Chapter III: Part 3

From Miscel. No. 7 (1917) a few extracts may be made. Of Parchim Dr. A. E. Taylor and Mr. J. P. Webster write: "We believe that special commendation should be given to the Commandant, Oberst Kothe, for the spirit in which he governs the camp, and for the way in which he does everything in his power for the welfare of the prisoners, and for the promotion of a cordial relationship between the men and those in charge." Of Brandenburg, Mr. Jackson writes candidly: "The part of the building occupied by the British prisoners was not so clean as the remainder, but for this the men themselves are responsible." It is obvious that the spirit as to this and other matters will vary in every country among different sets of men (c.f., _e.g._, below the very different Güstrow report).

COTTBUS.

Men in hospital at Cottbus "said that the food was good and their treatment excellent." Men in the main camp complained that bread sent to them from Switzerland and England arrived in a mouldy condition, but "as the mouldiness seemed to start in the middle of the loaf, they thought this was due to the quality of the bread itself or the manner in which it was packed."

ABSENCE ON LEAVE.

At Celle, where "inactive officers" and some others are detained, Mr. Jackson found one British subject absent on leave, while "several others have been permitted to make visits to their families in Germany. A request from another, who had obtained no benefit from his stay at Bad Blenhorst, for permission to go somewhere for a 'cure' is under consideration."

LIMBAU, GUESTROW.

At the working camp at Limbau (occupied Russian territory) "the men described the commandant as a 'gentleman,' and said they had no difficulty in communicating with him in regard to their wishes. None had any complaint to make of their treatment, and only a very few spoke of the work as hard." The camp contained 500 British prisoners.

At Güstrow, "the treatment of the men and the conditions found in their camp appeared to be very favourable. The commandant stated that the British were the most satisfactory prisoners under his care...." Two million, five hundred thousand letters passed through the camp post office in the previous year, and about sixty thousand packages were distributed.

HOSPITAL TREATMENT.

Hospital treatment is again and again described favourably in the individual reports (_e.g._, pp. 4, 6, 14, 22, 50, 57), but the opinion may here be cited of a Swiss doctor who has been occupied in German hospitals during most of the war:

The writer of these lines never saw anything anywhere that could
be considered as intentional change for the worse in the lot of
prisoners and sick; on the contrary, he was able to ascertain
that the prisoners and the sick are treated in a manner that
could not be more humane. If later on the food was insufficient,
the English must be aware of the reasons which brought about
far-reaching starvation among great circles of the population of
Germany.... From deepest conviction the writer of these lines
affirms that the German people and the German doctors are
[generally] without guilt in the face of the accusations made
against them. Individual exceptions, if proved, could not alter
this judgment.

THE REPATRIATIONS.

There are bad stories of men arriving half-starving at the British and French lines at the time of the general repatriations. It would require care and impartiality to sift these. The more experience one gains, the less one trusts the average newspaper report in war-time. It seems very probable that, as Erzberger contended, many prisoners made off of their own accord after the German Revolution, and the straits to which these men were reduced could scarcely be ascribed to the German authorities. That there were brutal cases of men being _driven_ away is also quite probable. As regards the general question of prisoners, Erzberger said: "If England can now actually prove that English prisoners of war have been illegally treated, I give my word no guilty person shall go unpunished. But allow me the counter question, Is it known in enemy countries how _German_ prisoners of war were frequently treated? I do not believe that is sufficiently well known. Only listen to our soldiers who come from France...." (Berlin, Nov., 24, 1918, _Wolff_.) It should be obvious that both sides must be heard before justice can decide, but the obvious is the unrecognised in war time. And probably even by the best and most impartial judgment only very rough generalisations can be arrived at. One need seems to me paramount, that each side shall become once more aware of the _good_ in the other. Here, then, are one or two favourable facts from repatriated men: "We understand that the Germans could not let us march to the frontier, as we were prepared to do, lest we should start to plunder the inhabitants. For the same reason we were accompanied on the train by a German N.C.O. with a rifle. At night we slept in school buildings at Zevenaar (?) where we were given food and coal, and were well treated. We gave some of our food there to Sisters for the poor.... We had not to pay any fare at Wesel. The Germans on the train wished to be very friendly. We understand that the German authorities helped to make the arrangements about our taking the train at Wesel. No special compartments were put on for us. We travelled with the ordinary passengers." (_Daily News_, November 25, 1918.)

