MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History

FORCED HOMECOMING

When the Second World War in Europe ended in May 1945, the United States military had custody of a staggering number of enemy prisoners of war: 4.3 million total world-wide, with more than 400,000 held in prison camps inside the domestic United States. German personnel represented the single largest group of prisoners. However not every soldier in German uniform who fell into American hands—whether through capture, surrender, or exchange of custody with another ally—was actually a German citizen. Between 1939 and 1945, tens of thousands of Frenchmen, Poles, Dutchmen, and Norwe-gians wound up in German uniform, either voluntarily or through coercion. Nearly a million Soviet citizens, ethnic Russians, Ukrainians, and Cossacks had served in the German military for a myriad of reasons, plus many more millions of captured Soviet soldiers held as prisoners of the Germans were now in American or British hands; it was they who would represent one of the thorniest problems among the former allies in the war’s aftermath.

At the Yalta Conference, the Soviets insisted all Soviet citizens be repatriated.

Prisoner of war issues during WWII were at least notionally governed by the 1929 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, but the conduct of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union demonstrated all too clearly the limitations of international conventions and laws of war. The Soviet Union was not a signatory to the 1929 Convention; Japan signed it but never ratified it; Germany was a full signatory. The legal distinction between them was largely irrelevant, because those three nations were categorically guilty of the worst treatment of the war was over. The end of the conflict precipitated one of the most controversial episodes related to international conventions on prisoners of war: the question of forced repatriation.

You’re reading a preview, subscribe to read more.

More from MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History

MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History10 min readInternational Relations
Reprisals In War: A Result Of Lawful Force Or War Crime?
One of the most iconic paintings to depict the horrors of war is Francisco Goya’s The Third of May 1808, which depicts an incident during the Peninsular War against Napoleon in Spain. The nighttime scene of a group of Spanish civilians facing executi
MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History3 min readLeadership
Why We Need The Great Men Of History
Those who study warfare will inevitably run into the so-called “great man theory” of history. Simply put, it denotes the study of individual leaders and their abilities. In earlier times, scholars adhered to this school of thought as explaining the e
MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History2 min read
Weapons Check War Hammer
The war hammer, as crude as it seems, was a practical solution to a late-medieval arms race between offense and defense. From the 14th century, steel plate armor spread amongst the warrior classes. The angled and hardened surfaces of plate armor were

Related