The housing of prisoners is an important aspect of life as a POW. This was a problem in Britain, which was not prepared for the number of prisoners it dealt with and led to the policy of deportation, a violation of the Geneva Convention. This was due to the threat German POWs posed to Britain’s national security. This was not a problem for the Japanese or Germans who could imprison POWs outside of Japan and Germany. Conditions of camps varied with purpose built camps in use as well as requisitioned and converted premises, which served as POW camps. Special camps were created for SS men who were considered to be different from the average soldier and more fanatical Nazis. This is similar to the policy of the Germans as whole camps were run by different organisations within the armed forces with those POWs who were RAF and USAAF fliers shot down by Germany sent to camps run by the Luftwaffe after interrogation. Alternatively ground troops went to camps run by the Wermacht. Therefore it is difficult to judge the treatment of POWs in Germany and in Britain as there will be varying interpretations from different camps.
Japan was similarly unprepared for the influx of POWs. The result of this was a large number of POWs being used on the railways. However, some POWs saw conditions at Changi positively. Kenneth Harrison, captured at Malaya mainland, held at Kuala Lumpur, wrote of his first account of Changi and considered that
“Changi itself was incredible… and in many ways it could have been called a POWs paradise.”17
However, this being his first encounter he may not have been fully aware of the conditions of Changi and the men may have compared these experiences to that of others in Japanese controlled camps, which may have made Changi comparatively better but not actually a ‘paradise’ camp. A similar description “The Changi camp was not like an ordinary camp surrounded by barbed wire and staff and guards of the detaining power…”18
There are differing interpretations of Japanese imprisoned especially concerning Changi, as shown by ‘Reassessing the Japanese Prisoner of War Experience’ which is the revisionists interpretation of the treatment by the Japanese, as is ‘Japanese prisoners of war’ which is also a book containing hindsight of the events and takes into account Japans history. The first book uses sources from the Public Records Office, the Imperial War museum and the Australian War Memorial.
A POW describes the lack of room in a camp in Singapore.
“When I awoke in the morning I was still on the outhouse floor at the casualty clearing station”, Reginald Burton.19
This shows it was beyond the medical staffs’ capacity to house the POWs. This interpretation of Japanese treatment is from the book Railway of Hell by Reginald Burton. The books ‘Railway of Hell’ and ‘The Emperors Guest’ are primary accounts and similarly like the accounts of German and British treatment may be questionable. This is due to the inherent bias that it will contain the effects of the passage of time and the possibility that false memories may have been created.
Appendix 821 is a photograph illustrating the limited accommodation provided. However, the image shows the outside of the building from one camera angle. Each country had problems with housing POWs. Both Britain and Germany violated the Geneva Convention to deal with the problem, while Japan used the prisoners for labour on the Burma-Thailand Railway.
In terms of employment on the part of the British, there was a vast difference in the treatment of Italian and German POWs. The British view of Italians was different to the view of the Germans. They believed that fascism could be cured where Nazism could not. This was shown by government memorandums at the time:
“We must not forget the German initial deliberate aggression against Poland…their devilish treatment of victims in their concentration camps, Jews and otherwise…”22
Britain faced a labour shortage crisis in the 1940s. Italian POW’s were employed to remedy the situation. This also solved the problem of lack of guards and resources in the war front in Africa. The Italians prospered from the employment to the disadvantage of the Germans. The policy of employment indicates the biased treatment towards the Germans. On the 12th of July 1944, the Britain War Cabinet took steps to use Germans in the workforce, which shows the changing attitude of the government towards German POWs even though it was apparently grudgingly. They did not benefit from the same rights as the Italians. For example complaints were lodged concerning the treatment of prisoners, where they were “being kept… under extremely unsatisfactory conditions”23 this was said to be “an embarrassment to the forces”.23 After VE day there were improvements in the type of work provided and more variations in labour.
In terms of employment the Germans generally honoured the Geneva Convention although there were rumours that Germany employed Allied prisoners in labour camps in coal and salt mines.
