks, or one of these penalties.1 The publi

March 23 and 26, 1917). From Noyon fifty girls between the ages of fifteen and twenty-five are alleged to have been carried off to act as officer's servants. (Statement of a French official in pamphlet entitled Frightfulness in Retreat, p. 17.) As to the deportations from the region around Noyon cf. the details and statistics in Saint-Aymour, Autour de Noyon, ch. XV. Senator Chéron, describing the retreat of the Germans, stated that "in all the villages they carried away as captives the inhabitants between the ages of fifteen and sixty, excepting women who had very young children dependent upon them." French Yellow Book, p. 146. Prior to their retreat from northern France in the autumn of 1918 the Germans are alleged to have carried off large numbers of the civilian population from various towns and villages. During the last fifteen days of their occupation of Lille they were charged with taking away as captives some fifteen thousand of the inhabitants.

1 Text in Passalecq, Les Déportations Belges à la Lumière des Documents Allemands, p. 3. This elaborate collection of documentary material compiled by the director of the Belgian bureau of documents is my main source of information on the subject of the Belgian deportations. An abridgment of this work was printed under the title La Vérité sur les Déportations Belges with a preface by M. Vandervelde, Belgian minister (Paris and Nancy, 1917). Cf. also Toynbee, The Belgian Deportations, an English publication which contains some of the documentary material found in Passalecq; an article by M. Van den Heuvel, Belgian minister of state, entitled De la Déportation des Belges en Allemagne, Rev. Gén. de Droit Int. Pub., Vol. 24, pp. 261 ff.; Basdevant, La Déportation des Habitants de la Belgique et du Nord de la France (Paris, 1917), and Whitlock, Belgium, Vol. II, ch.

cation of this decree was immediately followed by a campaign inaugurated by the German press with a view to mollifying public opinion in Belgium and especially in neutral countries and preparing it for the favorable reception of a measure which it was foreseen was certain to evoke bitter protest. The first step in the execution of the measure was to obtain lists of the unemployed who refused to work and of all persons who were receiving charitable relief. To this end the local civil authorities were "invited" to furnish the German military authorities with the names of all such persons within their jurisdictions, together with other information, on blanks provided for this purpose.2 These requests were accompanied by threats of fines, imprisonment, and of deportation in case of non-compliance with the German demands. For the most part, the local officials refused to furnish the lists. Thereupon the military authorities seized the records of the communal administration, removed the recalcitrant magistrates from office, in some cases imprisoned them, and in a number of instances imposed heavy fines on the communities whose magistrates declined to comply with the German demands.3

§ 421. Manner of Execution. Having obtained in one way or another what purported to be a list. of the unemployed and dependent population in each commune, the military authorities thereupon. addressed orders, either individual or collective, to all such persons directing them to assemble at a fixed hour and place on the following day prepared to be "transferred" to Germany. They were advised to bring with them certain

1 The views of the German press are set forth in Passalecq, ch. II. The leading journals discoursed upon the great amount of idleness in Belgium; they reviewed the efforts of the German military authorities to induce by promises of high wages the Belgians to work at home or in Germany, painted glowing pictures of the opportunities which would be afforded those who voluntarily consented to be "transplanted" to Germany, and the like.

2 It is apparent from the evidence that the lists demanded were those drawn up by the Belgian relief commission and the national committee for relief in Belgium, and this was admitted by the Germans.

Thus Bruges was fined 400,000 marks and threatened with an additional fine of 100,000 marks for each day's delay in furnishing the list requested. The town of Tournai was similarly fined 200,000 marks and threatened with a further fine of 20,000 marks for each day's delay. See the New York Times of November 18, 1916, for the text of the resolution of the municipal council of Tournai refusing to furnish the list.

