Nobody, I think, can deny that the general softening of men’s manners has been followed by a more humane way of waging war.

Compare, if you will, the coarseness of the Thirty Years’ War with the battles of recent dates.

The introduction in our generation of universal service in the army has marked a long step in the direction of the desired aim, for it has brought also the educated classes into the army.  Some rough and violent elements have survived, it is true, but the army no longer consists of them exclusively.

The governments, moreover, have two means at hand to prevent the worst excesses.  A strong discipline, practiced and perfected in times of peace, and a commissariat equipped to provide for the troops in the field.

Without careful provision, discipline itself can be only moderately well enforced.  The soldier who suffers pain and hunger, fatigue and danger, cannot take merely en proportion avec les ressources du pays, but he must take whatever he needs.  You must not ask of him superhuman things.

The greatest blessing in war is its speedy termination, and to this end all means must be permitted which are not downright criminal.  I cannot at all give my approval to the Declaration de St. Petersbourg, that “the weakening of the hostile army” is the only justifiable procedure in war.  On the contrary, all resources of the hostile government must be attacked—­its finances, railways, provisions, and even its prestige.

The last war against France was waged in this way, and yet with greater moderation than any earlier war.  The campaign was decided after two months; and fierceness became characteristic of the fighting only when a revolutionary government continued the war through four more months, to the detriment of the country.

I am glad to acknowledge that your manual, with its clear and short sentences, does greater justice than former attempts to what is needed in war.  But even the acceptance of your regulations by the governments would not ensure their observance.  It has long been a universally accepted rule of warfare that no messenger of peace should be shot at.  But in the last campaign we frequently saw this done.

No paragraph learned by heart will convince the soldier that the unorganized natives who spontanement (that is, of their own free will) take up arms and threaten his life every moment of the day and night should be recognized as lawful opponents.

Certain requests of the manual, I fear, cannot be put in force.  The identification, for instance, of the dead after a big battle.  Others are subject to doubt, unless you insert "lorsque les circonstances le permettent, s’il se peut, si possible, s’il-y-a necessite," or the like.  This will give them that elasticity without which the bitter severity of actual warfare will break through all restrictions.