The Press. Thursday, January 30, 1919. Foul Fighting in Modern Warfare.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 16434, 30 January 1919, Page 6

The Press. Thursday, January 30, 1919. Foul Fighting in Modern Warfare.

In tho very natural desire to mitigate the horrors of future wars, if war cannot bo averted altogether various pro- ! posals are - being made which it is suggested tho Peace Conference should adopt. For example, the President of the Royal College of Physicians of London, the President of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, and half-a-dozen other heads of tho medical profession in the' United Kingdom, havo issued a manifesto urging that ono of +ho conditions of poace should bo the prohibition of the employment of lethal gases as a weapon of warfare. Tho use of gas, they very truly say, is selfcondemned for tho following reasons: — It is an uncontrollable weapon, whoso effects cannot bo limited to combatants. It is an "unclean" weapon, condemning its victims to death by long drawn-out torture. It opens tho door to infinite possibilities of causing suffering and death, for its further development may well lead to the devising'of an agent which will blot out towns, and even nations.

As members of the medical profession, the signatories to this manifesto know more than any others the sufferings en- | tailed by the use of gas, and we can well understand how anxious they must ho to prevent a repetition of s\ich horrors. But) how cau this offectivelv be done? The introduction by tho Germans of this foul method of fighting was, as they well knew, a violation of tho principles of morality which had previously exercised some guiding control ovor civilised warfare. It was further a violation,, in spirit of the second Declaration attached to tho Regulations of tho Hague Convention ratified in 1907, which states: "It renounces " the uso of projectiles, tho solo object of which is th© diffusion of asphyxiat- •" ing or harmful gases." Yet Germany had no hesitation in springing this diabolical surprise on the Allies, believing that she could gain an important military advantago by its moans, and no neutral Stalo took upon itself to protest against this violation of tho laws of. civilised warfare. The Allies were theroforo driven, in self-defence, to > adopt *he same weapon.

Another means of warfare which it is iirgetj should be abolished is tho use of submarines, especially thoir employment against merchant vessels —another gross infraction, of laws, both human aud for which tho Germans have

earned for themselves undying infamy. Yet how is the prohibition to be practically enforced? Germany has been compelled to surrender hor submarines, and the Powers represented at the Peace Conference might to a selfdenying ordinance pledging themselves to destroy the .submarines alroady in their J ossosmoii, and not to build any more. But it would be comparatively easy for an unscrupulous nation to construct submarines, or parts of submarines. in secret with the view of bringing them once more into notion at the earliest possible moment, after the outbreak of war. In that case the prohibition would merely have had the effect of giving an advantage to the Powers prepared to break their pledges, and those who loyally observed the undertaking would be caught unawares, as were the Allies in the late war. Another suggestion is that aerial warla re should bo prohibited, but this is. if anything, even more difficult of enforcement than the other suggestions. Subrmi ines are not required for commercial purposes, and therefore their construction might be entirely prohibited, and the discovery of submarines in the possession of any Power which had agreed to their abolition would lje regarded as sufficient evidence of breach of faith. But it is evident that there is to be an enormous development of the use of aircraft for civil purposes; and there is only too much reason to fear that, in spite of " scraps of paper," these aircraft would be quickly diverted to war purposes if there was a prospect of their use making the difference between victory and defeat. The great drawback to all theso pioposals is that their adoption would bind the more scrupulous and humane nations, thus giving a very decided atvantage, at any rate at the outset, to any Power which determined to wago war in the German fashion, starting off as the German Emperor did with the declaration: "There is <; i,ijo longer any international law." So far as we can see there is only one way to discourage inhuman practices in warfare condemned by international law, and that is by meting out condign punishment to the individuals responsible for the outrages. That is why we desire to see the Kaiser brought to trial in company with those of his subordinates who were directly responsible for the sinking of the Lusitania, the torpedoing of hospital ships, the brutalities inflicted upon some of our prisoners, and so forth. The Peace Conference, we hope, will set up a tribunal to adjudicate upon the worst cases in the • present war, and it would thus establish a very salutary precedent to bo followed in future wars. We are doubtful, however, whether general prohibitions of any particular form of warfare will have the effect desired.