In accordance with your instructions and with reference to the article in the LondonTimesof February 7, stating the report of an exchanged British prisoner of war that two British prisoners at the detention camp at Güstrow, in Mecklenburg, had been bayonetted for smoking in a forbidden vicinity, and that one had died and the other was still in hospital, I have the honour to inform you that I visited the camp at Güstrow on February 12, 1916. I did not notify the camp authorities of my arrival. I was shown every courtesy and received every facility for speaking to the British prisoners out of earshot of the Germans. I talked with a large number of British non-commissioned officers and with some of the men, and all were unanimous on two points; first, that if such an occurrence as the one mentioned had taken place, they would certainly have heard of it; and, second, that they had heard of no such occurrence. I visited the lazaret, through which I was taken by a British N.C.O., who is an assistant in caring for the sick, and spoke to every British patient under treatment there, not one of whom could possibly have been suffering from a bayonet wound. It seems to me quite out of the question that the occurrence mentioned in the English newspaper accounts could have actually taken place at Güstrow.In point of fact, instead of complaints at Güstrow, I heard rather praise of the camp from the British interned there, and praise of the British prisoners from the camp authorities. The men were all well fitted out with clothes of all sorts, andseemed particularly cheerful. The authorities stated that it had never been necessary, in recent times at least, to place a British prisoner under arrest. On the whole, the camp struck me as being as nearly ideal as it is possible for a place of detention of this kind to be.
In accordance with your instructions and with reference to the article in the LondonTimesof February 7, stating the report of an exchanged British prisoner of war that two British prisoners at the detention camp at Güstrow, in Mecklenburg, had been bayonetted for smoking in a forbidden vicinity, and that one had died and the other was still in hospital, I have the honour to inform you that I visited the camp at Güstrow on February 12, 1916. I did not notify the camp authorities of my arrival. I was shown every courtesy and received every facility for speaking to the British prisoners out of earshot of the Germans. I talked with a large number of British non-commissioned officers and with some of the men, and all were unanimous on two points; first, that if such an occurrence as the one mentioned had taken place, they would certainly have heard of it; and, second, that they had heard of no such occurrence. I visited the lazaret, through which I was taken by a British N.C.O., who is an assistant in caring for the sick, and spoke to every British patient under treatment there, not one of whom could possibly have been suffering from a bayonet wound. It seems to me quite out of the question that the occurrence mentioned in the English newspaper accounts could have actually taken place at Güstrow.
In point of fact, instead of complaints at Güstrow, I heard rather praise of the camp from the British interned there, and praise of the British prisoners from the camp authorities. The men were all well fitted out with clothes of all sorts, andseemed particularly cheerful. The authorities stated that it had never been necessary, in recent times at least, to place a British prisoner under arrest. On the whole, the camp struck me as being as nearly ideal as it is possible for a place of detention of this kind to be.
The discrepancy between the last sentence in Mr. Osborne’s report and theTimesarticle is a striking one. It should give one pause in placing too much reliance upon untested accusations, or upon newspaper articles based upon them. We forget sometimes that all the bias isagainstan enemy, and the only stories likely to be free from exaggeration are those told in his favour.
In the military prison at Cologne (Miscel. 16 [1916] p. 67), “the prisoners receive the same food and the same general treatment as the German military prisoners, with whom they are permitted to talk.... The prisoners are not permitted to receive food from outside sources.... Generally speaking the conditions do not differ materially from those in an ordinary working camp.... Corporal B. was found guilty of lack of respect to his British superior, Corporal J. was punished for striking the French non-commissioned officer in charge of his barrack, and Corporals O. and S. had trouble with the German Landsturmmann in charge of a cooking party....” Most of the sentences were for striking work at various work centres, the men sentenced stating that the conditions were bad. There was a special complaint against the railway work at Langen-Halbach b/Haiger, but not all the British joined in the strike. “I saw the men’s midday meal, consisting of a thick porridge which appeared to be nutritious. One man claimed that it was thicker to-day than usual, but several of his comrades contradicted this flatly. No complaints were made to me of any rough treatment in the Gefängnis [prison].”
The Venerable Archdeacon Wm. E. Nies, who had been given permission to visit British prisoners of war in Bavaria, writes: “I think it is only fair to comment favourably upon the friendly way in which my mission to the men is received and furthered by the commanders without exception thus far.”
Of Germersheim hospitals we read: “The food served in these hospitals is exceptionally satisfactory. Dr. Algeron, the chief surgeon in charge, a broad-minded man and indefatigable worker, attends personally to the catering.... Under this regime there have been some noteworthy increases in weight....”
At Bayreuth a private of the Black Watch had been “removed—for the purpose of electrical treatment of his arm by which it is hoped to avoid an operation—to the military lazaret in the city, which is an admirably equipped modern hospital.”
We pass now to reports in Miscel. No. 26 (1916). Indian prisoners of war at Wünsdorf (Zossen) find their treatment “very good.” At Crefeld officers’ camp, “the walks on parole ... have been entirely successful.... The only complaint as to these was that the German accompanying the party was a non-commissioned instead of a regular officer. This will, however, be rectified at once.... There is no trouble of any kind with the inhabitants on these.... The relations with the camp authorities are excellent.” As regards the behaviour of the inhabitants, I would refer also to Chaplain O’Rorke’s statement (see p.36), though, as one would expect, the inhabitants have in some other cases behaved badly (e.g., p.32).
At Münster II, “The Commandment, General von Ey-Steinecke, as well as the other officers, and the general treatment, are well spoken of by the men.” Some improvements suggested on March 16 were already started on the 18th. At Münster III. the benches in the English Chapel “were provided at the expense of the camp, although the British prisoners offered to pay for them.... The camp authorities have endeavoured to arrange courses of instruction with some success, and several British are taking lessons in French.... Sergeant Middleditch, the ranking non-commissioned officer, who has taken an active part in the work of improvement, stated that the relations with the camp authorities were excellent, and that the officers showed much consideration in acceding to reasonable requests. The commandant, General Raitz von Frentz, is well spoken of by all, and shows a liberal and progressive spirit in dealing with such difficulties as arise.”
