Abstract
In 1939, the South African government made the decision to align itself with the Allied powers in opposition to the Axis powers, the fascist regimes of Germany, Italy and Japan. The town of George reflected the diversity of national viewpoints regarding this decision, which were often shaped by party political ideologies and affiliations. The Purified National Party embraced Afrikaner nationalism and objected to South African participation in the war. Conversely, the United Party, a more liberal and inclusive group, supported the government’s decision. In addition, a significant number of Afrikaners rallied behind the Ossewabrandwag, an organisation that espoused anti-British and pro-German sentiments.
Between December 1942 and August 1945, a group of 500 Italian prisoners of war (POWs) were confined to a camp situated on the outskirts of George, South Africa. Despite being afforded a certain level of freedom, the prisoners faced restrictions on their movements and activities, including prohibitions on transportation, alcohol consumption and fraternising with the local population without prior approval. Specific areas were also designated as off-limits. The POWs repeatedly breached these regulations, leading to confrontations with law enforcement. Furthermore, many clandestine relationships developed between the POWs and local residents.
Contribution: This article aims to explore how the inhabitants of George responded to the presence of the POWs by examining their attitudes and perceptions. The prevailing ideologies of nationalism and liberalism, as well as issues of religion, racial dignity and morality all played a role in shaping the belief systems and perceptions of the town’s residents. While the memories of the Italian POWs held in George often characterised the time as one of ‘good cheer’ and ‘mutual respect’, the reality of the situation was far more complicated.
Keywords: Italian prisoners of war; South Africa; George; ideologies; memory; George and Knysna Herald; fascism; Afrikaner nationalism.
Introduction
The ruins of a camp that housed over 500 Italian prisoners of war (POWs) between 1942 and 1945 still stand on the outskirts of George, a town near South Africa’s south-western coast. Despite being far from the frontlines, the establishment of a Royal Air Force base and the POW camp brought awareness of the war closer to the town.
This article focusses on the Italian POWs who were interned in a camp located near George during World War II. It aims to shed light on the interplay between a diverse range of ideologies and cultural perceptions held by the local community, which significantly influenced the experiences, perceptions, and lasting memories of the Italian POWs.
Existing research on the Italian POWs in South Africa refers mostly to the main camp at Zonderwater, for example, J. Ball wrote about the building and life in Zonderwater.1 Pietro Corgatelli left an oral history of the Italians in the Western Cape in the first half of the 20th century.2 Bob Moore and Ken Federovich wrote extensively on POWs, in general, and more specifically, on Italian and German prisoners, and their captors.3 Gabriele Sani wrote a history of Italians in South Africa 1498–1989 and briefly mentions the POW camp in George.4 Ilse Ferreira has also written a general history chronicling the history of Italian immigrants who made South Africa their home. She touches briefly on the POWs in George, but some of her information is incorrect.5
The original copies of the local newspaper, The George & Knysna Herald, that are held in the archives of the George Museum, are used as the primary source for this study. The archives also house a box of documents on the Italian POWs. As the documents are not accurately referenced, it is often difficult to verify the author and date.6
Interviews were conducted with a small group of residents who lived in George and Blanco at the time. Although the purpose of the interviews was to gain a better understanding of the experiences, opinions and attitudes of the POWs, the exercise was disappointing. All the interviewees, who were young adults at the time, were already in their 80s, and their memory was poor and selective, and the information they provided is often simply anecdotal.
The town of George, circa 1939
George is situated about 15 km from the coast, almost halfway between Cape Town and Port Elizabeth. The municipal boundaries stretch from the Great Brak River Heights in the west to Sedgefield and Karatara to the east. These borders also demarcate the George electoral district. The town lies at the foot of the Outeniqua Mountains, which form a formidable barrier to the interior and isolate the community.
The 1936 census stated that the George magisterial district had a population of 26 784 inhabitants: 13 358 white people, 12 217 mixed race people and 1198 black people. Among the white population in the magisterial district, there were 1628 English speakers and 11 516 Afrikaans speakers. The residents of the town itself were mostly English speaking: a large group of whom consisted of pensioners who still spoke of England as ‘home’ and mostly belonged to the Anglican Church. The Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) was dominant with 11 039 members. At that time, George had an overwhelmingly rural community of 66.2%.7
Important for this research is the small hamlet, Blanco, that lies just 6 km outside of George. Blanco started to develop when the Montagu Pass was built in 1847, as it was at the crossroads from Oudtshoorn to George and Mossel Bay. The significant increase in traffic provided business opportunities for the locals.8
Several authors have remarked that the early history of the village of Blanco was characterised by an absence of racial segregation. For example, S.D. Fortuin mentions that, although there was a tendency for people of mixed race to settle north of George Road in Watsondorp between 1884 and 1942, many families resettled in the village on land owned by the DRC and land that was sold by the Searle Family. At least 26 mixed race families obtained full ownership of land. Despite the dominance of white residents, a racially mixed village was established. St. Mary’s Anglican Church was open to all races until 1948. This settlement pattern prevailed at the time when the POWs settled a short distance away. Although the village appears to have been characterised by diversity and inclusivity, the degree to which these features may have applied to all residents prior to the later forced removals is unclear, as several sources also point to conflicts regarding access to land.9
At the outbreak of World War II, Blanco was underdeveloped with small residential houses scattered along public roads. Most of the houses were modest, with long narrow erven allowing for urban agriculture on market garden lots served by an irrigation furrow (see Figure 1).10
 |
FIGURE 1: Aerial imagery for Blanco and surrounding area, 1936. |
|
The Carnegie Commission (1932) established that the George rural community was made up of independent farmers, sharecroppers and woodcutters. Between 500 and 1000 registered and unregistered woodcutters worked in the forests and were mostly uneducated and illiterate. They were classified as poor white people.11
In a letter to the editor a resident of Blanco voiced his concern about the welfare of the mixed race population. He pointed out that about 2 or 3 thousand lived mostly in ‘miserable hovels’ where ‘Overcrowding, squalor and disease, with their usual effects on the moral fibre of the people, are the order of the day’. The letter continued to point out that the European population of Blanco and the surrounding farms, ‘consist(s) for the most part of poor, hard-working people…’, who were not able to employ, and care for the mixed race population.12
Within walking distance from Blanco, next to the George-Oudtshoorn road, was the Witfontein forestry plantation, where the POW camp was built. It was with the village people that the POWs had the most contact and also provided economic opportunities to local business and residents (see Figure 2).
