During seven weeks’ sojourn in this charming little country of Holland, in the course of the many walks I took along the countryside, in the woods and parks, my thoughts reverted to that prison where I had lived for three years. My mind recalled certain conversations and certain incidents.

I spoke a little while ago of Lieutenant Block and his courteous manner towards me. It should not be inferred, however, from what I stated, that Prussianism was obliterated from him. He had the Prussian officer’s demeanor. He did not attempt to hide that he belonged to the autocratic and irrepressible military caste.

It will be remembered that in 1916 the Kaiser issued a proclamation pronouncing the reform of Parliamentary institutions in Prussia, and particularly the uniformity of electoral franchise for all citizens. Fear of the people is the beginning of political wisdom.

In Prussia, the representatives of the people are elected by three classes of electors, and although the Social-Democrats registered a sufficient number of votes to give them a third of the representation in the Prussian Diet, they were only a few deputies.

The Prussian Government, in conformity with the Imperial proclamation, had introduced a bill providing for the reform of the electoral franchise. The majority of the Prussian Parliament refused to adopt the projected law. At that time there was a violent controversy carried on in the German press on this subject.

There were in Germany then several newspapers with large circulations which could be designated as Liberal–that is to say, they were in favor of the principle of responsible government, not in Germany alone, but also in Prussia. They fought continually and stubbornly against the pan-German doctrine. I may cite the Frankfurter Zeitung, the Berliner Tageblatt, the Vossische Zeitung besides Socialist newspapers like the Volkszeitung and the Vorwaerts. At the jail we received all the German newspapers. I was a subscriber to the Berliner Tageblatt, and this newspaper was the only one on my table. I had much admiration for the publicist, whose name is well known in France–Theodore Wolfe. This journalist repeatedly condemned German autocracy in his articles–he did it so often that his writings became popular with all of us. He was frequently so outspoken that we really expected to see him arrive one fine day in our midst.

The officer during his daily visits observed the Tageblatt lying on my table, a fact which more than once gave rise to an exchange of views between us on the political institutions of Germany, and particularly on the Parliamentary situation as it existed in Prussia at that time. The Prussian Diet had just refused to adopt the draft of the bill above referred to. That same day the visiting officer entered my cell, his face beaming with smiles. He rejoiced–words were not strong enough, he said, to express the satisfaction he felt at what had happened. Prussia was to maintain her old system, the autocratic system under which this man was convinced she had achieved prosperity and greatness; and this it was that pleased him so much.

It is very difficult for us, accustomed, as we have become, to a democratic system, to conceive the voluntary abdication, on the part of a man of the standing and importance of Lieutenant Block, of all participation in the administration of public affairs. Here was a professor, a man between 35 and 40 years of age, who confessed and glorified in the fact that he had never voted! And when I expressed great surprise, and endeavored to ascertain from him what were the real motives of his abstention, he replied, with apparent sincerity: “Have we not got our Kaiser, who is at the same time King of Prussia, to efficiently govern the country?”…

Another instance which reveals something of the real heart of a Prussian officer is the following: We were at the epoch of the catastrophe which fell upon Britain when Lord Kitchener was drowned off the Scottish coast. This news was reported to me, like all other news of a disquieting character, with great eagerness by the visiting officer. Others may be amazed at the lack of tact, to say the least, here shown, as we in the prison were each of us amazed in turn.

“Kitchener has been drowned,” announced the officer with glee.

The news drew from me a pained expression of sorrow.

“How regrettable,” I cried.

The officer drew himself up to his full height, and his eyes flashed as he retorted, “Nicht fur uns. Nicht fur uns.” (“Not for us. Not for us.”)

“Listen,” I retorted. “The intention of my remark was to convey to you how regrettable it is that a soldier of the worth of Lord Kitchener, instead of finding a glorious death on the battlefield, should have perished in the manner reported.”

“Nicht fur uns. Nicht fur uns,” the Prussian insisted.

Many months passed. The man had evidently forgotten the incident of Kitchener’s death. One morning he came to my cell with face long, and expression sad. “Have you heard the awful news?” he asked me. “Richthofen has fallen.”

