n., pl., prisoners of war.
A person taken by or surrendering to enemy forces in wartime.
| Dictionary: prisoner of war |
A person taken by or surrendering to enemy forces in wartime.
| 5min Related Video: prisoner of war |
| US Military History Companion: Prisoners of War |
This essay consists of three articles that examine different aspects of the history of prisoners of war. U.S. Soldiers as POWs describes the treatment of American servicepeople as POWs from the Revolutionary War to the present. Enemy POWs examines the history of how enemy prisoners of war have been treated during America's wars. The POW Experience uses narratives written by American POWs, particularly in recent times, to help understand the experience of modern American POWs.
| US Military Dictionary: prisoner of war |
A person who has been captured and imprisoned by the enemy in war.
See the Introduction, Abbreviations and Pronunciation for further details.
| US History Encyclopedia: Prisoners of War |
Prisoners of War This entry includes 7 subentries:
Overview
Exchange of Prisoners
Prison Camps, Confederate
Prison Camps, Union
Prison Camps, World War II
Prison Ships
POW/MIA Controversy, Vietnam War
Overview
Throughout the colonial wars, French authorities imprisoned British and American colonial soldiers in Montreal. During the American Revolution, no accurate count was ever recorded, but it is estimated that more than 18,000 American soldiers and sailors were taken as POWs, with the majority kept aboard British prison hulks near New York City. Captured American privateers were kept in England, Ireland, and Scotland. Since the British never recognized the Continental Congress as a sovereign government, citizenship became a serious issue when the British captured American soldiers. The prisoners the British took faced severe conditions in captivity. Although the British continued to use prison hulks to some extent during the War of 1812, American POWs were treated humanely until their repatriation following the Treaty of Ghent (1814).
During the Mexican-American War (1846–1848),very few Americans fell into Mexican hands, but treatment was fair and humane. The U.S. Army paroled captured Mexicans in the field. During the Civil War (1861–1865), both Union and Confederate forces were unprepared for the enormous numbers of POWs: 211,400 Union prisoners in the South and 220,000 Confederates in the North. Exchanges took place regularly under the Dix-Hill Cartel until 1864, when General Ulysses S. Grant stopped them in order to further tax Confederate resources and bring the war to a swift conclusion. Thereafter, the South was glutted with huge numbers of starving Union prisoners it could not support.
By the time the United States entered World War I in April 1917, it had become a signatory to the Hague Convention (1899 and 1907), and of its 4,120 POWs, only 147 died in captivity, most from wounds received in combat. Treatment was fair and humane. World War II POW issues were covered by the 1929 Geneva Convention, which protected the 93,941 American POWs in the European theater. Only 1 percent died in captivity. Japan signed the Geneva Convention, but refused to ratify it at home. Japanese treatment of Allied POWs was criminal at best. Of the 25,600 American POWs captured in Asia, nearly 45 percent, or 10,650, died from wounds received in battle, starvation, disease, or murder. More than 3,840 died in unmarked transports, called "Hell Ships," sunk by American submarine attacks. Beginning in 1945 and lasting through 1948, the Allied international community conducted military tribunals to seek justice against those Japanese officers and enlisted men who deliberately mistreated POWs in the Pacific.
The captivity experience in Korea continued the kinds of savagery experienced by Allied POWs during World War II. More than 7,140 Americans became documented POWs; at least 2,701 died in enemy hands. After the Chinese entered the war in 1951, they took control of United Nations' POWs whenever possible, introduced a political reeducation policy, and attempted to indoctrinate prisoners with minimal success. In 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued Executive Order 10631, prescribing the Code of Conduct for Members of the Armed Forces of the United States, a set of principles that bound prisoners together into a POW community through a unified and purposeful standard of conduct.
In 1964, when the situation in Vietnam evolved into a major war, the International Red Cross Commission (ICRC) reminded the warring parties that they were signatories to the 1949 Geneva Convention. The Americans and the South Vietnamese affirmed the convention without reservations. The North Vietnamese and the National Liberation Front (NLF or Vietcong) refused to consider the convention, citing their reservation to Article 85 that permitted captors to prosecute prisoners for acts committed prior to capture. Between 1964 and 1972, 766 Americans became confirmed POWs, of whom 114 died in captivity. After the Paris Peace Accords (1973), 651 allied military prisoners returned to American control from Hanoi and South Vietnam.
In January 1991, hostilities erupted between a coalition of nations, including the United States and Iraq over the invasion and occupation of oil-rich Kuwait. In the one-month Gulf War, Iraq took twenty-three American POWs. In captivity, POWs suffered physical abuse that ranged from sexual abuse, electric shocks, and broken bones to routine slaps.
Bibliography
Baker, C. Alice. True Stories of New England Captives Carried to Canada during the Old French and Indian Wars. Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1990. Originally published in 1897.
Doyle, Robert C. Voices from Captivity: Interpreting the American POW Narrative. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1994.
———. A Prisoner's Duty: Great Escapes in U. S. Military History. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1997.
Exchange of Prisoners
Derived from the medieval custom of holding prisoners for ransom, the exchange of prisoners of war was an established practice by the American Revolution. Shortly after the battles at Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts authorities arranged for the exchange of captured British soldiers for Massachusetts militiamen, a precedent that other states soon followed. In July 1776 the Continental Congress authorized military commanders to negotiate exchanges, and in 1780 it appointed a commissary general of prisoners, thereby assuming from the states the responsibility for exchanging prisoners of war. British refusal to recognize American independence prevented agreement on a general cartel for exchanges, but American commanders used the authority vested in them by Congress to make several exchanges. In March 1780 a separate cartel arranged for the trade of American prisoners confined in Britain for British prisoners interned in France. In 1783 a general exchange of prisoners occurred after the cessation of hostilities and recognition of American independence.
