Souveniers taken from the dead in time of war

[jim_davies]

Interesting thread-the following is a selection from the diary of a 4th Lincs lad:

7 May 1915-

"We caught sight of an empty farmhouse, so we took the law into our own hands and broke from the party and went to explore it. We found the place nearly empty of furniture, a large heap of books lay in a corner, whilst another room there was a ton or so of seed potatoes....In this house I gained a few pictures on choice subjects, which if possible I mean to take back with me to England."

20 June 1915-

"About noon I wondered whether it was likely I could get some souvenirs, so at 3.30 I and companion went in search of some...We visited a ruined house and here I had my first bit of luck, I found lying on the floor the nose of a howitzer shell...I had another find, this time it took the form of an ordinary high explosive shell.

21 June 1915-

"It was grand looking at the old battlefields, and ghastly guessing at the dead bodies of the heroes lying there. Here we found a bayonet and I found a bayonet a scabbard. the Frenchman I took the bayonet off was laying more or less on his side, but he had all his equipment on and all I had to do was take hold of the bayonet in it's scabbard and take it away with me."

From reading the entire diary and also a number of his letters home, I like the guy. He is compassionate towards his mates and their families, took his duties and responsibilties as a junior NCO seriously, wrote home frequently, (often to the family of mates killed) frequently attended church, makes several references to visiting the graves of his comrades etc, but he was a a rabid souvenir hunter.

Jim

[Smith64]

I'll contribute to this thread with an excerpt from the War Diary of the 11th Suffolk Regiment, from the orders about the attack of 1st July:

(at the paragraph "DISCIPLINE"):

"Many instances have occurred in this war of men searching for souvenirs instead of instantly consolidating a position gained, and, in consequence, being found unready to meet the enemy's counter-attack.

It is therefore to be distinctly understood that any Officer, N.C.O. or man found in possession of any such souvenirs will be tried by Court Martial.

Divisional Arrangements will be made after a successful attack to have souvenirs collected and distributed to those units who have taken part".

So it seems that there were at least attempts to regulate such activity...

Elena

[themonsstar]

No soldier in his right MIND, will brag to his mates that he as taken any personal kit* of any dead soldier, you would have to be mad to do it, and to openly admit it to your mates would be asking for trouble.

*personal Kit "eg" jewellery or other personal kit.

However personal military kit would be different "eg" cap bagde's, bits of uniform & webbing, etc etc. That go's with the job.

I participated for 6 months with the Army War Graves Unit, And I could tell you lot some story's.

[linden]

WW2 poet Vernon Scannell has died in the past 2 weeks and there are BBC Radio 4 , and "Times" obituaries . In one of his books he writes about his shock at seeing soldiers stripping the belongings of dead soldiers . It's a very powerful account .

[Beau Geste]

Hi,

I think the taking of objects can be split into 4 categories:- a) a combat trophy- to signify a combat with another person, a souvenier- just general items as keepsakes, c) useful items- to use oneself if not issused/ better quality, d) for sale- to sell to get more urgently required items such as extra food, clothes and misc.

Ian

Hello Ian

There is, of course, a world of difference between stealing food because you are hungry or lifting a weapon because you have lost yours and fear for your life ( covered I think by your categories 'c' and 'd' ) and "thieving" pure and simple which your categories 'a' and 'b' seem to describe.

However, I am anxious not to give the impression that I'm a 'kill joy' or that I'm totally unable to empathise (to some very small extent anyway) with the lads of 1914 - 18. Had I been there I'm sure I too would have been interested in combat trophies or just "general items" as keepsakes or to barter with.

Most of these were often available, lying around on the battlefield. Where I draw the line is the killing of a wounded and helpless enemy just to get his watch or ring or stealing from one's own men as they are carried, injured, to receive treatment.

I'm sorry, I just feel it was / is wrong.

Harry

[Beau Geste]

It is well remembered in our family that my great grandfather (Scots Guards) came accross a dead German with spanking new boots on. When trying to take them (not so much as a souvenier but to replace his own worn out boots) the dead Germans leg came with it. He still got the boots but this shows how dehumanised someone becomes in such times.

