Chapter 8: Postwar Release and Repatriation/Deportation

On 28 November 1945 the Australian government stated its policy for release and repatriation of civilian internees. All Japanese nationals, resident or not, local or not, were to be repatriated, excepting when referred through the Attorney-General.³ Among the locals were approximately 100 Australian-born of Japanese parentage. The rest were Japanese nationals. Late in 1945 the Departments of the Army, External Affairs and Immigration agreed to withhold the following categories from repatriation:

1. Australian-born Japanese
2. Japanese married to Australian or British-born wives or husbands
3. Any medically certified as unfit to travel.⁴

It was not, however, automatic for the authorities to allow anyone who came into these categories to remain in Australia. Special investigation boards under Justice Hutchins and Justice Simpson were appointed to examine overseas and local internees respectively. Withheld for further investigation were 143 locals, 11 overseas Japanese and 13 PWJMs in these categories.⁵ Three married couples who had Australian-born children were not included in this group. Mr and Mrs Iwanaga, for example, had an Australian-born adopted daughter who was interned for a short period. Mr and Mrs Tonda had an Australian-born daughter who married an Australian-born Japanese in the camp. Mr and Mrs Fukushima’s daughter was not interned and was in a boarding school in Townsville during the war. These three couples had been in Australia for 42, 45 and 25 years, respectively, at the outbreak of the war.⁶ All were deported, leaving their daughters in Australia.⁷ The reasons for this decision are not known. Tonda had been president of the Nihonjin-kai in Brisbane. According to Claude Tanaka, who married his daughter, he was one of the most active members of the Japanese community in Brisbane and had close contact with Professor Seita of the University of Queensland before the war.⁸

Internees were not told of their future movements until a few weeks before repatriation. On 11 January 1946, the 14C Compound Leader at Loveday wrote to the Minister for External Affairs:

Time and tide wait for no man and it is already five long months since the war has been concluded, but no great news had been announced as regards to our releases from behind this secluded hemisphere.⁹

The Australian-born and those married to Australian women were deeply anxious of the possibility of deportation to Japan.¹⁰ They wrote letters to the Minister of External Affairs appealing against deportation to Japan. Tatsuhei Tanaka, a Loveday internee from Sydney, was one of them:

I took the liberty of appealing to you for my release in this country in an earliest occasion. I have got interned for through Japanese nationality but I am innocent and very sociable Japanese. I am reside in this country over forty-five years and had married to an Ireland woman, and have two children. My occupation was laundry business until I got interned (wife carry on business present time) those long period. I have been very obedient servant for government of Australia. If you investigate about my character that you will find out everything perfect order. Therefore I want remain in Australia and look after my family and also sacrifice for Australia.¹¹

He was one of the local internees not deported.¹²

Yoshio Murakami, husband of Masuko Murakami, was a Japanese national and had been a pearl diver in Australia for 30 years. He was a PWJM at Hay and applied to stay in Australia. He wrote to his wife at Tatura that “there is still no reply for my application to stay. I certainly will not return to Japan”.¹³ He and his family were not deported as his wife and children were Australian-born.

Intelligence reports from Loveday in January and February 1946 indicate that there was less display of feeling about repatriation in 14C than 14B. An intelligence report of 5 February 1946 stated that a number of internees believed that “the world will be an unfriendly place for all Japanese wherever they go” and that they “would be content to stay interned indefinitely”.¹⁴ Many elderly internees who were long-time residents of Australia expressed the hope to remain and wrote letters of appeal to the Minister for External Affairs.¹⁵

Yasutaroo Hama, 66 years old in 1946, had been living in Broome for 45 years before he was interned. He had been an honorary secretary of the Nihonjin-kai and the owner of a Broome boarding house.¹⁶ He wrote:

For the adjustment of all the unfixed cases of the Japanese at Broome, and also for the adjustment of my own property at Broome I desire to apply to be returned to my old place once again. I had owned two houses worth 600 pounds and minor movable properties worth 200 pounds which had been left in the case of Mr Chapple H. of Broome, W.A.¹⁷

He was deported.¹⁸

Chootaro Sugie, 85 years old in 1946, had been a fisherman at Port Hedland, Western Australia. In his letter of appeal to the Minister for External Affairs, transcribed by the compound leader, he said:

I have nobody in Japan and have no intention to go back to Japan. My second homeland, Australia, is the only place as for me to live in future.¹⁹

He was deported.²⁰

Some internees received support for their release from their friends and families in Australia. Tokugi [Tokuji] Iwase, a cook from Perth, had been living in Perth for over 43 years before he was interned. He wrote:

I have been working for Mr T. F. Deplodges, King Park Rd. of Western Australia until I have got interned and he trusted me in every way. I am innocent and democratic Japanese and I have no intention to go back to Japan. All my interests are in Australia.²¹

His employer wrote in support of his release in Australia:

I am writing to ask if Tokugi Iwase at present interned in No.14 C Camp … can be released. He was in my employ for about 14 years before the war and I found him a loyal honest worker. When he gets his release I will give him back his old job (cook). He has asked me to apply for his release for this purpose.²²

He was deported.²³

Eva Moore of Mosman in Sydney, who had a long term, possibly de facto, relationship with Bunji Mori, appealed for Mori’s release in Australia. On 11 February 1946 she wrote:

… he has been a resident of Sydney for 30 years and has always been a good citizen, and a good home loving man. We have been in business in Sydney for the past 25 years. He is now about 65 years of age and needs home comforts. I am a good honest citizen and a good trades woman and spend my whole life working and caring for my home. Trusting you will be able to grant my request.²⁴

He was deported.²⁵

Elderly PWJMs at Hay also wanted to remain in Australia. Chinenji Kaino recalled:

They were quiet about what they thought or wanted, but preferred to remain in Australia. If they hadn’t been repatriated to Japan, they would have been happy to be buried in the Australian soil when they died.²⁶

