Comments on: Aso mines used POW labor

By: klimmer

klimmer — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 04:12:51 +0000

When you acquire a company, you’ll have to assume both its assets and liabilities.

By: Mary Witzl

Mary Witzl — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:09:28 +0000

I correspond with a number of ex-POWs, British and American, all of whom substantiate the abuse claims. There are a number of excellent memoirs too, though some are better than others.

A good link to start with is the following:

http://www.us-japandialogueonpows.org/index-J.htm

Both Japanese and English texts are available. I was encouraged to visit this website by Japanese friends; if they’d never pushed me to check it out, I’d never have bothered.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 09:48:43 +0000

You DO know what a convention is, right? And how mandatory it is?

By: ダビ

ダビ — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 09:08:05 +0000

Do you have a source for the abuse claim?

By: MaryWitzl

MaryWitzl — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 07:56:39 +0000

I don’t hold Aso responsible for what his father did during the war. But I do hold him responsible for denying it.

Not only was POW labor used at Aso mines, the POWs were badly abused. No doubt Aso realizes that once he admits POW labor was used, he will open a great can of worms. Good for Ohnishi.

By: Zero

Zero — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 06:43:31 +0000

Well, if he is reaping the benefits, it isn’t too far a leap in logic to claim he should assume the responsibilities.

Whether there is anything unethical about putting POWs to work is another matter entirely.

By: feitclub

feitclub — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 01:33:20 +0000

I’d hate to be held accountable for my father’s actions when I was a kid. All I knew back then was he went to work every day, all day. He could have been up to all kinds of shenanigans!

By: ダビ

ダビ — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:38:12 +0000

I was gonna say, is using POW labour necessarily immoral or illegal as long as they are not mistreated, but I guess that settles it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:17:21 +0000

That’s from the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Third Geneva Convention was in force during the Second World War, and Japan was a signatory party, but the provisions of this section are essentially the same.

If the ‘no military character or purpose’ clause modifies raw material extraction, it should be noted that this has been defined as ‘all work which, in the categories under consideration, normally serves to maintain civilian life, even if the military authorities incidentally benefit by it.’

Of course, this leaves aside the question of whether the prisoners were abused while in captivity, as they sometimes were.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:08:36 +0000

Article 50

Besides work connected with camp administration, installation or maintenance, prisoners of war may be compelled to do only such work as is included in the following classes:

(a) Agriculture;

(b) Industries connected with the production or the extraction of raw materials, and manufacturing industries, with the exception of metallurgical, machinery and chemical industries; public works and building operations which have no military character or purpose;

(d) Commercial business, and arts and crafts;

(e) Domestic service;

(f) Public utility services having no military character or purpose.