CLOTHING OF PRISONERS

25

Both the British and German regulations required officers to provide their own clothing. Under article 4 of the Hague convention prisoners are entitled to retain possession of their clothing and other personal effects, but as stated above, charges were made that the Germans frequently took away the overcoats from their prisoners at the time of capture, and the truth of the charges was substantiated in some instances by the reports of neutral inspectors The German authorities, however, denied the charges and suggested that the prisoners may have lost their overcoats, sold them, or gambled them away. They also declared that English prisoners were supplied with captured Belgian and French uniforms when their own uniforms were worn out, that they were provided with underwear as needed, and that they were furnished at first with wooden sabots, it being impossible by reason of the large number of prisoners to supply them at once with shoes.1

The reports of the representatives of the American embassy substantiate in a number of instances the charges made against the Germans in respect to the insufficient supply of clothing provided for the prisoners. Thus Mr. Gerard, who visited the camp at Döberitz in October, 1915, reported to Mr. Page that "the prisoners have only one blanket (the German regulations, as announced, provided for two woollen blankets for each man) and are without overcoats.2 They therefore suffer from cold as well as from the condition brought about by having no change of underwear."

1 Ibid., pp. 16, 17. The German denial added: "The idea of supplying articles of clothing to the generality of prisoners of war cannot therefore be entertained." But the Hague convention, as stated above, requires it. Dr. McCarthy, discussing the working camps in Germany, says: "Practically all the British prisoners were supplied with clothes from England" (op. cit., p. 165). Cohen says that many of the prisoners at Ruheleben had no change of clothing, and that their plight was sad until the American embassy sent a supply. These were purchased for those who received none from home, partly through a fund raised by voluntary subscription, and partly with money supplied by the British government. The Ruheleben Prison Camp, p. 73.

2 Ibid., p. 80. In his book, My Four Years in Germany, Mr. Gerard says: "At a time when the British prisoners were without proper clothing, overcoats and the like, the British government sent me uniforms, overcoats and so on, and I hired a warehouse in Berlin as a distributing point, but after some months the German authorities refused to allow me to continue this method of distribution on the ground that it was the duty of Germany to provide the prisoners with clothes. But Germany was not performing this duty, and the British prisoners had to suffer because of this German official woodenheadedness," p. 195.

"I have asked the German government," he added, "whether they are going to give the men another blanket but so far have had no answer." An American citizen residing at Havre gave similar information.2 The American consul-general at Berlin, however, reported on October 17 that the men were receiving two blankets, but they complained that they were not thick enough. Messrs. Ohnesorg and Pyne reported in June, 1915, that all the men at Würzburg were "badly in need of uniforms"; in the same month Mr. Jackson found a few of the men at Stendal in need of shoes and underclothing." Mr. Osborne reported that when he visited the camp at Wittenberg on October 29, 1915, he was told by the commandant that every English prisoner had been provided with an overcoat; but when he investigated the matter he found that practically no overcoats had been given out by the authorities. On the contrary, ten overcoats which had been sent from England had been taken from their owners and given to other British prisoners who were going to work in the camps. Mr. Gerard visited the camp on November 8 and found the situation as described by Mr. Osborne, there being but sixteen overcoats for the 278 men in the barracks which he inspected. While each man had two blankets, "on the whole they were insufficiently clothed." Moreover, Mr. Gerard says he was told by the men and also by the British medical officers that upon their first arrival at the camp the men had been compelled to sell their clothing to their fellow prisoners in order to procure sufficient food to live on."

The French authorities made many complaints that French prisoners in Germany were insufficiently clothed, in consequence of which they suffered severely during the winter season. Large quantities of clothing were sent to the prisoners by the French government, but it was charged that the German government refused to allow shipments of uniforms to French prisoners. However, in May, 1916, an agreement was reached between the two governments by which this restriction was removed. The French government, on its part, claims to have com1 Ibid., p. 8. 2 Ibid., p. 34. 3 Ibid., p. II. Ibid., p. 10.

Misc., No. 19 (1915), p. 6.

Misc., No. 14 (1916), p. 5.

7 Ibid., p. 10.

8

8 As to the French charges cf. Le Régime des Prisonniers, etc., pp. 42-44. The Rapports des Délégués du Gouv. Espagnol contain little information regarding the German treatment of French prisoners in respect to clothing.

