Bats and Bananas
POW experiences in German, Russian and Japanese Prisoner of War Camps during WWII

Jude Goertzen
Dr. S. Cafferky
Hist 394 (F01)

     Historical truth is an elusive and slippery concept.  It must, by necessity, rely on many sources of evidence before a complete picture can be pieced together.  The historical evidence of World War II comes in many forms; “government documents, War Diaries, reports on operations, departmental and headquarter files and miscellaneous papers of scores of different sorts.” [1]   All of these written sources provide valuable information that can allow historical analysis of any given event to take place.  This evidence must include primary sources and must therefore, include the testimony of those who actually witnessed or lived through the event.  If the dates and facts of an event are the skeleton of historiography then personal testimonies are the flesh that is added to the bones to create a living body.

     These testimonial sources comprise what has come to be known as oral history and the interview adds a personal perspective to the historical account that “tries to give social history a human face.” [2]  Oral history provides the personal account of experiences that are, to a large extent, more detailed and complex than those accounts recorded in the secondary sources.  The interview of a POW veteran is more reliable than any written record because it contains “all the exact words…as they were spoken” and includes changes in tone, the insertion of humour as well as the “texture of dialect.” [3]   Oral history does not reveal the full truth of an event.  It gives the historian the individual truth of the man who actually lived that event and as such provides valuable insight into the living experience of the narrator.  The dates and statistics are less accurate in oral history than in the secondary sources; dates are forgotten over time but what the interview does is allow the narrator to “make sense of the past…and set the interview and the narrative in their historical context.” [4]

     Any interview is unique and covers personal aspects of an event that adds to traditional historiography.  Interviews with POW veterans are particularly valuable because they share commonalities in themes that are important to the understanding of the POW experience and which, although mentioned in the secondary sources, are not given the emphasis and detail the interviews provide.  Analysis of interviews with three World War II veterans reveals that there are four main topics that unite their very diverse experiences: food, fear, determination to live, and historical perspective.  The veterans interviewed represented all three branches of the services, three diverse geographical locations, two nationalities, two levels of rank and two perspectives of the war and its outcome.  These veterans spent between six months and seven years as prisoners of war and their individual experiences will clearly show that “oral history is of such self-evident importance and interest that it has proven difficult for people to take it very seriously.” [5]

     Any discussion of POW camps generally includes a description of the brutal acts that were committed.  The interrogations, beatings and executions cannot be excused yet an even greater cruelty was imposed on nearly all POWs who endured months and years of captivity.  The ultimate act of barbarism must surely be to deprive another human being of the basic dietary needs required to live.  To allow fellow human beings to starve one day at a time and to weaken their bodies to the extent that they have nothing left with which to fight debilitating disease is an inexcusable act of torture.  Ronald H. Bailey writes of the Japanese camps that “each prisoner was supposed to receive a pound and a half of rice a day, but the camp’s allotment was often depleted by spoilage or by hungry Japanese guards.” [6]   He also states that in order to get much needed protein the men, “scavenged for herbs, ate the fungus off trees, and trapped snakes, lizards and even rats.” [7]

         Rear-Admiral Richard Leir was a Japanese POW on Celebes and Sumatra between 1942 and 1945 after his ship HMS Exeter was sunk in the Java Sea.  He recalls that the average daily allotment of food was about two cups of rice and the prisoners would eat anything that moved in order to sustain their bodies.  At one point he was imprisoned next to a banana plantation.  At night the flying foxes would come to feast on the bananas and then go to sleep.  Leir recalls getting up before dawn so that he could pull the bats out of the trees before they awoke.  He recalls that they were “absolutely delicious to eat, mind you, they were covered in fleas but it didn’t matter because you boiled them.” [8]    The addition of bats and bananas was a welcome supplement to the 400 calorie diet that he had been used to.

      The written record tells a slightly different story and Vincent states that “rations were at their lowest in the first months of captivity, averaging less than 900 calories daily per man.” [9] The discrepancy in the two versions is problematic but it is a fairly safe assertion that the men that experienced these matters for themselves are more likely to be correct on the number of calories they consumed than Vincent, who was never a POW in Japan.  He does, however, cite a large number of primary sources and is considered to be a scholarly source.

