Discussion:
Bataan Death March
(too old to reply)
news
2013-09-05 04:08:09 UTC
Permalink
considering the disdain the Japanese had for soldiers who surrendered
(and the fact that they were ordered to kill survivors in the event of
the possibility of re-capture) why did the Japanese collect and
maintain, however poorly, POWs in the Philippines?
Don Phillipson
2013-09-05 14:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by news
considering the disdain the Japanese had for soldiers who surrendered
(and the fact that they were ordered to kill survivors in the event of
the possibility of re-capture) why did the Japanese collect and
maintain, however poorly, POWs in the Philippines?
Readers may get the impression the OP has not thought this
through. After victory, enemy combatants should be presumably
disarmed (disabled from further combat) and the victor might
either to kill them (which costs resources), or herd them
until they die of starvation (which costs no resources), or
exploit their labour. #3 may be the most advantageous, but
requires a prior investment of resources (to cage and maintain PoWs.)
These material calculations may outweigh "disdain" etc.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
news
2013-09-05 18:16:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by news
considering the disdain the Japanese had for soldiers who surrendered
(and the fact that they were ordered to kill survivors in the event of
the possibility of re-capture) why did the Japanese collect and
maintain, however poorly, POWs in the Philippines?
Readers may get the impression the OP has not thought this
through. After victory, enemy combatants should be presumably
disarmed (disabled from further combat) and the victor might
either to kill them (which costs resources), or herd them
until they die of starvation (which costs no resources), or
exploit their labour. #3 may be the most advantageous, but
requires a prior investment of resources (to cage and maintain PoWs.)
These material calculations may outweigh "disdain" etc.
what labour did they perform in the Philippines?
Don Phillipson
2013-09-06 14:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by news
Post by news
why did the Japanese collect and
maintain, however poorly, POWs in the Philippines?
what labour did they perform in the Philippines?
US PoWs captured by Japan in the Phillipines were
mostly transported to Japan, where they were housed in
derelict factories and port warehouses, and obliged to
labour in mines, dockyards etc. Japan maintained in
the Phillipines only camps for Filipino PoWs and civilian
detainees (including American wives and children.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Mario
2013-09-06 15:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by news
Post by news
why did the Japanese collect and
maintain, however poorly, POWs in the Philippines?
what labour did they perform in the Philippines?
US PoWs captured by Japan in the Phillipines were
mostly transported to Japan, where they were housed in
derelict factories and port warehouses, and obliged to
labour in mines, dockyards etc.
IIRC all POWs in WW2 in all nations, except officers, were
supposed to work.
--
_____
/ o o \
\o_o_o/
Michele
2013-09-06 17:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by news
Post by news
why did the Japanese collect and
maintain, however poorly, POWs in the Philippines?
what labour did they perform in the Philippines?
US PoWs captured by Japan in the Phillipines were
mostly transported to Japan, where they were housed in
derelict factories and port warehouses, and obliged to
labour in mines, dockyards etc.
IIRC all POWs in WW2 in all nations, except officers, were
supposed to work.
The "except officers" condition comes from Geneva Convention III 1929, and
if you look that up, you'll find there were other conditions, too: Section
III. Chiefly, they had to be treated exactly as nationals of the detaining
power, including pay; they couldn't be forced to carry out work of military
nature; their health and well-being had to be safeguarded.
The Japanese did not comply.
m***@netMAPSONscape.net
2013-09-06 23:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michele
Post by Mario
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by news
Post by news
why did the Japanese collect and
maintain, however poorly, POWs in the Philippines?
what labour did they perform in the Philippines?
US PoWs captured by Japan in the Phillipines were
mostly transported to Japan, where they were housed in
derelict factories and port warehouses, and obliged to
labour in mines, dockyards etc.
IIRC all POWs in WW2 in all nations, except officers, were
supposed to work.
The "except officers" condition comes from Geneva Convention III 1929, and
if you look that up, you'll find there were other conditions, too: Section
III. Chiefly, they had to be treated exactly as nationals of the detaining
power, including pay; they couldn't be forced to carry out work of military
nature; their health and well-being had to be safeguarded.
The Japanese did not comply.
In some camps, an attempt was made to at least feed the prisoners the same
rations as the Japanese. As the Japanese never made logistics a priority
during the war (often telling their troops to "provision locally"), this
was not a very good portion of food. I believe the newer conventions attempt
to address this by specifying at least a more rational minimum of food for the
PoWs.

