The Oak Tree and the Yellow Rose in Hearne

German Prisoners of War in a Small-Town Texas Camp, and the Residents in Their Shadow

by Christopher Wood

The state of Texas housed approximately 90,000 Axis prisoners of war during World War II, through a large series of camps which dotted the land from Brady to Hearne to Huntsville. Life for these prisoners of war however was relatively pleasant: despite being forced into physical labor, many enjoyed the weather conditions, decorated their barracks with flower gardens and pictures of loved ones, and engaged in extracurricular activities such as choir and soccer. A large influx of these prisoners came to Texas with the surrender of the Afrika Korps in 1943, meaning most spent the better part of two years in these conditions.¹ After the war’s end, the POWs would be sent back to Germany, but a select few would opt to seek a return to Texas as quickly as possible; some who succeeded even moved their families and were able to live a fulfilling life in their new home.

The story of the camp in Hearne echoes the stories of Huntsville, Hereford, Brady, and others. While many previous academic works on the topic tend to explain the ins and outs of the camps themselves, such as how they were established and what life was like for their occupants, the story of the towns themselves living in the shadow of these camps remains largely understudied. These academic scholars include Robert W. Tissing Jr., who focused mostly on the economic impact of the camps, Mark Steven Choate who offered another overview of the camp operations albeit in a narrative way, and Dr. Arnold Krammer’s combination of these and other previous works into a more layman’s description. While there are tangible reasons for these works, further insight into firsthand accounts from the residents of Hearne offers a more complete picture of the effort on the homefront in these rural Texas communities. What these accounts illustrate is that despite the reality of enemy combatants now being within spitting distance, life as the residents knew it carried on.

After the United States formally entered World War II following the Japanese attack on the naval base at Pearl Harbor, the nation found itself in charge of housing and caring for captured enemy combatants. One month following the surprise attack, in January 1942, the War Department in tandem with the Army Corps of Engineers began to lay the groundwork for what eventually became the erection of approximately 500 camps throughout the United States, primarily in rural areas.² The South was of particular interest to the government with its abundance of empty land, but Texas even more so. The Lone Star State offered a far enough distance away from critical infrastructure housed on both coasts, and the mild climate offered a less grueling environment to build the camps, as well as to house its future inhabitants. A few other factors led to the development of camps in Texas as well, such as the lobbying of wealthy Texas businessmen, along with the Geneva Convention rules of 1929. These rules, the main rulebook for nations on how to properly conduct war, set the stage for many aspects of why these camps were conducted in the manner that they were, but the rule of note before construction stated that prisoners must be interred in a similar climate to that in which they were captured.³

Texas’ climate resembled that of North Africa, from which the major influx of prisoners of war arrived in the Lone Star State, following the surrender of German general Rommel’s Afrika Korps in May of 1943. However, considering the famously diverse climate of Texas, German POWs were spread throughout, with camps set up in a wide range of climates found in communities like Brownwood, Tyler, Gainesville, Marfa and Galveston. In total, fifteen camps were built which could house 34,000 prisoners– an impressive number, but still not enough for the several thousand more which followed. To combat this rapidly swelling population, the decision was made to construct smaller satellite camps around the areas of each of the fifteen main camps, eventually erecting twice as many satellite as main camps in towns including Kaufman, Denison, Chireno, Alvin and Forney.⁴

With the main camps fully operational, and the satellite camps in the process of being built, preparations were underway to house enemy combatants by early 1943.⁵ Next came the question of how the prisoners would be treated during their stay in the United States– a question largely answered in detail by the Geneva Convention. Section three of Article 3 of the Convention detailed one of the major aspects of life for the prisoners in Texas: physical labor. Prisoners were allowed to be employed to work, except for officers unless a request was made to do so. Those who were employed to perform work outside the camp, often in agricultural fields, were paid for their efforts; and even received worker’s compensation if injured on the job.⁶ This pay, however, according to Cathy Lazarus, the President of Roll Call – Friends of Camp Hearne, was simple scrip which could only be spent at the camp’s army canteen.⁷ This is perhaps the only harsh limitation on the work life of the prisoners set by the Convention rules, as other rules stated prisoners could not be made to work jobs they were not physically suited for, could not be made to work longer hours than the typical area civilian workweek, and was allowed one full twenty-four hour period of rest in between work weeks. Articles 31 and 32 help explain the narrow scope in which most POWs were confined to working in agricultural environments during their internment, as the former, most importantly, states prisoners are not allowed to work in certain jobs that could aid the war effort, such as the manufacturing or transporting of weapons, munitions or other supplies that can be used by troops in combat. Article 32 adds that prisoners are not to work jobs that can be “unhealthy” or “dangerous.”⁸ While the Convention rules did serve as the baseline with which the War Department followed to oversee prisoner care, the department added further clarity by explaining the process of financial compensation for the prisoners’ labor, as well as the type of work to be done– mainly work that ensures the continued operation of the camp in which they are interred.⁹

