Captivity in War During The Twentieth Century: The Forgotten Diplomatic Role of Transnational Actors 1st Ed. 2021 Edition (Eds) Marcel Berni

Captivity in War during the Twentieth
Century: The Forgotten Diplomatic Role

of Transnational Actors 1st ed. 2021
Edition (Eds) Marcel Berni
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/captivity-in-war-during-the-twentieth-century-the-forgo
tten-diplomatic-role-of-transnational-actors-1st-ed-2021-edition-eds-marcel-berni/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
The Preface: American Authorship in the Twentieth

Century Ross K. Tangedal
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-preface-american-authorship-in-
the-twentieth-century-ross-k-tangedal/
Jewish Soldiers in Nazi Captivity: American and British

Prisoners of War during the Second World War Linenberg
https://ebookmass.com/product/jewish-soldiers-in-nazi-captivity-
american-and-british-prisoners-of-war-during-the-second-world-
war-linenberg/
Cold War Social Science: Transnational Entanglements

1st ed. 2021 Edition Mark Solovey
https://ebookmass.com/product/cold-war-social-science-
transnational-entanglements-1st-ed-2021-edition-mark-solovey/
Mixed Race Britain in The Twentieth Century Chamion

Caballero And Peter J. Aspinall (Eds.)
https://ebookmass.com/product/mixed-race-britain-in-the-
twentieth-century-chamion-caballero-and-peter-j-aspinall-eds/
A Forgotten British War: The Accounts of Korean War
Veterans Michael Patrick Cullinane
https://ebookmass.com/product/a-forgotten-british-war-the-
accounts-of-korean-war-veterans-michael-patrick-cullinane/
The US Role in NATO’s Survival After the Cold War 1st

ed. Edition Julie Garey
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-us-role-in-natos-survival-
after-the-cold-war-1st-ed-edition-julie-garey/
George Stigler: Enigmatic Price Theorist of the

Twentieth Century 1st ed. Edition Craig Freedman
https://ebookmass.com/product/george-stigler-enigmatic-price-
theorist-of-the-twentieth-century-1st-ed-edition-craig-freedman/
Agonistic Memory and the Legacy of 20th Century Wars in

Europe 1st ed. 2021 Edition
https://ebookmass.com/product/agonistic-memory-and-the-legacy-
of-20th-century-wars-in-europe-1st-ed-2021-edition/
Identification Practices in Twentieth-Century Fiction

Rex Ferguson
https://ebookmass.com/product/identification-practices-in-
twentieth-century-fiction-rex-ferguson/
Captivity in
War during the
Twentieth Century
The Forgotten Diplomatic
Role of Transnational Actors
Edited by
Marcel Berni · Tamara Cubito
Captivity in War during the Twentieth Century
Marcel Berni · Tamara Cubito
Editors
Captivity in War
during the Twentieth
Century
The Forgotten Diplomatic Role of Transnational
Actors
Editors
Marcel Berni Tamara Cubito
Military Academy Military Academy
ETH Zurich ETH Zurich
Birmensdorf, Switzerland Birmensdorf, Switzerland
ISBN 978-3-030-65094-0 ISBN 978-3-030-65095-7 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65095-7
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
We dedicate this book in loving memory to Prof. Arnold Krammer
(1941–2018) who, on his last intercontinental journey, attended our
conference on captivity in war, held in Bern, Switzerland, in March 2018.
Goodbye, Arnold, and thank you for inspiring the next generations of
historians studying wartime captivity. Your brilliant teaching, writing
and, above all, generosity and true kindness will be sorely missed. May you
rest in peace.
Contents
1 The Diplomatic Role of Transnational Actors

in Wartime Captivity 1
Marcel Berni and Tamara Cubito
2 “Any Unfavourable Condition or Untoward
Circumstance Will Receive Immediate Attention”:
American Consuls’ Visits to British Colonial
Internment Camps of the Great War 23
Tamara Cubito
3 “Heraus mit unseren Gefangenen!” The German Home
Front and the International Campaign for Prisoner
of War Repatriation, 1918–1919 47
Brian K. Feltman
4 An Uneasy Balance: International Relief Efforts
in the Chaco War 73
Robert Niebuhr
5 Japanese Civilian Internees in New Caledonia: A Gap
Between the Protecting Powers and the ICRC 101
Rowena Ward
vii
viii CONTENTS
6 Japanese Prisoners of War, the American-Soviet

Conflict, and the Role of Repatriated War Veterans
in the Early Cold War in East Asia 119
Frank Jacob
7 The ICRC and Communist Captives During Vietnam’s
American War 137
Marcel Berni
8 Biafra’s Captives: The “Oilmen Incident”
and International Diplomacy in the Nigerian
Civil War 157
Oluchukwu Ignatus Onianwa
Index 175
List of Contributors
Marcel Berni Swiss Military Academy, ETH Zurich, Birmensdorf,

Switzerland
Tamara Cubito Swiss Military Academy, ETH Zurich, Birmensdorf,
Switzerland
Brian K. Feltman Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA
Frank Jacob Nord University, Bodø, Norway
Robert Niebuhr Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
Oluchukwu Ignatus Onianwa University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
Rowena Ward University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia
ix
CHAPTER 1
The Diplomatic Role of Transnational Actors

in Wartime Captivity
Marcel Berni and Tamara Cubito
Introduction: The Beginnings

of an International Interest in War Captives
Among the Austrian prisoners, some were terrified because someone had
thought fit to tell them that the French, and especially the Zouaves
[soldiers from French North Africa], were merciless demons. Some of
them, indeed, when they arrived in Brescia and saw trees bordering a
walk in the town, asked in all seriousness whether those were the trees
from which they would be hanged. Several, on being shown kindness by
French soldiers, repaid them in the strangest ways—poor blind, ignorant
fellows! … However, for the most part, with very few exceptions, the
feeling of the French toward their prisoners was nothing but goodwill;
thus, some Austrian officers were permitted to keep their swords or sabres,
M. Berni (B) · T. Cubito

Swiss Military Academy, ETH Zurich, Birmensdorf, Switzerland
e-mail: marcel.berni@vtg.admin.ch
T. Cubito
e-mail: tamara.cubito@vtg.admin.ch
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Switzerland AG 2021
M. Berni and T. Cubito (eds.), Captivity in War during the Twentieth
Century, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65095-7_1
2 M. BERNI AND T. CUBITO
through the courtesy of French Army commanders. They were given the
same food as the French officers, and their wounded were treated by the
same doctors.… Many French soldiers shared their rations in a brotherly
way with prisoners who were dying of hunger; others carried wounded
men of the enemy army to field hospitals on their backs and gave them all
sorts of care, showing remarkable devotion and profound sympathy.1
Henry Dunant’s vivid description of the merciful handling of Austrian

captives by the French army during the Battle of Solferino on June 24,
1859 is captivating still today. Not only was this brutal military engage-
ment in the Second Italian War of Independence arguably the last decisive
battle in world history where soldiers on both sides fought under the
personal command of their crowned heads, but it was also an impor-
tant day in the life of the Genevan activist and adventurer. After the
battle, Dunant composed a literary outline of his observations, and partic-
ularly its human toll: 29,000 Austrian, French and Piedmontese had
been killed or wounded in only 15 hours of fighting.2 In a time in
which armies employed more veterinarians to look after wounded horses
than medical professionals to care for human casualties, Dunant’s obser-
vations struck a chord.3 His account soon became more than a mere
description of the conduct and horrors of modern warfare, of interest
only to a selected few. A Memory of Solferino heavily influenced the
drafting of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condi-
tion of the Wounded in Armies in the Field of 1864 when the Swiss
Confederation, on Dunant’s initiative, had organised a diplomatic confer-
ence in Geneva in order to improve the care of wounded soldiers in
future wars. Even before this first Geneva Convention was drawn up,
simple humanitarian arrangements had been agreed upon, initially signed
by 12 states, and Dunant had co-founded the International Standing
Committee for Aid to Wounded Soldiers on a private charity basis, thus
1 Henry Dunant, A Memory of Solferino (Geneva: International Committee of the Red

Cross, 1959 [1862]), trans. American Red Cross, 50–52.
2 Karin M. Fierke, Diplomatic Interventions: Conflict and Change in a Globalizing
World (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 49–50. Dunant himself did not witness the
actual battle but was in Solferino during its aftermath.
3 See François Bugnion, Le Comité International de la Croix-Rouge et la protection des
victimes de la guerre (Geneva: Comité international de la Croix-Rouge, 1994), 7.
1 THE DIPLOMATIC ROLE OF TRANSNATIONAL ACTORS … 3
avoiding established state structures.4 Its main mission was the setting
up of decentralised National Red Cross Societies which acted as neutral
intermediaries during wars. However, these national aid societies became
closely intertwined with established nation states and governments from
the 1880s onwards.5 Dunant thus became an idealistic transnational
pioneer, campaigning for public support during “a period of reform and
philanthropy” in both the public and private sphere.6 Subsequently, the
International Standing Committee for Aid to Wounded Soldiers became
the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1880.
During the twentieth century, the ICRC significantly expanded its
activities on a global scale and gained trust internationally. Most impor-
tantly for this book, the organisation increasingly became recognised for
its role in taking care of prisoners of war and other persons captured
during wars. Thus, when the First World War broke out in 1914, it
was the ICRC that established an international prisoners of war agency
within weeks of the beginning of the conflict and with the help of
eventually thousands of volunteers. This agency was not only respon-
sible for restoring contact between captives and their families but also
for ensuring in many locations throughout the globe that prisoners were
treated humanely.7 Thus, the ICRC had an impact on the lives of millions
of soldiers and civilians less than four decades after its foundation. Hence,
it would not be a stretch to argue that Solferino became a central mile-
stone in the history of transnational actors in wartime, giving rise to
a slowly expanding spirit of global activism and “a rise of non-state
humanitarianism.”8
4 Fierke, Diplomatic Interventions, 49–50.

5 David P. Forsythe, The Humanitarians: The International Committee of the Red Cross
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 20–21.
6 Forsythe, The Humanitarians, 16.
7 Irène Hermann and Daniel Palmieri, “International Committee of the Red Cross,”
1914–1918 Online: International Encyclopedia of the First World War, accessed July
27, 2020, https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/international_committee_
of_the_red_cross.
8 Kevin O’Sullivan, Matthew Hilton, and Juliano Fiori, “Humanitarianisms in Context,”
European Review of History 23, 1–2, 2016, 2.
Transnational Actors and Wartime

Captivity in the Twentieth Century
It is precisely transnational actors like the ICRC and their influence on
the treatment of war captives during the twentieth century that are at
the heart of the present book. States were often unprepared, unwilling
and weak in exercising control over captives or unable to do so. Against
this backdrop, the increasing involvement of transnational organisations
and individual actors became possible and perhaps even a necessity. We
may first turn to the question of what exactly transnational actors are.9
Transnationalism is a much older phenomenon than many political scien-
tists would lead us to believe. At its core, it refers to various processes,
transfers, practices and circulations, be they cultural, economic, social or
political, which extend beyond the boundaries of nation states. Transna-
tional interactions have thus been taking place for hundreds of years and
are not simply a product of “globalisation” in the twentieth century or
the rise of the modern nation state. However, transnational connections
have vastly increased and gained importance throughout the globe in the
last century.10 It was in this period that organisations of contemporary
global governance and interdependence, many of which still exist today,
such as the International Labour Organization (1919), the Save the Chil-
dren Fund (1919) or the League of Nations (1920), the forerunner of
today’s United Nations Organisation, came into being. Although the
founding of similar organisations transcending national boundaries can
be traced back to the nineteenth century, the turn of the century marks
a period when their agency, influence and interconnectedness increased.
Just as the example of the ICRC shows, their influence often originated
from informal and pragmatic activities, beneath the surface of great power
politics. However, during the twentieth century they, in many instances,
became key to the conduct of war and the supervision of a growing
9 In this introduction, the terms “transnational actor” and “transnational intermediary”

are used interchangeably.
10 For more on this see for example Emily S. Rosenberg, ed. A World Connecting,
1870–1945, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012).
legal regime. As Matthew Hilton and Rana Mitter argue, “war itself is
an extreme force of coercive transnationalism.”11
This book purposely proposes a very loose definition of the term
“transnational actor,” sharply diverging from fixed criteria and schemata
established by social scientists.12 A broad understanding of the concept
allows for the historical comparative study of transnational actors across a
geographically and chronologically diverse spectrum. Only such a defini-
tion can bring together the wide range of case studies contained in this
collection, which look at transnational diplomatic actors who were active
in big and small wars, over a timespan of over fifty years, across all five
continents, from New Caledonia to Bolivia. They focus on issues such
as forms of negotiations, informal processes and transnational, transre-
gional, translocal and transcultural practices in handling captives. Some
of the protagonists looked at were affiliated with or dependent upon
states, whereas others operated completely independently. Those with
close connections with states nevertheless often acted autonomously in
practice, whereas those who seemingly acted free from being part of state
structures nevertheless had to rely on these in numerous instances. Many
of the transnational actors operated in grey areas, but no matter what
their allegiances were, their own initiative often proved utterly central.
These disparities make it difficult to find an all-encompassing defini-
tion that fits all of these actors. Thus, we describe and outline, rather
than narrowly define, what we mean by “transnational actors.” In the
context of wartime captivity, we regard organisations such as the afore-
mentioned ICRC as transnational actors. But at the same time, we also
regard intermediaries of any nationality—often playing a diplomatic or
11 Matthew Hilton and Rana Mitter, “Introduction,” in Transnationalism and Contem-

