when officers are taken prisoners-of-war, are they given better quarters than privates?

Question

in POW camps, when POWs are captured by foreign armies, are officers of high rank given better treatment than common soldiers?
have generals ever been taken prisoners of war?

Answer 1

The answer is that this question simply depends on the camp, government running the camp, and the leadership of the camp.

Ultimately, the prisoners are to maintain their chain of command and rank structure inside the POW camp if at all possible. Geneva conventions state that the capturing country should respect that rank structure and act accordingly. In some countries (say, WWII or WWI Germany) at some camps, the rank of opposing military was respected highly and officers were given better treatment (personally, I'd refuse to accept anything that wasn't offered to everyone below me as well). In vietnam, in certain camps/circumstances officers were treated much worse because the Vietnamese Prison managers believed that the Officers had more access to higher level classified information.

As to your last question: Historically Generals have been taken prisoners of war, but it's more rare in recent times. For example, in the revolutionary war, Lord General Cornwallis was taken prisoner by George Washington briefly after the seige at York Town. General Santa Anna was captured by General Sam Houston in the Mexican American War, Many generals were captured, tried, and brought to justice following WWII in Nazi germany. We've also captured generals in Iraq, though more often their internment doesn't approach the wrongs done by Nazi Generals and therefore many of them were cleared of wrongdoing (people like chemical ali and others have met their justice as well)

Answer 2

The Geneva Convention requires that POWs of an officer class be treated slightly better than captured enlisted men. Remember though the Geneva Convention stipulates a lot of things that many countries do not abide by. So in reality, no they are not treated better. In fact, many times their treatment is worse. They are generally subject to more frequent and harsher interrogations, because they generally know more than the enlisted men.

Answer 3

According to the Geneva Conventions, officers are to be treated as officers and segregated from the ranks. And yes general officers are captured. Think of the major battles of WW II, as an example, when the British at Singapore, the Americans in the Philippines, or the Germans at Stalingrad surrendered, just to name a few.

Answer 4

Today, in Iraq, a captured American general would probably be tortured, beheaded, and his body dragged through the streets. That's the kind of people we're dealing with.

During WW2, the Wehrmacht provided barracks separate from from enlisted men, otherwise treatment was about the same. Some Generals were captured by both sides, including General Jonathan Wainwright, captured by the Japanese on Bataan.

Answer 5

According to the Geneva Convention they are supposed to be treated better.
There was a General in WWII (can't think of his name) taken as a POW when the Japanese toook the Phillipines, and there was also one in Vietnam.

Answer 6

WW2 ended the preferential treatment of captured officers as the Nazis realized the value of information held by higher ranking individuals. This is where interrogative torture was employed.

Answer 7

There's a reason Officers, NCOs, and lower ranking military personnel have different Geneva Conventions categories.

Answer 8

Read the book Bravo Two Zero and find the answers on how they treat their prisoners.

Answer 9

that is considered looting, and is a conflict crime by using the indisputable fact that is considered a "Grave Breach" of the Geneva Conventions by using the indisputable fact that is appropriation of resources not justified via protection rigidity neccessity. that is likewise a scummy act of robbery.

Answer 10

Not in this war~