Personal hygene in the trenches

[P.B.]

I was reading the topic "Ablutions in the Trenches" on this forum, and whilst searching through my photo collection for a totally different reason, I coincidentally came across a couple of shots showing German soldiers carrying out various forms of field hygene in the trenches....don't panic, there's none of the bizarre latrine photos (like those discovered by George Coppard in "With a Machine Gun to Cambrai") that seem to turn up with regularity on eBay amongst this lot, this is, after all, a family forum....

(As an aside, I think many soldier's personal photo albums that I have seen -from conflicts as diverse as WWI to the Falklands- do contain a lot of material that is misunderstood or misinterpreted by civillians, but that's a whole new thread...)

First up is this shot sent by a member of Bavarian Pioneer Company Nr 25 in July 1917 showing a soldier preparing for a shave. Some older soldiers in the German Army, especially in Landwehr and Landsturm units, seem to have worn goatees or full beards during the early war period, but by mid-1915 the introduction of chemical warfare -and the need for your gasmask to seal tightly to your face- meant that a clean-shaven chin was the norm. Certainly it is rare to see front-line German troops with full beards after 1916:

[P.B.]

This photo shows men from an unknown unit searching their clothing for lice. Perhaps they are part of a machine-gun crew, given the MG08 in the background and the binoculars and Luger pistol being brandished (both being issue items to MG soldiers) Note the haircuts as well, with three of these soldiers being basically skinheads....a good idea not only from a hygene/anti-lice perspective, but also lack of hair makes the initial evaluation/treatment of head injuries a little easier. Certainly, this kind of haircut seems to have been widespread in the German Army in WWI, a soldier in the Leicesters remarked that a group of German infantrymen he captured in 1918 were all "young and round-headed":

[Guest Biplane pilot]

Atrocious gun handling: violation of Rule 1 (treat ALL weapons as if loaded); Rule 2 (muzzle direction); and Rule 3 (finger on trigger, unless of course the sights ARE on target!) Rule 4 may or may not apply (target ID and background!!)

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

I have come across many references to men killed accidentally, I am sure some are a result of actions portrayed in the second photo.

Ralph

[Desmond7]

Great pics of men doing what most men did for the the whole war - getting on with their lives!

In 1985 I had a chance to visit Falklands. Wireless Ridge opposite Port Stanley was covered in all sorts of litter - from toothpaste tubes to sunblock creams. Not just weapons debris on the battlefield.

Des

[roger]

I have come across many references to men killed accidentally, I am sure some are a result of actions portrayed in the second photo.

Ralph

The same could be probably said for the first phot judging by the need to use a medic as the trench barber!

Roger.

[Tim Birch]

Atrocious gun handling: violation of Rule 1 (treat ALL weapons as if loaded); Rule 2 (muzzle direction); and Rule 3 (finger on trigger, unless of course the sights ARE on target!) Rule 4 may or may not apply (target ID and background!!)

You're right, but if you look closely you will see that the pistol sights ARE on target, and it is aimed at a louse sitting on the bald man's head. No doubt the shot would have cleared his lice problem forever.

Tim

[Patrickneame]

I recently dipped into a biography of Winston Churchill's early career. In describing his time as a front line soldier during the Great War it talks of his determination to stamp out the lice problem among his men (I think he served as a Colonel). If I remember correctly the biography states that within a month his unit was lice free. If anyone wants me to try to find the said biography again I'll have a rumage through our book store at the Crescent Theatre.

[Paul Hodges]

(As an aside, I think many soldier's personal photo albums that I have seen -from conflicts as diverse as WWI to the Falklands- do contain a lot of material that is misunderstood or misinterpreted by civillians, but that's a whole new thread...)

By all means start it...

Would be interested to know your views on this. (Niall Ferguson covers it a bit - not very satisfactorily in my opinion - in Pity of War)

[P.B.]

(As an aside, I think many soldier's personal photo albums that I have seen -from conflicts as diverse as WWI to the Falklands- do contain a lot of material that is misunderstood or misinterpreted by civillians, but that's a whole new thread...)

By all means start it...

Would be interested to know your views on this. (Niall Ferguson covers it a bit - not very satisfactorily in my opinion - in Pity of War)

Thanks to everyone who found these photos interesting and posted comments.