George was not an ideologically homogenous society. Most of the inhabitants of the magisterial district were Afrikaans speaking and supported the Purified Nationalist Party (PNP). The PNP was in favour of Afrikaner nationalism, protecting Afrikaner identity, and envisaged an independent republic. The majority of the townspeople were English and pro-United Party (UP). For the UP cooperation between the two language groups was one of their important tenets and drew support from different sections of South African society, including English speakers, Afrikaners and mixed race. The UP was viewed as more liberal, and their views on Afrikaner identity and attempts to establish and maintain their language and culture reflected a benign sense of superiority. This tone was reflected in the editorials of the George & Knysna Herald (G&KH) the only newspaper in town, which was in the hands of the English Sawyers family and mostly published in English.13
In the 1938 national election, the UP party won 111 seats while the PNP won 27. In George, located on the coastal belt, the PNP won 62% of the vote. The editorial of the G&KH deplored the results and referred to the southern PNP constituencies as a ‘dark belt’ with ‘unhappy folk who wander in a circle and a make a desert of their lives. They are afflicted with their own limitation, hindered by their own isolation’. The article also despaired at the lack of ‘mental culture’ along this belt.14
The political divisions in George during the 1930s were not static, and the town’s reaction to the Voortrekker Centenary in 1938 is a clear example of this. The celebration marked the centenary of the Voortrekker migration from the Cape to the interior of South Africa, and it involved a symbolic trek from Cape Town to the Voortrekker Monument near Pretoria. By the time the wagons arrived in George, enthusiasm for the event had reached fever pitch. The main streets of George were lined with spectators as a procession of 100 men, 3000 schoolchildren and nearly 50 ox wagons filled with young women dressed in Voortrekker attire passed through the town. Mrs Tibbie Steyn, the widow of President Steyn, later wrote that it was the most powerful and largest reception since the departure of the wagons from Cape Town.15
The George Chamber of Commerce, mostly made up of English and Jewish business owners, unanimously decided to close all shops at 013:00 on 01 September 1938 to honour the arrival of the ox wagons. This decision was prompted by employees’ support for the movement, and the Chamber requested the commercial community to express respect and appreciation for the Voortrekkers who had paved the way for civilisation in the interior.16
The G&KH, known for its anti-republican sentiments, reported extensively on the Voortrekker Centenary in 1938, including sketches and pictures. The coverage marked a shift in the editor’s attitude from an anti-Afrikaner nationalist sentiment to a more supportive stance. The ethos represented by the wagons was to celebrate Afrikaner heroism, their religion, and give hope to the poor and discouraged, and this was reported without criticism. The precise reason for this sudden shift in the editor’s attitude is not known, but it could have been based on a desire to influence readers, express tolerance, or uphold religious values. However, this tolerance was short-lived as the article went back to supporting the government when Prime Minister Smuts committed South Africa to support Britain in World War II. The Voortrekker Centenary event demonstrates that political and cultural allegiances in George were not always rigidly defined and that tolerance and mutual acceptance could prevail, even only briefly.17
General Smut’s entry into ‘Britain’s War’ deepened divisions in South Africa. The conflict intensified language-based polarisation, with English-speaking white people supporting the Allies. However, 137 000 Afrikaners volunteered to fight as part of the 211 193 white people and 123 131 black people, mixed race and Indian South Africans who served as full-time volunteers. Afrikaners joined mainly for financial and adventurous reasons. An additional 63 341 people of all races served as part-time volunteers, representing 10% of the white population and 62% of the white male population in the military age group.18
In George the divisive sentiments played out on many levels. On 13 September 1939 the G&KH, despite the fact that a large proportion of the residents were in the Reunited National Party (RNP) camp, asked for calm and unity, and appealed for support of the government’s decision to declare war against Germany. Despite this call for harmony, the G&KH openly supported the Smuts government’s war policy, defying the majority RNP opinion in the town.19
However, the predominant support for neutrality was evident on 06 July 1940, when 3000 people gathered on the showground in George to protest against Britain’s war against Germany and Italy. RNP members of parliament for George and Mossel Bay, Mr A.J. Werth and Dr P. van Nierop, respectively, referred to incidents in the country’s history, such as the Britain’s control of South Africa’s diamonds and gold, the Anglo–Boer War and the Peace of Vereeniging to express their antipathy against Britain and their pro-German sentiments.20
The screening of the film Springboks in Action by the Union Unity Truth Service (UUTS) in George in 1942 highlighted the complexity of the ideological division in South Africa during the war. The UUTS was established by supporters of the Smuts government to counter opposition to the war policy and rising political extremism.21 At the screening, the organising secretary stated that the organisation was non-political and had prominent nationalists as members. At the same time, he encouraged South Africans to join the war effort, arguing that those who didn’t fight for their country had no right to benefit from it.22
Riding on the wave of enthusiasm of the Voortrekker Centenary and a fanatical revival of Afrikaner nationalism, the Ossewabrandwag (OB) was a political movement that was established in 1939. Influenced by fascist and anti-parliamentary ideologies, it advocated Afrikaner unity and the establishment of a republic. Membership soon rose to 300 000. The OB rejected the South African government’s decision to side with the Allied Forces against Germany and its members refused to enlist in the South African forces. The movement formed a paramilitary wing called the Stormjaers, who carried out acts of sabotage against power lines, railroads and communication lines. The OB was a dangerous movement and divided Afrikaners along ideological lines.23
Greta Gericke mentioned that most of the young Afrikaner men in the town and district joined the OB. She attributed the popularity of the OB to the fact that the Afrikaners’ self-worth was emphasised and that a republic was envisaged. Her husband and many of their friends were OB members. The meetings were compulsory and filled the DRC Hall to capacity. She was emphatic that the Georgians were not militant, but she was nevertheless always fearful that her husband would be ‘taken away’ by the authorities.24 This comment of Gericke reflects the official perception that the OB was dangerous.
