The situation of Prisoners of war in World War I in Germany is an aspect of the conflict little covered by historical research. However, the number of soldiers imprisoned reached a little over seven millionJochen Oltmer estimates a figure between 8 and 9 million, in Oltmer (2006), p. 11. for all the belligerents, of whom around 2,400,000Hinz (2006), after Doegen, p. 238. were held by Germany.
Starting in 1915, the German authorities put in place a system of camps, nearly three hundred in all, and did not hesitate to resort to denutrition, punishments and psychological mobbing; incarceration was also combined with methodical exploitation of the prisoners. This prefigured the systematic use of prison camps on a grand scale during the 20th century.
However, the captivity organised by the German military authorities also contributed to creating exchanges among peoples and led a number of prisoners to reflect on their involvement in the war and relation with their homeland.
The Hague Conventions At the end of the 19th century, Western nations reflected on the legal aspect of war and of captive soldiers, particularly following the Crimean and Austro-Prussian wars. Tsar Nicholas II initiated the two conferences that fixed the terms of the laws and customs of war at The Hague in 1899 and 1907.
Chapter II of the convention signed in October 1907 is entirely devoted to prisoners of war and begins thus: "Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile Government, but not of the individuals or corps who capture them. They must be humanely treated. All their personal belongings, except arms, horses, and military papers, remain their property."Hague Convention IV 1907
The twenty articles comprising this chapter regulate various aspects of life in captivity such as lodging, work, religion, nourishment, dress, and mail. However, this international accord is imbued with 19th-century conceptions of war. Thus, prisoners "may be set at liberty on parole if the laws of their country allow", for example.
The principal nations of the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance signed the convention, with the exception of the Ottoman Empire, not among the 44 signatories in 1907. The Hague Conventions’ dispositions entered into force in the German Empire and France on 26 January 1910, but these agreements turned out to be unsuitable in the tumult of World War I. In October 1918, the number of prisoners held in Germany reached 2,415,043,Hinz (2006), p. 10. and such a mass of men made it harder for a country at war to respect the conventions fully. During the conflict, the belligerent parties concluded special accords in order to mitigate these difficulties and in 1929, a new text was produced, amending the applicable regulatory dispositions.Geneva Convention Prisoners of War 1929
Conditions of detention
From the beginning of the war, the German authorities found themselves confronted with an unexpected influx of prisoners. In September 1914, 125,050 French soldiers and 94,000 Russian soldiers were held captive.Hinz (2006), p. 92. Before 1915, conditions of detention in Germany were very harsh and marked by temporary lodging and the absence of infrastructure. The prisoners slept in hangars or tents, where they dug holes to keep warm. The humid forts requisitioned to serve as places of detention led to numerous cases of pulmonary illness. The German authorities also commandeered schools, barns and various other types of shelters. Camps were established in the countryside as well as near the towns, which had consequences when epidemics of cholera or typhus threatened to spread to the civilian population.
Not all the camps were situated on German territory; a certain number were built in occupied territories, notably in northern and eastern France. They began to be developed starting in 1915 when the number of prisoners being held captive in Germany reached 652,000. According to official directives, each prisoner had to have use of 2.5 m2.Hinz (2006), p. 94. The camps mixed a large number of nationalities sharing the same quarters: French, Russian, British, American, Canadian, Belgian, Italian, Romanian, Serbian, Montenegrin, Portuguese and Japanese prisoners were found there, as well as Greeks and Brazilians. Equally, soldiers of various social origins rubbed elbows: workers, peasants, bureaucrats and intellectuals were among those held. The number of prisoners rose very quickly. From February to August 1915, it went from 652,000 to 1,045,232. In August 1916, it reached 1,625,000, jumping to 2,415,000 by October 1918.Hinz (2006), pp. 93-128-320.
The camps
The types of camps
The Mannschaftslager These were the basic soldiers' camps, made up of wooden barrack huts 10m wide and 50m long, covered with tar on the outside. Each hut held around 250 prisoners. A central corridor provided access on each side to bunk beds, with straw- or sawdust-filled palliasses. Furniture was kept to a minimum, and generally limited to a table, chairs or benches and a stove. The camps also included barracks for guards, a Kantine (cafeteria) where prisoners could sometimes buy small luxuries and supplementary food, a parcels office, a guardhouse, and kitchens. Some camps had additional amenities, including sanitary facilities, or cultural facilities such as a library, a theatre/concert hall, or a space for worship.Hinz (2006), pp. 107–108.
Prisoners on work details often spent longer or shorter periods of time away from their parent camp: those engaged in agriculture, for example, might be housed in village assembly halls.Yarnall (2011), pp. 136.
Officers’ camps (Offizierslager)
From 1915, imprisoned officers were held in camps reserved for them. By October 1918, the number of officers’ camps had reached 73.Hinz (2006), p. 124.
