disbanded "Camp Committee"? The United States Ambassador on more than
one occasion proved himself capable of speaking very decidedly to the
German authorities of things he disapproved of. In this case, too, he
speaks (though not to the German authorities) with some decision:
A properly heated and lighted recreation and assembling room is
certainly extremely desirable for the damp and cold winter time.
A new barrack has been sanctioned by the military authorities
for the purpose, and I will do my best to press the work. I
might venture to suggest that if so many private individuals had
not occupied necessary space by election of private clubs the
military authorities would be more willing to grant permission
for the erection of further buildings intended for public good.
Further, if the very men, such as the "camp committee" (who are
all members of the "summer house" club), had devoted some of the
energies which they expended upon the erection of the club for
their own private use to the construction of a public
sitting-room, the building might already be in use.
The British tax-payer is paying a large sum in wages because the
Ruhleben prisoners are unwilling to do the fatigue work of the
camp. The captured British soldiers who have been fighting in
the trenches are compelled to do work in work camps, are often
not properly clothed, do not receive an allowance from the
British tax-payer of 5M. a week, cannot buy food at less than
cost price, nor go to a sanatorium (at the expense of the
British tax-payer) when sick; have not the benefit of expert
dental and optical treatment, have no public libraries,
lectures, schools, debates, or camp newspapers, have not seven
tennis courts, three football fields, athletic games, cricket,
golf and hockey, are not amused by dramas, comic operas and
cinema shows, and above all are not paid extra wages for doing
their own work to make themselves comfortable. All of these
advantages and more which the Ruhleben prisoners enjoy have been
largely the result of the effort of the camp administration
which this commentator criticises.
These rather strong words of Mr. Gerard's display a not unnatural
irritation against a critic whose facts prove unreliable and whose
mental attitude suggests a somewhat querulous bias, but it is only fair
to remind ourselves that after long internment all suffer from nerve
strain and many suffer very severely. Under these circumstances complete
reasonableness is probably more than any of us would be capable of.
SHORT RATIONS.
At Ruhleben there are (with the exception of some negroes) English only.
The English receive many packages. The German authorities have been
tempted to rely on those packages increasingly. That is the state of
things revealed in Dr. A. E. Taylor's report of June 14, 1916. [Miscel.
No. 21 (1916).]
A review of the present ration of the prisoners of war indicates
that it is the aim of the 'Kriegsernährungsamt' to supply a
ration which shall be physiologically adequate, though
professedly containing little more than enough to cover minimal
requirements; and it is believed that the official prisoners'
ration contains as much as the daily food of many millions of
German subjects. There is no question that the official prison
ration is an adequate ration from the standpoint of animal
nutrition. In addition to this allotted camp ration the
prisoners possess the food sent in from abroad as addenda.
In the case of the Russian prisoners, these extra food stuffs
sent in from abroad are small in amount; in the case of the
French, moderate; in the case of the English, large. In all the
prison camps that I have visited it is the practice to prepare
food for the number of men in the camp, irrespective of
nationality, in accordance with the menu of Professor Backhaus.
As a rule, the British prisoners take little or none of the
food, and their share is eaten by prisoners of other
nationalities. In Ruhleben the state of affairs at present
existing has convinced the interned civilians that the situation
is, so to speak, reversed: that the German authorities seem to
regard the foodstuffs sent in from abroad as the regular diet of
the interned men, and the camp allotments as the addenda.
It is not surprising that "the interned men are deeply dissatisfied with
the present state of affairs." The German authorities, finding that at
least half the total number of the interned at Ruhleben subsist largely
upon private packages, have made a "sharp reduction in the amount of
foodstuff allotted to the camp." I have no wish to defend this
proceeding, but it must be allowed that to the Government of a blockaded
country there is a great temptation to cut down supplies when this will
not be a danger to the prisoners themselves.
