GERMANY" AND THE RULES OF WAR

Evening Star, Issue 15607, 25 September 1914, Page 10

GERMANY" AND THE RULES OF WAR

Since her invasion of Belgium began Germany has destroyed a large number of unarmed Belgian towns and villages, summarily executed many Belgian private citizens, and confiscated a great deal of private property. In addition, she has made war levies all over Belgium, exacting £2,400,000 from Liege, £8,000,000 from Brussels, £60,000 from Charleroi, and £BO,OOO from Tournai. She has partially lazed the city of Malines and expelled 60,000 peaceful citizens from their homes. She has burned Louvain to the ground. And she has dropped ■bombs on the city of Antwerp from an airship, causing immense destruction and considerable loss of life. The Ministers of Britain, Belgium, France, and Bussia have protested to the world that by these various acts Germany has violated the international laws of warfare. Germany contends, on the contrary, that she has strictly observed the laws of war. The issue is worth examining, if only to determine the exact nature of Germany's guilt. First, as to the execution and shooting of peasants and non-combatant citizens, and the destruction of unfortified towns and villages. The law on this head is governed t>y Article I. of the 1907 Hague onvention —an article of war which Germany helped to formulate and to which she subscribed. The article lays it down as an axiom that the peaceful inhabitants of an invaded country must not be treated as " enemies" by the invading army unless they rise up against the invader. In that case they can only acquire " belligerent" rights by putting themselves under a responsible command, by carrying arms openly, by wearing a fixed distinctive emblem or uniform, and by conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

T\he precise meaning of the article is that an invading army has a legal right to destroy the inhabitants cf the invaded country if they should oppose its march in any manner other than as organised and responsibly commanded soldiery. In other words, a non-combatant population can only secure its life and possessions under tho la/ws of war by remaining absolutely passive. The_ historic example- of the fate legally attending resistance by unorganised populations is "the affair of Bazeilles." This little French town (it lies soutJh of Sedan on the road to Montmidy) was on September 1, 1870, punished by the Germans because some of its citizens took an active part against the invaders. The town, according to Sir Harry Hozier and General Phil Sheridan, was made " fuel of fire" ; pra.cti.oaUy enrtire population •was massacred and their bodies cast into the flames. The 'Daily News' war correspondent related that he saw innumerable "charred corpses of women and tender little ones—a sight I dream of and wake in a cold sweat of horror." Yet all the authorities agree that Germany merely executed sentence "in virtuo o£ the law of war." Doubtless Germany will excuse her recent massacres in Belgium by asserting that the Belgian citizens she slaughtered (and whose towns and property she destroyed) had committed acts of aggression against her—i.e., that although an " unorganised population" they resisted the invading army. The excuse would be valid if Belgium were a part of France ; but Belgium is a neutral c oun.irst. and Gerjpftfty ii one of the Powers

bound by a solemn tTeaty to guarantee her neutrality. Let us see if this juiects the situation.

Article X. of the Hague special " Neutrality Convention," 1807, reads aa follows .-—"The fact of a neutral Power resisting, even by force, attempts to violate its neutrality, cannot be regarded as a hostile act." Germany is a signatory to the said article. Her signature precludes her absolutely from claiming any " war rights" while invading Belgiumj and it gives the people of Belgium complete authority to disregard the laws of war wHle resisting Germany. According to all the modern jurists (even the jurists of Germany) a neutral Power invaded by a belligerent army cannot commit a "hostile act" against the invader, and is legally entitled to treat the invader "as aW dit"—and, therefore, "to employ against the invading belligerent all measures, and to perform all acts, calculated to restore to mviolableness of its territory.

It follows, then, that had the non-com-batant population of Belgium actually risen en maese against the Germans, and attacked the invaders with scythes and pitchforks and with poison. German* would not have thereby acquired the shadow of a legal right to inflict reprisals. Bv the laws of war, as determined by The Hague Convention of 1907, Germany stands in the same relation with Belgium as a gang of burglars exploiting the domicile of a respectable housefather. Every Belgian soldier slain in batrtle by Germany is a foully murdered man : and every Belgian citizen killed for the alleged offence of "resisting as a non-combatant"' is in like case.

Under Article XXIII. "it is expTessly forbidden to destroy or seize the enemy's, property unless suclr destruction or eeizui-e b<? imperatively demanded by the necessities of the war." The Germans have wantonly destroyed several Belgian towns in callous defiance of this provision—-Louyain, to give one example The article impliedly admits the crcstomarv war right of nn invading army to make a ge<nexal levy by taxation or requisition on any district occupied ; and this right is invariably exercised in war. But Germany cannot plead the article in defence- of her levies. on. Liege, Brussels, Tournai. and Charleroi, for it is impossible for a belligerent invader to acquire any war rights against a neutral country -unlawfully attacked. At the last Hague Convention Germany refused to sign the article prohibiting the discharge of explosives from balloons or airships. But while this fact might validate an aerial bombardment of Paris or London, it cannot• afford the slightest palliation of her brutal- and uttevly-' unprovoked' assault on Antwerp. Article" XXIII. furthermore provides : "A belligerent is forbidden to compel the nationals of a hostile party to take any paft in the operations of war directed against "their o-svn couenwy." tViis rule has been violated by 'Germany, {or a dozen times already her troops haw foroed inoffensive Belgian citizens -of both sexes to preoede> them into the- battle —using' the living bodies of the unfortunate victims as German shields against Belgian bullets.

One mast read tha history 'of ancient wars and of tribal fights between paleolithic savages and cannibals to find' a fitting parallel for the -atrocious conduct of the Teutonic armies: in their -preliminary efforts to thrust -"enlightenment" upon Europe.: Chaka, the Zulu, committed many horrible excesses in his campaigns, but the inhumanity and infamies of Kaiser Wilhelm 11. have made, Chaka look a very Bayard in comparison.—L.L.D., in Me! bourne " Ajsts.'