What If The Geneva Conventions Never Existed?

The Actual History

The Geneva Conventions represent one of humanity's most significant attempts to mitigate the horrors of warfare. Their origins trace back to 1859, when Swiss businessman Henry Dunant witnessed the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino during the Second Italian War of Independence. Shocked by the suffering of wounded soldiers left on the battlefield with minimal medical care, Dunant organized local volunteers to treat the injured regardless of their nationality.

This experience prompted Dunant to write "A Memory of Solferino" (1862), in which he proposed the creation of neutral organizations to provide care to wounded soldiers and the development of international treaties to protect medical personnel on battlefields. His vision led to the establishment of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1863 and the adoption of the first Geneva Convention in 1864.

The 1864 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field was signed by 12 European states. This groundbreaking treaty established that:

Medical facilities and their personnel were to be considered neutral
Wounded and sick soldiers would receive care regardless of nationality
The Red Cross emblem would identify protected medical personnel and facilities

The Geneva Convention was tested during several 19th-century conflicts, including the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871). Though imperfectly implemented, it represented a revolutionary step in humanitarian law.

In the aftermath of World War I's unprecedented destruction, the international community expanded the Geneva Conventions in 1929 to include protections for prisoners of war, establishing standards for their treatment, housing, labor, and legal status.

World War II revealed catastrophic gaps in existing humanitarian law. The Holocaust, systematic civilian targeting, and widespread disregard for established rules of war prompted a comprehensive revision. In 1949, delegates from 64 countries adopted four updated Geneva Conventions that form the cornerstone of international humanitarian law today:

Protections for wounded and sick armed forces in the field
Protections for wounded, sick, and shipwrecked armed forces at sea
Treatment of prisoners of war
Protection of civilian persons during wartime

Three Additional Protocols were later adopted (1977 and 2005) to address changing warfare, including internal conflicts, civil wars, and the recognition of distinctive emblems.

Today, all 196 UN-recognized states have ratified the four 1949 Geneva Conventions, making them universally accepted. While violations continue to occur, the Conventions provide legal standards for prosecution of war crimes and have significantly shaped military training, international diplomacy, and humanitarian intervention. They represent a consensus that even during humanity's darkest moments—armed conflict—certain actions remain fundamentally unacceptable.

The Point of Divergence

What if Henry Dunant had never witnessed the Battle of Solferino in 1859, or having witnessed it, had not been moved to action? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the foundations of modern international humanitarian law were never established.

Several plausible mechanisms could have prevented this watershed development:

First, Dunant's presence at Solferino was a matter of chance—he traveled there hoping to meet with Napoleon III about business difficulties in Algeria. Had his business ventures been more successful, or had he chosen different timing or methods to address his concerns, he might never have witnessed the battlefield's aftermath. Without this transformative experience, Dunant might have remained a conventional businessman rather than becoming the catalyst for international humanitarian law.

Alternatively, even after witnessing the battle, Dunant might have limited his response to immediate humanitarian relief without pursuing the broader vision of establishing permanent organizations and international agreements. Many others had witnessed war's horrors without initiating systemic reforms.

A third possibility involves the international reception of Dunant's ideas. His proposals required support from European governments at a time when concepts of national sovereignty were paramount. Had more states resisted limitations on their conduct of warfare, considering them impractical idealism or unacceptable constraints on military necessity, the 1864 convention might have failed to gain sufficient signatories.

Finally, the timing of Dunant's initiative was significant—occurring during a period of relative peace between major European powers and amid expanding internationalist movements. Different international conditions might have made governments less receptive to humanitarian innovations.

In this alternate timeline, we posit that a combination of these factors—perhaps Dunant pursuing different business arrangements, coupled with greater resistance from military establishments—prevented the formation of both the Red Cross movement and the first Geneva Convention. Without this critical first step, the subsequent development of comprehensive international humanitarian law took a radically different path.

Immediate Aftermath

Wars Without Rules (1860s-1880s)

The immediate consequences of a world without the Geneva Conventions would have been most apparent in the conflicts that followed the 1860s. The American Civil War (1861-1865), which occurred concurrently with Dunant's efforts in our timeline, represented one of the first industrialized wars with devastating casualty rates. Without the emerging international standards inspired by the Geneva Convention, the already high death toll—particularly from disease and infected wounds—would likely have been even greater.

