ILL-TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR
By common consent good treatment of prisoners of war is a law imposed on
civilised nations. American instructions, in their article 56, do but put
into words the feelings of civilised mankind when they say, “A prisoner
of war must suffer no penalty in so far as he is a public enemy; no
suffering, no dishonour will be intentionally imposed upon him by way of
reprisal, neither imprisonment, nor deprivation of food, nor mutilation,
nor death, nor any barbarous treatment.” Such is the line of conduct
which belligerents long have followed in this matter; such is the idea
they entertain of their duty in war.
THE GERMAN IDEA
In the present war, however, we have seen the Germans change all that: in
this respect, as in so many others, they have shown unmitigated contempt
for current conceptions of war. They have been seen to vent their hatred
and desire for vengeance upon a prisoner. Therein is the reaction of
a feeling of cruel pride. Have not the prisoners of war who fall into
German hands committed the crime of offering resistance to the actions of
the first people in the world? Consequently, M. Pierre Nothomb remarks,
in his book, _Belgique Martyre_, “in the hands of the German a prisoner
is not a soldier who has been unlucky, but a victim who is to endure his
hatred.”
Germany took good care not to advertise this principle. It would have
been too open a violation of the law of nations, and, besides, it would
have exposed her to reprisals. Prisoners who surrendered in a body
were spared up to a certain point. But the case was different with
prisoners taken in little groups. Towards them, because their fate was
more obscure, and the manner in which they were treated might appear to
involve less responsibility for the whole system, no ill-treatment and
cruelty, from insults to death, were omitted. They were jeered at, and
from mockery their tormentors went on to blows and wounds.
BLOWS
At Camperhout (in Belgium) the Germans amused themselves with imposing on
the prisoners fatigue-duty, in the course of which the latter were struck
on the slightest pretext. A Greek, who was a volunteer in the French
army, has told what happened, in a letter to the _Nea Himera_ at Athens.
“There were eight hundred prisoners of us, five of whom were Greeks. We
were brought before German officers, who ordered us to undress. Then they
had us tied with ropes and whipped by six German soldiers.”
They were undressed and stripped of what they had. “When I was able to
get my clothes again,” said the same witness, “I found that a sum of 3850
francs and an old gold medal had disappeared.”
CROSS-EXAMINATION
At the same time that vengeance was being taken on the prisoners,
attempts were made to extract from them information which would be useful
for carrying on the war. They were questioned as to what they had seen,
as to the enemy forces and the positions occupied by them, and in general
on all military or strategic questions on which they might be supposed
to have knowledge, as an hour previously they had been in the trenches.
Sometimes, in order to obtain information like this, they were content to
resort to a ruse; on other occasions they went as far as threats followed
by actions.
Despicable German officers dared to cross-examine prisoners whom they had
just made. Brought bound before the officers, the prisoners found they
were ordered to reply under penalty of being tortured and killed. Near
Aerschot, a Belgian soldier, who had been made a prisoner, understood
that he was asked in this manner, by an officer and three soldiers,
where were his regiment and the body of his troops. This soldier, who
had refused to reply, was thrown to the ground, kicked, and finally
abandoned, still tied with ropes.
On the 29th March the Germans took prisoner, north of Mychinetz, a
Russian non-commissioned officer, Paphyre Panasiouk, and tortured him in
the presence of ten German officers, who tried to drag information from
him about the positions of the Russian troops. Having refused to act as
a traitor to the advantage of his enemies, the wretched non-commissioned
officer had the lobe of his right ear cut off by a German officer, who
then, in four strokes, cut off the top of the ear, leaving only a piece
of cartilage round the auricular passage. In the meantime, another
officer was mutilating his nose, separating the cartilage from the bone,
and biting him. This torture lasted for a whole hour, and the victim,
who afterwards succeeded in giving his guards the slip, was placed in
hospital at Warsaw, where the doctors photographed his mutilated face.
MURDERS
In other places prisoners were shot. In an official note of the Russian
Government, a German officer was mentioned by name as having formally
given the order to hang all Cossacks who should be made prisoner. This
was Major Modeiski, of the German cuirassiers. In confirmation of the
fact, it was stated that in many places Cossack prisoners had been
hanged, shot or killed by bayonet thrusts; at Radom, in the middle
of October, an officer and four Cossacks; at Ratchki, a Cossack; at
Monastijisk, four Cossacks; at Tapilovka, the Cossack Jidkof, who had
been made prisoner at Souvalki, etc.