REPORTS OF NEUTRAL INSPECTORS

27

plied fully with the Hague regulations in respect to clothing, and the reports of the American representatives and the delegates of the International Red Cross committee contain no complaints against the French government on this score. Likewise no charges appear to have been made against the British authorities in respect to the clothing of German prisoners. A representative of the American embassy inspected the prison camps in the United Kingdom in the spring of 1916, but he heard no complaints on this score, and he made no criticism in his reports.1

1 Reports of Mr. Beal, Misc., No. 30 (1916), Cd. 8324. The London editor of the Amsterdam Telegraaf, John C. Van der Leer, who inspected the British prison camp at Dorchester in December, 1915, reported that every prisoner had three blankets, as the British regulations provided. Every one was given a warm overcoat, two flannel shirts, two pairs of woollen under-garments; also handkerchiefs, a tooth brush, a hair brush, a comb, and a pair of good shoes upon his arrival at the camp. When their uniforms were worn out, they were replaced by new suits furnished by the British government. London weekly Times, December 24, 1915.

CHAPTER XXII

TREATMENT OF PRISONERS (Continued)

$343. Regulations and Practice as to Food and Diet; § 344. The British and French Rations; § 345. The German Ration; § 346. Dependence of British and French Prisoners on Parcels from Home; § 347. British and French Complaints; § 348. Regulations and Practice as to Postal Correspondence; § 349. Complaints as to German Policy; § 350. Employment of Prisoners; § 351. German Practice; § 352. Employment of Prisoners behind the Firing Line; § 353. Pay for Prison Labor; § 354. Punishment and Discipline; § 355. Reprisal Measures; § 356. Differential Treatment of Prisoners Captured on German Submarines; §357. Other Reprisals and Threats of Reprisals; § 358. Exchange of Civilian Prisoners; § 359. Transfer of Wounded and Invalided Prisoners to Switzerland; § 360. Repatriation of Prisoners in Long Captivity.

§343. Regulations and Practice as to Food and Diet. Article 7 of the Hague regulations provides that

"The government into whose hands prisoners of war have fallen is charged with their maintenance. In default of special agreement between the belligerents, prisoners of war shall be treated as regards rations . . . on the same footing as the troops of the government which captured them."

As stated in the preceding chapter, the British practice up to March 16, 1915, when its policy was altered in consequence of the failure of the German government to accord reciprocity of treatment to British officers in respect to pay, was to allow German officers to mess free of cost and to purchase such liquors as they wished. After the adoption of the new scale of payment conformably to the German scale, German officers were required to defray the cost of their subsistence, but the privilege of purchasing liquors, tobacco, chocolate, etc., was left untouched.2 From the outset, however, British officers held in Germany were required to pay for their food, the cost of which generally consumed about two-thirds of their pay. According to the German memorandum, officers were allowed to "partake moderately" of beer and light wines, but the purchase of cigars, tobacco, and chocolate from German stocks was not allowed.5 2 Ibid., p. 75. Ibid., pp. 26, 32. Ibid., p. 80.

1 Misc., No. 7 (1915), p. 21. ♦ Ibid., p. 13.

THE BRITISH AND FRENCH RATIONS

29

Regarding the quantity and quality of food served to officers, the German memorandum stated that inasmuch as they were required to defray the cost of their subsistence, "they should receive each day a sufficient and nutritious fare which would be varied as often as possible and would be furnished at a moderate price, so that the means for their small daily wants such as laundry, etc., would still remain at their disposal." There were, of course, numerous complaints that the food was poor in quality, insufficient in quantity, and high-priced.2

§344. The British and French Rations. Regarding the rations for private soldiers the British regulations stated that the daily ration should consist of the following:

2 oz. cheese to be allowed as an alternative for 1 oz. butter or margarine.

2 oz. of pears, beans, lentils, or rice.

In addition, canteens were provided from which prisoners were allowed to purchase tobacco, small luxuries, and other things which they might need,3 and interned civilians approved by the military authorities who were able and willing to pay for a superior diet were allowed a diet and accommodations on a scale somewhat similar to that provided for officers. The published reports of the American representatives indicate that German prisoners in England were well fed, and there were few complaints."

At the Isle of Man camp the food was pronounced abundant and excellent, the prisoners being fed in a large glass-roofed electric-lighted, steam-heated dining hall. Mr. Beal, who

1 Ibid., p. 79.

2 Cf., e.g., the English complaints, ibid., pp. 26, 29, 32, and 33. As to French complaints cf. Régime des Prisonniers, p. 23.

• Misc., No. 7 (1915), p. 23.

4 Ibid., p. 6.

McCarthy, op. cit., p. 139, says German prisoners in England and France were well fed and cared for.