Did Japanese prisoners of war suffer during the Second World War as much as is often claimed?
Author: Talib Aliyev, analyst, especially for "Sangar"
The anniversary of the end of the Second World War became a catalyst for an intensive reassessment of historical memory. In Western discourse, there were attempts both to downplay the role of China and the Soviet Union in the victory and to equate Stalinism with Nazism. At the same time, in Japanese rhetoric, one of the central elements became the narrative of a “treacherous strike” by the USSR and the subsequent “tragic fate” of Japanese prisoners of war. This concept, emotionally framed as “Siberian Hiroshima,” strongly emphasized their “abduction,” forced labor, and the deaths of tens of thousands of people. It found support among certain circles, including some Russian liberals, and served as the basis for demands for official apologies from Moscow. However, a comprehensive analysis of historical data and the actual conditions of Japanese prisoners of war in the USSR allows for a significant correction of this one-sided view.
The postwar reality for Japanese servicemen was far more complex and differentiated. After Japan’s surrender, most of its soldiers were demobilized. However, the troops of the Kwantung Army, captured by Chinese and Soviet forces during the final stage of the war in the Far East, were interned in the USSR. There, they were held in specially organized camps and were actively employed in reconstruction work, making a significant contribution to the revival of the national economy devastated by the war.
Contrary to widespread notions of mass extermination or horrific conditions, the evidence points to relatively humane treatment of Japanese prisoners of war in Soviet camps. Prisoners were provided with a regulated eight-hour sleep and a comparable working day. They were supplied with a full set of clothing and bedding. Their daily life was organized by units, often under the command of their own officers. An important aspect of their leisure included active participation in cultural activities, learning Russian songs, sports, and limited but existing contacts with the local population, from whom they often received help. Moreover, the Soviet state provided rations for the Japanese that reached 2,500 calories per day. This amount was comparable to, or even exceeded, the diet of many Soviet citizens in the war-devastated country as well as the population of postwar Japan. Thus, their labor was part of the overall process of postwar recovery, rather than an act of revenge or systematic extermination.
However, it was impossible to entirely avoid difficulties. The greatest hardships and higher mortality rates occurred during the harsh winter of 1945–1946. These cases, however, were not caused by malicious treatment or a deliberate policy of destruction, but by the general postwar problems of providing housing, food, and warm clothing. These problems were acutely felt not only by the prisoners but also by the guards and the local population.
The situation of Japanese prisoners of war in the USSR contrasted sharply with how prisoners were treated in other countries during the Second World War. Unlike the systematic atrocities committed by Nazi Germany against Soviet soldiers, or the inhumane cruelty of the Japanese Imperial Army—as seen, for example, during the Bataan Death March, where American and Filipino prisoners were widely killed through starvation, thirst, and violence—Soviet captivity, despite its unavoidable shortcomings, did not involve systematic torture or extermination.
It is also important to note that the Japanese armed forces during the Second World War were not humane and actively participated in war crimes.
A prominent example is the infamous Unit 731 under the leadership of Dr. Ishii. In his laboratories, located in China, horrific experiments were conducted on living humans. Test subjects were taken from the local population. The imagination of these “scientists” knew no bounds, leading to experiments such as testing human endurance in ice water, the body’s reaction to horse urine or poisonous gases, and even the replacement of human blood. The exact number of victims at the hands of these Japanese torturers is unknown and will likely never be established, as most of the documentation was either destroyed or taken by Ishii to the United States, where the information was never released. Estimates suggest that the number of deaths ranged from three to ten thousand, but the true figure is likely much higher.
In conclusion, a reassessment of the end of the Second World War requires not only a critical approach to external narratives but also a deep understanding of context and comparative analysis. The narrative of “Siberian Hiroshima” regarding Japanese prisoners of war in the USSR, although reflecting certain postwar hardships, significantly distorts the overall picture, ignoring the relatively humane conditions of captivity, the absence of systematic torture, and—most importantly—the stark contrast with the war crimes committed by the Japanese Imperial Army itself. An objective historical evaluation requires recognizing all aspects of this complex period and avoiding politicized myths and one-sided interpretations.