Some PWJMs from Thursday Island anticipated problems and wrote to former employers there about the possibility of re-employment after their release. One PWJM wrote to the Bowden Pearling Co. Ltd on Thursday Island:

We are expecting to be released soon, and we’re looking forward to return to civilian life. Some of the internees are applying to stay in this country and they would like to be re-engaged in their previous employment if possible … Will you be good enough to let me know by return post if possible, where I could contact my previous employer and also what the old companies intend doing as regards re-starting the old business again.²⁷

Another PWJM replied to his former employer:

Many thanks for the offer of the old job. I shall be pleased to accept it, and hope to be allowed to remain in this country, and return to our old home on Thursday Island … so many people here would like to return to Thursday Island. In fact, I think that the majority of our divers would like to start at all the places again … ²⁸

Their hope was not realised. All PWJMs were deported, except those who were Australian-born or had Australian-born wives.²⁹

Some overseas internees appealed against repatriation to Japan as they were anxious to return to their families. At Loveday in January 1946, thirty men from New Caledonia applied to the Minister for External Affairs to be returned there.³⁰ They had been living in New Caledonia for 30 to 40 years, and all but 6 had families in New Caledonia.³¹ However, New Caledonia had requested that the Japanese in question be deported to Japan.³² Gonkichi Banno and his wife, Jessie, from New Zealand applied to remain in Australia. Jessie Banno was born in Tonga and possessed a British passport. The Department of External Affairs did not want them to stay in Australia³³ and the New Zealand government requested that they be sent to Japan.³⁴

Although the NEI government had requested that all the Japanese from there be returned to Japan,³⁵ it allowed Toshi Chen to be excluded from repatriation. She was arrested in NEI with her Chinese husband, Dr Jen Liang Chen, and both were interned at Tatura. Her husband was released in 1944, but she remained interned. The Chinese Legation supported her release in Australia so that she could go to China.³⁶ On 11 March 1946 she was granted temporary residence in Australia under exemption.³⁷

The first Japanese were repatriated in February 1946. The first ship to arrive at Port Melbourne was the Koei Maru to carry 2,562 people – 2,162 internees from Loveday and Tatura, including 165 women and 203 children, and 400 POWs from the Murchison POW camp near Tatura. They were entrained from their camps and brought down to Melbourne.³⁸

At Loveday the internees were allowed to keep eating utensils and one of the four blankets which they had been using in the camp, in addition to any personal belongings they had when they arrived at the camp. They were put on trucks and brought down to Barmera Railway Station on 20 February 1946. On the day the internees left the camp Miyakatsu Koike noted in his diary:

Although life was restricted, I felt emotional realising that life (in the camp) had been peaceful. I had various experiences, both sad and hard. I farewelled the land which I would probably never see again.³⁹

Bert Whitmore remembered the day the Japanese left the camp and has since wondered what became of Sumi, an internee he had befriended.

Sumi was a boat builder in Darwin. As far as his ability was concerned, he could read plans and specifications … Sumi was the one I went to speak to. I knew him very well. He was a wonderful man. He cried when he left. He didn’t want to go.⁴⁰

As their train approached Melbourne, they saw local residents gathering along the railway to watch them. Some people were making fists at them. Koike noted: “They probably lost their sons by the Japanese. Some Australians hate Japan. I was reassured that I had been a prisoner.”⁴¹

On 21 February they reached Melbourne to board the Koei Maru. In Koike’s words, “we were shocked to see the shabby-looking ship”.⁴² A former intelligence officer at Port Melbourne on that day recalled:

I was rather shocked … when I got down to the wharf at the Koei Maru waiting for the trains to come in and we had to put them along the wharf. Along the wharf about every 20 yards there were machine guns as though they were going to mow them all down. And I think it did scare some of the Japanese people going aboard for sure.⁴³

The shipping reporter from the Melbourne Age was invited aboard ship by both the Japanese interpreter and the captain to see the conditions on board. The reporter wrote:

The holds where more than 2,500 men, women and children will live for 19 days, looked like resurrected Black Holes of Calcutta, while on top, sweating in the sun, stood a throng of Japanese men and women … How the total of nearly 3,000, on the ship will fare in the tropics was left to the imagination.⁴⁴

No official inspection of the vessel was made as the conditions of travel were not a concern of the military.⁴⁵

The presence of Japanese POWs on the same wharf as civilians created a tense atmosphere. Koike noted:

The POWs (Japanese) were all looking in low spirits. I imagine that they felt reluctant about going back to Japan knowing that they should not have been prisoners. Some of them once attempted a suicidal breakout at Cowra. I could almost feel the pain they had.⁴⁶

The embarkation went without incident.⁴⁷ The Koei Maru sailed for Japan at 3:30 p.m. on 21 February.⁴⁸ That evening the captain of the ship gathered ex-group leaders of internees to explain how severely Japan had been bombed and show them clippings from Japanese newspapers. They then reported what they had learnt to the others. Koike wrote: “Those who had not believed about the Japanese surrender suddenly went silent.”⁴⁹ According to Andy Takamura, “one ex-internee committed suicide on the ship after he found out that the surrender had been true”.⁵⁰ On 28 February Koike noted:

For the first time since we came on board on the ship, I had a chance to speak to a young officer about what he had experienced in the mountains in New Guinea. Food supply was cut and he had to survive on grass, gekkos [sic], and insects. When he was found by an Australian, he was unable to walk. He was flown to a hospital in Australia. I thought the war should never happen again. I could now understand why Japan had lost the war.⁵¹

The second repatriation ship was the Daikai Maru, which was to carry 2,691 POWs from camps in New South Wales, including approximately 500 PWJMs from Hay.⁵² The Hay camp authorities were cautious about the reactions of POWs and PWJMs to repatriation. On 24 February 1946 the group commandant spoke to all POWs and PWJMs at Hay:

