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

Remembered Today:

EDITH CAVELL


chris basey

Recommended Posts

In WWII France, it was the practice of the Germans to shoot hostages whenever a German soldier was killed by the resistance. One book I read made the point that this may have caused outrage, but it was perfectly legal under international law - and no Germans were ever tried for war crimes for doing it.

France…..10th June 1944….Oradour-sur-Glane… reprisal killings (massacre).

France….1953……Bordeaux…….sentences handed out by French Court:

Lenz … Death

Blaeschke … 12 years hard labour

Boehme … 10 years hard labour

Pfeufer … 10 years hard labour

Frenzel … 10 years jail

Daab … 12 years hard labour

Dagenhardt … Acquitted (he was able to prove that he was not in Oradour during the killings).

Lawyers like to twist things to breaking point to find loopholes but I cannot believe that any argument can be made for the non-judicial execution of unarmed civilians by a military occupying power. It is murder - pure and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Executing Cavell was a big propaganda setback for the Germans, but it is sometimes overlooked that they were fully entitled under international law to shoot her for what she did.

You can argue that she was acting from humanitarian motives, but she was in German held territory, actively assisting the allied war effort.

I think it is impossible that Germany could impose any law in Belgium in a legal way, because they where even not allowed under international law to invade the country. So the execution of Edith Cavell could not have legal grounds. And this has nothing to do with seeing things from a distance. Germany signed and violated the treaty in which it accepted Belgian neutrality. How could this give them any rights on Belgian soil?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is impossible that Germany could impose any law in Belgium in a legal way, because they where even not allowed under international law to invade the country

Apologies if I'm going to get a bit technical here (special apologies for the use of Latin but I don't get many legitimate excuses to use it). You are confusing two things that, to a certain extent, should stand alone - jus ad bellum - the rectitude or justice of going to war or waging it (i.e. the breaking of Belgian neutrality) and - jus in bellum - the rectitude of the manner in which you conduct war (i.e. the killing of a spy or escape organiser). It is perfectly possible for a just war to be fought unjustly and for an unjust war to be fought in strict accordance with all relevant rules, legal and moral, of warfare.

There was some interesting debate in Britain at the time about executing female spies - some thought not doing so, would allow them to run riot. Also, it must be remembered that male and female French civilians suspected of spying for the Germans in the frontline area were executed, often after courtmartials even flimsier than Cavell's.

I have British government memos and minutes from 1919-20 that come to the same conclusion as Angie - Cavell (and Capt Fryatt) were both executed in accordance with a harsh reading of German military law, but legally correctly.

However, I disagree with Angie that

the notion of war crimes and international law and principles were simply not the same in 1914-18 as they became after WWII and Nuremburg
Of course, after Nuremberg much detail was different but the essence of the laws of war was the same and had been codified in the Hague Coventions of 1899 and 1907.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is in answer to a number of points.

When the Germans invaded Belgium, in was in violation of a treaty guarenteeing Belgian neutrality, but it followed delivery of an ultimatum, the terms of which had been refused by the Belgians before the Germans invaded. The Germans went on to declare war on Belgium on 4 August 1914. It may have been an unjust war, but it was war. The occupation of Belgium may have been harsh, but it was a legal military occupation in time of war

Cavell, a national of a country at war with Germany, did commit acts which made her liable to the death penalty under German military law. She was tried and judicially executed. It can be argued that she never had a fair trial, but she did have a normal trial by German military standards of the time. And nobody here is saying that she didn't do it. Maybe though, she thought that being a woman would save her. After all, she knew the Germans were closing in on her and she had enough time to get out of the country. She chose to stay and carry on.

It appears likely that the British at the time had double standards, one law for men and another for women. I think that this was one reason why Cavell's case produced the reaction it did. Had it been a man, the reaction would have been different. There was no similar outrage about the Belgian who was shot with her. If I recall correctly - and it is many years since I have seen it - in the 1939 film he is even deleted from the scene. Shades of the more sentimental Edwardian outlook here, I think.

And finally, regarding the trial of the SS participants in the massacre at Oradour-sur-Glane in 1953, the one death sentence handed down was commuted, none stayed in custody very long, the Alsatians involved were amnestied and the French never actively pursued those sentenced in absentia. However, this is missing the point. The massacre was not a reprisal for specific acts in the same way as the shooting of hostages had been. It does not appear to have been ordered by the occupation authorities. See Max Hastings: Das Reich.

I take Paul's point about international law and the Hague Conventions, but I still maintain that after WWII new precedents had been established and new standards set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point is whether or not her conviction and sentence were legal under the then current 1906 Geneva Convention. The validity under German law is neither here nor there.

Does anyone have access to the 1906 text? I found the full text of the 1949 Convention (the current one with a few later additions) on the ICRC site and my reading of that is that the sentence, at least, would have been illegal under it. Of course, the 1906 one may have been quite different.

Regards

Anthony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point is whether or not her conviction and sentence were legal under the then current 1906 Geneva Convention. The validity under German law is neither here nor there.

