The civilised world was invited to condemn the German reprisals of 1914 in Belgium. What verdict will it record with reference to British reprisals in Ireland six years later?
The analogies inevitably suggested between the two cases are not as clear as they might at first sight appear to be.
(1) The civilians who fired on the invaders in Belgium were irregular combatants wholly distinct from the recognised Belgian Army. They were in fact francs-tireurs and nothing else. The men who are fighting against the troops of the Crown in Ireland constitute the only hostile force we have to meet. They are certainly not francs-tireurs: the question is, are they rebels or, as they have consistently claimed to be, combatants in civil war? If the former, they are technically outlaws and cannot claim belligerent rights. But the Prime Minister has himself definitely stated that "civil war" is being waged in Ireland and this statement appears to be in strict accord with international law, which makes a clear distinction between "rebellion" and "civil war."[1] Rebellion is action undertaken by sporadic groups of individuals with little organisation and hopelessly inferior in numbers to the forces of the existing Government. The Irish Republican troops on the other hand are organised in Divisions, Brigades and Battalions, are controlled by responsible leaders, and greatly outnumber the military and armed police forces opposed to them. Their claim therefore to be combatants engaged in civil war and, as such, to be treated in accordance with the rights and usages of war, seems well grounded. Had this claim been admitted from the commencement, the hideous death-reprisals indulged in on both sides would probably never have occurred. Such acts as the ambushing of troops in lorries or on foot are of course perfectly legitimate methods of offence in ordinary warfare.
(2) As far as can be gathered from the White Book, the francs-tireurs who fired on Belgian troops were, even when caught flagrante delicto, usually accorded a drum-head court-martial or summary trial. But many instances have occurred in Ireland when unarmed men have been shot dead in or near their homes and sometimes in their beds, without even the semblance of a trial.
(3) Military reprisals in Belgium were, at any rate, regular in one respect: they were carried out under orders. According to the "Manual of Military Law," compiled for the use of our own Army, no reprisals are legitimate unless ordered by an officer. It is obvious that in very many cases Irish reprisals have been executed by the rank and file on their own responsibility, in total disregard of military discipline, but with complete immunity from punishment. Certain of these reprisals, e.g., the shooting down of men, women and children at Croke Park, far exceed in atrocity anything proved against the Germans in Belgium.
(4) Although houses were frequently destroyed by the Germans the pretext in every case was that from these houses civilians had fired upon the troops. No parallel, as far as I can see, exists for the amazing Order issued in Cork to the effect that houses with their furniture are to be burnt because the occupants "must have known of ambushes" in the neighbourhood and "ought to have informed the authorities." Nor again is any parallel found in the White Book to the reckless destruction in Cork of public and private buildings, including the Free Library, as a reprisal for an ambush outside the city, or for the burning of creameries, factories, farms and haystacks in a general campaign of vengeance. It seems clear that fresh precedents are here established which are certainly not covered by the rules of civilised warfare, and run counter to the ordinary laws of reason and humanity.
(5) The use of hostages has been adopted in Ireland, as in Belgium, for there is little discrimination in principle between shooting hostages and exposing them to death on military lorries from the fire of their compatriots.
Although the question of hostages is not covered by the Regulations of either Geneva or the Hague, the claim to inflict injury or death on innocent persons in order to bring pressure to bear on an enemy force is now generally condemned as a barbarous and obsolete usage of war, and as such is expressly discountenanced by our "Manual of Military Law" (page 306).
[1] Vide Sir T. Barclay, "Laws of War" (Encyc. Brit.).
Even rebels, when fighting for a political object, are, according to high authorities like Bluntschli and Fiore, entitled to belligerent rights, and must not be treated as a "crowd of criminals" (eine Masse von Verbrechern).