763.72116/42½
The Counselor for the Department of State
(Lansing)
to the Secretary of State
Washington,
August 28, 1914.
Dear Mr. Secretary: In view of the bombardment
by a German military balloon of the city of Antwerp during the night of
August 24th–25th, it becomes necessary for us to consider:
- (1)
- Whether or not this Government should formally protest against
the act, which appears to have been in violation of certain
provisions of The Hague Convention of 1907, No. 4;1
and
- (2)
- Whether, if it is decided to protest, the ground of the
protest should be limited to the endangering of the lives of
American citizens in Antwerp or should be general in nature as
contrary to the laws of civilized warfare.
As to the policy of making a protest I am not convinced that it is
expedient though my inclination is to do so, as the act appears to have
been wanton and without military purpose, in fact an outrage against
humanity.
In case it is decided to protest, I annex for your consideration drafts
of protest based upon the two grounds mentioned. The one confined to
American interests would not form a precedent for future protests in
case the laws of war are violated unless the acts affected our own
citizens. In that it has a decided advantage.
The other draft based on the general ground of violation of the usages of
civilized warfare would undoubtedly accord with the almost universal
indignation expressed by the press of this country, which I believe in
this case represents general public opinion. However strong may be the
inclination to express abhorrence of such deeds, if we begin to make
protests general in nature as to violations of civilized and humane
methods of slaughter where are we going to stop? Already the
representatives of the belligerents have filed numerous charges of cruel
and uncivilized practices by the military and naval forces of their
enemies. If we act upon one on the
[Page 30]
ground of humanity, are we not in fairness bound to act upon
others?
It seems to me, therefore, for the sake of our future peace of mind a
limitation of a protest, if any is considered expedient, should be based
upon the solicitude we feel for our own people who are endangered by the
illegal acts of a belligerent, narrow as this policy may seem to be.
While, as I said, I am not convinced that any protest is expedient,
silence may be misconstrued by the nations at war and cause criticism at
home.
For your information I also annex a letter and memorandum2 which I have received from
Dr. James Brown Scott dealing briefly with the provisions of No. 4 of
The Hague Treaties.
Very sincerely yours,
[Enclosure 1]
Draft Protest on Account of American Citizens
The Government of the United States has been officially advised by
its diplomatic representative in Antwerp, Belgium, that a German
military dirigible balloon on the morning of August twenty-fifth
proceeded over that city under cover of darkness, and, without
having previously warned the local authorities, delivered several
bombs of high power, which exploding in the thickly populated
sections of the city killed and wounded a number of non-combatants,
men, women and children, and destroyed and damaged many buildings
regardless of their use.
This Government is directly concerned in the bombardment referred to
in that there were at the time in Antwerp hundreds of American
citizens, including diplomatic and consular officers of the United
States, and other neutral non-combatants whose lives were
endangered, and further because one of the buildings destroyed
belonged to an American citizen.
The bombardment in the opinion of this Government was in violation of
Article 26 of the Regulations annexed to No. 4 of The Hague
Conventions, 1907,3 concerning the laws and customs of war on land, in
that the officer in command of the attacking German force failed to
warn the local authorities of Antwerp of the intended bombardment,
which warning would have given opportunity for the American and
other neutral non-combatants to have removed from the city or sought
places of safety before the attack took place.
[Page 31]
This Government is unwilling to believe that this unnotified
bombardment under cover of night was authorized by the German
Government, one of the signatories to The Hague Convention No. 4,
because of the possibility of indiscriminate slaughter which might
result to non-combatants without regard to sex or nationality, and
because an attack of this character could in no way lessen the
defensive strength of the Belgian military forces in and about
Antwerp or contribute to the success of the German arms.
This Government, therefore, considering that the bombardment
jeopardized the lives of American officials and citizens and was
unwarranted by the laws of war or by military necessity, requests
the German Government to take the steps necessary to fix the
responsibility for this flagrant violation of Article 26 of the
Regulations referred to and to punish the offender, and this
Government further expects the German Government to declare that the
act was unauthorized by it and to give assurances that bombardments
of a similar nature will not be permitted by the German forces in
the field without full compliance with the Regulations, to which
reference has been made.
[Enclosure 2]
Draft Protest on General Grounds
The Government of the United States has been officially advised by
its diplomatic representatives in Antwerp, Belgium, that a German
military dirigible balloon on the morning of August twenty-fifth
proceeded over that city under cover of darkness, and, without
having previously warned the local authorities, delivered several
bombs of high power, which exploding in the thickly populated
sections of the city killed and wounded a number of non-combatants,
men, women and children, and destroyed and damaged many buildings
regardless of their use.
The Government of the United States, believing that the Imperial
German Government, as a signatory of No. 4 of The Hague Conventions
of 1907 concerning the laws and customs of war on land, intends to
abide strictly by the provisions of that Convention in the conduct
of military operations during the present war, directs its attention
to Article 26 and Article 27 of the Regulations annexed to the
Convention referred to, which, it appears from the report received,
were clearly violated by the officer in command of the German
attacking force. Since it is manifest that the destruction of the
buildings wrecked was unnecessary to the success of the military
operations of the German attacking force, there appears no
justification on the ground of military necessity for the sudden
attack, which caused the useless loss of the lives and property of
non-combatants without in
[Page 32]
any way lessening the military strength of the Belgian force
defending the city. It would seem, therefore, that there was no
valid excuse for the violation of the regulations referred to.
The Government of the United States, recognizing the fact that
Antwerp is a fortified city and, therefore, subject to bombardment,
insists that, if its information is correct and the fortifications
are a considerable distance from the city proper, such fact does not
permit the indiscriminate slaughter of non-combatants and
destruction of property without warning by the officer in command of
the attacking force, and, in no event, unless directed against the
troops or military stores of the enemy.
In view, therefore, of the plain terms of Articles 26 and 27 of the
Regulations the Government of the United States is constrained to
protest earnestly against the acts of the officer in command of the
German attacking force not only on the ground that they were in
violation of the Regulations mentioned but, furthermore, on the
ground that they were contrary to that solicitude and regard for the
lives and property of non-combatants, which every belligerent is
bound to have if it is inspired by those humane sentiments which
should animate modern nations in the conduct of a war. The nation,
which ignores or fails to respond to these sentiments invites the
just condemnation of the civilized world.