The government tried to force the OB into a more moderate position by arresting and interning the leadership. Their militant stance was also unacceptable for most Afrikaners, and in 1942 DF Malan, leader of the RNP, ordered them to break with the OB, whom he called gangsters that hoped to achieve the salvation of Afrikanerdom by creating confusion.25 These sentiments were shared by some Afrikaner men in George. Phillip Stander said that at the time there were in George the English (referring to the UP), the Nazis (referring to the OB), the and us (referring to the RNP).26
In October 1942, a teacher at Outeniqua High School in George was arrested and sent to an internment camp, and officials of the local OB were interrogated by the police. A few months later five young men from George were also sent to Koffiefontein for internment.27 On 18 June 1943, 700 OB sympathisers gathered at the George DRC Hall, where there were rousing speeches and Nazi-style salutes. Smuts was accused of intimidating OB supporters, while Malan and the RNP were accused of sowing distrust, making empty promises of a future republic and trying to break up Afrikaner unity.28 The OB’s militant ideology created a wedge between the anti-war and the republican-minded sections of the Afrikaner community.29
Italy’s participation in World War II
In 1922, Benito Mussolini and his fascist party took control of Italy and promised to reform the economy and restore the country’s greatness. He pursued an aggressive foreign policy, acquiring colonies such as Eritrea, Italian-Somaliland, Tripolitania and Ethiopia, in Africa. In 1937, Italy joined the Axis Powers, Germany and Japan through the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis agreement. Despite this, Mussolini tried to broker peace with the Allied Powers in Munich in 1938, but was ignored. On 01 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland. Mussolini did not immediately join the war. However, seeing Germany’s success in Western Europe, Mussolini feared missing out on war spoils and joined the war on 10 June 1940.30
In 1939, the South African government issued the National Emergency Regulations and War Measures Act, giving them broad control over life in the country, including the movement of inhabitants, disposal of commodities and price controls. The government established internment camps for Germans and anyone considered a threat to the state, including some Afrikaners who opposed South Africa’s participation in the war. The government also waged an anti-Italian campaign through the English language press, prior to the arrival of the Italian POWs. These anti-Italian sentiments influenced many English locals and Georgians were initially scared of the Italians.31
In 1940, South Africa declared war on Italy. Italy had a strong military presence in East Africa and had conquered British Somaliland and penetrated northern Kenya. The South African Air Force (SAAF) and South African army units successfully attacked Italian positions and drove them out of Kenya, capturing Mogadishu in February 1941. 1 SA Brigade took part in the Allied advance to Addis Ababa, which was captured on 06 April 1941. The last Italian forces surrendered in November 1941. The initial Union Defence Force (UDF) victories in East Africa were followed by the defeat and capture of thousands of UDF soldiers in North Africa, which had a huge psychological impact on South Africa and Italian POWs in the country.32 Depending on the side of alliance being supported, either euphoria or despair was experienced. The same emotions would have been experienced by the Italian POWs who came to South Africa.
World War II comes to George
The war became real for George when 61 Air School was established in 1940 outside George. It was a Joint Air Training Scheme between the SAAF, Royal Air Force (RAF) and other allies for general reconnaissance training. The unit’s inhouse publication, Duff Gen, provides evidence of the love–hate relationship between the servicemen and the town. While they appreciated the George’s natural beauty they deplored the lack of local entertainment and the high cost of living. While they were accepted by pro-war Georgians and even by some Afrikaners, they observed economic discrepancies where a small section enjoyed a high standard of living, while the majority lived in poverty. The training facilities were closed in 1945.33
Prisoners of war arrive in South Africa
The first Italian POWs arrived in South Africa in early 1941, following South African victories in Italian East Africa. They were detained by the forces who captured them and also were accommodated by the South African government at the request of the British government to prevent a concentration of enemy prisoners in the Middle East.34
The POWs were originally placed in the large internment camp in Zonderwater, north-west of Pretoria, which had a convenient road and railway link to Durban harbour, where the prisoners disembarked. Although the camp eventually could house 120 000 prisoners, there were never more than 90 000.35
Because of the shortage of labour in the agricultural and road construction sectors, the South African military authorities decided to utilise the POWs. External camps were developed as transit centres for cooperative prisoners. Although according to the Geneva Convention, employment of POWs in activities that were beneficial to the country’s war effort was forbidden, as a result of the complicated political situation after 1943, when Italy changed sides and supported the Allied forces, prisoners were given the choice to participate. Although initially unwilling, eventually 20 000 prisoners accepted cooperating with the authorities.36
A person wishing to leave Zonderwater had to agree to the following declaration:
Following the armistice concluded between the Allied Nations and the Kingdom of Italy, and of the state of war which now exists between Italy and Germany, I declare that I wish to work under the orders of, and for the United Nations [sic]37 and to assist them with all the means at my disposal in the continuation of war against the common enemy: Germany. I undertake that I shall not abuse the confidence and the trust placed on me and I shall not violate any of the conditions under which the special privileges which the following declaration implies are granted to me. I undertake to execute all orders and to submit to all regulations issued by the military authorities and I acknowledge that, should I fail these duties, I shall lose the right to my privileges.38
Although research has indicated that the arrangement to use POWs in the agricultural and road sectors was only agreed on after Italy joined the Allies in October 1943, this was not the case as the first POWs already arrived at the Witfontein camp near George, in November 1942.
As indicated before, different ideologies led to the expression of opposing opinions about participation in the war and would also influence attitudes towards the POWs.
But despite opposing opinions, there was a general apathy towards the war in George. In October 1942, the Civil Protection Service (CPS) director, Mr Hingle, expressed his disappointment at the lack of attendance at workshops and meetings designed to prepare residents for a potential attack, primarily from incendiary bombs dropped by aircraft. Despite the real possibility of an attack, residents were displaying a lack of interest in the CPS’s voluntary participation requirement. Four sirens had been installed in the town to alert residents of an attack. A screening by the military of the South African Artillery actions in North Africa ‘to smash Nazism and Fascism’ was attended by only about 50 Georgians.39
Politicians also rallied to put across their viewpoints. In the runup to the general election, the RNP candidate Mr Werth, opposed the costs of fighting a war that was not South Africa’s and suggested the government could have spent the money to alleviate poverty. This viewpoint was endorsed by the OB. A UP meeting also played the poor white card, and Mr Urban, candidate for the Provincial Council, defended the government’s war policy, stating that if the country had not joined the war, they could be in the same position as POWs in Blanco.40
In June 1944, officers from the Sixth Armoured Division visited George and emphasised the need for at least 6000 men to build a reserve to maintain the division’s strength. Sergeant Rademeyer criticised parents who opposed the war, accusing them of preventing young men from serving their country and defending South Africa’s reputation.41 But the defeat of the Union Defence Force in North Africa and the capture of many South African soldiers as POWs in Italy influenced local sentiments, creating a fear of sending more young men to the front.
