31 replies to this topic

[GRUMPY]

Under the rules and usages of war, were the Germans correct in executing men "left behind" in the withdrawal from Mons, for example?

And did it make any difference in theory if they retained and wore their uniform?

I have never read it specifically that men executed were discovered as civvies with a poor local accent, rather than bedraggled soldiers oathing in English.

[FROGSMILE]

GRUMPY, on 22 November 2011 - 08:05 PM, said:

Under the rules and usages of war, were the Germans correct in executing men "left behind" in the withdrawal from Mons, for example?

And did it make any difference in theory if they retained and wore their uniform?

I have never read it specifically that men executed were discovered as civvies with a poor local accent, rather than bedraggled soldiers oathing in English.

It was within the rules of war to shoot a soldier who had wilfully thrown away his uniform to disguise himself as a civilian providing that the rationale/excuse used was that the man was "believed" to be a spy.  Although this practice was condemned there was little that could be done about it and it was not technically a 'war crime' provided that some form of court (martial) took place within formal proceedings.  The fact that in practice this could be a mere ritual (with a foregone conclusion) was neither here nor there.

[GRUMPY]

FROGSMILE, on 22 November 2011 - 11:16 PM, said:

It was within the rules of war to shoot a soldier who had wilfully thrown away his uniform to disguise himself as a civilian providing that the rationale/excuse used was that the man was "believed" to be a spy.  Although this practice was condemned there was little that could be done about it and it was not technically a 'war crime' provided that some form of court (martial) took place within formal proceedings.  The fact that in practice this could be a mere ritual (with a foregone conclusion) was neither here nor there.

Catch 22 then ..... wear the uniform and end up a PoW, or discard it and get shot. But nowhere have I read in the various accounts "because he/they were dressed as civilians they were regarded as spies ......" I expect to most people it goes without saying.

Mind you, the rationale did not help many of Bomber Command, lynched or shot IN UNIFORM. Now that IS a war crime.

[FROGSMILE]

GRUMPY, on 23 November 2011 - 08:46 AM, said:

Catch 22 then ..... wear the uniform and end up a PoW, or discard it and get shot. But nowhere have I read in the various accounts "because he/they were dressed as civilians they were regarded as spies ......" I expect to most people it goes without saying.

It depended very much on the attitude of the German commander.  Some were more humane and 'understanding' than others.  My point is that if the enemy commander had fixed ideas he could (and some did) shoot the man captured in civilian clothes with impunity providing some form of court martial took place.

[munster]

Would i be wrong in my thinking that the germans were in the first few months of the war more likely to kill any type of prisoner uniformed or not.john

[FROGSMILE]

munster, on 23 November 2011 - 09:03 PM, said:

Would i be wrong in my thinking that the germans were in the first few months of the war more likely to kill any type of prisoner uniformed or not.john

They certainly shot a lot of Belgian and French prisoners and a few stragglers from the BEF who disguised themselves in civilian clothes were also shot, although the majority of British prisoners seem to have been relatively well treated until they reached the camps in Germany, where again their reception was mixed.

[munster]

I would agree with that i have read a lot of contempory material recently (French)where accounts of the deaths of an awful lot of prisoners are given.There would also seem to be a lot of accounts of British and French exections of spies behind the lines where there seems never to be first hand witnesses (heard it from a bloke whos brother new the....).Getting back to the original post i dont think it was correct or legal to execute soldiers openly dressed as such but i think there was a fairly widespread killing of prisoners at that time and as Frogsmile has said interpretation of the law by the officer on the ground would be the giver or taker of life.I would say the numbers killed out of hand as opposed to any type of trial and execution would have been the majority. (My oppinion based on what i have read)John

[nigelfe]

There's such an account in the London Scottish history, at about the end of Jan 1915, they were in 1st Guards Bde and the Cameron Highlanders HQ was in a building shared with a Frenchman, who turned out to be a spy and duly excuted.  How he was supposed to be communicating with the Germans opposite (the 'evidence' seems to have been accurate artillery fire against other battalion HQs but not the Camerons) doesn't get a mention.  I suspect there were rather a lot of mis-carriages of justice.

