Even during the war，therefore，the Japanese criticized the government，the High Command，and their immediate superiors。They did not unquestioningly acknowledge the virtues of the whole hierarchy。But the Emperor was exempt。How could this be when his primacy was so recent？What quirk of Japanese character made it possible that he should so attain a sacrosanct position？Were Japanese prisoners of war right in clai-ming that just as the people would fight to the death“with bamboo spears”as long as he so ordered，they would peaceably accept defeat and occupation if that was his com-mand？Was this nonsense meant to mislead us？Or was it，possibly，the truth？
All these crucial questions about Japanese behavior in the war，from their anti-ma-terialistic bias to their attitudes toward the Emperor concerned the homeland Japan as well as the fighting fronts。There were other attitudes which had to do more specifically with the Japanese Army。One of these concerned the expendability of their fighting forces。The Japanese radio put well the contrast with the American attitudes when it de-scribed with shocked incredulity the Navy's decoration of Admiral George S。McCain，commander of a task force off Formosa。
The official reason for the decoration was not that Commander John S。McCain was able to put the Japanese to flight，though we don't see why not since that is what the Nimitz communiqué claimed……Well the reason given for Admiral McCain's decora-tion was that he was able successfully to rescue two damaged American warships and escort them safely to their home base。What makes this bit of information important is not that it is a fiction but that it is the truth……So we are not questioning the veracity of Admiral McCain's rescuing two ships，but the point we want you to see is the curious fact that the rescuing of damaged ships merits decoration in the United States。
Americans thrill to all rescue，all aid to those pressed to the wall。A valiant deed is all the more a hero's act if it saves the“damaged。”Japanese valor repudiates such sal-vaging。Even the safety devices installed in our B-29's and fighter planes raised their cry of“Cowardice。”The press and the radio returned to the theme over and over again。There was virtue only in accepting life and death risks；precautions were unworthy。This attitude found expression also in the case of the wounded and of malarial patients。Such soldiers were damaged goods and the medical services provided were utterly inadequate even for reasonable effectiveness of the fighting force。As time went on，supply difficul-ties of all kinds aggravated this lack of medical care，but that was not the whole story。Japanese scorn of materialism played a part in it；her soldiers were taught that death it-self was a victory of the spirit and our kind of care of the sick was an interference with heroism-like safety devices in bombing planes。Nor are the Japanese used to such reli-ance on physicians and surgeons in civilian life as Americans are。Preoccupation with mercy toward the damaged rather than with other welfare measures is especially high in the United States，and is often commented on even by visitors from some European countries in peacetime。It is certainly alien to the Japanese。At all events，during the war the Japanese army had no trained rescue teams to remove the wounded under fire and to give first aid；it had no medical system of front line，behind-the-lines and distant recuperative hospitals。Its attention to medical supplies was lamentable。In certain e-mergencies the hospitalized were simply killed。Especially in New Guinea and the Phil-ippines，the Japanese often had to retreat from a position where there was a hospital。There was no routine of evacuating the sick and wounded while there was still opportuni-ty；only when the“planned withdrawal”of the battalion was actually taking place or the enemy was occupying was anything done。Then，the medical officer in charge often shot the inmates of the hospital before he left or they killed themselves with hand grenades。
If this attitude of the Japanese toward damaged goods was fundamental in their treatment of their own countrymen，it was equally important in their treatment of Ameri-can prisoners of war。According to our standards the Japanese were guilty of atrocities to their own men as well as to their prisoners。The former chief medical medical officer of the Philippines，Colonel Harold W·Glattly，said after his three years'internment as a prisoner of war on Formosa that“the American prisoner got better medical treatment than the Japanese soldiers。Allied medical officers in the prison camps were able to take care of their men while the Japanese didn't have any doctors。For a while the only medi-cal personnel they had for their own men was a corporal and later on a sergeant。”He saw a Japanese medical officer only once or twice a year。
The furthest extreme to which this Japanese theory of expendability could be pushed was their no-surrender policy。Any Occidental army which has done its best and finds it-self facing hopeless odds surrenders to the enemy。They still regard themselves as honor-able soldiers and by international agreement their names are sent back to their countries so that their families may know that they are alive。They are not disgraced either as sol-diers or as citizens or in their own families。But the Japanese defined the situation differ-ently。Honor was bound up with fighting to the death。In a hopeless situation a Japanese soldier should kill himself with his last hand grenade or charge weaponless against the enemy in a mass suicide attack。But he should not surrender。Even if he were taken prisoner when he was wounded and unconscious，he“could not hold up his head in Ja-pan”again；he was disgraced；he was“dead”to his former life。
