I would guess those prisoners of war had lots of other infections and physical issues since they were not provided access to personal hygiene.

Presenting this extreme case is hardly an argument for routine natal circumcision?

(Was the father-in-law extrapolating these deatils perhaps to convince some son-in-law that he should mutilate his son's penis because of this? More often than not the underlying reason is that insanity: that the son look like the father — which is why I wrote this piece.)

The scenario you present is more so an argument against war — that other regular brutality that men inflict upon each other.

Thanks for reading.