Souveniers taken from the dead in time of war

[AlfaMale]

My great-great-uncle joined the Honourable Artillery Company in September 1914 as a private, was promoted up to CSM (Company Sergeant Major? Is that rank unique to the HAC? I've never heard of it before), transferred to the RFC as an observer in April 1917, keeping his rank as CSM, became 43 squadron gunnery officer in October 1918 and left the RAF in 1920 as a Captain.

[Desdichado]

My great-great-uncle joined the Honourable Artillery Company in September 1914 as a private, was promoted up to CSM (Company Sergeant Major? Is that rank unique to the HAC? I've never heard of it before), transferred to the RFC as an observer in April 1917, keeping his rank as CSM, became 43 squadron gunnery officer in October 1918 and left the RAF in 1920 as a Captain.

Otherwise known as Warrant Officer, 2nd Class or WO2. As the rank implies, the CSM was the senior NCO in a company. I've always associated this rank with infantry units but no doubt someone on here will know for certain.

[AlfaMale]

Thanks Desdichado

[PBI]

Alfa - was he in The H.A.C. Infantry Battalion or the Artillery side of things,confusing i know,but they were 2 seperate parts of the Same Battalion,incidentally the H.A.C were officially designated as the 26thbattalion of the London Regiment,a Number they Hated and Never saw fit to use.Another Anomaly with the HAC is their Cap Badge,which is a Flaming Grenade,but on HAC Mens Headstones the Badge is Completely Different in that it is A Mailed Arm/Fist holding a Sword with HAC in Bold Letters underneath...

[squirrel]

IIRC it was the HAC Infantry Battalions that wore the "flaming grenade" cap badge.

The Artillery units wore the RA badge with HAC where "Ubique" was on the regulars badge.

The mailed fist and the sword is part of the arms of the City of London.

Stand to be corrected as usual.

[PBI]

Well Hush My Mouth..!!...

[Beau Geste]

Hello Des,

I have every respect for men who are commissioned from the ranks although I personally didn't come across too many in my time. My father wasn't commissioned. He went in as an AC2, became a Sergeant pilot, was promoted to Warrant Officer and, come the peace, he was demoted back to AC2 and discharged.

And I have every respect for those, like your father, who joined up in a time of national need and gave their all. In my 26 years of service I met quite a few people whose excellent performance was recognised and who went up through the ranks to that of warrant officer 2 or warrant officer 1 (ranks that I never achieved). The fact they weren't commissioned wasn't their fault. Sometimes it was just the luck of the draw.

I've been to local markets in Paris, Boulogne and other places and seen all manner of WWI trophies for sale, from cap badges to trench art. I'm sure some of it is fake but this thread made me think about the origins of some of the items and I wonder if any of them were stripped from a dead body.

It's interesting that you should say that Des. Last night I was watching a DVD loaned to me by a very good friend. You might well have heard of it or seen it. It was called "Battlefield Scavengers" and focused on precisely the point you have made here.

When I joined The Forum, I was a little surprised at the reaction some people received when they mentioned locals in Belgium and France whose hobby it is to search the battlefields armed with a metal detector. After watching the DVD I am beginning to understand their attitude. I think one particular statistic is of particular relevance to this thread. At the time the DVD was made, amateur archaeologists had unearthed the remains of 101 soldiers, most of them British, who had died in The Great War. However, only one of these had been identified. It appears that the items that would have helped the CWGC to carry out their usual investigation had all been removed !

I know that this thread has focused on the collection of souveniers during the war on the Western Front and has tried to highlight the difference between taking things from the dead that might make life more bearable or help someone to survive, and the cold blooded killing of injured personnel to get at their belongings.

In mentioning the local markets in Boulogne it reinforced a point brought out in the DVD where "collectors" were shown with an "alladin's cave" of personal possessions they had "found on the battlefield". The makers of the DVD seemed to be in no doubt that a lot of this had been taken from the dead who had been lying there for eighty years or more.

Perhaps it might be interesting to pose the question here: Is there a difference between taking things from the 'recent' dead on the battlefield during the war years and taking things from bodies that have been unearthed so long after the event ?quote]

Harry

[Beau Geste]

Otherwise known as Warrant Officer, 2nd Class or WO2. As the rank implies, the CSM was the senior NCO in a company. I've always associated this rank with infantry units but no doubt someone on here will know for certain.

