Talk:Prisoner of war

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"By contrast, allied nations such the U.S., UK and Canada, tried to treat Axis prisoners strictly in accordance with the Geneva Conventions"

This is a fairy tale. Allied forces commited atrocities and mistreated POWs not lesser than their Axis opponents. You simply do not know about it because "history is written by winners". -- 145.253.238.10 17:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

A Wikipedian removed Prisoner of war from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Removal date: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}

Hope this is in the right place.. With regard to "However, nations vary in their dedication to following these laws, and historically the treatment of POWs has varied greatly. During the the Twentieth Century, both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were notorious for atrocities against prisoners during World War II. " I`d like to state that the survival rate of English prisoners of war in German custody had a very high survival rate (ninety something %). Compared to the other prisoners (Jewish, etc) this was very high. Therefore I am not sure if the statement about atrocities is true in this specific context? I know that on the Easternfront things were different but one must take into consideration that even the nazi troops were starving at that side.

Does this refer to the Geneva Convention? If so, it should make that clear and link to it. Perhaps this was written by someone who thinks this article will be read only by those who follow a link to it from Geneva Convention? User:Michael Hardy Mintguy (T) 11:08, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Canadian POW Camps 2 Why remove alternative definitions when not providing any objective reasons 3 Anti-American bias 4 Russia in WW2 and Geneva convetion 5 Scott O'Grady 6 Krivosheev - Right or Wrong 6.1 Casualties 7 Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles 8 Nation vs State 9 "Qualification as POW" Accurate? 10 sam manekshaw as POW??? 11 islam 11.1 POWs becoming slaves 12 POW/MIA 13 Adding history 14 World War II section needs citations - pro-allied bias? 15 Ron Arad

[edit] Canadian POW Camps

I'm not sure if it's relevent to the topic, but during WW2 some POW camps in Canada (at least the ones outside of settlements, like in Riding Mountain National Park) didn't have fences stoping prisioners from escaping. MattD May 16/06

[edit] Why remove alternative definitions when not providing any objective reasons

I´ve added definitions that are not main-stream and have labeled them as such, however, they were removed. No explanation was given and nothing was posted on the discussion page. I´ve restored the alternative definitions. Discussion is encouraged. Beta_m

OK, now somebody has renamed "Alternative" to "Dissident". I would like to note that it is a POV attack. I didn't call Geneva Convention definition "Definition of Rulling Class" if i would have done so, then the word dissident would be appropriate.

I've changed the name back and done some editing to the paragraph underneath. Beta m 10:06, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-American bias

From article:

Similar treatment occurred by Iraqi and American forces during the Gulf War, the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. After the fall of Saddam Hussein, the United States armed forces were placed in a very unfavorable light as evidence was uncovered of U.S. abuse of prisoners of war. The United States uses the term enemy prisoner of war (EPW) for hostile forces, reserving the term prisoner of war for its own or Allied forces.

This section implies that American treatment of POWs was just as bad as the Nazis, Japanese, and North Vietnamese. But it doesn't even provide links, let alone evidence of this. Please provide a neutral presentation of this dispute. For example, distinguish between offical policy and rogue actions. The former go unpunished (or are even praised); while the latter result in prison terms for US forces who mistreat enemy captives. (Disclaimer: I served 5 years in the U.S. Army.) Uncle Ed 15:06, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I added the line defining EPWs to the first paragraph because there is a difference between an EPW and a POW: when referring to captured personnel under your control, they are called EPWs, not POWs. 70.95.43.1 09:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This distinction is used by the US, no such distinction is made under international law. --Cybbe 21:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

A very similar EPW line was buried in the middle of the article. It should be a footnote, at best. It does not belong in the intro paragraph. -- Geo Swan 03:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It obfoscutates the term, technical issues regarding US military use of POW/EPW does not belong in an intro. --Cybbe 06:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I don’t mean to sound arrogant about the U.S., but I believe that since the majority of the world tries to follow the U.S.’s lead in many military aspects, I believe this term is becoming adopted by other Western powers and any which train with the U.S. (which are A LOT of countries). Where I work in the military, there is an absolute separation between the term POW and EPW, so much so that they simply aren’t interchangeable anymore even in common talk. Just my two cents; if the majority agrees this should not be in the first paragraph, at least place it somewhere in the article so it can pop up during a search because there is no EPW Wikipedia entry and I’m not sure if one should be created for just his definition. 70.95.43.1 07:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

If you were trying to avoid sounding arrogant about the U.S. then maybe you should have made sure the explanation that showed up in the history list for your edit wasn't "Anti-American bias"?