There were Army orders to this effect，of course，but there was apparently no need of special official indoctrination at the front。The Army lived up to the code to such an extent that in the North Burma campaign the proportion of the captured to the dead was 142 to 17166.That was a ratio of 1：120.And of the 142 in the prison camps，all ex-cept a small minority were wounded or unconscious when taken；only a very few had“surrendered”singly or in groups of two or three。In the armies of Occidental nations it is almost a truism that troops cannot stand the death of one-fourth to one-third of their strength without giving up；surrenders run about 4：1.When for the first time in Hollan-dia，however，any appreciable number of Japanese troops surrendered，the proportion was 1：5 and that was a tremendous advance over the 1：120 of North Burma。
To the Japanese therefore Americans who had become prisoners of war were dis-graced by the mere fact of surrender。They were“damaged goods”even when wounds or malaria or dysentery had not also put them outside the category of“complete men。”Many Americans have described how dangerous a thing American laughter was in the prison camps and how it stung their warders。In Japanese eyes they had suffered igno-miny and it was bitter to them that the Americans did not know it。Many of the orders which American prisoners had to obey，too，were those which had also been required of their Japanese keeps by their own Japanese offices；the forced marches and the close-packed transshipments were commonplaces to them。Americans tell，too，of how rigor-ously sentries required that the prisoners should cover up evasions of rules；the great crime was to evade openly。In camps where the prisoners worked off-bounds on roads or installations during the day the rule that no food be brought back with them from the countryside was sometimes a dead letter-if the fruit and vegetables were covered up。If they could be seen，it was a flagrant offense which meant that the Americans had flaun-ted the sentry's authority。Open challenging of authority was terribly punished even if it were mere“answering back。”Japanese rules are very strict against a man's answering back even in civilian life and their own army practices penalized it heavily。It is no ex-oneration of the atrocities and wanton cruelties that did occur in the prison camps to dis-tinguish between these and those acts which were the consequences of cultural habitua-tions。
Especially in the earlier stages of the conflict the shame of capture was reinforced by a very real belief among the Japanese that the enemy tortured and killed any prison-ers。One rumor of tanks that had been driven across the bodies of those captured on Guadalcanal spread through almost all areas。Some Japanese who tried to give them-selves up，too，were regarded with so much suspicion by our troops that they were killed as a precaution，and this suspicion was often justified。A Japanese for whom there was nothing left but death was often proud that he could take an enemy with him when he died；he might do it even after he was captured。Having determined，as one of them put it，“to be burned on the altar of victory，it would be a disgrace to die with no heroic deed achieved。”Such possibilities put our Army on its guard and diminished the num-ber of surrenders。
The shame of surrender was burned deeply into the consciousness of the Japanese。They accepted as a matter of course a behavior which was alien to our conventions of warfare。And ours was just as alien to them。They spoke with shocked disparagement of American prisoners of war who asked to have their names reported to their government so that their families would know they were alive。The rank and file，at least，were quite unprepared for the surrender of American troops at Bataan for they had assumed that they would fight it out the Japanese way。And they could not accept the fact that Ameri-cans had no shame in being prisoners of war。
The most melodramatic difference in behavior between Western soldiers and the Japanese was undoubtedly the cooperation the latter gave to the Allied forces as prisoners of war。They knew no rules of life which applied in this new situation；they were dishon-ored and their life as Japanese was ended。Only in the last months of the war did more than a handful imagine any return to their homeland，no matter how the war ended。
Some men asked to be killed，“but if your customs do not permit this，I will be a model prisoner。”They were better than model prisoners。Old Army hands and long-time ex-treme nationalists located ammunition dumps，carefully explained the disposition of Jap-anese forces，wrote our propaganda and flew with our bombing pilots to guide them to military targets。It was as if they had turned over a new page；what was written on the new page was the opposite of what was written on the old，but they spoke the lines with the same faithfulness。
This is of course not a description of all prisoners of war。Some few were irreconcil-able。And in any case certain favorable conditions had to be set up before such behavior was possible。American Army commanders were very understandably hesitant to accept Japanese assistance at face value and there were camps where no attempt was made to use any services they might have given。In camps where this was done，however，the o-riginal suspicion had to be withdrawn and more and more dependence was placed on the good faith of the Japanese prisoners。
Americans had not expected this right-about-face from prisoners of war。It was not according to our code。But the Japanese behaved as if，having put everything they had into one line of conduct and failed at it，they naturally took up a different line。Was it a way of acting which we could count on in post-war days or was it behavior peculiar to soldiers who had been individually captured？Like the other peculiarities of Japanese be-havior which obtruded themselves upon us during the war，it raised questions about the whole way of life to which they were conditioned，the way their institutions functioned and the habits of thought and action they had learned。