Both reports of Dr. Taylor [Miscel. No. 18 (1916) and Miscel. No. 21
(1916)] are important studies of the question of nutrition, and his
short discussion (No. 18, p. 4) of the psychological aspects of
monotonous diet and the nutritional effects of internment is worth
careful attention. "A diet that would be tolerated if the subject were
at liberty may become intolerable under conditions of imprisonment.
There is a large personal equation operative in this direction. The
soldier imbued with a high sense of his value to his country and of the
justice of his cause will endure a monotonous diet that would not be
endurable in the prisoner overwhelmed with disappointment and crushed
with sorrow." These considerations are obviously of general application.
SOME COMPARISONS.
Mr. Gerard, in a note of June 28, 1916 [Miscel. No. 25 (1916)],
animadverts strongly on the bad accommodation still provided at
Ruhleben. The letter is rather strikingly different in tone from his
other reports on Ruhleben.
It is intolerable that people of education should be herded six
together in a horse's stall, and in some of the lofts the bunks
touch one another. The light for reading is bad, and reading is
a necessity if these poor prisoners are to be detained during
another winter. In the haylofts above the stables the conditions
are even worse.[24]
Bishop Bury's account ("My Visit to Ruhleben," p. 30) reads:
I don't know whether it was our internment at Newbury,[25] the
race-course for Reading, or our using race-courses, such as
Kempton Park, for the training of our own men, which caused
Ruhleben to be chosen in November, 1914, as a suitable place for
civilians' internment.... Without any description of mine it may
be easily understood what they had to suffer until proper
arrangements were made.... The loose boxes are now properly
fitted with bunks, some being larger than others. The large
corridor, with its stone floor, gives air and space, the lofts
particularly being extremely well adapted now for their present
purpose. I prefer the lofts to the boxes, because they have
corridors out of which one can look, whereas the windows in the
boxes are usually far above the ground. I went to tea more
frequently in the boxes, and on one occasion we sat down sixteen
in number--rather a crowd--but we were quite comfortable.
Bishop Bury has seen something on both sides, and his impressions are
for that reason all the more important. We must not forget, too, that he
lived a week with the prisoners at Ruhleben. It is also only fair to
remember that no one has been invited to spend a week in any camp on
this side. Bishop Bury also tells us "that when, a little time ago, the
authorities proposed to relieve the overcrowding and construct another
camp at Havilburg which could accommodate 600 men, the men at once
petitioned that this idea might not be carried out, as they preferred,
after this length of time to stay where they are." (l.c., p. 40.)
One caution must, however, be given to the readers of Bishop Bury's
book. The conditions of the camp during the excitement and interest of
his visit could not be the normal conditions. The frightful monotony of
the long confinement does not obtrude itself in his book. Yet there is
no doubt, I fear, that internment everywhere (at Ruhleben, as elsewhere)
is becoming "intolerable." To live, as at Alexandra Palace, day and
night, for _years_ in a great hall with more than a thousand others must
become almost destructive to any sensitive nature. But (to quote Dr.
Siegmund Schulze once more) "We ought not to conclude from this that we
are justified in making reproaches.... in respect of the treatment of
prisoners, but rather conclude that we should work energetically towards
the termination of the war."
Dr. Cimino, very, and very naturally, anti-German as he is, writes:
The only real suffering we experienced at Ruhleben was from the
cold.... The fact is that he (Count Schwerin) was as
kind-hearted an old soldier as ever fondled an English wife, and
loved his English prisoners.... He used to take part in our
daily life as much as possible.... As to the concerts, he was
always present, _et pour cause_; he was passionately fond of
music.... at the end of the concert he would make his little
speech, and we filed out. But one night we gave him a rousing
cheer, and the whole crowd struck up, "For he's a jolly good
fellow." ("Behind the Prison Bars in Germany," p. 95).[26]
As to the food question, we must not forget that the blockade against
Germany and the pressure upon neutrals have been continually increased
in stringency. Up to October, 1915, Mr. Gerard could write as follows of
Ruhleben:
The food material is excellent and the cooking, as I have
stated, is attended to by the prisoners themselves, those doing
the cooking receiving payment from the British fund, with the
exception of 150M. weekly allowed for cooks' wages by the German
authorities. The prisoners are given, if they choose, a
bread-card, and are allowed to purchase extra bread--the
Kriegsbrod, which we all use in Germany and which is quite
palatable--at the price of 55 pfennige a loaf. Food also, as I
have stated, can be purchased in the canteen at prices very much
less than food can be purchased in Berlin, and at very much less
than cost.--[Miscel, No. 3 (1916)].