When the time comes for you to return to Japan, there may be some prisoners of war who will be uneasy in their minds as to the reception you will receive in Japan. We wish to point out that radical changes have taken place in the Japanese government of post-war Japan, and these changes are reflected in the general attitude of the Japanese people. The most important change from your point of view is that the Army and Navy no longer have any control. The government is well aware of this healthy change and realises that in their hearts your families and relatives are anxiously awaiting your safe return … according to information just received from Tokyo, the Japanese prisoners of war who were repatriated from New Zealand were welcomed in Japan without any incidents or demonstrations of any kind, and have already returned peacefully to their homes with great jubilation for all.⁵³

On 1 March 1946 the Japanese POWs and PWJMs marched out in “clean and pressed burgundy suits” without incident. According to Charlie Clift, a guard who accompanied them to Sydney, everything went smoothly. The Daikai Maru left Sydney on 2 March 1946.⁵⁴ Chinenji Kaino said:

We got on the ship and there it became clear in our mind that Japan had lost the war. We all wept. I heard many horrible stories from POWs on the same ship. My mind sank with sadness for them. We didn’t know anything about what was happening outside the camp.⁵⁵

Both the Koei Maru and Daikai Maru were manned by Japanese crews, and headed for Uraga, Japan. During both voyages, the crews treated the repatriates badly. According to former internees on board, senior crew members attempted to embezzle the ship stores. Mari Kai was on the Koei Maru:

It was terrible … they didn’t give us the food that had been taken aboard at Melbourne. We saw the food going onto the ship. We were always fed well in the camp so I was shocked … We were hungry, but someone, I think it was a soldier, complained to the crew. About half way to Japan the treatment improved.⁵⁶

On the Daikai Maru ill-treatment led to the killing of crew members. Kaino was on this ship and described the incident:

All we were given was one kampan (dry bread) and a bowl of water a day. We had been eating well in the camp. I just couldn’t believe it … My legs were shaking from hunger … It lasted for about 10 days. And one day I heard some soldiers knifed some crew members … After this, we were fed well.⁵⁷

Masatora Okamura, a former PWJM living in Broome in 1986, had more detailed information:

The crew was going to embezzle the ship’s stores and sell them on the black-market. But some of the lower ranks had been dissatisfied with their treatment by their superiors. They gave the information to one of the Cowra POWs, who then planned with other soldiers to mutiny. They weren’t afraid … they had made a big escape from the camp once before, you know. I don’t know exactly how many were killed then.⁵⁸

Both voyages took about 3 weeks. The Koei Maru arrived safely at Uraga on 13 March.⁵⁹ Imaizumi described the day:

After having spent about 3 weeks on the rough sea – an experience I could never forget for its miserable conditions on board. When we finally reached Japan were greeted by snowfalls and coldness. The vessel anchored outside the harbour for a couple of days more for quarantine checks.⁶⁰

Taishiroo Mori remained uncertain about the Japanese surrender until the ship reached Japan. He described seeing Japan for the first time in 15 years:

It was snowing that day … not many houses or buildings in the area … all bombed. I was shocked. Then I thought it (the defeat) had been really true …⁶¹

For those born or raised in other countries, this was their first sight of Japan. Many elderly people saw a Japan they had long forgotten. After the repatriates disembarked, they were sprayed with DDT. They were then taken to Uraga where they were housed in Navy barracks:

It was like an internment camp all over again but this one was much worse than Tatura … It was cold and miserable … There was very little food.⁶²

The Japanese government gave each repatriate a train ticket home. Taishiroo Mori was one whose family was awaiting his homecoming. He left Uraga and headed for his home town, Ariake, Kyushu. He described his journey home:

It was shocking to see the condition of Japan … particularly when we came to Hiroshima. All that was left at the station was a bent water tap … One old man got off the train. He was gazing at the devastation vacantly and in the next moment he burst into tears … For the first time I learnt the photos I saw at Tatura were all true. I was one of the lucky ones. My home town hadn’t been bombed.⁶³

Mori’s sister was at home when he arrived. She recalled the moment when he entered the house: “I didn’t recognise him straight away. He was wearing the red uniform from the Australian camp. He stared at me and said, ‘It’s me’ … and I said, ‘Oh, it’s you.’”⁶⁴

Koike had been away from home for 11 years. His wife came to see him at Uraga. She told him that he lost his father, three uncles, his wife’s parents and his son while he was interned in Australia.⁶⁵ Many PWJMs had their homes in Wakayama.⁶⁶ Chinenji Kaino was one:

Japan was in a terrible condition. We were crammed in the train. Some of us were in the red camp uniform … good quality clothes … other Japanese were staring at us. There were some of us in dress suits with a necktie and a hat. We really stood out like movie stars …⁶⁷

Many had nowhere to go to. They went to a repatriates’ centre at Kanazawabunko until they found a livelihood.⁶⁸

Formosans and Koreans

On 13 January SCAP had requested information concerning the numbers and locations of Formosan and Korean POWs and civilians awaiting repatriation from the AMF areas.⁶⁹ Army Headquarters replied that there were 948 repatriates on the mainland, comprising 162 Korean POWs, 411 Formosan POWs and 375 Formosan civilians.⁷⁰ SCAP decided not to include them on the two ships already en route to Australia to collect repatriates, but to arrange a separate vessel.⁷¹

After the Koei Maru and Daikai Maru left, 1,005 Formosan and Korean internees and POWs remained in Australia. Four hundred and thirty-nine were civilian internees -– 437 Formosans and 2 Koreans, including 99 women and 112 children.⁷² On 6 March all 1,005 were brought to Pyrmont Wharf, Sydney, to embark on the Yoizuki, a demilitarised destroyer manned by a Japanese crew.⁷³ On the previous day, members of the press had been allowed on board. They indicated that if women and children were to be embarked under such conditions, their newspaper stories would be highly critical.⁷⁴ Accommodation on the Yoizuki was described in the Melbourne Argus:

