G arti couo dbocA ihe War K^ — ■■ J Div. of^Si^g-rapby Lib. of Coi»S4'ess (Not yet Catalog- u^dj CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR Karl H. von Wiegand's Interview with the Crown Prince What is German *' Culture" ? Has the U. S. Guaranteed Belgian Neutrality ? Chaos in the Rules of War The Contribution Levied Against Brussels 1915 THE FATHERLAND CORPORATION, inc. 1 1 23 Broadway, New York 1> f> eaking. of course, of Germanv's \-iolations of neutralitv only so far as thev relate to 22 CURRENT MISCO^XEPTIONS .\BOUT THE WAR obligations contracted at The Hague; not to other treaty ob- stacles to freedom of war action. About Bombs and Explosives In the same way, the treaty prohibition of the bombardment of undefended towns, of looting, of outrages on the non-combatant population, of the le\y of excessive penalties on captured cities, of the destruction of historic mommients, and so on, is contained in the various articles of Convention IV, ''Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land." The second article of that Con- vention is as follov/s : "The pro\isions contained in the Regulations [annexed to the Convention], as well as in the present Convention, do not apply except as between Contracting Powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention." This Convention was ratified by Germany, the United States, Austria, Great Britain, and Russia, but not by Fratice. So far as it was a binding contract its requirements were suspended when France entered the fight. What we have said of the fifth and fourth Conventions is equally true of these others in the series: I "VHI. Relating to the laying of automatic submarine contact mines. Ratified by Germany, Austria, and Russia, but not by Great Britain and France. "EK. Concerning bombardment by naval forces in time of war. Ratified by Germany, x\ustria. Great Britain, Russia, but not by France. "X. For the adaptation of the principles of the Geneva Convention to maritime warfare. Ratified by Germany, Austria, and Russia, but not by Great Britain and France. "XL Relating to the right of capture in naval war. Ratified by Germany, Austria, and Great Britain, but not by Russia and France. "XIII. Concerning the rights and duties of neutral Powers in case of maritime war. Ratified by Germany, Austria, and Russia, but not by Great Britain and France. ") I "XIV. Prohibiting the discharge of projectiles and explosives I from balloons. Ratified by Great Britain, but not by France, Russia, Germany, and Austria.^^ In each of these Conventions, covering as they do almost the entire range of questions of mooted propriety of conduct during CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 23 war, there is an article identical Vvith or similar to that which is printed above, nulHfying the entire Convention unless all the contestants are parties to the same. Thus the entire fabric of prohibition, restriction, regulation in the interest of humanity and more civiHzed methods of war- fare, is thrown into chaos, so far as the conventions of The Hague are concerned, by this pervasive article obliterating the contract obligations in all cases where any one of the belligerents happens not to be a contracting party. In the present war, therefore, the ambitious attempt at codification becomes a mere scrap of paper, legally invahd and void. And what becomes of the persistent idea that the United States Government, as a party to these several Conventions, is in duty bound to intervene by act or protest to enforce regulations which have been made inoperative by the provisions of the treaty itself ? NO RULES OF WAR Remarks on the Discovery that Practically All of The Hague Conventions Are Suspended by the Failure of Some of the Present Belligerents to Ratify {New York Sun, November 27, 1914) To THE Editor of The Sun — Sir: Permit me to thank you for the article on the "Chaos in the Rules of War." The Sun may Hve in a small building, but it has a big head for getting at the facts. The Sun surely shines for all. My first impression of the war was that Germany was responsible for starting it, and that she had acted the part of a desperate highway robber, violating every treaty and every law of civilized warfare. This impression was, of course, created by means of the news certified to us by way of London. Your article of to-day puts Germany in the right, in so far as the Conventions of The Hague of 1907 are concerned; and it is rather astonishing to find that while Germany ratified five out of the six articles named by you, Great Britain refused to ratify three of the six. If we assume that England was as well informed as you are regarding these articles, and it is inconceivable that Sir Edward / Grey was not, then what must we think of the attitude of Eng- '' land, trying to make the people of the United States believe that Germany violated Belgium's neutrality, and that she entered this war for the purpose of protecting Belgian neutrahty, which, by the way, she has not done, and which we are forced to believe she must have known she could not do? I feel sure many others will thank you for your splendid article of to-day, for I know the American people, of whom I am one, are desirous of giving a square deal to all the belligerents. George H. Gudebrod. Hartford, Conn., November 25, 1914. Perhaps Canon Douglas Does Not Quite Get the Point To THE Editor of The Sun — Sir: Inasmuch as in your editorial article of November 25 you have done me the honor of referring to a newspaper report of a recent address of mine, it is proper that I should correct an inaccuracy in that report. 