[FROGSMILE]

munster, on 25 November 2011 - 12:07 AM, said:

I would agree with that i have read a lot of contempory material recently (French)where accounts of the deaths of an awful lot of prisoners are given.There would also seem to be a lot of accounts of British and French exections of spies behind the lines where there seems never to be first hand witnesses (heard it from a bloke whos brother new the....).Getting back to the original post i dont think it was correct or legal to execute soldiers openly dressed as such but i think there was a fairly widespread killing of prisoners at that time and as Frogsmile has said interpretation of the law by the officer on the ground would be the giver or taker of life.I would say the numbers killed out of hand as opposed to any type of trial and execution would have been the majority. (My oppinion based on what i have read)John

Yes there were certainly French and Belgian soldiers summarily executed in uniform.  There is evidence that the Germans afforded greater respect to British troops than they did to others and later in the war this was borne out by transcripts of PoW interrogation records and the associated German comments on the morale and perceived quality of the men that they had questioned.

[kmcgee]

The Canadians gained a reputation for taking no prisoners. This reputation was such, that injured Germans arriving at Base Hospitals were distressed to find they may be passed through a Canadian Hospital.

Kevin

[FROGSMILE]

kmcgee, on 25 November 2011 - 12:49 PM, said:

The Canadians gained a reputation for taking no prisoners. This reputation was such, that injured Germans arriving at Base Hospitals were distressed to find they may be passed through a Canadian Hospital.

Kevin

That was directly because of a story of a captured Canadian soldier being crucified onto a barn door with bayonets, which received wide publicity as part of a contrived policy in order to build up fighting spirit in the form of 'hate' for the enemy.

[bob lembke]

nigelfe, on 25 November 2011 - 12:28 AM, said:

There's such an account in the London Scottish history, at about the end of Jan 1915, they were in 1st Guards Bde and the Cameron Highlanders HQ was in a building shared with a Frenchman, who turned out to be a spy and duly excuted.  How he was supposed to be communicating with the Germans opposite (the 'evidence' seems to have been accurate artillery fire against other battalion HQs but not the Camerons) doesn't get a mention.  I suspect there were rather a lot of mis-carriages of justice.

Flying from memory here, but in reading Yank sources and a British source I have noted a number of mentions of very casual shooting of "spies" by newly arriving US forces and by the French in Flanders late in the war. (Certainly in the early days of the war all of the armies were swept by a sort of "spy mania".) Reading in a memoir about a large American unit marching about 20 miles behind the lines late at night, no mention of any French liason with them, as they marched along they came across an elderly French couple walking along, and the narrator commented that "of course they were spies", and they were shot out of hand. I would think that to a reasonable mind the probability of such an elderly French couple actually being German spies would be less than one in a million.

One of my favorite memoirs of WW I is the book with the title (or close) of "The War as the Infantry Knew It", by a Brit battalion medical officer Dunn (I think that the actually authorship of the book is more complicated), and he mentioned several instances of the French, in the sliver of Belgium still held by the Allies, the French rather casually shooting Flemish civilians as "spies" late in the war, 1917 or 1918; examples I remember were two young Belgian shop-girls that Dunn knew (without detail), Flemish farmers shot for plowing with white horses, which of course must have been a signal to the Germans (Dunn observed that Flemish farmers usually plowed with white horses, while French farmers usually plowed with dark horses), and the French shooting a Flemish house-wife for hanging her laundry up to dry, after some German shells fell uncomfortably close to a French officer's club, clearly the woman's laundry was a complex signaling system supplying firing coordinates to the German artillery. As I remember it Dunn's text seemed to suggest annoyance at this shooting of Flemish civilians by the French, but not specific criticism.

Bob Lembke

[Hedley Malloch]

For the record, the Iron eleven (there were eleven British soldiers and one French civilian) were caught in the attic of Chalandre's house in Iron, repairing their uniforms - and with rifles and 1000 rounds of ammunition.

Their offence was not that they were or could have been spies, rather it was that they ignored German orders that they surrender.  That was the capital crime.

There is some evidence that, as the War progressed, the Germans relaxed their attitude towards escaped Allied POWs and soldiers on the run.  But the first six months of the War was a very bad time to be caught as an Allied soldier on the run.  But once the fixity of the Front line became clear, and that the Allied armies were not going to return in the foreseeable future, then the Germans seem to have become a little more tolerant.

Hedley Malloch
Chair, Iron Memorial Fund

[GRUMPY]

Hedley Malloch, on 01 January 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

For the record, the Iron eleven (there were eleven British soldiers and one French civilian) were caught in the attic of Chalandre's house in Iron, repairing their uniforms - and with rifles and 1000 rounds of ammunition.

Their offence was not that they were or could have been spies, rather it was that they ignored German orders that they surrender.  That was the capital crime.