The low price at the canteen, was, however, I take it, owing to the
existence of the camp fund contributed to by the British Government.
Lord Newton spoke in the House of Lords on February 22, 1917, on the
question of prisoners of war. The following extract is from the _Daily
Telegraph_ report:
There was nothing to be gained by exaggerating the conditions of
prisoners in Germany or elsewhere. There was neither sense nor
truth in representing, as was constantly done, that Ruhleben was
a sort of unspeakable hell upon earth, and that a British
internment camp was a kind of paradise compared with it. He
deplored the hardship that these men underwent, but it was a
great mistake to suppose that these civilians at Ruhleben were
undergoing greater hardships than those being endured by our
military prisoners. Like anyone who ventured to state the facts,
he would no doubt be accused of being a pro-German, but
certainly the conditions at Ruhleben had greatly improved
recently. These conditions had improved, not on account of any
action on the part of the German Government, but rather on
account of their inaction. They had permitted the British there
to organise on their own lines and make the conditions
tolerable. Anyone could satisfy himself as to the conditions,
because there were men who had arrived here recently who could
give the fullest information. In addition, they were able to
form their own opinions to a certain extent from independent
testimony, for example, the visit of Bishop Bury. He could not
understand why this prelate had been subjected to so much attack
on the part of certain persons in this country. He went to
Germany by permission of the German Government. He went to
Ruhleben, lived in the camp, and was able to see what the
conditions were. He reported exactly what he saw, and was
thereupon denounced as not only being an inaccurate person but
obviously pro-German.
ABSENCE ON LEAVE.
The following private testimony is also of interest: "A nephew of mine
who is interned at Ruhleben has been let out for a fortnight's visit to
some people whose son is interned in England, and who has been
befriended here. My nephew met with the most overwhelming kindness, and
his letters are most interesting and touching." The "reprisals of good,"
which we shall consider more fully presently, are, after all, the most
practical measures in the world. There have been several other absences
on leave, and a good many men have been released permanently. Moreover,
at Christmas, 1916, most of the British officials in the camp were given
three days leave in Berlin.
PRISONERS' ACTIVITY.
We may well be proud of the organising capacity of the British prisoners
at Ruhleben and of the resolute determination of so many to make the
very most of every slender opportunity, and to turn difficulties into a
stimulus for ingenuity. The following is from the _Manchester Guardian_,
February 23, 1916:
A letter from Mr. Walter Butterworth, dated January 22, and
written from his internment quarters at Ruhleben, Germany, has
been received by the Chairman of the Manchester Art Gallery, Mr.
F. Todd. After a reference to newly added pictures in the
Manchester Gallery and to the death of his friend, Mr. Roger
Oldham, Mr. Butterworth continues: "You will perhaps like to
hear a little about art matters in Ruhleben. We really have some
activity in arts and crafts. A great crowd of musicians are
here, including some composers and many excellently equipped
executants. We have actors in plenty, not without a sprinkling
of professionals. Professors, journalists, and lecturers are our
nearest approximation to workers in the literary field. There is
no stint of craftsmen, who produce very clever work in wood,
metals, etc. With provision tins they make the most astonishing
things, including tackle for our physics and chemical
departments, for weighing, testing, measuring, etc. With only
tins and wire a man made an amazing electrical clock, which has
kept faultless time for over a year. Other men made a handloom
for demonstration purposes, which wove cloth before our eyes at
a meeting of Yorkshiremen, at which I presided.