Hello Kevin, See post 55.

Amother way of looking at it is that it shows how desperate he had become. For example there are references in the literature of British troops in 1914 without boots or with boots that were kept together with string. Your great grandfather's action was understandable.

I have been given a short Mauser bayonet taken from a dead Turk as a souvenier. That I have no qualms about that but the thought of taking a watch or a chain even a wedding ring from a dead man does not sound too nice. However I wasnt there I dont know what I would have done had I been there. If a gold ring got you an extra portion of food then who knows.

Fine, I hope you continue to enjoy it. The Turk was dead, he had no need for the bayonet and it could, conceivably, have been picked up by one of the enemy and used against our lads.

For what it's worth Kevin, neither of these examples offends me in any way whatsoever.

Harry

[Beau Geste]

Interesting thread-the following is a selection from the diary of a 4th Lincs lad:

7 May 1915-

"We caught sight of an empty farmhouse, so we took the law into our own hands and broke from the party and went to explore it. We found the place nearly empty of furniture, a large heap of books lay in a corner, whilst another room there was a ton or so of seed potatoes....In this house I gained a few pictures on choice subjects, which if possible I mean to take back with me to England."

Stealing from innocent civilians. Jim, I think it's called "looting" . Is there a difference between what they did and what a housebreaker does today?

There's a picture forming in my mind the more I read on this thread. It's a picture of an infantry battalion advancing across no man's land and each man is pulling a handcart he's purloined from somewhere packed with his "souveniers" !!!!!!!!

20 June 1915-

"About noon I wondered whether it was likely I could get some souvenirs, so at 3.30 I and companion went in search of some...We visited a ruined house and here I had my first bit of luck, I found lying on the floor the nose of a howitzer shell...I had another find, this time it took the form of an ordinary high explosive shell.

They were fools as well as thieves. The literature contains many examples of people being killed in just this sort of circumstance.21 June 1915-

"It was grand looking at the old battlefields, and ghastly guessing at the dead bodies of the heroes lying there. Here we found a bayonet and I found a bayonet a scabbard. the Frenchman I took the bayonet off was laying more or less on his side, but he had all his equipment on and all I had to do was take hold of the bayonet in it's scabbard and take it away with me."

No criticism from me on this one.

From reading the entire diary and also a number of his letters home, I like the guy. He is compassionate towards his mates and their families, took his duties and responsibilties as a junior NCO seriously, wrote home frequently, (often to the family of mates killed) frequently attended church, makes several references to visiting the graves of his comrades etc, but he was a a rabid souvenir hunter.

Obviously Jim I have only been responding to the actions you describe, not the man. From your description he really does appear to be a nice guy. It's interesting that none of the incidents you describe involved the stealing of personal possessions from a wounded soldier or the killing of someone who was lying helpless on the battlefield so as to steal from him. Perhaps he drew the line there.

Harry

[Beau Geste]

I'll contribute to this thread with an excerpt from the War Diary of the 11th Suffolk Regiment, from the orders about the attack of 1st July:

(at the paragraph "DISCIPLINE"):

"Many instances have occurred in this war of men searching for souvenirs instead of instantly consolidating a position gained, and, in consequence, being found unready to meet the enemy's counter-attack.

It is therefore to be distinctly understood that any Officer, N.C.O. or man found in possession of any such souvenirs will be tried by Court Martial.

Divisional Arrangements will be made after a successful attack to have souvenirs collected and distributed to those units who have taken part".

So it seems that there were at least attempts to regulate such activity...

Elena

Hello Elena,

Yes, I've read similar orders but from the masses of evidence it appears that, very often, these weren't followed through at the grass roots. I wonder why?

Harry

[Beau Geste]

No soldier in his right MIND, will brag to his mates that he as taken any personal kit* of any dead soldier, you would have to be mad to do it, and to openly admit it to your mates would be asking for trouble.

