Book recommendations about the crucified soldier

[truthergw]

I saw the Ch 4 documentary and I recall the previous discussion here on the forum. I am not convinced, I thought that possibilities were presented as evidence. Incidentally, I do not believe that being awarded a VC makes a soldier any more or less credible as a witness than any other soldier.

[2ndCMR]

John Hartley said:

I don't know if this was a newly made programme or just a reshowing of an original Channel 4 documentary. Upthread I mentioned Tom Morgan demolishing the "evidence". I've now found 2002 thread which is HERE. The relevent post numbers are 15, 16 & 17.

Well, here’s the ‘demolition job’:

Band's sister, Mrs. Petrie, was apparently a strong, determined woman who had, in her mind, already begun to link her dead brother with the "Crucified Canadian" story, without any evidence at all. Are “strong, determined” women more prone to flights of fancy? (A little baggage there perhaps? She is actually described only as “determined” in the film) My family had one of these “determined” women too, she wrote all kinds of letters asking for information about her brother’s death, and there was no hint of any atrocity there.

There is no evidence given in the program that she had concluded that her brother was the crucified soldier, only that she “wondered whether this fate had befallen her brother.” No doubt most families wondered if there was more to the death of their loved ones they were told; who wouldn’t? It is however quite possible that she had some sort of ‘gut feeling’ that there was more to the story. “If there was anything to do with any members of the family, any problems at all, she seemed to know about it...” (Lettie Band, Harry Band’s niece) There are innumerable instances of ‘uncanny’ perceptions between relatives, in WWI and elsewhere. So many that it is surprising anyone would question this.

The first letter from Pte. Freeman to Mrs. Petrie, telling here that Banks was dead, is never seen, only alluded to, so no proof there. What is the significance of that letter? It is the second with the details which is important. The existence of the first letter proves or disproves nothing. It’s prior existence is obviously proved by the existence of the second letter which refers to it!

Then we have to assume that Mrs. Petrie wrote to Freeman saying something like, "I don't believe you. I think he was crucified, am I right?" And why do “we have to assume” that? She thought/guessed/intuited there might be more and wrote asking; she was told the story. Sounds simple enough to me.

To which Freeman is supposed to have replied with a second letter saying, "yes, you're quite right - he was," or words to that effect. (Bizarre or what?) I fail to see how it would be “bizarre”, even if she had directly asked if he was the crucified soldier. It seems by no means odd to me that someone whose relative went missing almost to the day, in the same area where this incident was reported, might fear that it was their relative who was in fact the victim. How many Canadian sergeants went missing on those days in that area? She may well have been simply trying to lay her fears to rest by asking for more details. The only thing “bizarre” is the complete lack of human understanding shown by such a comment.

The second letter from Freeman was shown in the programme but I thought I noticed something and checked it later as I had recording (sic) the programme.

Two letters are shown, one being Freeman's second "Yes, you're right" letter and the other being a letter from Mrs. Petrie to someone called "Martin" saying that she has, at last, found the truth.

You'll need to have videoed the programme to check this but:-

"Freeman's" letter to Mrs. Petrie, agreeing that Band had been crucified contains the words "Harry" and "crucified."

Mrs. Petrie's letter to Martin contains the words "Harry" and "Crucifiction" (sic).

Look at the shots of both letters, concentrating on these words and I think it looks pretty obvious that the same person wrote both letters, and that person was, presumably, Mrs. Petrie. I'd be interested to see if anyone else agrees!

If this is right, then neither of Pte. Freeman's letters were proven to exist.

Are you seriously alleging that Mrs. Petrie falsified Freeman’s letter? The handwriting shown in the film appears similar; what is the obvious conclusion? Mrs. Petrie copied Freeman’s letter to distribute to others in her family. No photocopiers then, remember? What does “crucified” vs. “crucifiction” tell us other than that she made a spelling error when writing on a highly emotional subject. Truly you are grasping at straws. As we all should know, spelling errors were very common in those days, even among quite educated people. In the film Lettie Band is reading from a photocopy of the letter from Mrs. Petrie to Martin Band, Harry’s Brother. How do we know he is Harry’s brother? Because the narrator says, “...as she informed her brother Martin”, but if that’s not enough she signs the letter, “Your loving sister Lizzie”

“As other soldiers have told you, I expect you know all about it now...” 2nd letter by Freeman to Mrs. Petrie. Obviously from this, either Freeman had heard from other soldiers that they had written to Mrs. Petrie also, or/and she had told him that she had received independant confirmation of the details from other soldiers.

Well, somethings been “demolished” alright.

What proportion of the men in Harry Band’s platoon survived the war to be interviewed by these precious commissions? How many from his company or even the whole battalion? When there is no body, few or no living witnesses, and no real desire to get at the truth, the result is forgone conclusion.

Edited 22 April , 2019 by 2ndCMR
italics inserted where required.

[truthergw]

2NDCMR, you appear to have found the documentary convincing. I for one would not attempt to change your mind. Why are you so insistent that other people should agree with you? There are many points I found unconvincing. I think the case is still far from proved.

[2ndCMR]

2NDCMR, you appear to have found the documentary convincing. I for one would not attempt to change your mind. Why are you so insistent that other people should agree with you? There are many points I found unconvincing. I think the case is still far from proved.

It's not for me to insist that anyone agree with anything.

I do find intellectual laziness and habitual scoffing without any rigorous attention paid to the facts or logical deduction to be rather annoying and an insult to those who suffered and historical inquiry generally.

Naturally, the case is not proven to the extent that a criminal court would accept, for the reasons I mentioned. (see below) But at this distance of time, the same is true for 90% of the other incidents of the Great War that are accepted without a second thought by many of those who attempt to deny this one.

I find the preponderance of evidence highly convincing, and there remains no doubt much more to be unearthed.

________________________________________________________________________________

This is my earlier reply to Post No17, which though I have posted it twice does not appear in this thread for some reason, despite showing up twice in My Last 10 Posts.

I don't know if this was a newly made programme or just a reshowing of an original Channel 4 documentary. Upthread I mentioned Tom Morgan demolishing the "evidence". I've now found 2002 thread which is HERE. The relevent post numbers are 15, 16 & 17.

Well, here’s the ‘demolition job’:

Band's sister, Mrs. Petrie, was apparently a strong, determined woman who had, in her mind, already begun to link her dead brother with the "Crucified Canadian" story, without any evidence at all. Are “strong, determined” women more prone to flights of fancy? (A little baggage there perhaps? She is actually described only as “determined” in the film) My family had one of these “determined” women too, she wrote all kinds of letters asking for information about her brother’s death, and there was no hint of any atrocity there.

There is no evidence given in the program that she had concluded that her brother was the crucified soldier, only that she “wondered whether this fate had befallen her brother.” No doubt most families wondered if there was more to the death of their loved ones they were told; who wouldn’t? It is however quite possible that she had some sort of ‘gut feeling’ that there was more to the story. “If there was anything to do with any members of the family, any problems at all, she seemed to know about it...” (Lettie Band, her niece) There are innumerable instances of ‘uncanny’ perceptions between relatives, in WWI and elsewhere. So many that it is surprising anyone would question this.

The first letter from Pte. Freeman to Mrs. Petrie, telling here that Banks (sic)was dead, is never seen, only alluded to, so no proof there. What is the significance of that letter? It is the second with the details which is important. The existence of the first letter proves or disproves nothing. It’s prior existence is obviously proved by the existence of the second letter which refers to it!

Then we have to assume that Mrs. Petrie wrote to Freeman saying something like, "I don't believe you. I think he was crucified, am I right?" And why do “we have to assume” that? She thought/guessed/intuited there might be more and wrote asking for details, perhaps after hearing more from another of Harry's comrades as is suggested elsewhere. She asked and she was told. Sounds simple enough to me.