porary Global History, eds. Matthew Hilton and Rana Mitter (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2013), 25.
12 The literature on transnational actors in the social sciences is vast. As a starting point
see Philip Alston, ed. Non-State Actors and Human Rights, (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2005); Anne Peters, Lucy Koechlin and Gretta Fenner Zinkernagel, eds. Non-State
Actors as Standard Setters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Thomas Risse,
“Transnational Actors and World Politics,” in Handbook of International Relations, eds.
Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons (Sage: Thousand Oaks, 2013),
427–428; Andreas Kruck and Andrea Schneiker, “Introduction: Researching Non-State
Actors in International Security—A Multitude of Challenges, a Plurality of Approaches,” in
Researching Non-State Actors in International Security: Theory and Practice, eds. Andreas
Kruck and Andrea Schneiker (Abingdon: Routledge, 2017), 4–5.
humanitarian role in conflicts their own country of origin was not directly
involved in—as transnational actors. Individuals, groups and organisations
alike had much room to shape the space they operated in and chose to
work together with firmly established structures often at their own will
and where it suited them best. In some instances, however, they were
hindered by these same structures, for example, if states were unwilling
to accept or refused their interference. Transnational actors often flour-
ished when they were allowed to operate fairly independently. Often,
they made use of official, semi-official and private diplomacy alongside
each other in order to improve the situation of war captives. Their own
interests and agency, “autonomous from central government funding and
control” were therefore vital in many instances.13 These transnational
actors often fitted into a wider contemporary framework of international
and sub-national human rights standards, customs and procedures devel-
oped in relation to the treatment of captives, be it military or civilian,
during wars.14 The diplomatic actors looked at in the subsequent chapters
had wide-ranging roles. Some, for instance, had the task of negoti-
ating the release of captives, whereas others set themselves the aim of
ensuring the good treatment of these latter while they were being held in
captivity. What all these transnational intermediaries had in common was
that they were trying to improve the circumstances the captives found
themselves in. The intermediaries were often the only ones who made
the captives and their plight visible and known to international audi-
ences. Thus, they often initiated and inspired other activist efforts around
the globe. Their initiatives could be an important factor in giving the
captives’ relatives at home hope and assured them that their loved ones
were being looked after and cared for. For many of the intermediaries,
improving the situation of war captives seemed to be an honourable
task. Particularly for those who saw themselves as neutral observers not
directly involved in the conflict, it was a chance to make a meaningful
and valuable contribution and prove their international importance and
13 Daphné Josselin and William Wallace, “Non-State Actors in World Politics: A Frame-
work,” in Non-State Actors in World Politics, eds. Daphné Josselin and William Wallace
(Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001), 3.
14 Of course, transnational actors did not have to be agents of, or endorsed by a state.
They could also act on a purely private basis or even be employed by private companies,
partly pursuing their own interest. However, since there are no such examples in this
book, perhaps bar the oil companies mentioned in Chapter 7, this topic and all the
unique problems that come with it are not pursued further in this introduction.
relevance instead of just being bystanders. As the chapters in this book

will show, their roles and tasks were often only vaguely defined and they
often therefore acted ad hoc. What most of the intermediaries looked at
in this edited collection have in common is that they and their efforts
largely remain understudied. Perhaps this was because many of them had
always preferred to remain in the background, saw their work as purely
humanitarian, and were not set on enhancing their own profile. Of course,
if their efforts were enabled or encouraged by their governments or the
organisations they worked for, this was, in some cases, publicised and used
for propaganda purposes, but the individuals themselves usually remained
in the background. Most of the transnational actors at the centre of the
subsequent chapters had a direct impact on the fate of those captured by
the belligerents—and where they failed, it was not usually due to any lack
of trying. Allowing the involvement of diplomatic actors was always down
to the captors. Intermediaries could pile on pressure in various forms
demanding an improvement of conditions for captives or their release,
but they always depended on the willingness of the captors to do so. Most
parties involved tried to use these intermediaries for their own purposes
and in their own interest. Thus, in a number of case studies in this book,
belligerents were keen to stress that they gave the intermediaries access to
captives and sold this as a sign of their humanity, sometimes in contrast
to their opponents. Hence, not only the captives but also the diplomatic
actors involved were often part of a propaganda war led by states that
wanted to uphold a certain international image. In a way, belligerents
thus hoped to gain international credence or even support at home and
goodwill by allowing in impartial intermediaries. The transnational actors
involved had to accept their role within these diplomatic and propagan-
distic constellations, whether they liked it or not. Untangling these webs
and the interests at the heart of the various actors can be complicated.
But at the same time, it can also enrich and enhance our understanding of
international and transnational communities and interactions during wars.
Thus, it is not surprising that these interdependencies are increasingly
attracting the attention of researchers in many fields.
Just as there has been increasing interest in transnationalism in recent
years, research on wartime captivity has surged, with many studies
focusing on aspects such as international law or prisoners and their experi-
ences. Prisoners in wars have been “discovered” as forgotten victims who
had often not even been mentioned in much of the traditional literature
on wars. The twentieth century is thus an obvious period to study. In this
century, which Zygmunt Bauman spoke of as “the century of camps,”

more persons were made prisoners during wars than in any previous
century.15 This also owed to changes in the practice of who was being
captured, for instance the large-scale internment of enemy civilians. This
surge in numbers was due to certain developments in warfare itself, but
also other factors. There were, for instance, new inventions such as barbed
wire and improved means of transport, which made possible in logistical
terms the holding of large groups of captives. The quantitative increase
of captivity in war reached its climax in the Second World War where—
as Rüdiger Overmans has remarked—the German average soldier spent
more time in captivity than on the battlefield.16
In recent years, numerous monographs as well as edited volumes on
captivity in times of war have been published, most of them focusing
on the two World Wars17 as well as the Korean and the Vietnam War.18
15 Christoph Jahr and Jens Thiel, “Prolegomena zu einer Geschichte der Lager: Eine
Einführung,” in Lager vor Auschwitz: Gewalt und Integration im 20. Jahrhundert, eds.
Christoph Jahr and Jens Thiel (Berlin: Metropol, 2013), 7–19.
16 Rüdiger Overmans, “‘In der Hand des Feindes:’ Geschichtsschreibung zur Kriegs-
gefangenschaft von der Antike bis zum Zweiten Weltkrieg,” in In der Hand des Feinds:
Kriegsgefangenschaft von der Antike bis zum Zweiten Weltkrieg, ed. Rüdiger Overmans,
(Köln: Böhlau, 1999), 20.
17 Mahon Murphy, Colonial Captivity During the First World War Internment and
the Fall of the German Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Karl
Hack and Kevin Blackburn, eds., Forgotten Captives in Japanese-Occupied Asia (London:
Routledge, 2011); Reinhard Nachtigal, Rußland und seine österreichisch-ungarischen
Kriegsgefangenen 1914 bis 1918 (Remshalden: B.A. Greiner, 2003); Oliver Wilkinson,
British Prisoners of War in First World War Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 2017); Brian K. Feltman, The Stigma of Surrender: German Prisoners, British
Captors, and Manhood in the Great War and Beyond (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 2015); Bob Moore and Kent Fedorowich, The British Empire and its
Italian Prisoners of War 1940–1947 (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002); Marianne Neerland
Soleim, ed., Prisoners of War and Forced Labour: Histories of War and Occupation
(Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010); Panayi Panikos, Pris-
oners of Britain: German Civilian and Combatant Internees During the First World War
(Oxford: Manchester University Press, 2018); Rafael Scheck, French Colonial Soldiers in
German Captivity during World War II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014);
Heather Jones, Violence Against Prisoners of War in the First World War: Britain, France
and Germany, 1914–1920 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).
18 William C. Latham, Jr., Cold Days in Hell: American POWs in Korea (College
Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2012); Charles Young, Name, Rank, and Serial
Number: Exploiting Korean War POWs at Home and Abroad (New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 2014); Stuart I. Rochester and Frederick T. Kiley, Honor Bound: American
These new studies have provoked wider debates, expanded our knowledge
of everyday life in camps,19 memories, issues of gender, archaeology and
post-war stories,20 as well as violence against captives.21 Similar existing
historical studies typically examine the treatment of enemy captives by
studying one side in one conflict. Apart from some case studies—mostly
from a national point of view—broader works have been written by legal
historians who have, for instance, looked at the evolution of humanitarian
treatment and conventions concerning captives.22 While transnational
actors are frequently mentioned in these studies, they are rarely placed at
the centre. This despite the fact that they undoubtedly played an essential
role in the everyday experiences of captives during what some political
Prisoners of War in Southeast Asia, 1961–1973 (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1999);
Michael J. Allen, Until the Last Man Comes Home: POWs, MIAs, and the Unending
Vietnam War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2009); Marcel Berni,
Außer Gefecht: Leben, Leiden und Sterben “kommunistischer” Gefangener in Vietnams
amerikanischem Krieg (Hamburg: Hamburger Edition, 2020).
19 Matthew Stibbe, British Civilian Internees in Germany: The Ruhleben Camp, 1914–
1918 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2008); Jeffrey L. Littlejohn and Charles
Howard Ford, eds., “The Enemy Within Never Did Without:” German and Japanese
Prisoners of War at Camp Huntsville, 1942–1945 (Huntsville: Texas Review Press, 2015).
20 Anne-Marie Pathé and Fabien Théofilakis, eds., Wartime Captivity in the 20th
Century: Archives, Stories, Memories (New York: Berghahn Books, 2016); H. C. Mytum
and Gillian Carr, eds., Prisoners of War: Archaeology, Memory, and Heritage of 19th- and
20th-Century Mass Internment (New York: Springer 2013); Bob Moore and Barbara
Hately-Broad, Prisoners of War, Prisoners of Peace: Captivity, Homecoming and Memory
in World War II (Oxford: Berg, 2005); Frank Biess, Homecomings: Returning POWs
and the Legacies of Defeat in Postwar Germany (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
2006); Christiane Wienand, Returning Memories: Former Prisoners of War in Divided and
Reunited Germany (Rochester: Camden House, 2015).
21 Jones, Violence Against Prisoners of War; Geoffrey P. R. Wallace, Life and Death in
Captivity: The Abuse of Prisoners during War (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2015);
Berni, Außer Gefecht.
22 Joan Beaumont, Protecting Prisoners of War: 1939–1995, in Prisoners of War and
Their Captors in World War II , eds. Bob Moore and Kent Fedorowich (Oxford: Blooms-
bury 1996), 277–297; Jean Pictet, Humanitarian Law and the Protection of War Victims
(Leyden, Geneva: A.W. Sijthoff/Henry-Dunant-Institute, 1975); Allan Rosas, The Legal
Status of Prisoners of War: A Study in International Humanitarian Law Applicable in
Armed Conflicts (Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia, 1976); Howard S. Levie, Prisoners
of War in International Armed Conflict (Newport: Naval War College Press, 1978); Emily
Crawford, The Treatment of Combatants and Insurgents under the Law of Armed Conflict
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010); Nigel S. Rodley, The Treatment of Prisoners
under International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987).
scientists have called the “first transnational century.”23 For example,

both the Quakers and the YMCA played a major role in the welfare
of captives during the twentieth century, mainly in Europe. Addition-
ally, some Catholic charities also contributed to the material welfare of
captives. However, neither these intermediaries nor their roles in the care
of prisoners in war have ever been clearly defined, perhaps because they
were usually just one small puzzle piece in much broader diplomatic
frameworks. The same issue of definition also applies to wartime captives.
Given the often-controversial legal definitions of terms and concepts
regarding prisoners in war, a note on the terms used in this book is neces-
sary. Instead of focusing on just military prisoners in war,24 we purposely
use the much broader term of “captives,” as it also includes civilians who
fell into the hands of the belligerents. This term is thus better suited to
acknowledging the numerous definitions of wartime prisoners over time
and in different places and regions. Since the history of captivity in war is
as old as war itself, the experiences of captives vary greatly from conflict
to conflict and depend, among other things, on the historical as well as
the cultural, social, political and economic context.
As illustrated above, the mass taking of captives became widespread
during the wars of the short twentieth century, from the beginning of the
First World War to the end of the Cold War. In theory, throughout this
period, practices concerning prisoners in war became increasingly tightly
regulated with conventions, rules and laws. But in reality, many grey
areas remained, which meant there was a lot of room for the involve-
ment of various diplomatic intermediaries. One aim of this book is to
challenge the notion that the issue of war captives was solely a matter of
the state of the captive and the captors,25 as it instead shows that even
23 See David Mallet and Miriam J. Anderson, “Introduction: The Transnational

Century,” in Transnational Actors in War and Peace: Militants, Activists and Corpo-
rations in World Politics, eds. David Mallet and Miriam J. Anderson (Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press, 2017), 17.
24 The term “prisoners in war” was coined by Sibylle Scheipers to signify that during
wars, those taken prisoner could have many faces—that is, by no means were they only
members of the military, for they could also be civilians or fall into grey areas in between.
See Sibylle Scheipers, ed. Prisoners in War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
25 See for example Stephanie Carvin, Prisoners of America’s Wars: From the Early
Republic to Guantanamo (New York: Columbia University Press 2011); Lorien Foote
and Daniel Krebs, eds., Useful Captives: The Role of POWs in American Military Conflicts
(Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2021).
in lesser-known conflicts, captivity quickly became of transnational rele-

vance. By focusing on the intermediaries which stood between the two,
this book aims to overcome these traditional historiographical approaches.
By contrast, we look at the interplays and dynamics between transnational
actors, states at war, individuals and captives. We aim to illustrate how the
role of transnational actors and practices evolved in the twentieth century
and what the phenomenon of mass captivity—coupled with often strong,
existing transnational organisations and means of communications—could
mean in practice, even in conflicts that have hitherto not received much
scholarly attention.
Structure and Contents

The individual chapters contained in this edited collection present new
voices and entanglements between Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceania
and Africa. While these case studies are extremely diverse, they also
demonstrate the extreme breath of diplomatic interventions in favour of
captives taken in war. Much of the empirical material comes from hitherto
understudied sources, from a variety of dispersed archives, periodicals and
other primary sources. This book not only looks at the “obvious” cases
such as the two World Wars, but also at lesser-known conflicts such as the
Chaco War and the Nigerian Civil War. It illustrates how captives were
often at the centre of transnational negotiations and how, without the
involvement of various international actors, even maintaining links and
communications between captives and their mother country would have
been impossible.
The structure of the present book is chronological, starting with the
role of American consuls in British colonies during the Great War. Tamara
Cubito introduces the function of protecting powers during wars—in
this case, the neutral United States—in the care and oversight of enemy
aliens and prisoners of war. The US consuls’ activities were in line with
the longstanding tradition of protecting powers, which had its origins
in the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, protecting powers
were made use of on a larger scale than ever before. Focusing on Amer-
ican consuls and vice-consuls acting for the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman
and German governments in the British colonies, Cubito highlights
their considerable autonomy in distributing help and getting involved
in their medical care. She also shows the importance of their mediating
role between the internees and the local colonial authorities, investi-
gating alleged mistreatment and documenting living conditions while
those interned had to spend years of their lives in great uncertainty. In
contrast to intermediaries looked at in later chapters which had a far more
institutionalised role, these consuls were mainly “hobby diplomats.”
Traditionally, histories of prisoners of war have been male-dominated.
However, as Brian K. Feltman demonstrates in his chapter, women could
also act as transnational actors. Looking at German women’s activism
seeking to liberate their captured fathers, husbands and sons, Feltman
shows how women’s organisations became paramount in the campaign
to affect their release after the First World War when the Allies insisted
on keeping their German prisoners after the armistice. This is the only
example in this book where those campaigning for the prisoners were
personally acquainted with them. By addressing their demands not only
to the former enemy states who still kept German prisoners of war, but
also to exponents of the Weimar Republic, these groups of mothers,
wives, daughters, fiancées and sisters adopted what we would today call
a transnational approach. Interestingly, the focus of their campaign was
not the suffering of the captives still being held by the Allies, but the
plight of their families at home. The women sent letters and complaints
to important politicians not only in Europe but even in the United States,
conducted public protests and put direct pressure on neutral countries
such as Norway, Denmark or Sweden. Moreover, they also appealed to
transnational, international and national organisations such as the ICRC,
the YMCA or the American Women’s League. Eventually, this “wom-
en’s crusade” contributed to the prisoners’ repatriation. Feltman’s chapter
demonstrates how intermediaries could successfully put on diplomatic
pressure, even if they had no official function and did not see themselves
as political activists. However, in order to achieve their aims, they had
to work alongside established diplomatic channels and organisations and
exploit formal and informal networks.
From 1932 to 1935, Bolivia and Paraguay fought one of the blood-
iest conflicts on South American soil during the twentieth century, over
a territorial dispute in the Gran Chaco region. Today, often forgotten,
the Guerra del Chaco not only pitted two of the poorest states in Latin
America against each other, but also saw the involvement of diverse
non-governmental groups, transnational relief organisations and welfare
associations. Robert Niebuhr links these efforts to a tradition of transna-
tional involvement which had predated the Chaco War. For instance, he
looks at the League of Nations-led “Nansen Commission” which had

