German Prisoners of War in Japan during the First World War

“Except for German beer they suffer no privation.”[1]

Literature on World War I focuses mainly on the large battles such as at the Somme or at Ypres, as Rachamimov states all else that falls outside the area of trench warfare, be it the war on the Eastern front, atrocities in Belgium or the conditions under which the belligerents kept their prisoners of war and civilian internees remain a side show to the main event that was the Western Front.[2] The purpose of this thesis is to analyse the treatment of German prisoners of war (due to the small number of Austro-Hungarian POWs, the common appellation of “German” is often used to include Austro-Hungarian internees and for the sake of brevity this thesis will refer to the POWs as German) in Japan and look at to what extent the role international law, intervention by neutral governments and international organisations such as the Red Cross and the Japanese themselves played in affecting the treatment of the German prisoners. The respect the Japanese showed towards the guidelines laid down at the Hague in 1899 and 1907 highlights the positive part international legislation played in one major aspect of the total warfare in World War I, that is treatment of enemy captives. This thesis will not attempt to discuss why the prisoners in Japan during World War One were treated more humanely than their Second World War counterparts it will however have to point out that the hardships endured by the German prisoners during their incarceration in Japan pales in comparison to the hardships suffered by POWs during the Second World War. This thesis will however look at the treatment of prisoners in the context of its time. If the First World War was the beginning of the barbaric, as Hobsbawm refers to it, short Twentieth Century, why then were the POWs, not just in Japan but in general afforded such relative comfort and care? The number of prisoners held by the Japanese was comparatively small less than 5,000 when one thinks of the overall eight and a half million men taken during the war in total.[3] Almost one in eight combatants during the Great War was taken prisoner yet there are very few memoirs written and the war time prison experience has been overshadowed by novels, memoirs, films that deal with life battling in the trenches. To have been taken prisoner was anathema to popular interwar accounts of battle and heroism such as Jünger’s Storm of Steel. Rachamimov shows in his study on Austro-Hungarian prisoners in Russia that most memoirists came from the officer class and due to their pride as military men the fact that they were taken prisoner was a shameful one, one which they felt they had to apologise for.[4] In the German colony of Tsingtao on the Kiachow peninsula however the German soldiers were able to show themselves as gallant fighters completely outgunned and outnumbered. Meyer-Waldeck the Governor General of Tsingtao was even referred to as a modern day Leonidas by the rank and file defenders of the besieged city, the bastion of civilisation surrounded by barbaric Asiatic hordes.[5] In Japan the treatment of German prisoners has gained popularity with many articles written on the topic, a historical association dedicated to the area, and even a film “Baruto no Gakuen” (The music park for beards) focusing on the camp in Bando, Shikoku. In focusing on this aspect of international history on a micro level it gives the historian a chance to appreciate the greater and practical workings of international law and organisations and also allows for a greater understanding of the positive aspects of international cooperation. This thesis will look at how the German prisoners of war were treated during the period from their initial capture in November 1914 until their release and repatriation in early 1920.

The historiography of World War One has oftentimes failed to include adequate analysis or mention of prisoners of war during the conflict. As Rachamimov says memory of the Urkatastrophe of the Great War is focused on the mechanisation and mass mobilisation of modern Warfare. Rachamimov reasons that the minor role that Prisoners of War play in the historiography of World War One is due to five factors. The first factor is that the relative comfort that POWs enjoyed in comparison to the hardships endured by those soldiers in the trenches makes the history of the POWs look rather quaint. Those behind barbed wire in Europe were in one way lucky, lucky to be away from the constant shelling, deprivations and misery of trench warfare. Even further removed from this conflict were those POWs who found themselves in Japan. The Siege of Tsingtao lasted only a month at the very beginning of the war from September to November 1914 with the POWs removed to Japan to spend the rest of the war in captivity. The hardships of the POWs seem quite insignificant in comparison to the suffering in the front line. The second problem that Rachamimov raised was the familiar nature of POW misery. The majority of the POWs in Europe suffered only “normal” deprivation, the main problem as the war dragged on was boredom that led to “Stacheldrahtkrankheit” or barbed wire psychosis.[6] In Japan the case was even more comfortable. That is not to say that there were not any problems with the camp systems throughout the belligerent countries. However nowhere throughout the camps was torture employed as the prevailing memory of the camp systems in Japan and Germany during the Second World War conjures up.[7] The POWs suffering was relative as mentioned in comparison with the experiences of those in the trenches, in the camps in Japan they were far away from the death and suffering of the Western front. Thirdly one has to look at the social background of POW memoirists. Most of the contributions from “In Feindeshand” a monumental collection of 477 POW memoirs and reports published in 1931 came from the Officer corps whose experiences in general thanks to provisions in the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907 where the officer class were exempt from labour and housed separately, were far more comfortable and altogether different from the rank and file. This thesis will seek to redress some of the balance using memoirs from the officer corps in Japan and some of the rank and file. Fourthly POWs from the First World War lack the dramatic quality of narratives from the fighting. In general as Rachmimov states POW narratives tend to be apologetic in quality focusing on the nature of their capture usually with the excuse of having been wounded or out-numbered. In this respect narratives from POWs in Japan differ as the vast majority of the captives knew from the very beginning that they faced defeat and capture to a vastly numerically superior Japanese force. The lack of noticeable hostility towards the Japanese in comparison to the British, whom most of the prisoners blamed for forcing Japan, a natural friend of Germany who had received military training and whose modernisation and rise to becoming a great power coincided with and mirrored that of Germany, meant that generally the POW memoirs of those captured in Japan are not as apologetic as in other areas, such as those captured in Russia, the Japan Times even suggested that Germany fought for Tsingtao in order to have it fall into Japanese hands rather than British.[8] The fifth and final reason Rachmimov gives for the lack of analysis on POWs can be attributed to the break-up of the Habsburg Empire, the impoverishment of post war Germany and the political discontinuities created by the chaotic post war European political climate.[9]