     Russian camps were no better and according to German research twenty to thirty percent of German POWs died in captivity. [10]   Mr. Dietrich Puetter, a Luftwaffe pilot during World War II, was shot down in 1942 and was to spend the next seven years of his life in Russian camps.  The daily food allotment was half a litre of very watery soup, 300grams of bread which was often watered to increase the weight, and two tablespoons of Kascha or weak porridge.  Puetter remembers that hunger dominated his thoughts day and night and when it was combined with fear and the Russian cold it guaranteed a miserable existence.  A Russian doctor later told him that the daily food allotment amounted to a scant 420 calories and Puetter went from 177lbs to 88lbs in his first three months of captivity. [11]  

     Kriegie rations were slightly better although not enough to maintain health and weight.  Mr. Alfred LeReverend was an Army infantryman who was captured in Esschen by the Germans in 1944.  LeReverend had lied about his age and was only sixteen when he was captured.  He remembers being given watery soup, bread and two boiled potatoes each day. [12]   Bailey confirms the German diet in his written account and claims that “many prisoners suffered weight loss as great as 80lbs.” [13]   The memories of hunger are perhaps those that the veterans retain with the most clarity.  LeReverend escaped with a friend, Herbert Honsberger, just days before the war was declared over.  He remembers coming across a farmhouse that had an outside shed. Even though it was dangerous to go inside they could not resist looking just in case there was food there.  They found an unlabeled tin which they opened with a farmer’s sickle and found that it contained asparagus. LeReverend remembers that the contents “were quickly consumed with gusto.”  A few days later they came across a British Guardsman who was guarding an upturned Sherman tank and they realized that for them the war was over and that their escape had been successful.  The Guardsman fed LeReverend and Hornberger with eggs and bread and butter but because of the severe malnutrition their stomachs rebelled and rejected this rich offering. [14]

     Although the historical, written sources confirm the dietary deprivation and malnutrition of POWs they in no way compare with the oral sources for pressing home again and again that food and its memory was the one driving force in camp life.  Even ideological issues and treason became food related issues.  The Soviets attempted to re-educate their German prisoners and encourage them to accept communist doctrine over that of fascism.  Prisoners were subjected to constant rallies, seminars and lectures that were designed to persuade them of “the advantages of the Soviet order, [and] the political, economic and cultural successes of the Soviet Union and the positive role of the USSR in the struggle for peace and the interests of the world-wide proletariat.”  According to Andreas Hilger this re-education achieved little and most of the POWs just “let the agitation wash over them.” [15]  

     The re-education had little effect because, for the most part, the German POWs were still deeply rooted in the German military and the belief that they served the Nationalistic Socialistic State.  In 1954, Puetter wrote a manuscript which states that the military were largely apolitical and “were impelled by the belief that they were defending their fatherland and serving a just cause.”  It was not until after his release that he realized that “Hitler’s objectives did not serve the good of the German people…[and] an historic tragedy without equal ran its course.” [16]   The Soviets searched amongst the German POWs to find those who were the “weakest and most unscrupulous” so that they could offer them extra rations if they would be prepared to work for the Soviets and inform on their comrades. [17]  

     Those that crumbled and fell, that committed treason against their country and became the greatest enemy, were those whose battle was not ideological, or political but overwhelmingly physical.  Hunger broke down all sensibilities and those who were weak simply could not resist and were “bought by an extra portion of bread.” [18]  To Puetter and those others who resisted, honour was the only defense they had against this new cruelty and even during interrogation when a delicious meal was the reward for information they refused on the principle that “death was preferable to treason.” [19]

     Death was an ever-present threat in all POW camps and if starvation is the ultimate cruelty then the sharing of one’s own meager rations must be the ultimate humane act.  Leir speaks about the appalling medical conditions in camp.  There was little or no medical attention and there were few available drugs to combat the incessant disease which was exacerbated by malnutrition.  Those who were physically incapable of working were not permitted to eat so it was up to their friends to supply the food that would give them a chance to recover.  Japanese camp conditions were described as deplorable by the British Military attaché in Chungking and one doctor who escaped from Hong Kong says that “the huts were lacking doors, windows, light or sanitation, and dysentery was rampant, with no medical supplies to check it.” [20]   Dysentery, malaria, tropical ulcers, beriberi and pellagra all took their toll on Japanese POWs and some of those who survived only did so because the men they served with were willing to give up a portion of their precious daily allotment of food in order to give their friends a fighting chance to survive.  Leir was one of the lucky ones; mosquitoes were not attracted to him and he did not suffer from disease as some of his comrades did.   He was, however, declared to be suffering from severe malnutrition on his return to Canada and the doctors were delighted to have a “genuine malnourished POW to play with”; they consequently fed him with baby food seven times a day for six weeks until he was declared fit enough to return home. [21]