You "believe the majority of the world tries to follow the US's lead in military aspects"? Let me make a suggestion. If, as you believe, the rest of the world is going to choose to adopt this US nomenclature, why don't we wait until it is adopted -- before we modify the article to state that the rest of the world already uses this US phrase?

Perhaps if the US military hadn't established this "absolute separation" between the term POW, for American prisoners held by their enemies, and the term EPW, for enemies held by Americans, fewer US soldiers would have crossed the line and started abusing their prisoners, and treating them in ways that violated the Geneva Conventions?

How did this "absolute separation" arise? What is the justification, if any, behind it?

If you were really sincere about not wanting to sound arrogant, I think you are going to have to try harder.

I never agreed with Ed Poor's excision of all reference to American violations, which struck me as very POV. If no one beats me to it I will restore an edited version of those two paragraphs this weekend, including a reference to EPW. And then I will take out the inappropriate one in the intro paragraph.

Ed objected that the original implied that American violators of the Geneva Conventions were as bad as German, Japanese and Vietnamese violators of the Geneva Conventions. I believe this section can be re-written to put the scale of violations in context.

Ed seems to have overlooked that Japan and the USSR were not signatories to the Geneva Conventions. The Germans were unspeakably brutal to the Jewish, Gypsy, homosexual prisoners in their concentration camps. But they weren't Prisoners of War. So that brutality belongs in a different article. The Germans were similarly brutal to the Soviet soldiers they captured. But, arguably, they didn't have to meet the standards of the Geneva Conventions in their treatment of them, if the USSR was not a Geneva Convention signatory. It was my impression that, with some notable exceptions, the Germans treated captured British and American POWs consistently with the Geneva Conventions.

The North Vietnamese were brutal to captured American pilots. Possibly to captured American foot soldiers too. They flagrantly violated the Geneva Conventions in their treatment. Their justification was that since American bomber pilots routinely violated the Geneva Conventions by bombing schools and hospitals and other civilian targets they had stripped themselves of the protections of being "lawful combatants" under the Conventions.

The South Vietnamese were also routinely brutal to their captured prisoners, keeping some of them in "tiger cages", so small that the prisoners could neither lie down, or sit up.

The Bush administration position was that anyone captured during the invasion of Afghanistant would not qualify for Prisoner of War status. That policy position has been eroded by the US government's judicial branch. But that discussion belongs in a different article. Suspected combatants captured in Iraq are all entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Even those suspected of being foreign fighters of having committed acts of terrorism are entitled to the protections of the POW status -- at least until a "competent tribunal" determines that they are not entitled to those protections.

General Ricardo Sanchez signed off on interrogation techniques which were clear violations of the Geneva Conventions. This is undeniable. They are there to download from the internet. By denying he did so he committed perjury in his Congressional testimony. So, why hasn't he been court-martialed? Why isn't he in the cell next to Charles Graner and Chip Frederick?

Just as we shouldn't protect the feelings of German, Japanese, Vietnamese readers of the wikipedia, by softpedaling the well documented brutality with which their forces treated prisoners, we shouldn't protect the feelings of American readers by obfuscating through euphemism, or otherwise avoiding stating truthfully that some Americans also violated the Geneva Conventions. And, since Sanchez signed off on interrogation techniques we can't allow the wikipedia to attribute the violations to one rogue squad on the night shift. -- Geo Swan 13:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

On this: "The North Vietnamese were brutal to captured American pilots. Possibly to captured American foot soldiers too."

Possibly? Other than one or two exceptions (if that), I'm not aware of any American enlisted men being kept alive to be held as POWs. Perhaps you could enlighten us on that.

As for South Vietnam's notorious tiger cages, those conditions were improved when it became public -- unlike the North Vietnam's treatment of their captives after they took South Vietnam. I suppose that's to be expected, of course.

On Ricardo Sanchez and his, "clear violations" the most I've heard is that he authorized the dogs to be present at interrogations. The U.S. military later decided this was incorrect, but it's hardly in the same category as what American POWs had to endure.

