Souveniers taken from the dead in time of war

[gew98]

Harry ; I don't buy into your opinion of someone being "tainted" prior to enlistment for your purposes of argument.

I have had veterans tell me many stories - stories that would be by you considered horrible. WAR -killing , and the dead change people. Change to the base activity of survival , and if some light at the end of the tunnel is loot - it's not so hard to understand pilfering the dead and or POW's.

I cannot recall of ever having a veteran tell me he did or saw a POW killed for their loot - nor wounded enemy killed for loot either.

I have had veterans recount to me of killing enemy wounded... when you have been shot at or had grenades tossed at you by such wounded enemy you begin to get jaded on their value to be kept alive if it may well cost you or your buddy life or limb.

As an example my ex-wife's grandfather ( WW2 navy airplane mech on a carrier in the pacific ) had a neighbor whom was federalized in 1940 from the national guard. He was a civilian finally in january 1946. Anyhow Mr Peacock was involved in the battle of the bulge , and previously had seen alot of siege action on french port areas the germans occupied and held out in. He drove a mobile 155mm 'tractor'. He related how he was always told to be wary of the enemy - to include wounded. He paid not to much attention to that after he encountered many german POW's in france.

During the drive across france his arty unit stopped and set up and spent a day doing fire missions with those monster 155's. All around him were destroyed german vehicles and dead enemy. During an inactive spell that day he walked around and found a german laying on his side whom beckoned to him "komerade". He could plainly see the fellow was grieviously wounded. He had a misgiving about going near the german and went to get a medic. Well by the time later that afternoon he and the medic got to the fellow he had expired. The medic looked him over closely and had Mr Peacock stand back a good bit. The medic tied a line around the dead man's head and pulled the corpse from a distance - the cadaver went boom !. The german had had a mine with him , no doubt intending to take a naive GI with him. After that Mr Peacock swore off ever messing with wounded or dead germans.

During the Battle of the Bulge a contingent of SS had got close to his unit and in pulling out in retreat they almost were over run. On the attack after that he saw a fair amount of wounded SS and german army troops laying out in the inclement weather. Some guys in his unit would shoot these stranded soon to die from exposure germans...out of mercy, some maybe. He said his unit came across american dead that had been disarmed and shot outright along the route of retreat when they advanced after the bulge. That had to have played something into that I suspect.

Anyhow of the great war I have yet to read of anything like a rash of murders of POw's and wounded for loot - A rare instance even then I would wager. Afterall there were plenty of dead to pilfer.

[salesie]

My own experience of thieving in the British army tells me that soldiers have their own "code" i.e. if caught thieving off your mates then summary punishment was almost inevitable, a good thumping was the "order of the day", at which the senior-ncos and officers usually turned a blind eye - the culprit, now an absolute pariah, was usually transferred out "for his own good" and to ensure continued efficiency within the "team". If thieving from outside your own unit, no one really gave a f**k (by varying degrees, of course). It seemed to work, very little thieving seemed to go on from the men within the units I served in. Whether or not this "code" still applies in today's politically correct world I don't know, but I should imagine it applied 90 years ago; the British army's traditions tend to be deep rooted in the distant past.

Consequently, in my opinion, not many would give a f**k about the "robbing" of Germans, dead or alive (being definite outsiders), and as for thieving from men from another unit I should imagine that varying degrees of "acceptance" applied.

Here's a link to a short story about this very subject (published this year in the anthology, Northern Lights) - it's a true story (with just a little literary licence) about my step-grandfather's experience and attitude towards "taking" from dead Jerries.

http://johnssales.tripod.com/id9.html

Cheers - salesie.

[Rupert]

Nice story Salesie. (Well not for the German and the leg!). I vaguely remember my grandfather having war loot in the attic; he told my mother they sold it to the soldiers in the back lines that never got anywhere near the battlefront. They were so poorly paid that any extra money was a bonus. They particulary needed it when the ANZACS were around: they were paid almost 4 times the salary of the Brits, and consequently pushed all the prices up!

Stu

[Beau Geste]

I don't buy into your opinion of someone being "tainted" prior to enlistment for your purposes of argument.

And why should you Gew ? After all it's only my opinion.

