One general exception, however, must be taken to the comforting
conclusions which have been reached. Broadly speaking, warfare among
savages knows no rules and recognizes no limitations of action or
honor. Prisoners of war may be slaughtered at once or reserved for the
refinements of torture. No distinction of treatment is made between
warriors and noncombatants. The lives, the liberty, and the
possessions of the conquered social group are subjected to such
disposition as the caprice or self-interest of the conquerors may
dictate. Following in the path marked out by Grotius, slowly and
painfully yet none the less surely, civilized nations have humanized
warfare to a marked degree. The rules of civilized war distinguish
between soldiers and noncombatants. The rights of the latter, both of
person and of property, have been clearly established; even as between
contending armies numerous rules have been established, all based on
the general idea of regulating and refining war in ways calculated to
eliminate its most horrible and debasing manifestations. In this work
our own nation has played a leading part and the rules for the
guidance of the Union armies adopted by President Lincoln half a
century ago, still largely guide the conduct of nations in the waging
of war.
With one awful exception, however. Moved by what atavistic influence
we know not, in striking contrast to the trend of world development
during the last three hundred years, the German government and people
in the last half century have evolved the doctrine and subscribed to
the principles of _shrecklichkeit_. As briefly characterized by
Bismarck, this policy, or principle of conduct, aims to leave to the
enemy nothing except their eyes with which to weep. It lays the ax to
the very foundation of the structure of international law, slowly
reared through three hundred years of effort. For the rule of right
and justice it substitutes the jungle law of tooth and fang. Under its
malign influence the whole circuit of the earth is filled with spying
and treason, with fraud and strife. On the foul results of this
policy, as applied to the conduct of armies, it is superfluous to
dwell when addressing readers of the present generation. No sharper
commentary upon the sad reversion of modern Germany to the customs and
practices of savagery can be afforded than the fact that the rules
promulgated by Lincoln for the guidance of the Union armies were
drafted by Francis Lieber, one of the most notable men ever driven
from reactionary Prussia to seek refuge in the United States.
_Shrecklichkeit_, like revolutionary France in 1792, throws down the
gage of battle to the remainder of the civilized world. In 1792,
however, revolutionary France voiced the aspirations of the future
against the dead weight of the past. Today imperial Germany challenges
the civilization of the present and the hopes of the future in the
interest of resurgent savagery. The world is too small to contain two
such antagonistic sets of ideals and of conduct. Either Prussian
_shrecklichkeit_ or the American ideal of order based on reason and
justice must prevail.
May we acquit ourselves like men and carry the fight to the finish.