Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

A Question of Toilets


Sue Light

Recommended Posts

Sorry for needing to know the nitty-gritty details, but would appreciate any information on this.

When hospitals were being constructed or expanded in France, they used a wide range of huts - big ones, little ones, some with fancy names...

But a common one was what I've seen described as a 'General Service' hut, which might accommodate 20 - 60 officers, men or staff, either open or cubicled, with basic facilities for washing, making 'tea and toast' and one or more toilets.

What were these toilets like? What sort of mechanism, if any, was used to flush them, or was it a case of 'bucket and chuckit,' and where did all the waste products go - into containers that needed emptying, or some sort of cess-pit? And was there any piped water supply coming in to these huts - for washing, washing-up, and for drinking water? Many of the large camps for soldiers were fairly permanent structures, but the hospitals moved around a lot, and simply set up shop in fields, or grounds of large buildings, maybe for just a few weeks or months.

I've read a lot about huts being built, and quickly, but how did the toilets function?

Sue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sue,

I can't directly answer your question. However, a U.S. Army Medical Department inspection report on a military hospital on the grounds of PoW camp in Louisville, Kentucky in 1864 or 1865 during our Civil War stated that the hospital had cold running water as well as water closets. How the latter functioned I'm not sure. Decades later during the Great War the same could have been done in military structures if the determination to do so and money had been available.

Not many people realize the role the military had in developing prefabricated buildings of standard cookie-cutter designs. They eliminated the need to have architects reinvent the wheel for each new building project. Today many commercial and industrial buildings are prefabricated kits, sort of like a boy's model airplane kit.

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Pete - yes, I'm sure there was some very straightforward, simple design for an efficient toilet, but it's not a high impact subject :rolleyes:

There's so much information about on rifles, hand grenades, uniform, planes - all the 'interesting' stuff - I guess toilets don't really stand a chance. But still surprised there's not a toilet expert in evidence on the Forum.

[i'm quite happy for them to contact me off-list in a plain, brown envelope :ph34r: ]

Sue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In years gone by diarrheal diseases killed more soldiers than bullets and shells. I believe it was press coverage of the Crimean War and Florence Nightingale that first alerted the British public to how squalid a soldier's lot can be. When I was in the U.S. Army in the late '70s to early '80s our divisions had Field Sanitation Officers who had the job of inspecting latrines in the field. It seemed no latrine would ever pass inspection. I guess everyone, even Field Sanitation Officers, has their job to do....

In the Great War it was U.S. Army policy to erect signs on the sites of abandoned field latrines, also called heads, so people would know better than to dig there. General George S. Patton, Jr. recalled his return to his Great War headquarters in Bourg, France in 1944 in his book War as I Knew It :

"We then drove through Langres, where we had no time to stop, and on to Bourg, my Tank Brigade Headquarters in 1918. The first man I saw in the street was standing on the same manure pile whereon I am sure he had perched in 1918. I asked if he had been there during the last war, to which he replied, "Oh, yes, General Patton, and you were here then as a Colonel." He then formed a triumphal procession of all the village armed with pitchforks, scythes, and rakes, and we proceeded to rediscover my old haunts, including my office, and my billet in the chateau of Madame de Vaux.

"The grave of that national hero, "Abandoned Rear," was still maintained by the natives. It originated in this manner. In 1917, the mayor, who lived in the "new house" at Bourg, bearing the date 1700, came to me, weeping copiously, to say that we had failed to tell him of the death of one of our soldiers. Being unaware of this sad fact, and not liking to admit it to a stranger, I stalled until I found out that no one was dead. However, he insisted that we visit the "grave," so we went together and found a newly closed latrine pit with the earth properly banked and a stick at one end to which was affixed crosswise a sign saying, "Abandoned Rear." This the French had taken for a cross. I never told them the truth."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Sue,

I'm not sure how much this will help, and there's a lot to wade through [ :) ], but this article outlines what was expected of the US Sanitation Squads in 1917. There is also a link at the foot of the page.

