vention respecting the laws and customs of war on land had been flagrantly violated by Germany. "Our prisoners," he added, "have been stripped and maltreated in various ways and in some cases the evidence goes to prove that they have been shot in cold blood." Lord Kitchener admitted, however, that there had recently been some improvement, and he thought it was only fair to say that the German hospitals should be exempted from any charges of deliberate inhumanity. None of the speakers, however, demanded reprisals against German prisoners, for as Lord Newton put it, "in a competition of brutality, we should be outdistanced immediately." But public opinion outside Parliament was more divided, some of the newspapers like the Morning Post, the Nation, and the News insisting upon measures of reprisal.2

§ 356. Differential Treatment of Prisoners Captured on German Submarines. While the British government declined to resort to general measures of reprisal against Germany, it did adopt a system of differential treatment for thirty-nine officers and men captured on two submarines which were engaged in sinking British and neutral merchant vessels. There was some demand that men who were engaged in sinking unarmed merchant vessels with their crews and passengers should not be treated as prisoners of war, but should be tried as common murderers, as the Germans later treated Captain Fryatt. It was highly creditable to the government, however, that it declined to go to such extreme lengths. What the admiralty actually did was to segregate the submarine captives in naval detention barracks, but otherwise they were treated virtually as other prisoners, except that some of them were held in solitary confinement. The English policy of differential treatment in respect to submarine prisoners, however, aroused strong indignation in Germany and was denounced as a shameful and degrading procedure against which the German government announced that it would retaliate. The German threat was promptly put into execution by the seizure of an equal number

3

1 London weekly Times, April 30, 1915.

* The London Times, however, opposed retaliation, because England, it said, Could not compete with a nation whose people had no scruples.

3 Ambassador Page, under whose directions the place where they were detained was inspected, reported that their treatment was virtually the same as that accorded other prisoners.

REPRISAL MEASURES

51

of British officers belonging for the most part to the most distinguished families and regiments who were confined at Halle-on-the-Saale, and the placing of them in solitary confinement at Burg and Magdeburg.1

There was considerable doubt in England at the outset regarding the wisdom of introducing a distinction between the treatment of submarine captives and other prisoners, first, because the better opinion in England was opposed in principle to the policy of reprisal and, second, because it was foreseen that Germany would retaliate in kind. The responsibility of the policy adopted rested largely with Mr. Churchill, first lord of the admiralty. Mr. Balfour, who succeeded him early in June, realized the futility of the policy and caused it to be abandoned.

In consequence of an announcement in the German press that two captured English aviators had been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment on the charge of having dropped pamphlets over the German lines, the British government caused the German authorities to be informed that it would resort to measures of reprisal against certain captured German aviators for similar activities in case the two English airmen were not released. The threat was effective, and they were released.2

§ 357. Other Reprisals and Threats of Reprisal. In the summer of 1915 the German government threatened to adopt. retaliatory measures against Canadian prisoners in consequence of the alleged bad treatment of German civilian prisoners in the internment camp at Amherst, Nova Scotia. The Dominion government expressed surprise at the complaint and declared the charges to be absolutely without foundation. Threats of reprisal were also made by the German government against French prisoners in consequence of the alleged brutal treatment of German military and civilian prisoners in Africa, and the

I

1 Mr. Gerard in a communication of May 1 to Mr. Page reported that he had personally visited each of twenty-two of the thirty-nine British officers then subjected to retaliatory treatment. Each occupied a clean cell, was allowed books and parcels, allowed to smoke, to exercise in the prison yards, etc.

2 London weekly Times, March 15, 1918. It was reported that the Austrian government had given orders that captured aviators known to have distributed proclamations within the enemy lines would be given the death penalty. New York Times, September 27, 1918. The French government promptly warned the Austrian government that it would resort to retaliatory measures if the Austrian threat were carried out.

transfer of a large number of French prisoners to northern Germany for work in draining marshes and swamps appears to have been intended as a measure of reprisal for the treatment complained of. In April, 1916, the German government, in consequence of the alleged bad treatment of German prisoners in the camp at Saint Angean, sent 250 French officers to a reprisal camp at Voehrenbach. At various other times French prisoners were transferred to other "reprisal" camps upon similar pretexts.