     Daws states that “of all the white prisoners, something approaching one in three died at the hands of the Japanese, starved to death, worked to death, beaten to death and died of loathsome epidemic diseases that the Japanese would not treat.” [22]   Historical sources do not always agree and according to Jonathan Vance the statistics are somewhat different.  Vance tabulates a total of one thousand, seven hundred and thirty three Canadian POWs in the Pacific theatre, of which, two hundred and ninety died.  This represents approximately seventeen percent rather than the one-third claimed by Daws. [23]   This is convincing evidence that even written sources need to be verified with other sources “although the holiness of writing often leads us to forget it.” [24]  

     Fear was also a constant companion to those in POW camps; fear of starvation, fear of captivity, fear of death and fear of the captor.  Puetter recalls being taken to the Lubjanka, the main prison of the Interior Ministry’s NKWD in Moscow.  This prison had a terrible reputation and Puetter knew that of those who entered, few returned.  Torture was both mental and physical involving beatings, starvation and verbal abuse.  Puetter remembers his fear and states that “to overcome your own fear is real courage,” he was “deadly afraid as a pilot but overcame it and this helped him to overcome his fear in prison.”  At one point a Russian interrogator pointed a gun to his head and Puetter recalls wishing that he would pull the trigger because then his fear and his misery would be over. [25]   

     Fear was also a major factor for Leir who says he now has “no fear, no one could scare me again which stood me in good stead.”  Leir’s experiences in Celebes included being made gunkan, or leader by the Japanese.  He was in charge of over fifty men even though he was one of the most junior captives and if the men disobeyed “he got thumped for it as well.”  His ability to overcome his fear and successfully lead within the camp eventually led to him becoming a trouble shooter for the navy once the war was over.  He had a reputation as a man that it was not wise to mess with as he had seen it all. [26]

     LeReverend’s fear was intensified by his extreme youth.  He recalls the way he felt when he was first sent to the front line and how terrified he was of death.  He states that “you never knew when your number was up” and that, “the mantle of immortality vanishes rapidly under those circumstances.”  He remembers how different men were under the stress of warfare, there was no horseplay and no establishment of a pecking order, life was just too serious. [27]   LeReverend also suffered extreme fear in the salt mine that was located 80km from the Stalag.  Claustrophobia assaulted him every time he entered the mine and he still suffers from nightmares today. 

     Fear is mentioned in the secondary sources but it is not mentioned in the same personal sense as the interviews.  Bailey states that “the joyful prospect of peace was clouded for many prisoners by the fear that the cease-fire might bring them death instead of liberation…[and that] Nazi fanaticism and Oriental pride might, in the face of defeat, lead to mass slaughter of POWs.” [28]   Although this accurately describes the fear of a specific event in history the lack of personal detail and personality render it impotent in comparison to the memories of a personal interview.  The difference lays in the fact that “memory is not a passive depository of facts, but an active creation of meanings.” [29]   The POW interviews interpret and understand the specific details of their fears and explain them accordingly.

     The determination to live was the one factor that allowed Puetter, leir and LeReverend to overcome their fears, fight malnutrition and disease and become survivors.  Puetter describes one particularly poignant moment that occurred after his release in 1949.  The relationships that he developed in the camps were deep and he spent many years with two hundred men of all ranks.  These were all decorated veterans “the best of the best” who kept up the formality of military tradition until after the war was over.  They never used the familiar ‘du’ with each other but maintained the formal address of ‘sie’ until after their release.  Late in 1949 Puetter married and one of his closest friends said to his wife “you will never see your husband naked as we have seen one another.”  These men had seen into each other’s souls and had witnessed the very best and the very worst of human behaviour.  The camaraderie and the determination to survive united them in a way that those who have not personally experienced it cannot fully understand. [30]

     The determination to live is not dealt with much in the secondary sources even though for many it was the deciding factor in their survival.  Vance however does say that “theirs was a horrific existence and all that sustained them was the will to live or…the ‘stubborn disinclination to die.’” [31]   Leir believes that at nineteen “your system adjusts to anything” and that the late teens are a time of optimal health.  He observes that those who were over twenty five had a rougher time and found survival more difficult.  Leir also had a personal memory from before the war which may have contributed to his determination to live and enabled him to be more objective in his daily activities.  He had been told “don’t hate your enemies because it clouds your judgement and you never know in a democracy when they will be your allies.”  Wise advice and optimal health combined with a strong desire for life gave Leir the strength he needed to survive. [32]

     LeReverend’s determination to live is best shown by his determination to escape.  Rumours of the infamous Death March encouraged LeReverend to find a way out before being forced to undertake an endless journey on foot.  These marches were undertaken in winter conditions with poor provisions and “even the strongest POW found the treks heavy going, and countless men never made it.” [33]   Even though Nazi Germany was a very dangerous environment for an unsuccessful escaper this did not deter LeReverend who was determined to get home one way or another.  His escape, as documented earlier, was successful.

