Part 18

White Paper Miscel. No. 3 (1916) is in many ways rather important to the student of internment. It affords some evidence of the kind of mental friction developing in all internment camps, and it makes clear that prisoners' statements often need to be subjected to impartial outside investigation. There is not space, however, to enter fully into details here. The paper opens with a report on Ruhleben camp "compiled by a British subject recently released," and forwarded by Sir Edward Grey to Mr. Gerard through Mr. Page. It is complained that the distance from the new barracks to the wash-houses is "in some cases over 200 yards." Mr. Page points out by reference to a scale map that "in every case the wash-houses are nearer than 60 yards from the barracks, and not at a distance of 200 yards, as stated. The barracks which are not diagrammed on this map have their own washing appliances." Mr. Page writes further: "The open space beneath the central tribune has not been, as stated in the report transmitted by the British Foreign Office, used for every conceivable purpose, but has been enclosed entirely for recreation purposes, religious services, lectures, debates, etc.... I cannot see how the introduction of cinema show has in the least affected the comfort of the hall." "With regard to whitewashing, this was done in all of the barracks at the expense of the camp fund, and not, as stated, at the cost of those interned at the barracks. Extra whitewashing, borders, etc., were naturally paid for at the private expense. No measures were taken for exterminating mosquitoes for the reason that it has been found impossible to procure petroleum in Germany for the purpose." Three internees who tried to escape were in consequence imprisoned, and are stated in the report transmitted by the British Foreign Office to be starving. Mr. Gerard writes: "I visited Messrs. Ettlinger, Ellison and Kirkpatrick at the Stadtvogtei-Gefaengnis about three weeks ago, and heard from them that they had no complaint to make about the food. They are now allowed to receive parcels and money from the outside, and are no longer in solitary confinement. The limitation of exercise to half an hour seems regrettable, but owing to their attempt to escape, I fear that it will be impossible to obtain a change until their sentence expires."

The report forwarded to Mr. Gerard says:

It would be of material benefit to the interned if a representative of the United States Embassy could call at the Camp fortnightly, and receive complaints direct from prisoners, without the inevitable presence of the captains [i.e., the internees' own captains] in the room.

Mr. Gerard replies:

A representative of this Embassy has visited the camp at Ruhleben (with the exception of the time when the camp was first formed) certainly on an average of more than once a fortnight, and it has been possible for any prisoners to speak to him without the presence of the captains. For the past few months the camp has been visited once a week if not more often. In addition to this Mr. Powell, sometimes accompanied by other captains of the camp, has visited this Embassy regularly once a week for consultation with me.

"I wish again to reiterate," says Mr. Page, "that Count Schwerin, Baron Taube and the other officers in charge of the camp, are all kindly and considerate gentlemen, who do everything within their power to help the prisoners."

But the real quarrel was not with Count Schwerin or Baron Taube (of whom all seem to speak well), but with the English captains and their management. The financial statements and the distributions effected by the captains are adversely criticised by the released British subject. He adds, somewhat acidly:

It would be a kindness to the captains and to the camp if the Government could convey to them a message informing them that they are public men holding important and responsible positions, and that public men must allow criticism and seek to profit by it.

Here we get to the root of the matter. The original "Camp Committee" was (to quote Mr. Gerard's words) "disbanded by the order of the military authorities in February last (1915), because of its refusal to co-operate with the captains and its insistence upon publishing notices and minutes of its meetings after it had been forbidden to do so." This "Camp Committee" continued to object to the financial arrangement and the general administration of Mr. Powell and the other captains, and pressed their objections upon the Ambassador on August 23, 1915. "I thereupon suggested that perhaps the best way would be to refer the matter to a general election. To this the 'Camp Committee' demurred, and upon my asking what suggestion they had to proffer appeared to consider that they, a self-constituted body, should be given charge of the camp by me. This proposition I naturally rejected, especially as the members of this self-appointed committee were, although very estimable gentlemen, personae non gratae both to the majority of the prisoners and to the military authorities.... A final decision of the question as to whether the present government of Ruhleben is representative or not is to be found in the election of September 15, 1915, when every one of the captains at that time in authority was re-elected. The occasion was caused by the decision of the military authorities to withdraw the soldiers from the camp, and the captains therefore considered it desirable that they should appeal to the camp for decision as to whether it was wished that they should continue the government or not. I cannot see that any further proof is required as to whether the captains represent the feelings of the majority of the camp."

