To reach this standard we must try to think the best of our adversaries. Charity is something less meagre than justice, and it holds the future of the world in its grasp. In the past we denounced French, Russians, Irish and Boers in turn. It was not denunciation that did much for the future, but the larger-hearted charity which took its place.
Prisoners in France.
M. de Marval reports well of the feeding of prisoners in France. There is the usual difficulty about vermin. The officer prisoners seem, in many ways, to have the worst time. “Their lodging is in general too crowded, badly ventilated, and badly lighted ... and lacking in elementary comforts. They can ... buy ... chairs, tables, blankets, etc.”[6] There was in France, as elsewhere, considerable complaint in the earlier days as to the delivery of parcels. The parcels arrived broken and partly or wholly emptied of their contents. So it was, we may remember, with parcels intended for English prisoners in Germany. The probability is that in both cases imperfect packing was responsible for the damage. (Cf. pp. [6], [8].) In the report just cited, De Marval states that, in general, there has been great improvement in the lodging of the prisoners, and that some bad camps (Vitré, Lorient, Belle-Ile) have been broken up (January, 1915). Here again the reports coincide with those made upon German camps. In all countries the prisoners of war presented at first a problem not readily solved, and great hardships resulted. “Some of the hospitals,” writes M. de Marval, “lack comforts, are not sufficiently roomy, or do not possess the necessary medicaments.” He goes on: “I shall not delay over the retrospective complaints often formulated by prisoners.... Officers who had been injured by the populace or bound during transport and soldiers who had told me of bad treatment were alike pleased to declare that all such things were past.” Here again the report is exactly paralleled by the American report on the German Camps. (Cf. p. [16]). “Religious services are in general arranged for the Catholics; it is very difficult to secure ministrations for the Protestants.” “If the officers are often meanly lodged, the same is true of the soldiers. The bedding sometimes leaves much to be desired, the straw in many of the camps is scanty, damp, and pretty often full of lice. The litter is actually being replaced everywhere by straw palliasses. As a support for these an open wooden framework is placed on the beaten ground which is often wet. Those who sleep under tents are subject to bronchitis and rheumatism, those who are in forts or old convents sometimes lack the proper allowance of air.... Though the quality of the water leaves something to be desired, it is supplied filtered and boiled, and in amount generally sufficient.... In some camps there is not enough water for washing either the person or clothing.... In general each man has a blanket, but it is very small and often much worn; some are still needed in some of the camps.... If I have not referred to certain regrettable incidents of which I have been told, it is because they appear isolated, and one must guard against generalising from them. Besides, these incidents are bygones and few in number.” At Fougères (Brittany) “the beds are touching each other.” Cassabianda was a bad camp. So much has been made of earlier defects in German camps that it is well to remember (as indeed the above report shows) that defects may easily occur in other countries besides Germany. Of Cassabianda (February 12)[7] we read: “Huts extremely dilapidated. Sanitary accommodation worse than scanty. (Les W.—C. sont plus que sommaires). Nourishment scarcely sufficient for those who are working.... The cooking arrangements are worse than scanty.... Sleeping accommodation extraordinary: beds made from boughs by prisoners and superposed in two or three tiers. The ceilings and windows are falling in ruins.... Wishes of the prisoners—to have more to eat.... A very poor camp (dépôt très médiocre), but well governed by a good and conscientious commandant who is badly seconded by his officers. It is a difficult task to render habitable premises that are falling into ruins.” I am quite sure that none of us would impute ill intent to the French authorities. We should say simply that the prisoner problem was at first beyond their power, that in exceptional cases there were bad officers and in others lack of organisation. If we are capable of fair play, we shall, in many cases, say exactly the same thing about the German authorities. In Germany the one outstanding question is food, otherwise, as M.M. de Marval and Eugster state in a joint report issued in May: “We fully recognise the excellent arrangement and perfect organisation, thought out to the smallest detail, and the admirable administration of the Camps.”
Later U.S. Reports.
It is allowed by all investigators that camps almost everywhere have been improved as the war went on. Mr. Gerard himself writes, under date June 10, 1915: “It is generally admitted that conditions in the camps are constantly improving, and no good can be attained by the investigations of complaints based upon reports of conditions as they are supposed to have been several months ago.” In citing the earlier U.S. and Swiss reports I have therefore by no means exaggerated the facts favourable to German treatment. There have been many later reports, but it will be impossible and unnecessary to give more than a few references:
The reports in Miscel. No. 15 (1915) give a quite favourable account of the German efforts on behalf of the prisoners. Canadian officers at Bischofswerda, however, complained of their treatment on the way from the front. They said that “they were at first compelled to share their compartments with French Algerian (black) soldiers, but that other arrangements were made by a German officer in the course of their journey.” Some may consider this an interesting comment on the employment of Algerian and other native troops.
Hunger During Transport.
The Canadian officers also said “that while on the road they had received but little food, their treatment not differing, however, from that of other prisoners.” On reading this I could not help recalling a Daily News interview headed “The Blue Ladies: Good work at the Free Buffet at Euston.” (June 24, 1916.) “We have just had the escort of some German prisoners in,” said one of the ladies. “We do not give anything to the prisoners. We have enough to do to look after our own men.” I recalled, too, the British nurse who said in my presence, with a snap of her fingers, “We have not that much sympathy with the German wounded.” I want to believe that in the great majority of cases the attitude on both sides is very different; but what a sundering influence war-like patriotism is! We must surely reach brotherhood by some other way.
Friedrichsfeld.
Mr. Michelson reports highly of the camp at Friedrichsfeld. All kinds of work was going on. “No German foreman were to be seen, and only on looking for them did I notice that there were, here and there, guards watching the prisoners. In two instances I saw unguarded prisoners at work.” Some wounded at Magdeburg “all, without exception, said they had been treated with great consideration while being transported from the front.” (June 3, 1915). The hospital treatment is spoken well of both here and at the base hospital at Isighem, W. Flanders, visited by Dr. Ohnesorg.