tions-making, in agriculture, in clerical work for the business offices of war, released a soldier to the Front. Women were drawn in by the thousands, later by the millions. At the end of the war Great Britain, homeland and Colonies together, had in arms less than five million soldiers; but homeland and Colonies together were employing three million women in the direct processes of war, besides millions of others who gave as volunteers a part of their time. It became a stock statement that if the women of either side should quit their war-work, that side would lose.
Now since munitions and food had grown as important as men, since to stop or hinder the enemy munitions manufacture or agricultural production was to make toward victory, the women in war were fair game. Near London stood the great Woolwich munition works and armory, turning out guns, explosives and shells. Probably before the end of the war, as many women worked there as men. It was raided again and again by German aircraft. Why not? Totally to destroy the Woolwich works would be equivalent for purposes of victory to destroying several divisions. The old code was logical for its time when it forbade the killing of women and other non-combatants. Then, killing a woman had no point. Now it had a most significant point.
The same stern logic of “military necessity” lay behind the continual air raids on cities, fortified and