Cheers,

Dave

SANITARY SQUADS

The first regulations concerning sanitary squads as distinct military entities of our Army were published in the Manual for the Medical Department, 1911. These instructions, which were general in character, contemplated that the personnel of these units would be drawn from medical organizations on the line of communications; would be under the direct control of the chief surgeon of the line of communications; and would be charged with the supervision of sanitation, operation of sanitary apparatus, selection of water, disposal of wastes, and under certain circumstances the performance of duties of sanitary detachments.

The edition of the manual published in 1916 prescribed that these units be organized on the line of communications at such places as might be necessary; that they consist, under the immediate command of a medical officer, of enlisted men of the Hospital Corps and such numbers of other enlisted men and civilian laborers as circumstances required; that they be charged with the duties mentioned above; and that they be not employed to relieve regimental and other sanitary organizations of the responsibility of providing for the sanitation of their own camps.

On December 3, 1917, sanitary squads were provided in the proportion of two for each division, each squad to consist of the following personnel: One officer, 4 noncommissioned officers, 20 privates, and 2 chauffeurs.33 Though these squads accompanied their respective divisions to France, and at first accompanied them to the front, they were designated in June, 1918, as organizations belonging to the Services of Supply,34 and thereafter they were used to assist the sanitary inspectors of divisions, or, later, the town majors (billeting officers), in the performance of their sanitary duties as these were prescribed in General Orders, No. 18, G. H. Q., A. E. F., January 31, 1918. Town majors belonged to the Services of Supply, and were permanently assigned to training areas through which the successive divisions passed. The eventual relationship of the sanitary squads to these officers and to the authorities of the division is shown by the following communications from the office of the chief surgeon, A. E. F.:

July 16, 1918: "Sanitary squads are Services of Supply organizations, and while at present some are attached to divisions it is only a question of time before they will be removed and used for Services of Supply purposes entirely. No equipment has been designated."35

August 5, 1918: "It is the intention to use all sanitary squads for the various divisional areas and hospital centers, etc. The sanitary squad should not accompany the division when it moves to the front or at any other time unless the area is being totally abandoned. While in the divisional area the sanitary squad should be under the control of the division surgeon."36

September 3, 1918: "The sanitary squads will remain with a division until it goes into the line. Thereafter they will be separated from the division, remaining in the divisional area. The idea is to have sanitary squads with each divisional area that are familiar with the conditions and remain there constantly.37

October 1, 1918: "It is not the policy to detach sanitary squads from divisions which are serving permanently in the Services of Supply."38

In a number of divisions and divisional areas, as there was at first no clear conception of the duties of sanitary squads, these squads were required to perform the duties of prisoner fatigue details, to do general police or miscellaneous work only remotely connected with sanitation. Later, when responsible officers became better educated in the matter and came to appreciate the value of trained men in promoting sanitation, members of these squads were employed to a progressively greater degree in educating troops in the measures necessary to maintain health, the construction and operation of bathing and disinfesting plants, supervision of disposal of sewage, garbage, and refuse, sanitary inspections, and cognate duties.39 Such activities as care of bathhouses and laundry and disinfesting plants and conservancy outside of divisional areas, it was soon established, properly pertained to the Quartermaster Department.40

When a division, well trained in sanitation, occupied an area, the sanitary squads, with the concurrence of the zone major, were used for any necessary work, the nature of their service being influenced by existing conditions. Intervals between particular periods of activity were spent often in estimating the actual billeting space per man available for troops in the areas, for this information proved to be of considerable value not only when divisions entered these areas for the first time but also when they reentered them from the line.41

The men of the sanitary squads were encouraged to enlarge their opportunities and to use their own discretion in the formulation of plans which might yield the best results under differing circumstances. They were given a clear outline of work that they were expected to perform, the details to be filled in by them as conditions indicated.

