Jump to content

Allied prisoners of war in Japan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Piotrus (talk | contribs) at 02:44, 13 December 2024 (→Remembrance and cultural impact). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Allied prisoners of war in Japan suffered from very harsh conditions. Many died due to disease, malnutrition, overwork, or deliberate murder. Like other Axis Powers and the USSR, Japan significantly ignored provisions of international treaties regarding humane treatment of prisoners.[1]: 4–5  As a result, in the Asian and Pacific theater, the Allies respected the Geneva Convention and treated Japanese prisoners humanly, which was not reciprocated by the Japanese.[1]: 4–5 [2][3]: 237 

Background and history

Main article: Japanese war crimes

Japan ratified the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 which contained provisions regarding humane treatment of prisoners of war[4]. Japan did sign the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War, but did not ratify it.[5]: 184 

Japanese treatment of POWs in WWII was significantly worse (less humane) than their treatment of Russian prisoners it held during the Russo-Japanese War and German prisoners it held during World War I (when it was a member of the Allies/Entente). This has been explained with the changing mindset of the Japanese during that timeframe; in the early 20th century, Japan was more friendly towards the Western culture, and strived to respect Western norms to appear "civilized".[2] By the 1930s Japanese nationalism turned the country much more xenophobic; the Western origin of the laws such as the stipulation of Geneva convention made them unpopular (after the war, many Japanese accused of crims against POWs, including mid-ranking soldiers, claimed they never even heard of the convention[6]: 24 ),[2] the interpretation of Bushido became much more harsh, and the concept of surrender became much more dishonorable (the Senjinkun military code drafted in 1940 and instituted the next year specifically forbade retreat or surrender).[2][7]: 512 : 31–32 [6]: 79  As a result, Japanese saw those who surrendered of them as unworthy of protection; it also reduced the likelihood of its own troops surrendering.[2]

Additionally, by the time it engaged Allied forces, Japanese military was already radicalized by its war in China (the Second Sino-Japanese War that begun in 1937) and accustomed to drastic actions (most infamously, the Nanjing Massacre, where Chinese civilians but also prisoners of war were murdered).[2][8]: 31–32 [7]: 23–24  Beatings were also a common way to enforce discipline in the Japanese Imperial Army, and in POW camps, this meant that prisoners of war received the worst beatings of all, partly in the belief that such punishments were merely the proper technique to deal with disobedience.[7]: 301 [9] Historians have also attributed war crimes to the lack of supervision and disorganization within the military which without stronger control over units and effective court martial procedures allowed for war crimes to go unpunished and therefore continue. The phenomenon of gekokujō which involves lower-ranking officers overthrowing or assassinating their superiors, also allowed for the proliferation of war crimes because if commanders tried to restrict atrocities that served to relieve boredom or stress of the troops, they would either face mutiny or reassignment.[7]: 23–24 [10]

In 1942, General Tojo Hideki (Japanese war minister and premier) stated that Japanese will treat POWs according to its own traditions and customs, effectively distancing Japan from the Western traditions and the Geneva conventions, and specifically encouraging the use of POWs for forced labor (which was forbidden by the Geneva convection). Additionally, in an attempt to deter bombing raids over Japan, Japanese authorities sanctioned the executions of Allied airman shot down over Japan (the Enemy Airmen's Act).[2][11]: 197 

While the states often moderated their treatment of POWs due to fear of retaliation, in the early stages of the war, the number of POWs held by both sides of the Asian and Pacific theater varied drastically: by the end of 1942 Japanese POWs in Allied hands numbered well under a thousand, while there were over 200,000 British Commonwealth and American prisoners in Japanese hands. Further, Japan refused to even publicly acknowledge the fact that any of its soldiers were taken prisoner; in 1943 Japanese Foreign Minister Shigemitsu Mamoru said that "our Army maintains the position that Japanese prisoners of war do not exist."[2]

It was only in August 1945, shortly before the end of the war, as Japanese were preparing for surrender, Japanese government issued instructions calling for better POW treatment.[12]: 189 

