German War Practices, Part 1: Treatment of Civilians — Themes and Context

The Pledge and the Practice

The introduction establishes a stark contrast between Germany’s formal commitments and its military conduct. The editors note that Germany accepted all Hague Regulations except Article 44, which forbade forcing conquered populations to give information. Yet the excerpts that follow describe mass deportations, hostage-taking, and forced labor—actions that the editors argue violate the very conventions Germany signed. A recurring pattern is the invocation of military necessity to justify what the report terms “frightfulness.” For instance, General von Bissing is quoted as saying that starvation would be used “to compel the Belgian workingmen … to go into Germany.” The report treats such statements not as isolated remarks but as evidence of a premeditated strategy.

Deportations as Documented by Diplomats

The longest section reproduces Minister Brand Whitlock’s detailed account of the deportations from Brussels in late 1916. Whitlock describes a system of summonses, medical examinations, and forced transport, noting that “the men shivering from cold and fear, the parting from weeping wives and children” were held back by “barriers of brutal Uhlans.” The report includes specific numbers: of 1,500 men ordered to report, 750 appeared, and 300 were taken. Whitlock’s tone is clinical, but the editorial framing emphasizes the human cost. The editors also include a footnote explaining that the étapes—areas under martial law—were where deportations began, suggesting a deliberate geographic strategy.

The Logic of Total War

A striking excerpt from Frederic C. Walcott’s article in The National Geographic Magazine (May 1917) presents a German official’s frank explanation of deportation plans. The official states that starvation would be used to compel skilled workers to go to Germany, while “the weak remaining, the old and the young, we would concentrate opposite the firing line, and put firing squads back of them.” The editors offer no commentary on this passage, letting the official’s own words stand as evidence of a ruthless calculus. This section underscores the report’s broader argument: that German policy treated civilian populations as instruments of military strategy, not as protected noncombatants.

Readers should approach this document as a wartime publication with an explicit propaganda purpose—it was produced by a government committee to influence public opinion. The evidence it presents is drawn from sources that may themselves be partial or contested. Yet the specificity of the accounts, the inclusion of official German statements, and the careful documentation of dates, places, and numbers make it a valuable primary source for understanding how atrocities were reported and framed during the First World War.