Taking no prisoners

[ChrisC]

Richard Holmes in "Riding the Retreat" describes an incident at Cerizy or Moy in 1914 where numerous Germans were dispatched after surrender as some had taken up arms again. He says - and I fully agree:

" ...to expect respect for the letter of the law from a man who has passed through the beaten zone of his enemy's fire, seen a popular officer have his brains blown out, and watched men who have apparently surrendered become combatants once more, is to hope for more than flesh and blood can deliver."

Infantry attack too, in the Great War and any other war is no different. The time to jack it in is not when the survivors of an infantry section are on your position. You can't drop your weapon and plead for mercy, whether in Spanish, German or indeed English. You get slotted, simple as. Shame, mais c'est la guerre!

Chris C

[Muskoka]

In The Roses of No Man's Land, one of the VADs is talking about a "huge Scots sergeant... There had been something in the papers about the Germans killing prisoners, which had shcoked me and I was laying off about how terrible I thought it was. He fell absolutely silent, made no answer at all. It was as if a shutter had come down over his face, and I realized in a flash that he must have done the same thing."

Gabriele

[Alan Tucker]

The Canadians were not too fussy about German prisoner taking at Mount Houy in taking Valenciennes right at the end of the war.Their official histiry concded as much.

[Muskoka]

Graves goes on to say, "The troops that had the worst reputation for acts of violence against prisoners were the Canadians (and later the Australians). With the Canadians the motive was said to be revenge for a Canadian found crucified with bayonets through his hands and feet in a German trench; this atrocity was never substantiated, nor did we believe the story freely circulated that the Canadians crucified a German officer in revenge shortly afterwards.... How far this reputation for atrocities was deserved, and how far it was due to the overseas habit of bragging and leg-pulling, we could not decide. We only knew that to have committed atocities against prisoners was, among the overseas men and even some British troops, a boast, not a confession."

He goes on to descibe 2 first-hand accounts that he had heard - one from a "Canadian-Scot" who blew up his prisoners by putting Mills bombs in their pockets, and the other from an Australian who also blew up his prisoners.

Whatever the truth, there seemed to be the perception that the "overseas men" were rather vicious and "uncivilized". Interesting to know how much of this was just disdain for Colonials.

Gabriele

[Vista52]

Frank Richards in "Old Soldiers Never Die" mentions a man in his own Battalion at Polygon Wood killing 6 prisoners with 2 bombs. On his return, he hadn't gone 20 yards, when a shell splinter kills him.

Frank Richards says "I had often heard some of our chaps say that they had done their prisoners in whilst taking them back but this was the only case I could vouch for, and no doubt the loss of his pal had upset him very much."

Paul

[dycer]

Like many I find this Thread informative and fascinating so may I be allowed to broaden the subject slightly.I stress from a non-academic.

In my earlier post I quoted from the diary of a Soldier and he states "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." I would suggest that this was written some time after the War but it will always remain his secret as to whether he was seeking to justify his own actions in battle or what he heard and saw going on around him.

I am happy to be proved wrong but I understand the British policy for the conduct of the War was to take the fight to the enemy i.e. the British Front-Line was the Enemy Trenches and constant "attacks" e.g. fighting patrols were encouraged.

To achieve this fighting quality various Scools were set up e.g the Battle Training Centre at Etaples.Grenade and Machine Gun Schools,etc.

Similarly at rest, physical sports were encouraged e.g. Football,Boxing.Poll Fighting,etc.I am sure these were played within Rules but I am certain in Football Matches some of the tackles would now be viewed with horror and it is unlikely that the goal scorer received hugs and kisses from his Colleagues.

Another aspect that must be mentioned, but not discussed, was the policy of announcing the penalty given to men found guilty of cowardice.

All the above, I submit, were used to instill a bloodlust quality in fighting troops.

