Mass murder after Tobruk

[Andy H]

In Ashley Jacksons book 'The British Empire and the Second World War' published in 2006, he states on Pg185

"In one horrific episode in 1942, 202 soldiers of 1823 Company (Royal Pioneer Corps) surrendered on the fall of Tobruk and were murdered by their captors"

He gives no further details as the statement along with others was used to define the sacrifices made by East African soldiers in WW2. The East Africans being divided between Kenya,Tanganyika,Uganda,Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland etc. Not sure of the ethnic make up of this particular company.

Most view the war in North Africa as 'clean'. Can anyone throw any light on this incident?

Regards

[phylo_roadking]

CY, only clean in the sense that very little was reported or recorded. There were a lot of incidents "recalled" in modern oral histories, like the big one the BBC did, where individual prisoners, ones and twos....didnt make it into the stockade. Both sides did it apparently - if youre a small group or section, and you have a couple of prisoners, and your supplies are short and you're retreating fast towards the Canal Zone or towards Benghazi....well, they took up YOUR water and food......one minute they were there, one minute they weren't. Very low-key stuff. "Who Sir, me Sir? I didn't have any prisoners Sir! Eh lads? Nope, see Sir? They didnt see any prisoners either Sir."

But 202 IS a biggie and if recorded there then am suprised nowhere else. Does the index point at his primary source for checking?

[nigelfe]

Anybody looked at the RPC's corps history published just before or just after they were amalgamated into RLC (incidentally they weren' 'Royal' in WW2).
Can you search the CWGC Roll of Honour by unit (or corps)? 202 deaths iin one unit in a very few days would be highly unusual for the PnrC.

[Andy H]

Hi Phylo

You are of course right about it not being 'clean' but if you asked the general military Joe which area of land warfare was 'clean' a fair majority would plumb for NA, it's just a general perception.

He gives no notage point and thus no specific source.

Hi niglefe

I've not seen a copy myself but I asked a friends friend, and he says he could find no reference to such an event.

Regards to both

[Commissar D, the Evil]

Interesting topic Cheshire, I'd be very pleased to see if you can turn up any more information on this incident.

Very Best,
David

[phylo_roadking]

Andy, cleaner yes in the sense that both sides would have accepted and did accept that this was done out of expediency - rather than malice or ideology. Like it or not there are times when the greater good of the greater number is a policy that will be actioned. In all theatres and in all times. I'm quite sure even now....

[Andy H]

Andy, cleaner yes in the sense that both sides would have accepted and did accept that this was done out of expediency - rather than malice or ideology. Like it or not there are times when the greater good of the greater number is a policy that will be actioned. In all theatres and in all times. I'm quite sure even now....

Phylo I'm agreeing with what you have specifically mentioned. I'm just stating a generalistic attitude or perception held by many. Anyway to the specific in hand

Regards

[nigelfe]

CY, only clean in the sense that very little was reported or recorded. There were a lot of incidents "recalled" in modern oral histories, like the big one the BBC did, where individual prisoners, ones and twos....didnt make it into the stockade. Both sides did it apparently - if youre a small group or section, and you have a couple of prisoners, and your supplies are short and you're retreating fast towards the Canal Zone or towards Benghazi....well, they took up YOUR water and food......one minute they were there, one minute they weren't. Very low-key stuff. "Who Sir, me Sir? I didn't have any prisoners Sir! Eh lads? Nope, see Sir? They didnt see any prisoners either Sir."

But 202 IS a biggie and if recorded there then am suprised nowhere else. Does the index point at his primary source for checking?

Of course this may or may not be true. Years after the event soldiers have been know to 'fess up to some unusual things (remember the paras 'killing argie pw'?) that on proper investigation prove to be somewhat short of evidence. Then there's the even wider one, 'everybody knows it happened because someone told them', and the first hand account is never found. It's always 'another coy', the 'bn next door', etc. In English this is called a rumour, and it's best to be a tad leery of rumour control.

It was, of course, totally unnecessary to kill PW while withdrawing, you just let them go, even in the desert they'll be picked up if the en are coming. These tales should not be given too much credence, and while I'd never say it never happened, the lack of reliable and properly verified information is somewhat sparse, which means treat with great caution.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Andy H.,

I have never heard of East Africans serving in the Western Desert.

However, Tobruk was then held by 2nd South African Division, and the South Africans had a Coloured (mixed race) pioneer unit known as the Cape Corps. I don't know if it served at Tobruk.

The first point of call should perhaps be the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which records all the Commonwealth dead and missing. If there were, indeed, a couple of hundred dead African pioneers, who were not highly motivated front line soldiers, then there is cause for some suspicion, especially as Tobruk was not bitterly contested on this occasion.

Cheers,

Sid.