Again:

The first contingent of British prisoners from Germany to arrive
in London under the terms of the armistice reached Cannon Street
Station from Dover yesterday. The party, numbering nearly 300,
were provided with hot refreshments on arrival. The men looked
remarkably fit, and one of the party explained that they had
mostly been working on the railways behind the lines, and their
treatment had been fairly good.

Another contingent of returned prisoners, numbering about 800,
arrived at Dover yesterday afternoon.

(_Daily News_, Nov. 21, 1918.)

The _Daily News_ has honourably distinguished itself by publishing favourable articles by repatriated prisoners. An officer writes:

Three days ago I arrived in England after having spent eight
months in a German prison camp. We were among the first
repatriated prisoners of war to come through Switzerland, and
were secretly amused at the attitude of friends and relatives on
our arrival home. They seemed to be quite surprised because most
of us were looking healthy and fit, and were not walking
skeletons or physical wrecks.

But after reading the home newspapers, we understood their point
of view. I do not for one moment suggest that these tales of
inhuman treatment are untrue or exaggerated, because I know many
cases which confirm them;[11] but I do say that this horrible
treatment has not been general, nor does it apply to all
prisoners of war. For this reason I am writing of what I know of
the prisoners in Baden, in Southern Germany, and I hope that
this article may allay the anxiety of those who are daily
expecting some dear one home, and who fear that he will be
terribly changed through suffering.

Men behind the lines had suffered far more, this officer considered. This is somewhat at variance with the extract last cited. The writer continues:

But the lot of the prisoners in the permanent camps in Baden was
much brighter. My authority for saying so is an old Roman
Catholic priest, Father Nugent, a native of Lancashire, I
believe, who was in Southern Germany when the war broke out. He
had free access to all prison camps and hospitals in Baden, and
had no stories of harsh and brutal treatment to tell. Two
American doctors were allowed to visit the hospitals in Rastatt,
Lazaret 4, and the Russenlager Hospital. They said that the
patients were comfortable and well looked after, in spite of the
great shortage of medical supplies in Germany.

Some of the soldiers had a good time working on the Baden farms.
One orderly at our camp, who was away for a fortnight in the
fruit season, picking plums, told me that he had met one of his
old regiment working on a farm. This man had just driven in to
the railway station for the Red Cross parcels, and told him that
they were working with an old German and his wife. They shared
rations with each other, and once a week the whole household
visited the cinema.

Delay in repatriation occurred owing to disorganisation.

But there is no ill feeling towards the prisoners in Baden.
After the armistice we wandered at will round Freiburg and in
the Black Forest; and everyone was treated with civility. There
were no cases of open hostility at all.

(_Daily News_, Dec. 18, 1918.)

Mr. G. G. Desmond volunteered at the age of 46. He was taken prisoner and gave (_Daily News_, Dec. 10, 1918) some account of his general outlook after his imprisonment. Unlike some of the stay-at-homes he can still believe in the German people, as the following concluding paragraphs of his article show:

The soldiers and the country people round Dülmen, and afterwards
everybody we met in those parts, expressed no sense of rancour
at their defeat, and simply leapt over it all to the prime,
joyful fact that the _Krieg_ was _fertig_. Everybody greeted you
with that, and covered his face with smiles thereby. Some said
that the terms were very hard, but agreed with me when I told
them that they were made hard in order to defeat thoroughly the
old gang and ensure a lasting peace. I wish I felt as certain
now as then that the Allies had that clean intention. One farmer
chuckled when he told me that Germany must give up a hundred and
fifty U-boats, because, he said, she had no such number.