Accommodation for the women and children comprised an iron deckhouse and a between-decks compartment aft. The deckhouse has only a few ventilators and portholes … The compartment between decks was formerly used as storage space. There is no forced draught, and no other means of ventilation except for portholes, which have to be closed when at sea.⁷⁵

James Sullivan was officer in charge of the train to Sydney and accompanied the Formosans to the wharf. He recalled that all were happy on the way, but as soon as they saw the ship they became very unhappy.⁷⁶ Captain Araki of the Yoizuki claimed that he had “given the women and children the best accommodation on the destroyer”. He admitted “the accommodation was poor by Australian standards, but not by Japanese”.⁷⁷ An embarkation officer inspected the accommodation for women and children on the ship and found conditions so “cramped and vile” that he reported them to his superior.⁷⁸ The destroyer was built to carry 315 crew, and was now to carry 1,005 passengers, plus crew, plus excess civilian baggage which took some space allocated for passengers. This concerned Army officers who referred the problem to Army Headquarters in Melbourne.⁷⁹ Four hundred and eleven Formosan and 162 Korean POWs were already aboard, but embarkation of the civilian Formosans was delayed. The atmosphere on the wharf became tense. The Formosans, not knowing that they were to be sent to Formosa, believed they were destined for Japan. They showed signs of distress and fear at being aboard a Japanese ship.⁸⁰

At noon a decision was received from Headquarters that the women and children must board the ship, on the grounds that “the provisioning of the ship was the responsibility of the Japanese government and the responsibility of the Australian Army would cease at the gangway”.⁸¹ When the Formosans were told, some of them protested vigorously. Many became hysterical. Weeping in fear, they were forced onto the Yoizuki. After the embarkation was complete, Liu Wei Ping, the Chinese Vice-Consul, went aboard to speak to the Formosan internees. He was quoted in the Sydney Sun as telling the Formosans:

Formosa had gone back to China and they now were Chinese. They were not going back to Japan. They complained that the ship was too crowded, and I told them they were Chinese. China had suffered a lot during the war and they too would have to suffer.⁸²

After being told this, the internees showed signs of relief. The Yoizuki sailed at 2.30 p.m.⁸³ On 29 May 1946 Harry Liang from Tatura wrote to Captain Wright, Number 4 Camp Commandant in 1945:

After our struggle which failed at Sydney dock, we went on board and were comforted to see our vice-consul Mr Liu Wei Ping who spoke to us. The condition in the ship was very unpleasant … The heat in the compartment almost drove everyone mad … we were sleeping in the position just like those “sardines in the tin” … I was very much pitiful to those women and children who fainted …⁸⁴

He continued:

I wish to express our hearty thanks … for the gallant protest to your government against putting us on board that ship “Yoizuki” indeed the kindheartedness of the Australian people had been represented by you and all the officers’ deeds for us.⁸⁵

The outcry did not stop with the departure of the Yoizuki. The scenes of crying Formosan women and children at the wharf attracted the attention of the public and the press. A strong and widespread press campaign alleged that the ship was like the “Black Hole of Calcutta” and should not have left Australia with the women and children aboard. The Yoizuki was branded a “Hell Ship”.⁸⁶

The government’s decision to force the Formosan internees aboard not only annoyed the press but also had political repercussions. Various individuals and organisations sent telegrams to the prime minister urging that the destroyer be recalled by radio or ordered to put in at the nearest port. They condemned the government action as inhumane and identified it with “a re-creation of the concentration camp conditions for the extirpation of which Australians fought and died”.⁸⁷ Among the organisations which protested were the Methodist Conference, the Australian Chinese Association, the Waterside Workers Federation and the Australian Seamen’s Union.⁸⁸ The secretary of the Seamen’s Union stated:

It was criminal that Chinese nationals should be compelled to sail on a Japanese-manned ship. There was a complete lack of even the most primitive hygienic facilities.⁸⁹

Mr Treatt, deputy leader of the opposition, said:

What was wrong for Australian women and children was surely wrong, too for Formosans. There would have been a great public outcry if it had been proposed to transport Australian women and children under the conditions described.⁹⁰

Protests were also made by opposition members in the House of Representatives. Mr Menzies, the opposition leader, and Mr Fadden, the Country Party leader, made a joint statement in Canberra that “It was the sovereign duty of the Australian government to refuse their embarkation and despatch under such conditions”.⁹¹ Mr Treatt, deputy leader of the opposition, said that “The incident was akin to those atrocities which we had condemned so severely in the Japanese”.⁹²

There were other reactions. Brigadier A.S. Blackburn VC of South Australia, a former prisoner of war in Japan, stated:

The Japanese [Formosan] passengers on the ship would be travelling under conditions which would be like heaven compared with the way they habitually moved Allied prisoners during the war. They are not one scrap worse off than other Japanese women or children I saw moved at sea while I was a prisoner … but they did not appear to mind in the least.⁹³

Following public protests and the press campaign, the prime minister sent a signal to General MacArthur informing him of the strong reaction to the conditions on the Yoizuki⁹⁴ and the government announced on 7 March that the Yoizuki would call at “an island port” for inspection.⁹⁵ It was reported that the government also sent a radio message to the captain of the Yoizuki warning against any inhumanity during the journey.⁹⁶

There is evidence that the Yoizuki was scheduled to call at Rabaul on its way to Formosa, possibly to meet an Australian request to pick up extra Formosan and Korean POWs transferred from Port Moresby.⁹⁷ On 8 March the Australian government received a signal from MacArthur requesting that action be taken to disembark women, children and male heads of families at Rabaul for re-embarkation on a Japanese hospital ship, the Hikawa Maru.⁹⁸

On 11 March the Yoizuki arrived at Rabaul and disembarked 319 women, children and male heads of families, and 32 sick people.⁹⁹ A Commonwealth investigation team, led by Justice Simpson, was sent, but found no evidence of undue sickness and no deaths.¹⁰⁰ In fact, some were reluctant to leave the ship, which they saw as fast transport likely to reach their destination sooner than alternatives.¹⁰¹

