Introduction p.2
Chapter 1: On the progression of POW treatment through the Civil War p.12
Chapter 2: The First World War and The Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907 p.20
Chapter 3: The Comfortable Life of a Nazi POW in America p.25
Chapter 4: On the Unique Circumstances Provided by the Second World War p.33
Conclusion p.47
Introduction
Extending from the nation’s dawn to its current state of being, the United States has been involved in numerous conflicts, global and domestic. The country has been at the fore of such confrontations and continues to reign as the dominant military power in the world, engaging its strength in some of the world’s most historic wars. Such wars contain certain
responsibilities and consequences, including the handling and treatment of prisoners of war. This differs from war to war based on a multitude of variables, from technologies to
resources, geography to the enemy in question. In the preface of his 2010 book, The Enemy in Our Hands, Robert C. Doyle claims that the majority of Americans he encountered were of the opinion that American treatment of prisoners of war was of a high standard, that prisoners would be treated fairly and to the standard expected in reverse circumstances.1 His book
continues to revolve around this point by looking at a chronological history of POWs held by American forces, from the revolution to modern conflicts in the Middle East. The narrative suggests a generally poor treatment of these POWs, with the exception being the German POWs brought back to the United States in both World Wars, particularly the Second. He acknowledges historian Arnold Krammer’s work on this subject, whose book, Nazi Prisoners of War in America, serves as the main account of this event. In his portrayal, Krammer uses a variety of interviews, diaries and documents to paint the picture of the American POW camps littered across the country. It is evident that these prisoners maintained a much higher
standard of living than is usually granted to a POW, from basic amenities such as housing to menus designed for their own national diets.2 There are numerous reasons for this treatment,
a notable element being the Geneva Conventions of 1929 pertaining the rules for detaining POWs, and it could be viewed as a source of pride by Americans, even if their own news media at the time questioned this ‘pampering’.3 It suggests why Doyle had the impression
that Americans believed in the quality of their treatment of POWs, as many were first hand witnesses to the camps. This thesis revolves around the question of why these prisoners were so well looked after, and why the Second World War provided the unique set of
circumstances necessary to accommodate this stellar POW experience. This involves an introduction to the narrative history and an exploration of the historiography, establishing the
1 Robert C. Doyle The Enemy in Our Hands: America's Treatment of Enemy Prisoners of War from the
Revolution to the War on Terror. Kentucky. The University Press of Kentucky, 2010. xvii.
2 Arnold Krammer. Nazi Prisoners of War in America New York. Scarborough House, 1979, pp 47-49. 3 “Are Prisoners Pampered” in “The United States News, January 29, 1945.” Old Magazine Articles. http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/article-summary/german_prisoners_of_war#.Wm5WyainHIV
facts and the debate. This introduction will provide a background to the history of these Nazi POWs in the United States as well as an overview of the historiography surrounding the subject.
More than 400,000 German soldiers were detained on American soil by the end of the Second World War, and they experienced life under the strictest employment of the Geneva conventions.4 Krammer claims that these soldiers considered their time in camp some of the
best years of their lives, an anomaly compared to normal experiences of a prisoner of war camp.5 This can be seen through their accounts and interviews. There is not a debate around
this issue, and other writers’ accounts on these camps, including Antonio Thompson and Paul Springer, both emphasise this above average treatment of these soldiers. However, Springer’s work, America's Captives: Treatment of POWs from the Revolutionary War to the War on Terror, is primarily concerned with military planning and the modern methods employed by the US Army, and he discusses the reason behind more recent conflicts. Doyle also focuses more heavily on the wars in which the Americans were not such benevolent captors,
attempting to clarify the situation contrary to popular belief. This does not raise the question though, of what made the Germans brought to American soil so deserving of special
treatment. There is little debate on this topic, and the writers do not point to the Second World War as the standard bearer, as every conflict has its unique circumstances. The lack of debate partially stems from the lack of argumentative and opinion-based writing on the events, resulting in a dearth of statements or conclusions that would spawn a discourse on the subject. This chapter of POW history was a victory for the Geneva convention and a success for human rights in general. It is not a feat that can be easily replicated, whether or not the intentions are so good.
This thesis is designed to declare that the circumstances for German prisoners is unique and beyond replication. Thus, to understand the terms under which prisoners were to be held in World War II, it is necessary to look at the progression, in this case from the American Civil War, where Americans detained fellow Americans, and the First World War, where a scheme to bring Germans across the Atlantic was first employed, and from which the 1929 Geneva Conventions relating to POWs developed. The methods used by both parties in the Civil War started out as extensions of those used in the Revolution, but these were soon turned over in favour of treatment and containment more suited to the war at hand.6 There
were reports of inhumane treatment of both sides, such claims often being rejected as
4 Arnold Krammer. Nazi Prisoners of War in America (New York: Scarborough House, 1979) pp 39-40. 5 Allan Kent Powell. “Nazi Prisoners of War in America by Arnold Krammer (Review)” The Journal of
propaganda.7 The Lieber Code arose from this war, the first document instructing belligerent
forces on how to care for their prisoners. Here begins the history of rights for American POWs, and the opening chapters will examine how this shaped the timeline so that by the time the Second World War began, their approach was different. One such relatable issue is the fact that during the Civil War, the prisoner camps were, of course, in America, and thus accessible to the American people. The Civil War involved holding people who would once again become a citizen of the United States following the culmination of the war. It would then be natural that memories of maltreatment would be preserved in the mind, and could lead to unrest and anger, only helping to increase the divide between the former Union and Confederate sides. It is then not far-fetched to apply this logic to those camps in the 1940’s, suggesting that this was a situation on American soil not to be repeated. On top of this, on account of the sheer number of troops brought back, had they been maltreated it would have been an enormous controversy for the United States, a nation fighting for freedom against such tyranny.
The importance of the geography of these camps is not negligible. The First World War holds significance in this development as the Geneva Conventions of 1929 towards POWs was a direct consequence of this war. During the First World War the implementation of human rights measures in camps was overseen by neutral states, who found themselves adapting to different circumstances, rather than following a premeditated structure, which led to a less effective means of ensuring that prisoners be treated in a humane manner.8 It is
necessary to understand the conditions of the POW situation that led to the Geneva
Conventions, as this was vital to providing the conditions under which Germans soldiers were detained in America. On top of this, the recovery of Germany post-First World War offers yet another explanation of why America was keen to avoid previous mistakes. Through these wars and the methods employed can the situation in the Second World War be
contextualised, and therefore examined further.
The handling of POWs during the Second World War was not merely a progression from the wars previous, but was largely concerned with reforming ideology, as well as securing the well-being of their own soldiers in enemy captivity.9 Krammer investigates the
research question to an extent, and it is clear that the Americans did not want to send almost
6 Robert C. Doyle The Enemy in Our Hands: America's Treatment of Enemy Prisoners of War from the
Revolution to the War on Terror. (Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 2010) p 89.
