Patton and War Crimes

[drone]

Those that were shot before they were torn limb from limb were the lucky ones. Again, I'm waiting for you to disprove what I said. You'll need a little more than hysterics to do that.

This is textbook argumentum ad ignorantiam. You are making the assertion, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Hitler had sex with goats, prove to me that he didn't.

[PanzerJaeger]

This is textbook argumentum ad ignorantiam. You are making the assertion, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Hitler had sex with goats, prove to me that he didn't.

I'm sorry. I assumed the others were being coy. I thought it was common knowledge among people interested in the period.

Here's some wiki info for ya...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ja...g_World_War_II

U. S. historian James J. Weingartner attributes the very low number of Japanese in U.S. POW compounds to two key factors: a Japanese reluctance to surrender and a widespread American "conviction that the Japanese were 'animals' or 'subhuman' and unworthy of the normal treatment accorded to POWs."[11] The latter reasoning is supported by Fergusson, who says that "Allied troops often saw the Japanese in the same way that Germans regarded Russians [sic] — as Untermenschen."[12] According to Weingartner, many U.S. troops regarded fighting the Japanese as more like hunting inhuman animals than a war.[11]

The U.S. conviction that the Japanese were subhuman or animals, together with Japanese reluctance to attempt to surrender to allied forces, contributed to the fact that a mere 604 Japanese captives were alive in Allied POW camps by October 1944.

Weingartner also sees a connection between the mutilation of Japanese war dead and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[15] According to Weingartner both were partially the result of a dehumanization of the enemy. "[t]he widespread image of the Japanese as sub-human constituted an emotional context which provided another justification for decisions which resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands."[16] On the second day after the Nagasaki bomb, Truman stated: "The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him like a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_...g_World_War_II

Allied soldiers in Pacific and Asian theatres sometimes killed Japanese soldiers who were attempting to surrender or after they had surrendered. A social historian of the Pacific War, John W. Dower, states that "by the final years of the war against Japan, a truly vicious cycle had developed in which the Japanese reluctance to surrender had meshed horrifically with Allied disinterest in taking prisoners."[29] Dower suggests that most Japanese personnel were told that they would be "killed or tortured" if they fell into Allied hands and, as a consequence, most of those faced with defeat on the battlefield fought to the death or committed suicide.[30] In addition, it was held to be shamefully disgraceful for a Japanese soldier to surrender, leading many to suicide or fight to the death regardless of beliefs concerning their possible treatment as POWs. In fact, the Japanese Field Service Code said that surrender was not permissible.[31] And while it was "not official policy" for Allied personnel to take no prisoners, "over wide reaches of the Asian battleground it was everyday practice."[32]

American 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.[39] Dower states that in "many instances ... Japanese who did become prisoners were killed on the spot or en route to prison compounds."[32] According to Aldrich it was common practice for U.S. troops not to take prisoners.[40] This analysis is supported by British historian Niall Ferguson,[41] who also says that, in 1943, "a secret [U. S.] intelligence report noted that only the promise of ice cream and three days leave would ... induce American troops not to kill surrendering Japanese."[42]

Ferguson states such practices played a role in the ratio of Japanese prisoners to dead being 1:100 in late 1944. That same year, efforts were taken by Allied high commanders to suppress "take no prisoners" attitudes,[42] among their own personnel (as these were affecting intelligence gathering) and to encourage Japanese soldiers to surrender. Ferguson adds that measures by Allied commanders to improve the ratio of Japanese prisoners to Japanese dead, resulted in it reaching 1:7, by mid-1945. Nevertheless, taking no prisoners was still standard practice among U. S. troops at the Battle of Okinawa, in April–June 1945.

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... Lieutenant General William Slim wrote laconically: 'quarter was neither asked nor given.'"[48]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanes...n_World_War_II

It has been estimated that between 19,500 and 50,000 Japanese military personnel surrendered to Allied forces prior to the end of the Pacific War in August 1945.[1] The number of Japanese soldiers, sailors and airmen who surrendered was limited by the Japanese military indoctrinating its personnel to fight to the death and Allied personnel often being unwilling to take prisoners.[2]

Allied forces continued to kill Japanese personnel who were attempting to surrender throughout the war.[35] It is likely that more Japanese soldiers would have surrendered if they had not believed that they would be killed by the Allies while trying to do so.[36] Moreover, fear of being killed after surrendering was one of the main factors which influenced Japanese troops to fight to the death, and a wartime U.S. Office of Wartime Information report stated that it may have been more important than fear of disgrace and a desire to die for Japan.[37]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...anese_war_dead

During World War II, some United States military personnel mutilated dead Japanese service personnel in the Pacific theater of operations. The mutilation of Japanese service personnel included the taking of body parts as “war souvenirs” and “war trophies”. Teeth were the most commonly taken objects, but skulls and other body parts were sometimes also collected. This behaviour was officially prohibited by the U.S. Military, but the prohibitions against it were not always enforced by officers in the field.

