The prisoner of war has been a conspicuous figure in the news that has come from the seething caldron of Europe.  Many thousands of prisoners have been taken from the contending armies by their adversaries.  For them the average American reader, perusing “war news” in the comfort of his security from the great conflict, has felt perhaps a grain of sorrow and wondered vaguely what horrors befell them after capture.

Early in September the German war department sent broadcast a statement that 30,000 Russians had been taken prisoners by the German soldiers after heavy battles in East Prussia, particularly around Ortelsburg, Hohenstein and Tannenburg.  The statement mentioned the fact that among the prisoners were many Russian officers of high rank.

What is done with these prisoners, how they are handled and treated and whether high officials are punished more severely than mere privates, are questions frequently asked and seldom answered, for the procedure followed in such matters is but little known.

REGULATIONS ARE HUMANE TO ALL

The international laws of warfare, embodied in The Hague conventions, the Geneva convention and the declaration of London, contain provisions that provide expressly what manner of treatment shall be accorded prisoners of hostile nations who are taken in battle.  If these provisions of international law are lived up to, the lot of the prisoner of war is not so hard as many people have been led to believe.

After the first year of the war, however, stories of ill-treatment of prisoners in German prison camps began to be told, and before long there were many well-authenticated cases of the kind.  Inhuman treatment was reported by English and Canadian prisoners, and protests were duly made by the British government through neutral channels.  The growing shortage of food in Germany was alleged as the cause of some of the complaints, but cases of actual brutality, involving cowardly physical abuse and even killing were also reported.  The nation which captures its enemy’s soldiers and makes prisoners of them is held entirely responsible for whatever happens and shoulders at once a responsibility that is commensurate with the number of prisoners who are taken and detained.

The law of warfare says that a prisoner must be as fair with his captors as they are with him.  He must be “humanely treated,” so it is prescribed, and when he is questioned by his captors he must give his true name and the rank he holds in the army which has been defeated and of which he was once a part.  Contrary to general belief, he is not stripped of “everything” and thrown into a dungeon and fed on a crust of bread and a mug of stale water.  His captors do not deprive him of his personal possessions, except weapons, horses and military papers.

Furthermore, they must give him complete religious liberty, and it is specifically decreed that he must be given opportunity to attend a church of the denomination to which he belongs.  And there he may pray as much for the success of his own nation or the much-desired relief from detention as the state of his mind dictates.