Like many on the Forum I become misty eyed when the Christmas Truce is mentioned.The thoughts and actions of the Senior Commanders and other Officers to the Truce is also revealing.They made all attempt to stop it as soon as possible and took measures to ensure it did not happen again as it undermined the fighting qualities of their troops.

I would agree that their was never a British policy towards the maltreatment of prisoners but Orders could have been interpreted in different ways.

However, as Marchbank says "In the heat of battle he(the Enemy) may throw down his weapon and ask for mercy.If he leaves the moment of surrender too late he is likely to be killed,----."

I am currently reading Hugh Sebag-Montefiore's excellent Book "Dunkirk" in which he describes the criminal execution of British Prisoners of War by certain Units within the German Army.

I have never read of similar actions by British or German Units in WW1 and would therefore suggest that most maltreatment of prisoners occurred in the heat of battle.

I would be interested to know if my opinion of British conduct of the War is correct and, if so, how this differed from German policy and whether their training methods may have instilled a different fighting quality?

George

[truthergw]

Hi George. Quite a few points there. If I may address a couple in no particular order. Criminal execution seems to have been reserved for civilians and was carried out by both sides. This practice was particularly rife in the early stages before the 1st Battle of the Marne. For a hair raising example of the British involvement read Paul Maze's " Frenchman in Khaki" and he was attached to a British HQ! Gathering evidence of atrocities against civilians and of deliberate flouting of the Geneva Convention in the mistreatment of prisoners is bedevilled by the flood of propaganda of all types and on both sides. I believe you have made a valid point with regard to the constant emphasis placed by the British High Command on aggressiveness. Domination of No Mans Land etc. Quite a few old soldiers of my acquaintance remarked on the bloodthirsty nature of the training and retraining at the Bull Ring by 'Canaries'. Of whom it was commonly believed that they were all old dug outs who had never been to the front. It hardly needs pointing out that the circumstances would be the main factor in whether a surrender was accepted, the condition of the would be prisoner and his captor. I have said before that a machine gun crew which kept firing and killing until the last moment could consider itself lucky if they were allowed to surrender once the survivors of the attack were about to bomb them out of the position. Amazingly enough, it happened regularly. I, myself, am continually surprised at the circumstances under which men were taken prisoner and find myself regularly wondering if I would have been so calm. I am thinking of the prisoners taken when the chemical factory at Roeux was eventually captured after hundreds of Allied troops had been killed trying to overcome the MGs installed there. To succeed in passing over ground strewn with corpses and finally take the killers prisoner seems to me to argue that mistreatment of prisoners, while it almost certainly occurred was not a general practice amongst the troops on the ground.

[DaveBrigg]

Siegfried Sassoon's opinion...

Atrocities

You told me, in your drunken-boasting mood,

How once you butchered prisoners. That was good!

I'm sure you felt no pity while they stood

Patient and cowed and scared, as prisoners should.

How did you do them in? Come, don't be shy:

You know I love to hear how Germans die,

Downstairs in dug-outs. 'Camerad!' they cry;

Then squeal like stoats when bombs begin to fly.

And you? I know your record. You went sick

When orders looked unwholesome: then, with trick

And lie, you wangled home. And here you are,

Still talking big and boozing in a bar.

[Martin Bennitt]

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.

Spears' views of the Senegalese in 'Prelude to Victory' mar what is otherwise a very interesting and informative book. I have just finished reading it and these passages turned me off. He is in turns racist and patronising, and though I suppose one must make allowances for contemporary attitudes, the book was published in 1939, more than 20 years after the events he describes. He considered them to be savages, so to him they behaved like savages. A pity.

cheers Martin B

[truthergw]

Hi Martin. I read Spears' comments in exactly the same light as you did. Pukka sahib's view of the black feller ( to mix a couple of continents) . But I am sure I have read similar views elsewhere. I shall poke around and see if I can track it down. It didn't put me off his books though. Prelude to Victory is very good and I thought his comments on the World at War, WW2 very cogent. A man of his times and upbringing.