Turning to the fine arts of painting and sculpture, I did not
know we had any sculptors until this month, except one clever
young artist who models heads in clay. But this month we have
had a great deal of snow, and two men who have hitherto been
resting came forward, and, like Michael Angelo on a famous
occasion began to model in snow. But our designers and painters
are the most numerous and active (after the musicians). They
have a shed, in which art exhibitions are held periodically.
Many portraits are drawn and a few painted. One artist is just
completing a portrait of me in pastels. There is an endless
outpouring of theatre posters, caricatures, humorous drawings,
skits on the camp, etc."
Six students at Ruhleben passed the London University Matriculation
examination in December, 1916. One of them took the Edinburgh papers as
well later on. (_Observer_, August 26, 1917.) These are remarkable
cases, for the strain of prolonged internment seems most of all to
affect the power of concentrated attention.
The case of another successful student is recorded in the _Daily News_
of June 2, 1918:
The distinction--probably unique--of graduating for the degree
of Doctor of Music of Oxford University while a prisoner in
enemy hands has been achieved by Mr. Ernest Macmillan, a young
man with Edinburgh connections. Mr. Macmillan, who is the son of
a clergyman in Toronto, was studying music in Germany when the
war broke out, and since then he has been interned as a civil
prisoner at Ruhleben. His answer to examination papers and his
"exercise" (or composition) were sent from Ruhleben to Oxford.
That such things are possible at Ruhleben is a great tribute to English
spirit and endurance. We must also not forget that they would clearly be
wholly impossible if the Germans were actually barbarians.
A FRIENDLY ENEMY.
When Bishop Bury during his visit in November, 1915, asked what he might
be allowed to say at Ruhleben, General Friedrich replied: "Please do all
you can to hearten and cheer up your fellow countrymen. Appeal to their
patriotism, speak to their manhood. You and they will have no one
between you. There will be no official of the camp; no one to listen to
you, no one to come between yourself and them. We trust you entirely
with them, and you will understand, I am sure, that we do not wish to
diminish anyone's sense of nationality who is imprisoned or interned in
Germany." ("My Visit to Ruhleben," p. 21.) The words, says Bishop Bury,
"seemed to come straight from the heart of the speaker." Some readers
will be sceptical; but at least _the words were acted on_. The Bishop
spoke about the armies and the war to the men, and told them of his own
experiences in the war area, "just as I should have told them to my own
countrymen in this country." At his last address the British flag was
run in on a cord and "God Save the King" was sung. The Bishop had no
time to propose the omission of the second verse, but one is proud to
know that those Englishmen, even amidst their excitement, spontaneously
omitted it. The whole scene revealed what was finest on both sides.
Bishop Bury told the German Staff that at the meeting "we all sang 'Send
him victorious.' They smiled indulgently."
WAR TERRORISM.
A good many more things of a favourable character could be said.
Unfortunately men who speak well of their German captors are accused of
pro-Germanism, and they dare not speak. This is a rather terrible fact,
but it is a fact. As one man said to me: "I have my living to get, and
if my identity could be traced through any account I gave I should be
ruined. My work has already been very materially affected, but in
private conversation I shall continue to speak the truth, come what
may." War prejudice indeed desires one kind of story only, and
victimises those who give it what it does not want. And so all along the
line suppression begets suppression of the truths most needed to heal
our ills. A woman teacher writes to me: "I think I have a fairly open
mind myself to recognise good deeds of the enemy; but to tell such to my
pupils is another matter, and I fear would be very impolitic seeing that
I depend on my school for my daily bread." And again the Editor of a
provincial paper writes: "... but when one has to rely on the public
for one's living one has to think twice before expressing one's views."
LAST DAYS AT RUHLEBEN.
Mr. Desmond wrote of the coming of the Revolution at Dülmen (vide p.
