U-boat Archive - POW Interrogation Centers









	INTERROGATION CENTERS
	FOR THE INTERROGATION OF WAR PRISONERS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part I

ORIGIN OF THE INTERROGATION CENTERS

FOR THE INTERROGATION OF WAR PRISONERS

		PAGE

A.	Historical Sketch to Time of Activation	1 - 8

B.	Establishment of and Subsequent Changes
	In the Commands of Fort Hunt and Tracy	9 - 15

C.	List of Commanding Officers	16

Part II

THE INTERROGATION BRANCH - CPM

A.	Foreword: The Scope of Interrogation,
	Fort Hunt and Tracy	17 - 19

B.	Selection of Prisoners of War for
	Detailed Interrogation	19 - 23

	1. Selections within the Theater of Operations	20 - 21

	2. Selections of Prisoners of War in the Camps in the U.S.	21 - 22

	3. Selections of Prisoners of War at the Ports	22 - 23

C.	Basis of Selection	23 - 24

D.	Pine Grove Furnace, Pennsylvania -
	Holding Camp for CPM Branch	24 - 26

E.	The Handling of Prisoners of War within the Camp

	1. Transport of Prisoners	28

	2. Reception and Processing	28 - 32

	3. Enclosures "A" and "B"	32 - 34

			PAGE

E.	The Handling of Prisoners of War within
	the Camp (Cont'd)

	4. Administration and Guard		37

F.	The Process of Interrogation and the Report

	1. The Process		37 - 41

	2. Use of Stool Pigeons		41 - 43

	3. The Interrogation Sections and Sub-Sections		43 - 51

		a. The Navy Section - Its Unique Position	43 - 45

		b. Standard Operation Procedure (A Memorandum)	45 - 50

		c. The Enemy Intelligence Sub-Section	50

		d. The Army Subsection	50 - 51

		e. The Air Subsection	51

		f. Scientific Research Subsection	51

		g. Industrial Economic Subsection	51

		h. Eastern European Subsection	51

	4. Evaluation and Other Functional Subsections		51 - 52

		a. Evaluation and Editing	51

		b. Morale Subsection	51 - 52

		c. Monitoring Subsection	52

		d. Library Subsection	52

		e. Document Subsection	52

			PAGE

5.	Record of Interrogations (1943 - 1945)		53 - 57

	I .	Roster of Ps/W Processed between
		August 1942 and July 1945	53

	III.	Quarterly Tabulations of Ps/W Processed	53

	IV.	Classification of NAZIS and ANTI-NAZIS
		Since January 1944	53

	V.	Number of Formal Reports Produced
		Each Year, 1943, 1944, and 1945	54

	VI.	Intercepted Conversations	54 - 55

	VII.	Extracts Supplied to Other Sections or Agencies	55 - 56

	VIII.	Draft Reports and Memoranda	56 - 57

PART III

EDITING - MONITORING -

TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT

A.	Process of Evaluating and Editing	58 - 60

B.	The Document Subsection	63 - 64

C.	The Monitoring Subsection or "Listening In"	66 - 72

D.	Technical Equipment - Listening and Recording
	Devices	72 - 78

E.	Extension of Original Monitoring Facilities	78 - 80

PART IV

INTERROGATION CENTER,

P. O. BOX 651, Tracy, California

		PAGE

A.	Its Establishment	82 - 83

B.	Facilities and Procedure at Tracy	84 - 86

C.	Interrogation Section

	1. Record of Interrogations - 1943 - 1945	86 - 88

PART V

SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A.	The Interrogation Center - Channels of Control	89 - 90

B.	Liaison of the Interrogation Center with Other
	Agencies of Intelligence	90 - 91

C.	Coordination of Interrogation Center and
	Document Section	91

D.	Unified Command	91

CHARTS - PHOTOGRAPHS, ETC

				PAGE

PINE GROVE FURNACE INTERNMENT CAMP
DETAIL LAYOUT				25

INTERROGATION CENTER, P.O. Box 1142, Ground Plan				27

INTERIOR ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, FORT HUNT				27

PRISONER OF WAR TRANSPORTATION BUS				29

TYPICAL PRISONER OF WAR ROOM, FORT HUNT				31

ENCLOSURE "A" - CORNER VIEW, SHOWING ONE
OF THE FOUR GUARD TOWERS, RECREATION YARD
AND DOUBLE WIRE ENCLOSURE				33

CENTRAL GUARD TOWER - ENCLOSURE "B"				36

FENCE ALARM SYSTEM, ENCLOSURE "B"				36

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART, INTERROGATION SECTION,
FORT HUNT				52

LIBRARY - FORT HUNT				61

EDITING AND EVALUATING ROOM				62

CHIEF MONITOR CONTROL BOARD
ENCLOSURE "A" - FORT HUNT				65

MAIN CONTROL PANELS - BUILDINGS "A" & "B"				71

MEMOVOX REPRODUCING MACHINE				74

BINAURAL SYSTEM - "LISTENING IN" - NOTE EACH
LOUD SPEAKER HAS ITS SEPARATE CONTROL				77

MICROPHONE - SHOWING DOUBLE WALLED CELLOTEX BOX,
ROCK WOOL INSULATION AND BELL-END RESTING				79
ON THE CEILING CELLOTEX BOARD

CHARTS - PHOTOGRAPHS, ETC., Cont'd.

				PAGE

INTERIOR VIEW, ONE WING - MONITORING BUILDING				81

POST LAYOUT, TRACY				82



	PART I

	ORIGIN OF THE INTERROGATION CENTERS FOR
	THE INTERROGATION OF WAR PRISONERS

	A. Historical Sketch to Time of Activation

	Between 25 June and 17 December 1941, ONI made a study of the center located near London for the Interrogation of Prisoners of War. This study "was carried on by correspondence and first-hand information secured by a representative sent to England for that specific purpose." (1) as a result of this study a Memorandum containing recommendations, approved by the Secretary of Navy for the formation of Interrogation Centers to be used in the interrogation of war prisoners, was forwarded to the Secretary of War. (2) This memorandum requested the Secretary of War to give approval to these recommendations and "initiate such action as may be necessary to place them in effect".

	In detail, these recommendations were:

	1. "The experience of the British during the present war appears to have demonstrated -- and our examination of the subject would lend support to the view -- that a greater certainty for obtaining proper results from the interrogation of captured submarine crews, airmen, and a limited number of selected army prisoners, was assured only when it was possible for trained officers to conduct such interrogations in a central interrogation center rather than at the time of capture.


	(1) See Record of Events reference the Establishment of an Interrogation Center for Interrogation of War Prisoners, W/D MID 26 Feb. 42.
	(2) Secretary of Navy, Washington, to the Secretary of War, Serial #01564016, 18 Dec 41.

	1



	2. Since the joint Army and Navy agreement provides that Naval prisoners of war will be in the custody of the Navy only so long as is necessary to effect their transfer to Army custody, formal interrogation must take place after the Army has taken over. It is, therefore, necessary for the interrogators and the Office of the Provost Marshall General to cooperate in providing, furnishing and maintaining such interrogation centers as may be instituted.

	3. An Interrogation Section has been established in the Office of Naval Intelligence, which will be responsible for all details in connection with the interrogation of prisoners of war of interest to the Naval service.

	4. In order that provision for adequate and continued interrogation may be provided, it is recommended that:

	a. This section operate in conjunction with such parallel activity as may be established by the Army.

	b. That the Secretary of War be requested to provide suitable Interrogation Centers in accordance with recommendations to be submitted by the Interrogation Sections, funds for providing and equipping such centers to be provided from appropriations now available to the War Department." (3)

	Pertinent papers were sent to G-2 for study, and between 19 December 1941, and 1 January 1942, a study was made by Lt. Col. Holbrook of CI and Major Bendetson of the PMG. Subsequently these two officers conferred with representatives of the Office of Naval Intelligence. As a result of this conference the following recommendations were made to the A.C. of S., G-2:

	1. "That the War Department provide a suitable joint Army-Navy interrogation center at a location to be selected, to be equipped in accordance with the British plan, such interrogation center to be
	(3) Memorandum for the Secretary of the Navy, Subject: Interrogation Sections and Interrogation Centers etc., Serial #01564116, 18 Dec. 41, SIGNED T. S. Wilkinson, Capt. U.S. Navy.

	2



	operated as an exempted station by the Provost Marshal General. The staff of the interrogation center will include a number of carefully selected officers from the two services who would report directly to M.I.D. and O.N.I. at which offices the result of interrogation would be evaluated for dissemination."

	This recommendation also called attention to the "substantial" cost of such a center resulting from the "special nature of the equipment," and stated that, "in view of the reported success with which the British have operated a similar installation" the Provost Marshall concurred in the proposal. (4)

	In reply to questions from the A.C. of S., G-2, respecting, (a) the initial number and location of such centers, and (b) the estimated cost of acquisition and construction (exclusive of technical equipment), a second memorandum was prepared by the Chief of Aliens Division, Major Karl R. Bendetson. As to a. the PMG recommended "the initial establishment of two centers: one within a radius of 100 miles from Washington, D. C., preferably in Virginia, and another on the West Coast in the California area, preferably in the vicinity either of San Francisco or Los Angles."

	With reference to b. this Memorandum referred to the British use of "one or more country estates" as interrogation centers and suggested the probability of a similar arrangement here. As to actual costs, the PMG pleaded insufficient information, but offered "to assist the Corps of Engineers in formulating estimates by forming descriptive data on the general plan."

	(4) Memorandum from W/D Office of the PMG, Aliens Division, Subject: Joint Interrogation Center, 24 Dec. 41.

	3



	It is an incredible feature of this Memorandum that it suggested a capacity of only 25 prisoners of war for each of those centers. (5)

	A similar American organization, 6824 DIC (MIS) operating in ETOUSA, was equipped to hold from 250 to 300 prisoners.

	After considering the above memoranda, the AC of S., G-2, recommended to the Chief of Staff the approval of the PMG letter of 26 December 1941 and also:

	a. "That the Provost Marshal General be instructed to consult with G-2 ONI as to the proper location of two interrogation centers, one on the East Coast and one on the West Coast, and to make every effort to find suitable facilities already constructed.

	b. That the Provost Marshal General be instructed to prepare for inclusion in supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 1942 and the appropriations for the fiscal year 1943 requests for funds necessary for the procurement of sites, equipping same with technical apparatus, provision security of prisoners, and construction of quarters for detachments necessary for guarding same." (6)

	Accordingly, the Secretary of War advised the Secretary of Navy that:

	"The War Department realizes the value of these centers and is taking steps to establish two such centers, one on the East Coast, in the vicinity of Washington, and one on the West Coast, probably in the eastern part of California. Representatives of the Military Intelligence Division and the Provost Marshal General have been instructed to consult with ONI as to suitable locations for these establishments." (7)

	On January 1942 the AGO instructed the PMG to proceed with the selection of sites in accordance with the letters of the Secretary of Navy

	(5) Memo from W/D PMG, Subj: Joint Interrogation Center, 26 Dec. 41.
	(6) Memo for C. of S. from AC of S., G-2, 2 Jan. 42, Approved by C. of S., Jan, 42.
	(7) Memorandum to the Secretary of Navy, Subject: Joint Intelligence Sections, 6 Jan. 42.