Only a minority of US troops collected Japanese body parts as trophies, and it is not possible to determine the percentage who did. However "their behaviour reflected attitudes which were very widely shared."[3][4] In addition to trophy skulls, teeth, ears and other such objects, taken body parts were occasionally modified, for example by writing on them or fashioning them into utilities or other artifacts.[5] "U.S. Marines on their way to Guadalcanal relished the prospect of making necklaces of Japanese gold teeth and "pickling" Japanese ears as keepsakes."[6] In an air base in New Guinea hunting the last remaining Japanese was a “sort of hobby”. The leg-bones of these Japanese were sometimes carved into letter openers and pen-holders,[5] but this was rare.[3]

Eugene Sledge, private, Company K, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division, also relates a few instances of fellow Marines extracting gold teeth from the Japanese dead. In one case, Sledge witnessed an extraction while the Japanese soldier was still alive. A Marine Sledge did not know drifted in after an engagement to take some "spoils." As the Marine drove his knife into the still live soldier, he was promptly shouted down by Sledge and others in Company K, and another Marine ran over and shot the wounded Japanese soldier. The Marine took his prize and drifted away, cursing the others for their humanity. (With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa. p 120 )

In 1944 the American poet Winfield Townley Scott was working as a reporter in Rhode Island when a sailor displayed his skull trophy in the newspaper office. This led to the poem The U.S. sailor with the Japanese skull, which described one method for preparation of skulls (the head is skinned, towed in a net behind a ship to clean and polish it, and in the end scrubbed with caustic soda).[7]

In October 1943, the U.S. High Command expressed alarm over recent newspaper articles, for example one where a soldier made a string of beads using Japanese teeth, and another about a soldier with pictures showing the steps in preparing a skull, involving cooking and scraping of the Japanese heads.[7]

Charles Lindbergh refers in his diary to many instances of Japanese with an ear or nose cut off.[7] In the case of the skulls however, most were not collected from freshly killed Japanese; most came from already partially or fully skeletonised Japanese bodies

Most U.S. servicemen in the Pacific did not mutilate Japanese corpses. The majority had some knowledge that these practices were occurring, however, and "accepted them as inevitable under the circumstances".[8] The incidence of soldiers collecting Japanese body parts occurred on "a scale large enough to concern the Allied military authorities throughout the conflict and was widely reported and commented on in the American and Japanese wartime press", however.[9] The degree of acceptance of the practice varied between units. Taking of teeth was generally accepted by enlisted men and also by officers, while acceptance for taking other body parts varied greatly.[3]

There is some disagreement between historians over what the more common forms of 'trophy hunting' undertaken by U.S. personnel were. John W. Dower states that ears were the most common form of trophy which was taken, and skulls and bones were less commonly collected. In particular he states that "skulls were not popular trophies" as they were difficult to carry and the process for removing the flesh was offensive.[10] This view is supported by Simon Harrison.[3] In contrast, Niall Ferguson states that "boiling the flesh off enemy [Japanese] skulls to make souvenirs was a not uncommon practice. Ears, bones and teeth were also collected".[11]

The collection of Japanese body parts began quite early in the campaign, prompting a September 1942 order for disciplinary action against such souvenir taking.[3] Harrison concludes that since this was the first real opportunity to take such items (the battle of Guadalcanal), "Clearly, the collection of body parts on a scale large enough to concern the military authorities had started as soon as the first living or dead Japanese bodies were encountered."[3] Eric Bergerud explains the attitudes which led to this behavior by noting that the Marines who fought on Guadalcanal were aware of Japanese atrocities against the defenders of Wake Island, which included the beheading of several Marines, and the Bataan Death March prior to the start of the campaign.[12] When Charles Lindbergh passed through customs at Hawaii in 1944, one of the customs declarations he was asked to make was whether or not he was carrying any bones. He was told after expressing some shock at the question that it had become a routine point.[13] This was because of the large number of souvenir bones discovered in customs, also including “green” (uncured) skulls.[14]

On February 1, 1943, Life magazine published a famous photograph by Ralph Morse which showed the charred, open-mouthed, decapitated head of a Japanese soldier killed by U.S Marines during the Guadalcanal campaign, and propped up below the gun turret of a tank by Marines. The caption read as follows: "A Japanese soldier's skull is propped up on a burned-out Jap tank by U.S. troops." Life received letters of protest from mothers who had sons in the war and others "in disbelief that American soldiers were capable of such brutality toward the enemy." The editors of Life explained that "war is unpleasant, cruel, and inhuman. And it is more dangerous to forget this than to be shocked by reminders."

