POW letter, Stretcher Bearer and Dresser

[stiletto_33853]

An 11th RB mans card as a POW has come to light, I wonder if anyone can confirm that S.B's could possibly be released??

Rifleman C.H. Ingram, S/26463, 11th Rifle Brigade

Langensalza, Germany

Dear Sir,

Please excuse writing to you but you will see what I am by the card, and if I can get a paper or certificate to prove that I was an S.B. and dresser I stand a chance of being exchanged so that I hope that you send me one.

We are being treated fairly well and have nothing to grumble at. I was dressing poor Goss when I found that I was surrounded so I continued dressing the chaps till I was unlucky enough to get hit in the knee. I was lying next to Sergeant ???? when, poor chap he passed away. I am in the same hospital as Corporal Weyman and Rifleman Hude.

I beg to remain

Sincerely yours

C.H. Ingram, rifleman.

Andy

[JimSmithson]

Hi Andy

What date was the letter from? Certainly in June 1918 when the French and Germans agreed to exchanges there had been none to my knowledge between Britain and Germany. Also the Franco-German agreement makes no mention of different types of soldiers, only on age, length in captivity and whether civilian. I will do some more digging but I think the man had been fed a hopeful line by someone.

Jim

[stiletto_33853]

Hi Jim,

My feelings also. The card is undated but apparently arrived in August 1918.

Andy

[JimSmithson]

Getting a bit more now - I was wrong, there were repatriations, but only wounded officers and NCOs.

This is interesting, never been into this area before. Some of those captured at Mons in 1914 were repatriated in December 1916.

Jim

[centurion]

'Exchanged' was often used in reference to an exchange into internment in a neutral country (and not repatriation directly)and this certainly happened with OR as well as officers. Normally one had to serve a certain amount of time as a POW before this happened but being wounded could certainly bump one up the queue and possibly having been an SB might also count. This man appears to have been in hospital with a smashed knee when the card was written. I suspect that if exchanged into a neutral country in this condition he would be likely to be sent back to Britain after about six months as a bullet in the knee was likely to make him permanently unfit for service.

[JimSmithson]

The Hague agreement in 1917 was indeed for internment in Holland or Switzerland for those unwounded Officers and NCOs who had been prisoners for longer than 18 months - not less than NCO at this stage. Those deemed by the respective medical board to be wounded and unfit for service were to be directly repatriated to the home country. The 1916 repatriation may have been a one off before this agreement was signed.

Jim

[JimSmithson]

Just found out why privates were not to be interred in a neutral country - it was not agreed to by the Germans (or so the British Government claimed) as they could put privates to work but were not allowed this for NCO and above.

Jim

[centurion]

That OR (both wounded and fit) were exchanged is proven by the many letters from men in this catagory who had been exchanged into neutral counties - a fair number of which letters have been included in various threads on this forum.

[JimSmithson]

The July 1918 Hague agreement seems to have dropped the necessity to have some rank above private and also allowed those already interred in Holland to be immediately repatriated so that is where some of the letters may have come from. If some of the letters earlier than this are from unwounded privates I would be interested to see them as they would seem to contradict the rules at the time. They might shed some light on the topic. Has anyone done any detailed work on this theme? I've just been working from newspapers, Cabinet Papers and Hansard.

Jim

[JimSmithson]

Andy

Back to your man. I can't find the actual articles of the 1918 Anglo-German agreement so one of them might mention stretcher bearers. One additional interesting point out of that agreement though is the refusal of the British Government to allow submarine crews to be repatriated!!.

Jim

[centurion]

There are certainly examples of wounded OR being exchanged into neutral countries before 1918. As the man in question was clearly wounded he would seem a possible candidate. Incidentally the 1917 agreement in the Hague (it was actually a formal treaty) formalised and codified practices that were already taking place. I have seen a summary of the agreement (and I think I posted on this about 2 years ago!). Wounded soldiers could be exchanged at any time. Once in the neutral country they would be subject to a medical assessment after six months and if regarded as fit they were simply interned for the duration, if classed as unlikely to be fit in the near future (or ever) they could be repatriated back to their home country. However there was considerable paperwork and bureaucracy on the German end of the process that could hamper and delay matters; this appears to have been exacerbated by a mismatch between the administration of prisoners by individual German states and a treaty signed at the national ('federal')level. Possibly the man in question was seeking a way to cut through this. The Germans had no motive for hanging on to wounded prisoners - far better (from the German perspective) that they were a drain on someone elses resources.