	4



	to the Secretary of War 18 December 1941 , with enclosure, and reply thereto of 6 January 1942, (8) The Plans and Training Branch of G-2 was designated as consulting office for MID and Col. Banfill detailed Major Hoffman as his representative. During the next ten days a study was made as to the needs and objectives of the Interrogation Center and also a number of sites in the vicinity of Washington, Baltimore and Frederick were visited. Three guiding principles were assumed to be essential in the choice of the site in the Washington area:

	a. Security

	b. Must be within a radius of 100 miles of Washington

	c. Must have suitable facilities already constructed

	Various properties not too distant from Washington were considered as desirable locations for the Joint Interrogation Center. The site most favored was SWANNANOA, an estate in Augusta and Nelson counties, Virginia, 97 miles from Richmond and 128 miles from Washington. Representatives from ONI and G-2 were agreed that SWANNAOA would meet all their requirements for an interrogation center after reconditioning and after a few minor conversions. (9) Another site favorably considered was an estate in Marwood, Maryland. Publicity, however, harmful to the interests of a Joint Interrogation Center, rendered this location undesirable, and the Deputy Chief of Staff ordered that no further action be taken until approved by him. (10)

	(8) Memo of AG, Subject: Joint Interrogation Centers, to the PMG, 8 Jan. 42.
	(9) Memo Aliens Div., Subj: Inspection of Swannanoa, Va., 21 Jan. 42.
	(10) Memo for the Chief, Military Intelligence Service, signed Catesby ap C. Jones, Col., General Staff, 28 April 1942.

	5



	It was not,, therefore,, until 15 May 1942 that it was definitely decided to locate the Joint Interrogation Center at Fort Hunt, George Washington Parkway,, Virginia,, when the Acting Secretary of Interior Granted permission to the Secretary of War, "to use and occupy for war purposes all of that area,, with the exception of the old powder magazines,, and antiquated gun emplacements which have been assigned to the national Archives for the storage of nitrate films,, within Fort Hunt Reservation,, George Washington Parkway, Virginia." At the same time authority was granted to erect additional housing facilities, "the exact location of such structures to be determined by the Superintendent, National Capitol Parks, and the proper Army authorities." (11)

	Meanwhile, during January and February 1942 a joint study was made of sound engineering projects (listening sets, etc.) "in which the Army and Navy have mutual interest." (12) This study involved the investigation of the various products of manufacturers and distributors of sound equipment. As a result of this investigation representatives of G-2 and ONI, recommended the Memovox Recorder built according to specifications of Dr., J. F. Lee of the Bureau of Ships, Navy Department. (13) Accordingly, the Secretary of War directed: "that the Chief Signal Officer procure and install all

	(11) Special Use Permit (issued by U.S. Department of the Interior) signed, John J. Dempsey, Acting Sec. of the Interior, 15 May 1942.
	(12) Memo to Lt. Cdr. A.H. Bergison, Subj: Reference Voice Recorders, 28 Jan 42.
	(13) Memo to Chief, Aliens Div. signed Earl L. Edwards, 1st Lt., Ing., Jan 42.

	6



	the equipment listed below in an Interrogation Center to be designated by the Provost Marshall General:

	20 each Memovox Transcriber Recorders Model AABVA or equal, together with spare parts, recorders, and supplies.

	5 each Memovox Recorder and Producer Instruments, Model AP - 100 or equal, together with headphones and foot control boxes.

	100 each Microphones

	Miscellaneous wiring and supplies as may be necessary for the operation of these machines." (14)

	By 25 May 1942 the amount of $217,000.00 had been allocated by the Chief of Engineers for the necessary construction at Fort Hunt, and orders had been issued for immediate construction. (15) It was estimated by the District Engineer that the necessary construction would be completed on 1 July 1942, this estimate, of course, subject to the delivery of materials. (16) Difficulty in the procurement of essential signal equipment occasioned some delay in the final completion of the Interrogation Center of Fort Hunt. Further delay was caused also by the failure of guard personnel to arrive when required. (17)

	It was not until 22 July 1942 that work had been completed on the main prison of the Interrogation Center, furniture acquired and telephones

	(14) Memo for the PMG, Subj: Technical Apparatus for Interrogation Centers, signed, Brenton Somervell, Brig. Gen. Asst, Chief of Staff (with concurring indorsements) 2 Feb 42.
	(15) Memo for General Strong, Subj: Comment on Memorandum from the Provost Marshal General, signed Catesby ap. C. Jones, Col. GSC, Chief, Interrogation Branch, 25 May 1942.
	(16) Memo for Chief of Military Intelligence Service, Subj: Report on Progress, etc., 9 June 42.

	7



	installed. Meanwhile, the LISTENING EQUIPMENT, was in process of installation and the guards were in training. (18) On 30 July, 1942, a Report on Progress at Fort Hunt, Virginia, was made to announce that all construction was completed, furniture received and in place, telephones installed, including a direct line to Headquarters MIS and to the Navy, and that fourteen listening machines were ready for operation. (19)

















	(17) See letter of Col. Jones, Subject: Report on Progress at Fort Hunt, 29 June 1942.
	(18) Memorandum to Brigadier General Hayes Kroner, Subject: Report on Progress at Fort Hunt, Virginia, 22 July 1942.
	(19) Memorandum to Brig. Gen. Hayes A. Kroner, 30 July 42.

	8



	B. Establishment of and Subsequent Changes in the Commands of Fort Hunt and Tracy

	As early as 15 May 1942 a War Department Memorandum laid down the general principles governing the command of Joint Interrogation Centers within the continental United States. (25)

	These general principles were:

	1. Interrogation Centers were placed under the control of the Provost Marshal General.

	2. Facilities at these centers were to be available for the interrogation of prisoners of war by the Military Intelligence Service and Office of Naval Intelligence.

	3. The interrogation centers at Fort Hunt, Virginia, and at "Byron Hot Springs," California, were to be "exempted activities."

	4. The Provost Marshal General was to designate their respective Commanding Officers,, who were to be responsible for the operation of the camps and for procuring "from the respective Corps Areas upon requisition the necessary supplies, equipment and overhead personnel, other than interrogation,, for their operation."

	5. Interrogation personnel were to be furnished by the Chiefs of the Army and Navy Interrogation Sections.

	6. The Commanding Generals of the Third Corps Area and the Ninth Corps Area respectively were to assume jurisdiction in court-martial and auditing, and were to "furnish the necessary personnel,

	(25) AG 383.6 (5-15-42) MC -SP

	9



	supplies and equipment upon requisition from the Commanding Officer" of the Interrogation Center (Fort Hunt or Tracy) within the Corps Area of their command.

	An additional Memorandum from the AG 383.6 (9-2-42) MS-SPAAM-H) elucidates further the dual command of Interrogation Centers:

	1. Such centers "are not classified as Prisoner of War Alien Enemy Camps, but are considered as Temporary Detention Centers for the specific purpose only of interrogating certain prisoners of war captured either by the Army or Navy."

	2. "Military reservations, at which Interrogation Centers are located, are divided into two parts for the purpose of command:

	a. That portion of the reservation inside the inner fence of the prisoner enclosure is known as the Interrogation Center, which is operated by, and is the responsibility of, the Chief of the Military Intelligence Service.

	b. The remainder of the reservation is operated by, and is the responsibility of, the Commanding General of the appropriate Service Command."

	The same Memorandum proceeds to define in detail the functions of the two commands:

	1. Functions of the Senior Officer, representing the Military Intelligence Service:

	a. Responsible for the coordination of "all Army and

	10

Navy activities within the Center with the Post Commanders, requesting such assistance from the Post Commander in the way of guards, messing arrangements, interrogating, guarding and exercising of prisoners as may be necessary.

b. Will be responsible for the correct processing of prisoner of war mail.

c. Is authorized to deal direct with the Chief of Military Intelligence Service, War Department, Washington D. C.

2. Functions of the Service Commanders at Fort Hunt and "Byron Hot Springs":

a. They "will exercise jurisdiction over, and will be responsible for, the post, exclusive of the Center (Interrogation Center), including the following:

	(1)	the performance of administrative, housekeeping, and supply functions.

	(2)	He has no responsibility nor authority in connection with the commands or training of troops located at such stations, except troops of the station complement or those attached to his command for training.

	(3)	Exercise court-martial jurisdiction over all personnel.

	(4)	Be responsible for the training of Escort Guard Companies at such installations.

	(5)	Have no control whatsoever over the part of the reservation "pertaining to the Interrogation Center".



	3. Other Inter-relationships explained in this Memorandum:

	a. Housekeeping facilities for personnel within the Interrogation Center were to be supplied and operated by the Post Commanders, but "under the general supervision of the senior representative of the Chief, Military Intelligence Service."

	b. In the event that the M.I.S. or the ONI should desire to establish protective custody over certain selected prisoners outside the Center, a receipt for such prisoners was to be furnished the Post Commander by the senior representative of the Military Intelligence Service, "prior to their release from the Center. Responsibility for safeguarding and returning such prisoners to the Center rests with the senior representative of the Military Intelligence Service. No prisoner should be allowed non-protective custody inside or outside the reservation."

	c. Responsibility for insuring "that the provisions of the Geneva Convention relating to the Prisoners of War Information Bureau are properly applied "lies with the Office of the Provost Marshal General," all Service Commanders, Post Commanders, and Senior Military Intelligence Service representatives concerned, will render such reports as the Provost Marshal General may require in order that he may fulfill his responsibility."

	Experience both at Fort Hunt and "Byron Hot Springs" soon revealed

	12



	that inefficiency was inherent in this system of dual commands. Accordingly, after eight months of operating under this system of dual control, the A. C. of S., G-2, pointed out in a Memorandum to the Commanding General, Military District of Washington, "that a unified control will result in greater efficiency and improved morale." (26)

	The Memorandum of the AC of S., G-2, together with a Memorandum from the Chief, Prisoner of War Branch, setting forth in greater detail the inefficiencies of the dual system, were forwarded, through channels, to the Commanding General, Military District of Washington. The request was at first refused as contrary to existing regulations (Secret Letter, War Department, File AG 383.6 (9-2-42) MS-SPAAM-N, dated 4 September 1942) requiring that Interrogation Centers be divided in two parts for the purpose of command. (27)

	The AC of S., G-2, then requested that the "secret letter, War Department, the Adjutant General's Office, file AG 383.6 (9-2-42) MS-SPAAM-M, dated 4 September 1942, Subject: Joint Interrogation Centers, be revoked and that you prepare a new letter placing control of joint interrogation centers in the continental United States under the Chief, Military Intelligence Service, War Department, as the

	(26) Memorandum, Through Commanding General, S.O.S., Subject: Relief of Post Commander, Fort Hunt, Virginia, 3 Mar. 43.
	(27) See 1st Ind to the above request of the AC of S., G-2, 13 Mar 43.

	13



	office having primary interest in same." (28)

	Although the initial correspondence respecting the elimination of the dual command had dealt primarily with Fort Hunt, the AC of S., G-2, now made it clear that this change should be all inclusive:

	There are now two joint interrogation centers in the continental United States, one at Fort Hunt, Virginia, and another at Byron Hot Springs, California. It is desired that these centers and any other organized here after will be administered similarly to the manor in which the harbor defenses are now operated."

	On 14 April 1943 the respective Post Commanders of Fort Hunt and Byron Hot Springs were ordered reassigned within the jurisdiction of their Corps Areas or else made available for reassignment by the Adjutant General. (29)

	Meanwhile, on 20 April 1943, it was directed that: "The Senior Military Intelligence Service Officer assigned to duty at the station is designated as the Commanding Officer, and as such, he is responsible for the proper performance of all functions at his post which are the responsibility of the Chief, Military Intelligence Service as well as those functions which are the responsibility of the Service Commander. The post commanders of these installations command all military personnel and are similarly in charge of all civilian personnel serving thereat, regardless of the duties they perform. The post commanders

	(28) See 3rd Ind. Ibid.
	(29) AG 320.2 (4-9-43) PO-M-SPG AO, Joint Interrogation Centers, forwarded 14 Apr. 43.

	14



	report to and are under the supervision of the Chief, Military Intelligence Service for functions which are the responsibility of the Chief, Military Intelligence Service. They are responsible to and are under the supervision of the Service Commander for the adequate performance of functions which are the responsibility of the Service Commander."