In May and June, 1916, some thirty thousand French prisoners belonging to the upper classes were withdrawn from various camps and transferred to the Baltic and Polish provinces of Russia where they were alleged to have been put on greatly reduced rations, deprived of the privilege of receiving parcels post packages, and set to hard work in the construction of railroads. Representatives of the Spanish embassy were forbidden to visit the camps where they were confined. The pretext for the measure was the internment and alleged bad treatment by the French authorities of German civilians in Morocco. Some two thousand British prisoners also appear to have been transferred to the occupied regions of Russia where they were set to work, in consequence of the action of the British government in sending an equal number of German prisoners from the internment camps in England to work at unloading ships in French ports. Sir Edward Grey stated that the work did not consist in the unloading of munitions cargoes, and he gave assurances that facilities would be afforded for inspection by representatives of the American embassy of the prisoners so transferred. In the autumn of 1916 the German government in retaliation for the alleged failure of the French government to fulfil the terms of an agreement regarding the release of civilian prisoners seized some two hundred French men and women in the occupied region of France and deported them to Germany. Transfers to "reprisal" camps were the most common form of retaliation adopted by the German govern

1 Rapports des Délégués Espagnols, p. 20.

2 Rapports des Délégués Espagnols, pp. 95-96. The alleged mistreatment of German prisoners in Africa and the brutality of the German reprisal measures are the subject of a volume entitled Les Prisonniers Allemands au Moroc (Hachette et Cie., Paris, 1917).

3 Misc., No. 19 (1916), Cd. 8260.

EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS

53

ment, but reduction of rations, deprivation of postal privileges, employment behind the firing line, and other measures were frequently resorted to. Neither the British nor the French government appears to have resorted to the practice of reprisals, although threats were occasionally made, and on several occasions readjustments were made in their regulations concerning the privileges of prisoners so as to bring them into conformity with those of Germany. Aside from the brief segregation of the German submarine crews no reprisal camps were organized either in England or France.

The practice of resorting to reprisal measures against prisoners who are innocent of any offence is a detestable one and cannot be too strongly condemned, although it must be said that the threat to resort to it, in many cases had the effect of securing better treatment of prisoners by the enemy. In July, 1916, the International Red Cross committee in a statement addressed to both belligerent and neutral governments "energetically protested against the practice of reprisals against prisoners as a return to the most barbarous times, one which was unworthy of nations which had given the Red Cross the place which it occupied in their armies and one which put a premium on barbarism for the purpose of vengeance." It appealed to the several belligerents which had resorted to the practice to discontinue it in the future.1

$358. Exchange of Civilian Prisoners. As is well known, the Hague convention respecting the laws and customs of war on land, although containing detailed provisions regarding the treatment of prisoners, is silent on the subject of exchange. In fact, during recent wars exchanges have been rare, and not since the American Civil war has any considerable number of prisoners been released in this way. It is somewhat regrettable that this policy of dealing with prisoners has not found more

1 The British government in reply to the appeal of the Red Cross committee expressed its regret that the belligerents had been compelled to resort to reprisals and stated that it had discountenanced the policy from the outset. After adverting to a long list of German barbarities in respect to the treatment of prisoners, it added: "His Majesty's government readily respond to that appeal being confident that the neutral powers and the international committee will recognize that the demand for reprisals grows in volume and urgency with the recurrence of abuses, and that the surest means of avoiding reprisals is to promote the abandonment of the policy which inspires them." London weekly Times, September 8,

favor with belligerents, since it not only affords a means of lightening their own heavy burden of taking care of large numbers of prisoners, but it would spare unfortunate captives months and years of confinement, deprivation, and mental torture.

2

At the beginning of the late war the French government adopted the practice of releasing captured enemy officers on parole, but this policy was soon abandoned in consequence of the refusal of the German government to accord reciprocity of treatment to captured French officers.1 As has been pointed out in an earlier chapter, an arrangement was entered into between the French and German governments in January, 1916, for the reciprocal repatriation of civilian prisoners. The category of beneficiaries included women and all men under seventeen years of age and over fifty-five as well as those unfit for military service. A somewhat similar agreement was reached after protracted negotiations between the British and German governments in April, 1916, under which some six hundred British civilian prisoners in Germany were released, and about seven thousand German prisoners in England were returned to Germany. A like agreement was also concluded in December, 1917, between the British and Turkish governments. On December 31, 1915, the Pope despatched a telegram to the German and Austrian Emperors, the President of the French Republic, the King of England, the King of the Belgians, the Czar of Russia, the Sultan of Turkey, and the Mikado of Japan appealing to their sentiments of Christian charity to begin the new year by an act of generosity in accepting a proposal to exchange prisoners of war who were incapable of military service. All of them replied expressing their sympathy for the proposal and announcing their willingness to enter into such an arrangement with the enemy governments.5

1 Cf. the declaration of the French minister of war, February 16, 1916. Rev. Gén. de Droit Int. Pub., 1915, Docs., pp. 119-120.

2 As stated above, the German government alleged that the terms of the agreement were not performed in good faith by the French government, in consequence of which the German government adopted measures of reprisal in October, 1916, by arresting two hundred French men and women and deporting them to Germany. For the terms cf. supra, Vol. I, Sec. 46; also British White Paper, Misc., No. 17 (1916), Cd. 8236.

4 British White Paper, Misc., No. 10 (1918), Cd. 9024.

The text of the papal telegram and the responses may be found in the Rev. Gén. de Droit Int. Pub., 1915, Docs., pp. 99-100.