Me too Des. In a cavalry regiment like the one I served in, a squadron is the equivalent to an infantry company. One would therefore find the senior NCO (WO2) holding the rank of Squadron Sergeant Major ..........except in the Household Cavalry where the word sergeant doesn't exist. The equivalent of the CSM in an infantry company or the SSM in a cavalry regiment is the SCM (Squadron Corporal Major) in the Blues and Royals or the Life Guards.

Confused ?

Harry

[Desdichado]

If anything, desecrating a war grave is worse. We've already discussed the issue of stealing from the dead on the battlefield and I think that we agree that taking items of kit such as boots and sweaters, and items of food, were legitimate acts. However, what these ghouls are doing is motivated by greed. I doubt they have any feelings towards the men that lie buried and I'm certain they know full well that when they go digging on the battlefields, they are likely to come across human remains. To take items from war graves is morally wrong and also illegal.

As an aside, my dad's bomb aimer did not finish his tour with him. He was a Canadian Sergeant who went on ops with another crew. He applied for a commission and was awarded one. The only problem was that by the time it came through, he was in a POW camp having been shot down over Kassel. I still correspond with him and got his Christmas card yesterday.

Best wishes,

Des

[MartH]

I thought by 1917 the British had teams of people getting salvage of the battlefield which included recovering webbing and packs from the dead. It would be easy for these people to recover "a bit more".

Did the Germans have salvage teams?

Mart

[Beau Geste]

If anything, desecrating a war grave is worse. To take items from war graves is morally wrong and also illegal.

I agree Des. But was/is it as black and white as you suggest ?

Harry

[Pete1052]

I'm not sure though that I agree with the main point of your posting. It must be obvious to everyone by now that my interest in the Great War is focused on the human issues that affected both those at the front and the people they left behind when they answered the call. To some extent I suppose that our service with the colours helps us to empathise with some of the issues being discussed but I really do believe that anyone who claims to possess an ounce of humanity, and whose interest has been sustained by visits to the battlefields and the literature of WW1 can do the same.

I wasn't denigrating forum Pals with no military experience, the point I was making was that there are multiple ways of looking at these situations that push the moral norms. One is to see them from the point of view of military law and the law of land warfare; another viewpoint is to say that troops have always done that sort of thing so what's the big deal; another is that the enemy murdered our guys, so now let's pay them back. When one is in a position position of military responsibility one must weigh all those points of view (and others) and come up with a solution, which in some cases won't satisfy any of the people who argue those points. The efficiency of one's command is always of paramount importance and the guidance of one's commanding officer is a major factor. Last but not least is CYA, not wanting to have some disreputable event take place on one's watch.

[Desdichado]

I agree Des. But was/is it as black and white as you suggest ?

Harry

No, it isn't a clear-cut issue at all as both acts are abhorrent.

I can understand a soldier who, in the heat of battle, or the immediate aftermath, steals from the corpses on the battlefield. I can understand a man taking a pair of field glasses or a razor from a captured soldier. If the items taken are done so for the purpose of enabling the person taking them to better his chances of survival, then that is surely a mitigating circumstance.

The man who steals from the battlefield today has no excuse. It is a premeditated crime. He invests money in a metal detector with the express aim of locating artefacts lying amongst the war dead. He does so for profit, not to survive. It is a criminal enterprise, nothing more or less, and deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law.

[Beau Geste]

I wasn't denigrating forum Pals with no military experience.

Pete,

I wasn't, for a moment, suggesting you were. I apologise if my response suggested that.

The efficiency of one's command is always of paramount importance and the guidance of one's commanding officer is a major factor. Last but not least is CYA, not wanting to have some disreputable event take place on one's watch.

I have to agree, of course, with your point that the quality of leadership is of paramount importance. It will influence, one way or another, the behaviour of a unit. The conditions that prevail in any conflict makes this of fundamental importance (see an earlier posting that discussed the massacre at My Lai) but in some ways The Great War was, I think, unique. The losses incurred in short periods of time, the tactics employed, the close proximity for months on end of one's enemy, the hand to hand fighting and so on created a relationship between adversaries that contained all the ingredients needed to push human behaviour beyond the point that is "morally acceptable". The amazing thing, as you imply, is that there weren't many more examples of cold blooded murder of the type we are discussing.

Your point that this was largely due to the quality of leadership is one I cannot argue against.

Thanks Pete for such a thoughtful posting.

Harry

[Beau Geste]

No, it isn't a clear-cut issue at all as both acts are abhorrent.

