The Vital Role of the Geneva Convention in World War II
I would be remiss not to mention the Geneva Convention when discussing prisoners of war (POWs) during World War II. In fact, the entire 1929 Geneva Convention was devoted to the treatment of POWs. Its official title was Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War: Geneva, 27 July 1929.
Why this document was so crucial to survival
Though relatively brief, the Geneva Convention clearly—and without many wasted words—outlined how prisoners should be treated from the moment of capture through the end of their captivity. In POW camps, the Convention established standards for food, clothing, hygiene, medical care, discipline, and prisoners’ intellectual and moral needs.
Although the Convention included many more protections, I will mention two others here: the right of seriously sick and wounded prisoners to be repatriated under certain conditions, and the right of prisoners to appoint representatives to act on their behalf before the military authorities and the Protecting Powers. This fellow POW was called a Man of Confidence—or camp leader, as the Americans commonly called their representative.
America’s foresight in safeguarding its prisoners of war
Because the United States and Germany were both signatories, American POWs held by Germany were entitled to the Convention’s protections. Germany did not always abide by those provisions, but American prisoners generally received far greater protections than Soviet POWs, whom Nazi Germany treated with extraordinary brutality.
The situation in the Pacific was markedly different. Japan had signed the 1929 Convention but had not ratified it. Although Japan later indicated it would apply the Convention’s provisions with modifications, its treatment of Allied POWs frequently violated those standards. The difference in the experiences—and survival rates—of POWs in the European and Pacific theaters was startling.
Protection in the midst of destruction
First of all, I find it hard to comprehend that there are rules of war—such an oxymoron. Yet during World War II, those rules could make an enormous difference in whether a prisoner survived captivity.
In the European Theater, Protecting Powers helped oversee POW treatment. As outlined in Article 86 of the Geneva Convention, their representatives could visit POW camps, speak with prisoners, and report on whether the Convention's provisions were being followed. Germany took these inspections seriously enough that the visits—and the documented reports they produced—gave POW representatives an important tool for pressing for better conditions.
The Convention did not guarantee humane treatment, nor did it prevent violations. But it established standards against which Germany's treatment of American POWs could be judged—and challenged.
Without it, their chances of survival drastically diminished
The numbers tell part of the story. American POWs held in Europe had a remarkably high survival rate, while Soviet prisoners held by Nazi Germany suffered catastrophic losses. American POWs held by Japan also died at a far higher rate than those held in Europe.
The Geneva Convention alone cannot account for those differences. Many factors contributed to POW survival, including ideology, military policy, food supplies, geography, disease, and conditions late in the war. But the Convention provided something enormously important: recognized rules, outside oversight, and a mechanism through which prisoners could demand that those rules be followed.
Its true power was not that it prevented cruelty or guaranteed survival. Rather, in the midst of a brutal war, the Geneva Convention established that prisoners had rights—and gave their camp leaders and those fighting on their behalf something concrete to hold their captors accountable.
Source:Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 27 July 1929. International Committee of the Red Cross.