Living conditions for officers were usually less harsh than those endured by troops. The "camps" themselves were usually located in requisitioned buildings (castles, barracks or hotels), rather than in compounds of tents and huts.Yarnall (2011), pp. 28, 121-2. Officers had a higher allocation of space per man than other ranks, they had beds instead of straw-filled palliasses, specific rooms were fitted out for their meals, and they were exempt from labour. In addition, there were no officers’ camps in East Prussia (see map), where weather conditions were often far worse than in the rest of Germany. One of the main burdens of camp life for officers was tedium. Their daily lives tended to revolve around sport, amateur concerts and plays, lectures, debates, and reading.Hanson (2011), pp. 98-104. As the result of an agreement reached in 1916 between the British and German governments, British officers were even allowed to go for walks in groups outside the camp, provided they signed a document giving their word of honour not to attempt escape.Yarnall (2011), pp. 132-3.Hanson (2011), pp. 59-60.
Officers' camps accommodated, in addition to their officer-prisoners, a smaller number of other ranks prisoners known as orderlies, whose role was to act as servants to the officers and to perform menial tasks around the camp.Yarnall (2011), pp. 28-9.Hanson (2011), pp. 27-30. Orderlies appreciated that their situation was safer and more comfortable than that of their counterparts in soldiers' camps, and so, even when offered the opportunity, they generally did not try to escape, knowing that if recaptured they would be sent to far worse conditions.Winchester (1971), pp. 145-6.
The Durchgangslager The rapid progression of the German offensive in the early part of the war led to a massive influx of prisoners. From 1915,Hinz (2006), p. 95. transit camps, the Durchgangslager, were built to manage and redirect this wave toward detention camps. There was a special transit camp for Allied prisoners of war at the former Europäischer Hof at 39, Ettlinger Strasse, in Karlsruhe. This was known as the "Listening Hotel" by the inmates, who recognized that it was a camp devoted to intelligence collection. This "Listening Hotel" was similar in organization and purpose to the Dulag Luft camp at Frankfurt in the Second World War.
Reprisal camps These camps were often located in regions where the climate or the terrain made life difficult, but also near the front, where the prisoners might be taken to rebuild trenches or cart away bodies. The goal of the reprisal camps was to put pressure on enemy governments to ameliorate conditions of detention for German prisoners, and to punish prisoners (for instance following an escape). Life for prisoners sent to reprisal camps was so harsh that many of them died. Robert d'Harcourt describes the arrival of a prisoners' convoy coming from such a camp: "These men – these soldiers – marched, but they were dead; beneath each blue greatcoat was the head of a dead man: their eyes hollow, their cheekbones jutting out, their emaciated grimaces those of graveyard skulls".d'Harcourt (1935), p. 154. Often kept in tents resting in mud, these prisoners were forced into exhausting work with their entire diet consisting of soup or perhaps stewed acorns.d'Harcourt (1935), p. 156 At certain camps, for instance at Sedan, some prisoners were executed. Reprisal camps for officers existed, too: the fortress at Ingolstadt held Charles de Gaulle, Georges Catroux, Roland Garros, the journalist and World War II Resistance member Rémy Roure, the editor Berger-Levrault and the future Soviet Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky.
Guard personnel The camp guard personnel were divided into two categories: the officers and sub-officers who directed the camps, and the sentinels who kept watch. This division was also found in the perception the prisoners had for these people, the second group receiving greater sympathy or indulgence. A German adjutant was responsible for prisoners' companies and was tasked with all the administrative measures.Hinz (2006), p. 98.
These German officers were most often unsuited for combat and were thus posted to the camps. In effect, they were either too old: "Saw the general commanding the camp: old fogey with black red-striped pants […] and a big iron cross, he limps"Gueugnier (1998), p. 65. or unfit due to alcoholism or war wounds. Starting with the camp director, a very strict hierarchy was in place. The director gave orders to the sub-officers, who were often young. The prisoners dreaded the latter: "Finally the fourth German corporal, the youngest, Red Baby, a worthy student who did honour to Savage and Steel Mouth, only sought to do harm, always provoking, having several acts of savagery to his name."Gueugnier (1998), p. 62. For their part, the prisoners had fun giving them nicknames such as Gueule d’Acier ("Steel Mouth" – lit. "Stainless Steel Trap"),Gueugnier (1998), p. 27. Jambes de laine ("Woolen Legs"),d'Harcourt (1935), p. 165. Je sais tout ("Know-it-all" – lit. "I know everything"), Rabiot des tripes ("Tripe leftovers"),Gueugnier (1998), p. 137. or even La Galoche ("The Clog") and Sourire d’Avril ("April Smile").Sandre (1924), p. 162.
"The deliberate ferocity, when we had to endure it, was above all displayed among the ruling class, the officers, the administrators, and most particularly it came to us through ministerial orders drawn up in Berlin."Pelletier (1933), p. 91. The guards seem not to have been judged in the same manner as the officers, hated for their zeal. Most often, they were part of the territorial army, the Landsturm, and tended to be family fathers who were there only under obligation. Numerous accounts are found regarding their occasional benevolence.
Food