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/ww...ns/chapter3.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sue, this sort of thing interests me, too, and there is practically no information about it, it seems.

All one reads is that infection was a real danger for even the smallest of cut because of bacteria at the front lines due to decaying bodies and sewerage. From this, it can be guessed that either the sanitation provided was not sufficient, or else that perhaps shells hit the dunnies and sent the muck everywhere.

Allie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sue;

Just noticed this thread; I have a variety of things to say, but have to run now. Can I assume that you are talking about the British Army in France, British-built facilities?

Bob Lembke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Infantry Drill Regulations, United States Army, 1911, Corrected to July 31, 1918:

Disposing of Excreta.

674. Immediately on arriving in camp sinks should be dug. This is a matter of fundamental sanitary importance, since the most serious epidemics of camp diseases are spread from human excreta.

One sink is provided for each company and one for the officers of each battalion. Those for the men are invariably located on the side of camp opposite the kitchens. All sinks should be so placed that they can not pollute the water supply or camp site as a result of drainage or overflow. To insure this their location and distance from camp may be varied.

When camp is made for a single night, shallow trenches, 12 inches deep and 15 to 18 inches wide, which the men may straddle, will suffice.

In more permanent camps, the trenches should be about two feet wide, 6 feet deep, and 15 feet long. They should be provided with seats and back rests made of poles, and should be screened by brush or old tent flys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sue

There is a whole chapter in the Official History of the War, Medical Services Hygiene of the War. Vol.1. about the disposal of waste products.

I haven't studied this myself yet but flicking through it explains about the different types of latrines used and the different types of incinerators and methods of removal/disposal. There are quite a few different diagrams and pictures. The book also has info on water supplies in the different theatres of the war.

I can't see a direct answer to your question but I am happy to send you the information if you think it will help.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sue;

When I was an officer cadet in the US Army a lot of my experience (and my only two notable "ata-boy"s) during my six-week field training session were related to this topic; one designing and building a rather spectacular company-sized one on the steep slope of a hill; the second for designing a booby-trap to kill people using a toilet. No more details unless pressed.

Saw a humorous PC on this topic (the Germans sent rather surprising PCs thru the mail, single or mass shots of men relieving themselves, and full frontal "Montie", say 20 men bathing in an 18" deep stream.) The PC is a view of a rather elaborate latrine, seating perhaps 20-30 men, built on poles over a large stream or small river, about 6' over the water. About 8-12 men were using it in the picture. There was a sign on the bank, with an arrow pointing downstream, informing the reader that the French lines were near. I think it was not only humorous (sort of), but designed to prevent visiting big brass from having a stroke, as I think the Germans, who worked hard on hygene and health services (the various combatents were quite variable on this), would not fire a lot of excretia into a body of water, flowing or not, due to the health consequences. Passing those consequences to the French, who I feel were especially weak in this area, was not only a joke but (a bit) militarily useful.

Bob Lembke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate,

Not surprising this sort of tolet is still in comon use in country side Eurpoe.

I saw the same thing, but in this case a single tolet along rivers while I served in the Former Yugoslavia.

It was not a place to swim for many reasons.

Cheers

S.B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Sue

Here's how the Aussies dealt with 'it':

( c ) Burial was the general means of disposal of faeces and urine

Apart from aesthetic considerations the purpose of burial was to prevent

the dispersal of faeces, as by the feet of man or of flies, or as dust and

“dirt .”

In effect the technique of faecal disposal by burial resolved itself

into ( i ) the shallow trench 3ft. by 2ft. by Ift., straddled; ( i i ) the

single or double “fly-proof” seat, over a deep pit or a pan. ( i ) was

universal in rapid movement. In stationary or semi-stationary warfare,

the fly-proof seat, improvised or official, over a deep pit was the most

favoured procedure.