Of the literature regarding German POWs in Japan there is very little written in English or even in German. The main book that focuses on the prison camps in Japan is that by Charles Burdick and Ursula Moessner, “The German Prisoners of War in Japan.” The book published in 1984 draws most of its information from reports, diaries and interviews with some of the prisoners, which makes the book read like a novel in certain areas rather than a piece of serious history. Burdick and Moessner do give an impressive account of the daily activities, escape attempts and hardships of the prisoners, which enables the reader to appreciate what life behind the wire must have been like. The book deals very well on the micro level of history but lacks a sense of the relevance of the German POWs on the macro level of international affairs. In dealing with the escape attempts the book gives an excellent account of the men who managed to escape form Japan and make it as far as Shanghai with one successful escapee, Captain Paul Kempe, after a fantastic voyage through Russia posing as a Norwegian businessman which reads like a spy story eventually making it back to Germany and rejoining the war. The book highlights a very interesting episode in the history of the First World War but fails to adequately situate this episode in the overall picture of international relations. Interest in the German POWs is widespread in Japan with a historical research society the “Tsingtao War German Soldiers’ Prison camps research society” (青島戦ドイツ兵俘虜収容所研究会), which holds annual seminars, focus has been put on one of the bigger camps that of Bando a small town in Tokushima prefecture on Shikoku island. This camp, which was opened in 1917 after the Japanese government took into consideration the US embassy’s criticisms of some of the camps and the fact that the war was plainly not going to be finished in the short term future necessitating a more permanent camp structure for the POWs, was a perfect example of how the application of the Hague conventions and the camp commander’s, Matsue Toyohisa’s, dedication to humanitarianism could ensure an exemplary treatment of prisoners by a belligerent country. The Bando camp has been the focus of many articles, books and as mentioned a film. The German institute in Tokyo recently opened an online archive the “Bando-Sammlung des DIJ Virtuelle Ausstellung und Katalog” which offers a wealth of primary sources relating to the camp structure, rules and regulations, daily life in the camp and a virtual tour of the area. The site features a list and where possible a biography of all the inmates of the camp along with many publications, photographs, and sketches written, taken, or drawn by the prisoners. In Bando itself there is a museum dedicated to the camp as well as possessing an archive and an impressive tour the museum features a large statue of Beethoven, as the camp was reputedly the first place in Japan where his ninth symphony was performed. The town also has a large recreation of the camp which was purpose built for the set of the film “Baruto No Gakuen” and which is open to visitors today. The popularity of the history of the German POWs among Japanese scholars perhaps relates to the humanitarian aspect of the prisoners treatment and the ideas of cross cultural cooperation and learning physically highlighted by the “German Bridge” built in Bando by German prisoners and which is still standing.

To bring this topic into the realm of international relations this thesis will look at state of international law, which existed at the outbreak of the war. The main focus here being the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907. The Russian Foreign Minister Mikhail Murayov urged the calling of the first Hague conference, all the belligerents except Serbia and Montenegro ratified its conventions which came into force on September 4^th 1900, the second conference called in 1907 then expanded on what had been ratified in 1900, a further third conference scheduled for 1915 was never held due to the war. Section one chapter two deals with the handling of prisoners during war, which although sometimes vague in meaning for example the ambiguity between article 9 where a captive is only required to give his full name and rank and article 14 which provides for the establishment of an inquiry office that would provide a captives name, age, place of origin, unit, wounds, date and place of capture, internment wounding and death, the conventions provide a valuable framework which all sides took into account in dealing with their prisoners. Article 6 states that POWs can be utilised for work but that their tasks should not be excessive and have nothing to do with military operations, this was modified in 1907 to exempt officers, if they so wished from labour highlighting the elitist mentality of the treaty. The Germans were accused of breaking this article by utilising French prisoners in the construction of trenches thus employing POWs in military related labour.[10] The same article states that any work undertaken by the POWs must be paid at the same rate as that soldiers of the national army would receive for similar work, these wages going towards improving the prisoners’ position with the balance being repaid to them on their release. The Japanese, after the fall of Tsingtao and the assembly of the prisoners at the Bismarck Barracks in the town centre, issued a list of ten rules to the German soldiers shortly before their departure for the Japanese mainland. The ten “Instruktion für die Kriegsgefangen” which was on arrival expanded by the individual camps to cover rules for the daily running of each camp, bear heavily the influence of the Hague conventions.[11] The first instruction states that the prisoners would from then be treated humanely and begs their cooperation with the Japanese authorities. Secondly it asks for the name and rank of each soldier. The third instruction follows article 8 of the Hague convention in that escape attempts would be punished, but it warned of harsher reprisals than those declared at the Hague that each escapee must be ready to put his life in mortal danger, as one Austro-Hungarian officer noted, POWs were not punished for escaping which would according to the Hague treaty have meant disciplinary measures within the POW camp but were punished under Japanese law for any damage to private property for example two escapees were charged with theft of a boat rather than attempting to escape which meant harsher sentences under the then draconian Japanese legal system.[12] The elitism of the Hague is again reflected in the instructions under instruction 5 which states that although all weapons and any other war materials such as horses were to be given up, the soldiers could keep their personal belongings only. In exception to this the German officers were allowed to keep their swords, a powerful symbol of martial spirit and for which Meyer-Waldeck publicly expressed his gratitude.[13] Article 15 of the Hague convention required that relief societies delegates be allowed to visit the camps. This was allowed by Japan whose Red Cross society was one of the largest in the world and had proven itself during the Russo-Japanese war to be excellent in the care of wounded on both sides, later on in the war Siemans-Schuckert based in Japan and German organisations based in Tientsin and Shanghai would provide an invaluable source of aid to prisoners especially those who had no business contacts in Japan or China after the establishment of its own relief society.[14] Finally in accordance with The Hague Treaty the Japanese established a Prisoner’s Inquiry Bureau in Tokyo under Colonel Takemori, which passed on the Prisoners’ information for family enquiries to the German and Austro-Hungarian Charges d’Affaires in Peking.[15]

