Chapter V: Part 5

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.

We pray all belligerents without distinction to hearken to our
appeal; with dread we watch the approach of another war-winter,
bearing, as it must, a fresh succession of distresses,
deprivations and reprisals. Therefore we cannot keep silence....
Numbers of civilian prisoners have been suffering since the
beginning of the war from the depressing conditions of the
concentration camps.... The civilian took no part in the war,
and in most cases did not even desire it. He should not
therefore be treated as a prisoner of war.

Belligerent States! We call upon you to exchange all your
civilians now interned.... This exchange must naturally be
effected under certain conditions to be established. Each State
must bind itself not to employ the liberated civilians for
war-work; just as was arranged in the case of military prisoners
who have been repatriated or sent to neutral countries. With
these conditions, no belligerent should refuse to liberate the
civilians so unjustly imprisoned.

Honour will be theirs who act upon this appeal....

The signatories to this appeal are G. Wagnière (Editor of the _Journal de Genève_), Dr. A. Forel (Professor at Zurich University), Ed. Secrétan (National Councillor), Benjamin Vallotton, Charles Baudouin (Professor at the Institut J. J. Rousseau), Ch. Bernard, P. Seidel (Professor at the Cantonal Technical College, Zürich), A. de Morsier, Ph. Dunant (Lawyer of Geneva), Paul Moriand (Professor of Medicine at Geneva), and MM. Blonde and Arcos.

The Swiss Red Cross has also appealed for the release of all interned civilians.

From this side the following private appeal on behalf of all prisoners has been addressed to the Red Cross at Cologne:

I feel it incumbent upon me ... to draw your attention to the
acute disappointment that is being caused among the prisoners in
all the camps, and almost equally among their friends outside,
by the delay in repatriation. Every phase in the long series of
public discussions and official negotiations, every hitch, and
every hesitation, has been followed with painful anxiety by
those of us who know what it means for all these thousands of
victims languishing in confinement, and you may be sure, with
much more intensely painful anxiety by the victims themselves,
whose ears are pathetically strained to catch the feeblest echo
of any rumour from the outside world that brings them the
slightest hint of release. For months these poor fellows had
been continually alternating between hope and despair, when the
news of the Hague meeting seemed for large numbers to bring them
definitely, at long last, within measurable distance of the
reality. Knowing therefore as you do, equally well with us, the
mental condition of these men, and the terribly demoralising
effect of long internment, even under the best conditions, you
will realise the deep depression into which they are now being
plunged by all the inexplicable delays in carrying out the terms
of the convention. From every one who comes in contact with them
I gather the same impression, that unless the Gordian knot is
cut and a way is quickly found out of the present impasse, the
most serious results are to be apprehended, as numbers of
prisoners here--and the case can be no better in other
countries--are on the verge of insanity....[28]

I would put it therefore to you in all earnestness that it is
your duty, as representing humanity, to bring without delay all
the pressure and all the influence you possess to bear upon the
authorities to consider the sufferings of the prisoners and
induce them, if possible, even at the cost of some concessions,
to facilitate from their side the carrying through of this
scheme, in which I can assure you not merely the happiness but
even the life of many men is involved.

I speak, of course, quite unofficially, and with no other motive
than pure philanthropy, but I may venture to hope that my
representations, though only those of a private individual, will
carry more than ordinary weight, inasmuch as there is perhaps
nobody whose information and experience in these matters are
more real and vital, or entitle him to speak with more
authority.

Nor do I stand alone, for there are many others with whom I have
worked from the beginning in the same field. All these associate
themselves with me in this appeal, and, like myself, with no
other motive than that of simple humanity. If the time, the
energy, and the money we have all spent so unstintingly to
improve the prisoners' lot give us any title to be heard, we all
implore you, not only for the sake of the prisoners themselves,
but in the eternal interests of humanity and justice, to do, and
to do quickly whatever you can in furtherance of this object. We
quite understand, of course, that military interests must be
considered, but it is not always possible for those in high
places, with whom such decisions rest, to realise as vividly as
we do all that is at stake in a question of this sort, and that
is why we feel entitled to assume that your advice would not be
without effect, and that being the case, we submit it becomes
your solemn duty to tender it.