From Miscel. No. 7 (1917) a few extracts may be made. Of Parchim Dr. A. E. Taylor and Mr. J. P. Webster write: “We believe that special commendation should be given to the Commandant, Oberst Kothe, for the spirit in which he governs the camp, and for the way in which he does everything in his power for the welfare of the prisoners, and for the promotion of a cordial relationship between the men and those in charge.” Of Brandenburg, Mr. Jackson writes candidly: “The part of the building occupied by the British prisoners was not so clean as the remainder, but for this the men themselves are responsible.” It is obvious that the spirit as to this and other matters will vary in every country among different sets of men (c.f.,e.g., below the very different Güstrow report).
Men in hospital at Cottbus “said that the food was good and their treatment excellent.” Men in the main camp complained that bread sent to them from Switzerland and England arrived in a mouldy condition, but “as the mouldiness seemed to start in the middle of the loaf, they thought this was due to the quality of the bread itself or the manner in which it was packed.”
At Celle, where “inactive officers” and some others are detained, Mr. Jackson found one British subject absent on leave, while “several others have been permitted to make visits to their families in Germany. A request from another, who had obtained no benefit from his stay at Bad Blenhorst, for permission to go somewhere for a ‘cure’ is under consideration.”
At the working camp at Limbau (occupied Russian territory) “the men described the commandant as a ‘gentleman,’ and said they had no difficulty in communicating with him in regard to their wishes. None had any complaint to make of their treatment, and only a very few spoke of the work as hard.” The camp contained 500 British prisoners.
At Güstrow, “the treatment of the men and the conditions found in their camp appeared to be very favourable. The commandant stated that the British were the most satisfactory prisoners under his care....” Two million, five hundred thousand letters passed through the camp post office in the previous year, and about sixty thousand packages were distributed.
Hospital treatment is again and again describedfavourably in the individual reports (e.g., pp.4,6,14,22,50,57), but the opinion may here be cited of a Swiss doctor who has been occupied in German hospitals during most of the war:
The writer of these lines never saw anything anywhere that could be considered as intentional change for the worse in the lot of prisoners and sick; on the contrary, he was able to ascertain that the prisoners and the sick are treated in a manner that could not be more humane. If later on the food was insufficient, the English must be aware of the reasons which brought about far-reaching starvation among great circles of the population of Germany.... From deepest conviction the writer of these lines affirms that the German people and the German doctors are [generally] without guilt in the face of the accusations made against them. Individual exceptions, if proved, could not alter this judgment.
The writer of these lines never saw anything anywhere that could be considered as intentional change for the worse in the lot of prisoners and sick; on the contrary, he was able to ascertain that the prisoners and the sick are treated in a manner that could not be more humane. If later on the food was insufficient, the English must be aware of the reasons which brought about far-reaching starvation among great circles of the population of Germany.... From deepest conviction the writer of these lines affirms that the German people and the German doctors are [generally] without guilt in the face of the accusations made against them. Individual exceptions, if proved, could not alter this judgment.
There are bad stories of men arriving half-starving at the British and French lines at the time of the general repatriations. It would require care and impartiality to sift these. The more experience one gains, the less one trusts the average newspaper report in war-time. It seems very probable that, as Erzberger contended, many prisoners made off of their own accord after the German Revolution, and the straits to which these men were reduced could scarcely be ascribed to the German authorities. That there were brutal cases of men beingdrivenaway is also quite probable. As regards the general question of prisoners, Erzberger said: “If England can now actually prove that English prisoners of war have been illegally treated, I give my word no guilty person shall go unpunished. But allow me the counter question, Is it known in enemy countries howGermanprisoners of war were frequently treated? I do not believe that is sufficiently well known. Only listen to our soldiers who come from France....” (Berlin, Nov., 24, 1918,Wolff.) It should be obvious that both sides must be heardbefore justice can decide, but the obvious is the unrecognised in war time. And probably even by the best and most impartial judgment only very rough generalisations can be arrived at. One need seems to me paramount, that each side shall become once more aware of thegoodin the other. Here, then, are one or two favourable facts from repatriated men: “We understand that the Germans could not let us march to the frontier, as we were prepared to do, lest we should start to plunder the inhabitants. For the same reason we were accompanied on the train by a German N.C.O. with a rifle. At night we slept in school buildings at Zevenaar (?) where we were given food and coal, and were well treated. We gave some of our food there to Sisters for the poor.... We had not to pay any fare at Wesel. The Germans on the train wished to be very friendly. We understand that the German authorities helped to make the arrangements about our taking the train at Wesel. No special compartments were put on for us. We travelled with the ordinary passengers.” (Daily News, November 25, 1918.)
Again:
The first contingent of British prisoners from Germany to arrive in London under the terms of the armistice reached Cannon Street Station from Dover yesterday. The party, numbering nearly 300, were provided with hot refreshments on arrival. The men looked remarkably fit, and one of the party explained that they had mostly been working on the railways behind the lines, and their treatment had been fairly good.Another contingent of returned prisoners, numbering about 800, arrived at Dover yesterday afternoon.(Daily News, Nov. 21, 1918.)
The first contingent of British prisoners from Germany to arrive in London under the terms of the armistice reached Cannon Street Station from Dover yesterday. The party, numbering nearly 300, were provided with hot refreshments on arrival. The men looked remarkably fit, and one of the party explained that they had mostly been working on the railways behind the lines, and their treatment had been fairly good.
Another contingent of returned prisoners, numbering about 800, arrived at Dover yesterday afternoon.
(Daily News, Nov. 21, 1918.)
TheDaily Newshas honourably distinguished itself by publishing favourable articles by repatriated prisoners. An officer writes:
Three days ago I arrived in England after having spent eight months in a German prison camp. We were among the first repatriated prisoners of war to come through Switzerland, and were secretly amused at the attitude of friends and relatives on our arrival home. They seemed to be quite surprised because most of us were looking healthy and fit, and were not walking skeletons or physical wrecks.But after reading the home newspapers, we understood their point of view. I do not for one moment suggest that these tales of inhuman treatment are untrue or exaggerated, because I know many cases which confirm them;[11]but I do say that this horrible treatment has not been general, nor does it apply to all prisoners of war. For this reason I am writing of what I know of the prisoners in Baden, in Southern Germany, and I hope that this article may allay the anxiety of those who are daily expecting some dear one home, and who fear that he will be terribly changed through suffering.
