F.R.C.S., of the British Red Cross, "My Experiences as Prisoner in
Germany." "About ten miles from Namur we suddenly ran into the outposts
of the German Army, consisting of a picket of about twenty Uhlans, who
examined our papers, obligingly removed the tree from across the road,
and allowed us to proceed. Shortly afterwards we were again held up,
this time by an officer, who re-examined us all, and again we were
allowed to proceed.... Near midday we came to a small village called
Maffe, and here we had the misfortune to run straight into the head of
the main German Army marching upon Namur." Detention was, under the
circumstances, practically inevitable. The party could scarcely be
allowed to motor off with valuable information as to the position of the
German Army in their possession. They were indeed suspected of being
spies. Said an interpreter: "You know you've been incredibly foolish to
come anywhere near our forces; you will not be able to return after
seeing our Army, but will have to be sent back into Germany. I do not
know what will become of you, but you will be treated as gentlemen."
"During the afternoon of the first day an officer of the Motor Cycle
Corps who spoke excellent English came in and had a friendly talk with
us, and seemed to be inclined to laugh at the position he found us in.
We were struck by the familiarity between the privates and some of the
officers. For instance, in this particular case, some of the soldiers
had practice rides on their officers' motor-bicycles." There followed a
long interview with Prince Heinrich, the 33rd of Reuss. He was very
suspicious, but polite. "Finally His Royal Highness shook hands with us
and said: 'I do not know what will become of you gentlemen, but probably
you'll be sent back to Germany to assist in looking after wounded
soldiers of France and Belgium, and possibly English if they are foolish
enough to cross the Channel.'" The prolonged detention of Mr. Austin is
inexcusable, but there seem to be somewhat inexplicable detentions on
both sides. A document handed to the prisoners on their release was to
this effect: "The German Government advises the English Government that
unless all Red Cross units at present in England are immediately
returned, no further exchange of British medical officers can be
contemplated." [Cf. too Miscel. 30 (1916) pp. 2, 36; also International
Red Cross Reports, First Series, pp. 18, 19.]
CREDULITY ONCE MORE.
The general experiences of Mr. Austin are very similar to those of Mr.
O'Rorke. At Bouvigny "a somewhat offensive non-commissioned officer ...
removed all knives that we had and was greatly excited at the presence
of the large jack-knife which had been issued to us before we left.
These knives carried a long spike, for punching leather and opening
tins, and the story has been circulated in Germany that these knives
were issued to the troops for the express purpose of gouging out the
eyes of the German wounded." There is something pathetically hopeless
about these aspects of human credulity in war-time. When we see the
extraordinary nonsense that each side readily believes of the other, we
must accept it as something to the credit of human nature that any
reasonable treatment of prisoners occurs at all.
ORDINARY HUMANITY.
"Our other personal effects," the narrative goes on, "including our
money, were returned to us." The doctor's papers had not been returned
by the German officers who originally examined him, and this fact caused
many delays and annoyances, but one does not read of any actual
ill-treatment. The use of dogs is referred to (see p. 33). The last
incident on German territory is thus recorded: "When the Holland train
drew in the officer had not returned, but one of our party who spoke
German well informed the sergeant that the officers had told us we were
to go by this train, and he very obligingly placed us in it after we had
taken tickets to the nearest Dutch station, Ozendaal."
REPORTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS.
To me it seems that the Swiss have made some of the finest efforts of
the spirit during this war. It is no mean achievement. Some are bound by
many ties of friendship to the German people, some to the French. There
has, of course, been occasional failure and sheer partisanship, but an
utterance such as that of Carl Spitteler is marvellous in its
determination to do justice, and in its reverence for the suffering of
all the nations. The International Committee of the Red Cross at Geneva
has been a centre of kindliness in the midst of carnage. In France and
in Germany a committee was, by mutual agreement, established consisting
of representatives of the national Red Cross, of the American and
Spanish Embassies, and one delegate of the International Committee.
These committees arranged that delegates of the International Committee
should visit prisoners' camps in both countries. No such committee
existed in Great Britain, but with the consent of the British
authorities some camps in this country were visited in January, 1915.