61), Mr. Sylvester Leon has told us something of the last days at
Ruhleben (_Herald_, January 4, 1919). "The soldiers are with you," said
Mr. Powell to the interned men. "For with the triumph of the Revolution,
that friendliness which had existed in the days of the old régime
between the interned and many an individual German soldier now became
general among the military of Ruhleben; the officers had flitted, or had
capitulated to the new order of things with more or less grace; Councils
of soldiers and workmen ruled in the towns of the Fatherland; the era of
Social Democracy was dawning upon Central Europe.... It is but fair to
admit that the Ruhleben Guard acted very loyally in the performance of
their duty. For when they were given the option of returning to their
homes they did not avail themselves of that opportunity, but volunteered
to remain at their posts until the disbandment of the camp. It is of
historic interest to note that the red flag--the symbol of the triumph
of the Revolution--which flew from the flag-pole in the camp, had
formerly done service in the cubicle of one of the interned. It was dyed
red by another of the interned, a doctor of science and a member of our
little camp school, and then given to the soldiers.... The first
impression gained on a visit outside the camp was the terrible
seriousness of the food question. No one who has once seen can ever
forget the sight of the crowds of hungry women and school children
standing outside the gates of Ruhleben, literally besieging the interned
as they passed out." For it was only the interned who had food to spare.
The Ruhlebenites gave, they had the facts before them. And "the people
of Spandau turned out in force to wish us 'Godspeed' on our departure
for home; and the send-off they gave us was astonishing in its
enthusiasm, arresting in its spontaneity, and touching in its obvious
sincerity."
HAVELBERG.
At Havelberg the camp for civilians had a population of 4,500. Of these
only 372 were British subjects, being men from British India. Mr. Dresel
writes on September 17, 1916: "This camp produces an excellent
impression, the arrangements being unusually hygienic and modern."
[Miscel. No. 7 (1917), p. 6.]
ON BEHALF OF THE CIVILIANS.
Yet, however excellent the impression may be, an internment camp is a
miserable place.[27] It is, of course, especially miserable for those
whose nature is at all sensitive, and it is surely such men whom we
shall need everywhere if we are to make a less brutal world. Man after
man has gone into internment seeking to employ himself and to make the
best of it. For months, for a year, less often for nearly two years he
has succeeded. But slowly success has dwindled and turned into failure.
The monotony, the sense of oppression, the physical and mental
discomfort, the deadly uselessness of the life--even where to these
things is not added concern for those outside--have made him incapable
of fixed attention, incapable of effort, incapable of rest, alternately
nervous and torpid, fearful, despairing. The "barbed wire disease" has
him in its grip at last. "Another winter interned here," wrote such a
one, "and I shall need a padded cell." He had a fine nature and had
struggled hard. But "the people outside do not understand." Certainly,
there are those who can hold out to the end. I admire and envy them. I
do not think any of us could predict with certainty that we should not
give way.
There is only one remedy short of stopping the war, and that is the
release of all civilians. Those who wish to remain, either in Germany or
here, should certainly be allowed to do so, and if the police have no
case against them, and if they can support themselves, they should be
set free. Others should be repatriated or sent to neutral countries. The
imprisonment of civilians is against the usage of war, and it is this
fact which gave force to the claim of the German Government that there
should be complete release on both sides.
I append extracts from a Swiss appeal to the belligerents on behalf of
the civilian prisoners. It was issued in August, 1917, and has already
appeared in _Common Sense_.
A civilian is not a prisoner of war.
We gladly acknowledge that the belligerent powers have
effectively lessened the sufferings of the prisoners of war with
an intelligent understanding of their duty; the military
authorities have listened favourably to the proposals of the Red
Cross, and already the soldiers have been spared many
unnecessary sufferings. Humane measures have softened the
captivity of military prisoners.
In the name of Justice we now address this urgent appeal to the
authorities in the belligerent countries to adopt the same
attitude towards civilian prisoners.
We have in mind all civil prisoners, for these, almost without
exception, are innocent victims of the war; both those who since
the beginning of the war have been interned, and those others in
the occupied territories who have been isolated, oppressed or
imprisoned, many of them in poor health, women, children, old
men, who are not allowed to join their families in a neutral
land. Our deep compassion and brotherly sympathy are especially
moved on behalf of non-combatants who have been carried away
like herds.