The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-02-07
SEES ACT OF WAR IN
RHEIMS SMELLING.
Moncurc Robinson Hears Tow
cr of Cathedral Was Used
for Observations.
"ATROCITIES" DEFINED
ny MoNCURE ROBINSON.

CHATEAU pE Ia BoccA, CANNES. Jan.
22.--Thcre has been great deal Of
vague and some rather unintelligent dis
cussion about the partial destruction OF
Rheims Cathedral, hut the consensus
among thoughtful people in Paris. both
French and Americans, seems to be
that the question Of whether the bonn
bardment was or was not military me-
cessity is a debatable one
have been to Rheims. but not a, the
time the cathedral was bombarded. The
facts as | understand them are these:
After their retreat from the Marine
the Germans came to stop in the Gar.
rieres" tquarries) on the heights above
Rheims, some ten or twelve kilometers
away. The French occupied Rheims.
attacking the enemy, and the latter bonn
barded the town. I have seen war cor
respondents who wore there at that time.
They say thd. the town was fun NJ
French solditls; that the space around
the cathedra' was crowded with art,l-
lery park q" there that In the towers
there We're men on observation and Civ
Ink signals, and that for two nights
there were seHrchli Shts In one Of the
towers. As one correspondent expressed
1t, If the French had not taken advan-
taEe Of the cathedral towers for milf
tary purposes they would have been
ID fools go
II has heen said that the Red Cross
flag was flown from the steeple, and that
II should have insured the cathedral
against attack but whether this is true.
and If true whether this nag could be
seen at the German lines, some i've Ia
ten kilOmeters distant, Is matter OF
doubt.
Furthermore, the cathedral, which was
being repaired, was almost entirely COW
cred by scanolding, and that set on
lire by German shells caused the
greater part OF the damage.
The point that should be made clear
is this: II one wishes TO convince in
teligent people that atrocities" have
been committed by the Germans, one
mus; not weaken ones argument By con-
founding atrocities" with acts conse-
Guent upon war and made necessary by
II. For instance. II We class both the
bomhardmeut of Rheims and the sack of
Louvaiu as atrocities We weaken a
once the value Of our argument, for the
sack of Louvain was one Il the greatest
atrocities ever perpetratel, while
Rheims was bombirded for reasons OF
war
In the case of Louvain there was no
hombardment. The inhabitants were
driven out OF the town. many of them
murdered in cold blood. or In the case
OF many young men and boys their
hands cut OF. and the houses We're
looted and afterward burned. There
was no resistance on the part Of the
Inhabitants The same facts exist as 10
Aerschot. Lierre and many other towns
In Belgium.
IT, for instance. the French were at
lacking Strasburg and observations we're
being made from the cathedral towers,
they would undoubtedly lombard the
cathedral, or. as another instance, when
Montmirail was bomharded the chateau,
"A historical e,iifice, MAS badly 'nju' eli by
bombs, which were deliberately directed
against H. No one would crlticise this
as il was a nece Ssity OF war. In this
case the bomb rdment was a. ne by the
French themselves during the occupation
OF the town by Germans
Finally IT Is an excess OF sentimental
ity to regard "acts of war as 'atroci-
ties" and is decidedly weakening 10
the case OF actual atrocities. Of which
there have been in Belgium, France and
nov in England enough to sustain the
Indignation OF the civilized world against
Germany for years to come.