(See footnote, page 9.)
GERMAN CAMPS: FOOD.
In January, 1915, National Councillor A. Eugster was deputed to visit
French prisoners in Germany. In general, the Swiss reports[4] give an
almost exactly similar impression to those made by the United States. As
regards the food, M. Eugster remarks that the sum of 60 pf. (just over
7d.) is allowed daily for the German private, and exactly the same sum
for the prisoners. In his second report, made in March, he points out
that the food question has become more serious and (as far as his
experience goes) complaints are more numerous. He summarises very
reasonably the difficulties of the case, especially as regards the bread
problem. Prisoners were originally allowed 500 grammes daily, but when
the bread rations of the German civilians were reduced from 250 to 200
grammes, some reduction in the prisoners' allowance was only to be
expected, and their ration was fixed at 300 grammes. They would
otherwise have been allowed two and a half times as much as the Germans
themselves. Potato meal was allowed to make up the quantity, but the
result was not good. Writing in March, M. Eugster says: "There are
to-day from 750 to 800,000 prisoners in Germany. Allowing 300 grammes
per man, this makes a daily consumption of 240,000 kilos. of bread
(about 235 tons). This is not a bagatelle at a moment when the
importation of cereals is impossible."[5] By Art. 7 of the Hague rules
an arrangement between belligerents as to prisoners should be possible,
and Eugster suggests that meal might be sent under neutral care to the
camps, and bread baked there under neutral surveillance.
GENERAL RESULT.
M. Eugster's reports on the individual camps convey almost exactly the
same impression as the American reports. At Sennelager the English
doctor spoke highly of the treatment of the wounded, and the French
doctors readily acknowledges that German wounded and French wounded were
treated alike. At Zossen a sculptor was at work in his studio, a painter
painted landscapes, a gardener ornamented the grounds, and a musician
had his compositions rendered by a choir of 150 to 200 practised
singers. It is the best educated prisoners, remarks the deputy, who are
the most content. Summarising the impressions of his first tour, Herr
Eugster says: "I am glad ... to be able to assert that the French
prisoners are humanely treated. In such distracted times errors and
mistakes can easily occur, but on the whole one can say that Germany
does her duty by her French prisoners."
It is not surprising to learn that M. Eugster received anonymous letters
reviling him for not producing evidence to support the prejudices of the
writers. Some readers of this account may indeed be made suspicious by
his German name. M. Eugster was fully alive to these suspicions, and he
suggested that a German and French Swiss might with advantage visit
camps jointly. The suggestion was carried out, and in the third series
of visits Dr. de Marval accompanied him. The general evidence is as
before.
VERMIN.
The Swiss reports are in some respects more outspoken than the American
ones. The heading "vermin" occurs in almost all. It requires a special
campaign to deal with the lice, but the campaign seems to be carried on
with vigour.
TACT.
There is another point. "We must not forget," writes Eugster, "that to
be a prisoner is in itself a very trying fate." It needs a little
contact with prisoners to realise _how_ hard their fate is, and how
easily the wrong way with them may produce soured and embittered men.
Writing of Halle in May, Eugster and de Marval remark: "The relationship
between the Commandant and the prisoners is correct, but without
cordiality; the subordinates were often wanting in tact." I confess it
is simple words like these that depress me more than rumours of
starvation or bad housing. Anyone knows that authority does not readily
become the friend of the fallen. The military manner, even when acquired
by Englishmen, is not always pleasant, and the sergeant who bullies his
own men is not likely to be more considerate to prisoners. Let us face
plain facts in these matters, and remember that all imprisonment is
rather terrible, and that all absolute authority (especially among
underlings) is apt to become tyrannous. In the prison camps of every
nation it is examples of a foolish military officialdom that make for
embitterment and degradation; and in these camps, too, it is the tact
which comes of true insight, that is doing much for that brotherhood of
hearts which is the only way to peace. "These people," says Eugster in
another place, "ought to be treated with tact. They should not be
treated as enemy prisoners, but as men and chivalrous adversaries. A
little consideration, not costing much, will make a good impression. A
friendly word, as from man to man, breaks the ice of discontent, and the
chivalrous spirit of the superior is recognised with gratitude."
