 |
vol. title: Miscellaneous Scraps from January 1st 1878 vol. period: 1875-1878 pages in vol.: 153 |
New York and the Eastern War
To the Editor of the World:
Sir: In last Monday's copy of your esteemed paper you consecrated an editorial to the Eastern war en miniature which has unexpectedly broken out "on the banks of the Hudson" between two rival benevolent societies. Both of them have the same object in view—to succor the sick and wounded soldiers—but the one intends devoting all its energies exclusively to the sufferers within the Russian lines, while the other, mingling on its banner the badges of both belligerent parties—the Cross and the Crescent (or rather, to be correct, the Crescent and the Cross)—extends its bounty indiscriminately to both belligerent armies. The course adopted by the latter society seems to you more in accordance with the true principles of Christian charity and humanity, while in the exclusiveness and partiality for the Russian cause affected by the Red Cross Society you perceive an unjustified manifestation in favor of Russia and a narrowness unworthy of the American nation.
Permit me to offer you a few observations about this controversy in which, as a Russian, professing a deep and sincere sympathy for the American nation, I am naturally extremely interested. I am not connected personally with either of the rival organizations; I am not even personally acquainted with any of the ladies and gentlemen who stand at the head of them. I may therefore be considered entirely impartial in the matter, and will state simply what I consider to be the truth, independently of any national or political considerations.
Our planet is well known to be "a vale of sorrow." The greater part of humanity are sufferers, and it is but natural for the benevolent soul to conceive the desire of alleviating, if possible, the sufferings of the whole human race. Such an undertaking being, however, impracticable, every benefactor has strictly to circumscribe his sphere of action, submitting the latter to certain rules and conditions which may insure its efficiency. Applying this general principle to the question of international succor to be tendered by neutral countries to sick and wounded soldiers of belligerent parties, it seems to me that the surest way of going to work is to abide, in the organization of international societies, by the rules and regulations of the Geneva convention of 1864. Only those countries which have not only adopted, but, during war, actually observe the fundamental principles of that convention; only those armies which even in the heat of battle do not forget that, as the Russian proverb expresses it, "The fallen man is no longer an enemy," are alone worthy of being considered as members of the great brotherhood of civilized nations, and of enjoying the privileges afforded by it.
Now, the chief regulation in which the whole spirit and purpose of the Geneva convention is condensed, reads as follows: “The sick and wounded fallen into the hands of the enemy shall be considered prisoners of war and treated with humanity. They shall receive the same care as is given by each belligerent party to its own sick and wounded.” The observance of this principle seems to me the conditio sine qua non of the whole international convention, for how can an army the soldiers of which are capable of ill-treating or murdering in cold blood helpless sufferers be entitled to the help and sympathy of civilized humanity? For an army capable of such outrages, the International Red Cross Convention thereby ceases to exist, and the aid and sympathy of the latter must be turned to a worthier object, if the whole design of humanizing modern warfare is not to be considered a mockery. If the privileges afforded by the convention shall be equally enjoyed by those who observe its rules, as well as by those who openly violate them, then evidently the Geneva convention loses all its value, and becomes a sentimental humbug.
Passing to the present war, the question arises: Have both belligerent parties fulfilled the conditions prescribed by the convention? I think that to that question but one answer is possible. Russia, the Russian army, has fulfilled its obligations in this respect. Hundreds of impartial eye-witnesses, the correspondents of all, even the most anti-Russian newspapers, have testified to the fact that Turkish wounded throng the Russian hospitals, where they are cared for with the same devotion and zeal as the Russians by the Russian physicians and Sisters of Charity; that thousands of Turkish prisoners are interned in the provinces of Russia, enjoying an almost entire freedom, and sustained at the cost of the Russian Government. These are undeniable facts, and even the Turkish Foreign Office, which throughout the summer has been so eloquent about the Russian atrocities, has not dared produce one single fact of a Turkish wounded soldier having been killed by the Russians! As regards these Ottoman jeremiads about Russian atrocities, they have been duly appreciated by the press of all countries, and have been ultimately pronounced to be what they always were—vile and ridiculous calumnies. What, on the other hand, has been the conduct of Turkey during the present war? It has, indeed, accepted the Geneva convention; but how did it fulfill its regulations? In answer to this question I simply recall to your memory facts and episodes published in your own paper throughout the summer. I will not enter here into the details of all these blood-curdling horrors. But can we doubt the testimonies of such witnesses as Archibald Forbes, Colonel Wellesley, Major von Liegnitz? Can we forget the ghastly picture drawn by the latter of that pile of maimed, lacerated human limbs which the Russians found on occupying the Shipka Pass? That pile has been photographed. It would be highly desirable to hang up a copy of that photograph in the parlors of all those who are so anxious to receive Turkey into the family of civilized communities! Upon the testimony of all the above-named men, whose honor and impartiality are beyond question, it appears that scarcely a battle has been fought between the two armies without the Turks deliberately murdering the Russian wounded who remained on the field! Not having succeeded in suppressing all these horrors committed by the wild beasts in human shape it has let loose into its army, Turkey has irretrievably lost all right to belong to <... continues on page 5-36 >
Editor's notes
- ↑ New York and the Eastern War by Shevitch, S. E., World, The