"Not a publishable cas"

[SmallTownGirl]

Whilst looking for something else, I stumbled across a casualty list from 1944 where some of the soldiers who had previously been interred in Sweden are marked as "Not a publishable cas" and I wondered why.

Can anyone explain, please?

Thanks
STG

PS: I'm assuming that "cas" is short for casualty.

[tonepad]

They were Interned in Sweden not Interred.
They were prisoners in Sweden not deceased casualties.


Tony

[SmallTownGirl]

They were Interned in Sweden not Interred.
They were prisoners in Sweden not deceased casualties.


Tony

Sorry for the typo (interned, not interred), but that aside, I'm still interested to know why their details were "not publishable".

[haliared]

I have family who were reported as casualties in the newspapers. Maybe it means not to be published in the press?

[GrahamSimons]

It might be that there were security reasons. I've been following a big WW2 cover-up where details weren't released - ostensibly for security reasons but in that case it was (also?) to cover up incompetence. So it might be interesting to work out why they had ended up in Sweden.....

[SmallTownGirl]

The Leicesters were in Norway in 1940 but overrun by the Germans. Some got to the coast and escaped, others fled to Sweden where they were interned until repatriated. I haven't seen any others noted as "not a publishable cas.", so I can't work out what was different for these men.

STG

[tonepad]

The soldiers were in the Norway Campaign in 1940:

1/5th Battalion, Leicestershire Regiment: Part of the 148th Infantry Brigade that landed at Åndalsnes.

1/8th Battalion, Sherwood Foresters: Also part of the 148th Infantry Brigade.

1st Battalion, York and Lancaster Regiment: Fought in the Battle for Kvam alongside the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry.


The British campaign was unsuccessful, so if the men had escaped to neutral Sweden, in theory they should have remained interned until the end of the war in 1945.

Why were they reported no longer interned in 1944?

An unsuccessful campaign and involvement with a neutral power and perhaps early repatriation may be reasons for "Not a publishable cas".


Tony

[alan o]

I think you are reading too much into this - they were literally not casualties but interned.  So their names were not published on any casualty list.  I assume they were missing in action in Norway and it took time until their MIA status changed to interned.  In the time it took them to get to Sweden and the their names to be sent back to UK by the Red Cross they would be listed as MIA as there was no confirmation of their deaths.

[GrahamSimons]

Further to this, in military teminology casualty didn't necessarily mean an injury. It might be a posting or a transfer with no injury at all.