[nigelfe]

I've been wondering about African soldiers in a UK unit, my first thought was that there was no great shortage of men for PnrC, they were those that did not meet the IQ and mental reqs for any other part of the army, their coys basically comprised either 'stable dullards' in armed coys, or 'unstable dullards' in unarmed coys. Of course some units also included aliens, including possibly european jews. The reason I don't totally reject Africans is because Basutos were recruited as muleteers for one the mtn arty regts that went to Italy and also composed a mixed HAA regt (mixed in this case being African & Brit soldiers not male and female). Of course these guys were well above the dullards in the PnrC coys, but its possible some Africans were recruited for labour, although if it doesn't get a mention in the RPC corps history I doubt it.

I'd have to look at the relative dates of the toos and fros in NA, but from what I vaguely remember of the dates I'm not sure that the port ever got properly into action the second time (ie when it was lost), without the port I'd guess that labour units weren't really needed. My basis for the port not operating is that no UK AA units seem to have been lost there (there was an AA Bde there in the first siege).

[sid guttridge]

Hi Guys,

There are only 146 known and 5 unknown members of the South African Army buried at Tobruk and none from East Africa.

As it is unlikely that any African bodies were repatriated, it seems unlikely that 202 Africans were massacred at Tobruk, unless there are other factors we don't know about.

Cheers,

Sid.

[joefraser]

hi
nigelfe wrote "It was, of course, totally unnecessary to kill PW while withdrawing, you just let them go, even in the desert they'll be picked up if the en are coming".
Now I have never served so I am asking for opinions here. If you kill a p.o.w. it's a war crime, 1,2 or 200 it makes no odds. I think everyone will agree. However the main arguement against just letting p.o.w.s go would be that they would be combatants again pretty soon, so you are left with a dilema.
Now there is a belief that the old 2 fingered salute came from British archers in the 100 years war ( I think, though it could be anytime we were fighting the French). Apparently this was because the French would cut these two fingers off any captured archers so they couldn't be used as combat troops.
So to the point of my post. If you had a batch of prisoners and instead of killing them you kneecapped them( or a similar, not life threatening, but incapacitating injury) and left them to be found easily, how would it be viewed?
I assume it would still be a war crime, but how do you think it would be viewed. ( And to cover all angles lets just assume none died, though I doubt it would happen).
No doubt, in this day and age, there would be plenty of cases of the victims on the winning side sueing for compensation (another result for the lawyers)

[Andy H]

I have never heard of East Africans serving in the Western Desert

Hi Sid

At its peak, East African numbers reached 230,000. By 1944 there were some 56 East African Pioneer companies, 6 East African RASC general transport companies serving in North Africa & The Levant alone.

The infrastructure & Logistical side of warfare isn't very 'sexy' and though we get OoB's for the 8th Army etc in NA, they rarely go beyond the fighting troops or front line troops in there detail. So I would agree with you that except for this one statement in this book I would assume the same, but given the logistics of any campaign its not impossible for them to be serving. Much like I believe Cypriot/Palestinian & Indian Pioneers served in France in 1940, and Greece in 1941.

The first point of call should perhaps be the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which records all the Commonwealth dead and missing.

Don't you need a name to search that database?

but its possible some Africans were recruited for labour, although if it doesn't get a mention in the RPC corps history I doubt it.

Hi Nigel

Well read my first paragraph in response to Sid.

In total , non white Africa provided over 1/2 a million soldiers for the British Army.
Some 16,500 West Africans, 30,000 East Africans and 36,000 (Coloured) South Afdricans served within the service arms of the British Army during the campaign in the Middle East.

The fact is that tens of thousands of black Africans served as Pioneers, the Corp history is either wrong or it doesn't mention there contribution in a way that is easily readable.

Ashley Jackson is like any author and he could make mistakes, but this guy specialises on this subject area, writing several detailed books about the contribution of Africa & Empire to the British war effort, and he's also a Fellow at Kings College London.

Fuller Bio here http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/sspp/defen ... ckson.html

Regards

[Reb]

Joe Fraser

Soldiers would be more likely to actually execute prisoners han "kneecap" them. Inflicting unnecessary pain is pretty gross. Killing prisoners is usually a problem in the midst of a rough scrap - not a thought out event.

the solution to the problem of burdensome prisoners from the legal perspective is called "parole." You get their names and IDs and formally parole them - they can not fight again until properly exchanged for other prisoners or parolees. (don't try that on the Ost Front)

At Gazala - just prior to Tobruk - the Germans simply released 600 Indian prisoners (3rd motor bde IIRC) because they had no water for them.

At Tobruk - Rommel turned down a request from white South Africans to be separated from black prisoners - he told them "you fought together" and it seemed wrong to him to separate them. I doubt he would have countenanced the murder of 200 men.

cheers
Reb

[Andy H]

I doubt he would have countenanced the murder of 200 men.

He may or may not of known, or it could have even have been carried out by Italians etc. I know nothing other than what was stated in the book.

As an aside there's a thread (that I started) looking at alleged warcrimes committed by 7th Panzer (under Rommel) in France during 1940, in the units section of this forum.

Regards