Three days ago I arrived in England after having spent eight months in a German prison camp. We were among the first repatriated prisoners of war to come through Switzerland, and were secretly amused at the attitude of friends and relatives on our arrival home. They seemed to be quite surprised because most of us were looking healthy and fit, and were not walking skeletons or physical wrecks.
But after reading the home newspapers, we understood their point of view. I do not for one moment suggest that these tales of inhuman treatment are untrue or exaggerated, because I know many cases which confirm them;[11]but I do say that this horrible treatment has not been general, nor does it apply to all prisoners of war. For this reason I am writing of what I know of the prisoners in Baden, in Southern Germany, and I hope that this article may allay the anxiety of those who are daily expecting some dear one home, and who fear that he will be terribly changed through suffering.
Men behind the lines had suffered far more, this officer considered. This is somewhat at variance with the extract last cited. The writer continues:
But the lot of the prisoners in the permanent camps in Baden was much brighter. My authority for saying so is an old Roman Catholic priest, Father Nugent, a native of Lancashire, I believe, who was in Southern Germany when the war broke out. He had free access to all prison camps and hospitals in Baden, and had no stories of harsh and brutal treatment to tell. Two American doctors were allowed to visit the hospitals in Rastatt, Lazaret 4, and the Russenlager Hospital. They said that the patients were comfortable and well looked after, in spite of the great shortage of medical supplies in Germany.Some of the soldiers had a good time working on the Baden farms. One orderly at our camp, who was away for a fortnight in the fruit season, picking plums, told me that he had met one of his old regiment working on a farm. This man had just driven in to the railway station for the Red Cross parcels, and told him that they were working with an old German and his wife. They shared rations with each other, and once a week the whole household visited the cinema.
But the lot of the prisoners in the permanent camps in Baden was much brighter. My authority for saying so is an old Roman Catholic priest, Father Nugent, a native of Lancashire, I believe, who was in Southern Germany when the war broke out. He had free access to all prison camps and hospitals in Baden, and had no stories of harsh and brutal treatment to tell. Two American doctors were allowed to visit the hospitals in Rastatt, Lazaret 4, and the Russenlager Hospital. They said that the patients were comfortable and well looked after, in spite of the great shortage of medical supplies in Germany.
Some of the soldiers had a good time working on the Baden farms. One orderly at our camp, who was away for a fortnight in the fruit season, picking plums, told me that he had met one of his old regiment working on a farm. This man had just driven in to the railway station for the Red Cross parcels, and told him that they were working with an old German and his wife. They shared rations with each other, and once a week the whole household visited the cinema.
Delay in repatriation occurred owing to disorganisation.
But there is no ill feeling towards the prisoners in Baden. After the armistice we wandered at will round Freiburg and in the Black Forest; and everyone was treated with civility. There were no cases of open hostility at all.(Daily News, Dec. 18, 1918.)
But there is no ill feeling towards the prisoners in Baden. After the armistice we wandered at will round Freiburg and in the Black Forest; and everyone was treated with civility. There were no cases of open hostility at all.
(Daily News, Dec. 18, 1918.)
Mr. G. G. Desmond volunteered at the age of 46. He was taken prisoner and gave (Daily News, Dec. 10, 1918) some account of his general outlook after his imprisonment. Unlike some of the stay-at-homes he can still believe in the German people, as the following concluding paragraphs of his article show:
The soldiers and the country people round Dülmen, and afterwards everybody we met in those parts, expressed no sense of rancour at their defeat, and simply leapt over it all to the prime, joyful fact that theKriegwasfertig. Everybody greeted you with that, and covered his face with smiles thereby. Some said that the terms were very hard, but agreed with me when I told them that they were made hard in order to defeat thoroughly the old gang and ensure a lasting peace. I wish I felt as certain now as then that the Allies had that clean intention. One farmer chuckled when he told me that Germany must give up a hundred and fifty U-boats, because, he said, she had no such number.One of the political parties, I am afraid I cannot remember which, published a manifesto stating that Germany had been deceived and betrayed by the military party, whereby among other things she inflicted great wrongs on Belgium and the Allies, and that she must pay in full for those wrongs. I do not doubt that is a widespread feeling in Germany. If, however, the terms of peace are to be vindictive, we shall in turn be in the wrong, and the new Germany may have better cause than the old to hate us.When we were fighting the Kaiser, we took pains to tell the German people that we were fighting their battle against their enemies. We were, in fact, liberating the traditional distressed damsel from the clutches of the ogre. It was a pity that so many of our blows fell upon the damsel and not on the ogre. It would be not only a pity but a crime and a grievous blunder if, now that the damsel is free, we proceeded to thrash her for the faults of the ogre.The Germans, apart from their late Government, are not Orientals intent upon deceiving us at every turn. They say they have turned over a new leaf, and I am thoroughly persuaded that they speak the truth. In business of all kinds, under circumstances that made it very easy for them to have cheated me, I found them, during my stay at Dülmen, the straightest people I ever had anything to do with. They think the same of us. Feldwebels and others who have had to do with us both assured me that they much preferred the British to any other class of prisoner, because we are blunt and true, say what we mean, and stick to what we say. Certainly the Germans are the most English of the great peoples on the Continent.
The soldiers and the country people round Dülmen, and afterwards everybody we met in those parts, expressed no sense of rancour at their defeat, and simply leapt over it all to the prime, joyful fact that theKriegwasfertig. Everybody greeted you with that, and covered his face with smiles thereby. Some said that the terms were very hard, but agreed with me when I told them that they were made hard in order to defeat thoroughly the old gang and ensure a lasting peace. I wish I felt as certain now as then that the Allies had that clean intention. One farmer chuckled when he told me that Germany must give up a hundred and fifty U-boats, because, he said, she had no such number.
