Souveniers taken from the dead in time of war

[Beau Geste]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Dec 18 2007, 12:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your suspicions may be well founded, Salesie. I`m not proposing gullibility, just open mindedness! But back to the topic....

I have found that Salesie is rarely wrong but please everyone let's get back to WW1.

Bob, a lot has been said about the way British 'tommies' took the collection of battlefield souveniers seriously. What was the situation in this respect on the German side?

Harry

[PBI]

Lay Off of the Night Nurse and Benylyn Harry.

[PhilB]

Bob, a lot has been said about the way British 'tommies' took the collection of battlefield souveniers seriously. What was the situation in this respect on the German side?

Harry

One`s tempted to think that the Germans must have been as keen on a souvenir as the Tommies, but you never know. We`ve seen lots of photos of British troops showing off their gains but I`ve never seen a German equivalent. Perhaps Bob`s got one tucked away?

[bob lembke]

My grand-father's letters from Belgium and Russia openly mention Beute, or "booty", and is buttressed by the family oral history. About December 1914 his army corps was rushed east after taking Antwerp to help stem the Russians pouring into East Prussia, but the invading armies had been shattered at Tannenburg and the Masurian Lakes by the time it got there. Upon arrival he wrote my father and said that there was nothing to collect in Russia/Poland at all. He was stunned by the debased conditions there, and also quickly contracted malaria. He stated in a letter that you do not have to lie down, one only has to enter a room and look at a bed and you are covered with lice.

One of my grand-father's letters from Belgium was written from a cloister, where his HQ was situated. (I am currently looking at them trying to puzzle out where he was when in Russian Poland in 1915.) In a letter he said that "the nuns are very nice". In his oral history, my father told me that grand-father had developed a little crush on a nun, but then one day she was walking down a corridor, g-f was walking down the corridor as well, and the nun absent-mindedly reached down and scratched her butt, and g-f's crush instantly evaporated.

One day in Berlin just after the war there was a knock at my g-f's door, and there was a man, a wealthy Russian he had become friends with in Russia. He had been able to flee the Reds and excape Bolshevik Russia, and was there penniless at the door. My g-f took him into his house and gave him a room. Some time later there was another knock at the door, and when answered revealed a wild-looking man wearing an incredibly savage-looking bulky coat. It was the overseer of the Russian's country estate. After the Revolution he pretended to be Red-friendly and when he saw his chance he bolted for Berlin himself, clearly by pre-design.

The incredible shaggy coat was a coat made from three layers of sable, sewn into a coat inside out, with the skins on the outside. (I can remember 20 or 30 years ago reading that a sable coat could cost $50,000.) They went into the billiards room, and the overseer fished about in his layers of chothes and fished out a little soft leather sack. He dumped it on the table, and it was the Russian's jewelry, a pile of wonderful stones, which the overseer had buried at the onset of the Revolution. He had traveled across Russia and Poland, breaking off the gold and platinum settings to buy/bribe his way west, retaining the jems.

Suddenly the penniless Russian was very rich indeed. He pressed my g-f to take his pick of the jems, but g-f refused. Finally, he did not take a jem-stone, but chose a very large natural pearl. He had it made into a stick-pin. He was a cynic, and he wore that stick-pin and another one with a much smaller cultivated pearl on alternate days. (I understand that he was at the berlin Stock Exchange at that time.) He took secret satisfaction in how people complemented him on the small stick-pin, but never mentioned the giant perfect pearl, thinking it was a gaudy piece of plastic or something.

Bob Lembke

[bob lembke]

Just saw your questions. Pop never mentioned military souveniers per se, except for an instance a few days after arriving in France in mid-1916, the French bombed the barracks at night, and Pop obtained a jagged bomb splinter and fashoned it into a letter opener for his Father and mailed it to him.

The men were paid a bounty for every French light machine gun of a certain type which his flame company encorporated into their own weapons, as they wanted to use far more light MGs in their flame companies than the few MG 08/15's that the Army allocated to them. The bonus was paid into the company welfare fund.