During the War of 1812, battlefield exchanges happened under a general British-American cartel for exchanging prisoners. The United States and Mexico failed to negotiate a cartel during the Mexican-American War, but the United States released many Mexican prisoners on parole on the condition that they remain out of combat. The Mexicans released some American prisoners in "head-for-head" exchanges that occasionally took place during the war, but most American prisoners of war remained incarcerated until the ratification of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
During the Civil War the unwillingness of the federal government to enter into an agreement recognizing the Confederacy complicated the exchange of prisoners. The Dix-Hill Cartel provided for parole of captured personnel. The cartel became ineffective as the tide of battle changed, however, and commanders resorted to the traditional battlefield exchange of prisoners. At the end of the war, the North exchanged or released most Confederate prisoners. Except for the exchange of a few Spanish soldiers for American sailors, no exchange of prisoners occurred during the Spanish-American War.
Prisoner exchange during World War I followed the signing of the armistice. Throughout World War II the United States negotiated through neutral nations with the Axis powers for the exchange of prisoners. The United States and Germany never arranged a general exchange, but they traded sick and wounded prisoners on one occasion. Repatriation and exchange of prisoners took place after the defeat of the Axis nations.
During the Korean War the vexing issue of voluntary repatriation delayed the exchange of prisoners. Exchanges began after the Communist side accepted the principle of nonforcible repatriation. Operation Little Switch witnessed the exchange of sick and wounded prisoners, while a general exchange occurred during Operation Big Switch.
Each side occasionally released prisoners during the Vietnam War, but the North Vietnamese released the majority of American prisoners during the sixty days between the signing of the Paris Agreement and the withdrawal of all American military personnel from South Vietnam. A total of 587 Americans held in captivity in North Vietnam, South Vietnam, and Laos gained their freedom. American forces turned over North Vietnamese military prisoners to South Vietnamese authorities, and the responsibility for exchange of Vietnamese prisoners of war fell to the Vietnamese participants.
Bibliography
Foot, Rosemary. A Substitute for Victory: The Politics of Peacemaking at the Korean Armistice Talks. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1990.
Gruner, E. G. Prisoners of Culture: Representing the Vietnam POW. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1993.
Lech, Raymond B. Broken Soldiers. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000.
Marvel, William. Andersonville: The Last Depot. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994.
Whiteclay, John et al., eds. The Oxford Companion to American Military History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Prison Camps, Confederate
Approximately 200,000 prisoners were taken by the Confederates in the Civil War. Inadequate resources and no preparation for the task produced a severe drain on both the material and human resources of the South. An exchange of prisoners, arranged in 1862, was ended in 1863, and captives were held in scattered prison camps until near the end of the war. The larger prisons were, for officers, in Richmond, Va., Macon, Ga., and Columbia, S.C.; for enlisted men, in Andersonville, Millen, Florence (all in Georgia), and Charleston, S.C. Andersonville was by far the most infamous; over ten thousand prisoners perished there. Its commander, Capt. Henry Wirz, was later tried on charges of murder and conspiracy and was hanged. Deserters, spies, and political prisoners were incarcerated at Castle Thunder in Richmond or in Salisbury, N.C. Throughout most of the war the provost marshal of Richmond exercised a general but ineffective supervision over the prisons. The majority of the prisons consisted of either tobacco warehouses or open stockades. Poor quarters, insufficient rations and clothing, and lack of medicines produced excessive disease and a high death rate, which were interpreted in the North as a deliberate effort to starve and murder the captives. In retaliation, northern authorities reduced the allowances for rations and clothing to the prisoners they held. Some relief was obtained when southerners permitted the Union authorities to send food, clothing, and drugs through the lines, but conditions remained bad and the Confederate prisons became the major "atrocity" in northern propaganda.
Bibliography
Hesseltine, William B. Civil War Prisons. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1930.
Marvel, William. Andersonville: The Last Depot. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994.
Prison Camps, Union
Most captured Confederate soldiers were released on parole in the first year of the Civil War, but federal authorities confined captured officers and civilian prisoners in temporary prisons scattered across the North. Lt. Col. William Hoffman became the commissary general of prisoners on 7 October 1861. He hoped to consolidate the prisoners at a central depot for 1,200 inmates on John-son's Island in Lake Erie, but the capture of 14,000 Confederates at Fort Donelson rendered the depot inadequate. Soon the already chaotic collection of prisons expanded to include four training camps across the Midwest. Compounding the confusion, guards and medical personnel changed frequently, so there was little continuity in administration.
Hoffman tried, but only partially succeeded, to regulate the disarray. An agreement to exchange prisoners in June 1862 cut the number of inmates from 19,423 to 1,286, enabling Hoffman to consolidate prisoners at three locations. When the prisoner exchange broke down in early 1863, the number of inmates increased and camp conditions deteriorated. Scarce clothing, unsatisfactory sanitation, overcrowded quarters, inadequate medical attention, and inclement weather contributed to widespread sickness. To consolidate and regulate facilities Hoffman established large permanent prisons at Fort Delaware, Del., Rock Island, Ill., Point Lookout, Md., and Elmira, N.Y., although the same problems that had plagued their more temporary counterparts continued to beset the newer prisons.
Starting in February 1865, when the Union prisons held over 65,000 inmates, the federal government began to return large numbers of soldiers to the Confederacy. After the surrender at Appomattox the Union prisons were closed quickly, so that by early July only a few hundred prisoners remained.
Bibliography
Hesseltine, William B. Civil War Prisons. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1972.
McAdams, Benton. Rebels at Rock Island: The Story of a Civil War Prison. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2000.