However, I would like to take your final sentence as the start point of my response. You make the point that "anyhow..... I have yet to read of anything like a rash of murders of POWs and wounded for loot a rare instance even then I'd wager".

Absoltely right, I couldn't agree more. This is what I have been saying all along, that picking up souveniers from the battlefied or off the dead was a common and understandable activity but the cold blooded murder of an injured adversary so that one can relieve him of his possessions wasn't only relatively rare, it was also a disgrace.

In other words, to act in this way is contrary to the norm. I have simply taken it a step further. If it was unusual, what was it that made it a relative rare occurrence involving so few people? I think the proclivity to act in this manner was there prior to the commencement of hostilities. Conscription didn't involve sophisticated psychological tests (if they even existed at the time) Provided you were reasonably tall by the standards of the day and had a decent chest size you were in. A process of enlistment based on criteria like this inevitably took in people whose character and peacetime behaviour was highly questionable. It doesn't seem at all unreasonable to suggest that people like this would be tempted to follow their instincts when a "real opportunity" presented itself.

Of course people become "hardened" by war but I'm not talking about that "normal process". I'm talking about those who committed acts that sickened even those who had become "hardened."

Last night I was reading "The War the Infantry Knew" and on pages 399/400 there is an interesting reference to a "feud" between the men of the Middlesex Regt and the Germans. It states that this feud originated when the Germans accused their adversaries of "shooting some captives in cold blood early in the war". It doesn't give any details. Perhaps a pal might know a bit more about this incident and enlighten the rest of us.

Kind regards,

Harry

[Beau Geste]

My own experience of thieving in the British army tells me that soldiers have their own "code" i.e. if caught thieving off your mates then summary punishment was almost inevitable, a good thumping was the "order of the day", at which the senior-ncos and officers usually turned a blind eye - the culprit, now an absolute pariah, was usually transferred out "for his own good" and to ensure continued efficiency within the "team".

We obviously served in the same army Salesie. In The Blues, in the fifties, the usual sort of "squaddie thieving" was common. Someone purloined your towel so you stole someone else's. "Private items" though rarely if ever went missing. There was though a period when this happened. People's money began to go missing and the SCM set a trap which caught the culprit redhanded with a colleagues ten shilling note. He was caught while on Queen's Life Guard at Whitehall but was made to complete the 24 hour stint and was told he'd be arrested when the guard dismounted at Hyde Park Barracks the next morning. Members of his own troop were waiting for him and got there before the provost staff. They lifted him bodily and dropped him , state kit and all, in a horse trough and used stable brooms to "cleanse him thoroughly. The significance of this action will be clear to those of you who know how long it takes to clean up one's equipment before an escort or a Queens. While this was going on there were senior NCOs and officers, including the colonel in the stable yard and they all turned their backs on what was happening. Interestingly enough he wasn't transferred out of the squadron but I don't think he enjoyed the remainder of his service. As an aside, his name, appropriately enough, was Robin !!!!!!!

Whether that could happen today ....who knows ? I doubt it though

As for thieving from men from another unit I should imagine that varying degrees of "acceptance" applied.

I agree but it wouldn't have gone as far as killing in cold blood. It's one thing to discuss stealing but once one adds the ingredients that are now the focus of this thread, we're in an entirely different ball game.

Kind regards,

Harry

[salesie]

Harry, you're right, murder is an entirely different ball-game. But I've no real idea how common/rare it was to kill an enemy, wounded or not, to acquire loot - I would like to think that such acts were extremely rare in the British army, and without any evidence to the contrary I continue in that belief. But a nagging doubt is always there i.e. is the lack of evidence of such atrocities a natural consequence of the soldier's desire to close ranks around "their own" and to deal with things "in house"?

You know yourself how tight-lipped a bunch of squaddies can be, and that includes their senior NCOs and officers - I can't imagine a scenario where anyone would be charged with such an offence. Firstly, soldiers very rarely grass on their mates. Secondly, such a charge would be extremely difficult to prove and, thirdly, such charges would almost certainly bring a degree of "shame" on the unit - in my opinion, any disgust at such conduct would be redressed "in house" (and I should imagine there would be plenty of disgust if certain individuals developed this habit and it stopped being a one-off - in extremis, not all "friendly fire" is accidental).