[centurion]

Some years ago I did some work looking at internment/prisoner exchange. I've recovered some of my notes and here is an overview.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) started the ball rolling almost as soon as WW1 broke out. They asked the president of Switzerland to agree that a number of sick and wounded POWs could be interned on Swiss soil. They then approached belligerent powers (in December 1914) with the suggestion that they negotiate agreements amongst themselves and with the Swiss government to facilitate the exchange of such prisoners into Swiss custody where they could be treated under conditions more akin to a hospital/convalescent home than a POW camp. By 1916 over 30,000 prisoners of all ranks and various nationalities could be in Switzerland at any one time. The PRO (and now presumably the National Archives) maintained a list of British citizens of all ranks interned in Switzerland on medical grounds up to mid 1916. The details included name rank and number; disability; original camp in Germany from which exchanged. The concept spread with the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark all involved. For example Sweden housed Russian and German prisoners whilst Denmark housed Romanian, German and KuK prisoners. Gradually non wounded prisoners began to be exchanged. In most cases a legal fiction was established to allow this; prisoners were assumed to have caught 'barbed wire fever' after a certain time in captivity, thus they could be exchanged as sick. Access to this form of prisoner exchange was sometimes restricted to certain ranks (partially because the receiving countries imposed quotas) but this does not seem to have been a hard and fast rule. Exchange for sick or wounded POWs does not appear to have been rank limited but there was some rationing due to quotas - this seems to have been largely on the grounds of degree of sickness and to some extent a degree of 'deserving'.

Sick prisoners were subject to an independent medical review after 6 months and if still unfit for service could then be repatriated from the neutral country. If fit they were interned within the neutral country.

By 1917 many ad hoc agreements were reviewed and replaced with formal treaties between the countries involved.

Very seriously ill prisoners were sometime repatriated without any interim period of internment, this was done 'on humanitarian grounds' Thus the Captain of the Emden was eventually repatriated to Germany because of serious recurrences of malaria. He was handed over to German authorities in the Netherlands.

[Doug Johnson]

To answer the original query the answer is yes, as a medical man he should have been returned as soon as practical. Germany generally respected this but was in no hurry to return captured medical men and sometimes months went by before they were returned.

In October 1914 the Swiss contacted the German and Fench authorities with a view to exchanging wounded prisoners, unfit for further service, through Switzerland and by Nov 1916 some 10000 German and French wounded had been returned home via Switzerland. In Jan 1916 the Swiss formed an internment bureau and later that month the first consignment of 100 French and 100 Germans suffering from TB were sent to Switzerland for internment. England approved the scheme in the spring of 1916. France first approached Germany with such a scheme in Feb 1915 but this was rejected by Germany.

Doug

[centurion]

To answer the original query the answer is yes, as a medical man he should have been returned as soon as practical. Germany generally respected this but was in no hurry to return captured medical men and sometimes months went by before they were returned.

In October 1914 the Swiss contacted the German and Fench authorities with a view to exchanging wounded prisoners, unfit for further service, through Switzerland and by Nov 1916 some 10000 German and French wounded had been returned home via Switzerland. In Jan 1916 the Swiss formed an internment bureau and later that month the first consignment of 100 French and 100 Germans suffering from TB were sent to Switzerland for internment. England approved the scheme in the spring of 1916. France first approached Germany with such a scheme in Feb 1915 but this was rejected by Germany.

Doug

According to the ICRC's own website these dates appear to be out - it was December 1914 when they approached the various beligerents, Britain (not England) must have come in much earlier than 1916 as there was a list of British soldiers in Switzerland maintained until mid 1916.