*personal Kit "eg" jewellery or other personal kit.

However personal military kit would be different "eg" cap bagde's, bits of uniform & webbing, etc etc. That go's with the job.

I participated for 6 months with the Army War Graves Unit, And I could tell you lot some story's.

Hello Themonstar,

Why would he not be "in his right mind" to tell his mates he'd taken "personal" possessions from "any dead soldier" ? According to the examples here and in the books I've read it seems to have happened all the time?

Yes, I can see there is an important distinction between "personal" as you define it and "personal military kit". The first appears to me to be morally wrong and the second understandable and not nearly so odious.

Harry

[Beau Geste]

I suspect you could build a whole Jagdgruppe of DrIs from the fragements on the market and in museums etc claimed to be from VR's aircraft.

Yours and Rupert's postings made me smile. It reminded me of Pompey, the drum horse at Knightsbridge in the fifties. When he died they mounted his hooves and auctioned them off. I left the mounted squadron in 1960 and you could still purchase a hoof that they claimed was one of his.

Indeed, if I'm not mistaken, you can get one today. Hundreds have been sold !!!!!!! He was the only centipede that became a drum horse!

Harry

[bob lembke]

My grandfather of the 17th London said the Ghurkas would ask guys what souvenirs they wanted--watches, pistols, etc--before they crawled oiled and naked into German trenches at night with only their kukris. All they'd keep for themselves were the ear lobes of the men they had slain. My dad also returned from WW II with lots of souvenirs.

Pete;

Just read a couple of hours ago, in a British book, an account of a Gurka walking down the road carrying the face of a German in his hand, freshly cut off someone's head, and German POWs giving him a wide berth.

Also read a while ago an account by a British officer, at a HQ establishment, feeling terrible; he has kidded an African soldier who loved jam, and hung about the kitchen to try to cage some, that the supply of jam would end unless he brought in a German ear by morning. (It was the evening.) Upset, the soldier rushed out. The next morning, he came to the kitchen with an ear. The officer realized that it was 20 miles to the front, and the colonial soldier must have obtained it closer, probably from a French civilian.

In the excellent book My Rhineland Journal, by US General Allen, the CO of the US Sector of Occupation on the Rhine, Allen expressed the opinion that the employment of colonial troops in Europe was a war crime, due to their behavior. Allen does not seem to have been a racist; US General Bullard clearly was, by his memoir.

Bob Lembke

[Beau Geste]

Harry,

"what was the meaning of that remark about Crucifix Corner at Aveluy ? That thread was quite different to this. It was purely an attempt to assess whether or not the crucifix there is original or a replacement. "

Nothing significant, a throwaway remark - just remember having a conversation on the board with you about the crucifix, your researches on it, contacts with your friends in Aveluy and and also your avatar (my wife remarked something about "what a lovely horse" but failed to remember you sitting on said lovely horse!!)

Look forward to your reply to my post - feel free to "tear me apart" - in the meantime enjoy the match (while I enjoy another glass of the red stuff!)

regards

Phil

Thanks Phil, tell your lady not to worry, I'm easily forgotten.

Incidentally, we are planning our next trip to The Somme in April so the Crucifix at Crucifix Corner thread isn't dead yet.

Harry

[ianw]

The spoils of war as a perk for the military seems a well ingrained notion. In the 70's a pal of mine served as a RN clearance diver - by the way all these guys were as mad as coots. They sometimes had the job of destroying weapons handed in during arms amnesties but choice pieces were often divvied out to the squad with the more senior ranks getting first pick. The rubbish was duly destroyed , of course.

[bob lembke]

I can give an instance of prisoners' belongings being returned. My GF was wounded first day of Loos and had to be left behind when his comrades withdrew. The Germans picked him off the field, ( head wound ) and he was transported back to Corps HQ ( Phalempin) where he died in hospital. My grandmother received a package through the IRC containing his effects and a letter from a German medical attendant, in English, which explained what had happened. The letter explained that x amount of francs had been put to a fund for the patients. Chocolate and tobacco had been shared among patients in the ward. His pipe was returned as were letters, photos and a pocket watch. The letter also stated that he had been properly buried with a funeral.