Mike
Mario
2013-09-08 17:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michele
Post by Mario
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by news
Post by news
why did the Japanese collect and
maintain, however poorly, POWs in the Philippines?
what labour did they perform in the Philippines?
US PoWs captured by Japan in the Phillipines were
mostly transported to Japan, where they were housed in
derelict factories and port warehouses, and obliged to
labour in mines, dockyards etc.
IIRC all POWs in WW2 in all nations, except officers, were
supposed to work.
The "except officers" condition comes from Geneva Convention
III 1929, and if you look that up, you'll find there were
other conditions, too: Section III.
No objection.
Don wrote that POWs were "obliged to labour" and I wrote that
that was not illegal.
Post by Michele
Chiefly, they had to be
treated exactly as nationals of the detaining power, including
pay; they couldn't be forced to carry out work of military
nature; their health and well-being had to be safeguarded.
Did every nation complied with the first point (pay)?

The second point is not clear. What is "military nature"?
Post by Michele
The Japanese did not comply.
No objection, but Don didn't write clearly anything on that.



Anyway, on certain cases a nation can also declare their
prisoners as "Disarmed Enemy Forces" or "Surrendered Enemy
Personnel"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmed_Enemy_Forces
--
_____
/ o o \
\o_o_o/
Michele
2013-09-09 14:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario
The second point is not clear. What is "military nature"?
The Convention is online, readily available, and I quoted to you the
relevant section. Anyway here it goes:

ARTICLE 31.
Labor furnished by prisoners of war shall have no direct relation with war
operations. It is especially prohibited to use prisoners for manufacturing
and transporting arms or munitions of any kind or for transporting material
intended for combatant units.
In case of violation of the provisions of the preceding paragraph,
prisoners, after executing or beginning to execute the order, shall be free
to have their protests presented through the mediation of the agents whose
functions are set forth in Articles 43 and 44, or, in the absence of an
agent, through the mediation of representatives of the protecting Power.
Post by Mario
Anyway, on certain cases a nation can also declare their
prisoners as "Disarmed Enemy Forces" or "Surrendered Enemy
Personnel"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmed_Enemy_Forces
Which is certainly legal acrobatics, but at least the Allies had a
springboard for that, i.e. the fact that the German government had ceased to
exist and the new government of Germany was, well, the Allied military
government. This is irrelevant to the situation of the Allied POWs in
Japanese camps, anyway.
Mario
2013-09-09 20:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michele
Post by Mario
The second point is not clear. What is "military nature"?
The Convention is online, readily available, and I quoted to
ARTICLE 31.
Labor furnished by prisoners of war shall have no direct
relation with war operations. It is especially prohibited to
use prisoners for manufacturing and transporting arms or
munitions of any kind or for transporting material intended
for combatant units. In case of violation of the provisions of
the preceding paragraph, prisoners, after executing or
beginning to execute the order, shall be free to have their
protests presented through the mediation of the agents whose
functions are set forth in Articles 43 and 44, or, in the
absence of an agent, through the mediation of representatives
of the protecting Power.
TYVM
Post by Michele
Post by Mario
Anyway, on certain cases a nation can also declare their
prisoners as "Disarmed Enemy Forces" or "Surrendered Enemy
Personnel"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmed_Enemy_Forces
Which is certainly legal acrobatics, but at least the Allies
had a springboard for that, i.e. the fact that the German
government had ceased to exist and the new government of
Germany was, well, the Allied military government.
So, if the AMG was de iure and de facto the working German
govt., its duty was to obtain a proper treatment for the
prisoners from... itself... from the powers that formed it.
:-)
Post by Michele
This is irrelevant to the situation of the Allied POWs in
Japanese camps, anyway.
+
--
_____
/ o o \
\o_o_o/
Michele
2013-09-10 14:26:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario
Post by Michele
Post by Mario
Anyway, on certain cases a nation can also declare their
prisoners as "Disarmed Enemy Forces" or "Surrendered Enemy
Personnel"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmed_Enemy_Forces
Which is certainly legal acrobatics, but at least the Allies
had a springboard for that, i.e. the fact that the German
government had ceased to exist and the new government of
Germany was, well, the Allied military government.
So, if the AMG was de iure and de facto the working German
govt., its duty was to obtain a proper treatment for the
prisoners from... itself... from the powers that formed it.
:-)
Uh, no. They were no longer prisoners of war. The war was over. It is not
unlike just about any government that detains administratively certain
persons out of public order considerations. It's not particularly respectful
of human rights, of course.
news
2013-09-06 20:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by news
Post by news
why did the Japanese collect and
maintain, however poorly, POWs in the Philippines?
what labour did they perform in the Philippines?
US PoWs captured by Japan in the Phillipines were
mostly transported to Japan, where they were housed in
derelict factories and port warehouses, and obliged to
labour in mines, dockyards etc. Japan maintained in
the Phillipines only camps for Filipino PoWs and civilian
detainees (including American wives and children.)
what work did the Cabanatuan City POWs perform?
Don Phillipson
2013-09-07 19:12:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by news
Post by Don Phillipson
US PoWs captured by Japan in the Phillipines were
mostly transported to Japan, where they were housed in
derelict factories and port warehouses, and obliged to
labour in mines, dockyards etc. Japan maintained in
the Phillipines only camps for Filipino PoWs and civilian
detainees (including American wives and children.)
what work did the Cabanatuan City POWs perform?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_at_Cabanatuan suggests:
"able-bodied soldiers were shipped to other areas in the Philippines,
Japan, Formosa, and Manchuria to work in slave labor camps . . .
POWs transported out of the camp were forced to work in factories
to build Japanese weaponry, unload ships, and repair airfields. . . .
over 1,600 soldiers were removed in October 1944, leaving over
500 sick, weak, or disabled POWs" before the liberation raid (Jan. 1945.)