To reach this standard we must try to think the best of our
adversaries. Charity is something less meagre than justice, and it holds
the future of the world in its grasp. In the past we denounced French,
Russians, Irish and Boers in turn. It was not denunciation that did much
for the future, but the larger-hearted charity which took its place.
PRISONERS IN FRANCE.
M. de Marval reports well of the feeding of prisoners in France. There
is the usual difficulty about vermin. The officer prisoners seem, in
many ways, to have the worst time. "Their lodging is in general too
crowded, badly ventilated, and badly lighted ... and lacking in
elementary comforts. They can ... buy ... chairs, tables, blankets,
etc."[6] There was in France, as elsewhere, considerable complaint in
the earlier days as to the delivery of parcels. The parcels arrived
broken and partly or wholly emptied of their contents. So it was, we may
remember, with parcels intended for English prisoners in Germany. The
probability is that in both cases imperfect packing was responsible for
the damage. (Cf. pp. 6, 8.) In the report just cited, De Marval states
that, in general, there has been great improvement in the lodging of the
prisoners, and that some bad camps (Vitré, Lorient, Belle-Ile) have been
broken up (January, 1915). Here again the reports coincide with those
made upon German camps. In all countries the prisoners of war presented
at first a problem not readily solved, and great hardships resulted.
"Some of the hospitals," writes M. de Marval, "lack comforts, are not
sufficiently roomy, or do not possess the necessary medicaments." He
goes on: "I shall not delay over the retrospective complaints often
formulated by prisoners.... Officers who had been injured by the
populace or bound during transport and soldiers who had told me of bad
treatment were alike pleased to declare that all such things were
past." Here again the report is exactly paralleled by the American
report on the German Camps. (Cf. p. 16). "Religious services are in
general arranged for the Catholics; it is very difficult to secure
ministrations for the Protestants." "If the officers are often meanly
lodged, the same is true of the soldiers. The bedding sometimes leaves
much to be desired, the straw in many of the camps is scanty, damp, and
pretty often full of lice. The litter is actually being replaced
everywhere by straw palliasses. As a support for these an open wooden
framework is placed on the beaten ground which is often wet. Those who
sleep under tents are subject to bronchitis and rheumatism, those who
are in forts or old convents sometimes lack the proper allowance of
air.... Though the quality of the water leaves something to be desired,
it is supplied filtered and boiled, and in amount generally
sufficient.... In some camps there is not enough water for washing
either the person or clothing.... In general each man has a blanket, but
it is very small and often much worn; some are still needed in some of
the camps.... If I have not referred to certain regrettable incidents of
which I have been told, it is because they appear isolated, and one must
guard against generalising from them. Besides, these incidents are
bygones and few in number." At Fougères (Brittany) "the beds are
touching each other." Cassabianda was a bad camp. So much has been made
of earlier defects in German camps that it is well to remember (as
indeed the above report shows) that defects may easily occur in other
countries besides Germany. Of Cassabianda (February 12)[7] we read:
"Huts extremely dilapidated. Sanitary accommodation worse than scanty.
(_Les W.--C. sont plus que sommaires_). Nourishment scarcely sufficient
for those who are working.... The cooking arrangements are worse than
scanty.... Sleeping accommodation extraordinary: beds made from boughs
by prisoners and superposed in two or three tiers. The ceilings and
windows are falling in ruins.... Wishes of the prisoners--to have more
to eat.... A very poor camp (_dépôt très médiocre_), but well governed
by a good and conscientious commandant who is badly seconded by his
officers. It is a difficult task to render habitable premises that are
falling into ruins." I am quite sure that none of us would impute ill
intent to the French authorities. We should say simply that the prisoner
problem was at first beyond their power, that in exceptional cases there
were bad officers and in others lack of organisation. If we are capable
of fair play, we shall, in many cases, say exactly the same thing about
the German authorities. In Germany the one outstanding question is food,
otherwise, as M.M. de Marval and Eugster state in a joint report issued
in May: "We fully recognise the excellent arrangement and perfect
organisation, thought out to the smallest detail, and the admirable
administration of the Camps."