I remember reading in the memoirs of a German junior officer (It might have been von Brandeis, the "official" captor of Fort Douaumont at Verdun) who found the papers of a French officer, possibly a noble. He got them to his wife in Germany, who made inquiries thru Switzerland, and finally was able to get the material back to the French officer's widow in France, during the war.

Bob Lembke

[TGWW]

Most of these were often available, lying around on the battlefield. Where I draw the line is the killing of a wounded and helpless enemy just to get his watch or ring or stealing from one's own men as they are carried, injured, to receive treatment.

I always find it interesting how we try to rationalise war by making little rules and guidelines like it's some sort of civilised activity. Imagine a wounded man who survives, rejoins the battle and becomes the soldier who pulls the trigger to fire the bullet that kills your friend. Stripping the dead and killing the wounded is a part of terrifying your enemy and reducing his will to fight. On the basis that you wouldn't like it to happen to you a kind of uneasy tacit agreement sometimes arises between fighting men. We won't kill your wounded if you don't kill ours etc but this is always tenuous. In addition that brutality towards ones enemy may also stiffen his resolve to fight more than intimidate him not to. It is a complex process. Some of the stories were doubtless circulated by our own side (whichever "our" you belong to). If you're told that the enemy strip the dead and kill the wounded you're probably far likelier to despise him and fight and certainly would not be rushing to surrender or be captured by such a supposed brutish opponent.

In the end war is brutal and there really are no rules. In its extremes one can justify killing children as they will grow up to be your future enemies. That goes back beyond WWI all the way back to King Herod!

My concern has always been that making civilised rules only serves to justify war and make it tolerable. It should be as brutal, bloody and horrific as possible because only in that way can it be brought to a swift end. Kill everyone and everything in your path. Welcome to total war.

Whilst the concept of "surgical strikes" and avoiding "collateral damage" prevail we'll continue to believe wars are in some way winnable because we can legitimise certain levels of brutality.

It may well be that rather than a strength, our humanity in war is in fact our greatest weakness.

[Rob B]

I have just caught up on the new posts, and earlier there was a generalisation made of "all soldiers being thieves". In war or on active service if there is an oppertunity to improve their lot they will! Black tape, rations, gucci equipment will be liberated, I watched from a troop train as an armoured regiments tanks were looted of kit en route to Soltau, it was fair game.

In the Great War morals, and the niceties we are debating at the moment went out the window and souveniers were fair game I do blanch at the removal of fingers for rings but lets not forget the dead at Waterloo got a good going over, looting goes back to the start of conflict and as I was told as a recruit "War is hell".

Rob

[gothic69]

having read several personal tales form different wars, it seems that useful items were shared out between the dead comrades friends but personal items were returned to next of kin if possible, but if troops were robbing their own dead of personal items i am sure they would have been dealt with by Rule 303. But by the same time you asking men to murder other men and by god that what it is, the social conventions that we all live by get suspended therefore the ordinary soldiers get caught up in rape, looting and murder of civilians a lot more than we would like to admit.

I was watching a program about the end of WW2 there were british soldiers who looted an entire castle who emptied its contents onto a half dozen army trucks and just dove off under the knowledge and secret colusion of their officers.

Ian

[bushfighter]

RodB

But unless gripped where does this "looting" lead to?

Units whose support you may have to rely on in action may now be inefficient because of friendly looting.

And let's not forget the bn padre in the Falklands who discovered Argentinian body parts when he searched dead British NCOs' kits.

Experienced officers & NCOs will exercise certain amounts of discretion before stopping looting, but weak gutless ones will look the other way, allowing an ugly culture to germinate.

H

[Beau Geste]

Thanks Phil for a really interesting and thoughtful contribution.

"Looting became institutionalised during The Great War."