After unloading 351 people, the Yoizuki embarked 142 Korean POWs (possibly from Port Moresby), and sailed on the same day carrying 802 passengers.¹⁰² On the following day, 351 women and children were re-embarked on the Hikawa Maru, which was carrying 63 Japanese nurses and 28 Japanese doctors. The ship also took on 2,000 Formosans and Korean POWs at Kokopo, near Rabaul, and departed on 14 March.¹⁰³ Harry Liang wrote:

Nevertheless, our hard time was short-lived, we arrived at Rabaul after six days of “hell voyage” then we were put ashore … Then the next day, we went on board another Jap ship named “Hikawa Maru”. We were relieved … there were sixty Jap nurses serving us. So we travelled along safely and happily till we at last arrived at our destination.¹⁰⁴

The Hikawa Maru arrived at Keelong on 22 March.¹⁰⁵ The repatriates were shocked to see the devastation of the area from bombing during the war. In Chu Tie Twan’s words it was “the most bitter moment of our life”.¹⁰⁶ Chu, a former internee at Tatura, wrote of their arrival:

No transport vehicles for conveying us as well as our baggage, thus we were forced to go on foot about a mile … to a wrecked and dark building, where we were just about to sit on the wreckage, and stayed awake a whole night through … Babies were crying, women and girls were weeping and praying, men were grumbling and swearing … Everybody felt distressed and hopeless … Later we were fed with macaroni mixed with salted water … Some bought cakes in exchange with soaps or personal effects.¹⁰⁷

On the next day the repatriates were given train tickets to go home. Chu Tie Twan continued:

many of us got no home or families as our ancestors left the island too long and most all the places were badly damaged after war, and no trace to seek relatives. We, the desolated ones, after consulting and pleading with the city chief consequently decided to go to Taipei to seek further assistance.¹⁰⁸

Guan Guo Shi, the son of a former internee, said, “My father came back with baggage full of tinned food. Food was scarce at that time so we exchanged it for noodles.”¹⁰⁹

After the repatriation of the Formosans and Koreans, 162 Japanese withheld from initial repatriation were still in camps awaiting further investigation.¹¹¹ The 162 internees were all gathered in Number 4 at Tatura.

The six men in Category (d) were aged from 61 to 82 and all had been in Australia from 44 to 49 years. The 14 in Category (e) were all over 50 ranging up to 78, and all had been in Australia from 44 to 57 years.¹¹² Among the 47 men in Category (b) were those who were married to white wives who were not interned. Mrs Mary Togami, an Irish woman who was married to a laundryman named Seizoo Togami from Mosman, appealed for her husband to be released in Australia. She received support from members of the Neutral Bay Branch of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) Togami was about 65 years of age and had been in Australia approximately 50 years. Mrs Togami was quoted as saying:

… her husband would be unable to live in Japan owing to his age, the state of his health, his limited knowledge of the Japanese language, and the fact that he has no near relatives and no friends there … to deport her husband, after he has spent nearly the whole of his life as a peaceful citizen of Australia would … amount to a grave injustice and inflict hardship upon him as well as upon his health.¹¹³

On 11 March 1946 the secretary of the ALP Branch wrote to the Prime Minister, Chifley, in support of Mrs Togami’s appeal:

… members of this branch of the A.L.P. feel that no useful national purpose is likely to be served by deporting this man, or keeping him interned, and that the case is a proper one to refer to you for whatever action you may deem advisable.¹¹⁴

On 15 July 1946, Roland Browne, Acting Director-General of the Security Service, went to Tatura and reviewed 94 cases.¹¹⁵ Among them was Togami’s case. He was allowed to remain in Australia.¹¹⁶

Among the cases Browne reviewed were four from New Caledonia. They were Kazuko Mouren and her daughter aged 6, both French nationals, and two Japanese men, Nakano and Kuroiwa.¹¹⁷ Kazuko Marie Mouren née Kitazawa was born to French-Japanese parents in Japan in 1918, and in 1938 went to Noumea with her French mother. In 1940 Kazuko married a Frenchman named Jacques Mouren who Browne described as “pro-Vichy and pro-Japanese”.¹¹⁸ Mouren went to Saigon when the Free French elements gained control of New Caledonia and eventually, in Kazuko’s words, deserted his wife and child. At the outbreak of the Pacific War, Kazuko’s mother, her brother and her sister were interned in Noumea, but she was not. However, she agreed to accompany her family to Australia and was held at Tatura. The rest of her family were repatriated to Japan on the Koei Maru, but she was not, as the Apostolic Delegate supported her plea to stay.¹¹⁹ She did not want to return to Japan or Noumea, but desired to remain in Australia to bring up her daughter as a European. In February 1946 the Apostolic Delegate wrote to Dr Evatt: “She should not be included amongst the repatriates to Japan and that Mr C. Cahill, a solicitor of Sydney, was willing to provide a home for her”.¹²⁰ Mrs Mouren was not an eligible immigrant under the White Australia policy as she was a “half-cast Japanese by blood” and technically was required to leave Australia within 3 months after her release.¹²¹ However, Justice Hutchins recommended her release in Australia under exemption.¹²²

On 3 September 1946 Simpson recommended to Browne that Nakano and Kuroiwa be deported to New Caledonia or to Japan.¹²³ Nakano, 53 years old, was deported to Japan in January 1947.¹²⁴ According to the camp medical officer, Kuroiwa was suffering from a serious heart condition and was unfit to travel.¹²⁵ He died at Heidelburg Hospital on 26 October 1947.¹²⁶