LATER U.S. REPORTS.
It is allowed by all investigators that camps almost everywhere have
been improved as the war went on. Mr. Gerard himself writes, under date
June 10, 1915: "It is generally admitted that conditions in the camps
are constantly improving, and no good can be attained by the
investigations of complaints based upon reports of conditions as they
are supposed to have been several months ago." In citing the _earlier_
U.S. and Swiss reports I have therefore by no means exaggerated the
facts favourable to German treatment. There have been many later
reports, but it will be impossible and unnecessary to give more than a
few references:
The reports in Miscel. No. 15 (1915) give a quite favourable account of
the German efforts on behalf of the prisoners. Canadian officers at
Bischofswerda, however, complained of their treatment on the way from
the front. They said that "they were at first compelled to share their
compartments with French Algerian (black) soldiers, but that other
arrangements were made by a German officer in the course of their
journey." Some may consider this an interesting comment on the
employment of Algerian and other native troops.
HUNGER DURING TRANSPORT.
The Canadian officers also said "that while on the road they had
received but little food, their treatment not differing, however, from
that of other prisoners." On reading this I could not help recalling a
_Daily News_ interview headed "The Blue Ladies: Good work at the Free
Buffet at Euston." (June 24, 1916.) "We have just had the escort of some
German prisoners in," said one of the ladies. "We do not give anything
to the prisoners. We have enough to do to look after our own men." I
recalled, too, the British nurse who said in my presence, with a snap of
her fingers, "We have not _that_ much sympathy with the German wounded."
I want to believe that in the great majority of cases the attitude on
both sides is very different; but what a sundering influence war-like
patriotism is! We must surely reach brotherhood by some other way.
FRIEDRICHSFELD.
Mr. Michelson reports highly of the camp at Friedrichsfeld. All kinds of
work was going on. "No German foreman were to be seen, and only on
looking for them did I notice that there were, here and there, guards
watching the prisoners. In two instances I saw unguarded prisoners at
work." Some wounded at Magdeburg "all, without exception, said they had
been treated with great consideration while being transported from the
front." (June 3, 1915). The hospital treatment is spoken well of both
here and at the base hospital at Isighem, W. Flanders, visited by Dr.
Ohnesorg.
ORGANISATION AND RECIPROCITY.
I pass on to Miscel. No. 19 (1915). Writing in June, Mr. Gerard gives an
interesting account of the courses of instruction and lectures arranged
for German N.C.O.'s and men in order to increase their efficiency in
managing the camp kitchens. There is a characteristic touch of German
thoroughness in the scheme. Mr. Gerard concludes: "I should be glad to
have you bring the foregoing to the attention of the British Government.
The German military authorities have now satisfied themselves that
German prisoners in England are being treated as well as the conditions
admit (except with regard to the confinement on board ships, which is
still a sore point), and they are showing every disposition to treat
British prisoners (both officers and men) in the most favourable manner
possible, and to pay attention to their wishes in so far as can be done
consistently with the principle that all the prisoners (of whom there
are considerably more than one million) must be treated in practically
the same manner."
LAZARETS.
Writing from Hamburg, the American Consul-General, Mr. Morgan, says: "It
is not necessary for me to enter into the details of the different
lazarets which I visited, beyond stating that they are all in the most
up-to-date condition, and everything is being done for the wounded that
could be done anywhere." At the Paderborn lazarets, "Some of the men
said to me that it would be necessary to drive them away (that they
would make no attempt to escape) because they were so well cared for and
so comfortable." (p. 40, l.c.) At the Wesel lazarets, "Many of (the
British) were very uncomfortable from their wounds, but all replied that
their present treatment, as well as that which they had received at the
front, and on the way from the front, was, and had been, entirely
satisfactory.... All those consulted in regard to the matter said that
they had come from the front in a German lazaret train, together with
German wounded, and that, as nearly as they could tell, they had
received exactly similar treatment and care as accorded to the German
wounded. Their only request was for books and tobacco." (October 26,
1915.)