One of the political parties, I am afraid I cannot remember which, published a manifesto stating that Germany had been deceived and betrayed by the military party, whereby among other things she inflicted great wrongs on Belgium and the Allies, and that she must pay in full for those wrongs. I do not doubt that is a widespread feeling in Germany. If, however, the terms of peace are to be vindictive, we shall in turn be in the wrong, and the new Germany may have better cause than the old to hate us.
When we were fighting the Kaiser, we took pains to tell the German people that we were fighting their battle against their enemies. We were, in fact, liberating the traditional distressed damsel from the clutches of the ogre. It was a pity that so many of our blows fell upon the damsel and not on the ogre. It would be not only a pity but a crime and a grievous blunder if, now that the damsel is free, we proceeded to thrash her for the faults of the ogre.
The Germans, apart from their late Government, are not Orientals intent upon deceiving us at every turn. They say they have turned over a new leaf, and I am thoroughly persuaded that they speak the truth. In business of all kinds, under circumstances that made it very easy for them to have cheated me, I found them, during my stay at Dülmen, the straightest people I ever had anything to do with. They think the same of us. Feldwebels and others who have had to do with us both assured me that they much preferred the British to any other class of prisoner, because we are blunt and true, say what we mean, and stick to what we say. Certainly the Germans are the most English of the great peoples on the Continent.
Our survey of the reliable evidence at present available seems to me to prove that there has usually been a serious effort in Germany to treat military prisoners well. This does not imply that their lot is otherwise than hard, and the prolongation of the imprisonment adds terribly to the hardship. It is impossible to banish from one’s mind such horrors as those of Wittenberg, but it is quite plain that these were very far from typical. When militarism goes wrong, it goes very wrong. If we consider the special German difficulties with regard to prisoners, and the special dangers of the militarist state, we may, I think, conclude a very fair standard of humanity amongst the German people from the fact that in so large a proportion of cases treatment has been reasonable and in many even excellent.
I have no wish to arouse any resentment, and in case this conclusion should do so, I quote here a further neutral opinion, that of a well-known Norwegian, M. T. E. Steen, who had been allowed to visit prisoners’ camps in Britain, France, and Germany. M. Steen gave a lecture at the Queen’s (Small) Hall on July 15, 1915, under the auspices of the British Red Cross Society. Sir Louis Mallet presided. According to theDaily Telegraphreport, “M.Steen spoke favourably to the conditions prevailing at the various internment camps he visited in Germany, and expressed the hope that his remarks would remove misgivings and allay anxiety. The general impression which the camps made on him, he said, was ‘very satisfactory.’”
We must remember, too, that in Germany also all kinds of rumours and statements have circulated with regard to the treatment of prisoners and wounded by us and our Allies (cf. pp.2,32,38, and80). Such rumours and exaggerations are apparently a part of war. On the other side they have not made for a benevolent attitude, and the really large amount of interest openly shown in prisoners of war by such men as Prince Lichnowsky, Prof. Stange, Prof. Gmelin, the Göttingen Pastors, and others, is a remarkable fact. We realise this the more, when we consider that it is not easy on this side for men in prominent positions openly to show interest in German prisoners of war.
It would be interesting to compare the U.S. reports on British camps with their reports on German ones. Unfortunately any useful comparison is impossible. A collection of reports on “various internment camps in the United Kingdom” is published in White Paper No. 30 (1916), but the earliest inspection here recorded took place on February 21, 1916. As the chief difficulties everywhere occurred earlier, the earlier reports are plainly necessary for a fair comparison. “Are we as compassionate to our prisoners as our ancestors were to theirs?” wrote theDaily Chronicleon October 29, 1914, and added “From accounts that have reached us of the conditions that prevail at some of our concentration camps, we fear not.” Moreover, in these later reports it is difficult to know the exact meaning of such remarks as thefollowing, unless we have the earlier reports: “They seemed much happier and more contented than at the time of my former visit....” (Officers’ Camp, Holyport). “There has been no change in the sleeping accommodations since the last report, but as the number of the prisoners is much less than it was at that time, there is much more room....” (Dorchester.)
“The general tone of the hospital seemed to be much happier than at the time of my last visit.” (Dartford, Lower Southern Hospital for wounded prisoners of war.)
“There has been no change in the sleeping accommodation since the last visit, except that, owing to the smaller number of men, there is now more room than before.... The men seemed much happier and more contented than at the time of our last visit.” (Officers’ camp, Donington Hall.)
The last quotation recalls the once famous charges as to the excessive luxury of Donington Hall. In every country the same kind of protest arises as to the luxurious treatment of prisoners, and this is declared a scandal in view of the inhuman policy of the enemy. In every country is to be found the type of patriot who feels that all is lost if it can be proved that he has treated an enemy too well. The hubbub about Donington Hall led to the appointment of a Commons delegation to visit various camps, and to a report in theTimes(April 26, 1915). In this report the Hall is described as “a large, bare house situated in a hollow.... The style of furnishing was that of a sergeant’s mess.” There was one piano, provided at the prisoners’ expense. The billiard tables and other accessories imagined by perfervid patriots vanish into thin air.
Dyffryn Aled Officers’ camp in North Wales is described in the same account as “an inaccessible, gloomy, mildewed-looking house, with all the windowson the front side covered with iron bars. It was previously used as a private lunatic asylum. The kitchen seemed about the best room in the house.... There are no fixed baths, but the officers’ valets carry hot water from the kitchen for hip baths.” As regards the site of Dyffryn Aled it is only fair to quote the U.S. report: “The situation of the house, in a romantic valley among the Welsh mountains, is fine and healthy.” But even in April, 1916, the bathing arrangements remained primitive: “Each officer has his tin tub.” One would certainly not wish to make any hardship of this, yet it is perhaps as well to recall the U.S. reports on Friedberg and Crefeld in May and April, 1915, respectively. “The room containing the shower-nozzles would ... do credit to a club or hotel of the first class.” (See p.23.) At Crefeld: “The bathroom which I saw has a floor space of about 1,500 square feet, one-half of which, drained in the centre, lies under some 20 shower nozzles. There are a couple of porcelain tubs in the other half, and in the centre there is a large stove. Hot and cold water is available. The British officers were enthusiastic in their praise of this room.” (P.13.)
