Hi All: I think that the WWII mistreatment of Allied POWs by the Japanese was not due to any inherent or national traits, but to the takeover of Japan by the militarists like General Tojo in the 1930s. Gavan Dawes in “Prisoners of the Japanese: POWs of World War II in the Pacific” (1994, Chapter II page 96f) says that in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05), WWI (German prisoners), and post-WWI in Siberia the Japanese were very correct in treating their prisoners according to the 1907 Hague Convention, which they had signed. In Siberia an IRC member gave top marks for the treatment of prisoners to two nations, the United States and Japan. In 1929 the Japanese at Geneva signed but did not ratify a new (Geneva) convention on POWs. But the Japanese Foreign Minister said at the beginning of the Pacific War that they would act in accordance with the Geneva Convention “except where it conflicted with existing Japanese policies”. This included making prisoners sign a non-escape oath, which was against the Geneva Convention. But General Tojo the Prime Minister – and Army Minister – gave orders that the offers in charge of POW camps were to be strict and rigid. And the area or local commanders had practically unrestricted say over the POWs. Yours, John Wilson > I find it ironic that Australia and Australians still have difficulty in > coming to grips with the fact that Asian people do not see life through the > same prism as Anglo Saxons in particular or Europeans in general. > > In many ways they are different. Note the word DIFFERENT. Not better, not > worse....different. > > Go live amongst them, as I have done. All will be revealed. > > Their religion/s are different and mostly embrace fast reincarnation after > death. (So death is not as important to them). > They have a different attitude to family and the responsibilities that come > with a family. (Retreat is a stain on the character of the entire family for > ever through eternity to them, a military necessity sometimes, to us) > They have a different attitude to wealth. (Throughout Asia the most > incredible poverty lives side by side with the most incredible wealth). > > Why then do we find it difficult to understand that their approach to war > is different. Dying for the Emperor was their way. Killing the enemy in the name > of our King was our way. A wounded soldier was a nuisance was their way. > A wounded man required special treatment was our way. > > Being a POW was a matter of shame to them. Being a POW was a matter of bad > luck to us. > Killing an enemy POW was 'normal' to them. Killing an enemy POW > was against all our rules and nature/s. > > Sinking hospital ships, beheading prisoners, slaughtering civilians, using > POWs as bayonet dummies, indeed even starting the war in the Pacific with a > sneak raid while protesting total abhorrence for war at the political level > are all things that are on the record as proven fact. None of those things > wore the Australian Rising Sun badge. >

G'day John. You might very well be correct. However, well documented cases of Japanese officers having competitions to see how many Chinese prisoners they could behead in a given time, with the record standing at just over 250 seems a little beyond a general order from the boss. The Rape of Nanking was not just a bump in the road. The massacre of 50,000 Chinese civilians in Singapore was not a local oversight of the rules. Let me ask this. If the Prime Minister (Helen Clarke in your case, John Howard in mine) said, "OK it is acceptable for you to go next door and slaughter the people who live there", would you immediately get out a butchers knife? I think not. (and remember in WW1 the Japanese were allied to Britain and desperately trying to imitate her.) Cheers, Ted Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Wilson" <hugo@actrix.gen.nz> To: <AUS-MILITARY-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 5:35 PM Subject: Treatment of Allied POWS of the Japanese > Hi All: > > I think that the WWII mistreatment of Allied POWs by the Japanese was not > due to any inherent or national traits, but to the takeover of Japan by the > militarists like General > Tojo in the 1930s. > > Gavan Dawes in "Prisoners of the Japanese: POWs of World War II in the > Pacific" > (1994, Chapter II page 96f) says that in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05), > WWI (German prisoners), and post-WWI in Siberia the Japanese were very > correct in > treating their prisoners according to the 1907 Hague Convention, which they > had signed. In Siberia an IRC member gave top marks for the treatment of > prisoners to > two nations, the United States and Japan. > > In 1929 the Japanese at Geneva signed but did not ratify a new (Geneva) > convention on POWs. But the Japanese Foreign Minister said at the beginning > of the Pacific War that they would act in accordance with the Geneva > Convention "except where it conflicted with existing Japanese policies". > This included making prisoners sign a non-escape oath, which was against the > Geneva Convention. > > But General Tojo the Prime Minister - and Army Minister - gave orders that > the offers in charge of POW camps were to be strict and rigid. And the area > or local commanders had practically unrestricted say over the POWs. > > Yours, John Wilson > > > > I find it ironic that Australia and Australians still have difficulty in > > coming to grips with the fact that Asian people do not see life through > the > > same prism as Anglo Saxons in particular or Europeans in general. > > > > In many ways they are different. Note the word DIFFERENT. Not better, not > > worse....different. > > > > Go live amongst them, as I have done. All will be revealed. > > > > Their religion/s are different and mostly embrace fast reincarnation after > > death. (So death is not as important to them). > > They have a different attitude to family and the responsibilities that > come > > with a family. (Retreat is a stain on the character of the entire family > for > > ever through eternity to them, a military necessity sometimes, to us) > > They have a different attitude to wealth. (Throughout Asia the most > > incredible poverty lives side by side with the most incredible wealth). > > > > Why then do we find it difficult to understand that their approach to war > > is different. Dying for the Emperor was their way. Killing the enemy in > the name > > of our King was our way. A wounded soldier was a nuisance was their way. > > A wounded man required special treatment was our way. > > > > Being a POW was a matter of shame to them. Being a POW was a matter of bad > > luck to us. > Killing an enemy POW was 'normal' to them. Killing an enemy > POW > > was against all our rules and nature/s. > > > > Sinking hospital ships, beheading prisoners, slaughtering civilians, using > > POWs as bayonet dummies, indeed even starting the war in the Pacific with > a > > sneak raid while protesting total abhorrence for war at the political > level > > are all things that are on the record as proven fact. None of those things > > wore the Australian Rising Sun badge. > > >