Tsingtao held a special place in Asia at the outbreak of the war. The concession taken by Germany in 1897 was only 17 years old but in that time the city had been totally rebuilt from the bottom up, after the city had been essentially levelled by the new occupiers, on German lines and planning, it featured the best sewerage and plumbing system in Asia and was generally referred to as the “Pearl of the East” or in some circles “the Brighton of the East.”[16] Germany’s interest in the area had been purely economic, curiously given the status Tsingtao afforded the Reich as a colonial power in Asia there was no serious military commitment to the city as shown by the size of the garrison, which had to be reinforced by reservists and volunteers among the Germans living in East Asia, one hundred and eighteen of those volunteers came to the Garrison from Japan.[17] Japan had used the opportunity of the war to strengthen its position in Asia, Britain still unsure of Japanese motives only wished for Japan to protect shipping routes in the Pacific and not to enter the war. Indeed as no British concessions were under a direct threat from Germany there was no provision under the Anglo-Japanese alliance for Japan to attack Germany. On August 15^th 1914 the Japanese government sent Germany some “advice” to vacate the Shantung peninsula and to hand the concession over to Japan.[18] This “advice” is very reminiscent of the advice Germany sent Japan under the Triple Intervention in 1895 when in the wake of the Sino-Japanese war Japan had attempted to seek possession of Port Arthur. Tsingtao was important for German prestige, the Kaiser is said to have remarked to Meyer-Waldeck that to lose Tsingtao to the Japanese would shame Germany more than to lose Berlin to the Russians.[19] Germany’s pride in losing Tsingtao would be damaged in two ways, firstly the loss of a prestigious colony and in times of the Yellow Peril doctrine, the defeat of the Germans by a lesser race, however it was impossible for Germany to bring the garrison up to effective fighting strength to face a superior Japanese army. Once Japan declared war on Germany the future of Tsingtao was inevitable, the only question was would Germany simply hand her colony over peacefully, giving the Japanese foreign ministry a powerful domestic victory or would Germany choose to fight, meaning a full Japanese military presence in Tsingtao.[20] The Germans were determined to put up a struggle, in the hopes that the war in Europe would end quickly and with a German victory meaning that even if Tsingato were lost a victorious Germany would be able to reclaim it. Once the Japanese obtained a foothold in China, however it would be difficult to remove them. With Europe distracted the war was a golden opportunity for Japan to expand its influence in China, which led to the issuing of the infamous twenty-one demands on Yuan Shih K’ai in 1915. With the take over of Tsingtao and the various southern island chains such as the Carolines, the Japanese had around 5,000 POWs to transport back to Japan. The precedent set during the Russo-Japanese war suggested that the Germans would receive fair treatment at the hands of their captors, the Japanese did not however reintroduce for the Germans the parole the system they had offered the Russians whereby 400 Russian officers were returned home after giving their word of honour that they would not take up arms against Japan again.[21] Western media reports during the Russo-Japanese conflict, partly to show the Japanese in a favourable light Vis a vis the Russians, were full of praise for the Imperial Japanese army and the attention given to the humane treatment of enemy wounded and captives. The promise to treat the German POWs humanely was fulfilled perhaps too well for Japan’s other allies as later in the war with China’s entry the British proposed the deportation of the 3,290 Germans and Austrians to Australia rather than Japan in lieu of the “exceptional treatment” that the Japanese afforded it’s internees.[22] The initial round up and internment of the German POWs for transportation to Japan was harsh with some of the prisoners having to sleep out in the open in a graveyard eventually being afforded shelter with local Chinese.[23] Even though in parts the fighting during the siege of Tsingtao had been harsh and bloody, the Germans bore no feelings of ill will towards their captors. Meyer-Waldeck in his official surrender speech heaped praise on the heroic Japanese fighters at the expense of the British contingent a feeling reflected among the rank and file German soldiers who held the Japanese to be misguided by their British allies.[24] Bitterness towards the British also lay in the fact that they had taken such a little part in the fighting having only suffered thirteen dead, they were not involved in the major fighting, more due to the Japanese commanders than a lack of bravery on their part however the Germans saw it as an example of British bullying of Japanese soldiers to fight while they remained out of the action.[25] The Germans surrendered Tsingtao on November 7^th 1914, The Japanese field commander General Kamio Mitsutomi showing an acute sense of historic irony delayed the transport of prisoners until November 14^th meaning that the Germans were leaving the concession seventeen years to day on which they first arrived, in a further affront this date was chiselled onto the Dietrich’s stone a prominent German monument in the city.[26] Transportation to Japan was rough for the prisoners who travelled in dilapidated merchant ships for three days in rough weather and with little food, apart from those lucky enough to have brought extra provisions, to their places of internment.[27]

The German captives were able to rationalise their capture in the fact that they had been taken by a vastly superior force which had in fact been trained by a German, Major Jacob Meckel had trained the top Japanese officers in the mid-1880s and military ties with Germany remained strong with many Japanese officers spending time in Germany for example, the camp commander in Narashino, Marquis Saigo had spent time training in Germany.[28] The German officer corps was interested as were a lot of Europeans at the beginning of the twentieth century, with the rise of Japan as major modern power after the alliance with Britain and her victory against the Russians in 1905, in the ideas of Busshido the study of the Japanese martial spirit. Adalbert Freiherr von Kuhn, a Linienschiffsleutnant from Budapest, in issuing a complaint to his camp commander that the POWs were being treated like animals was in the belief that had it not been for the Hague convention the Japanese would not even be treating them so but would have rather have had them shot. His camp officer explained to him that Japanese soldiers, especially officers do not allow themselves to be taken prisoner. Von Kuhn in his memoir states the example of General Nogi who killed himself after the death of Emperor Meiji and of a Japanese officer who had been in charge of the protection of the rear-line Telephone exchange connection during the siege of Tsingtao had left a German patrol break the line, had out of shame committed hara-kiri and became a “national hero.” It was very difficult von Kuhn noted, even though the German officers were allowed to keep their swords, for them to gain respect from their Japanese counterparts he felt that the Japanese officers perceived them as mere cattle and treated them as such.[29] This apparent lack of respect for the German officer corps, especially cases of officers being struck was one of the main reasons why the German government lodged official complaints and requested the American government to investigate the conditions of the POW camps in Japan in order to pressure the Japanese for better treatment of its prisoners. Unfortunately for the Austro-Hungarians the Spanish embassy represented them and were completely ineffective in plea-bargaining for more freedom for the Austro-Hungarian officers.[30] In dealing with the American investigation into the camp conditions this thesis will first have to look at camp life before Sumner Welles embarked on his camp tour on behalf of the German and luckily the Austro-Hungarian governments and what had happened to finally get the American government to agree to allow such an investigation.