Yes, the weapon handling skills (or lack of) of the guy with the P08 do leave a lot ot be desired....as many WWI memoirs mention, soldiers did sometimes become careless in their handling of grenades and small arms, leading to wounds or fatalities. Ernst Junger blew the tip of his finger off whilst dismantling a rifle-grenade out of curiosity, and other soldiers seem to have taken calculated -or not so calcualted- risks in terms of taking short cuts that may or may not have exposed them to the enemy. A result of some men developing a fatalistic attitude brought on by the seemingly random nature of death in the frontline, perhaps? Perhaps where weapons are concerned it's a case of familiarity breeding contempt, in that conventional standards of weapon's safety are eroded by the sheer variety and number of small arms the soldier can get his hands on in a combat zone.....again in the Falklands War there was an incident where one soldier accidentally shot one of his comrades in the face whilst examining a captured .45 pistol, and I'm sure many of us remember the death of Private Huebler in "Band of Brothers", fatally shot when he placed a loaded Luger down his waistband.

My comment about photographs has a variety of origins. Over the years I've seen unofficial photographs taken in several conflicts which show dead enemy soldiers, sometimes with your own men posing with them. Many people who see these are shocked or horrified that "our" side could behave in such a way, and find it hard to understand why soldiers would want to take such pictures. In response to this I would make several points:

Many modern soldiers have a curiosity about death. A veteran of a more recent conflict explained it to me in these terms -the generations who fought in WWI and WWII were perhaps more accustomed to death at a personal level than the soldiers of today. In those days, if a relative died it was almost universally expected that you would go to see their body. Men who worked in collieries for example would perhaps have experienced the death of their workmates at first-hand. Modern soldiers have perhaps never seen a dead body before, and that, this veteran contended, was why some felt the need to photograph dead enemy soldiers. Maybe it is also an extention of the natural curiosity one feels about the enemy -from what his weapons and uniforms are like, down to what he actually looks like in death.

There is also the more abstract notion that to photograph dead enemy is a symbol of your "victory" over them in that they are dead and you aren't, and the related argument that to photograph yourselves with dead enemy soldiers is a kind of celebration of the fact that you're alive.....Niall Ferguson comments that many soldier's albums contain photos of dead enemy, suggesting that these shots may have been taken as "trophies". I'm not really sure about any of these arguments...the notion of trophies seems an odd one in the sense that many photos show piles of mangled enemy dead who were obviously not killed by the photographer himself, therefore it's not a trophy in the conventional sense.

With regard specifically to WWI, we must remember that photography was still a fairly novel concept to most soldiers and it seems clear that many of them simply photographed any aspect of their war experiences they found interesting -including, but not exclusively, dead bodies. Thus many albums do contain shots of the dead, but these are alongside photos of interesting weapons, trenches, etc.

Some photographs may also be the product of typical soldier's black humour. An extention of the situation where soldiers would shake the hand of a partially buried corpse as they passed by, typically recounted in several WWI memoirs.

My main point is that we should try not to judge soldiers who take such photographs....in a combat situation, where there is violence and death on a massive scale each day, people very soon become inured to the sight of dead and mutilated bodies to the point where actualy taking a photograph of one doesn't seem that big a deal in the overall scheme of things. Soldiers in combat do all kinds of things they would never do in civillian life, and people who -from the comfort and safety of civillian life- would judge such photographs as "sick", should do well to remember that.

Just my own personal comments, I would more than welcome anyone else's.

Very best regards

Paul.

[ArmyOfficer]

Modern soldiers have perhaps never seen a dead body before, and that, this veteran contended, was why some felt the need to photograph dead enemy soldiers.  Maybe it is also an extention of the natural curiosity one feels about the enemy -from what his weapons and uniforms are like, down to what he actually looks like in death.

There is also the more abstract notion that to photograph dead enemy is a symbol of your "victory" over them in that they are dead and you aren't, and the related argument that to photograph yourselves with dead enemy soldiers is a kind of celebration of the fact that you're alive....

Paul: Well said...I'd only offer the some additional thoughts from my experience and perspective. First, if you ever see photos of casualties, always assume that the "other side" took them. Soldiers are soldiers are soldiers..today or yesterday; it doesn't change and the dead are the dead. Soldiers DON'T take photos of their own casualties (although journalists with them might). Next, if you see photos of "enemy" (matter of perspective) dead, you can safely assume that those what did the killing didn't take the photos; some one else came through and did it. These are usually rear area guys that want to send something home to prove that they were there. If you really were there up close and personal, the last thing you want to do is take a picture.

Kevin