Wartime Captivity in the 20th Century

Archives, Stories, Memories

Anne-Marie Pathé, Fabien Théofilakis, Helen McPhail, Anne-Marie Pathé, Fabien Théofilakis

• Publisher: Berghahn Books
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781785332593
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Military & Maritime History
• Index: History

Long a topic of historical interest, wartime captivity has over the past decade taken on new urgency as an object of study. Transnational by its very nature, captivity's historical significance extends far beyond the front lines, ultimately inextricable from the histories of mobilization, nationalism, colonialism, law, and a host of other related subjects. This wide-ranging volume brings together an international selection of scholars to trace the contours of this evolving research agenda, offering fascinating new perspectives on historical moments that range from the early days of the Great War to the arrival of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

PART I

Camp Systems, International Law and Humanitarian Action

Introduction

Jörg Echternkamp

The law of the jungle did not apply in the prisoner of war (POW) camps of the twentieth century, or at least not when matters were conducted according to international law. In view of the military mass mobilizations resulting from general conscription, the problem of how the victor should deal with thousands of POWs had become increasingly pressing. The First Hague Peace Conference of 1899 was a manifestation of the international efforts made to establish rules for war captivity that were in accordance with international law. Military personnel were no longer subject to the caprice of those who had taken them prisoner, but were held in the custody of a belligerent state. How these standards evolved as part of international law – from the First Hague Convention of 1899 with respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land and the Hague Peace Conference of 1907 to the Geneva Convention of 1929 and its amendment of 1949 – is primarily an issue of the history of law (for an overview see Fischer 1994: 260–300; Echternkamp 2013: 255–59).

Historians who are interested in military history contexts in a broader sense, however, focus on other aspects. Their research interest focuses on war captivity as a complex historical phenomenon and on the actors in this context. The international dimension of the object of study is expressed in an obvious, but by no means exclusive, reference framework. Methodically, the canon of precise international standards can be seen as a heuristic means that increases awareness of the historical practice of war captivity. For each specific historical case, the central question focuses on the chances, limits and mechanisms of putting the standards into legal practice: did the detaining power comply with international law? Which applicable provisions were considered and which were not? What were the underlying reasons for this?

The issue becomes more complex and appealing because we are dealing with different, usually multilateral relations. It concerns the relationship between (at least) one detaining power and (at least) one specific group of POWs and its dynamics in the course of the war being fought. Taking a comparative look at the subject promises to yield additional knowledge. The central criteria of comparison can be derived from the provisions of international law. How does a detaining power comply with a specific standard when it deals with different groups of POWs? Or conversely: how are different groups of POWs treated by various detaining powers in this respect? Despite all moral undertones, the approach is not a normative one. Rather, it is about considering the issue from a multitude of perspectives: about the range of experiences and about exploring scopes for action, about the significance of opposing ideologies, economic constraints, utilitarian considerations, military logic and situational factors. According to the actor-based approach taken by historians, POWs are perceived not only as objects, but also as acting subjects. New insights into the web of cause and effect not only help to draw out the figure of the POW from the shadows of a history of war and military affairs that focuses on warfare, but also to communicate a deeper understanding of the social, political and cultural dimensions of both a war society and a post-war society.

The comparison can be operationalized further by choosing a specific norm as an example. For a systematic illustration of individual effective factors, Delphine Debons (Lausanne) examines the degree to which Allies and Germans were allowed to exercise their right to practise religion in the Second World War. At least three factors can be identified: the first was the economic factor. On the one hand, the upkeep of thousands of prisoners was twice as difficult if the majority society – like France and Great Britain after 1945 – itself groaned under the burden of economic reconstruction. On the other hand, the detaining power was able to profit from its prisoners. Both sides used the cheap labour, largely in accordance with the Convention. Such an ‘employment’ could, in turn, have a positive effect on pastoral care and nutrition, as the detaining power had an interest in maintaining the productivity of its POWs. The second factor was the ideological aspect: in the Third Reich the anti-Christian attitude of National Socialism sometimes had a negative impact on the way POWs were treated, while in France and Great Britain religious assistance was seen positively as a means of re-educating German POWs. The third factor was the military concern about security. Preachers were regarded as potential agitators who engaged in propaganda under the guise of providing pastoral care. For this reason, their sphere of influence was limited. Conversely, pastoral care was able to benefit from propaganda efforts. The National Socialists, for instance, promoted the religious life of Muslim POWs in North African colonies in order to alienate them from their (Christian) colonial power. These three examples at the same time emphasize the interaction of the individual elements.