created a formal process for repatriation as well as resettling persons
displaced by the Great War, ironically in the Chaco region. Only a matter
of years later, there was now again an opportunity for a variety of transna-
tional actors to get involved. Many of them tried to make sure that
captives were well cared for. Both sides desperately needed this help, since
they had been overwhelmed looking after their captives. The Catholic
Church, local Red Cross chapters, the Rotary Club, Argentine military
authorities as well as private railway companies played an active role in
prisoner of war negotiations. In this case, as in those examined in other
chapters, the belligerents intended to use diplomatic and humanitarian
intermediaries in order to appear in a positive light internationally, for
example, through receiving positive reports on their camps. Niebuhr’s
chapter also hints at a wider issue with many of the intermediaries, which
probably applies to other chapters as well: they were not always unbi-
ased and their true loyalties could be unclear, particularly if they were
in some way linked with one of the belligerents. When the war was
over, these intermediaries also organised the repatriation of the prisoners
of war taken by both sides. Again, we observe how quickly this seem-
ingly peripheral conflict became internationalised, not least because of
the diplomatic actors involved in prisoner of war questions and captives’
rights. Niebuhr’s chapter demonstrates clearly that the repatriation of
the captives would not have been possible, particularly in an orderly
manner, if it had not been for official representatives working together
with international intermediaries.
Like Cubito, Rowena Ward looks at the role of protecting powers in
the welfare of captives. However, in her example, this interplay did not
result in better conditions for the captives. Ward focuses on Japanese civil-
ians who were interned in the French colony of New Caledonia during the
Second World War. Due to various political technicalities as well as prac-
tical problems, neither the ICRC nor the neutral protecting power really
had a chance of getting involved during the war, despite clear historical
precedents. When, after some years, they finally managed to arrange a
visit to the camp in the French colony, it was only due to the initiative of
the Australian ICRC representative, who simplified the process by partly
bypassing official channels. Ward thus demonstrates how in certain wars,
access to captives was a highly contested and very political issue. Here,
we again observe that if the captors denied access, any attempts of diplo-
matic interference, even by neutral intermediaries, were nipped in the
bud. The problem of accessibility is a persistent one: neither during the

Second World War nor today are there any clear rules. Instead, situational
dynamics interfere with the interests of the parties at war.
In the subsequent chapter, Frank Jacob also looks at Japanese captives,
in his case not during but in the aftermath of the Second World
War. Many of the Japanese prisoners of war were still in Soviet and
Chinese captivity at the beginning of the Cold War, and General Douglas
MacArthur and his occupation government faced a transnational dilemma
in their attempts to repatriate the military prisoners to Japan. Their role
was a difficult one: on the one hand, the official aim was to ensure the
safe return of the prisoners of war, but on the other hand, their repa-
triation was also considered a threat for Japan’s new administration, due
to their apparent communist indoctrination. Here, we thus find a very
contorted case of the winners of a war suddenly concerning themselves
with the repatriation of their former enemies, now in the hands of former
allies from whom they were now estranged. The repatriation of captives
was often a very complicated issue which could end in frustration for the
negotiators. If the captors do not want to budge, there is very little that
can be achieved by those negotiating in favour of captives.
After the Second World War, military confrontations between the Cold
War superpowers no longer took take place directly. Hence, the global
South became the battlefield of the Cold War. The longest hot war took
place in Southeast Asia where communist North Vietnam, supported
by the People’s Republic of China and the Soviet Union, defeated the
South, reinforced by a western coalition, in a bloody ten-year guerrilla
war. Whereas North Vietnam did not allow for prison visits by the ICRC,
South Vietnam permitted the Committee to inspect at least some of its
camps for captives. Marcel Berni focuses on the criticism by Amnesty
International and the ICRC, the latter explicitly defining its role as a
“neutral intermediary,” to show that the humane treatment of “commu-
nist” captives was anything but a forgone conclusion. Like Ward, Berni
highlights the limitations of the ICRC on the ground and hence shows
that the “Good Samaritan” was not able to achieve as much as it would
have liked in improving conditions for captives in South Vietnam. In
the end, the representatives of the Committee were mostly dependent
on local authorities’ cooperation in order to undertake visits to camps
and detention centres. Berni’s chapter also points out that throughout
the twentieth century, legal definitions referring to those taken captives
became increasingly important, and how they were labelled had a deci-
sive impact on their treatment. It could thus become increasingly difficult
for intermediaries to visit the imprisoned and get hold of accurate infor-
mation on them, since military and civilian authorities could hide behind
legal definitions and terms. Hence, more international recognition and
more detailed international laws did not necessarily mean that captives
were looked after better—often, quite the opposite was true.
Another hot conflict in the Cold War period broke out in West Africa
in the late 1960s. In the Nigerian Civil War, the Nigerian government
fought the secessionist Republic of Biafra in a brutal two-and-a-half-
year conflict, on which the West African state’s future depended. In his
chapter, Onianwa Oluchuchukwu Ignatus looks at the capture of eigh-
teen western oil workers by Biafran troops, which led to an international
outcry, followed by an extensive negotiation process for their release. The
diplomatic back and forth saw the involvement of important transnational
players such as the Vatican, Catholic missionary orders, European diplo-
mats, African presidents, the Western European Union and private oil
companies. Despite many officials getting involved, this chapter again
shows how much the personality and personal contact of the interme-
diaries involved could matter. Oluchuchukwu Ignatus argues that the
international repercussions of this “oilmen incident” and the eventual
release of the captives essentially weakened Biafra’s claim to sovereignty
rather than strengthening it, as the Biafrans had hoped. The chapter
further illustrates that intermediaries always operated within an interna-
tional framework characterised by a certain balance of power, as well as
indicating what this often-fragile structure looked like and its significance
for the negotiations led by diplomatic intermediaries.
Areas for Further Research

As diverse as the case studies in this volume may be, there are areas
and aspects this book inevitably cannot address. Thus, there remain
many avenues for further research on the topic of diplomatic actors and
wartime captivity. Although this subchapter may run the risk to be seen
as a hostage to fortune, we would like to highlight four main areas in
which we believe future research would be particularly fruitful and signifi-
cantly feed our understanding of the role diplomatic intermediaries played
in negotiations and contributing to the humane treatment of wartime
captives. All four areas pointed out here have to be based on empirical
case studies like the ones contained in this volume. Unless they have such
research as their basis, it will be impossible to expand upon these much
broader themes.
Firstly, it is worth studying the broader global connections and the
relationships between the various intermediaries, that is to say, their inter-
dependencies, the competition between them and how they have been
collaborating with each other. This is of particular interest considering
that for many organisations, mediation and ensuring the humane treat-
ment of captives in war has become a business. Many have become
professionalised charities that depend on donations and have to publi-
cise their impact in order to remain financially viable. Thus, to be the first
organisation to visit a large detention camp and report about it to the
whole world can make a great difference; but this also means that similar
organisations have to be kept in check. At the same time, many of these
organisations pursue similar interests, have the same humanitarian ideals
and can achieve much from working together. For nation states who see
themselves as “traditional” negotiators, a lot of prestige is attached to
them concluding successful negotiations. Particularly for smaller coun-
tries like Switzerland, this remains an area of expertise for which they are
internationally well-known—a renown which they would like to retain.
In order to do so, they often have to work together with transnational
organisations and actors, each with their own aims and interests.
Secondly, a disentanglement of the global political dimensions behind
the negotiations surrounding captives in war would shed light on many
of the hidden (diplomatic) interests, intentions and agendas of transna-
tional intermediaries like the ones looked at in this volume. What was
their place and what role did they play in big power politics? Were they
used for propaganda purposes by the belligerents involved in order to
further their interests? Or did the intermediaries cleverly use their involve-
ment to pursue their own aims and goals? Where did these actors stand
against the backdrop of ideological conflicts such as the Second World
War or the Cold War? Were they truly neutral and did they only have the
captives’ well-being at the forefront of their minds? Or did they believe
that by getting involved they were aiding one of the opposing sides? How
much agency did they have on the ground, in light of these constellations?
In this, nonetheless we should be careful not to project too much power
onto transnational actors; rather, we should see them as one small part of
a much bigger picture.
Thirdly, it would be interesting to follow the development of media-

tion and care practices over time and in different places, and how these
were connected and built upon one another. How do the interventions of
recent and current intermediaries differ from those a century ago? How
were best practices and knowledge with regard to captives transferred?
How did they circulate and move over time and space?26 What role
does the professionalisation of, for instance, diplomats, play? Has their
training altered how negotiations have been conducted? Has it changed
who has gotten involved? What importance do geographic and cultural
differences have? Has it become easier or more difficult over time to play
a role in prisoners in war negotiations? How have certain transnational
actors influenced and inspired others? The ICRC hereby serves as a case
in point, not only as a transnational actor which displayed its activity on
an immense global scale, but one whose modus operandi has been copied
and modified by other transnational actors.
Lastly, if the source situation allows for this, the relationship between
the transnational intermediaries and the captives themselves deserves
further attention. How did they view the involvement of diplomatic
actors? Did captives welcome transnational intermediaries? Were they keen
on establishing a good relationship with them, or could this also be
ambivalent? Did transnational actors act on a purely professional level or
did they, and if so to what degree, solidarise themselves with the captives
under their care? How did both “parties” evaluate their relationship? Such
an approach allows for a “bottom-up” view of the involvement of transna-
tional actors and answers the question of how the “clients” themselves,
that is to say, the captives, saw the involvement of transnational actors.
Thus, it would add much more nuance to transnational aspects of wartime
activity.
By outlining these four areas, we propose that rather than remain
within the national realm, the theme of intermediaries and wartime
captivity ought to take a more global and comparative direction. Although
analysing transnational actors and their ideas in one conflict can be
fruitful, in order to expand the conversation towards a social, cultural
and comparative military and diplomatic history, different conflicts must
also be considered. In so doing, it is our hope that we can make advances
26 On the connection between moving actors and ideas, see Margrit Pernau, Transna-
tionale Geschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 72.
towards a global and transnational history of captivity and humanitari-

anism which also contributes to a better understanding of contemporary
conflicts. In a time of globalisation where diplomats and other men and
women on the spot as moving actors are becoming more and more
professionalised, the field of those involved in diplomatic negotiations
during wars has become ever more complex.27 The long wars in Iraq,
Afghanistan and Syria have demonstrated that war captives continue to
be vulnerable and that the involvement of transnationals like the ICRC in
these irregular conflicts remains important, albeit often highly controver-
sial. Nevertheless, the vision of Henry Dunant continues to live on, and
diplomatic intermediaries continue to play an often crucial role in the lives
of those taken captive in conflicts around the globe.
References
Literature
Allen, Michael J. 2009. Until the Last Man Comes Home: POWs, MIAs, and the
Unending Vietnam War. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Alston, Philip, ed. 2005. Non-State Actors and Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Beaumont, Joan. 1996. Protecting Prisoners of War: 1939-1995. In Prisoners
of War and Their Captors in World War II , eds. Bob Moore and Kent
Fedorowich, 277–297. Oxford: Bloomsbury.
Berni, Marcel. 2020. Außer Gefecht: Leben, Leiden und Sterben ”kommunistis-
cher” Gefangener in Vietnams amerikanischem Krieg. Hamburg: Hamburger
Edition.
Biess, Frank. 2006. Homecomings: Returning POWs and the Legacies of Defeat in
Postwar Germany. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bugnion François. 1994. Le Comité International de la Croix-Rouge et la
protection des victimes de la guerre. Geneva: Comité international de la
Croix-Rouge.
Carvin, Stephanie. 2011. Prisoners of America’s Wars: From the Early Republic to
Guantanamo. New York: Columbia University Press.
Chanda, Nayan. 2007. Bound Together: How Traders, Preachers, Adventurers, and
Warriors Shaped Globalization. New Haven: Yale University Press.
27 On the significance of similar moving actors, see Nayan Chanda, Bound Together:
How Traders, Preachers, Adventurers, and Warriors Shaped Globalization (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2007).
Crawford, Emily. 2010. The Treatment of Combatants and Insurgents under the
Law of Armed Conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Dunant, Henry. 1959 [1862]. A Memory of Solferino. Trans. American Red
Cross. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.
Feltman, Brian K. 2015. The Stigma of Surrender: German Prisoners, British
Captors, and Manhood in the Great War and Beyond. Chapel Hill: University
of North Carolina Press.
Fierke, Karin M. 2005. Diplomatic Interventions: Conflict and Change in a
Globalizing World. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Foote, Lorien, and Daniel Krebs, eds. 2021. Useful Captives: The Role of POWs
in American Military Conflicts. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Forsythe, David P. 2005. The Humanitarians: The International Committee of
the Red Cross. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hack, Karl, and Kevin Blackburn, eds. 2011. Forgotten Captives in Japanese-
Occupied Asia. London: Routledge.
Hermann, Irène, and Daniel Palmieri. 2015. International Committee of
the Red Cross. 1914–1918 Online: International Encyclopedia of the
First World War, https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/intern
ational_committee_of_the_red_cross. Accessed July 27, 2020.
Hilton, Matthew, and Rana Mitter. 2013. Introduction. In Transnationalism and
Contemporary Global History, eds. Matthew Hilton and Rana Mitter, 7–28.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Iryie, Akira, and Pierre-Yves Saunier. 2009. Introduction: The Professor and the
Madman. In The Palgrave Dictionary of Transnational History, eds. Akira
Iriye and Pierre-Yves Saunier, xvii–xx. London: Palgrave.
Jahr, Christoph, and Jens Thiel. 2013. Prolegomena zu einer Geschichte der
Lager: Eine Einführung. In Lager vor Auschwitz: Gewalt und Integration im
20. Jahrhundert, eds. Christoph Jahr and Jens Thiel, 7–19. Berlin: Metropol.
Jones, Heather. 2011. Violence Against Prisoners of War in the First World War:
Britain, France and Germany, 1914–1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Josselin, Daphné and William Wallace. 2001. Non-State Actors in World Politics:
A Framework. In Non-State Actors in World Politics, eds. Daphné Josselin and
William Wallace, 1–20. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Kruck, Andreas, and Andrea Schneiker. 2017. Introduction: Researching Non-
State Actors in International Security—A Multitude of Challenges, a Plurality
of Approaches. In Researching Non-State Actors in International Security:
Theory and Practice, eds. Andreas Kruck and Andrea Schneiker, 1–36.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Latham, William C., Jr. 2012. Cold Days in Hell: American POWs in Korea.
College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
Levie, Howard S. 1978. Prisoners of War in International Armed Conflict.