One of the political parties, I am afraid I cannot remember
which, published a manifesto stating that Germany had been
deceived and betrayed by the military party, whereby among other
things she inflicted great wrongs on Belgium and the Allies, and
that she must pay in full for those wrongs. I do not doubt that
is a widespread feeling in Germany. If, however, the terms of
peace are to be vindictive, we shall in turn be in the wrong,
and the new Germany may have better cause than the old to hate
us.

When we were fighting the Kaiser, we took pains to tell the
German people that we were fighting their battle against their
enemies. We were, in fact, liberating the traditional distressed
damsel from the clutches of the ogre. It was a pity that so many
of our blows fell upon the damsel and not on the ogre. It would
be not only a pity but a crime and a grievous blunder if, now
that the damsel is free, we proceeded to thrash her for the
faults of the ogre.

The Germans, apart from their late Government, are not
Orientals intent upon deceiving us at every turn. They say they
have turned over a new leaf, and I am thoroughly persuaded that
they speak the truth. In business of all kinds, under
circumstances that made it very easy for them to have cheated
me, I found them, during my stay at Dülmen, the straightest
people I ever had anything to do with. They think the same of
us. Feldwebels and others who have had to do with us both
assured me that they much preferred the British to any other
class of prisoner, because we are blunt and true, say what we
mean, and stick to what we say. Certainly the Germans are the
most English of the great peoples on the Continent.

CONCLUSION.

Our survey of the reliable evidence at present available seems to me to prove that there has usually been a serious effort in Germany to treat military prisoners well. This does not imply that their lot is otherwise than hard, and the prolongation of the imprisonment adds terribly to the hardship. It is impossible to banish from one's mind such horrors as those of Wittenberg, but it is quite plain that these were very far from typical. When militarism goes wrong, it goes very wrong. If we consider the special German difficulties with regard to prisoners, and the special dangers of the militarist state, we may, I think, conclude a very fair standard of humanity amongst the German people from the fact that in so large a proportion of cases treatment has been reasonable and in many even excellent.

I have no wish to arouse any resentment, and in case this conclusion should do so, I quote here a further neutral opinion, that of a well-known Norwegian, M. T. E. Steen, who had been allowed to visit prisoners' camps in Britain, France, and Germany. M. Steen gave a lecture at the Queen's (Small) Hall on July 15, 1915, under the auspices of the British Red Cross Society. Sir Louis Mallet presided. According to the _Daily Telegraph_ report, "M. Steen spoke favourably to the conditions prevailing at the various internment camps he visited in Germany, and expressed the hope that his remarks would remove misgivings and allay anxiety. The general impression which the camps made on him, he said, was 'very satisfactory.'"

We must remember, too, that in Germany also all kinds of rumours and statements have circulated with regard to the treatment of prisoners and wounded by us and our Allies (cf. pp. 2, 32, 38, and 80). Such rumours and exaggerations are apparently a part of war. On the other side they have not made for a benevolent attitude, and the really large amount of interest openly shown in prisoners of war by such men as Prince Lichnowsky, Prof. Stange, Prof. Gmelin, the Göttingen Pastors, and others, is a remarkable fact. We realise this the more, when we consider that it is not easy on this side for men in prominent positions openly to show interest in German prisoners of war.

CAMPS IN U.K.

