NOTES ON THE WAR

Waihi Daily Telegraph, Volume XXXI, Issue 8833, 16 October 1942, Page 2

NOTES ON THE WAR

military ' badges or uniforms belonging to the enemy, as well as of the badges peculiar to the Geneva Convention (the Red Cross, etc.); (g) any destruction or seizure of enemy property not imperatively called for by military necessities. How many of these rules of war, to which the Axis countries gave their adherence, have been broken by them will be common knowledge to all who follow the news.

CAPTIVES IN BONDS REPRISALS FOR WHAT? ACTION AGAINST COMMANDOS It may be taken as a sure sign of fear of the future that the Germans should add to their long list of crimes in occupied Europe the chaining of British prisoners of war taken at Dieppe as a reprisal for the alleged tying-up of a handful of Germans captured in a raid on the Channel Island of Sark by a small British commando on October 4. According to the official C.O.H. communi? que, five prisoners were taken and four who attempted to escape were shot. So for the alleged tying-up of these men, which the War Office denies, the Germans have cast into chains the Dieppe prisoners, numbering over three thousand.

Why have the Germans done this? Almost certainly because they dislik"

and fear commando raids as forerunners of invasion. This is shown by. the selection of the Dieppe prisoners for reprisals. The Germans have in all their wars shown the greatest hostility towards any enemy forces they consid-

ed outside the regular troops. In the

Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 they treated the irregular French troops known as franctireurs with the ruthlessness accorded to guerillas and outlaws. In his proclamation of August 11, 1870, King AVilliam of Prussia, afterwards the first German Emperor, said: I made war on soldiers, not- on French civilians. These in conse-

quence will continue to enjoy com-plete-security for their persons

and their property, so long as they

themselves do not deprive me, by

hostile action against the German y troops, of the right to accord them

my protection

Later, Dr. Busch, with . Bismarck’s approval, wrote in the “Moniteur”:

If the civilian takes action against the foreign troops invading his country, he loses the rights of a civilian without acquiring those ■of a soldier. . . He cannot be disarmed except by death. ... He must be annihilated in the interests of humanity.

This doctrine has been carried out far more ruthlessly throughout occupied Europe even than in past wars. All the German atrocities resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths in the occupied countries arc based on this doctrine. It looks, therefore, as if the Germans were seeking pretext to exclude commando raiders from belligerent rights in th* hope of deterring the British from persisting in this method of warfare. Slight Pretext

The actual pretext is slight enough. There is nothing in the international laws of war as codified in the Geneva Convention of July, 190(1, which specifically forbids the binding of prisoners of war to prevent their escape, No such word as “binding,” “chaining,” “fettering,” or “manacling” is used. Article 2 of the Convention, referred to in the

news, says:— Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile Government, but not of individuals or the formations which captured them. They shall at all times be humanely treated and protected, particularly against acts of violence, from insolence, and from public curiosity. Measures of reprisals against them are forbidden. . The German communique threat-i ening reprisals, alleges: The British tied up the Germans in their shirts with very strong cord and prevented them putting on more clothes. The British led them to the beach, and when the 1 prisoners resisted this improper treatment, the British killed the

n.c.o. and another man with bullets and bayonets and wounded a

third. A sapper who escaped con-

firmed these facts. The British account is that four

men were shot attempting to escape. The Germans admit that one man did escape. It is legitimate, even in civil life, to shoot at a prisoner attempting to escape from prison. It > is inevitable in war. As for binding, the practice in the last war was to cut the prisoners’ braces so that they would have to walk with their hands occupied in holding up their trousers . In the Sark raid the prisoners were in their shirts. The Real Reason

The real reason lies in the threat in the German communique: Henceforth all British terrorists and sabotage troops, or their accomplices, who do not behave like soldiers, but like bandits, will be treated as such and ruthlessly mown down wherever they'appear. Exactly. This confirms the theory already advanced. There is nothing whatever in in-

ternational law governing the conduct of war to justify such an attitude towards the commando troops, who are members of the regular armed forces of the Allies carrying out a legitimate operation of warfare based op surprise and concealment, ruses as old as warfare itself. By the Hague Convention the following acts are particularly forbidden: (a) The use of poison or poisoned weapons; (b) the treacherous slaughtering of individuals belonging to the enemy nation or army; (c) the slaughter of an enemy who.has surrendered at discretion, having thrown down his arms, or possessing no longer the means of defending himself; (d) the declaration that no quarter will be given; (e) the use of arms, projectiles and substances likely to cause unnecessary suffering; the employment of forbidden projectiles; (f) the abuse of flags of truce, or .the national flag, or of