Denver labor bulletin., 1918-10-19

In palnpnleJ issued Dy lne united
States committee on public informa-
ton it is shown that charges of
wholesale brutality and ruthlessness
made against the German authorities
is supported by the German war code.
1t is the practice of every civilized
country to place in the hands of its
army and naval officers, and of mill
tary students, book known as the
manual of military instructions. This
manual defines what are the rights
and duties of their armed forces when
engaged in hostilities and dealings
with the enemy.
The pamphlet on the German war
manual is written by George Winfield
Scott, sometime professor of interna-
tional law and diplomacy, Columbia
University, and James Wilford Gar
ner, professor of political science, Uni
versity of Illinois.
"In 1902" it is stated, Germany
issued a manual entitled 'Kriegs-
brauch i'm Landkriege.' This was done
apparently in compliance with the in
junction of The Hague treaties in
1899 to which Germany, along with
most other countries of the world
had solemnly agreed. 1t would seem,
however, from the way in which most
of The Hague provisions are de-
nounced, ridiculed, and sneered at in
the manual, that the real reason for
issuing the revised instructions was
to counteract any influence which these
provisions might have been expected
to have upon German military Off
GERS thru Germany's having ratified
The Hague treaties.
At the very outset the Kriegs-
brauch repudiated one of the most
fundamental principles ever agreed
upon by states to govern their rela-
tions as enemies. This principle is
embodied in what is known as the
Declaration of st. Petersburg of 1868,
which declared that war is a contest
between armies rather than peoples,
and that the only legitimate object of
war is to weaken the military forces
of its enemy. Prussia agreed to this
international treaty. 1t was later in
corporated in The Hague treaties and
again agreed to by Germany.
Notwithstanding this, the Kriegs-
brauch declares that war is not to
be regarded as contest between
armed forces, but that its purpose is
to destroy the spiritual and material
power of the enemy country.
"The Kriegsbrauch next declares
that the laws and customs of war
(Kriegsmanier) must yield to the
law of military necessity (Kriegsrai-
SOM whenever the observance of the
law would prevent or hinder the at
tainment of the object of the war.
Therefore, declares Germany in its
war manual, it is permissible to de-
stroy private property, to devastate
Systematically evacuated regions, to
terrorize the civil population of in
vaded districts, to deport them for
compulsory service in the enemy coun-
try, thereby releasing it's own men
for the army, to compel them to aid
the enemy in the construction of for
tifications, to dig trenches, to serve
as guides, and even to furnish infor-
nation regarding their own army. 1t
is permissible to seize prominent CIV
ilians of the occupied district and place
them on railway trains in order to in
sure the trains against derailment by
the civil population or by the armed
forces of the enemy-this notwith-
standing the fact that every writer
outside Germany as the German gen.
eral staff readily admits, has declared
this measure to be contrary to the
law of nations and as unjustified to-
ward the inhabitants of the country
This expedient was resorted to by the
Germans in France in 1870-71, and
dllflO lncy lielHStNtS IeSdIuCu IL do
harsh and cruel says the Kriegs-
brauch, it was a justifable measure
because it was effective.
1.-The Kriegsbrauch cynically states
that, however much it may ruffie
human feelings to compel a man to
do harm to his country, and indi-
rectly fight his own troops, neverthe-
less no army operating in an enemy's
country will altogether renounce this
expedient.'
what is this so-called law of ne
cessity which overrides the laws of
war when it conflicts with them, and
in whom rests the power and discre-
tion to apply it? The rules of war
are always restrictive. They forbid
the use of poison and treachery as a
means of defeating the enemy. They
are never permissive except in the
sense that they lay down no positive
prohibition to the doing of particu-
lar thing.
Germany is the only country whose
great military leaders and writers on
international law have erected into
a general principle the exceptional
rule that military necessity justifies
the abrogation of war law. Their