The Story Of Bataan Death March Survivors

[Mulboyne]

[YT]O84m4j4ZA48[/YT]

Standard: Death March film screened at Foursite fest
Ashley Karras...still focuses on larger-than-life stories. "The Inheritance of War" [is] her first feature...The film is based on "Soldier Slaves," a book by California attorney James Parkinson, who is Karras' cousin once removed -- although the two had never met prior to the film project. Parkinson wrote "Soldier Slaves" about a lawsuit he took on, and a group of elderly veterans he represented. The men served as soldiers in the Philippines during World War II, became prisoners, and in 1942 walked the Bataan Death March. Those who survived were forced to provide years of labor for privately held Japanese companies, some of which thrive as major corporations today...The lawsuit aimed to win compensation, with interest, for the work the men had performed...more...

[Takechanpoo]

"Soldier Slaves"

Be it even such a terrible treatment, at least Empire Japan treated the soldiers of the Allies as prisoners. On the other hand, Americans and Aussies didn't even take prisoner and ruthlessly killed Japanese soldiers, who abandoned weapons and surrendered. And Aussies intentionally starved almost all of J-soldiers to death even if taked them prisoners. But conveniently you ex-Allies forgot your deep guilts and try emphasizing only ones of J-side.

[Mike Oxlong]

I was reading something similar recently, Take. POWs taken in the Pacific War had it rough from the Yanks & Aussies, even from the Poms...

Allied soldiers in the Pacific often deliberately killed Japanese soldiers who had surrendered. According to Richard Aldrich, who has published a study of the diaries kept by United States and Australian soldiers, they sometimes massacred prisoners of war.[23] Dower states that in "many instances ... Japanese who did become prisoners were killed on the spot or en route to prison compounds."[24] Ulrich Straus, a US Japanologist, suggests that frontline troops hated Japanese personnel and were "not easily persuaded" to take or protect prisoners, as they believed that Allied personnel who surrendered, got "no mercy" from the Japanese.[25] Straus also says that US soldiers believed that "fanatical Japanese soldiers" were inclined to feign surrender, in order to make surprise attacks. Therefore, "[s]enior officers opposed the taking of prisoners[,] on the grounds that it needlessly exposed American troops to risks..."[26] And according to Aldrich it became common for US troops not to take prisoners.[27] This analysis is supported by historian Niall Fergusson,[28] who states such practices played a role in the ratio of Japanese prisoners to dead being 1:100 in late 1944. However, during 1944, efforts were taken by Allied high commanders to suppress "take no prisoners" attitudes among their own personnel — as these were affecting intelligence gathering — and to encourage Japanese soldiers to surrender. According to Ferguson, this may account for the drop of the ratio of Japanese prisoners to Japanese dead to 1:7 by July 1945. Nevertheless, taking no prisoners was still standard practice among US troops at the Battle of Okinawa, in April-June 1945.[29]

Similar observations have been made regarding British Commonwealth personnel in South-East Asia. For instance, historians Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper state that, during the Assam campaign of 1944, "...British, Indian and African troops methodically and ruthlessly killed all Japanese, [because they were] enraged by cases of atrocities against their own wounded... Slim wrote laconically: 'quarter was neither asked nor given.'"[30]

http://www.world-war-two.net/allied_war_crimes.html

[Behan]

Be it even such a terrible treatment, at least Empire Japan treated the soldiers of the Allies as prisoners. On the other hand, Americans and Aussies didn't even take prisoner and ruthlessly killed Japanese soldiers, who abandoned weapons and surrendered. And Aussies intentionally starved almost all of J-soldiers to death even if taked them prisoners. But conveniently you ex-Allies forgot your deep guilts and try emphasizing only ones of J-side.

You like to make things up, don't you? And your Japanglish is so funny, too.

The Japanese military tortured, killed, starved, ate, experimented on, used as slave labor Allied prisoners of war. They weren't treated as prisoners of war. You probably know the term 'maruta', which is the what they called the 'prisoners' they used for biological experiments.

But, of course, you are just a troll and want to get a rise out of people on FG.

[Number11]

As much as it pains me to say it, in this case, Take is almost right. You have to dig very deeply for years to find information about Japanese prisoners of war. The orders were to avoid taking any prisoners.

One of the questions Americans never seem to ask is why American troops were in The Philippines and what were they doing there. They don't learn in high school history classes that US troops murdered thousands of Filipinos who had the audacity of wanting to be independent and free.