Union physician Dr. Jonathan Letterman's battlefield medicine innovations might still have occurred, but without the international exchange of medical humanitarian practices that the Red Cross movement facilitated. The Lieber Code of 1863, which regulated Union forces' conduct, might have remained an isolated American development rather than part of a broader international conversation about warfare's humanitarian dimensions.

The Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871) would have unfolded with significantly different humanitarian consequences. In our timeline, this was the first major international conflict where both parties were signatories to the Geneva Convention. The war saw the deployment of national Red Cross societies from both France and Germany, with neutrally protected medical personnel treating the wounded of both sides.

Without these protections, military medical personnel would have remained legitimate targets, field hospitals would have received no special protection, and wounded soldiers would have been subject to capture as ordinary prisoners. The death rate from wounds would have increased substantially, and both armies would have faced greater personnel shortages as more wounded soldiers died rather than recovered for potential return to service.

Colonialism Without Constraints (1880s-1914)

The late 19th century's imperial expansion might have proceeded with even fewer humanitarian constraints than in our timeline. While European powers frequently violated humanitarian principles in colonial territories even with the Geneva Convention in place, the absence of any established standards would have further reduced accountability.

The brutal colonial campaigns in Africa, such as those in the Congo Free State under Leopold II of Belgium or the German suppression of the Herero and Namaqua uprising in Southwest Africa, might have faced even less international scrutiny without the framework of humanitarian obligations the Geneva Convention provided. Military practices considered unacceptable against "civilized" opponents might have become more extensively normalized in colonial warfare.

Military medical services would likely have developed differently as well. Without the standardization and professionalization encouraged by the Red Cross movement and Geneva Convention, military medicine might have remained more fragmented and nationally specific, with slower diffusion of innovations and best practices across borders.

World War I: Catastrophe Without Limits (1914-1918)

World War I would have represented a humanitarian catastrophe of even greater proportions without the Geneva Conventions. The Second Geneva Convention of 1906, which expanded protections for the naval wounded, and the Hague Conventions inspired by the Geneva precedent, provided at least minimal protections during the conflict.

Several specific consequences would likely have emerged:

Treatment of POWs: Without the rules for prisoner treatment established in the Hague Conventions (which built upon Geneva principles), the approximately 8 million prisoners of World War I would have faced completely arbitrary conditions based solely on their captors' discretion. Mortality rates in camps, already high in places like Russia where an estimated 60% of Austrian-Hungarian POWs died, would have been catastrophically higher across all combatant nations.
Medical Neutrality: Military medical personnel, who received protected status under the Geneva Convention, would have been legitimate military targets. Ambulances, field hospitals, and hospital ships would have operated without special protection, likely resulting in direct targeting as military assets. The distinctive Red Cross emblem, which helped identify protected medical facilities, would never have existed.
Chemical Warfare: While the Hague Conventions' prohibition on chemical weapons proved ineffective at preventing their use, it did create an international framework for condemning them. Without this precedent inspired by Geneva, the hesitancy to employ chemical weapons might have been lower, possibly leading to their earlier and more extensive deployment.

Perhaps most significantly, the absence of even imperfect humanitarian standards would have normalized increasingly extreme conduct in warfare. The international community would have lacked an established vocabulary and framework for identifying and condemning atrocities, potentially allowing greater escalation of brutality without diplomatic consequences.

Long-term Impact

Interwar Period: Failed Reforms (1918-1939)

Following World War I's unprecedented destruction, the international community would still have recognized the need for humanitarian regulations in warfare. However, without the established Geneva framework to build upon, these efforts would have started from a much weaker position.

The League of Nations, created in 1919, might have attempted to establish humanitarian laws as part of its mandate to prevent future conflicts. However, several factors would have complicated these efforts:

Lack of Precedent: Without the 1864 and 1906 Geneva Conventions and their implementation history, diplomats would have lacked proven models to follow.
Greater Sovereignty Concerns: Nations would likely have been more resistant to accepting limitations on warfare conduct without the gradual normalization process that occurred through the earlier Geneva Conventions.
Fragmented Approach: Rather than building on an existing framework, nations might have developed competing and potentially incompatible standards, creating a patchwork of bilateral or limited multilateral agreements.

