Japan's Comfort Women (21 page)

91

period of time.”27 In War Department Circular No. 77, issued on March 17, 1943, the 1941 regulations on “off limits” were amended and made more rigorous.28

This indicates that prostitution near domestic military camps continued to be a problem.

Although the War Department’s policy was that the May Act should be used “only as a last resort,”29 conditions in some places, such as Fort Bragg in North Carolina and Camp Forrest in Tennessee, were so bad that the May Act was indeed invoked.30 Furthermore it seems that commanders at certain camps con-nived at their soldiers’ frequenting brothels. For example, in March 1945, civilians in Portland, Oregon complained to the War Department that the local US

Army was associated with organized prostitution.31 In his memo dated July 3, 1943, Brigadier-General Russell Reynolds (Director of the Military Personnel Division) also lamented that camp commanders were not wholeheartedly making efforts to eliminate red-light districts in their vicinity.32 Such domestic conditions seemed to continue until the end of the war. In July and August, a Joint Army–Navy Vice Control Board had discussions on cooperative projects, such as gathering information on VD and prostitution, and designating “off limits”

areas. Despite such efforts, there were ongoing problems: for example, in February 1945 it was reported that 47.7 percent of the members at Camp Polk in Louisiana was suffering from venereal diseases.33

However, it should be noted that the War Department’s attitude towards VD

and prostitution amongst forces based at home was quite different from its attitude towards the same problems overseas. There are no official documents to verify that the War Department distributed condoms and chemicals to soldiers within the US, free or otherwise. The fact that the May Act was actually invoked in some cases leads to the presumption, on the contrary, that the War Department adopted stringent measures towards these problems from the beginning.

This was in stark contrast to its tacit approval of the use of “prophylactic units”

and prostitutes by US forces overseas.

There seem to be a few reasons for this discrepancy. One key reason is probably that soldiers within the home territory could easily gain access to condoms and medical treatment for VD. Moreover, out of consideration for public opinion at home, it was vital to create and maintain the general image that US

Army soldiers were healthy and morally sound. On the other hand, senior staff of the War Department were clearly aware that it would be quite difficult to suppress the sexual desire of soldiers stationed in overseas theaters of war, and that the spread of VD amongst those forces would have a serious effect on their day-to-day combat abilities. Thus, the War Department formally maintained an “official policy” not to allow its troops to use prostitutes regardless of their location, while in reality it took pragmatic measures to prevent VD among the forces stationed outside the US by providing individual “prophylactic kits” as well as setting up “prophylactic stations.” However, this does not mean that all senior staff of G-1 in the War Department were happy with such arrangements.

For example, Colonel F. A. Heilman (Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations) wrote a memo on October 29, 1942, stating that “the Secretary of War 92

Why did US forces ignore the issue?

should give careful consideration to the implications of this program,” because this “may be interpreted in the minds of certain military and non-military individuals as fostering immorality.”34

The Brumfield Report and military-controlled

prostitution

Let us examine the actual methods that the US forces adopted to tackle the problem of VD amongst its members stationed overseas.

We can start by analyzing the report submitted by Major William Brumfield, who investigated conditions in Central Africa, the Middle East, and India. It is clear from his field investigations in these regions that many units either directly or indirectly controlled local prostitution as an effective measure to suppress VD. This was done under the responsibility of local commanders who clearly knew that such actions were in contravention of the War Department’s official policy. Usually in such cases, certain houses were selected from existing brothels in the vicinity of the military camp. Medical officers often conducted VD examinations with prostitutes working at those selected houses. Soldiers were instructed to use only those designated houses, and to make sure they visited a prophylactic station set up in that district immediately after visiting those houses. In some places, prophylactic facilities were provided to the designated brothels by the troops.

In some cases, however, new brothels were set up near US camps especially to serve Americans. For example, two “women’s villages” were set up by the local government for US forces stationed in Robert’s Field in Liberia, on the west coast of Africa. Women who wished to work in these villages had to pass VD

examinations. If admitted, they were photographed and required to tag their own photos. They were also requested to purchase a thatched house with three rooms at a nominal price of $15. These women were examined weekly, and anyone showing infectious symptoms had her tags taken up and was treated.

The tag was returned when all signs and symptoms disappeared. Soldiers were told not to have intercourse with the women without tags.35 According to Brumfield, the troops at Robert’s Field reduced their VD rates considerably in this way. However, he claimed that the rates were still higher than for those troops stationed in the US. He suggested in his report that the rates could be further reduced by putting fences around the villages to keep the local men outside, as well as by setting up prophylactic stations at the gate of the villages.36

As a matter of fact, G-1 officers in the War Department were aware of the existence of such military-controlled brothels even before reading the Brumfield Report. For example, on December 18, 1942, R. Arnold (Chief of Chaplains of the US Army) reported to G-1 that he had received information that the 41st Engineers stationed in Africa had a brothel called “Paradise,” staffed by “professional whores (natives),” which was being “operated by the United States Army.”37

Brumfield also referred to five brothels in Eritrea (three in Asmara and two in Massawa), that were jointly controlled by US and British forces. These brothels
Why did US forces ignore the issue?

