How were POWs treated differently between WWI and WWII?

Question

Especially by the Japanese soldiers for the World War II...
Thanks!

It doesn't have to be Japanese soldier...were they treated more nicely during WWII?

Answer 1

Are you asking this globally? There were POWs from every country in each of the 2 wars. However, let's assume you mean Allied prisoners.

The Japanese were not signatories to the Geneva Conventions, and treated their prisoners abominably. There's a too-short entry at Wikipedia that states:
"In the Pacific War, Japan did not follow the Third Geneva Convention. American, Australian, British and Dutch prisoners of war held by the Japanese armed forces were subject to brutal treatment, including forced labour, medical experimentation, starvation rations, and poor medical treatment. No access was provided to the International Red Cross. This treatment resulted in the very high death rate of 37% in Japanese prisoner of war camps."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war#World_War_II

Read about the Bataan Death March and the building of the rairoad to Burma. Read _The Rape pf Nanking_ about the wholesale abuse and slaughter of Chinese prisoners of the Japanese. The story is hideous and Japanese have yet to own up to their own monstrosity which was committed in the name of Emperor Hirohito. Here's a good link to "The Railroad of Death":
http://www.fepow-community.org.uk/monthly_Revue/html/thailand-burma_railway.htm

Also in WWII Germans and Soviets treated each other's prisoners horribly, in violation of the 3rd Geneva Convention. Sad stuff.

BTW - The first answerer is wrong. Japan DID participate in WWI, though nowhere near the scale of WWII. Read about it here:
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1110.html

Answer 2

Contrary to some answers the Japanese DID participate in WW1.
They took Tsingtao (kind of Hongkong of the Germans in China), some islands Marianen, Caroline and Marshal island from the Germans after heavy fighting.
The German prisoners were treated fair by the Japanese (they had even some liberty and were not imprisoned in severe camps like in WW II.
That they treaded in WWII the prisoners otherwise has something to do with the change of mentality of the Imperial army when fighting against the Chinese (just as the Germans troops acted less civilised after becoming involved in the Russian Campaign). But I've till know not found a real explication for this change of behaviour.

Answer 3

I n the first world war there was no agreement for the treatment of prisoners of war but it was a time of gentlemen and mostly they were treated with respect although not always feed to well, world war two there was the Geneva convention which was a document that most government's signed on the correct treatment of prisoners , It was policed by Sweden who were neutral . Japan however were not a signatory to the Geneva convention and considered all prisoners who surrendered as cowards and that they should have never surrendered or they should have committed suicide , and treated them brutally , killing them with only the slightest excuse or working them to death will little or no food

Answer 4

A preliminary. As has been pointed out, the Japanese took part in World War I on the Allied side. However, their participation was mainly naval and their treatment of prisoners, about which I do not know, is not an issue in the same way as their applaiing treatment of the Chinese and Koreans, as well as American, British and Commonwealth military, during the Second World War.

Perhaps the first point to make about the First World War is that people became prisonners often in different ways from the Second World War. With exceptions, on the Eastern Front and in Italy, there were not the mass surrenders of places like Dunkirk, Singapore, Northern Africa and Stalingrad, of the Second World War. Many of those who became prisoners had been in fierce trench fighting. This meant that they tended to be better respected by their captors.

In Western Europe, prisonners were treated comparatively well under the Geneva Convention. Officers in particular were treated well as the old traditions of honour amongst gentlemen lingered on. The same applied to civilian prisonners: as the First World War broke out unexpectedly substantial numbers of English were trapped in Germany. However, the Allied Blockade of Germany in 1917-1918 led to food shortages for the entire population, and perhaps not surprisingly (although contrary to the geneva Convention) allied prisonners were not a priority. They went very hungry.

The worst treatment of prisonners during World War I was of the English army by the Turks. The English invaded Mesopotamia, now Iraq, via Basra and advanced on Bagdad (sounds familiar?!), where due to incompetent generalship they were cut off and surrendered. Their commanding officer was treated as a gentleman and whisked off to Constantinople, but the men were force marched through the desert on minimal rations and a large proportion of them died. The Turks also committed genocide during the First World war by a death march of their Armenian minority into Asiatic Turkey, where those who still survived were shot. Turkey's actions, which modern Turkey fails to recognise adequately in relation to the Armenians, are of contemporary relevance in relation to the European Union, as of course is British intervention in Iraq during and after the First World War.

There was widespread Allied propaganda against German attrocities in Belgium during the First World War. Even if some of these stories were exaggerations, the German occupation of Belgium was brutal. Presumably this included the treatment of Belgian soldiers left behind, although the Belgian army in general retreated into France (by contrast with 1940 when the Belgian King surrendered prematurely) and continued to fight.

Answer 5

well i'm not sure about world war 1, but in world war 2 the japanese would keep their POW's on islands and not give them any food, and the germans would put their prisoners (mostly jews) in huge oven! or shoot them in the head, no matter what age they are!

Answer 6

WW1- Dignified
WW2- Tortured

My great uncle had both his ears cut off by the Japanease in POW camp

Answer 7

The Japanese did not participate in WW1 therefore there is no comparison. From the records that can be found there is very little info on POW's of WW1 here are two sites:

http://www.btinternet.com/~prosearch/tomspage19.html

http://www.fidnet.com/~weid/ww1.html

there is a lot of info on POW's WW2:

http://www.merkki.com/

http://www.b24.net/pow/default.html

and more.

I will leave you do make the necessary comparisons.

Answer 8

their heads werent' slashed off in front of the tv cameras for all to see or media consistently show enemy propaganda.