Cheers - salesie.

[Beau Geste]

Harry, you're right, murder is an entirely different ball-game. But I've no real idea how common/rare it was to kill an enemy, wounded or not, to acquire loot - I would like to think that such acts were extremely rare in the British army, and without any evidence to the contrary I continue in that belief. But a nagging doubt is always there i.e. is the lack of evidence of such atrocities a natural consequence of the soldier's desire to close ranks around "their own" and to deal with things "in house"?

Hello Salesie,

As always a thread benefits from your involvement. I agree with just about everything you say here. In posting # 248 Pete 1052 suggested that there are some issues that only people who "have worn the uniform" really understand. Like the fool I am, I responded with a comment that in issues discussing morality everyone starts from the same point. You, in this posting, have, I think, added substance to the point he was trying to make and , Pete, if you read this forgive me, I just didn't comprehend the point I now think you were trying to make.

Salesie, your brief analysis of the way The Army works and looks after it's own reputation is exactly as I remember it and we served in a period when these things mattered as they no doubt did in the Great War.

Firstly, soldiers very rarely grass on their mates. Secondly, such a charge would be extremely difficult to prove and, thirdly, such charges would almost certainly bring a degree of "shame" on the unit - in my opinion, any disgust at such conduct would be redressed "in house" (and I should imagine there would be plenty of disgust if certain individuals developed this habit and it stopped being a one-off - in extremis, not all "friendly fire" is accidental).

Yes, soldiers forgive and sometimes they forgive a second time but the soldiers I knew and served with never forgave a third time. There were standards of behaviour, of morality if you like , that were important. Yes, war "hardened " the men in the trenches but it rarely made them "hard" when that term is used to describe those who would either get involved in cold blooded murder or turn a blind eye on others committing that sort of crime. There is, as you say Salesie, a lack of proof and that too is understandable but until someone can convince me otherwise, I will continue to believe that despite the "odd abberation" the average soldier (be he British, German French or whatever) behaved in a manner that, in the circumstances, can be described as "civilised".

Kind regards,

Harry

[Pete1052]

What I was saying was that moral values can sometimes come into conflict with each other and that it's the responsibility of those in leadership positions to sort them out for the overall good of the unit and the service.

[Beau Geste]

What I was saying was that moral values can sometimes come into conflict with each other and that it's the responsibility of those in leadership positions to sort them out for the overall good of the unit and the service.

Understood. thank you.

Harry

[salesie]

I agree, Harry, the average soldier remained relatively civilised despite being hardened by war. Here is the finest tribute to the men of the British army of those days that I've ever read - just in case we lose track of their calibre. I quote:

"They believed in themselves when they went out to fight the Kaiser, and they believed in their country and their cause. They valued pluck and patriotism, and what might be termed now 'true grit'. They valued the cult of the amateur, and however professional they might have been in war, they took pains to disguise it, and their emotions. When their beliefs were shattered by Loos and the Somme, and the full horror of war was brought home to them, they kept on fighting. They did not desert in large numbers, stage mutinies in any significant manner, shoot their officers in droves, or take to drugs. By and large they did not rape women, wipe out villages full of innocent civilians, stage massacres, or lock their prisoners up in concentration camps, there to beat, gas, shoot, and humiliate them. When they came home they did the decent thing, refused to take Sassoon's advice and bayonet their leaders and the media, and for the most part restricted their activities to turning out year after year on Armistice Day. Some of their sons spoke up in debates and said they would rather die for their friends than for their country, but then rather spoilt the effect by doing the latter in significant numbers when 1939 came round. As for the fathers, whatever they had said and felt about the Great War, they choked the recruiting offices when another war broke out..."

Cheers - salesie.

[Beau Geste]

I agree, Harry, the average soldier remained relatively civilised despite being hardened by war. Here is the finest tribute to the men of the British army of those days that I've ever read - just in case we lose track of their calibre. I quote:

Cheers - salesie.

Salesie my friend, that says it all.

Amen.

Harry

[Pete1052]

As long as we're talking about military leadership and chains of command, I'd like to offer this somewhat satirical U.S. Army song that dates from before War II.

The Fighting Infantry

1.

