Camp 4 - Windlestone Hall Camp, Rushyford, County Durham



Camp 4 - Windlestone Hall Camp, Rushyford, County DurhamPrisoner of War Camps (1939 – 1948) - Project report by Roger J.C. Thomas - English Heritage 2003OS NGRSheetNo.Name & LocationCountyCond’nType 1945CommentsNZ 26 28934Windlestone Hall Camp, RusheyfordCounty Durham5Location: NZ 263 286 for centre of Hall. 3? miles SE of Bishop Auckland. Entry in ‘Prisoner of War Camps in County Durham’; “The prisoners of war were housed in Windlestone Hall itself as well as within the grounds.”Previous use: The estate was owned by the Eden family from the 13th Century. The Hall was built in 1835 incorporating a previous Elizabethan manor house. 1897 (Robert) Anthony Eden was born at the Hall – he would serve as Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister.1936 the Eden family sold the Hall and estate which included 20 farms and 53 cottages.POW Camp: Recorded as being opened during 1940, (Appendix to WO 199/405)Being just a sub-camp of the main Harperley Camp 93, it has attracted more than its fair share of rumours.A trawl of websites gives it – Rudolf Hess was held there on his way from Scotland [he wasn’t] – it held 150 women prisoners of war [see below] – it was open in November 1939 [it wasn’t] – it held dangerous German prisoners [no more than any other camp].The book mention above states; “There is no record of any unusual incidents during the time the location was under the control of the main camp at Harperley”. (p88)Ordnance Survey 1953The Female POW claim.So far, I have found no evidence stating that female pows were held in Windlestone.The main story originated from two articles, one in ‘The Journal’, March 2006, and then the same claim, but with a bit more detail, in ‘The Northern Echo’, May 2006, with the headline; “Were female Nazis kept within these walls?” (Tempting to apply Betteridge’s law of headlines here which states: “Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word ‘no’”). Both articles were still online in 2019.The originator of the news story was Ruth Atkinson who investigated a rumour that women pows were held at Windlestone Hall. Her claim was that 150 women were indeed secretly detained there as pows for 18 months at the end of the war, and that some were “active Nazis”. Her evidence was stated as; 1. Eyewitnesses, 2. Documents held in Geneva, 3. A photograph of a nurse in Jersey. My emphasis in the extracts below.1. The Journal - "It proved very difficult to find anybody who remembered the women prisoners. I spoke to some of the older members of the local workingmen's club and they swore blind that no women prisoners had ever been detained there…. After advertising locally, eyewitnesses came forward to report seeing the women being taken to church.”Northern Echo – “A couple of people replied to say they did, (remember women) but couldn’t say for sure if they were prisoners.” [So, maybe just women?]“Although none of the locals she interviewed could remember seeing them, it also states in the reports that the women were dressed in ATS uniforms…. It seems strange that the German women were issued with British ATS uniforms", says Ruth. "It's not known whether the nurses wore their ATS attire to church, but if they did it might explain why people couldn’t remember them.” The women were also; “allowed to go for walks of one to two hours every day with the Womens’ Auxiliary Territorial Service (ATS)."Windlestone HallFrom these contradictory accounts, I have no idea if there were eye-witnesses or not. It also seems remarkable that no-one spoke to these women in church, or introduced themselves while they were out walking in what was a small rural community. How can there be reports of enemy pows wearing British uniforms made by people who “couldn’t remember them”? It can also be asked, why were they guarded at all? If they were considered at risk of escaping, why were they provided with ready made disguises in the form of British uniforms?2. The Journal - The ICRC in Geneva; “…wrote back saying they had a record of women prisoners…. Ruth flew there to meet a friendly archivist who showed her records establishing there had been 150 women prisoners there for about 18 months during 1944 and 1945.”Northern Echo – “Fabrizio Bensi, an ICRC archivist, handed her a large envelope. There in black and white was confirmation that German nurses had been held as prisoners at Windlestone Hall during the war. Many had been captured in 1944 from across Europe, including Rostock, in northern Germany, Brussels in Belgium, and Brest and Normandy in France.”Rostock is a bit of a problem as it was captured by Soviet forces. There are no specific references here to the Channel Islands. The documents do not seem to state whether the women were pows, or ‘protected personnel’, or internees working as nurses, or…“The documents revealed that Windlestone had been inspected every two months with reports…” Why was the camp inspected every two months by the ICRC - far more than any other camp? All that is required is for these documents to be shown to finish the speculation, but I cannot find them or further references to them.3. Northern Echo – Ruth contacted the Channel Islands Occupation Society; “The society provided Ruth with physical evidence of her claim, a grainy black and white photograph of nurse Gretchen Killmann, who had been captured in the Channel Islands in 1945. Ruth discovered her maiden name had been Jessen and that she had "married Jurgen Killmann by proxy over the telephone before leaving the islands as a POW." She was then taken to Windlestone.” Is there evidence for the last sentence?There is one section of the story that I can provide some evidence for: “Ruth also came across another astonishing revelation some of the women had been pregnant while at Windlestone.Luise Stretter, born on August 2, 1925, gave birth to Heinrich Josef Stretter on December 22, 1944, while held prisoner of war at Windlestone, said the report.Hildegard Lindig, born December 23, 1916, had the prisoner of war number A372429. She was captured in Brussels on September 3, 1944. Her report continued: "March 28, 1945 present in Windlestone Hall camp, requested to be repatriated as quickly as possible due to pregnancy."Entries for birth records show:DateSurnameFirst name(s)MotherDistristVolPageDec 1944StretterHeinrich JStretterDurham W10a423Sep 1945LindigEleonoreLindigDurham W10a343But, this does not show the mothers’ marital status or ‘occupation’ – pow, protected personnel, nurse, ATS,….?In The Northern Echo, Ruth stated; "There are a lot of conspiracy theories and they could be true. I believe the women were Nazis as in the documents the women were said to have national socialist views." But everyone has different views…. I made the film to question the British Government, to make people think, and also I think its important to record the memories of older people."There are too many inconsistencies here for the story to be accepted at face value. The lack of witnesses, or of evidence being shown, or references given, is problematic. Surely, if you are challenging official reports that there were no women pows in the UK, and, more especially when accusing people of being ‘active Nazis’ – you should produce the evidence for people to see, or at least the references for people to consult the documents themselves. There was no record of “the memories of older people” – the memories of older people, that none of them could remember seeing them, has actually been ignored.The lack of revealed evidence goes further, because –The Journal - “there were no records of them being in County Durham and the Ministry of Defence was secretive…” ‘Secretive’ or confused as to what it had to do with them. There is no reference to any research at the National Archives.Northern Echo – “local historians were baffled.” And, no historian of pow camps has uncovered any records or accounts.An historian with the Imperial War Museum in London, says he’s never heard or seen evidence of female German POWs being held in Britain.“She wrote to Kate Adie, the former war correspondent and author of the book Women and War, who called her out of the blue one day. "She said 'its absolute rubbish, you’re wasting your time.'”There are no accounts from any female pow held at Windlestone. There are no accounts from any of the male pows held at the hall stating that women were there as well.“Ruth finished her documentary, entitled The Women of Windlestone, earlier this year. But she concedes she may never find the answers she is looking for.” If she did not find the answers she is looking for – just what did she find in Geneva?After the camp: The hall was used for a while to house Latvian European Voluntary Workers. Between 1957 to 2006 the Hall became Windlestone Hall School, a residential special school. Part of the site was also used as a respite care centre for disabled people. It was sold on to a private investor with his own dubious history. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download