In January 1916 the Japanese government undertook its own inspection of the camps headed by a member of the House of Peers, Count Yangisawa. The purpose of this inspection was to focus on the problem of escape attempts from the camps in Kyushu and determine if the camp authorities there were in fact being too lenient. The camps situated in Fukuoka and Kurume in Fukuouka prefecture in Kyushyu were the main sources of discontent, from the Germans too, perhaps encouraging this rash of escape attempts.[31] On arrival in Japan most of the German POWs were treated to exceptional hospitality with large crowds waiting at each harbour with garlands of flowers for the internees, in Fukuoka however the reception was not so pleasant with jeers and even stones being thrown at the prisoners. This may be due to the fact that most of the Japanese casualties taken at Tsingtao had been from soldiers from the Fukuoka area.[32] The camp at Kurume was under the strictest discipline of any of the camps with numerous incidents of the German rank and file and even officers being struck by the Japanese guards for minor offences. In late December 1915 the Prisoners in Kurume openly protested against their mistreatment by refusing to respond at roll call.[33] Under these conditions the desire to escape may have been strongest, as Fukukoka and Kurume suffered the most frequent escape attempts of all the camps. The most famous episode in the Fukuoka camp history is the successful escape of Captain Paul Kempe; he had escaped during the official coronation celebrations for the Emperor Taisho and had successfully found his way to Shanghai where he met three other successful escapees. He was the only one of the five who successfully got out of Japan to make it back to Germany and rejoin the war as a Major, after a journey on the Trans-Siberian express posing as a Norwegian businessman, the others had been picked up by the British on their way from the USA and incarcerated in England for the remainder of the war. Kempe and the others’ escapes were embarrassing for the Japanese. In retribution they sought out any accomplices that the escapees may have had and punished them severely eventually putting to trial eleven men one of them an unsuccessful escapee, Modde who had been captured in Seoul and another a high profile prisoner the Japanese speaking, Dr. Fritz Hack. Being charged with conspiracy meant that Japanese law superceded the Hague declaration on POW escape attempts, which recommended only mild disciplinary measures. All but two of the defendants were found guilty. In March 1916 a German officer from Fukuoka camp managed to contact a German lawyer in Tientsin imploring for international intervention in the case of the guilty. The lawyer in turn contacted the German embassy in Peking and the message was relayed to the German Ambassador in Washington Count Johann von Bernstoff. Through the German Embassy in Washington, the petition for the Germans’ release stated that by trying the POWs as common criminals was against the Hague treaty and wished for intervention from the American embassy in Tokyo.[34] In the wake of Count Yanagisawa’s inspection of the camps and the escape attempts, the prison authorities invoked a mandatory oath against any more escapes, those who refused to take the oath were punished by having their privileges of writing and receiving mail, daily walks and external excursions withheld, thus increasing the number of complaints, all the officers took the oath except for one officer Esterer, who steadfastly refused. Coupled with the treatment of the “conspirators”, general complaints about the camps themselves, the denial of Catholic prisoners to speak to a priest in private and the fresh wave of indignities the POWs had to suffer due to the oath, the German Foreign Office in Berlin requested the American embassy to undertake a through inspection of the camps. Thus the American ambassador in Tokyo George W. Guthrie assigned Sumner Welles to undertake a through inspection of all the camps that were existence in 1916. Welles’s tour of inspection began on February 29^th of that year.[35]

Welle’s report is quite lengthy and provides an excellent insight into the camp conditions from a neutral point of view, Welles who spoke fluent German accompanied by a fluent Japanese speaker J.W. Ballantine had received imperial authority from the Japanese crown to inspect the camps and was able to directly speak with the POWs, mainly officers.[36] He compiled his report which included various letters of complaint from the German POWs especially those at Kurume who were in addition to being annoyed with the harsh disciplinary regime were also petitioning for an expansion of their cramped surroundings. Welles found that on the whole the camps were satisfactory with the notable exceptions of Kurume and the camp at Osaka. He deplored the use of old temples for housing POWs as these venues were flimsy structures, completely without insulation, and totally unsuitable for Europeans to inhabit mere “dollhouses” as one rank and file prisoner referred to them.[37] He registered some complaints from the officers in Matsuyama, typed by Major Kleeman who believed they were not being treated in accordance with the guidelines laid down at the Hague, among the indignities these officers suffered were those of Japanese officers addressing them with their hands in their pockets and one Captain Stecher having been shouted at, the letter is an extensive list of complaints from trivial issues such as the inept work of the dentist to complaints about the use of lock-up to punish the rank and file. Welles dismissed most of the officers’ complaints, judging that on the whole the officers were being treated exceptionally well although Matsuyama camp was cramped but in general throughout the camp system, according to The Hague Convention and space permitting officers were afforded separate rooms, baths, and exercise areas from the rank and file. Welles’s main worry was about the treatment of the rank and file, punishment among the officers was rare and in most cases meant confinement to their quarters, the ordinary soldiers however were in disciplinary cases confined to a guardhouse. The guardhouse itself was “about fifteen feet square, occasionally smaller, with bare walls and floor of hard wood… the period of confinement varies form three months to a few days, during this period the men are permitted to have only tea and bread in the way of food.” This form of punishment was contrary to the Hague convention and was severely affecting the health of those who were punished in this way. The internees felt that they were being treated like ordinary prisoners and not as POWs, the complaints ranged from dissatisfaction with the rules, for example the prohibition of publication of a camp newspaper, to listing the physical abuse suffered by the POWs such as NCO Hagemann who was kicked several times for smoking in the open streets and was given twenty days confinement for his offence. Major Kleeman’s letter lists some of the more practical problems, the lack of space, the unsanitary condition of the well and the impossibility of enduring life in a temple. In conclusion to the letter the Officers listed their demands; prisoners to be treated humanely, the need for a system of lodging complaints, more rooms, bedsteads and straw mattresses for the rank and file, exercise, a separate room for the sick before transportation to a hospital and finally a common complaint amongst all the camps a more punctual and regular postal service. In general Welles was satisfied with how the camps were run and from his interviews the majority of the German Officers, with the notable exception of Major Kleeman and a few others, seemed satisfied. His main complaint, apart from the guardhouses, was the general lack of space afforded each camp. This was especially true of Kurume where the latrines were much too close to the barracks and in Shizouka where the main water pump was situated so close to the latrines giving the water a “foul and most unhealthy taste and smell.” The general findings of Welles’ report were positive although there was a pressing need to fix the issue of lack of space and the have those who were billeted in temples moved to better more suitable accommodation. The postal system was problematic as there simply were not enough Japanese translators to censor the amount of mail coming to and from the POWs, one Austrian officer had not been allowed to correspond with his nearest relatives, who were Italian on the grounds that there was no Italian interpreter at the Ministry of War. Welles’ report was copied filed and sent to the Japanese government in the autumn of 1916 and after some delay to Berlin and Vienna.[38]