My point was that it did not "become institutionalised" in WW1 but had been going on for hundreds of years and may (I stress "may") have just been accepted as normal, especially in the circumstances. There are a couple of quotes in my GF's diary which illustrate the difficulties in interpreting the motives - in one, a bullet went between his legs when sitting reading a newspaper and he says (words to effect of) "if I had been leaning forward, it would certainly have biffed me, got the bullet as a souvenir". Later he says after a battle "Got a German helmet as a souvenir". Also, when I was a youngster (about 10 or 11) I broke my watch and asked my Dad if he had a spare I could borrow and he said "the only one I have is one Grandad got in WW1 - it's German and still works perfectly - but look after it and we'll get yours repaired". Now, the bullet is explicable, but where did the helmet and watch come from? Robbed from a body? Found on the battlefield? Traded from a mate? I don't know and never asked. I still have a pair of German (Zeiss) WW1 binoculars from my other Grandad -how did he come by those?

Yes Phil, I have no problem at all agreeing with what you say here about soldiers of all nationalities taking souveniers during the battles that were fought throughout history. What I was referring to when I said it became "institutionalised" during The Great war was the scale of this practice. It would be inconceivable that the victors in a battle would not be tempted to pick up "trophies" . I know that I too would have acted in the same way. The examples you give above are the sort of things I'm referring to. So in this respect we don't differ at all. What I find impossible to accept though are those instances, and they weren't a rarity by all accounts, where wounded men were killed in cold blood or wounded soldiers on their way down the casevac chain were robbed of their personal possessions, items that very often were as precious to the owner as life itself.

"Wasn't the period 1914 -18 "modern" ? When did the "modern era" you speak of and that we live in today begin" ?

Harry - I don't think I really know, but my suspicion is that our "modern sensibilities" and the "modern era" stems from the era when most of us have not had to go to war (I'm not talking about war technology here but the time when most of us have not faced what the majority of our parents/grandparents had to go through - we can all spout about the evils of war and "reprehensible" actions of people on the battlefield but most of us do not know anyone who has faced the environment of battle - another quote from GF "I have not had my boots off or changed my socks for 5 weeks" - how disgustingly unhygienic - how could he have done that??!!

I find this section difficult to respond to Phil. What do you mean by "modern sensibilities"? Are you suggesting that society has, in some way improved itself during the years since WW2 ? If you are, then how do you explain the growing level of violence and other forms of anti-social behaviour on our streets that regails us every time we open a newspaper or switch on the radio or television ? There are, of course, other criteria one could use to define the term "modern era" and technological advance would be one that makes some sense. The weapon systems available to warring groups or states today are far more sophisticated than they were in World War 1 but that accelerating process, certainly in terms of armaments really began during The Great War and has continued apace ever since.

In the sixties, I left the mounted squadron and joined "the regiment" at Windsor. It was a part of the Royal Armoured Corps and in the next few months I did all the usual training courses for a senior NCO: gunnery, radio and D&M. Compared to today we were using "toy-town" equipment. "Progress" has been that rapid !

There is a thread I introduced some months ago called 'Today's Generation' where I posed the question: would the young men and women of today be up to the demands of a war similar to WW2 ? The responses were interesting. You are right, we don't know. A few are serving magnificently in places like Iraq and Afghanistan but that doesn't answer the question. You're right, most of us haven't faced anything remotely like our fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers so our murmurings will inevitably lose some credibility. That doesn't mean though that we can't give issues careful thought and express our opinions.

"by all accounts there were many who shunned this practice."

I'm sure there were - just as there were many who shunned it in earlier centuries - there were all sorts in the war - just as there were those who refused to go to war. There were heroes, cowards, thieves, vagabonds, profiteers, men of honour, - Another quote from GF

"On guard, setting the gun. Very quiet here. In a very bad temper. Cannot find who has stolen my haversack. Would not care if they would return the slide rule. There are some rotters in this troop - just about fed up - they would sneak a chap's false teeth. Temper cured - received a parcel from home, a real topnotcher."

