A pathbreaking account of World War II POW camps, challenging the longstanding belief that the Japanese Empire systematically mistreated Allied prisoners.
In only five months, from the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 to the fall of Corregidor in May 1942, the Japanese Empire took prisoner more than 140,000 Allied servicemen and 130,000 civilians from a dozen different countries. From Manchuria to Java, Burma to New Guinea, the Japanese army hastily set up over seven hundred camps to imprison these unfortunates. In the chaos, 40 percent of American POWs did not survive. More Australians died in captivity than were killed in combat.
Sarah Kovner offers the first portrait of detention in the Pacific theater that explains why so many suffered. She follows Allied servicemen in Singapore and the Philippines transported to Japan on "hellships" and singled out for hard labor, but also describes the experience of guards and camp commanders, who were completely unprepared for the task. Much of the worst treatment resulted from a lack of planning, poor training, and bureaucratic incoherence rather than an established policy of debasing and tormenting prisoners. The struggle of POWs tended to be greatest where Tokyo exercised the least control, and many were killed by Allied bombs and torpedoes rather than deliberate mistreatment.
By going beyond the horrific accounts of captivity to actually explain why inmates were neglected and abused, Prisoners of the Empire contributes to ongoing debates over POW treatment across myriad war zones, even to the present day.
Journalists believe in "first get it right" Do academics? I bought the book out of personal interest and didn't intend to review it but it's got so many mistakes and omissions I had to post a long review pointing out all the problems
Prisoners of the Empire contains glaring errors and serious omissions. There is substantial information in Prisoners of the Empire, but that is lost because what Kovner has mostly produced is an unfocused mishmash that fails to fulfil her stated aim of “analytic rigour that academic historians have used to examine much less consequential subjects.”
See my blog for link to Prisoners of the Empire: a disappointing, cherry-picked mishmas
It was very interesting. At times it seemed to drag on. The flow to me didn't seem as smooth. I had been waiting for this book to come out and am glad I read it. It had a lot of information within it's pages. Also at times the book seemed to take up for the atrocities that Japan had perpetuated on the prisoners of War. Over all I am glad I read it but probably not read it again
⤑ research tag: in an effort to organise my shelves, I'm going to be labelling the books I'm using for study purposes as I tend to dip in and out of these.