United States. War Dept. The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Prepared under the direction of the Secretary of War by Robert N. Scott. Series 2. Pasadena, Calif.: Broadfoot, 1985.
Prison Camps, World War II
The experiences of the Allied troops held captive in prisoner-of-war (POW) camps during World War II varied according to time, place, and nationality of captor. For the first time in history, combatants captured by American troops were brought to U.S. soil and used as laborers in one of 155 POW camps. Japan held the majority of its war prisoners on the Asian mainland. Most of the German POW camps were located in the Third Reich and in western Poland. The Soviet Union probably administered some 3,000 camps. Most of the POWs captured by the British were held in England, with a small percentage held in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. While 15 million POWs were held at some point during World War II, by the war's end 220,000 Allied prisoners were in Japanese camps, and 260,000 Allied troops remained imprisoned by Germany.
The Third Reich administered concentration camps for political and minority prisoners and separate camps for military prisoners of war; POW camps were further subdivided into camps for officers and camps for nonofficers. Sometimes Allied troops were sent to concentration camps.
The treatment of POWs in Japanese camps was grueling. POWs were subjected to starvation diets, brutally hard labor, and sometimes execution. It is possible that as many as 27 percent of the 95,000 Allied troops taken prisoner by the Japanese died in captivity. By contrast, 4 percent of the 260,000 British and American POWs in German captivity died.
The imprisonment of POWs on U.S. soil was ordered by the U.S. Department of War and administered by the Army. At first POW labor in the U.S. was restricted to military installation service jobs, but by summer of 1943 it was contracted out to civilian projects, especially on farms.
Bibliography
Dear, I. C. B., and M. R. D. Foot, eds. The Oxford Companion to World War II. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Laqueur, Walter, and Judith Tydor Baumel, eds. The Holocaust Encyclopedia. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2001.
Monahan, Evelyn M., and Rosemary Neidel-Greenlee. All This Hell: U.S. Nurses Imprisoned by the Japanese. Lexington, Ky.: University Press of Kentucky, 2000.
Prison Ships
Americans and the British both used prison ships during the Revolution to confine naval prisoners. Conditions on the prison ships varied greatly, but the British vessels moored in Wallabout Bay, Brooklyn, particularly the Jersey, became notorious for the harsh treatment accorded the captives. Provisions were poor. Fever and dysentery prevailed and the guards were brutal. George Washington and the Continental Congress protested against this treatment, and Vice Adm. John Byron of the Royal Navy labored to better conditions. At least thirteen different prison ships were moored in Wallabout Bay or in the East or North rivers from 1776 to 1783. Up to 11,500 men may have died on these ships.
Bibliography
Allen, Gardner W. A Naval History of the American Revolution. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1913.
Pow/Mia Controversy, Vietnam War
POWs and MIAs are an important legacy of the Vietnam War, with ramifications for both American domestic politics and U.S. relations with Vietnam. By the terms of the Paris Peace Accords of 1973, which ended U.S. involvement in Vietnam, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) agreed to release all American POWs that it was holding. North Vietnam had acceded to the Geneva Convention of 1949, which classified prisoners of war as "victims of events" who deserved "decent and humane treatment." Nonetheless, North Vietnam insisted that the crews of U.S. bombers were guilty of "crimes against humanity," and returning POWs told stories of mistreatment by their captors. Evidence of mistreatment stirred emotions, which reports that North Vietnam had not returned all POWs and was still holding Americans captive only magnified. The plight of "boat people" fleeing Vietnam and Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia in 1978 reinforced these impressions of an inhumane Vietnamese government, officially called the Socialist Republic of Vietnam following the North's victory of 1975. These events helped to solidify public and congressional support for nonrecognition of Vietnam and a trade embargo.
The United States made "full accountability" of MIAs a condition of diplomatic recognition of Vietnam. At the end of the war, 1,750 Americans were listed as missing in Vietnam, with another 600 MIAs in neighboring Laos and Cambodia. The United States also insisted that Vietnam assist in the recovery of remains of MIAs who had died in Vietnam and in the return of any individuals who might have survived the war. Of particular concern were the "discrepancy cases," where individuals were believed to have survived an incident, such as bailing out of an aircraft and having been reportedly seen later, but were not among the returning POWs.
The POW and MIA controversy triggered a rigorous debate and became a popular culture phenomenon in the late 1970s and 1980s, despite Pentagon and congressional investigations that indicated there were no more than 200 unresolved MIA cases out of the 2,266 the Department of Defense still listed as missing and about a dozen POWs unaccounted for. By contrast, Vietnam still considers approximately 300,000 North and South Vietnamese as MIA. President Ronald Reagan, speaking before the National League of POW/MIA Families in 1987, stated that "until all our questions are fully answered, we will assume that some of our countrymen are alive." The Vietnam Veterans of America, which sent several investigating groups to Vietnam in the 1980s, helped renew contacts between the U.S. and Vietnamese governments. Accordingly, Vietnamese authorities and representatives of the Reagan administration reached agreements that resulted in cooperation in recovering the remains of American casualties. Beginning in the late 1980s, Vietnam returned several hundred sets of remains to the United States. In addition, progress occurred in clarifying "discrepancy cases." The question resurfaced in the 1990s about whether President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had done all they could during peace negotiations to free servicemen "knowingly" left behind or whether they both were so desperate to get out of Vietnam that they sacrificed POWs. Both Nixon and Kissinger maintained that it was the "doves" in Congress at the time who prevented any effective military action to find out the truth about POWs when it was still possible to do so in the summer and spring of 1973. On 3 February 1994, with the approval of the Senate and business community, President Bill Clinton removed the nineteen-year trade embargo against Vietnam, and the Vietnamese government cooperated with veterans groups in locating the remains of U.S. soldiers and returning remains to the United States for burial, including those of nine soldiers in October 1995. As of June 2002, just over 1,900 Americans remained unaccounted for in Southeast Asia.
