defiance of international law. The reassertionnof unrestricted submarine warfarenin January, 1917, as well as the publicationnof the Zimmerman telegram, madenwar with the United States inevitable.nGottfried’ s errors about the Lusitania,nhowever, are almost insignificant whenncompared with his discussion of the Germannarmy’s conduct in Belgium. Contrarynto his assertion that Tuchman doesnnot “inquire” into the “circumstances”nsurrounding the Belgian gravestone inscriptionn”fusilleparlesAllemands, “shendevotes an entire chapter of The Guns ofnAugust to precisely that. The results ofnTuchman’s well-documented inquiryngive no comfort to Gottfried’s position.nAmong a great many other acts of savagery,nno less than 384 citizens of the Belgianntown of Tamines were executed bynfiring squad and were buried under theninscription quoted by Tuchman. Notneven the Germans claimed that these victimsnwere “snipers and guerrillas,” andnnothing in the German policy of terrorn(which included the taking of innocentnmen and women as “hostages” and thendestmction of homes and public buildings)nlimited reprisals to actual combatants.nFurthermore, Gottfried reasserts innparticularly savage form the ludicrousnGerman justifications for Schrecklichkeit.nHe claims that Tuchman “fails tonnote”:nthat the Belgians would not havenbeen forced to resist sic the Germansnin 1914 if they had willinglynallowed them to pass through theirncountry when war broke out betweennGermany and France.nContinuing his fantastic argument,nGottfried claims that:nby refusing this request when thenGermans were in desperate militarynstraits, the Belgians invited sw thenensuing retribution sic.nIn the first place, the Germans werenhardly in “desperate straits.” The Ger­n44inChronicles of Cttlturenman army was conducting an offensivenwhich ultimately would be halted onlynon the Marne. England was not even innthe war as yet, and the German view ofnthe Belgians was that they were “poornfools” who did not have sufficient sensento “get out of the way of the steamroller.”nFurthermore, even if the Germannmilitary position had been “desperate,”nthat fact could hardly have justified “retribution”nagainst the Belgians. Germanynwas in a state of war with France, and wasnattempting to sideswipe its enemy by illegallynutilizing the territory of a neutral.nWhatever sttategic sense the Schliefifennplan for assault through Belgium maynhave contained, it had no legal justification.nIt was the German invasion whichninvited “retribution,” and «o/thenBelgian resistance.nGottfried nejct attempts to justify Germannattocities by the weird assertion thatnAnglo-French “conversations” conductednfive years earlier included contemplationnof the occupation of Belgiumnin the event of war with Germany, andnby equating AlHed “intent” with Germann”action.” Neither side, he claims,nshowed “proper respect” for Belgiann”national independence.” Even assumingnthe truth of Gottfried’s assertions,nthe intent of the British and French hasnnothing whatever to do with German reprisalsnagainst the Belgians, who werenfiilly entided to tteat their own nationalnindependence with proper “respect.”nThey did so by gallantly opposing thenGerman juggernaut, and the Germansnresponded with a policy of deliberate andncalculated terror. That the execution ofnthis poUcy may not have been quite asnbestial as wartime propaganda suggestedndoes not excuse or mitigate it in thenslightest.nGottfried also states that German “behavior”ntoward Nurse Cavell was “ungallantnto say the least.” As a euphemism fornexecution, the phrase “ungallant behavior”nranks with “Einsatzgmppen” as annabuse of the language. In addition, if thenGermans had “reason to suspect” thatnCavell was a “spy,” it is sttange that theyndid not charge her with espionage;nnnCavell was in fact shot for nothing morenthan sheltering French, British and Belgiannmilitary personnel from German occupationnforces in Belgium. Gottfried’snpurported parallel with Mata Hari isntherefore completely irrelevant.nGottfried’s indictment of Tuchmannas a fanatic Teutonophobe is as false asnhis defense of the Kaiser’s armed forces.nIt is only necessary to read PracticingnHistory (particularly the approximatelynten sentences on pages 43-44 andn162-163 which contain the references tonwhich Gottfried objects), to laugh at thennotion that Tuchman hates Germansnwith “almost erotic intensity.”nFinally, it is ironic that while there arenvalid distinctions between the policies ofnthe German government in World War Inand the pathological frenzies of thennazis, Gottfried’s short article does morento blur them than a five-foot shelf ofnbooks by Tuchman. DnDr. Gottfried Replies:nHaving read Mr. Mason’s attack onnmy comments regarding Barbara Tuchman,nI take it as yet another expression ofnthe persistent Teutonophobia amongnmodern intellectuals. Mr. Mason, too, isnimplacable on the German question.nAldiough I luge historical understandingnfor America’s role in World War Inand never suggest that Germany compliednwith international law, Mr. Masonncalls me a defender of German “bmtality.”nHe links my views to those printed innnazi hate rags and leaves the reader tondraw the desired conclusion. Let Mr.nMason be assured that as the descendentnof an Austrian-Jewish refugee familyn(which proudly served the CentralnPowers during the Great War), I havennothing but loathing for Hitier’ s regime.nIndeed I will match my record with his asna consistent opponent of all totalitarianism,nnazi, communist, or Third World.nAs for the source of my views on the mat-nDr. Gottfried is a professor of history atnRockford College.n