One cannot help asking oneself, was the critic a member of the disbanded "Camp Committee"? The United States Ambassador on more than one occasion proved himself capable of speaking very decidedly to the German authorities of things he disapproved of. In this case, too, he speaks (though not to the German authorities) with some decision:

A properly heated and lighted recreation and assembling room is certainly extremely desirable for the damp and cold winter time. A new barrack has been sanctioned by the military authorities for the purpose, and I will do my best to press the work. I might venture to suggest that if so many private individuals had not occupied necessary space by election of private clubs the military authorities would be more willing to grant permission for the erection of further buildings intended for public good. Further, if the very men, such as the "camp committee" (who are all members of the "summer house" club), had devoted some of the energies which they expended upon the erection of the club for their own private use to the construction of a public sitting-room, the building might already be in use.

The British tax-payer is paying a large sum in wages because the Ruhleben prisoners are unwilling to do the fatigue work of the camp. The captured British soldiers who have been fighting in the trenches are compelled to do work in work camps, are often not properly clothed, do not receive an allowance from the British tax-payer of 5M. a week, cannot buy food at less than cost price, nor go to a sanatorium (at the expense of the British tax-payer) when sick; have not the benefit of expert dental and optical treatment, have no public libraries, lectures, schools, debates, or camp newspapers, have not seven tennis courts, three football fields, athletic games, cricket, golf and hockey, are not amused by dramas, comic operas and cinema shows, and above all are not paid extra wages for doing their own work to make themselves comfortable. All of these advantages and more which the Ruhleben prisoners enjoy have been largely the result of the effort of the camp administration which this commentator criticises.

These rather strong words of Mr. Gerard's display a not unnatural irritation against a critic whose facts prove unreliable and whose mental attitude suggests a somewhat querulous bias, but it is only fair to remind ourselves that after long internment all suffer from nerve strain and many suffer very severely. Under these circumstances complete reasonableness is probably more than any of us would be capable of.

SHORT RATIONS.

At Ruhleben there are (with the exception of some negroes) English only. The English receive many packages. The German authorities have been tempted to rely on those packages increasingly. That is the state of things revealed in Dr. A. E. Taylor's report of June 14, 1916. [Miscel. No. 21 (1916).]

A review of the present ration of the prisoners of war indicates that it is the aim of the 'Kriegsernaehrungsamt' to supply a ration which shall be physiologically adequate, though professedly containing little more than enough to cover minimal requirements; and it is believed that the official prisoners' ration contains as much as the daily food of many millions of German subjects. There is no question that the official prison ration is an adequate ration from the standpoint of animal nutrition. In addition to this allotted camp ration the prisoners possess the food sent in from abroad as addenda.

In the case of the Russian prisoners, these extra food stuffs sent in from abroad are small in amount; in the case of the French, moderate; in the case of the English, large. In all the prison camps that I have visited it is the practice to prepare food for the number of men in the camp, irrespective of nationality, in accordance with the menu of Professor Backhaus. As a rule, the British prisoners take little or none of the food, and their share is eaten by prisoners of other nationalities. In Ruhleben the state of affairs at present existing has convinced the interned civilians that the situation is, so to speak, reversed: that the German authorities seem to regard the foodstuffs sent in from abroad as the regular diet of the interned men, and the camp allotments as the addenda.