Prisoners of war in George
The POWs were brought to George to provide labour to build a new mountain pass, the Outeniqua Pass, as the Montagu Pass had become unsuitable for motor vehicles. The POW camp was built on Witfontein Crown Forest land near the crossing of the new route and the existing road through the Montagu Pass. The National Road Board arranged for the campsites and water supply, while the Department of Defence provided accommodation, clothing, utensils and medical attention.42
On 15 November 1942 an advance party of 50 POWs, with Lt PJ Victor in command, left Zonderwater. When they arrived in George, they immediately started to prepare the camp for the main body of 450 POWs who were to leave Zonderwater on 24 November 1942. By 15 December, there were 505 POWs in the camp. About 300 of the POWs from the camp at Witfontein were deployed to the Department of Forestry stations. There were 75 at Jonkersberg in the George district, 75 at Buffelsnek and 50 each at Lottering, Bergplaats and Fairleigh in the Knysna district (see Figure 3).43
 |
FIGURE 3: Aerial image of prisoners of war camp. |
|
Each camp, including the forestry camps, had a medical orderly and a POW who acted as maresciallo, or marshal. The latter were trained at Zonderwater and were not elected representatives of the POWs. Their tasks were to see that the prisoners were not absent without leave and to ensure discipline was maintained. Disciplinary action normally involved 2 or 3 weeks of detention in the George camp. There were no Defence Force personnel in command at the outlying camps.44
Despite the size of the camp, it seems that many town’s people were unaware of its existence. Pieter Baartman, a local, recollected that when he first started to work on the building of the Outeniqua Pass in 1944, he was surprised to learn that there was a concentration camp at Witfontein, relatively close to the camp of the local workers.45 It is hard to believe that a camp of 500 prisoners was unnoticed at the time.
The construction work on the pass began in mid-December 1942. The labour force was divided into 16 separate groups that were supervised by Italian non-commissioned officers.46 It is generally believed and romanticised that the Outeniqua Pass was designed and constructed by the POWs as the Italians were renowned civil engineers who built roads and passes. This is, however, a gross misconception. Firstly, the engineer tasked with the design was a South African, Pieter de Villiers, of the National Road Board.47 Secondly, contrary to popular belief, these POWs were not experienced road builders; they had almost every qualification except those needed for building a mountain pass. Baartman remembered that there were about 200 POWs employed on the pass construction and that ‘they were from all walks of life’.48 There were, for example, 79 farm labourers, 12 waiters, 51 vegetable gardeners, 11 barbers, 15 bakers, 17 shopkeepers, 18 brick-layers, 21 carpenters, 9 butchers, 11 blacksmiths, and many from numerous other trades. Amongst them were artists, for example, violinist, singers, dramatists and sculptors.49 There were also two doctors, Dr Antonio Giacomo, later urologist in Milan, and Dr Alarro of Firenze, who worked in the George Hospital.50
With this mottled crew, it is not surprising that incompetence, laziness and ignorance were common. According to Baartman, the Italians, of the ‘lower social classes’, were often caught running the cocopans off the track terminals to tumble down the mountain side, so that they could spend the rest of day hauling them back again. He also remembered that they would catch crows, insert lighted detonators in their rectums and then set them free. This example of cruelty to birds contributed to the perception that many were uneducated, even mentally and socially backward.51
A POW who was discovered hiding during construction explained that he was an engineer who had brought his books to the pass and would sneak away to study whenever possible, as he found it difficult to study in the camp.52
During the early years of World War II, when fascist forces were on the rise, the morale of the POWs remained high, and many artistic and musical events were held in the camps. However, after the tide had turned in 1943 and Italy switched sides to join the Allies, a serious moral and psychological crisis developed among the POWs. Many had their entire world collapse as their beliefs and reasons for fighting on the battlefields of North Africa vanished. In Italy, many Italians refused to abandon fascism and joined the fascist state of the Repubblica Sociale Italiana (RSI) to continue the war alongside Germany.53
This caused conflict within the camps, with some prisoners cooperating with the Allied authorities, while others refused to do so. In the Zonderwater camp, the two factions were separated by barbed wire, while in the George camp the political divisions were also evident but less drastic measures were used to separate them.54 Baartman remembered one of the POWs who was always dressed proudly in uniform, decorated with braids and medals, who lectured him on the advantages of the fascist ideology and the greatness of Mussolini.55 The enthusiasm of the POWs, who had previously been eager to work, cooled. The facetious quip, ‘Rome was not built in a day’, was often heard.
There is also another version of the Italians’ endeavours at the pass. The G&KH reported at the beginning of 1944 that one of their staff accompanied the foreman, E van der Westhuizen, on a guided tour of the pass building site. It was reported that the Italians were steady, consistent workers who were keen to work, and that ‘most of them would rather work than eat out their hearts in the p.o.w. camp’. The article further stated that:
[I]t seems natural for Italians, apart from their love of arts and music, are very much roadbuilders and have an instinctive flair for road construction, although the workers of the National Road ‘provided the brain’ and the POWs ‘the brawn’.56
This article in the local newspaper definitely contributed to the collective memory of the Italians as fine pass builders.