It would be interesting to compare the U.S. reports on British camps with their reports on German ones. Unfortunately any useful comparison is impossible. A collection of reports on "various internment camps in the United Kingdom" is published in White Paper No. 30 (1916), but the earliest inspection here recorded took place on February 21, 1916. As the chief difficulties everywhere occurred earlier, the earlier reports are plainly necessary for a fair comparison. "Are we as compassionate to our prisoners as our ancestors were to theirs?" wrote the _Daily Chronicle_ on October 29, 1914, and added "From accounts that have reached us of the conditions that prevail at some of our concentration camps, we fear not." Moreover, in these later reports it is difficult to know the exact meaning of such remarks as the following, unless we have the earlier reports: "They seemed much happier and more contented than at the time of my former visit...." (Officers' Camp, Holyport). "There has been no change in the sleeping accommodations since the last report, but as the number of the prisoners is much less than it was at that time, there is much more room...." (Dorchester.)

"The general tone of the hospital seemed to be much happier than at the time of my last visit." (Dartford, Lower Southern Hospital for wounded prisoners of war.)

"There has been no change in the sleeping accommodation since the last visit, except that, owing to the smaller number of men, there is now more room than before.... The men seemed much happier and more contented than at the time of our last visit." (Officers' camp, Donington Hall.)

The last quotation recalls the once famous charges as to the excessive luxury of Donington Hall. In every country the same kind of protest arises as to the luxurious treatment of prisoners, and this is declared a scandal in view of the inhuman policy of the enemy. In every country is to be found the type of patriot who feels that all is lost if it can be proved that he has treated an enemy too well. The hubbub about Donington Hall led to the appointment of a Commons delegation to visit various camps, and to a report in the _Times_ (April 26, 1915). In this report the Hall is described as "a large, bare house situated in a hollow.... The style of furnishing was that of a sergeant's mess." There was one piano, provided at the prisoners' expense. The billiard tables and other accessories imagined by perfervid patriots vanish into thin air.

Dyffryn Aled Officers' camp in North Wales is described in the same account as "an inaccessible, gloomy, mildewed-looking house, with all the 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:

There are a very few English civilians in Germany who have been
placed in prison or in prison camps--about 300. The German
Government is informed that a great number of German civilian
prisoners--over 6,000--are in prison camps in England.
Department is requested by Ambassador, Berlin, to suggest that
liberty, so far as possible, be allowed alien enemies detained
by war.

_Mr. Page, United States Ambassador in London, to
Sir Edward Grey._ (Received Oct. 31.)
American Embassy, London,
October 30, 1914.

Sir,--I have the honour to transmit herewith enclosed the
attached copy of an open telegram I have received from the
Minister at Copenhagen relating to reports on the imprisonment
of German subjects in England.

Inasmuch as the Minister at Copenhagen has dispatched this to
the Secretary of State at Washington, it seems probable that I
shall receive definite instructions from him to transmit it to
you, but in view of the desirability of an early consideration
of the matter I now venture to submit this copy of the telegram
for your information.

I have, etc.,
WALTER HINES PAGE.

Copy of Telegram received October 29, 1914.

Following telegram sent to Department to-day (by the Ambassador
at Berlin):

The Foreign Office requests this Embassy to find out through the
American Embassy in London whether the reports concerning the
imprisonment of German subjects in England are well founded.
Unless a reply is received from the British Government before
November 5 that all Germans who have not rendered themselves
especially suspicious have been released, the German Government
will be obliged to take retaliatory measures, and accordingly
arrest all male British subjects in Germany between 17 and 55
years. American Minister, Copenhagen.

Copy of Telegram received from Berlin by the American Embassy,
November 3, 1914.

Are Germans over 45 being arrested wholesale in England? If
arrests are only of those under 45, I may be able to keep
English over that age out of jail. Will not British Government
allow all over 45 to leave? That is the legal military age here,
and no one over that age can be compelled to serve.

_Sir Edward Grey to Mr. Page, United States Ambassador in
London._

Foreign Office,
November 9, 1914.

Your Excellency,

I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your
Excellency's note of the 30th ult., and of subsequent notes
informing me of the attitude likely to be adopted by the German
Government with regard to the measures that have been taken in
this country for the detention of German subjects of military
age.