Old king Cole was a very old soul,

And a merry old soul was he.

He called for his pipe,

and he called for his bowl,

And he called for his privates three.

CHORUS

“Beer, Beer, beer,” said the privates,

“Merry men are we.

There’s none so fair as can compare

With the Fighting Infantry.”

2.

Old king Cole was a very old soul,

And a merry old soul was he.

He called for his pipe,

and he called for his bowl,

And he called for his corporals three.

CHORUS

“One two, one two, one,” said the corporals;

“Beer, Beer, beer,” said the privates,

“Merry men are we.

There’s none so fair as can compare

With the Fighting Infantry.”

3.

Old king Cole was a very old soul,

And a merry old soul was he.

He called for his pipe,

and he called for his bowl,

And he called for his sergeants three.

CHORUS

“Right by squads, squads right,” said the sergeants;

“One two, one two, one,” said the corporals;

“Beer, Beer, beer,” said the privates,

“Merry men are we.

There’s none so fair as can compare

With the Fighting Infantry.”

4.

Old king Cole was a very old soul,

And a merry old soul was he.

He called for his pipe,

and he called for his bowl,

And he called for his shavetails three.

CHORUS

“We do all the work,” said the shavetails;

“Right by squads, squads right,” said the sergeants;

“One two, one two, one,” said the corporals;

“Beer, Beer, beer,” said the privates,

“Merry men are we.

There’s none so fair as can compare

With the Fighting Infantry.”

5.

Old king Cole was a very old soul,

And a merry old soul was he.

He called for his pipe,

and he called for his bowl,

And he called for his captains three.

CHORUS

“We want ten days’ leave,” said the captains;

“We do all the work,” said the shavetails;

“Right by squads, squads right,” said the sergeants;

“One two, one two, one,” said the corporals;

“Beer, Beer, beer,” said the privates,

“Merry men are we.

There’s none so fair as can compare

With the Fighting Infantry.”

6.

Old king Cole was a very old soul,

And a merry old soul was he.

He called for his pipe,

and he called for his bowl,

And he called for his majors three.

CHORUS

“Where’re my boots and spurs?” said the majors;

“We want ten days’ leave,” said the captains;

“We do all the work,” said the shavetails;

“Right by squads, squads right,” said the sergeants;

“One two, one two, one,” said the corporals;

“Beer, Beer, beer,” said the privates,

“Merry men are we.

There’s none so fair as can compare With the Fighting Infantry.”

7.

Old king Cole was a very old soul,

And a merry old soul was he.

He called for his pipe,

and he called for his bowl,

And he called for his colonels three.

CHORUS

“What’s my next command?” said the colonels

“Where’re my boots and spurs?” said the majors;

“We want ten days’ leave,” said the captains;

“We do all the work,” said the shavetails;

“Right by squads, squads right,” said the sergeants;

“One two, one two, one,” said the corporals;

“Beer, Beer, beer,” said the privates,

“Merry men are we.

There’s none so fair as can compare

With the Fighting Infantry.”

8.

Old king Cole was a very old soul,

And a merry old soul was he.

He called for his pipe,

and he called for his bowl,

And he called for his generals three.

CHORUS

“The Army’s gone to hell,” said the generals;

“What’s my next command?” said the colonels

“Where’re my boots and spurs?” said the majors;

“We want ten days’ leave,” said the captains;

“We do all the work,” said the shavetails;

“Right by squads, squads right,” said the sergeants;

“One two, one two, one,” said the corporals;

“Beer, Beer, beer,” said the privates,

“Merry men are we.

There’s none so fair as can compare

With the Fighting Infantry.”

[salesie]

Here's the British army's version:

Old King Cole was a bu**er for his 'ole

An' a bu**er for his 'ole was old King Cole.

'E called for his wife in the middle o' the night

An' 'e called for his fiddlers three...

I'll leave the rest to your imagination...

Cheers - salesie

[Beau Geste]

As long as we're talking about military leadership and chains of command, I'd like to offer this somewhat satirical U.S. Army song that dates from before War II.

[/i]

I enjoyed that Pete but what on earth is a "shavetail" ?