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
news
2013-09-08 03:42:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by news
Post by Don Phillipson
US PoWs captured by Japan in the Phillipines were
mostly transported to Japan, where they were housed in
derelict factories and port warehouses, and obliged to
labour in mines, dockyards etc. Japan maintained in
the Phillipines only camps for Filipino PoWs and civilian
detainees (including American wives and children.)
what work did the Cabanatuan City POWs perform?
"able-bodied soldiers were shipped to other areas in the Philippines,
Japan, Formosa, and Manchuria to work in slave labor camps . . .
POWs transported out of the camp were forced to work in factories
to build Japanese weaponry, unload ships, and repair airfields. . . .
over 1,600 soldiers were removed in October 1944, leaving over
500 sick, weak, or disabled POWs" before the liberation raid (Jan. 1945.)
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
yes I know, but why wait until October 1944 to remove 1600 POWs and why
leave the 500 sick, weak, or disabled POWs?
Don Phillipson
2013-09-08 17:06:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by news
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by news
what work did the Cabanatuan City POWs perform?
"able-bodied soldiers were shipped to other areas in the Philippines,
Japan, Formosa, and Manchuria to work in slave labor camps . . .
POWs transported out of the camp were forced to work in factories
to build Japanese weaponry, unload ships, and repair airfields. . . .
over 1,600 soldiers were removed in October 1944, leaving over
500 sick, weak, or disabled POWs" before the liberation raid (Jan. 1945.)
yes I know, but why wait until October 1944 to remove 1600 POWs and why
leave the 500 sick, weak, or disabled POWs?
If records survive, reasons why may be sought in Japanese archives,
probably chiefly the availability of shipping (cf. USN reduction of the
Japanese merchant fleet by October 1944) in relation to current
demands for local manpower (both Japanese army and PoWs).
When resources for evacuation are insufficient, military commanders
usually leave the sick and disabled where they are.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
news
2013-09-08 19:34:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by news
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by news
what work did the Cabanatuan City POWs perform?
"able-bodied soldiers were shipped to other areas in the Philippines,
Japan, Formosa, and Manchuria to work in slave labor camps . . .
POWs transported out of the camp were forced to work in factories
to build Japanese weaponry, unload ships, and repair airfields. . . .
over 1,600 soldiers were removed in October 1944, leaving over
500 sick, weak, or disabled POWs" before the liberation raid (Jan. 1945.)
yes I know, but why wait until October 1944 to remove 1600 POWs and why
leave the 500 sick, weak, or disabled POWs?
If records survive, reasons why may be sought in Japanese archives,
probably chiefly the availability of shipping (cf. USN reduction of the
Japanese merchant fleet by October 1944) in relation to current
demands for local manpower (both Japanese army and PoWs).
When resources for evacuation are insufficient, military commanders
usually leave the sick and disabled where they are.
I doubt the 500 or so left in Cabanatuan were or would have been capable
of any useful labor so I'm still confused on the the Japanese wasted
resources on them
Don Phillipson
2013-09-10 14:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by news
Post by Don Phillipson
When resources for evacuation are insufficient, military commanders
usually leave the sick and disabled where they are.
I doubt the 500 or so left in Cabanatuan were or would have been capable
of any useful labor so I'm still confused on the the Japanese wasted
resources on them
Perhaps some local commanders were not so confused as to
foresee they might soon themselves fall into US hands and be
judged by their recent actions.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Chris Morton
2013-09-17 19:07:14 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:38:05 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by news
Post by Don Phillipson
When resources for evacuation are insufficient, military commanders
usually leave the sick and disabled where they are.
I doubt the 500 or so left in Cabanatuan were or would have been capable
of any useful labor so I'm still confused on the the Japanese wasted
resources on them
Perhaps some local commanders were not so confused as to
foresee they might soon themselves fall into US hands and be
judged by their recent actions.
I think it far more likely that upper echelons had more important
things on their minds and simply didn't devote any great deal of
thought to the matter. The local commanders, lacking orders to the
contrary, probably just continued to march.
Bill Shatzer
2013-09-10 20:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by news
yes I know, but why wait until October 1944 to remove 1600 POWs and why
leave the 500 sick, weak, or disabled POWs?
Speculation only but MacArthur landed at Lyete in October and the
Japanese could foresee that the invasion of Luzon would not be far
behind. The apanses didn't want the (relatively) health being liberated
by US troops and possibly returned to service.