In 1984 Japanese soldiers' remains were repatriated from the Mariana Islands. Roughly 60 percent were missing their skulls.[14]

And on and on and on...

[drone]

Much better.

[Louis VI the Fat]

According to James D. Morrow, "Death rates of POWs held is one measure of adherence to the standards of the treaties because substandard treatment leads to death of prisoners." The "democratic states generally provide good treatment of POWs".[64]

Death rates of POWs held by Axis powers

• Chinese POWs held by Japan: > 99%[citation needed] (only 56 survivors at the end of the war)[65]
• U.S. and British Commonwealth POWs held by Germany: ~4% [64]
• Soviet POWs held by Germany: 57.5% [66]
• Western Allied POWs held by Japan: 27% [67]

Death rates of POWs held by the Allies

• German POWs in East European (not including the Soviet Union) hands 32.9%[66]
• German soldiers held by Soviet Union: 15-33% (14.7% in The Dictators by Richard Overy, 35.8% in Ferguson[66])
• Japanese POWs held by Soviet Union: 10%
• German POWs in British hands 0.03%[66]
• German POWs in American hands 0.15%[66]
• German POWs in French hands 2.58%[66]
• Japanese POWs held by U.S.: relatively low, mainly suicides according to James D. Morrow[68] or according to Ulrich Straus high as many prisoners were shot by front line troops.[44]
• Japanese POWs in Chinese hands. 24%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_...II#The_Pacific

The pattern seems clear.

In every instance, the survival rate for Axis POW's in Allied hands is much, much higher than the reverse. Whether it be China - Japan, Germany - SU, or US/UK/France - Germany.

[PanzerJaeger]

The pattern seems clear.

In every instance, the survival rate for Axis POW's in Allied hands is much, much higher than the reverse. Whether it be China - Japan, Germany - SU, or US/UK/France - Germany.

Louis, your own quote seems to betray the point you are trying to make.

Japanese POWs held by U.S.: relatively low, mainly suicides according to James D. Morrow[68] or according to Ulrich Straus high as many prisoners were shot by front line troops.[44]

Allow me to re-quote.

American 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.[39] Dower states that in "many instances ... Japanese who did become prisoners were killed on the spot or en route to prison compounds."[32] According to Aldrich it was common practice for U.S. troops not to take prisoners.[40] This analysis is supported by British historian Niall Ferguson,[41] who also says that, in 1943, "a secret [U. S.] intelligence report noted that only the promise of ice cream and three days leave would ... induce American troops not to kill surrendering Japanese."[42]

Why is it so difficult to accept that both sides practiced dehumanization and their conduct in the war reflected that? For the Germans, it was the Eastern Peoples, for the Western Allies, it was the Japanese. For the Japanese, it was everyone. When the Germans and the Western Allies fought, it was generally far more civil because they saw each other as human. Interestingly, the Nazi dehumanization was a top-down campaign to induce cruel attitudes and hatred in their soldiers, while the Allied racism came directly from the people and was - at least on paper - frowned upon by at least some of the military and civilian higher-ups, like when Roosevelt sent back an envelope opener given to him by a congressman that was made from a Japanese shin bone.

[Brenus]

“You and Brenus seem to know more about my intentions than I do.”
I just read your posts. You are always trying to equal Allies war crimes with Nazi Genocide.
I do not know you intention and in fact I do appreciate your post in term of History.
However, one fundamental in History is to analyze texts in the context and to question who wrote what, to whom and for which purpose.
Your apparent will to equal Nazism with Communism lead me to conclude it is a political issue.
You are not alone in this trend as Poland just passed a motion stating this.