There is some evidence that, as the War progressed, the Germans relaxed their attitude towards escaped Allied POWs and soldiers on the run.  But the first six months of the War was a very bad time to be caught as an Allied soldier on the run.  But once the fixity of the Front line became clear, and that the Allied armies were not going to return in the foreseeable future, then the Germans seem to have become a little more tolerant.

Hedley Malloch
Chair, Iron Memorial Fund

Thank you for that clarification.

Were the Germans justified in carrying out executions within the rules of the Geneva Convention please?

[truthergw]

Paul Maze recounts his hairbreadswidth escape from execution at British hands while serving as an interpreter with BRITISH forces. " Frenchman in Khaki". In the first months, all sides were in the grip of spy fever and I doubt if being in uniform could protect anyone from being tried for spying. How would one distinguish between a soldier deliberately left behind the lines and one who had accidentaly found himself there?

[squirrel]

The Hague Convention required that uniformed belligerents who had given up arms and/or surrendered should be treated as POW's. If they carried out subversive or violent acts against their captors then they should be tried under the Military Regulations of their captors.

Unable to find chapter and verse but I think that's the gist of it. Depends on the people on the spot at the time and how they react, of course, and their understanding and interpretation of the Convention.

[FROGSMILE]

squirrel, on 01 January 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

The Hague Convention required that uniformed belligerents who had given up arms and/or surrendered should be treated as POW's. If they carried out subversive or violent acts against their captors then they should be tried under the Military Regulations of their captors.

Unable to find chapter and verse but I think that's the gist of it. Depends on the people on the spot at the time and how they react, of course, and their understanding and interpretation of the Convention.

Yes I think you are spot on Squirrel, but the problem arose if they were hiding in civilian clothes, as several of them did.  By not wearing uniform they in theory forfeited their right to be treated as PoWs and could be tried and shot as spies, or saboteurs.

[Hedley Malloch]

FROGSMILE, on 03 January 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

Yes I think you are spot on Squirrel, but the problem arose if they were hiding in civilian clothes, as several of them did.  By not wearing uniform they in theory forfeited their right to be treated as PoWs and could be tried and shot as spies, or saboteurs.

How these soldiers were dressed and what they had been doing was not important.  They were shot because they had refused to surrender.  French people were shot because they helped them.

In the autumn of 1914 the Germans issued four notices giving Allied soldiers on the run notice to surrender.  If they surrendered within this time limit, then nothing untoward would happen to them.  If they did not surrender and were caught outside this time limit, then they would be shot.  

In the notice issued by the Germans about the execution of the Iron 12 there is no reference to uniforms or lack of them, sabotage or spying, though there is a reference to the fact that they were armed.  They were caught on the run - and that was enough.  After the execution Waechter, the German Commandant repeated his undertaking that any Allied soldier who surrenders will be treated as a PoW, not harmed, and sent off to Germany.

[FROGSMILE]

Hedley Malloch, on 03 January 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

How these soldiers were dressed and what they had been doing was not important.  They were shot because they had refused to surrender.  French people were shot because they helped them.

In the autumn of 1914 the Germans issued four notices giving Allied soldiers on the run notice to surrender.  If they surrendered within this time limit, then nothing untoward would happen to them.  If they did not surrender and were caught outside this time limit, then they would be shot.  

In the notice issued by the Germans about the execution of the Iron 12 there is no reference to uniforms or lack of them, sabotage or spying, though there is a reference to the fact that they were armed.  They were caught on the run - and that was enough.  After the execution Waechter, the German Commandant repeated his undertaking that any Allied soldier who surrenders will be treated as a PoW, not harmed, and sent off to Germany.

Hedley I do not doubt anything that you have said and I know that you have researched the case of the Iron 12 scrupulously and are an authority on that incident.  I was merely attempting to answer the legal point asked by Grumpy and related to Squirrel's mention of the Hague Convention.  My understanding is that an unscrupulous German officer could have, if he so wished, accused a soldier captured in civilian clothes of being a spy and, after a rudimentary trial to lend legality, shot him.

[Hedley Malloch]

FROGSMILE, on 03 January 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

Hedley I do not doubt anything that you have said and I know that you have researched the case of the Iron 12 scrupulously and are an authority on that incident.  I was merely attempting to answer the legal point asked by Grumpy and related to Squirrel's mention of the Hague Convention.  My understanding is that an unscrupulous German officer could have, if he so wished, accused a soldier captured in civilian clothes of being a spy and, after a rudimentary trial to lend legality, shot him.

