BOMB OUTRAGE REPORTS

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 4347, 11 January 1938, Page 6

BOMB OUTRAGE REPORTS

“MUST BE TREATED WITH RESERVE” VALUE OF RULES OF WAR “I think one has to treat all stories of bombing outrages with a certain amount of reserve,” was the comment of Mr Lewis de Gielgud, under-secre-tary-general of the League of Red Cross Societies, Paris, when questioned at Christchurch about the attack on civilians in Canton and other outrages against Red Cross hospitals and units during the recent war in Abyssinia. Mr de Gielgud, is visiting New Zealand at the invitation of the Dominion president of the Red Cross Society. He personally was inclined to doubt how far rules of war by which, for instance, some methods were sanctioned and others forbidden, would ever be satisfactory. There were no limits to how a war would be fought, and it was largely a matter of sentiment when outcries arose against methods which seemed actrocious. Where there was suffering there would, of course, be sentiment, and as far as this sentiment was an outcry against suffering it was healthy. One of the great points in favor of the Red Cross organisation was that it did not stop to consider how wounds were inflicted, but concentrated directly on the suffering caused. The case of Abyssinia was an admirable illustration of how feeling inspired the sending of Red Cross units —a quite genuine desire to provide medical aid for people in need of it. Suggesting the need for more clear thinking before accepting bombing outrages, as being deliberate, Mr de Gielgud said that when bombers were at a height of several thousands of feet the chances were 10 to 1 that what they hit was not what they aimed at, Added to this, it had been shown that a Red Cross sign of 30 feet by 6 feet marking could not be detected from an aeroplane at 3000 feet, and this would have to be remembered in any allusion to bombing of Red Cross units.

The distinction had to be made, too, between an attack on civilians and an attack on soldiers. If soldiers were making use of a town, then while the bombing of that town with the civilians in it might be a breach of the Geneva Convention. There was nothing in the Geneva Convention to say that civilians were not to be bombed. The convention protected wounded soldiers and those looking after them. Referring to another misunderstanding about Red Cross units, Mr de Gielgud said; “There is a definite provision in the Convention that the Red Cross units may have armed guards, and that the arm,ed guards may return fire in defence of the units.” The guard and men of the unit itself were entitled to return fire if attacked, he added. “There are bound to be accidental violations of the Convention,” he said; “but deliberate violations have been creditably few.”