	In addition to the above duties, the Post Commander had also the following responsibilities:

	a. Operation and coordination of all Army and Navy activities within the center.

	b. Proper application of the terms of the Geneva Convention.

	c. Correct processing of P/W mail. (30)

	The unity of command thus effected resulted speedily in the promotion of the desired esprit de Corps and efficiency so essential to a Detailed Interrogation Center. It has been observed, both in the establishments of this character located in the United States, as well as in the theaters of Military operations, that essential security and efficient functioning of the unit are possible only when complete centralization of command exists. In the American Detailed Interrogation Centers operating variously in North Africa, Italy and France the Guard company was organized as an integral part of the Center. (31)

	(30) Note: The Reports required by the Geneva Convention were to be rendered, as before, through the PMG. AG 383.6 (4-18-43) OB-5 SPAAM-M
	(31) See Historical Notes on American Detailed Interrogation Centers, by Thomas C. Van Cleve, Lt. Col., Commanding Officer from 19 Oct. 43 to 27 May 45.

	15

C. List of Commanding Officers.

PO Box 1142, Alexandria, Virginia

Colonel Daniel W. Kent	-	1 July 1942 to 21 October 1942

Colonel Russell H. Sweet	-	21 Oct. 1942 to 1 Feb. 1943

Colonel John L. Walker	-	1 February 1943 to 18 July 1945

Colonel Zenas R. Bliss	-	18 July 1945 to end

P. O. Box 651, Tracy, California

Colonel Daniel W. Kent	-	5 Nov. 1942 to 7 Feb. 1945

Colonel Zenas R. Bliss	-	7 February 1945 to 18 July 1945













	PART II

	THE INTERROGATION BRANCH - CPM



	A. Foreword: The Scope of Interrogation at Fort Hunt and Tracy.

	The British preceded the Americans in the development and exploiting of detailed interrogation as a basis of military intelligence. Their experiments with the method of procuring military intelligence proved to be invaluable as a guide to Americans, seeking to activate interrogation units during the early months of the war. Interrogation for military intelligence falls naturally into two broad categories:

	1. The search for and the recording of day by day tactical intelligence of the enemy's forces, his disposition and intentions. Such information is of immediate usefulness and must, therefore, be gathered in the field or at base interrogation centers within the actual theater of operations.

	2. Strategic and detailed technical intelligence and other intelligence of a non-tactical nature or of "high level" nature is best obtained through base Detailed Interrogation Centers located either in the rear of Army Group Commands in the theater itself or in the immediate vicinity of the War Department or, in case of an inter-allied war, near to the Supreme Allied Headquarters as, for example, near Washington or London in the late war.

	17



	Several such Detailed interrogation Centers were operated during World War II, with results which yielded a mass of valuable information, in North Africa, Italy, Southern France, Northern France, England and Fort Hunt, Virginia. In some detail, the subjects on which intelligence is to be obtained by detailed interrogation in such centers are:

	1. All matters having to do with overall strategic intelligence.

	2. All ordnance, signal, and technical intelligence involving theoretical or scientific knowledge of the principles upon which armament, signal equipment or other technical equipment, are constructed or operated.

	3. All non-Operation Intelligence, including such subjects as War Economy, Industrial Development, War Finance, and Civilian Morale.

	4. Organizational Details of the Enemy High Command, Staff organization, Espionage and Counter Espionage, Hospital Organization, Organization of Railways and Highways for Military Transport, Black Lists and White Lists, involving the study of objectionable political groups or organizations, or groups and individuals more likely to be found "friendly" to an invading power

	5. All Order of Battle Information having to do with the Armed Forces as a whole: their command, method of recruiting, nature and employment of special units, hospitalization, discipline, etc.

	6. Information respecting the methods of the enemy in dealing with occupied countries, including policing, economic organization, employment of local agents, etc.

	It is the purpose of this report to show how such intelligence has been obtained by means of interrogation, under typical conditions, at

	18



	Fort Hunt: to describe the internal organization of the unit; the qualifications of the interrogating personnel; and the nature of its equipment for obtaining, editing and distributing such intelligence.

	It became apparent early in the war that proper results from interrogation are to be obtained only when the actual interrogation is accomplished by trained officers under conditions affording every facility for their accurate and intelligent briefing respecting all information desired by the Army, Navy, or Air Forces. For purpose of modern warfare, the technique of interrogation is a specialized one. Individual interrogators may not be assumed to be expert in all the fields of intelligence mentioned above. They are expert only in the technique of interrogation, and require at all times competent briefing from the various agencies or services of the armed forces. From the outset, therefore, it is essential that the closest liaison be established and maintained between the Detailed Interrogation Center and such agencies as Signal Intelligence, Technical Intelligence, Ordnance Intelligence, etc. General briefing will not suffice: there must be fully oriented as to specific information desired.

	B. Selection of Prisoners of War for Interrogation.

	In contrast with a Detailed Interrogation Center located in the actual theater of operations, such as 6824 Detailed Interrogation Center, which selects its prisoners directly from the theater

	19



	concentration centers, Fort Hunt must rely upon a variety of sources for its knowledgeable prisoners of war. Generally speaking, these sources are:

	1. Prisoners selected within the actual theater of operations: Through various selecting agencies located within the theater of operations prisoners of war thought to be suitable to the requirements of Fort Hunt were sent by plane or by ship, earmarked for special detailed interrogation. It was a regular feature of the work of the American Section of CSDIC (AFHQ) to select and move such prisoners directly from North Africa or Italy to Fort Hunt. The criterion of selection was "long term technical or strategic information." Thus, when a particularly knowledgeable prisoner was brought in who possessed such detailed information as to require continued interrogation over a long period and under the guidance of technical advisors, he was sent, after the First Detailed Interrogation, to Fort Hunt, together with such information as has previously been obtained from him. In theory, this procedure was excellent, but was restricted, in practice, by the claim to priority of CSDIC U.K. At no time during the operation of the American Section of CSDIC (AFHQ) was an equitable distribution of desirable prisoners of war established between Fort Hunt and CSDIC UK In France also 6824 Detailed Interrogation Center undertook to supply a limited number of specially selected

	20



	prisoners of war to be flown twice monthly to Fort Hunt. By the end of the war in Germany this procedure was proving its effectiveness. It is unfortunate that a similar system had not been inaugurated at the beginning and maintained throughout the war.

	2. Selection of Prisoners of War at the camps in the United States: Especially during the early period of the activities of Fort Hunt prisoners desired for interrogation were selected from the large prisoner of war camps located in various parts of the United States. Screening teams were sent to the respective camps, prisoners were selected and segregated and ultimately sent to a railhead near the Interrogation Center where they were picked up and transported by unit transport to Fort Hunt or a holding camp for detailed interrogation. While many prisoners of value from the intelligence point of view were selected in this manner, the method proved to be in many ways unsatisfactory:

	a. The prison camps were widely scattered throughout the United States, necessitating long trips and long absences from Fort Hunt of valuable interrogating personnel, both officers and enlisted men.

	b. Moreover, it often required weeks or even months to obtain necessary shipping space for prisoners thus selected

	21



	c. In the absence of a special segregation compound for Fort Hunt selections within the camps, prisoners who had previously been screened systematically briefed newly arrived prisoners respecting the screening to which they were to be subjected. Thus, a new shipment would often be contaminated by mingling with the "old timers."

	Note: Attention might be called to the fact that this difficulty was avoided in North Africa, Italy, and France, by arranging with the PMG for the construction of a segregation compound for the exclusive use of CSDIC or DIC. It was found that this actually entailed very little additional construction and also greatly minimized the possibility of friction between DIC personnel and the camp guards.

	3. Selection of Prisoners of War at the Ports.

	In the period following the Normandy Campaign the most effective method of selecting prisoners of war for Fort Hunt was through immediate screening at the ports of debarkation (Newport News, Brooklyn, and Boston). The prisoners of war were examined individually by an experienced screening officer, and they were either designated on the spot for final screening or rejected as useless. Each prisoner thus appearing, carried with him his own work sheet, bearing his name, rank and internment serial number, his birthplace, the complete inscription of his identification tag, his place of residence, civilian occupation, etc. In many instances a mere glance at this Form would serve to eliminate a particular prisoner. Thus it was possible to carry out a

	22



	large number of tentative screenings in a short time. The prisoners, in most cases, accepted this Form as an essential procedure in debarkation and filled in the requested information. Because of brief interrogations previously made before their shipment from Europe, they did not suspect the full import of this questionnaire. Tentatively selected prisoners were then briefly interrogated for further screening, after delousing and other sanitary requirements, and those finally selected were moved immediately to the train destined for Fort Hunt prisoners.

	C. Bases of Selection.

	In general initial selections could be made on three bases: (1) Regional qualifications, (2) Technical qualifications, (3) Civilian activities or military experience.

	In greater detail these bases may be analyzed as follows:

	(1) Target information respecting industrial centers, bombing damage, etc., could reasonably be expected from an intelligent prisoner coming from the area in question.

	(2) Signal personnel, tank crews, machine gunners, ordnance personnel, artillerymen, may be swiftly included in a tentative selected list without too much detailed screening.

	(3) Prisoners known to have been previously employed by munitions plants, armament or airplane manufacturers, chemical works, etc., may be assumed to be capable of providing valuable details respecting these particular plants, etc.

	(4) S.S., ABWEHR and SICHERHEITS DIENST personnel may usually be selected upon recognition, unless such personnel is abundantly available.

	23



	(5) Often selections may be made in conformity with particular requests, because of previous party affiliations, previous record of alleged criminal record, or because of some record of service which may make their information useful to a special agency, such as Psychological Warfare, OSS, AMG, FBI, the State Department, the Treasury Department; for example, toward the end of the European phase of the war all prisoners in anyway previously connected with German financial administration, of priority interest, were considered of special intelligence value.

	D. Pine Grove Furnace, Pennsylvania, Holding Camp for CPM Branch.

	It was obviously impossible to hold all prisoners of war thus tentatively earmarked for interrogation at Fort Hunt itself. For this purpose, a special holding camp at Pine Grove Furnace, Pennsylvania, was employed. A Memorandum of 5 May 1943 directed the Commanding General, Army Service Forces to activate the Prisoner of War Internment Camp at Pine Grove Furnace, Pennsylvania, at the earliest possible date. (32) Since the beginning of the year, necessary priority had been sought for the speedy adaptation of this camp. (33)

	While this camp was to be under the operation of the Commanding General, Third Service Command, it was to be used "exclusively for a special purpose and any instructions pertaining thereto" were to be classified as SECRET. (34) This "special" purpose was the

	(32) Memorandum of 5 May 1943, signed: George V. Strong, Major General, AC of S., G-2.
	(33) SPMGA (24) 254, Office of P.M.G., Washington, 15 Feb 43, with 1st and 2nd Endorsements.
	(34) AG 320.2 5-11-43, Subj: Establishment of Pine Grove Furnace, Pennsylvania. The classification was later changed to "Confidential" (AG 320.2 5-27-43, OB-I-SPAMM-M).

	24



	holding of prisoners of war pending their detailed interrogation at Fort Hunt. It was to be activated on 20 May 1943.

	The procedure governing the relationships between Fort Hunt and the Third Service Command was set forth in the following communication entitled:

	An Agreement for Movement of Prisoners of War between Box 1142 Installations and Internment Camps of the Third Service Command Dated 7/10/43

	1. Box 1142 will transport Prisoner of War from their installation to Ft. Meade and the reverse.

	2. The Third Service Command will move Prisoners of War from Ft. Meade to 3300 SU and the reverse.

	3. The Third Service Command is responsible for processing all Prisoners of War that they receive.

	4. Box 1142 is responsible for processing all Prisoners of War that they receive direct.

	5. When Box 1142 is through with Prisoners of War that should be shipped to permanent camps, Box 1142 notifies the Third Service Command and PMGO that the Prisoners of War are being moved to Ft. Meade to await further orders.

	6. When Box 1142 wants to move a Prisoner of War from their custody to 3300SU, Box 1142 will notify the Third Service Command. (35)

	(35) The 3300th SU, Pine Grove Furnace Internment Camp was redesignated the 3300th Service Unit, Prisoner of War Camp, Pine Grove Furnace, Pa., Hq. 3rd Service Command, General Orders, No. 74 31 Jul 43.

