Prisoners of War in Twentieth-Century War Economies

Abstract

When soldiers surrender they take their muscles and brains with them. How their captors exploit this advantage is one of the main themes of the modest but growing literature concerning prisoners of war in the twentieth century.1 But the prisoners also bring their stomachs with them. How the captors deal with the costs and disadvantages of maintaining POWs has barely been mentioned. The prisoner of war may be narrowly defined as a member or potential member of an armed force captured by an enemy force during a time of recognized warfare. He is more than a casualty to be subtracted out of a war's history, more than a neutralized vehicle of propaganda, object of charitable relief, or pawn of diplomatic negotiations. He is a special type of participant in modern warfare, a unique historical entity whose impact requires a bit of special methodology to evaluate. As a soldier imprisoned without dishonour (usually) under the power and care of the enemy, his experience as a prisoner may best be documented in foreign archives. As a worker who may legitimately play a positive role in the enemy's economy, his greatest historical impact may indeed be to benefit the enemy. This may explain why the history of the POW - except for personal narratives of suffering, resistance and escape - has been neglected. To examine his labour alone, however, may overaccentuate his contribution to an enemy system; to balance this against the burden his very existence places upon the enemy may clarify his role.