The “Stobsiad,” the magazine of the prisoners’ camp at Stobs, Scotland, contains in its seventeenth number (Jan., 1918) a friendly thought for the interned “enemy” in Germany. The Y.M.C.A. and the Friends tell them of the ever-increasing need of the interned Englishmen for English books. “Would it not be possible,” the paragraph proceeds, “for our German readers to place English books that they could part with at the disposal of the English prisoners of war, just as here German books have been placed at our disposal. Dr. Elisabeth Rotten’s Committee (Berlin, No. 24, Monbijou-Platz 3) will gladly give further information. It would give us pleasure if many of our readers would fulfil this wish.”
“There has been some trouble with correspondence,” we read (Times, l.c.). The Commandant of one camp, while censoring a prisoner’s correspondence, came across a statement that “he slept on a plank bed with a verminous mattress ... the prisoner admitted that he had written a false statement in order to induce his friends to send him more luxuries.” I am reminded of a report from Zossen mentioned by the Swiss Red Cross delegate. I quote from the abstract in theBasler Nachrichten: “It appears that there is much correspondence with sympathetic ink at Zossen. A great deal of iodine, starch and condensed milk are sent to the prisoners by their friends. These materials serve for the preparation of such inks.” We have heard of the use of sympathetic ink in this country. Experience suggests that complaints made by these methods are not to be relied on. The man who likes to tell a tall story is not very infrequent, either amongst civilians or soldiers, and if he can gain notoriety or advantage thereby, the temptation is considerable. Let these be obtained at the expense of the enemy, and the temptation is greater still. Some German girls were being taken back to Germany. An officer asked a girl what kind of a time she had in England. “Oh, dreadful,” she replied at first. It was the way to gain kudos. But generosity came to her rescue, she repented and corrected herself: “No, perfectly lovely,” she said, “everyone was good to us.”[12]There are many on both sides who would not repent, but would make capital out of their interlocutor’s ignorance.
Rumours, of course, still continue. They will continue as long as passions run high. There was a rumour of smallpox at Ruhleben. The English Captainof the Camp wrote to say: “There have been no cases of smallpox since the camp was started here.” There were repeated rumours that parcels were not delivered. An appeal was made to the Director of the Press Bureau by C.Q.M.S. J. R. Wheeler of the 2nd Wilts. Regt., prisoner at Göttingen. He pointed out that these rumours (apparently confirmed by postal officials) were totally unfounded. “Parcels arrive safely, and are issued to men often within a couple of hours of being received from the Post Office.” The same matter is dealt with by U.S. representatives, but, as the Swiss delegate, Arthur Eugster, remarks, even neutral reports are in these days distrusted. In fact, often it is only what seems to confirm the worst suspicions that is believed. Mr. Wheeler points out that “the packing of parcels leaves much to be desired; in many cases a cake is put in a cardboard box and lightly wrapped up in brown paper,” a statement that is important in view of the common opinion that British parcels were specially maltreated. The idea of differential treatment had indeed become an obsession. An example of the extraordinary nonsense that is believed is the story that “on the hospital ship, Oxfordshire, on March 19, sixty wounded British soldiers, the majority of them from the Black Watch and 6th Gordon regiments, were taken out of their cots to make room for sixty Germans ... and that, in addition, the Germans were supplied with fresh eggs and bread, while the British wounded soldiers had only biscuits.” All this was the subject of a grave question in Parliament. The story was, of course, without foundation, but, according to Mr. Tennant himself, “it had obtained widespread credence.” Marvellous indeed is the credulity of war-time.
How far hatred is due to want of knowledge the record of prisoner farm workers on this side proves:
As to the German prisoners, it took both the farmers and the townspeople in the places where they are quartered, and from which they are often motored to the farms, some little time to overcome the widespread prejudice against their employment. But, after a little acquaintance with them, this prejudice appears to be dying down.“They are one of our mainstays on the farms in West Sussex,” Mr. Herbert Padwick, chairman of the West Sussex War Agricultural Committee, and vice-president of the Farmers’ Union, told me. “Some of them,” he said, “are themselves farmers, and the sons of farmers. Their work looks slow, but in the end, as a rule, we find it very thorough. They used to say, perhaps chaffingly, they wanted to produce the best crop we have ever had in England, because they were sure the Germans would take it. No doubt they really thought it at one time, but they are not, I think, under this illusion any longer.”Daily News, Aug. 20, 1918.
As to the German prisoners, it took both the farmers and the townspeople in the places where they are quartered, and from which they are often motored to the farms, some little time to overcome the widespread prejudice against their employment. But, after a little acquaintance with them, this prejudice appears to be dying down.
“They are one of our mainstays on the farms in West Sussex,” Mr. Herbert Padwick, chairman of the West Sussex War Agricultural Committee, and vice-president of the Farmers’ Union, told me. “Some of them,” he said, “are themselves farmers, and the sons of farmers. Their work looks slow, but in the end, as a rule, we find it very thorough. They used to say, perhaps chaffingly, they wanted to produce the best crop we have ever had in England, because they were sure the Germans would take it. No doubt they really thought it at one time, but they are not, I think, under this illusion any longer.”
Daily News, Aug. 20, 1918.
Most of us have heard favourable comments from farmers and others as to the work of their German helpers. “I think they’ve done jolly well, and they deserve some encouragement,” said one man to me. The idea that all Germans are “Huns” vanishes on personal acquaintance. On the other side prejudices similarly vanish, and I remember seeing an account of how a German farmer took his prisoner helpers for a picnic. Evidently he was allowed considerable freedom with them. There were German Press protests against the picnic.
From theDaily Newsof September 28, 1918, I take the following:
Here is a “gleaning” worth setting beside those which “Kuklos” gave us yesterday. A West-country farmer of my acquaintance has a brother who is a prisoner in the hands of the Germans at a place not far from Stettin. Recently a number of German prisoners were sent to work on his farm, and among them was a German farmer from that very place. The German told him that he had English prisoners on his own fields in the Fatherland, so that quite possibly this curious exchange may be complete.It may be mentioned, incidentally, that the English prisoner speaks well of his treatment in Germany. The German, for his part, assured my friend that while hisprisoner-hands were not receiving excellent cider, like that which he himself was now allowed, they had plenty of good beer during the harvest.
