740.00114 PW/11–3049
Memorandum by the Director of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs (Allison) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Butterworth)
Bill Sebald has just forwarded to me two reports1 (attached) entitled “Special Report” and “Soviet Use and Treatment of Japanese POWs”, both of which he had received on a confidential basis from General Willoughby, SCAP’s G–2. The two reports offer dramatic testimony of Soviet failure to carry out their end of the repatriation agreement. Both reports—the latter in greater detail—discuss at length such matters as the high death factor in Soviet POW camps, Soviet exploitation of Japanese POW labor, Soviet indoctrination of POWs, the crass disregard of the last batch of Communist-indoctrinated POWs toward their families and fatherland.
Sebald understands that the “Special Report” is to be released to the press early this December after the Soviets have completed the repatriation of the last batch of 10,000 POWs they claim to be remaining in Soviet territory. (SCAP and Japanese figures show 400,000 Japanese POWs still remaining in Siberia, Sakhalin and the Kuriles.) The other report may be released later. Sebald points out that the idea of releasing this material originated with General MacArthur who ordered its preparation many months ago.
Comment
SCAP has long viewed the repatriation issue as the best anti-Communist theme in his book. He played it with notable success over the last summer when the pro-Communist returning POWs deserted their families awaiting them at the station in order to join Communist rallies. Evidently he has now decided to pull all the stops.
Sebald has not offered any comment, implied or otherwise, as to whether or not he believes the documents should be released. Viewed from NA, there would appear to be no objection to the release of the first document. Release of the second document is considered inadvisable because it presents raw intelligence which would probably be ineffective as propaganda and which might disclose sources of information and otherwise prejudice intelligence acquisition from Soviet areas.
After you have returned this memorandum and its attachments to NA I am planning to send them on to EE for comment, with a view [Page 909] to giving Bill Sebald our confidential, informal reactions to his letter for whatever action he may wish to take in the matter.
Mr. Peake2 agrees with the above commentary.