Cannibalism on the Western Front?

[Tom W.]

Here's an entry from the diary of American Galen Hunt, 4th Infantry Regiment, Company B:

On our immediate right were French Moroccan troops. They were fierce looking fellows with filed teeth, and iron rings in their noses and ears. We were told that it was quite a task to teach them to wear uniforms at first, for they threw it all away. They killed almost every German on outpost at night. We received French rations, but no wine. Neither they nor ourselves had meat. We wondered where they got meat, but our wondering ceased when we found German bodies with the fleshly part of the legs cut off. Our prisoners asked not to be turned over to these black men.

It's under the section titled "FRENCH MOROCCAN TROOPS."

http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/skylark3/page93.html

Personally, I don't believe it. Moroccans have no history of cannibalism. It's possible that they killed and mutilated Germans prisoners, but I don't believe for a second that Moroccans ate their enemies. I'm pretty sure they didn't have filed teeth or nose rings, either.

Makes a heck of a story, though...

[Heid the Ba]

Sounds like Galen had been at the wine . . .

I don't believe any part of that extract either.

[Guest Rundberg]

"Galen" in Swedish is "mad" translated to English...

No offence meant, looks like some nice reading.

Chris

[charley_bourne]

I think it's in the book 'Mud, Songs And Blighty' where a tommy relates the story of him and his mates debating whether or not to eat some bacon that a sergeant had bled all over when he was killed. I think, in conclusion, they do indeed eat the bacon. Might be considered a type of cannibalism.

[centurion]

Sounds very doubtful. The description of filed teeth and iron rings does not match any photo I have seen of Moroccan , or for that matter any North African, troops. Its a description much more redolent of British descriptions of Ashanti warriors in the 19th century - sub Saharan Africa

Did Galen come from the southern states - Alabama say? It looks as if he is trying to reinforce a stereotype

[centurion]

A Moroccan soldier unfortunately he isn't smiling

[Ken S.]

Sounds very doubtful. The description of filed teeth and iron rings does not match any photo I have seen of Moroccan , or for that matter any North African, troops. Its a description much more redolent of British descriptions of Ashanti warriors in the 19th century - sub Saharan Africa

Did Galen come from the southern states - Alabama say? It looks as if he is trying to reinforce a stereotype

Well, if you'd bothered to read the first part of his narrative where he talks about his background, his people were from Iowa and had moved to Canada just prior to the war.

I guess you'll find this part "doubtful" as well:

"A band of Americans broke from a thicket on the hill opposite, and with a whoop and a yell descended upon the nest. Some of them were taken prisoners but not until a couple of bloodthirsty Yankees had pushed a bayonet through several of them. There were five or six of the enemy in this nest."

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

I think many soldiers write this sort of rubbish where rumor or myth takes the soldier to report silly things as fact.

There was a lot of this sort of writing in aussie diarys where they mention these stories they heard.

Galen mention of "We were told " sounds like someone was bull shiting to him. but to equat and dead boby with lacerations to Cannibalism shows these silly stories made an impression on this young soldier from the back waters of central USA.

S.B

[Ken S.]

Mate,

I think many soldiers write this sort of rubbish where rumor or myth takes the soldier to report silly things as fact.

There was a lot of this sort of writing in aussie diarys where they mention these stories they heard.

Galen mention of "We were told " sounds like someone was bull shiting to him. but to equat and dead boby with lacerations to Cannibalism shows these silly stories made an impression on this young soldier from the back waters of central USA.

S.B

Very insightful response. In case you missed it, though, he does state that he was studying in preparation for law school. Besides, the "we were told" part seems to only refer to the reference to their not wanting to wear uniforms.

[toofatfortakeoff]

I cant remember where I heard this-but a Sikh soldier on a train showing a soldier a string of German ears (a souvenir of battle) to take home to his wife. Might have even been a War Illustrated snippet. product of fevered journos? There was legends about Gurkhas keeping severed heads in the second war too..just colonial waffle.

[SiegeGunner]

So the unsupported anecdotal evidence of one young American soldier is inherently credible, but the documented testimony of numerous witnesses to atrocities against Belgian civilians is only 'alleged' (in inverted commas), eh, Ken.

[Ken S.]

So the unsupported anecdotal evidence of one young American soldier is inherently credible, but the documented testimony of numerous witnesses to atrocities against Belgian civilians is only 'alleged' (in inverted commas), eh, Ken.

Well, I'm glad that you raised that point. First of all, I don't recall saying that his "anecdotal evidence" was "credible". I was simply wondering how given everything else that he wrote, that this particular reference was inconsistent. Moreover, if there is somehow a correlation between his having come to the world in some "back water" of a place (despite receiving a classical education in preparation for law school) then what conclusions should we draw about the claims made by much less educated French and Belgian rural folk?

