Taking no prisoners

[kevin dunion]

I was struck by an account by a Royal Scot soldier in the local paper for my part of Fife in 1917 when he said that he had taken part in a successful raid on German trenches. They had taken a few prisoners, one of whom, when being escorted back to the British lines, lay down and refused to budge. His sergeant major "placed a bomb in his trouser leg and left him." He then goes on to say almost jocularly "a bomb takes five seconds to explode after the pin has been drawn, so you have an idea where the German is now!" What is striking about this is not only is it a specific instance of killing a POW but that it was reported at the time with no misgiving or any negative connotation. I know the above account is not unique - Malcom Brown's book 'Tommy Goes To War' has an account of a London Scottish soldier who said that he "emptied his magazine on three Germans that came out of their deep dugouts, bleeding badly and put them out of their misery. They cried for mercy but I had my orders."

Have others come across such instances in their local research? Is there documentary evidence as to 'orders ' to shoot those seeking to surrender and was it generally accepted that this was what went on in war - which seems in direct contrast to the outrage often expressed about the conditions experienced by British POWs?

[truthergw]

Because it is strictly against Geneva conventions and other international treaties and accords, there is very unlikely to be official documentation or written orders to take no prisoners. There seems to be quite a lot of anecdotal evidence that prisoners were killed deliberately for a variety of reasons. There is a fine line between killing a prisoner and refusing to take a soldier prisoner. Any soldier who surrendered was in mortal danger until he was back in the rear lines and under the control of the system set up to guard prisoners. Over the years I have seen references to many different units along the lines of, ' they took no prisoners'. I will not name any because there were so many that it seems to have been alleged against the majority of units at some time or another. Because it is all anecdotal, it is very hard to draw up an accurate picture of what really happened.

[KONDOA]

One has to be cautious of newspaper articles written at the time; much journalistic licence was used to present a good story. Little changes really.

Roop

[ian turner]

I have mentioned this in other threads before, so apologies for repetition.

My grandfather told me some of his experiences in the Seaforths. Perhaps a rumour went around about an atrocity somewhere up the line. The next time over the top the order went around: 'Fix bayonets, no prisoners, pass it on!'

And when a German machinegunner popped out of a hole in the ground holding up his arms and calling "Kamerad" he was indeed summarily bayoneted. Grandad said that it did not occupy a moments thought, especially if said machinegunner had just downed many of your pals.

I am sure this went on on both sides and in all wars. It is human nature unleashed at its worst. Viz recent atrocities in Iraq?

Ian

[tjnsn1]

An order issued by GHQ on 28th June 1916 signed by Lt Gen Kiggell stated:

'All ranks must be on their guard against the various ruses at which the enemy has shown himself to be adept, especially the use of British words of command such as 'Retire', etc.

The German machine gun is carried on a slegde, and the Germans sometimes throw a blanket over the gun. This makes the gun and sledge resemble a stretcher.

It is the duty of all ranks to continue to use their weapons against the enemy's fighting troops, unless and untill it is beyond all doubt that those have not only ceased all resistance but that, whether through voluntarily having thrown down their weapons or otherwise, they have definitely and finally abandoned all hope or intention of resisting further. In the case of apparent surrender it lies with the enemy to prove his intention beyond the possibility of misunderstanding, before the surrender can be qccepted as genuine'

This order was disseminated to all Divisions and was then copied by Divisional HQ to Brigades who in turn copied it to Battalion HQ's The instructions were that it was to communicated to all troops so it would be easy for platoon commanders to add their interpretation of the orderwhen reading it out and for soldiers to take it as an order to 'Take no Prisoners'.

[Muskoka]

In Goodbye To All That, Robert Graves says "About saving the lives of enemy wounded there was disagreement; the convention varied with the division. Some divisions, like the Canadians and a division of the Lowland territorials, who had, they claimed, atrocities to avenge, would not only take no risks to rescue enemy wounded, but would go out of their way to finish them off."

Later he states, "Nearly every instructor in the mess knew of specific cases when prisoners had been murdered on the way back. The commonest motives were, it seems, revenge for the death of friends or relations, jealousy of the prisoner's pleasant trip to a comfortable prison camp in England, military enthusiasm, fear of being suddenly overpowered by the prisoners or, more simply, not wanting to be bothered with the escorting job. In any of these cases the conductors would report on arrival at headquarters that a German shell had killed the prisoners; no questions would be asked. We had every reason to believe that the same thing happened on the German side, where prisoners, as useless mouths to feed in a country already on short rations, were even less welcome."

