Italian prisoners of war had a somewhat higher status on the Three Peaks front than Russian and Serbian prisoners, as they could provide precise knowledge about the position and situation of enemy positions. They were thus subjected to several interrogations, strictly guarded and transported to prison camps in the rear. One of these examples is mentioned in the diary of the 59th infantry regiment “Erzherzog Rainer”, which tells of the capture of some Italian prisoners during a patrol on February 21, 1916: “Later [the patrol] advanced further and captured two prisoners behind the rock where the Italians had arrived during the night, half frozen to death. They spent all night and all day behind this rock. They belong to the 5th Baon of the 8th Bersaglieri Regiment, 2nd Company. They claim that there were only 15 men under the command of a lieutenant, sent forward from Forcella Cengia [Buellejoch] against our position. An offensive by the Italians was supposed to take place in early March. The patrol took the rifles and documents of the dead and then went back […] The prisoners were interrogated that evening and transported to Wildbad.”1Kriegsarchiv Wien, Kriegstagebuch des Infanterieregiments 59, Eintrag vom 21. Februar 1916, p. 170f.
The soldiers of the Imperial and Royal Army had to take an oath in order to ensure that any declarations in case of capture would not damage the war operations, which, according to a report of August 16, 1916, had already happened frequently. An order on the “duty of silence for prisoners” read: “Therefore, soldiers taken prisoner must refuse to answer all questions put to them during interrogation or at least answer consistently: ‘I don’t know.’ Such manly behavior will inspire respect even to the enemy.”2Tiroler Landesarchiv, Standschützen Baon Innsbruck I 1914-1918, Faszikel V, K.u.k. Korpskommando G.d.J.v. Roth, Nr. 2516/7, Schweigepflicht für Gefangene (Abschrift), Feldpost 514, 16. August 1916. In the event that the Austro-Hungarian soldiers in captivity had nevertheless acted contrary to this order, it added: “The army must also be instructed that our secret services have at their disposal ways and means of informing in detail of their conduct in captivity; that therefore all those who help the enemy by their statements or in any other way will be condemned with the most severe punishments after the war.”3Tiroler Landesarchiv, Standschützen Baon Innsbruck I 1914-1918, Faszikel V, K.u.k. Korpskommando G.d.J.v. Roth, Nr. 2516/7, Schweigepflicht für Gefangene (Abschrift), Feldpost 514, 16. August 1916.
It was strictly forbidden to bring personal notes such as diaries to the front or on patrol, which could also provide an insight into the situation and position of their troops in case of capture. The command of the Italian army also threatened its soldiers with severe punishment if important information for the war effort reached the opposing side during their capture. A young Italian infantryman imprisoned by the Austrians was sentenced in absentia by a military court to 15 years imprisonment for revealing essential information through his diary notes. The sentence reads: “On 1 October 1915 the ‘Innsbrücker Nachrichten’ reported from the ‘Tiroler Soldaten Zeitung’ a long article entitled Aus dem Tagebuch eines ital. Gefangenen vom IR 91 (From the Diary of an Italian Prisoner from IR 91). At the end, as the said newspaper wrote, to cast an interesting look at the conditions and spirit of the Italian army. […] Moreover, it is also to remember that the latter actually took part, with other soldiers, in a night reconnaissance of the access roads of Cima Frugnoni, a reconnaissance that he then described in detail in his diary, which at this point closes. Now, if you think that of the soldiers who made up the patrol, only 3 returned back and perhaps took part in the combat action of October 6 at Cima Frugnoni, during which the T. was taken prisoner, it is immediately clear how the latter was actually the author of the published diary […]. Therefore, if the soldier, in participating in a combat action, wears, without justified reason, cards or documents reflecting the political or military situation of the State, and if these cards are, because of imprisonment, in the power of the enemy, who uses them for his particular purposes, the military must respond to violation of art. 74 of the Penal Code for the army, for having provided the enemy, with his deplorable imprudence, with information harmful to the State”.4Archivio Centrale dello Stato, Tribunali Militari, Tribunale Supremo Militare, Atti diversi, b. condanne gravi, sent. 41.
Kriegsarchiv Wien, Kriegstagebuch des Infanterieregiments 59, Eintrag vom 21. Februar 1916, S. 170f.
Tiroles Landesarchiv, Standschützen Baon Innsbruck I 1914-1918, Faszikel V, K.u.k. Korpskommando G.d.J.v. Roth, Nr. 2516/7, Schweigepflicht für Gefangene (Abschrift), Feldpost 514, 16. August 1916.
