METHODS OF WARFARE.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XL, Issue 12541, 12 May 1915, Page 1

METHODS OF WARFARE.

To the Editor. - Sir,—lt is not .surprising that ire } hear suggestions of retaliatory measures against our inhuman German foes. We cannot feel astonishment that a crime such as the. sinking of the Lusitania, so awful in its results to the unoffending and- innocent, prompted as it surely was by such, a fiendishly malevolent cm:ltv a-s cared for nothing, accomplished nothing but the glutting of a thirst for vengeance upon a hated fee: we cannot, 1 say, fuel astonishment- that .such a crime as this, wh'ch has shocked humanity the world over, has/also provoked in some a desire for •retaliation. 1 ' Still. although not astonished at the desire, having even 41 fellow feeling with it,i.s there no further word to be said about this talk I of retaliation P I think There is. lleluliation! I say 110. It is the wrong word, the wrong method: but punishment. I yes. Punishment for the criminals, the murderers, when identified punishment swift and: dire even to extinction, for they are no mere (it to live than the amok-running Malay, or the _ mad dog: punishment, too, for the instigators of and the accessories to the crime. The civ.itised world must protect it'elf against murderers and their instigators, and deterrent- punishment is right and necessary. Retaliation, however, is a very d'fferent thing. It means a return of injuries >in kind., not for the sake of punishment cr defence, but for revenge. Retaliation of German outrages by u.s would: mean that we were to become "baby-killers.''-"women slayers," "murderers of noncombatants." Surely rather than be- I come this it were better to-peri'sli. Indeed. should we not have perished, all the better part of its, were we to become this?

It may lie'that I p.m. mi.-taken in , thinking that retaliation of the above description on- non-combatants ha* ever boon intentionally advocated, and that al/usions to retaliation who intended to refer only to the use in actual warfare of .similar weapons of offence and 1 defence (sneh as poisonous gases) between combatants. This suggestion, seems to UK to belong to a different category altogether, and. however deeplv the use of such, methods in the first instance is to be deprecated, I confess that 1 cannot mo any good l reason' why aetiud combatants' arc not entitled to be placed, as between themselves, upon an equal footing as to the weapons to be employed. If I am compelled to fisrht with a man who refuses to be bound by the ru'.ss of the -ring it would obviously place me at a serious disadvantage were I still under an obligation to observe those rules. It would be no fair fight. ; The combatant who first expressly bv impliedly declares his intention' of using, an unauthorised weapon, thereby authorises l its use again<-t himself. If the use of .-isphyxiating gases is to give our enemies; an" advantage over our soldiers, our; soldiers- are entitled to use them also.; and our enemies have authorised and, are responsible for their ix-e aiid all the conseriuences. —I am, etr\. HEBER NEWTON.