-- Randy 16:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Correction: I did some checking, and found that 194 of the POWs returned by North Vietnam after their faux peace agreement were enlisted men. They tended not to be foot soldiers, however. -- Randy2063 13:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is an article from WaPo about Sanchez's authorizations. [1] Note: While it says that we don't know whether those techniques were used in Guantanamo Bay, now fifteen months later, we know they all were first used in Guantanamo Bay. PDFs of his original orders are online. I downloaded them a few months ago. I will try to remember where I got them from. Shamelessly, and rather stupidly, Sanchez tried to sever himself from responsibility for the memos by saying something like, "they were drafted at the Company Commander level". As if that matters, if they went out from his office, with his authorization. Presumably the Company Commander in question was Carolyn Wood, who was temporarily the officer in charge of the interrogations at Abu Ghraib at the time the interrogation techniques were authorized.

If, as you say, the South Vietnamese toned down their brutality, when they got caught, does not reduce their culpability for brutality from before the expose. Nor does it reduce their culpability for any toned down brutality that continued to violate the Geneva Conventions.

What Sanchez authorized, on paper, went farther than the mere presence of dogs. And what the troops did with his instructions went farther that what he authorized on paper. [2] Did the dishonorable abuse go farther than what Sanchez and other senior officer authorized on paper because they supplemented those orders with further verbal orders? Even if they didn't authorize that abuse critics, like the ACLU, say the abuse was so widespread the senior officers have to be held culpable for their failure to stop it.

Argue, if you want, that the North Vietnamese were more brutal. But you are going to need stronger arguments than you have produced so far, if you are going to try to argue that US violations of the protections due to POWs should not be listed alongside the violations from other conflicts. -- Geo Swan 15:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Geo Swan, I don't care about what you think about the U.S. and you will accomplish nothing for my sake brining up negative U.S. accusations. Take any of my perceived bias (I did disclaim against it, did I not?) with a grain of salt – it’s not what I’m here for. I am merely trying to find a place to define this acronym in Wikipedia which was removed along with other text. I don't care about that text or what context it was used with.

I am a Marine war planner (not a Soldier) and I come in contact with many officers of U.S. allies in the Pacific command (Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, South Korea, Japan, etc.) on a weekly basis. I know first hand what terms are used internally in these militaries. It is pretty uncommon now for anyone publicly speaking on behalf of these militaries and/or the U.S. to mix the use of POW and EPW when EPW will do. Just because you haven't experienced its adoption doesn't mean it hasn't become adopted or is well on its way of being adopted. 70.95.43.1 04:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You have cited your personal relationships with other officers to assure us that most militaries have abandoned refering to their prisoners as POWs. In order to try to prevent the wikipedia being a venue for incessant and essentially unendable arguments, wikipedia contributors are encouraged to refrain from basing their contributions on "original research". Are you able to cite some press releases from an Australian government site, that uses the term EPW? I think basing your article solely on your personal relationships counts as "original research".

I did a google search on "Australia EPW". It came up with a few hits, but for articles that talked about pregnancy kits, and other non POW topics. I didn't find a single one that would substantiate your notion that Australians use the term EPW for enemy prisoners of war. I picked Australia because they were the only nation you listed who have a contingent in Iraq of meaningful size.

I asked you what, if any, justification there was for using two separate terms for describing prisoners of war. Should we assume, since you haven't offered any justification, that you know of no real justification for this change in terminology?

You say you were merely trying to find a place for this acronym. Well, two of us have suggested it doesn't belong in the very second sentence of the article. Were you planning to respond to this suggestion?

As for "negative US accusations". Do you honor the high principles America is widely admired for embodying? It seems to me that Americans who truly honor those principles, like, for instance, the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", would welcome news of when members of the US military, or other US government workers failed to measure up to those high principles. Sweeping instances under the carpet won't root out the problem elements. That American forces dishonorably abused prisoners of war is undeniable. There are pictures. That Sanchez authorized interrogation techniques that went beyond the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions is undeniable. You can download a copy from the internet. That means discussions of these acts are not "accusations". And, if you are really an American patriot, why would you characterize discussions of these acts as "negative"? America is not going to put a stop to these kinds of acts until it is ready to clearly examine them. And since these acts are counter to the principles America is honored for, shouldn't discussions of them, intended to put a stop to them, be regarded as "positive", not "negative"? -- Geo Swan 19:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I've read the ACLU's documents and I'm not impressed. It includes accusations, some acts committed by Iraqi-nationals listed so as to imply it was abuse condoned by the U.S. military, and FBI concerns that the prisoners could not be prosecuted in U.S. courts after the treatment they got. Yes, we could call that abuse, but it's hardly in the same boat.

