soc.history.war.world-war-ii

>The *only* inquiry was done in *1999* (57 years later) to the Senate's
>Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade!
>
>You can read a summary of the report's conclusions and methodology at
>...
>
>http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/hmas_sydney/inquiry.htm

Now this was inquiry done in 1999...and while I did skim portions of
it; there wasn't an investigation of the major Australian warship when
it sank? Most curious. Any idea why?. I'm thinking of our 'Pearl
Harbor'. Boy where there investigations, mostly wrong. -redvet

>Some relevant excerpts on the interrogation of the German survivors at
>the time and the veracity of their claims ...
>
>"6.54 The evidence obtained through the interrogation process has
>been assessed quite differently. For example:
>
>The one thing that gives the German story more credibility is the fact
>that the survivors were quite dispersed when they were picked up and
>they were interrogated in different positions ... So there was a
>remarkable consistency within the story of what actually occurred, as
>it unfolded, to give it more creditability (sic)/

Yes, much to my point of 'three people telling a lie". - redvet

>But ...
>
>What I am saying is and from the record ... is that all the evidence I
>have and, I think, people way above me have is that the whole German
>story is a mass of contradictions; it is a mass of lies ..."
>
>... and ...
>
>"Criticisms of the Interrogation Process
>
>6.55 Several problems were encountered in the interrogation
>process, which may have led to inaccuracies in the way the action
>between Sydney and Kormoran came to be understood. According to the
>Australian Archives Guide:
>
>Until 2 December the interrogations were carried out with little
>formal guidance and were not handled well in the view of some. ... The
>failure to segregate the prisoners in the early stages appears to have
>escaped the attention of Captain Farquhar-Smith ... The Instructions
>for Interrogating Prisoners of War ex No. 41 were finally issued on
>2December by Rear Admiral Crace, but by then a considerable amount of
>interrogation had already been undertaken ... By December 9 all the
>prisoners in Western Australia had been interrogated except for two
>who were still hospitalised, and preparations were made for their
>transfer to Victoria. They were interned at Murchison prisoners of war
>camp in northern Victoria, along with those rescued by the Aquitania
>and taken to Sydney. The officers were later moved from Murchison to
>nearby Dhurringile and in 1943 the men were transferred to a timber
>felling camp at Graytown. The prisoners were finally repatriated in
>1947
>
>6.56 Frame also criticised the manner in which the interrogations
>were carried out. He wrote:
>
>As practically no preparation had been made for such a contingency,
>the whole interrogation was handled poorly from the beginning. It was
>disorganised, very amateur, lacked a sense of urgency ...
>
>6.57 Frame also compared the methods of interrogation in Sydney and
>Western Australia, and concluded that '... the circumstances for
>conducting interrogations in Sydney were very different from those
>prevailing in Western Australia, where the prisoners had been reunited
>and discussion between them was taking place'.

If I may play the devils advocate - frequently in a cover-up - the
argument is used 'oh it was an inept that
provided that information' . This early in the war the powers that be
would be concerned that an incompetent capain might not be the best
finding as far as home front morale is concerned. Just a thought...

>
>... and ...
>
>"6.59 From the initial interrogations, it appeared that the
>government was largely satisfied that it had obtained a clear picture
>of what had happened to Sydney. It was felt that:
>
>... from th[e] interrogation it was possible to get from the Germans
>an almost complete picture of the action. How far this account varied
>from the truth, however, is something that it would be almost
>impossible to establish.
>
>6.60 In his second and final public announcement on 3 December
>1941, the Prime Minister noted that:
>
>In releasing this information [ie a reconstructed account of the
>action], I emphasise that in the absence of any information from the
>Sydney, one side only is given from direct evidence. Certain of the
>aspects on board the Sydney must remain a matter of surmise as to
>details. The broad canvas can, however, be taken as giving an accurate
>picture.

Hmmm, the prime minister...An honorable man; balanced against the fact
that there is war occurring in which the future of humanity hangs in
the balance. I can see an argument being made that 'home front morale'
is the most important factor in making public statements.

>
>6.61 Notwithstanding the official endorsement of the German76
>accounts, and contrary to Gill's claim that 'no room for doubt was
>left as to its accuracy',77 doubt still remained for many about the
>veracity of the German version. It was not the 'Germanness' of the
>accounts that called into question their integrity. Rather, it was the
>nature of the way in which the information was obtained that gave rise
>to doubts about its accuracy. In his book Who Sank the Sydney? Michael
>Montgomery pointed out that 'it should be borne in mind that most
>officers, on whatever side, held in captivity considered that they had
>an absolute duty to do all they could to deceive the enemy'."

As mentioned in an earlier post, this story will very much continue. I
can imagine Ballard steaming with his camera crew towards the wreck,
with National Geographic television contracts in hand, as I write
this. Tt will be interesting to learn how the forensics match up
against the claims of the German prisoners.

Mahalo for answering my questions.
- redvet