It became obvious that South African workmen would have to join the POWs to make any substantial progress.57 Kilometres had to be blasted out of solid rock, that often took 25 to 30 drill bits to drill a metre deep hole. Pieter de Villiers, the Provincial Roads Engineer, reported a letter from a resident engineer at the Outeniqua Pass requesting that the POWs be taken away and replaced with local labour.58 By the end of the war only 10% of the pass had been completed. When the POWs returned to Italy in 1945, mechanisation was implemented and the pass was eventually finished with black labour. The building of the pass was completed in 1951.59
In April 1943, the National Road Board requested the establishment of a second camp to house another 500 POWs. It was apparently not constructed as the conditions in the proposed camp did not comply with the conditions stipulated in the Geneva Convention.60
Although the POWs were sent to George to build the Outeniqua Pass, town officials expected them to have a significant impact on the community. Even before the bulk of the POWs arrived in George, the town officials put some measure in place to deal with the POWs. The Liquor Licensing Board decided that no liquor would be supplied to the prisoners. Mr Raubenheimer, who represented most of the local liquor licensees, declared that the Italians should not be treated as free men. ‘It was not desirable that our troops should return from the North and find these p.o.w. treated as free men and having the run of our amenities’.61
On 15 January 1943, a month after the prisoners arrived in George, the following notice was published in the G&KH. It is important to observe that this notice was in Afrikaans only. One can only speculate that this was because the Afrikaans readers would be most likely to assist the POWs. The notice was issued by the POW Camp Commandant, Colonel F. Cilliers. The article warned residents that they may unknowingly be aiding prisoners in disobeying regulations that may result in disciplinary steps. Although prisoners were allowed a certain amount of freedom, there were restrictions:
‘Prisoners are strictly forbidden to:
To accept any offer of transport on any type of vehicle. To visit any public place for example, cafe’s, bioscopes, licensed premises, etc. (Shops may be visited for shopping.) Accept hospitality without prior permission. Enter any area, declared “out of bounds,” without a pass, and then only under the supervision of a sergeant. George was “out of bounds,” but special permission will sometimes be given to small groups to visit George under supervision. All resorts at the coast are “out of bounds”’
The camp commandant said that he realised that people would like the prisoners to be locked up at all times, but that it was the government’s policy to give them a certain amount of freedom. He added that the prisoners normally displayed good conduct. He also reminded the readers that South Africans soldiers are at the time in Italian camps and that the Bible taught them, ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’.62
This plea by the camp commandant would leave many Georgians conflicted. By January 1943 Italian POWs were regarded as the enemy, but when Italy surrendered a few months later, there were still about 12 000 South African POWs in Italy. Many of the camps were in northern Italy, which was still occupied by Germany.63 The G&KH reported regularly on letters that were received from local soldiers who were imprisoned in Italy.64 When three local Georgian POWs returned, it made front-page news.65 One returning soldier’s report in September 1944 drew attention to the bravery of an Italian family who sheltered him as an escaped prisoner of war. The occupying German forces brutally punished those caught sheltering POWs: they would execute the entire family and destroy their home.66
But despite the Camp Commandant’s belief in the goodness of the Italian POWs, there were problems. As soon as the Italian prisoners arrived, complaints began pouring in. Although the prisoners were granted a significant amount of freedom, locals took issue with their presence in the Blanco area at night. A few days after their arrival, in response to the complaints, police rounded up 21 of the prisoners without passes, holding them overnight before returning them to the camp under escort the next morning.67
Many of the POWs had no racial prejudices and mixed freely with the local mixed race women, which led to tension in the racially diverse hamlet of Blanco. As a result, a number of mixed race women had children fathered by the Italian prisoners. One anecdote that may or may not be true tells of a maid who was crying because she was pregnant and would not be able to understand her child as it would speak in Italian. This kind of attitude was seen as a flippant comment on the mixing of races, which was not tolerated among the higher classes of white residents of George. This casual attitude towards miscegenation led to mistrust of the Italian prisoners among many of the local people.68 Another flippant remark was made that liaisons would lead to an increase of the gene pool of the mixed race community.69 A letter to the editor also expressed concerns about the prisoners being out of control, causing noise and mingling with the locals, and even warned of potential dangers under the cover of darkness.70
Many Georgians feared that the POWs’ relationships with the mixed race community would promote undesirable fascist propaganda among susceptible individuals. For the pro-war group, it was a real concern as many local soldiers were fighting in the war against fascism and being held in captivity in Italy.71 As previously indicated the police were already vigilant of OB members in the community as they were supportive of fascism.
It is clear that the POWs were eager to interact with the locals, whether through a desire for alcohol, entertainment or sex. On the other hand, many locals were more than willing to assist, mostly for economic gain.
A few months later two men, one of whom was a café proprietor in Blanco, were sentenced for selling liquor without a licence to the POWs. There were previous incidents where a number of prisoners had left the same café under the influence of alcohol. The magistrate regarded this in a serious light and pointed out that it could cause much trouble not only to the local police but also to the military police. They were fined £25 for contravening the liquor act and imprisoned for 6 months under the War Measures Act. Shortly afterwards a mixed race woman, Nellie Seleso, also from Blanco, received a 3 months prison sentence, of which 2 months were suspended for 3 years, as she was caught in the act of selling liquor to prisoners.72 These locals saw business opportunities, but unfortunately their actions had had disastrous consequences.
Despite this, 2 months later two mixed race men were arrested for transporting POWs at night from Blanco to Barrington: a distance of 75 km. The men claimed ignorance, stating they were unaware that they were transporting POWs and violating War Measure No. 41 of 1942. The accused also reported that one Italian prisoner returned to the car with only one boot, without his coat, and demanded that they leave immediately. They received a suspended 2-year prison sentence.73
All these events caused friction and fear in the George community. It is thus not surprising that in December a rather ominous poem was published under a pseudonym in the G&KH:
‘P.O’.74
(OR THE ITALIAN INFLUENCE IN GEORGE)
There is a question in our minds,
Piccolo, Piccolo, Pio,
Dare they try pull down the blinds,
On our Piccolo, Piccolo, Pio?
I say it must remain where ‘tis,
Some say it must not be-o,
Others think it is not their bizz
to discuss Piccolo Pio.
Would I were a Fairy Queen,
Or Jannie Smuts, C.O.,
Then ’twould be an easy thing,
To enlarge the Piccolo Pio.
The powers that be are not as one
About this Piccolo Pio,
In circles they appear to run
Around the town and Pio.
Maybe something will be done,
About this Piccolo Pio,
Even if it means a gun,
Ah me, O Solo Mio!
Grosso75
The meaning of the poem is unclear, but the reference to the ‘Italian influence in town’ and a person named Piccolo Pio, presumably an Italian POW, who is causing some trouble. The poem implies that there was a disagreement among those in authority on how to deal with the issue, and it ends with a suggestion of potential conflict or vigilante action involving Piccolo Pio. The overall mood of the poem is negative towards the POW and implies pervasive secrecy or deception.
There was social mingling with the white residents of Blanco. Afrikaners are well-known for their hospitality and even a complete stranger would be invited in and would not be allowed to leave without a cup of coffee or a meal.76 This hospitality would have been extended to the POWs, but there were some difficulties to overcome.