Harry

[Beau Geste]

Here's the British army's version:

I obviously missed out on a lot by serving in a cavalry regiment and then the RAEC !

Anyone know the French, Aussie, SA or German version ?

Harry

[Pete1052]

A shavetail is a lieutenant. Nobody is certain how the term started, but around 1900 new mules in the army had their tails shaved.

[Beau Geste]

A shavetail is a lieutenant. Nobody is certain how the term started, but around 1900 new mules in the army had their tails shaved.

Thanks Pete. I take it it's an American term. I've certainly never heard of it over here.

Harry

[scottmarchand]

Hi,

Great thread! I am a museum curator and one colleciton I used to work with had a lot of souvenirs donated by western Canadian CEF memebrs, they ran the whole gamut from captured postards, ammunition, epaulettes, jewelry and the like. Kratchen (pork pie caps) were popular to take as were any german headgear. Another practive of CEF troops was to contrsuct a 'hate belt' some sort of belt with badges, buttons etc. afixed as a souvenier colleciton and traded around like sports cards - infact a lot were allied unit badges, like a boy scout blanket. I think a lot of these were made up by rear area troops. from reading unpublished memoirs in the collection souveniering was mainly a behind the lines, rest area activity. A lot of loot was amassed by pioneer units clearing battle fields or consolidating capture trenches and bunkers etc. etc. It certainly happened in the line and in battle to be sure, but the bulk of it happened away from the front. It was a pretty common practice to acquire momentoes of any sort. Some guys liked more things than others. My feeling is that a lot of large items, headgear, uniforms, swords etc were sorted out after Nov 11.

In fact I know, as I have seen pictures of piles of captured german helmets, that they were passed out with US liberty loan Bond payouts as victory treats for people in the states, which is why so many pickelhaubes and steel hlemts survive frankly. Here is a link to a bond helmet for sale and a great copy of the vicotry loan flyer that came with the gift helmet. I'll see if I can find a picture of the pyramids of helmets amassed for distribution.

http://www.germanmilitaria.com/Imperial/photos/G007256.html

NY times article about liberty loan itesm being given away

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/...amp;oref=slogin

[Beau Geste]

Hi,

Great thread!

Thank you Scott. It has certainly attracted a lot more interest than I anticipated.

Another practice of CEF troops was to contrsuct a 'hate belt' some sort of belt with badges, buttons etc. afixed as a souvenier colleciton and traded around like sports cards - infact a lot were allied unit badges, like a boy scout blanket.

This is the first time I've heard of this practice. I hope that others on The Forum will pick this up and comment on it.

I think a lot of these were made up by rear area troops. from reading unpublished memoirs in the collection souveniering was mainly a behind the lines, rest area activity. A lot of loot was amassed by pioneer units clearing battle fields or consolidating capture trenches and bunkers etc. etc. It certainly happened in the line and in battle to be sure, but the bulk of it happened away from the front. It was a pretty common practice to acquire momentoes of any sort. Some guys liked more things than others. My feeling is that a lot of large items, headgear, uniforms, swords etc were sorted out after Nov 11.

Again, I haven't come across this pattern in my reading nor on this thread.

I have seen pictures of piles of captured german helmets, that they were passed out with US liberty loan Bond payouts as victory treats for people in the states, which is why so many pickelhaubes and steel hlemts survive frankly.

Fascinating.

Thank you Scott.

Harry

[Beau Geste]

There have been a number of postings that have suggested that "war is war" and that in some way this explains some of the "less restrained" excesses of soldiers, of all nationalities , in The Great War. Counterbalancing this have been those postings, my own included, that have argued that these excesses were the exception rather than the rule, that while the average soldier was prepared to take souveniers from the dead, he was reluctant to murder an injured adversary to make that process easier. In other words, it really is a question of how one views the nature of man.

In "The War the Infantry Knew" by Capt JC Dunn (page 453) there is a brief description of a meeting he had with one of his company's officers. Capt Mann of the 2nd RWF who was also just returning from home leave. Upon meeting Dunn he exclaimed: "Thank God I'm back. London's awful". Dunn goes on to explain that London has worsened since his November leave ( it was now March 1918 ) and "become yet more profit and pleasure seeking. I too am glad to get away to the wholesome humanity of the front.'"

