In Martin Middlebrook's book "The First Day On The Somme", he indicates that a German machine-gunner was found chained to his gun at Montauban, opposite to where the 7th Queen's & 8th East Surreys attacked.
There is a separate entry in the War Diary of the 8th York & Lancasters, positioned to the north of Ovillers La Boisselle, which states that two gunners were reportedly found dead chained to their gun in the front line. Was this the same incident reported along the line, or did it happen at least twice? I read in one Bristol newspaper from 1916 the thoughts of a wounded soldier who had heard about the find: 'Being chained to a gun would certainly help a doubtful man to make up his mind whether he would go or stay'
Full Version: German Soldiers Chained To Machine Gun
The extarct indicates the man had chained himself "out of bravado". Such an unlikely event that the British divisional commander ordered a court of enquiry to investigate with the conclusion that the report was accpeted to be true.
Assuming it was true, then it doesnt seem something that would be much repeated. Although the myth that orders were given to chain gunners to their guns is often repeated.
John
Assuming it was true, then it doesnt seem something that would be much repeated. Although the myth that orders were given to chain gunners to their guns is often repeated.
John
Nick
The point you have raised is seen quite regularly and it deserves a reasoned answer. Please do not take this as a personal remark, it is not; but in my opinion stories about men being chained to machine guns on 1 July 1916 are complete and utter bxxxxxxs. I put them in the same bracket as a story which appears in 'The Road Past Vimy' that a group of Canadian soldiers fought their way down into a dug out in the forward area on 9 April 1917 to be met by white-jacketed mess waiters behind a bar.
The men manning the machine guns were the elite of their units, specially picked and trained. Their tactics required them to be mobile and these guns, together with their tripods, were a heavy and awkward three-man lift. I have forgotten how to post an image now, or I would do so with a pensketch and a photograph of what this looked like. These three men wore special lifting harnesses which included chain-like steel loops which they attached to the weapons when they had to move. Two men 'chained' to their weapons were probably in the process of moving to another fire position when hit.
Someone remind me what to do about images. A picture saves a thousand words and I have two to post.
Jack
The point you have raised is seen quite regularly and it deserves a reasoned answer. Please do not take this as a personal remark, it is not; but in my opinion stories about men being chained to machine guns on 1 July 1916 are complete and utter bxxxxxxs. I put them in the same bracket as a story which appears in 'The Road Past Vimy' that a group of Canadian soldiers fought their way down into a dug out in the forward area on 9 April 1917 to be met by white-jacketed mess waiters behind a bar.
The men manning the machine guns were the elite of their units, specially picked and trained. Their tactics required them to be mobile and these guns, together with their tripods, were a heavy and awkward three-man lift. I have forgotten how to post an image now, or I would do so with a pensketch and a photograph of what this looked like. These three men wore special lifting harnesses which included chain-like steel loops which they attached to the weapons when they had to move. Two men 'chained' to their weapons were probably in the process of moving to another fire position when hit.
Someone remind me what to do about images. A picture saves a thousand words and I have two to post.
Jack
While no expert on German Army on Somme like Jack I completely agree with him.
Pals wanting to read more about 1 July and German machine gunners should have a nosy at Desmond7's website, where he and Ralph Whitehead recount the Ulster Division attack from both sides.
John
John
Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment
Success! Too many bytes before. Take a look at these harnesses and see what you think about my theory.
Jack
Success! Too many bytes before. Take a look at these harnesses and see what you think about my theory.
Jack
The men manning the machine guns were the elite of their units, specially picked and trained. Their tactics required them to be mobile and these guns, together with their tripods, were a heavy and awkward three-man lift. I have forgotten how to post an image now, or I would do so with a pensketch and a photograph of what this looked like. These three men wore special lifting harnesses which included chain-like steel loops which they attached to the weapons when they had to move. Two men 'chained' to their weapons were probably in the process of moving to another fire position when hit.
That would explain how with not too much imagination the story of "men chained to machine guns" could have spread so strongly as to be still quoted now.
Frankly, the idea sounds ludicrous and the product of an attempt to demonise the leaders of the German Army
That would explain how with not too much imagination the story of "men chained to machine guns" could have spread so strongly as to be still quoted now.
Frankly, the idea sounds ludicrous and the product of an attempt to demonise the leaders of the German Army
The Greman Army did not need to be chained to put it mildly.
QUOTE (Jack Sheldon @ Feb 7 2006, 05:54 PM) 
Nick
The point you have raised is seen quite regularly and it deserves a reasoned answer.............................complete and utter bxxxxxxs.
........................................
Two men 'chained' to their weapons were probably in the process of moving to another fire position when hit.
......................
Jack
The point you have raised is seen quite regularly and it deserves a reasoned answer.............................complete and utter bxxxxxxs.
........................................
Two men 'chained' to their weapons were probably in the process of moving to another fire position when hit.
......................
Jack
I love your reasoning processes.
Thank you. This what I call an AHA moment. An answer so obviously right that you just know it is so.
Ahh, this old chestnut pops up again!
Reading the worse class of WW I sources, this story is common. Sometimes, as a varient, the MG men are chained up in a tree.
First of all, the long survival of the German war effort against long manpower and materiel odds was based on what must have been, overall, the best relationship between officers and men, and a willing attitude on the part of Other Ranks, in the war, despite problems like the terrible food situation that affected both the men and their families. Something like chaining men to MGs would have been repugnant to the officer class and would destroy morale.
Secondly, it is militarily stupid. In a rear-guard situation, you want these elite troops to resist as long as they could, but when no longer possible (No ammo, Jammed gun, overheated to destruction, etc., you want these men to slip away if possible.) If I was chained to a gun, I probably would not fight at all, but maximize my chances of non-violent capture. Being chained to a 140 pound MG 08 would hardly help you to pull back with your gun, when neccessary and possible. These troops often voluntarily fought to the death, and often inflicted very heavy casualties. One can see how some Allied troops easily believed that they could not retreat.
Read the memoir of US General Ballard, where he discussed the organization of "hate everything German" propaganda for his troops as they arrived in France. He discusses the difficulty to have this hate stuff stick, as so many of his troops, if not German-American themselves (like Pershing), usually knew German-American neighbors themselves, who typically were hard-working, successful, model citizens.
It is interesting to read of the reactions of Yanks captured by the Germans, who expected to be slaughtered, but were astonished to be treated if wounded, share cigarettes and scarce food with friendly German soldiers, who often spoke some English, and generally cared for quite well.
I have often written on the extensive, well-organized propaganda campaign run by the British, Americans, and Canadians assisting the UK. These were necessary campaigns to meet specific war needs. In the US there were large programs to intimidate and extort money from the German-American citizens, with whippings, home invasions, tarring and feathering, lynchings, prosecutions (in one effort the Federal Attorney in a part of Ohio indited, at the same time, 169 pastors and bishops of one church for treason), and the sentencing of pacifist Mennonites to 10 to 30 years in prison, where some were stripped naked and hung in chains from the ceilings of their cells till some died of pneumonia. In this athmospere, and spy and sabotage scares, it is no wonder that all sorts of stupid stories were swallowed. This is just another commonly heard story.