The point you make here Phil is, I think, of real significance in the current discussion ? What you seem to be spelling out is that any military organisation be it a corps, a division, a brigade, a battalion or even a company or a platoon is a microcosm of the society from which it originates. In other words, thieves and murderers exist in society so, by definition, they will exist in the armed forces as well. However, the armed forces is a disciplined institution. If it isn't that, it's nothing ! So what went wrong Phil ? Of course you are right to say that "there were all sorts in the war" but the scale Phil of this problem, despite actions taken by headquarters staff at all levels (see Elena's posting on the subject) was far greater than would have been tolerated at home.

We've read postings that discuss the way war can "de-humanise" some people. Is that the answer? Did/do people who have a propensity towards some form of delinquent behaviour succumb to the enormous pressures of combat and lose all contact with their 'real self' ? In other words were they affected by some form of atavistic reversion ?

"we shouldn't judge this behaviour when we have never been in a similar situation."

I joined the Forum Phil with one purpose in mind : to learn, and I have found that the best way to do that is to become involved in discussions with people like you, like-minded people who feel like I do for those who gave their best and sometimes their all during those horrendous times. However, if one avoids the "less laudible" elements of life during that time, how can we ever say that we are even beginning to understand and appreciate what and how they suffered and what they achieved ?

I think that we should make allowances for men who were in a dreadful situation and a situation with which they were totally unprepared and totally unaccustomed to - again GF is my example - he was the son of a tenant farmer in the Yorkshire Dales, a peaceful life but extremely hard work for little reward, struggling to make a living, and was transported to the hell of N France. How did these poor guys make that change?

"Making allowances" isn't necessary for the vast majority of those who fought in The Great War Phil. But perhaps I've misinterpreted what you mean. Are you saying that those who murdered an injured and helpless adversary so that he could steal his watch or those who stole from a wounded colleague while he was helping to carry him to safety deserve to have allowances made for them?

We may question some of the things they did but I have no doubt that all of us admire the fortitude of these ordinary men.

Absolutely Phil ! Now where's that wine ?

Harry

[Beau Geste]

The spoils of war as a perk for the military seems a well ingrained notion. In the 70's a pal of mine served as a RN clearance diver - by the way all these guys were as mad as coots. They sometimes had the job of destroying weapons handed in during arms amnesties but choice pieces were often divvied out to the squad with the more senior ranks getting first pick. The rubbish was duly destroyed , of course.

I'm sure you're right Ian and I personally have nothing against this sort of thing provide they had been made safe earlier.

Harry

[Beau Geste]

Pete;

Just read a couple of hours ago, in a British book, an account of a Gurka walking down the road carrying the face of a German in his hand, freshly cut off someone's head, and German POWs giving him a wide berth.

Also read a while ago an account by a British officer, at a HQ establishment, feeling terrible; he has kidded an African soldier who loved jam, and hung about the kitchen to try to cage some, that the supply of jam would end unless he brought in a German ear by morning. (It was the evening.) Upset, the soldier rushed out. The next morning, he came to the kitchen with an ear. The officer realized that it was 20 miles to the front, and the colonial soldier must have obtained it closer, probably from a French civilian.

In the excellent book My Rhineland Journal, by US General Allen, the CO of the US Sector of Occupation on the Rhine, Allen expressed the opinion that the employment of colonial troops in Europe was a war crime, due to their behavior. Allen does not seem to have been a racist; US General Bullard clearly was, by his memoir.

Bob Lembke

And I was just going to have some lunch !!!!!! Sickening.

Harry

[Beau Geste]

I always find it interesting how we try to rationalise war by making little rules and guidelines like it's some sort of civilised activity. Imagine a wounded man who survives, rejoins the battle and becomes the soldier who pulls the trigger to fire the bullet that kills your friend. Stripping the dead and killing the wounded is a part of terrifying your enemy and reducing his will to fight. On the basis that you wouldn't like it to happen to you a kind of uneasy tacit agreement sometimes arises between fighting men. We won't kill your wounded if you don't kill ours etc but this is always tenuous. In addition that brutality towards ones enemy may also stiffen his resolve to fight more than intimidate him not to. It is a complex process. Some of the stories were doubtless circulated by our own side (whichever "our" you belong to). If you're told that the enemy strip the dead and kill the wounded you're probably far likelier to despise him and fight and certainly would not be rushing to surrender or be captured by such a supposed brutish opponent.

