It sucks to be a POW, period. First you have to survive the first several minutes when anger, hate, fear, and automatic reactions rule. Then, in many cases, you have to make it through the next several hours while your captors have to make the rational decision if it makes sense to keep you alive when it may not make the most practical sense for their own survival. Generally, I have a hard time seeing every instance of POW killing a war crime in these instances, and all armies have done this. The difference between the "good guys" and the "bad guys" tends to be the extent to which an army considers these instances worth looking at for internal disciplinary reasons. There are many instances of the British and US armies investigating and prosecuting individual soldiers and or unit commanders when things got out of hand. I have also read of a few instances when the Wehrmacht investigated such killings (of US, British, or French captives - or civilians). I am unaware that the Japanese military ever consided such killings anything out of the ordinary.
Also, it simply can't be denied that, once POWs were fully secured and in guarded camps, the difference between the Japanese and just about everybody else is glaring. With a few exceptions, usually prompted by riots or escape attempts, the western allies did not kill POWs that made it that far and treated them as humanely as could be expected. I would also argue that the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe usually did too (at least with respect to western POWs). German treatment of Soviet (and other slav) POWs was another thing entirely - and this was often reciprocated by the USSR's POW camp system. In addition to Nazi racism, I suspect this reflected the totalitarian nature of these nations and the way they treated any of their own citizens considered disloyal.
I believe Japan stands alone in its ethic regarding POWs. By permitting oneself to be captured a POW gave up all rights to be considered worthy of any cosideration. That they even kept prison camps and did not explicitly turn them into death camps (although that was in effect the practice) is to some extent a miracle. In the US, British, and even German armies, wanton mistreatment and murder of POWs was the exception - with the Japanese it is the occasional example of mercy that stands out.
Also, it simply can't be denied that, once POWs were fully secured and in guarded camps, the difference between the Japanese and just about everybody else is glaring. With a few exceptions, usually prompted by riots or escape attempts, the western allies did not kill POWs that made it that far and treated them as humanely as could be expected. I would also argue that the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe usually did too (at least with respect to western POWs). German treatment of Soviet (and other slav) POWs was another thing entirely - and this was often reciprocated by the USSR's POW camp system. In addition to Nazi racism, I suspect this reflected the totalitarian nature of these nations and the way they treated any of their own citizens considered disloyal.
I believe Japan stands alone in its ethic regarding POWs. By permitting oneself to be captured a POW gave up all rights to be considered worthy of any cosideration. That they even kept prison camps and did not explicitly turn them into death camps (although that was in effect the practice) is to some extent a miracle. In the US, British, and even German armies, wanton mistreatment and murder of POWs was the exception - with the Japanese it is the occasional example of mercy that stands out.