The treatment of POWs on the railways was a unique situation that occurred during the war and partly due to the influx of POWs,
“To use prisoners of war and with their cooperation to complete the task constituted a unique phenomenon in world railway construction”24 Yoshihiko Katamatsu.
The work was long and brutal; many of the captors were worked to death by their Japanese captors. However it must be taken into account that accounts of Japanese treatment tends to focus upon the larger well known manifestations of maltreatment which include the Bataan ‘death march’ and the Burma-Thailand Railway frequently referred to as the ‘death railway’, where 12000 POWs died as well as countless recruited labourers. In fact, 26 per cent of British POWs held by the Japanese died. There were other experiences of work but the majority of prisoners would have experienced work on the railways.
The illustrations by the artists are possibly inaccurate as they are artistic expressions of life as POWs held by the Japanese hence they would have been exaggerated and biased. Ronald Searle was a famous illustrator and held at Changi and subsequently worked in Thailand as a POW. His drawings are known for representing POWs as thin and overworked and the Japanese as fearsome guards. However other accounts show this to be an exaggeration and suggest that although POWs did become very thin they also exercised a degree of independence which frustrated their captors.
Had the Japanese signed the Convention then the use of prisoners to build the railway would have been a violation of the terms of the Convention which stated that this work was not to expose them to “danger, and in no case could they be required to perform work directly related to military operations.”2
The punishments handed out are another factor in judging the treatment of POWs. Britain in particular was completely committed towards punishments and discipline. The importance of which is demonstrated by this statement by the Director of the Foreign Office:
“The British approach is the acceptance of discipline…the fact that even to run a picnic successfully, let alone a big camp…one must have leadership, efficiency and discipline.”27
This strict regime was also to act as a deterrent to any revolt; Appendix 128 is example allied maintenance of discipline. This strict regime can be considered as fair as it was put in place to ensure not only the smooth running of the camp but the safety of the guards and prisoners. Even to the expense of the Geneva Convention. This also included punishing prisoners of war crime history which was forbidden in the Convention, Appendix 229 offers an example of one such individual being tried for war crimes. This shows Britain’s disregard for the Convention concerning punishment.
On the 8th October 1942, Germany took its steps towards the violation of the Geneva Convention for the first time. Allied POWs in camps throughout Germany were manacled. This was said to have had a “serious effect on the mental and physical health,”30 yet the Germans did not concede and continued this merciless regime and dehumanisation:
“1500 British…were roughly pinioned with strips of the Red Cross parcel string…Prisoners found by their guards with the strings loosened…were kept for several hours with their wrists bound harshly together and drawn up tightly behind their back, nose and toes touching a wall…some were kept in this state for 12 hours each day.”31
As time continued, the conditions worsened for POWs in German camps. Britain had begun to reciprocate this method by similarly manacling their POWs showing that both countries violated the Geneva Convention. British reports claim that Germany responded with even harsher punishments although during Christmas the shackling stopped showing the consideration of the German government. This act highlighted
the countries intentions to comply with the Convention. However, shackling continued into 1943. Michael Walsh, historian for the ‘Historian Press Review’ in his article ‘How the Allies treated German POWs’, statement that “genocide, enslavement and institutionalised ill treatment of prisoners”32 were true of both sides.
The punishments passed down by the Japanese were some of the most cruel and merciless of the three. Punishments when handed out consisted of the Bataan ‘death marches’, being hung by the thumbs, beheading and being locked in small cages made of bamboo for a period of time. The fact that the Convention was not ratified by the Japanese meant they had no specific rules by which to abide in terms of punishments except the armies own code of conduct. As such POWs were given little sympathy as surrender was not part of the army’s code, Bushido.
33. The image shows an illustration by Jack Chalker example of a man being punished in one particular way; the container would hold either water or stones.
Rewards were not uncommon for POWs in the case of the British Appendix 334 and Appendix 5.35 Beneath the hostilities the allies still provided equal opportunities once the war was over or repatriation had been granted. The policy was based around a points collection scheme for the criteria shown in Appendix 3. The employment of this policy shows the willingness of the British to provide fair treatment for their prisoners without prejudice. This method ensured that POWs who remained in Britain after their release prospered from equal opportunities. This included providing POWs with references to help them get employed. Appendix 5 offers an example of what a typical offer would be proving British methods to be fair and satisfactory.
