ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey guys,
Sorry to have to say this, and hard as it may be to believe (I know I was surprised), the killing of large numbers of prisoners (by execution) and other harsh treatment (allowing to starve to death or not providing medical care, for example) was specifically allowed in the Geneva Convention up until 1949.
The key to some of these acts not being war crimes revolved around 2 principles/conditions.
The 1st condition that made executing enemy POWs allowable was if the prisoners were from an enemy who had previously seriously violated the laws of war relative to your own soldiers in captivity, non-combatants, or civilians. The concept was that of allowing reprisal against the enemy for their acts, in the hope that (as a last resort) it would deter further such acts by your enemy.
The 2nd condition allowing the killing or other harsh treatment of POWs was if there was no reasonable recourse. In other words, if taking care of the POWs as required under the Geneva Convention would place your own personnel, ship, or chance of winning the battle or war at serious risk, it was permissible to execute the POWs or otherwise treat them harshly at a level commensurate to the problem.
The laws of war do not require you to allow your own troops to go without food or medicine in order to provide food or medicine to POWs.
The US submarine force sank 3 of the first few (3 out of 4?, 3 out of 5?) Japanese hospital/refugee ships that set sail from the front line areas. 2 of the ships held Japanese civilians, wounded Japanese military personnel, and Allied prisoners (wounded and un-wounded) heading for the Japanese rear areas and the mainland. The 3rd ship held Japanese civilians and a few wounded. All three of the ships sunk were properly marked for their duty, which should have protected them from attack. A result of the immediately ordered unrestricted submarine warfare by the US. After this the Japanese began painting some of their regular freighters as hospital ships and sent civilians, wounded (Japanese and Allied), and POWs on unmarked freighters.
The US bombing campaign against Japanese cities started in January 1944.
After these incidents the Japanese forces would have been justified (legally) in killing US POWs. (The incident above and further up thread mentioned by The Basket involving the IJN cruiser Tone and the execution of survivors and prisoners took place in March 1944.)
Another factor, is that before the post-war trials, for the Geneva Conventions to apply to a nation, the nation's internationally recognized government had to sign and ratify the individual articles.
The Japanese government did not ratify the 1929 Geneva Convention, and officially withdrew from some of the earlier articles during the late-1930s. This justified (legally) some of their bad behavior concerning Allied POWs.
The US and UK had never signed the article making aerial bombing of cities illegal, hence by the rules concerning war crimes their actions could reasonably (in their own minds anyway) be considered (legally) OK. Other nations might not think so but they would have to win the war to be able to do anything about it.
Post-war, of course, the Tokyo war crime trials took place. Some of the behavior put on trial unquestionably met the standard of war crimes due to Japan's acceptance of the earlier 1st Geneva Convention, other actions/behavior did not meet this standard. Some were enforced anyway by the Allies.
Subsequent to the Tokyo and Nuremberg trials, the Allied governments received a lot of grief due to this "double standard" or "no standard" and some of the convictions came under international scrutiny and were questioned as to their legality, which led to the idea of the validity of the basic concept of a war crime trial. This resulted in some of the changes in the 3rd Geneva Convention, which removed some of the behavior legally allowed in regard to POWs in 1949.
Today, most of the concepts embodied in the Geneva Convention and some other laws and principals have become largely recognized (at least by the countries who see it as in their interest) as universal and no agreeing, signing, or ratifying by a country is necessary for the laws to be enforced against said country.
Again, I am in no way excusing the bad behavior of any of the participants, just trying to put some historical perspective on the thinking of the times particularly relative to the laws of war.
Incidentally, this link to a Wikipedia article concerning the capture and treatment of Japanese POWs by the Allies is interesting:
"Japanese prisoners of war in World War II - Wikipedia"
I have depressed myself with this stuff enough for today, so I think I will look at funny cat pictures for a while.
Sorry to have to say this, and hard as it may be to believe (I know I was surprised), the killing of large numbers of prisoners (by execution) and other harsh treatment (allowing to starve to death or not providing medical care, for example) was specifically allowed in the Geneva Convention up until 1949.
The key to some of these acts not being war crimes revolved around 2 principles/conditions.
The 1st condition that made executing enemy POWs allowable was if the prisoners were from an enemy who had previously seriously violated the laws of war relative to your own soldiers in captivity, non-combatants, or civilians. The concept was that of allowing reprisal against the enemy for their acts, in the hope that (as a last resort) it would deter further such acts by your enemy.
The 2nd condition allowing the killing or other harsh treatment of POWs was if there was no reasonable recourse. In other words, if taking care of the POWs as required under the Geneva Convention would place your own personnel, ship, or chance of winning the battle or war at serious risk, it was permissible to execute the POWs or otherwise treat them harshly at a level commensurate to the problem.
The laws of war do not require you to allow your own troops to go without food or medicine in order to provide food or medicine to POWs.
The US submarine force sank 3 of the first few (3 out of 4?, 3 out of 5?) Japanese hospital/refugee ships that set sail from the front line areas. 2 of the ships held Japanese civilians, wounded Japanese military personnel, and Allied prisoners (wounded and un-wounded) heading for the Japanese rear areas and the mainland. The 3rd ship held Japanese civilians and a few wounded. All three of the ships sunk were properly marked for their duty, which should have protected them from attack. A result of the immediately ordered unrestricted submarine warfare by the US. After this the Japanese began painting some of their regular freighters as hospital ships and sent civilians, wounded (Japanese and Allied), and POWs on unmarked freighters.
The US bombing campaign against Japanese cities started in January 1944.
After these incidents the Japanese forces would have been justified (legally) in killing US POWs. (The incident above and further up thread mentioned by The Basket involving the IJN cruiser Tone and the execution of survivors and prisoners took place in March 1944.)
Another factor, is that before the post-war trials, for the Geneva Conventions to apply to a nation, the nation's internationally recognized government had to sign and ratify the individual articles.
The Japanese government did not ratify the 1929 Geneva Convention, and officially withdrew from some of the earlier articles during the late-1930s. This justified (legally) some of their bad behavior concerning Allied POWs.
The US and UK had never signed the article making aerial bombing of cities illegal, hence by the rules concerning war crimes their actions could reasonably (in their own minds anyway) be considered (legally) OK. Other nations might not think so but they would have to win the war to be able to do anything about it.
Post-war, of course, the Tokyo war crime trials took place. Some of the behavior put on trial unquestionably met the standard of war crimes due to Japan's acceptance of the earlier 1st Geneva Convention, other actions/behavior did not meet this standard. Some were enforced anyway by the Allies.
Subsequent to the Tokyo and Nuremberg trials, the Allied governments received a lot of grief due to this "double standard" or "no standard" and some of the convictions came under international scrutiny and were questioned as to their legality, which led to the idea of the validity of the basic concept of a war crime trial. This resulted in some of the changes in the 3rd Geneva Convention, which removed some of the behavior legally allowed in regard to POWs in 1949.
Today, most of the concepts embodied in the Geneva Convention and some other laws and principals have become largely recognized (at least by the countries who see it as in their interest) as universal and no agreeing, signing, or ratifying by a country is necessary for the laws to be enforced against said country.
Again, I am in no way excusing the bad behavior of any of the participants, just trying to put some historical perspective on the thinking of the times particularly relative to the laws of war.
Incidentally, this link to a Wikipedia article concerning the capture and treatment of Japanese POWs by the Allies is interesting:
"Japanese prisoners of war in World War II - Wikipedia"
I have depressed myself with this stuff enough for today, so I think I will look at funny cat pictures for a while.
Last edited: