• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Crucified Soldier (Alleged WWI Atrocity)

Quake42

Quake42

Warrior Princess
Joined
Feb 25, 2004
Messages
9,312
Did anyone see this on C4 at the weekend? I must confess I only caught the last half or so but it dealt with rumours of German atrocities in WWI which generally been dismissed as fantasy/urban legends.

Surprisingly, however, the documentary concluded that there was in fact evidence that a soldier was crucified and that even the most outlandish claims of German atrocities (notably, the bayoneted baby) may have been based on real events.

Disappointingly there wasn't much on the C4 website but some stuff from wikipedia here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Banks
 
I believe Paul Fussell discusses it in The Great War and Modern Memory, including the rumour that the unfortunate man was Canadian. I would have some scans for you but my ex-roomie took the book to Australia with her. :( However, I did find this:
http://tinyurl.com/chqlp
 
I saw a programme on this, possibly the same one but many months ago. From what I remember, it said more or less what was written on the links posted above. The impression I came away with from the programme was that something happened and that over the years it had become mixed in with trench legends.
 
There was an article in History Today a few years back on this subject. What’s interesting is the way attitudes to the stories changed over time, following shifts in social attitudes and international relations and the extent to which a particular historical event pervades the collective psyche at different times. They also become a kind of barometer indicating the state of political correctness at particular times after the event. The History Today article concluded that atrocities had occurred but not on the scale that propagandists in the media would have had people believe. If I recall correctly it also concluded that there was a big difference between what was believed by soldiers on the ground and what was believed by non-combatants reading newspapers and listening to gossip back home. The Tommies and their counterparts took a far more pragmatic, less gullible stance than those worrying about them at home.

I’ve always thought this story had certain similarities with the changing attitudes to cannibalism in anthropological circles over the years which reached its nadir (in the 60’s I think) with the general conclusion among certain liberal circles that no primitive culture had ever practised cannibalism and the whole thing was a product of racism and the developed world’s prejudice against primitive cultures - conveniently ignoring the wealth of material that indicated that various cultures had practiced cannibalism throughout history.

On a personal note. One of my elderly Aunts was educated for a while in a convent in Belgium in the 1920’s - no-one really knows why as she is neither Catholic or from a wealthy background. Unlike many individuals with that background she has nothing but praise for the nuns who taught her. The convent had been a hospital during WW1 and the nuns had become nurses by default. She always remembers them as an angelic and good-tempered lot who loved the world and all its inhabitants, apart from the Germans who she remembers them hating with a vitriol all the more disturbing because it clashed so violently with their otherwise easy-going demeanour. She was told that the nuns had witnessed “something” very specific that they would never discuss. Given the carnage and human suffering they must have witnessed on a day to day basis during the war as nurses close to the front line that “something” must have been pretty awful!

I'll have to see if I can find out where the convent was and if it tallies geographically with any of the atrocity stories.
 
There were also WW1 stories about crucified kittens, crucified children, crucified just about everything.
 
I saw an interview with an English secret agent on Discovery. His mission was to search German criminals who were too "small fry" to face the Nuerenberg trials but still had commited huge atrocities. I remember something like "English captives castrated and hanged from a lamppost".

This person identified several of these Germans and simply shot them without any judicial process. During the interview he showed the pistol he did it with.

So the above UL's sound quite plausible.
 
I don't believe the agent. My father in law was in 'field security' in Germany in 1946, essentially rounding up Nazis. It was not quite as exciting as it sounds - there was never any shooting - but there was plenty to do.

The small fry did not face Nuremburg, but they all faced the law ultimately; anyone who had done anything against British prisoners would certainly have been on the list. I don't believe that such 'secret agents' would have been tolerated.
 
There was a book about the history of atrocity stories and black propaganda, I will look around and see if I can find it.
The important thing about any atrocity story is that it has to be both dastardly and somehow bizarre in order to be memorable. Things like throwing babies onto bayonets, or disguising land mines as teddy bears or other toys, or poisoned candy or wine left lying around, stuff like that.
 
We know for a fact that atrocities occur. I'd suggest they shift into the realm of folklore only really when those actions, normally the work of a minority, are then used to define an entire body of men.

dreeness said:
The important thing about any atrocity story is that it has to be both dastardly and somehow bizarre in order to be memorable. Things like throwing babies onto bayonets, or disguising land mines as teddy bears or other toys, or poisoned candy or wine left lying around, stuff like that.
Click to expand...

Dastardly and bizarre does not necessarily mean untrue. I think it's probably just as dangerous to immediately write off a story because it appears outlandish or it makes us feel uncomfortable about the human potential for calculated violence as it is to accept it as the truth without question.

My brother, serving as a Royal Engineer in Bosnia had to carry incinerated Muslim babies out of locked cellars where they had been burned alive with their tied-up and tortured parents. He had to use a shovel. He could probably prove this as somewhere in MOD archives is video footage of him doing it - to be shown to reservists before leaving the UK in order to let them know what they were in for. I don't see much difference between burning children in basements and throwing them onto bayonets.

