PRISONERS of WAR—COLD WAR ALLIES: the ANGLO-AMERICAN RELATIONSHIP with WEHRMACHT GENERALS a Dissertation by DEREK RAY MALLETT

PRISONERS OF WAR—COLD WAR ALLIES: THE ANGLO-AMERICAN RELATIONSHIP WITH WEHRMACHT GENERALS A Dissertation by DEREK RAY MALLETT Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY August 2009 Major Subject: History PRISONERS OF WAR—COLD WAR ALLIES: THE ANGLO-AMERICAN RELATIONSHIP WITH WEHRMACHT GENERALS A Dissertation by DEREK RAY MALLETT Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved by: Chair of Committee, Arnold P. Krammer Committee Members, Joseph G. Dawson III David Vaught Adam R. Seipp James Hannah Head of Department, Walter Buenger August 2009 Major Subject: History iii ABSTRACT Prisoners of War—Cold War Allies: The Anglo-American Relationship with Wehrmacht Generals. (August 2009) Derek Ray Mallett, B.A., Culver-Stockton College; M.A.; M.A., Truman State University Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Arnold P. Krammer This study examines the relationship between British and American officials and the fifty-five Wehrmacht general officers who were held as prisoners of war in the United States during World War II. This relationship transformed as the war developed and new national security concerns emerged in the immediate postwar era. As largely evidenced by the records of the United States War Department and the British War Office, the transformation of this relationship illustrates two important points. First, despite some similarities, the respective priorities of British and American authorities regarding their POW general officers differed significantly. British officials consistently interrogated and eavesdropped on all of their senior officer prisoners, primarily seeking operational and tactical intelligence to aid the Allied war effort. By contrast, American officials initially had little regard for the value of Wehrmacht general officer POWs. Second, by the end of the war, admiration for the prowess of German officers and the German military tradition in particular, coupled with anxiety about Soviet iv intentions and the strength of the Red Army, drove Washington into a collaborative relationship with many of the Wehrmacht general officers in its custody. The evolution of America’s national security concerns in the years immediately following the end of World War II impacted its policy governing the treatment of high-ranking prisoners of war. v DEDICATION For Lula, Mildred, Matthew, Malcom, and most of all, for Susan. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my committee chair, Dr. Krammer, and my committee members, Dr. Dawson, Dr. Vaught, Dr. Seipp, and Prof. Hannah, for their guidance, critical analysis, advice, suggestions and support throughout the completion of this project. Thanks also go to my students and colleagues and the department faculty and staff for making my time at Texas A&M University an enjoyable and rewarding experience. I also want to extend my gratitude to the History Department, the Melbern G. Glasscock Center for Humanities Research, and the German Historical Institute for their generous financial support. Finally, thanks to my family and friends for their invaluable love and support. My mother and father; Doug, Brenda and Drew; Jimi, Lenae, Alex, Wade, and Leah; Chad; and the Feistel family all contributed a great deal to my work. And last, but most certainly not least, to Adrienne, who meant more to this project than she knows. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................. iii DEDICATION .......................................................................................................... v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......................................................................................... vi TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................... vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION................................................................................ 1 II FROM NORTH AFRICA TO NORTH LONDON ............................. 32 III HITLER’S GENERALS IN AMERICA.............................................. 77 IV “GUESTS” OF THE BRITISH............................................................ 121 V THE CAROUSEL AT CAMP NO. 11................................................. 166 VI THE SEEDS OF THE AMERICAN TRANSFORMATION.............. 218 VII RE-EDUCATING HITLER’S GENERALS?...................................... 267 VIII COLD WAR ALLIES.......................................................................... 312 IX CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................. 364 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................... 394 APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................... 402 APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................... 404 APPENDIX C ........................................................................................................... 405 APPENDIX D ........................................................................................................... 406 VITA ......................................................................................................................... 408 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Any discussion of German generals in the Second World War usually brings to mind names like Erwin Rommel or Heinz Guderian. Undoubtedly, these men and commanders like them played significant roles in the conduct of the war. Less attention has been paid to the fates of hundreds of senior German officers taken prisoner by the Allies, unless perhaps it is the fate of Wehrmacht officers in Soviet hands, those issuing anti-Nazi propaganda from Russian prisoner of war camps being of particular note. What seems to have been of least interest are the general officers captured by the Western Allies and who spent anywhere from a few months to a few years in England or North America. Indeed, little has been written about the fifty-five German general officers who were held as prisoners of war in the United States during World War II.1 Yet, the collective story of these men’s experiences as prisoners of war reveals a great deal about the different American and British perceptions of these men, and even more about the different national security concerns of the America that first brought Wehrmacht generals officers to the United States in the summer of 1943 and that which repatriated the last of them in the summer of 1946. __________ This dissertation follows the style of The Journal of Military History. 2 From the earliest stages of the war, providing for captured enemy soldiers became an increasingly burdensome issue. When General Hans Jürgen von Arnim surrendered the Axis’s North African forces in May 1943, 250,000 German and Italian soldiers became the responsibility of the British and American governments. This represented the first massive influx of POWs into Allied custody. These prisoners included not only the usual German and Italian enlisted men and lower-ranking officers but seventeen German general officers as well, including General von Arnim himself. Washington and London engaged in a great deal of discussion regarding who should take responsibility for these select prisoners. The two allies agreed that Britain’s Combined Services Detailed Interrogation Centre (CSDIC), the agency charged with interrogating important prisoners of war in England, “should act as advanced echelon” for their collaborative effort. But the ultimate question of “ownership” of these prisoners was immaterial as transfers of some of the generals to the United States could be easily effected. As if to demonstrate this, CSDIC sent four generals and a colonel awaiting promotion to the United States on the first of June, a little more than two weeks after their capture in North Africa, with more to follow as the war progressed.2 The U.S. War Department most likely deferred to the British in dealing with the general officer prisoners because London had far more experience handling prisoners of war. During the First World War, the British learned a great deal about caring for war prisoners that laid the groundwork for an efficient and well-managed treatment of POWs during World War II. Britain graduated from temporarily housing the Kaiser’s men aboard ships in the winter of 1914-1915 to the establishment of land-based camps both 3 in the British Isles and in France the following year. Prisoners of the British enjoyed a bountiful food allotment of 4600 calories a day through most of the war, and even when Britons themselves struggled with food shortages in the spring of 1917, POWs still consumed 3000 calories a day.3 Other staples of World War II British POW policy developed during the trials and errors of the Great War as well. The use of prisoner labor, while not utilized at all until the spring of 1916, quickly expanded until almost one-third of the German prisoners in Britain were working at various agriculture jobs by war’s end. And, not unlike their successors in the Second World War, World War I German officer prisoners found themselves in stately mansions like Donington Hall in Derby, enjoyed the use of adjacent acres of land for regular walks and were aided by enlisted prisoners who acted

Load more