are to help the future we must try to see even this, amongst the other
terrible facts, in its proper perspective. The imprisonment of resident
enemy nationals has certainly been a most unfortunate step
backwards--unfortunate even if we regard it as inevitable.[32] Yet we
must recognise that far more solicitude has been shown as to prisoners
than was the case in most earlier wars, and this though prisoners have
never been taken on so large a scale, and though there has probably
never been greater embitterment. It will be useful to cite a few
previous records.
NAPOLEONIC WARS.
I quote once more from Dr. Spaight's work, where much information may be
found in a condensed form. "A hundred years ago, England, while she
prayed in her national liturgy for all prisoners and captives, had no
compunction about confining the French prisoners of war in noisome hulks
and feeding them on weevily biscuits, salt junk and jury rum, which
sowed the seed for a plentiful harvest of scurvy, dysentery and typhus."
("War Rights on Land," p. 265.)
AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.
Here is a description of the state of things in the Confederate
internment camp at Andersonville during the American Civil War, which,
after all, did not happen so very long ago. "Over 30,000 prisoners were
cooped up in a narrow space; there was no shelter from the sun or cold
but what the men could improvise for themselves; every possible disease
was rampant; the prisoners were largely naked; the dead were pitched
into a ditch and covered with quicklime; the smell of the dreadful
stockade extended for two miles.... The state of affairs was known, or
might have been known, at Richmond, for Colonel Chandler,
inspector-general of the Confederate army, inspected the camp, and
reported upon its administration in no halting terms. 'It is a place,'
he said, 'the horrors of which it is difficult to describe--it is a
disgrace to civilisation.'"
Of the prisoners returning from the South, Whitman writes: "The sight is
worse than any sight of battlefield or any collection of wounded, even
the bloodiest. There was (as a sample) one large boat load of several
hundreds--and out of the whole number only three individuals were able
to walk from the boat. Can those be _men_--those little, livid, brown,
ash-streaked, monkey-looking dwarfs?" (_Cambridge Magazine_, August 26,
1916, Supplement "Prisoners," p. iv.) In spite of such appalling horrors
(worse than the atrocities of rage and fear and drink) the North and
South became reconciled, and with the passing of war bitterness passed
too. The South was hard pressed, supplies often ran out, and there was
indifference at Richmond. And so the military bullies often got the
upper hand, and their appetite for bullying grew with what it fed on.
The North refused all exchanges. "The prisoners at Richmond, Belle-Isle,
and Andersonville were the pawns in a great match, and had to be
sacrificed to the rigour of the game." (Spaight, _l.c._, p. 270.)
FRANCO-GERMAN WAR, 1870.
In the Franco-German War of 1870 terrible hardships were endured by
prisoners on both sides. The winter transport to Germany in open trucks
led to scenes of indescribable misery for the French prisoners, who
arrived sometimes "frozen to the boards in their own filth." German
prisoners at Pau had for six days only bread and water till English and
German ladies took pity on them. Faidherbe's prisoners had no fire, no
blankets and insufficient food in a cold of sixteen degrees. Things now
are at least better than that.
RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR, 1904.
The Japanese seem to have behaved remarkably well to their Russian
prisoners in the Russo-Japanese War. But even here there was a food
problem. The Japanese food did not suit the Russian soldier, and Sir Ian
Hamilton was told by Russian prisoners going South that they felt hungry
again half an hour after eating their ration of rice. The Japanese have
usually been held up as models for their treatment of prisoners, yet,
for all that, Professor Ariga admits that in Manchuria the prisoners
were _in many cases badly fed, badly housed and insufficiently clothed_.
We know that this involves great misery, suffering and mortality, yet we
are, quite rightly, very far from considering the Japanese as
barbarians. We are ready to consider their difficulties. Were we,
however, fighting Japan, we should not be so ready.
BOER WAR.
There is plenty of evidence of good treatment of prisoners on both sides
during the Boer War. It is in these days strange to find the German
General Staff historian quoted in defence of the British treatment of
prisoners. They behaved, he wrote, "as perfect gentlemen towards the
prisoners." "The testimony of a responsible writer of this kind," says
Dr. Spaight, "is more valuable than the catch-penny stories of British
inhumanity which flooded the Press of Europe at the time of the war."
