LAWS OF WAR

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2417, 24 March 1915, Page 6

LAWS OF WAR

"FRIGHTFULNESS" IN THEORY OFFICIAL GERMAN VIEWS Under the title of "The German War Book," Professor J. H. Morgan has, together with a critical introduction, provided a literal translation of the handbook on Usages of Wa r on land, issued by the Great General Staff of the German Army. It is a work of considerable interest. On the one hand it shows to what extent and by what arguments the German Army is deliberately taught to set military interest above international regulation. On the other hand, it shows that even the German General Staff admits in theory the illegality of a great part of the methods now being practised by the German forces. Most instructive, perhaps of all, says the London "Times," are the general principles laid down in the German introduction, from which we take the following passages:— "A war conducted, with energy cannot be directed merely against the combatants of the enemy State and t-hn positions they occupy, but it will and must in like manner seek to destroy the total intellectual and material resources of the latter. Humanitarian claims, such as the protection of men and their goods can only be taken into consideration in so far •< the nature and object of the war permit." After an explanation that, while every intelligent State _ may have recourse to all means which enable it to attain the object of the war, a system of limitations of -his right has grown, up, it is stated: —

"The fact that .such limitations of the unrestricted and reckless application of all the available means for the conduct of war, and thereby the liuinanisation of the customary methods of pursuing war, really exist, and are actually observed by the armies of all civilised States, has, in the course of the 19th century often led to attempts to develop, to extend, and thus to make universally binding these pre-existing usages of war; to elevate them to the level of laws binding nations and armies, in other words to create a codex belli: a law of war.. All these attempts have hitherto, with some few exceptions to be mentioned later, completely failed. If, therefore, in the following work the expression the law of war' is used, it must be understood that by it is meant not a lex scripts introduced by international agreements, but only a reciprocity of mutual agreement: a limitation of arbitrary behaviour, which custom and conventionality, human friendliness, and a calculating- egotism have erected, but for the observance of which there exists no express sanction-, but only 'the fear of reprisals' decides."

Danger of Sentimentality. There are then some references to the "sentimentality and flabby emotion" of modern thought, and to the consequent "danger" to the officer who is "a child of his time." The danger can only be met by a thorough study pf war itself. By steeping himself in military history an officer will bo able to guard himself against excessive humanitarian notions, it will teach him that certain severities are indispensable to \var, -nay more, that the only true humanity very often lies in a ruthless application of them.

The book deals in turn with "Usages of War in regard to the Hostile Army," "Usages of War in Regard to Enemy Territory and its Inhabitants," and "Usages of War as regards Neutral States."' The last section contains much material refuting the arguments with which Germany tries to excite neutral opinion against Great Britain. We can, however, here tiuote only the German rules so faithfully followed by Belgium i— .

The territory of neutral States is available for none of the belligerents for the conduct of its military operations. The Government of the neutral State has, therefore, once war is declared, to prevent the subjects of both parties from marching through it. . . . If the frontiers of the neutral State march with those of the territory where the war is being waged, its _ Government must take care to occupy its own frontiers in sufficient strength to prevent any portions of tho belligerent armies stepping across it with tho objcct of marching through. Bombardment of Open Towns. The chapters on. the usages of war as between armies contain many statements of interest. The killing of prisoners by way of "reprisal" is admitted to be open to objection, but "it must not be overlooked that here also the necessity of tvar and the safety of the State are the first considerations." With regard to bombardments, it is declared that preliminary notification is unnecessary, that "every town and every village which is an obstacle to military progress" may be destroyed if occupied by the enemy, and that there is no military distinction betaween town and fortifications. It is added:—

A prohibition by international' law of tho bombardment of open towns and villages which are not occupied by the enemy or defended was put into words by The Hague Regulations, but appears superfluous, since modern artillery history knows of hardly any such case. A glaring instance of the method of arguing that everything is permissible that is not expressly forbidden ia tho following passage:—

Internationa) law is in no way opposed to the exploitation of the crimes of third parties ' (assassination, incendiarism, robbory, and the like) to the prejudice of the enemy. . . . The necessary aim of war gives the belligerent the right and imposes upon him, according to circumstances, the duty not to lot slip the important, it may be the decisive, advantages to be gained bv 6uch means. Punishment for Robbery. Even more instructive are the chapters on the usages of war in enemy territory. They contain such admirable statements as that "there can exist no right to the* appropriaion of propery"; that "the carrying off of money, watches, rings, trinkets, or other objects of value is to be regarded as criminal robbery and to bo punished accordingly" ; and that' "the conqueror is not justified in recouping himself for the cost of the war by inroads upon the property of private persons, even though the war was forced upon him." On the other hand, there arc many passages of a different quality. After an assertion that the inhabtiant6 of an enemy country may bp compelled to act as guides on unfamiliar ground, and that no army will altogether renounco this expedient, it is stated: —

but a still more severe measure is tho compulsion of the inhabitants to furnish information about their own army, its strategy, its resources, and its military secrets. The majority of writers of all nations are unanimous in their condemnation of this measure. Nevertheless, it cannot be entirely dispensed with: doubtless it will be applied with regret, but the argument of war will frequently make it necessary. The following justification is offered of the practice applied by the German Staff in 1870, when it compelled leading French citizens to accompany trains ill order to protect railways threatened by the people:— Since the lives of peaceable inhabitants were without Mi.v fault on their part thereby exposed to grave danger, every writer outride Germany has stigmatised this msasura as contrary In the law of nations and as unjustified to-

wards the inhabitants of the country. As against this unfavourable criticism it must be pointed out that this measure which \va6 also recognised on the German side as harsh and cruel was only resorted to after declarations and instructions of the occupying authorities had proved ineffective and that ui the particular circumstance it was the only method which prom'ised to be effective against the doubtless unauthorised, indeed the criminal, behaviour of a fanatical population. Herein lies its justification under tha lsws ol war, but still more in tho fact that it proved cobipletely successful.