To which Freeman is supposed to have replied with a second letter saying, "yes, you're quite right - he was," or words to that effect. (Bizarre or what?) I fail to see how it would be “bizarre”, even if she had directly asked if he was the crucified soldier. It seems by no means odd to me that someone whose relative went missing almost to the day, in the same area where this incident was reported, might fear that it was their relative who was in fact the victim. How many Canadian sergeants went missing on those days in that area? She may well have been simply trying to lay her fears to rest by asking for more details. The only thing “bizarre” is the complete lack of human understanding, not to mention historical context, shown by such a comment.

The second letter from Freeman was shown in the programme but I thought I noticed something and checked it later as I had recording (sic) the programme.

Two letters are shown, one being Freeman's second "Yes, you're right" letter and the other being a letter from Mrs. Petrie to someone called "Martin" saying that she has, at last, found the truth.

You'll need to have videoed the programme to check this but:-

"Freeman's" letter to Mrs. Petrie, agreeing that Band had been crucified contains the words "Harry" and "crucified."

Mrs. Petrie's letter to Martin contains the words "Harry" and "Crucifiction" (sic).

Look at the shots of both letters, concentrating on these words and I think it looks pretty obvious that the same person wrote both letters, and that person was, presumably, Mrs. Petrie. I'd be interested to see if anyone else agrees!

If this is right, then neither of Pte. Freeman's letters were proven to exist.

Are you seriously alleging that Mrs. Petrie falsified Freeman’s letter? The handwriting on the photocopy shown appears similar; what is the obvious conclusion? Mrs. Petrie copied Freeman’s letter to distribute to others in her family. No photocopiers then, remember? What does “crucified” vs. “crucifiction” tell us other than that she made a spelling error when writing on a highly emotional subject. Truly you are grasping at straws. As we all should know, spelling errors were very common in those days, even among quite educated people. In the film Lettie Band is reading from a photocopy of the letter from Mrs. Petrie to Martin Band, Harry’s Brother. How do we know he is Harry’s brother? Because the narrator says, “...as she informed her brother Martin”, but if that’s not enough she signs the letter, “Your loving sister Lizzie”

“As other soldiers have told you, I expect you know all about it now...” Second letter by Freeman to Mrs. Petrie. Obviously from this, either Freeman had heard from other soldiers that they had written to Mrs. Petrie also, and/or she had told him that she had received independent confirmation of the details from other soldiers.

Well, something's been “demolished” alright...

What proportion of the men in Harry Band’s platoon survived the war to be interviewed by these precious commissions? How many from his company or even the whole battalion? When there is no body, few or no living witnesses, and no real desire to get at the truth, the result is forgone conclusion.

[truthergw]

It's not for me to insist that anyone agree with anything.

I do find intellectual laziness and habitual scoffing without any rigorous attention paid to the facts or logical deduction to be rather annoying and an insult to those who suffered and historical inquiry generally.

Naturally, the case is not proven to the extent that a criminal court would accept, for the reasons I mentioned. But at this distance of time, the same is true for 90% of the other incidents of the Great War that are accepted without a second thought by many of those who attempt to deny this one.

I find the preponderance of evidence highly convincing, and there remains no doubt much more to be unearthed.

________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

This is my earlier reply to Post No17, which though I have posted it twice does not appear in this thread for some reason, despite showing up twice in My Last 10 Posts.

Well, here's the 'demolition job':

Band's sister, Mrs. Petrie, was apparently a strong, determined woman who had, in her mind, already begun to link her dead brother with the "Crucified Canadian" story, without any evidence at all. Are "strong, determined" women more prone to flights of fancy? (A little baggage there perhaps? She is actually described only as "determined" in the film) My family had one of these "determined" women too, she wrote all kinds of letters asking for information about her brother's death, and there was no hint of any atrocity there.

There is no evidence given in the program that she had concluded that her brother was the crucified soldier, only that she "wondered whether this fate had befallen her brother." No doubt most families wondered if there was more to the death of their loved ones they were told; who wouldn't? It is however quite possible that she had some sort of 'gut feeling' that there was more to the story. "If there was anything to do with any members of the family, any problems at all, she seemed to know about it..." (Lettie Band, Harry Band's niece) There are innumerable instances of 'uncanny' perceptions between relatives, in WWI and elsewhere. So many that it is surprising anyone would question this.