The common practice at the several military levels can be stated

( i ) The trenches: fly-proof box-seats over biscuit tins; or oil drums

with individual self-fitting lid-seats. Faeces buried or deposited directly

in shell-holes or shallow trenches in rear.

( i i ) Support areas. Fly-proof box-seats over pit, pan, or biscuit tin.

If the latter, burial in shell-holes or pits.

(iii) Back areas. Fly-proof box-seats over deep pits for camps;

short shallow trench-system for troops on the move, or in camps until

fly-proof boxes can be obtained; pan system and incineration for C.C.S’s

and for hospitals and other permanent institutions : fly-proof boxes over

deep pits for villages, for troops billetted therein. The commendable

French method of roofed pits with squatting holes was sometimes seen.

[source: Official Histories - Medical Services Vol II - p.939]

Cheers, Frev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a flurry of response after Pete found this again - thanks to everybody. I've certainly seen quite a bit about the construction and maintenance of toilets in the 'Field' - it seems that soldiers in the fighting line had their habits well documented, but those in back areas were much too busy to 'go.' :)

I was interested in Dave's account of the Sanitary Squads, and feel that the author was also having some trouble with defining exactly what they did - and that passage did refer to a situation relatively late in the war.

Barbara - if you come across anything about toilets in back areas, [no pun intended] - hospitals, or permanent/semi-permanent hutted and tented camps, I'd be most interested - I'm certainly in no hurry.

Frev - I think that's perhaps the closest description here - 'Pan system and incineration for C.C.S's and for hospitals', although what exactly a 'pan system' was I'm not sure. But in every way I sense a lot of orderlies walking around with buckets of water.

And Bob - Although it's British General and Stationary Hospitals, and Casualty Clearing Stations, that I'm interested in, many of these facilities were, over time, shared with other nationalities, the Canadians, Australians, South Africans and Americans taking over entire vacated sites in working order, from the British or French, or building again on previously used sites. So there must have been similarities a lot of the time.

And other than the tented/hutted hospitals, many of the buildings taken over - asylums, convents, factories - were woefully short of any toilet or bathroom facilities at that time, so even there, some improvisation would have to be made.

Right, must be time for my morning ablutions,

Thanks again ------- Sue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sue;

Just read your post, and one more useful account comes to mind, the background situation.

Lately I have been reading American memoirs (the bulk of my reading is German sources) and recently read one which touches on the topic. The narrator arrives at a French village with his unit, and the American CO immediately had his unit build elaborate latrines, and the author, who seemed intelligent and perceptive, stated that the locals were bemused, as the author stated that they had, since time immemorial they had simply relieved themselves in the streets and fields. He generalized this to all over rural France. (Which of course he had not visited.)

Thinking about this, I think (but of course cannot say with certainty) that this account was overblown. It may have been that the men of the village felt free to urinate widely, and that the author, possibly shocked, extrapolated this to a much broader statement of functions and sexes. Or it may have been true. He also may have been excessively general in extending this villages' behavior to all of rural Frence.

It might be noted that in reading say 200-300 (or possibly many more, depending on the definition of "sources", a book is a source, is a collection of 50 letters from the front {my father's and my grand-father's} one, two, or 50 "sources"?) German sources, in a plurality German first-person narratives, I cannot recall ever have seen the topic even mentioned in any fashion. I do have a collection of pre-war and mid-war German Pionier (combat engineers, as we Yanks say; Brits probably "pioneers") manuals, and I can poke thru them if you are interested in what they might say about German field sanitation practices. Just ask.

One more comment about the ambient French practice. My aunt and uncle were touring France, either in the late 1930's or, less likely, the early post-WW II period. My aunt and uncle by marraige were immigrants from Germany and German Switzerland respectively, and were affluent, thought a lot of themselves (sort of silly people) and did things at the upper economic end. They reported, with some astonishment, that they were in a posh French restaurant, and the loo facilities were two doors marked with some version of "gents" and "ladies", but that once thru one door or the other one found yourself in a large common room serving both genders. No explicit details were shared with my young ears.

