Ambassador James W. Gerard argued that his representatives in Germany
should have the right to visit the prison camps on giving reasonable notice—
24 h where possible—and that they should be able to converse with the
prisoners privately, within sight but out of hearing of the camp officials. In
return he agreed that an endeavour should be made to adjust matters complained of with the camp authorities before bringing them to the notice of
higher authorities, a ‘softly softly’ approach that seemed to work well. Gerard
later recalled that ‘… at two periods during my stay in Berlin I spent enough
days at the camp to enable every prisoner who had a complaint of any kind to
present it personally to me … ‘However, his claims may have been somewhat
exaggerated as on his first visit, his guided tour was continually interrupted by
shouts from prisoners such as ‘Let’s have some bread not sawdust!’ and ‘We
want bread!’. Many written messages in a similar vein were thrown into his
car as he left, despite the best efforts of the guards.
38 On the whole however,
the American interventions were positive leading to substantial improvements
at the Ruhleben camp. But there were also other factors at play by the spring
of 1915, such as the complete breakdown of all negotiations regarding prisoner exchanges, and the increase in the number of German prisoners held in
the UK.
39 These additional factors meant that more prisoners would be held
for longer than was otherwise anticipated thereby forcing the German and
British authorities to improve their conditions. From March 1915 onwards
therefore, Ruhleben became reasonably well provisioned in terms of food,
clothes, reading materials, board games and sports equipment, all of which
was reflected in the number of parcels delivered to the camp; from none in
November 1914 and less than 4,000 in December, to over 16,000 during
March 1915.
40 By June 1915 prisoners were allowed to use the racetrack for
up to seven hours a day giving ‘a splendid field for all kinds of games’.
41 But
for those dispatched to the camp at the beginning of internment, conditions
were undoubtedly at their worst. Two scenes
42 graphically illustrate the
change brought about by the various interventions over the four years of the
war. In the first, during November 1914 when the German nation was still
amply provisioned, a group of cold, hungry prisoners gathered in a shed
hiding from the wind. One of them handed around a letter from an educated
German lady who rejoiced to hear that ‘English’ civilian prisoners were to be
given only the bare necessities of life because ‘that was all they deserved!’. The
second scene was from the same month in 1918. Germany’s economic and
military collapse had begun, the revolution had broken out and men were free
to spend time outside the camp. An internee walked out with a small parcel of
food under his arm, intending to send it to his wife in Cologne. He was soon
approached by a German lady of refined manners and accent. ‘Forgive me’
286
D. Sheppard
should have the right to visit the prison camps on giving reasonable notice—
24 h where possible—and that they should be able to converse with the
prisoners privately, within sight but out of hearing of the camp officials. In
return he agreed that an endeavour should be made to adjust matters complained of with the camp authorities before bringing them to the notice of
higher authorities, a ‘softly softly’ approach that seemed to work well. Gerard
later recalled that ‘… at two periods during my stay in Berlin I spent enough
days at the camp to enable every prisoner who had a complaint of any kind to
present it personally to me … ‘However, his claims may have been somewhat
exaggerated as on his first visit, his guided tour was continually interrupted by
shouts from prisoners such as ‘Let’s have some bread not sawdust!’ and ‘We
want bread!’. Many written messages in a similar vein were thrown into his
car as he left, despite the best efforts of the guards.
38 On the whole however,
the American interventions were positive leading to substantial improvements
at the Ruhleben camp. But there were also other factors at play by the spring
of 1915, such as the complete breakdown of all negotiations regarding prisoner exchanges, and the increase in the number of German prisoners held in
the UK.
39 These additional factors meant that more prisoners would be held
for longer than was otherwise anticipated thereby forcing the German and
British authorities to improve their conditions. From March 1915 onwards
therefore, Ruhleben became reasonably well provisioned in terms of food,
clothes, reading materials, board games and sports equipment, all of which
was reflected in the number of parcels delivered to the camp; from none in
November 1914 and less than 4,000 in December, to over 16,000 during
March 1915.
40 By June 1915 prisoners were allowed to use the racetrack for
up to seven hours a day giving ‘a splendid field for all kinds of games’.
41 But
for those dispatched to the camp at the beginning of internment, conditions
were undoubtedly at their worst. Two scenes
42 graphically illustrate the
change brought about by the various interventions over the four years of the
war. In the first, during November 1914 when the German nation was still
amply provisioned, a group of cold, hungry prisoners gathered in a shed
hiding from the wind. One of them handed around a letter from an educated
German lady who rejoiced to hear that ‘English’ civilian prisoners were to be
given only the bare necessities of life because ‘that was all they deserved!’. The
second scene was from the same month in 1918. Germany’s economic and
military collapse had begun, the revolution had broken out and men were free
to spend time outside the camp. An internee walked out with a small parcel of
food under his arm, intending to send it to his wife in Cologne. He was soon
approached by a German lady of refined manners and accent. ‘Forgive me’
286
D. Sheppard