account as "an inaccessible, gloomy, mildewed-looking house, with all
the windows on 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.)
A FRIENDLY THOUGHT.
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."
UNRELIABLE COMPLAINTS.
"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 the _Basler
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.
Rumours, of course, still continue. They will continue as long as
passions run high. There was a rumour of smallpox at Ruhleben. The
English Captain of 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.
PRISONER WORKERS.
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.
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 the _Daily News_ of 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 his prisoner-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.
SOME OTHER PRISONERS.
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 this condition. 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 felt
then, and feel more strongly now, that kindness cannot grow out of
merely aggressive patriotism.
TURKEY.
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 the _Daily News_ of 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.
Statements about _enemy_ reprisals 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.
SERBIA.
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 the _Nation_ of 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 the town 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."
RUSSIA.
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 the _Cambridge Magazine_ of
August 26, 1916, Supplement "Prisoners." It may be well to add this: in
November, 1918, Erzberger, interviewed by Dr. Stollberg, of the
_Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung_, asserted that out of 250 thousand
prisoners in Russia only 100 thousand remained alive.
AN IMPORTANT COMPARISON.
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 to Irish 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:
[Footnote 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 to _terra firma_ is
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.]
[Footnote 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.]
[Footnote 4: _Comité International de la Croix Rouge, Première
Série._]
[Footnote 5: The number of prisoners now (October, 1917) in
Germany is probably nearly three times as great.]
[Footnote 6: _Comité International Rapports_ (Première Série, p.
31).]
[Footnote 7: l.c., p. 60.]
[Footnote 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].)]
[Footnote 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...."]
[Footnote 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."]
[Footnote 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.)]
[Footnote 12: "The Common Cause." October 16, 1914.]
II.
CIVILIAN PRISONERS.
RESIDENT ENEMY NATIONALS.
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 expulsion _en masse_ of 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 end of 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."
ORIGIN OF GENERAL INTERNMENT.
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).]
_Memorandum communicated by American Embassy,_
October 17, 1914.
The American Embassy has the honour to submit the following copy
of a telegram which has just been received from the Secretary of
State at Washington relating to civilian prisoners in the United
Kingdom and Germany: