By Gail Copeland, granddaughter of Arthur Copeland – POW (prisoner of war) at Schweidnitz POW Camp WWI from early December 1917 until April 1918.
During WWI, there were two main types of Prisoner of War (POW) camps. One was a basic camp for soldiers and the other was for captured officers. The contrasts were quite notable. The accommodations for a basic soldier were crowded dormitories with little, if any, furniture other than a bunk bed with a mattress filled with straw or horsehair. Prisoners were expected to be part of work details assigned to such things as agriculture, forestry or mining. During the start of the war, there were not enough prisons to hold all the captured men. Prisoners were put to work to build their own prisons. They were not allowed to work on anything connected to war operations…e.g. manufacturing weapons. They had to be paid for their labour, but the cost of their food and accommodations was subtracted from those wages. The worst labour details were for those who were sent to a work at the Front. They were often subject to shelling by their own troops, as they dug trenches and carried ammunition for the Germans. Many died of starvation, or exposure while sleeping in the open air. Those who were assigned to work in the mines worked in unsafe conditions, and became ill breathing in the coal dust.
Although officers’ camps were generally better than those of the ‘other ranks’, some of the officers’ camps were pretty miserable as well, and conditions varied significantly between them. Schweidnitz was a camp for officers. There was more room inside the barracks, and, in the two storey, brick building, the mattresses were ‘proper’ and there were fewer men per room. The higher the rank of the officer, the better was their accommodation. Privacy was still hard to come by in either camp. In addition to the officers, there were small numbers of prisoners brought in from the basic camps to work as orderlies for the officers. This was just another name for a servant. In one letter home from my grandfather, he mentioned that an orderly brought him his mail. These orderlies often arrived malnourished and considered themselves lucky to be selected. Escape attempts by orderlies were rare. They knew if they were recaptured, the physical abuse and hardships could be far worse.
Chapter II of the Hague Convention, signed in October 1907, is devoted to treatment of prisoners of war. Article 4 states, “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.”
In Schweidnitz, officers expected decent treatment and if they didn’t get it, they had some channels for their complaints. Camps were visited on a somewhat regular basis by a representative from a neutral power such as Holland, Sweden or the U.S.A. (The American visits stopped after the USA entered the war). This visit offered the first recourse for the Officers at camp Schweidnitz, as the visiting ambassadors were often able to offer some assistance. When the Germans knew the representative was coming, they usually made an effort to clean up the camp and improve conditions temporarily. The German personnel would remain close, to stop prisoners from talking about any bad things occurring in the camp. It was always a concern to the prisoners, that they could be punished for complaining. When Air Commodore Charles Rathborne arrived at Camp Schweidnitz in December 1917, he commented that “the Commandant was far from being a nice man and did everything he could to make us uncomfortable. His efforts however, were greatly modified by one of his officers, who believed in treating prisoners well.” (2) Not all commandants were reasonable.
Lieutenant Commander J.W. Turrell was a Senior British Officer at the Schweidnitz. He used the second recourse available to prisoners for the improvement of their living conditions. In September 1918, he wrote a letter to the Ambassador at the Prussian Ministry of War office, laying out the grievances of the officers. (1) He mentioned that since the last visit to the camp, by a representative of the War Office, little had improved other than the arrival of the orderlies. The grievances he listed were: overcrowding in the living spaces, lack of exercise space, lack of cupboard space, lack of dining or recreation rooms, too many orderlies expected to live together in tiny attic spaces, poor ventilation in the living accommodations, poor sanitation throughout the camp, incorrect conversion of money for the prisoners from English currency to German marks and suspicion that parcels meant for prisoners were being kept or resold by the German authorities.
Regarding church services, the complaint was, the Roman Catholic Officers could only attend their service in a room of the local ‘Arbeitshaus’, at the same time as the inmates of said workhouse. Apparently the officers found the smell of the local population to be offensive and that affected the atmosphere of the service. The camp authorities apparently refused to change these arrangements and refused to let a priest visit the POW camp itself.
The sanitation situation of the camp was described as “extremely bad”. There was no drainage system and excrement was only removed from the camp once each month. There were latrines in two places. In the main brick prison, there were toilets at the end of each dormitory that consisted of chutes to earthen pits. The second location was in a cellar in the prison yard. These were described as “unhealthy and full of flies”.
In October of 1918, Lieutenant Commander Turrell received a letter back from the housing department of the Ministry of War. With regard to overcrowding, Turrell was told there had been a reduction of those interned and there would be a further reduction to follow. Regarding exercise, it was agreed that officers would be allowed to take their exercise outside the Camp, providing there were enough guards available to accompany them. I will address parole a little later on.
As for the issue of cupboards, it was stated that only nine of the rooms did not have cupboards and these were to be provided shortly. The accommodations of the orderlies could still only be in the attic spaces, until such time as the number of officers was further reduced, thus freeing up space in the barracks themselves. It was felt that the ventilation was adequate, as the upper part of the windows opened. The sanitary conditions were also considered adequate.
Camp Schweidnitz did have a church on the premises and the War Office did say there would be efforts made to have services for Roman Catholic officers. In the meantime, up to eighteen officers would still be “permitted to attend divine services at the local Workhouse and in this manner the officers are enabled sufficiently to satisfy their religious requirements. They sit there behind the inhabitants of the poorhouse in a moderately sized room set apart for religious services where the air is not injurious to health.” (1)
Let’s take a moment to discuss the sanitation situation broached by Lieut. Commander Turrell. Basically the latrines were pits in the ground. Since the prison was put together quickly, in response to the demand for places to house large numbers of prisoners, the installation of a plumbing system was impossible. In the memoirs of Aubrey Rickards, he drew a map of the camp layout (see previous article) and included a bath house next to the kitchen. After reading the memoirs of other prisoners, I believe that may have been the second latrine, and in fact there were no proper bathing facilities in the camp. In the memoirs of Eric Fulton, he said there were no washing facilities when he arrived as a prisoner in December 1917. It was only after repeated visits from official representatives, and written complaints to the German War Office, that prisoners were finally given access to the showers in town. These showers consisted of rows of showers through which the soldiers were marched naked. Although they may have felt like cattle during this moment, they expressed the fact that getting clean was a great comfort.
This brings me to the topic of parole. Each prisoner was given a Parole card to sign. Attached is one such card issued to Aubrey Rickards, from Holzminden Camp. The card stated that in order to leave the prison grounds, a prisoner had to agree ‘upon my word of honour’ that he would not try to escape. Cards could not be shared with other prisoners. In addition to using the card to go to town for a shower, shave or haircut, they could also be used to get outside the compound for exercise.
Exercise would not only keep the men fit but would help alleviate boredom. As boredom was a big issue during incarceration, I will next introduce the reader to ways in which prisoners kept themselves entertained behind barbed wire.
(1) Copy of letter from F. W. Turrell can be found in the National Archives in Kew, England.
(2) From www.crossandcockade.com, Cross and Cockade International, Spring 2016 edition, The First Great Escape? By Malcom Barrass