Gabriele

[Borden Battery]

Here is a re-post of mine from 2006. Borden Battery

==========================================

After having read the entire published article on this subject, I would discount the short summary by this somewhat inexperienced reporter. The scholarly paper by Dr. Tim Cook is much more balanced in its treatment of the subject.

I would recommend that interested members access the article or check out the CEF Study Group discussion forum where Mordac has written a short note on the topic.

Regards

Borden Battery

The Politics of Surrender: Canadian Soldiers and the Killing of Prisoners in the Great War

Author: Tim Cook (Dr. Tim Cook is a historian at the Canadian War Museum)

Publication: The Journal of Military History - July 2006

[Peter Shand]

Coincidence: Today I was reading an interview (in the the Canadian magazine Maclean's, June 11, 2007) with John Babcock, the last Canadian veteran of the GW. He states," They would capture German soldiers. A detail would have to take them back where they were holding the prisoners. They didn't want to be bothered, so they'd take them back to the reserve trenches and shoot them. I thought that was a hell of a thing to do."

Although he was talking about war stories coming out after many beers, he replied to a question as to whether the stories were being told by braggers with, " I think they did it."

Pete S.

[Jack Sheldon]

I should like to add my two penn'oth to this discussion, because it is an area which interests me a good deal. As a result of wide reading in the German primary and secondary sources I think it justified to say that the public attitude to and treatment of prisoners is one area where there was a clear difference between the Allies and the Germans. Note that I am not saying that the Germans did not shoot surrendering men out of hand (though I so far failed to turn up any evidence that they did). The point is that it was evidently unacceptable to write, even after the event, that it was somehow OK to kill prisoners. On the other hand, anecdotally at least, there is ample evidence that large numbers of British and Allied soldiers thought nothing of it and were certainly prepared to go into print about it, without a qualm.

Those who have seen my German Army on the Somme 1914 - 1916 will know that I touch on this subject a few times: e.g. pp 216-217, where there is a lengthy account of German soldiers going to considerable trouble to succour British wounded. The most interesting part, however, is where the eyewitness wonders why the wounded man made no attempt until some days had passed to crawl in to their lines (and this sort of remark crops up regularly in the literature). He continues, 'The fear that we would kill him had kept him and probably others, from attemptting to reach our lines. The cause of this was the fact, as explained to us by a British soldier we captured, that they had often been given an order not to take prisoners and they feared that the situation would be the same with us.'

Another example is covered at p 292 where Dr Blass, Medical Officer of Bavarian IR 9 describes the wanton killing of prisoners by New Zealand troops on 15 Sep 16: '..the unwounded or walking wounded were directed on their way by hand signals. Despite the fact that there was no resistance, the New Zealanders fired recklessly, or through sheer blood lust at individuals and groups of prisoners or wounded who were making their way back, killing a great many...' This is a quote from a very angry unpublished paper, held in the Kriegsarchiv in Munich - not intended for pubication, so entirely believable, especially because it lists other witnesses and men shot in the back during the incident.

I mention a different slant on this in The German Army at Passchendaele on p168. The incident concerns the aftermath of the fighting on 25 Sep 1917. A leutnant from RIR 231 recalled, 'During the night a Scotsman blundered into our position. We kept him there to tend to his severely wounded countrymen, who were moaning terribly. One of them had lost both his eyes to a flamethrower. I longed to shoot him and put him out of his misery, but such action was not permitted...'

Recent work on original interrogation reports for my forthcoming book on Vimy are larded with remarks such as, 'The prisoner's wounds were dressed. He was given refreshment and then questioned...' or (on 25 May 1916) a note by the name of 2Lt WV Brooks 7th Bn London Regt 'Because of his wounds, he is not well enough to be interrogated.' Why mention these things in an interrogation report if the chain of command did not care how prisoners were treated?

These are just a few examples which I believe underscore a different attitude to those out of the fight and deserving of humane treatment in accordance with the laws and customs of war. I am at any time interested and willing to be shown material which provides examples of inhumane, callous or illegal treatment of Allied prisoners on the battlefield. All sides of the story are important if objective judgements are to be made.

Jack

[dycer]

Democracy,

This is how one Soldier wrote about it in his Diary(4585 Pte J.M. Marchbank 1/8th Royal Scots)

No Quarter

"To be a soldier on active service means to reject the sanctity of life and property.and one end in battle is to compel your enemy to submit.If you succeed his body and possessions are yours.In the heat of battle he may throw down his weapon and ask for mercy.If he leaves the moment of surrender too late he is likely to be killed,no soldier can expect mercy if he fights to the extreme and in the heat of fighting quarter may be refused.If on the other hand during a lull in battle he shows the white flag and comes out unarmed from a firing position crying "Kamerad,"he is entitled to mercy."

