For the 75th anniversary of V-J Day, we spoke with Sarah Kovner about her new book, Prisoners of the Empire: Inside Japanese POW Camps, which goes beyond the horrific accounts of captivity to actually explain why inmates were neglected and abused, and contributes to ongoing debates over POW treatment across myriad war zones, even to the present day.
Where were the Japanese POW camps and who were the POWs?
There were hundreds of POW camps, from Burma to Japan, from Manchuria to the South Pacific. Allied POWs came from what are now more than a dozen different countries, including Britain, the Netherlands, Australia, the U.S., and New Zealand. They included Indians, Filipinos, Chinese, and more rarely, Asian-Americans. And then there were Asian laborers, the treatment of which was appalling.
If there was no “official” imperial government policy for running the camps, under what rules were the camps run?
Japan was a signatory to what we today think of as the first two Geneva Conventions, and they agreed to follow them mutatis mutandis, meaning depending on circumstances. Officially, two agencies were given responsibilities for Allied POWs: the Prisoner of War Information Bureau would gather and transmit information to the International Committee of the Red Cross, such as lists of POWs, and the Prisoner of War Management Office would run logistics and issue guidance to camp commanders. The same bureaucrat was put in charge of both. He was not in the chain of command, and he had few staff to carry out these responsibilities. He could merely advise the War Ministry and set guidelines. Most camps were under the control of field commanders, and run day-to-day by camp commandants. Many of these commandants were near or past retirement age, and the guards were chosen from those also deemed unfit for frontline duty.
Where and why did the Imperial Army use non-Japanese prison guards? Were any outsiders ever allowed in the camps to gauge prisoner treatment (e.g., the Red Cross)?
In 1941, what is now North and South Korea and Taiwan were part of the Japanese Empire. The Japanese Imperial Army used Korean and Taiwanese auxiliary employees to guard POWs. ICRC delegates were allowed into many POW camps in Japan, Korea, and China for inspection visits—visits closely supervised by members of the Japanese Imperial Army. But they were denied access to newly conquered territories, like the Philippines and Malaya.
What would most surprise readers in this story of the POW camps?
First, some historians like to attribute Japan's treatment of POWs to Japanese culture, sometimes called “the way of the samurai.” In fact, the military's treatment of POWs had changed dramatically by the 1930s. During the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, Japan had been world-famous for its generous treatment of prisoners—they taught illiterate peasants how to read, and provided Russian officers with access to hot springs and even servants.
Second, officials in Washington were initially unaware of the harsh treatment meted out to Allied POWs, but when they learned what was happening, they knew it was partly in retaliation for how the U.S. was treating Japanese American internees. Tokyo was very concerned about their fate, but cared little about Japanese POWs held by the Allies. Since negotiations were based on the principle of reciprocity, efforts to exchange internees broke down and the two sides instead exchanged recriminations and threats.
Third, more than half of all POW deaths came about because of friendly fire. The Allies bombed and torpedoed Japanese ships, despite knowing POWs were abroad.
Finally, many POWs endured violent treatment, but this was never a matter of policy. In fact, the Japanese Imperial Army carried out court-martials (gunpō kaigi) of some eighty guards who were accused of mistreating Allied captives. For many guards, on the other hand, using corporal punishment—such as slapping the face of a POW—seemed more charitable than a formal sanction, which could result in severe consequences.
Unlike the Germans, the Japanese have been accused of not fully coming to terms with the war. How do the Japanese today see the history of the POW camps?
That’s one reason why I got interested in this story—precisely because it is so seldom mentioned in Japan even while it looms large in Australian, British, and American memories of the war. While there have been some academic studies by Japanese scholars, the history of Allied POW camps is not a major focus of discussion. In a way it’s not surprising that national memories of the war experience center on their dead—especially civilians who were firebombed. When you do encounter the stories of guards, they are primarily in local histories. But if you interview them, as I have, you find that some of these guards feel that they too were victims. Korean and Taiwanese civilian employees say they had little choice but to serve. That’s why I titled my book Prisoners of the Empire, because I wanted to capture all sides of this epic history.