# POWs & the Geneva Convention **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 29, 2000, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pows-the-geneva-convention/6764 "2000-01-29T20:13:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![warinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8edcca/32.png) [@warinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/warinner)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2000, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pows-the-geneva-convention/6764/21 "2000-02-03T03:29:00Z")
KeithB wrote: > [@](#): > > I just learned something interesting the other day: According to Richard Rhodes in “The Making of the Atomic Bomb”, the US had _not_ signed the Geneva Convention. Hold on there, son. I think you got got your Geneva Conventions mixed up. There’s more one: [Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating Gas, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare 8 February 1928](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva01.htm) [Convention Between the United States of America and Other Powers, Relating to Prisoners of War; July 27, 1929](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva02.htm) [quote] Because of this thought was given to cleaning out Iwo Jima with poison gas. The U.S., Britain, Germany, USSR and Japan all had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and plans to use them. Deterrents don’t deter if you can’t use the weapons. Japan alone made limited use of chemical and biological weapons during WWII. > [@](#): > > Only the thought of how Germany was excoriated because it used gas first in WWI kept Roosevelt from doing it. Nope, Roosevelt made public statements that chemical weapons would only be used in retaliation. In other words, no first use. And deterrence surely played a role. > [@](#): > > So we were under no treaty bounds to treat prisoners in any way. Nope, you’re confusing the Hague Conventions, which the U.S. was a party to, and the [Geneva"][http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva02.htm](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva02.htm)]Geneva]( [url=“[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva02.htm](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva02.htm)) POW Convention, which the U.S. Senate didn’t get around to ratifying until 1982. The [Hague”][http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm)]Hague]( [url="[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm)) Convention IV’s Chapter II covered many aspects of the treatment of POWs. The Geneva POW Convention elaborated on the Hague IV Convention rules. Andrew Warinner ---
**Author:** ![KeithB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/48db29/32.png) [@KeithB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KeithB)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2000, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pows-the-geneva-convention/6764/22 "2000-02-03T16:38:00Z")
Thanks for clearing that up about the two conventions. Does that mean that the US _had_ signed the POW one but _not_ the “weapons of mass destruction” one? (Rhodes does indicate that it was the poison gas one that was not signed.) In “The Making of the Atomic Bomb” Rhodes makes it clear that the military proposed using the gas but that Roosevelt “curtly vetoed it.” He uses Richard Wheeler’s “Iwo” as a source. Hmm, I wonder what Truman would have done? ---
**Author:** ![warinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8edcca/32.png) [@warinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/warinner)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2000, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pows-the-geneva-convention/6764/23 "2000-02-03T17:35:00Z")
KeithB wrote: [/quote] Does that mean that the US _had_ signed the POW one but _not_ the “weapons of mass destruction” one? (Rhodes does indicate that it was the poison gas one that was not signed.) [/quote] I dunno. The U.S. instigated the Geneva POW convention, so presumably it was signed by the U.S. Of course, the Senate did not ratify it until 1982, so it didn’t have force of U.S. law, but the U.S. certainly honored it in practice. As for the gas/biological agent protocol, it really just a re-declaration of the earlier Hague declaration, saying the signatories have foresworn the use of chemical weapons. The earlier Hague proclamation was just that, a proclamation, not a convention or internal law. I dunno if it required Senate ratification. > [@](#): > > In “The Making of the Atomic Bomb” Rhodes makes it clear that the military proposed using the gas but that Roosevelt “curtly vetoed it.” He uses Richard Wheeler’s “Iwo” as a source. > > Hmm, I wonder what Truman would have done? Indeed, George Marshall was still advocating the use of chemical weapons in May 1945 after the invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa but his arguments don’t seem to have been accepted or seriously debated by either the JCS or Truman. By this point in the war Marshall was very, very concerned about the prospects and costs of an invasion of Japan and was looking for ways to end the war quickly. Thomas Allen and Norman Polmar in ‘Code-Name Downfall’ argue that Truman might have approved the use of chemical and biological weapons had the work of Japan’s Unit 731 been discovered. On the other hand, Truman did fight in WWI and surely was aware of the horrible effects of chemical weapons and that perhaps might have led him to veto their use. Andrew Warinner [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pows-the-geneva-convention/6764.md?page=1)