The first letter from Pte. Freeman to Mrs. Petrie, telling here that Banks was dead, is never seen, only alluded to, so no proof there. What is the significance of that letter? It is the second with the details which is important. The existence of the first letter proves or disproves nothing. It's prior existence is obviously proved by the existence of the second letter which refers to it!

Then we have to assume that Mrs. Petrie wrote to Freeman saying something like, "I don't believe you. I think he was crucified, am I right?" And why do "we have to assume" that? She thought/guessed/intuited there might be more and wrote asking; she was told the story. Sounds simple enough to me.

To which Freeman is supposed to have replied with a second letter saying, "yes, you're quite right - he was," or words to that effect. (Bizarre or what?) I fail to see how it would be "bizarre", even if she had directly asked if he was the crucified soldier. It seems by no means odd to me that someone whose relative went missing almost to the day, in the same area where this incident was reported, might fear that it was their relative who was in fact the victim. How many Canadian sergeants went missing on those days in that area? She may well have been simply trying to lay her fears to rest by asking for more details. The only thing "bizarre" is the complete lack of human understanding shown by such a comment.

The second letter from Freeman was shown in the programme but I thought I noticed something and checked it later as I had recording (sic) the programme.

Two letters are shown, one being Freeman's second "Yes, you're right" letter and the other being a letter from Mrs. Petrie to someone called "Martin" saying that she has, at last, found the truth.

You'll need to have videoed the programme to check this but:-

"Freeman's" letter to Mrs. Petrie, agreeing that Band had been crucified contains the words "Harry" and "crucified."

Mrs. Petrie's letter to Martin contains the words "Harry" and "Crucifiction" (sic).

Look at the shots of both letters, concentrating on these words and I think it looks pretty obvious that the same person wrote both letters, and that person was, presumably, Mrs. Petrie. I'd be interested to see if anyone else agrees!

If this is right, then neither of Pte. Freeman's letters were proven to exist.

Are you seriously alleging that Mrs. Petrie falsified Freeman's letter? The handwriting on the photocopy shown appears similar; what is the obvious conclusion? Mrs. Petrie copied Freeman's letter to distribute to others in her family. No photocopiers then, remember? What does "crucified" vs. "crucifiction" tell us other than that she made a spelling error when writing on a highly emotional subject. Truly you are grasping at straws. As we all should know, spelling errors were very common in those days, even among quite educated people. In the film Lettie Band is reading from a photocopy of the letter from Mrs. Petrie to Martin Band, Harry's Brother. How do we know he is Harry's brother? Because the narrator says, "...as she informed her brother Martin", but if that's not enough she signs the letter, "Your loving sister Lizzie"

"As other soldiers have told you, I expect you know all about it now..." 2nd letter by Freeman to Mrs. Petrie. Obviously from this, either Freeman had heard from other soldiers that they had written to Mrs. Petrie also, or/and she had told him that she had received independent confirmation of the details from other soldiers.

Well, somethings been "demolished" alright.

What proportion of the men in Harry Band's platoon survived the war to be interviewed by these precious commissions? How many from his company or even the whole battalion? When there is no body, few or no living witnesses, and no real desire to get at the truth, the result is forgone conclusion.

You have posted this three times now.

[John_Hartley]

Well, I had to go and have a look at this 'demolition job'. Here's how it turned out.

Thanks for adding the smiley and for treating my comments with levity. I hate it when we all too much up our own arses about this sort of thing.

Perhaps every time a subject crops up, yet again, it would be preferable that we should always start the discussion from scratch, rather than draw attention to earlier comments. We'll learn so much more that way, what with the constant new analysis.

Possibly Tom may spot this thread and wish to comment about your analysis of his analysis from several years back. Then again, perhaps he won't.

John

[2ndCMR]

You have posted this three times now.

As mentioned above, the first two postings of it do not show in the thread when I view it, despite numerous refreshing of the page etc. Only in "My Last Ten Posts", from which I am unable to edit.