[egbert]

I have read tons of German WW1 accounts and never came across cannibalism. The Moroccan troops were led by French officers and I doubt they would have allowed such acts, as the German revenge towards French troops to include regulars would have been terrible. It is said that the Moroccans were cruel and did mutilate the bodies of German dead, and when noticed by the Germans they gave no pardon to captured Maroccons. But cannibalism- I do not think so at all!

[cdr]

Well, I'm glad that you raised that point. First of all, I don't recall saying that his "anecdotal evidence" was "credible". I was simply wondering how given everything else that he wrote, that this particular reference was inconsistent. Moreover, if there is somehow a correlation between his having come to the world in some "back water" of a place (despite receiving a classical education in preparation for law school) then what conclusions should we draw about the claims made by much less educated French and Belgian rural folk?

Ken seems to have problems with his vocabulary. Franc tireur activity in Belgium is "claimed" by German forces. The atrocities are unfortunately "facts"

Carl

[truthergw]

Racist prejudice was not confined to the Southern states it was simply enshrined in law there. The story reflects the endemic ignorance of the average doughboy. Farmboys from Iowa had probably never seen a black man close up until they got to boot camp. We are talking of a nation which had fought a civil war to end black slavery well within living memory.

[Tom W.]

We are talking of a nation which had fought a civil war to end black slavery well within living memory.

A nation which also commissioned black officers in its army during World War I, while its allies did not.

[truthergw]

A nation which also commissioned black officers in its army during World War I, while its allies did not.

But was still racially segregating troops well after WW2.

[centurion]

A nation which also commissioned black officers in its army during World War I, while its allies did not.

But only in all black units which were not allowed to mix with white troops - not very creditable, British army did have some black and Asian officers - albeit in incredibly small numbers but at least they shared the same mess.

BTW the Civil War was not fought to end slavery - although its end was a result but not what it was fought for. Some of the Union Generals favoured slavery and Robert E Lee favoured its abolition. The extension of more free states was certainly one cause. Lincoln went on public record to say the war was being fought to save the Union not to abolish slavery. His originally limited abolition was an economic and political weapon aimed at the Confederate states. Its interesting to note that the very last American slave ships probably sailed in the early 1870s taking part in the African/Cuban slave trade. Legislation was hastily passed to make this illegal

[auchonvillerssomme]

We seem to be drifting from the point and is now going down a our slavery ended before yours did competition.

[centurion]

Another shot of the men under discussion

[Ken S.]

Ken seems to have problems with his vocabulary. Franc tireur activity in Belgium is "claimed" by German forces. The atrocities are unfortunately "facts"

Carl

Again, I don't deny that the Germans committed acts of brutality against civilians in Belgium and France. My issue is how this is still viewed through perspective of wartime propaganda as being something particular and distinct, when in fact it really is no different than what has happened throughout the history of warfare. Even today, despite technological advances and training, we still see instances where civilians are (mistakenly) targeted, and where soldiers under very difficult and stressful circumstances make unfortunate rash decisions that they later regret. In the end, the Germans were of course trying to win the war, and in so doing encountered a sometimes real, sometimes perceived threat from a hostile civilian population. Needless to say, the reprisals that they carried out were still relatively light compared to say what Russia had been doing in the Caucasus or Britain throughout its Empire. Or for that matter the French on occasion on German soil for centuries prior to 1815.

[centurion]

Are they really?

How about finding out specifically which Moroccan unit(s) his regiment was deployed near, and see if there are any photos of them. Even if you can find some, there's no way that this will conclusively prove that there weren't men in them from parts of Africa where dental mutilation was practiced.

AFAIK Morocco is not part of Africa where dental mutilation is practised - the men in the photo are Moroccan, The French for culltural and tribal considerations did not tend to mix men from different parts of Africa in units so a Morrocan unit would contain Moroccans. As the original posting is referring to Moroccan troops - in general this is a photo of the men in question. Of course its possible that the American in question lumped all French African units together as Moroccan.

[Ken S.]

But was still racially segregating troops well after WW2.

This little spat is really pointless. But still if you're interested in slavery and racism in the United States, I would suggest reading a few books on Colonial Georgia. You'll learn that this colony was supposed to be non-slave-owning, yet the laws were circumvented by a number of wealthy capitalists who were intent on establishing huge plantations. Most I believe were of British origin, and not an insignificant number of them were Scottish.

[Ken S.]

AFAIK Morocco is not part of Africa where dental mutilation is practised - the men in the photo are Moroccan, The French for culltural and tribal considerations did not tend to mix men from different parts of Africa in units so a Morrocan unit would contain Moroccans. As the original posting is referring to Moroccan troops - in general this is a photo of the men in question. Of course its possible that the American in question lumped all French African units together as Moroccan.

Like I said, find out what Moroccan units were deployed near his regiment, and find some pictures of them.

[centurion]

Like I said, find out what Moroccan units were deployed near his regiment, and find some pictures of them.

I don't think you understood my reply