ALLIES FORCED TO USE SIMILAR METHODS
Of the German attack on the allied front near Ypres, Secretary of War, Earl Kitchener, speaking in the House of Lords on May 18, said:
“In this attack the enemy employed vast quantities of poisonous gases, and our soldiers and our French allies were utterly unprepared for this diabolical method of attack, which undoubtedly had been long and carefully prepared.”
It was at this point that Earl Kitchener announced the determination of the Allies to resort to similar methods of warfare.
“The Germans,” said Earl Kitchener, “have persisted in the use of these asphyxiating gases whenever the wind favored or other opportunity occurred, and His Majesty’s government, no less than the French government, feel that our troops must be adequately protected by the employment of similar methods, so as to remove the enormous and unjustifiable disadvantage which must exist for them if we take no steps to meet on his own ground the enemy who is responsible for the introduction of this pernicious practice.”
CHAPTER XXXII
“USAGES OF WAR ON LAND”: THE OFFICIAL GERMAN MANUAL
[CRIMES IN BELGIUM EXPLAINED BY INSTRUCTIONS TO GERMAN OFFICERS]—[UNLIMITED DESTRUCTION THE END OF WAR]—[RULES OF CIVILIZED WARFARE CLEARLY STATED]—[OTHER EXCELLENT RULES.]
The black crime of Louvain, the world-lamented destruction of the cathedral of Rheims, the denudation of the fair land of Belgium, with all its horrible attendant crimes, is explained, in part at least, by “Usages of War on Land,” the official manual of instructions to military officers compiled by the general staff of the German army. It is an authoritative exposition of the rules of war as practiced by the Germans.
Two general principles bearing directly on the question of the invasion of Belgium are clearly stated in this guide:
“A war conducted with energy cannot be directed merely against the combatants of the enemy state and the positions they occupy, but it will and must in like manner seek to destroy the total intellectual and material resources of the latter. Humanitarian claims, such as the protection of men and their goods, can only be taken into consideration in so far as the nature and object of the war permit.
“The fact that such limitations of the unrestricted and reckless application of all the available means for the conduct of war, and thereby the humanization of the customary methods of pursuing war, really exist, and are actually observed by the armies of all civilized states, has in the course of the nineteenth century often led to attempts to develop, to extend, and thus to make universally binding these pre-existing usages of war; to elevate them to the level of laws binding nations and armies; in other words, to create a law of war. All these attempts have hitherto, with some few exceptions to be mentioned later, completely failed. If, therefore, in the following work the expression ‘the law of war’ is used, it must be understood that by it is meant not a written law introduced by the international agreements, but only a reciprocity of mutual agreement—a limitation of arbitrary behavior, which custom and conventionality, human friendliness and a calculating egotism have erected, but for the observance of which there exists no express sanction, but only ‘the fear of reprisals’ decides.”