Bibliography
Howes, Craig. Voices of the Vietnam POWs: Witnesses to Their Fight. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Keating, Susan Katz. Prisoners of Hope: Exploiting the POW/MIA Myth in America. New York: Random House, 1994.
Philpott, Tom. Glory Denied: The Saga of Jim Thompson, America's Longest-Held Prisoner of War. New York: Norton, 2001.
Stern, Lewis M. Imprisoned or Missing in Vietnam: Policies of the Vietnamese Government Concerning Captured and Unaccountedfor United States Soldiers, 1969–1994. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 1995.
| Columbia Encyclopedia: prisoners of war |
Historical Attitudes toward Prisoners of War
Attitudes toward prisoners of war have changed over time. Originally slaughtered, captives were later considered war booty. The captor still held life-and-death power, but it became more useful to make slaves of the prisoners. In feudal Europe the nobles were ransomed, and the Ottoman Empire and the Barbary States generally ransomed their Christian captives.
The basis of the modern treatment of prisoners of war was stated by Montesquieu in De l'esprit des lois and by J. J. Rousseau in his Social Contract; both held that the right of the captor over the prisoner was limited to preventing him from taking up arms again and ceased altogether with the end of hostilities. Their view was elaborated by Emerich de Vattel. During the American Civil War, Francis Lieber drew up the first systematic, written regulations on the treatment of prisoners of war.
The first international convention on prisoners of war was signed at the Hague Peace Conference of 1899. It was widened by the Hague Convention of 1907. These rules proved insufficient in World War I, and the International Red Cross proposed a more complete code.
The 1929 Geneva Convention
In 1929 the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was signed by 47 governments. Chief among the nations that did not adhere to the Geneva Convention of 1929 were Japan and the USSR. Japan, however, gave a qualified promise (1942) to abide by the Geneva rules, and the USSR announced (1941) that it would observe the terms of the Hague Convention of 1907, which did not provide (as does the Geneva Convention) for neutral inspection of prison camps, for the exchange of prisoners' names, and for correspondence with prisoners.
According to the Geneva Convention no prisoner of war could be forced to disclose to his captor any information other than his identity (i.e., his name and rank, but not his military unit, home town, or address of relatives). Every prisoner of war was entitled to adequate food and medical care and had the right to exchange correspondence and receive parcels. He was required to observe ordinary military discipline and courtesy, but he could attempt to escape at his own risk. Once recaptured, he was not to be punished for his attempt. Officers were to receive pay either according to the pay scale of their own country or to that of their captor, whichever was less; they could not be required to work. Enlisted men might be required to work for pay, but the nature and location of their work were not to expose them to danger, and in no case could they be required to perform work directly related to military operations. Camps were to be open to inspection by authorized representatives of a neutral power.
In World War II, Switzerland and Sweden acted as protecting powers. The International Red Cross at Geneva acted as a clearinghouse for the exchange of all information regarding prisoners of war and had charge of transmitting correspondence and parcels. With minor and inevitable exceptions on the lower levels, the United States and Great Britain generally honored the Geneva Convention throughout the conflict. Japan at first committed such atrocities as the "death march of Bataan," but began to abide by the rules after a sufficient number of Japanese prisoners had fallen into Allied hands to make reprisals possible. Germany did not treat all its prisoners alike. Americans and British subjects received the best treatment, Polish prisoners the worst.
The 1949 Geneva Convention
The changed methods of warfare in World War II, the maltreatment of prisoners of war that constituted an important part of the war crimes indictments, and the retention of a great number of German prisoners of war by the USSR for several years after the war showed that the 1929 Convention required revision on many points. A new convention, reaffirming and supplementing the 1929 Convention, was signed at Geneva in 1949 and subsequently ratified by almost all nations. It broadened the categories of persons entitled to prisoner-of-war status, clearly redefined the conditions of captivity, and reaffirmed the principle of immediate release and repatriation at the end of hostilities.
Although the North Koreans promised to respect the Geneva Convention in the Korean War, they refused to recognize the impartial status of the Red Cross and denied it access to the territory they controlled. The unprecedented refusal of prisoners to be repatriated, moreover, established a new principle of political asylum for prisoners of war. The governments of North and South Vietnam, parties to the 1949 Geneva Convention, were charged with violating it in the Vietnam War-the North by not permitting full reporting, correspondence, and neutral inspection, and the South by allegedly torturing captives and placing them in inhumane prisons. The national anguish over the Vietnam War was extended for decades after the war's end in part because of the lack of resolution over the POW and MIA (missing in action) issue. While the Pentagon's MIA list still contains names of missing servicemen, the last official prisoner of war was declared dead in 1994.
Combatants captured and held by the United States as a result of its operations in Afghanistan against the Taliban government and Al Qaeda forces were not recognized as as prisoners of war by the Bush administration and were termed "unlawful combatants" instead. This decision was criticized by human rights groups as a failure to abide by international law, and drew criticism from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as well. In June, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that these prisoners, which the Bush administration had claimed it could hold indefinitely (most them at the Guantánamo, Cuba, naval base), were not beyond the bounds of U.S. federal law and had the right to challenge their detention.
A month before the ruling, U.S. prestige had suffered a significant blow when it was revealed that U.S. forces had abused Iraqi prisoners in 2003-4. Later revelations suggested that the abuse may have been an outgrowth of U.S. prisoner policy in place since the 2001 terror attacks on the United States, and the ICRC expressed concern that the United States might be continuing to hide prisoners from it, as had been attempted in Iraq. The ICRC subsequently privately charged that U.S. treatment of some prisoners at Guantánamo was "tantamount to torture." Also in 2004 the Bush administration determined that some non-Iraqi prisoners captured in Iraq were not subject to the Geneva Conventions, and that such prisoners could be transferred out of Iraq, as the CIA secretly had done with a small number of prisoners since 2003.
| Military Dictionary: prisoner of war |
(DOD) A detained person as defined in Articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949. In particular, one who, while engaged in combat under orders of his or her government, is captured by the armed forces of the enemy. As such, he or she is entitled to the combatant's privilege of immunity from the municipal law of the capturing state for warlike acts which do not amount to breaches of the law of armed conflict. For example, a prisoner of war may be, but is not limited to, any person belonging to one of the following categories who has fallen into the power of the enemy: a member of the armed forces, organized militia or volunteer corps; a person who accompanies the armed forces without actually being a member thereof; a member of a merchant marine or civilian aircraft crew not qualifying for more favorable treatment; or individuals who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces. Also called POW or PW.
| Wikipedia: Prisoner of war |
| Please help improve this article by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page. |
| The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. |
| This article may require copy-editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. You can assist by editing it now. (May 2009) |
A prisoner of war (POW, PoW, PW, P/W, WP, or PsW) or enemy prisoner of war (EPW) is a combatant who is held in continuing custody by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict. The earliest recorded usage of the phrase is dated 1660.
Contents |
According to John Hickman, captor states hold captured combatants and non-combatants in continuing custody for a range of legitimate and illegitimate reasons. They are held to isolate them from combatants still in the field, to release and repatriate them in an orderly manner after hostilities, to demonstrate military victory, to punish them, to prosecute them for war crimes, to exploit them for their labor, to recruit or even conscript them as their own combatants, to collect military and political intelligence from them, and to indoctrinate them in new political or religious beliefs.
For most of human history, depending on the culture of the victors, combatants on the losing side in a battle could expect to be either slaughtered, to eliminate them as a future threat, or enslaved, bringing economic and social benefits to the victorious side and its soldiers. Typically, little distinction was made between combatants and civilians, although women and children were more likely to be spared. Sometimes the purpose of a battle, if not a war, was to capture women, a practice known as raptio; the Rape of the Sabines was a large mass abduction by the founders of Rome. Typically women had no rights, were held legally as chattel, and would not be accepted back by their birth families once they had borne children to those who had killed their mothers, brothers and fathers.
In the Fourth Century AD, the Bishop Acacius of Amida, touched by the plight of Persian prisoners captured in a recent war with the Roman empire, held in his town under appalling conditions and destined for a life of slavery - took the initiative of ransoming them, by selling his church's precious gold and silver vessels, and letting them return to their country, For this he was eventually canonised.
Likewise the distinction between POW and slave is not always clear. Some of the Native Americans captured Europeans and used them as both labourers and bargaining chips; see for example John R. Jewitt, an Englishman who wrote a memoir about his years as a captive of the Nootka people on the Pacific Northwest Coast in 1802–1805.
During the Middle Ages, a number of religious wars were particularly ferocious. In Christian Europe, the extermination of the heretics or "non-believers" was considered desirable. Examples include the 13th century Albigensian Crusade and the Northern Crusades.[1] Likewise the inhabitants of conquered cities were frequently massacred during the Crusades against the Muslims in the 11th century and the 12th century. Noblemen could hope to be ransomed; their families would have to send to their captors large sums of wealth commensurate with the social status of the captive. Many French prisoners of war were killed during the Battle of Agincourt in 1415[2]. In the samurai-dominated Japan there was no custom of ransoming prisoners of war, who were for the most part summarily executed.[3]
In pre-Islamic Arabia, upon capture, those captives not executed, were made to beg for their subsistence. During the early reforms under Islam, Muhammad changed this custom and made it the responsibility of the Islamic government to provide food and clothing, on a reasonable basis, to captives, regardless of their religion. If the prisoners were in the custody of a person, then the responsibility was on the individual.[4] He established the rule that prisoners of war must be guarded and not ill-treated, and that after the fighting was over, the prisoners were expected to be either released or ransomed. However, the leader of the Muslim force capturing non-Muslim prisoners could choose whether to kill prisoners, to ransom them, to enslave them, or to cut off their hands and feet on alternate sides. The freeing of prisoners in particular was highly recommended as a charitable act. Mecca was the first city to have the benevolent code applied. However, Christians who were captured in the Crusades were sold into slavery if they could not pay a ransom.[5]
The 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years' War, established the rule that prisoners of war should be released without ransom at the end of hostilities and that they should be allowed to return to their homelands.[6]
During the 19th century, efforts increased to improve the treatment and processing of prisoners. The extensive period of conflict during the Revolutionary War and Napoleonic Wars (1793-1815), followed by the Anglo-American War of 1812, led to the emergence of a cartel system for the exchange of prisoners, even while the belligerents were at war. A cartel was usually arranged by the respective armed service for the exchange of like ranked personnel. The aim was to achieve a reduction in the number of prisoners held, while at the same time alleviating shortages of skilled personnel in the home country.
Later, as result of these emerging conventions a number of international conferences were held, starting with the Brussels Conference of 1874, with nations agreeing that it was necessary to prevent inhumane treatment of prisoners and the use of weapons causing unnecessary harm. Although no agreements were immediately ratified by the participating nations, work was continued that resulted in new conventions being adopted and becoming recognized as international law, that specified that prisoners of war are required to be treated humanely and diplomatically.
Specifically, Chapter II of the Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention covered the treatment of prisoners of war in detail. These were further expanded in the Third Geneva Convention of 1929, and its revision of 1949. Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, some guerrilla fighters and certain civilians. It applies from the moment a prisoner is captured until he or she is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners and states that a prisoner can only be required to give their name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable).
