To what extent was the treatment of Prisoners of War held by Britain different to that of the treatment of Prisoners of War held by Germany and Japan?

Authors Avatar

History Coursework

To what extent was the treatment of Prisoners of War held by Britain different to that of the treatment of Prisoners of War held by Germany and Japan?

According international law a POW is defined as “persons captured by a belligerent while fighting in the military.” International law includes “rules on the treatment of prisoners of war but extends protection only to combatants. This excludes civilians who engage in hostilities (by international law they are war criminals) and forces that do not observe conventional requirements for combatants.”1

In order to protect the rights of Prisoners of War a convention was set up which laid down the conditions in which a prisoner could be held. The experiences of the First World War meant the third convention could be adapted to be more protective of prisoners of war, in terms of food, accommodation, punishments and work, it stated that “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.” The amount of food was to “be equivalent in quantity and quality to that of the depot troops.” In terms of work all POWs 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.” This work was not to expose them to “danger, and in no case could they be required to perform work directly related to military operations.” In terms of disciplining POWs “Imprisonment is the most severe disciplinary punishment, which may be inflicted on a prisoner of war. The duration of any single punishment shall not exceed thirty days.” Accommodation for POWs was to be in “buildings or huts which afford all possible safeguards as regards hygiene and security.”2

By 1939 the Geneva Convention for protecting prisoners of war had become well developed. However, there were many breaches of the 29 convention by both sides during the war. Furthermore, the lack of involvement by the Soviet Union and Japan left the convention weakened. The 1949 Geneva Convention would later resolve many of the ambiguities in the earlier agreement and clarified terms in reflection of the events of World War Two.

Prison accounts in Germany describe sometimes extreme hunger amounting to starvation. The authorities in theory provided an adequate diet for POWS. This was not at all balanced by modern standards. It was heavy on fats and starch and devoid of fresh vegetables, but would have kept prisoners alive and in reasonable health. Reports show that rations were not always constant, worsening as the war progressed.  S/Sgt. Trefry A. Ross – 765th B. Sq. reported that,

“the food was practically nothing but black bread, jam and cocoa. On occasion we got mashed rutabagas, usually very dirty or rotten.”6

This contrasts with the conditions of the Allied POWs who benefited from better rations as the war progressed. Physician Leslie Caplan, an imprisoned British medical officer calculated that the rations supplied by the Germans provided 770 calories daily, of which the majority were carbohydrate.7 However, this is not a true reflection of the intentions of the Germans as the status of the war dictated the realities of POW life.                       

However, these images are limited and may be exaggerations of the truth although the photo above shows it may have been the reality.11 Therefore the thin bodies of the POWs may have been an accurate depiction of their physical state during imprisonment. In some areas such as Changi rations were better, e.g. Reginald Burton described a better experience of food while working at Havelock Road. He describes having pineapples, bread tins of milk brought to huts and “hot sweet tea for 10 cents a mug”.12 The Japanese paid money and British currency was still in circulation enabling prisoners to buy what they wanted. This is in contrast to the food provided on the railway which suggests that the Japanese did provide adequate food on occasion but this has been overshadowed by the food given on the railways. It seems that food was generally a problem for all three countries due to shortages in resources.

Join now!

The housing of prisoners is an important aspect of life as a POW. This was a problem in Britain, which was not prepared for the number of prisoners it dealt with and led to the policy of deportation, a violation of the Geneva Convention. This was due to the threat German POWs posed to Britain’s national security. This was not a problem for the Japanese or Germans who could imprison POWs outside of Japan and Germany. Conditions of camps varied with purpose built camps in use as well as requisitioned and converted premises, which served as POW camps. Special ...

This is a preview of the whole essay