British WWI captain released by Kaiser from German prison camp so he could see his dying mother in K - Polidicks

[img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/03/article-0-1B988B22000005DC-835_306x557.jpg[/img] [quote] Capt Robert Campbell was allowed to visit dying mother as long as he returned to PoW camp. He did LAST UPDATED AT 14:57 ON Wed 4 Sep 2013 IN 1916, a British army officer languishing in a German PoW camp learned that his mother was dying at her home in England. Captain Robert Campbell did what any sensible chap would do: he wrote to the Kaiser asking permission to pop home. Remarkably, Kaiser Wilhelm II agreed. The German leader wrote to Campbell granting him two weeks' leave to visit his stricken mother in Kent as long as he promised to return to the Magdeburg prison camp. The only guarantee the Kaiser asked for was Captain Campbell's word as an army officer, reports The Times. Campbell honoured his pledge. After arriving in England on 7 December, 1916, he spent a week with his mother at his family home in Gravesend. Afterwards, he dutifully returned to Magdeburg and resumed his life as a PoW. His mother died of cancer in February the following year. [/quote] Read more: [url]http://www.theweek.co.uk/europe/54966/how-kaiser-gave-wwi-prisoner-permission-pop-home-uk#ixzz2dwHclwqf[/url] That was nice

WW1 was pretty odd when it comes to the subject of PoW's. Some captured officers and high-ranking soldiers would get paid for doing work in the trenches by the Germans if they behaved good enough.

Wait, british WORLD WAR 1 captain returned to see his MOTHER? how old was she? oh im dumb

[IMG]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-unsmith.gif[/IMG] [QUOTE=Lurklet;42076531]Wait, british WORLD WAR 1 captain returned to see his MOTHER? how old was she?[/QUOTE] This isn't recent news, it's from 1916.

[QUOTE=ashton93;42076528]WW1 was pretty odd when it comes to the subject of PoW's. Some captured officers and high-ranking soldiers would get paid for doing work in the trenches by the Germans if they behaved good enough.[/QUOTE] War is no excuse for inhumanity

my history skills aren't all that great, but afaik: it was ww1 that showed that war is hell before that there was a gentleman's war shit going on and in ww1 it still clashed with what the world was becoming, with crazy destructive weapons and all.

The Kaiser was probably trying to show that the Germans weren't the "rabid dogs" which Britain and France tried to portay at the time to get America onside.

[QUOTE=Ezhik;42076579]my history skills aren't all that great, but afaik: it was ww1 that showed that war is hell before that there was a gentleman's war shit going on and in ww1 it still clashed with what the world was becoming, with crazy destructive weapons and all.[/QUOTE] I see World War I as the birth of modern times. And what a violent birth it was. It completely turned around which direction the world was going toward to what happened instead - WWII, Cold War, and 'War on Terror'.

[QUOTE=Ezhik;42076579]my history skills aren't all that great, but afaik: it was ww1 that showed that war is hell before that there was a gentleman's war shit going on and in ww1 it still clashed with what the world was becoming, with crazy destructive weapons and all.[/QUOTE] It's because before WWI wars were comparatively quite small. Sure you had shit like the 30 Years War and blood revolutions but they were often romanticised with stories of brave men heading off to fight for what was right. WWI was millions of boys and young men, who were brought up on heroic war stories, being slaughtered by the thousands every day. If you didn't get shot you had the risk of infection, trench foot, being hit by shrapnel, stepping on a mine, or if you were incredibly unlucky you could get caught in a mustard gas attack. There's a reason the most common description of the war was like hell, and that many described hell as being like war.

WW1 also had a lot of random acts of compassion, like the Christmas Truce.

Is it stated anywhere that the temporary freedom didn't come with a 'By the way, if you don't show up, the rest of your POW company is on mine-clearing duty' guarantee? The notion of WW1 as a romantic, 'civilized' war is largely a discredited myth.

[QUOTE=The mouse;42076632]The Kaiser was probably trying to show that the Germans weren't the "rabid dogs" which Britain and France tried to portay at the time to get America onside.[/QUOTE] In addition: In the same way that the good captain said he returned because he knew no-one else would be let go if he absconded, I think the Germans might have been trying to secure the same sort of treatment from their enemies - notably, nothing like this happened again after the British refused to let a German officer go home on compassionate grounds.

To be honest, he probably went back because he realized he would of very likely died going back to the trenches, whether it was gas, going into no mans land, artillery or a sniper.

This seems like a scene from the show ''Allo 'Allo!', why the hell would he return?

[QUOTE=Siduron;42078002]This seems like a scene from the show ''Allo 'Allo!', why the hell would he return?[/QUOTE] He gave his word as an officer. That shit means a lot to some people.

[QUOTE=Siduron;42078002]This seems like a scene from the show ''Allo 'Allo!', why the hell would he return?[/QUOTE] Honor and Pride.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42078034]He gave his word as an officer. That shit means a lot to some people.[/QUOTE] They might have threatened to kill his friends if he didn't return or something.

[QUOTE=catbarf;42077451]Is it stated anywhere that the temporary freedom didn't come with a 'By the way, if you don't show up, the rest of your POW company is on mine-clearing duty' guarantee? The notion of WW1 as a romantic, 'civilized' war is largely a discredited myth.[/QUOTE] [quote]"Captain Campbell was an officer and he made a promise on his honour to go back," said van Emden. "Had he not turned up, there would not have been any retribution on other prisoners. [/quote]

[QUOTE=blehblehbleh;42078464]They might have threatened to kill his friends if he didn't return or something.[/QUOTE] No really. Back then honor actually meant something to people, now they just do shit whenever they can because they can.

