DIVIDED VIEWS

Wairarapa Times-Age, 14 October 1942, Page 4

DIVIDED VIEWS

ON REPRISAL FETTERING OF PRISONERS

REPORTED IN CANADA. OPPOSITION TO CONTEST IN BRUTALITY. (By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright) (Received This Day, 11.25 a.m.) NEW YORK, October 13. Differences of opinion are running strongly in Canada regarding the wisdom of reprisal for the fettering of prisoners, says the “New York Times” Ottawa correspondent. Some argue that it is a sign of utter weakness not to retaliate, pointing out that the Allies played gently with the Germans at the beginning of the war, with disastrous results. The opposite view is expressed by the Toronto “Globe-Mail,” which opposes entering a contest in brutality which we cannat win. It says: “Savagery in cold blood is the most demoralising influence on earth. If we practise it on the excuse of retributive justice, we shall have cause for regret.” This view is held in many quarters. The argument is complicated by the fact that all the military prisoners held in Canada are prisoners captured by the British, and also that the decision to fetter them was made in London. It is a pity that the London decision on policy runs counter to the Canadian, but such seems to be the case. Certain groups even blame the British military authorities and Government for the situation rather than the Nazis. Thus it is felt that in creating the possibility of such a conflict of opinion, Hitler has scored a success.

SOLEMN PROTEST

MADE THROUGH PROTECTING POWER. STATEMENT BY MR CHURCHILL. (British Official Wireless.) (Received This Day, 9.50 a.m.) RUGBY, October 13. Referring to the chaining of British prisoners of war by Germany, Mr Churchill, in the House of Commons, said the British Government had never countenanced any general order for the tying up of prisoners on the field of battle. ‘’Such a process,” he said, “may be necessary from time to time in the stress of circumstances, and may, indeed, be in the best interests of the safety of prisoners themselves. The Geneva Convention, on the treatment of prisoners of war, does not attempt to regulate what happens during the actual fighting. It is confined solely to the treatment of prisoners who have been securely captured, and are in the responsible charge of a hostile government. Both the British and German Governments are bound by this convention. The German Government, by throwing into chains 1376 British prisoners, for whose proper treatment it was responsible, violated Article 2 of the convention. They thus are attempting to use prisoners of war as if they were hostages, upon whom reprisals can be taken for occurrences on the field of battle, with which the said prisoners could have had nothing to do. The action of the German Government has affronted the sanctity of the Geneva Convention, which the British Government always is anxious to observe punctiliously. Therefore it has approached the protecting power and invited that power to lay before the German Government our solemn protest against this breach of the Geneva Convention, and to urge it to desist from it, in which case the counter-measures of a similar character which the British Government felt itself forced to take in order to protect prisoners of war in enemy hands, will immediately be withdrawn.”

Mr Churchill added: “Until we learn from the protecting power the results of the protest, I have no further statement to make, and would strongly deprecate any discussion which might be prejudicial to the action of the protecting power, and consequently, the interests of the prisoners of war of both belligerent countries. As soon as a reply is received a further statement will be made to the House.”