I'm not arguing North Vietnamese torture was more brutal. That should be beyond dispute even if you did forget what happened to our "foot soldiers." Nor am I saying that our violations don't need to be addressed somewhere. In fact, I think it should be addressed. The difference in scale is so disproportionate that I'm sure history will judge us rather well. The more some now try to equate the two, the more ridiculous the anti-Americanism appears. But it just doesn't belong in the POW article. (See the subhead "Qualification as POW".)

Where you see "dishonorable abuse," I see otherwise honorable men and women seeking legal loopholes in order to stop the killing of coalition troops and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. Sure, some of those "loopholes" went too far. But barking dogs, women's underwear, and even "stress positions" are junior league attempts. The very fact that they tried those things illustrates that an eye was kept on the spirit of the law. In our enemies' real torture methods, stress positions were a starting point.

-- Randy2063 20:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I am going to paraphrase what I think you are saying here -- OK? It sounds like you are saying that US violations of the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions are not worthy of mention because, (1) the violations are not as serious as other violations in other conflicts; (2) those violating the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions were "well intentioned", just poorly poorly trained and poorly lead; (3) and you may have been saying something others have said -- that it doesn't matter if rules were bent, because those subjected to abuse were probably terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers anyway.

Have I characterized you accurately?

I strongly disagree. I don't think it matters if American violators aren't as bad as the violators in earlier conflicts, those violations deserve mention in this wikipedia article.

There have been close to a dozen investigations by general officers in the US military. Most of these investigations have concluded that the abuse incidents were not symptoms of a systemic problem -- the opposite conclusion to the one you have drawn.

As to "seeking legal loopholes ... to stop killing", what exactly do you mean by "legal loopholes"? Did you follow the investigations into the shocking murder of Dilawar? What has been widely reported, but did not make its way into the wikipedia article, was that the guards who slowly beat him to death stronly suspected he was innocent.

They didn't beat him for information. Their statement make clear, they beat him for kicks, for thrills. Every time they walked by the cell where he was suspended from the ceiling, they would knee him in the legs, to hear him squeal. The post-mortem examination said that the hundreds of knee-strikes were so injurious that he had would have had to have his legs amputated, if he had lived.

Granted, the history of prisoners who have been abused includes worse abuse. But this one was pretty bad. And it was not a single isolated incident. That same unit beat another prisoner to death in exactly the same way.

Take a look at this article, Trigger-happy US troops 'will keep us in Iraq for years'. Summary? Brutal treatment of Iraqi civilians, in order to save American lives, only seems to work. Over the long term it will cost many more American lives than it might save, because it will so alienate the Iraqis that Americans will be tied down there for at least a decade -- taking casualties all that time. Brutality is short-sighted, even if the perpetrators think it is "well intentioned".

Concerning "barking dogs" -- let's tell the truth here. First the dogs did more than bark. U.S. military dog handlers face Abu Ghraib hearing. The article says that the handlers used the dogs for thrills. They wagered on who could make the prisoners lose control of their bowels and bladders. They weren't using "legal loopholes" to protect lives. They had no idea whether any of their prisoners knew anything of any value.

You directed our attention to Prisoner of War#Qualification as POW. Let me, in turn, direct your attention to Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

The Bush administration announced the controversial view that they were not obliged to treat anyone captured in Afghanistan according to the Geneva Conventions. But they never took that position with regard to those captured in Iraq. That is why they had to return the ghost detainee known as Triple X. As an Iraqi, it was determined that he never should hae been secretly removed from Iraq. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been captured and imprisoned by the Americans. The Taguba report estimated that at least 60% of the those imprisoned by the Americans had no ties to terrorism.

Even if a prisoner was clearly a combatant the USA is obliged to treat them as POWs, until a "competent tribunal" determines that they don't qualify for POW status.

Finally, let me return to your first point -- are you saying US personnel are not culpable for violations of the Geneva Conventions committed by their Iraqi or Afghani employees? "Plausible deniability" is what they used to call this in the Nixon White House. At one point, before she realized she was one of the designated fall-guys, Janis Karpinski tried to dodge the blame for the Abu Ghraib abuse by saying it was actually an Iraqi facility -- so the Iraqis were responsible. The CIA classified "The salt pit" as an Afghani facility. The DoD also claims they never had Nick Berg in custody. Now maybe you aren't talking about abuse delegated to Iraqi and Afghani employees? To what extent, if any, are US personnel responsible for abuse by Iraqis and Afghanis who are not direct employees? Some, maybe, it is complicated. The US trains the Iraqi soldiers and police. DoD spin aside the Iraqi security are under the overall control of the US military. Often they go into combat under direct US command. This implies some culpability. -- Geo Swan 04:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

No, you're not characterizing my position correctly.

