CHILDREN IN BATTLE ZONES
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—The debate in the House of Lords on July 8th, on the subject of the Basque refugee children, raises a question which does not seem to have been sufficiently considered. Lord Newton disapproved in principle of the removal of the children from beleaguered Bilbao. He asked what we would have said if a neutral State had taken charge of thousands of German children, and non-effectives generally, during the Great War. The question has been repeated in the Press and elsewhere. It can be narrowed down to children and those of either sex who, from age or infirmity, are useless for any military purpose. Able-bodied persons are in a different category, and their removal from any recognised theatre of war is quite another matter.
The Duke of Atholl speaks, I think, for the majority of his countrymen—on both sides of the Tweed—in a letter declaring that " deliberate massacre of children, both in and away from the immediate area of hostilities, is something new among civilised nations, and as a British soldier I feel that . . . (their removal) . . . was, in the circumstances, completely justified." Though the responsibility for the air-raids on Bilbao may be obscure, and one is loth to believe that the slaughter of children was deliberate, yet their rescue from the horrors of the siege was not only justifiable but a duty. To stand aloof is to share a moral responsibility with the Spaniards. Unlike some of his champions in this country, General Franco himself does not seem* to have protested.
But this is not an answer to the hypothetical question—what would we have had to say to such " intervention " in the Great War ? I hope and believe that Great Britain would have raised no objection to, and indeed have welcomed, similar action in similar circumstances by a neutral Power, under proper safeguards. I go further, and suggest that the League of N?lions would be doing a humane and practical work, if it could bring all nations to agree that such action in future wars will not be opposed by the belligerents.
If we abandon every dictate of chivalry, the world will soon (and indeed it seems to be coming to this pass) lose all sense of honour in war, as in international relations, until Cawnpore itself comes to be regarded as a regrettable but justifiable affair, and the poisoning of wells as a normal act of war. Let us rather remember the countless examples of chivalry and humanity in past—and even present—wars. The case of tribal warfare on the Indian frontier may not be exactly parallel, but we ourselves give warning of aerial bombard- ments, to allow villages to be evacuated.
Without entering into other aspects of this complex question, I would submit that the doctrine of unlimited " frightfulness " in war is a foreign importation, and the logician's specious argument, that callousness is ultimately " the best form of humanity " (with acknowledgements to Lord Newton), is alien to British sentiment. Logic or no, chivalry and humanity are not dead, and I believe that other nations would follow a British lead in that direction. For what is a man profited, if . . .—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
C. B. THACKERAY (Colonel).
Previous page