Local internees cleared by the Security Service could decide whether they wanted to go to Japan or remain in Australia. The Murakami family from Darwin had lost their father during internment. The mother was a naturalised British subject and her sons and daughters were Australian-born. The family first decided to return to Japan, but a daughter who had been in Japan since before the war wrote telling them “not to come to Japan on any account as Japan was in an absolutely disastrous state”.¹²⁷ They decided to remain in Australia. Joe Murakami wrote in 1988:

the decision as to whether one should go to Japan or remain in Australia had a ring of finality which is difficult to appreciate today … There was the so-called tribunal, chaired by a senior judge, which I think discouraged Australian people from going to Japan. I don’t know the reason for this but it may have been based on genuine humanism.¹²⁸

Harry Suzuki, an Australian-born laundryman from Sydney, confirmed this. The Tribunal advised him to stay in Australia.¹²⁹

Under a decision made on 28 November 1945, only where there were security reasons or complications were cases for repatriation to be referred to the Commissioner, Justice Simpson.¹³⁰ Browne reported 16 such cases covering 21 persons, 3 of whom were PWJMs.¹³¹ James Yagura, a Kigoo Nisei PWJM from Thursday Island, was referred to Simpson more than once as he changed his mind twice about whether he wanted to stay in Australia or go to Japan. Yagura was born in Brisbane to a Japanese father and European mother. He was taken to Japan as an infant where he was brought up, and returned to Thursday Island when he was 22. In his last letter of appeal to the Camp Commandant, he wrote:

I … received my release on the 28th inst. Almost immediately I made some inquiries through my friends about condition of Thursday Island at present. The result of inquiries was not attractive, as there are no houses nor any sort of work … I now realised that I am in a hopeless quandary at present and furthermore I cannot see any prospect in the future for me. Only hope I have now is to return home in Japan …¹³²

Of the 21 people referred to Simpson, he recommended that 19 (13 men including Yagura, 3 women and 3 children) be deported to Japan.¹³³ Most had requested this. The reasons for recommending deportation of those who did not were not given.¹³⁴ The deportees were transferred from Tatura to Liverpool Internment Camp to await embarkation. They left on the Kanimbla from Sydney on 4 January 1947.¹³⁵

New Guinea Japanese

In August 1946 release orders were issued for all local internees on the mainland except those unfit to travel,¹³⁶ but most were not actually released for some months. Release of internees from New Guinea was also delayed. There were 10 men: 6 internees and 4 PWJMs. All were married to local women and had lived in the Territory for an average of 32 years.¹³⁷ Browne interviewed them and found that there were no security objections. On 23 August 1946, he wrote to J.R. Halligan, secretary of the Department of External Territories, and asked the Department to agree to the return of these internees to New Guinea:¹³⁸

it is thought there may be some local objection from the point of view of your Department’s administration and the possible effect on the native population, should these Japanese return to New Guinea.

The secretary replied to Browne saying that the Administrator, J.K. Murray, did not recommend the return of the Japanese in question to the Territory.¹³⁹ However, the government wanted to clear all the internment camps and believed that internees “should be released and returned to their pre-war place of residence as soon as possible”.¹⁴⁰ On 6 February 1947, Army Headquarters asked permission for the Japanese in question to be released from Tatura to proceed to the Territory.¹⁴¹ Murray objected strongly. On 20 February he wrote to Halligan in Canberra:

When viewed from Territory attitudes, the decision of the Commonwealth to speed up the return of these men is disturbing. There has been no change in attitudes or conditions …

He continued:

Should these men be returned, I fear they will virtually become wards of the government … It is extremely doubtful whether they are employable. Speaking personally I really believe that the best and wisest course is to prevent these people returning at all, even going to the extent of expropriating such property as they possess as a credit against reparations as was done in the case of Germans in the 1914–1918 war …¹⁴²

However, Murray had to accept the government’s position. He asked that one internee be landed at Port Moresby and the others at Rabaul.¹⁴³ The Deputy Administrator, Judge F.B. Phillips, was critical of the decision to return the Japanese. He suggested to Murray:

It seems to me that there is much to be said for the holding of these internees in custody, (but in custody at a place at which they would be segregated from the convicted Japanese War Criminals), and for the continuance of such custody for some time – (perhaps even until the signing of a Peace Treaty with Japan), this would afford an opportunity of observing the reaction of the local inhabitants (European, Asiatics and Native) to the return of these internees and an opportunity of collecting data upon which Your Honour could found recommendations as to whether all or any of them should be deported.¹⁴⁴

Murray submitted this to Canberra.¹⁴⁵ Nevertheless the 10 Japanese were allowed to leave Sydney on the Malaita for Rabaul on 28 January 1948.¹⁴⁶ They were the last to leave the Tatura Internment Camp.¹⁴⁷ After being detained at Port Moresby and Rabaul, these Japanese were eventually deported to Japan.¹⁴⁸ Four men were married to New Guinea women and had families. The families in question were never able to reunite.¹⁴⁹ Michael Asanuma, the eldest son of Ichimatsu Asanuma, said:

I visited my father in the internment camp at Rabaul. It was hard on my mother … bringing up us children all by herself. My father was not allowed to come back to New Guinea. He wrote to us from Japan telling us that he was in poverty. We sent him a few things ─ hand towels, soap and things. Eventually he remarried in Japan and died there. I have a few stepbrothers and sisters there.¹⁵⁰

Australian Government’s Attitude Towards Deportation/ Repatriation of Japanese

The Australian government dealt differently with the deportation of European internees. Most were allowed to stay in Australia. At the end of 1945 there were 47 Italian nationals and 564 German nationals still in camp who had been residents of Australia or its territories at the time of internment.¹⁵¹ They were examined by Mr Justice Simpson, who made recommendations for or against deportation.¹⁵² Simpson recommended that two Italians be deported ─ a woman married to an overseas internee, and a convicted criminal.¹⁵³ Three hundred and thirty local Germans were to be deported, including 41 family members who had not been interned.¹⁵⁴ A large number of overseas European internees were also allowed to stay in Australia. Several hundred internees from Britain remained in Australia. The majority of internees from places such as the Straits Settlements, the Middle East, Palestine and New Caledonia were released and stayed in Australia.¹⁵⁵ Arthur Calwell, chairman of the ACAC, was convinced that most of the internees would be “excellent citizens”.¹⁵⁶