"One is surprised to find such a writer as M. Arthur Desjardins lending
his authority to back the uninformed newspaper abuse, and ascribing the
brutality of the British Army (which he presumes) to the fact that 'a
certain number of its soldiers, accustomed to fighting away from Europe,
have not the least notion of the laws and customs of war obtaining among
civilised nations'." (Spaight, _l.c._, p. 275.) Dr. Spaight's comments
on such outbursts is: "There was a popular demand [in Europe] at the
time for denunciation of England, the hotter the better, and the writers
were too good journalists not to suit their output to the popular
taste." I will not spoil the rather rich humour of these extracts by any
remarks of my own.
Undoubtedly the Boers usually behaved well. Undoubtedly, too, there were
some bad lapses. A Free State commandant was, for instance, convicted of
putting prisoners in the firing line and driving starving prisoners on
foot with a mounted commando. Such things, however, were very far from
being the rule. During the guerilla warfare treatment depended entirely
on the local commandants. The stripping of prisoners before they were
turned adrift was often carried out, "and there is some force in De
Wet's contention that the seizure was justified by the British practice
of removing or burning all the clothes left in the farms and even taking
the hides out of the tanning tubs and cutting them in pieces." In some
cases starving, unarmed and practically naked men were abandoned far
from any white settlement. What is and what is not allowable in war
seems so largely a matter of "military necessity" that the layman is
reluctant to comment, for, in the last resort, it is only the
_needlessly_ barbarous that is condemned in war.
CONCENTRATION CAMPS.
On our side, we cannot, I think, contemplate the history of the
concentration camps with equanimity. Let us recall a few of the facts.
The following are amongst the death rates recorded in July, 1901:
Norval's Pont, 218.4 (per thousand per annum); Bloemfontein, 242.4;
Springfontein, 462.0; Kronstad, 459.6. In June the _average_ death rate
was practically 200 (199.3). In the year ending February, 1902, the
official returns (which are incomplete) show more than 20,000 deaths in
camps with an average total population of about 100,000.[33] Our
accusers said the camps were instituted for the purpose of killing off
the Boer population. The truth is, the feeling against Britain, even
amongst the onlookers, was extremely bitter, and great bitterness does
not make for sane judgment. What is certain is that the camps
illustrated some of the callousness and carelessness which war always
produces. "The sites chosen for the camps were mostly chosen on purely
military grounds, and were often unsuitable; the medical and sanitary
staff was at first insufficient," writes Dr. Spaight. But, "unsuitable
sites, and insufficient" sanitation may produce terrible results, where
human lives are concerned, and one would not convert an adverse critic
by simply quoting the "_Times_ History" to the effect that "the Boers
themselves proved to be helpless, utterly averse to cleanliness, and
ignorant of the simplest principles of health and sanitation." The
attempt to shift the chief burden of responsibility on to the prisoners
is surely scarcely chivalrous. Carelessness and ignorance amongst the
prisoners are certain in all such cases to be contributory causes, they
are amongst the difficulties to be combatted, but to suggest that they
should have been permitted to produce such appalling results is to court
derision. Moreover, the chief authority on the subject, Lieut.-Col.
S. J. Thomson, C.I.E., I.M.S., who became Director of Burgher Camps in
February, 1902, by no means supports these charges. "Much has been
said," he writes, "about the want of personal cleanliness among the
Boers, but it must be remembered that ablutions are apt to be less
frequent and popular when water has to be laboriously brought from
considerable distances, as is often the case with farms on the veldt.
When bathrooms were provided in the camps, they were very freely and
regularly used. Nevertheless it is a fact that the Boer's notion of
sanitation as understood by Englishmen is very vague, and all classes
resort for purposes of nature to the open country. This custom, probably
innocuous enough under the conditions of existence on an isolated
homestead, made it extremely difficult to maintain the cleanliness of a
camp site, and it was very long before the people could be brought to
see that foul matters and dirty water could not be most satisfactorily
disposed of by the simple process of flinging them out of the tent. It
was found indeed that such proceedings had hopelessly fouled certain
camps, and the removal of the people to a fresh site was followed by the
best results. In a later chapter, the procedure which was found most
successful is described in detail."[34] In July, 1902, the average death
rate for the Burgher Camps had sunk to 23.0, and it fell afterwards even
lower.
