Browsing by Subject "Prisoners of War"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item American prisoner of war policy and practice from the Revolutionary War to the War on Terror(Texas A&M University, 2006-08-16) Springer, Paul JosephAmerican prisoner of war (POW) policy consists of repeated improvisational efforts during wartime followed by few efforts to incorporate lessons learned. As such, in every war, the United States has improvised its system of POW maintenance and utilization. At no time prior to World War II was the United States military prepared to capture and maintain the prisoners taken in any American conflict. The United States has depended upon reciprocal treatment of enemy prisoners and threatened retaliation for mistreatment of American captives in every war. It has also adhered to accepted customs and international law regarding prisoners, providing housing, food, and medical care to POWs at least the equal of that given to American prisoners. However, the U.S. military has often sought the most expedient methods of maintaining prisoners, a practice that has led to accusations of neglect. In the nineteenth century, American wars were typically fought upon the North American continent and were limited in scope, which facilitated the maintenance of enemy prisoners and eased the improvisation of policy and practice. In the twentieth century, the United States participated in conflicts in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, complicating POW issues. World War II and subsequent conflicts show a radical departure from earlier wars, as the army planned for the capture of enemy troops and was better prepared to maintain them. However, the War on Terror represents a return to improvisation, as a lack of planning and a failure to follow established policies contributed to allegations of mistreatment in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.Item Prisoners of War-Cold War Allies: The Anglo-American Relationship with Wehrmacht Generals(2012-02-14) Mallett, Derek RayThis study examines the relationship between British and American officials and the fifty-five Wehrmacht general officers who were held as prisoners of war in the United States during World War II. This relationship transformed as the war developed and new national security concerns emerged in the immediate postwar era. As largely evidenced by the records of the United States War Department and the British War Office, the transformation of this relationship illustrates two important points. First, despite some similarities, the respective priorities of British and American authorities regarding their POW general officers differed significantly. British officials consistently interrogated and eavesdropped on all of their senior officer prisoners, primarily seeking operational and tactical intelligence to aid the Allied war effort. By contrast, American officials initially had little regard for the value of Wehrmacht general officer POWs. Second, by the end of the war, admiration for the prowess of German officers and the German military tradition in particular, coupled with anxiety about Soviet intentions and the strength of the Red Army, drove Washington into a collaborative relationship with many of the Wehrmacht general officers in its custody. The evolution of America's national security concerns in the years immediately following the end of World War II impacted its policy governing the treatment of high-ranking prisoners of war.