There are also many solid primary source narratives by Yank junior officers and sergeants who served in combat mentioning these reports of "chained to their MG", and scoffing at the stories, stating that the MG troops were simply brave and self-sacrificing.
Bob Lembke
Reading the worse class of WW I sources, this story is common. Sometimes, as a varient, the MG men are chained up in a tree.
First of all, the long survival of the German war effort against long manpower and materiel odds was based on what must have been, overall, the best relationship between officers and men, and a willing attitude on the part of Other Ranks, in the war, despite problems like the terrible food situation that affected both the men and their families. Something like chaining men to MGs would have been repugnant to the officer class and would destroy morale.
Secondly, it is militarily stupid. In a rear-guard situation, you want these elite troops to resist as long as they could, but when no longer possible (No ammo, Jammed gun, overheated to destruction, etc., you want these men to slip away if possible.) If I was chained to a gun, I probably would not fight at all, but maximize my chances of non-violent capture. Being chained to a 140 pound MG 08 would hardly help you to pull back with your gun, when neccessary and possible. These troops often voluntarily fought to the death, and often inflicted very heavy casualties. One can see how some Allied troops easily believed that they could not retreat.
Read the memoir of US General Ballard, where he discussed the organization of "hate everything German" propaganda for his troops as they arrived in France. He discusses the difficulty to have this hate stuff stick, as so many of his troops, if not German-American themselves (like Pershing), usually knew German-American neighbors themselves, who typically were hard-working, successful, model citizens.
It is interesting to read of the reactions of Yanks captured by the Germans, who expected to be slaughtered, but were astonished to be treated if wounded, share cigarettes and scarce food with friendly German soldiers, who often spoke some English, and generally cared for quite well.
I have often written on the extensive, well-organized propaganda campaign run by the British, Americans, and Canadians assisting the UK. These were necessary campaigns to meet specific war needs. In the US there were large programs to intimidate and extort money from the German-American citizens, with whippings, home invasions, tarring and feathering, lynchings, prosecutions (in one effort the Federal Attorney in a part of Ohio indited, at the same time, 169 pastors and bishops of one church for treason), and the sentencing of pacifist Mennonites to 10 to 30 years in prison, where some were stripped naked and hung in chains from the ceilings of their cells till some died of pneumonia. In this athmospere, and spy and sabotage scares, it is no wonder that all sorts of stupid stories were swallowed. This is just another commonly heard story.
There are also many solid primary source narratives by Yank junior officers and sergeants who served in combat mentioning these reports of "chained to their MG", and scoffing at the stories, stating that the MG troops were simply brave and self-sacrificing.
Bob Lembke
Hi
Taking machine gunners prisoner never ranked very high on the list of must do things during a battle, especially if you and your mates have just crossed his field of operations.
Timing the exact moment of your surrender to advancing hoards, is also one of extreme balance and care, perhaps the chains were there to help you avoid miss timing such event.
This is one where myth is better than reality, so I am going to stick to the myth and hurrah for bravado.
Gareth
Taking machine gunners prisoner never ranked very high on the list of must do things during a battle, especially if you and your mates have just crossed his field of operations.
Timing the exact moment of your surrender to advancing hoards, is also one of extreme balance and care, perhaps the chains were there to help you avoid miss timing such event.
This is one where myth is better than reality, so I am going to stick to the myth and hurrah for bravado.
Gareth
The relationship between truth and myth is often a very slim line ... the above mentioned harness would be a good indication ... it would also be good for British soldiers to believe the Germans HAD to do this ...
I remember participating in a similar thread about a Canadian crucified to a Belgian door with bayonets ... which I had always dismissed as over active British propaganda (ala Belgian babies on helmet spikes) only to be "refuted" by about a dozen experts with lists and lists of citations proving this had actually happened.
I believe in the reaonable man theory stuff happens in war that doesn't really seem reasonable ... but, in general, stuff is subject to reason. IF the Germans made a habit of chaining their MG in 1916 why were they there in 1918? No could have ONE soldier been punished or something and then be found ... sure, but in general ....
And so it goes ...
I remember participating in a similar thread about a Canadian crucified to a Belgian door with bayonets ... which I had always dismissed as over active British propaganda (ala Belgian babies on helmet spikes) only to be "refuted" by about a dozen experts with lists and lists of citations proving this had actually happened.
I believe in the reaonable man theory stuff happens in war that doesn't really seem reasonable ... but, in general, stuff is subject to reason. IF the Germans made a habit of chaining their MG in 1916 why were they there in 1918? No could have ONE soldier been punished or something and then be found ... sure, but in general ....
And so it goes ...
Confusing the machine gun carrying harness with a chain suggests to me that the British did not have similar arrangements to carry/move machine guns other than the Lewis gun -carried over the shoulder-?
Maybe their machine gun mobility tactics were fairly covered by the use of the Lewis guns, and hence they did conceive heavier machine guns for more static positions...
Oh just curious, but if someone can enlighten me on that...
Gloria
Maybe their machine gun mobility tactics were fairly covered by the use of the Lewis guns, and hence they did conceive heavier machine guns for more static positions...
Oh just curious, but if someone can enlighten me on that...
Gloria
QUOTE (AndyHollinger @ Feb 7 2006, 08:22 PM)
The relationship between truth and myth is often a very slim line ... the above mentioned harness would be a good indication ... it would also be good for British soldiers to believe the Germans HAD to do this ...
I remember participating in a similar thread about a Canadian crucified to a Belgian door with bayonets ... which I had always dismissed as over active British propaganda (ala Belgian babies on helmet spikes) only to be "refuted" by about a dozen experts with lists and lists of citations proving this had actually happened.
I believe in the reaonable man theory stuff happens in war that doesn't really seem reasonable ... but, in general, stuff is subject to reason. IF the Germans made a habit of chaining their MG in 1916 why were they there in 1918? No could have ONE soldier been punished or something and then be found ... sure, but in general ....
And so it goes ...
I remember participating in a similar thread about a Canadian crucified to a Belgian door with bayonets ... which I had always dismissed as over active British propaganda (ala Belgian babies on helmet spikes) only to be "refuted" by about a dozen experts with lists and lists of citations proving this had actually happened.
I believe in the reaonable man theory stuff happens in war that doesn't really seem reasonable ... but, in general, stuff is subject to reason. IF the Germans made a habit of chaining their MG in 1916 why were they there in 1918? No could have ONE soldier been punished or something and then be found ... sure, but in general ....
And so it goes ...
I don't believe this story for one minute. How many men were required to operate a German MG? Were they all chained to the gun? " Bit crowded here today Franz, certainly is, Hans." Once the crew were fastened to the gun , who stayed behind to force them to operate it? What did he threaten them with? " Keep firing until you get killed or I'll hit you with this big stick!". I just cannot see it. Now the MG and crew all chained together up a tree, that I do believe. Oh Yes. Can't think why there wasn't a whole lot more of it.