Newport: Naval War College Press.
Littlejohn, Jeffrey L. and Charles Howard Ford, eds. 2015. “The Enemy Within
Never Did Without:” German and Japanese Prisoners of War at Camp
Huntsville, 1942–1945. Huntsville: Texas Review Press.
Mallet, David, and Miriam J. Anderson. 2017. Introduction: The Transnational
Century. In Transnational Actors in War and Peace: Militants, Activists and
Corporations in World Politics, eds. David Mallet and Miriam J. Anderson,
1–23. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Moore, Bob, and Barbara Hately-Broad. 2005. Prisoners of War, Prisoners of
Peace: Captivity, Homecoming and Memory in World War II . Oxford: Berg.
Moore, Bob, and Kent Fedorowich. 2002. The British Empire and its Italian
Prisoners of War 1940–1947 . Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Murphy, Mahon. 2008. Colonial Captivity During the First World War Intern-
ment and the Fall of the German Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mytum, H. C., and Gillian Carr, eds. 2013. Prisoners of War: Archaeology,
Memory, and Heritage of 19th- and 20th-Century Mass Internment. New York:
Springer.
Nachtigal, Reinhard. 2003. Rußland und seine österreichisch-ungarischen Kriegs-
gefangenen 1914 bis 1918. Remshalden: B.A. Greiner.
Neerland, Soleim, Marianne, ed. 2010. Prisoners of War and Forced Labour:
Histories of War and Occupation. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
O’Sullivan, Kevin, Matthew Hilton, and Juliano Fiori. 2016. Humanitarianisms
in Context. European Review of History, 23: 1–15.
Overmans, Rüdiger. 1999. ‘In der Hand des Feindes:’ Geschichtsschreibung
zur Kriegsgefangenschaft von der Antike bis zum Zweiten Weltkrieg. In In
der Hand des Feinds: Kriegsgefangenschaft von der Antike bis zum Zweiten
Weltkrieg, ed. Rüdiger Overmans, 1–39. Köln: Böhlau.
Panikos, Panayi. 2018. Prisoners of Britain: German Civilian and Combatant
Internees During the First World War. Oxford: Manchester University Press.
Pathé, Anne-Marie and Fabien Théofilakis, eds. 2016. Wartime Captivity in the
20th Century: Archives, Stories, Memories. New York: Berghahn Books.
Pernau, Margrit. 2011. Transnationale Geschichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Peters, Anne, Lucy Koechlin, Till Förster, and Gretta Fenner Zinkernagel, eds.
2009 Non-State Actors as Standard Setters. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Pictet, Jean. 1975. Humanitarian Law and the Protection of War Victims.
Leyden, Geneva: A.W. Sijthoff/Henry-Dunant-Institute.
Risse, Thomas. 2013. Transnational Actors and World Politics. In Handbook of

International Relations, eds. Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A.
Simmons, 426–452. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Rochester, Stuart I. and Frederick T. Kiley. 1999. Honor Bound: American
Prisoners of War in Southeast Asia, 1961–1973. Annapolis: Naval Institute
Press.
Rodley, Nigel S. 1987. The Treatment of Prisoners under International Law.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rosas, Allan. The Legal Status of Prisoners of War: A Study in International
Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts. Helsinki: Suomalainen
tiedeakatemia.
Rosenberg, Emily S., ed. 2012. A World Connecting: 1870–1945. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Scheck, Rafael. 2014. French Colonial Soldiers in German Captivity During
World War II . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scheipers, Sibylle, ed. 2011. Prisoners in War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stibbe, Matthew. 2008. British Civilian Internees in Germany: The Ruhleben
Camp, 1914–1918. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Wallace, Geoffrey P. R. 2015. Life and Death in Captivity: The Abuse of Prisoners
During War. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Wienand, Cristiane. 2015. Returning Memories: Former Prisoners of War in
Divided and Reunited Germany. Rochester: Camden House.
Wilkinson, Oliver. 2017. British Prisoners of War in First World War Germany.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Young, Charles. 2014. Name, Rank, and Serial Number: Exploiting Korean War
POWs at Home and Abroad. New York: Oxford University Press.
CHAPTER 2
“Any Unfavourable Condition or Untoward

Circumstance Will Receive Immediate
Attention”: American Consuls’ Visits to British
Colonial Internment Camps of the Great War
Tamara Cubito
Since at least the Franco-Prussian War in 1870/1871, it was customary

for belligerents to appoint a protecting power which was to take over
diplomatic relations with the nations they were at war with.1 Belliger-
ents, whenever they officially wanted to correspond with each other,
went through their protecting powers rather than communicating directly.
Appointed as protecting power were usually neutral nations agreeing to
do so. One of the main tasks of these protecting powers was to look
1 Howard S. Levie defined “protecting power” as “a state which has accepted the
responsibility of protecting the interests of another state in the territory of a third, with
which, for some reason, such as war, the second state does not maintain diplomatic
relations.” See Howard S. Levie, “Prisoners of War and the Protecting Power,” The
American Journal of International Law 55, no. 2 (1961): 374.
T. Cubito (B)
Swiss Military Academy, ETH Zurich, Birmensdorf, Switzerland
e-mail: tamara.cubito@vtg.admin.ch
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 23

Switzerland AG 2021
M. Berni and T. Cubito (eds.), Captivity in War during the Twentieth
Century, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65095-7_2
24 T. CUBITO
after so-called enemy aliens: nationals who found themselves in enemy

territory during hostilities.2 Another important duty of protecting powers
was to make sure prisoners of war were treated well by the belligerents.
To ensure this, envoys of the protecting powers paid visits to prisoner
of war camps. This had, for example, been the case in the Spanish–
American War of 1898 as well as many other conflicts around the turn
of the century. Appointing protecting powers during war had become
a well-established international practice by 1914.3 Surprisingly, despite
the wealth of archival material available and a surge of interest in the
Great War, the study of the role of these protecting powers during this
conflict has remained a neglected topic by historians until today. This is
particularly true for the extra-European realm. The aim of this chapter is
to shed light on this understudied theme of the First World War, albeit
further research will be needed to reveal the full picture of the protecting
powers’ efforts in this conflict. It outlines the important yet all too often
forgotten role of American consuls, in their function as local agents of the
protecting power, when it came to taking care of internees and prisoners
of war in British colonies during the First World War.4
The Protecting Powers’ Representatives

When the First World War broke out in the summer of 1914, it was clear
to all belligerents that a neutral nation would have to be appointed as
protecting power in order to take care of the interests of their nationals in
their opponents’ territory. Of relevance for this chapter is that the German
2 For an example of how this “protecting power system” continued in the Second
World War, see the chapter by Rowena Ward in this collection.
3 Levie, “Prisoners of War.” Of course, protecting powers can also be installed without
there being a state of war, such as, for example, Switzerland acting as protecting power
for the United States in Iran.
4 This means that this chapter does not look at Britain itself. Ireland, the dominions and
India are not taken into consideration either. In these locations, in contrast to the British
colonies looked at in this chapter, protecting powers did not bear the sole responsibility
for the supervision of conditions in camps. Instead, they were supported, or their efforts
even dwarfed by, various other organisations such as the Quakers or the International
Committee of the Red Cross. For more on this, see for example: Matthew Stibbe, “The
Internment of Civilians by Belligerent States during the First World War and the Response
of the International Committee of the Red Cross,” Journal of Contemporary History 41,
no. 1 (2006): 5–19.
2 “ANY UNFAVOURABLE CONDITION OR UNTOWARD CIRCUMSTANCE … 25
and Austro-Hungarian governments, and later the Ottoman government,

asked the American government to act for them in all British territory.
This meant that American diplomatic and consular agents were now in
charge of the protection of all German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman
nationals and their interests within their consular realm. These Amer-
ican consular and diplomatic agents were promptly instructed by the US
State Department to exercise their duties “with impartiality and discre-
tion” and that they were to “examine all complaints, which may be laid
in behalf of foreign subjects or citizens under your protection […].”5
These duties of course entailed a wide range of responsibilities and tasks,
which kept American diplomats and consuls busy for years and absorbed
much of their time. Perhaps the most time-consuming task which fell
to the American representatives was to inspect the various internment
camps for combatants and civilians belonging to the nations officially
under their protection, not just in the mother countries of the belligerents
but throughout the globe, including their imperial outposts. In Europe,
and particularly in Britain and the German Empire, camp inspections by
American observers quickly became formalised and institutionalised as
what Richard B. Speed has referred to as “the American Scheme.”6
As will be shown in what follows, outside of Europe it was a very
different story. For one, in more remote areas, there were simply not
many local American representatives. In the British colonies, all offi-
cial American representatives were consuls or vice-consuls, since the title
“ambassador” was reserved for professional American diplomats heading
US embassies established in the capitals of the great powers. It needs to
be borne in mind that consuls were not full diplomats like ambassadors,
but
persons appointed by a state to reside in foreign countries, and permitted

by the government of the latter to reside, for the purpose partly of
watching over the interests of the subjects of the state by which they are
5 United States Department of State, Papers relating to the foreign relations of the
United States, 1914. Supplement, The World War, US State Department to all diplomatic
and consular agents, August 17, 1914, accessed November 8, 2019, http://digicoll.lib
rary.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=header&id=FRUS.FRUS1914Supp.
6 Richard B. Speed III, Prisoners, Diplomats, and the Great War: A Study in the
Diplomacy of Captivity (Westport: Greenwood, 1990).
26 T. CUBITO
appointed, and partly of doing certain acts on its behalf which are impor-
tant to it or to its subjects, but to which the foreign country is indifferent,
it being either unaffected by them, or affected only in a remote and indirect
manner.7
The main tasks of a consul in peacetime were purely administrative, such

as the authentication of deaths and births of nationals of the state he
acted as consul for. A consul did not even have to be in possession of the
nationality of the state he represented. Thus, a US consul was not neces-
sarily in possession of American citizenship. Usually, being consul was a
part-time venture and not a profession. Unlike in Europe where many
of those visiting internment camps were professional diplomats, most of
the American consular representatives looked at in this chapter were in
fact resident businessmen of a British colony. Nevertheless, as this chapter
will show, they still managed to fulfil their protecting duties by looking
after internees in their colony of residence. Unfortunately, due to their
somewhat unofficial status, hardly any correspondence, apart from the
official reports they submitted, can be found at any archives, not even the
National Archives of the United States.
After the United States had entered the war on the side of the Entente
in April 1917, it could obviously no longer act as protecting power for
the Central Powers. Smaller neutral nations, such as Switzerland, Spain or
Sweden, took over from it. This meant that camp visits in the colonies by
neutral powers became much less frequent. One of the main reasons for
this was that these smaller neutral states who took over from the United
States as protecting powers lacked the wide network of consuls the Ameri-
cans had had. Much coordination between them was required to organise
camp visits.8 In the case of Bermuda, for example, the internees had to
wait for over a year as the Swiss consul at New York and an attaché from
the Swiss Legation in Washington had to travel all the way to the Atlantic
7 See William Edward Hall, A Treatise on International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1890), 314.
8 This was, for example, the issue in Barbados, where the Swiss officially acted as
protecting power but there was no Swiss consul on the island. Over a year after the
last visit of the US consul, it could finally be arranged for the acting Swedish consul in
Barbados to visit the internees. See: TNA, FO 383/347/191349, CO to FO, October 3,
1917; TNA, CO 28/294/4308, FO to CO, January 24, 1918; TNA, CO 28/293/4633,
Probyn to CO, January 25, 1918; TNA, CO 28/294/6906, FO to CO, February 7, 1918
and TNA, CO 28/293/15729, Probyn to CO, March 1, 1918.
island in order to inspect its internment camp. Once there, the Swiss
commission even met up with US consul Carl R. Loop who had visited
the camp once a month prior to the United States entering the war in
order to hear about his experiences and impressions first-hand.9 Camp
reports on internment camps in the colonies after the spring of 1917 are,
therefore, very sparse. Thus, the following section will, by and large, focus
on the experiences of American consuls representing the United States
while that country acted as protecting power.
American Consuls’ Camp Visits in British Colonies

Within months of the outbreak of war, the treatment of combatant pris-
oners of war as well as of interned civilians featured heavily in the press
of the belligerents. There were, for instance, numerous allegations of
their mistreatment in Britain and in the German Empire.10 Thus, Amer-
ican representatives were called upon as impartial observers to inspect
the various camps. The situation in many British overseas possessions
was similar. By autumn 1914, a large number of civilians—either trav-
ellers or sailors removed from enemy, neutral or British ships, or residents
of British colonies—had been interned for a number of reasons.11 The
Great War was the first conflict in which civilians were interned on such a
9 TNA, CO 37/262/22018, FO to CO, May 4, 1918, enclosed camp report by Swiss

