Hitler's Generals in America
Page 11
In addition to the three generals who arrived directly from France, other prisoners were transferred to Clinton by Trent Park authorities during the fall of 1944 as the Allied advance in Western Europe brought numerous new faces to the English camp. On September 19, 1944, Admiral Walter Hennecke arrived in the United States and quickly joined the growing number of senior officers in Mississippi. Hennecke was unique in that he was the first high-ranking German naval prisoner to arrive in American custody, creating some difficulties for American authorities. No facilities existed to accommodate high-ranking officers at any of the camps in the United States designated for German naval prisoners of war. Consequently, War Department officials, like their counterparts in the British War Office, chose to place Hennecke with army officers in order to keep him with men of similar rank. Therefore, the admiral found himself at Camp Clinton surrounded by German Army generals for several months before any fellow senior naval officers joined him in the United States.3
Hennecke’s naval status also made it more difficult to assign him an aide. Clinton officials ordinarily assigned the general officers a suitable subordinate officer from among the camp’s prisoner population. However, von Arnim, who became the senior officer and camp spokesman upon his arrival in June, requested that an officer prisoner from one of the German naval POW camps be transferred to Clinton to work with Hennecke. To the credit of the American commanding officer, Colonel Mc-Ilhenny, and his superiors in the Provost Marshal General’s Office, they complied with Hennecke and von Arnim’s request and sought a naval officer prisoner from Camp McCain, Mississippi, as a more suitable aide for the newly arrived admiral.4
Curiously, von Arnim also made a similar request on behalf of General Crüwell. In Crüwell’s case, his aide was a year older than he was, and the general sought a more energetic, younger officer prisoner with whom he might have perhaps a less awkward relationship. Von Arnim specifically requested that the Provost Marshal General’s Office transfer Major Anton Sinkel, who was then interned at Camp Alva, Oklahoma, to Clinton to serve as Crüwell’s new aide. Again, Colonel Mc-Ilhenny and Washington officials approved the generals’ request, perhaps indicating a slight change of heart from their past disregard for the generals’ wishes.5
Major Anton Sinkel (Courtesy of the Mississippi Armed Forces Museum)
Yet the approval of Major Sinkel’s transfer is also somewhat puzzling. Sinkel had previously been the designated spokesman for the prisoners at Camp Trinidad, Colorado, and had been sent to Camp Alva, a camp specifically designated for pro-Nazi agitators, because of his involvement in some Nazi activity in the Colorado camp.6 Perhaps Sinkel’s internment at Alva was purely coincidental, as not every prisoner there would have necessarily been a hard-core National Socialist. That Sinkel spoke proficient English and subsequently served as von Arnim’s interpreter certainly made him an asset to the generals at Clinton. But von Arnim’s increasingly vocal support for the Nazi regime during his stay in Mississippi, coupled with Sinkel’s prior activity and residence at a “Nazi” camp, points to a potential connection between Sinkel and von Arnim and suggests the influence of ulterior motives in requesting the former’s transfer to Camp Clinton.
Following the arrangement of aides for Hennecke and Crüwell, still more generals made their way to the United States. By the end of September 1944, a large mix of newly captured German generals and some old hands who had been in England for some time had crossed the Atlantic. On September 28 eleven new faces arrived at Clinton: Generals Erwin Vierow, Karl Spang, Curt Badinski, Theodor Graf von Sponeck, Erwin Menny, Fritz Krause, Kurt Freiherr von Liebenstein, Christoph Graf zu Stolberg-Stolberg, Robert Sattler, Hans-Georg Schramm, and Hubertus von Aulock.7 This group more than doubled the number of generals at Camp Clinton.
The new arrivals barely had time to acclimate to their new surroundings before the Allies added even more generals to the mix. General Botho Elster and his large entourage of aides and orderlies arrived in early November, followed by six additional Wehrmacht senior officers by the end of the month. The last parcel included Generals Erwin Rauch, Paul Seyffardt, Alfred Gutknecht, Hans von der Mosel, Otto Richter, and Detlef Bock von Wülfingen. This brought the total population of Clinton’s officer compound to thirty-two, including Colonel von Quast, who still awaited American recognition of his promotion but who was allowed to live in the enclosure because he served as an aide to General von Vaerst.8 In the six months following D-Day, the number of general officers at Camp Clinton had quadrupled. This finally spurred American policy makers to take their relationship with these men more seriously.