The language barrier was an issue. As very few of the POWs could speak English and communication was conducted mostly through gestures, there were often humorous misunderstandings. One local resident remembered how the Italians would come to her father’s farm to ask for a lamb or piglet to slaughter, saying, ‘piccola, piccola’, grunting or bleating, using gestures to mimicking a knife to the neck, to the amusement of children.77 This also contributed to the perception that the Italians were comical and somewhat backward.
George was mostly a religious community and an article in the G&KH reported on a book that was published by Dr DR Snyman, who warned against the influences of the modern world and urged citizens to stick to the traditional customs of scripture reading and prayer in homes.78 Most of the residents belonged to the Protestant churches.79 Afrikaner nationalism and the Afrikaner Reformed churches have always been suspicious of Catholicism, the so-called ‘Roomse gevaar’. The fact that 95% of the POWs were Roman Catholic would have been a barrier.80
The Italian prisoners were known for womanising and proudly acknowledged that they were ‘lovers not fighters’. Baartman recalled a prisoner named Mario, who was used as an interpreter because of his excellent command of English. He was good-looking and a smooth talker who often made deals for himself and the other prisoners. Mario had many admirers in Blanco, where he impregnated a schoolgirl from a poor family. This type of behaviour was not uncommon among the prisoners, who were also known to smuggle mixed race women into the camp by dressing them up in Italian army uniforms.81 The locals were aware that the POWs were fraternising with mixed race women, and one interviewee shared how their household employee informed them about the visits of the POWs. This was a concern for many families.82
But despite the fear and obstacles, there was some social interaction. Becky Meyer mentioned that although the young girls were closely chaperoned, there were often picnics and sing-along evenings where the POWs flirted openly.83
Some of the interactions had serious consequences. In early 1945, the daughter of a prominent businessman in Blanco formed a friendship with one of the visiting POWs while assisting her father in the shop. A serious relationship developed and she fell pregnant. The POW rejected any responsibility and when peace was declared, shortly after the pregnancy became known, he returned to Italy. The girl was sent away and had to give up her child for foster care. She, however, never returned to her home, which caused a family to break apart. Her younger sister was also approached by a POW, but she refused his advances.84 These incidents not only caused personal heartbreak, but contributed to a widely held negative attitude towards the POWs.
When Germany surrendered on 07 May 1945, Georgians celebrated jubilantly. The war of 6 years was over.85 By July 1945 there were still 530 POWs in the camp in George. On 16 August 1945 the first batch of about 480 POWs left by train, a few dozen were left to clear up the camp. On 31 August 1945 the POW camp was handed over to the National Roads Board.86
Many Italians enjoyed their stay so much in South Africa that they wanted to stay. About 3000 POWs applied to remain in South Africa – only 860 were given residency. About 50-odd disappeared.87 Baartman recalled that a few POWs from George escaped ‘to the hills’.88
Conclusion
According to Robert Higgs:
Ideology creates solidarity among its followers and defines their personal identity, but it also creates a clear distinction between the self and the enemy, whether on a global scale as in world wars, or in a local situation … An ideology thus defines and solidifies but it simultaneously defines the enemy … it tells the ideological adherent whom to fear and whom to hate’.89
The participation in World War II became a divisive issue among South Africans, with the majority of English speakers supporting the Allies, while Afrikaners were divided between backing the government’s decision, opposing participation or actively supporting Germany.
In George, a significant proportion of the population expressed their opposition to participation in the war by supporting the RNP. However, there were also those who espoused extremist views and sympathised with the OB’s fascist tendencies. The arrival of Italian POWs in George exacerbated the already complicated political situation, further deepening the divisions.
The discomfort in accepting POWs can be traced back to opposition from various groups such as the Reformed Churches, the Jewish and English communities, Afrikaner Nationalists and the extremist groups like the OB. These groups rejected the POWs based on religious or racial biases, labelling them with derogatory terms such as ‘fascist’, ‘cowardly’, ‘dirty’, ‘poor’, ‘Niger loving’, [sic] and lacking ‘racial dignity’.90 The accusations triggered the worries and vulnerabilities that were part of the collective mindset of Georgians, and these differed based on the audience being targeted.
This article explores the intricate interplay of political affiliations and conflicting ideologies that shaped the perceptions of Georgians regarding the POWs. The pro-war faction, predominantly supported by UP members, grappled with apprehensions of fascism, prompting them to implement precautionary measures. The OB’s inclination towards fascism, aligned with the ideological beliefs held by a significant number of POWs.
The memories of the residents who were interviewed about this period in their lives mainly focused on positive interactions with the POWs. But their recollections were limited by the passage of time and the fallibility of human memory and may be selective and subject to distortion.
This would also be true when in 1997 a plaque, honouring the POWs, ‘who built the Outeniqua Pass’, was unveiled. Dignitaries shared anecdotes and emphasised that there was ‘good cheer’ and ‘mutual respect’ between POWs and their hosts.91 It was suggested that Italian POWs were remembered fondly, South Africans seeing the ‘intrinsic worth of the Italian worker’.92 Becky Meyer’s recollection of seeing the prisoners walking arm in arm in the street, singing and whistling the upbeat tune of the Woodpecker Song (Reginella Campagnola), a popular song from the 1940s,93 offers a poignant example of how human connections can transcend the boundaries of war. The sight of the POWs enjoying themselves and the willingness of local young people to join in is a testament to resilience of the human spirit even in times of conflict.
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The author declares that they have no financial or personal relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Author’s contributions
L.M. declares that they are the sole author of this research article.
Ethical considerations
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the author.
Footnotes
1.J.A. Ball, “Italian Prisoners of War in South Africa 1941–1947,” Military History Journal 1, no. 1 (1967).
2.P. Corgatelli, “Tapes and Testimony Making the Local History of Italians in the Western Cape in the First Half of the 20th Century” (MA thesis, University of Cape Town, 1989).
