TREATMENT OF BRITISH PRISONERS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3231, 16 February 1916, Page 51

TREATMENT OF BRITISH PRISONERS.

GERMANY'S' INTENSE HATRED. INSOLENT AND ABUSIVE REPORT. (From Otjb Own Cobrebpondknt.) LONDON, December 17. A White Paper, published last night, contains in full the reply of the German military authorities to the report of Major C. B. Vandeleur on the brutal treatment meted out to himself and other British prisoners in the early months of the war. Taken prisoner on October 13, 1914, near La Bassee, Major Vandeleur was subjected to terrible indignities. Ho escaped from Crefeld, and reported his experiences to the British Government. Germany now replies thus in characteristic fashion: — "As regards Major Vandolcur's declaration that our German officers spat at him and another took away his overcoat by force, the German authorities hold such occurrences to be simply beyond the bounds of possibility. Iso oincial information has been received of prisoners of war at Douai being sworn at by German soldiers. In order to obviate henceforth- the possibility of such occurrences, unauthorised persons arc kept at a distance from prisoners' camps, and sentries are set from time to time with this object in view. There certainly did exist a strong and justifiable feeling against tho English, as wounded German soldiers, returning from the front, brought back large numbers of English bullets with a 'dum-dum' action, and brutal weapons (two-edged dirks, Doppeldolche). * "As regards Major Vandeleur's statement that he was put into a cattle truck, together with private soldiers, mention must bo made of the following-.—ln those days there was brought to Douai as a prisoner of war an English officer who, perhaps wrongly, was set down as a 'colonel'; like the other English officers, however, he had no sign of rank on his uniform. When interrogated by German officers, ho declared that ho would speak with no German officer —at most, he would spit at one. He remarked to another German officer at the station at Mons that he would respect no German officers except those of the Horse Guards. This ill-bred _ behaviour was rightly requited by making the offender travel in a cattle truck. There is much to be said for the belief that the officer in question was Major Vandeleur, particularly so as this was the only disagreeable incident with an officer prisoner of war which occurred in the course of months. The statement "r> r s on to sav.that " ; n view of the cleanliness which prevails without exception in German railway carriages, it is out of the question that the floor of the carriage can have been 'covered three inches deep with fresh dung' " Major Vandeleur's statement did not refer to a carriage, but to a cattle truck, and it will be noted that it is admitted that the unfortunate officer was conveyed in a vehicle of that description. OUR MERCENARIES. As to the treatment of prisoners on the way to Germany, the statement says: — " If the English pretend that they were attended to during the journey only after the French, the reason is to be found in the quite comprehensible bitterness of feeling among the German troops, who respected the French on tho whole as honourable and decent opponents, whereas tho English mercenaries had, in their eyes, adopted a cunning method of warfare from the very beginning, and, when taken prisoners, bore themselves with an insolent and provocative mien. That any such distinction of treatment was ordered by superior officers is an untruth." With regard to Major Vandeleur's report on conditions in the internment camp, it is remarked: — " The English soldiers did not have their overcoats and tunics ' taken away from them.' They may, perhaps, have sold them or lost them at play in many instances to more impecunious Frenchmen or Belgians. Officers had to hand over their civilian belongings, but only after they had been replaced by items.of uniform. This regulation is thoroughly sound. For the rest, Germany lives well vip to her obligations under Article 3 of The Hague Convention. The idea of supplying articles of clothing to the generality of prisoners of war cannot, therefore, be entertained. There is no lack of clothing and coverings. " It is, with a few exceptions, untrue that English orderlies were afflicted with lice. Only three of them have suffered from scabies. The truth is, however, that_ tho English private soldiers, like the Russians, but in distinction from the French and Belgians, always arrive at tho internment camps filthy ond lousy in the highest degree, and have to be freed from vermin with tho greatest trouble. The English rank and file are sufficiently fed. None of them have been in a ' half-starved condition.' "LAZY, ARROGANT, AND OBSTINATE. "It is a fact that English soldiers wero especially employed on disagreeable work; the cause thereof is explained by the following facts: —Prisoners of war are put to particular work in accordance with their particular training and übility. Most French and Russian soldiers have learned a handicraft or something of tho sort, belonging, as they do —as tho result of universal military service—to some or other civilian trade, and can, therefore, be employed accordingly. In their work they are most handy, willing, and industrious. The soldiers* of the standing paid army, on thj contrary, have usually learned nothing and arc fit for no particular employ outside the care of horses and farm work; they aro besides frequently lazy, arrogant, and

obstinate. Even those of them who know a little German pretend not to. Nothing Ls known in Crefeld of officers and men having been killed after capture, and of proofs thereof having been collected there. The question refers perhaps to individuals who have been found by German soldiers in the act of killing helpless German wounded, and have met with their just reward." Dealing with the general complaints of tho British Government, the statement proceeds!! "British officer prisoners of war seem to' find it disagreeable to bxs put together with Russian officers. The German Government sees no reason whatever why any separation should bo made among captured enemy officers in their quarters. Since England doe* not blush to use coloured troops of all races against Germany in the present war, English officers must not be surprised if they are brought into close contact in prison with their comrades in arms of other nationalities. < The imputation that on Germany's side prisoners of war were the objects of inhuman conduct, and that the provisions of international law concerning their treatment were iitterly ignored, must be repudiated. Reports and descriptions of the condition of enemy prisoners of war in Germany by the American Ambassador, tho Swiss deputy Eugster, and other trustworthy persons state the contrarv." EXTRAVAGANT FARE. In reply to the statements made by an American citizen as to conditions at Doberitz—published at the same time as Major Vandeleur's report—the German authorities deny that the 9000 prisoners were " very miserable men," and add: " A certain number of fights have taken place between tho English and other prisoners. Besides this, the various nationalities avoid each other carefully. If -the Allies find each other unattractive when they tre brought into closer contact, it is no fault of the Germans. The author of the report having 'hastily examined the prisoners' soup,' found it 'a di'eadfullv unacpetismg sort of food.' German officers, who often sample the food, find it good. It may well happen that the English do not find new dishes so palatable as the extravagant fare which England provides for her mercenaries. Groats, which English soldiers are reported to have spoken of is too bad to give to ■ pin's, aro readily eaten by many Germans, and are even a favourite dish in certain parts of England."