When and if it the posts appear properly in the thread, I will remove the extra posts or ask that the moderators do so.

[David Filsell]

Lets look at this from a different and simplistic perspective. Despite documented shooting of francs tireurs and other acts against civilians in 1914, the Germany Army on the Western Front does not have a record of horific brutality. What possible reason would they have had for crucifying any one particularly a Canadian? Even the SS in WW2, a very different beast from the Germany Army of 14 - 18, as far as I am aware, didn't undertake crucifictions. Not least in the Great War such an act would have had very particular anti Christian meaning and the German nation was very much a Christian nation. Equally could such an act have taken place without an officer or nco knowing? Would such an individual have allowed it and would such an act have escaped the knowledge of German high command? I don't think the idea is even worthy of debate.

[John_Hartley]

In the film Lettie Band is reading from a photocopy of the letter from Mrs. Petrie to Martin Band, Harry’s Brother. How do we know he is Harry’s brother? Because the narrator says, “...as she informed her brother Martin”, but if that’s not enough she signs the letter, “Your loving sister Lizzie”

Just by way of clarification, that account indicates that Martin was Lizzie's brother, not Harry's. His surname will not be Band but whatever Lizzie's maiden name was. There's no attestation paper for a Martin Band.

[Nayles]

What possible reason would they have had for crucifying any one particularly a Canadian? Even the SS in WW2, a very different beast from the Germany Army of 14 - 18, as far as I am aware, didn't undertake crucifictions.

I have read a number of personal memoirs by colonial troops who were captured and there is a common reaction from German soldiers to these troops it seems. The German soldiers could not understand why they had come so far to fight them in a war they felt had nothing to do with Canadians, ANZACs, South Africans et al. Some were pretty angry about it and I wonder if a crucifixtion of a captured colonial soldier might be seen as a way of discouraging these colonial troops from fighting on. After all this was pretty much the first time the Germans had come up against Canadians.

Totally my conjecture but a possible counter argument to the argument that there wasn't a good reason for doing it. I imagine the idea of crucifixtion was as abhorrent then as beheading is now.

I think I wouldn't take much further convincing had the SS been involved - crucifiction was childs play to some of these guys and probably only discounted as being a long-winded and messy way of killing an enemy when hanging with piano wire from meathooks was just as effective and a little less 'hands-on'. But I digress.....

Brilliant debate... I hope it can continue without anyone getting their knickers in a twist.

[2ndCMR]

I have read a number of personal memoirs by colonial troops who were captured and there is a common reaction from German soldiers to these troops it seems. The German soldiers could not understand why they had come so far to fight them in a war they felt had nothing to do with Canadians, ANZACs, South Africans et al. Some were pretty angry about it and I wonder if a crucifixtion of a captured colonial soldier might be seen as a way of discouraging these colonial troops from fighting on. After all this was pretty much the first time the Germans had come up against Canadians.

Totally my conjecture but a possible counter argument to the argument that there wasn't a good reason for doing it. I imagine the idea of crucifixtion was as abhorrent then as beheading is now.

I think I wouldn't take much further convincing had the SS been involved - crucifiction was childs play to some of these guys and probably only discounted as being a long-winded and messy way of killing an enemy when hanging with piano wire from meathooks was just as effective and a little less 'hands-on'. But I digress.....

Brilliant debate... I hope it can continue without anyone getting their knickers in a twist.

On a number of occasions it is recorded that Germans troops and others reviled "colonial" soldiers who were captured as being "gelde soldaten": something worse than "mercenaries". Rather obtuse to say the least, but reflective of their level of understanding of the motivations of others apparently.

One has to remember that this was regarded as a chance to break the stalemate in France with a new weapon, which once used, would lose much of it's power of surprise and unpreparedness on the part of Allies. A one-shot gamble on which a great deal, perhaps the entire campaign, and thus the war, depended. Which may be why Foch reportedly called the stand of the Canadians despite the gas, "the finest act of the war".

In the event, the German plan was frustrated. In my experience and observation, and that of many others, the typical German reaction to frustrations or obstruction of their desires is inclined to be outbursts of irrational rage, and at times I suppose violence. It's quite something to see really.

As can be seen by the testimony of the wounded POW a few posts back, the German troops in that area were apparently most upset at being thwarted. I don't find it so surprising that their anger found such an expression. It takes on a few dozen particularly brutal men to do such things, and as we know, such cliques usually intimidate even those who disapprove into complicit silence. The behavior of German troops in other theatres and in WWII makes it quite clear that there was never a shortage of men prepared to commit atrocities against soldiers or civilians.

One must remember that added to their frustration was the knowledge of being stopped by what they then considered inferior troops. Though I understand they later came to markedly revise that opinion. IIRC it was a Prussian Guards regiment that was thought responsible in the St. Julien incident, they had a reputation for 'cussedness' as one soldier put it, and as they considered themselves the elite of the German armies, their anger at being thus humiliated by 'colonials' can well be imagined.

On the other hand, if we accept entirely the American soldier's account of the impromptu 'trench raid' to recover a man who had been crucified, the fact that the Canadians were reportedly not fired on by MGs when coming or going, could be taken to demonstrate either a lack of sympathy on the part of the gunners for those who had done the crucifying or a reluctance to draw the attention of a large group of men with their blood very much 'up'. Or of course it might just be complete surprise and consequent unpreparedness due to the unusual way and time the 'raid' was launched. Perhaps a combination of all three.

It's certainly worthy of much more investigation.

[2ndCMR]

Just by way of clarification, that account indicates that Martin was Lizzie's brother, not Harry's. His surname will not be Band but whatever Lizzie's maiden name was. There's no attestation paper for a Martin Band.

If I'm not mistaken Lizzie (aka Mrs. Petrie, nee Band) was the sister of Martin and Harry. In her letter to Martin she refers IIRC to another woman who she says she had not told all the details to. This I would guess was Harry's fiance (as I assume her to be) to whom his pay was forwarded.

At this hour I don't feel like going back and viewing it again to confirm all that. Perhaps tomorrow.

[David Filsell]

I accept that shooting out of hand took place all-round. But just think again why on earth crucify? Again wouls an officer have allowed such a barbaric act. It makes no sense

[John_Hartley]

If I'm not mistaken Lizzie (aka Mrs. Petrie, nee Band) was the sister of Martin and Harry. .

Ah. Thanks for that clarificiation, I'd sort of assumed she was Harry's wife (later remarried).

Not having seen the programme for some years, I can't recall the details. Can you (or anyone) remind us if Martin brings any information to the story. I ask this as I couldnt any attestation papers, so assume that he never served in the CEF and, therefore, wouldmnt have anything firsthand.

As an aside, are there any accounts of the day when Harry died? The battalion war diary only has a single line saying the enemy attacked causing many casualties.

John

[truthergw]

As far as I am aware, there is not one scrap of official documentation to verify this story. I am not being bloody minded when I adopt the stance which I do. Atrocities were committed in the Great War. It would be naive in the extreme to imagine that they were only committed by Germans. The point is that Germans had a declared policy of frightfulness and atrocities and war crimes were committed by German troops in the advance through Belgium. During and after the war, the ridiculous propaganda poured out in the Entente press and in particular into the American press, was in fact counterproductive. It was used as a smokescreen behind which could be hidden the real war crimes. That is why I demand real hard evidence such as would need to be produced in a murder trial for an incident as horrendous as this. If we are to accuse any army of this level of barbarity, we need to provide evidence, not might haves, could have beens and ' somebody remembered his pal saying'. I believe I am correct in stating that there is not one hard fact or corroborated statement to be found in this whole tale.

[John_Hartley]

I believe I am correct in stating that there is not one hard fact or corroborated statement to be found in this whole tale.

I believe you're right, Tom. It's why, when I watched the original showing years back, I was taken with Tom Morgan's subsequent analysis of the "new evidence". I might need to view it again to see if it still holds good but I've not read anything since to make me change my view of what Tom wrote.