Not sure stretcher bearers were classed as medical men

[Doug Johnson]

Hi Centurian,

Under the 1906 Geneva Convention Chapter III, Article 9, Personnel charged exclusively with the removal, transportation, and treatment of the sick and wounded, as well as with the administration of sanitary formations and establishments, and the chaplains attached to armies..........shall not be treated as prisoners of war. As an assigned stretcher bearer ie not a soldier who merely picked up a stretcher, he would not be a prisoner of war and should have been returned as soon as no longer indespensible, in his case within days rather than months. Andre Warnod "Prisoner of War" was also a stretcher bearer and was sent back after a few months. Numerous medical officers and men were retained by Germany long after they thereoetically were no longer indespensible however the German response when questioned re this was that there was a shortage of medical personnel in Germany and that the retention of these men was therefore essential.

The date of October 1914 is contained in a report from the Swiss Commission published in November 1917 titled "Swiss Internment of Prisoners of War. An Experiment in International Humane Legislation and Administration" The tone suggest this may have been an informal approach as the formal approaches are stated as such. This date relates to the transfer of serious wounded not to the question of internment which was not started until 1916 so Britain (or England which is how the non British world saw us, all Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Canadians, Australians, Indians etc, etc were all classed as English by Germany even after the war ended, the Swiss actually refered to us as England) could not have taken part in this scheme before 1916. 5th March 1916 is the date that the British Government first wrote to the German Government proposing such an arrangement and the German approval was sent to Britain via the American Ambassador on the 1st May 1916 suggesting transfers could start on the 17th May 1916. The British responded stating that transfers from the United Kingdom would start on the 25th May 1916.

Doug

[JimSmithson]

Centurion

Thanks for clearing up lots for me as I wander through this previously unknown area for me. I do have a couple of points where, again I may be wrong, but I am just trying to clear the fuzz out of my head (appears often - incurable)

This is the paragraph out of the 1917 Agreement

"VI.—Repatriation of medical personnel still retained.

Paragraph 14.

All members of the German medical personnel who are still in British hands in

Great Britain or France, and all members of the British medical personnel who are

still in German hands, shall be released and repatriated, as soon as may be, in the

transports for exchange of prisoners of war.

If further evidence that a prisoner belongs to the medical personnel is required

by the captor State, this shall be given by his name being included in a list which will

be compiled by the Home Government and sent to the captor State through the usual

diplomatic channel. If the captor State has reasons for refusing to recognise the right

to repatriation of any person mentioned in the lists the captor State shall explicitly set

forth these reasons." War Cabinet 181 July 11th 1917

I agree that I do not feel a stretcher bearer would have been counted here. Being wounded would have given him more chance.

Still not sure it was a treaty - all the cabinet papers call it an agreement

"The War Cabinet approved the agreement (Paper G.T.-1338)

(Appendix I) negotiated by Lord Newton and the British representatives

with German representatives at The Hague on the

subject of the treatment and exchange of combatant and civilian

prisoners of war" War Cabinet 181 July 11th 1917

Where did you see the 6 month rule? There seems to be no mention of it in any of the paperwork over the 1917 agreement.

Regarding rank, the 18 month 'barbed wire fever' rule did not include privates as is pointed out by Lord Newton in the Lords on July 31st 1917

"But the real reason why it was impossible to include privates in this particular arrangement [the Hague Agreement] was that it was clear that the Germans did not intend to part with any one out of whom they could get any work." Hansard

Jim

[JimSmithson]

Doug

Oh. That's muddied the waters again. You could well be right regarding the 'removal' of wounded.

Jim

[centurion]

Jim

I'm not sure of the accuracy of some of m'Noble Lord's statements (no change there then). His comments on Barbed Wire Disease for example are at odds with other contemporary sources. Some unwounded ORs were definitely getting through to the Netherlands as letters home confirm. One particularly interesting one was quoted on this forum, the writer having got involved in trying to solve a murder! By 1918 the Germans were resolving the PoW work issue by not declaring many prisoners until they got almost a years work out of them, often in illegal environments (eg munitions carrying in the front line)! I suspect that any ORs being exchanged into the Netherlands would be ones captured in the earlier years of the war and who it would be difficult to get away with employing on war related work. Presumably there were German ORs who would have qualified for exchange (and unwounded German ORs were certainly being interned in the Netherlands, some being implicated in the above mentioned murder) and there would be some public pressure in Germany for this to continue so a quid pro quo might have been necessary.