Would an intelligent, sensitive man, who incidentally was the battalion's medical officer, have described the battlefield in these terms if it had deteriorated into a pit of the most vicious form of self indulgence ? I would suggest that this is highly unlikely. Yes there were examples of the basest form of human behaviour but nothing has been offered so far on this thread that has convinced me that it was anyhing other that a relatively rare phenomenon and that most soldiers behaved in a manner that did them enormous credit.

Best wishes,

Harry

[TGWW]

My thoughts revolve around the known truth that you should never under estimate the ability of good people to do bad things. In some respects this also relates to turning a blind eye to the actions of others. One can have passive as well as active collusion.

I haven't explored this as an aspect of WW1 but in terms of the Holocaust in WW2 there were many thousands of people who drove the trains, completed the ledgers, filed the reports, wrote the timetables, delivered the food to the troops etc All of these tacitly supported the eventual outcome.

On this basis, handling souvenirs from WW1 and perhaps knowing directly ot indirectly that they may have been acquired through murder or theft was probably not a limiting factor. If I've got cold wet feet and am wearing holed boots one size two small and I get offered a lovely pair of fitted officers boots in exchange for some rations or whatever I'm probably not going to ask too many questions as to where the boots came from. I may have a good idea but if I just don't ask then I just won't know and why do I need to know? The same as making a few shillings from some contraband or stolen watches. I suspect a lot of "handling" went on in that way with "no questions asked". If that had happened in a civilian setting and not a martial one then there would be no defence. If a guy offers you a DVD player in the pub for twenty quid then most people will figure it's dubious. As soon as you make the transaction you are guilty of collusion and handling. Turning a blind eye makes no difference as any reasonable person would know that DVD players aren't usually for sale in a pub and aren't usually twenty quid. By the same token you'd know that Corporal Johnson didn't just "find" or get sent twenty watches when he offers you one in exchange for the German pistol you found.

[Beau Geste]

Hello TGWW

One can have passive as well as active collusion.

I agree.

I haven't explored this as an aspect of WW1 but in terms of the Holocaust in WW2 there were many thousands of people who drove the trains, completed the ledgers, filed the reports, wrote the timetables, delivered the food to the troops etc All of these tacitly supported the eventual outcome.

Are you suggesting though that all these people should feel guilty, that they contributed to the horror of Nagasaki and Hiroshima ? Surely not. A reasonable extension of your argument is that we should all feel guilty in the sense that it was carried out in our name.

On this basis, handling souvenirs from WW1 and perhaps knowing directly ot indirectly that they may have been acquired through murder or theft was probably not a limiting factor. If I've got cold wet feet and am wearing holed boots one size two small and I get offered a lovely pair of fitted officers boots in exchange for some rations or whatever I'm probably not going to ask too many questions as to where the boots came from. I may have a good idea but if I just don't ask then I just won't know and why do I need to know?

I'm sure you're right. Certainly if I had been the soldier you describe I wouldn't have asked questions.

If a guy offers you a DVD player in the pub for twenty quid then most people will figure it's dubious. As soon as you make the transaction you are guilty of collusion and handling.

In Liverpool where I was born and brought up they refer to it as "falling off the back of a lorry. What though TGWW is your point ? Interestingly, you've altered the focus from those who loot (and please remember we are concerned on this thread with those who kill an injured person simply to rob him of his possessions OR those who steal from their own injured comrades while transporting them to an aid post) to those who receive these goods. There is no reason at all why you shouldn't do this, of course, but are you saying that those who the receive the looted goods are as guilty as those who commit these heinous acts?

Alternatively, are your comments a response to what I wrote in post #295, that because Capt JC Dunn spoke about the "wholsome humanity of the front", he was turning a blind eye to what was going on and was, therefore, as guilty as those who were looting the dead and dying for profit ?

Kind regards,

Harry

[bob lembke]

Harry;

Dunn's book is remarkably good. Just read it for the second time. He recounts a number of humane actions between the British and the Germans, such as informal cease-fires for clearing the wounded, etc.