"We found in our exploration of a ruined building in No Man's Land a Canadian soldier crucified with a bayonet through each hand and foot, nor were we inclined to remit our toll when we found the mutilated bodies of five nuns in the cellars of the convent just behind our lines". T Nash "Diary of an Unprofessional Soldier", then serving with the Gloucesters near Ploegsteert, April 1915. Two myths for the price of one, perhaps?

John

[2ndCMR]

As far as I am aware, there is not one scrap of official documentation to verify this story. I am not being bloody minded when I adopt the stance which I do. Atrocities were committed in the Great War. It would be naive in the extreme to imagine that they were only committed by Germans. The point is that Germans had a declared policy of frightfulness and atrocities and war crimes were committed by German troops in the advance through Belgium. During and after the war, the ridiculous propaganda poured out in the Entente press and in particular into the American press, was in fact counterproductive. It was used as a smokescreen behind which could be hidden the real war crimes. That is why I demand real hard evidence such as would need to be produced in a murder trial for an incident as horrendous as this. If we are to accuse any army of this level of barbarity, we need to provide evidence, not might haves, could have beens and ' somebody remembered his pal saying'. I believe I am correct in stating that there is not one hard fact or corroborated statement to be found in this whole tale.

Well, I hate to belabour the point, but there are a number of eyewitness accounts, including one from a VC MM* winner. So the evidential goal posts are 'going walkies' again? First it was a "credible eye witness account", now we need "official documentation"?

The attitude of officialdom to this kind of story, as we have seen in other threads and cases, is rather schizophrenic. On the one hand, they want to objectify and demonize the enemy, on the other hand as the American's account showed again, there is an impulse to 'hush it up' in case it demoralizes one's own troops. This has been discussed in the Hooge Atrocity thread as well as I recall. An even greater fear was the demoralization of the home front and future recruits. Then there is the instinctive reluctance of the professional soldier to believe that members of his own profession are capable of atrocities. There is a whole raft of 'things going on' with incidents like this.

Those who prefer to believe that even Cpl. Metcalfe VC MM*, or the letters to & from Mrs. Petrie are inventions are free to do so. The evidence doesn't require anyone's approbation, and the throwing up and knocking down of anecdotal and rhetorical strawmen has even less effect. If Mrs. Jones down the street gets mugged and I hear the story and tell my friends that I saw it happen, does that mean it didn't? Odd kind of reasoning that.

When we review the history of the Europe since 1914, to say nothing of the rest of the world, I really wonder where these pious little homilies about 'they wouldn't do such a thing' come from. "They" did much worse, on a much larger scale too many times to count, and not only "they", but others as well.

Time to "Get over it" as they say in North America.

[2ndCMR]

Ah. Thanks for that clarificiation, I'd sort of assumed she was Harry's wife (later remarried).

Not having seen the programme for some years, I can't recall the details. Can you (or anyone) remind us if Martin brings any information to the story. I ask this as I couldnt any attestation papers, so assume that he never served in the CEF and, therefore, wouldmnt have anything firsthand.

As an aside, are there any accounts of the day when Harry died? The battalion war diary only has a single line saying the enemy attacked causing many casualties.

John

You might want to have another look at it. I posted a link.

It was not indicated IIRC, where Martin was then residing.

I don't have time to dig into this any further at the moment, but I will come back to that later.

[truthergw]

Well, I hate to belabour the point, but there are a number of eyewitness accounts,...................

Those who prefer to believe that even Cpl. Metcalfe VC MM*, or the letters to & from Mrs. Petrie are inventions are free to do so. The evidence doesn't require anyone's approbation,............................

If I am to believe an accusation of a war crime, I will always require something more than second hand anecdotal evidence. The fact that the evidence presented leaves me free to believe or not is exactly why I do not think it is sufficient. There is no question of " now we need documentary evidence". Hard evidence of some kind, including documentary has always been required, has never been presented and that is why the story has never been generally accepted.

[Nayles]

If I am to believe an accusation of a war crime, I will always require something more than second hand anecdotal evidence. The fact that the evidence presented leaves me free to believe or not is exactly why I do not think it is sufficient. There is no question of " now we need documentary evidence". Hard evidence of some kind, including documentary has always been required, has never been presented and that is why the story has never been generally accepted.

