The problems with POW camp numbers and locations

Discussion in 'UK PoW Camps' started by Osborne2, Nov 29, 2020.

  1. Osborne2

    Osborne2 Well-Known Member

    I thought it was about time I put this quote into this forum. It is from the Foreign Office on 15 March 1948, a reply to an International Committee of the Red Cross request for a list of British camps holding POWs. Many of you will be familiar with it, but it might help those setting out on a research journey to fathom out why it is so hard to pin things down:

    "Not only have numbers and location of camps in Great Britain changed continually, but as you know, it has frequently happened that a camp at the same location has had a succession of different numbers, and a camp with the same number has moved to a succession of different locations. Furthermore, nowadays many camps continue to exist in their old locations, but are known as satellites or hostels of other camps, and have no longer a number of their own. We ourselves could certainly not compile a list of all camps which have ever existed, and we very much doubt if the War Office could either, as their staff has changed considerably during the years, and most of their departments are now closing down" (CICR Geneva, File G17LOC/4024).

    The War Office also destroyed the camp location maps they held, according to Henry Faulk, who was in charge of Foreign Office POWD re-education. Both these statements taken from: Anthony Hellen: Temporary settlements and transient populations. The legacy of Britain's Prison of War Camps, p205.

    I would also add, I have seen a photograph of a hostel site with a board outside giving the number of the main camp it was attached to. That can confuse the unwary for certain. By 1948 most numbered main camps had closed or become satellites or hostels for the remaining main camps, which confusingly were all working camps although some were still named as base camps.
    Edit: Improved syntax.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2020
    Lindele likes this.
  2. Brian Smith

    Brian Smith Junior Member

    Brilliant, a reply Sir Humphry himself would be proud of.
     

Share This Page