[Footnote 102:  Ibid., pp. 14-15.]

No correct judgment on the apportionment of right and wrong between the Belgian civilians and the German army is possible without taking into consideration the status of militarism in each of these countries before the war.  As far as Belgium is concerned, the army was looked upon as a necessary evil.  The Social Democratic doctrines imported from Germany had obtained such a hold upon the people that the Belgian Government experienced ever-increasing difficulty in getting supplies voted in the House of Deputies, for defence purposes.  Belgian Socialists unfortunately played into the hands of the German Government by doing their utmost to prevent money from being spent for the defence of their country.  Consciously or unconsciously, German Socialists have rendered the Kaiser and his army inestimable service.  Their propaganda against armaments has borne fruit in Belgium, England and France, but did not prevent a single German battleship from being built, nor a single regiment from being added to the German army.

In Germany militarism is a gospel.  All classes and all political parties have been unanimous for years past, that every man should be a soldier.  The military ethos has ruled supreme, and whenever civilianism has dared, merely to cherish thoughts contrary to the ideals of the ruling caste, no time was lost in seeking an opportunity to challenge a quarrel which invariably ended in humiliation for the civilian ethos.  Characteristically, therefore, the contemptuous phrase has become current both in the German army and navy—­“das Civil”—­when speaking of the non-military elements of the nation.

Imbued with these traditions and inspired by this contempt for everything civilian, the German armies invaded Belgium, and it may be safely assumed that in a country where the civilian ethos predominated, looks, words, and even deeds, expressed hostility.  Such “provocation” would certainly rouse the military ego to a revenge ten thousand-fold greater than that taken at Zabern.  German militarism brooks neither contempt, criticism, nor opposition from German civilians, and much less so from the civilians of another nation.

When it is possible to obtain cool and clear accounts of the events in Belgium, the author has no doubt whatever, that proofs of civilian-baiting will be forthcoming in that unhappy country.  The policy of frightfulness was not only intended to drive an enemy into abject submission and as a punishment for resistance to Germany’s imperious will, but it was the military ethos in strife with the civilian spirit.

In order to hinder the march of the invaders the trees lining the roads were cut down and formed into barriers, but the civilian population was compelled at the bayonet’s point to remove all obstacles and thus assist in the conquest of their native country.

“The magnificent tall fir-trees which are so characteristic of Belgian roads, had been felled across the highways.  But all the civilian population which could be found, without regard to age, rank, or sex, was forced by our advancing cavalry to clear it all away.  One can imagine the joy of the Belgians in performing this task!"[103]