MILITARY DISCIPLINE AND PUNISHMENTS.
The Committee on Public Information acting under the authority of the United States Government have from time to time published and issued pamphlets giving some extremely valuable facts and explanations with regard to the Great War and dealing with its causes and results. Not the least valuable among these circulars is No. 113, issued March, 1918, and devoted to “German Militarism and its German Critics.” This handbook contains forty pages and is compiled from sources which the Government regards as sufficiently reliable to justify extensive circulation. It may be obtained by any one who will send request, and refer to it by title, from the Committee on Public Information, Washington, D. C.
From this document we quote a few instances of brutality which have been presented by credible witnesses:—
1. “A Polish recruit was maltreated so fearfully by an officer that he finally hanged himself. The officer induced the soldiers to certify that they had seen nothing.
2. “An officer struck a sick recruit repeatedly on the chest so that he screamed with pain and soon thereafter died in a hospital.
4. “Soldiers were struck in the face during instruction. ... Witness saw hundreds of times helmets pressed down and the bands which held them under the chin pulled so that the soldiers grew red in the face. Alsatians and Lorrainers particularly were maltreated and frequently called ‘French Skulls’ and worse. The officers warned the men against complaining, promising worse treatment if they dared to report these outrages.
5. “During the maneuvers no day passed without brutality.... Boxing of ears, blows, even with the sword and riding-whip, were daily occurrences.... Complaints were omitted for fear of the consequences.”
Enough. In the circular it is stated that at a certain military trial in Germany, held in 1914, 922 men from all parts of Germany had signified their willingness to give testimony and were ready to report some 30,000 separate instances of brutal treatment of soldiers.
Hence it seems apparent that the spirit of dominant militarism is arrogant, ferocious, brutal. It harks back to the time of medieval tortures. By the circulation of Tract No. 113, the Government of the United States has indicated its abhorrence and utter condemnation of such cruel and inhuman methods of enforcing discipline. Naturally we expected that our army officials would not for a moment countenance such arbitrary and tyrannical treatment of offenders.
When we take into consideration the inexperience of this nation with large armies, there is cause for congratulation that the instances of cruelty and unwarranted severity have been proportionately so few. And yet there have been some instances of pitiless malevolence inflicted upon a class of offenders who least deserve it. We are aware of the penalties for disobedience to orders which naturally belong to a military system. In accordance with the military code, disobedience is a heinous crime. So when the officials were confronted with refusal to obey orders, even though the offenders were of the highest character, the mind of the militarist could view the offense from only one angle. We are referring to the treatment accorded to some—not all—of the “conscientious objectors.” They constituted an exceedingly small proportion of the American Army which at the time the armistice was signed numbered 3,665,000. The number altogether of those conscripted whose religious convictions forbade them to use carnal weapons was about 3,900—less than one-ninth of one per cent. of the vast American Army.[3] Of these 1,300 accepted non-combatant service and 1,500 were allowed to be employed on farms or to aid France and Belgium in the work of reconstruction of their ruined homes and devastated lands. Our latest advices inform that 527 of these “conscientious objectors” have been court-martialed and sent to the Military Prison at Fort Leavenworth. A majority of these belong to religious bodies whose creeds are opposed to war. These men were not hunting for trouble. Conscription brought them from their peaceful homes and from their farms where they were so much needed to aid in increasing the food supply of the nation. They were living inoffensively and were brought into difficulties by no overt act. It is not our intention to uphold or combat their interpretation of “The Sermon on the Mount.” They were men who were regarded as useful, upright members of the communities where they resided. Some of them belonged to bodies whose members have been foremost in every philanthropic effort for the last two centuries. We may attach no special virtue to works of superogation, yet we venture to suggest that men and women who in times of peace have been foremost in honest industrial pursuits, who have been prominent in all movements to advance the best interests of the community, who have devoted their time and their means lavishly to social betterment, should in time of war be entitled to some consideration on account of their past services in the uplift of humanity. Between the ages of 21 and 31, less than one to every 36,000 were found who claimed immunity from military service on account of their creed, and as many of these accepted some form of non-combatant service, the number absolutely refusing to comply with any military command was less than one out of 60,000 conscripts. Would it not have been wiser to allow these men to continue their lawful avocations on the farm, in the shop, in the mills, than to support them in idleness, to detail a special force to guard them, and to ruin their health by harsh treatment?
The Hofers case is an authentic instance of an infliction of tortures by methods which acknowledge no obligation outside of military authority. Jacob Wipf and the three Hofer brothers were members of the Huttrian sect, a small body residing in California, “They believed, with an intense conviction, that their duty to their God utterly precluded any submission to military command.... It must be remembered that this was no degenerate whim, nor yet the stubbornness of criminals—it was the highest spiritual conviction of deeply religious men.” They refused to wear the uniform. A mere outline of the penalties will suffice. Thrown into the “Hole,” 30 feet below the base of the building at the level of the sea. Murky atmosphere. Stripped to underwear. Handcuffed to an iron bar so that their feet barely reached the floor. Remained strung up for 36 hours. No food; one glass of water. Repeatedly beaten with clubs. Then for five days exempted from “hanging up,” but confined without food, or sufficient clothing. The authorities were finally broken, not these God-fearing men. It seems like a tale from the “Book of Martyrs,” not an event in a civilized nation. They were released from the dungeon broken in health, afflicted with scurvy, and after suffering a lot of petty persecutions, were transferred to another prison in a colder climate. Here they were placed in “Solitary,” with diet of bread and water, strung up for nine hours a day, forced to sleep on the floor. The cold draughts had a natural effect. When it was learned that they were ill, they were removed to a hospital where two of them died in a few days from pneumonia. The surviving brother, though scarcely able to walk, was mercifully released to accompany the dead bodies of the two brothers to their homes. Military vengeance was satiated. It is incredible to believe that such methods in this enlightened age are used.
From the New York World, we note the following instances of treatment accorded to “objectors” at Camp Funston. Sleeping on bare floor. No food all day. Kicked repeatedly. Beaten with rifle butts, pricked with bayonets, dragged over filth, choked till they are breathless, placed under a cold shower at midnight, clothes and all, hung temporarily by the neck, some rendered insane for the time. It is hard to realize that such things could happen in America. Do we not speak of civilized warfare? Does war necessarily make fiends of men prematurely? It is a pleasure to report that the officers at Camp Funston responsible for these outrages were either dismissed or removed to a different field.
The larger proportion of those imprisoned at Fort Leavenworth belong to the peace-loving, inoffensive, industrious Mennonites. Take the case of the Amish Mennonites. Last summer 45 of these quiet people were sentenced to life imprisonment for refusing to obey the orders of their inferiors in many points of view except that of military rank. This sentence was commuted to an imprisonment of 25 years. Twenty-seven of the same sect were sentenced from 10 to 20 years each for a similar offence. Virtually in every one of these 72 cases, the crimes consisted in a refusal to don uniforms. Most of them have longer sentences than are usually dispensed for manslaughter.