>>213746383
wasn't just POW treatment but also departmental structure
in effect the core British structure was one of cooperation, personal accountability and forgiveness, which in turn meant that they had an extreme level of loyalty to each other and sharing information was encouraged which in turn meant that possible traitors stood out like a sore thumb
this is in stark contrast to the German and Japanese (both of them had this exact same issue) core structures which were set up to encourage competition, rivalry and personal advancement, due to the belief, consistent with their ideologies, that this would cause the most competent to rise up
But what actually happened is that the true competent people were consistently sidelined and betrayed by the people capable of gaming the system, of making themselves appear competent
Additionally this constant competition meant that distinguishing between ambition and treason was virtually impossible and due to a lack of trust this led at least with the Germans to frequent turncoats
The Japanese were ideologically more fanatic and saw less turncoats, but this in turn caused even more conflict between individuals
The Soviets also suffered from this initially, however here there is an interesting factor, namely the great German mistake: they turned the war against the Soviets into one of extermination, they showed no leniency and as a result, made it so cooperation with them, by any Soviet possible turncoats, was idiotic
And yes here is where the British were as you said far smarter: they honored their deals, they treated prisoners with dignity, and they encouraged defections
