It wasn’t just being evil. The United States government was aware of conditions in the Confederate POW camps. They told the Confederates to improve conditions or they would begin applying similar conditions in Union POW camps. The Confederates didn’t want to admit that the conditions were being caused by a general food shortage in the south because of the propaganda effects. So they basically ignored the Union message. The United States followed through and lowered the rations it was giving POWs to the Confederate level.
The fall of Bataan. The Japanese planned to imprison the surrendered USAFE in the peninsula area but their estimated number of POWs was off by at least sixty thousand. There might be some revisionist work here but they had to march eighty thousand prisoners through two provinces to the nearest train rail in Tarlac to transport them through another two provinces to a big enough camp in La Union. Around fifteen thousand died during the “death march.”
Has anyone else ever heard the expression:
“Take no prisoners”?
Sea pirates were famous for that approach - the skull and crossbones wasn’t just a decoration - it was a statement of policy.
Yes, but this thread question is asked in the context of the Geneva Conventions.
No, the OP asked about what happens when the Geneva Convention cannot be followed.
There is a very simple solution - if you don’t take prisoners, you don’t need to worry about their care.
And a few more bodies just might not be noticed.
When Union forces lost at the battle of Fort Pillow on April 12, 1864, the Confederates killed the black Union soldiers rather than take them prisoner. Lincoln demanded that black soldiers be given the same treatment as white soldiers. Jefferson Davis refused to agree to this, so Lincoln and Grant responded by suspending the prisoner exchange program.
Paroling prisoners was a historical practice that had pretty much ended by the time the 20th century rolled around; as JerrySTL noted US military personnel are forbidden from accepting parole from their captors under the Code of Conduct of the United States Armed Forces.
I take it you are unfamiliar with the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II, 1899) Article 23:
Sea pirates are criminals, not militaries.
For the US Civil War, as mentioned, the refusal of the CSA to treat black Union soldiers as POWs played a large part in the ending of the prisoner exchange.
Another factor was that a lot of CSA soldiers, after being returned/paroled took up arms again. My own great-great-grandfather did this after being captured and paroled at Vicksburg. Showed up on a related unit’s roster just a couple months later.
Several times during WWII, the Japanese in remote areas couldn’t care for themselves, let alone Allied prisoners. In extreme cases, the Japanese resorted to cannibalism. Most often, they just shot them, starved them, put them on death boats, etc.
The Germans, in the last stages of WWII, forced marched Allied POWs away from the nearing front lines. A lot of guys died due to the lack of everything: food, shelter, medical care, etc. My uncle barely made it thru his. (And he has lived a long life since. But it’s almost to the end now.:()
When the situation is extra crappy, even by wartime standards, POWs are rarely treated well.