During World War II over 400,000 Germans and Italians were held in prison camps in Britain. These men played a vital part in the life of war-torn Britain, from working in the fields to repairing bomb-damaged homes. Yet despite the role they played, today it is almost forgotten that Britain once held PoWs. For those who worked, played or fell in love with the enemies in their midst, those times remain vivid. Whether they took tea on the lawn with Italians or invited a German for Christmas dinner, the PoWs were a large part of their lives. This book is the story of those men who were detained here as unexpected guests. It is about their lives within the camps and afterwards, when some chose to stay and others returned to a country that in parts had become a hell on earth.
During World War II over 400,000 Germans and Italians were held in prison camps in Britain. These men played a vital part in the life of war-torn Britain, from working in the fields to repairing bomb-damaged homes. Yet despite the role they played, today it is almost forgotten that Britain once held PoWs. For those who worked, played or fell in love with the enemies in their midst, those times remain vivid. Whether they took tea on the lawn with Italians or invited a German for Christmas dinner, the PoWs were a large part of their lives. This book is the story of those men who were detained here as unexpected guests. It is about their lives within the camps and afterwards, when some chose to stay and others returned to a country that in parts had become a hell on earth.
eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
During World War II over 400,000 Germans and Italians were held in prison camps in Britain. These men played a vital part in the life of war-torn Britain, from working in the fields to repairing bomb-damaged homes. Yet despite the role they played, today it is almost forgotten that Britain once held PoWs. For those who worked, played or fell in love with the enemies in their midst, those times remain vivid. Whether they took tea on the lawn with Italians or invited a German for Christmas dinner, the PoWs were a large part of their lives. This book is the story of those men who were detained here as unexpected guests. It is about their lives within the camps and afterwards, when some chose to stay and others returned to a country that in parts had become a hell on earth.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780752496801 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | The History Press |
| Publication date: | 10/04/2010 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 192 |
| File size: | 3 MB |
| Age Range: | 18 Years |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
Churchill's Unexpectd Guests
Prisoners of War in Britain in World War II
By Sophie Jackson
The History Press
Copyright © 2013 Sophie Jackson,All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-7524-9680-1
CHAPTER 1
WHEN THE FIGHTING WAS DONE
Geneva Convention
Any discussion on prisoners of the Second World War needs to begin with an understanding of the Geneva Convention, the twentieth-century document that formed the basis for how prisoners in Britain and to a degree in Germany were confined. Its limitations, however, opened it up for abuse and despite many prisoners believing it to be a legal document that must be upheld by their captors, it was in fact only a moral code. None of the rules laid out in the document had to be followed, only considered and interpreted as the captors saw fit.
For German troops in particular, the fact that the British and Americans upheld the Geneva Convention made being captured by them a far better option than being captured by the Russians, who had no intention of treating Nazi prisoners well. As part of the agreement, both Britain and America had to make provisions for a neutral country to visit the prisoners to ensure their well-being. Russia, on the other hand, could hide away their prisoners, abuse them and leave them to die without any other nation observing them.
The very first Convention had come about in the nineteenth century after the publication of A Memory of Solferino, written by Henry Dunant, a Swiss man who had helped tend to dying and wounded soldiers for three days and three nights after the battle of Solferino in 1859. The fight between the French and Austrians left 6,000 dead and 40,000 wounded. The French army's medical teams were overwhelmed; they had more veterinarians than doctors. The harrowing aftermath of the battle that Henry Dunant recorded in his book inspired Europe to create some form of document that would protect those wounded in battle.
The first meeting to discuss the Convention occurred in 1864, when sixteen nations came together in Switzerland and twelve agreed to sign the first Geneva Convention and created the Red Cross flag (a reversed version of the Swiss flag).
One of the most significant factors of the treaty was that it established the neutral status of military medical personnel. Further treaties discussed at the peace conferences held at The Hague were established before the Great War, and during that conflict, neutral countries such as Switzerland took informal responsibility for ensuring prisoners of war were treated well. This included visiting camps and hearing prisoners' complaints.
However, the main provision of the Convention was to deal with wounded soldiers and this left deficiencies in the guidelines for the treatment of captured prisoners. In 1929 the nations came together again and signed the second version of the Convention. Included in those nations that agreed to follow the Convention was Japan. The Soviet Union, due to spending the 1920s isolated from the international community, never signed the treaty.