Pop was an avid organizer of food raids, both on the enemy and the German Army. The storm troops were 20 miles behind the lines, were at loose ends most of the time, were smart and aggressive, taught to think for themselves, so a side effect of their existance was that they were quite a handful to deal with. (I have many amusing anecdotes, but i have good reason to believe that my stories are being collected and I may see them in print. For the third time.) As I have posted, he kept both sides of his family in Germany better-fed by smuggling captured choice delecacies, like big tins of coffee, to them, which they then sold and bought staples. Unfortunately, my father's letters were obsessed with food, not war. My g-f himself had trouble being fed, he was on detached staff duties after being weakened by malaria, and he would just drop in on a local unit and chow down with the men, who could scarcely refuse a staff officer. He had been raised a peasant, was down to earth, and probably would have good rapport with the men. He was a former artillery NCO raised to an officer due to his talents, certainly not the norm.

But as for trinkets, captured enemy kit, etc., my father never said or wrote anything. But I have seen pictures of German storm troopers marching back from an attack, with some of them wearing Brit helmets, not their own "coal scuttles". But I am sure that they were eventually systematically collected for the metal content and used for the war effort.

Bob Lembke

[scottmarchand]

I have a RGA Gunners brodie with an old german museum tag, it was purported to have been a souvenir taken during the spring 1918 offensive.

[chrisharley9]

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

The Household Cavalry where every NCO is a member of the Corporal's Mess - a very civilised group of men - having done my training with the Junior Leaders RAC I know how confusing it was to come across Corporal Majors/Staff Corporal Majors/Squadron Quartermaster Corporal Majors - I could go on but then I will bore you

Chris

[chrisharley9]

Just to add my bit about souvenirs I must admit to my parents having quite a bit of relations artifacts from the Great War laying around - the odd thing that has struck is that it is all British material not a thing of the enemy's at all

Chris

[chrisharley9]

But as for trinkets, captured enemy kit, etc., my father never said or wrote anything. But I have seen pictures of German storm troopers marching back from an attack, with some of them wearing Brit helmets, not their own "coal scuttles". But I am sure that they were eventually systematically collected for the metal content and used for the war effort.

Bob Lembke

Bob

I have photos of piles of British helmets being dumped by their former owners following the March offensives before they are marched off to captivity & also the helmets being crushed by a steamroller so I would consider your statement is correct particularly considering the parlous state of the German economy at that time

With regard to German prisoners also I have seen pictures of mass captures where they are being stripped of all field equipt etc before being marched off - I wonder what use the allied troops would make of all this

Chris

[PBI]

Cut The Quotes !!! read Chris Bakers recent Posting as to why quotes should be kept to a Bare MINIMUM !!

[Beau Geste]

Lay Off of the Night Nurse and Benylyn Harry.

Have you ever had the "night nurse" rub your chest Russ ? I guess not. If you had experienced that pleasure you wouldn't be suggesting I lay off it !!!!!

Harry

[Beau Geste]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Dec 18 2007, 01:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One`s tempted to think that the Germans must have been as keen on a souvenir as the Tommies, but you never know. We`ve seen lots of photos of British troops showing off their gains but I`ve never seen a German equivalent. Perhaps Bob`s got one tucked away?

Precisely Phil, that's why I posed the question. I can't remember seeing a German showing off his souveniers like some "tommies" did.

Harry

[Beau Geste]

The Household Cavalry where every NCO is a member of the Corporal's Mess.

It must have changed Chris since I left in 1968 (just before the amalgamation with the Royal Dragoon Guards). In my time, if my memory serves me correctly, the corporals used the NAAFI with the troopers. One had to reach the rank of L/CoH before being allowed to use the senior ranks' mess. I believe that when serving overseas, Germany 1964 - 67 for example, the corporals did have a junior ranks mess but it was a long time ago, just before I transferred into The RAEC, and I might be mistaken.

a very civilised group of men.

Yes that's the way I remember them too. Thank you.

Kind regards,

Harry

But as for trinkets, captured enemy kit, etc., my father never said or wrote anything. But I have seen pictures of German storm troopers marching back from an attack, with some of them wearing Brit helmets, not their own "coal scuttles". But I am sure that they were eventually systematically collected for the metal content and used for the war effort.

Thank you Bob.