Archivio Centrale dello Stato, Tribunali Militari, Tribunale Supremo Militare, Atti diversi, b. condanne gravi, sent. 41.
Treatment of prisoners of war
International norms on the treatment of prisoners of war had already been established in the Hague Conventions on Land War adopted in 1899 and 1907, according to which captured soldiers were no longer to be considered enemies but to be treated “humanely”. Although prisoners could be employed as labor, they could not be engaged in activities directly related to “the war effort.”5Convention on the Laws and Customs of Warfare on Land [Hague Convention], 18 October 1907. During the war, in almost all belligerent states the demand for labor was high and could no longer be met by their own troops and civilian population. Even the binding rules for the protection of prisoners of war were therefore largely disregarded and all the necessary human resources were made available to the war effort in an increasingly all-encompassing war.
Russian and Serbian prisoners of war from the Eastern Front were increasingly employed on the Dolomite front. In the Schusterhütte camp on the Three Peaks front, prisoners of war were housed and employed for various tasks, as described in a report dated November 12, 1916: “The part of detachment 41 a that remains here today is still composed of 101 men. Of these, 18 were employed intensively in the field itself for a long time (cooks, professionals, etc., from the Russian facilities for health services, purification, including ancillary services and the military hospital). The remaining 83 men have so far been charged with cutting wood (preparing firewood for the entire Combat Sector) and transport services (transporting provisions and wood to forward positions).”6Tiroler Landesarchiv, Standschützen Baon Innsbruck I 1914-1918, Faszikel IV, Lagerkommando Schusterhütte Nr. 1474, Verwendung der bei der Schusterhütte bequartierten Russen, Feldpost 226, 12. November 1916. The report complains that for a few weeks 40 prisoners had been employed for the construction of the cable car in Val Campo di Dentro/Innerfeld and that, since this important workforce was taken away from other tasks, the manningof positions suffered. This example demonstrates the importance of the prisoners in the meantime and their use at the front.
Therefore, it was necessary to detain these workers for a longer period of time and, if necessary, use force ruthlessly. An order from the district command reports an incident consisting of the sabotage by Serbian prisoners of war of a transport of ammunition to the highest positions, adding that the escort and the commanding officer had been “powerless in the face of this initiative”. Field Marshal Ludwig Goiginger reacted by issuing the following order: “It is again ordered that prisoners of war be shot down on the spot in case of minimal refusal. All escort teams must be instructed in detail. The commanders of prisoner detachments must exert all their influence to ensure that the strictest discipline prevails.”7Tiroler Landesarchiv, Standschützen Baon Innsbruck I 1914-1918, Faszikel V, Rayons- zugleich Divisions-Kommando-Befehl Nr. 66, Feldpost 601, 24. März 1916. So that their own troops would not hesitate too much in treating violently prisoners of war, examples were given of cruel treatment of Austrian soldiers taken prisoner by the Serbs. This was a common propaganda tool used to accuse the enemy of inhumanity and barbarism and to justify its methods: “The AOK [Armeeoberkommando, the Austro-Hungarian Supreme Command] is therefore obliged to order that in the treatment of Serbian prisoners of war employed in the field by the army a draconian severity be applied within the framework of the applicable laws and that all human consideration be set aside. People must be forced to work by the harshest means, if necessary with physical punishment.”8Tiroler Landesarchiv, Standschützen Baon Innsbruck I 1914-1918, Faszikel V, Rayons- zugleich Divisions-Kommando-Befehl Nr. 66, Feldpost 601, 24. März 1916. Even troops who did not comply with the order received severe punishments. Actions and orders contrary to international law are evident in this order of the highest authority: “Every man must know that humanity means weakness in the face of such enemies. Desertions of prisoners must cease once and for all. Fear of the consequences should discourage them. Therefore, never hesitate to bring examples.”9Tiroler Landesarchiv, Standschützen Baon Innsbruck I 1914-1918, Faszikel V, Rayons- zugleich Divisions-Kommando-Befehl Nr. 66, Feldpost 601, 24. März 1916.
Convention on the Laws and Customs of Warfare on Land [Hague Convention], 18 October 1907.
Tiroler Landesarchiv, Standschützen Baon Innsbruck I 1914-1918, Faszikel IV, Lagerkommando Schusterhütte Nr. 1474, Verwendung der bei der Schusterhütte bequartierten Russen, Feldpost 226, 12. November 1916.
Tiroler Landesarchiv, S, Standschützen Baon Innsbruck I 1914-1918, Faszikel V, Rayons- zugleich Divisions-Kommando-Befehl Nr. 66, Feldpost 601, 24. März 1916.
- Photos
- Documents