	25



	The nearness of this camp to Fort Hunt and its relative isolation made it highly desirable for all holding purposes, but primarily, for holding such prisoners as were thought, after tentative screening, to be potentially useful for detailed interrogation. Moreover, it forestalled the possibility that prisoners, thought to be valuable, would be "contaminated" by contact with other more security conscious and less "cooperative" prisoners. Here also it was possible to subject each prisoner to a more leisurely screening, thus eliminating still further the "duds" or other useless prisoners. It has happened at times that only 20% of an originally selected group would be retained for detailed interrogation at Fort Hunt.

















	26



	PHOTOGRAPH



	INTERIOR ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ENCLOSURE "A"





	27



	E. The Handling of Prisoners of War within the Camp.

	1. Transport of Prisoners

	The Prisoner of War Camp at Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, a distance of approximately forty miles from Fort Hunt, was used as a holding compound and also as a "cover" for intelligence operations at Fort Hunt. All prisoners of war and their records were routed through Fort Meade, with the exception of those flown from overseas, in which case Fort Meade was notified of their arrival. From here prisoners were moved in unit buses, closed and ventilated in such way as to prevent visibility. (See photograph opposite next page). Buses were divided into compartments segregating Nazis and Anti-Nazis, officers and enlisted men. Convoys were accompanied by M.P. Detachment, an officer and escort guards. The Post Adjutant served as Prisoner of War Control Officer for both enclosures, arranging details of movements between Fort Meade and Fort Hunt or Pine Grove Furnace.

	2. Reception and Processing

	Upon arrival at the Interrogation Center a formal Intake was carried out. Prisoners were seated side by side on a long bench in the reception or "intake" room and were then called into the first processing room for preliminary interrogation, search, declaration of and receipts for personal property. The Enclosure Administrative Officer searched, took up and receipted for all money, which was

	28



	PHOTOGRAPH



	PRISONER OF WAR TRANSPORT BUS





	29



	forwarded to Fort Meade, Maryland, for deposit in the trust fund to the credit of the prisoner. The Military Intelligence Processing Officer completed the personnel form and retained all papers, documents, and other articles which were thought to have intelligence or military value. Other effects were returned to the prisoner. He was then moved to the Dressing Room where all clothing was removed and placed in a barracks bag which was tagged and clearly marked for identification. He then proceeded to the Shower Room and the office of the Medical Examiner. Afterwards, he went to the Supply Room for clothing, toilet articles, etc., and then, under guard, to a designated detention room.

	The typical room was designed for two occupants, and contained only essential furniture: two beds, two benches and a built-in table. (See photograph, next page.) The room had previously been examined for concealed messages or unauthorized matter of any sort. A latrine was located in each corridor to which the prisoner, under guard, was escorted upon request. All rooms and latrines were cleaned by prisoners of war. Inmates were fed the regular issue rations in their rooms from truck-borne thermos containers. The food was served on trays which were picked up immediately upon the completion of the meal. Medical care was provided by the Camp Medical Officer, as indicated by the processing examination or as required by the individual prisoner of war.

	30



	PHOTOGRAPH



	TYPICAL PRISONER OF WAR ROOM
	FORT HUNT





	31



	There were four exercise yards, one for each corridor, and prisoners were admitted in such manner and in such numbers as to preserve the desired segregation. Under ordinary conditions each prisoner was allowed at least one hour per day in the exercise yards. Upon departure from the center, the prisoner was carefully identified by the "A" officer and personal property turned over to the escorting officer.

	3. Enclosures "A" and "B"

	a. Enclosure "A". There are two prisoner of war enclosures "A" and "B". Building "A", first occupied in August 1942, was designed as a self-contained unit - a two-story rectangular structure, combining under one roof twenty-two rooms for prisoners of war. Nineteen of these are capable of holding three prisoners each and three are designed for solitary segregations. In this building also there are five interrogation rooms, a kitchen, guard room, control officer's room and miscellaneous store rooms. (See photograph, Page 33)

	Two single-story buildings were constructed as office buildings for M.I. and ONI personnel and for technical equipment. These buildings were attached to the east of the main building in the form of a double crossed "T". (See plan attached)

	An Evaluation Building and a Document Section Building of portable type were also erected within the compound. This enclosure

	32

PHOTOGRAPH

ENCLOSURE "A" - CORNER VIEW,

SHOWING ONE OF THE FOUR GUARD

TOWERS, RECREATION YARD AND

DOUBLE WIRE ENCLOSURE



	is surrounded by two "cyclone" wire fences with double apron barbed wire on the top and the fences are separated by a corridor fifteen feet in width. Four guard towers are installed, one at each corner of the enclosure. (See photograph)

	b. Enclosure "B" was completed and placed in operation on 14 April 1944, and is of a distinctly different type of construction. It consists of four wings stemming from a central hub surmounted by a guard tower. (See photograph) The Administrative Building is at the outer entrance of the West Wing and the kitchen is separated from the guard room by the main entrance corridor which leads through the South Wing. The four wings contain twenty-four rooms for prisoners, two persons to a room. In addition, there are five interrogation rooms, an assembly room, welfare officer's room, control officer's room, and the processing section located in the South Wing, consisting of five rooms, reception, disrobing, shower, medical examination, and clothing issue. One latrine is located in each wing and one guard room. There are four exercise pens with wire barrier and wood screening erected parallel with the room windows on the wings to prevent observation or contact between prisoners in rooms and exercise pens. The pens are enclosed by concrete walls and "cyclone" fence, surmounted by barbed wire, and the entire fence is protected by an electrical contact alarm system in the Central Guard Tower and also in the Control Officer's office. (See photograph)

	34



	PHOTOGRAPH



	CENTRAL GUARD TOWER - ENCLOSURE "B"

	SHOWING CRUCIFORM BUILDING AND RECREATION YARD





	35



	PHOTOGRAPH



	FENCE ALARM SYSTEM, ENCLOSURE "B"

	FORT HUNT





	36



	4. Administration and Guard

	a. Enclosure "B" was planned and constructed on the basis of experience gained in the operation of the first enclosure ("A" Building). The following was found to be the minimum Personnel necessary for efficient operation of the central tower type of building ("B" Enclosure):

	One administrative Officer whose duties include the supervision of the guard, movement of P/W's to and from the IR rooms, room changes as directed by the MI Control Officer, exercising of prisoners, messing, sanitation, housekeeping, supply and issue of clothing, and the keeping of records. (His duties in connection with the reception and processing of P/W's are as outlined elsewhere.) One Sergeant of the Guard, two Control Corporals for movement of P/W's, who operate on an eight hour shift basis, sixteen privates of the Guard, two Cooks, two Food Servers, a Janitor and three KP's (inmates). The guard personnel operates on a twenty-four hours on and twenty-four hours off basis, thus two Platoons are required, or a total of thirty-two Privates and two Sergeants. The three Corporals of the reliefs are furnished from the Main Post Guard, their duties are not confined entirely to the enclosure. The Officer of the Day and the Officer of the Guard substitute for the enclosure Administrative Officer between Retreat and Reveille.

	F. The Process of Interrogation and the Report

	After the prisoners have been placed in their rooms, the Evaluation of Documents Officer studies the material taken from the prisoners during the "intake" and evaluates it. This material usually consists of personal letters, snapshots, etc.

	1. The Process

	At the next meeting of the Interrogation Officers, these newcomers

	37



	are briefly discussed and such information as has been obtained at the screening process, and from the prisoner's documents is made known to the assembled officers. Upon the basis of this information, the individual prisoners are then assigned to one of the sections for interrogation. His background determines whether the prisoner is sent to the Air Section, the Geographic Section, the Army Section, etc., for interrogation. The head of each section in turn then allocates the prisoners assigned to his particular section to the Interrogating Officers working in his section, using care to try to assign each prisoner to the Interrogating Officer who is best qualified by temperament, experience, etc., to handle him.

	As soon as a prisoner is assigned to an Interrogation Officer, he obtains all information available on the prisoner. He briefs himself thoroughly by studying the document evaluation and, in some cases, the documents themselves. These documents are very often military papers; however, as often as not, there are personal papers such as letters, photographs, etc. The Interrogation Officer uses these personal items on occasion to encourage cooperation and they are usually handed back to the prisoner after a friendlier footing has been established.

	After the Interrogating Officer has briefed himself thoroughly (a good interrogation lasting about one hour requires from three to six hours of preparatory work), he has the prisoner ordered into an interrogation room. The method of escorting the prisoner to the

	38



	interrogation room may vary according to the physical facilities available. At this station, the Interrogation Officer calls the monitors over the inter-office teletalk and requests the particular prisoner for interrogation. The monitors are fully informed through their monitoring procedure of the status of each prisoner and thereupon check his room to ascertain whether any significant room conversation is then in progress between the designated prisoner and his roommate. If such is not the case, they will check the interrogation rooms for a vacancy and then inform the Interrogation Officer via the teletalk that a certain interrogation room is available for him and that the prisoner is being escorted to that room. The Interrogation Officer then proceeds to his interrogation room. This is closed after he has entered and a knock at the door by the guard indicates the entrance of the prisoner.

	From this point on, it is difficult to narrate definitely the procedure followed because each individual Interrogation Officer has his own method of handling the various situations which may confront him, and each prisoner, being a different individual, requires different treatment. In general, however, the Interrogation Officer will order the prisoner to enter and, after some questioning, will order the prisoner either to stand at attention during the subsequent question or to sit down.

	Depending on the type of prisoner and the information desired, the Interrogation Officer will have instructed the monitors, at the

	39



	time he ordered the prisoner, to take notes on the interrogation or to have the interrogation completely recorded. Some prisoners do not object to having notes made in their presence and will talk freely in spite of it; others seem to become shy and to close up when they see the Interrogating Officer proceed to take notes of what they are saying. Therefore, notes are taken by the monitors, or a record is made of the interrogation, whichever the situation might demand.

	Upon completion of the interrogation, the Interrogation Officer gives the signal (a light flash or buzzer arrangement), and the guard then relieves him of the prisoner. The Interrogation Officers are locked up with the prisoners during interrogation. The Interrogation Officer then instructs the monitors that he has completed the interrogation and signs out on the record sheet, showing that he interrogated that particular prisoner on a certain day, at a certain time. He then gives the monitors any necessary instructions concerning the monitoring of the subsequent room conversations. It is important to ascertain the reaction of the prisoner when he returns to his room and starts to discuss the interrogation with his roommate.

	In preparing his report on a prisoner, the Interrogation Officer bases it on information received from records of room conversations, from documents he studied, and upon the direct interrogation of the prisoner, as well as on reports received from a Stool Pigeon (S.P.), in case one has been used. The report is then submitted to

	40



	the evaluation Section for evaluation and editing and upon completion is forwarded to the proper authorities.

	2. Use of Stool Pigeons

	The stool pigeon, along with listening devices, has become an essential aid in the obtaining of military intelligence through prisoner of war interrogations. The more security minded the prisoners, the greater is the need for stool pigeons in "breaking" them. Thus, during the earlier part of the war with Germany, stool pigeons were considered as essential to an interrogating center. During the final year of the war this need was reduced to the minimum by virtue of the more "cooperative" attitude of large numbers of prisoners of war, some of whom voluntarily, and in many instances openly, aided in obtaining desired information from fellow prisoners. The choice of a qualified stool pigeon requires the utmost care. He must be thoroughly reliable, a quality normally not to be expected of men who are willing to perform this degrading function. The war with Germany, however, not infrequently produced men who felt that cooperation with the Allied Powers in the crushing of the Nazis was, in actuality, a noble service. Knowledge of cruelties visited upon their families at home, punishment or humiliation suffered by themselves during the rise of Hitler, were often sufficient to induce normally loyal men to turn against their leaders. Such men must be intelligent, specialists, if possible. For example,

	41



	an intelligent flyer from the GAF has been found to be an invaluable aid in the extracting of essential Air Intelligence. In the American DIC in France a colonel of exceptional intelligence, but of undying hatred of the Nazis, although formerly in a high staff position, voluntarily offered his aid in obtaining desired information from other German officers who were prisoners of war. Constant checking of his efforts -- through "listening in" -- proved beyond question his absolute reliability. The ideal S.P. is a good actor. He may be called upon to play many roles. He must have, above all, a retentive memory and versatile conversational powers.