In our timeline, the 1929 Geneva Convention significantly expanded protections for prisoners of war. Without this development, the foundations for POW protection would have remained dangerously underdeveloped heading into World War II.

Humanitarian organizations would have evolved along different lines as well. Without Henry Dunant's vision and the ICRC's foundation, humanitarian relief might have remained more nationally oriented rather than embracing international neutrality. Organizations similar to today's Médecins Sans Frontières or Oxfam might eventually have emerged, but they would have operated without the established legal principles and protected status that the Geneva Conventions provided.

World War II: Unconstrained Horror (1939-1945)

World War II, already a humanitarian catastrophe of unprecedented scale, would have unfolded with even fewer constraints in this alternate timeline. Several specific areas would have seen dramatically different outcomes:

Treatment of Prisoners of War

In our timeline, the 1929 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War provided some protection for captured soldiers, particularly on the Western Front. While Germany generally observed these rules with Western Allied prisoners, they systematically violated them regarding Soviet prisoners (as the USSR had not ratified the 1929 Convention).

Without any established international standards:

Western Allied POWs would likely have faced conditions closer to those experienced by Soviet prisoners in our timeline, with dramatically higher mortality rates.
Japan, which disregarded many Geneva provisions in our timeline, would have operated with even greater impunity in their treatment of Allied prisoners.
The mortality rate among the approximately 35 million military prisoners taken during the war would have been substantially higher.

Civilian Protection

The absence of even the conceptual framework provided by the earlier Geneva Conventions would have further reduced the already limited protections for civilians:

Occupation Policies: German occupation in Western Europe, which maintained some restraint due to international law considerations, might have more closely resembled the brutality seen in Eastern Europe.
Medical Care: Civilian hospitals would have lacked protected status, likely resulting in more frequent targeting during strategic bombing campaigns.
Humanitarian Relief: Without established principles for civilian relief, blockades would have been even more comprehensive, potentially causing greater civilian starvation in places like occupied Greece or the Netherlands.

The Holocaust and other genocidal campaigns might have proceeded along similar lines, as these already operated outside any pretense of legal compliance. However, the absence of humanitarian law would have further normalized extreme brutality in warfare, potentially raising the threshold for international outrage and resistance.

Post-War Order: Alternative Frameworks (1945-1975)

The post-war establishment of international humanitarian law would have taken dramatically different forms without the Geneva Conventions as a foundation:

United Nations Humanitarian Law

Rather than updating existing Geneva Conventions, as occurred in 1949, the United Nations might have attempted to create humanitarian law frameworks from scratch. These efforts would likely have faced greater challenges:

Cold War Divisions: The ideological divide between Western and Soviet blocs would have complicated consensus-building on humanitarian standards.
Sovereignty Concerns: Without the gradual historical process that normalized humanitarian constraints, nations would likely have been more resistant to accepting limitations on warfare.
Enforcement Mechanisms: The development of war crimes jurisprudence, building on precedents like the Nuremberg Trials, would have lacked the clear standards provided by Geneva Convention violations.

The eventual humanitarian frameworks might have emerged as more regionally fragmented, with NATO countries, Warsaw Pact nations, and non-aligned states potentially developing separate and potentially incompatible standards rather than a universal system.

Modern Warfare Development

Military doctrine would have evolved differently without Geneva restrictions:

Chemical and Biological Weapons: These might have remained more integrated into conventional military planning rather than being relegated to specialized deterrence roles.
Civilian Targeting: The distinction between combatants and non-combatants might have remained more ambiguous in military doctrine.
Medical Services: Military medical corps would have maintained combatant status, likely resulting in different organizational structures and operational procedures.

The Korean and Vietnam Wars, already sites of significant humanitarian violations, would have occurred without even the imperfect protections that the 1949 Geneva Conventions provided. The international discussion of controversial tactics like strategic bombing, napalm use, and population displacement would have lacked the legal framework that Geneva provided for evaluating their legitimacy.