It is not surprising that "the interned men are deeply dissatisfied with the present state of affairs." The German authorities, finding that at least half the total number of the interned at Ruhleben subsist largely upon private packages, have made a "sharp reduction in the amount of foodstuff allotted to the camp." I have no wish to defend this proceeding, but it must be allowed that to the Government of a blockaded country there is a great temptation to cut down supplies when this will not be a danger to the prisoners themselves.

Both reports of Dr. Taylor [Miscel. No. 18 (1916) and Miscel. No. 21 (1916)] are important studies of the question of nutrition, and his short discussion (No. 18, p. 4) of the psychological aspects of monotonous diet and the nutritional effects of internment is worth careful attention. "A diet that would be tolerated if the subject were at liberty may become intolerable under conditions of imprisonment. There is a large personal equation operative in this direction. The soldier imbued with a high sense of his value to his country and of the justice of his cause will endure a monotonous diet that would not be endurable in the prisoner overwhelmed with disappointment and crushed with sorrow." These considerations are obviously of general application.

SOME COMPARISONS.

Mr. Gerard, in a note of June 28, 1916 [Miscel. No. 25 (1916)], animadverts strongly on the bad accommodation still provided at Ruhleben. The letter is rather strikingly different in tone from his other reports on Ruhleben.

It is intolerable that people of education should be herded six together in a horse's stall, and in some of the lofts the bunks touch one another. The light for reading is bad, and reading is a necessity if these poor prisoners are to be detained during another winter. In the haylofts above the stables the conditions are even worse.

Bishop Bury's account ("My Visit to Ruhleben," p. 30) reads:

I don't know whether it was our internment at Newbury, the race-course for Reading, or our using race-courses, such as Kempton Park, for the training of our own men, which caused Ruhleben to be chosen in November, 1914, as a suitable place for civilians' internment.... Without any description of mine it may be easily understood what they had to suffer until proper arrangements were made.... The loose boxes are now properly fitted with bunks, some being larger than others. The large corridor, with its stone floor, gives air and space, the lofts particularly being extremely well adapted now for their present purpose. I prefer the lofts to the boxes, because they have corridors out of which one can look, whereas the windows in the boxes are usually far above the ground. I went to tea more frequently in the boxes, and on one occasion we sat down sixteen in number--rather a crowd--but we were quite comfortable.

Bishop Bury has seen something on both sides, and his impressions are for that reason all the more important. We must not forget, too, that he lived a week with the prisoners at Ruhleben. It is also only fair to remember that no one has been invited to spend a week in any camp on this side. Bishop Bury also tells us "that when, a little time ago, the authorities proposed to relieve the overcrowding and construct another camp at Havilburg which could accommodate 600 men, the men at once petitioned that this idea might not be carried out, as they preferred, after this length of time to stay where they are." (l.c., p. 40.)

One caution must, however, be given to the readers of Bishop Bury's book. The conditions of the camp during the excitement and interest of his visit could not be the normal conditions. The frightful monotony of the long confinement does not obtrude itself in his book. Yet there is no doubt, I fear, that internment everywhere (at Ruhleben, as elsewhere) is becoming "intolerable." To live, as at Alexandra Palace, day and night, for years in a great hall with more than a thousand others must become almost destructive to any sensitive nature. But (to quote Dr. Siegmund Schulze once more) "We ought not to conclude from this that we are justified in making reproaches.... in respect of the treatment of prisoners, but rather conclude that we should work energetically towards the termination of the war."

Dr. Cimino, very, and very naturally, anti-German as he is, writes:

The only real suffering we experienced at Ruhleben was from the cold.... The fact is that he (Count Schwerin) was as kind-hearted an old soldier as ever fondled an English wife, and loved his English prisoners.... He used to take part in our daily life as much as possible.... As to the concerts, he was always present, et pour cause; he was passionately fond of music.... at the end of the concert he would make his little speech, and we filed out. But one night we gave him a rousing cheer, and the whole crowd struck up, "For he's a jolly good fellow." ("Behind the Prison Bars in Germany," p. 95).