Lieng Khan & Long Thanh POW Camps FIC. Australian Archives case

Discussion in 'Prisoners of War' started by papiermache, May 4, 2021 at 9:14 PM.

  1. papiermache

    papiermache Well-Known Member

    A 65 MB download is available from Australian Archives which includes, amongst statements from Australian and Dutch witnesses, affidavits and evidence in person from the following British witnesses:

    page 42: Capt HJ Rae Singapore R.A. Volunteer

    page 210: Gnr GA Watkins 834139 148 Field Regt R.A.

    page 218: RSM LWD Bradstreet 106099 137 Field Regt R.A.

    page 221: Capt. FE Butterfield 127127 RAMC

    page 224: LSgt WHD Evans 3961971 1st Ind HAA Indian Army

    page 225: Maj. WE Gill P/44786 137 Field Regt R.A.

    page 228: RH Hall ( Capt? ) RAMC

    page 230: Cpl F. Murch 2876243


    To obtain the pdf go to Australian Archives - Record Search - Advanced Search - Item ID then type in 739438. Click on the read file icon. The download symbol is at bottom right.

    The case also has references to Tonchan in Thailand, River Valley Road, Singapore, and a sea journey in February 1945 from Singapore to French Indo China.
     
    Lindele and alieneyes like this.
  2. alieneyes

    alieneyes Senior Member

    Thanks for that, papiermache. I recall one time a file this large and the NAA were great making it into a single pdf. Time to do that again for this.

    There's also a file on Tonchan, 39 pages, that's been digitized: NAA: MP742/1, 336/1/1096 PART 10 View digital copy

    Regards,

    Dave

     
    papiermache likes this.
  3. papiermache

    papiermache Well-Known Member

    Dave,

    To discover how the British prosecuted cases in the Far East the Judge Advocate General London office investigation files, the equivalent of the Australian Tonchan Camp, Thailand, investigation file you mention, ( thanks), should be in WO 311 at Kew, but a mere 15 or so are there, whereas about 360 were opened.

    JC/32 Nong Pladuk, ( or Sacamoto Workshop Unit), not in WO311. JC/22 Ban Pong not in WO311. JT/4 Singapore to Saigon voyage by ship, not in WO/311 ( all relevant to this thread ). The Tonchan file is not there, JC/18 I think.

    Files opened by DJAG in Singapore, "Series still accruing", should be in WO 325 but very few are there. Out of a regular Deputy Judge Advocate General ( Singapore) standard five digit code file reference there is one file in WO 325 with the part number /225 or thereabouts, from memory. Which means 224 files have not made it, yet.

    Perhaps there will be a sudden rush of files, 100 year rule finally deemed to have expired, but Kew are still talking about the 15 kilometres of shelving of MOD personnel records they can't cope with ( they've been talking about them since the early 2000)'s.)

    To find out about DJAG Singapore and the 20 or so War Crimes Investigation Teams in the Far East ( each of which had their own filing systems ) you have to rely on Australian Archives and NARA.

    For a guide to Australian Archives holdings download this 10 MB guide: https://www.naa.gov.au/sites/defaul...uide-japanese-war-crimes-in-the-pacific_0.pdf

    NARA's work following the US "war crimes disclosure act" was superb by comparison with Kew and it's policy of doing strange deals with "partners" (who then lose the Kew file reference.) Mind you, NARA point out that their digitised files have been provided by their commercial "partner."

    But the real damage was done in the mid 1980's within the MOD, in my opinion. The Departments selected the files for Kew. It would be interesting to know why they chose the particular investigation files they did: some disclose some very unpleasant material.

    As the man on "Chasing Classic Cars" says, researching UK Far East prisoner of war history is "All about the chase."

    NARA has the British affidavits the US JAG requested regarding POW camps in Japan proper, and some turn up on the Mansell site.

    In one case I suggested to a member here that he contact NARA for an affidavit and they sent him a photocopy through the post !

    Would the present "Keeper of the National Archives at Kew" do that ?

    No chance.

    John
     
    alieneyes and Lindele like this.

Share This Page