CHAPTER IIPRIVATE PROPERTY IN WAROf Private Property and its immunities.Since, according to the law of nations and the law of war to-day, war makes enemies of States and not of private persons, it follows that every arbitrary devastation of the country and every destruction of private property, generally speaking every unnecessary (i.e., not required by the necessity of war) injury to alien property is contrary to the law of nations. Every inhabitant of the territory occupied is therefore to be protected alike in his person and in his property.In this sense spoke King William to the French at the beginning of the Campaign of 1870: “I wage war with the French soldiers and not with the French citizens. The latter will therefore continue to enjoy security for their person and their goods, so long as they do not by hostile undertakings against German troops deprive me of the right to afford them my protection.”The question stands in quite another position if the necessity of war demands the requisition of the stranger’s property, whether public or private. Inthis case of course every sequestration, every temporary or permanent deprivation, every use, every injury and all destruction are permitted.The following principles therefore result:1. Prohibited unconditionally are all aimless destructions, devastations, burnings, and ravages of the enemy’s country. The soldier who practises such things is punished as an offender according to the appropriate laws.932. Permissible on the other hand are all destructions and injuries dictated by military considerations; and, indeed,(a) All demolitions of houses and other buildings, bridges, railways, and telegraphic establishments, due to the necessity of military operations.(b) All injuries which are required through military movements in the country or for earthworks for attack or defense.Hence the double rule: No harm must be done, not even the very slightest, which is not dictated by military consideration; every kind of harm may be done, even the very utmost, which the conduct of war requires or which comes in the natural course of it.Whether the natural justification exists or not isa subject for decision in each individual case. The answer to this question lies entirely in the power of the Commanding Officer, from whose conscience our times can expect and demand as far-reaching humanity as the object of war permits.On similar principles must be answered the question as to the temporary use of property, dispositions as to houses and the like: no inhabitant of the occupied territory is to be disturbed in the use and free disposition of his property, on the other hand the necessity of war justifies the most far-reaching disturbance, restriction, and even imperiling of his property. In consequence there are permitted:1. Requisitions of houses and their furniture for the purpose of billeting troops.2. Use of houses and their furniture for the care of the sick and wounded.3. Use of buildings for observation, shelter, defense, fortification, and the like.Whether the property owners are subjects of the occupied territory or of a Foreign State is a matter of complete indifference; also the property of the Sovereign and his family is subject to no exception, although to-day it is usually treated with courtesy.Of German behavior.The conception of the inviolability of private property here depicted was shared by the Germans in 1870 and was observed. If on the French side statements to the contrary are even to-day given expression,they rest either on untruth or exaggeration. It certainly cannot be maintained that no illegitimate violations of private property by individuals ever occurred. But that kind of thing can never be entirely avoided even among the most highly cultivated nations, and the best disciplined armies. In every case the strictest respect for private property was enjoined94upon the soldiers by the German Military Authorities after crossing the frontier, and strong measures were taken in order to make this injunction effective; the property of the French was indeed, as might be shown in numerous cases, protected against the population itself, and was even in several cases saved at the risk of our own lives.95The gentle Hun and the looking-glass.In like manner arbitrary destructions and ravages of buildings and the like did not occur on the German side where they were not called forth by the behavior of the inhabitants themselves. They scarcely ever occurred except where the inhabitants had foolishly left their dwellings and the soldiers were excited by closed doors and want of food. “If the soldier finds the doors of his quarters shut, and the food intentionally concealed or buried, then necessity impels him to burst open the doors and to track the stores, and he then, in righteous anger, destroys a mirror, and with the broken furniture heats the stove.”96If minor injuries explain themselves in this fashion in the eyes of every reasonable and thinking man, so the result of a fundamental and unprejudiced examination has shown that the destructions and ravages on a greater scale, which were made a reproach against the German Army, have in no case overstepped the necessity prescribed by the military situation. Thus the much talked of and, on the French side, enormously exaggerated, burning down of twelve houses in Bazeilles, together with the shooting of an inhabitant, were completely justified and, indeed, in harmony with the laws of war; indeedone may maintain that the conduct of the inhabitants would have called for the complete destruction of the village and the condemnation of all the adult inhabitants by martial law.
CHAPTER IIPRIVATE PROPERTY IN WAR
Of Private Property and its immunities.
Since, according to the law of nations and the law of war to-day, war makes enemies of States and not of private persons, it follows that every arbitrary devastation of the country and every destruction of private property, generally speaking every unnecessary (i.e., not required by the necessity of war) injury to alien property is contrary to the law of nations. Every inhabitant of the territory occupied is therefore to be protected alike in his person and in his property.
