Grand Forks daily herald., 1914-09-03
WAR NEWS AND COMMENT.

tiers from readers discussing its hand
ling of the news of the European war
WiSh very few exceptions these letters
contain warm commentator of the
news service which the paper is giving
and of the editorial comment which
is made. Occasionally there is a note
Of criticism. This was true especially
during the early days of the war. when
a few readers whose sympathies are
strongly with the Germans complained
at the anti German coloring which was
given to the news dispatches. This,
as has been explained, was something
for which the paper was not in any
way responsible, as at that time the
channels of communication were en-
dispatches from Germany were unob-
tainable. Since then wireless commu-
nication with Germany has been es-
tabNshed, and the reader has his
choice Of dispatches Of German, Rus
sian, Austrian, British, French or Bel
gian origin or coloring. The reader
who wishes to be fair will note that
the British defeat at Mons and the
Russian defeat at Allenstein have been
recorded with the same promptness
and prominence as the sinking Of Ger
man ships in the North Sea and the
success of Russians in Galicia.
One reader objects to the quotation
Of an editorial from a Chicago paper
criticising the throwing of bombs in
Antwerp on the ground that the
French had, at the very beginning Of
the war. dropped bombs on tho Ger
man city of Nuremburg.
The quotation, with proper credit, Of
an article from another paper does not
necessarily imply approval of the sem
timents expressed. However, this
bomb-throwing episode may be dis
cussed from another standpoint. So
far as the judgment of the outside
world is concerned, the two incidents
do not rest on the same basis. That
bombs were dropped on Nuremburg is
asserted by Germans and denied by
French. We have no means Of know
ing which statement is correct. But,
SO far as has been noted. no French
authority has attempted to justify the
act, If 1t was committed. On the 9TH
Antwerp is not denied by anyone. nor
is the consequent killing Of women and
children denied. No less parsonage
than the German ambassador to the
United States has attempted to justify
the act on the ground that it was leg
itimate attack against fortified city,
when, as a matter of fact, no attack
had been begun or was in progress,
and no German force was within many
miles Q: Antwerp, and no matter what
devastation had been wrought by the
dirigible, the attack could not have
been supported OF followed up, nor
could it have contributed in the slight
est degree to the success Of any army
in the field. Through the utterance
Of its ambassador the German govern
ment is unfortunately committed to
the principle that it Is civilized war
fare. if a city happens to be defend
ed in any manner, by forts or troops.
for an airship to fly over the scores OF
hundreds of miles which may lie be-
tween its own armies and the city.
pass over the defenses, and drop ex-
plosives promiscuously and without
notice into the inhabited part Of the
city, and, If the fates so order, kill
women and children and destroy hos
pitfalls filled with wounded people. That
is the principle laid down. and from II
We dissent most emphatically, whether
the argument be advanced by German
French or English.