Prisoners of War and the Geneva Conventions

Podcast Transcript

If you ever watch a war movie, you might see a scene where a prisoner of war evokes the Geneva convention to their captors.

But what exactly is the Geneva Convention, and what does it say? Why did countries sign a treaty covering ethics in war, of all things? Who is and isn’t covered by the Geneva Convention, and what happened to prisoners of war before the Geneva Convention?

…and what happens if a belligerent party doesn’t honor the Geneva Convention?

Learn more about Prisoners of War and the Geneva Conventions on this episode of Everything Everywhere Daily.

Ever since there has been war, there have been prisoners of war—soldiers who were not killed or necessarily gravely wounded but came into captivity by their enemies.

Today, when nations go to war, the handling of prisoners of war is something that is almost always assumed and prepared for….assuming, of course, that the conflict is between two nation-states.

While the history of prisoners of war goes back as far as warfare itself; however, the treatment of soldiers taken prisoner was very different from that of today.

If you remember my episode on the history of prisons, in the ancient world, imprisonment was a foreign concept. Most people did not consider spending resources on prisoners, so punishments were either death or some sort of physical punishment.

The same was true for prisoners of war.

In ancient civilizations, prisoners of war were often killed, enslaved, or used as human sacrifices.

In Ancient Egypt, captured soldiers were often enslaved, but their treatment varied depending on the ruler. Pharaoh Ramses II, for example, captured thousands of Hittite soldiers at the Battle of Kadesh and used them as forced labor on construction projects.

The Romans gained many of their slaves through military conquest. The Roman justification for slavery was that if the people they conquered weren’t slaves, then they would be dead, so, to them, it was the preferable outcome.

To the Romans, there was little distinction between soldiers and civilians. A conquered people was a conquered people.

In rare cases, such as with the Gaulish leader Vercingetorix, they would be paraded through Rome during a triumph only to be ritualistically strangulated.

During the Qin Dynasty in China, large numbers of prisoners of war were used in massive construction projects, such as the Great Wall.

Believe it or not, slavery was not the worst thing that could happen to a prison of war.

When Celtic Tribes captured warriors, they were often sacrificed to gods, as evidenced by archaeological findings such as the bog bodies in Europe.

The Aztecs frequently captured enemies for use in ritual sacrifices, believing that such acts nourished the gods and sustained the universe. Captured warriors were often kept alive until ceremonial events like the Flower Wars were staged to collect sacrificial victims.

Of course, slavery and ritual sacrifice assume that you even survived. A much more common option would be to slaughter all the survivors so they didn’t have to feed them.

There might have been rare exceptions to these outcomes, but they would have been few and far between and usually dependent on the captive’s status.

One of the most infamous cases of how prisoners of war were treated was after The Battle of Kleidion in 1014, which was fought between the Byzantine Empire and the Bulgarian Empire.

It ended in a decisive Byzantine victory under Emperor Basil II, earning him the nickname “Bulgar-Slayer.” After capturing around 15,000 Bulgarian soldiers, Basil II ordered them to be blinded, with one out of every hundred men left with one eye to guide the others back to their ruler, Tsar Samuel. This brutal act was intended to break Bulgarian resistance. Upon seeing his blinded soldiers, Tsar Samuel reportedly suffered a fatal heart attack or stroke, dying shortly afterward.

I should note that there were some exceptions to this. There were some Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists who all advocated for the humane treatment of captives.

Things slowly began to change in the Middle Ages with the development of chivalry.

Things weren’t necessarily better for the common foot soldier, but for the knights, who usually had some money or some aristocratic station, the chivalric code dictated that they be held for ransom, not executed.

Perhaps the most famous example of this was King Richard I of England.

Richard was captured in 1192 while returning from the Third Crusade. Shipwrecked and traveling incognito through Europe, he was recognized near Vienna and taken prisoner by Leopold V, Duke of Austria, with whom he had quarreled during the crusade.

Leopold transferred him to the custody of Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI, who demanded a colossal ransom of 150,000 marks, approximately three times England’s annual revenue. Richard’s mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, organized the effort to raise the ransom, taxing the kingdom heavily. After more than a year in captivity, the ransom was paid, and Richard was released in 1194, allowing him to reclaim his throne.

During the 17th century, The Thirty Year’s War showed the brutal treatment of captives due both to the religious nature of the conflict and the fact that so many of the combatants were mercenaries.

The Treaties of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty-Year War, changed the attitude towards prisoners of war. Instead of being the private property of a commander, they became the state’s concern.

Informal rules regarding the surrender of an officer and his unit were developed, where they were given protection in exchange for laying down their arms.

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, during the American Revolutionary War and the Napoleonic Wars, nations also began to do formal prison exchanges.

This eventually evolved into the concept of parole.

Parole for military prisoners refers to a practice in which captured soldiers are released by their captors under their honor as a gentlemen, not to resume hostilities or take up arms again until officially exchanged or otherwise freed from their obligations.

Parole was widely used in early modern and Napoleonic wars and relied on the honor system, as breaking one’s parole was considered highly dishonorable. Prisoners granted parole might be allowed to return to their home countries or live under restricted conditions, often reporting to designated authorities.