It took a while for Washington’s changing perceptions of the importance of its German general officer prisoners to translate into policy, and still longer for these policy changes to produce significant changes at the camp level. An inspection report filed in July 1944 by Werner Weingärtner of the Swiss legation and John Brown Mason of the U.S. State Department echoed familiar refrains. Weingärtner characterized the situation in the generals’ compound as “deplorable,” citing the lack of a number of items and the “attitude of the Camp Commander.” Mason concurred, saying, “While promises and assurances in regard to certain needed improvements have been given repeatedly to the spokesman [von Arnim] by the American Army authorities since last winter, on the whole the promises have either not been kept at all or were fulfilled only just prior to the visit of the Swiss representative.” He observed that the generals kept a written record of the exact dates of their requests and the camp administration’s responses. For a month, camp officials had ignored the generals’ request for garden furniture to be made by POW carpenters at Clinton. Finally, and inexplicably, the camp administration responded that the generals should simply order these items from Sears, Roebuck or Montgomery Ward. Unfortunately for the generals, these types of mail order requests also typically went unfulfilled for weeks on end. Repeated appeals for cigars had met with success only in early July, right before Weingärtner and Mason’s visit.9 However, the U.S. Provost Marshal General’s Office did not consider these “deplorable” conditions.
The two camp inspectors also produced a list of now-typical prisoner requests, including American recognition of von Quast’s promotion to brigadier general, the assignment of a German Protestant minister and a German Catholic priest to serve the officers’ compound, insulation and double flooring for their quarters, a swimming pool, and tennis courts. Colonel Mc-Ilhenny had approved a tennis court for the generals’ compound as early as December 1943 but, seven months later, construction had yet to begin. The generals also complained that their mess room and recreation building were too hot in the summer, suggesting that some awnings be added to provide shade over the doors and windows. And they bemoaned the fact that a carpenter shop, some American personnel offices, and toilets for the orderlies took up valuable space in their recreation hall.10
The inspectors viewed most of these contentions as minor, aside from the long-standing complaints about a lack of insulation and adequate flooring in the generals’ quarters and some new allegations of gunshots near the generals’ compound. Von Arnim expressed concern that a gun had been fired outside the generals’ quarters the week before the inspectors visited the camp. Apparently, one of the newly arrived and inexperienced camp guards had carelessly mishandled his machine gun. What caused even graver concern for the inspectors and the generals alike was that this was not the first time this had happened. Months earlier, a local squirrel hunter had fired a shot just outside the fence line. This certainly raised questions about why camp officials would allow hunting so close to the camp perimeter. Moreover, that gunshots had twice been fired in the vicinity of the generals’ compound generated concerns about the prisoners’ safety.11
Despite these concerns, one long-standing dispute between the prisoners and the camp administration actually brought the Swiss representative to the Americans’ defense. The generals still refused to sign paroles giving their “word of honor” as German officers not to atte
mpt to escape if they were allowed to walk outside the camp. The prisoners offered to “promise” not to escape but objected to being forced to provide a formal oath for simply “enjoying conveniences or pleasures.” They sought to reserve their words of honor for extremely important occasions. In fact, one of the senior prisoners noted that he had not once been compelled to offer a formal oath in his thirty-five years in the German military. The Swiss inspector had surprisingly little sympathy for the general’s argument and supported Colonel Mc-Ilhenny’s decision to deny the generals parole until they followed the proper protocol.12
Also surprising, considering the number of complaints the generals voiced and the inspectors’ condemnation of Clinton’s accommodations, the prisoners expressed a clear preference for remaining at the camp. When the inspectors asked if the officers might like to transfer to a different camp they overwhelmingly stated that they preferred the “relative spaciousness, and the quite attractive, rustic atmosphere of their compound—dotted with many large trees—and its quiet atmosphere.” They also appreciated that they could attend soccer games, theatrical productions, and concerts held in the enlisted prisoners’ compound and that all of their quarters had been equipped with large new refrigerators.13 Perhaps the generals had simply grown tired of transferring from one camp to another and were willing to settle for inadequate accommodations if it meant staying put for a while. All the inspectors’ criticisms aside, it is also possible that the generals appreciated Camp Clinton more than they let on. Regardless, they expressed no interest in the possibility of seeking greener pastures.
