(Author: Belinda Sussman, Vol. 81, #2, Spring-Summer 2026)
Earlier this year, a significant archival project was undertaken by the South African Board of Jewish Deputies in partnership with Yad Vashem. Its ongoing aim is to catalogue and digitize portions of the Board’s archives relating to the South African Jewish community’s involvement in the Second World War and the Holocaust, as well as antisemitism in South Africa before, during and after the war. I am privileged to have been part of the team working on this initiative. It has afforded me access to a remarkable and deeply revealing collection of documents – an archival treasure trove that offers profound insight into a defining and devastating period of history.
From time to time, I encounter documents that inspire deeper reflection and further research, often leading to unexpected and informative insights. A collection of Second World War prisoner-of-war (POW) statements that I recently came across has done precisely that.
During the war, many millions of soldiers became prisoners of war. Determining exact figures is nearly impossible due to incomplete and inconsistent records, although the Germans alone are reported to have captured between seven and eight million individuals. War captivity was therefore a prevalent experience, and numerous memoirs and historical studies have explored it, whether through national perspectives or personal accounts.
While the treatment of POWs by Germany varied depending on time and place, it is generally well documented that Western Allied prisoners – primarily British, American and French – were treated comparatively well, and that the majority survived. This stands in stark contrast to the experience of Eastern POWs, particularly Soviet soldiers, who were subjected to brutal conditions and suffered extraordinarily high mortality rates.
But what of Jewish POWs? This question leads to a less examined and more complex dimension of the POW experience. How were they treated when captured by Nazi Germany?
While I had come across isolated references, including accounts of Jewish soldiers changing their surnames before joining the Royal Air Force to avoid identification as Jewish if captured, I had not seen any detailed discussion of the treatment of Jewish POWs. This is despite the fact that the number of Western Jewish POWs, while uncertain, was far from insignificant. Their relative absence from mainstream historical narratives perhaps explains this gap in awareness.
Reading through statement after statement in the Board’s archives, a striking pattern emerges. South African Jewish POWs, serving as part of British forces at the time, generally reported that they were not singled out for discriminatory or abusive treatment because of their religion. While their experience of captivity was undoubtedly difficult, it differed profoundly from that of Jewish civilians under Nazi rule.
This reveals a stark and deeply unsettling reality: Jewish soldiers captured as POWs were, in many cases, spared the fate that befell millions of Jewish civilians across Europe. Although detailed accounts of their day-to-day lives in captivity remain limited, available evidence indeed suggests that Western Jewish POWs were not subjected to the systematic violence inflicted on Jewish populations in Germany and occupied territories. This distinction is both unexpected and significant.
The Experiences of Jewish POWs
The archival statements provide further insight into how Jewish POWs navigated captivity. Upon capture, prisoners were typically required to complete forms indicating their nationality and religion. Responses varied widely. Some concealed their Jewish identity, fearing persecution; others disclosed it, either on principle or because they believed concealment would be ineffective. In some cases, individuals felt that withholding such information would undermine their standing among fellow prisoners.
As one statement records: “Many of the Jewish lads disclosed their faith because they would ‘lose face’ in the eyes of the non-Jews if they withheld this information.”
Experiences in captivity were not uniform. As with POWs generally, conditions depended on factors such as rank, camp location, administrative leadership, and the nature of assigned work. In certain camps, Jewish prisoners were segregated. However, even in these circumstances, accounts often emphasize the absence of overt antisemitic mistreatment. One statement recounts, “The Camp Commandant called us into his office and explained to us that we had been sent to his camp because we were Jews, but that, provided we complied with the regulations and made no trouble, we would be treated exactly the same as other British prisoners.”
Other testimonies suggest that while conditions for Jewish POWs could sometimes be more difficult than for their non-Jewish counterparts, the threat to their lives remained relatively low, broadly consistent with the experience of Western POWs generally.