However, nations vary in their dedication to following these laws, and historically the treatment of POWs has varied greatly. During the 20th century, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were notorious for atrocities against prisoners during World War II. The German military used the Soviet Union's refusal to sign the Geneva Convention as a reason for not providing the necessities of life to Russian POWs. North Korean and North Vietnamese forces routinely killed or mistreated prisoners taken during those conflicts.
To be entitled to prisoner-of-war status, captured service members must be lawful combatants entitled to combatant's privilege—which gives them immunity from punishment for crimes constituting lawful acts of war, e.g., killing enemy troops. To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly. Thus, uniforms and/or badges are important in determining prisoner-of-war status; and francs-tireurs, terrorists, saboteurs, mercenaries and spies do not qualify. In practice, these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, do not necessarily wear an issued uniform nor carry arms openly, yet captured combatants of this type have sometimes been granted POW status. The criteria are generally applicable to international armed conflicts. In civil wars, insurgents are often treated as traitors or criminals by government forces, and are sometimes executed. However, in the American Civil War, both sides treated captured troops as POWs, presumably out of reciprocity, though the Union regarded Confederacy personnel as separatist rebels. However, guerrillas and other irregular combatants generally cannot expect to simultaneously benefit from both civilian and military status.
The United States Military Code of Conduct, Articles III, for United States service members who have been taken prisoner. They were created in response to the breakdown of leadership which can happen in a typical environment such as a POW situation, specifically when US forces were POWs during the Korean War. When a person is taken prisoner, the Code of Conduct reminds the service member that the chain of command is still in effect (the highest ranking service member, regardless of armed service branch, is in command), and that the service member cannot receive special favors or parole from their captors, lest this undermine the service member's chain of command.
Since the Vietnam War the official U.S. military term for enemy POWs is EPW (Enemy Prisoner of War). This name change was introduced in order to distinguish between enemy and U.S. captives. [2], [3]
During World War I about 8 million men surrendered and were held in POW camps until the war ended. All nations pledged to follow the Hague rules on fair treatment of prisoners of war, and in general the POWs had a much higher survival rate than their peers who were not captured.[7] Individual surrenders were uncommon; usually a large unit surrendered all its men. At Tannenberg 92,000 Russians surrendered during the battle. When the besieged garrison of Kaunas surrendered in 1915, 20,000 Russians became prisoners. Over half the Russian losses were prisoners (as a proportion of those captured, wounded or killed)s about 3.3 million men became prisoners.[8]
Germany held 2.5 million prisoners; Russia held 2.9 million, and Britain and France held about 720,000, mostly gained in the period just before the Armistice in 1918. The US held 48,000. The most dangerous moment was the act of surrender, when helpless soldiers were sometimes shot down. Once prisoners reached a POW camp conditions were better (and often much better than in World War II), thanks in part to the efforts of the International Red Cross and inspections by neutral nations. There was however much harsh treatment of POWs in Germany, as recorded by the American ambassador to Germany (prior to America's entry into the war), James W. Gerard, who published his findings in "My Four Years in Germany". Even worse conditions are reported in the book "Escape of a Princess Pat" by the Canadian George Pearson. It was particularly bad in Russia, where starvation was common for prisoners and civilians alike; about 40% of the prisoners in Russia died or remained missing.[9] Nearly 375,000 of the 500,000 Austro-Hungarian prisoners of war taken by Russians have perished in Siberia from smallpox and typhus.[10] In Germany food was short but only 5% died. [11]
The Ottoman Empire often treated prisoners of war poorly. Some 11,800 British soldiers, most of them Indians, became prisoners after the five-month Siege of Kut, in Mesopotamia, in April 1916. Many were weak and starved when they surrendered and 4,250 died in captivity.[12]
The most curious case came in Russia where the Czechoslovak Legion of Czechoslovak prisoners (from the Austro-Hungarian army), were released in 1917, armed themselves, and briefly became a military and diplomatic force during the Russian Civil War.
At the end of the war in 1918 there were believed to be 140,000 British prisoners of war in Germany, including 3,000 internees held in neutral Switzerland. The first British prisoners were released and reached Calais on 15 November. Plans were made for them to be sent via Dunkirk to Dover and a large reception camp was established at Dover capable of housing 40,000 men, which could later be used for demobilisation.
On 13 December 1918 the armistice was extended and the Allies reported that by 9 December 264,000 prisoners had been repatriated. A very large number of these had been released en masse and sent across Allied lines without any food or shelter. This created difficulties for the receiving Allies and many released prisoners died from exhaustion. The released POWs were met by cavalry troops and sent back through the lines in lorries to reception centres where they were refitted with boots and clothing and dispatched to the ports in trains. Upon arrival at the receiving camp the POWs were registered and "boarded" before being dispatched to their own homes. All commissioned officers had to write a report on the circumstances of their capture and to ensure that they had done all they could to avoid capture. Each returning officer and man was given a message from King George V, written in his own hand and reproduced on a lithograph. It read as follows:[13]
"The Queen joins me in welcoming you on your release from the miseries & hardships, which you have endured with so much patience and courage.During these many months of trial, the early rescue of our gallant Officers & Men from the cruelties of their captivity has been uppermost in our thoughts.
We are thankful that this longed for day has arrived, & that back in the old Country you will be able once more to enjoy the happiness of a home & to see good days among those who anxiously look for your return. George R.I."
