Quote:
Originally Posted by razark
I remember reading somewhere (but I don't remember where) that the captured Japanese tended to be talkative and truthful. Two explanations were given. Their superiors expected them to fight to the death, and never prepared them for how to act if captured. Either that, or the cultural stigma of surrender was enough to break them to the point that it never occurred to them to either not talk, or to give false answers.
As I said, I don't remember where I saw it, so take it for what it's worth.
|
Yes, I certainly didn't mean to imply that they were
all liars. Thanks for clarifying that.
There were many (I'm sure) who were honest and sincere in their replies. I just meant to point out why I have reservations regarding those interrogations, and that it's hard to distinguish who was truthful and who was not, in retrospect. Obviously, time has shed some light on those who were truthful. Still, information is yet coming to light regarding those who answered (either erroneously or evasively) contrary to facts. One such example I've only recently learned of by reading "
Shattered Sword: The True Story of the Battle of Midway" and it specifically addresses one area of questioning in these post-war interrogations regarding the presence of radar on IJN ships prior to Midway.
Obviously, the interrogations were affected by the abilities/inabilities of the interrogator. A lot has been learned since then about the effectiveness of interrogation techniques. I watched one such interrogation (old war documentary) with complete astonishment as a U.S. Army captain questioned a Japanese POW. The Army captain (Intelligence Officer) lead this POW to a specific few answers, instead of letting the POW answer completely for himself.