In July 1945, one month before the end of the war, the government inaugurated a postwar immigration policy and established the first Department of Immigration.¹⁵⁷ Arthur Calwell was appointed Australia’s first Minister for Immigration. His ministerial statement reads: “The millions of new citizens will help push back out frontiers, expand our industries, … and build us into a powerful nation, secure in our peace-loving way of life.”¹⁵⁸

According to Bevege, the absorption of European ex-internees into Australia as postwar migrants passed almost unnoticed. This was partly because the deliberations of the ACAC were not public. Also, the “dramatic impact of 1 million new settlers in the post-war period” meant that these ex-internees passed unnoticed.¹⁵⁹ However, like most other politicians of the period, Calwell was committed to a White Australia.¹⁶⁰

It is not clear whether any of the overseas Japanese internees who were deported had requested to settle in Australia. However, technically they were required to leave Australia within 3 months of release because they were not eligible as immigrants under the White Australia policy.¹⁶¹ Unless they had an Australian-born person in the family, or unless they were given special consideration such as Kazuko Mouren from New Caledonia received, legally speaking it was not possible to allow them to settle in Australia. The same thing can be said of the 304 locally-interned Japanese nationals who were deported to Japan, although some had applied for permission to settle in the country. Most were already old and, had they been eligible, would have been rated very poorly as potential migrants. This was despite the fact that most had been long-term residents.

The attitude of the Australian government towards deportation or repatriation of Japanese internees was consistent with policies carried out before and during the war. Those not born in Australia were treated correctly according to the Geneva Convention. But, apart from these considerations, there was little possibility that they would be afforded special treatment. The return of 14,000 Australian POWs in September and October 1945¹⁶² had confirmed stories of Japanese atrocities. In the resulting atmosphere of anti-Japanese emotion, life was difficult for many ex-Japanese internees who stayed.