24 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE' WAR 25 The reporter failed to catch the important preamble to the passage of my speech which he took down. My preamble was: // the articles of The Hague Convention are not a negligible scrap of paper, then each of the contracting parties has a serious responsibihty. Then followed my remarks, which in substance are correctly given. If I understand it, the conJ:ention of your editorial article is that, although some of the ablest jurists and diplomats of our generation endeavored to draft a document which would be of permanent service to the world in international warfare, never- theless they failed, at least so far as this war is concerned, to make it binding. I have seen many statements of the case pro and con., but none that I can remember puts your view of it as clearly as your editorial article does. I have not seen Judge Holt's article, to which you also refer, and from what you say of it I gather that he does not agree with you. But even if your contention is altogether correct, may we not hope that the efforts of the next Hague Conference will be more effective after the awful lessons which the world is learning now? George William Douglas, Member of the World's Alliance for the Promotion oj International Friendship. New York, November 25, 1914. The present suspension of nearly all the rules of war, so far as the Conventions of the second Conference at The Hague are concerned, is accomplished ^not by neglecting but by strictly regarding the. terms of that compact. In each case specified some one or more of the Powers now belligerent failed to ratify, and, therefore, as the Conventions provide, the rules become inoperative. For the United States Government to undertake to protest, as Canon Douglas urges, agajnst the non-observance of rules voided by the treaty itself, would be to protest against the treaty itself. Canon Douglas can hardly persist in maintain- ing that to refrain from so doing is a course that will "brand us as cowards." As for Judge Holt's view of our treaty obhgations, and as for the circumstance that it does not agree with The Sun's view, we are quite content to let the Judge take care of the dis- crepancy in his own way. But we certainly share Canon Doug- 26 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR las's hope that the efforts of the next Peace Conference may be more effective. The Extent of This Nation's Responsibility for Protest or Enforcement To THE Editor of The Sun — Sir: Permit me, as an old and appreciative reader of The Sun, a few remarks bearing upon the editorial article in The Sun of yesterday headed "Has the United States Guaranteed the Neutrality of Belgium?" It would appear from this article that Judge Holt is of the opinion that as one of the signatories to the treaty of The Hague forbidding the violation of neutral territory by belhgerents, America is for that reason bound to enter at least a formal pro- test against Germany's invasion of Belgium. Commenting on this view, you seem to take the ground that for the reservation under which the American delegates signed and the United States Senate ratified this as well as other Con- ventions of The Hague it would be incumbent on the United States Government not only to protest against the invasion but to join hands with other signatory Powers in their efforts to expel the invader from Belgian soil. You also declare that "If Judge Holt were right it would become our duty to make war on Germany for precisely the same reason which Great Britain has declared." As a matter of fact, the provision of The Hague Convention quoted by Judge Holt amounts to no more than the formal expression and adoption of a principle of international law re- garded as well estabhshed for a century or longer by American as well as other publicists. But it has never been held, so far as I know, that a violation of the principle imposes upon neutral nations accepting it the duty of also enforcing it. Neither does the provision of The Hague Convention under consideration do so; and had America subscribed to it without any reservation whatever it would not be obliged to take up the cudgels for Belgium. In its insistence, as disclosed by the White Paper, that Germany keep out of Belgium, Great Britain did not rely on the principle mentioned, but upon the contract she entered into in 183 1 with certain European Powers, including Prussia — the German Empire was then non-existent — guaranteeing the neu- trality of Belgium, a newly formed and weak State. Indeed, she could not consistently have invoked this rule or principle, since in passing through Portuguese territory she had disregarded it in order to get at the Boers; and perhaps she foresaw also that CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 27 her Asiatic ally might find it convenient if not necessary to violate the territory of China for the seizure of the district Germany held under lease from that country, a task Great Britain had imposed, or intended to impose, upon the said ally. It may not be amiss to point out here, though outside of this discussion, that Great Britain's declaration of war on Germany was not altogether motived by her desire to keep Belgian soil