In the end war is brutal and there really are no rules. In its extremes one can justify killing children as they will grow up to be your future enemies. That goes back beyond WWI all the way back to King Herod!

My concern has always been that making civilised rules only serves to justify war and make it tolerable. It should be as brutal, bloody and horrific as possible because only in that way can it be brought to a swift end. Kill everyone and everything in your path. Welcome to total war.

Whilst the concept of "surgical strikes" and avoiding "collateral damage" prevail we'll continue to believe wars are in some way winnable because we can legitimise certain levels of brutality.

It may well be that rather than a strength, our humanity in war is in fact our greatest weakness.

I find some of your statements bizarre TGWW. There is a world of difference between propaganda and reality. As human beings we are, wherever possible, expected to act in a more humane way than animals. Fortunately, most of those who served in The Great War appear to have maintained some contact with their humanity.

Harry

having read several personal tales form different wars, it seems that useful items were shared out between the dead comrades friends but personal items were returned to next of kin if possible, but if troops were robbing their own dead of personal items i am sure they would have been dealt with by Rule 303. But by the same time you asking men to murder other men and by god that what it is, the social conventions that we all live by get suspended therefore the ordinary soldiers get caught up in rape, looting and murder of civilians a lot more than we would like to admit.

I was watching a program about the end of WW2 there were british soldiers who looted an entire castle who emptied its contents onto a half dozen army trucks and just dove off under the knowledge and secret colusion of their officers.

Ian

Thanks Ian.

harry

RodB

But unless gripped where does this "looting" lead to?

Units whose support you may have to rely on in action may now be inefficient because of friendly looting.

And let's not forget the bn padre in the Falklands who discovered Argentinian body parts when he searched dead British NCOs' kits.

Experienced officers & NCOs will exercise certain amounts of discretion before stopping looting, but weak gutless ones will look the other way, allowing an ugly culture to germinate.

H

I wholeheartedly agree Bushfighter

Harry

[chaz]

my great uncle releived a German officer of his spurs and a pair of ivory handled pistols, said officer was alive and being taken as a POW.

this said, uncle heard his fellow Ox and Bucks regiment 'mate' was going home for a couple of weeks. Uncle split spurs and pistols and gave one of each to his 'mate' as long as he delivered the other ones to uncles home address.....

needless to say neither, pistols, spurs or mate were ever to be seen again. so who took from who??

[truthergw]

Wandering slightly off topic. There has always been a cult of ' stealing is wrong, don't let me catch you at it ', in the British Army. If an item of kit was missing or not up to standard before a kit inspection, soldiers stole one. A rookie complaining about it would be told by his corporal to go and steal one back. All very illegal and punished if it ever came to an officer's official notice but actually an everyday occurrence. This way of doing things extends easily to looting or ' souvenir hunting ' as it was more politely known. The normal laws, mores and ethics are suspended in a battle. ' C'est la guerre'. Read Victor Hugo's ( accurate ) description of the looting of the dead and wounded by civilians after Waterloo in Les Miserables. You can condemn it or excuse it but you have to accept that it always has happened and probably always will. It's yet another of the faces of war.

[centurion]

Experienced officers & NCOs will exercise certain amounts of discretion before stopping looting, but weak gutless ones will look the other way, allowing an ugly culture to germinate.

What must have made it difficult was that troops were officially encouraged to collect items from enemy dead for intelligence purposes. In the conditions prevailing it must have been difficult for some to see a moral difference between stripping a corpse and sending all the material to the intelligence officer, sending all the papers etc and pocketing a watch etc and pocketing the lot.

The word experienced is used. I imagine that a new officer in a forward position and surrounded by armed men calloused by their experience of war might just wonder how far he could push things.