Gloria;
Interesting question. Note Jack Shelton's pic of three soldiers carrying a MG. The classic German Maxim, the MG 08, had a different base; two u-shaped parts, probably tubular steel, swung fore and aft, the gun sitting on the opened frame, on the two horizontal tubes. Swung wider, the gun was positioned lower; there must have been several stops to hold the gun at different heights. This rig supposedly weighed 140 lbs., and four men grabbed each corner of the base, with it wide open.
The gun in Jack's pic seems to be a cut-down base, and it shows that it could be carried by three men. Did this MG have a special designation?
Then they developed the MG 08/15, which was a MG 08 with the base entirely off, and a bi-pod fixed on the barrel jacket. This rig supposedly weighed 65 lbs. and could be carried on the shoulder by a husky man. I think that these were also water-cooled, but I think I have seen pics of them with an air-cooled barrel. Not really a light machine gun, but portable, and a good, reliable gun that could fire a lot of rounds before overheating or whatever.
For true light machine guns Musketien battalions were formed, first with Danish Madsen MGs taken from the Russian cavalry, then Lewis guns taken from the Brits. In my father's flame-thrower unit at Verdun the men were paid a bounty for bringing in a certain model of French light MG, which they then used themselves, firing them from the waist hung over the shoulder with two rifle straps. They had two MG 08/15s issued per company, but they wanted about 8 light MGs per company.
At the end of the war the Germans started to issue the MP 18, the first true sub-machine gun, I believe, one to each infantry Grupp (squad or section) of about 10 men. (This was the situation in the WW II German Army, with a MP 42 or such issued to each squad leader.) But WW I was over before many were issued. My father's cell leader in the Schwartze Reichswehr had one, and he once brought a civil disturbance to an abrupt halt by firing over the rioter's heads with it. They were popular in the Freikorps.
Thus wa'ar the Hunnish MG situation, in short. Hope that that was interesting.
Returning to Gloria's question, how was the UK Vickers dragged about? How heavy was it? Was it a Maxim knock-off?
Bob Lembke
Interesting question. Note Jack Shelton's pic of three soldiers carrying a MG. The classic German Maxim, the MG 08, had a different base; two u-shaped parts, probably tubular steel, swung fore and aft, the gun sitting on the opened frame, on the two horizontal tubes. Swung wider, the gun was positioned lower; there must have been several stops to hold the gun at different heights. This rig supposedly weighed 140 lbs., and four men grabbed each corner of the base, with it wide open.
The gun in Jack's pic seems to be a cut-down base, and it shows that it could be carried by three men. Did this MG have a special designation?
Then they developed the MG 08/15, which was a MG 08 with the base entirely off, and a bi-pod fixed on the barrel jacket. This rig supposedly weighed 65 lbs. and could be carried on the shoulder by a husky man. I think that these were also water-cooled, but I think I have seen pics of them with an air-cooled barrel. Not really a light machine gun, but portable, and a good, reliable gun that could fire a lot of rounds before overheating or whatever.
For true light machine guns Musketien battalions were formed, first with Danish Madsen MGs taken from the Russian cavalry, then Lewis guns taken from the Brits. In my father's flame-thrower unit at Verdun the men were paid a bounty for bringing in a certain model of French light MG, which they then used themselves, firing them from the waist hung over the shoulder with two rifle straps. They had two MG 08/15s issued per company, but they wanted about 8 light MGs per company.
At the end of the war the Germans started to issue the MP 18, the first true sub-machine gun, I believe, one to each infantry Grupp (squad or section) of about 10 men. (This was the situation in the WW II German Army, with a MP 42 or such issued to each squad leader.) But WW I was over before many were issued. My father's cell leader in the Schwartze Reichswehr had one, and he once brought a civil disturbance to an abrupt halt by firing over the rioter's heads with it. They were popular in the Freikorps.
Thus wa'ar the Hunnish MG situation, in short. Hope that that was interesting.
Returning to Gloria's question, how was the UK Vickers dragged about? How heavy was it? Was it a Maxim knock-off?
Bob Lembke
Just to clear this one up, size of crews was standardised by the summer of 1916 at six per weapon: Gun Commander, gunner, loader and three others to keep the ammunition coming and to substitute in the event of casualties. Bearing in mind that some guns fired 20,000 rounds (i.e about 1 tonne of ammunition) that day they were kept busy.
There is no doubt about this. I have the after action report of 2nd MG Coy RIR 119, responsible for close in protection in Beaumont Hamel South on 1 July 1916. We even know, as a result of this, the name of every man, exactly what each gun did that day, how many rounds they fired at what range into what areas, with what result and what stoppages, if any, they suffered.
Jack
There is no doubt about this. I have the after action report of 2nd MG Coy RIR 119, responsible for close in protection in Beaumont Hamel South on 1 July 1916. We even know, as a result of this, the name of every man, exactly what each gun did that day, how many rounds they fired at what range into what areas, with what result and what stoppages, if any, they suffered.
Jack
Bob,
According to Michael Chappell's "The Vickers machine gun", The Vickers teams were manned by four soldiers. When it came to carry/move the machine gun, it was dismounted, and Number 1 would carry the tripod, Number 2 the gun, and Numbers 3 and 4 the ammo and condenser equipment.
However, the tripod looks pretty heavy and my back aches just to imagine carrying it over... The German Maxim's harness carriage system strikes me as a better way (at least, in the distribution weight among the men who are moving it)
Gloria
P.S.: Just read Jack Sheldon's nearly simultaneous post... He's right at two more men being part of the team (however , Nos 5 & 6 don't seem to have take part in the carriage of the gun -at least in the description I have-)
According to Michael Chappell's "The Vickers machine gun", The Vickers teams were manned by four soldiers. When it came to carry/move the machine gun, it was dismounted, and Number 1 would carry the tripod, Number 2 the gun, and Numbers 3 and 4 the ammo and condenser equipment.
However, the tripod looks pretty heavy and my back aches just to imagine carrying it over... The German Maxim's harness carriage system strikes me as a better way (at least, in the distribution weight among the men who are moving it)
Gloria
P.S.: Just read Jack Sheldon's nearly simultaneous post... He's right at two more men being part of the team (however , Nos 5 & 6 don't seem to have take part in the carriage of the gun -at least in the description I have-)
Jack;
Great info. By the way, I just finished your book on the Somme. Awesome!
Gloria;
More good info. I, to date myself, did my MG training with the M 1919 A4 Browning MG, which the Vickers sounds a lot like, at least in the rough. The receiver group and the tripod each weighed about 34 pounds, and each was carried about by one man. On manuvers my cadet company formed an infantry company and went out for 3 1/2 days of marching, digging in, etc., without any specific time set aside for something as banal as sleep. I had a MG section one day, and I think there were four of us. On the final march in to the barracks, basically all night, one guy carrying a receiver group broke down, and I carried his load basically all night, besides my pack, which supposedly weighed 65 pounds, but I think it was lighter. "Ahh, youth! Too precious to be wasted on the young!" (I was a rifleman that night, not in a MG section.)
Supposedly by the end of the war there hardly were any riflemen left in German infantry units; as the number of men available dwindled and more weapons were available almost everyone supposedly had some sort of crew-served weapon. American primary sources report one Hell of a lot of German MGs.
