true or bogus war atrocities?

[armourersergeant]

I have heard of the stories that the allied public and soldiers were witness to but i was wondering if the German army had its own propaganda and if so what sort of stories and atrocities were they served up be they true or propoganda.

We all like to think our side is the most honourable but creulty knows no boundries or country demarkations.

thanks in anticipation.

Arm.

[AOK4]

The Germans had the stories about the Russians in Eastern Prussia, where a lot of houses were destroyed and civilians abused.

For the Germans the alleged Franc-tireurs were allied war crimes.

One can however say that the Germans didn't want to wage the propaganda war, although I read somewhere that they also had evidence of allied war crimes, but the Foreign office didn't want to use it...

I have several stories about Belgian civilians being killed/abused by allied soldiers, mainly on accusation of being a spy.

Jan

[Geoff Parker]

I have read several personal accounts during 1914-15 period where any Belgian or Frenchman (or woman) during anything out of the ordinary were immediately suspected of being a spy, and in many cases excuted.

There's the story of the farmer who apparently put different coloured horses

(or cows, cant remember which) in a certain field at a certain time, which was believed by the British to a signal to the Germans. Likewise a priest who

had a transmitter in the belfry.

I also picked up recently a copy of a government publication in 1915 on

German war crimes committed during 1914. Many accounts by Belgian and British troops, as well as Belgian civilians. It was only £5 so I bought it for its curiosity value.

Geoff

[Guest tintin]

I got a book on alleged German atrocities in 1914 for Christmas, I have lent it to someone so can' dig out the title. It is very, very good and I can recommend it. It covers the German perspective and post-war attitudes as well as what happened in the war and contemporary investigations/reactions.

The Germans main atrocity rumours were about mutilation and murder of the wounded (removal of eyes or hands) which was fuelled by pre-war Belgian atrocities in the Congo. They also feared civilian snipers and RC Priests (even the Catholic troops suspected the Belgian Church). The German Army thus determined to stamp out any resistance before it started.

Later in the war the Germans suspected the Senegalese and North Africans of atrocities

[Andrew P]

Currently reading a book called 'German Anzacs' which details what Australians of German origin went through in WW1. I've only read the first few chapters but it is interesting to read what the opinions of the Germans were to the early Allied propoganda.

Cheers

Andrew

[MartinWills]

I can recommend the following volume:

German Atrocities 1914 - A history of Denial

John Horne and Alan Kramer

Yale University Press 2001 ISBN0-300-08975-9

This covers the period and atrocities in great detail and certainly gives food for thought.

Martin

[Myrtle]

Andrew

Would you please post publishing details of "German Anzacs". It sounds interesting. Is it a new or old book ?

Myrtle

[Andrew P]

Andrew

Would you please post publishing details of "German Anzacs". It sounds interesting. Is it a new or old book ?

Myrtle

Hi Myrtle

The full title is 'German Anzacs' by John Williams. Published by University of NSW Press. Published quite recently.

It is very interesting and has so far gone into how Australians of German backgrounds were treated in Australia, plus it goes into the stories of many of these chaps who fought at Gallipoli, Palestine & the Western Front.

Here's a link to the publishers website with more info on the book.

http://www.unswpress.com.au/isbn/0868405086.htm

Cheers

[paul guthrie]

The book Martin mentions above is superb. It won the prize for best WW1 work in English given by US Branch WFA last year. The biggest of all Great War myths is that the German atrocities were myths. They were real and massive. Look at the village memorials in France and Belgium for the civilians murdered by the Germans. They used human shields, collective punishmen, deportation, you name it they did it. Another fine work on this is The Long Silence, Helen McPhail.

[AOK4]

Hello,

I do not know anyone who thought the German atrocities were myths before the book was published so I do not understand where the authors got this idea...

Stories about German war crimes can be found in every local history about WW1 and every now and then you can find articles about those in the papers.

You don't read much about Allied war crimes though. I found stories about civilians who were executed on charges of espionage (or died because of the rough treatment), civilians who had to dig trenches etc. Perhaps it didn't happen on such a large scale (Belgium and France were allied nations), although it would perhaps be interesting to see what the allies did in the occupied Rhineland after the war to have a more balanced view?

Jan

[paul guthrie]

Jan there was doubt during and after the war because of denial of these atrocities by the Germans. This is no longer true and the authors have a great deal to say about later German statements.