Consul Louis H. Junod and Dr. Conrad Jenny.
10 For more on internment and prisoners of war in Britain and Germany, see for
example: Heather Jones, Violence against Prisoners of War in the First World War. Britain,
France and Germany, 1914–1920 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); Oliver
Wilkinson, British Prisoners of War in First World War Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2017); Panikos Panayi, Prisoners of Britain: German Civilian and
Combatant Internees During the First World War (Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 2012) or Matthew Stibbe, British Civilian Internees in Germany. The Ruhleben
Camp, 1914–1918 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2008). For an excellent
general overview of global internment during the Great War, see Matthew Stibbe, Civilian
Internment During the First World War. A European and Global History, 1914–1920
(Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019).
11 For more in-depth information on internment in the British colonies, see Tamara
Braun, “‘Leave ‘no stone unturned’ in the hunt for Alien Enemies?’ The British and
their Enemy Aliens in the Colonial Empire, 1914–1924” (PhD diss., University of Bern,
2020).
28 T. CUBITO
grand, global scale.12 As the war went on, in some colonies such as Malta,
they were joined by regular prisoners of war. Allegations of mistreatment,
which made their way to Europe, were soon made by those held in British
colonies.
Hence, it quickly became apparent that these camps would have to
be inspected by neutral observers. Perhaps not surprisingly, paralleling
the practice established in Europe, the task fell to local US officials,
namely, consuls.13 In practically all colonies where there was an intern-
ment camp as well as an American consul, he was instructed to visit
these camps within months of the outbreak of war by the US State
Department. Officially, the German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman
Empires’ Foreign Offices had to ask the US State Department whether
American representatives could visit the internment camp in a British
colony. The US State Department would forward this request to the
British Foreign Office, which then sent this on to the British Colo-
nial Office which was responsible for forwarding these requests to the
colonial governor. In practice, this complicated protocol was not always
followed and there were instances of American consuls arranging camp
visits directly with the local colonial governors since the official process
would have taken months. The British Colonial Office instructed the
colonial governors to “afford every facility” to the visiting American
consuls and were very much in favour of their inspections, as internal,
handwritten comments show.14 In the periphery, the consuls’ visits to
internment camps and subsequent reports were seen by the local colonial
authorities as a welcome opportunity to showcase their direct contribu-
tion to the war to their superiors in London. Thus, American consuls took
care of internees in Bermuda, Hong Kong, Malta, Gibraltar, Trinidad,
Jamaica, Barbados, North Borneo, Ceylon and the Straits Settlements.
They received access whenever they wanted to most internment camps
and could move about freely, speak to all internees, or the spokespersons
elected by the internees, without supervision by the British authorities.
12 See, for example, Stefan Manz, Panikos Panayi and Matthew Stibbe, eds., Internment
during the First World War. A Mass Global Phenomenon (London: Routledge, 2019).
13 See various documents in: United States Department of State, Papers relating to
the foreign relations of the United States, 1914. Supplement, The World War, accessed
November 8, 2019, http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=hea
der&id=FRUS.FRUS1914Supp.
14 TNA, CO 137/729/16344, FO to CO, April 3, 1918.
They were, in most cases, allowed to receive letters from those interned,
which indicates that the British authorities had nothing to hide and were
genuinely trying to maintain good conditions.15 In the tiny colony of
Gibraltar, internees were at times even allowed to pay personal visits to the
American consul.16 Where British local authorities attempted to infringe
this right of access, the consuls usually protested successfully. They took
very seriously the internees’ right to speak to a neutral representative.
When the internees in Hong Kong, for instance, complained to US consul
George Anderson that some of the letters they had written to him had
been withheld by the camp officials with the excuse that they “violated
rules of censorship,” Anderson was quick to tell the camp authorities
that this was unacceptable and that the internees “should be allowed free
access to me in all such matters as they had desired to present to me.”17
The majority of the consuls took their new tasks, which they had no
prior experience in, extremely seriously and visited the internment camps
regularly until the United States entered the war in 1917. American
consuls, in many instances, proactively made suggestions for improve-
ments and many of them seem to have taken a genuine interest in
improving the situation of the internees. The US consul in Bermuda,
for example, was so committed to ensuring the well-being of each indi-
vidual internee that he even visited them if they were in hospital.18 The
American consul in Barbados, C. Ludlow Livingston, personally sent the
internees reading material since, in his opinion, what the local authorities
provided was not sufficient. Livingston even went as far as sending the
internees boxes of cigars for Christmas.19 For a number of US consuls,
15 See for example TNA, CO 129/424/56940, May to CO, October 28, 1915,
enclosed camp report by Anderson.
16 TNA, CO 91/458/17104, Miles to CO, March 31, 1915, enclosed report by
Sprague.
17 TNA, CO 129/424/56940, May to CO, October 28, 1915, enclosed camp report
by Anderson. In contrast to camps elsewhere, the camp commandant did not agree to this,
claiming that this “would give rise to an unnecessary amount of correspondence. I think
that the Prisoners of War may well be left under direct and absolute British management
without interference by the United States of America’s Consul General […].” See: TNA,
CO 129/424/56940, May to CO, October 28, 1915, enclosed camp report by US
consul Anderson and statement by GOC (General Officer Commanding) Ventris.
18 TNA, CO 37/259/55921, FO to CO, November 21, 1916, enclosed camp report
by Loop.
19 TNA, CO 28/290/16171, FO to CO, April 4, 1916, enclosed report by Livingston.
30 T. CUBITO
tending to the internees in the colony consumed much of their free time
each month. It is unclear from the available sources whether they were
paid for this extra work and any expenses arising from it. Only rarely
was any reference to this point made. The US consul in Bermuda, Carl
R. Loop, mentioned in a report that “as in former cases no expense
was incurred in making the inspection.”20 However, what is undoubtedly
clear is that many of the American consuls must have spent hours, in many
cases each and every single month, visiting camps and compiling lengthy
reports on their observations. It seems that many of them thoroughly
enjoyed their camp visits and took pride in their new task.21 For instance,
the American consul at Bermuda, Carl R. Loop, occasionally remained
on the camp island to watch football games between the internees and
the camp guards.22 The US consul at Hong Kong, George Anderson,
assured his superiors that he was taking his task very seriously: “I am in
touch with the camp all the time and any unfavourable condition or unto-
ward circumstance will receive immediate attention.”23 Similarly, when
the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) enquired about
conditions at the internment camp in Jamaica after receiving a complaint,
the American consul, Mr. Monaghan, was keen to stress that if conditions
were in fact as bad as alleged, there was no way the camp authorities could
have hidden this from him since he made an effort to visit “the camp at
all hours in the day, even in the evening time.”24 He stressed that his
vice-consul, Mr. Bundy, who bore the main responsibility for checking on
the internees as well as Mr. Dougan—an American national and personal
friend of theirs who had accompanied the consul on a camp visit out of
personal interest—thought conditions at the camp were excellent.25 How
regularly American consuls visited a camp depended on the colony. But
20 See TNA, CO 37/259/36737, Foreign Office (FO) to CO, August 3, 1916,

enclosed camp report by Loop.
21 See for example TNA, CO 37/259/62502, FO to CO, December 28, 1916,
enclosed letter and report by Loop.
22 See for example TNA, CO 37/259/18443, FO to CO, April 17, 1916, enclosed
camp report by Loop.
23 TNA, CO 129/424/56940, May to CO, October 28, 1915, enclosed camp report
by Anderson.
24 TNA, CO 137/710/33171, Manning to CO, July 2, 1915, enclosed letter by
Monaghan.
25 Ibid.
generally speaking, if there was a US consul and a permanent internment

camp in a colony, he visited the camp roughly every month.26 This meant
that American consuls in British colonies, as the US consul in Bermuda
stated, gained
[…] intimate knowledge of conditions as they actually obtain, afforded

by my monthly inspection of premises, sleeping accommodations, kitchens
food and clothing, from my private interviews with the prisoners them-
selves and from the constant touch in which I kept with the local officers
who are in charge with the care and treatment of these prisoners.27
Most consuls who visited camps in the colonies stressed that they had
spoken to the prisoners without any supervision.28 Of course, the assess-
ments by the US consuls were based on the camp(s) in only one colony
and they could not compare them with conditions elsewhere. Also, it was
presumably in their interest to carefully word and balance their reports,
particularly when there was criticism, in order not to upset the local
colonial authorities which had to facilitate their visits.
From the sources available, it remains unclear how exactly the pris-
oners viewed the role of the consuls and what their exact relationship
with them was like. Unfortunately, hardly any letters or similar docu-
ments emanating from internees in the colonies making reference to the
consuls have survived. None of their letters to US consuls, of which there
must have been many, can be found in any archives. Only rarely are there
remarks in inspection reports of internees thanking the US consuls for
their support. One can only guess as to the reasons for this. It could be
the case that some US consuls preferred to remain in the background
and did not want to stress their own role too much since the well-being
of the prisoners was to be the central theme of the reports. Also, had
they hinted at too close a connection with the internees, their impar-
tiality would have been brought into question. Most probably, if they felt
grateful, it is likely the internees thanked the US consuls in person for
26 See for example TNA, CO 37/259/36737, FO to CO, August 3, 1916, enclosed

camp report by Loop.
27 TNA, CO 37/259/62502, FO to CO, December 28, 1916, enclosed letter and
report by Loop.
28 See for example TNA, CO 129/415/3941, May to CO, December 17, 1914,
32 T. CUBITO
their support. Judging from the consuls’ reports, they were most defi-
nitely appreciated. The internees often eagerly awaited their visits and
made use of the opportunity to voice complaints and ask the consuls for
help. Another indication of the importance of the US consuls’ work is that
when in 1917, they could no longer act as protective power, numerous
internees as well as some colonial authorities were desperate for another
nation to fill the void. This would not have been the case had the US
consuls not been of importance and highly appreciated and valued.
Reports and Complaints

The abovementioned camp reports were then sent by the consuls to
the US State Department to be passed on to the British and German
Foreign Offices. In many instances, the US consuls also directly passed
their reports on to the local colonial authorities in question, which then
sent these on to their superiors at the Colonial Office in London, often
adding their own remarks and explanations. The British Foreign Office
equally passed on all reports they received via the official channels to the
Colonial Office, which resulted in many duplicate reports circulating in
London. While there were no templates or forms given to the envoys
of the protecting power, their reports were all very similar. US consular
representatives received some instructions on what they were to report on
from the US State Department in June 1915, but they were nevertheless
very free when it came to the details.29 Consuls normally described the
camps and their surroundings, living conditions, daily life, the internees,
reported on new internees and releases, deaths, illnesses, arguments and
disagreements within the camps, and in some instances, even commented
upon the camp authorities and guards. Overall, American consuls came to
the conclusion that conditions in the majority of the internment camps in
British colonies were good and the internees were well looked after.30
In addition to these regular reports, US consuls were also called
upon to conduct special investigations when reports about the mistreat-
ment of internees in colonial camps made the rounds in the German
29 See remark by the US consul of Bermuda, Carl Loop, in: TNA, CO 37/259/43710,
FO to CO, September 12, 1916, enclosed camp report by Loop.
enclosed camp report by Anderson or TNA, CO 158/395/2925 FO to CO, June 21,
1916, enclosed report by Keblinger.
Empire or Austria-Hungary. If the local authorities could or would not

solve the issue at hand, it was usually the representatives of the neutral
protecting powers who acted as a broker between the internees and the
authorities. In many instances, they made a real difference which they
perhaps never received enough credit for. Overall, the representatives of
the protecting powers, such as the US consul at Gibraltar, believed that
many complaints were “of a trivial nature”31 and were made merely out
of boredom. Similar opinions were voiced by various other US consuls
who had visited internment camps, investigated complaints and come
to the conclusion that these were unfounded.32 For instance, the US
consul at Trinidad, Henry D. Baker, believed that “naturally a long period
of internment will create a disposition to complain and grumble, and
perhaps to fancy certain grievances which […] apparently do not exist.”33
Nevertheless, US consuls dutifully reported upon these complaints and
conducted investigations into them. Many American consuls spent a
significant amount of time helping, or attempting to help, individual
internees. When an internee in Bermuda, for example, complained that
he had not received a piece of wood he had ordered from the author-
ities to make carvings to sell in order to earn some money, US consul
Carl R. Loop spoke to the local authorities and made sure the individual
concerned received his wood.34
The internees’ complaints and the US consuls’ reports were also a
part of the propaganda war between the belligerents.35 Most of them
were keen to uphold the notion that they themselves were treating their
prisoners of war well, whereas their opponent treated them inhumanely.
Reports of mistreatment were a frequent feature in the press. Often,
released internees made some claims that contained an element of truth
31 TNA, CO 91/458/17104, Miles to CO, March 31, 1915, enclosed report by R.

L. Sprague.
32 See for example TNA, CO 295/506/40210, Chancellor to CO, August 3, 1916,
enclosed camp report by McConnico.
33 TNA, CO 295/511/11053, Chancellor to CO, February 5, 1917, enclosed camp
report by Henry D. Baker. The US consul in Bermuda had a similar theory. See: TNA,
CO 37/259/43710, FO to CO, September 12, 1916, enclosed camp report by Loop.
34 TNA, CO 37/259/49753, FO to CO, October 16, 1916, enclosed report by Loop.
35 For more on this, see for example: Kenneth Steuer, “German Propaganda and
Prisoners-of-War during World War I,” in World War I and Propaganda, ed. Troy R.E.
Paddock (Boston: Brill, 2014), 155–180.
34 T. CUBITO
and then wildly exaggerated them.36 The only impartial actors on the
ground which were regarded to be suitable to investigate these claims
were representatives of the protecting powers. US consuls frequently
stressed how important it was to counter these reports if they were false.
As the US consul at Malta, Wilbur Keblinger explained:
It is unfortunate that such statements should be given out as it is mani-

festly unfair to the men who are still interned in Malta as their friends and
relatives will very naturally become alarmed and get the impression the
prisoners in Malta camp are living under very hard conditions, which is
not the case.37
Similarly, when there were reports in the German Empire that the
internees in Hong Kong were “forced to work like coolies,” both the
German and British governments as well as the local authorities were keen
for the local American consul to get to the bottom of this and stamp out
any misinformation once and for all.38
General complaints voiced by the internees, no matter in which of
the British colonies, were often of a similar nature. Food was probably
moaned about the most. It was usually the quality and variety rather
than the amount that was criticised by the internees.39 In defence of the
British authorities, it is highly likely that they and the mostly German and
Austro-Hungarian internees had entirely differing opinions and tastes as
to what constituted good food.40 In Trinidad and Tobago for example,
the internees complained about the bread they were given. While this
bread was probably not as good as what they were used to from home, it
was, according, to the US consul, much better than the average bread sold
36 See for example the newspaper article attached in: TNA, WO 154/324, war diary of
Provost Marshal on January 22, 1915 or complaint by former internee Theodor Nicolas
about the conditions in North Borneo after his return to the German Empire: TNA, CO
531/9/52011, BNBCo to CO, November 10, 1915.
37 TNA, CO 158/395/2925, FO to CO, June 21, 1916, enclosed camp reports on
Malta by Keblinger.
38 TNA, CO 129/415/3941, May to CO, December 17, 1914, enclosed report by
Anderson. The consul concluded there was no truth in these claims.
40 TNA, CO 129/415/3941, May to CO, December 17, 1914, enclosed camp report
by Anderson.
by bakeries in the colony. Also, as the US consul of Hong Kong pointed

out, in the case of well-off internees who had been residents of the colony
prior to the outbreak of war, it was simply impossible to match the quality
of food they had eaten prior to their internment because they were used to
such high standards. Some American consuls, after receiving complaints
about inadequate food, dropped by the internment camps unannounced
in order to try it themselves; in many instances, they were impressed with
the internees’ cooking skills.41 For example, Henry D. Baker, US consul
in Trinidad and Tobago, stated that the meat at the internment camp
tasted better than at his hotel. The American consul at Bermuda, Carl
Loop, sampled the margarine after the internees had complained of its
poor quality. Agreeing it was not particularly nice, he mentioned this in
his camp report. The next time he visited, he remembered this small issue
and on further enquiry, was pleased to notice that the margarine quality
was markedly better.42 This shows that US consuls were often able to
make a difference. Even if these improvements may seem very small and
insignificant, they did make a huge difference to those interned. Being
residents of the respective colony, the American consuls were also in a
position to put complaints in the local context and therefore establish
whether, in the grand scheme of things, they were justified. When the
internees in North Borneo complained about a lack of fresh fish and meat
and being given too much tinned food, US consul G.M. Hanson did not
think this was a valid accusation since there were no cooling facilities in
North Borneo, and many residents “live out of tins.”43 Internees prob-
ably did not realise this, but the food situation was often much worse for
the local population.
Similarly, US consuls put things into context when it came to
complaints about being guarded by or interned close to “natives.” Partic-
ularly German internees felt this was a humiliation, not being aware of
the fact that in many colonies, particularly in the Caribbean, while of
41 See for example TNA, CO 37/259/18443, FO to CO, April 17, 1916, enclosed
report by Loop or TNA, CO 37/262/22018, FO to CO, May 4, 1918, enclosed report
by Junod and Jenny.
42 TNA, CO 37/259/36737, FO to CO, August 3, 1916, enclosed camp report by
Loop. It is unclear whether the quality of the margarine had been improved just because
of Loop’s intervention.
43 TNA, CO 513/10/17519, Ridgeway to CO, April 11, 1916, enclosed report by
G.M. Hanson.
36 T. CUBITO
course racial distinctions still existed in a variety of ways, there was no