After Welles’s tour of inspection the Japanese authorities made efforts to improve the conditions of the camps. The main change made was that the camp commanders who Welles had criticised were immediately replaced. Fukuoka camp, where Meyer- Waldeck was held, was eventually disbanded and its inmates were transferred to Narashino near Tokyo where the camp Commander the Marquis Saigo, a son of Saigo Takamori, although thought of as a bit stuffy by some of the prisoners, took excellent care of his charges, he died from a heart attack caused by Spanish flu on new year’s day 1919 during a tour of the camp to wish the prisoners a happy new year.[39] The biggest change in the camp system was in Shikoku where the three camps there were amalgamated into one huge complex at Bando. Bando stands as almost an exceptional example of how a POW camp can be run. In April 1917 the three camps in Shikoku, Matsugame, Matsuyama and Tokushima were amalgamated into one new camp that consisted of 57,000 square meters of uncultivated land containing around 930 inmates, huge in comparison to Kurume, which held 1318 POWs and was only 28,208 square meters.[40] The camp quickly came to resemble a small town when those POWs who possessed a trade began practicing, such as carpenters, painters, watchmakers, bookbinders, barbers, there was a café, bakery and even a spa run by and available to the POWs. It also boasted numerous sports teams, three orchestras and a library containing around 6,000 books. The camp organised sports events, competitions and plays with the proceeds going towards the medical fund that the POWs had established, this fund was in turn supported by donations from the hilfsorganisation established in Tientsin. The rules and organisation of the camp has its origin in the Hague Treaty on treatment of Prisoners of war but owes its implementation mainly to the camp commander, Major Matsuye Toyohisa, who was intent on running the camp through trust and was in the main concerned about the prisoners’ mental well-being. Major Kleeman, the officer who had written the complaints at Kurume was lucky enough to be transferred to Bando as the senior German officer there, his conditions were dramatically altered.[41] The other camps were in a refurbishment process, with the cold temples being replaced with more suitable barracks. Bando was a centre of German-Japanese cultural exchange with many of the inmates employed in factories and businesses in the town itself. The inmates there set up a printing press, which published a weekly newspaper titled “Die Baracke”, which continued publication during repatriation back to Germany under the name “Die Heimfahrt”, detailing camp life and events, taken from English language newspapers, wire services, and translations of Japanese ones, from the war the paper and the various pamphlets printed at the camp won praise where “in keinen Lager der ganzen Welt eine so reiche, geschmackvolle Ausstattung erfahren wie gerade in den japanischen.”[42] The Germans’ knowledge of engineering and farming was far in advance of the people in their immediate surroundings and with over three hundred of the prisoners involved in agriculture they could introduce new farming techniques and crops to the area such as tomatoes. The pinnacle of camp life in Bando came in March 1918 when the inmates held an exhibition of engineering, food, sport, handicrafts and music the “Ausstellung für Bildkunst und Handfertigkeit” separated into days exclusively for German residents in Japan and days for the Japanese.[43] Over the twelve day event displaying various examples of German technology, cooking, sports, art and music around 50,000 people are said to have attended. To give the event the royal seal of approval, Prince Higashikuni showed a great interest in the event and requested to bring a part of the event to Naruto city.[44] The prisoners employed their skills in building two stone bridges that took two years to complete and a park in the town that are still in use today.[45] POWs had become an important asset to the local economies of the towns in which they were encamped in or near, highlighted by an incident in Kumamoto when plans were announced to move the POWs elsewhere the townspeople protested claiming that the removal of the POWs to another area would mean a monthly loss of 20,000yen to the local economy.[46] The POWs were gaining quite an amount of interest with the directors of two national schools in Tokyo writing a report on the POWs daily lives, which was then copied and distributed to all schools in the city as a model of how to be proactive and economical at the same time.[47]

Sumner Welles visited the camps again at the end of 1916 and found them to be once again satisfactory with notable improvements all round again with the exception of Kurume where although the camp commander had changed conditions were still cramped with not enough exercise space for the inmates. Once the USA entered the war the Germans lost a valuable go between in monitoring the prisoners’ conditions. In the USA’s place The International Red Cross under the Swiss Government was active in undertaking inspections of the camps, in January 1918 a Swedish Pastor representing the International Red Cross, Pastor Neander went on a tour of inspection which was very well received by the prisoners, who found him easy to speak with and sympathetic of not just their plight in being imprisoned but also of Germany’s plight in the war in general.[48] The Germans then asked the Red Cross to undertake another tour of inspection on the 30^th of June 1918 a very eminent Swiss doctor based in Yokohama Dr. Paravincini undertook a tour of inspection which mirrored that of Welles. Dr. Paravincini had a long history in Japan and would refill his role as prison camp inspector during the Second World War, sadly he died before he could deliver this report, no copies of which remain. Paravincini’s report on the German POWs deals more in depth with the health of the prisoners the Spanish flu had reached the camp and the prisoners’ health had become a major concern he delves into great detail on the daily diet of the prisoners in each camp noting that a lot of the POWs were unsatisfied with the food, soba and sweet potatoes were unsuitable to the German palate. One of the more interesting points he noted was that the POWs felt themselves abandoned and forgotten by their government, their part in the war had been small and was overshadowed especially in June 1918 during the great offensive on the western front, the POWs he recorded “wollen lieber in ihrem Lande hungern, als hier fett werden”.[49] He recognised some of the positive changes that had taken place in the camp system with new barracks having been built since Welles’s last visit and the permitting of music to be played by the inmates. Music and theatre an important part of camp life which was not allowed before Welle’s inspection was found to be in full swing a key element in relieving boredom, helping to relieve barbed wire psychosis and providing entertainment for the POWs, as such the drama clubs and orchestras started by the POWs which created the most enduring image of prison life in Japan, the performance of Beethoven’s ninth symphony.[50] Dr. Paravinci’s findings were in general positive, he was satisfied with the medical treatment afforded the prisoners and was impressed with the new or renewed camps. He still found the camp in Kurume unsatisfactory with the exercise area too small and located too close the latrines with no space outside the camp for exercise. The postal system still remained problematic, a problem that was very difficult for the Japanese authorities to overcome with the aforementioned lack of human resources to censor incoming and outbound mail which was even more problematic for correspondence written in a language outside those of English, French or German.[51] From the POWs point of view, Paravincini’s visit had been a big disappointment after the positive feelings they received from Pastor Neander they had high expectations of Paravincini who after all was a native German speaker. The biggest disappointment was that the POWs had expected that some sort of exchange was available and that they would soon be able to return to Europe, they had heard reports of POWs in other belligerent countries being freed after two years or having been exchanged and wondered if they had been abandoned in Japan, for them Paravinci whose inspection was mainly concerned with the health of the POWs fell far short of their expectations.[52]