Bob Lembke
Great info. By the way, I just finished your book on the Somme. Awesome!
Gloria;
More good info. I, to date myself, did my MG training with the M 1919 A4 Browning MG, which the Vickers sounds a lot like, at least in the rough. The receiver group and the tripod each weighed about 34 pounds, and each was carried about by one man. On manuvers my cadet company formed an infantry company and went out for 3 1/2 days of marching, digging in, etc., without any specific time set aside for something as banal as sleep. I had a MG section one day, and I think there were four of us. On the final march in to the barracks, basically all night, one guy carrying a receiver group broke down, and I carried his load basically all night, besides my pack, which supposedly weighed 65 pounds, but I think it was lighter. "Ahh, youth! Too precious to be wasted on the young!" (I was a rifleman that night, not in a MG section.)
Supposedly by the end of the war there hardly were any riflemen left in German infantry units; as the number of men available dwindled and more weapons were available almost everyone supposedly had some sort of crew-served weapon. American primary sources report one Hell of a lot of German MGs.
Bob Lembke
Bob, The 08/15 was a cut down version of the MG 08. There were some slight differences aside from the missing sled such as a reduction in the diameter of the water jacket among others.
The air cooled version was designate the MG 08/18 and I have seen several photos of its use, one in the Palestine area I believe.
The sketches shown above do represent the basic MG 08, the two forward legs are being carried by two men, the rear legs by the 3rd man. The MG crew consisted of a gun commander, a loader, an operator. The 4th man would pass along fresh ammunition and water. The 5th and 6th men would position themselves nearby to observe the action, supply additional materials as needed but especially to take the place of any man wounded or killed. In this manner the gun could be used without interruption for the greatest effect.
Ralph
The air cooled version was designate the MG 08/18 and I have seen several photos of its use, one in the Palestine area I believe.
The sketches shown above do represent the basic MG 08, the two forward legs are being carried by two men, the rear legs by the 3rd man. The MG crew consisted of a gun commander, a loader, an operator. The 4th man would pass along fresh ammunition and water. The 5th and 6th men would position themselves nearby to observe the action, supply additional materials as needed but especially to take the place of any man wounded or killed. In this manner the gun could be used without interruption for the greatest effect.
Ralph
Hi
Here a point to ponder from the other way around.
When the 8th Hants attacked with the rest of 163 Brigade on the 12th August during the battle beneath Anafata Ove. The MG section with two antique Maxims couldn't keep up, so the MG officer "borrowed" two stretchers of the medics, and rushed his guns forward on them. Now if the jolly old Turk had employed this practical method of transport undoubtedly "Foul" would have been the cry, and I think the Germans were accused of such dastardly Hun trickery at one time or another. Our bright Lad got a glowing paragraph of praise in the local paper for ingenuity, or did he commit a mild "War Crime".
Gareth
Here a point to ponder from the other way around.
When the 8th Hants attacked with the rest of 163 Brigade on the 12th August during the battle beneath Anafata Ove. The MG section with two antique Maxims couldn't keep up, so the MG officer "borrowed" two stretchers of the medics, and rushed his guns forward on them. Now if the jolly old Turk had employed this practical method of transport undoubtedly "Foul" would have been the cry, and I think the Germans were accused of such dastardly Hun trickery at one time or another. Our bright Lad got a glowing paragraph of praise in the local paper for ingenuity, or did he commit a mild "War Crime".
Gareth
I read somewhere of Germans using captured Lewis guns. Is this a myth too ?
Jack's posts seem to make perfect sense. I'll just throw in the point that it would be utterly stupid to chain men to the guns as the person (presumably an Officer or NCO) would have to be alive to unlock them, plus would have to be relied on not to lose the key in the mud!
Mind you, having read a bit about Starlingrad in WW2, a Russian machine gun might have been a different story...
Regards
Andrew
Mind you, having read a bit about Starlingrad in WW2, a Russian machine gun might have been a different story...
Regards
Andrew
QUOTE (uncle bill @ Feb 8 2006, 01:07 AM)
I read somewhere of Germans using captured Lewis guns. Is this a myth too ?
"Uncle Bill";
Look a bit back in this thread, post # 15, which mentions this use, and the special light MG battalions that were first set up to use the Danish Madsen LMG, captured, I believe, from Russian cavalry, and when these got a bit thin on the ground they were re-equipped with the Lewis guns they captured. The units were termed Musketieren=Battalione. (I may have that spelling off a bit.) They often seemed to be doled out by the company, or by fractions of companies, e. g., by Zug, to infantry units for certain tactical situations.
The Germans used all sorts of captured weapons, including a lot of artillery of different sorts, and two-thirds of German tanks were captured Brit Mark IVs; they planned to be running about 200 in 1919. These units used the terminology "Booty Tank Detachment xx" (roughly). A Bavarian transport unit had the job of rebuilding the captured Mark IVs, and had a large park filled with many captured tanks, and they had set up a large assembly line for their rebuilding in a very large shed. This was probably made easier as the Mark IVs were originally equipped with Daimler engines.
Bob Lembke
Many thanks for all your replies. There is logic in the theory that the m.g. was harnessed to the crew & was in the process of being moved when the position came under fire. The notion that they were 'chained' has obvious propaganda qualities, especially when the attack had faltered on the first day & the Press were looking for anything positive to report.
If I have read the thread properly, it seems that if British troops moved a Vickers m-g, they wouldn't use chains to do so? If that's right, then when the German is found chained to his gun, killed in the moment of trying to move it, the British soldiers are not going to associate the use of the chain correctly, as they don't need them themselves, and may not understand the German system of M-G movement. In that case, it's hardly surprising that they jump to the conclusion that the German has been chained to his gun for the sole purpose of making sure he sticks to his post. Myth? I would have said so, but it's origins - perfectly understandable.
Jon.
Jon.
QUOTE (bob lembke @ Feb 8 2006, 07:31 AM)
The Germans used all sorts of captured weapons, including a lot of artillery of different sorts, and two-thirds of German tanks were captured Brit Mark IVs; they planned to be running about 200 in 1919. These units used the terminology "Booty Tank Detachment xx" (roughly). A Bavarian transport unit had the job of rebuilding the captured Mark IVs, and had a large park filled with many captured tanks, and they had set up a large assembly line for their rebuilding in a very large shed. This was probably made easier as the Mark IVs were originally equipped with Daimler engines.
Bob Lembke
Bob Lembke
This is a bit confusing & off topic but Daimler engines weren't made by the Daimler of Germany. Gottfried Daimler licensed his original design to various foreign companies & the British licensee called itself Daimler Motor Company and its products Daimlers. This organisation was not a subsidiary of Gottfried's Daimler Motoren Gesellschaft but was a completely separate organisation. To avoid confusion, the German company started calling its products by the brand name Mercedes & last made a car called Daimler in 1908. The British Daimler is now part of Ford &, to this day, vehicles called Daimler are made by it & not by Chrysler Daimler, the successor to Gottfried's original company.
I doubt, though, if working on British Daimler engines would have proved much of a technical problem for German engineers used to Mercedes ones in 1918.