strict segregation.44 American consuls, often having lived among these
communities for many years, knew that racial separation could not real-
istically be upheld in all walks of life. This was often out of necessity
since the number of white inhabitants to fill all official posts and impor-
tant professions was simply not large enough. Many of the enemy aliens
interned in the colonies had been merchant seamen prior to the outbreak
of war and were likely unaware of this. Particularly those who had served
on merchant ships travelling between Europe and the United States were
perhaps used to a stricter racial separation.45 The American consul in
Trinidad, Henry D. Baker, was keen to discount some of the according
objections by the internees. Replying to a complaint that many of the
guards were “coloured” men, Baker stated:
It is the duty of the coloured soldiers at the camp under their white offi-
cers to preserve discipline, but there seems no reason to believe that these
soldiers in any way go beyond their duties in preserving order and disci-
pline. I fail to see the point in the German Ambassador’s criticism of the
colour of these soldiers. All the policemen in Port of Spain are coloured,
and in case any one of them was obliged to arrest any Englishman because
of violation of law or regulation, I am sure that no local court would hold
that because the policeman was coloured, it was impudent of him to arrest
any white man who violated the law.46
44 This of course does not mean that there was any racial equality or harmony, as events
in numerous British colonies just after the end of the war show. For more on this, see
for example: Jacqueline Jenkinson, Black 1919: Riots, Racism and Resistance in Imperial
Britain (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2009).
45 Whether the internees’ complaints were linked to wider debates and German criticism
of the Entente using black soldiers in the war is questionable since all the news the
internees received was censored. For more on this theme, see for example: Christian
Koller, “Von Wilden aller Rassen niedergemetzelt”. Die Diskussion um die Verwendung von
Kolonialtruppen in Europa zwischen Rassismus, Kolonial- und Militärpolitik (1914–1930)
(Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2001).
46 TNA, CO 295/511/16436, Chancellor to CO, March 5, 1917, enclosed statement
by Baker. Linking the black prison guards which served at a handful of internment camps
in British colonies to debates on the First World War as a “white man’s war” would
probably be a stretch too far. These debates mainly centre on the direct participation of
black soldiers and labourers at or near the front. The guards discussed here mainly seem
to have regarded the watching of enemy internees as part of their everyday job which
they were paid for, many of them already having been regular prison guards or soldiers
before the outbreak of war. For more on this notion of the Great War as predominantly
American consuls also acted as impartial observers when there was

ill-feeling between the internees and the camp administration or contro-
versial incidences had taken place. However, as the following cases will
show, it is impossible for a historian to assert where exactly the Amer-
ican consuls stood and how impartial their judgement really was. When a
number of internees in Malta had been put into detention after they had
attempted to escape, they complained of maltreatment. The US consul,
Wilbur Keblinger, personally attended the subsequent enquiry ordered by
the colony’s governor, ready to step in if their treatment had, in fact, been
unfair. In this particular case, Keblinger concluded that “there was prac-
tically no evidence to sustain the charge of brutal treatment.”47 When
in Gibraltar, a prisoner was shot, the American consul R. L. Sprague
attended the coroner’s inquiry to make sure the ruling was fair.48 In
Trinidad and Tobago, the commandant of the camp, his employees and
the internees of the camp for the “lower” classes did not seem to have
gotten on well. In a long letter of complaint to the US consul, the
prisoners of war stated:
The whole staff of the camp including Mr. Fraser, Captain Commanding,
is from the Royal Gaol. All evidence of kindly and human feeling towards
us is lacking and we are not treated as honorable prisoners of war but as
criminals. Especially Mr. Fraser is treating us with the utmost disrespect.
Several of us have been grossly insulted and it is very seldom that he listens
to a complaint. […] The treatment by the guards, who are all negroes, is
not better. In two cases two of us have been struck by negro corporals.
[…] Many of the interned here are afraid to complain at all because they
a war of the “white man,” see for example; Gordon Douglas Pollock, Black Soldiers in
a White Man’s War. Race, Good Order and Discipline in a Great War Labour Battalion
(Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2018). It would perhaps make more sense to
see the role of these guards in the wider context of the colonial homefronts. Unfortunately,
not much literature on this exists to date. An exception is: Glenford Howe, Race, War
and Nationalism. A Social History of West Indians in the First World War (Kingston, Ian
Randle Publishers, 2002).
47 TNA, FO 383/240/183458, US Chargé d’Affaires to FO, enclosed camp report by
Keblinger.
48 TNA, CO 91/458/17104, Miles to CO, March 31, 1915, enclosed report by
Sprague.
38 T. CUBITO
have seen, from cases of unjust punishment, which some of us have expe-
rienced after making complaints, that in consequence the treatment would
be worse than ever.49
Of course, the camp’s commandant, Percy Fraser, denied all allegations.50

The US consul admitted that he was “in no position to ascertain that
the men are being abused or ill-treated by the Superintendent or his
subordinates.”51 However, he added that he was “inclined to disbelieve
the assertions.”52 Here, it needs to be added that the camp’s comman-
dant and the US consul were personally acquainted. From the amount
of evidence available, it cannot be denied that the relationship between
the camp’s commandant and the internees in Trinidad was complicated.
Even court martials were held due to a lack of discipline and an attack
on camp commandant Fraser.53 Indicating that American consuls were
at least to some degree impartial, US consul Andrew McConnico was
not afraid of being very critical of one of the trials and argued that the
internees had had no one to defend them, did not know or understand
the court proceedings and were, therefore, at a disadvantage.54 Where
US consuls believed that internees had rightly been treated strictly, they
were not afraid to state it. Thus, the American consul in North Borneo,
Mr. Hanson, after hearing that the internees had gotten drunk and been
“parading up and down the streets singing German songs,” concluded
that the subsequent “shutting off of their liquor” by the local authorities
was “probably the best thing that could happen to them.”55
Another category of complaint was medical care.56 The details of
how medical care for internees was arranged differed from camp to
49 TNA, CO 295/506/44988, Chancellor to CO, August 22, 1916, enclosed letter

from prisoners of war to McConnico.
50 Ibid., enclosed report by Percy Fraser.
51 Ibid., enclosed letter from internees to McConnico.
52 Ibid.
53 TNA, CO 295/507/58174, Chancellor to CO, November 8, 1916.
54 TNA, CO 295/510/60996, FO to CO, December 20, 1916, enclosed camp report
by McConnico.
55 TNA, CO 531/10/17519, BNBCo (British North Borneo Company) to CO, April
11, 1916, enclosed report by Hanson.
56 See for example TNA, CO 295/506/44988, Chancellor to CO, August 22, 1916,
enclosed letter from prisoners of war to McConnico.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
rosszul nevelt csirkefogók! Fiam, én az egész párizsi társaságban
hiába keresek diogeneszi lámpámmal igazi férfit! El is határoztam,
hogy tovább nem nyomozok: kioltom a lámpát!… De térjünk vissza
Viktorra! Minthogy Gerlepapának alsónadrágos és inges
megjelenése minden áldott este tűrhetetlenné vált, minden eszközt,
értsd meg, minden eszközt felhasználtam, hogy távol tartsam…
hogy kiábrándítsam magamból. Először dühöngött; azután
féltékenykedett. Eleinte csak felügyelt rám. Minden férfira, aki a
házba jött, tigrisszemeket vetett. Később valóságos üldözést
honosított meg. Mindenüvé követett; a leglehetetlenebb módokat
találta fel, hogy meglephessen. Megtiltotta, hogy a férfiakkal
beszéljek. Bálokon állandóan hátam mögött volt s ha szót szóltam,
fejét hosszú kutyanyakán mingyárt előretolta. Büfébe nélküle nem
mehettem; a táncot hol ezzel, hol azzal a férfival tiltotta el; néha a
négyes kellős közepéből hazaráncigált. A végén is oly nevetséges
és ostoba teremtés lettem az oldalán, hogy többé nem mentem
társaságba.
Otthon azonban még rosszabb volt. Képzeld, a nyomorult úgy
bánt velem… csunya szót kell kimondanom… mint kéjlánnyal. Este
nyersen mordult rám: »Már megint kivel szeretkeztél?« Ha sírva
fakadtam, arca ragyogott a boldogságtól. A mult héten aztán betelt a
pohár. Kivitt a Champs-Elyséesre vacsorázni. Egyik ismerősünk,
Baubignac, a szomszéd asztalnál ült. Tehettem róla, hogy a szél
éppen oda hordta? Viktor dühében majd széttaposta lábamat s a
sárgadinnye felett fogai közt a következőket sziszegte: »Nyomorult,
aljas nő, találkát adtál ennek a fiúnak! Megállj csak!« De ez még
semmi sem volt. Egyszer csak titokban kihúzza kalapomból a tűt, s a
vadállat teljes erővel karomba szúrja. Nagyot kiáltok. Mindenki
odaszalad. Képzeld a helyzetemet!… Az én nagyhasú Othellóm erre
megbánási komédiát rendez. Nagyon bosszantott az egész émelyítő
jelenet s e pillanatban elhatároztam már, hogy megcsalom, még
pedig hamarosan. Hát mondd, mit tettél volna te a helyemben?
– Megbosszulom magamat!
– Ne félj, én is azt tettem!
– Hogyan?
– Mit? Hát nem érted?
– De kedvesem… Mindazáltal… Nos, igen…
– Igen, igen… És most gondolj csak rá! Képzeld magad elé a
fejét! A puffadt arcát, a piros orrát s a pofaszakállt, amely oly
bánatosan lóg le, mint valami kutyafül.
– Szinte látom.
– Gondolj arra is, hogy mekkora féltékenységi düh kínozza ezt a
tehetetlen kutyafejű embert!
– Nos és?
– Hát én azt mondtam magamban: Megállj csak te goromba,
pukkadozó fráter, majd ragasztok én valamit a fejedre s aztán
elmondom neked, de csakis neked, édes Mariem… Gondolj csak a
fejére, gondold el, hogy ezzel a koponyával még fel is van…
– Hogyan? Hát fel?…
– Persze, de az istenre kérlek, a világon senkinek se szólj!
Esküdj meg rá!… És képzeld őt magad elé! Én egyebet sem teszek,
mint a fejét rajzolom magam elé s rajta látom a… Nincs komikusabb
dolog a világon! Amíg hozzád jöttem, alig bírtam a nevetést
visszafojtani!
A báróné barátnőjére nézett, akinek torkából a bolond nevetés
kezdett fölbugyorogni. Neki is mosolyognia kellett. De nem tudott itt
megállni. A nevetés csakhamar rajta is erőt vett, mint valami
ideggörcs. Két kezét mellére szorította, lélekzete elállt, arca eltorzult
s dereka előrehajolt, mintha orra akart volna esni.
A kis márkiné is vele együtt vihogott s közbe-közbe egy-egy szót
nyögött ki, ami csak fokozta jókedvüket: »Gondold csak el!… a
fejét!… a pofa… pofaszakállát… gondolj az orrára!… és most…
rajta… hahaha… de ne szólj… ne… szólj… az istenért… senkinek!«
Szinte belefulladtak a nevetésbe. Beszélni, mozogni nem tudtak,
csak előtörő könnyeiket dörzsölték el arcukon.
Először a báróné csitult le s még pihegve a megerőltetéstől –
kérlelve ölelte át barátnőjét: – Mondd el, édesem!… Hogyan történt?
Mesélj el mindent! Olyan furcsa… olyan furcsa…
A márkiné még nem tudott beszélni, csak nyögve válaszolt: –
Amikor elhatároztam… azt mondtam magamban… csak gyorsan…
mentől elébb… És így ma megtörtént…
– Ma?
– Igen, az előbb… És Viktort ráadásul ide rendeltem. Mingyárt
megérkezik. Milyen jól fogunk mulatni! Gondolj csak a fejére!… Nézz
mingyárt a fejére, amint belép!…
A báróné égve a kíváncsiságtól, tovább nógatta barátnőjét: –
Meséld el részletesen, hogyan történt?… Kivel?…
– Nagyon egyszerűen ment minden. Gerlepapa Baubignacra
féltékeny? Hát jó! Elő Baubignac Adonisszal! Ostoba, de becsületes
fiú. Hallgatni fog. Ebéd után fölmentem hozzá.
– A lakásán voltál? Milyen ürüggyel?
– Istenem, gyüjtőívet vittem… Az árvák számára…
– Mondd, mondd… és aztán?…
– Úgy elbámult, amikor beléptem, hogy a szája nyitva maradt.
Felszólításomra két aranyat fizetett. Én erre a székről fölálltam. Ő
vissza óhajtván tartani, férjem felől kérdezősködött… Most kis
jelenetet rögtönöztem. Kiöntöttem szívemet. Elmondtam Viktorról
mindent s még feketébbre föstöttem, mint amilyen. Baubignac
nagyon megindult. Törte a fejét, miként lehetne rajtam segíteni… Én
elkezdtem sírni… Néhány műkönnyet potyogtattam… Ő leültetett,
vigasztalt, s minhogy zokogásom nem szűnt, karjai közé kulcsolt…
»Szegény, szegény barátom«… suttogtam én. »Szegény, szegény
kis teremtés« – suttogta ő. És mind hevesebben és hevesebben
csókolt, míg végre egészen el nem szédített…
– Utána nagy szemrehányási és kétségbeesési jelenet
következett. A »csábítót« elneveztem mindennek. De sokáig nem
mertem maradni, mert a nevetési vágy már ott elfogott. Ott mingyárt
eszembe jutott Viktor feje!… Szinte szaladnom kellett. Azután ki-
kiömlött a nevetés belőlem, mint teli edényből a víz… De
visszatartottam magamat. Gondoltam, majd nevetek Marienál!… És
most végre kikacaghatom magamat! Megkapta! Ezt az egyet
megkapta! Hogy félt tőle! Most már jöhet háború, földrengés,
járvány; meghalhatunk mind… de az ott van, amitől úgy félt, ott van
lengő pofaszakállal ékített gyönyörűséges pofája felett! Gondolj csak
rá! Megkapta! Ott van rajta!…
A nevetés újra kezdődött.
– És Baubignackal találkozol még?
– Ó, dehogy! Hogy is képzeled? Az sem érne többet, mint a
férjem!
A görcsös, leküzdhetetlen nevetés megint csak erőt vett rajtuk.
E pillanatban azonban megszólalt kint az előszoba ajtajának
csengője. Hirtelen mind a ketten elhallgattak.
– A férjem, – suttogta a kis márkiné. – Nézd csak a fejét!…
Az ajtó kitárult s nyílását egy magas, kövér ember termetével
egészen kitöltötte. Nyakát előreszegte, széles ajkát lebiggyesztette
és pofaszakállai közé ékelt piros arcából két vizsgálódó, dühös
szemet meresztett a nőkre.
Ezek egy pillanatig szótlanul nézték, aztán hátradőltek a
kereveten s oly feltartóztathatatlan erővel kezdtek el kacagni, mintha
nevető görcsöt kaptak volna.
A férj bamba értelmetlenséggel nézett rájuk s dühösen
ismételgette: »Meg vannak bolondulva?… Meg vannak
bolondulva?… meg vannak bolondulva?…«
A keresztelő.
– Parancsol doktor úr egy pohár konyakot?