This proved disastrous for German soldiers captured by the Russians; they were starved, brutalised and often left to die in the freezing Eastern European winters. For Russians in German camps the situation was little better as the Germans decided to ignore the Convention in relation to their Eastern European prisoners, while following it in regards to their British, French and American prisoners.
The Convention set out a number of points that a 'hostile government' should follow in relation to its captives, including:
They [POWs] shall at all times be humanely treated and protected, particularly against acts of violence, from insults and from public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against them are forbidden.
No pressure shall be exercised on prisoners to obtain information regarding the situation in their armed forces or their country. Prisoners who refuse to reply may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasantness or disadvantages of any kind whatsoever.
Their identity tokens, badges of rank, decorations and articles of value may not be taken from prisoners.
Belligerents are required to notify each other of all captures of prisoners as soon as possible ...
Work done by prisoners of war shall have no direct connection with the operations of the war. In particular, it is forbidden to employ prisoners in the manufacture or transport of arms or munitions of any kind, or on the transport of material destined for combatant units.
Much of a nation's compliance with the regulations was due to reciprocity. Britain held strictly to the Convention, even after the war ended, in relation to its German prisoners for fear that if they did not something untoward might happen to British prisoners in German hands.
But like all agreements, the way the rules were interpreted and followed depended on individual camp conditions and their commandants. Britain also found it difficult to treat its prisoners equally in all its dominions, and its camps in France and Belgium were particularly notorious. In addition, the government struggled to gain uniformity between British and American camps, some German POWs having been sent to the United States.
The German prisoners themselves tended to see the Geneva Convention as a law that could be enforced by the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) and punishments were imposed for infringements. In truth, the Convention had no standing in international law; the regulations were principles which the nations that had signed were only morally obliged to hold to.
For the most part, sticking to the Convention's principles as rigidly as Britain did was due less to national conscience than to the real fear of reprisals against British POWs. An early example of how reprisals could grow and cause international and national concern happened in October 1942.
On 7 October the German High Command announced that it would be chaining the hands of all British soldiers captured in Dieppe because 'British troops had tied the hands of German soldiers in the raids on Dieppe and Sark'.
The British government's response was to declare that if British soldiers were not freed from their chains by 10 October, an equal number of German prisoners would be shackled. The German High Command immediately replied by ordering that three times the number of British prisoners should be placed in chains. They refused to release the men until Britain agreed that never again would they tie the hands of Germans captured in raids.
The Swiss government, trying to act as a neutral mediator, attempted to break the deadlock of 'German reprisals and British counter-reprisals'. They appealed to the nations involved:
In conviction [sic] that it was with reluctance that Germany, as with Britain and Canada, was led to shackle prisoners of war, Switzerland, the protecting power for German interests in the British Empire and for British interests in Germany, has suggested simultaneously to the interested governments a date on which those prisoners should be freed from their shackles.
Earlier on the day that the Swiss gave their appeal, the Prime Minister had been questioned on the subject, particularly about whether Canada had been consulted before German prisoners in their country were ordered to be shackled by the British. He responded: 'On account of urgency it was not possible to consult any of the Dominion governments upon the counter-measures to the German shacklings which were deemed necessary in October by the government.'
After the appeal, the Foreign Office announced that all German prisoners in British hands would be unshackled as of 12 December 1942. The Canadians issued a similar statement that German prisoners would be untied without delay. This did not have the desired effect in Germany, where British POWs remained shackled until December 1943.
The official reports compiled after the war noted that it was not just the tying of German hands that had caused reprisals, but the discovery of a number of German bodies riddled with bullets lying at the bottom of the cliffs at Dieppe. In the end, it was not diplomacy that ended the stalemate but a shortage of camp guards, who became slack in the shackling of their British prisoners. The prisoners' hands were meant to be tied in the morning and untied at night, but eventually the guards merely gave the shackles to the POWs and ordered them to tie their own hands. Though punishments were still inflicted for failing to wear the chains, very often the camp staff simply ignored the infringements.