George

[kevin dunion]

I should like to add my two penn'oth to this discussion, because it is an area which interests me a good deal. As a result of wide reading in the German primary and secondary sources I think it justified to say that the public attitude to and treatment of prisoners is one area where there was a clear difference between the Allies and the Germans. Note that I am not saying that the Germans did not shoot surrendering men out of hand (though I so far failed to turn up any evidence that they did). The point is that it was evidently unacceptable to write, even after the event, that it was somehow OK to kill prisoners. On the other hand, anecdotally at least, there is ample evidence that large numbers of British and Allied soldiers thought nothing of it and were certainly prepared to go into print about it, without a qualm......

These are just a few examples which I believe underscore a different attitude to those out of the fight and deserving of humane treatment in accordance with the laws and customs of war. I am at any time interested and willing to be shown material which provides examples of inhumane, callous or illegal treatment of Allied prisoners on the battlefield. All sides of the story are important if objective judgements are to be made.

Jack

Jack ,

Thanks for such an insightful response. I have not come across instances of Germans shooting prisoners out of hand on the battle field - quite the contrary. A local Black Watch soldier recounted how in March 1918 after the Germans overran his position near Bapaume he found himself in a shell hole , severely wounded. Under fire, a German Red Cross man crawled out to attend his wounds, although he had to remain in the hole for two days until the Germans could recover him and take him into captivity.

By contrast there are accounts of maltreatment once in captivity. Many local POWs reported being badly fed to the point of severe malnutrition if not starvation, ; others say they were pressed into service in the reserve trenches where many POWs were casualties of shell fire and some witnessed fellow POWs being summarily shot for minor offences such as accepting food from French civilians. Again, is this something you have come across more extensively?

Kevin

[truthergw]

I should like to add my two penn'oth to this discussion, because it is an area which interests me a good deal.

...........................................

Jack

Jack, it is always good to see some documentation. The official position was probably much the same on either side. No country would wish to lay themselves open to charges of being uncivilised etc., etc. Of course this did not stop the press in France and Britain from making lurid accusations anyway. I have not read contemporary German papers, so I do not know if they followed suit. It would not surprise me. European countries were astonishingly similar in many respects. There are so many anecdotal references to the killing of prisoners that it seems probable that it happened. It is not certain of course, there are many references to men seeing the Angels of Mons. The Senegalese troops of the French Army were feared by the Germans in particular but many French troops viewed them with caution as well. They were a source of great anxiety to Edward Spears who thought that they could only be controlled by their own officers and even then, only barely. I am personally acquainted with the other side of the coin. My Grandfather was badly wounded and left for the Germans to pick up. This they duly did, and he was to finally die in hospital in a Corps base, far behind the lines. He must have been transferred all the way up the chain along with the German casualties and at one stage seems to have been on an ambulance train. I know therefore, that not even badly wounded prisoners were killed out of hand as a matter of policy. Sadly. our own knowledge of human nature makes it all too probable that on all sides, men who could have been taken prisoner were not and men who were already prisoners were killed needlessly.

[kevin dunion]

An order issued by GHQ on 28th June 1916 signed by Lt Gen Kiggell stated:

'All ranks must be on their guard against the various ruses at which the enemy has shown himself to be adept, especially the use of British words of command such as 'Retire', etc.

The German machine gun is carried on a slegde, and the Germans sometimes throw a blanket over the gun. This makes the gun and sledge resemble a stretcher.

It is the duty of all ranks to continue to use their weapons against the enemy's fighting troops, unless and untill it is beyond all doubt that those have not only ceased all resistance but that, whether through voluntarily having thrown down their weapons or otherwise, they have definitely and finally abandoned all hope or intention of resisting further. In the case of apparent surrender it lies with the enemy to prove his intention beyond the possibility of misunderstanding, before the surrender can be qccepted as genuine'

This order was disseminated to all Divisions and was then copied by Divisional HQ to Brigades who in turn copied it to Battalion HQ's The instructions were that it was to communicated to all troops so it would be easy for platoon commanders to add their interpretation of the orderwhen reading it out and for soldiers to take it as an order to 'Take no Prisoners'.

Very useful to see this, thanks.I think this issue of the mistrust of the 'surrendering' enemy was certainly there and was reflected in an indignant press. In 1915 it was reported that a Anstruther soldier in the 4th Black Watch had been wounded when a German prisoner he was escorting back to the British lines shot him with a revolver.