	The employment of the Stool Pigeon varies according to the situation. He must be employed only when necessary, sometimes he will be found occupying the room as the roommate of the intended subject. Thus, he plays the role of a fellow prisoner, living from day to day with the subject. Again, he may be suddenly placed in the room after a prisoner has been interrogated to obtain specific information which direct interrogation failed to produce. Or he may be placed in the exercise pen to become "friendly" with obstinate prisoners. In general, it is best to place the SP under the constant direction of an officer "handler" who becomes fully acquainted with the S.P.'s capacities, his temperament, and his methods of work. The SP is usually a paid agent, often sensitive to any curtailing of his privileges or to decline in the quality of his rations. He must, of course,

	42



	be protected at all times from detection. Moreover, he must be fully "briefed" as to each mission on which he is sent -- he must understand definitely the information which is to be sought. Often he must be permitted to employ his own methods. He must be made to feel that he is performing a valuable service.

	In the European Theater of Operations one prevalent defect has been found in the habitual employment of the SP Interrogators tend to leave the job to him. More than once interrogators have lost their capacity for interrogation by seeking to employ the easier method afforded by the SP It should be pointed out that some C.O.'s of Interrogation Centers feel that the presence of S.P.'s in their unit is much more a liability than an asset.

	3. The Interrogation Subsections

	a. The Navy Section - Its Unique Position

	It was indicated at the beginning of this narrative that the Navy played the initial role in stirring the interest of the War Department in a Joint Interrogation Center. The fact that the Army, "by an agreement in effect during the World War, recently renewed, is charged with the custody of all prisoners of war," indicated from the outset that the administration of such an Interrogation Center should be an Army function. While the Naval exponents of this center recognized this Army function as essential on the purely administrative side, they actually visualized the establishment "not jointly as is the case with the British, but on a parallel basis, with each Service providing a setup suitable

	43



	to its needs." Although the Post Commander is responsible for "the operation and coordination of all Army and Navy activities within the Center," the Navy has been permitted to preserve the degree of independence essential to the accomplishment of its peculiar operational requirements. Accordingly, any organizational chart depicting the sectional interrelationships under Chief Interrogating Officer, would indicate this independent position of the Navy Section. Operationally, directives governing the substance of Naval Interrogations would originate with the appropriate branch of the Office of Naval Operations. On the other hand, Naval prisoners of war, when fully interrogated by the Navy, were made available for Army interrogation. This procedure applied equally to the Army prisoners who were desired by the Navy for further interrogation. Although in the beginning there were but few restrictions as to the subjects upon which a Naval prisoner could be interrogated by an Army Interrogator, ONI took the position "that no operational, technical, or tactical naval information obtained from prisoners of war shall be disseminated by the Army." Although this position was not at first concurred in by the A. C. of S., G-2, and the Chief of the Prisoner of War Branch (36) the point was finally yielded:

	(36) See Memorandum for General Strong, Subject: Comments on Paragraph E of Proposed SOP for Interrogation Center, 16 Jul 43.

	44



	"In view of the fact that the Navy is shortly taking over the Anti-Submarine Command, lock, stock and barrel, this meaning that the Army Air Forces as such will not participate in anti-submarine warfare, it is not considered advisable to pursue further the point with the Navy that we should be able to disseminate information which you obtain from German Naval prisoners of war." (37)

	b. The following plan was drawn up as a means of establishing operational procedure satisfactory alike to the Army and the Navy in their activities at Fort Hunt and Tracy:

	Standard Operating Procedure for Interrogation Centers

	Section A.

	Arrival of Prisoners.

	1. Upon notification of the arrival of new prisoners, the Chief Interrogating Officer and the Chief Monitoring Officer shall prepare a berthing plan in consultation with the officer of the guard and submit it to the Commanding Officer for approval. In case of naval prisoners, the berthing plan shall be prepared in accordance with the wishes of the naval officer on duty at the Post in so far as quarters and security allow.

	2. Upon arrival of prisoners, they shall be processed by the Chief Interrogating Officer and the Chief Monitoring Officer. In the case of naval prisoners, a naval officer will be present. Searching of the Prisoner of War and of his effects will be done by the guard under the direction of the Chief Interrogating Officer who shall make final decisions as to which belongings may be retained by the prisoner of war. The Chief Interrogator will also assign the effects to the proper officers for examination. In the case of naval prisoners, this will normally be done by the naval officers.

	3. Berthing assignments will be made by the Chief Interrogating Officer after processing. In the case of naval prisoners, the berthing assignment will be, in so far as possible, in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief Interrogator, Navy, or his representative.

	(37) Memo for Col. Jones, Chief, POWB, signed H.K., 18 Jul 43.

	45

Section B.

Interrogation

1. Requests for interrogation of prisoners of war will be directed by the Chief Interrogating Officer who will make the room assignments, order the prisoners of war brought in for interrogation and keep a record of all interrogations. All requests to visit prisoners of war informally in their rooms shall also be channeled through the Chief Interrogation Officer. A proposed schedule of daily interrogations shall be submitted in advance. The Chief Interrogation Officer through the Chief Monitoring Officer will order the necessary recordings if requested. The proposed schedule of daily interrogations will be followed as closely as possible. However, this may be altered at the request of the Officer in Charge of an interrogation as may become necessary during the actual conduct of the interrogation in progress.

2. As soon as possible after each interrogation, a brief report of the interrogation will be submitted to the Chief Interrogating Officer (in duplicate) in the following form:

Report of Interrogation		Date....................................................
P/W................................................		Interrogator (s).....................................

The report should cover the following points:

	Estimate of P/W's personality.
	Military History and Background of P/W
	Outline of Topics covered in Interrogation
	Specific Information, such as proper names, localities.
	Technical details should be included as fully as possible.
	Special points of interest for monitoring.
	Suggested lines for further interrogation.

3. Information obtained from prisoners of war in direct interrogation may be made available for evaluation by anyone of the four following procedures:

a. Through the detailed report of interrogating officers prepared from memory or on the basis of notes. No recording made.

b. Monitoring of interrogation and recording of such portions as may be deemed essential by the monitor or requested by means of a prearranged signal given by the interrogating officer.

c. By means of full recording of the interrogation and subsequent preparation of a detailed report made after listening to the playback. In such cases portions of the recording may be indicated for full transcription.



	d. Full recording made, with full transcription. Elimination of unessential material in process of editing and extracting.

	4. It shall be the responsibility of the Chief Interrogating Officer to see to it that prisoners of war are returned to the proper rooms and are not disturbed until a reasonable time shall have elapsed to allow for reactions to be watched.

	5. When interrogators operate in teams, one member of the team shall assist in monitoring the room to which the prisoner of war has returned until the other member has time to submit his report and the watch can be taken over by the monitors. In case an interrogator is working alone, he shall request a monitor for his interrogation, who can then take over the room conversation until the report is prepared.

	6. All priority requests on interrogation recordings shall be directed to the Chief Interrogation Officer.

	7. Besides the duties indicated above, the Chief Interrogator shall be responsible for the following functions:

	a. Coordination of whatever advance information is available on an incoming group of prisoners of war. In the case of naval prisoners this information will be furnished by the Chief Interrogator, Navy, or his representative.

	b. The initial briefing of Interrogating Officers and Chief Monitor and such subsequent briefings as may be necessary. In the case of naval prisoners, such briefing will be by the Chief Interrogator, Navy, or his representative.

	c. Preparation of a daily interrogation schedule, in accordance with Section B, paragraph 1.

	d. Coordination and direction of room changes as requested by IO's or Chief Monitor. In the case of naval prisoners of war under interrogation by the Navy, the room changes will be made in consultation with the Chief Interrogator, Navy, or his representative.

	Section C.

	Monitoring and Transcription

	1. All monitoring is under the immediate direction of the Chief Monitor who will work in close cooperation with the Chief Interrogating Officer, or, in the case of naval prisoners, with the Chief Interrogator, Navy.

	2. Upon arrival of new prisoners of war, the Chief Monitor and Chief Interrogating Officer, or in the case of naval prisoners, the Chief

	47

Interrogator, Navy, will together select those rooms which are to be constantly monitors and they will together make any subsequent reassignments.

3. All monitoring shall be done by earphones and complete silence must at all times prevail in the supply room.

4. The normal monitoring hours shall be from 0700 hours to 2200 hours unless special circumstances shall require longer monitoring.

5. Monitoring and transcribing will be carried out for the present according to the following schedule:

First Day:	0700 - 1200	1200 - 1700	1700 - 2200
Group I	Monitoring	Transcribing	Off
Group II	Transcribing	Monitoring	Off
Group III	Transcribing	Off	Monitoring

Second Day:	0700 - 1200	1200 - 1700	1700 - 2200
Group I	Transcribing	Off	Monitoring
Group II	Monitoring	Transcribing	Off
Group III	Transcribing	Monitoring	Off

Third Day:	0700 - 1200	1200 - 1700	1700 - 2200
Group I	Transcribing	Monitoring	Off
Group II	Transcribing	Off	Monitoring
Group III	Monitoring	Transcribing	Off

6. All transcriptions will normally be made by the same individuals who made the recording, although reassignment of recordings may be made by the Chief Monitor.

7. Transcribing will be done under the direction of the Chief Monitor in the following manner:

a. Recordings will be transcribed in the original language in two copies - one original and one carbon - and submitted to the Chief Monitor. After checking the recording, the Chief Monitor will turn over the transcription to the Chief Interrogating Officer. The Chief Monitor will keep "book" on all recordings and transcriptions.

b. Doubtful words in a transcript shall be indicated by (?). Passages not understood shall be indicated by dots (..........).

c. In cases of recordings of interrogations, transcriptions shall be submitted to the respective interrogator for review.

Section D.

Preliminary Evaluation, Editing and Translation

1. After submission to the Chief Interrogating Officer, the transcription will be turned over to the proper representative of each branch of the service stationed at the center for preliminary evaluation.

2. This evaluating officer will indicate and edit pertinent passages and return the recordings to the Chief Interrogating Officer for transcription of such passages. The Chief Interrogating Officer will forward the transcription and the accompanying translation to the Army or Navy Evaluation Section, whichever the case may be, where the material will be extracted or combined with other pertinent material preparatory to dissemination.

Section E.

Final Evaluation and Dissemination

1. No operation, technical or tactical naval information obtained from prisoners of war shall be disseminated by the Army.

2. No operational, technical or tactical military (Army) information obtained from prisoners of war shall be disseminated by the Navy.

3. Information of a general nature, not covered by paragraphs 1 and 2 of this section may be disseminated by either service after evaluation on the spot by the service having cognizance of the prisoners from whom it is obtained.

4. Dissemination of evaluated information will be made by the cognizant service through the regularly established channels.

Approved:	Approved:



John L. Riheldaffer,	CATESBY ap C. JONES
Commander, U.S. Navy (Ret.),	Colonel, G.S.C.,
Head of Special Activities Branch,	Chief, Prisoner of War Branch.
Division of Naval Intelligence.

Subsections under the Chief Interrogating Officer

The obvious organization of a Combined Services Detailed Interrogation Center would include Naval, Army, and Air Sections. The need of



	specialization, moreover, often calls for the establishment of other sections for temporary, if not for permanent, operation. It is quite possible in the course of a war that various sections may appear and disappear. In addition to the Navy, which occupies a somewhat unique position, the following sections or sub-sections have been fairly constant in their operation at Fort Hunt and fall, for general supervision, under the Chief Interrogating Officer:

	c. The Enemy Intelligence Subsection, specializing in Counter Intelligence, Espionage, and Underground activities of the enemy forces. The Chief of the section has given the following account of its origin and functions:

	"The Enemy Intelligence Section was organized in order to centralize research in German Espionage, Sabotage, and Counter-Intelligence for the benefit of the entire interrogation staff.