The sufferings of this war are indeed vast beyond all comprehension. Is not there danger that this very fact may lead us to add to that suffering without need?

"ROTTING AWAY."

In a pathetic appeal to be given work the men at one internment camp here said, "We are simply rotting away." And others say, "The people outside do not understand." Loss, heartache, privation, stagnation, friction, stupid and malicious gossip, mental and moral deterioration--"rotting away." This disintegration of personality, the gradual rotting of the man's selfhood, is perhaps, clearly envisaged, as great a horror as war can bring. It is not the result of deliberate cruelty, but simply of conditions most of which are inevitable if there is to be internment at all.

A REPORT ON KNOCKALOE.

The reports available on our own internment camps do not go back beyond March, 1916.[29] It is perhaps well to remind ourselves that even by May, 1916, there were still defects. Thus in the American Report of May 18, 1916, on Knockaloe, we read: "The huts are being put in good weather-proof condition, and are being protected against the wind and rain by felt and tarred paper."[30] As to sanitation, "There have been improvements in the sanitary arrangements since our last visit." "In the hospital in Camp IV. there is now being built a recreation room, where convalescents may sit, which will give more room for the patients; also a special sink has been provided for washing the hospital utensils, and new latrines have been installed. They seem to be at work at this hospital to improve its condition. As Camp IV. has the largest number of older men interned, this hospital has more patients than others, and seemed rather crowded at the time of our visit." "In the isolation hospital we found only one bath and one tap for all the patients who are suffering from various sorts of contagious diseases. We took this matter up with the proper authorities, who assured us that it should have their attention. The sanitary arrangements in all the hospitals might be improved, except possibly in Camp I." "There were complaints about the hospital treatment, particularly of the care of the eyes, ears and teeth, for which the interned men claimed that there was not sufficient opportunity for special treatment."

These last complaints are curiously parallel to some made at Ruhleben. [See Miscel. No. 3 (1916) pp. 3, 15, 16.]

"There was complaint that there were no shelters for the men while waiting to receive parcels, nor for outside patients visiting the doctor. This matter was taken up."

"In Camp III. a complaint was made about the difficulty of personal intercourse between the representatives of the camp and the Commandant. This had caused dissatisfaction. The men seemed to have confidence in the new Commandant, but they told us that they had difficulty in approaching him. We took this matter up with the proper authorities, and were informed that they would in future have more opportunity for personal intercourse."

The huts for sleeping accommodation "are sectional, being of the regular War Office pattern, 30 feet by 15 feet, each section holding thirty men." This gives us a floor space of 450 square feet for each thirty men. In that portion of the Ruhleben loft most adversely criticised by Mr. Gerard the roof slopes from 10 feet at the ridge to a height of 4½ feet only at the sides. The floor space allowed, however, is 10.2 metres by 12.8 metres, giving us about 1,390 square feet for 64 men, or 651 square feet for thirty men. When all allowance is made for the lowness of the sides in the rather wide loft (it seems to be more than 30 feet wide), this worst accommodation at Ruhleben seems, as regards space available, not inferior to that at Knockaloe. Further details would be needed for a complete comparison.

The report on Knockaloe is not enthusiastic, but evidently there had been many improvements, and still more was hoped for from the new Commandant. "The new Commandant, who has only been there some ten weeks, seems to have gained the confidence and respect of the interned men. He seems to be doing all in his power to better the conditions of the camp. He finds difficulty in getting material, such as tarred paper or felt, etc., for use on the huts. He told us that he had the matter in hand, and was giving betterment of the conditions at the camp every attention.... The whole tone of the camp is much better than it was at the time of the last visit. (See report of January 8, 1916.) There were fewer complaints, and the prisoners seemed much more contented."

A BRITISH COMMANDANT.