• Previous
• Home
• Next

Notes

1. MP 742/1, 255/18/432. Repatriation of Formosan and Koreans (hereafter referred to as “Yoizuki File”), Mar. 1946. ↩
2. A 1066, 45/1/11/5, 15 Nov. 1945. ↩
3. A 437, 46/6/72, 28 Nov. 1945. ↩
4. AWM 54, 780/1/6, p. 96. ↩
5. Ibid. ↩
6. A 437, 46/6/72, 4 Jan. 1947. ↩
7. A 373, 1/505/48, 4 Jan. 1947. ↩
8. Claude Tanaka, Sydney, 7 May 1992. ↩
9. A 1066, 45/1/11/5, 11 Jan. 1946. ↩
10. AP 719/3, SA 12667, 5 Feb. 1946. ↩
11. Ibid., 10 Dec. 1945. ↩
12. A 373, 1/505/48, 19 Aug. 1946. ↩
13. AWM 52, 8/7/20, 9–16 Feb. 1946. ↩
14. AP 719/3, SA 12667, 5 Feb. 1946. ↩
15. Over 60 such letters have been found in file A 1066, 45/1/11/5. These were written by internees or compiled by the 14C Compound Leader. It is likely that similar letters were written by some internees in 14B. ↩
16. A 1066, 45/1/11/5, 31 Jan. 1946. ↩
17. Ibid. ↩
18. A 437, 46/6/72, 4 Jan. 1947. ↩
19. Ibid., 29 Jan. 1946. ↩
20. Ibid. ↩
21. A 1066, 45/1/11/5, 25 Jan. 1946. ↩
22. Ibid., 10 Feb. 1946. ↩
23. A 437, 46/6/72, 4 Jan. 1947. ↩
24. A 1066, 45/1/11/5, 11 Feb. 1946. ↩
25. A 437, 46/6/72, 4 Jan. 1947. ↩
26. Chinenji Kaino, Wakayama, 26 Jan. 1987, [J]. ↩
27. AWM 52, 8/7/20, 2–9 Feb. 1946. ↩
28. Ibid. ↩
29. A 437, 46/6/72, 23 Aug. 1946. ↩
30. A 1066, 45/1/11/5, 31 Jan. 1946. ↩
31. Ibid. ↩
32. Ibid., 15 and 20 Nov. 1945. ↩
33. Ibid., 14 Feb. 1946. ↩
34. Ibid., 22 Feb. 1946. ↩
35. A 437, 46/6/72, 16 Nov. 1945. ↩
36. A 1066, 45/1/11/5, 15 Feb. 1946. ↩
37. Ibid., 11 Mar. 1946. ↩
38. A 373, 11419/214, 26 Feh. 1946. ↩
39. Koike, p. 154, [J]. ↩
40. Bert Whitmore, Barmera, 14 Apr. 1987. ↩
41. Koike, p. 156. ↩
42. Ibid. ↩
43. Name withheld, 14 Apr. 1987. ↩
44. Melbourne Age, 22 Feb. 1946, in Yoizuki File. ↩
45. A 373,11419/214, 26 Feb. 1946. ↩
46. Koike, p. 157, [J]. ↩
47. Name withheld, 14 Apr. 1987. ↩
48. Yoizuki File, Background Information, p. 2. ↩
49. Koike, p. 158. ↩
50. Andy Takamura, Kobe, 12 Jan. 1992, [J]. ↩
51. Koike, p. 160. ↩
52. A373, 11419/214, 26 Feb. 1946. ↩
53. AWM 52, 8/7/20, 25 Feb. – 2 Mar. 1946. ↩
54. Yoizuki File, Background Information, p. 2. ↩
55. Kaino, 27 Jan. 1987, [J]. ↩
56. The late Mari Kai, Kawasaki, 25 Jan. 1987, [J]. ↩
57. Chinenji Kaino, 27 Jan. 1987, [J]. ↩
58. Masatora Okamura, Broome, 26 Aug. 1986, [J]. ↩
59. Sydney Sun, 14 Mar. 1946, in Yoizuki File. ↩
60. Tatsuzoo Imaizumi, letter, 25 Sept. 1985. ↩
61. Taishiroo Mori, Saga, 17 Jan. 1987, [J]. ↩
62. The late Mari Kai, 25 Jan. 1987. ↩
63. Taishiro Mori, 17 Jan. 1989. ↩
64. Mr Mori’s sister, Saga, 17 Jan. 1987, [J]. ↩
65. Koike, pp. 163–164. ↩
66. See p. 26, Chapter 2. ↩
67. Chinenji Kaino, 27 Jan. 1987, [J]. ↩
68. The late Mari Kai, 11 Jan. 1987. ↩
69. Yoizuki File, Background Information, p. 3. ↩
70. Ibid., p. 4. ↩
71. Ibid. ↩
72. Yoizuki File, Background Information, p. 7. ↩
73. Ibid. ↩
74. Yoizuki File, Major Coffin’s report, 6 Mar. 1946. ↩
75. Melbourne Argus, 7 Mar. 1946, in Yoizuki File. ↩
76. James Sullivan, Melbourne, 17 Feb. 1990. ↩
77. Daily Mirror, 6 Mar. 1946, MP 742/1, 255/18/432. ↩
78. Yoizuki File, Major Coffin’s report. ↩
79. Ibid. ↩
80. Ibid. ↩
81. Ibid. ↩
82. Sydney Sun, 6 Mar. 1946, in Yoizuki File. ↩
83. Yoizuki File, Major Coffin’s report. ↩
84. Harry Liang, letter, 29 May 1946, A 373, 1/505/48. ↩
85. Ibid. ↩
86. Yoizuki File, Background Information, p. 7. ↩
87. Melbourne Herald, 7 Mar. 1946, in Yoizuki File. ↩
88. Ibid. ↩
89. Ibid. ↩
90. Ibid. ↩
91. Ibid. ↩
92. Sydney Morning Herald, 7 Mar. 1946, in Yoizuki File. ↩
93. Melbourne Herald, 8 Mar. 1946, Ibid. ↩
94. Ibid., Mar. 1946. ↩
95. Ibid. ↩
96. Melbourne Sun, 8 Mar. 1946, in Yoizuki File. ↩
97. Ibid. ↩
98. Yoizuki File, Background Information, p. 8. ↩
99. Sydney Sun, 14 Mar. 1946, in Yoizuki File. ↩
100. Melbourne Argus, 13 Mar. 1946, Ibid. ↩
101. Sydney Sun, 13 Mar. 1946, Ibid. ↩
102. Yoizuki File, Background Information, p. 8. ↩
103. Ibid. ↩
104. Harry Liang, letter, 29 May 1946, A 373, 1/505/48. ↩
105. Ibid. ↩
106. Chu Tie Twan, letter, 8 Aug. 1946, A 373, 1/505/48. ↩
107. Ibid. ↩
108. Ibid. ↩
109. Guan Guo Shi, Taipei, 5 Dec. 1986, [Cl. ↩
110. Ibid. ↩
111. A373, 1/505/48, 19 Aug. 1946. ↩
112. Ibid., 7 June 1946. ↩
113. A 1066, 45/1/11/5, 11 Mar. 1946. ↩
114. Ibid. ↩
115. Ibid. ↩
116. A 437, 46/6/72, 4 Jan. 1947. ↩
117. A 373, 1/505/48, 1945–1946. ↩
118. Ibid., 19 Aug. 1946. ↩
119. Ibid. ↩
120. Ibid. ↩
121. Ibid. ↩
122. A 373 11505/48, 18 Sept. 1946. ↩
123. Ibid., 3 Sept. 1946. ↩
124. Ibid., 22 Aug. 1947. ↩
125. Ibid., 22 Aug. 1947. ↩
126. A373, 1/505/48; MP 1103/1, CJ22221. ↩
127. Joe Murakami, letter, 16 July 1988. ↩
128. Ibid. ↩
129. Harry Suzuki, Sydney, 22 Aug. 1987. ↩
130. A 373, 1/505/48, 7 June 1946. ↩
131. Ibid. ↩
132. A437, 46/6/72, 23 Dec. 1946 ↩
133. Ibid., no date. ↩
134. A373, 11505/48, 2 Sept. 1946. ↩
135. Ibid., 13 Jan. 1947. ↩
136. Ibid., 18 Sept. 1946. ↩
137. Ibid., 2 Oct. 1946. ↩
138. Ibid., 23 Aug. 1946. ↩
139. Ibid., 25 Oct. 1946. ↩
140. Ibid., 7 Feb. 1947. ↩
141. Ibid. ↩
142. Ibid., 20 Feb. 1947. ↩
143. Ibid., 15 Apr. 1947. ↩
144. Ibid., 25 Mar.1948. ↩
145. Ibid. ↩
146. Ibid., 29 Jan. 1948. ↩
147. Ibid, 19 Nov. 1946. ↩
148. Michael Asanuma, Brisbane, 23 Apr. 1992. ↩
149. Ibid. ↩
150. Michael Asanuma, telephone, Brisbane, 23 Apr. 1992. ↩
151. Bevege, p. 355. ↩
152. A 373, 1/505/48, 14 Jun. 1946. ↩
153. Ibid. ↩
154. Ibid. ↩
155. AWM 54, pp. 88–90. ↩
156. Bevege, p. 363. ↩
157. Hasluck, p. 436. ↩
158. Yarwood, A.T. and M.J. Knowling, Race Relations in Australia: A History, Methuen Australia, Melbourne, 1982, p. 283. ↩
159. Bevege, p. 363. ↩
160. Yarwood, p. 282. ↩
161. A 373, 1/505/48, 19 Aug. 1946. ↩
162. Nelson, H., P.O.W. Prisoners of War: Australians Under Nippon, ABC, Sydney, 1985, p. 207. ↩

• Previous
• Home
• Next