“I just don't quantify morality through body counts. Is a man who kills 5 people worse than one who kills 3?” Nor I do. So to built Extermination camps in order to kill human being just in denying them humanity is worst than to created harsh work camps.
The ideology qualifies for the morality. Japanese and Nazi Germany were based on racism.
The others criminals as Stalin and Mao killed who challenged or were perceived as a potential dangers without race discrimination and that is why they are dictators.
It is said that Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler, due to the length of time of his dictatorship…

You were not without noticing that for the Gulag and Kolyma link, no figures are really given for 1932 to 1954.
The fact that there were still prisoners to grant an amnesty is something that couldn’t happened in Sobibor or Treblinka…
From your source: “The Kolyma authority, which was reorganised in 1958/59 (31 December 1958), finally closed in 1968. However the mining activities did not stop. Indeed, government structures still exist today under the Ministry of Natural Resources. In some cases, the same individuals seem to have stayed on over the years under new management.”
Hardly imaginable in Auschwitz/Birkenau isn’t it?

“Why is it so difficult to accept that both sides practiced dehumanization and their conduct in the war reflected that? For the Germans, it was the Eastern Peoples, for the Western Allies, it was the Japanese.”
I do agree that the US war propaganda was a bit racist against the Japanese. However, if you just consider how the Japanese treated the Asian Countries they “liberated” (2.000.000 dead just for Vietnam thanks to the razzia on rice) and how the US treated Japan…
Some US soldiers commited war crimes and did collect bones, and gold teeth etc. Now it was not a governmental request/duties as in Nazi Germany Camps.
Some did try to save the women jumping with their babies as well.
Some risk their lives to save injured Japanese even if the risk of a grenade explosion was not to underestimate…
This can’t be said for the Japanese side.

Just read about what happened to the French garrisons of Langson or Dong Dang..

[ajaxfetish]

I've got mixed feelings here. PJ is an interesting member. Sometimes I worry about his motivations or prejudices, but he usually posts factual information and makes reasonable arguments. In spite of some asides, I have not got the impression in this thread that he is trying to argue that allied war crimes are as bad as axis ones, or that war crimes on the allied side make the allies as bad as the axis. He may think this himself (I'm not rightly sure), but regardless, he's made some assertions in this thread that are worth critical consideration, and should not be dismissed based on ideas of his possible intentions. We do not have to grant Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan any absolution in recognizing the existence of allied atrocities. To refuse to consider allied war crimes would be intellectually dishonest.

Ajax

[drone]

I don't doubt that the US servicemen took some liberties in the Pacific. Much if this was due to the actions of the Japanese themselves (Pearl, Bataan, Nanking, etc.), which fed the US propaganda machine, and the IJA's Senginkun code which made taking prisoners a dicey prospect at best. The Japanese also lied about following the Geneva conventions on POWs (even though they did not ratify the treaty, they still said they would abide by it). All in all, a vicious fight, fought by different cultures, with less attention in theater than the fight in Europe.

The problem with Panzer's argument is both the scale factor, and the victims. The Axis is responsible for many more atrocities, and these were largely targeted against civilians. The atrocities of the Allies were largely targeted against the enemy combatants.

[Pannonian]

I don't doubt that the US servicemen took some liberties in the Pacific. Much if this was due to the actions of the Japanese themselves (Pearl, Bataan, Nanking, etc.), which fed the US propaganda machine, and the IJA's Senginkun code which made taking prisoners a dicey prospect at best. The Japanese also lied about following the Geneva conventions on POWs (even though they did not ratify the treaty, they still said they would abide by it). All in all, a vicious fight, fought by different cultures, with less attention in theater than the fight in Europe.

The problem with Panzer's argument is both the scale factor, and the victims. The Axis is responsible for many more atrocities, and these were largely targeted against civilians. The atrocities of the Allies were largely targeted against the enemy combatants.

Read descriptions of the London Cage. The read descriptions of Mengele's and Unit 731's activities. Then find somewhere to vomit. Read PJ's comparison of the London Cage with those Axis butchers. Then vomit again. The greatest Allied atrocity of WW2 was the decision not to prosecute Shiro Ishii.

[drone]

Read descriptions of the London Cage. The read descriptions of Mengele's and Unit 731's activities. Then find somewhere to vomit. Read PJ's comparison of the London Cage with those Axis butchers. Then vomit again. The greatest Allied atrocity of WW2 was the decision not to prosecute Shiro Ishii.

I'm quite aware of how ridiculous that claim was. We did worse at Abu Ghraib.

This thread is about Allied war crimes. Did some Allied soldiers torture or shoot prisoners? I don't think that can be denied. But PJ seems to be playing loose and fast with the numbers in an attempt to... what? He hasn't really come up with solid numbers for his claims, the wiki quotes are anecdotal at best. The important questions are: how prevalent were these crimes, and to what extent were they accepted within the chain of command? Comparisons to Axis crimes are meaningless, because there is no comparison.