It is unfortunate that we cannot "see" the earlier report to which we are directed. But it is good to know that the new Commandant, Col. F. N. Panzera, proved to be a Christian gentleman with real sympathy for the unfortunate men under his charge. Like many other commandants, both here and in Germany, he did, amidst the various difficulties, what he could. As he is, alas, now dead, we may perhaps quote the words he addressed to the men in his care at the Christmas of 1916. It is a strange reflection that it might have injured his position to quote this fine and simple message during his life-time. Colonel Panzera wrote:

I am sorry that the size of the camp prevents my seeing you all,
which I should do if it were smaller and thus possible. It would
be a mockery to wish you a "Happy Christmas," I am afraid, but I
wish you as happy a one as is possible under the circumstances.
I most earnestly wish you a happier New Year. May the New Year
bring Peace and restore you to all dear to you. I hope that
prosperity and happiness may come to you in the future, and may
in time obliterate the memory of the present period of sadness.

I should like to take the opportunity of saying how much I
appreciate the general good behaviour of the camps during the
past year. There have been little lapses, as there must always
be in a mixed community of 25,000 people, but on the whole the
conduct has been extremely good, which has been a great help to
those placed over you. Once more I wish you as good a Christmas
as possible and a better New Year.

FOOD DIFFICULTIES.

The food question also becomes increasingly serious in the camps, as it does in prisons. I confess I feel we ought to ration ourselves very strictly before we cut down the supplies of our prisoners, criminal or otherwise. "The reduced diet," wrote Fenner Brockway of his prison experiences, "is one of semi-starvation, and every prisoner is becoming thin and physically weak." (_Labour Leader_, September 6. 1917.) Those who care to inquire of the wives of interned men will learn their side of the case as regards the effect of changed conditions in the camps. The sad feature is that the increasing rigour comes upon men already weakened, both physically and mentally, by long confinement. The original published statement of Sir Edward (now Viscount) Grey [Misc. 7 (1915), p. 23] no longer obtains. The food is, of course, very different, and may not be supplemented.

TWO KINDS OF RUMOUR AND SOME REALITY.

I have not cared to quote adverse "unofficial information and rumours," either as regards our own or other detention camps. What some adverse critics say about our own may be read in the _Woman's Dreadnought_, Vol III., p. 551. The rather terrible appeal of the Captains at Knockaloe is also printed on p. 561. It is a letter which is unwise and hysterical. I do not wonder at its hysteria, and I confess that some things in the letter hit me rather hard. But, alas, the desperation of the interned men on either side does not help towards wise judgment, and for that desperation we are all, in every country, in some measure responsible. It is best to remember instead the real sympathy that those actually in touch with prisoners do often feel. Colonel Panzera's message is clear evidence of this, and from a private letter I take the following:

The attitude of prejudice or even hatred towards enemies,
whether prisoners or not, often disappears when men are brought
face to face in the work of an internment camp, for example, and
find that they are very much like each other. An officer of a
certain camp here was taken prisoner and interned for six months
in Germany before he escaped. He says that two or three times
the officers of the camp were changed, and in each case began
with harsh treatment, either the result of official suggestion
or of the general feeling. In each case, after the lapse of a
short time, close acquaintance modified this attitude, and
finally kindly relations and treatment resulted. In the same way
the nurses in a certain hospital here refused to receive or
treat German prisoners until a company of the wounded men
arrived, when the feeling of natural humanity proved too strong,
and they were quite eager to attend to them. At the internment
camps in this country the officers generally speak of the men
under their charge with humanity and respect.

The following is significant. "In the town near a certain internment camp of ours much indignation was roused by the story that some of the interned aliens had set in motion some railway trucks on a sloping siding, with the intention of allowing them to crash into an arriving passenger train at the bottom. An English friend of mine happened to observe the real origin of the story. The trucks _began to move in an accidental way, and two or three of the aliens nearly lost their own lives, certainly risked serious accident, in endeavouring to stop the trucks when they were already moving_."

Thus in the quiet neighbourhood of an internment camp a brave deed becomes by popular passion transformed into something monstrous. What would this popular imagination do in an invaded district? Its vagaries must be experienced and studied by any investigator of the atrocities of war.

