opinion which provided one of the sharpest weapons employed against our chief enemy; but it must be admitted that the methods by which it was compiled were so lax and uncritical that the results sink far below the level ordinarily demanded by the serious historian. The definite and fundamental contention of both the Bryce and the Belgian Reports is that, with the possible exception of a very few and very doubtful cases, no civilian attacks were made on the German troops. This point is strongly and repeatedly emphasised. "The German Government" says the Bryce Report, page 31, "have sought to justify their severities on the ground of military necessity and have excused them as retaliation for cases in which civilians fired on German troops. There may have been such cases in which such firing occurred, but no proof has ever been given, or to our knowledge attempted to be given of such cases, nor of the stories of shocking outrages perpetrated by Belgian men and women on German soldiers." The Belgian Reply to the White Book (p. 7) is still more emphatic. "As a matter of fact the so-called Belgian _francs-tireurs_ were non-existent.... The theory of an armed resistance on the part of the Belgian civil population to the German troops is utterly opposed to the facts." The following statement of Monseigneur Haylen is quoted: "We declare in concert with the whole Belgian people that the story of Belgian _francs-tireurs_ is a myth, an invention and a calumny. We do not hesitate most solemnly to defy the German Government to prove the existence of a single group of _francs-tireurs_.... We have no knowledge even of an isolated case of civilians having fired on the troops.... In no single case was the supposed culprit named." Such is the position definitely taken up by the official Reports and adopted by an overwhelming majority of people in Great Britain and America, to go no further. Nevertheless I have always found it difficult to accord unquestioning acceptance to the popular belief. From an _a priori_ point of view it is difficult to believe that German troops, probably the most sternly disciplined and best educated soldiers in the world, should have deliberately gone out of their way to shoot innocent civilians in Belgium and destroy their property for no apparent reason at all. To embroil themselves wilfully with the civilian inhabitants at a time when every minute was precious in their scheme of a rapid advance against the Anglo-French forces was obviously the last thing the invaders would desire. The supposition that the Germans indulged in appalling and indiscriminate acts of terrorism against quite innocent people in order to secure the safety of their lines of communication is ridiculous on the face of it. In short, the current view of "Belgian atrocities," admirably as it served its purpose as valuable propaganda, contains within itself so many difficulties that no fair-minded historian of the future could accept it as it stands.