Bob Lembke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob

I think I would believe anything about French toilets, and the document I'm going through at present certainly highlights the fact that even existing buildings did not necessarily have a toilet in them, and there was often some sort of out-house that served the purpose - presumably a covered cess-pit.

But fortunately, in answer to something entirely different, I've been sent today a map/plan of No.7 General Hospital, which grew up in the grounds of the Abbey at Malassises, near St. Omer. It was originally used as an Infectious Hospital for Belgian refugees, evacuated from the Ypres and Poperinghe areas, and suffering from Typhoid, Dysentery, and other nasties. In the Spring of 1915, it was transferred from the British Red Cross to the Army, and became No.7 General, with 1000+ beds.

The plan shows massive areas of huts and tents, but all the 'facilities' are clearly marked. There are blocks of 'latrines' and 'ablutions' at regular intervals; officers' latrines [a cut above, I'm sure], and patients' ablutions and bath houses - presumably the latter confined to 'up' patients. More interesting - there are 'latrine destructors' and 'ablution destructors.'

So going back to Frev's 'pan system,' I suspect that this refers to some sort of bed pan, or other receptacle, used either in the bed, or underneath a wooden seat in a separate cubicle, for patients confined to hut or tent, and emptied by orderlies before being taken to one of the latrine destructors.

Getting there I think!

Sue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sue;

The French had very serious deficiencies in their hospital situation, which was also true during the Franco-Prussian War. They had sharply higher rates of death from gangrene among their wounded than the other combatents, for example. Reading a primary source, an American diplomat, fiercely Francophile; he was in Bordeaux hundreds of miles from the front, and he found soldiers in hospital wounded five weeks before still wearing the field dressings that had been clapped on the wound on the battlefield; the wounds had not been cleaned or re-dressed in five weeks! I guess they were attempting to breed a master race by killing off all Frenchmen but the superhumanly resistant. My father had an interesting anecdote in this vein. (Pardon the pun.)

Also, I have read Allied primary sources who were generally violently anti-Hun; but when wounded and captured, often gave glowing descriptions of their medical treatment by the Germans, and their level of medical facilities, etc., written in sources which had little else positive to write about the Germans.

Bob Lembke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob

I don't know much [or anything] about the French medical services, but I don't think there was any organised nurse training before the war, the sick being cared for, in the main, by members of religious orders. It was certainly left to the British to care for 'local' sick and wounded in areas that they controlled during the war, but then life was hardly normal in any respect at that time, and the English were taking over French civil hospitals for their own use.

But it wasn't all bad with the French, by any means - within a few days of each other in April 1916, these comments appear in a document I'm working through at present -

'To 12 Stationary Hospital, just taken over from the French, a new Hospital built entirely on English lines, with various improvements. Most perfect in all respects. Hutted accommodation for all, including M.O.s, Nursing Staff and personnel. Every possible convenience, the position an excellent one...'

'From there to Warloy – 92 Field Ambulance, where 4 Nurses have just joined, Miss Whyte being in charge, established in a well built French Hospital with every convenience'

'22 C.C. Station Bruay. Excellent in every way. French huts taken over from the French with every convenience including electric light.'

And that's just remined me that some time ago someone was trying to find out which Field Ambulance was at Warloy - but that's another thread....

Sue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sue;

Might you be a nurse, or perhaps a student of the topic of WW I nursing, or both?

My father spent much of 1917 in a series of hospitals due to an arm wound from Verdun repeatedly going bad. It was a problem for over 10 years. So I have lots of WW I hospital oral history tales, some very funny. He was in a Bavarian hospital in a town with 16 breweries, and the export market was lost, and in every ward there was a tapped keg for the patients and staff. The head nurse in the ward, a formidable nun, drank 16 liter mugs of beer every shift. That did not include what she drank at lunch, in a dining room elsewhere. We are talking about 34 pints a day on her shift. Pop had nothing better to do or anywhere to go, so he kept track of her remarkable performance.