I can understand a soldier who, in the heat of battle, or the immediate aftermath, steals from the corpses on the battlefield. I can understand a man taking a pair of field glasses or a razor from a captured soldier. If the items taken are done so for the purpose of enabling the person taking them to better his chances of survival, then that is surely a mitigating circumstance. The man who steals from the battlefield today has no excuse. It is a premeditated crime with the express aim of locating artefacts lying amongst the war dead. He does so for profit, not to survive. It is a criminal enterprise, nothing more or less, and deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law.

Thanks Des,

I take your point, there is as you say a real difference between the two acts but let me ask you a question.

I'm sure the modern day "battlefield archaeologists" in France and Belgium would point a finger at the CWGC and others and ask what they're doing in terms of searching for soldiers who were lost on the battlefields ninety years ago? They might even suggest that if it hadn't been for them, the amateurs who do it as a hobby, the bodies found to date would still be lying where they fell, that they at least offer an opportunity for a decent burial in one of the military cemeteries. Do you feel that there is any value in this counter argument ?

Harry

[ShirlD]

More difficult situations. It is so tempting to have a 'black white' answer, and having rules of law and military codes of conduct goes some way to attempt to curb outrageous behaviour. Circumstances every day though, must have demanded personal moral judgements, much clearer in hindsight for us to comment on 90 years later.

With this in mind I have been thinking about what I would do or take from a battlefield today. At Mareth, my dad's battlefield, I picked up some shrapnel, a little piece of barbed wire and a spent bullet (an unusual find in that particular place). Those are 'safe souvenirs', what if I had found an old watch, or shaving gear, or if we had found the old man in the village who has some relics apparently? Would I be happy to buy them, feeling comfortable that he needed the money from me? Would I give them to a museum here, or make them part of the family treasures to pass down? Would I question how he found them?

I appreciate the places that have been made into battlefield cemeteries, but where the old battlefields cross with today's land (for instance near Suvla and Flanders), what then? Idealistically I wish for groups like De Diggers to supervise clearing the land, going out with a metal detector to scavenge is awful to think about. But then, this may not be realistic and I just have more questions and no clear answers.

In the end, I think to deliberately go and find artefacts (as described by Desdichado) is wrong, and I do need to question very carefully what I collect today. I think also battlefield archeologists should have to go through a strict process before being allowed to proceed, even though this is fraught with difficulties, frustration, with different rules in different countries.

Many more questions than answers I am afraid

Cheers

Shirley

[Beau Geste]

Many more questions than answers I am afraid

Cheers

Shirley

Perhaps Shirley but your posts are always worth reading and thinking about.

To be quite honest with you, I don't collect souveniers of The Great War. I'm passionately interested in that period of our history but not in that way so my response is purely theoretical.

Having admitted to that, I read with interest your "soul searching" about what you would pick up on your visits to the battlefields and I have to admit that I have no problem whatsoever admitting that if I came across a personal item like a watch or shaving gear (and it's those I think that are a moral problem for you) I wouldn't hesitate to pick it up and give it to one of the lads I visit the area a couple of times with each year. What would be the point of leaving it there? Obviously, if there was some reference to the previous owner stamped or scratched on it we would do everything possible to trace the soldier's family and offer it to them.

I don't think that one can say that a find like that necessarily means that the owner's remains will be a metre or so beneath your feet. That is the one big "what if" factor of course. "The watch" we are talking about might be on the skeletal wrist of its previous owner. In circumstances like that we would act very differently indeed. we would immediately inform the authorities and leave everything exactly as we had found it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't see a lot of difference between picking up a souvenier in 1916 and doing it today. To do so one isn't harming anybody or disturbing a poor soul's last resting place.

As you know the thrust of this thread changed quite quickly to acts of cold blooded murder and larceny from one's own injured colleagues whilst they were being transportind to a medical aid post. The picking up of souveniers from the battlefield or even from those who had died in the conflict has been seen by most posters as something quite different.

Asking questions is always easier than answering them and as a retired academic its a habit that's difficult to break. The tendency is to frown or openly criticise those, like the amateur archaeologists mentioned in a recent posting, who use metal detectors. Why ? Is it the use of a relatively modern piece of technology that is frowned on or the way these people act after they have unearthed a "find." If the former, I'm afraid I don't really understand the concern. If, however, it's their behaviour afterwards then I agree with you, much tighter

controls are needed.

Kind regards

Harry

[Desdichado]

Yes Harry, I do. Battlefield archaeologists serve to educate the modern generation about the events that happened between 1914-1918. Artefacts taken from the battlefields in this manner are usually exhibited in museums and I know that I have learned a lot from walking around these places and gazing upon the exhibits. A tunic button; a cap badge; a belt buckle; all of them worn at one time by a soldier who died in battle. A dig is normally a planned affair with the requisite permits being obtained. On the Western Front, archaeologists can be pretty certain that they will come across human remains and when they are uncovered, they are treated with reverence. Men who have lain in unmarked graves can be given the Christian burial they were perhaps denied when they fell.