93

were originally established by the Italian Army, but when the British occupied Eritrea in 1940 they were permitted to continue business under the British occupation forces. When Brumfield visited those places in late 1942 the brothels were “in-bound to both British and United States soldiers,” and the soldiers were instructed not to associate with the Italian and native population outside these brothels. Military police were responsible for maintaining order in these houses as well as training attendants to administer prophylaxis. Alcoholic bever-ages were not permitted in the houses and soldiers under the influence of alcohol were not allowed to enter the premises. Brumfield described the “novel method of venereal disease control” practiced at these houses: Upon entering the house the customer is assigned a room by the madam.

Upon leaving he is escorted to the prophylactic station where his name and serial number and the hour of prophylaxis are entered in a book. His name and serial number and the name or number of his sex partner are entered on a slip of paper and dropped into a locked box so that it is not available to unauthorized persons. Men are not allowed to leave the houses until they have had prophylaxis and have given the necessary contact information.

The boxes from three houses [in Asmara] are delivered to the Surgeon’s office each morning. There the slips are removed and the boxes returned to the houses. The slips are filed and should the man develop a venereal disease the consort is immediately taken from work and not allowed to return until it is determined that she is free from infection.38

Because of this rigid method of control, which was inherited from the Italian Army, Brumfield claimed that rates of venereal disease for both British and American troops were lower in Eritrea than in other places in the Middle East.

According to Brumfield’s report, there were similar type of brothels under the supervision of military police in Persia as well.39

There were some other places in the Middle East where the US and British armies were jointly stationed but which did not have designated brothels controlled by the military forces. In such places, the British and American troops set up prophylactic stations in red-light districts which were shared by both forces.

Brumfield praised this arrangement and noted that “the cooperation between the British and US Forces was excellent.”40 Incidentally, Brumfield also noted that British forces in the Middle East captured over 5 million condoms from the Italians, and distributed them to its own soldiers free of charge, which was apparently “a departure from former policy.”41

In Palestine, Brumfield also investigated the VD control methods of the Australian forces and was impressed by their thoroughness. He reported that: They established houses of prostitution under the rigid control of their medical and police officers, inspecting the girls and proffering prophylaxis to the men, and placing questionable areas out of bounds so that the troops would use the regulated places if they insisted upon sexual intercourse. It was

94

Why did US forces ignore the issue?

Plate 4.1
Australian and other Allied soldiers queuing up in front of a brothel in Cairo during World War II. Date unknown.

Source
: Australian War Memorial, transparency number P419/02/01

indicated that venereal disease was less among Australian troops than among English troops in Palestine. The lower rate was attributed to the method of control.42

In fact, such rigid methods of control by the Australian forces were adopted because of lessons learnt from bitter experience, when Australians were stationed in the same region during World War I. During a five-month stay in Egypt between January and May 1916, about 10,000 Australian soldiers suffered from venereal diseases. The matter was so serious that the Australian forces set up the “Cairo Purification Committee” and took various measures, including extensive medical examination of prostitutes and the supply of prophylactics to the soldiers. As a result, the diseases were under control by the middle of 1917.

However, when the troops later moved into Palestine, another outbreak of venereal disease occurred.43 Thus, it seems that when the Australian forces advanced in the Middle East in 1940, they arranged military-controlled brothels from the beginning as a measure to tackle possible outbreaks of VD. The following excerpt from an Australian Army official report,
The Problem of VD in 7 Aust
Div. During Fifteen Months in the Middle East
, clearly endorses this point: During the four months in Palestine, there were 138 cases of VD . . . With modern methods of treatment the stay in hospital had been reduced, and

Why did US forces ignore the issue?

95

Plate 4.2
RAAF soldiers enjoying a drink in a night club in Cairo with some of the women “entertainers.” Damien Parer, the photographer who took this photo, explained in the caption that “their exact profession is a matter for conjecture.”

Source
: Australian War Memorial, transparency number 004984

the combined effect of these various measures was that approximately 20

men – 0.14 percent div strength – were constantly under treatment . . .

At the termination of the Syrian Campaign, it was anticipated that the VD problem would be greatly enhanced with the div garrisoned in a Levantine area recently occupied by the French. Before the troops moved into the area, a conference was called of three gynaecologist specialists within the div to discuss the problem. The following recommendation was made: – (I)

Certain brothels to be reserved for AIF [Australian Infantry Forces]