Слике страница
PDF
ePub

memorial concerning the employment of Belgian workmen in Germany issued by the German government and widely distributed in the United States, with a view to "preventing a one-sided judgment on the question by those far removed from the war theatre and who therefore can form only a superficial opinion of the conditions obtaining in the occupied territories," the "social necessity" argument was elaborated, and the great benefit which deportation had brought to the working population of Belgium in contrast to their "previous lamentable condition" was set forth in glowing terms.

426. The Economic Argument and Question of Public Order. While the principal motive alleged by the German authorities was humanitarian and altruistic the desire to preserve the working population of Belgian from relapsing into a condition which constituted a danger to their physical and moral welfare - - there were also economic reasons and considerations of public order which made necessary the deportation of the unemployed population. The burden of supporting nearly a half million idle men was intolerable, and while it was admitted that this expenditure was being met largely through the benevolence of neutral agencies, there was always the danger that it might ultimately become unbearable. Moreover, this source of relief might be cut off at any time, leaving a large portion of the population without means of subsistence. But even if this eventuality should not come to pass, the presence of so large an idle class constituted a danger to the public order the maintenance of which was an obligation imposed on Germany by the Hague convention. True, no serious disorders had as yet taken place, but the danger existed and would increase with the multiplication of the number of the unemployed. It was, therefore, not only the right but the duty of the Germans to take necessary precautions against the possibility of disorders which might endanger the security of the military occupant as well as that of the civil population itself.1

Belgium; it is our duty to maintain order and prevent the country from falling into a state of marasmus and to develop it." The social welfare argument is also developed in the Berliner Lokalanzeiger of October 27, 1916; in the Frankfurter Zeitung of October 28, and in the Kölnische Volkszeitung of October 28 and November 5.

1 This argument is elaborated in the German "memorial" referred to above and in the German reply to the protest of the American government.

GERMAN DEFENCE ANALYZED

181

8427. The German Defence Analyzed. Somewhat inconsistently, the Belgian workingmen were charged with laziness and reproached for their unwillingness to work, and yet it was admitted that opportunities in Belgium for employment were to a large degree lacking. The industries of the country, governor-general von Bissing told a correspondent of the New York Times, had been reduced to a state of paralysis by the "illegal" blockade of the British government, which refused to permit the importation of raw materials into Belgium.1 Notwithstanding this, the German government had done everything in its power to obtain from the British government a relaxation from its policy. "I did everything possible," he said, "to revive Belgian industries, but because of the lack of raw materials it was impossible to bring the Belgian factories to their height of production." The result was "to reduce nearly 500,000 Belgian laborers to a chronic state of demoralizing idleness." The Belgians pointed out that the German solicitude for the amelioration of the economic conditions of Belgium was hardly reconcilable with the harsh, not to say ruthless, manner in which they themselves had exploited the resources of the country by means of requisitions and fines. Many of the communes undertook to provide employment for the idle by constructing public improvements of one kind or another. It was a matter of local concern, and as the expenditures involved were borne by the inhabitants and not by the military occupant, they considered that it was within their rights. Governor von Bissing's approval was necessary, and at first authorizations were given for such undertakings, but subsequently, on the ground that they were entailing excessive financial burdens on the communes and that the undertakings were not productive, he put a stop to it.3

2

§ 428. Power of a Military Occupant over the Inhabitants of Occupied Territory. Article 43 of the Hague convention of

1 This assertion was reiterated in the German "memorial" referred to above and in the reply to the protest of the American government. "This prevalence of unemployment has been caused by the English policy of isolation, which has cut off Belgian industry from the importation of raw material and the exportation of manufactured goods and has thus brought the greater part of Belgian industry to a standstill."

2 New York Times, November 12, 1916.

3 See his explanation in an interview in the New York Times, November 12,

1907 respecting the laws and customs of war on land imposes upon military occupants the duty of taking measures for the maintenance of public order and security in the territory occupied. Unquestionably, if the presence of large numbers of idle and unemployed persons really constitutes imminent danger to the public order or gravely threatens the security of the occupying forces, the occupying belligerent would be fully warranted in taking reasonable measures to remove the danger, even if it necessitated the deportation of the idle population. The danger, however, must be real and not merely imaginary to justify so extreme a measure. In the present case there is no reason to believe that such a danger actually existed. The Belgian protests affirmed that the unemployed workingmen conducted themselves in a peaceable and orderly manner, and the governor-general in his defence made no charges to the contrary, but merely alleged that the presence of so large an idle class constituted a danger which might at any moment threaten the public order. The Germans also proceeded on the theory that the idleness of which they complained was due to the unwillingness of the Belgian workingmen to labor. It is true that for the most part they refused to work in industries the products of which were intended by the Germans to be used for military purposes, as they had a right to do. They did not, however, refuse to work in other industries, although in consequence of the economic measures referred to above, there were few opportunities for such work. For this, Germany and not they were responsible. In any case, the burden of feeding them did not fall upon the German treasury, as one might infer from reading the arguments put forward b the Germans. In fact, they were fed by the charity of neutral agencies and by contributions of their own compatriots, and so long as their own countrymen and their friends in other countries were willing to provide for their relief, Germany had no just cause for complaint on the score of expense.