Here is a “gleaning” worth setting beside those which “Kuklos” gave us yesterday. A West-country farmer of my acquaintance has a brother who is a prisoner in the hands of the Germans at a place not far from Stettin. Recently a number of German prisoners were sent to work on his farm, and among them was a German farmer from that very place. The German told him that he had English prisoners on his own fields in the Fatherland, so that quite possibly this curious exchange may be complete.
It may be mentioned, incidentally, that the English prisoner speaks well of his treatment in Germany. The German, for his part, assured my friend that while hisprisoner-hands were not receiving excellent cider, like that which he himself was now allowed, they had plenty of good beer during the harvest.
I have often thought that a widespread distribution of prisoner workers throughout each belligerent country might do more than anything else to allay mutual misunderstanding. In all wars the tendency is to regard the enemies as terrible beings, scarcely even of human shape. To a considerable extent this is due to the fact that all the horror of war is attributed by civilians to the enemy. The soldiers of course know better. But when the civilian finds enemy prisoners good fellows to work with, he cannot often resist the proof of our common humanity. A village girl was telling me lately how the feelings of many had altered since German prisoners had been in the neighbourhood, and especially marked had been the effect upon those who had actually worked with them. “So you’ve changed your mind about them,” she said to a friend who worked with prisoners, and the friend had the courage to answer quite simply: “Yes, I have.” If we all have the courage to change our minds, the peace that comes will be real.
There is often so much similarity in the complaints made on both sides that the sufferings would seem to be very similar. I happened once, in a private hotel, to get into conversation with some German women who had been taken prisoner in East Africa. They were scarcely “military prisoners,” but they were taken prisoner in the ordinary operations of war. With the women were three children. A young baby was wizened and pitiable, a little boy of between three and four had evidently had his whole body covered with boils or abscesses, a little girl of perhaps five would have been a charming little creature, but for a large abscess on her forehead and big swellings under the eyes. I asked how it was the children were in thiscondition. The Belgians, by whom these women were originally taken prisoner, would not, I was told, supply any milk for the children. It may be said that the Belgian officials should be consulted on this point, and I am well aware that prisoners’ statements need corroboration. Do we, however, apply this rule in other cases? Are we careful to investigate newspaper reports of the statements of prisoners who have been in German hands, and should we suggest that the evidence of German officials should also be taken? The women struck me as singularly quiet, and unhysterical, and I must add, fair-minded. There were officials at times, they said, who were more humane, and provided milk on the quiet. Did they make any protests, I asked. “At first we did,” they answered, “but we were always told ‘You are prisoners, and have nothing to say.’” The condition of the children certainly suggested that they had suffered severely from malnutrition. This may indeed have been unavoidable, and not the fault of any one. I had a little further chat with one of the group, a very quiet woman, whose rather drawn, set face showed that she had passed through hard times. It was a little pathetic to me to note how sincerely she was convinced of the superior virtues of her side. “In the earlier days of the war when we had English prisoners,” she said, “they were always well fed, even though we went short. Our Commandant always made a point of seeing that they were well provided for.” There was in the quiet, rather weary voice just a gentle shade of reproach, and that was all. I have not the slightest doubt that the woman was perfectly sincere. I made only the very obvious remark that it seemed to me there were good and bad on both sides, and that some officials behaved well, and some not well. It was a mistake to generalise and think all was ill on the other side and all was well on one’s own. She saw fairness in this view, I think. There was a mutual approach, and a growing kindliness. I feltthen, and feel more strongly now, that kindness cannot grow out of merely aggressive patriotism.
It seems plain that in France, Germany and Great Britain there has been an honest, if not always a very sympathetic attempt to treat prisoners decently. But we hear little about the condition of prisoners elsewhere. It is curious to note how, in spite of all the horror perpetrated repeatedly by Turkish authorities in times, not of war, but of peace, British feeling is never very indignant against the Turk; and how prisoners of war are faring in Turkey we scarcely know. Not till July, 1917, does there seem to have been any definite application for the inspection of Turkish internment camps. On July 18, 1917, an announcement appeared in the Press to the effect that, in response to a request from the British Government, the International Committee of the Red Cross at Geneva had applied to the Turkish Government for the necessary permission.
Yet here, as in all war matters, we come upon “reprisals.” The following is a cutting from theDaily Newsof July 20, 1917:
Mr. James Hope, for the Foreign Office, stated in the Commons yesterday that five British officers had been for over three months imprisoned in Constantinople as a reprisal for the alleged imprisonment of Turkish officers in Egypt. The United States Ambassador was requested on April 25 to explain to the Porte by telegram that only one of the five Turkish officers in Egypt had been under arrest, and that for attempted escape. He regretted to say that one of the five British officers had died. They had just received a message from the Danish Minister at Constantinople stating that the four surviving officers returned to camp on July 4.
Mr. James Hope, for the Foreign Office, stated in the Commons yesterday that five British officers had been for over three months imprisoned in Constantinople as a reprisal for the alleged imprisonment of Turkish officers in Egypt. The United States Ambassador was requested on April 25 to explain to the Porte by telegram that only one of the five Turkish officers in Egypt had been under arrest, and that for attempted escape. He regretted to say that one of the five British officers had died. They had just received a message from the Danish Minister at Constantinople stating that the four surviving officers returned to camp on July 4.
Statements aboutenemyreprisals are usually less frank than this. The neutral observer has usually to watch each side describing its most drastic actions as reprisals upon the other for similar deeds.
The condition of Austrian and German prisoners in Serbia has been touched upon by Dr. F. M. Dickinson Berry, Physician to the Anglo-Serbian Hospital Unit. I give the following quotations from an article by Dr. Berry in theNationof August 21, 1915.