POW research that starts out from international law regulations is not only concerned with ‘real’ ideological, economic or military factors. The effectiveness of the law depended not least on how it was perceived at the time. Heather Jones (London) uses this approach, which in turn outlines the connection to society in the war and post-war period, in a case study on the relevance of POW law in 1914–1918 in the cases of Germany, Great Britain and France. According to her own initial judgement, violations of norms were not so grave as to justify talk of their being a failure. An analysis of the situation from the perspective of the history of perception emphasizes the contrary impression that prevailed in the post-war period: this was that, on the one hand, the international law established before 1914 was not suitable for industrialized mass wars and that, on the other, general violation of the law would result in all the parties acting solely in accordance with the tit-for-tat principle and exacting vengeance. In contrast, the idea of having compliance with the regulations monitored by a transnational organization, the International Committee of the Red Cross, with the support of a neutral state, met with approval. The Third Geneva Convention of 1929 finally marked the breakthrough for regulating how all POWs, not just those who were wounded, were to be dealt with.

However, treatment in accordance with international law does not necessarily mean that the treatment is attributable to international law. Rüdiger Overmans (Freiburg) argues along these lines when he examines the treatment of non-Soviet Jewish POWs in Wehrmacht camps. Of the 1.5 million or so Jews from the British Commonwealth, the United States and the Soviet Union who fought against the Third Reich, some 200,000 were captured by Germany as POWs, among them Polish, French and Yugoslav Jews. Generally speaking, all these Jewish POWs – including the Jewish Poles allied with the British – were not treated any differently from their fellow countrymen. Jewish POWs were not forced to wear the yellow star. Rank and file personnel were ordered to work, and officers lived in separate officers’ camps. In some camps, Jews were even able to practise their religion. They were discriminated against by being forced to do particularly hard and dangerous work. But with the exception of Soviet Jews, Jews in German war captivity were safe from annihilation by the Germans. Overmans accounts for this by citing the principle of reciprocity: he claims that it was neither regard for international law, an economic interest in the workforce nor any sense of humanitarianism on the part of the Wehrmacht that saved the Jews from anti-Semitic terror; it was Germany’s intent to protect its own soldiers who were in Allied war captivity. He says that the principle of reciprocity did not apply in a converse case: war captivity on the Eastern Front. Since Hitler had ‘written off’ German military personnel who became POWs of the Soviets, he did not need to take any consideration of Soviet military personnel and the Jews among them.

These articles are supplemented by the approach suggested by Patrizia Dogliani (Bologna): a microhistory of the enclave of Rimini, a town in the region of Emilia-Romagna in northern Italy where military personnel were held in Anglo-American war captivity between May 1945 and 1947. Analysing the camp system and its infrastructure, considering both the heterogeneity of its prisoners and their guards and the way in which the camp was integrated into its economic and political environment, as well as taking account of the collective memory, Dogliani points out how certain administrative norms evolved and how war captivity was experienced on both sides of the barbed wire in the post-war period.

Has Bellona really allowed herself to be tamed? This is often doubted with regard to the first half of the twentieth century. In contrast to this, and contrary to the basic scepticism about attempts to constrain war by way of international law that was common after the First World War, the counterfactual question of what war captivity would have looked like without the Geneva Convention could be posed. For further research into this issue, there is the international regulation itself, which both raises further questions and provides valuable foundations for answering them methodically – and there are the sources to which historians today have access due to the activities of the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) and other relief organizations.

Jörg Echternkamp received his Ph.D. at the University of Bielefeld in 1996. His accomplishments include habilitation at the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, 2012; Assistant Professor at the University Halle-Wittenberg, senior research fellow at the Centre for Military History and Social Sciences of the German army (formerly MGFA), Potsdam; project director of ‘European Military History in the 19th–20th centuries’ and ‘West and East German military history 1970–1990’; co-editor of Germany’s journal of military history (Militärgeschichtliche Zeitschift); Alfred Grosser visiting professor at the Institute of Political Studies (Sciences-Po), Paris, 2012/13; and visiting professor/fellow at the Université Paris-1 (Panthéon-Sorbonne), the University College London, the German Historical Institute in Paris and the University of Calgary in Canada. His recent publications include: (ed.), Europäische Militärgeschichte (DeGruyter/Oldenbourg 2016) and Soldaten im Nachkrieg (DeGruyter/Oldenbourg 2014); (ed.) Germany and the Second World War, vol.9/1–2: German Wartime Society 1939–1945, (OUP 2008–14); Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1945–1969 (Utb 2013); (ed.), Kriegsenden, Nachkriegsordnungen, Folgekonflikte. Wege aus dem Krieg im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Rombach Verlag 2012); Militär in Deutschland und Frankreich 1870–2011 (co-ed. with S. Martens) (Schoeningh 2012); Experience and Memory. The Second World War in Europe (Berghahn 2010/2013) (co-ed. with S. Martens).