inviolate, for, as again shown by the White Paper, she declined to commit herself when asked by Germany whether she herself would remain neutral in the war on condition that Germany regarded Belgium's neutrality. It would seem then that if Judge Holt's view v/ere correct, even as Umited by The Sun, heavy responsibilities would be added to those Uncle Sam has already incurred by the main- tenance of the Monroe Doctrine. Any attempt to carry such a view into effect would be an attempt to beat down wickedness all over the world, a manifestly impossible undertaking. A Constant Reader of The Sun. Washington, D. C, November 25, 19 14. If the eminent and respected gentleman who here modestly presents himself as "Constant Reader" will look again at the editorial article which in one particular he criticises, he will find that the extent of responsibility on the part of the United States was only conditionally discussed by The Sun. We said, "// the United States, by solemn compact with the other Powers, had made itself responsible for the maintenance of Belgium's neu- trality, etc." The supposition is no longer worth discussing, excepi; academically. A§ our esteemed "Constant Reader" will have seen since he wrote his letter, all question as to the extent of this nation's duty of interference or protest, either with or without the Monroe Doctrine reservation, is removed by the broad fact that so far as the compact of The Hague is concerned there has been no breach of treaty faith by Germany. Conven- tion V, "Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in War on Land," expressly provides that its pro- hibitions shall not apply "except between Contracting Powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Conven- tion." It is a somewhat noteworthy fact that in this instance the prohibitions fall because England and France failed to ratify, although Germany, Austria, and Russia did ratify. 28 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR Nobody to Fight; Nobody to Protest Against To THE Editor of The Sun — Sir: After reading your lead- ing editorial article to-day, based on Judge Holt's remarks as to the attitude which the United States should take because of the violation by a belHgerent of the territory of a neutral, it has occurred to me that there is one considerable difficulty which neither you nor Judge Holt mentioned. Against whom should the United States protest or fight? Against Japan and England for their xdolation of the unques- tioned neutrality of China, or against England for her alleged violation of Switzerland by her airships and of neutral waters by her cruisers, or against Germany for her invasion of Belgium, or against all three? Would it not be rather difficult, as well as practically in- effective, for the United States to fight against nations actually engaged in fighting each other? If the idea should be to fight one side until it should be beaten and then turn and fight the other side, why should we commence with Germany rather than with England and Japan? Their disregard of China's neutrality was without the excuse of the beHef of necessity, and was directed against a country which has not even been accused of secretly intriguing with their enemies. The fact that the Belgians have suffered terribly, while the Chinese have not, may have been due to errors of judgment by the Belgians themselves, and in any event does not affect the moral issues or the rights and duties of the United States, Henry Bennett Leary. New York, November 24, 1914. As already stated, the general suspension of responsibihty to observe the rules of war embodied in the several Conventions adopted at The Hague, and rendered inoperative in the present conflict by the failure of one or the other of the present belliger- ents to ratify, makes it idle to discuss the extent to which this Government ought to go in another case where the compact was operative. Not Gennany's Fault That the Conventions Are Inoperative To THE Editor of The Sun — Sir: Will somebody please tell me why England, which is fighting for the protection of neutral Belgium, did not ratify The Hague Convention V, "the territory of neutral Powers is imdolable," etc., and wh}'' the German "Huns" did sign it? CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 29 Will you please tell me why England, which is fighting for civilization, humanity, etc., did not ratify The Hague Con- ventions VIII, IX, X, XI and XIII, and why the German barbarians did? Would it not have been human and civilized if England had then acted in these matters by deeds instead of hot air? Frederick Peters. New York, November 25, 1914. We take it that Mr. Peters will be satisfied to have his ques- tions printed, even if nobody attempts to answer them. It is only fair to say that of the eight principal conventions, to the present status of which The Sun has called attention, seven were ratified by Germany, and Hkewise by Austria. The eight con- ventions fail in the present war through the circumstance of non-ratification by France in all eight cases, by Great Britain in four cases, and by Russia in two cases. The one convention which Germany did not ratify is that relating to the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons. This failed of rati- fication by France and Russia, as well as by Germany and her ally Austria. We acknowledge the receipt of a number of other interesting communications on this