Japanese prisoners of war

Main article: Japanese prisoners of war in World War II

Despite Japanese treatment of the Allied prisoners, the Allies respected the international conventions and treated Japanese prisoners in the camps well. However, in some instances, Japanese soldiers were often executed after surrendering (see Allied war crimes).[2]

The situation became somewhat reversed at the end of the war, when large numbers of Japanese troops surrendered to the Allies. S. P. MacKenzie noted that "Food shortages, disease, and a certain amount of vindictive callousness among Allied troops" resulted in thousands of deaths among the Japanese POWs; the situation was much worse for the Japanese prisoners of war in the Soviet Union (approximately half of the 600,000 Japanese troops captured by the Soviets remained "unaccounted" decades after the war).[2]

After the war

Trials

Japanese guilty of war crimes, including atrocities and abuse of prisoners of war, were subject to post-war trials (see International Military Tribunal for the Far East and Yokohama War Crimes Trials for American-led trials; additional trials were held by the British, Australians, Dutch, Chinese and the USSR); most ended by the turn of the decade. Those convicted of crimes against (among others) POWs included high-ranking officers (such as general Tomoyuki Yamashita) to low ranking prison guards and civilians; most trials were of mid-ranking officers). Many defendants were found guilty and executed or sentenced to life.[12]: 180–185, 192–193 

In the context of crimes against POW, an important trial took place in - that of Lieutenant General Tamura Hiroshi, the last (and the only alive at that time) director of the Prisoner of War Information Bureau (POWIB) and Prisoner of War Information Management Office (POWMO), the Japanese government agency charged with providing information on POWs and administering camps. Kovner notes that it was "how prosecutors put the whole POW camp system on trial", however Tamura himself was not responsible for most of the atrocities, had little actual authority to either harm or good for the prisoners, and "was prosecuted for being in the wrong place in a bureaucratic hierarchy". Kovner notes that his trial made ot "clear that high-level officers at the Ministry of War and officials in the powerful Military Affairs Bureau were the ones who set major policies on POWs" and were responsible for the system that abused POWs to a very high degree. In the end, Tamura was found not guilty on most chargers, and sentenced lightly to just eight years of hard labor. Kovner concludes that in the end, the legal system was unable to pin the blame for the POW mistreatment on any person, small group or organization.[12]: 6, 178–179, 188–192 

Japanese themselves tried and punished some lower ranking personel for abuse of POWs during the war,[12]: 4, 188  and on September 20, 1945 established the Investigation Committee on POWs (also known as Central Board of Inquiry on POWs[13]; Furyo kankei chōsa iinkai); their investigation however did not deliver any actionable items and the committee/board was disbanded in 1957.[12]: 178–179 

Remembrance and cultural impact

The harsh treatment of Allied POWs by Japan became infamous in the West and remains widely known (and has led to the enduring creation of the stereotype of the heartless, cruel Japanese[14]: 360 ); it is however still mostly ignored or glossed over in Japan (see also Nanjing Massacre denial and American cover-up of Japanese war crimes).[12]: 2 [6]: xxii, 256–262 

Conditions and mortality rate

Conditions in Japanese POW camps were harsh; prisoners were forced to work, beaten for minor infractions, starved and denied medical treatment.[2] Those who attempted to escape and were captured were executed or tortured (often by Kempeitai, the Japanese military secret police).[2][6]: 24  The brutality of forced labor is exemplified the case of the Burma-Siam railway, where 16,000 out of 40,000 POWs assigned there as the workforce died.[2] Particularly infamous were the atrocities of Unit 731 which tested biological and chemical weapons on POWs[6]: 6  as well as conditions abroad Japanese transport ships known as hell ships (thousands of POWs died during transport on such vessels[12]: 222 ).[15][16][12]: 57  Thousands of POWs perished in death marches (ex. Sandakan Death Marches or the Bataan Death March).[6]: 49–80 [12]: 5 

Nonetheless according to Sarah Kovner, "much of the suffering of Allied POWs and internees resulted from Japanese logistical failures and inadequate planning for camps, not prior intent".[12]: 95  She concludes that in Japan, with regards to Allied prisoners (except the Chinese) "there was no overarching policy or plan to make POWs suffer, or starve them, or work them to death. There was little policy of any kind. POWs were simply not a priority... [most] camps were run by individual officers, and sometimes NCOs, in far-flung locales" and their commanders were given much autonomy; some prisoners experienced very harsh conditions; others were treated reasonably well.[12]: 209–211 

