“But as a necessity of war?” I asked.

“Not at all.  The Germans have saved buildings when it suited their convenience to do so.  No military necessity dictated the destruction of Louvain.  It was not bombarded.  It was deliberately destroyed.  But, of course, you know that.”

“The matter of the violation of Belgium’s neutrality still remains an open question,” I said.  “I have seen in American facsimile copies of documents referring to conversations between staff officers of the British and Belgian armies—­documents that were found in the ministerial offices at Brussels when the Germans occupied that city last August.  Of course I think most Americans realise that, had they been of any real importance, they would have been taken away.  There was time enough.  But there are some, I know, who think them significant.”

The King of the Belgians shrugged his shoulders.

“They were of an unofficial character and entirely without importance.  The German Staff probably knew all about them long before the declaration of war.  They themselves had, without doubt, discussed and recorded similar probabilities in case of war with other countries.  It is a common practice in all army organisations to prepare against different contingencies.  It is a question of military routine only.”

“There was no justification, then, for the violation of Belgian neutrality?” I inquired.

“None whatever!  The German violation of Belgian neutrality was wrong,” he said emphatically.  “On the fourth of August their own chancellor admitted it.  Belgium had no thought of war.  The Belgians are a peace-loving people, who had every reason to believe in the friendship of Germany.”

The next question was a difficult one.  I inquired as to the behaviour of the Germans in the conquered territory; but the King made no sweeping condemnation of the German Army.

“Fearful things have been done, particularly during the invasion,” he said, weighing his words carefully; “but it would be unfair to condemn the whole German Army.  Some regiments have been most humane; but others behaved very badly.  Have you seen the government report?”

I said I had not seen it, though I had heard that a careful investigation had been made.

“The government was very cautious,” His Majesty said.  “The investigation was absolutely impartial and as accurate as it could be made.  Doubts were cast on all statements—­even those of the most dependable witnesses—­until they could be verified.”

“They were verified?”

“Yes; again and again.”

“By the victims themselves?”

“Not always.  The victims of extreme cruelty do not live to tell of it; but German soldiers themselves have told the story.  We have had here many hundreds of journals, taken from dead or imprisoned Germans, furnishing elaborate details of most atrocious acts.  The government is keeping these journals.  They furnish powerful and incontrovertible testimony of what happened in Belgium when it was swept over by a brutal army.  That was, of course, during the invasion—­such things are not happening now so far as we know.”