– Szívesen.
És az öreg tengerészorvos, kinyujtva kis poharát, nézte, miként
duzzad föl a mélytüzű, aranyos vörösfényű ital a pohár széléig.
Aztán szeme magasságáig emelte, hogy a lámpa fénye
megcsillogjon benne, megszagolta és pár cseppet fölszíva, nyelvén
és szájpadlásának nedves, érzékeny húsán végigömlesztette; majd
kedélyesen megszólalt:
– Ó, a csábos méreg! Vagy inkább, népeknek elbájoló gyilkosa,
gyönyörűséges kiirtója!
Maguk nem tudják, mi az! Az igaz, hogy olvasták a csodálatos
könyvet, amely erről a kérdésről mostanában jelent meg, de nem
látták, hogy miként pusztított el egész vadtörzset, egy kis néger
királyságot a szesz, amelyet csinos, kerek hordócskákban, békés
megjelenésű, vörösszakállú angol matrózok szállítottak partra.
De láttam egészen különös és megindító alkohol-drámát itt a
közelünkben is, egy Pont-l’Abbé körül fekvő breton faluban.
Abban az időben egy évi szabadságomat egy falusi házban
töltöttem, amelyet apámtól örököltem. Ismerik ezt a sík tengerpartot,
ahol a szél éjjel-nappal fütyül a magyalbokrok között s ahol
helyenként még állva, vagy már ledülve, láthatók azok a kőóriások,
amelyek egykor istenek voltak s alakjukban, megjelenésükben még
ma is megőriztek valami félelmetest. Mindig azt hiszem, hogy
egyszer csak megelevenednek s a mezőn gránitoszlopokhoz illő
lassú, súlyos léptekkel útra kelnek, vagy óriási kőszárnyakon a
levegőbe emelkednek, hogy elrepüljenek a druidáktól hirdetett
paradicsomba.
A látóhatárt nyugtalan, háborgó tenger zárja el, telve fekete hátú,
sistergő tajtékkal gyűrűzött szirtekkel, amelyek mintha veszett
kutyákként a halászokra lesnének.
És a halászok mennek szüntelen a rettenetes tengerre, amely
bárkájukat zöld hátának egy rándításával fölfordítja és mint pilulát
elnyeli. Csak mennek nappal és éjjel kis hajóikon vakmerőn,
nyugtalanul és részegen. Mert nagyon, de nagyon sokszor részegek.
»Ha a rumosüveg tele van – mondják – az ember látja a szirteket; de
ha üres, nem látni semmit.«
Menjenek csak el egy halászkunyhóba. Az apát sohasem találják
ott. Ha kérdezik az asszonytól, hová lett az ura, a zord tengerre
mutat, amely folyton-folyvást morog s mérgesen köpi ki fehér nyálát
a partra. Egy este sokat ivott és ott maradt. A legidősebb fiú szintén.
Van még négy szőke, erős gyerek. Most rajtuk a sor.
*
Amint mondám, Pont-l’Abbé közelében laktam falusi házamban.
Rajtam és inasomon kívül egy breton család lakott még a házban;
távollétemben ők gondozták a birtokot. A család három tagból állt:
két nővérből s egy férfiból, aki a nővérek egyikét elvette s a kertet
gondozta.
Karácsonykor a kertész felesége gyereket szült. Férje
keresztapának kért föl, amit nem tudtam visszautasítani. Azonkívül
tíz frankot is kért kölcsön nyúltartási költségekre, amint mondotta.
A keresztelőt január másodikára tűzték ki. Nyolc nap óta a földet
hó takarta: óriási, ólomkék és kemény lepel, amely e sík vidéken
végtelennek látszott. Vakító fehérsége mögött a tenger feketén nyúlt
el. Messziről lehetett látni, mint emeli hátát, görgeti hullámait s hogy
forr a dühtől, mintha sápadt szomszédjára akarna rontani, amely
nyugodt, zord és hideg némaságával halottnak tűnt fel.
A kérdéses nap reggelén kilenc órakor beállított hozzám
Kerandec apó sógornőjével, a nagy Kermagan lánnyal s a
bábaasszonnyal, aki a csecsemőt takaróba göngyölítve a karján
hozta.
Megindultunk a templom felé. Sziklarepesztő, metsző hideg volt,
amely meghasogatja a bőrt s rajta a jég fájdalmas égési sebét ejti.
A szegény kis jószágra gondoltam, akit előttünk cipeltek s
megállapítottam magamban, hogy vasból kell lennie a breton fajnak,
ha gyermekei már születésüktől fogva ilyen megpróbáltatások
elviselésére képesek.
Megérkeztünk a templomhoz, de ajtaja még zárva volt. A
plébános úr késett.
Ekkor a bábaasszony leült a küszöb közelében egy sarokkőre s
elkezdte a gyereket vetkőztetni. Először azt hittem, hogy tisztába
teszi, de csakhamar rémülettel vettem észre, hogy a kis nyomorultat
a csípős hidegben meztelenre vetkőzteti. A szörnyű oktalanságon
fölháborodva rákiáltottam az asszonyra:
– Megbolondult! Megöli ezt a kis gyereket!
– A, dehogy is, gazduram, – felelt nyugodtan az asszony. – Úgy
illik, hogy pucéron várakozzék a jó Istenre!
Az apa és a nagynéni nyugodtan szemlélték a dolgot. Ez volt a
szokás. Ha nem követik, baj éri a gyermeket.
Dühöngtem, szidtam a férfit, fenyegetőztem, hogy itt hagyom
őket s próbáltam a kicsit erőszakkal betakarni. Hasztalan volt. A
bábaasszony elmenekült előlem ki a havas mezőre. Ezalatt a gyerek
testecskéje violaszínű lett.
Már éppen faképnél akartam hagyni e vadállatokat, amikor
megpillantottam a plébánost, a sekrestyés és egy parasztfiúcska
társaságában, amint a mezőn át felénk jöttek.
Elébe szaladtam s heves kifakadások között fejeztem ki
fölháborodásomat. A plébános cseppet sem lepődött meg;
nyugodtan folytatta útját anélkül, hogy lépteit a legkevésbbé is
meggyorsította volna. Kézlegyintéssel mondta.
– Mit akar, uram? Ez itt a szokás. Mindnyájan így cselekesznek s
mi nem akadályozhatjuk meg.
– De legalább siessen! – kiáltottam föl. Nyugodtan felelt: –
Gyorsabban már nem mehetek.
A plébános bement a sekrestyébe, amíg mi továbbra is a
templom küszöbén dideregtünk. Gyötrelmem bizonyára nagyobb
volt, mint a kis meztelen újszülötté, aki a hideg lég harapásaitól
keservesen üvöltött.
Végre a kapu kinyílt. Beléptünk. A gyermeknek egész szertartás
alatt meztelenül kellett maradnia. A szertartás pedig a
végtelenségbe nyúlt. A pap dadogva mondta el a latin igéket,
amelyek ajkán egészen fonák értelmet kaptak. Egy szent
teknősbéka lassuságával mozgott, tett-vett és fehér karinge
szívemet megdermesztette, mintha az is másik hólepel lett volna,
amellyel e férfiú gyötörni akarta volt e szerencsétlen, hidegtől
megkínzott emberi álcát – valamely szívtelen, barbár istenségnek
nevében.
Végre a keresztelés az előírt szokások szerint megtörtént s a
bábaasszony újra becsavarta hosszú kendőbe a megfagyott
gyermeket, aki éles, fájdalmas hangon nyöszörgött.
A plébános hozzám fordult: – Lesz szíves az anyakönyvet
aláírni?
Meghagytam a kertészemnek: – És most rögtön menjenek haza
s melegítsék meg ezt a gyereket.
Még néhány tanácsot is közöltem vele, amelyekkel talán a
gyermeket még meg lehet óvni a tüdőgyulladástól.
A kertész mindent megígért és sógornőjével, meg a
bábaasszonnyal együtt eltávozott. Én a sekrestyébe mentem a pap
után. Mikor az anyakönyvet aláírtam, öt frankot kért szertartási
költségek címén.
Minthogy az apának már tíz frankot adtam erre a célra, az újabb
öt frankot kereken megtagadtam. A plébános azzal fenyegetőzött,
hogy az anyakönyvi lapot összetépi és a szertartást megsemmisíti.
Én viszont az államügyész közbelépését helyeztem kilátásba.
Sokáig veszekedtünk, de végre is fizettem. Alig értem haza,
rögtön tudni szerettem volna, nem történt-e valami
szerencsétlenség. Szaladok Kérandecékhez; hát az apa, sógornő és
a tudósasszony a csecsemővel még nem jöttek vissza.
A magára hagyott anya fogvacogva didergett ágyában és roppant
éhes volt, mert huszonnégy óra óta semmit sem evett.
– Hová a fenébe mehettek ezek? – kérdém tőle.
Minden izgalom és csodálkozás nélkül felelt:
– Betértek a kocsmába ünnepelni.
Ez is szokás volt itt. A tíz frankom bizonyára a szeszre és nem a
szertartási költségekre kellett.
Húslevest küldettem az anyának s a kandallóban tüzet rakattam.
Aggódtam és dühöngtem a kis gyerek miatt s megfogadtam, hogy
ezeket a vadembereket tovább nem tűröm magamnál. Vajjon mi
lehetett a didergő aprósággal?
Este hat órakor még mindig nem jöttek haza.
Meghagytam szolgámnak, hogy várjon rájuk s magam
lefeküdtem.
Nemsokára mély álomba szenderültem, mert jól alszom, mint
igazi tengeri medvéhez illik.
Hajnalban a szolga meleg vizet hozott a borotválkozásra és
felköltött. Alig nyitottam ki szememet, első kérdésem az volt: »Mi van
Kérandecékkel?«
Emberem habozott, azután rémüldözve mesélte el:
– Borzasztó volt, doktor úr! Éjfélkor jöttek haza, mind a hárman
tökrészegen. Nemcsak Kérandec, hanem a két asszony is alig állott
a lábán. Biztosan valamely árokban töltötték az éjt, mert az újszülött
meghalt anélkül, hogy észrevették volna.
Kiugrottam az ágyból:
– A gyerek meghalt?
– Igen. Úgy tették az anyja ágyára. Ez mikor meglátta,
keservesen sírni kezdett. A többiek inni adtak neki, hogy
vigasztalódjék.
– Hogyan itatták a beteg asszonyt?
– Igen, doktor úr. Csak az imént tudtam meg. Minthogy
Kérandecnek sem pénze, sem pálinkája nem volt, a lámpaszeszből
ittak, amelyet a doktor úrtól kaptak. Abból ittak mind a négyen,
úgyhogy semmi sem maradt az üvegben. Az asszony elég beteg is
lett tőle.
Sietve öltözködtem fel s botot vettem magamhoz, hogy
végigverjek e vadállatokon.
Mikor beléptem hozzájuk, az asszonyt a petroleumtól részegen
és haldokolva találtam gyermeke kék hullája mellett.
Kérandec, a bábaasszony és a nagy Kermagan lány a földön
horkoltak.
Hiába volt minden igyekezetem: az asszony dél felé meghalt.
*
Az öreg orvos elhallgatott. A konyakos üveget újra kezébe vette,
töltött magának és az aranyszőke folyadékon át megcsillogtatva még
egyszer a lámpafényt, amitől az olyan lett, mint olvadt topáznak a
világos leve, – a meleg és csalóka italt ajkához emelte s egy hajtásra
kiitta.
Veszedelmes játék.
Házasságuk előtt eszményi szerelmükkel a felhők között éltek.

