weakened. It is therefore a vital necessity, quite apart from the
humanitarian aspect, that the wounds of the civilians of belligerent
countries should be cared for. If the civilians are allowed to become
disheartened and cowardly, the heroic ideal of their fighting-men is
jeopardised. This fact has been recognised by the Red Cross Societies
of all countries in the present war; a large part of their energies
has been devoted to social and relief work of a civil nature. Even
in their purely military departments, the comfort of the troops
claims quite as much attention as their medical treatment and
hospitalisation. As a matter of fact, the actual carrying of the
wounded out of the trenches to the comparative safety of the dressing
station is usually done by combatants. A man has to live continually
under shell-fire to acquire the immunity to fear which passes for
courage. The bravest man is likely to get "jumpy," if he only faces up
to a bombardment occasionally. There are other reasons why combatants
should do the stretcher-bearing which do not need elaborating. The
combatants have an expert knowledge of their own particular frontage;
they are "wise" to the barraged areas; they are "up front" and
continually coming and going, so it is often an economy of man-power
for them to attend to their own wounded in the initial stages; they
are the nearest to a comrade when he falls and all carry the necessary
first-aid dressings; the emblem of the Red Cross has proved to be only
a slight protection, as the Hun is quite likely not to respect it.
What I am driving at is that the Red Cross has had to adapt itself to
the new conditions of modern warfare, so that very many of its most
important present-day functions are totally different from what
popular fancy imagines.

The American Red Cross has its French Headquarters in a famous
gambling club in the Place de la Concorde. It is somewhat strange to