War is dastardly and bizarre - there's probably not much we can make up to make it appear more so.
 
Here's a scan of a 17thc. document allegedly depicting atrocities in Ireland in 1641:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/ ... /irish.jpg

Note, in panel X, we have the classic "skewered baby".

I took this from Charles Carlton's Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars, 1638-51 (London 1992, ISBN 0-415-03282-2). (Maddeningly, he doesn't give the actual source of the document, i.e. Short Title Catalogue number) Permit me to quote a bit from Carlton...

Historians have long debated the nature of the civil war and its causes...The comparative absence of an ideological commitment meant that the civil war was fought in England between Englishmen, at least, with remarkably few atrocities on either side. Propagandists made the most of the abuses they could discover, and were not above inventing more when none could be found...Notwithstanding such sickening stories, the fighting in England, at least, was remarkably free from atrocities, largely because of the lack of ethnic or ideological differences. Conversely, the presence of such distinctions helps explain the appalling treatment of Irish prisoners captured in England and Scotland.
Click to expand...
(pp. 255, 260)

Panel J:
The Lord Blany forced to ride 14 miles wihout bridle or saddle to save his life, his Lady lodged in straw being allowed twice a day to relieve her and her children, [they] slew a kinsman of hers and hanged him up before her face [for] two days, telling her she must expect the same[,] to terrify her more.

Panel K:
Mr. Davenant and his wife [were]bound in their chaires, [while the rebels] stripped the two eldest children of seven years old roasted [them] upon spits before their parents' faces, cut their throat and after murdered him.

Panel L:
Arthur Robinson's daughter 14 years old, the rebels bound her arms abroad, deflowered her one after another, till they spoiled her, then pulled the hair from her head and cut out her tongue that she might not tell of their cruelty but she declared it by writing.

Panel M:
A Minister and his wife came to Dublin January 30 1641, left behind him some goods with a supposed friend, sent for them but could not be delivered unless her hor his wife came for them. She came and presently they hanged her up.

Panel W:
A woman mangled in so horrid a manner that it was not possible she should be known and after the villain washed his hands in herh blood, was taken by the troopers adjudged to be hanged, leaped off the ladder and hanged himself like a bloody tiger.

Panel X:
Companies of the rebels meeting with the English flying for their lives falling down before them crying for mercy thrust their [forks?] into their children's bellies and threw them into the water.

Panel Y:
George Ford hanged on a tree in his own ground, cut his flesh a-pieces, carrying it up and down, saying this is the flesh of one of the traitors against our Holy Father the Pope.

Panel Z:
A proclamation that neither English nor Irish should either sell or keep in their houses any powder upon the loss of goods and life, neither any arms whatsoever, except with a license and then but five pound at most at a shilling a pound.
 
Crucifixion?

In the version I previously knew, Banks was "crucified" in the heat of battle, against a wooden wall, either of a house or a barn or other outbuilding.

Banks had been firing at the Germans and he was taken out by six or seven German soldiers using their bayonets, who pinned him against the wall, stabbing him through the arms, legs and torso.

The effect was to leave Banks not only dead but at least temporarily held up against the wall by the bayonets, probably in something approaching a "spread-eagle" position.

British and Canadian witnesses may well have described this scene as a "crucifixion" but it would sure as heck have been stretching the truth well beyond the breaking point.

So if the above scenario is correct (in its general outlines), this was a totally legitimate military kill which violated absolutely no international protocols - then or now.

The same thing must have happened for centuries on both sides of any major military conflict. And the Allies in World War One were as well-trained and adept in the use of the bayonet as were the Germans.
 
OldTimeRadio said:
The same thing must have happened for centuries on both sides of any major military conflict. And the Allies in World War One were as well-trained and adept in the use of the bayonet as were the Germans.
Click to expand...

In fact I think the readiness of British troops to use bayonets was a particular fear for many German troops in both WW1 and WW2. It's generally considered that many soldiers have a visceral dislike of the bayonet and a reluctance to employ it for more than show - which is why bayonet training is so aggressive and noisy, certainly in the British Army. I think it was commonly held that Brits, Aussies and New Zealanders were far more up for the use of cold steel than their allies or their enemies. And of course many colonial troops, like Sikhs and Ghurkas had a religious attachment to the blade.

I believe the commonly held reason for this is that the British Army had a tradition of fighting colonial wars which saw its soldiers, as often as not, outnumbered, with poor lines of communication and very limited ammunition, fighting enemies who had no compunction in using edged weapons and whose traditional method of combat was up close and personal. In such circumstances proper training in the use of edged weapons would be essential and any reluctance to use that training fatal.

I've seen a couple of books on the history of the bayonet and its use, one written by an American if I recall correctly, from which the above information has stuck in my head.