“There is no doubt that the prisoners suffered badly during the winter.... Typhus decimated them earlier and more universally, probably owing to the way in which they were crowded together. Outside the town our prisoner pointed out a cottage adjacent to a brick-kiln, where he, with 250 men, had stayed some months without beds, blankets, or even straw to sleep on, and with the scantiest of food.” But the villagers showed kindness, said the prisoner, and bestowed on them the food placed by Serbian custom on the graves of the dead. “Many of the prisoners fell sick and were taken off to the hospital. Here, too, they lay on the floor with nothing to cover them but a great-coat, if the fortunate possessors of such. Few who entered the hospital ever came back; if not ill with typhus when they came in, they were pretty safe to get it there, and they passed on to the cemetery beyond the town, where, as in so many Serbian cemeteries, however remotely situated, there is a portion covered thickly with plain wooden crosses, marking the graves of Austrian prisoners. Our informant told us that of those with him 50 per cent. had died; of eleven Italians whom he had under his charge one only survived. Asked whether they had any guards, he said no; each sergeant (he himself was one) was put in charge of fifty men, and was answerable with his life in case any should escape.” There were, however, some compensations for the primitive barbarity of these arrangements. The Serbian people did not attack their prisoners, they fed them. They might have learned a less human attitude under more civilised conditions. “As we motored through thetown we were amused at the number of greetings our prisoner received; he was evidently a well known and popular person. As we passed he pointed out the houses of acquaintances and other objects of interest. On one side lived a municipal official, who, finding that he held the same sort of post in Bohemia, greeted him as a colleague and used to ask him to his house. Further on was the fountain where he had come to wash his clothes in the bitter winter weather, and close by the house of the kind but match-making old lady who washed his clothes for him, and having a daughter’s hand to dispose of, wished to keep him as a son-in-law.”
Of what happened in Russian prison camps we have only rumours, and the usual individual statements. The old Russian régime was scarcely likely to be very efficient or very humane in its treatment of prisoners, but any one who has examined war stories will be very cautious of believing all that is told. What the “unofficial information and rumours” were may be sufficiently gathered by referring to theCambridge Magazineof August 26, 1916, Supplement “Prisoners.” It may be well to add this: in November, 1918, Erzberger, interviewed by Dr. Stollberg, of theDeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, asserted that out of 250 thousand prisoners in Russia only 100 thousand remained alive.
It will help to clarify our ideas of charges of ill-treatment to remind ourselves of the following. A British officer, Lieut. Gilliland, was put in charge of the British prisoners of war captured by the Bulgarians. Mr. MacVeagh brought forward in the House of Commons various charges made against this officer by repatriated prisoners. It was said that he distributed unfairly food and clothing consigned toIrish prisoners, and that he ordered the flogging of British prisoners by their Bulgarian captors for the most trivial breaches of discipline. Mr. Macpherson, for the War Office, said prisoners repatriated from Bulgaria had made allegations against Lieut. Gilliland which were entirely opposed to information received from independent sources, especially from the U.S. Legation in Sofia, who stated that the officer had done everything possible for our men. Further inquiry was promised (Manchester Guardian, November 8, 1917). The charges of the prisoners are in this case not considered as necessarily true or unbiased. Ought not similar caution to be observed against whomsoever the charges may be made?
Footnotes:[2]It is fair to add that the International Red Cross in January, 1915, visited camps at Holyport, Dyffry, Dorchester, Southend, Portsmouth, and Queensferry. They did not visit the Isle of Man, where even then about 4,600 civilians were interned, and they were evidently, if somewhat innocently, hoping for the release of civilians (First Series, p. 25). The reports are quite satisfactory as far as they go, and the delegates considered that the prisoners, and especially the military prisoners (surtout les militaires), were treated well. The feeding is, however, criticised rather adversely in the case of Portsmouth (both military and civilian) and at Queensferry (civilian). (La nourriture est elle bien ce qu’elle doit être?) Removal from boats at Southend toterra firmais recommended. The eternal soup, which seems to have been the lot of prisoners in all countries, must become fearfully wearisome. The preserved fish, etc., of later days may become even more trying.[3]Bishop Bury (My Visit to Ruhleben) writes: “Again I was conscious of just the same spirit of privation—extraordinarily pathetic it was—about people and places....” (p. 79) It is to be feared that some who “profess and call themselves Christians” can see nothing pathetic in the sufferings of an enemy people.[4]Comité International de la Croix Rouge, Première Série.[5]The number of prisoners now (October, 1917) in Germany is probably nearly three times as great.[6]Comité International Rapports(Première Série, p. 31).[7]l.c., p. 60.[8]Reporting on March 9, 1916, Mr. Jackson wrote that, though, “owing to its situation and character,” it could never be made “an entirely satisfactory camp,” yet “there had been a marked improvement in its general ‘atmosphere.’” (Misc. 16 [1916].)[9]Dr. Ella Scarlett-Synge (M.D., D.P.H.) visited this camp on December 17, 1915. She reports: “The prisoners of war are housed in well-built, well-drained barracks having excellent ventilation. Each man has an iron bedstead with two blankets (or a thick quilt), a straw mattress, good pillow and sheet....”[10]These indulgences can also be paralleled on this side. A writer from a British internment camp says, during “a great sports week”: “There are already a lot in hospital with broken legs and arms.”[11]It is astounding how extremely rare are responsible accounts of the worser ill-deeds by those who have actually suffered them. These stories have almost always been heard from someone else. (Cf. pp.156,157.)[12]“The Common Cause.” October 16, 1914.
Footnotes:
[2]It is fair to add that the International Red Cross in January, 1915, visited camps at Holyport, Dyffry, Dorchester, Southend, Portsmouth, and Queensferry. They did not visit the Isle of Man, where even then about 4,600 civilians were interned, and they were evidently, if somewhat innocently, hoping for the release of civilians (First Series, p. 25). The reports are quite satisfactory as far as they go, and the delegates considered that the prisoners, and especially the military prisoners (surtout les militaires), were treated well. The feeding is, however, criticised rather adversely in the case of Portsmouth (both military and civilian) and at Queensferry (civilian). (La nourriture est elle bien ce qu’elle doit être?) Removal from boats at Southend toterra firmais recommended. The eternal soup, which seems to have been the lot of prisoners in all countries, must become fearfully wearisome. The preserved fish, etc., of later days may become even more trying.