Hearne, the largest city in Robertson County, and situated approximately 120 miles northwest of Houston, was chosen by the Army in part due to its close proximity to a major railroad, still the chief mode of transportation with the Interstate System a decade away, as well as other requirements which were satisfactorily met. Army engineers arrived in the city in late July of 1942 to begin preparations for construction of the camp, located just on the northwest side of town along Farm-to-Market Road 485. The eight-hundred-acre camp was completed in late November of 1942 and was of a similar build to the larger camp in Huntsville, which became operational two months prior.¹⁰ Camp Hearne housed 4,700 German prisoners of war at its peak, about one thousand more persons than residents of the city according to the 1940 census– this after having been repurposed from its original plans for housing German-American citizens suspected of friendly ties to Hitler’s regime.¹¹ To say that the prisoners were welcomed by the residents is not an entirely accurate assessment of the mood at the time– according to Lazarus “tolerated” may be closer to accurate. Lazarus explained that residents at the time, as were so many Americans, were swept up in the intensity and fervor of pro-war propaganda and viewed the interring of prisoners in their backyard as just another show of support for the war.¹² While most of the German prisoners indeed toiled away at area farmsteads, a select few were able to find work elsewhere in Hearne. Helen Cox Palmos, operator of the City Café in town during the war, was approached by an Army major with a request to feed the prisoners in her café. Originally refusing the request, Palmos eventually relented under threat of military seizure of the establishment, as well as employing the services of three prisoners to work in the kitchen, twelve hours a day for a period of about ten weeks. Palmos reported the men, usually dressed in fatigues on the job, were mostly kept out of sight and earshot of patrons, meaning it would have been difficult for her to get an accurate representation of the patrons’ thoughts. When asked if the workers did a good job, she emphatically responded “oh yes, yes, yes. Goodness they worked.”¹³ Palmos also discussed the practice of separating who she referred to as the “Nazis” from the “anti-Nazis” when the German prisoners were first moved into the camp, and that these “anti-Nazis” were the ones who were able to find work outside the camp (primarily at local farms), as these men were less fervently sympathetic to Hitler’s ideals as their counterparts in this context.¹⁴

For the farmers, such as Leo Luke Roffino, the German prisoners were a welcome group of hands. Roffino, who oversaw the work of approximately thirty Germans, described them as “fairly nice people” whose pleasant demeanor did not necessitate the presence of many guards. Despite what Roffino recalls being menial pay for the workers (which was paid directly to the camp) laboring away at his onion and cotton crops (along with having to be taught the proper method of harvesting cotton), he was impressed by their work ethic, calling the prisoners the kind of “hard workers” that “gave you a day’s work,” with Roffino getting about two years worth of such, off and on as the harvest seasons changed. Additionally, it was because of the hiring of the prisoners that Roffino was able to plant more crops than usual.¹⁵