During the war there had been inquiries by the German and Austro-Hungarian governments into the possibility of POW exchange. The problem was that neither country held a substantial amount of Japanese POWs to exchange with in fact Austro-Hungary had no Japanese POWs or civilian internees. The main area for exchange possibilities was that of civilian internees. At the beginning of the war press reports in Japan deplored the treatment of Japanese civilians in Germany. Although small in number, over fifty Japanese civilians were arrested by the German authorities. They were arrested in order, according to the German government, for their own safety and protection. This and the refusal of the German government to release the names of the internees drew protests and a plea for the USA to intervene on Japan’s behalf from Baron Funahakoshi who pointed to the full protection that the Japanese government gave its German civilians while allowing them to go about their business unhindered.[53] Although Kurt Meissner complained about the oppression of German businesses in Japan during the war, the Japanese treatment of German civilians drew protests and frustration from the English language press in Tokyo about the generosity afforded German business especially as the Deutsche Asiatische Bank (DAB) was allowed to operate until its eventual suspension at the end of 1916, press reports indicated that a “too lenient treatment of Germans in this country (Japan) will cause a loss of trade and a loss of regard in the colonies of Great Britain as well as in the home countries.” The British government went on to draw up and publicly advertise a blacklist of German firms in Japan contributing to the initiative to suspend the DAB.[54] German clubs were eventually closed down, reopening after the war, however relief societies such as the one organised by Siemens-Schukert in Tokyo, or the other Hilfsorganisationen set up in Shanghai and Tientsin who provided a valuable life line to the non-reservists who received and extra 5 yen a month from Siemens-Schuckert which was very welcome as the POWs wages had not risen in accordance with inflation thus the extra money enabled them to supplement the meagre rations provided by the authorities.[55] Another problem that became more pressing towards the end of the war and the break up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was the nationality of the Prisoners and internees. When Italy entered the war fisticuffs broke out in the Osaka camp when some of the POWs of Italian descent began to sing Italian patriotic songs. Those POWs from Alsace-Lorraine or who could prove French descent were released, twenty-nine in total, albeit quietly and discreetly to prevent any animosity towards them or a repeat of the Italian incident from the other POWs. After the armistice and the treaty of Versailles a further 123 natives of Alsace-Lorraine were released into the custody of French Authorities in Japan in July 1919 followed in November with the release of 23 Czechs into the Czech legion in Siberia, 9 Yugoslavs into the French authorities and 1 Italian into the Italian embassy.[56]

After many delays and diplomatic wrangling between Japan and China over whether to send the POWs back to Tsingtao for repatriation to Germany by the Chinese government, which Japan refused to allow, Germany negotiated ships to transport the POWs through the Swiss embassy in Tokyo.[57] Yet again the date November 14^th crops up as the Japanese government on November 14^th 1919 authorized the repatriation of the POWs. The German government was able to acquire six ships with the last batch of prisoners, including Meyer-Waldeck, leaving for Germany on March 25^th 1920 aboard the Nankai-Maru. Losing the war came as a shock to the prisoners and before their return to Germany they had heard about the uprising in Kiel, this apparent division of Germany was used to reason for their defeat in comparison with the British who seemed to have stood united and followed quite clearly the logic of “my country right or wrong”. The POW newspapers had been keeping as close an eye as possible on events in Europe there were extensive analyses of the revolution in Russia and the peace of Brest-Litvosk, the German defeat in the war had come as shock to the POWs who through their newspaper tried to account for how Germany could have been defeated.[58] The POWs had had to sit out the war in Japan away from the hardships of the front line and the economic and social turmoil, which Germany found herself after the armistice. It was a shock for the returning POWs to see crowds of hungry children greeting their return with arms outstretched for food.[59] Indeed many POWs chose not to return to Germany at all. Those who had business interests or families in Japan or China remained in East Asia. Others went on to find work as soldiers in the Dutch East Indies Army who towards the end of 1919 and the beginning of 1920 offered jobs to whites especially from Holland, Belgium and Germany to maintain the garrisons there.[60] During their long spell in incarceration in Japan the German POWs had missed the transition from Nineteenth to Twentieth century values that the war through its mass destruction, the revolutionary ideas of Soviet Russia and Wilsonian ideals of national self-determinism caused leaving the post-War Germany looking like an alien land to the returnees. As Rachamimov states one of the few areas where international law was obeyed and followed in the gentlemanly elitist style of the Nineteenth century was in the area of treatment of Prisoners of War, there was no room in the post war era for these Aristocratic ideals.[61]

The close to 5,000 Prisoners of War from Germany and the Habsburg Empire spent almost six years in confinement in prison camps throughout Japan. They seem in hindsight to have been lucky to have spent the war away from the frontlines and kept under relatively idyllic conditions far from Europe. This lenient treatment of the POWs highlights the positive role that International legislation played during the Great War. The treatment of POWs is one aspect of the war where perhaps the elitist and gentlemanly ideals of Nineteenth Century international diplomacy were put into practical use as Rachamimov states, the allowance of envoys to inspect the camps highlights the aristocratic threads that bound the belligerent countries.[62] The POWs did suffer, barbed wire psychosis was problematic, but their hardships were very familiar in comparison with those faced by soldiers in the trenches, although one in eight combatants in the Great War was taken prisoner, popular history has almost forgotten them. The prisoners in Japan were afforded good treatment due to the articles laid down at the Hague treaty, Germany possessed very few Japanese internees and no POWs, so Japan had no reason to hold the German POWs as bargaining chips, however the Japanese authorities as they had in during the Russo-Japanese war chose to respect the Hague convention, almost respecting it too much in respect to German civilians in Japan, to the displeasure of its ally Britain. The Japanese were very open to allowing inspections of the camps from outside authorities, such as the United States Embassy and the International Red Cross, in the wake of a spate of escape attempts in the camps in Fukuoka discipline in the camps was tightened, meaning harsher punishments and the arrest, trial and sentence to an ordinary Japanese prison of nine POWs as conspirators. This drew complaints from Berlin who requested intervention from the US Embassy in Tokyo. Welles’ inspection of the camp although generally positive, highlighted some of the problems with the camp system, some camps did not have enough space for exercise or officers could not be afforded separate housing contrary to the Hague conventions. Although the camp at Kurume remained an exception the other camps were either closed down and amalgamated with other camps or vastly improved and redeveloped. The major success story of the camp system in Japan was that of the camp at Bando, which came to resemble a small village rather than a place of confinement, as Burdick notes the relationship between the guards and prisoners at the camp in Bando became a perfect example on a micro level of German-Japanese cooperation.[63] The camp highlights the positive practical effect that International law can have when implemented and obeyed by the higher authorities, The Hague Treaty though far from comprehensive provided a useful blueprint for the authorities to work with. World War One had really only lasted one month in East Asia with Japan scoring a relatively easy victory over the small German force in Tsingtao, there was no time for animosity such as existed between Germany and Britain to build up, the Germans hoped for a short war where afterwards Japan would hand back their concession, the Japanese were too busy concentrating on Asia to worry about the Germans. During the war international norms broke down, but at least in the case of POWs especially the small number of Germans and Austro-Hungarians confined in Japan, international law was able to provide a framework ensuring humane treatment of those confined. Inspections of the camps by neutral parties ensured that the conditions in the camps were well known and monitored for the duration of the war and even after the armistice. The prisoners returned home in early 1920 to vastly different lands than they had left, Germany was in chaos and the Habsburg Empire had collapsed, although some had chosen not to return home those that had remained positive, ten years later in writing his memoirs Freiherr von Kuhn chose a quotation from Friedrich the Great to describe his feelings on his arrival in Austria after five years imprisonment in Japan, “it is not important that I live, but that I do my duty and fight to rescue my Fatherland when it again needs rescuing.”[64] The narrative of Prisoners of War during the First World War remains a small but important one.

