FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1925
1925 - 0046.PDF
JANUARY 22, 1925 AIR POWER AND WAR RIGHTS* " THE enthusiast is never quite to be trusted." We must thank Mr. Spaight for that phrase. He is obviously an enthusiast himself in the belief that in course of time—not necessarily in the next great war—fleets and armies will vanish and the issue -will be decided by air forces alone. FLIGHT is ex kypothesi an enthusiast wherever aircraft is concerned, and so, we may presume, are most of our readers. We need not surrender our enthusiasms, on account of that one phrase, but it is a useful reminder to all of us to give at least an attentive ear to arguments on the other side. On the first page of his most valuable book, Mr. Spaight •writes :—" It is now a commonplace to say that the conquest of the air must mean as great a revolution as that brought about by the introduction of gunpowder or of steam." But he proceeds to argue that the introduction of air power is infinitely more revolutionary than the discovery of either of those methods of propulsion. Weapons have changed innu- merable times in the history of warfare, but one does not invite much criticism by saving that all great wars " from Marathon to Waterloo in order categorical," and on to Mons in November, 1918, have been won by infantry adequately supported by ancillary services. The naval defence of an island kingdom may be put forward as an exception ; but had the Armada effected a landing in England, that would not have won the war, unless the Spanish infantry had been able to master completely all the infantry which England could raise. Gunpowder and steam have not dislodged the infantry from their supreme position ; but Mr. Spaight con- tends that air power has done, or shortly will do, so. He argues that armies and fleets are but the champions, the armed instruments of the sovereign people. Aircraft can disregard them and strike straight at the will of the people. " It can begin where the old warfare all but left off." He quotes Marshal Foch and other authorities as admitting, not the certainty, but the possibility, that this may happen. If it does happen, then indeed the introduction of air power will be revolutionary. It will completely break the continuity of the history of war. The question which all strategists, and indeed all who take an intelligent interest in the defence of their own country, must study is this. Is air power so completely revolutionary in very fact ? After all the thousands of centuries during which" mankind has fought, one principle has persisted—the supremacy of adequately-supported infantry. It has survived every invention of science and . ingenuity, from the taming of the first horse to the develop- ment of tank? and modern artillery. Each of these inven- tions—if equitation can be called an invention—-has been claimed by the enthusiasts of the day (but " the enthusiast is never quite to be trusted ") as having sounded the knell of infantry supremacy ; and in each case they were wrong. Have Orville Wright, Henri Farman and A. V. Roe at last succeeded where the Centaurs, Roger Bacon, Col. Shrapnel and the unknown deviser of tanks failed ? It really looks as if they have done so, and that is why the word of caution quoted from page 30 of Mr. Spaight's book is so valuable. Before proceeding with the review of this book, let us, as enthusiasts who value our reputation for trustworthiness, endeavour briefly to sum up the problem. An air force has this in common with a fleet, that it can strike and it can deal with communications, but it cannot occupy. Only land forces can occupy and consolidate. An air force differs from a fleet in that its blows can be delivered over land and sea alike. If an air force by its blows can so break the will to victory of a nation that the latter decides on surrender, even though its other forces are victorious, then the revolu- tion alluded to above will have taken place. It is only fair, however, to quote military opinion (or at least one section of military opinion) which holds that once the armies are mobilised and on the move, the military victory will be held so important that the bulk of the opposing air forces will be obliged to leave civil populations alone and concentrate their energies on the lines of communication of the respective armies. If that proves correct, the revolution in warfare will not have taken place, and aircraft will be ranked with artillery, and for the matter of that with the Navy, as an arm ancillary to the infantry. Only experience can decide, and in the meantime each of us is entitled to stick to his own opinion. • By J. M. Spaight, author of War Rights on Land, and Aircraft in War.Longmans, Green and Co. 25s. net. 46 Mr. Spaight then proceeds to discuss whether aircraft are to be allowed an absolutely free hand in striking at civil populations. He quotes several opinions to the effect that this must be so, including Field-Marshal Sir William Robert- son, and of Sir Frederick Sykes, and remarks that there is in one of the extracts " the candid expression of sentiments which would make a respectable Congolese shudder." But he takes comfort in the thought that two can play at the same game, and therefore it will not be to the advantage of either to begin it. " Let there be no mistake r.bout it, unless air power is regulated and controlled, it will destroy civilisation itself." But, wisely and prudently controlled. " it can turn the old, crude, hideous blood-letting business into an almost bloodless surgery of forcible international adjustment." The manner in which this idea is worked out is ingenious and almost convincing. The first essential is that the rules of international law must be framed wisely, and must not attempt to curb air power unduly. "It is necessary that international law should show itself ready to move with the times, to be practical, transigent, conciliatory in face of the new conditions, not precise, pedantic, obstructive." Rules which forbid reasonable latitude to air power will inevitably be disregarded ; but the breach of them will cause indignation on the side which has suffered, will evoke a demand for reprisals, and if the demand is granted the whole fabric of international law will be shaken and probably shattered, with disastrou sresults to everyone. But, contends Mr. Spaight, reasonable rules will probably be observed in the main. Critics may exclaim that during the great War no rules could bind the Germans. Mr. Spaight examines the point, and quotes numerous instances to prove that no y belligerent was absolutely indifferent to international law. There were several notorious and scandalous exceptions to the rule, such as the poison gas. But the use of the gas recoiled upon the Germans' own heads, and forms an excellent example of the unwisdom of breaking international law in time of war. The object of air power is to break the moral of the enemy population. This, the writer contends, can be effected without mass slaughter. Resources may be destroyed with staggering effect, but without killing many civilians. He instances the City of London. It is all but uninhabited by night, and by night should be a legitimate target for aerial bombs. By day it ought to be immune. He quotes autho- rity to show that bombing by night should be more accurate , than day bombing. Such a rule should satisfy the demands of humanity on the one hand, and of air power en the other. Reasonable rules, such as this, would probably be respected from fear of counter measures if they were broken. Article 24, para. (3), of the Air Warfare Rules drawn up at The Hague in 1923, is instanced as a rule which is certain to be disregarded with most probably disastrous clamours for reprisals. It runs :— " The bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings not in the immediate neighbourhood of the operations of land forces is prohibited. In cases where the objectivesf specified in paragraph (2) are so situated that they cannot be bombarded without the indiscriminate bom- bardment of the civilian population, the aircraft must abstain from bombardment." The writer holds that if munition factories are situated in the middle of a great city far from the operations of the armies (Birmingham occurs to the mind) it is worse than useless to forbid aircraft to bombard. It would be far wiser to permit bombardment by night. In any case the respon- sibility for the civilian casualties ought to lie on the country which so placed the factories, rather than on the airmen who act in accordance with the exigencies of war. If brought down during a night raid on such a place they should be entitled to honourable treatment as prisoners of war. Under the present rule it appears that they would have no such rights. Yet Germany established the right of submarine crews to such treatment. Mr. Spaight finds another gleam of hope for the future in the revival of chivalry in connection with air fighting. Most forms of warfare have become so mechanicalised that chivalry has been stifled to death. But the most modern machine of all has brought about its revival. He telLs a number of most interesting stories of chivalry on both sides. t Paragraph (2) gives a list of legitimate military objectives, such asmunition factories, lines of communication, etc. • '
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
