What Churchill called the 'melancholy state' of a prisoner of war was not unique to the 20th Century. Since human beings first took up arms against one another, combatants had captured enemies. Never before, however, had so many prisoners of war been confined in so many places. Barbed-wire enclosures or their equivalents - electrified fences, bamboo stockades, barricades, walls of wood or stone - dotted the globe, from the United States and Canada through England, Italy, Germany and the Soviet Union, and into Asia, Australia, Japan and the islands of the Pacific. In addition to the millions of military captives whom the combatants formally classified as prisoners of war, the vast stretches of barbed wire contained untold numbers of other people - perhaps as many as 20 million. These were civilians who, by reason of their nationality, race, religion or simply their availability for forced labour, were held against their will.
Japan, for example, interned throughout the Pacific and in Asia more than 75,000 American, British, Dutch and other Allied civilians who, as missionaries, business people, diplomats, farmers or colonial administrators, happened to be in the wrong place when war came. Nazi Germany, to keep its war industries running, enslaved some five million labourers from Poland, France and other nations in occupied Europe. Germany also brought together in its infamous concentration camps, and then put to death, more than six million people, mostly Jews. The risks of captivity in wartime had never been greater. Yet, for the first time in history, the treatment of military prisoners was governed - on paper, at least - by an extensive body of international rules embodied in the Geneva Convention. Named for the Swiss city where it was signed in July 1929 by 47 nations - including all World War II belligerents except U.S.S.R. In practice, application of the rules was unpredictable: how a prisoner fared behind wire depended less upon the humanitarian provisions of the Geneva Convention than upon the widely varying customs and attitudes of his captors - and on wartime conditions.
Even when a nation generally adhered to the Convention, a prisoner's welfare might hinge upon the men who happened to be guarding him.