Despite the generals’ preference for remaining at Clinton, the camp inspectors still criticized the camp’s overall accommodation of the German general officers. “The chief and basic difficulty at Camp Clinton, as far as the generals’ compound [was] concerned,” according to both the Swiss representative and the State Department official, was “the attitude of the camp commander.” While they praised Colonel Mc-Ilhenny’s administration of the enlisted prisoners’ compound, they suggested that “running a camp for captured generals [was] a responsibility of a different character.” The commander had inculcated his staff officers with his perspective that “an enemy is an enemy, and a POW a POW,” insinuating that all prisoners should be treated the same, regardless of rank. Making matters worse, the colonel suffered from a heart condition that necessitated his leaving much of the daily interaction with the generals to his executive officer, Captain Winfred J. Tidwell. While the inspectors conceded that Tidwell was a “friendly and well-intentioned” soldier, they contended that “his background as a master sergeant for some twenty years who now holds a temporary commission” could “hardly be considered the best preparation for dealing with high-ranking generals.”14
American Captain Walter Rapp spent several weeks at Clinton in the fall of 1944 and described Mc-Ilhenny and Tidwell in even harsher terms. According to Rapp, Mc-Ilhenny’s illness affected his disposition and “neither his heart nor soul [were] in this matter at all.” Rapp described Mc-Ilhenny as “very erratic” and he was astonished by the colonel’s conviction that he was doing an excellent job. “He just does what he has to” and “works only about 4–5 hours per day,” Rapp complained. “He detests improvements and only does things now because the PMGO order him to.” Rapp’s description of the executive officer was even more caustic. According to Rapp, Tidwell was “a lazy, ignorant ‘yes man’ who holds his position because he has no initiative and is the Colonel’s mouthpiece.” Rapp admitted that Tidwell was “a nice fellow, but uneducated and crude and lacks the poise, background and interest to deal with German general officers.”15
Not surprisingly, these officers’ attitudes influenced those of their personnel. The generals complained to the inspectors that American noncommissioned officers refused to salute them and, according to the prisoner spokesman for the German enlisted compound, the American NCOs frequently ridiculed the German enlisted prisoners for doing so. The Americans informed their captives that “the generals [were] only prisoners and they need not salute them,” an almost verbatim reiteration of their commanding officer’s attitude. Weingärtner intimated that the American NCOs at Clinton had “no manners” and blamed a lack of proper instruction from their superiors for this shortcoming.16
The camp commander and his subordinates displayed the same lack of regard in their relations with the inspectors. On the first day of their visit, Weingärtner asked to meet with Colonel Mc-Ilhenny early in the morning before he began his inspection, a common request from camp inspectors. Tidwell, the executive officer, informed the Swiss representative that Mc-Ilhenny usually did not arrive until nine or ten in the morning and would not be available that particular day until three in the afternoon because of a Kiwanis Club luncheon he wished to attend. Furthermore, once Mc-Ilhenny finally arrived and decided to meet with the inspectors, he insistently called them away from an ongoing meeting with the generals. He then advised the inspectors that they should keep their discussion brief because he wanted to leave early to attend a ball game. The executive officer also displayed little courtesy or regard for the inspectors. Instead of making himself available on the last evening of their visit, another customary courtesy, he “excused himself early in the evening to go to a movie in town.”17
In part because of the commander’s inconsiderate attitude, Weingärtner and Mason recommended that the provost marshal general replace Mc-Ilhenny as camp commandant. They observed that “the German generals are naturally much interested in the type of American officer they meet. [The United States] could make a favorable and lasting impression [on these prisoners] and more in the future, if we put in charge an American officer able to deal with them with tact, consideration and insight.” Echoing the remarks of past inspectors, they concluded their report by stating that, “at the present time, the United States Government is missing a unique opportunity at Camp Clinton to influence in our favor [these] German generals who some day will return to a Germany that will ask them: ‘What is America like?’”18