7 Ibid 93.
8 Richard Ronan, “Successes and limits of protective powers: the case of civilian and military prisoners in western France during the First World War” International Relationships 3.143 (2010) 108.
half a million Germans back to Europe with Nazi beliefs upheld alongside a vitriol for anything related to American culture and society. The blame laid upon the German people for the First World War, coupled with the reparations that the nation was forced to pay were important in paving the way for the Second World War, and created a war guilt that Fritz Fischer would later argue as fair, was considered unjust by the German people, and became a great source of anger and pain for these people. The Allied nations, seeing Germany rise up in war again, agreed with this consensus of shared guilt. Such a consequence was to be avoided at all cost, and attempts were deployed to alleviate such anger from appearing again through the re-education and the fair treatment of the German’s in their nation. Americans had learned not to enhance anger, hatred and political divides, as could be enhanced by handling prisoners poorly, and were instead intent on sending back reformed soldiers to their home nation. It was a stark difference to those camps constructed in Europe by the
Americans, where thousands of soldiers had nothing but fields to live in, and an inadequate supply of food and water.10 This can be attributed to resources and practicality, and where the
Americans had such provisions on their own soil, sought to better treat its prisoners. This is a product of total war, where an entire nation is reduced to its barest form, complete rebuilding must take place. Through this America sought to have Germans rebuild their nation with an idea of American prosperity and the values at the heart of this.11
Though the central theme of this thesis revolves around the exceptionalism of the treatment of German POWs in America, it is not the subject of extensive historical debate. This mimics the response at the time, where again the Nazi influx and captivity resulted in little debate, though there was a little questioning of this generous treatment. The thesis will explore the academic and public coverage of the topic of the prisoners on the home-front. This includes news articles being published at the time, as well as the angle taken by
academic journals, where they differed and engaged with one another. The common narrative of the treatment concerns political consequences and the adherence to international law. There are alternative takes on how race and image became forces that pushed for kinder treatment, including theories that Americans could identify with the German soldiers who closely resembled their own men, despite propaganda suggesting otherwise. Matthias Reiss, the historian who argues strongly for the connection established between Americans and Germans based off physical image, also discusses the issues of sexuality and masculinity within the camps. In this regard, his hypothesis challenges some of the conceptions laid out
10 Keith Lowe, Savage Continent: Europe in the Aftermath of World War II (New York. Penguin Group, 2012.) 113-116.
by historian Arnold Krammer, who provided the classic interpretation of the history. How these issues affected the life of an inmate is related to their treatment, so this debate will be acknowledged and discussed briefly. The Geneva Convention of 1929 is where most of the scholarly discussion begins to differ, as this thesis will identify. The paper also aims to point out the deficiencies in this topic as an academic discussion. It will look at how most of the writing on the subject is objective and fact fuelled but lacks interpretation or theoretical explanation. As well as looking at how the historical discussion has been shaped, some of the public debate that took place during the war will be introduced, and how it is largely ignored in the scholarly world.
In the particular field of German soldiers detained in America, Arnold Krammer emerges as the leading historian. Nazi Prisoners of War in America is his largest and most comprehensive publication on the subject. On top of this he has published a number of journal articles on the matter. Amongst these are works about the American reaction to their new prisoners, and pieces regarding the differential treatment afforded to the German Generals. These articles comprise information and accounts which he revisits in his main book enhancing its position as the most complete regaling of the history. Through all the journals and the book there is very little guesswork or theorizing, and instead provides a very well researched narrative of facts and events. Thus, there is not much room for academic debate, and to debate his work would require evidence countering his own sources. However, there is work produced by other scholars which explore ideas which Krammer overlooked. Nonetheless, it is important to identify his key arguments and points and the conclusions he draws from the information he discusses. This importance stems from the fact that the thesis will visit Krammer’s work as the leading historian when discussing the historical narrative and viewing the details of the camps and their inhabitants.
The first notable element of Krammer’s work is shared across the writers on the topic, namely the strict adherence to the laws established in the Geneva Convention. In an article titled German Prisoners of War in America, Krammer suggests that the United States decided to follow this convention due to a lack of historical precedent providing guidelines, and that they hoped their own soldiers would then face equally fair treatment.12 The Geneva
Convention of 1929, as will be discussed in greater detail later in the thesis, offered humane instructions for the treatment of POWs. This statement is closely backed by fellow historian Antonio Thompson. They each describe the lengths taken by the United State to follow the codes of the convention, and are supported by primary sources, such as army spokespeople
and camp records. It appears conclusive and hard to argue with, but Matthias Reiss comes closest to challenging this thinking. While he does not argue against this summary of United States planning, he believes that the impression the German soldiers made when they first arrived led to better and friendlier consideration by both the American public and military.13
He claims that the American people were surprised to find that the Germans looked so similar to their own men, particularly compared to the propaganda they had been fed by their
media.14 He speculates that this similarity and humanity that Americans perceived influenced
their disposition toward the soldiers, shifting it toward a more sympathetic response.15 They
were hard-working physical specimens, and this won the public over and turned them into admirers of the impressive masculinity and discipline of the Nazi soldiers.16 Military historian
Robert C. Doyle confirms this surprise that Americans registered upon seeing the German soldiers for the first time, and he emphasises how the German soldiers did not feel hatred emanating from their new neighbours.17 It is not, however, the public who dictated how the
camps were run and the inmates looked after. It meant that they had more favourable relations in the workplace upon interaction but is only an element in the life of a prisoner. How their image, Reiss states, influenced the guards and the administrators was through a mixture of jealously, intimidation and respect. The guards, as Krammer, Reiss and Thompson all detail, were not the elite veterans of the front lines, and did not follow the method and regulation with the same strictness as the German soldiers.18 Thus, the German soldiers who
showed discipline and had survived conflicts, coupled with their elite reputation were treated with respect and an element of trepidation by the inexperienced American guards.19
Therefore, Reiss does not go so far as to deny the claims of Krammer, but he adds to the discussion and declares that despite the importance of the Geneva Convention, the image of the German soldier was a much more important aspect in regards to their preferential treatment. It opens the conversation of why the Germans were treated well, but it does not lead to a back and forth academic debate.
In German Prisoners of War in America, Krammer declares that the reason America was closely following Geneva Conventions was largely due to lack of options.
13 Matthias Reiss, “Bronzed Bodies behind Barbed Wire: Masculinity and the Treatment of German Prisoners of War in the United States during World War II” The Journal of Military History 69.2 (2005), 476-478. 14 Reiss, 480. 15 Reiss, 482. 16 Reiss, 479-483. 17 Doyle, 180. 18 Reiss, 490-491. 19 Reiss, 491.
