How do you know field grade officers condoned murder?
I will say I beleive there are times when it might become necessary to kill an unarmed prisoner. But very few.
I've read quite a bit on the topic.
I initially planned to become a historian and my intention was to specialize in the WWI/Interwar/WWII period of European with a special emphasis on the Postwar occupation of Germany.
That was an interest that came out of my having served in the Army in Germany for a couple of years.
Anyhow, that plan kind of fell to the wayside a number of years ago but I did a LOT of reading as a result of course work and independent study as an undergrad.
I can't cite exact quotes and can't give references to specific books or archival holdings from where I'm sitting, but suffice it to say, or simply accept for the sake of discussion/argument that I'm not just making **** up.
Alternatively, some quick Google Fu should satisfy you that it happened.
Also, "condoned" probably isn't even strong enough a word.
Many field grade commanders actively encouraged or even ordered the murder of Japanese EPWs.
There was an entire movement in the War Department to get them to stop doing this because the scarcity of Japanese EPWs was putting a crimp on the intelligence-gathering capabilities of war planners.
You can probably find reference to that too without going through a whole bunch of trouble.
I agree.
Exigent circumstances are exigent.
But this went well beyond being a matter of absolutely necessity to being a matter of course.
The events in the Concentration Camps, while having primarily taken place during the war, are rightfully dealt with in a different manner than actual battlefield events which tend to be focused on desperate men trying to stay alive and win the war.
From what I've read, and again feel free to investigate this yourselves if you believe the information to be suspect, the murders of Japanese EPWs ran the gamut from VERY desperate men doing what was VERY necessary to stay alive (exigent circumstances) and simple raw brutality/retribution based on, sometimes, little more than hate/nationalism/bigotry and far removed from any urgent need. There are numerous reports of Japanese being rounded up in rear areas and machine gunned simply because they were Japanese.
From what I've read, and again feel free to investigate this yourselves if you believe the information to be suspect, the murders of Japanese EPWs ran the gamut from VERY desperate men doing what was VERY necessary to stay alive (exigent circumstances) and simple raw brutality/retribution based on, sometimes, little more than hate/nationalism/bigotry and far removed from any urgent need. There are numerous reports of Japanese being rounded up in rear areas and machine gunned simply because they were Japanese.
Maybe. So what? That's war. If your unit is moving fast, has a critical mission and the lives of many others depend on your success, you don't have time to screw around with prisoners.
If you read the history of Japanese aggression and brutality in the Far East throughout the Thirties, you will understand why many other Far Eastern countries hate the Japanese to this day.
There's no question that Japanese aggression and brutality through the Thirties, through the Forties as far as it goes, is, perhaps not necessarily unparalleled, but definitely up there in terms of some of the worst aggressive and brutal regimes in world history.
But to say that, "because they did it, we can do it", or, "because they're so bad, our less brutal though still wholly inhuman behavior is acceptable in contrast", is a cop out.
It's kinda like saying, "If you read this history of Islamic theocracy, tribal monarchies, and sectarianism in the Middle East over the past 70 years you'll see what brutal, backward, savages those people can be, so it's okay for American combat forces to rape women, murder children, torture captives, and etc..."
Trying to apply the rule of law to a completely lawless environment is just going to cause a lot of pointless collateral damage beyond that already being done.
Well, its not lawless though, its the laws of war. One cannot summarily kill POWs.
When there is one person trying to kill another person, there is no law.
We're trying to apply laws to what is a wholesale lawless act.
I'm sorry, that's unsubstantiated. Combat itself is not a law free zone, the laws of war do apply. Nevertheless, and this is important, we're also discussing post-combat and the duties imposed when capturing and detaining POWs. They can surely be tried and convicted for war crimes and subsequent to that punished accordingly, but there is no such thing as 'no quarter' and summary executions of POWs are not sanctioned by law and are in fact unlawful.
War often = win or die.
No law can exist in such a circumstance.
I was just reading the poll discussion related to three German concentration camp guards recently having been arrested and charged (for some crime) for their actions during WWII.
That got me thinking:
I've read numerous accounts written by WWII Marines and Soldiers wherein they discuss having personally witnessed or participated in the murder of Japanese enemy prisoners of war (EPWs). I've read similar, though far fewer, accounts of WWII Soldiers having murdered or witnessed the murder German and Italian EPWs.
Bear in mind that when I say "witnessed" I'm not talking about some guy watching a murder taking place 1000 meters away through a pair of binoculars; I'm talking about guys discussing murders committed right next to them by people they knew well - their buddies and shipmates.
Likewise, I've read accounts of WWII Marines and Soldiers torturing Japanese EPWs and/or desecrating the remains of dead Japanese Soldiers.
Understand that we're talking about guys unashamedly, and often proudly, admitting to murder in memoirs, diaries, and oral histories.
Further understand that there is absolutely NO QUESTION that according to the letter of the law we're talking about murder here.
This isn't a "gray area" created by the fact that the Japanese weren't signatories to the Geneva Conventions.
By all relevant and applicable international conventions, federal law, and military regulations it was illegal for Americans to kill EPWs during the entire span of the Second World War.
In many cases these murders were committed by the fighting man absent any direction from a higher authority.
In almost all cases that made little difference since, at least early in the war (through 1943 at least), most field grade commanders of combat troops encouraged such murders (for a number of reasons).
So...
Should these men, American WWII veterans, be tried for murder or as accessories to murder, and if found guilty punished accordingly?
Obviously the poll responses are "Yes" and "No" but please feel free to argue your position in any manner and to any extent that you wish.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?