[QUOTE=Siduron;42078002]This seems like a scene from the show ''Allo 'Allo!', why the hell would he return?[/QUOTE] Keeping to his word.

i mean if anything showed how radically the war changed our perseption of war, the Christmas truce of 1914 was probably the last of these great "gentlemenly" touches, after that there wasn't any more truces or cease fires regardless of the time

the really sad part about WWI though, is we still cannot come up with any real reason for why it was necessary. WW2, ya Fascism and Nazism are bad, Korea? stopped the commies look at south korea today, vietnam? (got me there) but we were sort of dragged there by the french. its just kinda weird by today's standards though, their perception of war was tightly controlled by the press of the time and each side's feeling of invicibility was probably bolstered by the decades of wars against tribals around the globe instead of with each other.

I thought Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated.

[QUOTE=lintz;42078723]I thought Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated.[/QUOTE] what

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;42078492]Dubious quote[/QUOTE] I'm not sure how much stock to put in what is told to the press. [QUOTE=Hans-Gunther 3.;42078493]Back then honor actually meant something to people, now they just do shit whenever they can because they can.[/QUOTE] That's some serious rose-tinted glasses if you're going to ignore the widespread massacre of native peoples, frequent refusal to accept surrender leading to execution of prisoners, and the use of weapons specifically designed to inflict pain and maim rather than kill (see: gas, land mines). The idea of 'honor' in the era of the First World War was a bullshit veneer of European civility fueled by long-out-of-date notions of romanticism that were only forcibly ended when it was impossible to ignore the brutal reality of war, primarily through front-line reporting and photographs. You want to talk about 'honor' in a war where civilians were hunted as opportunity targets by U-boats, Germany conspired in secret with Mexico to try to start a land invasion of an ostensibly neutral country, and the complaint to the US that shotguns caused horrific, crippling injuries was essentially met with 'deal with it'. The idea of a 'gentlemanly conflict' was left to rot in the trenches.

[QUOTE=catbarf;42078802] That's some serious rose-tinted glasses if you're going to ignore the widespread massacre of native peoples, frequent refusal to accept surrender leading to execution of prisoners, and the use of weapons specifically designed to inflict pain and maim rather than kill (see: gas, land mines). The idea of 'honor' in the era of the First World War was a bullshit veneer of European civility fueled by long-out-of-date notions of romanticism that were only forcibly ended when it was impossible to ignore the brutal reality of war, primarily through front-line reporting and photographs. You want to talk about 'honor' in a war where civilians were hunted as opportunity targets by U-boats, Germany conspired in secret with Mexico to try to start a land invasion of an ostensibly neutral country, and the complaint to the US that shotguns caused horrific, crippling injuries was essentially met with 'deal with it'. The idea of a 'gentlemanly conflict' was left to rot in the trenches.[/QUOTe] Ah I see we have a history literate among us

[QUOTE=catbarf;42078802]I'm not sure how much stock to put in what is told to the press. That's some serious rose-tinted glasses if you're going to ignore the widespread massacre of native peoples, frequent refusal to accept surrender leading to execution of prisoners, and the use of weapons specifically designed to inflict pain and maim rather than kill (see: gas, land mines). The idea of 'honor' in the era of the First World War was a bullshit veneer of European civility fueled by long-out-of-date notions of romanticism that were only forcibly ended when it was impossible to ignore the brutal reality of war, primarily through front-line reporting and photographs. You want to talk about 'honor' in a war where civilians were hunted as opportunity targets by U-boats, Germany conspired in secret with Mexico to try to start a land invasion of an ostensibly neutral country, and the complaint to the US that shotguns caused horrific, crippling injuries was essentially met with 'deal with it'. [B]The idea of a 'gentlemanly conflict' was left to rot in the trenches.[/B][/QUOTE] as it should be, because it doesn't exist, also don't forget that two of the reasons WW1 was "less hateful" than usual and had oddities like the christimas truce, it was because the majority of the people never understood knew why the hell they had to fight to begin with, plus it was mostly seen as pointless, also it was between europeans, try finding in history similiar things with europeans fighting others in africa or asia back in late 1800s - early 1900s, you can bet such things never happened.

[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;42078790]what[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Austria#Consequences[/url]

[QUOTE=lintz;42078723]I thought Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated.[/QUOTE] He's answering this guys question for anyone who got confused by the way [QUOTE=Sableye;42078666]the really sad part about WWI though, is we still cannot come up with any real reason for why it was necessary. WW2, ya Fascism and Nazism are bad, Korea? stopped the commies look at south korea today, vietnam? (got me there) but we were sort of dragged there by the french. its just kinda weird by today's standards though, their perception of war was tightly controlled by the press of the time and each side's feeling of invicibility was probably bolstered by the decades of wars against tribals around the globe instead of with each other.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=slamex;42078912]Ah I see we have a history literate among us[/QUOTE] How so? Most of the devices and tactics implemented during the war later went on to be banned under the Geneva conventions as acts against humans. What happened in the article was a random act of kindness which is just that - random this shit didn't occur regularly. This is not to discredit any kind acts during the war, although there are quite a few you need to keep in mind this is still an era where we used maces and bayonets for close range and sent men off to be literally mowed down and lit alight in droves. If any war in history effectively ended the concept of honor or valor, it sure as hell was World War 1.