And perhaps the sick and wounded were demed too incapacitated to perform
any useful service for the allies even if they were liberated while at
the same time tying significant American resources to treat, feed, guard
and evacuate them.
news
2013-09-11 03:52:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by news
yes I know, but why wait until October 1944 to remove 1600 POWs and why
leave the 500 sick, weak, or disabled POWs?
Speculation only but MacArthur landed at Lyete in October and the
Japanese could foresee that the invasion of Luzon would not be far
behind. The apanses didn't want the (relatively) health being liberated
by US troops and possibly returned to service.
And perhaps the sick and wounded were demed too incapacitated to perform
any useful service for the allies even if they were liberated while at
the same time tying significant American resources to treat, feed, guard
and evacuate them.
but it was the very same resources the Japanese had tied up to treat,
feed, and guard them
Chris Morton
2013-09-17 19:06:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
And perhaps the sick and wounded were demed too incapacitated to perform
any useful service for the allies even if they were liberated while at
the same time tying significant American resources to treat, feed, guard
and evacuate them.
That seems WAY too well thought out for wartime Japanese
administration...
Chris Morton
2013-09-17 19:10:18 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 23:42:33 -0400, "news"
Post by news
yes I know, but why wait until October 1944 to remove 1600 POWs and why
leave the 500 sick, weak, or disabled POWs?
1. They probably wanted them as labor, even belatedly.
2. Administrative brilliance was not a feature of wartime Japan.
Rich Rostrom
2013-09-05 16:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by news
considering the disdain the Japanese had for soldiers who surrendered
(and the fact that they were ordered to kill survivors in the event of
the possibility of re-capture) why did the Japanese collect and
maintain, however poorly, POWs in the Philippines?
Japanese maltreatment of PoWs was not "official
policy" but unofficial attitude.

"Officially", Japan accepted surrenders and provided
standard care for PoWs.

In practice, lapses from these standards were ignored.

Also, PoWs were exploitable as slave labor.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
m***@netMAPSONscape.net
2013-09-06 03:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by news
considering the disdain the Japanese had for soldiers who surrendered
(and the fact that they were ordered to kill survivors in the event of
the possibility of re-capture) why did the Japanese collect and
maintain, however poorly, POWs in the Philippines?
Japanese maltreatment of PoWs was not "official
policy" but unofficial attitude.
"Officially", Japan accepted surrenders and provided
standard care for PoWs.
In practice, lapses from these standards were ignored.
And in some cases (Tsujii's actions, for example) orders were subverted in
order to actively execute (esp) Philippino PoWs.

