Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

11

The officers were paroled, and without any ransom as late as at start of WW1. For example the later marshal Tuchachevsky was a "poruchik" (senior lieutenant) then and was taken as a prisoner by Germans. As with all other officers, he was allowed to walk into the town and had his freedom, only he gave his honest word that he'll return into the barracks. But ...


6

Parole is indeed the word that all parties would have used and understood in 1945. In fact, this is a military tradition that has roots going back as far as Roman Empire - for example, Marcus Atilius Regulus was released on parole by the Carthaginians in 250 B.C.. It was relatively common through the end of the American Civil War, where it was done through ...


6

There are international agreements on the definition of POW dating back to the Lieber Code declared by Lincoln in 1862 Art. 49. A prisoner of war is a public enemy armed or attached to the hostile army for active aid, who has fallen into the hands of the captor, either fighting or wounded, on the field or in the hospital, by individual ...


4

There was large difference between Eastern and Western fronts. Generally, Western POW (British, American, French, German) were treated by their western captors according to the "laws of war", that is Geneva conventions. Of course, there were many exceptions, but as a rule they were treated decently. This does not apply to the Soviet POW captured by the ...


4

Noble prisoners captured by other nobles would be held by them - in the proper manner- which frequently got so long and expensive the nobleman lost out on the deal. Since ultimately they belonged to the king, who in the 15th Century would be leading the army in the field, the noble would have to pay a fee to the king to keep them - essentially a cut. Or ...


3

Military paroles became impractical when mass conscription led to the formation of armies of tens or hundreds of thousands of men that were too hard to keep track of. Military parole was used as late as the American Revolution. This was when "armies" typically numbered in the thousands, and both sides spoke the same language (English). Also, the British ...


3

I doubt that a generalized answer is possible. Contrary to myth, nazis were not efficient. Many of their policies were made up as they went along. POW camps, concentration camps, and forced labor camps were not the same, but there were similarities in the policies. That being said: I recall reading about a Dutch prisoner in a forced labor camp who ran ...


3

If you are asking about people who were prisoners of the Germans, then British and Americans did the best, although this was certainly no joyride. According to Wikipedia, German prisoners in the hands of Britain were least likely to die. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Comparative_death_rates_of_POWs


2

I think your question is impossible to answer because each side held some of their prisoners under conditions which bordered on a release. The usual reason was to use the prisoners for their own war effort, not charity. The US had Operation Paperclip which captured scientists like Wernher von Braun. It is a judgement call when captivity turned into a job ...


2

Escape attempts at Elmira seemed to be fairly common from what I find. One account describes the punishment for prisoners caught in escape attempts, and implies that tunneling was a common way to wind up there. The majority of escape attempts led not to freedom, but rather to an escorted walk to the guardhouse. The building, which measured ...


2

A prisoner captured in battle belongs to the "state" of the soldiers who captured him. In theory, that would be the king of England or France. Now it is possible that with at least some high ranking nobles, the king of England or France would let the capturer keep the prisoner. But this would be a form of "delegation," not a usual practice. But common ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible