yes
It generally depended on who was involved. Western European prisoners were treated much better than Eastern European prisoners. Eastern Europeans were most often killed or died of starvation. They were often made into slave laborers. Of the Western European prisoners, the British & Americans were treated better than the French, Belgian, Dutch or Italian (after Italy surrendered to the Allies) prisoners. Normally British & Americans were not killed or treated as slave laborers. The French, Belgian, Dutch & Italians were often sent to slave labor camps, and starved. Of the Germans that held prisoners, the SS were the worse offenders against prisoners, and the Luftwaffe (Air Force) treated their prisoners the best. Also civilian prisoners were treated worse than military prisoners.
very badly, only slightly better than Jews were treated
As the british prisoners were treated better than the Indian political prisoners, bhagat singh and other prisoners launched a hunger strike advocating for the rights of prisoners and undertrials.
The reason for the strike was that british murderers and thieves were treated better than Indian political prisoners,who,by law,were meant to be given better rights.
They were treated badly but generally better than most other slave communities in the New World.
The living conditions of the POW camps in Canada were said to be very good. The camps were in better condition than the army barracks. Canada has had more than 33,798 prisoners of war.
Non-Jewish prisoners had a much better chance than Jewish prisoners. For example the British POWs were used as slave labour, but were treared much better with proper food rations and were not subject to random beatings. Soviet POWs were not treated much better that Jewish prisoners and almost all of them were worked to death. Political prisoners and criminals were generally given positions or responsibility, they were kapos, which meant that they would be able to take rations from others. For the Jewish inmates, who were the majority, their choices were limited. If they could get an indoor job, especially one in the 'Kanada' section, or in the kitchens they stood a better chance of not dieing from exposure or illness, but were still subject to 'selection' or random beatings. In general it was down to luck if they survived.
The Australians treated the Japanese well in POW camps and gave them better food and water than the Japanese gave them, better shelter, medical attention, clothing and cigarettes.
Many icelandic citizens moved to Canada because of few reasons. Not much work, better health care, better education, better goverment, freedom. The Danish Kingdom that ruled over oss at the time treated oss with much cruelty at the time.
Well... sometimes the children were treated horribly, but then as the economy grew it got better.
Well in my opinion, prisoners gave up their rights when they took someone else's away. What happened to the inmates' victims rights? Prisoners are treated better then Vietnam vets that have to live on the streets. Who cares about the rights of prisoners, they shouldn't have any. Why should the law work to help the prisoners always?
Japanese Samurai thinking already considered a soldier that surrendered in battle to effectively be dead, so how did it matter how they treated them. That was also why the Japanese generally did not surrender, they expected to be treated no better by the Americans.