River Kwai railway

[AmiralLaurent]

During the war, the Japanese used their POW as an expendable work force. The railway between Bangkok and Rangoon is the most known of the places they worked but work camps exist in Japan, China, Mandchouko and Indonesia.

And I think it was a significant part of the working force available to Japan outside the home islands, so may be included in the game.

Out of 10000 prisonners, generate a 'engineer unit' worth 1000 points. Destroying it gives no point to the Allied player (sadly it happens several times. Thousands of POWs died on ships sunk by Allied subs.... more died of hunger and disease) but he can liberate them (as was done in PI in 44-45).

Just to launch the debate.

[showboat1]

Do you include when the Japanese murdered them to cover up their existence? I think maybe POW work forces could be left out. There is the point where you get a little TOO accurate.

[LargeSlowTarget]

That's really a double-edged issue. I tend to agree that modelling POWs is a bit too accurate, but still there should be a way to improve the infrastructure with engineers - if you can built up ports and bases, why not streets and railroads? Will this be possible in WITP?

[Aussie]

A difficult choice would be whether to order the engineers to build roundabouts or traffic lights, to say nothing of railway crossing types.

[U2]

BTW I visited the site of the River Kwai Bridge in 2000:)

[Zakhal]

Originally posted by showboat1
Do you include when the Japanese murdered them to cover up their existence? I think maybe POW work forces could be left out. There is the point where you get a little TOO accurate.

So its okay if people are killed in the game, but taking them as prisoners is not?:D Oh come on, its only a game. Having few labour units made out of pows would be no bad at all. You couldnt "torture" them, but theyd suffer the same "malaria" deaths as all other combat units. (maybe with a bit increased rate)

[Aussie]

So its okay if people are killed in the game, but taking them as prisoners is not? Oh come on, its only a game. Having few labour units made out of pows would be no bad at all. You couldnt "torture" them, but theyd suffer the same "malaria" deaths as all other combat units. (maybe with a bit increased rate)

You forgot to mention dysentery, beriberi, cholera, malnutrition, overwork, to name a few... That's right, it is just a game, but not Burma Railroad Tycoon.

[elcid]

It is quite incorrect to say that the labor forces used by Japan were POWs. While certainly POWs were used, impressed native labor was used on a much grander scale than that. And often it was quite effectively used. But in many cases, as in Japanese shipyards, it was actually counterproductive. One of these POWs said "they must do it for morale reasons, as it gives us too many chances to sabotage their work." It was not until late in the war that Japan stopped using impressed labor in China, as part of its reforms (along with ending extra-territoriality rights for all foreign powers and restoration of many institutions to Chinese control). And those reforms might have mattered a great deal more than they did had they been adopted earlier. They did matter too, even late: extra-territoriality was not restored, and no colonial enclave in China except Hong Kong was ever restored - and that because a British fleet arrived to do it. Anti-colonial sentiment was high in SE Asia and India, and different policies are likely to have produced better results. As it was, the Dutch East Indies was substantially friendly to Japan, and even the loss of Japanese oil experts did not matter - as the natives restored the refineries and other facilities ahead of plan. The natives were armed, and never left the field until they had independence. The same thing might have occurred re India, and Japan had officers in foreign service and even the army who advocated more support for them. In the event, the British tied up 160 battalions with the occupation of India. One part of India - Burma - had two regiments defect to the Japanese. [The Burmese also cleverly defected back to the Allies in 1945, attacking the Japanese after marching out of Rangoon with much fanfare.] It is hard to understand the complex politics of the area, but clearly there is a good deal of manpower available to Japanese forces, both pressed and volunteer, in many places. Japan raised quite large armies in many countries, and some of them moved about into other territories. Apparently the "Japanese Navy" men who fought to the death in Manila were largely Korean marines, even though in most Pacific battles Koreans labor troops tended to be the only enemies to surrender. The Japanese have very complicated, not unified institutions. And there is some evidence that Tojo may not have adopted the policies he himself preferred. [At first he answered to a triumverate of IJA generals]. Even in China, there was not a unified policy, or administration, and many of the people in charge were corrupt in a sence not seen in, for example, Manchuria (which was not really part of China, in spite of our politics on the matter: Japan set out to attract millions of immigrents from Russia, China, Korea and Japan, and it succeeded in all cases, so well did it create opportunity in Manchuria, and end the warlord system, at the expense of the Zaibatsu, who were not allowed to set up enterprises there). Had Japan adopted policies like those that gave Manchuria dramatic economic success for many years in other places, it might have succeeded in setting up the autarky it sought.