I must also note that, toward the end, his unit was sent to Belgian Flanders, and he recounted a number of examples of the French in his sector arresting and trying the local Belgian civilians for suspected spying. In some cases he said that they were tried, without giving the sentence, but when he did mention the sentence it was always being shot. He mentioned the two young (I think) women who ran a little shop that he used to shop in, in one or more cases women putting out laundry that the French assumed contained code for the German artillery, and in one extraordinary case arresting and perhaps shooting a farmer for plowing with a white horse. The French thought that unusual and so it must be a signal to the Germans. Dunn notes that, while in France it was unusual for farmers to have white plow horses, white horses were the norm in Flanders, so he seemed to think that shooting a farmer for plowing with a white horse a bit excessive. Dunn also mentioned a case when some German shells landed near a French officers' mess, and they assumed that the Belgians were sending signals to the Germans, and "rounded up the usual suspects". (It is hard to see how one could put enough information into "plowing with a white horse" or "putting out laundry" to transmit artillery coordinates, etc. to the enemy.)

Since this was in Flanders, I would think that these Belgians were mostly or all Flemish, and therefore spoke a Germanic language, as opposed to the French of the Walloons. In another thread I have recently been puzzling about the very different takes that the Flemish and Walloons seem to have on various events that occurred in Belgium during WW I. Perhaps this is a clue. This is not only idle chit-chat; I feel that although one has to consider the motives of any source for (supposed) historical information, one has to be especially careful in this corner of the world, where there are very bitter divisions, some of which seem to be related to this era; divisions so bad that many believe that Belgium may soon divide into two independent states; I think that their government is presently paralyzed due to these differences.

Again, a really great book. Dunn was the battalion MO, but he was a fighting MO, and supposedly in at least one case took over the command of the battalion in an emergency, although he did not mention it himself.

Bob Lembke

[Beau Geste]

Harry;

Dunn's book is remarkably good.

Yes indeed. It really does provide a balanced view of life in an infantry battalion during WW1. It isn't all "blood and guts", indeed a casual reader might conclude that life in the trenches was pretty "cushy" with trips to Amiens and Paris, inter battalion soccer matches, horse racing and so on but his description of periods when the 2nd RWF were committed, such as in High Wood, are amazing.

He recounted a number of examples of the French in his sector arresting and trying the local Belgian civilians for suspected spying. He mentioned the two young (I think) women who ran a little shop that he used to shop in, in one or more cases women putting out laundry that the French assumed contained code for the German artillery, and in one extraordinary case arresting and perhaps shooting a farmer for plowing with a white horse.

Hatred and fear can sometimes create an exaggerated interpretation of reality but that was to be expected given the history between France and Germany. In a sense it was the sort of thing that happened in America during the McCarthy era. "Reds under the beds" was how it was described in some newspapers over here. A careless word, a chance meeting would have people jumping to conclusions or pointing the finger.

Since this was in Flanders, I would think that these Belgians ......may soon divide into two independent states.

You could be right but I have to admit that it isn't an issue I've considered. On my trips to Ypres friends and I meet up occasionally with a couple of chaps who live nearby and have a real interest in The First World War. They have never hidden their feelings vis a vis the French speaking element in their country but have never mentioned even the possibility of division.

I take it from your silence Bob, that you feel unable to share the issue you PBI'd me on a while ago ? A pity, it would no doubt have been received with some interest.

Kind regards,

Harry

[TGWW]

There is no reason at all why you shouldn't do this, of course, but are you saying that those who the receive the looted goods are as guilty as those who commit these heinous acts

?

Essentially yes - if there were no market for these goods then there would be no gain in murdering to getthem or stealing them per se.

Therefore the whole circumstance was set-up to tacitly accept and condone this kind of poor behaviour under the smokescreen of "war". I'm not judging but rather looking at it practically. In that sense I'd say the majority of those involved had their peace time morals corrupted and the few who did not were indeed a rare breed. I'd like to think of myself as an upstanding pillar of the community however I guarantee you I'd probably have been knee deep in some of the murky goings on if it a) meant I may survive and made life tolerable.

Finally, as an aside, my "holocaust" reference was to the death factories of the Reich rather than the atom bomb but that may be a subtlety of English. For what it's worth, both were dependent on many thousands more people than those who actually did the hands on killing bit. In that respectthen they are all guilty even though some would argue that they are less so ...