Word Count: 9,579

Bibliography:

Primary Material:

Unpublished

Welles, Sumner, Report on Prisoner of War Camps in Japan US department of state records 9763.72114/1491 (1916)

Web Sources:

The Hague Treaty 1899 and 1907:

Hague II – Laws and Customs of War on Land: 29 July 1899

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague02.htm

Hague IV – Laws and Customs of War on Land: 18 October 1907

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm

Befehlsbuch des Barackenlagers Kurume aus der Zeit vom 12. VI. 1915 bis 20. III http://bando.dijtokyo.org/?page=object_detail.php&p_id=257

Rundgang durch das Lager Bando http://bando.dijtokyo.org/?page=theme_detail.php&p_id=3&menu=1

Führer durch die Ausstellung für Bildkunst und Handfertigkeit Kriegsgefangenenlager

http://bando.dijtokyo.org/?page=object_detail.php&p_id=277

Published Primary Sources:

Weiland, Hans and Kern, Leopold In Feindeshand: Die Gefangenscahft im Weltkriege in Einzeldarstellungen Vol II (Vienna) 1931

Pörzgen, Hermann Theater Ohne Frau Das Bühnenleben der Kriegsgefangen Deutschen 1914-1920 (Ost-Europa Verlag, Königsberg) 1933

Krüger, Karl Von Potsdam nach Tsingtau: Erinnerung an meine Jügendjahre in Uniform 1904-1920 (Books on Demand GmbH, Nonderstedt)

Meissner, Kurt Deutsche in Japan 1639-1939: Dreihundert Jahre Arbeit für Wirtland und Vaterland (Deutsche Verlag-Anstalt, Stuttgart/Berlin) 1940

The Japan Times

Die Baracke Vols. I-IV

Die Heimfahrt

Secondary Sources:

Rachamimov, Alon, POWs and the Great War: Captivity on the Eastern Front (Berg 2002, New York)

Burdick, Charles, Moessner, Ursula, The German Prisoners of War in Japan, 1914-1920 (University Press of America, New York) 1984

Schmidt, Hans-Jochim, Janson, Karl-Heinz, Von Kutzhof nach China und Japan: Die Odyssee des Andreas Mailänder 1912 bis 1920 (Vereins Kollertal, Kutzhof 2001)

Audoin-Rouzeau, Stephane and Becker, Annette, Understanding the Great War (Hill and Wang, New York) 2002

Burdick, Charles, The Japanese Siege of Tsingtao (Avalon Books, Connecticut) 1976

Kreiner, Josef, (Ed.) Japan und die Mittelmächte im Ersten Weltkrieg und in die zwanziger Jahren (Bovier Verlag Herbert Grundmann, Bonn) 1986

Nish, Ian, Alliance in Decline: A Study of the Anglo-Japanese Relations 1908-1923 (The Athlone Press, UK) 1974

Dickinson, Frederick R., War and National Re-invention Japan and the Great War, 1914-1919 (Harvard University Press, USA) 1999

Checkland, Olive, Humanitarianism and the Emperor’s Japan 1877-1977 (St. Martin’s Press, London) 1994

Chi, Madeline, China Diplomacy, 1914-1918 (Harvard University Press, USA) 1970

Welles, Benjamin, Sumner Welles: FDR’s Global Strategies (St. Martin’s Press, New York) 1997

Röder, Maike (Ed.) Alle Menschen werden Brüder, Deutsche Kriegsgefangene in Japan 1914-20 (PrintX Kabushikigaisha, Tokyo) 2005

Tomita, Hiroshi, 板東俘虜収容所 (POWs in Bando) (Hosei University Japan,) 1991

Takahashi, Terukazu, Journal of Faculty of Letters Vol. 39 米国大使館員による丸亀俘虜収容所調査報告 (The American Embassy’s report on POWs in Marugame) (Okayama University, Okayama Japan) 2003

Klein, Ulrike Deutsche Kriegsgefangene in japanische Gewahrsam 1914-1920, Ein Sonderfall (Ulrike Klein Inaugural Dissertation zu Erlangung der Dokterwirke der Philosophischen Fakultaten der Albert Ludwigs Unuversisitat Freiburg) 1993

[2] Rachamimov, Alon, POWs and the Great War: Captivity on the Eastern Front (Berg 2002, New York) p.3

[3] The exact number given in Burdick and Moessner’s book is 4,592. Burdick, Charles, Moessner, Ursula, The German Prisoners of War in Japan, 1914-1920 (University Press of America, New York) 1984, p.128 whereas the total given by Hans Weiland is 4,646 Weiland Hans and Kern Leopold In Feindeshand: Die Gefangenscahft im Weltkriege in Einzeldarstellungen Vol II (Vienna) 1931 p.76

[4] . Rachamimov, Alon, POWs and the Great War: Captivity on the Eastern Front (Berg 2002, New York) 9

[5] Schmidt, Hans-Jochim, Janson, Karl-Heinz, Von Kutzhof nach China und Japan: Die Odyssee des Andreas Mailänder 1912 bis 1920 (Vereins Kollertal, Kutzhof 2001) p.27

[6] Weiland, Hans and Kern, Leopold In Feindeshand: Die Gefangenscahft im Weltkriege in Einzeldarstellungen Vol II (Vienna) 1931 p.77

[7] Rachamimov, Alon, POWs and the Great War: Captivity on the Eastern Front (Berg 2002, New York) p.225

[9] Rachamimov, Alon, POWs and the Great War: Captivity on the Eastern Front (Berg 2002, New York) pp.16-19

[10] Audoin-Rouzeau, Stephane and Becker, Annette, Understanding the Great War (Hill and Wang New York) 2002 p.77

