wcarah,
 
I would love to get a copy of that report.  How can i get in contact with you?
 
Zane

zversyp,
       Did Carl MacDonald receive the POW Medal?
 
Robert

Hello,
May I ask ?
In regard to American's interned in Switzerland.
Were there any American internees held in Switzerland in WW1 ?
Lt Col H. P. Picot CBE does not seem to mention any in his 1919 book which admittedly is mainly about British internees, but does give details of French and of German interest but I could see no mention of any Americans held. The book gives great details of the workings of how things were organised and includs chapters on Visits of relatives and how this was funded , details of work and education of internees .
Thanks
Alex

Good info.

Legge worked in difficult diplomatic climate.

1. Switzerland was the only neutral nation in the ETO to be surrounded by Axis-conrolled territory. The flight paths from Allied airbases to many Axis targets would pass over/near Swiss soil.
2. While the Swiss diplomatic corps and its national government had many "unofficial" and back-channel supporters of the Allied nations and/or hostile to Nazi operations, Switzerland also had many German sympathizers within its government.
3. It was the "Birthplace of the Geneva Convention" and host of the International Committeee of the Red Cross, was focused on above-question-adherence to the Hague Convention and Geneva Convention. Kind of a two-edged sword.
4. The Swiss citizenry was not overwhelmingly enamored to the US Air Corps. USAAF (and RAF) had bombed/strafed Swiss communities, rail yards, trains, industrial areas, and had shot down Swiss fighters that were patrolling over Swiss airspace. 
5. Swiss canton (similar to a state or province) governments were howling that some internees were often "hooligans" on the streets and in local establishments, committing civil crimes (some very serious).
   
   Legge had to tip-toe thru a series of diplomatic sh!t-storms which hampered his efforts to address the outrages of Straflager Wauwilermoos. I have access to info that he wrote no less than 11 cables and official diplomatic letters of protest to the Secretary of State and the Swiss Legation. The fact that escaping internees and "a few internee's-turned-hooligan" were stripped of internship status (and therefore treated as domestic criminals rather that military internees) made protests to be treated less-han-cordially by the Swiss National Goverment, although the Straflager Wauwilermoos commandant was eventually was court-martialled, imprisoned for three years and stripped of his rank and pension.

That was a good question, Alex.

The three American internees held in Switzerland in WW I were actually part of the post-war international discussions of treatment and fate of aircraft that found their way into non-belligerent airspace.
 
The Hague Conventions had been rendered somewhat obsolete by the changes in tactics, equipment and technology of WW I. At the end of WW I, the Washington Conference on the Limitations of Armaments in 1921 established the "Commission of Jurists." Delegations from six countries (Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United States) met at The Hague during the period from 11 DEC 1922 to 19 FEB 1923. The Commission of Jurists wrote "The Hague Rules of Air Warfare" a highly organized, comprehensive code for control of aviation in warfare (62 articles) and formed the basis for the tenets of the Geneva Convention, which "blessed" the Commission of Jurists report that included the Hague Rules of Air Warfare.

While both the military of all of the the Allies and Axis Powers foreswore to adhere to its precepts, the U.S. government never officially ratified the Hague Rules of Air Warfare because of the isolationist political climate of the 1930's. (US congressional leaders didn't feel the U.S. had a dog in the brewing European fight.) So, it was ironic to the Swiss that the U.S. expected the Swiss to adhere to the "The Hague Rules of Air Warfare" sections on treatment of interned air crews, even though the US Congress did not feel it worthy of ratification.