Shirley, I enjoyed your post and I think you raise many valid points. If I had lost a family member in France, I don't think I would be averse to picking up a piece of shrapnel or a spent bullet from the field where he died but that's as far as it goes. In British markets, and I suppose in French ones too, you can find any amount of Great War memorabilia that hasn't been looted. I've seen unissued items for sale including cap badges, brass regimental insignia and suchlike. Many years ago, I purchased a greatcoat that had been manufactured for an officer in about 1916 and never used. It even has the pips on the shoulders. I bought it from a reputable clothing store many years ago when they cleared out their basement. It was one of several, including one bearing a Major's crowns. Greatcoats were all the rage back then but I never wore it. It's still in the back of my wardrobe somewhere and I suppose I really ought to see if a museum wants it.

[Beau Geste]

Yes Harry, I do. Battlefield archaeologists serve to educate the modern generation about the events that happened between 1914-1918. Artefacts taken from the battlefields in this manner are usually exhibited in museums and I know that I have learned a lot from walking around these places and gazing upon the exhibits. A tunic button; a cap badge; a belt buckle; all of them worn at one time by a soldier who died in battle. A dig is normally a planned affair with the requisite permits being obtained. On the Western Front, archaeologists can be pretty certain that they will come across human remains and when they are uncovered, they are treated with reverence. Men who have lain in unmarked graves can be given the Christian burial they were perhaps denied when they fell.

I agree Des. If there is a weakness in the system, it would appear to be that there isn't sufficient official supervision of some of these digs. Because if that, the diggers are able, if inclined, to salt away artifacts for their own private museums. Some critics of this "rather loose" system have argued that in many cases this practice has meant that the majority of soldiers found in this way are now "Known only to God".

I don't think I would be averse to picking up a piece of shrapnel or a spent bullet from the field where he died but that's as far as it goes.

You and I differ here Des but you don't explain why you feel that way.

Greatcoats were all the rage back then.

I'm smiling while I type this Des. You're younger than me, almost everybody is these days, but when I was a kid during WW2 overcoats were "all the rage" in places like Liverpool where I was born and brought up. The Luftwaffe used to bomb us nightly and we spent a lot of time in a "poshed up cellar" - whitewashed walls and camp beds. Army greatcoats served us well I can tell you on cold nights !

Harry

[Desdichado]

If I was standing on the spot where an ancestor fell, a piece of shrapnel or a spent round would have great sentimental value to me. It would be a purely emotional thing, but having something tangible, something that could not have been the personal property of a dead, unknown man, would be an impersonal and permanent reminder of his fate.

[Beau Geste]

If I was standing on the spot where an ancestor fell, a piece of shrapnel or a spent round would have great sentimental value to me. It would be a purely emotional thing.

Me too Des. I visited Mametz Wood last year where the 15th Bn The Welsh Regt fought. I haven't been able to prove that my grandfather was the Pte Richard Lofthouse from Bolton who fought there with "The Carmarthanshires" but the emotion......well, you know the feeling Des.

Having something tangible, something that could not have been the personal property of a dead, unknown man, would be an impersonal and permanent reminder of his fate.

I understand, thank you. Personally, I don't feel the need for an inanimate object to be an "impersonal and permanent reminder" but if I was able to prove my grandfather had served with the 15th at Mametz Wood I might feel differently.

Harry

quote]

[Desdichado]

Me too Des. In a cavalry regiment like the one I served in, a squadron is the equivalent to an infantry company. One would therefore find the senior NCO (WO2) holding the rank of Squadron Sergeant Major ..........except in the Household Cavalry where the word sergeant doesn't exist. The equivalent of the CSM in an infantry company or the SSM in a cavalry regiment is the SCM (Squadron Corporal Major) in the Blues and Royals or the Life Guards.

Confused ?

Harry

Oh yes. Does the rank of CSM exist in the artillery or is it Battery Sergeant-Major?

[Beau Geste]

Oh yes. Does the rank of CSM exist in the artillery or is it Battery Sergeant-Major?

I'm not sure Des. Don't quote me but working logically, I would say Battery Sergeant Major.

Harry

[TGWW]

I wonder if we're not guilty of superimposing our own sensibilities onto a different time and place. Today we get upset and deem it newsworthy when a single soldier dies in action. Abu Graib (sp?) and other "war crimes" or "atrocities" are big news.