The inspectors based their belief that American officials could favorably influence the generals on the latter’s expressed interest in numerous aspects of American history and culture. The Swiss representative asked the generals to prepare a list of topics of interest to them for possible books and lectures that might be supplied by American officials. The prisoners’ list overwhelmingly featured American topics, including the “animals, plants and geography of the Americas, especially the United States,” “history of the American Indians,” American literature, American art, the U.S. Constitution, and biographies of famous Americans, like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. General von Vaerst even requested works by Walter Lippmann, an American writer whom the Nazis had bitterly criticized. The inspectors saw these as positive signs that the generals might be open to the American message.19
This encouragement, coupled with the third highly critical assessment of Camp Clinton’s treatment of the German general officers in six months, finally struck a chord with American policy makers now beginning to look to the future of postwar Germany. For starters, the U.S. Provost Marshal General’s Office insisted that repairs and improvements be made to the generals’ quarters. In doing so, however, it paid strict adherence to the provision of the Geneva Convention that required accommodations for POWs to match those provided U.S. soldiers of equal rank. The generals and three separate teams of camp inspectors had all complained about cracks in the walls of the generals’ apartments and the lack of insulation and double flooring that exacerbated both the summer heat and the winter cold. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers repaired the exterior siding of the generals’ homes, caulked the cracks in the walls, and closed the holes in the floors by nailing batten underneath the flooring, which brought the buildings up to the same standards as those provided American general officers. According to U.S. War Department policy, however, Mississippi’s southern location placed Camp Clinton in a temperature zone that did not require ins
ulation for American officer housing. Consequently, War Department officials denied the generals’ quarters any additional insulation because this would have exceeded the quality of physical accommodations provided to American generals. If American officers in southern climates were required to live without insulation, the German generals would have to do the same. Likewise, the War Department refused to install awnings for the generals’ mess room and recreation hall because these items were not provided for American officers either.20
In addition to having basic repairs made to the generals’ quarters, the PMGO sent Brigadier General Blackshear M. Bryan, the assistant provost marshal general, to personally meet with Colonel Mc-Ilhenny and explain to him the importance of “handling general officer prisoners in a fashion which will reflect credit on the United States and create among the prisoners a favorable attitude toward this country and its institutions.” General Bryan informed Mc-Ilhenny that the colonel should “visit the Germans, ascertain the things they desired, inform them whether or not he could procure them, and above all, that he should make good his promises.” Bryan further stressed the need to provide “small comfort items not provided for ordinary prisoners of war.”21
Following his meeting with General Bryan, Mc-Ilhenny responded immediately. He notified his superiors that he would now have “more intimate contacts” with the German general officers, would “acquiesce to their requests wherever possible,” and would “make a special point of obtaining small purchases for them within a reasonable length of time.” He pledged to do so “at once with tact, consideration and insight.”22 He proved to be a man of his word.
A little over a week after Mc-Ilhenny vowed to make changes at Camp Clinton, two inspectors from the PMGO’s Prisoner of War Division visited the camp and noticed a significant difference already. First, Mc-Ilhenny had finally explained to the generals that some of their requests simply could not be fulfilled, for legitimate reasons. On three separate occasions, for instance, Mc-Ilhenny had requested in writing that the PMGO recognize von Quast’s promotion to general officer. It was finally explained to the prisoners that this was not going to happen because of existing U.S. War Department regulations. The camp inspectors stated that “the generals understood.” Moreover, the generals’ requests for the construction of a swimming pool in their compound or access to one outside the camp would also not be possible. First, construction of a pool required “critical material,” namely concrete, that was too vital to the American war effort to expend on prisoners of war or even American civilians. And allowing prisoners of war access to public recreation facilities like swimming pools in nearby towns was out of the question for reasons related to both American public opinion and the prisoners’ safety. The inspectors again stated that the generals understood why these requests could not be fulfilled.23 Surely, German career military officers appreciated the demands of wartime mobilization and the dictates of military regulations.