Another example of heroism amongst German prisoners I take from the _Daily News_ of April 30, 1918. A small boat in which two men were sailing capsized about 200 yards out from the Leasowe Embankment, Cheshire. The men, clinging to the bottom of the boat, were being driven out by the tide when two members of an escort of German prisoners, Sergeant Phillips and Private Matthews, jumped into the water and with difficulty brought one man back. One of the German prisoners, named Bunte, volunteered to go to the rescue of the other man, who was by then in great danger. The German swam out strongly and brought the man back.

AGAINST BITTERNESS.

I fear that on both sides it is embittered men who will be released from the civilian internment camps. People do not realise how financial ruin, harassment, illness and death (to which the harassment may have contributed) follow in the track of internment. A man is interned, his wife and family are reduced to a mere pittance, the woman is, it may be, delicate. She falls ill and dies.[31] And amid such incidents and the mental strain of the confinement a brooding hatred gradually settles down upon the souls of these sufferers. Personally, I do not feel one can expect much favourable memory of the authorities on either side. Certainly every one who has worked for prisoners is touched by their gratitude, but the iron has entered into their souls for all that. And perhaps it is well to remind ourselves that a far larger number of civilians have been suffering in the internment camps on this side. Let us not add to their bitterness by unworthy abuse or credulous malice. Men who, after long confinement for no offence of their own, have tried to save enemy lives, and find their efforts described as an attempt at murder, must begin to feel hopeless of justice. Excess of generosity would be far wiser. The world wants no more missioners of hate. Let us try to avoiding creating such.

In our own internment camps there was often, even early in the war, an atmosphere of depression which one worker said "haunted him for days." The following extract is from the letter of an interned man who showed quite remarkable courage and fought with considerable success against depression till the end of 1917. "I refuse to give way to depression," he wrote. But in 1918 the strain of useless monotony had become too great, he became physically ill, and how low hope had fallen the letter itself shows: "You can't think how good it is to hear you speak with so much sympathy. I feel sure you understand the dreariness of this life, the long and fruitless waiting, the nights of anguish--and all the misery of it, the terrible discontent and the passionate heart longings.... You don't know how sore it is sometimes about my heart...."

Methods that seem to many of us avoidable contribute also to increase ill-feeling. I take the following from the _Daily News_ of September, 27, 1918:

Among others, I had my Christmas dinner last year with a German.
At least, his name is German and he was born in Germany. He is
less interested, personally, in those facts than in these, viz.,
that he is an international Socialist and a first class
electrical engineer. For four years he has done extremely
responsible work for a large engineering firm with important
contracts from the M. of M. For four years he has had his
liberty within the usual five-mile radius; for four years the
local police have not found the least fault with him.

Now, thanks to the Northcliffe Intern-them-all-Stunt, he is shut
up in the Isle of Man, and the country has lost the services of
a man who was worth more to us than many Northcliffes.

From a letter which he wrote recently to an English friend I
have copied the following:

As a result of the fact that no German paper is permitted
here in the camp, not even those advocating understanding
nor those critical of the German Government, and practically
no English paper hitherto except those abounding in
Hun-talk, there is still a general feeling here towards
"England" exactly the opposite of what these restrictions
are intended to create--a bitterness and a contempt which
exist side by side with the most violent criticism of the
governing clique of Germany, and with anti-capitalistic,
revolutionary sentiment! So I am exerting myself to make
people realise that, however influential, the Northcliffe
and Allied Press is not "England," and that the best German
papers constantly work for the abatement of hatred and for
genuine reconciliation and co-operation in a League of
Nations.

I am sorry to say that I fear acts of kindness and fairness will be largely forgotten by the majority of prisoners on both sides. An Englishman writes to me of his treatment in Germany: "Consideration was extended in even greater measure to others, yet not one has opened his mouth to record it. It makes one loathe one's fellow-men." I quote this because I am sure that neither side must expect fairness of statement from men so long exposed to so depressing and often petty a constraint. After all, when we see the war bias of the man who has not suffered at all, a calm regard for both sides of the case can scarcely be expected from those who for wasted years have been too often exposed to hardship, petty tyranny and a kind of barbed annoyance.