Wikipedia on Daimler
Reverting to topic, a misunderstanding of the carrying chains looks like the most logical explanation to me.
Do a SEARCH of the term "chains" and you will find several earlier discusions on this subject.
Borden Battery
Borden Battery
QUOTE (uncle bill @ Feb 8 2006, 06:07 AM)
I read somewhere of Germans using captured Lewis guns. Is this a myth too ?
I've seen photographs of German soldiers with lewis guns. So I think it's true. I was a signaller in TA and sometimes worked with support company. 3" mortars and Vickers MMGs. This was postWW2 so I don't know how much the MGs had evolved from the WW1 gun. One man carried the gun, one the tripod, I think another two carried ammo & bits between them. Bloody heavy all of it, so was my radio. I could have used my spare battery to crush a tank. We used to haul each other out of holes and over walls.
QUOTE (uncle bill @ Feb 8 2006, 09:07 AM)
I read somewhere of Germans using captured Lewis guns.(...)
I have a question about that (as the absolute ignorant I am in the subject)... When the Germans used weapons captured from the enemy (Lewis guns in this case) did they have to steal the ammunition or MG bullets were pretty standard on both sides of the barbed wire? first option would render the guns useless once the British bullets were spent (or force you to walk across No-mans-land and ask the neighbour for a few spare ones), second would mean that a captured Lewis gun would be quite an asset for German soldiers.
Gloria
When Lewis Guns were taken they usually had abundant supplies of British ammunition and drums, taken in the same manner as the guns. Patrols would often return with ammunition, grenades, etc. when entering British trenches.
Many other captured guns were changed to fire the standard German ammunition as there were few, if any, that could be used without alterations. I believe they all had to be changed other than the Lewis and possibly the French Hotchkiss if abundant ammunition supplies were taken.
Ralph
Many other captured guns were changed to fire the standard German ammunition as there were few, if any, that could be used without alterations. I believe they all had to be changed other than the Lewis and possibly the French Hotchkiss if abundant ammunition supplies were taken.
Ralph
German ammunition manufacturers made large quantities of British .303, also millions of rounds of Russian 7.62x54R for all the captured Mosin-Nagants. Other rifles were rechambered for standard 7.92 ammunition, an example being the Belgian 1889 Mauser. Finding these with German acceptance stamps chambered in 7.92 isn't all that uncommon. The Austro-Hungarians did the same with the Mosins, the Italian Carcanos, and the Roumanian 1893's. The Central Powers were the masters of making do with what they captured.
There was a discussion on this topic several months ago. I made some observations about this, particularly with respect to the MG08/15:
http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...indpost&p=54245
Robert
http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...indpost&p=54245
Robert
Thank you all for the above info... I wonder up to which point getting material from the enemy was a standard stockage practice for the German army in the Great War (considering material shortages due to the blockade, etc...) In fact, I wonder also if this practice was followed by allied soldiers as well... I've seen photos of soldiers with "souvenired" enemy items (pistols, binoculars), but I wonder if other items (German hand grenades, etc) would be "recycled" as well.
Maybe this would be an interesting question to start another thread?
Gloria
Maybe this would be an interesting question to start another thread?
Gloria
I've read many instances of German grenades being used against their previous owners. Most of these have been in the 'use anything' scenario as opposed to standard weaponary.
Des
Des
Most of my reading is of German sources on the operations of the German Army. A number of times I have come across accounts of German assualt troops being formally trained in the use of captured enemy equipment, such as hand grenades, some of which had ignition systems quite different than any German grenade, different fuze times, etc. I think that there was "cross-training" of machine gunners, also.
Anyone hear of similar training for Allied troops?
Bob Lembke
Anyone hear of similar training for Allied troops?
Bob Lembke
Bob, I don't recall any formal training in this regard, not of the type that I too have seen described with respect to the German assault troops. There are several accounts of British and Dominion soldiers picking up and using German machine guns. Also, I have read of personnel from trench mortar batteries being specifically assigned to find and use abandoned German field guns. This happened during the Canadian attack on Vimy Ridge for example. I don't know if this practice was supported by formal training in the specific use of German field guns.
Robert
Robert
QUOTE (gporta @ Feb 10 2006, 10:54 PM)
Thank you all for the above info... I wonder up to which point getting material from the enemy was a standard stockage practice for the German army in the Great War (considering material shortages due to the blockade, etc...) In fact, I wonder also if this practice was followed by allied soldiers as well... I've seen photos of soldiers with "souvenired" enemy items (pistols, binoculars), but I wonder if other items (German hand grenades, etc) would be "recycled" as well.
Maybe this would be an interesting question to start another thread?
Gloria
Maybe this would be an interesting question to start another thread?
Gloria
Germans were known for taking the boots from the dead, and from POWs. Also, anything to eat, drink or smoke.
I have even heard it said that this latter habit cost them the war. In the 1918 offensive their advancing troops were drinking Tommy's beer and eating his food rather than getting to the channel ports asap.
Probably overstated, but with a hint of truth?
QUOTE (BeppoSapone @ Feb 11 2006, 03:52 AM)
Germans were known for taking the boots from the dead, and from POWs. Also, anything to eat, drink or smoke.
I have even heard it said that this latter habit cost them the war. In the 1918 offensive their advancing troops were drinking Tommy's beer and eating his food rather than getting to the channel ports asap.
Probably overstated, but with a hint of truth?
I have even heard it said that this latter habit cost them the war. In the 1918 offensive their advancing troops were drinking Tommy's beer and eating his food rather than getting to the channel ports asap.
Probably overstated, but with a hint of truth?
My father was a storm trooper, and his correspondence has much more info about his dealing in captured enemy food than about the war itself. He told me that they even conducted private raids to drive the enemy out of their trenches with their Flammenwerfer and then loot their valuable stuff. He kept both sides of his family back in Germany better fed by sending them high-value stuff (in particular two-pound tins of coffee, which was an unbelievable luxury in 1917). He wrote a letter from hospital, having sent his father a tin, he urged him to sell it for more basic food, like his mother (they were seperated) was doing, adding that he had five more "about 900 grammes", clearly 2 lbs., tins under his hospital bed, along with his vegatable-drying oven; being ambulatory, he went into the woods near the hospital and picked wild mushrooms, which he dried back in the ward. My grand-father, a Hauptmann on active duty and a staff officer, was having trouble getting fed and described how he would drop into Other Ranks messes and join them for their food. He was on roving staff business and did not belong to a unit mess.
Even in 1916 the food was very bad. Being in a Guards storm unit, sponsored by the Crown Prince, where allegedly the food was better, he complained that in the week that the letter was written they had only had four dinners in the week, and they were two spoon-fuls of a very bad ersatz jam to eat with their bread ration, which itself was shrinking, and was turning slowly to sawdust. He was bitter that they could not find potatoes for their Christmas dinner. Three days later he lay for three days, wounded and alone, in a captured French dugout on Dead Man's Hill, at Verdun.