Best wishes,

Harry

[PBI]

I have been following this Topic with Great interest,i was thinking that up until fairly recent Times Soldiers were not Paid much,if at all so the Lure of Plunder and Booty must have been a Great Incentive for them to Fight Harder..and if an Enemy would not part with His Possessions,it was simplicity itself to Kill Him and take said Possessions,or simply to loot the Dead,there are Ample Accounts of Both.I think in the majority of Situations that it would have been uneccessary to kill a Defeated Enemy to get at His Possessions,Threats or gestures would surely have been enough.To Sum it Up "To The Victor The Spoils"..Many Officers turning a Blind Eye to anything that went on "That Wasnt Cricket"...maybe Many Officers saw Souvenering as a Way for the O/Rs to let Off Steam after an Action ?...If Indeed Officers were really bothered after a successful Action.Enemy Corpses would simply Thrown over the Parapet..after having been "Searched" for valuables,Ciggies,and anything else that the Searcher would have thought Worth taking,or if Time permitted maybe the Fallen Enemy would have been piled into Shell Holes and Covered over.C,est La Guerre".

[Beau Geste]

Hello Russ,

I answered this posting last night !!!! Goodness knows what became of it. It showed up OK when I hit the Add Reply button but it aint there now !!!!! Weird.

Soldiers were not Paid much,if at all so the Lure of Plunder and Booty must have been a Great Incentive.

Yes, I agree that many would have seen it as an easy source of income and that would have been a great attraction especially for those with families back home tryng to make ends meet.

If an Enemy would not part with His Possessions,it was simplicity itself to Kill Him.

This is where we differ Russ. I can understand artillery personnel, members of the RFC etc feeling like that because their targets were often "invisible. You pulled a lanyard or pressed a button and BANG another shell or bomb was on its way. For the infantry soldier though it was a very different ball game indeed. His enemy was perhaps a yard or a few yards away and I suggest that for "Joe Average" that made killing a heck of a lot more difficult.

Obviously, during an attack by either side, emotions would have gone "hay-wire"; often it would have been kill or be killed and yes, in those circumstances, it would have been easier. But on the battlefield, face to face with a soldier who has laid down his arms and surrendered, it would, I suggest have been anthing but "simplistic" for anyone with a shred of humanity. Some would do it I grant you but the majority would have been like Harry Patch, God bless him, who face to face with a German infantryman said "I couldn't kill him, there was no way I could kill him. I shot him in the leg".

In a sense we've come full circle. I said in an earlier posting that how one responds to this question depends pretty much on how one views the nature of man. Your view, I think, is rather more cynical than mine.

Kind Regards my friend,

Harry

[PBI]

Morning Harry,i thought you had been beamed up or summat,i posted as Well but thatwent off into the Ether.Back to Business,yup sure seems thatWe have come Full Circle on the Thread..Still its a really interesting Subject,and everyone has their own views and Opinions.On that Note Harry i must away to the Pub,and to post off Yer DVD...Merry Christmas (Hic)...

[Beau Geste]

Morning Harry,i thought you had been beamed up or summat,i posted as Well but thatwent off into the Ether.Back to Business,yup sure seems thatWe have come Full Circle on the Thread..Still its a really interesting Subject,and everyone has their own views and Opinions.On that Note Harry i must away to the Pub,and to post off Yer DVD...Merry Christmas (Hic)...

Of course Russ and that's the great thing about The Forum. Everyone can have their say and express their opinions without anyone taking offence. It's also a great place to make friends like you. Enjoy your lunchtime glass (or two) and make this the best Christmas you've had in years.

Kind thoughts,

Harry

[salesie]

Harry, been doing a bit of research on this topic and it would seem that British soldiers were actually ordered to search the dead for "souvenirs".

From a book on my bookshelf, Armour Against Fate, British Military Intelligence in the First World War, by Michael Occleshaw:

"Private papers and diaries could be just as useful. Sir George Aston remarks that: An astounding amount of information about the situation of the reserves behind the German front-line was obtained from captured documents, mostly private papers. News was thus obtained about divisions in the back areas where men belonging to them wrote to their friends in the trenches announcing their arrival. Private papers frequently disclosed the location of units. Picture postcards sometimes gave uniform details from which the regiment could be established and thereby the division. Examination of such correspondence was of value in a number of other respects. It provided information not only about the morale of the soldiers, but about their families in Germany who were suffering under the blockade and losing faith in their leaders. Censorship of letters and postcards from home seems to have been unaccountably lax on the German side.

As well as letters, the diaries of German soldiers were eagerly sought not only for the details they recorded but because, according to Major-General Thwaites: 'The German soldier always wrote down the names of his leaders in his diary, especially the names of his corps and divisional commanders.' Once these names were known it was a simple step to recognize which division he served in, which was a contribution to the build-up of the Order of Battle. Maintaining a diary seems to have been a universal habit amongst German soldiers, and the damage resulting from these falling into Allied hands was serious enough for the German command to try and break it. Kirke recorded in his own diary that the 'Germans have prohibited diaries owing to the amount of information given to the enemy by them.'