	At the outset, a group of officers secured briefing and studied the major fields of enemy intelligence with the intention of instructing screening teams. When suitable Ps/W arrived, a picture of German Intelligence, both historical and timely, was secured. Personality files, specialized reading materials, and liaison information served to keep abreast of all Abwehr, R.S.H.A., S.D., G.F.P., And underground movements in Germany.

	Closest liaison with other interrogating sections prevented too narrow a compartmentalization permitting utilization of specialists in codes, scientific subjects, and army O.B. to work in cooperation with Enemy Intelligence Section."

	d. The Army Subsection, specializing in all intelligence of primary interest to the Army, including Order of Battle, German General Staff,

	50



	Military Organizations, Storage, Weapons, Equipment, and Personalities other than those dealt with by the Enemy Intelligence Subsection

	e. Air Subsection, dealing with Technical Equipment of the G.A.F., Material or interest to the Air Service, V-Weapons, Bombing Intelligence.

	f. Scientific Research Subsection, a specialized department primarily interested in purely scientific intelligence research centers in Germany, personalities, etc.

	g. Industrial Economics Subsection, dealing with Enemy Economics, Finance, and Industrial Activity in general. (Note: This Subsection is similar to the Non-Operational Subsection of the American Detailed Interrogation Center in the European Theater)

	h. Eastern European Subsection, dealing with special political, industrial, economic, and military data pertinent to Eastern Europe as a whole.

	4. Evaluation and Other Functional Subsections

	In addition to these purely operational subsections, there are also five other functional subsections which come more or less jointly under the supervision of the Chief Interrogating Officer and the Chief Editing and Evaluation Officer. These are:

	a. Evaluation Subsection, concerned with evaluation editing of intelligence obtained through interrogation, with translations, and with dissemination of completed reports.

	b. Morale Subsection, responsible for the general supervision

	51



	of prisoners of war as to their general morale and as to their usefulness as sources of information.

	c. Monitoring Subsection, responsible for the monitoring of P/W rooms and interrogations and for recording and transcribing.

	d. Library Subsection, the function of which is to maintain files, reference materials in general, including maps.

	e. Document Subsection, concerned with the study and dissemination of captured German Documents. (38)

	(38) For details of the inter-relationship of these subsections, see the accompanying organizational chart.

	52

Click this text to view Fort Hunt Organizational Chart

RECORD OF INTERROGATIONS

Report Of PO Box 1142 as of

end of July, 1945

I. Attached herewith is a roster of Prisoners of War processed at this post from its inception in August, 1942, to the end of July, 1945.

II.

Total number of prisoners received
since activation	3451

Total number of prisoners shipped	2546

On hand - 31 July 1945	159

III. Following is a quarterly tabulation of the number processed and the average number of days they were retained:

Quarter	Number	Days

3 mos. ending 31 Oct. 1942	94 Ps/W	29
3 mos. ending 31 Jan. 1943	87	18
3 mos. ending 30 Apr. 1943	69	17
3 mos. ending 31 Jul. 1943	141	18
3 mos. ending 31 Oct. 1943	159	13
3 mos. ending 31 Jan. 1943	153	12
3 mos. ending 30 Apr. 1944	225	10
3 mos. ending 31 Jul. 1944	512	7.9
3 mos. ending 31 Oct. 1944	594	7.7
3 mos. ending 31 Jan. 1945	460	10.7
3 mos. ending 30 Apr. 1945	458	10.7
3 mos. ending 31 Jul. 1945	397	8.7

IV. Prisoners processed since 1 January 1944 through 31 July 1945 were classified as follows:

ANTI-NAZI		:	NAZI
Officers	Enlisted	:	Officers	Enlisted
7.1%	44.1%	:	12.9%	35.9%

V. REPORTS OF INTERROGATION

Interrogating Officer's Report on their interrogations. Only those reports have been numbered which provide material of sufficient interest and/or value to warrant extracting and/or disseminating.

YEAR	MONTH	NUMBER

1943	May	9
	June	40
	July	87
	August	57
	September	72
	October	116
	November	61
	December	91
1944	January	113
	February	161
	March	221
	April	284
	May	271
	June	308
	July	245
	August	414
	September	141
	October	224
	November	257
	December	227
1945	January	240
	February	209
	March	150
	April	147
	May	157
	June	179
	July	173
	August	108
	TOTAL	4762

VI. INFORMATION RECEIVED

Intercepted verbatim conversations of Prisoners of War and material supplied by Prisoners of War themselves:

YEAR	MONTH	NUMBER

1943	May	5
	June	25
	July	54
	August	42
	September	22
	October	43
	November	52
	December	26
1944	January	32
	February	14
	March	10
	April	17
	May	16
	June	5
	July	23
	August	8
	September	30
	October	7
	November	13
	December	20
1945	January	33
	February	11
	March	6
	April	5
	May	10
	June	14
	July	12
	August	13
	TOTAL	568

VII. EXTRACTS

Extracts of material received and furnished to interested offices; particularly to Order of Battle and to MIS-X Section of CPM Branch.

ORDER OF BATTLE

YEAR	MONTH	NUMBER

1944	March	43
	April	72

VII. EXTRACTS (Cont'd)

YEAR	MONTH	NUMBER

1944	May	50
	June	94
	July	68
	August	117
	September	5
	October	12
	November	13
	December	9
1945	January	14
	February	12
	March	2
	April	2
	May	2
	June	1
	TOTAL	516

MIS-X

YEAR	MONTH	NUMBER

1944	March	46
	April	30
	May	10
	June	23
	July	10
	August	10
	September	2
	October	0
	November	1
	December	2
1945	January	10
	February	3
	March	4
	April	3
	TOTAL	154

VIII. DRAFT REPORTS

YEAR	MONTH	NUMBER

1944	March	20
	April	19
	May	16

YEAR	MONTH	NUMBER

1944	June	15
	July	16
	August	16
	September	11
	October	18
	November	18
	December	14
1945	January	22
	February	14
	March	16
	April	17
	May	20
	June	20
	July	17
	August	11
	TOTAL	300

YEAR	MONTH	NUMBER

1944	March	20
	April	19
	May	16
	June	15
	July	16
	August	16
	September	46
	October	29
	November	42
	December	44
1945	January	46
	February	60
	March	45
	April	56
	May	62
	June	129
	July	99
	August	89
	TOTAL	849










	PART III

	EDITING

	MONITORING

	TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT



	PART III

	EDITING - MONITORING - TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT

	A. Process of Evaluating and Editing

	When interrogations were completed or when monitors had made their reports upon information obtained from "listening" in (all transcriptions of recordings of interrogations and room conversation), these were all centralized in an Evaluation and Editing Subsection The function of this sub-section was to sift the material and to evaluate its importance for general dissemination or for limited dissemination to interested agencies. Above all else, this was an editorial section, not only preparing the report for final dissemination, but also maintaining a running card index file of information, and checking all reports for repetitious or obsolete materials. It was responsible also for the collecting and filing of information from outside sources which might be employed in checking out or for elaboration of reports prepared within the Interrogation Center. The purpose of the files and of the card indices was not only to provide a background to the evaluation and editors, but also to serve as a record of materials received or disseminated.

	The subsection was headed by a Chief Evaluating and Editing Officer, as assistant, an Order of Battle Analyst, a Morale Analyst, a clerk and two secretaries. Moreover, the Chief Evaluating and Editing Officer and his assistant fulfilled the additional function of briefing Interrogation Officers. It was a function of the Chief

	58



	Evaluating and Editing Officer to maintain liaison with the CPM Office in the Pentagon Building and with other branches of the service as necessary arose. Proposed sketches, charts and other illustrative materials to be included in reports were checked by him.

	Closely associated with the Evaluation and Editing Subsection was the Research and Background Center, organized for the purpose of maintaining records pertinent to the work of interrogation. This center was divided into three departments:

	a. The map section

	b. The filing and record section

	c. The library

	The map section consisted of approximately 5000 maps, a complete coverage of Germany and of German occupied territory. In addition there were some 250 city plans of German, French, Czechoslovakian, Austrian and Yugoslavian cities available.

	A research Target file was kept for the purpose of providing information as complete as possible on industrial installations and other important targets. This file contained aerial photos, allied intelligence and bombing reports, as well as the files of Fort Hunt reports. Included also in these records were the daily Photographic Accession List of the AC/AS Intelligence as well as the Interpretation Branch. Both of these came in 3:5 cards and those of pertinent interest were kept in a separate Military Intelligence Photo Interpretation File.

	59



	As the name indicates, the Filing and Record Section consisted of two divisions. One of these maintained records of prisoners interrogated on this post, including all documents pertaining to each prisoner, the so-called P/W 201 file, which were to be forwarded to the Record Section. These files were arranged alphabetically and were kept at hand for necessary reference.

	The second division or subsection was exclusively a filing or information division, maintaining a personality file extracted from allied or other interrogating agencies. Each week from 400 to 500 names were added to this file.

	Also regional and subject indices were kept, providing a ready reference check list of subjects previously dealt with in reports from various intelligence agencies.

	This section was responsible also for the maintenance of miscellaneous files, including dissemination information, etc.

	The library contained a comprehensive set of Field Manuals, Tactical Manuals, a large assortment of strategic surveys of European countries, as well as Baedekers, Industrial Directories, Atlases and assorted Dictionaries.

	60



	PHOTOGRAPH



	THE LIBRARY - FORT HUNT





	61



	PHOTOGRAPH



	EDITING AND EVALUATION ROOM





	61



	B. The Document Subsection

	The Document Subsection was formed in May, 1943, with a senior officer and two staff sergeant-linguists, for the purpose of examining the documents of all prisoners of war brought to Fort Hunt for interrogation, all documents taken from prisoners at Ports of Debarkation in the United States, and such captured material as might be sent to Fort Hunt for evaluation from abroad. Later the section was expanded to include, as additional personnel, a first lieutenant, a corporal and four German prisoners who had turned stool pigeon.

	Documents taken from prisoners either on their arrival at Fort Hunt or prior to this, often shed valuable light on the education, background and training of the prisoner. The document subsection received the papers, examined them and drew up a careful briefing report which was furnished to the interrogating officer before he began his formal interrogation. With this report in mind, the interrogating officer had a considerable advantage over the prisoner to begin with, knowing a great deal in advance about the prisoner's background and, in some cases, where the prisoner's pay book was available, a great deal about his training and movements in the army. Such a display of knowledge on an interrogator's part never failed to impress a prisoner. Documents captured in the field and documents taken from prisoners at the various ports of debarkation furnished the document subsection with its main source of material for report. These documents were of great variety,

	63



	ranging from pay-books, a most fertile source on Order of Battle information, through personal letters and diaries, to newspaper clippings, various orders and bulletins, ration coupons, railway tickets etc. Material captured in bulk at enemy headquarters and sometimes forwarded to Fort Hunt for evaluation would often include weapons and training manuals, various unit reports and records of great Order of Battle value, maps and published orders.

	An arrangement with the Intelligence Command at one of the principle ports of entry of prisoners made it possible for documents taken from prisoners on disembarkation to be packaged and forwarded directly to Fort Hunt by truck. Recommendations for prisoners to be brought to Fort Hunt for examination could sometimes be made on the basis of a prisoner's documents. After examination and appraisal, all documents were returned to the prisoner on his departure or, in some instances, during the course of interrogation.

	Among the subjects covered in the Document Subsection reports were: Order of Battle, enemy weapons, propaganda, enemy morale, economic and political conditions, air raid damage and industrial locations.