3.B. Moore and K. Fedorowich, Prisoners of War and Their Captors in World War II (Oxford: Berg, 1996); B. Moore and K. Fedorowich, The British Empire and its Italian Prisoners of War, 1940–1947 (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002); B. Moore and K. Fedorowich, “Co-Belligerency and Prisoners of War: Britain and Italy, 1943–1945,” The International History Review 18, no. 1 (1996): 28–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.1996.9640735; B. Moore, “Turning Liabilities into Assets: British Government Policy towards German and Italian Prisoners of War during the Second World War”, Journal of Contemporary History 32, no. 1 (1997): 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200949703200108; B. Moore and B. Hately-Broad, Prisoners of War, Prisoners of Peace: Captivity, Homecoming and Memory in World War II (Oxford: Berg, 2005); B. Moore, “Unwanted Guests in Troubled Times: German Prisoners of War in the Union of South Africa, 1942–1943”, The Journal of Military History 70, no. 1 (2006): 63–89. https://doi.org/10.1353/jmh.2006.0017.
4.G. Sani, History of the Italians in South Africa 1498–1989 (Zonderwater Block, 1992).
5.I. Ferreira, Italian Footprints in South Africa (Jacana Media, 2009). Ferreira erred in the location of the POW camp. Stating that there were two camps, the main camp in George and another one in Blanco. She was also mistaken about the labour force at the Outeniqua Pass, see pp. 153–154.
6.George Museum (GM), George, Department of Cultural Affairs & Sport (Western Cape Government). Particularly Box 22, file 4.
7.P.S. Meyer (ed.), Die ontstaan en groei van George,’n geskiedkundige oorsig, 1811–1952 (George: Van Riebeeckfeeskomitee, 1952), 34–35; L. Levetan, “Structural Shifts in the George Economy: Underemployment and Unskilled Labour as Conditions of Impoverishment,” (Paper 9, Carnegie Conference Paper, Cape Town, 1984), 21–28.
8.S. De Kock, Integrated Heritage Impact Assessment in Terms of Section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act 25 of 1999): Proposed Redevelopment of Erven 194, 208, 209, 914, 915 & 1764 (Blanco), George Municipality & Division (Report GHDEVCO (Pty) Ltd, June 2021), 14.
9.De Kock, Integrated Heritage Impact Assessment, 13; S.D. Fortuin, “Blanco gemengde buurt van begin af”, George Herald Het-Suid Western, 21 February 2008, 16 and 42.
10.De Kock, Integrated Heritage Impact Assessment, 20.
11.J.F.W. Grosskopf, Die armblanke-vraagstuk in Suid-Afrika. Verslag van die Carnegie-kommissie, deel 1, Ekonomiese verslag: Plattelandseverarming en plaasverlating (Stellenbosch: Pro-Ecclesia-drukkery, 1932), 140–141.
12.S. Newby, letter to the editor, George & Knysna Herald, 09 June 1944, nape
13.J. Laet, T. Kneifel and K. Nürnburger (eds.), Contending Ideologies in South Africa (Cape Town: David Phillip, 1986), 57.
14.Anon., “Practical Issues in the George Constituency,” George & Knysna Herald (G&KH), 18 May 1938, n.p.
15.D. Mostert (ed.), Gedenkboek van die ossewaens op die pad van Suid-Afrika, Eeufees: 1838–1938 (Kaapstad: Nasionale Pers Bpk, 1940), 204–205.
16.Anon., “George Shops to Close Tomorrow,” G&KH, 31 August 1938, n.p.
17.L. Maritz, “Short-lived Tolerance. An Euphoria of the 1938 Voortrekker Centenary as in the Editorials of a Local Newspaper: The George & Knysna Herald,” New Contree 83 (2019), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.4102/nc.v83i0.50; A. Grundlingh and H. Sapire, “From Feverish Festival to Repetitive Ritual…,” South African Historical Journal 21 (1989), 23.
18.N. Roos, “The Second World War, the Army Education Scheme and the ‘Discipline’ of the White Poor in South Africa,” History of Education 32, no. 6 (2003): 650; A. Wessels, “The First Two Years of War: The Development of the Union Defence Forces (UDF) September 1939 to September 1941.” Military History Journal 11, no. 5 (2000): n.p.
19.Anon., “Talk at the Parish Pump, in Which ‘George’ Pleads for Calm Heads and Serious Minds,” G&KH, 12 September 1939, n.p.
20.Anon., “Mass Meeting Protests War,” G&KH, 10 July 1940, n.p.
21.F.L. Monama, “Civil Defence and Protective Services in South Africa during World War Two, 1939–1945,” Historia 64, no. 2 (2019): 155.
22.Anon., “‘Home’ Opposition’s Most Potent Weapon,” G&KH, 13 November 1942, n.p.
23.P.J. Furlong, Between Crown and Swastika: The Impact of the Radical Right on the Afrikaner Nationalist Movement in the Fascist Era (Johannesburg: Wits University Press, 1997), 138–140.
24.Researcher, interview, G. Gericke (historian, resident of George, now deceased), 25 September 2013.
25.G.C. Visser, OB: Traitors or Patriots? (Johannesburg: Macmillan, 1976), 105–106.
26.Researcher, interview, P.M. Stander, (resident of Blanco, retired, now deceased), 04 April 2009.
27.Anon., “Teacher Interned,” G&KH, 23 October 1942, n.p.; Anon., “Interned,” G&KH, 22 January 1943, n.p.
28.Anon., “Ossewa’s Attitude to the Election,” G&KH, 25 June 1943, n.p.
29.Visser, OB: Traitors or Patriots?, 209.
30.Wikipedia, North African Campaign Timeline, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Campaign_timeline.
31.F.L. Monama, “Civil Defence and Protective Services,” 105; A. Wessels, “South Africa and World War II,” Southern Journal for Contemporary History 24, no. 2, 8; A. Wessels, “South Africa and World War II: The Decisive First Two Years on the Home Front, September 1939–September 1941,” Southern Journal for Contemporary History 24, no. 2, 8.
32.A. Wessels, “The First Two Years of War: The Development of the Union Defence Forces (UDF) September 1939 to September 1941,” Military History Journal 11, no. 5 (2000): n.p.
33.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Commonwealth_Air_Training_Plan_facilities_in_South_Africa; G.M. Pamplets, Duff Gen, “The rarest unit,” Duff-Gen, 61 Air School George, March 1945, 6–10; “W.A.A.F whispers,” Duff-Gen, 61 Air School George, March 1945, 37; “Open letter,” Duff-Gen, 61 Air School George, Christmas 1944, 37; “Tot siens, Suid-Afrika,” Duff-Gen, 61 Air School George, March 1945, 16.; “Land of prosperity?,” Letter to the editor, “Duff-Gen, 61 Air School George,” 1945, 30–31.