The death toll among POWs in general is estimated at between 6 and 10 million.[14] Germany and Italy generally treated prisoners from the British Commonwealth, France, the U.S. and other Western allies in accordance with the Geneva Convention (1929), which had been signed by these countries.[15] It is noteworthy that this also applied to Jewish POWs wearing the British Army's uniform, who were treated on an equal footing with other British soldiers and excluded from application of the murderous Final Solution policies effected against virtually all other Jews who fell into Nazi hands. (For example, Major Yitzhak Ben-Aharon—later a prominent Israeli trade unionist and politician—was captured by the Germans at Greece in 1941 and underwent four years of captivity under fairly tolerable conditions).
In German camps, when soldiers of lower rank were made to work, they were compensated, and officers (e.g. in Colditz Castle) were not required to work. The main complaints of British, British Commonwealth, U.S., and French prisoners of war in German Army POW camps-especially during the last two years of the war-concerned the bare bones menu provided, a fate German soldiers and civilians were also suffering due to the blockade conditions. Fortunately for the prisoners, food packages provided by the International Red Cross supplemented the food rations, until the last few months when allied air raids prevented shipments from arriving. The other main complaint was the harsh treatment during forced marches in the last months, resulting from German attempts to keep prisoners away from the advancing allied forces.
Germany did not apply the same standard of treatment to non-Western prisoners, such as the many soldiers of the Soviet Red Army, who suffered harsh conditions and died in large numbers while in captivity. Between 1941 and 1945, the Axis powers took about 5.7 million Soviet prisoners. About 1 million of them were released during the war, in that their status changed but they remained under German authority. A little over 500,000 either escaped or were liberated by the Red Army. Some 930,000 more were found alive in camps after the war. The remaining 3.3 million prisoners (57.5% of the total captured) died during their captivity.[16] According to Russian military historian General Grigoriy Krivosheyev, 4.6 million Soviet prisoners were taken by the Axis powers, of which 1.8 million were found alive in camps after the war and 318,770 were released by the Axis during the war and were then drafted into the Soviet armed forces again.[17] In comparison, 8,348 Western Allied (British, American and Canadian) prisoners died in German camps in 1939-45 (3.5% of the 232,000 total). [18]
An official justification used by the Germans for this policy was that the Soviet Union had not signed the Geneva Convention. This was not legally justifiable, however, as under article 82 of the Geneva Convention (1929), signatory countries had to give POWs of all signatory and non-signatory countries the rights assigned by the convention.[20] Beevor indicates that about one month after the German invasion in 1941 an offer was made by the USSR for a reciprocal adherence to the Hague conventions. This 'note' was left unanswered by Third Reich officials.[21] In contrast, Tolstoy discusses that the German Government as well as the International Red Cross made several efforts to regulate reciprocal treatment of prisoners until early 1942, but received no answers from the Soviet side.[22] Further, the Soviets took a harsh position towards captured Soviet soldiers as they expected each soldier to fight to the death and automatically excluded any prisoner from the “Russian community”.[23]
On 11 February 1945, at the conclusion of the Yalta Conference, the United States and the United Kingdom signed a Repatriation Agreement with the USSR.[24] The interpretation of this Agreement resulted in the forcible repatriation of all Russians (Operation Keelhaul) regardless of their wishes. The forced repatriation operations took place in 1945-1947.[25] Many Soviet POWs and forced laborers transported to Nazi Germany were on their return to the USSR treated as traitors and sent to GULAG prison camps. The remainder were barred from all but the most menial jobs.
The Empire of Japan, which had never signed the Third Geneva Convention of 1929, also did not treat prisoners of war in accordance with international agreements, including provisions of the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907), either during the Second Sino-Japanese War nor during the Pacific War. Moreover, according to a directive ratified on 5 August 1937 by Hirohito, the constraints of the Hague Conventions were explicitly removed on Chinese prisoners.[26]
Prisoners of war from China, the United States, Australia, Britain, Canada, India, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the Philippines held by the Japanese armed forces were subject to murder, beatings, summary punishment, brutal treatment, forced labor, medical experimentation, starvation rations and poor medical treatment. No access to the POWs was provided to the International Red Cross. Escapes among Caucasian prisoners were almost impossible because of the difficulty of men of Caucasian descent hiding in Asiatic societies.[27]
Life in the POW camps was recorded at great risk to themselves by artists such as Jack Bridger Chalker, Philip Meninsky, Ashley George Old and Ronald Searle.
According to the findings of the Tokyo tribunal, the death rate of Western prisoners was 27.1% (American POWs died at a rate of 37%),[28] seven times that of POWs under the Germans and Italians.[29] The death rate of Chinese was much larger. Thus, while 37,583 prisoners from the United Kingdom, Commonwealth and Dominions, 28,500 from Netherlands and 14,473 from USA were released after the surrender of Japan, the number for the Chinese was only 56.[30]
As a result of the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939, hundreds of thousands of Polish soldiers became prisoners of war in the Soviet Union. Thousands of them were executed; over 20,000 Polish military personnel and civilians perished in the Katyn massacre.[31] Out of Anders' 80,000 evacuees from Soviet Union gathered in Great Britain only 310 volunteered to return to Poland in 1947.[32]
According to some sources, the Soviets captured 3.5 million Axis servicemen (excluding Japanese) of which more than a million died.[33] According to G. Krivosheev, the Soviets captured in total 4,126,964 Axis servicemen, of which 580,548 died in captivity. Of 2,389,560 German servicemen 450,600 died in captivity.[17] One specific example of the tragic fate of the German POWs was after the Battle of Stalingrad, during which the Soviets captured 91,000 German troops, many already starved and ill, of whom only 5,000 survived the war. The last German POWs (those who were sentenced for war crimes, sometimes without sufficient reasons) were released by the Soviets in 1955, only after Joseph Stalin had died.[34] At least 54,000 Italian POWs died in Russia, with a mortality rate of 84.5%. See also POW labor in the Soviet Union, Japanese prisoners of war in the Soviet Union, Italian prisoners of war in the Soviet Union, Romanian POW in the Soviet Union.