Mike
Stephen Graham
2013-09-05 20:48:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by news
considering the disdain the Japanese had for soldiers who surrendered
(and the fact that they were ordered to kill survivors in the event of
the possibility of re-capture) why did the Japanese collect and
maintain, however poorly, POWs in the Philippines?
For the Philippine Army and National Guard prisoners, the intent was to
use them as part of the basis for a Japanese-affiliated independent
government. The Philippine Scouts personnel were treated with more
suspicion.
WJHopwood
2013-09-06 04:29:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by news
considering the disdain the Japanese had for soldiers who surrendered
....why did the Japanese collect and maintain, however poorly, POWs in
the Philippines?
"Disdain" seems a rather kind word to use in describing the Japanese
attitude toward POWs. "Racist" is more like it.

Gavan Daws, who spent years of research for his historic book, "Prisoners
of the Japanese," interviewed scores of ex-POWs and gives a more realistic
account: "The war in Asia and the Pacific was... a clash of cultures, and--
most brutally--a clash of races...and the POWs suffered from it," he wrote.
"They were white men...in the eyes of the Japanese white men who had
allowed themselves to be captured in war were despicable. They deserved
to die."

And die they did. More than one in four at the hands of the Japanese.
By comparison, less than 2% of the POWs of Nazi Germany died in the
German POW camps. And, as Daws mentions, most Asian POWs of
the Japanese who had fought with the allies against Japan were released
after only a few months of captivity.

But with the whites, as Daws puts it, the Japanese "beat them until they
fell, then beat them for falling, beat them until they bled, then beat them
for bleeding. They denied them medical treatment. They starved them.
....When the International Red Cross sent food and medicine, the Japanese
looted the shipments...."If the war had lasted another year," wrote Daws,
"there would not have been a POW left alive."

WJH
Alan Meyer
2013-09-06 15:56:15 UTC
Permalink
On 09/06/2013 12:29 AM, WJHopwood wrote:
...
Post by WJHopwood
And die they did. More than one in four at the hands of the Japanese.
By comparison, less than 2% of the POWs of Nazi Germany died in the
German POW camps. And, as Daws mentions, most Asian POWs of
the Japanese who had fought with the allies against Japan were released
after only a few months of captivity.
But with the whites, as Daws puts it, the Japanese "beat them until they
fell, then beat them for falling, beat them until they bled, then beat them
for bleeding. They denied them medical treatment. They starved them.
....When the International Red Cross sent food and medicine, the Japanese
looted the shipments...."If the war had lasted another year," wrote Daws,
"there would not have been a POW left alive."
WJH
There is a fine book I can recommend by Laura Hillenbrand titled
_Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience and Redemption_.

It's about the American athlete Louis Zamperini, a B-24 bombardier in
the Pacific who endured a hellish 47 days in a rubber raft after his
plane was shot down, followed be another hellish two years of torment by
Japanese sadists in a POW camp.


The treatment of prisoners by the different powers was complex and
varied over place and time.

I think the situation in Europe changed significantly as a result of two
related events, the beginning of the Holocaust and the onset of
Barbarossa. Unlike the German invasions of Denmark, Norway, Holland,
Belgium and France, the wars against Jews and Russians were both
explicitly launched as "wars of annihilation". Sadism among guards is
always a problem. Who after all wants to be a concentration camp guard?
But murder of prisoners became official policy and millions of German
soldiers either participated, or at least witnessed, what happened -
becoming transformed and brutalized by the process.

This brutality gradually infected other spheres of German domination.

The initial German policy towards Russian prisoners was to intentionally
starve them to death - and millions died. Only later in the war did the
Nazis realize that slaves were useful to them and Russian prisoners were
put to work. I have read that 85% of all Russian prisoners died in
German custody.

Most American prisoners in Germany were airmen, captured in 1944 or 45,
and kept in more humane Luftwaffe controlled camps, or prisoners
captured during the Ardennes offensive in December 1944.