[2]It is fair to add that the International Red Cross in January, 1915, visited camps at Holyport, Dyffry, Dorchester, Southend, Portsmouth, and Queensferry. They did not visit the Isle of Man, where even then about 4,600 civilians were interned, and they were evidently, if somewhat innocently, hoping for the release of civilians (First Series, p. 25). The reports are quite satisfactory as far as they go, and the delegates considered that the prisoners, and especially the military prisoners (surtout les militaires), were treated well. The feeding is, however, criticised rather adversely in the case of Portsmouth (both military and civilian) and at Queensferry (civilian). (La nourriture est elle bien ce qu’elle doit être?) Removal from boats at Southend toterra firmais recommended. The eternal soup, which seems to have been the lot of prisoners in all countries, must become fearfully wearisome. The preserved fish, etc., of later days may become even more trying.
[3]Bishop Bury (My Visit to Ruhleben) writes: “Again I was conscious of just the same spirit of privation—extraordinarily pathetic it was—about people and places....” (p. 79) It is to be feared that some who “profess and call themselves Christians” can see nothing pathetic in the sufferings of an enemy people.
[3]Bishop Bury (My Visit to Ruhleben) writes: “Again I was conscious of just the same spirit of privation—extraordinarily pathetic it was—about people and places....” (p. 79) It is to be feared that some who “profess and call themselves Christians” can see nothing pathetic in the sufferings of an enemy people.
[4]Comité International de la Croix Rouge, Première Série.
[4]Comité International de la Croix Rouge, Première Série.
[5]The number of prisoners now (October, 1917) in Germany is probably nearly three times as great.
[5]The number of prisoners now (October, 1917) in Germany is probably nearly three times as great.
[6]Comité International Rapports(Première Série, p. 31).
[6]Comité International Rapports(Première Série, p. 31).
[7]l.c., p. 60.
[7]l.c., p. 60.
[8]Reporting on March 9, 1916, Mr. Jackson wrote that, though, “owing to its situation and character,” it could never be made “an entirely satisfactory camp,” yet “there had been a marked improvement in its general ‘atmosphere.’” (Misc. 16 [1916].)
[8]Reporting on March 9, 1916, Mr. Jackson wrote that, though, “owing to its situation and character,” it could never be made “an entirely satisfactory camp,” yet “there had been a marked improvement in its general ‘atmosphere.’” (Misc. 16 [1916].)
[9]Dr. Ella Scarlett-Synge (M.D., D.P.H.) visited this camp on December 17, 1915. She reports: “The prisoners of war are housed in well-built, well-drained barracks having excellent ventilation. Each man has an iron bedstead with two blankets (or a thick quilt), a straw mattress, good pillow and sheet....”
[9]Dr. Ella Scarlett-Synge (M.D., D.P.H.) visited this camp on December 17, 1915. She reports: “The prisoners of war are housed in well-built, well-drained barracks having excellent ventilation. Each man has an iron bedstead with two blankets (or a thick quilt), a straw mattress, good pillow and sheet....”
[10]These indulgences can also be paralleled on this side. A writer from a British internment camp says, during “a great sports week”: “There are already a lot in hospital with broken legs and arms.”
[10]These indulgences can also be paralleled on this side. A writer from a British internment camp says, during “a great sports week”: “There are already a lot in hospital with broken legs and arms.”
[11]It is astounding how extremely rare are responsible accounts of the worser ill-deeds by those who have actually suffered them. These stories have almost always been heard from someone else. (Cf. pp.156,157.)
[11]It is astounding how extremely rare are responsible accounts of the worser ill-deeds by those who have actually suffered them. These stories have almost always been heard from someone else. (Cf. pp.156,157.)
[12]“The Common Cause.” October 16, 1914.
[12]“The Common Cause.” October 16, 1914.
A few extracts from Dr. J. M. Spaight’s important work, “War Rights on Land,” will be useful as an introduction to this section. “Resident enemy nationals,” runs Dr. Spaight’s marginal summary, “are not interfered with” (l.c., p. 28). The text proceeds: “The treatment of resident enemy nationals has undergone a great change for the better in modern times. Ancient theory and practice regarded them as enemies, individually, and admitted the right to arrest and imprison them. The last instance of this rigorous rule being put in force is Napoleon’s detention of British subjects who happened to be in France when war broke out in 1803. Present usage allows enemy nationals to depart freely, even when they belong to the armed forces of the other belligerent.” The State has the right to detain such subjects, but usage is against it. Again, “‘Present usage,’ says Professor LeFur, ‘does not admit of the expulsionen masseof enemy subjects resident in a belligerent’s territory, save when the needs of defence demand such expulsion....’ The bad precedent set by the Confederate Government in 1861, when it ordered the banishment of all alien enemies, has not been followed in subsequent wars. France and Germany allowed enemy subjects to continue to reside in their respective territories during the war of 1870-1, but the former country was led by military exigencies to rescind the general privilege so far as Paris and the Department of the Seine were concerned, at the endof August, 1870. A Proclamation was then issued by General Trochu which enjoined ‘every person not a naturalised Frenchman and belonging to one of the countries at war with France’ to depart within three days, under penalty of arrest and trial in the event of disobedience. The incident is instructive as showing usage [viz., non-interference with resident enemy nationals] in the making; for though there were 35,000 in Paris alone, and their expulsion was clearly justifiable as a measure of defence, the general opinion in Europe was that they were harshly treated, and a sum of 100 million francs was claimed, as part of the war indemnity, in respect of the losses they sustained in being driven out. It shows, as Hall observed, that public opinion ‘was already ripe for the establishment of a distinct rule allowing such persons to remain during good behaviour’ (Hall, International Law, p. 392). The usage has been strengthened by the precedents set in the Russo-Turkish War in 1877-8, the Chino-Japanese War of 1894, and the Russo-Japanese War, in all of which enemy residents were suffered to remain.”
How did it come about that this more humane usage was in the present war departed from? The average Englishman, I fear, assumes that all the blame is in this case due to the enemy. The following correspondence should make the matter clearer. [See Miscel. Nos. 7, 8 (1915).]