34.Sani, History of the Italians in South Africa…, 297.
35.Sani, History of the Italians in South Africa…, 298.
36.Sani, History of the Italians in South Africa…, 300–301.
37.The UN was established only after the war.
38.Sani, History of the Italians in South Africa…, 300.
39.Anon., “Must Dispel War Apathy,” G&KH, 04 June 1943, n.p.; Anon., “Knowledge, Confidence in Time of Need,” G&KH, 16 October 1942, n.p.
40.Anon., “The First Shots in the Election Campaign,” G&KH, 18 June 1943, n.p.
41.Anon., “More Recruits Wanted from George,” G&KH, 23 June 1944, n.p.
42.GM, Box 22, file 4, Italian POWs, Montagu Pass Camp, 1, n.d.
43.GM, Box 22, file 4, Italian POWs, Montagu Pass Camp, 1, n.d.; Anon., “First Batch Arrives,” G&KH, 20 November 1942, n.p.
44.GM, Box 22, file, No heading, no author, no date.
45.GM, Box 22, file 4, Unpublished article: P Baartman (contractor at Outeniqua Pass), Construction of the Outeniqua Pass, 1944–1946, n.p.
46.B.C. Floor, The History of National Roads in South Africa (Pretoria: Directorate National Roads, 1985), 25.
47.P. Baartman, Construction of the Outeniqua Pass, n.p.
48.P. Baartman, Construction of the Outeniqua Pass, n.p.; GM Box 22, file 4, Unpublished article, no heading, no author, no date, 1–2.
49.B.C. Floor, The History of National Roads in South Africa, 25.
50.GM, Box 22, file 4, Unpublished article, Taffy Shearing, Simon van der Stel Foundation, 30 August 1997, 3.
51.P. Baartman, Construction of the Outeniqua Pass, n.p.
52.P. Baartman, Construction of the Outeniqua Pass, n.p.
53.J. Heddlesten, Italy, a Nation Divided, 1943–1945, https://www.historynet.com/italy-a-nation-divided-1943–1945/?f, 2010, n.p.
54.Sani, History of the Italians in South Africa…, 299–300.
55.P. Baartman, Construction of the Outeniqua Pass, n.p.
56.Anon., “The Outeniqua Pass” G&KH, 18 February 1944, n.p.
57.Floor, The History of National Roads in South Africa, 26.
58.GM, Box 22, file 4, P. De Villiers, Italian Prisoners of War, (unpublished article) n.d., n.p.
59.Meyer, Die ontstaan en groei van George, 22–23.
60.GM, Box 22, file 4, Italian POWs, Montagu Pass Camp, p. 1, n.d. Many authors indicated that the second camp was built, but only the plans were drawn up.
61.Anon., “No Liquor for Prisoners-of-War,” G&KH, 04 December 1942, n.p.
62.Anon., “Italiaanse Krygsgevangene in George,” G&KH, 15 January 1943, n.p.
63.Anon., “Prisoners in Italy,” G&KH, 17 September, 1943, n.p.
64.Anon., “In Italian Hands,” G&KH, 12 February 1943, n.p.
65.Anon., “Georgian Prisoners-of-War Released,” G&KH, 30 April 1943, n.p.
66.Anon., “The Adventures of a George Escapee,” G&KH, 29 September 1944, n.p.
67.Anon., “Without Passes,” G&KH, 18 December 1942, n.p.
68.GM, Box 22, file 4, Italian POWs, Notes, Taffy Shearing, Outeniqua Pass, 30 August 1997, 6.
69.Researcher interview, HC Ferreira (resident of Blanco, now deceased), 20 May 2013.
70.Anon., “Without passes”, 18 December 1942, n.p.
71.Anon., “Without passes”, 18 December 1942, n.p.
72.Anon., “Sold liquor to Italians Prisoners,” G&KH, 28 May 1943, n.p.
73.Anon., “Conveyed Italian Prisoners-of-War,” G&KH, 30 July 1943, n.p.
74.Original spelling and punctuation.
75.Grosso, “Pio,” G&KH, 24 December 1943, n. p.
76.G.M.F. Gericke, “Die invloed van die godsdiensbelewing en geloofslewe van die Afrikaanssprekende in die George-omgewing, 1920–1940, op sy lewensuitkyk en lewenswyse” (MA, University of Stellenbosch, 1999), 80.
77.Researcher interview, HC Ferreira (resident of Blanco, now deceased), 20 May 2013.
78.Anon., “Huisgodsdiens,” G&KH, 08 September 1944, n.p.
79.See page 2.
80.M. Prozesky and J.W. De Gruchy, Living Faiths in South Africa (Cape Town: New Africa Books, 1995), 91.
81.P. Baartman, Construction of the Outeniqua Pass, n.p.
82.Researcher, interview, HC Ferreira (resident of Blanco, now deceased), 20 May 2013.
83.Researcher, interview, B Meyer (resident of Blanco, now deceased), 11 January 2011.
84.Researcher, interview, HC Ferreira (resident of Blanco, now deceased), 20 May 2013. Although the incident is well known to the researcher, due to sensitivity detail is withheld.
85.Anon., “Wild Scenes in George,” G&KH, 11 May 1945, n.p.
86.Anon., “P.O.W.’s go,” G&KH, 24 August 1945, n.p.
87.A. Delport, “Changing Attitudes of South Africans towards Italy and Its People during the Second World War, 1939 to 1945,” Historia 58, no. 1 (2013): 185.
88.P. Baartman, Construction of the Outeniqua Pass, n.p.
89.R. Higgs, “Ideology and Political Divisiveness, The Independent Review,” A Journal of Political Economy 22, no. 4 (Spring 2018), https://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=1302.
90.Sani, History of the Italians in South Africa…, 308.
91.Anon., “In memory of Those who Build the Pass,” G&KH, 04 September 1997, n.p.; GM, Box 22, file 4, Unpublished article, T. Shearing, Outeniqua Pass, 30 August 1997.
92.Sani, History of the Italians…, 301.
93.Researcher, interview, B Meyer (resident of Blanco, now deceased), 11 January 2011.
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
