NAZI PRISONERS SHACKLED

Southland Times, Issue 24872, 12 October 1942, Page 5

NAZI PRISONERS SHACKLED

BRITISH RETALIATION (Rec. 7 p.m.) LONDON, October 10. The Evening Standard reports that 107 German officers and 1269 men were put in handcuffs at noon today in retaliation for the shackling by the Germans of a similar number of prisoners captured in the Dieppe raid. The Daily Mail says Britain is maintaining close contact with Canada. Mr Churchill personally telephoned the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr W. L. Mackenzie King. A large proportion of German prisoners, including members of the Africa Corps, are interned in Canada. It is learned in London that the Swiss representatives have not received instructions from Berne to investigate the conditions of German prisoners held in Britain nor to interrogate them. Meanwhile, Italy and Germany are flooding the world with talk of reprisals. The Daily Mail points out that German efforts to secure a labour force of 150,000 from France has failed. If a considerable proportion of the 90,000 British prisoners in Germany could be used most of the Germans’ desired labour force would be made up. . The launching of reprisals against prisoners may, therefore, be plaimed to incite Britain to serious retaliation, which could be used to prove that all international restrictions on the use of captives have gone by the board. The diplomatic correspondent of The Times says that the Italian announcement strongly suggests that reprisal

measures were prepared well in advance and concerted between the senior and junior Axis partners. The enemy’s attitude defies normal standards of analysis. Seldom has the ruthlessness and evil force against which we are fighting more clearly shown its face. ANGER IN CANADA The Ottawa correspondent of The New York Times states that nothing in this war has so roused public anger as the German shackling of prisoners. Although it is not definitely known whether Canadians have been chained, the German statement specifically mentioned the Dieppe prisoners, most of whom are Canadians. It was hoped that the British threat of reprisals would deter the Nazis. Most Canadians refused to believe that any Government could impose unmerited punishment on defenceless persons, but now Canadian resentment is fully roused. The demand for reprisals has been universal and, despite its reluctance to break humane laws regarding the treatment of war prisoners, the Government had no alternative. So far only soldiers have been chained in Canada, the order not applying to air force or naval prisoners. In order that the true facts of the controversy about the tying of the hands of prisoners of war may be clearly put before the public, the following statement has been issued by the British Government:— “In the Dieppe raid an order was issued without authority to the effect that weherever possible the hands of prisoners of war should be bound so that they could not destroy their papers. On the complaint of the German Government the Wpr Office at once, before there had been time to make an inquiry, issued a statement that if any such order had been issued it would be countermanded, because it considered such an order might be held to imply that, irrespective of circumstances, the hands of prisoners of war should be bound. On inquires 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. GERMANS’ HANDS TIED “The raid on Sark was carried out by a party of 10 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 prisbners had to be taken past a German-occupied barracks on the way to the boats and precautions, therefore, were necessary. In spite of the precautions four of the five Germans broke away, shouting, and had to be shot to prevent their raising the alarm. “The Geneva 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 this differs according to circumstances. There is a wide difference between what is appropriate to a prisoner in safe custody and to a prisoner in course of battle. It is to be observed that the actions complained of by the German Government occurred during battle, but that they have themselves taken action to tie the hands of prisoners of war far removed from the battlefields as an act of reprisal. Acts of reprisal against prisoners of war are specifically forbidden by the Geneva Convention.” NAZI FEAR OF RAIDS Desire To Impose Check (8.0.W.) RUGBY, October 11. Commenting on the manacling of the Dieppe prisoners, The Manchester Guardian suggests that it is possible the Nazis hope to check our commando raids by these methods, but it is more likely that they are anxious, knowing the reputation they have gained, to spread abroad the impression that our methods are brutal and that their own conduct is not worse than ours. Authoritative circles, however, incline to the former view and consider that the commando and other raids have shaken the Germans severely. An Italian broadcast threat of reprisals against British prisoners of war for the Alleged shooting by Australians of a surrounded Italian working party in the Western Desert on September--30 is the subject of comment by the Australian Minister of the Army, Mr F. M. Forde, who states that no official report has been received to substantiate the allegations, but adds that he will have reasonable inquiries made.