Items of enemy uniform and equipment were also of use in building up the picture of the enemy's Order of Battle: distinctive German shoulder straps, or field caps with a man's name and regiment inside were keenly sought by Intelligence as a means of identifying enemy units. The men who had to retrieve these articles were not always so keen. Personal papers and items of uniform could be taken from the bodies of enemy dead, but even this was not as easy as it sounds. It usually involved going over the top and thereby being exposed to the enemy's fire and it is unsurprising to find this task was not always performed as conscientiously as might have been desired.

A common experience was that of Leading Seaman Murray during the Battle of the Ancre in November 1916. Murray was in charge of a section of Lewis guns in advance of the main body of the infantry, and which destroyed a German counter-attack. Murray was instructed to take a small party forward to secure identifications from the dead Germans. Describing the haste with which this was accomplished, Murray recounts: 'You'd pick, because you were in the open, and in a minute you expected to be fired on, so what you did was to grab hold of anything, you know, you grabbed hold of his cap if you could find it ... that would have been something, you see. This haste was fully justified since this was done in broad daylight! Broad daylight! So there, you see, we were walking about in the open and we weren't very pleased about it you know.'

As Rackham explains: 'We were always told to get anything of value, get hold of it and send it back.' Despite the risks, soldiers would often hunt for souvenirs, pocketing items of enemy uniform and equipment to sell to non-combatant soldiers in the rear areas, like the Army Service Corps or Royal Army Medical Corps, or to bear them home as trophies to their families. Consequently, Intelligence never had the opportunity to assess such findings. Apart from the Order of Battle, much of what was found was of little value to Intelligence, but it had to be collected nonetheless, for amongst the dross there might be one or two nuggets of gold, the pieces of information that justified the time, the effort and the risks, as was the case in February 1918 when the discovery of a new-issue gas mask helped Intelligence to determine the date and location of the German spring offensive. Such a coup was, however, a rare event..."

Cheers - salesie.

[Beau Geste]

Harry, been doing a bit of research on this topic and it would seem that British soldiers were actually ordered to search the dead for "souvenirs".

Private papers frequently disclosed the location of units. Picture postcards sometimes gave uniform details from which the regiment could be established and thereby the division. Examination of such correspondence was of value in a number of other respects. It provided information not only about the morale of the soldiers, but about their families in Germany who were suffering under the blockade and losing faith in their leaders. Censorship of letters and postcards from home seems to have been unaccountably lax on the German side.

Hello Salesie,

Yes this certainly makes sense. Others have alluded to it during this thread but not in as much detail as you have given us here. Thank you Salesie.

As well as letters, the diaries of German soldiers were eagerly sought. 'The German soldier always wrote down the names of his leaders in his diary, especially the names of his corps and divisional commanders.' Once these names were known it was a simple step to recognize which division he served in, which was a contribution to the build-up of the Order of Battle.

Why would they do this ? It seems that most "tommies" hadn't a clue who their corps or divisional commanders were !

Personal papers and items of uniform could be taken from the bodies of enemy dead, but even this was not as easy as it sounds. It usually involved going over the top and thereby being exposed to the enemy's fire and it is unsurprising to find this task was not always performed as conscientiously as might have been desired.

Not surprising especially since it often had to be done in broad daylight.

Despite the risks, soldiers would often hunt for souvenirs, pocketing items of enemy uniform and equipment to sell to non-combatant soldiers in the rear areas, like the Army Service Corps or Royal Army Medical Corps, or to bear them home as trophies to their families. Consequently, Intelligence never had the opportunity to assess such findings.

Yes, personal gain. A really potent motivator for people with so very little. I'm really grateful to you my friend for taking the trouble to dig this out and for posting it here I was aware of the importance of searching the enemy dead for items of useful intelligence but I haven't seen it expressed as clearly as it is here in Occleshaw's book. No mention at all though of killing the injured so as to provide easier access to these snippets of information. I wonder what the official attitude was ? We know it happened. Some think it was quite "a simple thing" to do and for that reason was quite common. Others, myself included, refuse to believe it was so straightforward and while there were many who would take from the dead, there were relatively few who would kill a helpless adversary merely to rob him.