Because the United States had not held large numbers of foreign prisoners in well over 100 years, when British soldiers were interned in 1812, past experiences could provide little guidance. The remaining alternative was the Geneva Accords of 1929, a plethora of conventions which, although ratified by 40 nations by 1939, was still an untried document whose application had to be tested at every step.20
However, John Brown Mason, writing in 1945, declares that following the Geneva
Convention is part of a United States strategy stemming from 1785, where they first signed an agreement aiming for better treatment of POWs.21 In fact, throughout the article he refers
to many cases where the United States armies issued legislation which improves the maintenance of prison camps and their internees. He establishes the idea that through
experience the United States has found fewer problems from prisoners when they are treated in a secure and humane manner, and that they agreed to the Geneva Conventions because it supported their strategy for holding prisoners.22 Doyle, on the other hand, proposes that as a
nation who signed the Geneva Convention the United States were obliged to follow its mandate, and to do otherwise does not enter his discussion.23 Important is the United States
history with the practice of handling POWs. This includes the establishment of the Lieber Codes and the progression to the Hague Regulations related to the First World War. Krammer fails to engage with either of these ideas. He entertains the possibility that the United States decided that following the Geneva Convention was a choice, despite signing, but he does not address the issue in any detail. Nor does he discuss the history of regulatory documents that Brown-Mason involves. Much like the issues raised by Reiss, Krammer does not promote much debate, but instead leaves gaps in the discussion which other scholars, both preceding and succeeding Krammer, are tasked with filling in. Nevertheless, it is the
adherence to the Geneva Convention and why this was the case that prompts difference in opinion and theories.
In 1975, historian Jake Spidle wrote a particularly astute essay regarding the historiography, or lack thereof, surrounding the German POWs in America. Some of the issues he raised have since been rectified. He points out how few historians had engaged with the subject and how the resources available had not yet been tapped into.
It is especially regrettable that this topic has thus far escaped extended con- sideration by serious historians, as some of the most useful source material for its
20 Krammer, 68.
21 John Brown Mason. “German Prisoners of War in the United States” The American Journal of International
Law 39.2 (1945), 198-199.
22 John Brown Mason 199-215. 23 Doyle, 181-182.
study is ephemeral and will not be available to historians of the future.
Specifically, interviews with the large number of people associated with the POW program as camp officers, guards, employers of POW labour, state and municipal authorities, or inmates of the camps will not be possible indefinitely.24
Since this article’s publication many interviews were obtained, and Krammer published his book on the matter, one of the first academic historians to do so. Krammer himself noted the dissertation by Edward Pluth in 1970, which addresses this gap in historical coverage and seeks to rectify it. Pluth and Spidle saw a hole in the historical story of the Second World War, and the story has now been told. However, it has still avoided serious attention, thus the academic debates that the subject could potentially instigate have been subdued.
While Reiss explains the public perception of the German prisoners, he fails to engage in the debate that took place during the war about the treatment of the prisoners. It is a debate that has avoided the scholarly limelight, perhaps as it is seen as irrelevant and minor.
Nonetheless, there was a small media campaign questioning whether or not the prisoners were being offered overly generous conditions. The United States News offered up a piece questioning this care titled, “Are Prisoners Pampered?” This piece concluded that although German prisoners are treated better than Americans in Germany, they were not being granted more than they were entitled to, and that they provided a useful labour force.25 However, the
title mimics questions that were raised and asks the comparison between the two opposing nations. Another newspaper provides a similar discussion, “Worley Writes of Germany”, where the German treatment of Americans is condemned. He accused the Germans of lying about food shortages and acknowledged the claim that the United States ‘over-complied’ with Geneva Convention guidelines.26 Despite this, very little pressure was applied to the United
States Army, and they issued their justification for their treatment in a consistent manner. They cite, as the newspapers and magazines recognise, the plan to ensure their own soldier’s treatment is as fair as possible.27 On top of this, Margulies declared in his speech, well cared
for prisoners provided a better work force and enticed fellow Germans to surrender if necessary. These arguments are examined in closer detail later in the thesis. In Krammer’s work this aspect barely registers a footnote, and the statements provided by the military are often taken at face value. Whether or not this justification was trustworthy, and if it was a
24 Jake W. Spidle Jr. “Axis Prisoners of War in the United States, 1942-1946: A Bibliographical Essay”
Military Affairs 39.2 (1975) 62.
25 “Are Prisoners Pampered” in The United States News, January 29, 1945. Old Magazine Articles. http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/article-summary/german_prisoners_of_war#.Wm5WyainHIV 26 “Worley Writes of Germany” The Canyon News, Texas. June 21, 1945.
https://newspaperarchive.com/canyon-news-jun-21-1945-p-5/ 27 http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/1945-04-27a.html
successful strategy is not brought into debate. With leading historians such as Krammer and Thompson providing objective narrative accounts, albeit with strong citation and detail, theory, conclusive opinion and speculation are not present. Reiss provides an alternative picture of events, but his focus is far more specific and selective. It further provides evidence that this topic has evaded academic debate and limited discussion that does exists misses many points of interest and importance. In these gaps in the theory and consideration of the topic I hope to establish my thesis and open up engage in the subject.
As the United States never carried out a large-scale importation of prisoners in the First World War, this topic has received little attention and sparks no meaningful debates. However, the Civil War has promoted controversy, not least because records are scarce and unreliable. The biggest issue in the debate arose during and immediately following the war. This issue was which of the two sides treated their prisoners with greater negligence, and ultimately, who was responsible for more prisoner deaths.28 The common historical consensus
is that neither side was in the right, and they both treated their prisoners poorly. The Union may have produced the Lieber Code, but they were no less guilty than their confederate counterparts. There were many interactions where the only victims were the prisoners, as generals on each side tried to enact vengeance.29 The Confederate Camp, Andersonville,
received particularly harsh press, particularly after they lost the war, and it produced the first victim of the death penalty for maltreatment of POWs in America.30 James Gillespie’s
Andersonville’s of the North, published in 2008, collates documents and records proving that the Union were just as guilty of maintaining atrocious camp conditions, but as the victor, received far less condemnation. When tied in with the POW question in the Second World War, it highlights that no matter which side committed more crimes, both the Union and the Confederacy maintained camps which are almost incomparable to those used to house Nazi POWs.
Thus, it is clear that the Geneva Convention, its application, role and relevance provide the largest portion of debate surrounding this topic. How important it was to the United States is the topic with the widest range of conclusions. To some it shaped the American strategy for prisoner welfare, and it was an obligation to follow. It continues the narrative of the United States efforts to entertain international law providing rights to prisoners and the nation had set a precedent of compliance with such doctrine. In other accounts it was merely the only option that the United States had, so they followed it out of
28 Doyle, 90.
29 Official Records of the War of the Rebellion Series II Vol 4 (1899) 508-509. 30 Doyle, 93-94.
necessity. With Reiss comes the theory that the Germans and their image created an
environment where they received fair and humane treatment, and that their similarity to the American people allowed the Geneva Convention’s rules to be adhered to. The fact that these theories are not acknowledged or challenged reveals just how little historical debate this topic has created. Instead, the debates stem from the time period itself, where Americans used newspapers as outlets to condemn the Germans and question the American strategy. However, it was not a strong opposition to the running of the prison camps, and there were only a few people who actively objected. The United States Army offered their explanation, which has been accepted by scholars, and has received little scrutiny or criticism. The history of German POWs in America has been told and retold in the same narrative style, but
scholarly debate and theory has remained largely absent. From this absence is born the purpose of this thesis; to identify which aspects of the progression of prisoner welfare contributed to the events of the American camps in the Second World War, and why it is a unique situation unlike any which had come before it. Such answers will be found through the examination of the progression of documents demanding humane treatment, to the specific circumstances of the Second World War, including geography, the nature of the enemy and the ramifications of decisions regarding post-war Europe.