The assertion of General von Bissing that he was animated by a desire to remove a great social evil and to ameliorate the condition of the laboring classes has generally been regarded as a mere pretext. The Germans had shown no real consideration for the social or economic welfare of the Belgian population; on the contrary, they had exploited the country for

RIGHTS OF MILITARY OCCUPANTS

183

their own purposes in every possible way, and by paralyzing its industries through requisitions, pecuniary exactions, economic restrictions, the carrying away of its live stock, raw materials, farm implements, factory machinery, and the like, they had reduced the population to idleness and impoverishment. The neutral world, therefore, has regarded the professed German solicitude for the welfare of the Belgian people as sheer hypocrisy, and that the real motive back of the policy of deportation was the desire to find workers for their own industries. As stated above, no conscientious effort appears to have been made to confine the deportations to the unemployed, but in general able-bodied working-men, employed and unemployed alike, were carried away without distinction. At the time the deportation policy was inaugurated the German government was pushing its "man power mobilization scheme" to the limit and was bending its energies to replace its own men who were being killed, captured, or disabled. The supply of laboring men in Belgium afforded a tempting recruiting ground, and pretexts for impressing them were easily found. Every able-bodied workman, therefore, taken from Belgium and put to work in the industries of Germany released a German for service in the army or for work in munitions plants or other industries the output of which was devoted directly or indirectly to military purposes.1

$429. The German Policy Unprecedented in Modern Times. Whatever may be the technical merits of the German case, the enormous scale on which the policy of deportation was carried out and the harsh and indiscriminate, not to say cruel, way in which it was executed, makes it comparable to the slave raids on the Gold Coast of Africa in the seventeenth century. It appears to be without precedent in modern wars. In ancient times it was the practice of the Roman conquerors to carry back to Italy a portion of the inhabitants and hold them in captivity, and it is said to have been the practice of Attila to force the conquered tribes into his army, but not since the beginning of the modern age-not even during the Thirty

[ocr errors]

1 Among the "damages" enumerated in the treaty of peace for which Ger、 many was required to pay an indemnity were acts of cruelty, violence, or maltreatment (including injuries to life or health as a consequence of imprisonment, deportation, internment, or evacuation, of exposure at sea or of being forced to labor), wherever arising." Art. 244, Annex. I, Par. 2.

Years' war has any invader seized and virtually enslaved a large part of the civil population in order to carry on his own industries at home and to release his own able-bodied men for military service. The international conventions are silent on the question of the right of an invader to subject the conquered population to such treatment, for the reason, no doubt, that it was not considered necessary in this age to prohibit formally a belligerent from resorting to a measure which the humane conscience of the civilized world had so long condemned. But the Hague convention expressly imposes upon belligerents the obligation to "respect family honor and rights" and to respect, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country. It likewise forbids the requisition of services except for the needs of the army of occupation. Manifestly, an interpretation of the letter, to say nothing of the spirit, of these rules which would justify such a policy is wholly inadmissible. Indeed, it seems difficult to reconcile so harsh a measure even with the doctrines of the German Kriegsbrauch im Landkriege, which certainly goes farther than most military manuals in recognizing the largest latitude to military occupants.1

§ 430. Conclusion. When everything is said in defence of the German policy that can be said, it has little left to stand on and it is hard to see how any humane voice can be raised in defence of it. It was of very doubtful expediency, even if it were legal, since it only served to turn the public opinion of the rest of the civilized world against Germany and aroused a hatred among the Belgian people that will require many generations to efface.2

1 Morgan, War Book of the German General Staff, p. 148; also Carpentier's trans., p. 103. Article 23 of the Instructions for the Government of the United States Armies (1863) declared that "private citizens are no longer enslaved or carried off to distant parts." The incorporation in a military manual of a prohibition which seemed so obviously unnecessary in the twentieth century caused the authors of the revised instructions (Rules of Land Warfare) issued by the United States government in 1914 to omit it entirely from the new code. The distinguished German writer Stier-Somlo in an article dealing with the provisions of the Hague convention referred to above points out that they protect the honor of the family, and that they prohibit the separation of members of families. Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht (1914), Bd. VIII, pp. 581-608.

2 Cf. the following opinion of the American minister to Belgium, in a report to the department of state in April, 1917: "They have dealt a mortal blow to any prospect they may ever have had of being tolerated by the population of Flanders; in tearing away from nearly every humble home in the land a husband and a

« ПретходнаНастави »