[11] For a copy of the “Instruktion für die Kriegsgefangenen” and other rules employed at the camps see Befehlsbuch des Barackenlagers Kurume aus der Zeit vom 12. VI. 1915 bis 20. III. 1918 http://bando.dijtokyo.org/?page=object_detail.php&p_id=257

[12] Burdick, Charles, Moessner, Ursula, The German Prisoners of War in Japan, 1914-1920 (University Press of America, New York) 1984, p.26

[16] Burdick, Charles, The Japanese Siege of Tsingtao (Avalon Books, Connecticut) 1976 p. 14-15

[17] Meissner, Kurt Deutsche in Japan 1639-1939: Dreihundert Jahre Arbeit für Wirtland und Vaterland (Deutsche Verlag-Anstalt, Stuttgart/Berlin) 1940 p.101

[18] Kreiner, Josef, (Ed.) Japan und die Mittelmächte im Ersten Weltkrieg und in die zwanziger Jahren (Bovier Verlag Herbert Grundmann, Bonn) 1986 p.15

[19] Nish, Ian, Alliance in Decline: A Study of the Anglo-Japanese Relations 1908-1923 (The Athlone Press UK) 1974 p.135

[20] Dickinson, Frederick R., War and National Re-invention Japan and the Great War, 1914-1919 (Harvard University Press USA, 1999) p.63

[21] Checkland, Olive, Humanitarianism and the Emperor’s Japan 1877-1977 (St. Martin’s Press London) 1994 p.47

[22] Chi, Madeline, China Diplomacy, 1914-1918 (Harvard University Press, USA 1970) p. 134

[23] Krüger, Karl Von Potsdam nach Tsingtau: Erinnerung an meine Jügendjahre in Uniform 1904-1920 (Books on Demand GmbH Nonderstedt) p. 173

[25] Klein, Ulrike Deutsche Kriegsgefangene in japanische Gewahrsam 1914-1920, Ein Sonderfall (Ulrike Klein Inaugural Dissertation zu Erlangung der Dokterwirke der Philosophischen Fakultaten der Albert Ludwigs Unuversisitat Freiburg) 1993 p.17

[26] Kreiner, Josef, (Ed.) Japan und die Mittelmächte im Ersten Weltkrieg und in die zwanziger Jahren (Bovier Verlag Herbert Grundmann, Bonn) 1986 p.6

[27] Krüger, Karl Von Potsdam nach Tsingtau: Erinnerung an meine Jügendjahre in Uniform 1904-1920 (Books on Demand GmbH Nonderstedt) p. 176

[28] Weiland, Hans and Kern, Leopold In Feindeshand: Die Gefangenscahft im Weltkriege in Einzeldarstellungen Vol II (Vienna) 1931 p.88

[32] Schmidt, Hans-Jochim, Janson, Karl-Heinz, Von Kutzhof nach China und Japan: Die Odyssee des Andreas Mailänder 1912 bis 1920 (Vereins Kollertal, Kutzhof 2001) p. 32

[34] Burdick, Charles, Moessner, Ursula, The German Prisoners of War in Japan, 1914-1920 (University Press of America, New York) 1984, pp.25-48

[35] Welles, Sumner, Report on Prisoner of War Camps in Japan US department of state records 9763.72114/1491 (1916) Welles visited the ten camps that were in existence at the time, Nagoya, Matsuyama, Tokushima, Oita, Kurume, Shizouka, Osaka, Marugame, Narashino and Fukuoka.

[36] Welles, Benjamin, Sumner Welles: FDR’s Global Strategies (St. Martin’s Press New York) 1997 p. 46

[37]Krüger, Karl Von Potsdam nach Tsingtau: Erinnerung an meine Jügendjahre in Uniform 1904-1920 (Books on Demand GmbH Nonderstedt) p. 182

[38] All information taken from Welles Sumner Report on Prisoner of War Camps in Japan US department of state records 9763.72114/1491 (1916)

[39] Krüger, Karl Von Potsdam nach Tsingtau: Erinnerung an meine Jügendjahre in Uniform 1904-1920 (Books on Demand GmbH Nonderstedt) p. 199

[40] Rundgang durch das Lager Bando http://bando.dijtokyo.org/?page=theme_detail.php&p_id=3&menu=1

[41] Röder, Maike (Ed.) Alle Menschen werden Brüder, Deutsche Kriegsgefangene in Japan 1914-20 (PrintX Kabushikigaisha Tokyo) 2005 p.18

[42] Pörzgen, Hermann Theater Ohne Frau Das Bühnenleben der Kriegsgefangen Deutschen 1914-1920 (Ost-Europa Verlag Königsberg) 1933 p. 55

[43] Führer durch die Ausstellung für Bildkunst und Handfertigkeit Kriegsgefangenenlager Bando 1918 http://bando.dijtokyo.org/?page=object_detail.php&p_id=277

[45] Tomita, Hiroshi, 板東俘虜収容所 (POWs in Bando) (Hosei University Japan,) 1991 pp. 112-124

[49] Weiland, Hans and Kern, Leopold In Feindeshand: Die Gefangenscahft im Weltkriege in Einzeldarstellungen Vol II (Vienna) 1931 p.84

[50] Pörzgen, Hermann Theater Ohne Frau Das Bühnenleben der Kriegsgefangen Deutschen 1914-1920 (Ost-Europa Verlag Königsberg) 1933 p. 51

[51]Takahashi, Terukazu, Journal of Faculty of Letters Vol. 39 米国大使館員による丸亀俘虜収容所調査報告 (The American Embassy’s report on POWs in Marugame) (Okayama University Japan 2003) p.122

[55] Krüger, Karl Von Potsdam nach Tsingtau: Erinnerung an meine Jügendjahre in Uniform 1904-1920 (Books on Demand GmbH Nonderstedt) p. 200

[56] Burdick, Charles, Moessner, Ursula, The German Prisoners of War in Japan, 1914-1920 (University Press of America, New York) 1984, p.98

[59] Burdick, Charles, Moessner, Ursula, The German Prisoners of War in Japan, 1914-1920 (University Press of America, New York) 1984 p. 108

[61] Rachamimov, Alon, POWs and the Great War: Captivity on the Eastern Front (Berg 2002, New York) p. 228

[63] Burdick, Charles, Moessner, Ursula, The German Prisoners of War in Japan, 1914-1920 (University Press of America, New York) 1984, p. 78

[64] Weiland, Hans and Kern, Leopold In Feindeshand: Die Gefangenscahft im Weltkriege in Einzeldarstellungen Vol II (Vienna) 1931 p.82