I would suspect that there was some reluctance to admit that treaties were being signed with Germany (there seem to have been others about things like maintaining certain navigational lights, treatment of shipwrecked sailors and the like) and the term agreement was preferred

I suspect the 6 months came from the work of Heather Jones of Trinity College Dublin - unfortunately she has moved and her papers etc once in the public domain are now part of an academic subscription archive. Alan Kramer also of Trinity has suggested as little as 3 months but on what basis I don't know. Certainly it would seem there was a medical appraisal of wounded prisoners who had been exchanged after a fixed period.

[Doug Johnson]

I checked on Andre Warnod and he was a soldier who was handed the job of stretcher bearer in August? 1914 after the regiment lost all its medical orderlies and stretcher bearers. He was taken prisoner on hi first day in the job after being cut off. He was repatriated along with other medical personnel captured around the same time, in the summer? of 1915.

Doug

[Doug Johnson]

There is clearly some confusion relating to the return of PoW but my understanding of the various schemes is as follows;

a) Repatriation of wounded prisoners no longer fit for further service. Started in the spring of 1915. All wounded Brits being returned via Holland.

Internment of PoWs under certain categories (20 categories according to a list published in Cd 8236 - note that being wounded was not one of the categories but complications from wounds were included; loss of limbs was included but only for officers and NCO's). Scheme started in the spring of 1916. Basically cases of sickness of all ranks but the following were excluded from internment;

Serious nervous or mental cases

Chronic alcholism

Communicable diseases in their infectious stages (includes all cases of VD)

The scheme initially involved Switzerland but later included Holland, possibly after the 1917 change.

c) Ad hoc individual cases of officers being exchanged on a one for one basis. Documents in FO383 allude to this.

d) A scheme for civilians men under the age of 17. No idea when this started but was under way in 1915.

e) A scheme for civilians over the age over 45. Agreed to in October 1916. (Germany wanted all civilians released but this was turned down by Britain)

Same agreement confirmed that all retired officers not in receipt of pay and all merchant seamen would be classed as civilians. All in Cd 8352. There is reference to a previous agreement probably in Cd 8296 but I do not have a copy of that paper.

f) A change in 1917 to the 1916 internment scheme to include "barbed wire fever". Officers first and extended to NCO's. Information from PoWs indicate that after the first release of NCO's, the scheme was terminated.

There was an agreement between the British and Ottoman Governments made in December 1917 (Cd 9024) but I have no knowledge of whether it was ratified.

Apart from Cd 8296 I have copies of all the others papers refered to.

My guess is that the ORs that were unwounded but interned were probably suffering from some form of sickness which they may have recovered from quite quickly once in internment. It is however possible that they were interned as NCO's as many prisoners promoted themselves on capture to avoid having to work, some being remarkably successful.

Doug

[centurion]

Discussions with the Turks ran on into 1918. A scheme was finally agreed and ratified but given the rickety state of the Ottoman empire at the time it looks as if no one actually got to benefit from it although it seems possible that some wounded were exchanged earlier on ad hoc (one off) agreements.

[stiletto_33853]

Thank you gentlemen, given me food for thought and thoroughly enjoyed the input, it is much appreciated.

Andy

[Doug Johnson]

Hi Pals,

Holland has begun to intrigue me.

I found this web site to be of interest.

Internees

The problem I have with it is the numbers, which if correct, mean that the 1917 internment scheme resulted in very few being transferred to Holland.

According to this site some 1600 men of the RND crossed in Holland (the Groningen site says 1500). Both these numbers seem a bit round to me.

In addition, the site says that the total of interned British was 1751 of which 139 were officers.

If the final figure includes the exchanged internees then there were only 151 of them (or 251 if the original total was only 1500).

I do not know how many of the RND were officers but 139 to 1751 seems a high proportion so presumably the figure does include the exchanged officers.

So it has to be that the RND figure is inaccurate or there were large numbers of repatriated RND or the final figures are wrong or do not include the exchanged internees or there were very few internees exchanged. Which is it?

I have also re-read the exchange of Major Thorn “Three Years a Prisoner in Germany”. His report is interesting as he states that there was a batch of exchanged officers before his and that NCO’s were also being exchanged at the same time, though he only mentions the NCO’s as being at Aachen and does not confirm them actually arriving in Holland.

He himself managed to get transferred to England as being unwell though he was in fact perfectly OK.

Also interesting on the web site is the number of German deserters that got to Holland