At the same time, when military observers have formed a distinct opinion
that buildings and persons under the recognizable protection of the Red
Cross were willfully fired upon, such opinions cannot be disregarded.
Between thirty and forty of the depositions submitted related to this
offense. This number does not in itself seem so great as to be
inconsistent with the possibility of accident.
In one case a Red Cross depot was shelled on most days throughout the
week. This is hardly reconcilable with the enemy's gunners having taken
any care to avoid it.
There are other cases of conspicuous hospitals being shelled, in the
witnesses' opinion, purposely.
In one of these the witness, a Sergeant Major, makes a suggestion which
appears plausible, namely, that the German gunners use any conspicuous
building as a mark to verify their ranges rather than for the purpose of
destruction. It would be quite according to the modern system of what
German writers call _Kriegsraeson_ to hold that the convenience of
range-finding is a sufficient military necessity to justify disregarding
any immunity conferred on a building by the Red Cross or otherwise.
Pages:
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531