One cannot underestimate the effect that this had on the entire war. The Allies continued the food blockade for about eight months after the Armistice, until the Germans signed the Treaty of Versailles (off we go to WW II!), and I have seen estimates that in that eight-month period an additional 800,000 German civilians, in larg part children, starved to death.
Bob Lembke
The regimental history of the 3rd Jaeger (Sturm) Battalion, a Jaeger unit that was converted into an assault battalion in 1916, records the high esteem that the Lewis gun enjoyed with members of that unit. Indeed, it calls the weapon the 'sehr beliebte Lewis Gewehr' - the 'most beloved Lewis gun.'
Once, while looking for something else in the US National Archives, I ran across a German manual that dealt with captured weapons that had been modified to use German ammunition. It included a detailed description of how Lewis guns were rechambered for standard German rifle cartridges.
Once, while looking for something else in the US National Archives, I ran across a German manual that dealt with captured weapons that had been modified to use German ammunition. It included a detailed description of how Lewis guns were rechambered for standard German rifle cartridges.
Just for your curiosity: I just saw this ebay picture with a German Sturmtrupper with a Lewis gun. One is curious, tho, about the souvenired Brodie helmet... I wonder whether he wears it just as a trophy, or because of something else (protection, disguise to fool the enemy, etc...) 
Gloria
Gloria
Hi, Gloria;
I would state that wearing a Brodie helmet on a raid would make it much more likely to be shot by your own guys, and would afford less protection than the Stahlhelm. I would guess it is simply Beute, or "booty". In my father's storm unit, which usually faced the French, a sum was deposited into the unit welfare fund for every Chauchat that the men brought in, as the unit wanted to carry four times as many LMGs than the army authorized. I would think that that would have been especially likely for the excellent Lewis Gun, used by several special light machine gun units.
Note that the soldier has a P 08 and that it is worn on a lanyard. My father told me that in his unit they did not even carry a holster on raids; the P 08 that almost every trooper carried was on a lanyard and tucked into the blouse at an open button. The holster was made to protect the P 08 but was hopeless in a "quick draw" situation.
The trooper pictured has just been awarded an Eisernes Kreuz, perhaps even an EK I. (It would only be worn at the buttonhole briefly, I believe.) Thomas Faust, the dealer of this PC, would have reported if there was unit information on the reverse side. An excellent dealer and a real gentleman. I have done translations for him from Czech and Slovene written in Suetterlin, on Austro-Hungarian cards.
Bob Lembke
I would state that wearing a Brodie helmet on a raid would make it much more likely to be shot by your own guys, and would afford less protection than the Stahlhelm. I would guess it is simply Beute, or "booty". In my father's storm unit, which usually faced the French, a sum was deposited into the unit welfare fund for every Chauchat that the men brought in, as the unit wanted to carry four times as many LMGs than the army authorized. I would think that that would have been especially likely for the excellent Lewis Gun, used by several special light machine gun units.
Note that the soldier has a P 08 and that it is worn on a lanyard. My father told me that in his unit they did not even carry a holster on raids; the P 08 that almost every trooper carried was on a lanyard and tucked into the blouse at an open button. The holster was made to protect the P 08 but was hopeless in a "quick draw" situation.
The trooper pictured has just been awarded an Eisernes Kreuz, perhaps even an EK I. (It would only be worn at the buttonhole briefly, I believe.) Thomas Faust, the dealer of this PC, would have reported if there was unit information on the reverse side. An excellent dealer and a real gentleman. I have done translations for him from Czech and Slovene written in Suetterlin, on Austro-Hungarian cards.
Bob Lembke
Bob, I suspected the Brodie to be the equivalent of the Pickelhaube helmets many a British soldier sports in old photographs, but thanks for clearing it further, and for all the other explanations.
I didn't mention the leather jerkin he is wearing (surely acquired in the same fashion that the Lewis gun) which is more likely to have been used than the souvenired helmet... I'm not so sure about the boots: they look to me like the wading boots Tommies used in watery/muddy places, unless similar items were issued by the German army, too.
Gloria
I didn't mention the leather jerkin he is wearing (surely acquired in the same fashion that the Lewis gun) which is more likely to have been used than the souvenired helmet... I'm not so sure about the boots: they look to me like the wading boots Tommies used in watery/muddy places, unless similar items were issued by the German army, too.
Gloria
Hi, new member here. My first post.
I subscribe to a Web site called www.newspaperarchive.com, which for a monthly fee allows you to browse old American newspapers in PDF format. It's a terrific source for Great War information. I haven't seen the chained German machine gunners story, but I'll be sure to look.
Here's an interesting article I found yesterday: "German Morale is Rapidly Weakening Says British Officer," The Olean Evening Herald (November 19, 1917), page 2, column 3.
The byline is the Associated Press, reporting on a letter written by an officer of a Liverpool regiment fighting in an unidentified locale on the western front. After a group of German infantrymen surrendered, something amazing happened:
I've heard of the Allies killing German flame-thrower operators when they surrendered, but this is the first time I've heard of German infantrymen wanting to kill them, too. They don't seem to have been very popular with anybody!
Edward J.
I subscribe to a Web site called www.newspaperarchive.com, which for a monthly fee allows you to browse old American newspapers in PDF format. It's a terrific source for Great War information. I haven't seen the chained German machine gunners story, but I'll be sure to look.
Here's an interesting article I found yesterday: "German Morale is Rapidly Weakening Says British Officer," The Olean Evening Herald (November 19, 1917), page 2, column 3.
The byline is the Associated Press, reporting on a letter written by an officer of a Liverpool regiment fighting in an unidentified locale on the western front. After a group of German infantrymen surrendered, something amazing happened:
QUOTE
"When the German command found out what had happened, they sent forward a great body of reserves with orders to recapture our prisoners. Heavy gunfire rained on us, of which the prisoners got a good share. They begged us hard to save them, and we did all we could. But at one stage we were nearly caught, when the enemy suddenly turned on a party of liquid fire experts. Fortunately, we were alert and charged at once, capturing the whole liquid fire outfit. There ensued a terrible row between the earlier prisoners and the men we had taken with the liquid fire outfit. The first prisoners wanted to kill the liquid fire men. We had our hands full getting them all back."
I've heard of the Allies killing German flame-thrower operators when they surrendered, but this is the first time I've heard of German infantrymen wanting to kill them, too. They don't seem to have been very popular with anybody!
Edward J.
Hi, Edward!
Welcome to the Forum!
It is fun to poke through old papers. However, almost anything written during the war, from any side, must be regarded with considerable skepticism.
But, in my opinion (IMHO), the people subjected to the greatest onslaught of propaganda and cooked material was, by far, the American people. These was both a very active British effort run both in the UK and also in Canada and the US, and the US government and enthusiasts also had a very active program. Taking such an anonymous statement at anything like face value would be a serious error, in my opinion.
Additionally, the two top British and American officers responsible for flame warfare (Foulkes and Fries), having royally screwed up their own flame warfare efforts, starting during the war years, engaged in a vigorous campaign of disinformation on all flame warfare, and in particular on the successful German effort, for almost 20 years. I still see articles being written at this time which have been poisoned with the false stuff deliberately planted by these guys, in a variety of ways.