Leaferne - I read Civil War. The War of the Three Kingdoms 1638-1660 by Trevor Royle over the summer. Best book I’ve read on the British Civil Wars. Royle mentions atrocity against troops and non-combatants - although I think he casts doubt on some of the individual cases while asserting that atrocity did undoubtedly occur, which is kind of similar to the WW1 stories. Interestingly, and other historians appear to agree with him, despite their chivalrous devil-may-care portrayal in popular culture it appears to be the Royalists who were most prone to commit atrocity.
 
I think Robert Graves touched on the crucifiction of the Canadion soldier in his autobiography (Goodbye to all that). It was used as an excuse for Canadian soliders to kill German prisoners of war.

As to how reliable Graves' was in his memoir is difficult to say.
 
I'm going to have to rattle around in my memory to dredge up where I've read it but I'm sure there is a similar story from WW2, also involving Canadian troops.

IIRC this story has it that at some point not long after D-Day Canadian POWs were murdered by Hitler Youth. Consequently the Canadians inspired higher levels of fear among the Axis forces on that front because they stopped taking SS and Hitler Youth prisoners.

Of course it may well be true - or it could possibly be another myth completely independent of the WW1 story. What's just struck me though is the possibility that the WW2 story is an echo of the earlier one, updated and adapted to suit the situation on that particular battlefield.
 
Are there any attrocity stories about British troops in WWI?

My grandad was in Cairo in the war and he says that an Australian regiment machine gunned passengers off the roof of a train in the 40s. He says it was in retaliation for an ozzie who was stabbed in the market.
 
boynamedsue said:
Are there any attrocity stories about British troops in WWI?
Click to expand...

I'm sure there must be - it would be interesting to see what a German response to that question might be.

I remember a few years back seeing one of the Old Contemptibles (Regular Army veterans of 1914) interviewed. He said something along the following lines - Many of his comrades were heroes, some were murderers. The murderers could be heroes too - although some of the murderers were just murderers.

He had no compunction in admitting that some of his comrades liked the killing bit of their job a little too much although he did say it was a tiny minority who were not held in high regard by their fellow soldiers but who were tolerated because their aggression was highly valued.
 
Again back to Graves. He does mention at least one atrocity committed by Commonwealth troops, a beheading of a German soldier in return for food (I think - its a long time since I read the book). He also touches on crucifiction as a field punishment (victim strapped to a wagon-wheel).

He also touches on the Angels of Mons, and while he wasn't there he mentions one eyewitness who refutes the whole account.
 
Spookdaddy said:
I'm going to have to rattle around in my memory to dredge up where I've read it but I'm sure there is a similar story from WW2, also involving Canadian troops.

IIRC this story has it that at some point not long after D-Day Canadian POWs were murdered by Hitler Youth. Consequently the Canadians inspired higher levels of fear among the Axis forces on that front because they stopped taking SS and Hitler Youth prisoners.
Click to expand...

As many as 150 Canadian prisoners were killed in Normandy, mostly by the 12th SS Panzer (Hitlerjugend) Division.

The twenty-three Canadians captured by the Germans in Authie suffered a horrific fate that foreshadowed future atrocities at the hands of the SS troops. At the main intersection (at the southern end of the village) Canadian soldiers were disarmed, told to remove their helmets, and shot at close range. The young German troops further insulted the Canadian lives they had taken. In one incident, some German soldiers propped up the corpse of a murdered Canadian, placed an old hat on his head, and stuffed a cigarette box into his mouth. In another situation, eight of the lifeless Canadian bodies were unceremoniously dragged onto the street where they were repeatly mutilated by passing tanks, trucks and armoured vehicles.
Click to expand...

http://grad.usask.ca/gateway/archive9.html
 
Thanks for that Naitaka. I spent a fruitless hour trawling through my bookshelves trying to find a source. I have a feeling I read about it in Time to Kill - The Soldiers Experience of War in the West, which is a very interesting collection of articles by various military historians - but that particular book is buried in a box somewhere.
 
Here are some ones from WW1, no technical crucifixions, but a few come fairly close:

http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_ ... ity_00.htm

As far as anti-British atrocity stories, there were a few lurid tales from the Boer War, British soldiers merrily kicking the bejeebers out of pregnant women in concentration camps, there were newspaper drawings much similar to the gallery linked above, similar themes of bestial yet imaginative depravity. Whether there was any truth to any of it isn't really the point of propaganda, it's really just the background music of war, the pure Self, the faceless sinister Enemy, stuff like that.
 
Quake42 said:
Did anyone see this on C4 at the weekend? I must confess I only caught the last half or so but it dealt with rumours of German atrocities in WWI which generally been dismissed as fantasy/urban legends.

Surprisingly, however, the documentary concluded that there was in fact evidence that a soldier was crucified and that even the most outlandish claims of German atrocities (notably, the bayoneted baby) may have been based on real events.

Disappointingly there wasn't much on the C4 website but some stuff from wikipedia here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Banks
Click to expand...

I saw this programme about 6 mths. ago...

For further info, check out:

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8270
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top