Prisoner Nationalities
For the most part, when people recall the POWs held in Britain during the war they usually remember them as either Italian or German. Indeed, most official documents would give the impression that only men from these two nations were ever captured. Yet the range of nationalities of the men held in the UK was in fact far greater than that. In 1947 8,000 Ukrainian prisoners of war were brought to Britain from Italy. Once here volunteers were selected for agricultural work and for long-term residency in the UK.
The Germans had conscripted a number of soldiers from their neighbouring countries along with any they conquered. During one interrogation the seaman being questioned revealed he came from Vienna in Austria, but considered himself a German. He had been a labour conscript sent to Germany in 1939 and from there he was eventually drafted into a U-boat school at Wilhelmshaven.
As the war progressed, the Germans made a habit of encouraging their prisoners to join the military. Another POW who found himself housed in a camp in Suffolk was Czechoslovakian and had been effectively press-ganged into the German army.
In the latter stages of the conflict the Germans even tried to persuade British POWs to re-enlist under the Nazi flag. Similar tactics were used on Russian prisoners to greater effect.
Russia and Germany were bitter enemies; the Nazi regime viewed the Russians as little better than savage animals. German soldiers feared capture by the Russians knowing the horrors they would endure, and the situation was no better for any Russian who fell into Nazi hands.
British POWs were often held in camps next door to Russian prisoners with little more than a barbed-wire fence separating them. Yet the conditions either side of the wire could not have been more different. While the Germans followed the Geneva Convention in regards to their British captives, they saw no reason to treat the Russian enemy similarly. The Russians were starved and brutalised. If any tried to escape they were shot immediately. There are stories of British POWs feeling so sorry for the starving Russians that they would try to throw some of their rations to them, but when a Russian attempted to retrieve the food they were shot dead by a guard.
Unsurprisingly, when faced with such horrors and knowing that their leader, Stalin, had effectively washed his hands of any man who was captured – considering them lost in action – the Russians were prepared to accept the Nazi offer to join the German army.
To the British, the nationality of their prisoners was not as great a concern as their political attitudes. German prisoners in particular were classified and housed according to their beliefs. Prisoners were screened upon entering Britain and then placed into one of four groups: Grade A (white) were considered anti-Nazi; Grade B (grey) had less clear feelings and were considered not as reliable as the 'whites'; Grade C (black) had probable Nazi leanings; Grade C+ (also black) were deemed ardent Nazis. 'Blacks' were usually housed in special camps, often situated in remote areas where escape was harder.
Grading was essential not only for security, but also prisoner welfare. While most camps had a mixture of 'white', 'grey' and 'black', some camps were predominate in one grade of prisoners. On occasion a Grade A (white) prisoner was placed into a Grade C+ (black) camp; in such situations the results were often assaults on the 'white' anti-Nazi, occasionally with fatal consequences.
Grade C+ were not supposed to leave base camps and they were not to join working parties except under the supervision of the Director of Labour. If a C+ prisoner was discovered to have been accidentally sent to a working camp then he was to be immediately transferred away.
German Deserters
It is sometimes easy to forget that not all German soldiers believed in Hitler and the Nazi regime or wanted to fight Britain. Some made active attempts to be captured and then reveal useful information to the British; there were even those who, after being taken prisoner, asked to join the British army.
One such man was Uffz Franke, who had spent a year in a German prison from March 1941 after 'expressing views prejudicial to the regime'. Despite his anti-Nazi feelings he was sent with a Panzer division to Africa in 1942 where he arranged to be captured by the British. Franke had anti-German feelings and when flown back to the UK he applied to join the British army. The authorities considered using him as a stool pigeon, a line of work that required a good deal of courage as the risks if exposed could prove fatal. Franke was turned down for the role as he was considered 'lifeless and timid'.
Deserters, however, were not always the most reliable of sources for information. Many were keen rather than useful and had gathered information randomly, usually without understanding the context, to try and be helpful to their captors. The interrogation services regularly double-checked information and reported its accuracy, often with disappointing results.
The 'Diseased' Italians
Among the earliest POWs to arrive in Britain were large numbers of Italians; many had been captured in the Near East where they were all too willing to surrender to the British troops. Once they were captured it was necessary to set up camps in Britain and transport the new captives there.
Amid the many concerns about finding a suitable location for a prison camp, one was primary in certain people's minds. The Italians were being shipped from a location rife with disease, many were already suffering from some form of illness, and it was vital to the War Office to protect the health of the British public.