Explaining the Protection of Western Jewish POWs
The relative protection of Western Jewish POWs raises a compelling historical question: How was it possible that Jewish soldiers held by Nazi Germany were treated largely in accordance with the conventional rules of war, while at the same time Jewish civilians across Europe were being subjected to systematic persecution and murder?
No single explanation fully accounts for this phenomenon, but several contributing factors can be identified.
International Law and the Geneva Convention
Germany’s treatment of Western POWs is generally regarded as largely compliant with the Geneva Convention, notwithstanding certain breaches. This compliance was selective and it did not extend to Soviet prisoners, who were treated with extreme brutality. Nevertheless, even partial adherence to international legal norms appears to have afforded a degree of protection to Western POWs, including Jewish prisoners.
Visibility and Lack of Secrecy
POWs were officially registered and their status communicated to protecting powers. This administrative transparency made it difficult to conceal their existence or fate. In contrast to the secrecy surrounding the “Final Solution”, any disappearance of registered Western prisoners would likely have attracted international scrutiny and diplomatic consequences.
Camp Administration and Personnel
The administration of POW camps generally fell under the Wehrmacht rather than the SS. Many camp guards were older soldiers or individuals considered less politically reliable. As one archival statement notes: “The guards at the camp were elderly men and although pro-German, were definitely anti-Nazi, nor did they conceal their views.” While antisemitic attitudes were not absent, the personnel in these camps were thus not typically those directly involved in implementing policies of mass persecution and murder.
War Conduct and Military Culture
Warfare has long been shaped, at least in part, by informal codes of conduct between combatants, an understanding that could extend a degree of respect even to a defeated enemy. Such honour-based norms have coexisted with acts of extreme violence throughout history, without necessarily being seen as contradictory. Within this framework, Western POWs were regarded as members of recognised military forces and were, in many instances, treated in a manner consistent with that status. Historical accounts suggest that certain groups, particularly American air force officers, were afforded a higher degree of respect and were often among the most privileged prisoners within the camp hierarchy. More broadly, the treatment of British and American POWs was, in some cases, comparatively favourable to such an extent that it generated resentment among the German civilian population, which itself faced significant shortages of food and medical supplies during the war.
In effect, Western military personnel were often afforded a level of consideration that stood in marked contrast to the treatment of civilians, including German civilians.
Reprisals and Reciprocity
Some historical literature suggests that concern over possible reprisals and reciprocity may have influenced Germany’s treatment of Western POWs, including Jewish prisoners. This explanation, however, appears limited.
Prisoner exchanges were relatively rare during the war, limiting the explanatory power of this factor. The Nazi leadership also demonstrated a willingness to expose German soldiers held abroad to considerable risk, as illustrated by the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war. This suggests that fear of reprisals and reciprocal action was unlikely to have been a decisive factor in shaping policy toward Western POWs.
Perceptions of the War
Some archival statements reveal that, even late in the war, certain German personnel believed in the possibility of alignment between Germany and Western powers against the Soviet Union. Such perceptions reflect the extent of wartime propaganda and may have contributed, indirectly, to differential treatment of Western prisoners.
Conclusion
While conditions varied, it is clear that origin and classification, particularly the distinction between Western and Eastern fronts, played a decisive role in determining the treatment of prisoners. Other contextual factors, including camp leadership and administrative practices, further shaped individual experiences.
It is often assumed that the Nazi regime’s commitment to the persecution and destruction of European Jewry operated without exception. However, the treatment of Western Jewish POWs complicates this understanding. The most striking fact remains this: a number of Jewish soldiers survived the war precisely because they were captured as prisoners of war, while millions of Jewish civilians were systematically murdered. The experiences of Jewish POWs highlight the complexity and inconsistency of Nazi policy, in which ideology, legal frameworks, military culture and circumstance intersected in often contradictory ways.
- Belinda Sussman is a Chartered Accountant by profession and a part-time researcher at the Yad Vashem project at the SA Jewish Board of Deputies