Kind regards,

Harry

[bob lembke]

I have a collection of about 50 letters from or in a few cases to my family from the time of the war, the vast majority being letters between my father and grand-father from their respective fronts. There are at least two examples of what might seem to be almost astonishing lapses of security.

My grand-father's army corps (III. Reservekorps) was reinforced from its traditional two divisions to a strength of 5-6 divisions, mostly with third-rate units and in one or two cases divisions that had literally been formed a few days before (certainly the Naval Division, and probably the 4. Ersatz Division). Thus reinforced, it was still facing numeric odds of 2 1/2 or 3 to 1. My g-f considered one of the divisions (5. Reserve Division) as "my division", as he called it, as he had served in it as a NCO 30 years before, and his family had served in its Ulan regiment for generations. He also referred to the two original divisions (5. Reserve Division u. 6. Reserve Division) as "my divisions" in his letters. He was the Id, the head of one of the four sections of the operational section of the corps' HQ, his section being the section responsible for the supply of artillery and infantry ammunition. In one letter, he wrote to my father, then still a school-boy, "I am worried sick, one of my divisions is almost out of ammunition." Can you imagine how much the Belgians or British that he was facing would liked to have gotten hold of that letter?

There are two explainations that come to mind. It was the opening days of the war, and perhaps things, including censorship and informational security, simply had not been set up. Also, it would not have been surprising if the mail of the Generalkommando was handled with especial care and security. One also could ask who would censor the mail of the head of one of the sections of the HQ. General von Beseler? My g-f did exercise some caution; for example, in writing about the 30.5 cm mortars and 42 cm howitzers with which they were shattering the Belgian forts (some of the letters were written from the batteries of these great guns as they fired on the forts), g-f never mentioned the exact caliber, but described them generally, giving the approximate shell weights.

The other surprising letter was written by my father the night before his most momentious flame attack, in which he saved the life of an infantry officer, and a few minutes later received his worst wound of the war, which kept him in and out of hospitals for a year, and which spit bone fragments for over 10 years. He was left in a captured French dugout for three days, as the shell burst that wounded him also wounded his entire Flamm=Trupp, and his comrades could not handle getting him back from no-man's-land as well as themselves, due to their own wounds.

I have four letters from my father describing the attack, and one was a letter written the night before the day of the attack. In it he described, for his father, the entire plan of the attack, the jumping-off time, the width of the attack front, the period of time that the flame troops were going to spend in the French positions before being relieved, etc. As I have a great deal of other material on the attack, I know that what he wrote was the actual plan of the attack. This is not surprising, as it was a very important attack, and they had built replicas of the French positions to be captured, and had rehearsed the attack on those replica fortifications repeatedly.

Several very interesting things about this. First of all, a buck private knew the entire plan of the attack, in detail, including the minute of the assault. This gives an interesting insight into the manner in which storm troops prepared for an attack. I do not think that that was the usual case in most armies, but some Allied forces also did this occasionally later in the war. Secondly, that Pop was allowed to write a letter detailing these details, before the attack. Here I think that the men were allowed to write letters just before the attack, they were not closely censored, if at all, but that the letters were carefully embargoed until after the attack occurred; probably locked up in a HQ somewhere until after the assault took place.

In all of these letters I have only noticed one example of what was probably censorship. (Of course, I do not know if entire letters were simply siezed, but I do not think so.) In a bitter letter from Bavaria, where the food was better than in Prussia, describing Bavarians that Pop thought were war profiteers eating luxurious food in public, someone took a pen and crossed out "cherry cake" in a phrase that described "coffee and cherry cake" being eaten. This would have been done by Bavarian personnel or mail officials. The ironies is that the coffee was the great luxury, not the cherry cake, unless the coffee was actually roasted chestnuts or some other substitute, and that the words seemingly being censored were still readable. My father, for example, never actually mentioned "flame throwers" in a letter, but alluded to them, for example mentioning the nuscance of getting oil on uniforms and possessions.