"(1) the violations are not as serious as other violations in other conflicts;"

It's not proportionate. Imperial Japan gets four lines. Surely, there were atrocities committed by Americans against Japanese prisoners. This happens in every major war. But was it even enough to merit one line in this article? To do so would imply a 1/4th balance, and that would be incorrect. Note that there isn't a single word about Iraqi abuse on American POWs.

There's also a difference between a policy of abuse, and individual criminality. If guards know they can expect prosecution then it's not a policy.

"(2) those violating the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions were "well intentioned", just poorly poorly trained and poorly lead;"

That's not what I meant at all. In fact, I'm saying just the opposite.

Compliance with the law means that we need to abide by the treaties we've signed, whether we like it or not. But by the same token, you need to expect that any loopholes can be exploited, just as in any contract.

By "loophole" I had meant exactly that: A legal loophole in the law. The conventions aren't that explicit on torture. U.S. law is, and that's why military lawyers had to prohibit some of the more aggressive tactics. If they didn't remove stress positions or sleep deprivation then it stands until the courts decide otherwise. The items that they did remove weren't removed because they were being nice guys. They were reading the law.

"(3) and you may have been saying something others have said -- that it doesn't matter if rules were bent, because those subjected to abuse were probably terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers anyway."

No. While I may be less sympathetic of terrorists, the law still stands.

A lot of what you're saying has nothing to do with POWs. The Abu Ghraib guards were convicted of abusing prisoners who'd been there for committing crimes. That's the 60% figure you're talking about. Those transgressions might theoretically belong in the Fourth Geneva Convention article but not here. And even there, I'd still want (though not expect) some proportionality.

"are you saying US personnel are not culpable for violations of the Geneva Conventions committed by their Iraqi or Afghani employees?"

No. I even said it was not condoned. But my point there was that running a foreign prison isn't easy. We can demand standards but not expect perfection. I doubt that any other nation could have done as well as we did.

-- Randy2063 22:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

ok no offense but it aint bias and u should stop complaining BY ME

[edit] Russia in WW2 and Geneva convetion

It states in the article that "An official justification used by the Germans for this policy was the fact that the Soviet Union had not signed the Geneva convention" but there is a sait in Russian that claiming that USSR in 1931 did signed that convention could someone verefy it. http://armor.kiev.ua/army/hist/zenev-konvencia.shtml

There are several conventions named after Geneva, not all related to the laws of war (i.e. The Geneva Convention on the High Seas etc). The convention you're referring to is not the 1929 convention relating to POWs (although I dont read russian and cant verify your link). For a list of signatories to the 1929 convention: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=305&ps=P Cybbe 09:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it is really about the Geneva Convention of 1929. It says "the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs proclaims that the Soviet Union joins the Geneva Convention of 1929 on the treatment of POWs, wounded and sick in warring armies. As proof, the People's commissar has signed this document (= the paper in the archives) on joining the convention. According to this decision by the Central Executive Committee of the USSR made on May 12th, 1930, this said joining is final and does not require any further ratification." I guess what is happening here is that the USSR felt it was being treated as a pariah by other nations, particularly the League of Nations and Switzerland. And so they never wrote a ratification letter to the Swiss Federal Council (!), as they should have done according to article 94. Note that article 2 of the convention in 1949 takes care of such cases, the point being that the USSR had followed the convention in its war against Finland. The Nazi argument about "the USSR did not sign, so we can do what we want" is in any case valueless. Article 95 expressly states that any ratification during war time takes effect immediately (without the normal six months' notice) - so the USSR could have sent the ratification letter anytime - and article 96 expressly forbids renunciations during war time! Anyone who claims the guilt of the Nazis is somehow lessened by the fact that the USSR did not ratify the convention is a) splitting legalistic hairs b) forgets the fact Germany also abrogated all other war laws and conventions in its war with the Soviet Union, the most notorious fact being the Commissar order eg. A reverse example: in 1914, the Russian Army invaded East Prussia. The only thing that happened was local inhabitants looked in utter amazement at these poorly dressed and poorly armed soldiers. In 1945, things were completely different - most locals knew what crimes their own army had perpetrated in the USSR...--pgp 22:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Soviet goverment officially ratified convention on 08/25/1932. The story that USSSR did not signed convention has roots in nazi propaganda. In reallity convention was not signed by USA and Japan --72.83.86.93 07:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether the Soviet Union "officially" ratified the Third Geneva Convention is mute. The Soviet Union flouted the Convention from day one of entering World War II by invading Poland on 17 September 1939. Polish army personnel taken prisoner were treatred as political prisoners, not as prisoners of war, tens of thousands were executed, for example see Katyn massacre