Contemporary Era: A Different Humanitarian Landscape (1975-2025)

By the present day, the absence of the Geneva Conventions would have profoundly shaped international humanitarian action and discourse:

Alternative Legal Developments

Rather than building on the Geneva framework, international humanitarian law might have developed through different pathways:

Human Rights Approach: The international human rights movement, which gained momentum after the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, might have expanded to encompass wartime protections, creating a more unified but less specialized legal framework.
Customary Law Emphasis: Without codified conventions, greater emphasis might have been placed on customary international law, with practices gradually gaining normative force through consistent state behavior rather than formal agreements.
Regional Systems: Regional organizations like the European Union, African Union, or Organization of American States might have developed their own humanitarian frameworks, leading to geographically fragmented standards.

Humanitarian Organizations

The landscape of humanitarian organizations would be dramatically different:

The International Committee of the Red Cross, which exists specifically to uphold the Geneva Conventions, would never have been formed.
Organizations focused on battlefield medicine and prisoner welfare might have developed later and with more national affiliations rather than embracing neutrality.
Military medical services would remain more integrated with combat operations rather than maintaining the protected, neutral status established under Geneva.

Contemporary Conflicts

Modern conflicts from the Yugoslav Wars to Syria, Afghanistan, and Ukraine would unfold with different humanitarian dimensions:

Non-State Actors: Armed groups like ISIS, Taliban, or various rebel movements would have even fewer clear obligations regarding treatment of captives or civilians.
Urban Warfare: Contemporary urban conflicts might employ tactics currently prohibited, such as false use of medical emblems or designating military assets as medical facilities.
Accountability Mechanisms: The International Criminal Court and war crimes tribunals would operate with different legal frameworks, potentially making prosecution of atrocities more challenging.

By 2025, civilian populations in conflict zones would likely face greater dangers, medical neutrality would be a less established concept, and international humanitarian standards would be more fragmented and less universally accepted. The fundamental principle that emerged from Geneva—that even in warfare, certain actions remain impermissible—would exist in a weaker, less codified form, dependent more on regional power dynamics than universal humanitarian values.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Eleanor Westbrook, Professor of International Humanitarian Law at Oxford University, offers this perspective: "The absence of the Geneva Conventions would have created a fundamentally different relationship between warfare and humanitarian principles. Without Dunant's initiative and the subsequent normative development, we might still have eventually developed some humanitarian constraints on warfare, but they would likely have emerged much later and in more fragmented form. The post-World War II human rights movement might have attempted to fill this gap, but it would have lacked the specialized focus on armed conflict that characterizes the Geneva tradition. Most critically, the absence of consistent standards across different types of conflicts would have created a much more arbitrary humanitarian landscape, where protection depended more on political calculations than established legal principles."

General Jonathan Kearney (Ret.), former military legal advisor and current fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, suggests: "Military operations would have developed along substantially different lines without the Geneva Conventions. The protected status of medical personnel fundamentally shapes battlefield medicine and casualty evacuation procedures. Without these protections, military medical services would remain combat elements, dramatically altering their organization and deployment. Training would emphasize tactical integration over humanitarian distinction. While professional militaries would still likely develop internal rules of engagement regarding civilian protection and prisoner treatment for operational effectiveness, these would remain discretionary and variable rather than legally mandated. The result would be increased civilian casualties, higher combatant death rates from treatable wounds, and greater challenges in post-conflict reconciliation—all ultimately undermining military objectives themselves."

Dr. Amina Okafor, Senior Researcher at the Global Humanitarian Studies Center, contextualizes the broader implications: "The history of humanitarian progress without Geneva would not be one of complete absence, but of delayed, uneven development. Local humanitarian traditions exist across cultures independent of Geneva. What would be missing is the universal framework that allows these traditions to communicate across cultural and ideological divides. I suspect we would see stronger regional humanitarian frameworks—perhaps an Islamic humanitarian tradition, an African Union standard, Western protocols—with points of both convergence and conflict. This fragmentation would create protection gaps for vulnerable populations caught between different systems. The fundamental principle that even enemies deserve certain protections might still exist, but in a more qualified, contingent form that offers less predictable protection in actual conflicts."