I know that after the War the French did look at the question of whether or not the execution of the Iron 12 amounted to a crime presumably under the Geneva/(Hague?) Convention, but did not pursue it.  I do not know why.

You are quite right - the Germans could have accused a soldier captured in civilian clothing of being a spy as a pretext for shooting him.  But why bother?  They didn't need the legal pretext - they could and did shoot them anyway.

The simple fact is that we do not know what happened once these men fell into German hands.  No record has been traced.  We know the Germans took their time - two and half days elapsed between their capture and execution, which suggests to me that the decision to kill them was cleared with a higher authority in St. Quentin.  We don't know what judicial or administrative processes were employed.  Waechter states merely that he had them killed.  My view is that they passed before some type of military tribunal.  Why would the Germans refuse to do this?  They had all seventeen people (eleven soldiers and six civilians)implicated bang to rights, with,in German eyes, no mitigating circumstances.  I also think that there was some plea-bargaining: a full confession from the soldiers and/or the Chalandres in return for the lives of the women.  As Waechter cooly remarked after the execution, 'I could have had them all shot'.  As indeed he could.

Broadening the picture out, post WW2 experience is of course more recent.  The rules are more clearly defined, policing is more effective, communications are much better.  But more recent cases have shown just how difficult it is to bring perpetrators of 'war crimes' to book, even in cases where the issues are much clearer than they were in Guise in 1915.

[FROGSMILE]

Hedley Malloch, on 04 January 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

I know that after the War the French did look at the question of whether or not the execution of the Iron 12 amounted to a crime presumably under the Geneva/(Hague?) Convention, but did not pursue it.  I do not know why.

You are quite right - the Germans could have accused a soldier captured in civilian clothing of being a spy as a pretext for shooting him.  But why bother?  They didn't need the legal pretext - they could and did shoot them anyway.

The simple fact is that we do not know what happened once these men fell into German hands.  No record has been traced.  We know the Germans took their time - two and half days elapsed between their capture and execution, which suggests to me that the decision to kill them was cleared with a higher authority in St. Quentin.  We don't know what judicial or administrative processes were employed.  Waechter states merely that he had them killed.  My view is that they passed before some type of military tribunal.  Why would the Germans refuse to do this?  They had all seventeen people (eleven soldiers and six civilians)implicated bang to rights, with,in German eyes, no mitigating circumstances.  I also think that there was some plea-bargaining: a full confession from the soldiers and/or the Chalandres in return for the lives of the women.  As Waechter cooly remarked after the execution, 'I could have had them all shot'.  As indeed he could.

Broadening the picture out, post WW2 experience is of course more recent.  The rules are more clearly defined, policing is more effective, communications are much better.  But more recent cases have shown just how difficult it is to bring perpetrators of 'war crimes' to book, even in cases where the issues are much clearer than they were in Guise in 1915.

We seem to be at cross purposes and I am a little confused as to why you are focussing your replies (almost) entirely on the case of the Iron 12, which clearly had some key factors surrounding the actions carried out by the German officer involved.  

I was (am) trying to relate to Grumpy's original post on this subject, which was a general query.  Presumably the Iron 12 was not the only case of this kind?  I certainly seem to recall reading of other incidents, although I cannot remember precise details of who, where, when, what.  It was just the ruthlessness that I recall, together with apparent accusations of 'spying' as a justification for summary execution of individual Regular British soldiers, albeit after a perfunctory trial.

[GRUMPY]

I own the Man Mil Law 1914 but am away from home. Will try to look up the relevant section[s] and post at end of week.

[Hedley Malloch]

FROGSMILE, on 04 January 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

We seem to be at cross purposes and I am a little confused as to why you are focussing your replies (almost) entirely on the case of the Iron 12, which clearly had some key factors surrounding the actions carried out by the German officer involved.  

I was (am) trying to relate to Grumpy's original post on this subject, which was a general query.  Presumably the Iron 12 was not the only case of this kind?  I certainly seem to recall reading of other incidents, although I cannot remember precise details of who, where, when, what.  It was just the ruthlessness that I recall, together with apparent accusations of 'spying' as a justification for summary execution of individual Regular British soldiers, albeit after a perfunctory trial.

The Iron 12 was posted as a sub-heading and I took it up from there.

But you are quite right.  Whilst Iron was the biggest, there were others.  Apart from Iron there were at least another dozen or so.  There are fragmentary accounts of the trials of eight of them - and spying doesn't seem to have entered into it.  They would have made very poor spies: most of them could't speak French or German, they could only move about with difficulty, and had no means of communicating with the Allies.