A nice hospital is not much help if a wound from the battlefield is not cleaned and re-dressed from battlefield conditions for five weeks.

The American hospital in Paris during the Siege of Paris in 1870-71 was a model operation, and saved many lives, but supposedly there was a French hospital with terrible conditions, including sealed windows (fresh air was considered a killer), and supposedly few wounded who entered survived.

I have read accounts of WW I French soldiers so angry about health care that, on leave and coming across a military doctor walking down the street, they beat the doctor to death, which he probably did not deserve.

Bob Lembke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although it's a bit off-topic for this thread, my grandma said that my step-grandfather was always proud of his pink feet, and that he'd give them a brisk rubbing when he woke up in the morning. He'd been in the 1/17th London from 1915 to the Armistice and at war's end was one of the five surviving members of the 1915 battalion still serving in the unit. His feet got pink from falling asleep in a trench standing in a puddle that froze during the night. In the morning he poured sperm whale oil into his boots to separate the flesh of his feet from the leather of his boots--he'd taken the flask of oil from a German corpse, who probably had used it for small arms maintenance. Grandpa crawled back to the aid station, and from there was evacuated to a medical unit farther to the rear. The RAMC doctor there wanted to amputate his feet, but grandpa talked him out of it. He hobbled around the medical facility for some weeks before returning to duty and the trenches. Hence the pink feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob

I think we've moved a long way from toilets!

My personal view [a British one, of the British] is that the nursing history of the Great War has been over influenced by anecdotal accounts, which have provided a very blinkered, although for some an 'enjoyable' view of what life was like - perhaps the medical services suffer less from this. My interest is finding out how things were organised, how and if they worked, and getting unbiased, accurate information about a nurse's life, both in the UK and also abroad. It's difficult to do, but I would like to redress the balance a little.

I realise that much anecdotal evidence is factual, some based on fact, and some of it, just a very small fact magnified many times. Trying to work out which is which is often impossible, so I'm just going for facts on their own - hence the toilet problem.

Sue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay Sue, if we absolutely must get back to the original topic, Major James A. Moss, 24th U.S. Infantry, wrote the following on the subject of the construction of sinks in his 1911 book Officers' Manual:

They should be as far from the tents as is compatible with convenience--if too near they will be a source of annoyance; if too far, some men, especially at night, and particularly if affected with diarrhea, will defecate before reaching the sink. Under ordinary circumstances, a distance of about 75 yards is considered sufficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sue,

The pan system could be as you say but in the field a pan system is another way.

For those of us that can remember back to the fifties and sixties in Australia the pan man use to vist your out house once a week.

Here he would lift the tolet cover and under it was a metal pan (about the size of a 44 galleon drum cut in half) This was sealed with a cover (carried by the pan man so the contents didn't spill on him) and taken to his truck which was carried away, a replacment can replaced the one taken.

In the field they could use anything but the system was the same, you could dig a hole but this made it hard if you stayed for a long time so a system of removing the waste was needed so it was taken away from the hospital.

Old movies from Vietnam era see's the soldiers removing these cans/pans and burning there contents behind the tolet (the movie "Platoon").

While others operated like port a potties but instead of the PoP being removed when full only the pan was.

Cheers

S.B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Sue

Glad to read that your almost there. At a glance the official info appears to be a lot about the toilet systems in the trenches but there are some references to hospitals (in passing), I'll need to have a good read. If I come across any relevant information that is not already posted I'll let you know.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve

Growing up in the London suburbs, I was never acquainted with a pan man, but it sounds like the best idea so far to me - one pan a hut and off to the latrine destructor on a regular basis :)

Getting late, so I'm off to run my 75 yards before bed...

Sue

PS to Barbara - probably best not to use the term 'in passing' on a toilet thread :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...