The decision of His Majesty's Government in this respect being
clearly irrevocable, the communications which you were good
enough to transmit did not appear to call for an immediate
reply, although, as your Excellency is aware, the German
Government threatened, and have since carried out, reprisals
against British subjects in Germany.

At the same time, I hope in due course, when the measures taken
here have assumed a definite form, proper consideration having
been given to reasonable claims for exemption as regards
particular categories of persons, to address your Excellency
further on the subject, with a view of obtaining the release at
least of British subjects in Germany who correspond to those
categories.

I may state at once that no Germans over the age of 45 are being
arrested.[13]

I should, however, be glad if your Excellency would endeavour to
bring home to the German Government that His Majesty's
Government are faced with a problem which does not apply to the
same extent in Germany.

There are, roughly, 50,000 Germans resident in this country, and
the presence of such large numbers of the subjects of a country
with whom Great Britain is at war must necessarily be a cause of
anxiety to the military authorities who are concerned with
taking adequate measures for the defence of the realm.[14]

In detaining persons who might, in certain eventualities, become
a source of danger to the State, His Majesty's Government are
only acting in accordance with the dictates of a legitimate and
reasonable policy, and they would be clearly lacking in their
duty to the country if they neglected to safeguard its interests
by allowing the continuance of possible risks to the public
safety.

In proceeding as they have done they have only had this one
consideration before them, and it has never once been their
intention to indulge in a domestic act of hostility towards
German subjects as such, or in any way to inflict hardship for
hardship's sake on innocent civilians.

Every endeavour is being made, as Your Excellency is aware from
Mr. Chandler Anderson's report on the concentration camps, to
mitigate the inconvenience to the persons detained, and to
provide the best possible treatment for them under the
circumstances.

As time goes on it is hoped that it will be possible to improve
further the necessarily austere conditions of the military
discipline to which the prisoners are bound to be subjected, and
every endeavour is being made already to rectify any mistakes
that may have occurred, both in the arrest of persons who should
properly be exempt, and in the régime, which, through its
hurried organisation, could not fail to contain a certain number
of defects at the outset....

Into the case for and against general internment I do not propose to enter; it has nothing to do with the main purpose of this book. It does, however, concern that purpose to point out first that the general internment of resident enemy nationals (whatever its justification in any particular case) is contrary to modern usage, and second that the order for general internment was given first not in Germany, but in Britain. The popular view on this subject is erroneous. The German order was issued as a "reprisal,"[15] but, once issued, it was carried out with dispatch, a dispatch which was, of course, easier because of the comparatively small number of British subjects in Germany.

It will, I think, be useful to quote some further letters. The first document is an extract from a telegram received, _via_ Copenhagen, by the U.S. Embassy in London on November 7, 1914. The telegram is from the Ambassador (Mr. Gerard) at Berlin, and conveys the representations of Mr. Chandler Anderson, of the American Embassy in London, who was at the moment in Berlin. Anderson says:

Tell Foreign Office that there is no compulsory military service
required by German law for men over 45, and any men over that
age serving in the army are volunteers. Agreement to release all
men over 45 would produce better understanding, refusal is
regarded as questioning truth of their assurances, which were
endorsed by our Ambassador. Would like to settle these matters
while here, and want to leave on Tuesday or Wednesday. Am
arranging to have someone from this Embassy return with me to
report, for information of Foreign Office here, about
concentration camp and reasons for internment of civilians, in
order to establish common basis for their treatment and
provisions and clothing furnished and pay of officers, on the
understanding that accounts will be balanced at close of war or
at stated intervals.--GERARD, Berlin.

American Minister, Copenhagen.

The following documents deserve careful consideration:

_Memorandum communicated by American Embassy._

November 9, 1914.

The American Embassy has the honour to submit the following copy
of a telegram which the Ambassador at Berlin has sent to the
Department of State at Washington:

"Order for internment British between 17 and 55 has gone into
effect. This does not apply to clericals, doctors, or women, or
to British subjects from colonies or protectorates where Germans
are not interned. German Government wishes to receive official
information regarding such colonies, as it understands Germans
are interned in South Africa. Germany is willing to release men
over 45 if England will do so. Germans over 45, except officers,
have no compulsory military obligations."