Chapter 1: On the progression of POW treatment through the Civil War
The main argument of this thesis is that the humane treatment of the German POWs brought back to American shores in the Second World War is an exception in history. There are numerous reasons for this approach, from the United States’ own history with war to the circumstances that beset them in the 1940’s. This chapter will establish the history of
domestic POWs in preceding wars. This will clarify the differences and highlight the areas in which the treatment of Nazi POWs was undertaken with greater care than in previous wars. This history will also illustrate how policies toward the prisoners had evolved, thus
explaining the circumstances behind the 1929 Geneva conventions and the manner of their employment. Examining the American Civil War, this chapter will identify key incidents and consequences which impact and shape the methods used by the United States in the Second World War. The Lieber Code is a central document in this chapter, as it is the first dictation of POW welfare to be passed into law, in the United States and the rest of the world. The Hague Regulations of 1899 were employed to spare the prisoners of the First World War from international crimes and inhumane action, but the soldiers in the American Civil War were afforded no such luxury.31 Instead, accounts of the Civil War are rife with tales of
injustice and anger, with men from both sides complaining about their captivity under enemy control.32 There is a debate on the topic of just how many prisoners died, and there are
publications suggesting that either the Confederacy or the Union were responsible for more deaths.33 However, even the most tame accounts depict an environment for prisoners that falls
short of that provided for the Nazis, and this chapter will use the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion to distinguish these contrasts (hereby to be referred to as the Official
Records). This vast collection of primary sources includes first-hand accounts of prison camp management. Allowing for bias and perhaps cover-ups, these accounts provide a window into the war and enable the comparisons between the different conflicts. Despite the harrowing accounts of prison life, documents were enacted in the hope of preventing prison camp atrocities. In 1963, a document was presented by Francis Lieber, Professor of Law at Columbia University, which aimed to set out guidelines for both sides, a document Lincoln
31 Hague Regulations 1899. http://www.opbw.org/int_inst/sec_docs/1899HC-TEXT.pdf
32 Robert C. Doyle The Enemy in Our Hands: America's Treatment of Enemy Prisoners of War from the
Revolution to the War on Terror. (Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 2010) 89-91.
had issued to both sides of the conflict.34 Whether or not the document was followed, it is an
established precedent for treatment of prisoners in America.
Before investigating and analysing the camp life in the Civil War, this chapter will explain the Lieber document which introduced the code of ethics to be applied toward POWs. The Lieber document may have arrived late in the war, but it is a rare piece of legislation that directly depicts how prisoner care should unfold. Also known as General Order 100:
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States (originally issued as General Order 207), it is an important paper in the progression of POW rights under American care. In fact, as Doyle points out, this document is “the first comprehensive codification of the rules of war used internally by any government anywhere, as well as the first published legal code pertaining to the treatment of POWs.”35 Where the Hague Regulations negotiated the
First World War, and the 1929 Geneva Conventions dictated the Second World War, they were both preceded by this document emanating from the American Civil War. As the quote points out, this code did not just deal with POWs, but offered laws of general warfare, allowing a military to use the necessary strength of force to achieve victory, provided their actions remained lawful and somewhat humane.36 To this thesis, though, the elements of the
document pertaining to the POWs demands the closest attention. Thus, it is important to pinpoint the key aspects of the initiative. This will allow it to be applied to the circumstances that were really taking place in the camps, ascertaining whether or not the Lieber Code was followed. As well as this, it means that the key conditions of the document can be compared and contrasted to those of the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Conventions. Section 3 of the Lieber document, titled “Deserters - Prisoners of war - Hostages - Booty on the battle-field.” depicts the acceptable treatment of POWs.37 Section 3 begins with a series of articles
designed to specify what a POW is. This includes the conditions of their capture, but ultimately describes a POW as a soldier who has surrendered their arms to their opposition military and are detained, by capture or concession. Evidently the definition of POW was considered a necessary part of the documentation but does not break ground in itself. Articles 56, 57 and 59 provide an interesting beginning to the discussion of treatment, once a captive fits the criteria of POW, and these articles initiate a set of rules to be followed after this distinction is met. The first two of the aforementioned articles declare that a prisoner cannot
34 Doyle, 92-93. 35 Doyle, 92.
36 Fred L. Borch. “Lieber’s Code: A Landmark in the Law of War but Not Lincoln’s Code” Journal of Military
History 77.2 (2013) 672.
37 Francis Lieber Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (1863). Section 3. Accessed at http://www.lawofwar.org/general_order_100.htm
be maltreated, injured, or abused by his captors.38 To do so would be a war crime. The articles
also state that a soldier is not to be held accountable for his lawful battlefield actions, that “his killing, wounding, or other warlike acts are not individual crimes or offenses.”39 Despite
these clarifications, article 59 says that a soldier may be punished for any war crimes committed before capture.40 This becomes a grey area which Lieber does not interact with
any further. He merely states that punishment is allowed on the condition that the soldier has not received punishment from his own authorities. It does not state whether the soldier is granted an unbiased trial or what the punishment might involve. It indicates an area which the governing party may be able to take liberties with their position. Nonetheless, the articles clearly announce that a POW is to be treated in a humane manner, to be kept fed and to receive no violence or harm from their captor. Article 71 even declares that an incapacitated soldier shall be further injured or maimed upon pain of death to the perpetrator. On top of this, the document proclaims that all POWs deserve medical treatment and wholesome food, “whenever practicable.”41 Whether or not it is practical to apply these measures appears to be
at the discretion of the authority in charge of the camp, another area where it seems possible to abuse such regulations. Loopholes or not, the Lieber document was a first of its kind, and it had the clear design of protecting the prisoners from abuse and torture, particularly as it allowed them the right to withhold information and be spared interrogation.42 It was designed
at a later period in the war, but it set out guidelines to shape how prison camps ought to be maintained in wartime United States. Had it been applied strictly to the entirety of the Civil War then it is probable that many lives would have been saved, and many men spared unnecessary maltreatment.