Syrenab 17:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott O'Grady

He was listed as a POW, although he was not captured when he was shot down.

BIG Tuna 04:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krivosheev - Right or Wrong

The data that is posted re: Krivosheev needs to be fixed. The nr of POW he lists is 4.059 million and the number freed is 2.776 million for a net loss of 1.283 million. Just pick the Kirvosheev book up, read pages 230-238 and page 85 to verify my statement. Then please go to the article and fix it.--Woogie10w 14:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Is Krivosheev correct when he says only 1.283 million Sov POWs died in German custody?--Woogie10w 14:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Not very conistent numbers.. The numbers in Eastern Front (World War II) is different..

[edit] Casualties

The Eastern Front was unparalleled for its high intensity, ferocity, and brutality. The fighting involved millions of German and Soviet troops along a broad front. It was by far the deadliest single theatre of war in World War II, with over 5 million deaths on the Axis Forces, Soviet military deaths were about 10.6 million (out of which 2.6 million Soviets died in German captivity), and civilian deaths were about 14 to 17 million. The genocidal death toll was attributed to several factors, including brutal mistreatment of POWs and captured partisans by both sides, multiple atrocities by the Germans and the Soviets against the civilian population and each other, the wholesale use of weaponry on the battlefield against huge masses of infantry. The multiple battles, and most of all, the use of scorched earth tactics destroyed agricultural land, infrastructure, and whole towns, leaving much of the population homeless and without food.

Military Losses On The Eastern Front During World War 2.¹

Forces Fighting FOR the Axis
	Total Dead	KIA/MIA	POW Taken By The Soviets	POW That Died In Captivity
Greater Germany	4,300,000	3,100,000	3,300,000	1,200,000
Soviet residents who joined German army	215,000+	215,000	1,000,000	Unknown
Romania	281,000	81,000	500,000	200,000
Hungary	300,000	100,000	500,000	200,000
Italy	82,000	32,000	70,000	50,000
Total	5,178,000+	4,528,000	5,450,000	1,650,000

Military Losses On The Eastern Front During World War 2.²

Forces Fighting FOR the Soviet Union
	Total Dead	KIA/MIA	POW Taken By The Axis	POW That Died In Captivity
Soviet	10,600,000	7,600,000	5,200,000	2,600,000
Poland	24,000	24,000	Unknown	Unknown
Romania	17,000	17,000	80,000	Unknown
Bulgaria	10,000	10,000	Unknown	Unknown
Total	10,651,000	7,651,000	5,280,000	2,600,000

1 Rűdiger Overmans. Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN 3-486-56531-1

2 Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5931651071, Mark Axworthy, Third Axis Fourth Ally. Arms and Armour 1995 ISBN 1854092677 Page 216

Total Soviet losses includes Deaths Partisans-250,000 and Deaths Militia-150,000

Polish Forces Joined with The Soviets after Poland was liberated in January 1945

When the eastern european countries were liberated by the Soviets they were forced to change sides and declare war on the Germans

Some of the Soviet citizens would side with the Germans and join Andrey Vlasov Russian Liberation Army. Most of those who joined were Russian POWs. Most who joined hated communism and actually saw the Nazis as liberators from communism. These men were mostly used in the Eastern Front but some were even placed on the beaches of Normandy (to the surprise of the Americans who found men running out of fox holes shouting "Russki!"). Other main group of men joining German army were citizens of the Baltic countries annexed by the USSR in 1940 or from the Ukraine. They fought in their own Waffen-SS units. cool...

[edit] Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because there's no discussion of prisoners prior to the Geneva Conventions; that's several millenia of history omitted. This article needs to discuss all types of prisoners termed "prisoners of war", not merely the current legal standard. Kirill Lokshin 03:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nation vs State

Can I suggest that the first paragraph should read "... However, states (ie: not nations) vary in their dedication to following these laws." Nations are not usually party to international treaties; states are. Two other places in this article where "nation" is used do not seem problematic to me though. EM 13:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Qualification as POW" Accurate?