At Chabatz, sixty Serbian soldiers, who had been made prisoner, were
massacred, and in the Belfort region a large number of French prisoners
were undressed by the Germans, who exposed them naked to French bullets,
and threw others into the canal, only to take them out again and throw
them in once more.
At Namur, during the retreat, Parfonnery, an infantryman, was made
prisoner with a group of soldiers. “Their hands were tied behind their
backs, they were bound together four by four; they were compelled to
march all day, being struck with the flat of the sword and the butt-end
of the rifle, and finally were thrown into the cellars of the Château
Saint-Gérard.” Elsewhere another Belgian prisoner, who rebelled against
this ill-treatment, had his neck twisted by his guards.
At Dixmude, Lieutenant Poncin (of the 12th Belgian Regiment of the Line)
was shot after having been bound round the middle by a wire tied about
ten times round his legs. On the 6th September a Belgian cavalryman,
who had been made prisoner, was disarmed, then bound and had his bowels
opened with bayonet thrusts. Near Sempst the Germans opened the bowels
of two Belgian carabineers and pulled out their entrails; at Tamine the
Germans tied a French officer to the trunk of a tree and harnessed horses
to each of his legs. By forcing the horses to run, the wretched man was
torn asunder. These latter facts are reported in M. Pierre Nothomb’s
book. At Saenski (in the Souvalki area) a Cossack was burnt alive on the
first of October. Other Russian prisoners also were condemned to die of
hunger. In other places Cossacks were condemned to dig their graves and
were shot.
GERMAN ADMISSIONS
In September 1914, when the Russians were forced to evacuate eastern
Prussia before the advancing Germans, they had recourse to what was an
indisputable right by making unusable such provisions as they could
not carry away. In this way enormous quantities of bread were wet with
petrol by orders from headquarters, so that the enemy could get no
advantage from it. The _Frankfurter Zeitung_ of the 8th October recorded
this act as a crime which deserved punishment. Under the heading “A
Just Punishment,” this paper had the hardihood to tell of the vengeance
which the Germans enacted for it. The stores were at Insterbourg. The
Russians, wrote the _Frankfurter Zeitung_, had reckoned without General
Hindenburg’s sense of humour. When this general was informed of the
matter, he said, “There is no accounting for tastes. The Russians have
their tastes. _This bread will do to feed Russian prisoners of war until
these provisions are exhausted._” Let us not forget to notice the style
of this article. This expression of the most cruel wrath, and of the
keenest thirst for vengeance, is called “humour.” And in what journal? In
one of the most influential and most moderate organs in Germany. There
can be no more striking admission both of the acts of cruelty and of the
barbaric passion which instigated them.
A perusal of the confession of these abominations, a confession, too,
made in such terms, gives a better idea of the character and aims of this
nation.
General Stenger, to whom we have already referred, the commander of the
38th Brigade, gave instructions for the massacre of the wounded in an
order of the day which we reproduce verbatim, and which is so abominable
that it is beyond criticism.
“_From to-day, there will be no more prisoners made. All
prisoners will be massacred. Even prisoners who have already
been arranged in convoys will be massacred. Behind us no enemy
will be left alive._
“STOY, Lieutenant and Commander-in-Chief of the Company.
“NEUBAUER, Colonel in command of the Regiment.
“STENGER, General in command of the Brigade.”
M. Bédier has reproduced in his book the actual original of this document.
TREATMENT OF PRISONERS IN GERMANY
Once they had left the battlefields for the German fortresses, where
they were to be kept under guard, it was inevitable that prisoners of
war should be exposed to the most brutal ill-treatment, death, wounds
and blows. A regular prison regimen following upon possible outrages
on the field of battle would, of course, absolutely prevent that. But
all the penalties which the prisoners could possibly be made to suffer
under these new circumstances were heaped upon them in profusion. They
were not allowed to have their letters; customs duties were imposed on
the packages sent to them from their own country, and the transmission
of these packages was irregular and uncertain; finally, some of these
consignments were constantly and systematically looted.
The French Government complained. In fear of reprisals the Germans had
to alter their ways, though in some respects they continued as before.
They refused to sanction the pay of private soldiers and non-commissioned
officers, who had been taken prisoner; they fixed the pay of inferior and
superior officers at the ridiculous amounts of sixty and a hundred marks;
they refused to serve out allowances of tobacco and cruelly cut short the
supply of food.
These measures are significant. They show Germany’s view of the prisoner
of war. The only favour she allows him is not to kill him, not to beat
him, not to let him die outright of hunger. We speak here of orders given
and measures taken by the higher command, for which no excuse that pleads
the inhumanity of war could be admitted.