CHAPTER 1

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND WESTERN FRONT PRISONERS OF WAR IN THE FIRST WORLD WAR

Heather Jones

At the heart of the First World War lay a clash between globalizing ideas about new ways that the international sphere could be regulated through law and newly radical nationalisms that privileged state prerogatives. The war broke out just as a legal framework was being set in place that epitomized the values and impact of the first wave of globalization: it was the first major European conflict to occur following the codification of international laws of war in the late nineteenth century, a codification that was ongoing at the moment war erupted in 1914. This codification was in large part based on the belief that universal legal norms should apply in European conflict. In this regard, the war proved a test, not only of ideas of ‘total’ war but also of ideas of ‘total’ law. The international laws on prisoner of war treatment that applied during the conflict developed out of this pre-war context and provide a good illustration of this test of the role of law in regulating conflict behaviours; indeed this context is crucial to understanding the role of law with regard to captivity practices between 1914 and 1918.

To what extent then did this new framework of international law protect prisoners of war during the First World War? In order to assess this question, this chapter will first set out the Hague and Geneva traditions regarding prisoner of war treatment as they existed by 1914; second, it will explore how robust and effective international law proved in influencing prisoner of war treatment when faced with the world’s first totalized, industrial war; finally, the chapter will explore the legacy of the war in the interwar period upon international laws regarding prisoner of war treatment. The aim here is to provide insights into the historic role played by international law in regulating prisoner treatment in the Great War, and its potential to determine wartime practices.

The Hague and Geneva Traditions

At the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 there were effectively two main evolving lines in international law regulating prisoner of war treatment in wartime – the Hague Conventions on the Laws and Customs of War and the Geneva Conventions, which had both grown out of rising public expectations in the second half of the nineteenth century, with regard to international law and its reach. While customary law had long applied to warfare in Europe, international legal agreements negotiated at conferences and ratified by numerous states to legally codify jus in bellum were a late nineteenth-century idea (Horne and Kramer 2001: 145) intended to humanize warfare, and sprang from the positivist and Whiggish zeitgeist of the time with its optimistic belief in human progress, as well as the boom in interest in the idea of international law more generally during this period – it was no accident that the Institut du Droit International was founded in 1873 and that it was during this era that international lawyers began to form a distinct profession (Lemnitzer 2014: 4).

The two lines of origin – Geneva and the Hague – interacted very closely: the 1907 Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV)¹ stipulated that treatment of sick and wounded prisoners should be in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, leaving this group’s care to the Geneva tradition. However, they also differed: the Geneva impetus was driven by a new idea of neutral international humanitarianism, and, in particular, by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which had been established in the late nineteenth century and which, during the First World War, greatly expanded and consolidated its role and reputation (Tate 2015). The 1864 Geneva Convention, triggered initially by Henri Dunant’s response to poor care for the wounded at the battle of Solférino that led to the foundation of the Red Cross movement, marked the start of international laws of war as we understand the concept today (although now termed ‘international humanitarian law’) and was ratified by all the major European powers. The Hague Conventions were initially an initiative of autocratic Tsarist Russia, which issued the invitations to the conference that led to the drafting of the first 1899 Hague Convention, but were also modelled partly on the Lieber Code, developed by the Union side to fix a basic standard of prisoner of war treatment and combatant-civilian interactions in the American Civil War (Scott 1908). They had military and government needs at their core.

These different origins help to explain why the two sets of conventions had slightly different priorities: the 1864 and 1906 Geneva Conventions were aimed at protecting wounded prisoners, who were to be cared for by the captor state to the same standards as the captor side’s own wounded and neutral status was assigned to medical staff, who, if captured, were to be exchanged and not held as prisoners of war. The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 focused on the unwounded prisoner of war and upon his utility as a potential worker and upon his property rights and his protection from being looted. In other words, the Hague regulations were much more about redefining prisoners so that they were no longer treated as loot or as the property of armies but fell under the remit of governments: the Hague Conventions stipulated that prisoners were now the captives not of the individuals or army corps that captured them but of the captor government (Kramer 2010: 76). In this regard, the Hague Conventions were about expanding the power of the modern state over its military and how they treated prisoners (and waged war), while Geneva was about internationalizing the wartime locus of power and diluting national government powers over prisoners.

Taken together, the Geneva and Hague Conventions represented a significant breakthrough in establishing norms and expectations regarding the treatment of prisoners of war. The Hague Convention of 1907, for example, established that Other Rank prisoner labourers could be made to work, but were to be paid a wage. It also established the principle of reciprocity – prisoners were to be fed to the same standards as the captor state’s own troops. They were also to be treated ‘humanely’.

International L...