Robert W. Tissing Jr. writes that the population of the POWs in each Texas camp roughly matched a respective number of able-bodied men needed to fill significant shortages in manpower at area farms, implying that agricultural labor was a major part of the planning.¹⁶ Most of the firsthand accounts gathered by Tissing in the early 1970s of people living and working in Hearne at the time make the same connection: There was not nearly as much commotion or conversation amongst the residents regarding the large influx of German (and some Japanese later in the war) prisoners as one may believe; part of this can be attributed to the Army having expressed a not-so-keen attitude towards broadcasting or publishing accounts of where the prisoners of war were being housed– this explains a scant amount of coverage in print media at the time. However, this was not for a lack of knowledge from the residents, and while the Army generally frowned upon media coverage of the camps, going so far as to explicitly ban the reporting of technical information, such as when, where, and how many prisoners were arriving, and severely restricting interviews with the prisoners to the point of rendering such a task useless, they could not forbid the style of reporting that existed in the small-town newspapers at the time (e.g. “Mr. Smith visited Hearne for the weekend to stay with his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Smith.”).¹⁷ Lazarus mentions that the nearby city of Cameron took interest in the goings-on in Hearne and the camp, publishing more than one account in their newspaper.¹⁸ One such account, published in the June 17, 1943 edition of the Cameron Herald reported on the appearance of the camp’s commander, Col. Albert Tucker, at a local Rotary Club meeting. The article describes Tucker in a positive light, writing the colonel was “regarded as one of the best ranking officers of the army for the job,” and lauding Camp Hearne as “a model of discipline and order.”¹⁹ While Roffino could not recall in detail how he and other farmers became aware of prisoners of war being made available for farm labor, only mentioning they probably mostly heard through word of mouth, the July 15, 1943 edition of the Herald reported on this information, as announced by Milam County agent J.W. Stufflebeme.²⁰ The article details requirements for farmers who wish to employ their services, such as paying each prisoner $1.50 per day for seven-to-eight hours of work and providing transportation to and from the camp. The article ends with farmers being suggested to contact Mr. Stufflebeme for more information.²¹ For comparison, a cursory search of the Hearne Democrat for mentions of the camp in 1943 publications mostly yield smaller bits of information, such as job postings, Col. Tucker being invited as a guest to meetings and events, and recaps of football games played by the camp team, which consisted of U.S. Army personnel playing against other Army unit squads.²² Notably, what both newspapers in Cameron and Hearne lacked were charged opinion writings in opposition to the camps themselves, leading one to believe the local reaction to having German prisoners of war in their backyard was at least tepid.

When speaking of the potential impacts to the residents of Hearne, and by extension to the other host towns, it is important to remember the degree to which Americans at home were being propagandized to be highly supportive of the war effort. One reason for a manpower shortage across the board, but particularly in agriculture, was due to the large amount of enlistments to join the Army and/or serve overseas. As previously mentioned, while it would not be accurate to say the residents of Hearne welcomed the prisoners warmly, there was an understanding amongst them that it was necessary for the war effort. Instead of great animosity towards the prisoners for replacing the sons, brothers and fathers who left to fight this same army, Lazarus explains that it was more akin to a sense of relief that they are over here under a more watchful eye, and no longer actively a threat to their fellow Texans. Otherwise, there was in fact very little interaction between the townsfolk and the prisoners; as the POWs in Hearne could only leave the camp premises for work, and their financial compensation for their work could only be spent at the camp, which did not go back into the local economy. Instead, the residents understanding and interaction with people in the camp came from the U.S. Army personnel who worked there, as they naturally had more freedom to dine, shop and interact in town. Tex Geyser, who worked as a guard at Camp Hearne, relayed this sentiment by suggesting “[the citizens of Hearne] were more worried about the GIs than the prisoners.” Geyser further described the military personnel as individuals who liked to party, mentioning places such as the Blue Moon Dance Club as a place where the men spent their weekends “looking for girls and drinking beer.” Palmos mentioned her diner being another popular hangout spot for these at times rowdy GIs, recalling an instance in which a sergeant attempted to forcibly acquire a beer after being denied service.²³

When the end of the war came in 1945, camp activities began to end as rapidly as they started. The Geneva Convention stated that prisoners must be repatriated as soon as possible upon a conflict’s end, which is what the United States government aimed to do.²⁴ However, a few factors contributed to a select few of these prisoners returning to Texas as soon as they could. Lazarus explains that one such reason was essentially a huge culture shock received by the Germans, who wholeheartedly believed Americans to be a savage, brutal and backwards people, and were stunned and unsure how to react when met with friendly residents and quality living experiences. Krammer wrote to this phenomenon, adding that upon repatriation, the German prisoners were received by not-so-friendly French and British forces now in charge of their war-torn homeland. Furthermore, there existed a bit of tension between Lucius Clay, the U.S. Army general in charge of postwar Germany, American farmers, and labor unions. Clay had no desire to see hundreds of healthy German war prisoners return to central Europe and farmers had no desire to see their reliable farmhands be sent back, however the unions demanded they return home to make their jobs available to returning U.S. servicemen. New President Harry S. Truman chose to simply follow the guidelines of the Geneva Convention, and ordered the War Department to make haste in repatriation.²⁵ However, despite there being a small amount of prisoners who decided to become citizens of Texas following the war’s end, those who did received enthusiastic sponsorships to become citizens from the same farmers whose farms they worked during the war. Upon their return to Texas, they were more pleasantly received by the townspeople than originally— a phenomenon possibly in part due to the pressures of the juggernaut propaganda machine ran by the Roosevelt administration to keep Americans happy to do anything to support the war effort now over. These factors, writes Krammer, led to the prisoners over the ensuing decades returning to Texas with children and grandchildren to attend reunions, including friendly interactions with the guards at the time and a tour of the now empty grounds.²⁶