A DIFFICULTY.
At Neubrandenburg, "until a few days ago the officers were permitted to
use a tennis court outside the enclosure, to swim in the lake, and to
walk in the neighbouring woods. As four officers (one Englishman) made
an attempt to escape (from the bath house) these privileges were
temporarily suspended, but I was told by the Commandant, whose relations
with the prisoners are of the best, that they would be restored at an
early date."
The excellence of the bathing facilities at the officers' camp,
Friedberg, is commented on, as it frequently is in other cases. At
Giessen, Dr. Ohnesorg spoke with many prisoners who had had experience
of working camps. "They said (the work) was not hard, and before being
allotted to these various working camps, they underwent a thorough
medical examination, and those who were found in an unfit physical
condition were not detailed for this work. They are fed and housed by
their employer, and in one instance I met a complaint of insufficient
food."
SOME OFFICER CAMPS.
At Bad Blenhorst a number of prisoner officers are taking the "cure"
under a German military surgeon. At Clausthal "the situation of the
camp is ideal, being placed in the midst of the Hartz mountains, with a
wide expanse of view, and my visit gave me a very favourable impression
in general." At Cüstrin "The German officers treat the prisoners like
unfortunate comrades." At Bischofswerda the complaints were that
"shorts" were forbidden for football, and that baths were not allowed
more than once daily. The Commandant promised to remedy both grievances.
The report on Halle is unfavourable. There was overcrowding, and "the
enclosure for exercise leaves much to be desired." The food was not
complained of, except as regards monotony.[8]
KOENIGSBRUECK, ZWICKAU, GOERLITZ.
Königsbrück, a camp for 15,000 prisoners (but with only three British),
"is complete in all respects, and adheres to a high standard in regard
to the kitchens, theatre, washing-places, canteens, supply-room for
clothing, etc." Zwickau (with two British) "is excellent ... outside
each barrack is a specially built stand where the mattresses are aired
every day ... and within the confines of the camp are several acres of
vegetable gardens ... in which the French take particular interest." The
arrangements at Görlitz (with thirteen British) "in all details struck
me as being exceedingly good." In general hospital treatment at the
camps is entirely satisfactory.
SCHLOSS CELLE, WITTENBERG, STENDAL, FOOD.
In Miscel. No. 16 (1916) we may note the following: At the officers'
camp, Schloss Celle, "the Commandant in civil life is a judge, and
seemed on excellent terms with the prisoners." Mr. Gerard reports on a
visit of his own to Wittenberg on November 8, 1915. The soup for the
mid-day meal appeared to him "to be very good," and the testimony of the
men was to the effect "that the food had improved considerably during
the last two months." About 300 out of the 4,000 prisoners in this camp
were British.[9] At Stendal Mr. Osborne found the thick soup
"exceedingly palatable, though thoroughly un-English." The British
prisoners "admitted that they could live on the camp rations, if
necessary, and still retain good health, as is the case with the
Russians, and that their objection to the food was on account of its
sameness, and because it was not cooked in an English way." In March,
1916, Mr. Osborne reports that a large swimming pool is in process of
completion at one end of the camp.
REPORTS AND INFORMATION.
At Fort Friedrichshafen, Ingolstadt, "those who had no overcoats said
that they could get them from the German authorities if necessary, but
that they preferred to wait for the present to see if they could not be
sent from home. All would like new boots, as they are not pleased with
the wooden-soled boots provided locally." Sir Edward Grey, writing just
before the receipt of this report, referred to information "that the few
British prisoners of war at this camp are very badly fed, and that
parcels arrive with great irregularity, their contents being frequently
abstracted." In a reply dated a week later, Mr. Gerard (U.S. Ambassador
at Berlin) writes that "in reply to a direct inquiry, which was made out
of the hearing of any German officer or man," the British prisoners at
Ingolstadt "stated that there was nothing to which they would care to
have special attention paid. The men were in good spirits, and there was
no evidence to show that any of them were badly fed. All were in touch
with their friends at home, and no complaint was made with regard to
irregularity in the receipt of parcels."
FAVOURABLE AND HUMOROUS.