American Embassy, London, Nov. 9, 1914.

_Memorandum by Sir Edward Grey._

The American Ambassador asked me to-day whether the American
Embassy would be allowed, as reports were being made in Germany
about the treatment of German civilians in England, to send
someone to visit the Germans interned in Newbury and Newcastle.

The Ambassador also said that he had received specific
complaints from Germans interned in Queensferry.

He has given me the following copy of a letter from the American
Ambassador in Berlin.

The object of the Ambassador's enquiry is simply, by bringing
out the facts, to prevent false statements from doing harm in
Germany, and at the same time, I assume, to contribute to the
remedying of any grievances that may exist.

The American Ambassador in Berlin is, I know, doing all in his
power to secure good treatment for British subjects in Germany,
and I think that it would be desirable to let the American
Embassy here have full information as to our treatment of
Germans.

I have, etc.,
E. GREY.
Foreign Office, November 13, 1914.

_Mr. Gerard to Mr. Page._
American Embassy, Berlin.
November 8, 1914.

Sir,--Although it may already be too late to be of much
practical effect, I feel it my duty, in the interest of
humanity, to urge upon you to obtain some formal declaration on
the part of the British Government, as to its purpose in
ordering the wholesale concentration of Germans in Great Britain
and Ireland, as is understood here to be the case. It is known
here that many of the Germans interned belong to the labouring
classes, and that their position is actually improved by their
internment, and it is recognised that the British Government has
the right to arrest persons when any well-founded ground for
suspecting them to be spies exists. Great popular resentment has
been created by the reports of the arrests of other Germans,
however, and the German authorities cannot explain or understand
why German travellers who have been taken from ocean steamers
should not be permitted to remain at liberty, of course under
police control, even if they are compelled to stay in England.
The order for the general concentration of British males between
the ages of 17 and 55, which went into effect on the 6th inst.,
was occasioned by the pressure of public opinion, which has been
still further excited by the newspaper reports of a considerable
number of deaths in concentration camps. Up to the 6th
considerable liberty of movement has been allowed to British
subjects in Germany,[16] and, as you were informed in my
telegram of the 5th, many petitions were received from them
setting forth the favourable conditions under which they were
permitted to live and to carry on their business, and urging the
similar treatment of German subjects in England. I cannot but
feel that to a great extent the English action and the German
retaliation has been caused by a misunderstanding which we
should do our best to remove. It seems to me that we should do
all in our power to prevent an increase of the bitterness which
seems to have arisen between the German and English peoples, and
to make it possible for the two countries to become friends on
the close of the war.

I have, etc.,
JAMES W. GERARD.

_Mr. Harris to Mr. Gerard_.

Frankfort-on-Main,
November 9, 1914.

Sir,--In a letter of the same date as this I have referred to
the return from Giessen of four officers sent to Giessen, and
returned again to Frankfort and to Nauheim, from which they
came. I referred in this letter to the commander of the XVIIIth.
Army Corps here. The commando is in charge of Excellenz de
Graaf, who has, as he tells me, an American wife, and who
through the past few months has shown this consulate all
possible consideration, as it seems to Mr. Ives and myself.
Twice during the great press of the first few weeks of the war,
he came to the office in person and made known his desire to
assist us in any way possible. Both Mr. Ives and myself have had
occasion to go to the commando many times on various errands,
and in nearly every case we have been granted the things we
desired. It would be difficult to find a man at home or abroad
with a more pleasant manner than de Graaf's, or who shows less
of the harsh or severe. Many of the English have gone to him,
and they in all cases, so far as I have heard, speak in highest
terms as to the way he has received them, and as to the entire
freedom given them in this city until the order of last Friday.