This seemingly careless lack of censorship may have been careless, or it may have been a calculated risk. I have seen, in a British publication, a photograph of a form postcard supposedly given to wounded soldiers in hospital, where they were to check off one of two or three printed blocks of text; one was, sort of: "Mum, I am fit as a fiddle.", another was: "Mum, I am a bit sick/wounded, but I will be as fit as a fiddle in no time." There also was a warning that if anything else were written on the card the card would be destroyed. This suggests that if a soldier was wounded and he knew that he was going to die (for example, he had bad gas gangrene, which killed many slowly), and tried to write a last letter home on this PC, the PC would be destroyed. Perhaps dying men were encouraged to write private sealed letters, perhaps not. But the PC that I saw seemed very callous. It does seem, to me (a notorious Tutophile), that the Germans tried to manage their men more by positive inducements than by threats and punishments. (We have discussed this before in the form of the rates of the various armies shooting their men; I have just worked up some statistics indicating that the Allied armies shot their men for military offensives on average at a rate 26 times as high as in the German Army.) Perhaps the German leadership thought that the risk of intelligence leaks would be balanced by better morale. I might also speculate that detailed diaries were both a bigger intelligence threat, and less of a morale issue; prohibiting men keeping diaries at the front would not be as generally offensive as impeding the ability of men to correspond with their family and friends.

Military mail is a fascinating topic, but probably is drifting a bit Off Topic.

Bob Lembke

[Beau Geste]

It does seem, to me (a notorious Tutophile), that the Germans tried to manage their men more by positive inducements than by threats and punishments.

Hello Bob,

Thank you for your lengthy and informative posting. I think you will agree with me that the security lapses you mention were

almost unbelieveable and could have been catastrophic.

Because of this I was interested to read your conclusion that "the Germans tried to manage their men more by positive inducements than by threats and punishments". If the examples you quote are typical, The German approach obviously didn't work particularly well. To me Bob it's a bit like saying "treat youngsters like adults and they'll behave like adults". We all know that the dictum sounds fine, but the reality can be quite different.

Given the professional nature of the German Army in 1914 - 18 I really am surprised that this attitude towards security existed. Perhaps "threats and punishments" would have been more effective. The British Army, especially in the early years of the war, was very different of course ; someone described it as being made up of "civilians in uniform". Perhaps, therefore, we got it right: we knew that there would be ' a tendency to act like boys so we treated them like boys'.

There were, of course, many lapses of security, some with tragic consequences, but overall the system in place seemed to function pretty well.

Kind regards Bob,

Harry

[richards13]

As a former infantry officer, I am know that many of my former men would happily rob civilians and soldiers blind if they ever got the chance.

Thieving is ruthlessly dealt with in the Army, but kit theft is rife.

Combatents have always looted their enemy, it is a fact of war. My brother still has an Iron Cross 1st class robbed from a corpse in Gallipoli by an ancestor. The moralities of stealing from your enemies are pretty academic when life is cheap. For a soldier at the sharp end it can also be extremely lucrative, with a thriving demand for souvenirs from rear echelon troops. The Great War infantryman was not a well paid man. Beer money after a period at the front was a neccesity.

Many pictures taking of dead in WW2 show corpses littered with worthless papers, and their pockets turned inside out. Few of us are truly in a position to judge?

[Desdichado]

As regards civilians and their property, what was the attitude to taking their goods? I can imagine a group of soldiers happening across an abandoned farmhouse and helping themselves to food and drink. I haven't heard of civilians being murdered by front-line troops in search of plunder so I'm assuming it was a rare event.

[salesie]

Des, on this site there's a list of crimes that a British soldier could be charged with, amongst them are:

Committing an offence against the person of a resident in the country in which he was serving. Penalty: Death

Breaking into a house in search of plunder. Penalty: Death

Seeing as death is listed as the only penalty, it would seem that a very dim view was taken of such offences. The article also states that of the men tried by British courts-martial some 271,000 were convicted, and the page lists, after purely military crimes, 15% were for drunkenness and 19% for various other crimes - presumably, any convicted of the above two offences fell into the 19% but it doesn't say if any were charged, convicted and executed for these two specific crimes.

Cheers - salesie.

[Desdichado]

salesie, The Army Act, Part I, section 6 lists the offences you've mentioned but there was no mandatory death penalty for those convicted. They could be executed but a court-martial had the discretion to pass a lesser sentence.

I can think of one soldier executed for the murder of a French civilian and one member of the Chinese Labour Corps who was shot at dawn for the killing of a French family of four. Only two civil offences carried a mandatory death sentence: murder and treason. The court had no option in these matters but a recommendation to mercy could be made, however the condemned man's fate then rested with the reviewing officers and, ultimately, the Commander-in-Chief.

Regards - Des