The selection of the cities and towns from which the deportations were made appears to have been largely arbitrary. Among those upon which the heaviest "raids" were made were Alost, Antwerp, Bruges, Brussels, Charleroi, Coutrai,

METHODS OF DEPORTATION

173

specified articles of apparel, and warning was given that those who refused to appear at the time and places designated would be heavily fined or imprisoned. Notwithstanding the threat, large numbers in fact refused to obey the order to assemble and were rounded up by the soldiers and forcibly conducted to the places of assembly designated.1 Naturally many mistakes were made, and large numbers of persons who belonged neither to the indigent nor to the idle class were brought in. The Germans admitted that this happened in many instances, but blamed the local civil authorities for their refusal to coöperate by themselves furnishing bona fide lists of persons liable to deportation. The Belgians, on their part, charge that the Germans made no real effort to separate the indigent and unemployed from the rest of the inhabitants; that in some communities practically the entire adult male population was assembled for deportation,2 and that thousands of persons who were not subjects of charitable relief and many of whom were regularly employed were carried away. When the inhabitants were assembled, a military officer accompanied by a physician passed down the lines and designated those who were excused. Unmarried able-bodied men capable of work were preferred, and the Belgians charge that little time was spent investigating the cases of workmen who claimed to be employed, the doubt in such cases usually being resolved against those who had the appearance of being good laborers.5

4

Ghent, Liège, Nivelles, Termonde, and Tournai. Twenty-five thousand persons are alleged to have been deported from Antwerp alone.

1 In many communities the inhabitants fled to the forests and concealed themselves, and not a few appear to have succeeded in getting past the heavily charged stockade on the Dutch frontier and escaping into Holland.

2 E.g., at Nivelles and Borinage, where the entire male population without any age limit was summoned; at Wavre, where all males between the ages of seventeen and fifty-six years of age were summoned; at Mons, where all males of military age (about ten thousand altogether) were called.

Many instances are cited by Passalecq. Cf. also Toynbee, The Belgian Deportations (p. 50), and Cammaerts, Through the Iron Bars, p. 63. Cf. also the article by M. Van den Heuvel cited above, p. 276, and the New York Times of December 23, 1916.

• But married men were frequently selected, and so were women in some cases. Thus two hundred female textile laborers are alleged to have been deported from Ghent.

• General von Bissing says in his defence, referred to below, that strict orders were given that the procedure of selection should be painstaking, and that each case should be investigated in the presence of the mayor, a local physician, and a representative of the German administration.

When the selections had been made, the victims were offered the alternative of going voluntarily to Germany or of being taken by force. Those who were willing to go voluntarily were requested to sign a contract to work for a period of six months at designated rates of wages, and they were to be allowed ample time to make the necessary preparations for their departure. To induce them to enter into such agreements promises of higher wages than would be paid those who refused were made. In addition, a sum of money would be paid them in advance, and they were promised a larger degree of liberty and more favorable treatment. The Belgians allege that in some instances the pressure to induce laborers to sign contracts took the form of threats of imprisonment and deprivation of food.

Naturally, under these circumstances a goodly number of the victims were induced to sign contracts, a circumstance which afforded the German authorities an opportunity later, when the voice of the civilized world had been raised in protest, to assert that large numbers had consented voluntarily to be "transferred" and had even gone "cheerfully." The great majority, however, refused to be cajoled by threats or induced by promises of high wages to enter into agreements and had to be deported by force. No reliable statistics are available as to the number of Belgians deported. It was estimated that during the first month following the inauguration of the policy of deportation one hundred thousand persons were carried away. Others place the number between two and three hundred thousand.1 Naturally the German estimates were lower.

The German policy of deportation did not end with the year 1916, notwithstanding the strong protests of various neutral governments and the denunciation of public opinion in the greater part of the neutral world, to say nothing of the promises which the Emperor is said to have made in February, 1917, to the Pope

1 Cf. Passalecq, op. cit., p. viii; Basdevant, op. cit., p. 21, and Clunet's Journal, 45: 1321. M. Vandervelde, Belgian minister of munitions, in a statement given out on November 24, 1916, at Havre stated that the Belgian minister at The Hague had telegraphed on November 17 that "more than 200,000 had already been deported." M. Van den Heuvel in the article cited above estimated the number at about one hundred and twenty-five thousand; Cammaerts, Through the Iron Bars (p. 61), places the number at two hundred thousand; Cardinal Mercier in his letter of November 10, 1916, to governor-general von Bissing (text in Toynbee, pp. 81 ff.) estimated the number of deportés at four hundred thousand.

« ПретходнаНастави »