[kevin dunion]

I have mentioned this in other threads before, so apologies for repetition.

My grandfather told me some of his experiences in the Seaforths. Perhaps a rumour went around about an atrocity somewhere up the line. The next time over the top the order went around: 'Fix bayonets, no prisoners, pass it on!'

And when a German machinegunner popped out of a hole in the ground holding up his arms and calling "Kamerad" he was indeed summarily bayoneted. Grandad said that it did not occupy a moments thought, especially if said machinegunner had just downed many of your pals.

I am sure this went on on both sides and in all wars. It is human nature unleashed at its worst. Viz recent atrocities in Iraq?

Ian

Thanks, Ian. I read in Martin Middelbrook's 'The First Day of the Somme' that soldiers claimed, prior to the attack, that they were ordered to show no quarter to the enemy and that no prisoners were to be taken. It is said that this instruction was repeated in three different divisions but always verbally, never by written order.

Is this folklore - if was intended to be an actual order to tens of thousands of men, could it have been disseminated with no written origin; or was it just something which grew out of the tension in the trenches themselves.

Kevin

[kevin dunion]

In Goodbye To All That, Robert Graves says "About saving the lives of enemy wounded there was disagreement; the convention varied with the division. Some divisions, like the Canadians and a division of the Lowland territorials, who had, they claimed, atrocities to avenge, would not only take no risks to rescue enemy wounded, but would go out of their way to finish them off."

Later he states, "Nearly every instructor in the mess knew of specific cases when prisoners had been murdered on the way back. The commonest motives were, it seems, revenge for the death of friends or relations, jealousy of the prisoner's pleasant trip to a comfortable prison camp in England, military enthusiasm, fear of being suddenly overpowered by the prisoners or, more simply, not wanting to be bothered with the escorting job. In any of these cases the conductors would report on arrival at headquarters that a German shell had killed the prisoners; no questions would be asked. We had every reason to believe that the same thing happened on the German side, where prisoners, as useless mouths to feed in a country already on short rations, were even less welcome."

Gabriele

Thanks Gabriele,

It was not only on the German side that POWs were seen as mouths to feed , it would appear. It was said that at Etaples the training instructors told arriving troops that ' every prisoner means a day's ration gone.'

[Tom Morgan]

Kevin - I think it was Martin Middlebrook who mentions a commanding officer addressing his men just before the battle with the words, "You may take prisoners - but I don't want to see them."

A statement like this is open to all sorts of interpretation and seems to be an instance of a commanding officer telling his men that there will be no repercussions if they decide to ignore some of the rules. (Something, of course, he is not entitled to actually say in so many words.)

Tom

[sjustice]

Interesting thread, Jack just sold me on his two books I had passed over fer sher!

I could never help wondering how it would be easy to hear "no prisoners" i.e. you haven't got time, same as you haven't got time to help a wounded comrade, just send them back to our lines, and translate that to "no prisoners" i.e. murder a surrendering combatant. All too easy methinks.

My own position is that it possibly depended to a large extent to just how submissive the surrendered were and how fast they surrendered when challenged if they hadn't already offered. Notwithstanding that I also believe that in the tension of the moment (haven't faced it myself so I can only surmise) it could be the immediate action to finish the enemy without having a problem doing it.

There will certainly be more accounts of finishing off a combatant who demonstrated he was still just that, than executing a prisoner.

SMJ

[Jack Sheldon]

The related point concerning long-term treatment of prisoners is definitely a useful side shoot to this discussion. It is well worth while obtaining a copy of 'Within Four Walls' by Harrison and Cartwright. Although courage and high humour on the part of these determined escapers accounts for a large part of the book, it is clear that ill-treatment certainly occurred. H & C certainly hint that the low quality of the troops used for guarding played a role here. Indifferent or non-existent medical treatment, coupled to a starvation diet, was also nothing to be proud of.

Examination of the grave register at Stahnsdorf CWGC at Berlin, which is largely full of those who died in captivity between 1914 and 1918 points repeatedly to deaths from TB, typhus, typhoid etc, all of which are indicators of unacceptable living conditions. The food is a trickier one. Towards the end of the war, the British blockade in particular, meant that large sections of the German population were starving and dying (at least indirectly) of malnutrition - infant mortality being very high. In those circumstances it is little surprise that PW were not given high priority.