I was under the impression that first hand evidence from credible witnesses had been documented shortly after the end of the war. This evidence appears to be entirely seperate from the plethora of second hand anecdotal evidence.

Now it is surely a question of whether you believe this evidence or not. Were these witnesses lying or telling the truth?

I am swayed to believe there is some truth here as I cannot answer the question as to why a soldier would tell a family that their loved one was likely to have suffered horribly before his death. Why would he do this? What did he have to gain? Of course there is a possibility that the letter was a complete fabrication but I find this harder to believe than the supposed 'myth' of the crucified Canadian Sergeant. Alternatively there was some twisetd motivation that will remain unfathomable. After all - There's nowt as queer as folk.

I am not interested in this in order to demonise the German Army but rather to honour the memory of a man who may have made the ultimate sacrifice in such an extraordinary way. I hope that doesn't come across as being unforgivably sanctimonious.

[Ken S.]

Well, I hate to belabour the point, but there are a number of eyewitness accounts, including one from a VC MM* winner. So the evidential goal posts are 'going walkies' again? First it was a "credible eye witness account", now we need "official documentation"?

Those who prefer to believe that even Cpl. Metcalfe VC MM*, or the letters to & from Mrs. Petrie are inventions are free to do so. The evidence doesn't require anyone's approbation, and the throwing up and knocking down of anecdotal and rhetorical strawmen has even less effect. If Mrs. Jones down the street gets mugged and I hear the story and tell my friends that I saw it happen, does that mean it didn't? Odd kind of reasoning that.

Hate to burst your bubble -- or maybe you've learned about it since posting this -- but William Metcalf, VC wasn't in France until mid-May, 1915. That would be about three weeks after the alleged incident.

[Ken S.]

If you mean "Myths and Legends of the First World War" the author has made a few significant errors.

Welcome to the Forum.

I don't have any specific recommendation but would suggest that you look for any titles along the lines of "Great Myths of the Great War".

It'll probably also have chapters about the Angel of Mons, Russians tramping through Britain with snow on their shoes, raped nuns and bayoneted children.

[AOK4]

I don't believe this story is coming up again...

Does anyone really believe this could have happened in the German army of WWI? Has anyone ever considered that crucifying someone with bayonets is just impossible?

earlier in this thread: "A Canadian private, having penetrated a German trench with an attacking party, encountered a German who threw up his hands and said:
"Mercy, Kamerade. I have a wife and five children at home.
"You're mistaken," replied the Canadian. "You have a widow and five orphans at
home."
And, very shortly, he had."

The only real war crimes that were described in this topic is the killing in cold blood of innocent Germans who wanted to surrender (this could be considered murder even). Nobody even finds that worthy of commenting. I have never ever read such appalling things in the many German accounts I have read. They mention killing British soldiers that wanted to surrender on occasion but then they always mention that it was in the heat of battle or when they surrendered very late or after having tried to deceive them (giving the impression to surrender and then open fire). The Germans try to explain that there was some reason behind it (as a kind of an apology).

That said, I have read accounts of German prisoners being killed some time after being captured (so not in the heat of battle) just for the sake of it, mostly during Third Ypres. One officer escaped being killed by claiming he was a priest after having seen his two fellow soldiers being killed trying to negotiate their surrender (this was after they had sent a well-treated British prisoner to the British to negotiate)...

[Ken S.]

A few days ago Iain Overton had an article published in which he's still pushing this story...

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ypres-anniversary-why-must-remember-crucified-soldier-140821575.html

[seaforths]

It has been some time since I have read this book and it gives a good account of the brutality he saw after he was caught and the interrogation he was submitted to. Later, he also talks about the events of what was circulating amongst the Canadian Army at the time. Hopefully this link to the book will work if not, it's page 77 from 'The Escape of a Princess Pat' available free on archive.org

https://ia700502.us.archive.org/16/items/escapeofprincess00peariala/escapeofprincess00peariala.pdf