Re: Book review: Red Wings Over the Yalu: China, the SovietUnion and the Ai...

[robert guertin <wanaki@infionline.net>]

Ed,
No one would argue the point that as a rule the Chinese were
more lenient to prisoners once in captivity. On the other hand, during
the battles for Reno, Carson and Vegas, prisoners captured during that
action were compelled to follow the Chinese in the attack carrying construction
material for use in fortifications once the objective was taken.
If you would, please provide he sources of "the recorded instances"
where the Chinese treated our prisoners and returned them to our lines,
and where they allowed Medics to police the battlefield. I would be pleased
to know.
There was one instance as I recall, when the Chinese brought a wounded
Marine on a stretcher out in front of COP 2, but nowhere near UN MLR, and
invited Marines to recover him, though he was more dead than alive. Much
more frequent was their use of wounded and dead as bait, knowing we would
accept casualties in an attempt at recovery.

Ed Evanhoe wrote:

Robert,

 >>At 09:24 PM 7/22/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>What I posted was an action involving the Chinese. Although there were
>actions involving combined forces, they fought as seperate units. (N.
>Korean or Chinese)  The Chinese were not averse to killing prisoners, nor
>am I aware of any instance when they allowed us to recover our wounded,
>and there were times they used our dead as bait to ambush recovery
>efforts. (Not my unit but others of record) <<

There were a number of recorded instances where the Chinese treated our
wounded and then returned these people to UN lines.  There also were a
couple of instances where they allowed medics through to pick up our
wounded and dead.  True, these were the exception, not the rule.  And there
also are recorded instances where Chinese troops shot prisoners.  However,
overall the Chinese did treat our POW's much better than the North Koreans did.

Ed