It is interesting that the primary atrocity denials in recent times are never German. There are those by neo Nazis of all countries but except for that none by Germans I know of. However, every so often some Japanese politician seems compelled to deny or minimize Nanking, forced prostitution etc. It just keeps happening. I spent a year in Germany 67-68 courtesy of US Army, had lots of German pals and never heard a word of this though I did hear a few beer induced longings for Alsace.

As far as Rhineland goes, war was ever and while individuals I am sure raped etc. I have never heard of any atrocities.

[armourersergeant]

Jan

I often wonder if you do not read much about allied atrocities because 'History is written by the victors'

Arm.

[munce]

History is certainly written by the victors, but even so I think it's not just the case that they ignore evidence of their own wrongdoing; I think many honestly believed that there was a different moral character between what they did and what the Germans did.

For example I've recently finished reading 'The Oxfordshire Hussars in the Great War', where the author mentions the looting of French houses and villages by British troops as being absolutely normal, and with only a hint of regret over this behaviour. In another incident a German prisoner was taken by a cavalry patrol towards the end of the war, but when they saw a larger force of Germans close by they 'had to' shoot the prisoner, as if it was the most natural thing to do. The fact that this war crime is mentioned at all, without further commentary (and by the author who was a serving (TA) officer of the regiment at the time of writing) suggests that he clearly didn't see anything wrong with it. Evidence of Germans behaving similarly, particularly shooting British prisoners, would no doubt be seized upon (rightly so) as being atrocities.

[Myrtle]

Andrew

Thanks for details of website. I'm going to try to get hold of a copy.

Myrtle

[AOK4]

History is certainly written by the victors, but even so I think it's not just the case that they ignore evidence of their own wrongdoing; I think many honestly believed that there was a different moral character between what they did and what the Germans did.

...

Evidence of Germans behaving similarly, particularly shooting British prisoners, would no doubt be seized upon (rightly so) as being atrocities.

Munce,

What do you mean with "different moral character"? Do you think the Germans were perhaps all "evil Huns" as shown in Allied propaganda? Your two examples are things that can be found on the other side too and are declared war crimes immediately. However when it happened on the British side, everything is OK? Please explain me why you consider those two things to be no war crimes but when these things happen on the other side they suddenly are... Of course what the Germans did in the beginning of the war, was on a larger scale.

Also know that the civilian authorities were aware that part of the German reaction was caused by the armed and poorly uniformed "Garde civique" and the shooting of allied troops from civilian houses. That's why the Garde civique was disbanded after a few weeks (most of the mayors ordered the disbandment in disregard of official orders from the military gouvernors) and also why, like in Bisseghem (my home town), orders were issued to the population that, if any soldiers occupied your house and shot from it at other troops, you had to leave your house so that no no civilians could be accused of shooting. Even children were ordered to stay indoors , so that they couldn't do anything stupid.

I think it is extremely dangerous to express moral judgments in hindsight, especially when a lot of the sources are not longer there. We can try to to find the truth and we can try to make a reconstruction of what happened, but we can't do much more.

Jan

[munce]

Jan,

I wasn't expressing my own feelings here!

What I was trying to express was my impression of the feelings of many on the allied side during and after the war. I fully agree that the incidents I described are, and were (I think, although I'm not sure about exactly what legislation was in force at the time), war crimes, and need to be condemned. The point I was hoping to make was that the victors -- including the author of the book I mentioned -- didn't appear to regard them as being particularly serious incidents, but I'm sure they would have reacted with horror if they heard of Germans doing the same thing. It was the men at the time who I think believed in a different moral character between what the allies did and what the 'evil Hun' did.

I hope that clears up any misunderstanding!

[AOK4]

OK Munce, I apparently misunderstood you.

I totally agree with you when you say history is mostly written by the victors.

Jan

[mordac]

A classic piece of WWI propaganda is the story of a Canadian Sgt. who was reported to have been crucified by German soldiers in April 1915. The incident was allegedly to have taken place near Ypres after the first gas attack of the war. Even though there was never any evidence of the event, the crucifixion myth remains to this day.

In 1918, Francis Derwent Wood created a large bronze sculpture "Canada's Golgotha." It depicts the image of a Canadian soldier crucified with bayonets and a group of German soldiers jeering. The sculpture remained on display until 1920 when the post-war German government demanded proof of the atrocity. Of course, no proof was available, so "Canada's Golgotha" was removed from public display.

Since 1920, the sculpture has been exhibited several times. The last time I recall it being displayed was in 2000 at the Canadian Museum of Civilization in an exhibit called Under the Sign of the Cross: Creative Expressions of Christianity in Canada. It's interesting to note that after 80 years, each time "Canada's Golgotha" is displayed, a controversy erupts.

Garth