In 1914-18 thousands died on a daily basis. Sensibilities were different. News reporting and exposure of poor behaviour was non-existent or very slow. I doubt that very many enlisted men were of the Wilfred Owen romantic/sensitive ilk. The war poets have a lot to answer for in my view! The whole thing was on such a scale that criminality was easy and rarely punished. Who cares how many Germans you "finish off" and plunder - that's the whole point of this war isn't it? And robbing the wounded? Heck, those guys are going HOME leaving us stuck here! They can spare a watch or some cigarettes!

For someone eeking out a living in a small industrial or farming village with poor sanitation and dreadful living conditions the idea of getting fed and watered on a regular basis in the army and having ample opportunity for a bit of plunder must have been great. Two weeks in the line was probably a small price to pay. It's all horrific to us now in our middle-class office based lives but I'd wager few thought that at the time and many quite enjoyed the whole thing. In many ways a "no-one" could be a "someone" in the war, whether it be a great sniper or perhaps the guy that can get you whatever you want to make trench life that bit easier - wink, wink.

Trench waders? Officers watch? German Pickelhaub? No problem - just ask Sam the Scavenger in B Company. He'll trade you for whatever you want.

Quite a step up for Sam who back home was a nobody farm hand working dawn to dusk for a pittance and living in a cold hovel.

Whilst there may be some truth in the excellence of British leadership avoiding some of the rebellion seen in the French army and in the latter years the German army, I feel that overall the reason the Brits continued to fight on was that they actually didn't feel it was as bad as we, with our modern sensibilities, now view the "slaughter".

[Beau Geste]

I wonder if we're not guilty of superimposing our own sensibilities onto a different time and place.

Hello TGWW.

Thank you for an excellent and thought provoking posting.

I wonder if we are not guilty of superimposing our own sensibilities onto a different time and place.

I think we are but isn't that inevitable? None of us really knows what it was like to serve during the Great war. We are dependant on historians and the odd scrap of information from people who served but whose memory has been influenced by time. Some of what I would describe as the better books on WW1, for example Captain J C Dunn's "The War the Infantry Knew" and Lt Charles Douie's "The Weary Road" paint a picture that is both horrific, but at the same time, far less so than is suggested by some. Indeed, one of Douie's apparent motives was to offer a view of war and its effect on those involved that was at loggerheads with the view championed by many of the war poets especially Owen and Sassoon.

The whole thing was on such a scale that criminality was easy and rarely punished. Who cares how many Germans you "finish off" and plunder - that's the whole point of this war isn't it? And robbing the wounded? Heck, those guys are going HOME leaving us stuck here! They can spare a watch or some cigarettes!

I'm inclined to agree with some but not all of what you say here. It's interesting that many of the books written by people who actually served in the trenches don't talk about this. Obviously, the reason for that might have been that it was so common as not to deserve

a mention but it might also have been due to the fact that it wasn't quite as common as you make out. Please don't misinterpret what I'm saying here. I'm not suggesting that criminality wasn't rife, there is ample proof that it was. However, I can't find any evidence to suggest that it was as widespread as you suggest. Nor can I find evidence that people who were law abiding prior to the commencement of hostilities suddenly became law breakers. Obviously some will have succumbed to the temptation to act out of character but it would appear that the majority acted pretty much as they had in their "small industrial or farming village" prior to the war.

I would emphasise at this point that on this posting we are not now talking about taking items from the dead or picking items up from the battlefield. We are now talking about criminal acts of the most heinous nature: the cold blooded murder of an injured adversary to gain access to "his bits and bobs" and/or the stealing from one's own injured and helpless comrades en route to an aid post.

I would argue that this type of criminal behaviour isn't a spur of the moment thing, learnt in the trenches. To behave in this disgusting manner someone needed to be seriously tarnished prior to enlisting, in other words someone who had "learnt his trade" long before he arrived at The Front.

Trench waders? Officers watch? German Pickelhaub? No problem - just ask Sam the Scavenger in B Company. He'll trade you for whatever you want.

This I have no difficulty at all agreeing with. These guys exist today as they did in my time.

Whilst there may be some truth in the excellence of British leadership avoiding some of the rebellion seen in the French army and in the latter years the German army, I feel that overall the reason the Brits continued to fight on was that they actually didn't feel it was as bad as we, with our modern sensibilities, now view the "slaughter".

A bit simplistic perhaps but yes there is no doubt a grain of truth at least in this statement.

Harry