Raemaekers’ terrible picture represents a scene of frequent occurrence
in Belgium during the earlier months of the war. The tragedy depicted
requires no comment; it is sufficiently explicit in the cynical smile
of the German soldier, the agony of the Belgian mother, and the heap of
corpses before her amongst which she is to find her son.
German military ethics have been the wonder and the detestation of
the whole world. But they have been practised and carried out by the
present army in accordance with principles laid down long ago by German
military writers, especially by Clausewitz. It was Clausewitz above
all who enunciated the axiom that in times of war every elementary
consideration of humanity must be postponed in pursuit of victory.
Prince Bismarck adopted the doctrines of Clausewitz and often blamed
the German soldiers for the leniency with which they at times treated
the French in the war of 1870. It was not enough, so Bismarck thought,
to slay the actual combatants. “It will come to this,” he said, “that
we will shoot down every male inhabitant.”
It is especially interesting to see what attitude the Teuton savages
assumed towards the efforts of those who were anxious to mitigate the
horrors of war. In a handbook published in 1902 by the German General
Staff, we observe the ruthless effrontery with which all the efforts
of the men who negotiated The Hague, Geneva and Brussels conventions
were swept away. It was laid down with absolute frankness that “German
military authorities do not recognise the validity of any international
conventions dealing with the laws of war.”
Thus the scenes which have so shocked us in the present campaign are
not inconsistent with, are, indeed, the logical outcome of, principles
long since accepted by Berlin. War must be carried to its extreme,
even against a peaceful population, because in this way the strongest
inducements will be brought to bear upon them to admit conquest and
therefore to accept the ultimate conclusion of peace. We know from
recent reports of the French Government and other authorities that the
murder of prisoners and wounded men has been of frequent occurrence,
and that not once but many times orders have been issued to give no
quarter. Hostages, also, have been terrorised. Taken in order to serve
as securities for the good conduct of the civil population, they have
not only been put in the forefront of danger but frequently killed in
order to execute the decrees of “Terrorism.”
What in point of fact is the German idea of waging war? Inasmuch as
the duty of a nation at war is to conquer, all measures, however
indefensible in time of peace, are justified. Moreover, if any
engagements have been entered into during the pre-war period, they
become cancelled when war has begun.
Is it not absolutely necessary that a nation which adopts, principles
like these should be so weakened in military strength as to render it
impotent for mischief for at least half a century?