This section states that in order to be eligible for POW status, a detainee must satisfy a list of criteria including "be[ing] part of a chain of command, wear[ing] a uniform and bear[ing] arms openly. This appears to be a reference to Article 4 Section 2 of the Generva Convention of 1949, where a four-part test is to be applied in determining a combatant's status. In addition to the criteria mentioned 4.2(d) states that the combatants have "conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

However, the purpose of this four-part test is solely for determining whether members of irregular forces -- "Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements" is what the text reads -- are eligible for POW status, and is not applicable to members of the armed forces of a party to a conflict. Members of the armed forces are always entitled to POW status irrespective of whether they pass the four-part test. 4.1 simply reads that "members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces" are to be considered prisoners of war. There is no other test to be applied.

I'd appreciate input from anyone who has anything to add to this question. I'll check back for responses before revising.

Here's link to Article 4: [3]

Rrburke 17:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sam manekshaw as POW???

when and where was sam on the losing side of a war and taken as a POW. he infact took POWs of PAKistani Army in 1971 indo pak war.

clarify or else i shall be removing his name from POWs nids 09:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

During WWII he was taken as POW. --Idleguy 18:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] islam

I have removed this header Ma malakat aymanukumas it does not make sence as it refers to slaves rather than prisoners and dfferent people have different views on this term. Since when did prisoners become slaves.. sounds pathetic. Moreover muslim scholars admit the term Ma malakat aymanukum refers to fiancee rather than a slave or prisoner

Mujeerkhan 18:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POWs becoming slaves

Setting aside the Muslim angle, this article takes a modern view of POWs: that prisoners would be returned home after the war. In many societies throughout history (eg Slavery_in_ancient_Greece#War, Roman Empire and Thrall ) POWs (and captured non-combatants) became permanent slaves. Mark.murphy 13:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POW/MIA

The term, "POW/MIA" is a very common term when referring to the broader spectrum of soldiers who are no longer in a normal combatant status, as someone who's MIA (missing in action) can rapidly become a POW, and a a POW, if he/she escapes, returns to missing in action status. Furthermore, quite often in conflict, it is not initially known whether someone is MIA or they're a POW. Either way, this term arose primarily during the Vietnam conflict because of the unknown status of the large number of soldiers, sailors, and airmen who participated in that conflict. Either way, they were lost to their units, and to their families. This is true to a lesser extent, today, but it's still applicable on a smaller scale with some well-organized forces, as well as on a much more massive scale when smaller nations attack other smaller nations, such as the Balkans conflict and the several conflicts happening in Africa and other parts of the world. I therefore recommend a new section entitled POW/MIA be created, that "Prisoner of war" be one section, and "Missing in action" be another, with redirects from both previous articles be created to the POW/MIA page. Mugaliens 18:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding history

I have started the correction of this article to add history prior to the Geneva Conventions. I welcome any suggestions but hope that uncompleted sections will not be removed befor eI have a chance to complete them.

Syrenab 15:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World War II section needs citations - pro-allied bias?

There are a lot of unreferenced assertions in the WWII section, and the description seems rather one-sided. You might try this BBC story about a german POW's experiences. While generally good, note that it states that he was not allowed money, in apparent contradiction of the description of pay for work. Also see this story of German POWs with a quote describing inadequate food (but "sufficient" water, "satisfactory" hygeine, and "correct conduct at all times" by the guards).

H'm.. on the other hand this story describes a small wage.

Another first-hand source of axis prisoners' experiences is James Herriot's books, where he describes working with POWs on yorkshire farms. Apparently many families became life-long friends and visited each other on holiday.

It may be useful to browse a large collection of WWII POW stories as primary source material. For example, a story of an RAF pilot receiving entirely honourable treatment.

To the unsigned commentator above. There is no pro-allied bias. Included are lists of Axix prisoner of war camps in USA, Australia etc. Admittedly they need expansion. I suggest you register and add any additional information that you have.

Syrenab 18:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Arad

He is listed here as being kept in an underground Iranian prison and in the article on him as 'fate unknown'. Unless someone can provide evidence for the claim about Iran he should be listed as 'fate unknown' in my opinion. 145.253.108.22 09:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)