	64



	PHOTOGRAPH



	CHIEF MONITOR CONTROL BOARD

	ENCLOSURE "A" - FORT HUNT





	65



	C. The Monitoring Subsection or "Listening In"

	The monitoring or "listening-in" to the conversations of prisoners of war with the object of "picking up" valuable items of military intelligence has become, during the war with Germany, an essential feature of a Detailed Interrogation Center such as Fort Hunt, CSDIC(UK), 6824 DIC etc. Whatever moral scruples may have served to impede the development of this activity in the past have disappeared in the face of a war waged by an enemy, both brutal and unscrupulous. Failure to make use of "listening-in" devices would be to allow the Nazis a decided advantage. Like the bombing of cities or the use of submarines against merchant shipping, "eavesdropping" however repulsive it may be to standards of civilized conduct, is a potential "new weapon" in modern warfare. Even the most obstinate Nazi who arrogantly refuses to reply to the questions of an interrogator, may reveal, during conversations with his prisoner roommate, the most valuable intelligence. Accordingly, the systematic "monitoring" of or "listening-in" on the conversations of knowledgeable prisoners of war is an accepted feature of the work of a Detailed Interrogation Center.

	Moreover, the technical apparatus employed in this procedure is especially useful as an aid to actual interrogation. An interrogator, suspecting that notes taken during an interrogation may cause the prisoner to refuse to talk may drop in upon the prisoner for a "conversation" if not for a formal interrogation, knowing that what is said will be recorded by the recording machine in the technical section. In short,

	66



	"listening-in" is normally employed for two purposes in a Detailed Interrogation Center:

	1. To record the conversation of unsuspecting prisoners of war.

	2. To record the details of a formal interrogation without revealing to the prisoner the fact that a record is being kept.

	The ability of a recording and transcribing system to take down verbatim, to reproduce when desired, and to repeat a phrase or sentence over and over again if necessary, is indispensable. Also, the value to the interrogator of "playing back" his own recordings can hardly be exaggerated as a means of studying his own weaknesses or of perfecting his technique. Obscure points, otherwise difficult to recall, serve to refresh his memory and to assure the accuracy of his interrogation points.

	Equally important also, is the "listening-in" to the reaction of a prisoner after he has been interrogated and when he returns to his roommate with whom he is eager to discuss his interrogation. He enjoys repeating the questions and explaining how he has succeeded in "misleading the interrogator." At the same time he may be depended upon, in many instances, to reveal the desired facts to his prison mate. Thus the Monitor and Transcriber become the indispensable partners of the Interrogator. In turn, the interrogator keeps the monitor fully informed as to items of intelligence which are especially desired. In this way the Monitors know what intelligence to seek for and how to evaluate it in the light of their knowledge of the prisoner.

	67



	Accordingly, the Monitoring Subsection is primarily interested in conversation -- how to stimulate it, and how to direct it into useful channels. In the light of the knowledge of a particular prisoner of war, gained through listening in, he might be stimulated to talk by means of carefully chosen books, articles from newspapers, technical manuals, etc. Small attentions to his creature comfort, administered by the Welfare Officer who ascertains from the recorded conversations what the prisoner desires, might serve to "soften" him and to make him more pliable for interrogation while, at the same time, prompting him to more copious conversation.

	The proper functioning of a Monitoring Section is dependent upon many factors, but the chief of these are the human factor and the mechanical. "Listening-in" over long periods, day after day and week after week is a tedious business. No other functions of an Interrogation Center requires a greater effort of concentration or a keener perception of what constituted valuable information. The Monitor must be a linguist of exceptional skill, understanding many dialects. The ordinary prisoner of war is rarely a cultivated man, employing a pure language. He may speak the language of a Bavarian peasant, of a woodsman from Thuringia, or a semi-Slavic patois. This factor, together with the extraordinary sensitiveness of the microphone to extraneous noises, the song of a bird or the hum of a passing airplane motor, the patter of rain upon the roof, impose upon the Monitor a difficult task of "listening." The best linguists often fail on this assignment for the want of a perfectly trained

	68



	ear or for the lack of power of concentration. It is necessary, therefore, to plan carefully the schedule of Monitors. The Monitor must be made to feel that he is an essential part of the Interrogation Section. He must be led to regard his work with enthusiasm, to perform it efficiently. High morale is essential to his best performance.

	The completed monitoring report, like the interrogation report is submitted to the Editing and Evaluating Subsection where it is put into final form for dissemination through appropriate Army, Navy or Air Intelligence channels

	In the general maintenance of this Monitoring Subsection there are three essential functions:

	1. The acoustical and electrical engineering, including research, development, manufacturing, the selection and installation of appropriate equipment, together with routine mechanical operation and maintenance.

	2. The actual work of linguistics: "Listening-in" electrical recording and transcribing into written form from prisoner of war conversations.

	3. The administration and the liaison and coordination of the Monitoring Section with the Army, Navy, Air, the Morale Section and the Guard Unit.

	The first of these was the function of the Signal Officer. In summary his duties were:

	1. Supervision of specialized training of Signal Corps Radio Technicians in audio frequency transmitting and disc recording.

	2. Mechanical operation and repair.

	3. Modification and improvement of existing monitoring and recording

	69



	facilities.

	4. Research development, design, manufacture, and installation of improved replacements and extension of existing facilities.

	5. Experimentation with, and acoustical measurement of, sound transmission and characteristics of building materials.

	6. Procurement, installation, and maintenance of an independent interoffice communicating system.

	7. Procurement, improvisation, installation and maintenance of prison break alarms and detectors, call systems, etc.

	The second function of the Monitoring system was directed by the Chief Monitor Officer whose functions were:

	1. Review and continuous study of all subjects relating to the special experiences of prisoners of war to be "monitored." What information is the particular prisoner of war likely to possess? How can he be induced to discuss what he knows?

	2. To become familiar with the monitoring and recording machines.

	3. To develop the ability to concentrate upon "listening-in" for long periods at a time.

	4. To perfect his language and dialectical knowledge from the point of view of listening.

	5. Detailed information on Order of Battle, armor, enemy tactics, material, munitions, equipment, etc. He must possess this information in such manner as to make use of it in determining what is valuable

	70



	PHOTOGRAPH



	MAIN CONTROL PANELS

	BUILDINGS "A" AND "B"





	71



	intelligence. The ability to determine this on the spot is essential to intelligent monitoring.

	6. Self briefing on all current matters of intelligence being worked on by the Army, Navy and Air Sections.

	7. The briefing of all monitors under his command, not only in general matters of intelligence interest, but on specific matters pertinent to a particular prisoner of war.

	The Chief Monitor Officer is also responsible for coordination and liaison His responsibilities in this work are:

	1. Basic training of monitoring and transcribing linguists.

	2. Constant liaison with all Interrogation sections and other agencies with the view of briefing his monitors as to desired intelligence.

	3. Determining and arranging room movements so as to bring together for conversational purposes appropriate prisoners of war; this requires an intelligent liaison with Army, Navy, Air and Guard personnel.

	4. Stimulating conversation through effective propaganda.

	D. Technical Equipment: Listening & Recording Devices - Their Installation and Employment at Fort Hunt.

	The initial technical equipment at Fort Hunt consisted of Twenty Memovox dual transcribers, together with standard RCA broadcasting

	72



	microphones, recommended by the Naval Research Laboratories and purchased through the Provost Marshal General. These required considerable modification after installation, as determined through actual experience and experimentation. An essential contribution to improvement was made through the use of appropriate acoustical and electrical measuring apparatus, lent by the National Bureau of Standards. Need of improvements was thus ascertained with respect to the following:

	a. Sound proofing

	b. Inconspicuous acoustic treatment

	c. Microphone pick-up efficiency

	d. Modernization of the recording principle

	e. Controlled amplifier equalization

	f. Increased recording turntable speed.

	The extensive sound proofing thus indicated was not feasible in view of the building modification and reconstruction would be necessary. Acoustic treatment was relatively simple through the use of carpeting and through the substitution of unpainted cellotex wall board for the suspicious looking perforated cellotex tile block ceilings originally installed. This type of ceiling, moreover, served admirably for microphone concealment and, at the same time, proved to be adequate as a sound conductor. The choice of this texture of wall board was made after repeated measurements of its sound transmission qualities as contrasted with various other commercial products commonly employed for interior construction.

	Increased efficiency in microphone conversion of acoustical

	73



	PHOTOGRAPH



	MEMOVOX REPRODUCING MACHINE





	74



	energy into electrical energy led eventually to the development and patenting of a somewhat unique pickup unit, employing the dynamic principle, but with greatly exaggerated magnetic field, and intersecting voice coil. It was fitted with an experimental horn for further acoustical amplification. The output level, however, of this device so substantially overshadows the conventional commercial microphone that it more than compensates for the attenuation introduced by the solid partitioning ceiling. This, together with thorough soundproofing of the back side of the unit with cotton batting and rock wool, served efficiently to exclude all but exceptional outside interfering noises. For critical recordings of a high priority nature, several of the recorders were converted from the embossing to the engraving process of cutting, to reduce surface noise and distortion. This was accomplished through the addition of adjustable counter balances and engraving styli with standard instantaneous acetate recording blanks. Reduction of interfering noises and increased clarity of sound reproduction were further enhanced by the revision of amplifier circuits to include a low frequency cut-off below the speech spectrum and an adjustable treble frequency emphasizing equalizer for controlling sibilance response. The increase of the speed ratio between the driving motor and the driven turntable, decreased the playing time from one hour to forty minutes. This time reduction, however, proved to be justifiable, in view of the reduction or elimination

	75



	of the high frequency attenuation and distortion, accompanying the excessively slow groove speed characteristics in recording, prior to these modifications.

	The purpose of these altercations had been to achieve greater intelligibility in transmission and recording of the monitoring system, so that guarded confidential conversations would become wholly intelligible, and even whispering could be transmitted with the maximum of clarity. This was actually achieved by the employment of the so-called "binaural sound transmission," i.e. the adapting of a separate transmission system for each ear from two independent microphones spaced approximately three feet apart concealed in each room. This is to monitoring what the stereoptician is to photography. Its usefulness is two-fold: it increases intelligibility, and reduces to the minimum the mental fatigue and nervous exhaustion inherent in the normal concentration requisite to "listening-in."

	Moreover, the flexibility of the switching control for both these channels provides the monitor with another facility. When prisoners, say in adjacent rooms, are carrying on inter-communication between windows, the monitor may listen to both sides of the conversation simultaneously, or may, if circumstances require, audit simultaneously two rooms removed from each other. Thus, a single monitor, while engaged in active monitoring of one room, may "stand by" for developments in a temporarily inactive room. By virtue of the

	76



	PHOTOGRAPH



	BINAURAL SYSTEM - "LISTENING IN"

	NOTE EACH LOUD SPEAKER HAS ITS SEPARATE CONTROL





	77



	fact that each channel has its own turntable as auxiliary to it, the monitor may make two independent recordings simultaneously.

	E. Extension of Original Monitoring Facilities

	With the addition of the "B" enclosure as a means of expanding the operation of Fort Hunt, an opportunity presented itself for the installation of improved technical equipment. The roof of the building constituting the four wings were specially designed with an eye to effective soundproofing of the attic space. This was accomplished by the use of cellotex sheeting, both on the under side and the top (beneath the tar paper roofing), and with the addition of rock wool fiber, filling the space between.

	Each of the 29 detention and interrogation rooms is equipped with two microphones. Each pair is separated in the attic over each ceiling by a center lighting fixture, and each microphone is separately housed in double walled cellotex boxes (with one inch air column between walls). The boxes are generously insulated, inside and out, with loosely packed rock-wool. The open bottom of the boxes containing the bell-shaped end of the microphone downward is set directly on top of the ceiling cellotex board.

	The fifty-eight microphones are individually connected with sixty-four line amplifiers (6 spare amplifiers) located in a closet adjoining the Guard Officer's office. The connections are through twisted sixteen gage copper shielded pairs, strung in loose cables

	78



	PHOTOGRAPH



	MICROPHONE - SHOWING DOUBLE WALLED CELLOTEX
	BOX, ROCK WOOL INSULATION AND BELL-END RESTING
	ON THE CEILING CELLOTEX BOARD





	79



	along the cat-walks provided in the attic of each wing of the building.