They were not in German hands for a very long time, and it was already
understood by many Germans that the war was lost and that it made sense
not to antagonize the western Allies any more than necessary. Even so,
there is reason to believe that, due to harsh conditions and lack of
food and medical care, a much higher percentage of these prisoners would
have died if the war had continued another six months or a year.

Of course the war in the east remained a war of annihilation to the end
- starting as the annihilation of Russians by Germans and ending up the
other way around. Most sources say that 95% of German prisoners
captured at Stalingrad never returned.

Alan
Mario
2013-09-08 17:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Meyer
The initial German policy towards Russian prisoners was to
intentionally starve them to death - and millions died. Only
later in the war did the Nazis realize that slaves were useful
to them and Russian prisoners were put to work.
I have read that 85% of all Russian prisoners died in German
custody.
I've read about 60%.

A table here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower_and_German_POWs#Other_evidence_for_German_POW_deaths
--
_____
/ o o \
\o_o_o/
Alan Meyer
2013-09-14 03:54:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario
Post by Alan Meyer
The initial German policy towards Russian prisoners was to
intentionally starve them to death - and millions died. Only
later in the war did the Nazis realize that slaves were useful
to them and Russian prisoners were put to work.
I have read that 85% of all Russian prisoners died in German
custody.
I've read about 60%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower_and_German_POWs#Other_evidence_for_German_POW_deaths
You may have misinterpreted that article. It says:

"In 1941 alone, two million of the 3.3 million German-held Soviet
POWs--about 60%--died or were executed by the special SS "Action Groups"
(Ensatzgruppen)."

I read that to mean that by the end of 1941, 60% of Russian POWs in
German hands had already died. However it seems certain that many of
those still alive at the end of 1941 would have subsequently died. The
next sentence says:

"By 1944, only 1.05 million of 5 million Soviet prisoners in German
hands had survived."

That means that by sometime in 1944, we aren't told exactly when, 79% of
Russian prisoners had died.

Furthermore, 1944 was not the end of the war. It is reasonable to
believe that few additional prisoners (relative to 1941-44) were taken
after then by the German army but that many of the ones who were still
hanging on to life would have died before the end of the war. We know,
for example, that many concentration camps executed many of their
remaining prisoners just before the Russians liberated their camps.

So I think the Wikipedia article cited is very consistent with a figure
of 85% of Russians dying in German captivity.

Alan
Alan Meyer
2013-09-14 03:55:12 UTC
Permalink
On 09/08/2013 01:07 PM, Mario wrote:
...
Post by Mario
Post by Alan Meyer
I have read that 85% of all Russian prisoners died in German
custody.
I've read about 60%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower_and_German_POWs#Other_evidence_for_German_POW_deaths
Mario,

I see that you and I were looking at different parts of the Wikipedia
article. The data you cite in the table does indeed claim 57.5%. I was
looking several paragraphs above that table which cites different
sources to come up with the higher number.

Sorry about the confusion. You didn't misinterpret the table, it's just
that the table produced by Niall Ferguson disagrees with the data
published separately by Bischoff and Ambrose, Streit, Wyman, Ratza, and
Peterson and cited in the paragraph above.

Alan
m***@netMAPSONscape.net
2013-09-06 22:51:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by WJHopwood
Post by news
considering the disdain the Japanese had for soldiers who surrendered
....why did the Japanese collect and maintain, however poorly, POWs in
the Philippines?
"Disdain" seems a rather kind word to use in describing the Japanese
attitude toward POWs. "Racist" is more like it.
Gavan Daws, who spent years of research for his historic book, "Prisoners
of the Japanese," interviewed scores of ex-POWs and gives a more realistic
account: "The war in Asia and the Pacific was... a clash of cultures, and--
most brutally--a clash of races...and the POWs suffered from it," he wrote.
"They were white men...in the eyes of the Japanese white men who had
allowed themselves to be captured in war were despicable. They deserved
to die."
Daws might've noted, given those years of research, that the Asian prisoners
of the Japanese were treated even worse.

The "culture clash" nonsense seems not to have prevented them from allying
with the Germans, nor did the fact that China had a much more similar
culture (being in large part a parent culture of Japan) mitigate the
Japanese treatment of them.