Procedures for complaints were another part of the Convention and the British adhered to this. An important part was played by the International Red Cross to monitor the treatment of POWs, ensuring that Britain’s intentions under the Geneva Convention were not violated. Appendix 4 highlights the importance that the British placed upon the fair treatment of POWs.
“A complaint has reached me on behalf of the men detained … I am under the impression that all political screening has stopped… and the political past of an individual will no longer be taken into consideration when deciding on their order of reparation…” see Appendix 4.36
On the 12th May 1940 marked the first significant event that contributed to the treatment of Allies POWs. Britain replied to the threat of the mass internment of enemy aliens, resulting in the thousands of British POWs being gathered in inadequate camps in Poland in Germany, with the establishment of the Directorate of Prisoners of War and a branch of the DPW, PW3 to deal specifically with the welfare of British POWs. This was non-existent in the case of Japan who had no obligation to do so. As a result, the treatment of the Japanese prisoners abroad was also harsh, especially in Russia who also had not signed the Geneva Convention. The attitude towards prisoners is explicit in General Hideko Tojo’s statement:
“Where the Japanese troops are facing hardships…there is no need to pamper POW’s”.37
Upon considering the similarities and differences of the treatment of POWs by Britain, Germany and Japan it is clear that the events of the war had a huge impact on the treatment of POWs. Each country had difficulties in housing and feeding the large number of POWs. This in turn resulted in violations of the Geneva Convention by both Britain and Germany. Japan had no rules to adhere to as they chose not to follow the Convention as a result the treatment of POWs in Japan was overall the worst of all three countries. It must also be taken into the account that conditions varied from camp to camp. Factors such as weather conditions, supplies of food and medicine, and the period of the war when captivity was spent and the individual personality of the camp commandant were all deciding factors to the conditions endured by prisoners.
Great Britain generally honoured the Geneva Convention throughout the conflict. However, concerning food, punishment, work and accommodation the British like the Germans violated the Convention when it suited its purpose or when war conditions made it difficult to do so. The case of prejudice concerning the Germans POWs employment is a clear example of how the British mistreated prisoners because of government propaganda and national security. I used a number of primary sources from the PRO; these documents are British and so may contain bias. However the documents were confidential, which means they may be accurate as they would have been kept from the public.
The Germans were also guilty of violations, possibly because of the war as the quality of food, accommodation and fair punishments declined with the war. However, this quote by Goering shows that “it was Hitler’s intention to denounce the Geneva Convention if the war lasted another three months. All those allied POWs except those valuable to the Germans economy would be exterminated.”38
The treatment by the Japanese was unregulated and as a result harsher. The view of the officers such as Hideki Tojo and Lieutenant Usaki, Commandant of Konyu 2 Camp was that of no surrender and no sympathy for prisoners,
“The Japanese are prepared to work - you must work. The Japanese are prepared to eat less – you must be prepared to eat less. The Japanese are prepared to die - you must be prepared to die”’39
The quote makes it clear that as long as Japan was suffering from the National crisis caused by the war the prisoners would also suffer.
Indeed the issue of POW treatment remains an important issue today, provoking both controversy and bitterness. The recent Iraq war has brought stories of an American woman who suffered at the hands of the Iraqi soldiers. Although there is an issue of bias as the story may have been exaggerated. Also the British Government has launched an investigation into the treatment of Iraqi POWs by British Soldiers.
“The Sun newspaper reported one Iraqi POW allegedly beaten to death by a British soldier had suffered at least 50 injuries. It said the Iraqi was among nine captives taken by the Queen's Lancashire Regiment during a raid on a hotel in Basra last year.” 40
I therefore agree with this statement by Sir Winston Churchill that,
“The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.”41
It seems to be the case that during war viciousness, anger and the strain on resources often causes peaceful agreements to fall by the wayside and that this treatment is simply a cruel reality of war.