Tents were, in general, the only housing allowed, and this, though "the
cold in the 'upper veldt' country in winter was intense." (Thomson.)
What were known as _bona fide_ refugees were allowed meat, but those who
had their man on commando were, at first, allowed none. This was
altered, however, in March, 1901. As to the families of this class,
Major Goodwin reported in this month: "I would, therefore, beg
respectfully to here place on record my opinion that had we compelled
class 3 to decide between unprotected starvation on their farms, and at
their homes, or taking up their quarters in or behind the enemy's lines,
we should have facilitated the work of proselytism." Thus readily, we
observe, may the starvation of women and children be advocated by an
English Major as an aid to "proselytism." There were other ways in which
"military necessity" showed itself. A Board of three reported on the
site of Merebank Camp in December, 1901. The President was Surgeon-Gen.
Clery, C.B., and the two members, Col. McCormack, R.A.M.C., and Mr.
Ernest Hill, Health Officer of Natal. "The Board is of opinion that the
site is by no means an ideal site, and has imperfection as regards
elevation, drainage, etc., but do not recommend that the camp should be
removed ... for the following reasons: (1) It is necessary that any camp
should be on a railway line. (2) Purely sanitary arrangements as to site
have to be held subservient to military exigencies. The latter do not
permit the camps being located in the uplands, as military and civil
traffic arrangements make it essential that the main line should not be
further congested," ... and so on. The Camp had been condemned by the
Ladies' Commission.[35]
The view I have given is the view admitted gradually and reluctantly by
officials themselves. Miss Hobhouse gives a rather different account of
things. In the earlier days of the camps, she tells me, the condition of
things might be summarised thus: "Overcrowding (up to sixteen in a
bell-tent)--no water supply--no soap--no beds or bedding--no fuel
supplied--no utensils--barest rations--sanitary staff inefficient or
non-existent." In "The Brunt of the War" Miss Hobhouse writes on page
118 of Bloemfontein Camp: "My request for soap was met with the reply,
'Soap is a luxury.' ... Finally it was requisitioned for, also
forage[36]--more tents--boilers to boil the drinking water--water to be
laid on from the town--and a matron for the camp. Candles, matches, and
such like I did not aspire to. It was about three weeks before the
answer to the requisition came, and in the interim I gave away soap.
Then we advanced a step. Soap was to be given, though so sparingly as to
be almost useless--forage was too precious--brick boilers might be
built--but to lay on a supply of water was negatived, as 'the price was
prohibitive.' Later on, after I had visited other camps, and came back
to find people being brought in by the hundred and the population
rapidly doubling, I called repeated attention to the insufficient
sanitary accommodation, and still more to the negligence of the camp
authorities in attending to the latrines. I had seen in other camps that
under proper administrative organisation all could be kept sweet and
clean. But week after week went by, and daily unemptied pails stood till
a late hour in the boiling sun, and the tent homes of the near section
of the camp were rendered unbearable by the resulting effluvia."
A sentence at page 120 has a bearing upon other wars and other helpers
of distressed "enemies":--"It became clear to my astonished mind that
both the censorship and system of espionage were not merely military in
character, but political and almost personal, so that even to feel, much
more to show, sympathy to the people was to render yourself suspect....
Everyone knows what class of men accept the work which means spying upon
neighbours, and can draw their own conclusions as to the value of such
reports."
As regards the food ration it has been seriously contended by others
besides Miss Hobhouse (_e.g._, T. S. Haldane, M.D., F.R.S.), that it was
totally inadequate. Dr. Haldane considered that "nothing but seething
discontent" and "an enormous death-rate" could be expected from the
dietary allowed. (_l.c._ p. 159.) But those who wish to learn more about
this and many other matters should consult Miss Hobhouse's remarkable
book.