	The sixty-four line amplifiers are mounted in four banks of sixteen amplifiers, each in heavy steel, fan ventilated cabinet. The filament and plate supply is furnished externally and consists of four filament transformers and two (one regular, and one emergency) high voltage power packs mounted in another heavy steel, fan ventilated cabinet. These were manufactured in accordance with Fort Hunt specifications.

	The "M" building is located about one hundred feet outside "B" enclosure wall, a single story, hollow tile structure, with concrete floor, twenty-five by eighty feet. The building, air conditioned, and without windows, has the same roofing construction as that of the "B" enclosure building. A narrow corridor divides the seventeen sound-proof rooms. A 10 K.V.A. Kohler emergency power is available to both the "E" building and to the "B" enclosure. There is a separate power unit for "A" enclosure.

	The incoming 101 pair telephone cable from the "B" enclosure's microphone line amplifiers appears on a cable head in the work-shop, where it is "jumper connected" to a multiple connected telephone cable distribution system for the fourteen monitor rooms and the office of the Chief Monitor. Therefore, a total of sixteen cable-head outlets is provided in the "M" building, each containing all the microphone positions in the "B" enclosure.

	80



	PHOTOGRAPH



	INTERIOR VIEW OF ONE WING, MONITORING BUILDING





	81



	INTERROGATION CENTER, P. O. BOX 651
	TRACY, CALIFORNIA

	A. Its Establishment

	From the beginning it was planned that two Interrogation Centers would be established: one in the vicinity of Washington and another on the West Coast in the California area, "preferably in the vicinity either of San Francisco or Los Angles." (39) On 1 May 1942, the Chief of Engineers was directed: "in accordance with War Department Construction Policy, you immediately take steps to provide an interrogation center on the west coast of the type and in the general locality indicated in the attached communication." The Chief of Engineers was further instructed to make this selection, "in collaboration with the Provost Marshall General and the Chief Signal Officer." (40)

	In conformity with these instructions, Byron Hot Springs, California, was chosen as an appropriate site and information from the PMG indicated that "condemnation proceedings will be instituted and that possession of property will be effective 1 June 1942." (41)

	(39) (See Memorandum (cited above), Aliens Division, Subject: Joint Interrogation Center, 26 Dec 1941)
	(40) Memorandum for the Chief of Engineers, Subject: Purchase of Site for Use as an Interrogation Center, 1 May 1942.
	(41) Memorandum for General Strong, Subject: Comment on Memorandum from the Provost Marshal General, signed Catesby ap C. Jones, Col., 25 May 1942.

	82



	In view of the secret character of the activities of the Interrogation Center at Byron Hot Springs, it was decided that the official mailing address would be

	Post Office Box 651
	Tracy, California

	Construction work was begun immediately and the District Engineers expected its completion about 15 December 1942. On the basis of this estimate, Colonel D. W. Kent, Chief of the Tracy Interrogation Center, notified the Chief of Prisoner of War Branch, Washington, that the new center would be ready to receive prisoners of war about the end of December, 1942. (42)

	In the same Memorandum also the mission of the Tracy establishment was described as follows:

	"It is contemplated to use this Interrogation Center primarily for Japanese prisoners. However, we will be prepared to receive prisoners of other nationalities in the event that the supply of Japanese prisoners runs out." Tracy was to be directly connected by means of a TWX machine, with scrambler apparatus attached, with the War Department. (43) Although it was anticipated that a majority of the Japanese prisoners would be Army prisoners, the Navy was expected to cooperate in the Tracy Center as in the center at Fort Hunt.

	(42) Memorandum for General Strong, Subject: Byron Hot Springs. signed Catesby ap C. Jones, Col., GSC, 5 Dec 1942
	(43) Ibid

	83

B. Facilities and Procedures at Camp Tracy

The actual Interrogation Center at Tracy, California, has a capacity of approximately 44 prisoners of war. The main operational facilities are in the hotel building:

Basement	-	MIS and Navy Offices
1st Floor	-	Officers' Quarters, Mess Hall (Officers & EM)
		Officers' Club and Kitchen
2nd Floor	-	1/2 Officers' Quarters: 1/2 Interrogation Rooms and
		Guards
3rd Floor	-	Prisoners' Quarters

Other buildings on this post are grouped within an area approximately 850 feet by 900 feet, consisting of overflow of Officers Quarters, MP Barracks, Barracks for MIS Personnel, Dispensary and Dental Clinic, Laundry, Guard House, Storehouses, Telephone Exchange, Post Exchange, Barber Shop, Recreation Hall, Post Headquarters, and Commanding Officer's Quarters, etc. (For details of the Post Layout, see accompanying chart.)

Prisoners of War destined for interrogation at Tracy were received, screened and held at the Prisoner of War Processing Center, Fort McDowell (Angle Island), San Francisco. This center, operated by the PMG had a holding capacity of 500. After tentative interrogation by Screening Teams at Angel Island for purpose of selecting knowledgeable prisoners, the individuals selected were moved to Tracy for detailed interrogation. Upon the completion of interrogations prisoners were moved to the Dumping Enclosure at Stoneman, California. Here they were sometimes reinterrogated for additional desired



	information. Thus, during the months of April, May and June, 1945, some 156 such reinterrogations were made at Stoneman.

	At Tracy, the selected prisoners were interrogated in accordance with general directives from interested military agencies and Extract Reports were sent to the CPM Branch for final editing and distribution.

	Naval prisoners, upon completion of interrogation by the Navy, were turned over to the Army interrogators either for further questioning or for final disposition through the usual channels. Copies of all Naval Reports as well as Army Reports were forwarded to the CPM Branch. All prisoners of war transport between Tracy and Angel Island or Tracy and Stoneman was handled by the Unit Motor Pool. Rosters of screened discards and completed selected prisoners were sent periodically to the CPM Branch, who notified the PMG of their release. From there on such prisoners became the responsibility of the PMG.

	For the purpose of this report, it would be repetitious to discuss in detail the actual processes of handling the prisoners of war or detailed interrogations. While minor differences existed between Tracy and Fort Hunt in the internal organization for interrogation, such differences were solely for convenience of local operations. In general, the methods and the results sought were similar. Obviously, temperamental differences between the Japanese and the

	85

Germans would account for some variations in methods and some contrasts in results. A memorandum for the A. C. of S., G-2 Subject: Assignment of Military Intelligence Personnel, 21 October 1943, signed Col. Catesby AP C. Jones, serves to give an accurate picture of the Byron Hot Springs establishment and its relations with Fort Hunt:

"This Post is exclusively an interrogation center. It is organized similarly to Fort Hunt except there is no MIS-X Section stationed there. The Post was originally obtained and rehabilitated for the purpose of interrogating Japanese prisoners of war. However, due to the limited number of Jap prisoners, the excellent facilities of the Post are used largely for interrogating German prisoners of war. The Navy conduct all their interrogations for the West Coast at this post.

All activities of the POW Branch are interallied and interservice, necessitating a close liaison with all agencies of the War Department. The close contact established with these two posts by this office is necessary to the successful accomplishment of the mission of this Branch. Officers are frequently interchanged, the posts are in daily touch with this office and are furnished the desired intelligence required by all technical branches of the War Department. Also, officers from this Branch have rendered valuable assistance in all the prisoner of war internment camps by assisting in the processing and segregation of prisoners of war with varied political points of view."

C. Interrogation Section - Tracy (1943) (1944) (1945)

Record of Interrogations - - - 1943

1. German Interrogations

a.	Number of Ps/W Interrogated	173

b.	Number of Interrogations	2,010

c.	Number of Reports	275

Record of Interrogations - 1943 (Cont'd)

Number of Pages

1,076

2. Japanese Interrogations

a.	Number of Ps/W Interrogated	71

b.	Number of Interrogations	736

c.	Number of Reports	243

d.	Number of Pages	696

3. Naval Interrogations

Record of Interrogations - 1944

1. German Interrogations

a.	Number of Ps/W Interrogated	79

b.	Number of Interrogations	645

c.	Number of Reports	68

d.	Number of Pages	482

2. Japanese Interrogations

a.	Number of Ps/W Interrogated

	(1) At Tracy	921
	(2) At Letterman Hospital	119
	(3) Processed at Angel Island	1,170

	Total Interrogated	2,210

b.	Number of Interrogations	5,423
	(This includes brief processing interrogations at Letterman Hospital and Angel Island

c.	Number of Reports	815

d.	Number of Pages	2,915

3. Naval Interrogations 1,053

Record of Interrogations - 1945

With the end of 1944 German interrogation gradually tapered off in Tracy and by January, 1945, interrogation at Tracy was devoted exclusively to Japanese prisoners of war.

1. Japanese Interrogations (to the end of June, 1945)

a.	Number of Ps/W Interrogated

	(1) At Tracy	1,121
	(2) At Letterman Hospital	110
	(3) Processed at Angel Island	1,947

	Total Interrogated	3,178

Note: It should be observed also that 156 interrogations were carried out during April, May, and June at the Dumping Enclosure, Stoneman, California.

Accordingly, the Grand Total of Japanese Prisoners actually

	interrogated was:		3,234

	b. Number of Interrogations		4,228

	c. Number of Reports		660

	d. Number of Pages		2,864

	2. Naval Interrogations		452



	PART V

	SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

	It is obvious that in a Branch of MIS such as the Captured Personnel and Material Branch that many suggestions and recommendations for improvement may be made as a result of long operation. Without seeking to enumerate all of these, the following seem to be the most pertinent in relation to future planning.

	A. The Interrogation Center - Channels of Control:

	The Interrogation Center should have been made immediately responsible to the Chief of MIS, without the unnecessary and cumbersome channeling through some intermediary agency such as the Supervisor of Source Control. Every experience in the Theater of War as in the United States indicates that Interrogation of Prisoners of War is the most fruitful source of accurate Intelligence under war conditions. Its information should flow as speedily as possible to the appropriate agencies. The Chief of an Interrogation Center should be, more than anyone else, the competent judge of the quality of the Intelligence contained in the reports of his section. Only those officers who are in immediate and daily contact with interrogation are competent as pass judgment as to whether or not the information thus obtained is in conformity with the briefing requirements of the agency or the command which has requested it. The major Intelligence duty of a Commanding Officer of

	89



	a Detailed Interrogation Center is the supervision of reports issuing from his section. If he is incompetent to do this, then he should not be assigned to this duty. Placing a Supervisor of Reports over him merely serves to complicate what should normally be a clear and direct function. The most expeditious flow of material is possible only under a simple and direct control.

	B. Liaison of the Interrogation Center with Other Intelligence Agencies:

	From the outset the Interrogation Center of the CPM Branch should have been in the closest possible liaison with all other Intelligence agencies such as the Technical Intelligence, Ordnance Intelligence, Order of Battle, Signal Intelligence, etc., etc. Its usefulness lies in its capacity to obtain Intelligence desired by such agencies. The major portions of its interrogations should be based upon carefully prepared briefings from these agencies and its interrogators should work in direct cooperation with experts supplied by them. Even the most experienced interrogator is not an expert in these specialized branches of Intelligence. The interrogation should be made only by a trained interrogator, but he should be guided at every step by the briefings of experts.

	It should be a function of the Commanding Officer of an Interrogation Center to keep in touch with these other agencies - - to find what they require and to procure them specific briefings or

	90



	questionnaires as to the exact Intelligence desired. Under no circumstances must the Interrogation Center be permitted to operate in a vacuum. This tendency is highly probable because of the security requirements under which an Interrogation Center must operate.

	C. Coordination of Interrogation Center and Document Section.

	The Interrogation Center and the Document Section should closely coordinate. The captured documents must be placed at the disposal of the interrogators and should be made available to them as long as necessary. They should then be passed on to the Document Section for more leisurely study and ultimate disposal.

	D. Unified Command:

	The C.P.M. Branch should be a unified command with respect to its service and guard personnel and its Intelligence personnel. There should be no division of function as between the Service Command and the Intelligence Command. The Guard personnel should be assigned to and trained exclusively for its duties with the Interrogation Center.

	91

Organizational Chart of the Captured Personnel & Material Branch, Interrogation Division