[Old Featherbed]

With the Canadians the motive was said to be revenge for a Canadian found crucified with bayonets through his hands and feet in a German trench; this atrocity was never substantiated,

Gabriele

It has been proved now as the true story appeared in the Scots press about five years ago...the soldier involved was a Scot from Dundee who served with the Canadians and he was crucified on a barn door in the St.julien area. I'll look it out amongst my press cuttings.

Glesga Keelie

[Max]

It has been proved now as the true story appeared in the Scots press about five years ago...the soldier involved was a Scot from Dundee who served with the Canadians and he was crucified on a barn door in the St.julien area. I'll look it out amongst my press cuttings.

Glesga Keelie

This subject has been discussed on forum on more than one occasion and the concensus, due to a complete lack of substantiation, is that the story of the crucified soldier is a myth. (whether or not it appeared in the scottish press )

Andy

[Old Featherbed]

Sorry Andy but there is also documentary evidence to back up the story plus personal family papers and letters. The soldier in question is believed to be Sergeant Harry Band...

http://www.cwgc.org/search/certificate.aspx?casualty=921959

And you'll be glad to know that even the Canadian Press are almost certain it was him.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=3060.0

[Max]

Sorry Andy but there is also documentary evidence to back up the story plus personal family papers and letters. The soldier in question is believed to be Sergeant Harry Band...

http://www.cwgc.org/search/certificate.aspx?casualty=921959

And you'll be glad to know that even the Canadian Press are almost certain it was him.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=3060.0

The evidence you have produced is from 2001 and relates to a third hand telling of events, an awful lot of investigative water has passed under the bridge since then. Put "Crucified soldier" into the site search engine and see what the general consensus is.....yet another myth to sit alongside the angel of mons etc. IMHO.

Andy

[truthergw]

I agree with Andy, not a scrap of real evidence. I watched the TV programme. They left it very much in the air as I recall it. Lots of people who knew someone who was told by his mate ...... As a Dundonian who had the good fortune to know and chat with quite a few of the city's WW1 veterans in the 50s., this was never once mentioned in my hearing, so I would be quite confident that it was not widely believed in Dundee at any rate.

[Ozzie]

Respect.

It seems that if an enemy won the respect of an attacker he was treated differently. Unless he stood at his MG till the last minute, or was sniper, or used a flame thrower.

One who hid in a dugout, after killing your mates, may have been treated differently to one who stood up, threw down his weapon, and said, Ok, you have me, I surrender.

But that does not answer about the ones who had the red fog of war about them, or the sadistic ones, but is as close as I can get to may be an answer.

Or maybe the question is just too hard, because they were individuals, in a situation that would bring out the best and the worst of even angels?

Do we forget that, even though they were trained to act as a unit, their individual natures, would have a bearing on their actions in such a situation?

Just some thoughts.

Kim

Tin Hat on.

[truthergw]

I find this subject fascinating, probably because it is so complex. It is easy to state the problem or ask the question. Were prisoners mistreated. Or one of the many different rephrasings of that concept. In fact, we are not asking about how a given situation was handled, but what happened in thousands of similar situations which were, nevertheless, unique. Kim's red mist, my machine gunner who kept firing to the very last moment and so on. There are far too many variables to make a useful generalisation. For every instance of brutality towards a prisoner or soldier trying to surrender, it would be possible to give an example of inspiring kindness and humanity to an erstwhile foe. I go back to my original reply, from the moment of raising his hands to the final locking in the cage, a prisoner's life hung by a thread. The treatment of prisoners varied greatly.

[Old Featherbed]

As a Dundonian who had the good fortune to know and chat with quite a few of the city's WW1 veterans in the 50s., this was never once mentioned in my hearing, so I would be quite confident that it was not widely believed in Dundee at any rate.

Considering that the majority of people always believe it was a Canadian up until 2000 it is hardly surprising that your Dundee veterans in the 1950's weren't aware of it or in the least bit interested Truthergw.