The truth is, the prisoner's lot is always hard, and all nations have at
times made it a terrible one. It is only the recognition of brotherhood
that can alter this, and the recognition of brotherhood would end war.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 32: See the full statement, pp. 75 ff.]
[Footnote 33: See the summary of the official returns given by
Miss Emily Hobhouse on p. 328 of "The Brunt of the War." The
careful Boer compilation made after the war records the death of
26,370 women and children--more than four times the mortality
among the Boer combatants. The full details are recorded in the
archives at Pretoria, and it is to these that Miss Hobhouse
refers in the pamphlet containing her speech at the unveiling of
the National Monument at Bloemfontein on "Vrouwen-Dag," 1913.]
[Footnote 34: "The Transvaal Burgher Camps," by Lieut.-Col.
S. J. Thomson.]
[Footnote 35: The marshy site of Merebank is compared by Miss
Emily Hobhouse to that of the German camp at Wittenberg.]
[Footnote 36: "'Forage' needs explanation," writes Miss
Hobhouse. "We requisitioned for forage, because, as there was no
milk for the children, we were planning to buy some cows, _if_
we could secure forage. However, we failed."]
IV
REPRISALS OF GOOD.
For the information contained in this chapter I am greatly indebted to
the Friends' Emergency Committee. Most of it has already appeared in
their leaflets and reports, and in articles in _The Friend_. The
following is a reprint of a letter sent by the Bishop of Winchester to
the _Times_. It appeared in the issue of September 29, 1916:
GERMAN WORK FOR PRISONERS.
Sir,--The following facts, if you can find space for them, will,
I think, be of interest and encouragement amidst all the sorrow
and misery of war.
The word "reprisals" is often heard in diplomacy and in war;
reprisals are attempted or suggested; or reprisals of cruelty
are condemned, we rejoice to know, by the instinct and
conscience of the nation. These are all reprisals of what is
bad. Rarer, at least on the surface, are reprisals of good. But
here is such a case.
At the outbreak of the war members of the Society of Friends and
others came together for the purpose of bringing help to those
men and women of enemy nationality in this country upon whom the
war had brought suffering. Their lot was often a pitiable one.
The pull of contrary affections, the unkindness of former
friends, the sudden loss of means of livelihood, the internment
of the men, with its enforced idleness, were some of the
troubles which would have produced despair in many cases had not
the members of this "Emergency Committee" (169, St. Stephen's
House, Westminster)[37] come to the rescue. They have given
material help to thousands of families, and, above all, brought
the healing touch of human sympathy to the men in the camps and
their wives and children (mostly British-born) left to struggle
on alone outside.
It was early in the war also that a group of Germans came
together in Berlin and determined to start a similar work. The
news of what was being done by the British Committee soon
reached them and made them increase their efforts. Since then
the two bodies have been in close communication, and each has
endeavoured to see that what is done for "alien enemies" in one
country is promptly repeated in the other.
Among the recent activities of the Berlin Committee has been the
organising of travelling facilities and hospitality for wives
from other parts of Germany, who are now allowed to visit their
husbands at Ruhleben Camp; and it is now making vigorous efforts
to co-ordinate and increase the work of the various agencies in
Germany that are trying to lighten the lot of the military and
civilian prisoners of war in their camps. At the end of June, I
learn, a meeting in support of this work was held at the house
of Prince Lichnowsky, former Ambassador in London, who returned
specially from the front to preside. Many notable men and women
were present, and a collection of 8,000 marks was made.
My reasons for writing to you with this information are two. In
the first place, because these Berlin workers are incessantly
spreading, through the German Press and otherwise, news of the
doings of the British Committee, and even in this matter there
should be reprisals. And, secondly, one cannot be too thankful
to be able to put on record instances of that common humanity
which we knew must exist in some quarters even among our
enemies, overleaping national hates and prejudices, and which in
this great work of Dr. Siegmund Schultze and his colleagues is
so active and persistent. The names of several who are diligent
in the work in Germany are those of men personally known to me
in respect and affection; and (whatever their views of war and
of Britain may be--which I do not know) I can feel as sure of
their simple sincerity and good purpose as if they were my own
countrymen. This may be, perhaps, an added excuse for troubling
you.--Yours faithfully,
EDW. WINTON.