I hope that I have not come on too strong and set an unpleasant tone; I love it when anyone points out any mention of WW I flame throwers (FW), and I file them away carefully for my research. But that whole passage, at least as the FW aspect goes, sounds really off. Flame units were controlled by the OHL (Highest Army Command), i.e., Hindenburg and Ludendorff's shop, and received requests for the lending of FW troops and after deliberation allocated them down to the level of, for example, the army corps, for specific operations that the flame unit commander of the unit sent out was supposed to review and even veto their participation if he decided that the plan of attack did not properly utilize this unusual weapon. In theory at least, a sergeant could decline to participate in an attack drawn up and ordered by a lieutenant general; he had a written order from Hindenburg and Ludendorff backing up this right. A written report on each attack was written up and submitted to the OHL.
So if the Germans lost a bunch of prisoners I don't see how a "party of liquid fire experts" would just appear to take the prisoners back, given the above system to allocate this scarce resource, and carefully review any plan of attack. The flame detachments did not lurk in the trenches; they were in barracks and when released for an attack were trucked in on their own trucks.
Also, I would think that launching a flame attack on the enemy would be an odd way to try to release POWs. Finally, I have detailed information on about 300 flame attacks by the Germans, and I have never heard of the enemy infantry charging into a FW attack. Would you?
Despite my scepticism, your account will be inserted into my files. Keep those anecdotes flowing, guys!
Thanks,
Bob Lembke
Welcome to the Forum!
It is fun to poke through old papers. However, almost anything written during the war, from any side, must be regarded with considerable skepticism.
But, in my opinion (IMHO), the people subjected to the greatest onslaught of propaganda and cooked material was, by far, the American people. These was both a very active British effort run both in the UK and also in Canada and the US, and the US government and enthusiasts also had a very active program. Taking such an anonymous statement at anything like face value would be a serious error, in my opinion.
Additionally, the two top British and American officers responsible for flame warfare (Foulkes and Fries), having royally screwed up their own flame warfare efforts, starting during the war years, engaged in a vigorous campaign of disinformation on all flame warfare, and in particular on the successful German effort, for almost 20 years. I still see articles being written at this time which have been poisoned with the false stuff deliberately planted by these guys, in a variety of ways.
I hope that I have not come on too strong and set an unpleasant tone; I love it when anyone points out any mention of WW I flame throwers (FW), and I file them away carefully for my research. But that whole passage, at least as the FW aspect goes, sounds really off. Flame units were controlled by the OHL (Highest Army Command), i.e., Hindenburg and Ludendorff's shop, and received requests for the lending of FW troops and after deliberation allocated them down to the level of, for example, the army corps, for specific operations that the flame unit commander of the unit sent out was supposed to review and even veto their participation if he decided that the plan of attack did not properly utilize this unusual weapon. In theory at least, a sergeant could decline to participate in an attack drawn up and ordered by a lieutenant general; he had a written order from Hindenburg and Ludendorff backing up this right. A written report on each attack was written up and submitted to the OHL.
So if the Germans lost a bunch of prisoners I don't see how a "party of liquid fire experts" would just appear to take the prisoners back, given the above system to allocate this scarce resource, and carefully review any plan of attack. The flame detachments did not lurk in the trenches; they were in barracks and when released for an attack were trucked in on their own trucks.
Also, I would think that launching a flame attack on the enemy would be an odd way to try to release POWs. Finally, I have detailed information on about 300 flame attacks by the Germans, and I have never heard of the enemy infantry charging into a FW attack. Would you?
Despite my scepticism, your account will be inserted into my files. Keep those anecdotes flowing, guys!
Thanks,
Bob Lembke
I put "Germans chained machine guns" into the search engine at www.newspaperarchive.com and got 127 hits. The articles also include stories of German machine gunners chained to trees.
Here's a slightly different take on the theme: "Says Germans Chained Women to Machine Guns," The Syracuse Herald (March 9, 1919), page 26, column 1.
Unfortunately, Sgt. Kelley doesn't actually describe assaulting machine-gun nests full of cigarette-smoking female soldiers. Did he take them prisoner? What unit did they belong to? Did they fight to the death? I'd like to know! In reality, I'm sure they were just beardless schoolboys inexpertly holding their smokes. We've all seen late-war photos of horrifyingly young kids in uniform.
And for Bob the flame-thrower enthusiast, here's something from "Pressing the Foe," The Daily Gleaner (July 8, 1916), page 1, column 1.
A dispatch from Petrograd describes the July 6 action in Galicia, on the Koropice and Souhodolsk Rivers, tributaries of the Dniester.
Amazing that the Russians would admit in an official dispatch that they killed all their prisoners. Attitudes of the press and general public were obviously quite different back then.
Edward J.
Here's a slightly different take on the theme: "Says Germans Chained Women to Machine Guns," The Syracuse Herald (March 9, 1919), page 26, column 1.
QUOTE
It's no phantasy of a sick imagination that women were chained to machine guns by the Germans, Sergt. Harry Kelley of the 35th Machine Gun Battalion, attached to the 3rd Division, declares, for he has seen them himself....
"Women chained to guns? Yes, often," he declared. "We knew they were women, too, before we took the guns. One could always tell by the way the gunners held their cigarets whether they were men or women."
"Women chained to guns? Yes, often," he declared. "We knew they were women, too, before we took the guns. One could always tell by the way the gunners held their cigarets whether they were men or women."
Unfortunately, Sgt. Kelley doesn't actually describe assaulting machine-gun nests full of cigarette-smoking female soldiers. Did he take them prisoner? What unit did they belong to? Did they fight to the death? I'd like to know! In reality, I'm sure they were just beardless schoolboys inexpertly holding their smokes. We've all seen late-war photos of horrifyingly young kids in uniform.
And for Bob the flame-thrower enthusiast, here's something from "Pressing the Foe," The Daily Gleaner (July 8, 1916), page 1, column 1.
A dispatch from Petrograd describes the July 6 action in Galicia, on the Koropice and Souhodolsk Rivers, tributaries of the Dniester.
QUOTE
In the course of an attack on the village of Vergiki the Germans received our troops with liquid fire.
Owing to their conduct we put all the Germans to the bayonet when we captured the village.
Owing to their conduct we put all the Germans to the bayonet when we captured the village.
Amazing that the Russians would admit in an official dispatch that they killed all their prisoners. Attitudes of the press and general public were obviously quite different back then.
Edward J.
Hi, Edward;
As to "women chained to machine guns"; I can assure you that the Germans never had women combat troops in WW I. I can also state that it is 99.99% sure that the Germans never chained anyone to machine guns. I have seen many reports of same in US sources written in the period; they all are rubbish. And you can also find reports by true American combat troops that such reports are nonsense.
I have the complete death rolls of the principal German flame units, including all units operating after early 1915. No German flame troops died in the East in that time period. Additionally, I have detailed information on many or most of all flame attacks in the war. It is 95% or more certain that there were no German flame troops on the Eastern Front at that time. All of these troops were stationed on the Western Front, and only two or three times a year they sent men to the east to conduct a few attacks. This does not seem to have been going on at that time period. If you know the situation on the west front (both Verdun and the Somme going on at that time) it was not a likely time to send these troops to the east.