Andy if you check out at what time in the morning I was posting you will no doubt agree it was hardly the time of day to start disturbing the house to search for my press cuttings on this matter... my filing system is a nightmare...hence why I posted the bits that I could find which actually mentioned the fact that the soldier crucified was in fact a Jock.

I will keep searching for the info I have on the suppossed crucifixion...until then we will all agree to disagree - and if I am wrong then that will be "A PLEHN AIN ANANINGINAINANA" that I owe you both when we next meet on the Somme or Ypres Salient. Truethergw you translate for me

[truthergw]

I 'll do that.

[dycer]

Tom,

I share your misgivings about the story but they have identified someone.

I bought a Book to support the New Scots Memorial in Ypres which lists casualties from all the Scots and Scots Dominion Regiments that served in the Sector throughout the War.

I'll post his name and details tomorrow/Wednesday.

The Thread is narrowing to a particular occurrence that may have caused Canadians not to take prisoners.

It started as a general question so I think we should return to that theme.

George

[stuartd]

Niall Ferguson's book 'The Pity of War' also has a very interesting chapter on this topic entitled 'The Captor's Dilemma'. Well worth reading.

[truthergw]

I don't want to come across as completely impervious to reason. If new evidence has been unearthed, then I hope I could look at it with a truly open mind. I remember the TV programme. It was, to me, completely unconvincing and mainly because it was hearsay. Not one credible eyewitness was ever produced. In an accusation of this serious nature, a major atrocity on a prisoner, I think we are justified in demanding a high standard of evidence. " A bloke in an estaminet told me that one of his mates saw it with his own eyes." is not acceptable. In a war which involved millions of men for several years, there must have been many incidents of cruelty and savagery. I am not saying that an incident of this nature could not have occurred but I believe that there is no real evidence that it did. The fact that it was a widely held belief is not material. I mentioned the Angels of Mons. There were many widely held notions, " absolute facts that everyone knew" which were in fact false. Many Belgian citizens were killed because of the German soldiers' conviction that he was surrounded with Franc-Tireurs on the advance through Belgium. A similar belief in enemy agents saw French peasants shot out of hand by their own side. Actions now known to have been based on semi hysteria and not a shred of truth. Like Joe Friday said, " Just the facts, ma'am, gimme the facts".

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

I know of only two accounts that indicate prisoners were killed. One took place during a German raid against Thiepval Wood. Two machine gunners put up a fight and were deemed to much bother and killed it seems. Another is shown in Orr's book The Road to the Somme when German prisoners were being sent back from Thiepval and shot down in the mistake that they were attacking. When it was brought out they were prisoners with escorts a Lewis gunner continued to fire and afterward said something to the effect that they were only Germans.

Can I prove them both, no. Did they happen, probably yes.

Ralph

[dycer]

Slightly off-topic I know but I find this revealing as it gives some indication of the fog of war,again from Marchbank.

The Artois Sector."On the 7th of April 1918 the German's launched another offensive,this time in the Armentieres area held by the Portuguese troops who broke and fled under attack.-------------.Our casualties were heavy------,when Jerry broke through on our left flank.

The position on the right was the same since the Portuguese had fled.Unfortunately they suffered casualties from our fire as they wore field grey uniforms and were mistaken for the Germans."

Was this accidental friendly fire due to mistaken identity or revenge as they broke under attack?We'll never know for sure.

George

[truthergw]

This is where it gets very hazy,. The accidental killing of prisoners and indeed one's own side by genuine misidentification, is well attested. I would need a wealth of evidence before I accused the men doing the firing of deliberate murder. In the course of an attack, artillery fire will be called for by both sides. There are numerous recorded instances of artillery not being called upon because the position of one's own troops was not certain. I suspect that the possible presence of prisoners would have little effect on a commander's decision to call for support from artillery. I repeat, a prisoner was not safe until he was well off the field of battle.