Notes on the Works on Korean War Criminals in WWII

Last week, I read one book and one article on the Class BC Korean war criminals who were put on trial in war tribunals in the immediate postwar period in major cities in Southeast Asia and in Yokohama. One is Utsumi Aiko’s book 朝鮮人BC級戦犯の記録 (A Record of the Korean Class BC War Criminals), Keiso Shobo, 1982, and the other is Chae Yeongguk (재영국)’s article 해방후 BC급 戦犯이 된 한국인 포로감시원 (“Korean Prison Guards Who Became Class BC War Criminals in the Aftermath of Liberation” in 한국근현대사연구 (Korean Modern and Contemporary Historical Research), vol. 29, 2004 June, pp.7-36. Let me use this post to make some notes and share them with others before I forget the details.First of all, both works employ very similar narratives. Utsumi’s book is a collection of direct interviews of the survivors, and Chae’s article is a summary of the major points. Both emphasize the suffering of the Korean war criminals by pointing out the following elements about the conditions of the Koreans in question:

1. Forceful recruitment. The Japanese authorities did not follow the terms of their contracts with the Koreans.
2. Tough training and brainwashing during their training in Busan.
3. Tough living conditions in Southeast Asia — Lack of food, widespread epidemics etc. It was horrible, especially during the construction of the Thai-Burmese train rail.
4. The fact that they had to remain in Southeast Asia after the war ended.
5. Inappropriateness of the war tribunals being held by the former colonial British and Dutch authorities.
6. The inhumane treatment during their imprisonment and transportation from city to city in Southeast Asia after the war.
7. The long time they had to spend in the Sugamo prison.
8. Insufficient compensation from the Japanese government in the postwar period.

Basically, both works try to keep the dichotomy between victimized Koreans and the victimizing Japanese throughout. However, while the overall picture can hold, the details of each story in their works highlight more interesting and complex aspects of human society and history. Their works reveal the difficulty in making each argument mentioned above simple and consistent enough to prevent the reader from being distracted from, or questioning, the major narrative because of the diversity in the experiences of these military personnel. For example:

• Regarding no.1: There is of course a difference in degree in how much/little agency the Koreans had in deciding to become prison guards in Southeast Asia. Some wanted to earn money or gain an opportunity to study, while others were forced by local Korean officials to meet the quota imposed by the Japanese authority.
• Regarding no.2: I don’t know how other Koreans or all who experienced tough living conditions at the time would react to the emphasis of the toughness of the training in Busan. It is not quite clear if the brainwash with Gunjin Chokuyu was inhumane because 1. they were ethnically non-Japanese, or 2. many Koreans felt deprived of their national pride, or 3. many Koreans were successfully brainwashed because of it. Their experiences are too diverse to make a consistent argument based on 2 or 3. The question of 1, whether it is acceptable to inculcate nationalistic ideology in people within the nation but not acceptable to do so to others, should be addressed more fully in current society.
• Regarding no.3: While we can understand that it must have been very tough to live in jungles with little food, water and medicine, both Utsumi and Che make some problematic arguments in their works. Both of them emphasize and spend a lot of space to explain how bad the POWs’ lives were at the time (forced labor, little or no food, bad medical and sanitary conditions, epidemics, torturing etc) yet jump to the conclusion that “Korean prison guards suffered under similar conditions.” The inhumane hellish lives of the Western POWs there are well known in the existing literature, and thus the authors seem to be including this Western perspective (The Western point of view is of course valid but is not without problems. While it highlights the Western experience, it tends to ignore issues regarding the conscription of local labor throughout Southeast Asia.) I don’t think Western POWs thought they were sharing the same experience with the Korean prison guards. IF they want to make such an argument they need to demonstrate that there was a similarly high death rate among Korean prison guards, etc.
• Regarding no. 4 & 6: Especially because the authors emphasize how horrible and deadly the Western POWs’ lives were, they end up making an odd contrast between their experience and that of the Korean war criminals. The argument that Korean war criminals were the target of ‘revenge’ from the Allies is consistent but more negative impressions we are given in previous chapters of the book and in sections of the article unfortunately make the reader less sympathetic to Korean war criminals.
• Regarding no.5: This is where the authors have to struggle in constructing a simple narrative that creates a dichotomy between victim and victimizer. The authors confront the international standard of justice, not Japanese imperialism/colonialism. To the authors, the fact that they were forcefully brought from a colonized nation is sufficient to excuse them from all charges. However, the international understanding of individual war crimes is not based on nationality or the position of personnel within the military hierarchy.
• Regarding no.7: Although is a fact that the Korean war criminals were deprived of their freedom, Sugamo prison allowed a surprisingly free range of activities and had good living conditions in comparison to normal prisons. Again, it is not about a factual error, but at this point the authors fail to generate the sympathy of the reader, especially after being told of the horrible experiences of the Western POWs.
• Regarding no. 8: This is the most critical point in my opinion. At the same time, Utsumi’s book also reveals that there have been some Japanese individuals who tried to support these Koreans. This does not of course vindicate the Japanese, for there are many anecdotes elsewhere in which we learn that the state authority cruelly ignores the minority’s sufferings, but some individuals from the majority group did try to help them. Utsumi quotes one survivor, saying “the Japanese are good at the individual level, but they are really bad when they make a group” (252). Though such a comment might be more than understandable given their personal experiences, I couldn’t help but be disappointed to see this kind of statement readily accepted by Utsumi. At the same time, these Korean war criminals were indeed victimized in postwar society by both Japanese and Korean governments, as well as by historians. What I see are individuals deprived of agency in their own lives in order to serve the political convenience of two governments.
• It is problematic that either author (especially Chae) makes almost no mentioning of the occasions (often reported), of Korean prison guards committing violence against POWs. If the focus is on the injustice of the war tribunals, this is a point that scholars need to investigate.
• Overall, many of the issues raised do not necessarily revolve around the fact of the two nationalities, but instead are about state authority and individuals’ agency.

I have also found other interesting and very useful information in their works and I hope to discuss them in my next posting.