Where the Lieber Code was established during the Civil War, the Geneva Convention of 1929 is central to the conditions upheld by the United States in the Second World War. As explained in a separate chapter, the Nazi prisoners were administrated living quarters to the standard of their guards. They had jobs, tailored diets and took part in sports and other recreational activities. This was not the case for an average prisoner in the Civil War. An example of this is the report issued by an unnamed Union jail surgeon in New Berne, taken from the Official Records (Most likely New Bern, North Carolina).43 The surgeon’s report
38 Lieber, 3. 56-57 39 Lieber, 3. 57. 40 Lieber, 3. 59. 41 Lieber, 3. 76. 42 Lieber, 3. 80.
43 Official Records of the War of the Rebellion Series II Vol 4 (1899) p7. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.49015002001221?urlappend=%3Bseq=21
states that the prisoners lack proper bedding, that the rooms are unsanitary and filthy, that the blankets are dirty and that the rations are undercooked. He called for preventative measures to stop the spread of disease and announced that under these conditions many will perish.44
The fact that this is not the account of a detained confederate soldier who may have been bitter or untruthful but is instead that of a Union surgeon compounds the image of maltreatment and negligence of a Civil War POW jail. The Lieber Code dictates that “prisoners of war are subject to confinement or imprisonment such as may be deemed necessary on account of safety, but they are to be subjected to no other intentional suffering or indignity.”45 The conditions in New Berne, had they not been reported a year prior to the
Lieber document’s circulation, would have violated these new rules. This surgeon’s report is dated 1962, and Lieber’s document passed on May, 1963. Of course, for most of the Civil War the Lieber Code had not been enacted, so much of the treatment is without ruling.
Another case from the Official Records of an incident happening before Lieber’s document that would have been deemed illegal after it was signed into power is an incident revolving around General Bragg of the Confederacy. This case is particularly relevant as it involves general Halleck, the man who requested Lieber draw up his document in the first instance.46 This account also depicts some of the bias that these reports contain. Initially,
Bragg is questioned by Halleck about whether or not he stripped prisoners of jackets and coats upon arrival at their prison camps. Bragg responds that he did so with regret, only because his own soldiers were experiencing such treatment, and he considered it a just punishment. He also points out that he stripped the Unionist prisoners of all their personal belonging and whatever money they carried. He claimed that the Unionist General he first made contact with had only increased his acts of injustice upon Confederate prisoners. General Halleck in return responded that he was unaware of such injustices. He stated that the General that Bragg had been in contact with, General Rosecrans, did not know of any
maltreatments and that therefore the perpetrator was unknown to him. Halleck then argues that “the Government of the United States has uniformly treated prisoners of war with the upmost kindness, supplying them with clothing and blankets when needed.”47 This back and
forth between the generals raises a few points. Firstly, Halleck claimed that the Union
maintained their prisoners and treated the inmates fairly. This contrasts with the statement put
44 Official Records 7-8. 45 Lieber, 3. 75.
46 Jordan J. Paust. “Dr. Francis Lieber and the Lieber Code” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American
Society of International Law 94. 4-7 (2001) 113.
forward by the Unionist surgeon. Secondly, it exposes elements of treatment system that the Lieber Code sought to rectify. While a prisoner can be punished for crimes he may have committed, under the Lieber Code he could not have been punished in retaliation for his Government’s actions. This meant that they would not have lost their blankets and coats, and the Lieber document explicitly points out that a prisoner be allowed to keep their personal belongings.48 Thus, these excerpts exhibit just how the prisoners were treated, and the
systems that were in place.
Lawyer Jordan Paust states that these regulations written by Lieber and signed off by Abraham Lincoln helped defend human rights, saying “the Code undoubtedly lessened human suffering during the Civil War.”49 Whether or not this statement is true, the Code
turned many of these malpractices into infractions of the law, which could be punished following the resolution of conflict and the establishment of a victorious governing body. It can be hard to judge how effective the Code was, but it certainly did not decrease mortality rates, according to Dora Costa and Matthew Kahn, in their article, “Surviving Andersonville: The Benefits of Social Networks in POW Camps”. They offer the statistic that before July 1863, prison camps had a mortality rate of 4 percent, and afterwards it grew to 27 percent.50
They attribute this rise not to falling standards of care, but instead to a rising number of inmates in prisons already rife with disease and struggling to provide food and bedding.51
Nonetheless, if these figures are halfway accurate, they do not read very well for the success of the Lieber Code, and instead convey the suggestion that it behaved as a propaganda piece in the Civil War, rather than an active and engaged piece of legislation.
It is not only the number of men who died which tell this story of the treatment of POWs, but first-hand accounts such as this which show the extent of how poor it really was. A notorious prison camp is Andersonville, which has been subject to a considerable amount of debate, with historians like James Gillispie arguing that this camp received an exaggerated reputation.52 He points out how the reputation of the camp overseer was that of a devil, and
his hanging further emphasised this point for many Northern soldiers and citizens who heard these tales from Georgia.53 The exaggeration of this camp into a particularly hellish
environment is supported by the account of Warren Lee Goss, a Union soldier who wrote of
48 Lieber, 3. 72. 49 Paust, 114.
50 Dora L. Costa and Matthew E. Kahn “Surviving Andersonville: The Benefits of Social Networks in POW Camp” The American Economic Review 97. 4 (2007) 1468.
51 Ibid
52 James Gillispie Andersonville’s of the North: The Myths and Realities of Northern Treatment of Civil War
Confederate Prisoners (Texas: UNT Press, 2008) 8-12.
his time in the prison. He does not describe the guards as cruel or evil, he just acknowledges that the living conditions were primal and inadequate.54 While he describes himself and his
squad as a practical group who crafted shelter, he sets a scene where many men were sleeping holes in the mud which would often fill with water.55 He states that the daily ration allowance
was minimal, comprising a pint of grain meal served in a mushy paste, and that while they had bacon the first month, this was stripped from the menu.56 He even wrote that some meals
had grubs or worms living in them.57 Historian Ovid Futch also alludes to this environment
where living conditions promoted poor hygiene, tainted food and the spread of disease, and he concurs that the guards were not seen as evil invigilators of this harsh regime.58 He
presents a situation where the Confederates simply did not have the supplies to maintain these numbers of prisoners, which resulted in this high mortality rate and squalor.59 Lieber’s Code
would have these prisoners properly fed, if practicable, which suggests that since the
Confederates were low on resources they would have just declared that they could not put the law into practice. The medical care and hygiene would remain largely unaffected as Lieber failed to stipulate what appropriate hygienic conditions would be involved, nor the level of their necessity, which social worker Margaret Humphreys suggests is indicative of the knowledge at the time, rather than an obvious oversight.60 Had they been following the 1929
Geneva Convention, whatever food they had would have been dispersed evenly between the prison guards and the prisoners. These conditions do not live up to those offered to soldiers in wars to follow, and it is obvious why those detained would harbour a resentment toward the side who had held them captive. The fact that Americans were treated so poorly in their own country by fellow Americans would leave a lasting impression on those who endured it and observed it.
