Introduction Captivity is as old as war itself. It has existed Even legitimate POWs have sometimes for centuries and has profoundly affected found their status called into question. The the lives of millions of people, including Allied powers in World War II created other some of the most influential figures in histo- categories to cope with the massive numbers ry. Politicians such as Winston Churchill and of enemy soldiers captured. Some of them Charles de Gaulle, and writers such as were classed as Disarmed Enemy Forces Miguel de Cervantes and P. G. Wodehouse (DEF) or Surrendered Enemy Personnel have all endured imprisonment in wartime. (SEP), artificial distinctions that relieved the It might even be argued that captivity, which Allies of according them all the rights of offi- historically has affected entire populations, cial POWs. By the same token, Italian sol- has been more universal than combat, which diers captured by the Allies were often clas- usually involves only the warriors of any sified not as POWs but as military internees, society. W. Wynne Mason, a historian of another dubious distinction that owed more New Zealand POWs, has estimated that one to the demands of the moment than any- person in every thousand was interned at thing else. Finally, war captivity has also some point during World War II. Even involved civilians who have been interned in that global conflict, armed combat for a variety of reasons. While they are not occurred in only a few regions. Internment, prisoners of war in the strictest sense, they on the other hand, occurred in all nations, have certainly been prisoners in wartime. belligerent and neutral, and affected the lives of people thousands of miles from the Over the millennia, there have been firing lines. many changes in captivity as it affected these various groups. Most striking are the Any discussion of captivity in wartime improvements in international law, which must account for the fact that, throughout have created a broad and complex network history, there have been many kinds of pris- of largely nongovernmental organizations oners, each of which experienced different to monitor and improve the conditions treatment. Most notable (and certainly most of captivity during wartime. But these glamorous in terms of modern culture) have improvements make it easy to lose sight of a been prisoners of war, called POWs, mem- more sobering reality: that, despite the bers of a recognized military body captured Enlightenment, notions of progress, and the during wartime. POW is apparently a evolution of a humanitarian spirit, there is straightforward classification that should far more continuity than change in the insti- admit of little controversy, but even within tution of war captivity. this group, a number of subcategories have evolved. Guerrilla fighters and merchant For centuries, all people were vulnerable mariners are, to varying degrees, combat- to enslavement or massacre. War was total ants, but their status as POWs has been the war, waged by societies rather than armies; subject of considerable debate. The status of soldiers were captured, but so, too, were camp followers, civilians who attach them- women, children, the elderly, and the infirm. selves to armies to provide services or for The population of a vanquished city was personal reasons, has also been unclear. essentially a kind of plunder, no different xiii xiv INTRODUCTION from gold or oxen or implements, that new trend in warfare, but in fact it was merely belonged to the conquering armies. If the a throwback to centuries-old practices. victorious commander had a use for his human trophies, either as slaves or to aug- There is now one new element in the ment his own community’s population, they mix, however: ethnicity. When wars were would live. If not, or if they had offended primarily political or ideological struggles, it him by resisting conquest, they would be was relatively easy for captives to change quickly dispatched. Human history is full of sides. For centuries, prisoners were encour- accounts of entire populations being taken aged to join the armies of their captors. For into slavery or put to the sword. the detaining power, this was a simple method of securing new soldiers after a costly In the early modern era, and particularly campaign; for the captives, it was a way to with the great liberal revolutions in save their own lives while continuing to America and France, the situation began to receive a soldier’s wage. In the modern change. Following trends that originated world, this would be considered defection, with international jurists, there evolved a but in reality it was simply an expedient that distinction between combatant and noncom- allowed countless prisoners to escape death. batant, and between combatant and com- mander. Wars were fought by people’s Defection was also encouraged in ideo- armies, but no longer was it assumed that a logical wars; to convert or “turn” a prisoner subjugated population was one of the spoils to one’s side was a propaganda victory that of war. Civilians, provided they took no proved not only the appeal of one’s own ide- active part in hostilities, were deemed to be ology, but also the bankruptcy of the enemy’s inviolate. Furthermore, it was recognized ideology. Germany, the Soviet Union, and that the soldier was essentially an employee Japan all went to great lengths to convert of his commander. Military considerations prisoners to their own ideologies during demanded that soldiers be removed from World War II. In practical terms, their efforts action if captured, but humanity demanded largely failed; tens of thousands of POWs that they not be treated unduly harshly. were turned, but they tended to make poor After all, the opposing leader was the real soldiers in the service of their erstwhile ene- enemy; the soldier was merely a worker. mies and were rarely an asset on the battle- field. In propaganda terms, however, the Despite occasional lapses (Napoleon numerical results were thought to justify the Bonaparte, for example, had no compunc- effort, for each convert was proof of the supe- tion about interning British civilians in riority of National Socialism, Communism, France or slaughtering thousands of Arab or the Great East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. prisoners at Jaffa in 1799), such notions per- sisted until the world wars of the twentieth Generally speaking, changing sides is no century. During these global conflicts the longer an option in the increasingly ethnic distinction between combatant and noncom- and racial conflicts of the post-1945 era. One batant was broken down, a development cannot simply change one’s ethnicity in the that had been foreshadowed by events of the event of capture; indeed, it is the very fact of Philippine-American and Boer Wars. In ethnicity that distinguishes friend from foe. World War I, civilians were once again vul- Furthermore, it is increasingly clear that nerable to internment, and World War II there is no such thing as a noncombatant in took the process to new lengths, with the ethnic wars. The genocides in Rwanda and imprisonment, enslavement, and massacre the former Yugoslavia reveal the degree to of millions of people, combatants and non- which all people, regardless of age, gender, combatants alike. On the surface, this might and combatant status, are vulnerable to seem to be a characteristic of an alarming imprisonment, abuse, and execution. But INTRODUCTION xv here again, even though race is a modern Guinness destroying the bridge that he and notion, there is a strong sense of continuity. his fellow POWs had labored so hard to build If there is one striking feature of these geno- (The Bridge on the River Kwai), even Sergeant cides, it is the degree to which they are Schultz insisting, “I know nothing, nothing!” reminiscent of the attitudes toward captives (Hogan’s Heroes)—these are all part of the lex- in the ancient world. icon of modern culture. That some of them bear only the faintest resemblance to reality As the international community has had has been largely irrelevant to the viewers. to come to terms with racial or ethnic aspects of captivity, it has also had to come to terms But even this is not a new trend in popu- with cultural factors. Simply put, not all lar culture. In the seventeenth and eighteenth societies share the Western belief in the sanc- centuries, European settlers in North tity of a prisoner’s life. This reality has his- America used the captivity narrative as an torically been troublesome to Western object lesson; such narratives were published armies that encountered other societies, by the hundreds, almost always with the whether it be in the Americas, Africa, or same basic elements. After the U.S. Civil War, Asia. Does one adopt the enemy’s often the treatment of POWs by the Confederacy brutal practices in dealing with prisoners, was transformed into a bloody shirt to be or does one attempt to instill in the enemy waved at every conceivable opportunity. a respect for captives’ lives? Typically, After World War I, the British turned the Western armies adopted the former course, escape story into a minor literary genre not maintaining that natives expected to be unlike the colonial captivity narrative. The treated brutally and took anything else as a escape story, too, was in effect a simple sign of weakness. But developments in inter- morality play that pitted British pluck and national law have tended to advance the lat- ingenuity against German or Turkish perfidy ter course and to force other societies to and oafishness. All of these trends foreshad- accept Western notions of acceptable con- owed the dominance of captivity in popular duct.