During the war the Armies of Allied nations such as the U.S., UK, Australia and Canada[35] were ordered to treat Axis prisoners strictly in accordance with the Geneva Convention (1929).[36] Some breaches of the Convention took place, however. According to Stephen E. Ambrose, of the roughly 1,000 U.S. combat veterans that he had interviewed, roughly 1/3 told him they had seen U.S. troops kill German prisoners.[37]
Although some Japanese were taken prisoner, most fought until they were killed or committed suicide. Of the 22,000 Japanese soldiers present at the beginning of the Battle of Iwo Jima, over 20,000 were killed and only 1,083 taken prisoner.[38] Of the 30,000 Japanese troops that defended Saipan, less than 1,000 remained alive at battle's end.[39] Japanese prisoners sent to camps in the U.S. fared well but many Japanese were killed when trying to surrender or were massacred just after they had surrendered (see Allied war crimes during World War II in the Pacific). Some Japanese prisoners in POW camps died at their own hands, either directly or by attacking guards with the intention of forcing the guards to kill them.
Towards the end of the war in Europe, as large numbers of Axis soldiers surrendered, the U.S. created the designation of Disarmed Enemy Forces (DEF) so as not to treat prisoners as POWs. A lot of these soldiers were kept in open fields in various Rheinwiesenlagers. Controversy has arisen about how Eisenhower managed these prisoners[40] (see Other Losses). Many died when forced to clear minefields in Norway, France etc. How many died during the several post-war years that they were used for forced labor in France, the Soviet Union, etc, is disputed. The "London Cage", a MI19 prisoner of war facility in the UK during and immediately after WWII, was subject to frequent allegations of torture.
The North Koreans have a reputation for severely mistreating prisoners of war (see Crimes against POWs).
The North Vietnamese captured many U.S. service members as prisoners of war during the Vietnam War, who suffered from mistreatment and torture during the war.
Regardless of regulations determining treatment to prisoners, violations of their rights continue to be reported. Many cases of POW massacres have been reported in recent times, including October 13 massacre in Lebanon by Syrian forces and June 1990 massacre in Sri Lanka.
During the 1990s Yugoslav Wars, Serb paramilitary forces supported by JNA forces killed POWs at Vukovar and Škarbrnja while Bosnian Serb forces killed POWs at Srebrenica.
During the Gulf War in 1991, American, British, Italian and Kuwaiti POWs (mostly crew members of downed aircraft and special forces) were tortured by the Iraqi secret police. An American military doctor, Major Rhonda Cornum, a 37-year-old flight surgeon, captured when her Blackhawk UH60 was shot down was also subjected to sexual abuse.[41]
In 2001, there were reports that India had actually taken two prisoners during the Sino-Indian War, Yang Chen and Shih Liang. The two were imprisoned as spies for three years before being interned in a mental asylum in Ranchi, where they spent the next 38 years under a special prisoner status.[42] The last prisoners of Iran–Iraq War (1980-1988) were exchanged in 2003.[43]
About six months after the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the U.S Army, abuse of Iraqi prisoners started to occur. The best known abuse incidents occurred at the large Abu Ghraib prison, some of them involving Iraqi POWs in addition to crime and insurgency suspects.
Occasionally, individual members of the U.S. Congress pushed for action in regard to possible U.S. POWs from prior U.S. military involvements and from the Cold War itself, with varying results. One of these was Republican Senator from North Carolina and ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Jesse Helms in his efforts in behalf of the World War II and Vietnam eras servicemen, as well as the passengers and crew of Korean Air Lines Flight 007, shot down by the Soviets on Sept. 1, 1983.
This is a list of nations with the highest number of POWs since the start of World War II, listed in descending order. These are also the highest numbers in any war since the Geneva Convention, Relative to the treatment of prisoners of war (1929) entered into force 19 June, 1931. The USSR had not signed the Geneva convention.[44]
| Prisoner nationality | Number | Name of conflict |
| 4—5.7 million taken by Germany (2.7—3.3 million died in German POW camps) [45] (ref. Streit) | World War II (Total) | |
| World War II | ||
| 1,800,000 taken by Germany | World War II | |
| 675,000 (420,000 by Germans, 240,000 by Soviets in 1939; 15,000 Warsaw 1944) | World War II | |
| ~200,000 (135,000 taken in Europe, does not include Pacific or Commonwealth figures) | World War II | |
| ~175,000 taken by Coalition of the Gulf War | Gulf War | |
| ~130,000 (95,532 taken by Germany) | World War II | |
| 90,368 taken by India. Later released by India in accordance with the Simla Agreement. | Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 |
Movies
Songs
| Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Prisoners of war |
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
| Geneva Conventions | |
| Prisoners of War | |
| Andersonville Prison |
| What was the name of the war prison at Osaka where the high ranking prisoners were held? Read answer... | |
| How did the prisoners escape from the British prison ships in the Revolutionary War? Read answer... | |
| What was prison camp in the civil war? Read answer... |
| Prisons and prisoners just after second world war in Kattowitz? | |
| How were prisoners treated in infamous prisons during the civil war? | |
| Details about the life of a prisoner of war andersonville prison camp? |
Copyrights:
![]() | Dictionary. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | US Military History Companion. The Oxford Companion to American Military History. Copyright © 2000 by Oxford University Press, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | US Military Dictionary. The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military. Copyright © 2001, 2002 by Oxford University Press, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | US History Encyclopedia. © 2006 through a partnership of Answers Corporation. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Columbia Encyclopedia. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/. Read more | |
![]() | Military Dictionary. US Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Words, 2003. Read more | |
![]() | Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Prisoner of war". Read more |
Mentioned in