Together, these instances of misunderstanding between opposing generals, occasions of maltreatment and misreported deaths between the sides led to long lasting consequences in the United States. These consequences helped shape the events of the Second World War and corroborate the proposed theory that the prisoners in the United States experienced unique circumstances which had partly risen from the events of wars previously, the Civil War being
54 Warren Lee Goss, The Soldiers Story of His Captivity at Andersonville, Belle Isle and other Rebel Prisons (Boston: Richardson and co. 1971) 74-80.
55 Lee Goss, 77. 56 Lee Goss, 78. 57 Lee Goss, 79.
58 Ovid Futch “Prison Life at Andersonville” Civil War Prisons Ohio. KSUP, 1962. pp 10-12. 59 Futch, pp 11-14.
60 Margaret Humphreys “This Place of Death: Environment as Weapon in the American Civil War” The
one such influential war. Misunderstanding appears a key element and harking back to the confusion and accusations between Generals Bragg and Halleck, it is not particularly difficult to understand how this arose. From this lack of knowledge grew a suspicion and a sense of injustice, particularly from those in the defeated Southern States. As Doyle discusses, the execution of Southern Generals for inhumane treatment and war atrocities, as well as
supposed numbers of dead in the Northern camps, contributed to these feelings of injustice.61
Confederate soldiers would have returned to their States as the losers of a war, and into a country which had abolished slavery, creating a whole new landscape. The Southern States did not adopt these changes with the same enthusiasm as the victorious Northern States, as the segregation, including the Jim Crow laws would testify. Hypothetically, this transition may have been eased by an alternate approach to prisoner welfare. With high mortality rates and established inadequate living conditions, prison camps would easily breed bitterness and resentment. In camp Elmira towers were even built so that the public could view the prisoners in the camps, angering and embarrassing the captives.62 Had conditions been better it may
have promoted greater understanding between the two sides and allowed for better labour and education structures. There were limited labour programmes and no education systems in place in any camps. Had the Unionists maintained the camps with fairer treatment and introduced an education programme they may have managed to secure greater relations between the Northern States and the rebuilding Southern.
Thus, these conditions present in the Civil War highlight just how poor the standard of living for a POW was, with extremely high death rates. These conditions, and a pursuit of more humane legislations, allowed the United States to compose the Lieber Code, a
document which began to shape POW welfare and initiate humane treatment and living conditions. The Lieber Code is highly significant when tracing the roots of the Geneva Conventions relevant to the Second World War. While this set of codes is imperfect and vague, it highlighted a change in the thinking regarding the rights of POWs. It left much room for improvement and gave a large amount of responsibility to the powers in charge of prisoners, allowing them to implement rules as they saw fit. Nonetheless, it attempted to achieve higher standards of living for POWs, and the Official Records demonstrate many of the punishments and actions which took place throughout the Civil War which the Lieber document aimed to eradicate. This important piece of legislation paved the way for future codes of conduct in war to be established. Most notably, the Hague Regulations of 1899 and
61 Doyle, 94-96.
1907, which were employed in the First World War, displayed key elements which continued in Geneva in 1929. With restrictions and laws in place before entering a conflict, the
signatories of these Regulations provided some of the best treatment of POWs seen in warfare until that point, the United States included. It was the first steps toward the
circumstances which allowed prisoner life to thrive in the United States during the Second World War. The history of the Civil War provides explanations for the events of the Second World War. It exemplifies the nature of POW treatment in wars preceding the Second World War, showcasing just how barbaric and unruly they were. This provides a contrast to the Nazi prisoners in the United States, reinforcing the statement of the thesis; that these prisoners experiences unique and exceptional circumstances. On top of this, it provides a beginning of the movement toward better POW welfare, which peaked during the Second World War.
Chapter2: The First World War and The Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907
An important document when negotiating POWs in the First World War is The Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907. In these Regulations are many of the same international laws later adopted in the Geneva Conventions of 1929, and it acted as a base on which the
Conventions were built. These instructions which each document share include the right for prisoners to live in the same conditions as the soldiers who guard them, with the same rations, and that any labour they take part in remain unrelated to the military conflict.63 The effects of
The Hague Regulations will be examined alongside the First World War, as well as America’s plan for POWs on their home soil. The practice which was seen heavily in the Second World War was first seen almost 30 years earlier. This chapter will examine how the Americans prepared to host these soldiers, and if there was any ulterior motive besides logistics and practicality for detaining these prisoners in the United States. The war ended before the plan saw real action. As such, there is extremely limited documentation on this subject. Whether powers followed these guidelines with strictness, their design was to spare prisoners’ cruel maltreatment. Doyle notes a sharp decline in mortality rates in the First World War, which he attests to The Hague Regulations.64 Expert in law, Rotem Giladi, states
that The Hague Regulations are a by-product of the Lieber Code, the document which initiated POW rights and welfare.65 He does suggest that The Hague Regulations are more
cold and lacking humanity, however, this document was the first to see major international warfare, and it was borne out of the Lieber Code. Doyle explains how the warfare of the First World War made it difficult to implement aspects of The Hague Regulations, and many who surrendered were killed on the battlefield, despite their concession.66 Despite this, conditions
for a German POW in American internment were more favourable than in British or French camps, and the United States formed plans to send German POWs to America.67 On top of
this, Doyle pertains that once captured, prisoners faced better circumstances in general than in any conflict in the 20th Century.68 However, this is a statement regarding all prisoners in the
war, not just those in a specific place or time. Life in these camps for the few thousand that actually made it to the United States before the war ended was particularly good for a POW
63 Hague Regulations, 1899 http://www.opbw.org/int_inst/sec_docs/1899HC-TEXT.pdf 64 Doyle, 161.
65 Rotem Giladi “A Different Sense of Humanity: Occupation in Francis Lieber’s Code” International Review
of the Red Cross 94. 885 (2012) 92.
66 Doyle, 161-162. 67 Doyle, 166-169. 68 Doyle, 169.
camp and is the closest to the conditions present in the Second World War. By following the laws established by Lieber and The Hague Regulations, the United States was beginning its progression toward humane prison camps. It was imperfect and left prisoners with certain frustrations. They worked in construction jobs when in the United States but received no financial compensation. While their food was often cooked by German chefs, they had no money and no shops to purchase additional goods or treats such as chocolate or beer. Their recreational activities were timetabled and preselected, giving the prisoners very little freedom of choice.69 They also received no educational system, mandatory or optional. In
comparison to the conditions endured by Civil War prisoners these are favourable and humane conditions, but they were not the camps enjoyed by their German successors in the Second World War.
