BRITISH REPLY

Wairarapa Times-Age, 12 October 1942, Page 4

BRITISH REPLY

TO GERMAN ALLEGATIONS REGARDING TREATMENT OF PRISONERS. ITALIAN BROADCAST THREAT. (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, October 10. 11l order that the true facts of the controversy about tying the hands of prisoners of Avar may be clearly put before the public, the following statement has been issued by the British Government:

“lii 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 time to make an inquiry, issued a statement that if any such order had been issued it would be countermanded, because . they consider 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 3 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 were therefore necessary. In spite of the precautions, four of the five Germans broke away shouting and had to be shot to prevent them 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 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 a battle, but that they have 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 specially forbidden by the Geneva Convention.”

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 Army Minister, Mr Forde, who states that no official report has been received to substantiate the allegations, but adds that he will have reasonable inquiries made.

PUBLIC ANGER

ROUSED IN CANADA.

DEMAND FOR REPRISALS.

(By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright) NEW YORK, October 10.

The “New York Times” Ottawa correspondent states that nothing in this 'war has so roused public anger as the German shackling of prisoners. Though it is nut definitely known that Canadians have been chained, the German statement specifically mentioned the Dieppe prisoners, most of whom are Canadians.

ft was hoped that the British threat of reprisals would deter the Nazis, most Canadians refusing to believe that any Government could impose unmerited punishment on defenceless persons, but now that Canadian resentment is fully roused, the demand for reprisals has been universal, and, despite reluctance to break humane laws regarding the treatment of war prisoners, the Government had no alternative. Sc far only soldiers have been chained in Canada, the order not applying to air force and naval prisoners.