Living as a resident of Brady, Hearne, San Augustine, or any other particular rural area of Texas during World War II was arguably a more interesting time than today: One moment, local men are enlisting to fight overseas, the next, soldiers of enemy armies move in by the thousands, now under the watch of the U.S. Army. Whether it speaks to the impressive propaganda machine built by the Roosevelt administration to successfully convince Americans to ration, travel less, and indeed live a stone’s throw from Hitler’s men to support the war effort, or to the resiliency and determination of the American spirit can be debated, but the amazing thing about the way of life for these residents in this time is that for the most part, it simply went on as it was. The compassion with which the Army followed the guidelines of the Geneva Convention, as well as a lack of uproar (even if some disagreed) from the civilian residents in turn opened new historical doors into the descendants of these POWs – several families of the prisoners have returned to Camp Hearne, now a museum, over the years to learn more about this chapter in the life of their fathers or brothers or uncles;²⁷ a chapter Krammer writes is described as “without exception… ‘the greatest times of their lives.’”²⁸

---

1. Krammer, Arnold. WHEN THE AFRIKA KORPS CAME TO TEXAS. www.humanitiestexas.org/sites/default/files/article-attachment/Krammer_article_FINAL.pdf. ↩
2. Choate, Mark Steven. NAZIS IN THE PINEY WOODS: THE STORY OF GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR IN EAST TEXAS DURING WORLD WAR II. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 1987. ↩
3. Krammer pg. 2. ↩
4. Krammer pg. 5. ↩
5. Krammer pg. 6. ↩
6. Tissing, Robert Warren. Utilization of Prisoners of War in the United States during World War II Texas : A Case Study. 1973. ↩
7. Lazarus, Cathy, President of Roll Call – Friends of Camp Hearne. Interview. Conducted by Christopher Wood, 15 November 2025. ↩
8. Tissing pg. 27-28. ↩
9. Tissing pg. 36. ↩
10. Tissing pg. 70-71. ↩
11. Krammer pg. 6. ↩
12. Lazarus, Cathy., President of Roll Call – Friends of Camp Hearne. Interview. Conducted by Christopher Wood, 15 November 2025. ↩
13. Waters, Michael R., and Mark Long. Lone Star Stalag: German Prisoners of War at Camp Hearne. Texas A&M UP, 2004. Pg, 58. ↩
14. Palmos, Helen Cox. Interview. Conducted by Robert W. Tissing, Jr., 25 May 1972. ↩
15. Roffino, Leo Luke. Interview. Conducted by Robert W. Tissing, Jr., 25 May 1972. ↩
16. Tissing pg. 55. ↩
17. Walker, Richard Paul, The Lone Star and the Swastika : Prisoners of War in Texas, 2001, https://www.amazon.com/Lone-Star-Swastika-Richard-Walker/dp/1571683410. ↩
18. Lazarus, Cathy. Interview. ↩
19. “COL. ALBERT TUCKER IS ROTARY SPEAKER HERE.” Cameron Herald, 17 June 1943, p. 1. ↩
20. Ruffino, Leo Luke. Interview. ↩
21. “WAR PRISONERS ARE AVAILABLE TO FARMS.” Cameron Herald, 15 July 1943, p. 1. ↩
22. Various. Hearne Democrat, 1943. ↩
23. Waters pg. 10. ↩
24. Tissing, pg. 36. ↩
25. Krammer, pg. 24. ↩
26. Krammer, pg. 25. ↩
27. Lazarus, Cathy. Interview. ↩
28. Krammer, pg. 25.↩

Page last updated 11:48 AM, June 29, 2026