     The determination to live in all POWs was encouraged by one or more acts of kindness that each one received from their captors.  The secondary sources vividly portray in word and in photography the brutality; they fail to mention those moments when one individual from the ‘other side’ took a risk and offered a helping hand to the captive.  After Leir’s ship was sunk in the Java Sea he made the decision to swim for it and was picked up by a Japanese ship.  He recalls being treated well and receiving good food and adequate medical attention. [34]   LeReverend was taken to a German hospital after his capture and recalls being given a meal that “was the best meal I had received outside of Canada.”   The meal was concluded with cigars and LeReverend states that the wounded Canadian POWs were treated as well as, if not better, than the wounded Germans. [35]   Puetter attributes his survival to one single person who risked his own life to protect him.  After his plane was shot down Puetter received serious injuries that required medical attention.  The Russian doctor at the Lubjanka where Puetter was imprisoned had studied under Puetter’s father in Heidelberg and he treated Puetter with excessive kindness and risked his own life to bring Puetter extra food and to protect him from excessive brutality under interrogation. [36]  

     The final aspect of these interviews that is of primary interest to historians is the perspective that they give on life then and life now.  “The voice of the past is inescapably the voice of the present too” and these three men look back and make sense of the events that they were caught up in. [37]   Veterans of World War II see the connections between the world they suffered in and the world they recovered in and are able to make some objective judgements on them.  LeReverend looks back on the war and says that “we paid for our crimes and fought for a sense of justice that no longer exists.”  He believes that civilization needs a cause, something to fight for before it can be at its best. [38]   For Leir the war marked the beginning of a highly successful naval career that spanned forty-one years.  He was sunk twice, declared dead and awarded the Memorial Cross.  He survived three years of harsh treatment in a Japanese prisoner of war camp and although he would not recommend the experience to others he acknowledges that it gave him some unique skills that have furthered his career and made him the man he is today.  Of the three POWs interviewed he was the only one that decided to stay in the service after the war ended. [39]

     Puetter came from an old Prussian family and looking back he believes that Hitler saved Germany from unemployment and recession.  Germans, at the time, became very nationalistic but they did not want war, it was of no use to them and the taking of territory was done because Germany needed space and land for economic reasons.  According to Puetter the German people were very Anglophile and they were devastated when England declared war on them.   “The German public believed that the Second World War began with a number of Polish attacks on the German frontier.” [40]  Only after the war did the details of these raids come to light and it was revealed that these raids were carried out by an SS officer called A.H. Naujock who was instructed to make it look as if the Poles had attacked.  The point is that the German people believed that they were under fire and it is evidence that the ordinary person who is not immersed in the politics of his nation can be greatly deceived and be unaware of the true facts.

     After his internment was over Puetter returned to Germany and was “sad that all that effort was for nothing.”  Germany was greatly changed and he was no longer accepted as a Luftwaffe pilot but was considered to be unemployed.  One of the greatest shocks was the allied re-education of Germany and Puetter recalls that “black was white and white was black” and the German people were made to believe that they were the worst race on earth. [41]   Puetter’s perspective is based on his understanding of the events as he witnessed them and lived through them and is therefore, a valid point of view.  History is written by the winners of the event, not the losers and many stories that should be told are sadly neglected.  Puetter talks about the mass transference of the German people after the war from their homelands of seven centuries in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia as a case in point.  This act was set in motion by nations that were “committed to democratic and humanitarian values,” and was enforced at Potsdam in 1945. [42]   This atrocity was carried out in the name of peace but there are few available secondary sources because the event does little to enhance the image of the allies.