Richthofen, Germany’s most famous aviator, was dead after seventy-five great aerial victories.

“Yes, Richthofen has fallen,” the officer repeated. “Is it not regrettable?”

“Nicht fur uns. Nicht fur uns,” I answered without hesitation.

“How can you say that?” he said. “Is it not a matter of regret that a great hero like Richthofen should disappear?”

“Nicht fur uns,” I said again, not knowing what might be the outcome of my boldness.

“Why do you talk like this?” the officer asked.

“I am merely following your example,” I told him. “When I ventured to express my regret at Lord Kitchener’s death, regret that a soldier of his valor had been drowned, and not killed in the manner of the valiant soldier he was, you made use of this expression. To-day Richthofen has fallen, but he fell in the arena where his skill and genius and valor earned for him an immortal name. Acknowledge that his loss is regrettable for Germany, but you cannot expect the countries at war with Germany will experience regret in the same sense that you feel it, although I am sure they will pay just tribute to his valor as an aviator.”

The officer left me a few minutes afterwards. I do not know if he appreciated the appropriateness of my remarks.

One day I had a sharp discussion with Captain Wolfe, of the Kommandantur at Berlin. This officer occupied the position of a judicial war counsellor and held a high and responsible office at the Kommandantur. He was naturally vested with considerable authority. Nobody realized this fact more than those who were detained against their will, and in spite of just protests, in the jail on Dirksen street. Well, on the day to which I am referring Captain Wolfe visited the jail and condescended to hear me. That was his manner of answering the numerous petitions I had addressed to the military authorities during the previous months. Periodically I would undertake against the authorities what may be called an “offensive” for liberty. On this occasion I submitted to Captain Wolfe the fact that I had been arrested in a neutral country–that is to say, Belgium. I said that no foreign subject could lawfully be made a prisoner there, at least not until the military authorities had given all foreign subjects a fair opportunity to leave the territory.

“But Belgium is not, and was not, a neutral country,” Captain Wolfe protested.

“I do not understand you,” I said.

“Belgium,” he answered, “had become the ally of Britain and the enemy of Germany.”

“I still fail to understand you,” I said.

“Have you not read the documents which were taken from the archives at Brussels?” he asked. “These official documents constitute a solemn confirmation of my pretension that Belgium was allied with Britain.”

As a matter of fact, the Gazette de l’Allemagne du Nord (Die Nord Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung), a semi-official newspaper, did publish during the course of the winter of 1914-1915 a series of documents alleged to have been found in the archives of Brussels. No doubt these documents were likewise published in all the allied countries. They purported to contain the draft of a convention between a military or naval officer of Britain and the Belgian authorities concerning an eventual landing of British troops at Ostend. I had previously taken cognizance of these documents and incidentally of a commentary by a Belgian military expert to the following effect: “The landing of British troops in Belgium was only to take place after the violation of Belgian neutrality by Germany.” This correction removed from the documents all vestige of hostility against Germany.

After the publication of these documents comments from official sources were published in the press, and it was said, amongst other things, that the contents were known to the competent authorities in Germany before the declaration of war. I accordingly asked Captain Wolfe if this were true?

“It is,” he answered.

“Then how is it,” I further asked, “that the Imperial Chancellor, Von Bethmann-Hollweg, on August 4, made the following declaration before the Reichstag: ‘At the moment I am addressing you German troops have perhaps crossed the frontier and invaded Belgium’s territory. It must be acknowledged that this is a violation of the rights of the people and of international treaties. But Germany proposes and binds herself to repair all the damages caused to Belgium so soon as she shall have attained her military designs’?”

It is impossible to describe the officer’s embarrassment.

“Well,” he mumbled, in an effort to submit more or less of an explanation, “it was because Belgium also peremptorily refused to let us pass.”

The tone and manner of his “explanation” indicated plainly enough that Captain Wolfe was capitulating.

In the pan-German newspapers more particularly, this attitude of Von Bethmann-Hollweg before the Reichstag was much criticized. It was declared that such a statement constituted a sufficient reason for his immediate release from Chancellorship.