Post by rsm2ndbtnlf on May 5, 2008 20:36:05 GMT -8
Gentlemen,
We all have a great interest in the Great War period of 1914-1918... For that period, we all prefer to reenact a certain battalion from whatever side. With that in mind, our main interest is in getting to grips (historically and authentically) with our counterparts on the opposite side of 'No-Mans-Land'.
As individuals, we carry out the relevant research inline with our intended personal impression, then refine such as is required for a more historically acurate view.
However, have any of us bothered to look into the other side of our impression... that of chivalry and gentlemanly conduct towards our enemies wounded and prisoners. Not only that area, but the general conduct to other combatants and their satalite arms and formations? What I am refering to are the rules governing the 'Geneva Convention'.
Contary to what one may think is true, not all nations have, even in these modern times, justified the Geneva Convension. Just prior to the Great War, only thirty-five nations had signed the charter signifying acceptance. Great Britain signed in 1907.
During our April 'Ozena' event, I was asked by one of our members (sorry, I've forgotten whom it was) a question in reference to the Geneva Convention. At the time, I could not give an honest and factual answer, as the question did not really register, for its a subject that not even I have given that much thought about.
Since coming home from the event, I have delved into my original documents for some form of answer.
At the time of the Great War, the Geneva Convention was still in its infancy, and under regular review and amendment. Upon reading a British Army manual: Royal Army Medical Corps Training, War Office-1911 (reprinted with amendments: 1914)... I came across a very interesting section refering to the Geneva Convention.
Chapter XIX, page: 190, Para: 361:-
..."The Geneva Convention of July 6th 1906, takes the place of the Geneva Convention of August 22nd 1864, in wars between Powers that are signatory to it. But should either of the belligerent Powers have not yet ratified the former, then the latter remains in force; it is, therefore, necessary at present to have a knowledge of both conventions. Twenty-seven out of the Thirty-five Powers, whose representatives signed the Convention of 1906, had ratified it by the end of March 1911. Great Britain ratified it on 16th April 1907."...
What was happening in effect, was that there were two Geneva Conventions in place at the same time. What we today take for granted, was not actually in place at the time of the Great War. The said manual gives the salient points from both conventions. There are some very interesting points which become apparent when one compares each with its counterpart. One particular article from the convention of 1864 is quite worrying when compared in respect of the treatment of medical staff today...
..."Ambulances and military hospitals shall be acknowledged to be neutral, and, as such, shall be protected and respected by belligerants so long as any sick or wounded may be therein. Such neutrality shall cease if the ambulances or hospitals should be held by a military force"...
Hmm.. it seems that from the above, if one was a medical orderly of a military force, and one had no-one to care for... one was in very deep doo-doos!
Seph
We all have a great interest in the Great War period of 1914-1918... For that period, we all prefer to reenact a certain battalion from whatever side. With that in mind, our main interest is in getting to grips (historically and authentically) with our counterparts on the opposite side of 'No-Mans-Land'.
As individuals, we carry out the relevant research inline with our intended personal impression, then refine such as is required for a more historically acurate view.
However, have any of us bothered to look into the other side of our impression... that of chivalry and gentlemanly conduct towards our enemies wounded and prisoners. Not only that area, but the general conduct to other combatants and their satalite arms and formations? What I am refering to are the rules governing the 'Geneva Convention'.
Contary to what one may think is true, not all nations have, even in these modern times, justified the Geneva Convension. Just prior to the Great War, only thirty-five nations had signed the charter signifying acceptance. Great Britain signed in 1907.
During our April 'Ozena' event, I was asked by one of our members (sorry, I've forgotten whom it was) a question in reference to the Geneva Convention. At the time, I could not give an honest and factual answer, as the question did not really register, for its a subject that not even I have given that much thought about.
Since coming home from the event, I have delved into my original documents for some form of answer.
At the time of the Great War, the Geneva Convention was still in its infancy, and under regular review and amendment. Upon reading a British Army manual: Royal Army Medical Corps Training, War Office-1911 (reprinted with amendments: 1914)... I came across a very interesting section refering to the Geneva Convention.
Chapter XIX, page: 190, Para: 361:-
..."The Geneva Convention of July 6th 1906, takes the place of the Geneva Convention of August 22nd 1864, in wars between Powers that are signatory to it. But should either of the belligerent Powers have not yet ratified the former, then the latter remains in force; it is, therefore, necessary at present to have a knowledge of both conventions. Twenty-seven out of the Thirty-five Powers, whose representatives signed the Convention of 1906, had ratified it by the end of March 1911. Great Britain ratified it on 16th April 1907."...
What was happening in effect, was that there were two Geneva Conventions in place at the same time. What we today take for granted, was not actually in place at the time of the Great War. The said manual gives the salient points from both conventions. There are some very interesting points which become apparent when one compares each with its counterpart. One particular article from the convention of 1864 is quite worrying when compared in respect of the treatment of medical staff today...
..."Ambulances and military hospitals shall be acknowledged to be neutral, and, as such, shall be protected and respected by belligerants so long as any sick or wounded may be therein. Such neutrality shall cease if the ambulances or hospitals should be held by a military force"...
Hmm.. it seems that from the above, if one was a medical orderly of a military force, and one had no-one to care for... one was in very deep doo-doos!
Seph