So I think that the Russian report was a complete fabrication.
Again, thanks for the reports.
Bob Lembke
As to "women chained to machine guns"; I can assure you that the Germans never had women combat troops in WW I. I can also state that it is 99.99% sure that the Germans never chained anyone to machine guns. I have seen many reports of same in US sources written in the period; they all are rubbish. And you can also find reports by true American combat troops that such reports are nonsense.
I have the complete death rolls of the principal German flame units, including all units operating after early 1915. No German flame troops died in the East in that time period. Additionally, I have detailed information on many or most of all flame attacks in the war. It is 95% or more certain that there were no German flame troops on the Eastern Front at that time. All of these troops were stationed on the Western Front, and only two or three times a year they sent men to the east to conduct a few attacks. This does not seem to have been going on at that time period. If you know the situation on the west front (both Verdun and the Somme going on at that time) it was not a likely time to send these troops to the east.
So I think that the Russian report was a complete fabrication.
Again, thanks for the reports.
Bob Lembke
Hi, Edward;
Another point. I have read several thousand pages of US primary sources on the fighting on the Western Front, and I can not recall a single mention of a soldier mentioning an American reporter wandering about at the Front. I have also poked through thousands of pages of US orders, reports, etc. (the US Army 3-CD set of WW I documents is an amazing source and value), and about 1000-2000 pages of official US unit histories, and I cannot remember a single mention of a US reporter at the front. Wilson set up a large propaganda organization. I would think that the reporter from Syracuse was sitting in a bar in Solvey and was writing something based on a press release.
Are you up in the Finger Lakes region? I spent 10 years at Ithaca.
Bob Lembke
Another point. I have read several thousand pages of US primary sources on the fighting on the Western Front, and I can not recall a single mention of a soldier mentioning an American reporter wandering about at the Front. I have also poked through thousands of pages of US orders, reports, etc. (the US Army 3-CD set of WW I documents is an amazing source and value), and about 1000-2000 pages of official US unit histories, and I cannot remember a single mention of a US reporter at the front. Wilson set up a large propaganda organization. I would think that the reporter from Syracuse was sitting in a bar in Solvey and was writing something based on a press release.
Are you up in the Finger Lakes region? I spent 10 years at Ithaca.
Bob Lembke
Quoting Bob:
"I would think that the reporter from Syracuse was sitting in a bar in Solvey and was writing something based on a press release."
As they say... "nothing new under the sun". I'm getting dismayed at the growing habit of many a "journalist" to just cut and paste something they have got from another place (printed or online) without properly checking the facts
Gloria
"I would think that the reporter from Syracuse was sitting in a bar in Solvey and was writing something based on a press release."
As they say... "nothing new under the sun". I'm getting dismayed at the growing habit of many a "journalist" to just cut and paste something they have got from another place (printed or online) without properly checking the facts
Gloria
Gloria;
Yes. But I think that in WW I the journalist did not have a chance to get to the front, I bet, and if he did he would not be able to print what he wanted. I think that the front journalist of the era was an insider gentleman with connections like Colonel Reppington (Brit) and Lowell Thomas (Yank). They knew what to print and not to print.
During WW I there were a lot of laws passed in the US to suppress the supposed danger of German-Americans. They were very sweeping. On the basis of one, for example, the Federal Attorney (a prosecutor) in an Ohio city indited something like 167 ministers and bishops of a single German-based church for treason on the basis that the church traditionally used German in their religous services.
It is interesting that some US Congressmen are now calling for the prosecution of the New York Times on charges of espionage and treason for printing the recent story of how the US government is snooping on financial transactions, demanding prosecution based on of these wonderful laws passed in 1917. As Leo Durocher said: "Deja vu all over again!"
Bob Lembke
Yes. But I think that in WW I the journalist did not have a chance to get to the front, I bet, and if he did he would not be able to print what he wanted. I think that the front journalist of the era was an insider gentleman with connections like Colonel Reppington (Brit) and Lowell Thomas (Yank). They knew what to print and not to print.
During WW I there were a lot of laws passed in the US to suppress the supposed danger of German-Americans. They were very sweeping. On the basis of one, for example, the Federal Attorney (a prosecutor) in an Ohio city indited something like 167 ministers and bishops of a single German-based church for treason on the basis that the church traditionally used German in their religous services.
It is interesting that some US Congressmen are now calling for the prosecution of the New York Times on charges of espionage and treason for printing the recent story of how the US government is snooping on financial transactions, demanding prosecution based on of these wonderful laws passed in 1917. As Leo Durocher said: "Deja vu all over again!"
Bob Lembke
Gloria said:
It's a long-standing habit among journalists to misreport the news, especially when it comes to war. My favorite quote about journalists and the military comes from General William Tecumseh Sherman, fighting on the Union side during the American Civil War:
I'm sure many a current British and American fighting man or woman can empathize.
Bob: I'm in Portland, Oregon. The newspaper Web site gives me access to most American papers. Here's a good excerpt from another one: "Germans Squirt Flame into British Trenches to Burn Out Soldiers," The Syracuse Herald (September 7, 1915), page 5, column 2, by Herbert Corey
Accurate or not, it makes for great reading!
Edward J.
QUOTE
As they say... "nothing new under the sun". I'm getting dismayed at the growing habit of many a "journalist" to just cut and paste something they have got from another place (printed or online) without properly checking the facts.
It's a long-standing habit among journalists to misreport the news, especially when it comes to war. My favorite quote about journalists and the military comes from General William Tecumseh Sherman, fighting on the Union side during the American Civil War:
QUOTE
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."
I'm sure many a current British and American fighting man or woman can empathize.
Bob: I'm in Portland, Oregon. The newspaper Web site gives me access to most American papers. Here's a good excerpt from another one: "Germans Squirt Flame into British Trenches to Burn Out Soldiers," The Syracuse Herald (September 7, 1915), page 5, column 2, by Herbert Corey
QUOTE
Kaiser forbade flame projector. Unless a story I heard in Berlin in February is untrue, the Kaiser was at the outset bitterly opposed to the use of the flame projector. As it came to me, a "half-baked" professor in a German university invented the thing. The general staff experimented with it and finally decided to accept it. Nothing was said officially to the Kaiser about it, but some one told. He called the chief of staff.
"I will not permit the use of such devices in my army," said the Kaiser. "They are devilish, monstrous--inhuman."
"But Sire--"began the chief of staff.
"Enough," said the Kaiser.
One is compelled to wonder now if the Kaiser were in the end defied by the staff or whether he assented to its use, and what particular epithets he now applies to a weapon of war that chars men's flesh from their bones.
"I will not permit the use of such devices in my army," said the Kaiser. "They are devilish, monstrous--inhuman."
"But Sire--"began the chief of staff.
"Enough," said the Kaiser.
One is compelled to wonder now if the Kaiser were in the end defied by the staff or whether he assented to its use, and what particular epithets he now applies to a weapon of war that chars men's flesh from their bones.
Accurate or not, it makes for great reading!
Edward J.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.