Does anyone have access to the 1906 text? I found the full text of the 1949 Convention (the current one with a few later additions) on the ICRC site and my reading of that is that the sentence, at least, would have been illegal under it. Of course, the 1906 one may have been quite different.

Regards

Anthony

As far as I can establish, the 1949 Geneva Convention was the first to provide for protection of civilians. And I would maintain that under the terms of article 5 of the 1949 Convention, Cavell would still have been liable to trial and possible execution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pete Wood

I am going to have to dig out some notes (in storage) but the 1949 convention was not the first paper to be signed by the major powers, including Germany, to protect civilians.

I know that bombing civilians from the air was agreed by all the European countries to be 'against the law' (my term). This was signed in, I believe, 1906.

However in 1908 Germany decided not to sign this document - and the effects were realised from 1915 onwards, when German aeroplanes and airships raided this country causing some 5000 casualties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pete Wood

I have been informed that what I was clumsily describing was article 25 of the Hague Convention of 1906 - 'Nobody would bomb undefended towns or cities from the air' (or words to that effect).

Germany agreed to the terms in 1906, and signed its support. It did not renew its pledge in 1908 for an extended period (suggested in 1907).

It should be noted that Japan also declined to sign the 1908 Hague Convention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is obvious from some of your previous answers on this forum and on the WW2 forum that you have a low opinion of the Government (past and present) and civil servants. That is your perogative.....

Sure I do. It is because I work in the public sector and see the difference between what they say and what they do all too clearly - governments that is, not those who work for them, who have to try to follow the twists and turns in their often badly thought through policies.

With nearly 35 years of public sector experience, I think i have a little insight on this.

What I am not going to change my opinion about is Cavell's execution. I think it was shocking at the time, but legal. I am sorry if others do not agree with this, but there it is.

And I NEVER try to rewrite history. What I try to do is interpret the evidence as well as I can for myself. I take other opinions into account, but I think it is very unwise to swallow the "official" line, hook, line and sinker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Rowan's "Spy and Counter-Spy" written in 1929 says that Edith Cavell "could not have been remotely classified as a spy." It appears that she was not charged with espionage, but with "conducting soldiers to the enemy" under Article 58 of the German Military Code.

Interestingly, this book also mentions Armand Jeannes who was tried at Mons in March 1922. This man boasted that he had denounced Edith Cavell and had been instrumental in the condemnation of 126 Belgians, French and British by German court martial. He was eventually found guilty following evidence brought against him by M. Lacroix who had been head of the Belgian counter-espionage service, who had known of Jeannes's actions. Armand Jeannes was made to pay 11,250 francs for the cost of the trial and then he was publicly executed.

Another woman who faced being condemned to death was Mme Louise de Butignies, known as Alice Dubois. Captain Baumann of the German Military Intelligence said that no other spy system in the war had a recruit to compare with her "in subtle craft, organising talent, courage, sang-froid, or the results obtained". She specialised in obtaining intelligence of German artillery positions in 1914-15 assisted by Mlle Leonie Van Houtte. One very small map that she passed out of Belgium, via Holland ,hidden in the rim of a pair of glasses led to the destruction of fourteen German batteries. When eventually arrested she was found to have 20 false passports on her ready for distribution. She was condemned to death but then her sentence was commuted to twenty-seven years imprisonment. She, however, died of pleurisy in a Cologne prison two months before the Armistice.

Myrtle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A period poster

post-38-1104147370.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
A period poster

Thought I'd share this with all - a documentary about Edith Cavell's work and subsequent murder by firing squad was shown (in English) on Singapore TV. It was nice to find something interesting to watch after a late flight from Sydney. Also nice to see that she is still remembered outside the UK, too.

Robbie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought I'd share this with all - a documentary about Edith Cavell's work and subsequent murder by firing squad was shown (in English) on Singapore TV. It was nice to find something interesting to watch after a late flight from Sydney. Also nice to see that she is still remembered outside the UK, too.

Robbie

That's interesting - I wonder if it was to do with the up coming anniversary of the 90th Anniversary of her death?

Any idea of the country of origin of the film?

Thanks for telling us, Robbie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this the memorial from Brussels?

Tony.

I downsized this for the forum by emailing it to myself using Outlook Express, this always asks if I want to make pictures smaller. Then I just save the one on the email. Don't know if it would work with other email programs.

post-3707-1126900592.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simon

Thanks for posting that picture - one which I have never seen before. It's taken from inside the door of the Cathedral which can be seen in the attached photo - taken at last year's Remembrance Service

post-702-1126970547.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim

The plaque is alongside two more and underneath a memorial widow in Holy Trinity Church, Llandrindod Wells. I have attached more photographs, although because of the height at which the plaques are placed, it was difficult to take clear shots without a zoom lense at hand.

Myrtle

post-38-1127064056.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Myrtle. I still keep an eye on the topics although not as often as I'd like..preparing for the new academic year starting soon.

Robbiev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myrtle

Is there a Cavell connection with the window?

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...