The development of modern norms for the treatment of prisoners of war began in 1859. A Swiss businessman named Henry Dunant witnessed the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino during the Second Italian War for Independence

Witnessing the horrific suffering of wounded soldiers, Dunant organized volunteer relief efforts and later published his observations in the 1862 book, “A Memory of Solferino.”

Dunant’s advocacy led to the formation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1863, which became a cornerstone for humanitarian efforts during conflicts. His ideas also inspired the First Geneva Convention in 1864, which codified many of his ideas regarding treating the wounded and protecting medical staff during combat.

Henry Dunant was awarded the first Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.

Further treaties which regulated the conduct of war were the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. The Hague Conventions were foundational international treaties that established rules for the conduct of war, marking an early effort to regulate warfare and reduce its humanitarian impact. These agreements addressed issues such as the treatment of prisoners of war, the prohibition of certain weapons such as poison gas, the protection of civilians, and the neutrality of medical personnel and facilities.

However, the treaty which is often referenced in World War II films is the Geneva Convention of 1929. This treaty explicitly addressed the treatment of prisoners of war.

The convention mandated proper food, shelter, and medical care, prohibited physical or psychological abuse, and guaranteed the right of prisoners to communicate with their families and receive aid. It also required captor states to inform the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) about captured individuals and allowed neutral inspections of POW camps.

Prisoners were also not to be forced to reveal any information beyond their name, rank, and serial number.

Despite the Geneva Convention, there were some horrific violations of the treaty. Both the Soviet Union and Japan never signed, but there were other violations as well.

An estimated 3.3 million Soviet prisoners died in German captivity due to starvation, forced labor, and summary executions, as the Nazis refused to recognize them under the Geneva Conventions.

Many German soldiers captured by the Soviets were subjected to brutal treatment, including starvation, forced labor, and summary executions. An estimated 1 million German POWs died in Soviet captivity.

After the fall of the Phillippines, during the Bataan Death March, the Japanese forced tens of thousands of American and Filipino prisoners to march over 60 miles without adequate food, water, or medical care, leading to thousands of deaths.

Allied POWs held by the Japanese were also subjected to starvation, beatings, forced labor, and executions. The treatment of POWs, such as those working on the Burma Railway, was particularly horrific.

These gross violations highlighted the inadequacies of existing international laws, leading to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which expanded protections for POWs, civilians, and non-combatants and established stricter enforcement mechanisms.

As of today, there are technically four Geneva Conventions, each of which deals with a different area.

The First Convention protects wounded and sick soldiers on the battlefield.

The Second Convention protects wounded, sick, and shipwrecked military personnel at sea.

The Third Convention addresses the treatment of prisoners of war, requiring humane treatment, adequate food, medical care, and communication with their families.

The Fourth Convention focuses on the protection of civilians in war zones, including prohibitions on taking hostages, torture, and other forms of mistreatment.

As of today, every country in the world is a signatory to the four core Geneva Conventions.

However, three additional protocols have been established since the 1949 treaties.

Protocol I, ratified in 1977, expands protections for civilians and combatants in international armed conflicts, emphasizing the prohibition of attacks on civilians, the humane treatment of prisoners, and the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks and environmentally destructive weapons.

Protocol II, also ratified in 1977, Extends protections to victims of non-international armed conflicts, such as civil wars, prohibiting violence against civilians, torture, and slavery while safeguarding humanitarian aid access and promoting humane treatment of all individuals.

Protocol III, ratified in 2005, introduces the Red Crystal as an additional protective emblem, alongside the Red Cross and Red Crescent, to enhance the neutrality and universality of humanitarian assistance in conflict zones.

Not every country has ratified all the protocols. Most notably, the United States has not ratified the first two.

The application of the Geneva Conventions hasn’t always been straightforward. There are enough loopholes in the documents that, in many conflicts, governments have claimed they did not have to honor them.

During the Vietnam War, North Vietnam claimed that American pilots were not POWs but “war criminals” due to their involvement in bombing campaigns, which it argued violated international law. This stance was used to justify its treatment of captives, though it contradicted the protections provided under the Geneva Conventions.

Currently, there is no real enforcement mechanism for the Geneva Convention unless your side happens to lose in the war. Then you get trials at the Hague, like what happened after the war in Yugoslavia, or the Nuremberg Trials.

Another major issue today is terrorism.

Under the Geneva Conventions, lawful combatants are individuals authorized to engage in hostilities during an armed conflict who are part of a state’s armed forces or organized armed groups, openly carry arms, distinguish themselves from civilians, and adhere to the laws of war.

This would cover a regular national army and also rebel groups acting in an organized manner.

However, this does not cover terrorists who do not distinguish themselves and primarily attack civilians.

One of the major debates of the last several years is how much the rights of the Geneva Conventions should apply to unlawful combatant prisoners who themselves do not abide by the conventions.

One camp believes the spirit of the treaty should be applied in all cases, and others claim that if they are outside the scope of the Geneva Conventions, its courtesies should not be extended.

Even today, wars are being fought around the world, and the tenets of the Geneva Conventions are expected to be honored by all belligerent parties, even though that is not always the case.