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:
[13] Many older men (even those over seventy) were subsequently interned.
[14] There were 35,000 Germans in Paris alone in 1870, but though expelled from the Department of the Seine, they were not interned.
[15] This was emphasised by the German authorities. See, for instance, Israel Cohen, “The Ruhleben Prison Camp,” pp. 21-24.
[16] Cf. pp. [216], [218], etc.
[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.
[18] “Overseer” seems to be a translation of the German “Obermann,” and represents, I think, the captain of a barrack.
[19] The second list represents members of the Camp Committee (see further p. [99]).
[20] “Barrack” is no doubt meant.
[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.
[22] Cf. the report on Knockaloe (May, 1916) on p. [114].
[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.
[25] One of the difficulties at Newbury was the absence of light.
[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”!
[27] For the mental difference between the civilian and the military prisoner see page [84].
[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.
[29] The earlier reports of the International Red Cross covered very little of this ground. (See [footnote], p. [9].)
[30] Compare Report on Ruhleben, June 3, 1915 (p. [94]).
[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.