highly important and decidedly en- lightening subject. These letters either closely parallel those' printed above or, on account of their length, must await the opportunity of space and special attention. THE CONTRIBUTION LEVIED AGAINST BRUSSELS {From " German ' Atrocities ' and International Law." By James G. McDonald, Assistant Professor of European History in Indiana University. Pub- lished by the Germanistic Society of Chicago.) Very important is the charge of illegally levying vast assess- ments against the city of Brussels and the pro\dnce of Brabant. The amounts, $40,000,000 and $90,000,000, respectively, are named, but practically nothing has been given as to the exact terms of assessment or collection. The second assessment has been denied. The first has been admitted, though the exact amount, it is said, has not yet been fixed. The international law of such "contributions" was defined in 1907 by The Hague Convention, regulating the "Laws and Customs of War on Land," as follows: Article 49. "If, besides the taxes referred to in the pre- ceding article, the occupant levies other money contributions in the occupied territory, this can only be for military pur- poses or the administration of such territory." Article 51. "No contribution shall be collected except under a written order and on the responsibility of the Com- mander in Chief. The levy shall only take place, as far as possible, in accordance with the rules in existence and the assessment in force for taxes. For every contribution a receipt shall be given to the payer." These articles seek to Umit the amount of "contributions" to what is needed within the territory actually occupied, either for mihtary necessities or for administrative purposes. Contribu- tions so hmited are undoubtedly legal. This war-right has been held "to be pecuharly unjust and wanting in that spirit of s\anpathetic concern for national feeHng, which informs the modern usages of war so largely." It is true that "it seems cruel" to allow the Germans occupying Belgium to make Belgians contribute to the support of that army which is holding them in subjection. It is true that "contributions" 30 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 31 are "a relic of the vested rights which an invader once possessed to money, goods, and labor of the people he had temporarily conquered." But is war itself not a rehc of barbarism? In reality, "contributions," if not extortionate, and if levied in lieu of requisitions (demands for supphes, e.g., horses, cattle, etc.), and to supplement or substitute for the regular taxes, may be the most humane method of supporting a conquering anny in an enemy country. A concrete case, cited by a German repre- sentative at the international conference at Brussels in 1874, will illustrate how "contributions" may be a valuable method of equalizing a heavy military burden: "An army arrives at a rich town, and demands a certain number of oxen for its subsistence. The town rephes that it has none. The army would be compelled in that case to apply to villages, which are frequently poor, where it would seize what it is in want of. This would be a flagrant injustice. The poor would pay for the rich. There is, therefore, no other expedient but to admit an equivalent in cash. This is likewise the mode which the inhabitants prefer. Moreover, it cannot be admitted that a town which is unable to pay in kind shall be exempted from paying in money." The last edition of the British Field Service Regulations echoes this same defense, when it authorizes commanders to raise ^^con- tributions in order to distribute the burden of levying the supplies more evenly over the whole population," for otherwise it is only the inhabitants immediately or near the line of march who feel it. "By levying contribution," this article continues, "in large towns, which are principal administrative centers or districts, and, by expending the sums so obtained in the purchase of sup- plies in outlying districts, the latter may be made to bear their share as well." "Contributions," then, are normally legal, as a measure of necessity to meet administrative or miHtary needs within an occupied territory. If levied as a supplement to or as a substitute for other and sometimes more onerous means of support these money assessments are perfectly legal. One authority on inter- national law has argued that these levies were illegal because, "according to The Hague rules^it is forbidden to penalize by pecuniary indemnity or personal punishment any general body of people for violation of the laws of war by a few. So that even if the Belgians had violated the rules of war, unless you can show 32 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR that the entire population of Brussels was, as a body, responsible, it is illegal to levy a heavy fine upon them." This is true. But the German military officers seem not to have levied a fine upon Brussels. Rather they seem to have imposed these levies, "in place of taxes j'^ and "in place of requisitions in kind." Hence their system of "contributions" may prove to be highly com- mendable. Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide Treatment Date; <»rp -nn Preservationlechnologies A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 111 Thomson Park Drive Cranberry Township. PA 16066 (724) 779-2111 > LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 012 794 871 9 / r'