MAY BE SURPRISE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 86, Issue 241, 13 October 1942, Page 5

MAY BE SURPRISE

“MANACLING AFFAIR” DEVELOPMENT LIKELY (By Telegraph—Press Association —Copyright, (Reed. 10 p.m.) London, Oct. 11. Germany has thus far not announced whether' the threat to manacle more British prisoners has been carried out. The diplomatic correspondent ot the Daily Express says: “There may be a surprise turn in the manacling affair. The development is likely to be revealed in a Government statement to the House of Commons.” Informed opinion is that the statement might abruptly end the competition in chaining. An unexpectedly strong volume of opinion has developed against any British attempt to match the Nazi brutality. Secret reports have reached the Government suggesting that the Germans’ main object in the original chaining was to work up hate against Britain in anticipation ol possible iarge-scale military action on the Continent. FACTS EXPLAINED NO CONVENTION VETO Rugby, Oct. 10. In order that the true facts of the controversy about tying the hands of prisoners of war may be clearly put before the public, the following statement has been issued by the British Government:— ‘‘ln the Dieppe raid an order was issued without authority to the effect that, wherever possible, the hands of prisoners of war were to be bound so that they could not destroy their papers. On the complaint of the German Government, the War Office at once, and before there had been timt to make an inquiry, issue" a statement that if any such order had been issued it would be countermanded, because they considered such an order might be held to imply that, irrespective of the circumstances, the hands of prisoners of war should be bound.

On inquiries being made, no evidence was found that, any of the prisoners brought back from Dieppe had had their hands tied. But the existence of the order came to light and it was countermanded. “The raid on Sark was carried out by a party of ten officers and men. Seven of the party captured five Germans. The hands of the Germans were tied in order that their arms might be linked with their captors. No orders, written or otherwise, had been issued, but the prisoners had to be taken past German-occupied barracks on the way to the boats and precautions wore therefore necessary. In spite of the precautions, four of the live Germans broke away, shouting, and had to be shot to prevent them raising an alarm. “The Genova Convention contains no statement about tying the hands of prisoners, but prescribes humane treatment. The question at issue is therefore what constitutes humane treatment. Clearly, his differs according to the circumstances. There is a wide difference between what is appropriate to a prisoner in safe custody and a prisoner in the course of a battle. “It is to be observed that the actions complained of by the German Government occurred during battle, but that they had themselves taken action to tie the hands of prisoners of war far removed from the battlefield as an act of reprisal. Acts of reprisal against prisoners of war are specifically forbidden by the Geneva Convention.” -8.0.W.