     Puetter also cites the Katyn forest massacre as evidence that historical accounts are not always true and can be greatly influenced by propaganda and political agendas.  The graves at Katyn were discovered by the Germans in 1943.  The mass grave revealed more than four thousand corpses, the bodies of Polish officers who had originally been POWs at Kozelsk along with another ten thousand Polish officers who were still missing.  The Germans blamed the Russians who had been in control of the area around Smolensk at the time that the mass execution and burial took place.  The Soviets refused to allow an International Red Cross investigation even though the Germans and the Poles were willing to allow this. [43]   Swianiewicz explains that the Polish officers had been shot in the back of the head, execution style and he says “in Wilmo, none of us had any doubt who had committed this crime…subsequently, when the Soviet Army arrived in Eastern Poland in the summer of 1944, we heard a different version of the Katyn massacre: The Germans were the culprits.”  According to Swianiewicz the Polish Communist Government kept the whole affair very quiet but officially accepted the Russian version. [44]   Zawodny claims that there has been “no judicial consideration of the case of the murder of the 15,000 Polish prisoners.” [45]   The murdered Poles represented the leadership of the Polish nation and it is possible that they were liquidated on the orders of the Soviet authorities because they represented a threat to Stalin’s authority. [46]

     This affair has been covered in detail because it exemplifies the most contentious aspect of historical enquiry.  If the blame for Katyn was covered-up, inadequately researched and judicially negligent then who is to say that other historical events have not been misrepresented?  Puetter has a valid point and a solid argument, what is historical truth and how do we find it?  Tosh states that “an oral history which is informed by psychological insight and supported with the full resources of historical scholarship has a major contribution to make.” [47]   Puetter found that his experiences in Russia were so life changing that after his release in 1949 he could think and talk of nothing else.  In 1954, he became ill and was bedridden for a while.  During this period he wrote an account of all that had happened to him for cathartic purposes.  This account highlights the changes in perspective that happen over time and show that the written, secondary sources, in retrospect, deeply affect the historical perception of the veteran.  What he believed, and what he believes, are changed by what was and is recorded as historical evidence.

     Certainly the individual accounts of participants can and do add to the historical record.  Written sources are just oral sources that have been written down and have been declared sacrosanct simply because they have been immortalized in print.  There is probably no such thing as historical truth, however, the more sources that are investigated, examined and correlated then the better the chance that the pieces can be put together, all the facets connected and a whole and objective picture can emerge.  This is especially true if accounts from both sides of any given event can be examined and analyzed.  Personal interviews can open up areas of enquiry that have so far remained suppressed, oral sources afford “a unique insight into the formation of popular historical consciousness, something which should be of abiding interest to all historians.” [48] Oral history and particularly, veterans’ oral history can and will, if permitted, give the historian all of the facets, all of the perspectives and all of the questions.  With sufficient research those questions may be answered satisfactorily and if so, some measure of objective truth may have been gained and another level of understanding will have been reached.

Bibliography

Bailey, Ronald H. Prisoners of War. New Jersey: Time Incorporated, 1981.

Blee, Kathleen. “Evidence, Empathy and Ethics: Lessons from Oral Histories of the

Klan,” Journal of American History. Vol. 80, no. 2 (1993), pp. 596-606.

Daws, Gavan. Prisoners of the Japanese. New York: William Morrow and Company Inc.,

1994.

de Zayas, Alfred M. Nemesis at Potsdam. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989.

Frisch, Michael. “Oral History and hard Times: A Review Essay,” in Oral History

Review. Vol. 7 (1979), pp. 70-79.

Leir, Rear-Admiral Richard.  Personal interview, Victoria, 17 November 2005.

LeReverend, Alfred. Personal interview, Victoria, 17 November 2005.

Moore, Bob and Barbara Hately-Broad, eds. Prisoners of War, Prisoners of Peace.

Oxford: Berg, 2005.

Portelli, Allessandro. “What Makes Oral History Different” Reprinted as “The

Peculiarities of Oral History,” in History Workshop. No. 12 (1981), pp. 96-107.

Puetter, Dietrich. As  a Prisoner of War in the Soviet Union. Germany: Unpublished,

1954.

Puetter, Dietrich. Personal interview, Victoria, 13 November 2005.

Stacey, Colonel C.P. The Canadian Army 1939-1945. Ottawa: Edmond Cloutier, 1948.

Swianiewicz, Stanislaw. In the Shadow of Katyn. Calgary: Northwest Printing, 2002.

Thompson, Paul. The Voice of the Past: Oral History. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1988 edition.

Tosh, John. “History by Word of Mouth,” The pursuit of History: Aims, Methods and

New Directions in the Study of Modern History. London: Longman, 1988.

Vance, Jonathan. Objects of Concern. Vancouver: UBC Press, 1994.

Vincent, Carl. No Reason Why. Ontario: Canada’s Wings, Inc. 1981.

Zawodny, J.K. Death in the Forest. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1962.