As I pointed out earlier, spying as a justification or pretence was not needed by the Germans.  They had been caught behind the lines outside one of the many windows of opportunity they were given to surrender.  That was sufficient.  Why charge them with something - spying - against which they could mount a plausible defence, when they were clearly guilty of another capital offence?

[bob lembke]

If you want to go further into this I possibly could help a bit. Anyone have more info on this Waechtler? Rank, full name, unit? There were four German armies in WW I, and at the end of WW II a Brit bombing raid destroyed the Prussian State Archives. But the other three armies also had their archives. Unfortunately between the wars the Germans collected some materials from the other archives and centralized their storage at the Prussian archives at Potsdam, extending the historical disaster of 1945.

Generally in WW I the Germans were unique in that in serious courts martial the defendants were afforded defense counsel that had to be lawyers. Fortunately many German reserve officers had law degrees (like the commander of my father's regiment, Garde=Reserve=Pionier=Regiment (Flammenwerfer) ; Major Dr. Reddemann; the doctorate was in law, although he was a fire department director and a published scientist); in Germany at the time a doctorate in law was sort of the pre-war version of the current MBA as an important tool for career advancement at a high level.

However, at the beginning of the war proceedures were probably being sorted out, and all sides were swept by spy mania.

If anyone has more on this Waechtler I might be able to sort out if German records might exist. For example, if he was a Bavarian officer records of the trial may well still exist in Bavaria, but probably only accessible in an archive.

I myself have to at some point inquire into the availability of some German legal records of the period. There also is a chance that for some reason the German military legal records were kept seperately; this is true of many WW I medical records.

Bob Lembke

[GRUMPY]

bob lembke, on 06 January 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

If you want to go further into this I possibly could help a bit. Anyone have more info on this Waechtler? Rank, full name, unit? There were four German armies in WW I, and at the end of WW II a Brit bombing raid destroyed the Prussian State Archives. But the other three armies also had their archives. Unfortunately between the wars the Germans collected some materials from the other archives and centralized their storage at the Prussian archives at Potsdam, extending the historical disaster of 1945.

Generally in WW I the Germans were unique in that in serious courts martial the defendants were afforded defense counsel that had to be lawyers. Fortunately many German reserve officers had law degrees (like the commander of my father's regiment, Garde=Reserve=Pionier=Regiment (Flammenwerfer) ; Major Dr. Reddemann; the doctorate was in law, although he was a fire department director and a published scientist); in Germany at the time a doctorate in law was sort of the pre-war version of the current MBA as an important tool for career advancement at a high level.

However, at the beginning of the war proceedures were probably being sorted out, and all sides were swept by spy mania.

If anyone has more on this Waechtler I might be able to sort out if German records might exist. For example, if he was a Bavarian officer records of the trial may well still exist in Bavaria, but probably only accessible in an archive.

I myself have to at some point inquire into the availability of some German legal records of the period. There also is a chance that for some reason the German military legal records were kept seperately; this is true of many WW I medical records.

Bob Lembke

That is a good offer and we would be interested in any positive result, thank you.

For my part I have consulted Man Mil Law 1914 "Laws and Usages of War". It does not seem to cover in a specific sense the case of a soldier, armed and more-or less- uniformed, at large behind enemy lines. I hasten to add I am no lawyer.

The only direct and perhaps relevant paragraph is 56. every member of the armed forces, if he falls into the hands of the enemy, has a claim to be treated as a prisoner of war, unless he has committed a war crime..

Note there is no mention of surrender, he "falls into the hands of the enemy".

However, adopting Devil's Advocate status, regardless of any statutes or announcements by the enemy, surely such a soldier presents as big a threat to the enemy as if he were standing in their way in conflict? He has, by his actions, not only not surrendered [and this is covered by the Laws and every man so doing must be spared [!]], but ignored lawful commands by proclamation of the occupying powers. Again, the bottom line of an occupied country is that it has a duty to behave itself although not a duty to collaborate.

Finally, I am satified that the espionage angle is not worth following in most cases ....... such soldiers behind enemy lines would make risible spies.

As a footnote to history, Civil Servants on/near the front line in the Cold War held Dormant Commissions, Military ID, and uniforms, and would have been armed, and granted powers of command, to be activated in the event of WW III. I know ...... I was there.

It was explained that it would be risky to be captured in uniform, and suicidal out of uniform. The pistol would have disappeared sharpish in my case!