Let us now consider how they behaved in Belgium. The commander of the army besieging Antwerp three times bombarded Malines without any strategical excuse, for the town was absolutely empty of Belgian troops. He had informed the Belgian authorities that his troops would not fire upon monuments so long as these latter were not serving any military purpose (_N.R.C._ 13th September, 1914, evening edition). Better still, he published, in the German newspapers, a statement that he could not bombard Malines for fear of touching the Cathedral of Saint-Rombaut, but that the Belgians had not the same scruples. What truth was there in the last assertion? None, of course; if the Belgians dropped shells on the outskirts of the town it was while the German troops were there, a fact which our enemies themselves recognized. For the rest, it is easy to discover whether the damage done to the cathedral was the work of Germans or Belgians. The Belgians were to the north and west of the town; the Germans to the south and east. Now all the damage done to the cathedral is without exception on the south and east faces. The reader may draw his own conclusion. Here we have a reappearance of the usual German system, which consists in blaming others for their own misdeeds. At Dinant, too, they pretended that the collegiate church was destroyed not by them but by the French. _The Pretended Observation-post on Notre-Dame of Antwerp._ Of course they accused the Belgians of using their belfries as observation-posts. The accusation is false. We may cite Malines as an example (_N.R.C._, 25th November, evening edition), and Courcelles (_Die Wochenschau_, No. 46, 1914); but the most typical case is that of Antwerp. They reproduced in their illustrated journals (_Die Wochenschau_, No. 48, 1914; _Kriegs-Kurier_, No. 7) a photograph--or properly speaking, a drawing--published by an American newspaper (New York _Tribune_, 22nd October, 1914) representing a military observation-post on the tower of Notre-Dame. Even if we grant the picture a documentary value which it does not possess, it proves nothing, for according to the American journalist (_N.R.C._, 15th November, evening edition), the military post existed on the tower at a period when Antwerp was not besieged, nor even in danger of being so; the city had then to defend itself only against dirigibles, which on two occasions paid it nocturnal visits, with the accompaniment of bombs. It will be understood that the _Wochenschau_ does not inform us of this; it pretends that the soldiers were on the tower to observe the German troops and their heavy artillery during the siege. _German Observation-posts admitted by the Germans._