Egyik tengerparti fürdő napszínes élete hozta őket össze. A nagy
tengeri távlaton látta a férfi a lány világos ruháit, színes napernyőit
fölcsillanni és birtokosukat elragadónak találta. Itt a kék vizek és
végtelen ég keretében szerette meg a szőke, törékeny gyermeket és
a gyöngédségét, amelyet az alig fölserdült lányka szívében keltett,
összetévesztette a hatalmas, megfoghatatlan lelkesültséggel, amely
lényét a napfényes hullámok káprázatos játékának láttára eltöltötte.
A lány pedig megszerette őt, mert udvarolt neki, mert fiatal,
figyelmes, gyöngéd és elég gazdag volt. Megszerette őt, mert oly
természetes az, hogy a fiatal lányok megszeretik a fiatalembereket,
akik fülükbe rajongó szavakat suttognak.
Három hónapig éltek így együtt: egymás szemébe beleveszve s
egymás kezét is alig érintve. Ha reggel fürdő előtt az új nap ragyogó
üdeségében összejöttek, vagy este a csillagos ég alatt, a leszálló éj
puha csendjében, halk, egészen halk búcsút mondtak, üdvözlő
szavukba már belopódzott a csók íze, bár ajkaik soha össze nem
értek.
Mindig egymásról álmodtak s egymásra gondoltak, amint
szemüket fölnyitották; egymást hívták, egymást kívánták testük-
lelkük egész sóvárgásával, anélkül hogy erről egymásnak szóltak
volna.
Házasságuk után szerelmük az égből a földre költözöttt. Életük
először nem volt egyéb, mint vad, fáradhatatlan ölelés; később az
érzékek elfinomult költészetévé vált, amelyben minden egyes
tekintetük valami tisztátlan, de elragadó szerelmi találmányra,
minden egyes mozdulatuk az éjszakák forró belsőségére
emlékeztetett.
És ekkor anélkül, hogy bevallották volna önmaguknak, anélkül,
hogy megértették volna, miért, kezdték únni egymást. Hiszen
szerelmesek voltak még mindig, de nem tudtak már semmi titkot
felfedezni, nem tudtak már semmit sem csinálni, amit már gyakran
meg ne kíséreltek volna, nem volt már semmi tanulnivalója egyiknek
a másiktól: még egy új becéző szó sem, egy váratlan lendület, egy
szokatlan hangsúly sem, amely a sokszor ismételt szót egyszerre
forróvá tette volna.
Mégis azon voltak, hogy az első ölelések kialudt lángját
fölélesszék. Mindennap gyöngéd ravaszságokat, gyermekes vagy
bonyolult cinkosságokat eszeltek ki; nem volt kétségbeesett eszköz,
amelyhez ne folyamodtak volna, hogy a nászi hónapok
kiapadhatatlan tüzét visszavarázsolják. Néha-néha föl tudták
idegeiket őrületes megfeledkezésbe korbácsolni, de azután a
fáradtság és az undor annál erősebb volt.
Hiába keresték a holdvilágos éjeket; langyos esték
mámorébresztő csendjét a lombok alatt; ködbevesző folyópartok
költészetét és nagy köztivornyák izgalmát…
Egyszer aztán egy reggel Henriette a következőket mondta
Pálnak:
– Elmegyünk este kávéházba?
– Ha parancsolod!…
– De egy ismert kávéházba?
– Kérlek szépen!
Kérdőn nézett feleségére, mert látta, hogy olyasvalamire gondol,
amit nem akar megmondani.
Az asszony folytatta:
– Tudod, hogy is mondjam, olyan nagyon előkelő és mégis
nagyon félvilági helyiségre gondolok, ahova az urak találkára
járnak…
A férj mosolygott: – Szóval kávéházi szeparé?
– Igen, igen. De azt szeretném, ha téged ott ismernének. Ha te
ott már vacsoráztál volna, nem, ebédeltél volna, vagy nem is
tudom… Szóval szeretném, hogy… Nem, nem merem ezt
megmondani…
– Ugyan, kicsikém, mondd csak bátran! Végre is, eléggé
bizalmas lábon állunk egymással!
– Nem, erre nincs bátorságom!
– Jeges teringette, de ártatlanná lettél kis bárányom! Mégis,
kíséreld meg…
– Hát nézd, Pali… szeretném, ha – a szeretődnek tartanának… A
pincérek, akik nem tudják, hogy te nős vagy, gondolják, hogy a
barátnőd vagyok!… Sőt te magad is! Hidd azt, ott, azon a helyen,
ahová bizonyára sok hasonló emlék fűz, hogy a szeretőd vagyok…
Úgy szeretném!… És én is azt fogom hinni, hogy a szeretőd
vagyok… hogy vétket követek el!… Megcsallak saját magaddal… Ez
csunya, nagyon csunya… Mégis, úgy szeretném!… Ne piríts el,
Palikám!… Úgy is érzem, hogy zavarba jövök… De te azt nem
érted… Olyan furcsa, olyan különös lenne… annyira felzaklatná az
idegeimet egy ilyen nem egészen társasági helyen… egy
szeparéban, ahol minden este szeretnek… Igen, beismerem,
borzasztóan csunya… Mégis, oly jó lenne veled ott lenni… Ne nézz
rám, Palikám… Úgy is olyan piros vagyok már, mint a paprika.
A férfi nagyon jól mulatott az asszony szavain s nevetve mondta:
– Helyes! Készülj az esti nagy előadásra!
Este hét órakor a boulevard egyik nagy kávéházának
vörösszőnyeges lépcsőjén mentek fel. A férfi mosolygó, diadalmas
arccal; az asszony fátyolosan, félénken, boldog elragadtatással.
A szobában, ahová léptek, megterített asztal körül négy
karosszék volt elhelyezve. A fal mellett széles, bordóbársonnyal
behúzott dívány állt. A frakkos étteremfőnök mély meghajlással
nyujtotta át az étlapot. Pál átadta feleségének:
– Mit eszel?
– Nem tudom, mit lehet itt enni!
A férj hangosan olvasta a felsorolt ételek litániáját, miközben
felsőkabátját levetette s átadta a kiszolgáló pincérnek. Azután a
főnökhöz fordult:
– Kaviár töltött tojással – rákleves – csirke olasz mártással –
nyúlgerinc – tengeri rák amerikai módra – orosz saláta jól fűszerezve
– édességek. Ital csak egyféle: pezsgő.
Az étteremfőnök mosolyogva nézte a fiatalasszonyt, majd fölvette
az étlapot és tisztelettudó, de bizalmas hangon fordult a férjhez:
– Durot úr aszút iszik vagy pezsgőt?
– Pezsgőt, de szárazat!
Henriette nagyon büszke volt, hogy ez az ember ismeri ura
nevét.
A díványra ültek egymás mellé és enni kezdtek. Asztalukra tíz
gyertya szórta fényét, amelyek a szemben lévő tükörben
megkétszereződtek. A tükör homályos volt a gyémánttal belekarcolt
sok száz névtől, amelyek együtt, mint óriási pókháló, fedték be a
csiszolt üveglapot.
Henriette gyorsan ürítette ki a poharakat, hogy
megmámorosodjék; pedig már az elsőktől szédülni kezdett. Pál e
helyhez fűződő emlékeitől izgatva, folytonosan felesége kezét
csókolgatta. Szeme ragyogott.
Az asszonyt a gyanús hely állandó, soha nem érzett izgalomban
tartotta, amelyben volt kis szégyen is, de úgy egészben nagyon jól
esett. Két néma, komoly pincér látta el a kiszolgálását gyorsan és
előkelően; csak a szükséges pillanatban léptek be s kezdődő érzelmi
kilengéseknél tüstént eltűntek.
A lakoma közepe táján Henriette már egészen mámorba szédült.
Pál szintén hangosabban beszélt a rendesnél s felesége térdét
ugyancsak szorongatta az asztal alatt. Az asszony piros arccal,
élénk, kedves szemekkel fecsegett:
– Palikám, édes Palikám, vallj be mindent! Úgy szeretnék
mindent tudni!…
– Mit, édes galambom?
– Nem merem mondani.
– Na, csak ki vele!
– Volt szeretőd… voltak szeretőid előttem?
Pál kissé zavarba jött. Nem tudta, hallgasson-e, vagy
eldicsekedjen sikereivel?
Az asszony összetette kezét:
– Csak most az egyszer! Tedd meg, amire kérlek! Sok?…
Mondd, sok volt?
– Istenem, volt egynéhány.
– Hány?
– Nem tudom. Ki tudja az ilyesmit?
– Nem számláltad meg?…
– Hogy gondolod?
– Szóval akkor nagyon sok volt?
– Uhum!
– Mégis, hány volt körülbelül?… Csak úgy körülbelül?
– Igazán nem tudom, angyalom. Voltak évek, amikor sok volt.
Viszont voltak évek, amikor számuk nem szökött magasra.
– Hányan lehettek évenként?
– Néha húsz-harminc, néha meg csak négy-öt.
– Ó, hisz akkor volt vagy száz nőd!
– Annyi lehetett.
– Fuj, ez utálatos!
– Miért utálatos?
– Mert utálatos, ha az ember arra gondol, hogy mindez a sok
asszony meztelenül… Ó, ó… és mindig ugyanazt a… Nem, Pál, ez
nagyon undorító!
A férfi dühös volt, hogy felesége ezt undorítónak találja s olyan
arckifejezéssel válaszolt, amelyet a férfiak akkor szoktak fölvenni,
mikor az asszonyokkal éreztetni akarják, milyen nagy ostobaságot
mondtak:
– Nézd, kicsikém, ha undorító száz asszonnyal, akkor eggyel is
az!
– Szó sincs róla!
– Miért?
– Azért, mert egy asszony viszonyt, szerelmet jelent. De száz
asszonyt a karjaid közé szorítani, ez, megengedj, alantas, csunya,
ízléstelen dolog. Föl sem tudom fogni, hogy lehet ezekkel a
lányokkal érintkezni, mikor olyan piszkosak?…
– Élénken tévedsz! Ezek a lányok nagyon is tiszták.
– Nem lehet valaki tiszta, ha abból él, amiből ezek a teremtések.
– Ellenkezőleg! Éppen azért tiszták, mert abból élnek.
– Ugyan, hallgass! Ha valaki csak arra gondol, hogy az előtte
való éjszaka… Fuj, de utálatos!
– Nem utálatosabb, mint ebből a pohárból inni, amelyből ma
reggel ki tudja, ki ivott s amelyet biztosítlak, kevésbbé mosnak ki,
mint…
– Nem hallgatsz el mingyárt?! Milyen közönséges vagy!
– Akkor minek kérdezed, hogy voltak-e szeretőim?
– Mondd, a szeretőid mind uccai lányok voltak?… Mind a
száz?…
– Á, dehogy is!
– Hát?
– Istenem, hát színésznők… gépírónők… néhány társasági nő…
– Hány társasági nő?
– Hat.
– Csupán hat?
– Csupán.
– Csinosak voltak?
– Igen.
– Csinosabbak, mint a többiek?
– Nem.
– Melyiket szeretted jobban? A lányokat vagy a társasági nőket?
– A lányokat.
– Ó, de csunya vagy!… Miért?…
– Mert egyáltalában nem szeretem a műkedvelőket.
– Ó, borzasztó! Tudod, hogy majd megkövülök a borzalomtól!
Ilyen gyalázatos ember vagy te! És mondd csak, különös örömed telt
abban, hogy az asszonyokat így cserélgesd?
– Természetesen.
– Nagy örömed?
– Nagy.
– Mért? Talán egyik nem olyan, mint a másik?
– Szó sincs róla!
– Semmiben sem hasonlítanak?
– Semmiben.
– Milyen furcsa! Miben különböznek?
– Mindenben.
– A testük is?
– Hát persze!
– Az egész testük?
– Az egész.
– És miben különböznek még?
– Abban, ahogy csókolnak. Ahogy beszélnek. Még a legkisebb
dolgokban is.
– Úgy? Szóval élvezetes dolog cserélgetni?
– Tagadhatatlan.
– És vajjon a férfiak is különbözők?
– Azt igazán nem tudom!
– Nem tudod?
– Nem.
– Bizonyára ők is különbözők…
– Bizonyára… kétségtelenül…
Egy pillanatig elgondolkozott pezsgős pohárral a kézben. Aztán
kiitta egy hajtásra s két karját a férje köré fonva, a szájába suttogta:
– Édes, édes, hogy szeretlek!
A férj vad öleléssel szorította magához… Az egyik pincér, aki
benyitott, diszkréten visszahúzódott. A kiszolgálást körülbelül öt
percre fölfüggesztették.
Mikor az étteremfőnök kezében a gyümölcsöstállal megjelent, az
asszony már ismét teli pezsgőspoharat tartott ujjai közt és a sárga,
átlátszó ital mélyére nézve, mintha ott ismeretlen, csalogató dolgokat
látna, álmodozó hangon dünnyögte:
– Igen, mégis csak mulatságos dolog lehet!

Captivity in War During The Twentieth Century: The Forgotten Diplomatic Role of Transnational Actors 1st Ed. 2021 Edition (Eds) Marcel Berni

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Captivity in War During The Twentieth Century: The Forgotten Diplomatic Role of Transnational Actors 1st Ed. 2021 Edition (Eds) Marcel Berni

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Captivity in War during the Twentieth

Century: The Forgotten Diplomatic Role

The Preface: American Authorship in the Twentieth

Jewish Soldiers in Nazi Captivity: American and British

Cold War Social Science: Transnational Entanglements

Mixed Race Britain in The Twentieth Century Chamion

The US Role in NATO’s Survival After the Cold War 1st

George Stigler: Enigmatic Price Theorist of the

Agonistic Memory and the Legacy of 20th Century Wars in

Identification Practices in Twentieth-Century Fiction

ISBN 978-3-030-65094-0 ISBN 978-3-030-65095-7 (eBook)

1 The Diplomatic Role of Transnational Actors

6 Japanese Prisoners of War, the American-Soviet

Marcel Berni Swiss Military Academy, ETH Zurich, Birmensdorf,

The Diplomatic Role of Transnational Actors

Marcel Berni and Tamara Cubito

Introduction: The Beginnings

M. Berni (B) · T. Cubito

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Henry Dunant’s vivid description of the merciful handling of Austrian

1 Henry Dunant, A Memory of Solferino (Geneva: International Committee of the Red

4 Fierke, Diplomatic Interventions, 49–50.

Transnational Actors and Wartime

9 In this introduction, the terms “transnational actor” and “transnational intermediary”

11 Matthew Hilton and Rana Mitter, “Introduction,” in Transnationalism and Contem-

relevance instead of just being bystanders. As the chapters in this book

century, which Zygmunt Bauman spoke of as “the century of camps,”

scientists have called the “first transnational century.”23 For example,

23 See David Mallet and Miriam J. Anderson, “Introduction: The Transnational

in lesser-known conflicts, captivity quickly became of transnational rele-

Structure and Contents

looks at the League of Nations-led “Nansen Commission” which had

bud. The problem of accessibility is a persistent one: neither during the

Areas for Further Research

Thirdly, it would be interesting to follow the development of media-

towards a global and transnational history of captivity and humanitari-

Levie, Howard S. 1978. Prisoners of War in International Armed Conflict.

Risse, Thomas. 2013. Transnational Actors and World Politics. In Handbook of

“Any Unfavourable Condition or Untoward

Since at least the Franco-Prussian War in 1870/1871, it was customary

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 23

after so-called enemy aliens: nationals who found themselves in enemy

The Protecting Powers’ Representatives

and Austro-Hungarian governments, and later the Ottoman government,

persons appointed by a state to reside in foreign countries, and permitted

The main tasks of a consul in peacetime were purely administrative, such

American Consuls’ Camp Visits in British Colonies

9 TNA, CO 37/262/22018, FO to CO, May 4, 1918, enclosed camp report by Swiss

20 See TNA, CO 37/259/36737, Foreign Office (FO) to CO, August 3, 1916,

generally speaking, if there was a US consul and a permanent internment

[…] intimate knowledge of conditions as they actually obtain, afforded

26 See for example TNA, CO 37/259/36737, FO to CO, August 3, 1916, enclosed

Reports and Complaints

Empire or Austria-Hungary. If the local authorities could or would not

31 TNA, CO 91/458/17104, Miles to CO, March 31, 1915, enclosed report by R.

It is unfortunate that such statements should be given out as it is mani-

by bakeries in the colony. Also, as the US consul of Hong Kong pointed

course racial distinctions still existed in a variety of ways, there was no

American consuls also acted as impartial observers when there was

Of course, the camp’s commandant, Percy Fraser, denied all allegations.50

49 TNA, CO 295/506/44988, Chancellor to CO, August 22, 1916, enclosed letter

– Parancsol doktor úr egy pohár konyakot?

Házasságuk előtt eszményi szerelmükkel a felhők között éltek.