It has also been argued that significant amount of POWs fatalities, perhaps more than half, were the result of friendly fire (sinking of Japanese ships transporting Allied POW, and collateral damage from air raids).[12]: 3, 210  One estimate suggested that 19,000 of the Allied POW fatalities in the Pacific theatre came from friendly fire accidents.[12]: 222  On the other hand, Japanese rescue efforts during such accidents were lackluster; for example, after the sinking of Japanese hell ship Arisan Maru by American submarine,[12]: 91  Japanese ships secured control of the area but rescued only Japanese seamen, ignoring the nearly 2,000 POWs, most of whom perished at sea.[16]: 254–258  While some have accused Japanese Army of purposely exposing POWs to air raids, Kovner notes that the fact that many POW camps were located near the high-priority targets was due to Japanese use of POWs as laborers in those areas; the Japanese administration agreed to relocate some camps away from areas of danger from air rides, but only if it did not affect the use of POWs as laborers.[12]: 155–156 

Japanese captured approximately 350,000 POWs; approximately 132,000 of them came from the Western Allied nations (British Commonwealth, Netherlands and the USA).[6]: 3  27% of them (over 35,500) died before the war ended.[17]: 376  The breakdown by nationality is as follows:

  • Australia: death rate of 34.1% (approximately 7,500 out of 22,000)[6]: 3 
  • Canada: death rate of 16.1% (approximately 270 out of 1,700)[6]: 3 
  • Netherlands: death rate of 22.9% (approximately 8,500 out of 37,000)[6]: 3 
  • New Zealand: death rate of 25.6% (approximately 30 out of 120)[6]: 3 
  • United Kingdom: death rate of 24.8% (approximately 12,500 out of 50,000)[6]: 3 
  • United States: death rate of 32.9% (approximately 7,000 out of 21,000)[6]: 3 

The above estimates have been described as conservative; higher estimates have been offered (for example for the American troops, as high as 40%).[12]: 5 

The treatment of non-Western POWs (Chinese, Indian, Filipino) was generally described as worse; in particular many Chinese POWs were simply executed after capture.[6]: 255–256  Japan also denied POW treatment to Chinese troops as there was no formal declaration of war between Japan and China.[12]: 4, 200, 210–211  The death rate of Chinese prisoners of war were higher than that of Western POWs because[18]—under a directive ratified on 5 August 1937, by Emperor Hirohito—the constraints of international law on treatment of those prisoners was removed.[14]: 359–360  Tens of thousands of Chinese were taken POW every year of the Second Sino-Japanese War; however only 56 Chinese prisoners of war were released after the surrender of Japan.[14]: 360  Christian Gerlach notes that the total number of Chinese POWs who died in Japan custody is not known.[3]: 235 

Indian POWs were initially treated reasonably well, in the spirit of Pan-Asianism and in order to entice them to join the collaborationist Indian National Army.[12]: 11, 43, 51–53, 63 [19] Those who refused were treated harshly like other POWs.[6]: 132–134 [12]: 64, 66, 213 [19] Out of 60,000 Indian POWs captured early in the war, 5,000 died due to poor conditions in Japanese camps.[12]: 66 

The number of Filipino POWs in Japanese custody has been estimated at at least 60,000; at least 5,000 died in the Bataan Death March alone.[12]: 76–77  As many as 26,000 out of 45,000 were estimate to have died in the Camp O'Donnell (a Japanese POW camp in the Philippines).[20] Their death rate in the POW camps was estimated to be even higher than that of American POWs; they were also initially not considered proper POWs.[12]: 77–78 

Following Italian surrender in 1943, a small number of Italian sailors was taken into custody by the Japanese; some were enlisted in the Japanese navy and others interned.[12]: 64, 244 

Japan also held a number of French POWs, when in March 1945 it took over French Indochina.[12]: 169, 200 [21]