However, if the discussion is moved on briefly to rationing of PW during the Second World War (and leaving aside the chaos of the closing months of the war), we get a return to grossly inadequate rationing, for no good reason. According to the Geneva Convention enemy PW are meant to be on the same ration scale as home-based soldiers. The Germans never observed that. Before Red Cross parcels began arriving,which in some cases was late in 1940, there was hunger, amounting to semi-starvation in the camps.

So perhaps what I am saying is you were more likely to be taken alive in the first instance if you were a British soldier being captured by the Germans, but your long term prospects as a prisoner were better served if you happened to be a guest of the British army, rather than the other way round.

Jack

[Ozzie]

What I am about to say is based only on reading various accounts, nothing absolute to quote.

If you were a part of a machine gun team. Do not expect to live.

If you were slow in putting up your arms, after throwing away your rifle, do not expect to live.

If you made a suspicious movement after surrendering, do not expect to live.

If you were a recognised sniper, do not expect to live.

If the person aiming the rifle at you, had time to reflect you might live.

If the blood lust (rage of war, revenge) had passed, and you did not do any of the above then you were OK.

If the men attacking you had no prior motive in wanting you dead, other than they were ordered over the top to attack the enemy line, you may live.

One must remember that men in the chaos of war, in the conditions in which they fought, and given that orders were not always clear cut, did not always respond as what one would think be required of them under the rules.

I have read of instances of shootings, bombings etc, that made me cringe, but I was not there, and I did not lose mates, so I cannot lay blame.

As Jack has said, it would be an interesting study.

Just my two cents worth.

Kim

[squirrel]

Kim, that's a well balanced response - who can tell how they would react having to make a decision in a split second in such circumstances?

Killing of prisoners after surrender is a different matter and, IIRC, is there not a case of this described in Frank Richards book Old Soldiers Never Die?

[JulianB]

My grandfather once told me that he had heard of German prisoners being left in a shell crater and a grenade lobbed in - something he clearly disapproved of. However he said that he definately knew of instances of the enemy "pretending" to surrender, then at the last minute bringing out a gun or a grenade from under a coat / tunic.

When he himself was captured in March 1918 he was severely wounded but was then tended by a German FOO and his men who came back after two days and picked him up and sent him off to a German CCS then to POW hospital in Hanover. He recounted the kindness of a German doctor who listened to his pleadings about not wanting his arm to be amputated as he (grandfather) had been a medical student before the war and wanted to be a doctor after.

[PBI]

My G.Father who served in 1st D.C.L.I in the Great War mentioned that when being sent Home to England Wounded,there were German POWs also on Board the Ship,one of these POWs spat at The Wounded Men,with the result that He was Chucked overboard Mid Channel.

[healdav]

This must be a problem in any war and at any time in the front lines.

Anyone who has had to take instantaneous decisions under enormous pressure will understand what happened.

Then again, there was the problem of interpreting orders.

For example, during the Battle of the Bulge there was the infamous Malmedy massacre. The commanding officer who was arraigned on war crimes charges admitted that before the bttle he had said to his subordinates that 'we all know what to do with prisoners'. He said he meant that they all knew the procedures. The court martial said he was indicating that they should be killed.

It points up the vital need for a commander to say precisely what he means, not make some casual remark.

Another problem is language. How many Allied soldiers spoke German and how many German spoke English or French?

I knew an officer who was in the Falklands who told me that at one stage he found himself coming into contact with a group of Argentinians. His men shouted at them to put their guns down and surrender. They didn't and continued to carry their weapons 'up'.

The outcome is obvious. He said he often asked himself whether the Argentinians simply did not understand English and so couldn't respond as they didn't know what to respond to.

I have no doubt that in the reverse situation few of the British army would have understood Argentinian Spanish!

[Ozzie]

It seems like it was the soldier's experience with previous prisoners, (behind the lines) that decreed their reactions. But more than that,

Who knows what predujices or other emotions, were in the minds of the men who escorted prisoners back to the rear.

It seems like a bit of a lottery as to if you were accompanied by compassionate men, or otherwise.

But, as with the Turkish experience and the Anzacs, there were good and bad soldiers, good and bad men, if I may put it so simply.

The amount of pressures, experiences and emotions, are so varied, that I dare say, even a psychiatrist would not be able to truly pinpoint any thing outstanding in why these things happened, unless each case was studied, and the thoughts and emotions of each soldier analysed.

Kim

[Ozzie]

He said he often asked himself whether the Argentinians simply did not understand English and so couldn't respond as they didn't know what to respond to. Quote Healdav

It makes you wonder what these guys live with, afterwards.

Kim