The Dominion WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 1918. ATROCITIES AND REPRISALS

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 226, 12 June 1918, Page 4

The Dominion WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 1918. ATROCITIES AND REPRISALS

Many people besides the former American Ambassador at Berlin will bs glad that the United States has, as ho puts it, "dared tho Germans to make reprisals on American prisoners." And for the sake of Allied subjects who arc unfortunate enough to bs military or civilian prisoners in the enemy s hands it is to be hoped that the- Entente Powers are prepared as a group to endorse and adopt the American attitude in this matter. In the statement; quoted, Me. GekAUD is referring to the German threat i'hat unless America releases the ipy von EiNTELEN reprisals will be taken against Americans and to I the reply of the United States Government that: "Reprisals will inevitably invite similar action upon great numbers of German subjects in tho United States." The coinmerit of the ex-Ambassador is all tho more worth noting since he has an intimate knowledge of the German psychology and temperament. It may be assumed that he approves k policy of reprisals or counter-re-prisals not merely from the point of view of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but because he believes such a policy will be effective, and will set limits in some directions at least to German frightfulness. The practical importance of this question, has been made only too apparent in recent days. Conditions governing the treatment and .exchange of prisoners of war are now being reviewed by Allied and enemy delegates assembled in conference at The Hague. In consenting to the conference the Allies were actuated chiefly by the hope of relieving the victims o£ German brutality in the prison camps or of ■ reaching an agreement which would result in some mitigation of their pitiable fate. A broad programme has been opened for discussion, but it would be optimistic to believe .that any lasting good will result. It is impossible to set any store by undertakings or agreements where Germany is concerned, whether they relate to the treatment of war prisoners or anything else. The military autocrats who rule and dominate Germany long ago made it plain that their word is worthless, and that they regard negotiations and agreements simply as a means of obtaining advantages and concessions. At the very moment when tho conference is sitting at The Hague additions arc being made to the' already overwhelming body of evidence which brands Germany as a nation infamous and forsworn. While German delegates at The Hague are professedly empqweredto conclude an agreement providing for tho humane treatment of prisoners of war, it is reported that only the other day the Germans compelled French prisoners to drag minethrowers practically into the vortex of the Aisne battle. This was a violation not only of the ordinary laws of war, but of an express undertaking lately given to France that prisoners would not be employed within-twenty miles of tho i battlcfront. No fresh evidence 'is needed, however, to convict Germany of inhuman savagery and of an utter disregard of honourable agreements. From first to last the story of heV treatment of prisoners, like that of her general conduct of the war, is one of abominable crimes coupled with tho vilest and most cynical perjury of which a nation through its rulers has ever been guilty. The fact the Allies are called upon to resolutely face at this stago is that an intensified policy of frightfulnees evidently has a place in the desperate bid Germany is now making for victory. Not only has evidence been afforded of late that she is still treating prisoners of war in a fashion appropriate to the standards set at Wittenberg, but it is manifest that she is intent upon making the most in all ways of tho frightfulness which she has always regarded as one of her sharpest weapons. The most glaring example of the fact appears in the air attacks lately made upon military hospitals behind the Allied lines in France. Those attacks, which, according to an official statement transmitted to-day, have inflicted 941 casualties in British hospitals, supply definite evidence that whero her military deficiencies arc most apparent Germany is most inclined to go to extremes in frightfulncßS. They supply evidence «Ipo- that she is prepared to go to any lengths of infamy in the hope of terrorising and intimidating the Allies. Both the motives hero operating arc likely to be intensified as time goes on. It may bo taken for granted that tho only way to prevent Germany resorting to new and unheard-of atrocities as her military fortunes decline is to give her tho clearest possible proof that such a policy does not pay. Common sense and fcho experience of the war alike de- (

I clare that this end is to be gained in no other way than by exhausting the possibilities of effective retaliation and reprisals. Hitherto the Allies have ?/,\optcd reprisals within such najrowly restricted limits as have, subjected them to a serious handicap. It is evident that in the ■ conditions which have been reached and those which promise to arise this handicap will be increased unless tho scope of retaliatory action is materially broadened. The whole question is beecfc with difficulties, because no matter what provocation they receive the Allies cannot in all cases reply in kind to Germany's criminal acts. But it is inconsistent with military efficiency that they should tolerate new development's in German frightf ulness where counter-measures are practicable, and this should be the keynote of their policy. Where reprisals have been boldly taken they have, undoubtedly been effective. This applies with particular force to aerial operations. The wholesale bombardment of German manufacturing towns in the Rhine Valley has not, it is true, prevented tho Germans from bombarding military hospitals, but it has drawn , wailing protests .against the bombardment of open towns from the population which used to exult in the news that so many women and infants had been murdered in Zeppelin ;uid aeroplane raids on London. The attacks on hospital* suggest that the enemy hopes to develop methods of fright-fulness in which the Allies will leave him a aonopoly, and that very fact makes it necessary that they should adopt free standards in devising measures of reprisal. America has undoubtedly struck the right note in issuing a plain in ligation that a reply in kind wilj be made to any ill-treatment of American prisoners. As matters stand the principle involved is capable of enormous extension to tho end of securinc tho better treatment of prisoners in -Germany's hands. _ The first essential, apart from, ordinary military effort, to the defeat of German fnghtfulness is that direct measures of reprisal should bo developed with all possible vigour, and with tho freedom which is only possible- in dealing with a nation -which has departed as far as Germany has from the moral code. But there arc also other measures i which, though not direct, arc capable of potently influencing German policy. One such measure is the prop6sal lately revived by some British newspapers that failing other means of inducing Germany to abandon her brutal ill-treatment of prisoners tho Allies should hold the Kaiser and military, naval, and political notables in Germany personally responsible in the matter, and should' announce their decision to this effect. The possibilities of after-war' commercial and maritime boycott also deserve to be carefully considered. But tho immediate and urgent necessity is that it should be made fully plain to Germany that her- present violations of tho laws of war and of civilised usage and any others of which she may bo guilty will draw in every case the strongest counter-measures of which the Allies are capable. Indications that Allied policy is taking this direction are on all grounds to be welcomed.