Japan also held a number of Soviet prisoners of war. 87 Soviet POWs were released during a prisoner exchange following the 1939 border clashes Khalkhin Gol (at that point, however, USSR was not a WWII participant).[12]: 40 

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Rollings, Charles (2011-08-31). Prisoner Of War: Voices from Behind the Wire in the Second World War. Ebury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4464-9096-9.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m MacKenzie, S. P. (September 1994). "The Treatment of Prisoners of War in World War II". The Journal of Modern History. 66 (3): 487–520. doi:10.1086/244883. ISSN 0022-2801.
  3. ^ a b Gerlach, Christian (2016-03-17). The Extermination of the European Jews. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-88078-7.
  4. ^ Blackburn, Kevin; Hack, Karl, eds. (13 October 2011). Forgotten Captives in Japanese-Occupied Asia (Routledge Studies in the Modern History of Asia). Routledge. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-415-69005-8.
  5. ^ Quinones, C. Kenneth (2021-09-30). Imperial Japan's Allied Prisoners of War in the South Pacific: Surviving Paradise. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5275-7546-2.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Tanaka, Yuki (2017-10-06). Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-5381-0270-1.
  7. ^ a b c d Toland, John (2014-11-26). The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945. Random House Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8041-8095-5.
  8. ^ Borch, Fred (2017). Military Trials of War Criminals in the Netherlands East Indies 1946–1949. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0191082955. Archived from the original on 19 October 2023. Retrieved 19 October 2023.
  9. ^ de Jong, Louis (2002) [2002]. The collapse of a colonial society. The Dutch in Indonesia during the Second World War. Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 206. translation J. Kilian, C. Kist, and J. Rudge, introduction J. Kemperman. Leiden, The Netherlands: KITLV Press. pp. 289, 311, 417. ISBN 90-6718-203-6.
  10. ^ Rigg, Bryan Mark (2024). Japan's Holocaust: History of Imperial Japan's Mass Murder and Rape During World War II. Knox Press. p. 15. ISBN 9781637586884.
  11. ^ Dijk, Boyd van (2022). Preparing for War: The Making of the Geneva Conventions. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-886807-1.
  12. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y Kovner, Sarah (2020-09-15). Prisoners of the Empire: Inside Japanese POW Camps. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-73761-7.
  13. ^ L, Aaron (2009-07-13). "The Battle of Singapore, the Massacre of Chinese and Understanding of the Issue in Postwar Japan". The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus. Retrieved 2024-12-13.
  14. ^ a b c Bix, Herbert P. (2001-09-04). Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan. Harper Collins. ISBN 978-0-06-093130-8.
  15. ^ Cheah, Wui Ling (2010-09-01). "Post-World War II British 'Hell-ship' Trials in Singapore: Omissions and the Attribution of Responsibility". Journal of International Criminal Justice. 8 (4): 1035–1058. doi:10.1093/jicj/mqq049. ISSN 1478-1387.
  16. ^ a b Michno, Gregory F. (2016-07-15). Death on the Hellships: Prisoners at Sea in the Pacific War. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-68247-025-1.
  17. ^ Edele, Mark (2016). "Take (No) Prisoners! The Red Army and German POWs, 1941–1943". The Journal of Modern History. 88 (2): 342–379. doi:10.1086/686155. hdl:11343/238858. JSTOR 26547940.
  18. ^ Akira Fujiwara, Nitchû Sensô ni Okeru Horyo Gyakusatsu, Kikan Sensô Sekinin Kenkyû 9, 1995, p. 22
  19. ^ a b Douds, G.J. (August 2004). "The men who never were: Indian POWs in the Second World War1". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 27 (2): 183–216. doi:10.1080/1479027042000236634. ISSN 0085-6401.
  20. ^ "Andersonville of the Pacific". National Endowment for the Humanities. 2019-07-31. Retrieved 2024-12-12.
  21. ^ Nitz, Kiyoko Kurusu (September 1983). "Japanese Military Policy towards French Indochina during the Second World War: The Road to the Meigo Sakusen (9 March 1945)". Journal of Southeast Asian Studies. 14 (2): 328–350. doi:10.1017/S0022463400011000. ISSN 1474-0680.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_prisoners_of_war_in_Japan&oldid=1262776503"