In this sense spoke King William to the French at the beginning of the Campaign of 1870: “I wage war with the French soldiers and not with the French citizens. The latter will therefore continue to enjoy security for their person and their goods, so long as they do not by hostile undertakings against German troops deprive me of the right to afford them my protection.”
The question stands in quite another position if the necessity of war demands the requisition of the stranger’s property, whether public or private. Inthis case of course every sequestration, every temporary or permanent deprivation, every use, every injury and all destruction are permitted.
The following principles therefore result:
1. Prohibited unconditionally are all aimless destructions, devastations, burnings, and ravages of the enemy’s country. The soldier who practises such things is punished as an offender according to the appropriate laws.932. Permissible on the other hand are all destructions and injuries dictated by military considerations; and, indeed,(a) All demolitions of houses and other buildings, bridges, railways, and telegraphic establishments, due to the necessity of military operations.(b) All injuries which are required through military movements in the country or for earthworks for attack or defense.
1. Prohibited unconditionally are all aimless destructions, devastations, burnings, and ravages of the enemy’s country. The soldier who practises such things is punished as an offender according to the appropriate laws.93
2. Permissible on the other hand are all destructions and injuries dictated by military considerations; and, indeed,
(a) All demolitions of houses and other buildings, bridges, railways, and telegraphic establishments, due to the necessity of military operations.(b) All injuries which are required through military movements in the country or for earthworks for attack or defense.
(a) All demolitions of houses and other buildings, bridges, railways, and telegraphic establishments, due to the necessity of military operations.
(b) All injuries which are required through military movements in the country or for earthworks for attack or defense.
Hence the double rule: No harm must be done, not even the very slightest, which is not dictated by military consideration; every kind of harm may be done, even the very utmost, which the conduct of war requires or which comes in the natural course of it.
Whether the natural justification exists or not isa subject for decision in each individual case. The answer to this question lies entirely in the power of the Commanding Officer, from whose conscience our times can expect and demand as far-reaching humanity as the object of war permits.
On similar principles must be answered the question as to the temporary use of property, dispositions as to houses and the like: no inhabitant of the occupied territory is to be disturbed in the use and free disposition of his property, on the other hand the necessity of war justifies the most far-reaching disturbance, restriction, and even imperiling of his property. In consequence there are permitted:
1. Requisitions of houses and their furniture for the purpose of billeting troops.2. Use of houses and their furniture for the care of the sick and wounded.3. Use of buildings for observation, shelter, defense, fortification, and the like.
1. Requisitions of houses and their furniture for the purpose of billeting troops.
2. Use of houses and their furniture for the care of the sick and wounded.
3. Use of buildings for observation, shelter, defense, fortification, and the like.
Whether the property owners are subjects of the occupied territory or of a Foreign State is a matter of complete indifference; also the property of the Sovereign and his family is subject to no exception, although to-day it is usually treated with courtesy.
Of German behavior.
The conception of the inviolability of private property here depicted was shared by the Germans in 1870 and was observed. If on the French side statements to the contrary are even to-day given expression,they rest either on untruth or exaggeration. It certainly cannot be maintained that no illegitimate violations of private property by individuals ever occurred. But that kind of thing can never be entirely avoided even among the most highly cultivated nations, and the best disciplined armies. In every case the strictest respect for private property was enjoined94upon the soldiers by the German Military Authorities after crossing the frontier, and strong measures were taken in order to make this injunction effective; the property of the French was indeed, as might be shown in numerous cases, protected against the population itself, and was even in several cases saved at the risk of our own lives.95
The gentle Hun and the looking-glass.
In like manner arbitrary destructions and ravages of buildings and the like did not occur on the German side where they were not called forth by the behavior of the inhabitants themselves. They scarcely ever occurred except where the inhabitants had foolishly left their dwellings and the soldiers were excited by closed doors and want of food. “If the soldier finds the doors of his quarters shut, and the food intentionally concealed or buried, then necessity impels him to burst open the doors and to track the stores, and he then, in righteous anger, destroys a mirror, and with the broken furniture heats the stove.”96
If minor injuries explain themselves in this fashion in the eyes of every reasonable and thinking man, so the result of a fundamental and unprejudiced examination has shown that the destructions and ravages on a greater scale, which were made a reproach against the German Army, have in no case overstepped the necessity prescribed by the military situation. Thus the much talked of and, on the French side, enormously exaggerated, burning down of twelve houses in Bazeilles, together with the shooting of an inhabitant, were completely justified and, indeed, in harmony with the laws of war; indeedone may maintain that the conduct of the inhabitants would have called for the complete destruction of the village and the condemnation of all the adult inhabitants by martial law.