[29] G. W. B., Appendix C. Summary and also C 5, 7, 10, 31, 35, 40, 44 for references in the text.
[34] The story of Aerschot is peculiarly horrible. It was here that the priest was placed against the wall with his arms raised above his head; when he let them fall through weariness, the German soldiers brought the butt-ends of their rifles down upon his feet. He was kept there for hours, and as German soldiers passed they used him as a lavatory and a latrine until he was covered with filth. Eventually they shot him. This is but one of many such horrors (_see_ the Bryce Report, Appendix, pages 29, 46. _See also_ the fourth and fifth Belgian Reports). The German White Book admits (Appendix A 2) that “every third man was shot.”
[37] The 1st Company of the 2nd Infantry Battalion of the Neuss Mobile Landsturm.
[38] Belgian Collected Reports, Tenth Report, page 127.
[39] Bryce Report (popular edition), pages 29-36. And see the diary, No. 14 of Appendix to Bryce Report recording the shooting of German troops by other German troops; to the same effect another diary quoted on page 41 of Bryce Report.
[40] “No other troops were stationed at Louvain on that day.”--(D 8.)
[41] _See_ the Sixth Belgian Report and, in particular, the Proclamations issued at Hasselt, Namur, Wavre, Grivegnée, and Brussels.
[42] _See_, in particular, _Les Violations des lois de la Guerre par l’Allemagne_, issued by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, pages 77, 92, 99, 100, 101, 119.
[43] Press Bureau (Belgian communiqué), March 18th. The German authorities substituted the word “convention” for “conversation,” in order to convict Belgium of a secret treaty with England.
[44] Foreign Office communiqués of May 20th and July 5th.
[47] The case of the _Iberia_ (_Times_ Law Report, November 11th, 1915). It is not the only one.
[48] _The International Review_, published in Zurich, and controlled by a Committee consisting almost entirely of German Professors. Its title is obviously fraudulent. The June issue (page 14) contains an article of ingratiating impudence by a German psychologist discrediting all reports of atrocities, and, in order to prove their unreliability and justify the policy of the _Review_ in excluding them when they emanate from British, French, or Belgian sources, it attempts to disprove them all. On page 32 the writer refutes circumstantially the stories that German soldiers had had their eyes gouged out.