In a letter written by Dr P.G. Stock on 17 June 1941, he reports:
From the information in his possession Brig. Richardson anticipated that malaria, dysentery, typhoid fever and pediculosis had been rife amongst the prisoners. He said that the army authorities would provide the necessary hospital accommodation at the transit camps and would see that the men were disinfected: in addition he was considering having them all inoculated against typhoid fever, but feared that a number might be carriers of malaria, dysentery and typhoid.
Three thousand Italians were due to arrive on 8 July of that year, the first of a proposed 50,000 Italian prisoners that were being shipped to Britain in the hope that many could help fill the labour shortage in the country. Suddenly the authorities were gripped with unexpected panic. They had sick men heading their way carrying potentially lethal diseases to an unsuspecting population.
The men were to be initially housed at two transit camps, one in Lodge Moor, Sheffield, the other in Prees Heath, Shropshire, but where the men were to go next was still in debate. A telegram was forwarded to the Ministry of Health discussing the problem.
In a letter dated 24 June 1941 it was stated:
The Minister [of Health] apprehends that certain infectious diseases may be prevalent amongst these Italian Prisoners of War and is anxious that all possible steps are taken to prevent any spread of such diseases ... the minister is particularly concerned to ensure that precautions are taken in districts to which these prisoners of war may be sent to work as labourers ... I am to add that the risk of the spread of malaria is greater in some parts of the country than others, and the ministry would be prepared to furnish you with information on this point if it is agreed that steps would then be taken to avoid ... sending any Italian prisoners of war who may be carriers of malaria to a district where there is the most risk of spreading the disease.
Eventually a list of the locations for the Italian POW camps was announced:
The Labour Camps for the first 3,000 Italian prisoners of war (for Agriculture) due to arrive about the 8th July, 1941, are located as follows:-
(a) Farncombe Down. 1 mile east of Baydon, Wilts.
(b) Melton Mowbray (Leicestershire).
(c) Ledbury. ¾ mile south (Herefordshire).
(d) Doddington. 4 miles south of March (Cambridge).
(e) Rugby. 2 ½ miles south (Warwickshire).
(f) Anglesea. Glan Morfa. 3 miles south of Llangefni.
(g) Baldock-Royston area. (Hertfordshire).
Almost immediately concerns were raised about the choice of certain locations. Even with health screening at the transit camps, involving the taking of in-depth medical histories and giving inoculations, there was still a fear that a disease-carrier might be unintentionally sent to the wrong location. The greatest fear was the spread of malaria which is contracted from the bite of an infected mosquito. If a mosquito were to bite an Italian who was a carrier of malaria, it would then drink infected blood and potentially pass this on to anyone living in the vicinity.
Further reports of the potential dangers were hastily drawn up. Dr P.G. Stock wrote:
Anopheline mosquitoes are found throughout England and Wales, but fortunately our experience shows that it is only one species, namely Anopheles Maculipennis, which is concerned in the spread of malaria. Moreover, it is only one variety of this species which is the real danger ... (variety Atroparvus). This variety is only found in sufficient numbers to constitute a real danger ... along the south coast of England, east of Wareham in Dorset and up the east coast as far north as the River Humber. Included in this area is the valley and the estuary of the Thames, the Isle of Grain, the Isle of Sheppey and places such as Harwich, Dovercourt, Walton-on-the-Naze, Ipswich, Great Yarmouth and the country bordering the Wash, namely parts of Norfolk, the Isle of Ely and Lincolnshire.
... From the War Office letter of the 28th June, it is noted that a certain number of Italian prisoners of war are to be sent to Doddington, four miles south of March in the Isle of Ely, and unless these men can be diverted elsewhere special precautions should be taken in the district. The matter is of importance as we are now in the most dangerous period of the year for the spread of malaria.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Churchill's Unexpectd Guests by Sophie Jackson. Copyright © 2013 Sophie Jackson,. Excerpted by permission of The History Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Contents
one When the Fighting was Done,two The German Guide Book,
three Safer Shores,
four Nazi Murder on British Soil,
five You Can Work If You Want,
six A Girl's Gotta Do What a Girl's Gotta Do ...,
seven And Then There Was Peace,
appendix POW Camp Directory,
Bibliography,