NEUTRAL CAMPS.

Even in neutral internment camps, though there the initial hostility is absent, misery and bitterness may become very great. The following cable from Rotterdam appeared in the _Daily Telegraph_ of June 13, 1918:

Interned Britishers here are intensely interested in the
British-German Conference at the Hague, in the hope that it may
result in their repatriation. This is especially the case at
Groningen, where the men of the Royal Naval Division, who have
been interned since October, 1914, are getting desperate. The
June number of the camp magazine had two blank pages, which the
editor explains have been censored out because they contained an
account of the recent "hunger demonstration" and "a moderate
record of the general feeling of the camp."

It is in the internment camps everywhere, rather than in the fighting line, that bitterness sinks into the soul. It will not be remedied by more bitterness. But if the suffering of these men's stagnant years helps to strengthen a universal resolve for peace it will not have been a useless suffering. And peace means understanding by each of the good in the other.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 13: Many older men (even those over seventy) were
subsequently interned.]

[Footnote 14: There were 35,000 Germans in Paris alone in 1870,
but though expelled from the Department of the Seine, they were
not interned.]

[Footnote 15: This was emphasised by the German authorities.
See, for instance, Israel Cohen, "The Ruhleben Prison Camp," pp.
21-24.]

[Footnote 16: Cf. pp. 216, 218, etc.]

[Footnote 17: "In this camp, as is usual where civilians are
detained, the atmosphere is one of depression."--Mr. Jackson on
a civilian camp at Senne, Sept. 11, 1915.]

[Footnote 18: "Overseer" seems to be a translation of the German
"Obermann," and represents, I think, the captain of a barrack.]

[Footnote 19: The second list represents members of the Camp
Committee (see further p. 99).]

[Footnote 20: "Barrack" is no doubt meant.]

[Footnote 21: There are a large number of men interned at
Ruhleben who are technically British subjects by reason of their
having been born in British territory of naturalised British
subjects, but who have spent practically all their lives in
Germany.]

[Footnote 22: Cf. the report on Knockaloe (May, 1916) on p.
114.]

[Footnote 23: The original barrack captains were chosen, as an
informant of mine writes, "in a hurry, when things were
chaotic." Dissatisfaction was felt with their action, or
inaction, and a "Camp Committee" was formed of newly elected
representatives of the different barracks, which was, as it
were, to supervise the captains (overseers). The arrangement was
scarcely likely to work, and did not. The election, moreover,
seems to have been but partial.]

[Footnote 24: Cf. p. 115.]

[Footnote 25: One of the difficulties at Newbury was the absence
of light.]

[Footnote 26: A very useful account of Ruhleben is given by
Israel Cohen in "The Ruhleben Prison Camp." In reading such
accounts one must always, however, remember that to complete the
picture we ought to be able to read accounts written by interned
German civilians of their experiences on this side. Such a
consideration should be obvious, but in war the obvious and
reasonable are too often vehemently rejected as "unpatriotic"!]

[Footnote 27: For the mental difference between the civilian and
the military prisoner see page 84.]

[Footnote 28: Compare the letter written by Oscar Levy, M.D.,
from Mürren, Switzerland, which appeared in the _Manchester
Guardian_ of Sept. 4, 1916: "That such grave cases exist the
letters I have been receiving from both sides prove without
doubt." That was _two years ago_.]

[Footnote 29: The earlier reports of the International Red Cross
covered very little of this ground. (See footnote, p. 9.)]

[Footnote 30: Compare Report on Ruhleben, June 3, 1915 (p. 94).]

[Footnote 31: A case is in my mind where a man lost wife and two
children thus. I shall never forget my task of trying to allay
his misery and his bitterness.]

III.

PRISONERS IN PREVIOUS WARS.

SOME PREVIOUS RECORDS.

The suffering of prisoners has been great enough, God knows, yet if we 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.