soc.history.war.world-war-ii

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:46:24 -0400, redvet wrote:

>>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

There were evidently (if you read in slightly more detail) at least
two *reports* made, but these were not, evidently, large scale
inquiries and were of limited scope and even more limited resources.
The War Cabinet was also evidently briefed (but, if I read it
correctly, the briefing papers haven't survived) and seems to have
been satisfied with what they were told (which, again, doesn't seem
entirely clear).

The reason for nothing more?

Well, the government concealed the event from the public for some days
because they were afraid of the morale impact of the revelation of the
loss ... perhaps they were so caught up in sweeping what they believed
was the "whole sorry mess" under the carpet they never considered that
the German story should be looked at critically ... or perhaps they
were led to believe that it *had* been looked at critically when, so
it seems, the interrogations were badly mishandled.

>>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

Indeed. But the point is made that most of the stories were from
people who would have been in no position to actually have observed
any irregularities in Detmers conduct ... and whom, therefore, were
actually reporting *hearsay* evidence all from a limited number of
sources.

There seems to have been no attempt to ferret out *who* exactly would
have been in a position to actually give *eyewitness* evidence to the
events being described.

Think of it this way. Apart from Detmers and the officers and men on
the Bridge (I'm guessing, less than 20 men) and those handling the
flags under his orders, who would have seen the flags and how they
were handled before he ordered the action to commence.

The engineroom crew certainly wouldn't have been able to. The gun
crews wouldn't have been, either. Nor would the torpedo crew. In fact,
the vast majority of the crew was probably below decks or out of sight
waiting for their concealed weapons to go into action and had no view
of the Kormoran's flags ... say, at best, 10% of the crew may have
actually been with Detmers and seen what he may have done ... if he
swore them to secrecy (not unreasonable, as he could easily have
pointed out they'd be hung for piracy/war crimes if they spoke) then
the *only* story about the opening stages of the battle would be the
one he concocted ... true or not ... as filtered through that
relatively small number of men.

In short, 90% of the crew would be passing on a story that they
actually had no way of discerning the truth of ... and 10% only would
be lying, and only lying in one particular, when the battle flag was
hoisted and whether they had been flying the Dutch flag or a white
flag immediately before.

The best lies are those that are almost 100% true ... and only false
in one significant respect. The fact that the *rest* of the story
checks out makes you assume that the one *lie* in the whole account is
the truth when, of course, it cannot be verified by the majority of
those who are telling the truth about the parts they actually saw.

>>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...

Indeed, that seems to be the case. There were no official inquiries at
the time because the government was disposed to think that the Sydney
officers had fucked up and preferred to sweep the whole thing under
the carpet.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Detmers was lying ... merely that he
*could* have been and the tiny number of crew who might have actually
known the "truth" of the opening stages of the action were never
correctly questioned or, possibly, ever even identified as part of the
interrogations.

Certainly, as I noted, the 1999 findings seem to have done no new
questioning of the surviving Kormoran crewmen at all.

>>
>>... 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.

Indeed. That is the suggestion that has been made. Not a "conspiracy"
as such, merely ... bad (or not) judgement ... all done by us in the
full glare of 20:20 hindsight ;-)

>>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

Welcome.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@pacific.net.au