They read that Iwo Jima was a glorious victory, never learning that the congress and the public wanted to see courts martial, not medals. The Iwo Jima campaign is studied every year at Annapolis and you know what is decided by the cadets almost every year? It might surprise you.

Unfortunately, almost everything you read in typical school textbooks are myths and agenda-based afterthoughts. The Japanese whitewashing of history is minor league compared to the major fiction masquerading for history in US schools and culture.

[Behan]

The troll may be right that the Allies killed or mistreated Japanese prisoners of war, but he's not right about the Japanese treating captured military personnel as 'prisoners'.

The mortality rate for prisoners of war in Japanese camps was much higher than that of those in Nazi Germany. And remember, these were largely young, healthy people. I don't know if the Australians mistreated Japanese POWs, but I do know that mortality rate among the allies was highest for Australians in the Pacific Theater.

There certainly aren't many cases of Japanese prisoners of war being used of slave laborers, biological warfare guinea pigs, or having their dead bodies eaten. Perhaps his dictionary defines 'prisoner' differently.

I agree that the colonolization of the Philippines was wrong and that there unexcusable attrocities committed by allied soldiers but the Japanese military treated captured Allied POWs worse than animals in many cases.

Maruta means log, which is the term that Unit 731 used for their test objects.

Also think which side took large numbers of prisoners of war first. The Bataan Death March was relatively early in the Pacific War for the Allies.

Right or wrong, I think the troll is often just posting to upset people.

[Number11]

Regardless, the Allies did kill most Japanese who surrendered rather than take them prisoner, and that was the point Take was making. That's why there were so remarkably few Japanese prisoners and why it's rare to even find any records or data of Japanese prisoners.

Now, that does not mean I condone or support any brutality by anyone. This path gets traveled a lot in these kinds of discussions - the path that Japanese were very brutal, so Allied brutality was just a natural human reaction and justifiable. I won't get dragged into that.

[Greji]

Regardless, the Allies did kill most Japanese who surrendered rather than take them prisoner, and that was the point Take was making.

That's a pretty broad condemning statement to make without cites. Other than I find it pretty hard to believe having served in the military during wartime and been a student, both of interest and training in military history, you need to produce a little more evidence than just throwing out "kill most Japanese who surrendered."

I don't deny that incidents did, or would not occur, but having worked with people who served then and participated in the occupation, I find that accusation a bit disturbing as it stands.

[Behan]

Regardless, the Allies did kill most Japanese who surrendered rather than take them prisoner, and that was the point Take was making..

Personally, I wasn't there for every surrender, but a lot of historians would probably tell you that a lot of Japanese didn't surrender, fought to the death, or committed suicide. Maybe they expected similar treatment from what they were giving.

I was taught iaido by a man who first learned his English in a British POW camp and he never told me any stories of abuse. I'm sure it did happen, however.

One of the troll's points is that the Allies killed or abused Japanese military personnel, but his other point that I take issue with is:

...at least Empire Japan treated the soldiers of the Allies as prisoners.

I think Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes In World War II (by Yuki Tanaka) is a well-researched book on this topic.

The same Wikipedia pages that contain the discussion for the article quoted by Mike Oxlong above also give these statistics:

Death rates of POWs held by Axis powers
Chinese POWs held by Japan: > 99% (only 56 survivors at the end of the war)[75]
US and British Commonwealth POWs held by Germany: ~4% [74]
Soviet POWs held by Germany: 57.5% [76]
Western Allied POWs held by Japan: 27% [77]

[edit] Death rates of POWs held by the Allies
German POWs in East European (not including the Soviet Union) hands 32.9%[76]
German soldiers held by Soviet Union: 15-33% (14.7% in The Dictators by Richard Overy, 35.8% in Ferguson[76])
Japanese POWs held by Soviet Union: 10%
German POWs in British hands 0.03%[76]
German POWs in American hands 0.15%[76]
German POWs in French hands 2.58%[76]
Japanese POWs held by U.S.: relatively low, mainly suicides according to James D. Morrow[78] or according to Ulrich Straus high as many prisoners were shot by front line troops.[51]

It is possible that there were more atrocities commited by the Allies than is generally admitted, but it's quite a stretch to say that the Japanese military treated Allied POWs better, or as 'prisoners'.

4% of Allied POWs in Nazi Germany died but 27% of them died in Japanese camps. And with large-scale surrenders, like the Philippines, Singapore, we are talking about a lot of people. Only 56 Chinese POWS survived. 99% of them died! Most of the human guinea pigs that Unit 731 referred to as marutaJ('logs') were Chinese.