In the First World War, the large majority of the prisoners held in the United States were members of the German navy, captured at sea.70 While the order had been given to bring
German prisoners back to America, the war reached its conclusion before this could be enacted.71 Therefore, they only received prisoners when it was a logistical advantage, such as
German sailors who were already close to the United States. This was not a result of the entry into the war, as an article written in April 1917 in The New York Times discusses prisoners obtained before entry. While the article was published two days after the United States entered the European battlefields, the incident in question took place in 1914, and it describes how the Germans sunk their own ship and were interned at the American naval base at Guam.72 According to historian Mitchell Yockelson there was a fear of sabotage by ‘enemy
aliens’ within the United States. The Black Tom Explosion, and incident where an
ammunitions depot in New York was ignited, was one such element of sabotage. However, when it occurred, it was not known who or what the cause was, nor were authorities aware of the intentions, making sabotage initially just a theory.73 The Wilson administration used this
fear to imprison any German-Americans who were potential spies or otherwise engaged in espionage against the United States.74 Both Doyle and Yockelson hint that the fear was in
part created by the Wilson administration to eventually allow entrance to the war with less
69 Doyle, 170. 70 Doyle, 169-171. 71 Doyle, 169.
72 “Blow Up Corman, Interned Gunboat” The New York Times April 8, 1917.
73 “The Black Tom Explosion: Four Bodies Found the Superintendent Missing” The New York Times (1916) 8. ProQuest Historical Newspapers.
74Mitchell Yockelson. “The War Department: Keeper of Our Nation's Enemy Aliens During World War I”
Presented to the Society for Military History Annual Meeting, (1998).
resistance and was the cause of the detainment of German ships in American ports. The naval sailors were classed as POWs, though, unlike the potential saboteurs.75 Nonetheless,
they were imprisoned with the alien internees at first. Problems arose as these internees were from a variety of backgrounds and were treated differently from their military counterparts, arousing animosity between the two sets. Thus, they were split, with camp McPherson becoming a prison for the POWs, the political prisoners housed elsewhere.76 The isolation of
the POWs from the internees ended the conflict and allowed the POWs access to a lifestyle they could be more comfortable. Camp McPherson housed 1300 German prisoners by the end of the war.77
The Hague Regulations offered the conditions for prisoner treatment in the First World War but were technically not followed in the War.78 This is due to the second article in
The Hague Regulations, which announces that the laws are only relevant if every party in a conflict is a signatory of the document, which was not the case; Serbia and Montenegro abstained.79 However, the United States still wished to follow the guidelines, and in order to
obtain such conditions, eventually signed separate treaties with the Germans, as did the United Kingdom and France, though the American-German Treaty was only signed into action two days prior to the culmination of the war.80 The treaties were signed based off how
the treatment had been undergoing before each country penned their aims, as it was pointed out that on average prisoners had received better care than the wars previous. As well as this, no country would want its own soldiers being held in captivity to be maltreated as a
punishment for their homeland’s actions and behaviour. Glidden identifies this wish, acknowledging this adherence to The Hague Regulations:
At all four camps, the internees generally received adequate food, clothing, quarters, and medical care, and developed reasonable recreational and educational facilities. Except for the naval seamen, they did not have to work any more than necessary to keep the buildings and grounds clean and in good repair. The government respected religious preferences and tried to live up to the Prisoner of War provisions of the Hague Convention.81
The four camps he refers to include the POW prison, camp McPherson, as well as those used for the political internees. As a number of articles in the Lieber Code were identified, a
75 Yockelson. 76 Yockelson 77 Doyle, 169.
78 William Glidden “Internment Camps in America, 1917-1920” Military Affairs 37.4 (1973) p 137. 79 Hague Regulations, Article 2.
80 Doyle, 168-169. 81 Glidden, 137.
number of key points in The Hague Regulations stand out as important. The United States elected to follow this document, thus it holds relevance.
The Hague Regulations attempted to cover every facet of war between belligerents, which includes POWs. Chapter two concerns the relevant topic. After establishing the requirements necessary to deem someone a POW, the first line in the chapter states; “They must be humanely treated.”82 An unspecific sentence, but one which represents the intentions
behind this document, obliging belligerent nations to act with certain ethics and morality. The next important article relates to prisoners as a workforce. This also explains Doyle’s
summary of prisoner complaints. In this article it is stated that prisoners may be utilised as a workforce on certain conditions. Namely, they must be fit and able for their given jobs, and the work must not be related to the ongoing war.83 Prisoners should not receive pay. Instead,
the money must go towards the betterment of their conditions, and only paid the excess at the conclusion of the conflict.84 Doyle had reported complaints from enlisted men about this lack
of pay, but this shows that actually it followed the established Hague doctrine.85 Doyle also
mentioned that the German Officers received their full pay, but this is also a rule present in the Regulations, in Article 17.86 Article 7 depicts the food and shelter conditions that
prisoners are afforded, as they should be equal to those of the camp guard and soldiers. This is continued in the Geneva Conventions of 1929, and the Red Cross reported that they considered the implementation in the United States to be adequate.87 This is an improvement
from the Lieber document, which was not so forceful about the food ration afforded prisoners and gave little direction other than instructing belligerents to try their best to feed the
prisoners substantial food.88 Article 8 offers a different approach to both the Lieber Code and
the Geneva Convention. Here, The Hague regulations allow for disciplinary action to be taken against a prisoner, should they be insubordinate or attempt to escape. It specifies that these punishments can take on “such measures of severity as may be necessary.”89 While
excessive punishment was not a common complaint by the POWs in the United States, such an inclusion suggests why The Hague regulations received comments that it was an inhumane document. The chapter on POWs concludes with a few articles providing prisoners with
82 Hague Regulations, Chapter 2, article 4. 83 Hague Regulations, Chapter 2, article 6. 84 Ibid.
85 Doyle, 170.
86 Hague Regulations, Chapter 2, Article 17. 87 Doyle, 170.
88 Francis Lieber Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (1863). Section 3, article 76.
religious and communications freedoms, but nothing of controversy or greater importance. When compared to the Geneva Conventions, as the thesis will do at a later point, it is apparent what is missing from the Hague Regulations, rather than what is present. The specified articles are the ones which had the most impact on the prisoners in America, or else the articles which differ from Geneva and Lieber to larger extents.
The plan might have been to transport the German captives from Europe to the United States, but it failed to see action. However, the United States decided to follow The Hague Regulations, and in regards the few POWs they did hold at home, they followed that mandate. It is reasonable to suggest, then, that had they brought the rest of their captives to America, they would have continued to act in the same manner. After studying The Hague Regulations and the summaries of the prisoner conditions, it is notable that the shortcomings were on behalf of the Regulations rather than the United States or their implementation of the legislation. In comparison to the Geneva Conventions of 1929, it is a much shorter piece of documentation, and lacks amenities granted to the prisoners. in some regards it provides more than the Lieber document, however, Article 8 of Chapter 2 offers worrying outcomes, where prisoner punishment is legal in the correct circumstances. The Lieber Code allowed
punishment only if a POW had committed war crimes, but The Hague Regulations are vague and do not specify the necessary conditions or the punishments permitted, allowing room for these laws to be misinterpreted and otherwise abused. Nonetheless, it was a clear step
forward from the Lieber Code. It provided fairer conditions for housing and for food, maintaining that prisoners should not be held in worse conditions than the guards enforcing the imprisonment. This brief segment in the narrative of POWs in America is important, as it helps establish the United States’ willingness to follow international codes of conduct and the progression of documents offering POWs greater rights.