Farnham Castle. Surrey,
September 27.
The German work is an offshoot of the general work undertaken by the
Enquiry and Assistance Agency for Germans abroad and foreigners in
Germany (_Auskunfts-und Hilfsstelle für Deutsche im Ausland und
Ausländer in Deutschland_). The following is a translation of the appeal
issued by the parent society:
The war has caused great distress amongst countless Germans in
foreign countries. In helping our countrymen we have to rely
almost exclusively on the benevolence of the societies which
have been for years in co-operation with us in those countries,
especially upon our English and American co-workers in the
religious societies for international friendship. In England,
where great difficulties for German subjects might have been
expected from the exceptional conditions prevailing, a Committee
was formed directly the war broke out, whose object was to
provide support for distressed Germans and Austrians in England;
and already many Germans have told us verbally and in writing of
the valuable help given to them by this Committee.
In consequence of many requests and complaints we have felt that
it was our duty to interest ourselves in those foreigners who
were in difficulties in Germany. At a time when the German
people, from the highest to the lowest, have joined together in
the consciousness of a stern defence against their enemies, and
are fighting out the great struggle for existence and freedom,
it may well appear to many that it is superfluous to render to
the alien enemies amongst us any more than the most necessary
services. But we have not only to think of those Germans who are
now abroad, not only to remember that those foreigners who are
in need in Germany are for the most part Germany's best friends
and are bound to us by a thousand ties; besides all this the
task is laid upon us by our own desire to render friendly
service in these times of hatred to those who now find it so
difficult to obtain help. Even in war time, whoever needs our
help is our neighbour, and love of their enemies remains the
distinguishing mark of those who are loyal to our Lord.
We have accordingly decided to establish a Berlin Enquiry and
Assistance Office to work with the corresponding offices at home
and abroad, especially with the above-mentioned Emergency
Committee in London, the Berne and Stuttgart Peace Bureaux, etc.
We beg for help and gifts, which may be sent to the following
address: Berliner Auskunfts- und Hilfsstelle für Deutsche im
Ausland und Ausländer in Deutschland; communications to be
addressed to Fräulein Dr. Elisabeth Rotten, Berlin No. 18,
Friedenstrasse 60.
The signatories to this appeal were: Prof. W. Foerster, Ehrich
Gramm (Banker), Dr. Kleineidam (Provost), Eduard de Neufville,
Prof. Rade, Julius Rohrbach (Pastor), Dr. Elisabeth Rotten, Dr.
Alice Solomon, F. Siegmund-Schultze (Pastor), Dr. Spiecker,
Pastor Umfried.
It is important to note that of the families and others helped by the
Committee, the largest percentage (49) were English. Russians made up
24 per cent, and French 9 per cent. (Dr. Elisabeth Rotten's circular of
April, 1916.)
The following documents explain themselves:--Extract from a letter of
Dr. Elisabeth Rotten, dated January 6, 1916.
In spite of the fact that the numbers of permanent workers in
the office and out of it increase all the time, we have work
here from morning to night, often including holidays. But we do
it gladly, for it is a labour of love. At present our chief work
lies in taking home French children from the occupied territory
of France. In Belgium this work is now nearly discharged, and a
lady has only to go there once more, this month, to fetch the
last batch of children. The French children are not fetched by
our delegates; they travel in the larger trains for civilians,
who are brought from the occupied territory of France, through
Switzerland, back into the unoccupied[38] parts. What we now
have to do is to see that the children who had been left behind,
separated from their parents, are reunited with them as quickly
as possible. The children themselves seldom know where their
parents are, but we have the addresses through working in
conjunction with the International "Feminist" Bureau at
Lausanne. This creates a great deal of correspondence with the
respective authorities. I am glad to be able to add that the
[German] War Office has come forward with sympathy to help us in
this work.
We have sent large consignments of warm clothing and
food--including honeycake--to the civilian prisoners' camps at
Ruhleben and Holzminden, to be distributed among those that
received nothing from other sources. French and Russian
civilians are interned at Holzminden.