Mike
news
2013-09-06 23:36:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Daws might've noted, given those years of research, that the Asian prisoners
of the Japanese were treated even worse.
When I was a kid we had a neighbour who had been a POW, captured in Hong
Kong. He had some horror stories about his time as a POW but he said
that the Americans were treated much worse than the Canadians.
The Horny Goat
2013-09-09 04:07:46 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 19:36:43 -0400, "news"
Post by news
When I was a kid we had a neighbour who had been a POW, captured in Hong
Kong. He had some horror stories about his time as a POW but he said
that the Americans were treated much worse than the Canadians.
One of our former employees had been a member of the Sherbrooke
Regiment and had been ashore on D-Day and was taken prisoner east of
the Rhine in March 1945. He said by that time the guards were doing
their best to make friends with Canadian POWs as they all expected to
be POWs themselves in a few weeks and figured a friendly Canadian
speaking up for them was their best personal protection.

Old Alfred said he met several men who had been taken prisoner at
Dieppe and who had had a very tough experience in captivity and that
while he had enormous respect for what they went through that wasn't
his experience. Nevertheless both he and they got the same POW bonus
to their military pensions 35-40 years later... (he said compared to
them he was almost embarassed to cash the cheque but that he had been
wounded in the engagement that led to his having been taken prisoner)
The Horny Goat
2013-09-09 04:07:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by WJHopwood
And die they did. More than one in four at the hands of the Japanese.
By comparison, less than 2% of the POWs of Nazi Germany died in the
German POW camps. And, as Daws mentions, most Asian POWs of
the Japanese who had fought with the allies against Japan were released
after only a few months of captivity.
Presumably this 2% figure only includes British (including Empire) /
French / American POWs - the figure amongst Soviet POWs was far higher
than 2%.
Post by WJHopwood
But with the whites, as Daws puts it, the Japanese "beat them until they
fell, then beat them for falling, beat them until they bled, then beat them
for bleeding. They denied them medical treatment. They starved them.
....When the International Red Cross sent food and medicine, the Japanese
looted the shipments...."If the war had lasted another year," wrote Daws,
"there would not have been a POW left alive."
Yet the Allied intel on the location of Allied POWs was a key factor
in the choice of Nagasaki as a bombing site .... go figure.
WJHopwood
2013-09-09 19:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by WJHopwood
And die they did. More than one in four at the hands of the Japanese.
By comparison, less than 2% of the POWs of Nazi Germany died in the
German POW camps.....
Presumably this 2% figure only includes British (including Empire) /
French / American POWs.....
No, it is the figure for U.S. POWs ONLY. It is from statistics provided
by the American XPOW (AXPOW) organization on April 27, 1998
of which I have a copy. Those statistics show that the Germans held
93,941 U.S. POWs, of which number 1,121 died in captivirty, or 1.2%.
Compare that with the 36,260 U.S. POWs held in Japanese POW camps
of which number 13,851 or 38.2% died in captivity.
Civilian internee death in Japanese custody vis-a-vis those
deaths while in German custody were also strikingly different.
U.S.civilians interned by the Germans numbered 4,749. U.S.
civilian internees of the Japanese was 13,996. Of those held by
the Nazis, only 168 or 3.5% died in captivity. Of those held by the
Japanese 1,536 or 11% died in captivity.
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by WJHopwood
But with the whites, as Daws puts it, the Japanese "beat them until they
fell...beat them until they bled, ...denied them medical treatment.
starved them....."If the war had lasted another year," wrote Daws,
"there would not have been a POW left alive."
Yet the Allied intel on the location of Allied POWs was a key factor
in the choice of Nagasaki as a bombing site .... go figure.
Are you suggesting that Nagasaki was chosen as an A-Bomb
target because U.S. POWs were located there? If so, what is your
source for that assumption, if you have one?

WJH
Chris Morton
2013-09-17 19:10:54 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 00:08:09 -0400, "news"
Post by news
considering the disdain the Japanese had for soldiers who surrendered
(and the fact that they were ordered to kill survivors in the event of
the possibility of re-capture) why did the Japanese collect and
maintain, however poorly, POWs in the Philippines?
1. Desire for propaganda benefits - The defeats in Singapore and the
Philippines were stunning humiliations for the British and U.S.
Armies. In fact, I believe they were the largest surrenders to a
foreign enemy in the history of either.

2. The prisoners were used as slave labor all over the Japanese Empire
and its territories.

Loading...