Chapter3: The Comfortable Life of a Nazi POW in America
In order to understand the purposes for maintaining German POW’s in above average conditions, it is necessary to establish first the actual situation that unfolded. The 1929 Geneva convention was a landmark moment for the treatment and handling of international prisoners of war. It was a culmination of the maltreatment and confusion of previous wars and the mistakes involved. Its implementation in the Second War coincided with the first mass internment of prisoners on US soil since the Civil War, and the largest collection of foreign soldiers ever detained by the United States. With these regulations came a vast array of changes to prisoner welfare, which during the Second World War the American camps on home soil strictly adhered to. These guidelines covered housing, working conditions, feeding and so on, all designed to protect the prisoners. The aim of this chapter is to highlight how these regulations were followed, and how the conditions even exceeded the mandate at times. It will identify key segments of the Geneva convention and examine how they were put into practice. This will include the articles regarding the amenities and rights granted to prisoners while in the camps, rather than their capture and the post war events. Next to this will be the different ways in which the public reacted to these troops and the treatment they received. There was a mixture of curiosity, anger and sympathy throughout, with different stories of engagement with the general public. These prisoners often found themselves mixed with members of American society, and after the war years kept up to date with families that they spent time working and living alongside. The American public also noted aspects of the physical appearance of their German guests. Another facet of camp life included re-education policies, which had to be careful not to cross the line into indoctrination, a violation of the Geneva Convention. Historian Judith Gansberg writes on this topic, and her book Stalag USA proclaims that the United States were guilty of employing brainwashing methods. Krammer mentions the recreational events which included showing films comprising strong anti-Nazi sentiments.
In the appendix of Nazi Prisoners of War in America Krammer cites historian John Mewha proclaiming that the POW count in America peaked in May of 1945 at a figure of 425,871, with 371,683 being Germans.90 The United States entered the conflict in North
Africa in 1942 and from here the prisoner count began to grow.91 From this engagement the
issue of housing and transportation arrived. Initially, the Germans were marched away from
90 Arnold Krammer. Nazi Prisoners of War in America (New York: Scarborough House, 1979) 272. 91 Krammer, 2-4.
the frontlines into camps with only basic resources in Algeria or Morocco.92 The prisoners
were given serial numbers based off a variety of aspects, from their command unit to their location of capture.93 This allowed ease of organisation, and separation of bodies of prisoners
into their respective groups. On top of this it allowed prisoners to receive the living conditions appropriate for their rank and station once held in custody. The prisoners were taken from their accommodation in North Africa by boat to America under the watch of United States military police, and upon arrival were taken to their American destinations on relatively comfortable trains, repurposed for the task.94 These destinations comprised over
500 camps, scattered across the country, preferably in areas easy to manage the prisoners with minimal risk of escapees holding a threat.95 The Americans ended up receiving more
than 100,000 prisoners from North Africa in the early days of their entrance into the war, and the Nazi prisoners were later accompanied by their fellow captured soldiers from Europe as the war front moved closer to Germany.
Management of prisoner of war camps and the living conditions required is covered in chapter 2 of the 1929 Geneva Convention. Here it is evident exactly what is expected of those running the camp. Instead of deciding on set housing condition and a set calorie ration, as this would be understandably difficult for many nations at war to conjure, the terms of detaining prisoners were that they be kept on the same diet and in the same housing conditions as the camp guards and officers.96 This meant that the nation detaining these prisoners could do so
without having to comply to regulations that starve their own soldiers in order to
accommodate unsustainable diets for their prisoners. It also made sure that, if followed, the prisoners were given the same basic rights as those holding them captive. This is one of the more straightforward reasons why the prisoners back in America had more wholesome and healthy diets. There were more resources available for soldiers in the United States than those in war torn Europe, and as prisoners were to be treated equal in this regard they were
consequentially afforded higher quality living conditions. This was subject to variance, as Thompson reveals in his book about prisoners in Kentucky. Many prisoners were put to work on the farms, but while their basic food allowance was enough for a less physical job, the manual labour of farm-work was non-compliant with such a diet. On top of this, the farm
92 Antonio S. Thompson German Jackboots on Kentucky Bluegrass: Housing German Prisoners of War in
Kentucky, 1942-1946 (Tennessee: Diversion Press, 2008) 11.
93 Krammer, 4. 94 Krammer, 17-20. 95 Thompson, 5.
96 Geneva Convention, section 2, chapters 1 and 2. Accessed online at https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/305
owners found the extra work provided by the young men was beneficial labour relief. Thus, these men had their rations improved from the basic daily calorie allowance of 2,500 to 3,500.97 Not only did these men find their rations improve relative to their job, but the menus
became more tailored. To reduce food waste while keeping the overall cost the same, the diets of the prisoners were accounted for, and they received meals in line with their national culinary traditions.98 The accommodation facilities across the country had minimal variation,
with most prisoners living in tents and camps consisting of buildings only for office detail and administration tasks.99 This is in keeping with the Geneva mandate that troops and
prisoners be accommodated in equal conditions. These standard living conditions were upheld under scrutiny by figures as high ranking as the acting Secretary of State, who ensured that a particular camp in Memphis updated their tent accommodation to include adequate flooring to ensure that Red Cross officials deemed the camps living conditions satisfactory.100
While this was not a life of luxury, it was a far higher standard than prisoners of war were used to seeing, as many smaller details were seen to. Historian Keith Lowe states in his book, Savage Continent, that on the European front the laws put in place by the Geneva
Conventions were rarely adhered to, with violations a regularity.101 He describes the scenario
in many camps in France, under American control, to be well below the standard of those on home soil. Prisoners had no shelter other than hollows in the ground, no blankets, no toilet and shower facilities and were on diets of 800 calories a day, many electing to scavenge roots of weeds.102 With these American camps still being considered favourable to Allied
alternatives, it further enhances the exceptionalism of the camps maintained in the United States. The contrast is stark, where on one front soldiers were scrambling for weeds in fields as sustenance, others were able to put forward complaints about their diets being more alien than they would like or the flooring of their accommodation being inadequate. Measures were taken to uphold the Geneva Convention at home, and in many different ways they were exceeded.
Not only were prisoners in the United States provided tailored rations, they were paid a base salary as well as whatever money they earned from their work.103 This, as written in
97 Thompson, 89. 98 Krammer. 49. 99 Krammer 33-36.
100 Antonio S. Thompson. Men in German Uniform: POWs in America during WWII (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2010) 12.
101 Keith Lowe, Savage Continent: Europe in the Aftermath of World War II (New York: Penguin Group, 2012) 111.
102 Ibid, 114-115.
103 Robert C. Doyle The Enemy in Our Hands: America's Treatment of Enemy Prisoners of War from the Revolution to the War on Terror. (Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 2010) 184.
