The Montevideo Maru

No one can say for sure exactly what happened to the people left in Rabaul by the Australian Government in 1942.
The information on this page is only a very small part of a much larger mystery.

The Japanese ship Montevideo Maru was used as a troop carrier, cargo ship. The On 22nd June 1942, prisoners held in Rabaul New Britain were placed aboard this ship. Nine days later, on its way to Hainan island it was torpedoed and sunk by the American submarine Sturgeon.

At the end of the war in 1945 most of the families of the missing POWs expected them to be liberated in Rabaul. However on the arrival of the Australian troops in Rabaul, other than the four civilian survivors and the missionaries from Vunapope mission, no trace could be found of the military and civilian prisoners who were in Rabaul three years earlier.

When investigations started in Rabaul in September 1945 prisoners such as Gordon Thomas and Bishop Scharmach told of the sailing of the Japanese Ship Montevideo Maru with prisoners on board.

Gordon Thomas wrote:
And then one morning towards the end of June (1942) one of the other Australian technicians, who lived in the general camp, but went around the town repairing pumps and such-like work, arrived and breathlessly informed us that all prisoners from the camp, except the officers, had been removed, marched out and placed on board a ship for Japan. Later we learned from a native that the white masters had trudged along the road towards the wharf, carrying their burdens, while machine-gun units were posted every here and there lest the men should break ranks. We received the same news from some of the local Chinese, employed as cooks in some of the Japanese messes. When we heard that some of the men still remained in camp we feared we might still be called for and shipped away.

Thomas goes on to state that there were about a dozen other civilian engineers in Rabaul after the sailing of the ship.
No trace of them seems to have been found at the end of the war, although there were unidentified bodies.

Bishop Scharmach in his book "This Crowd Beats Us All" states that he was informed by Japanese officers in 1942, that the men were on the Montevideo Maru and it had been sunk with the loss of all aboard.

As the investigations in Rabaul were beginning a Japanese-speaking Australian officer Major H.S.Williams was ordered to investigate the overall casualties, movement and disposal of all Australian POWs by the Japanese. Williams had lived and run businesses in Japan for many years prior to the war. The history of the sinking of the Montevideo Maru as we know it today is basically written from documents by Major Harold S.Williams. Major Williams was sent from Melbourne Australia under orders from General MacArthur on the 25th August 1945. He arrived in Manila on the 31st August from where he travelled to Japan arriving on the 27th of September. He completed his investigation in late November and left Japan on the 5th December. (AWM 54 779/1/1)

On the 6th October 1945 Major Williams filed a "Report re Japanese steamer "MONTEVIDEO MARU" torpedoed off Luzon, 1 July 1942". ( The Australian War Memorial has made available Major William's document on-line Supporting document (The document is in PDF format and will require Adobe Acrobat to read or print it.)

On his arrival in Japan Major Williams gave priority to the investigation into the missing POWs from Rabaul. He first contacted the Japanese Navy and Army departments, Foreign Office and Prisoner of War Information Bureau (PWIB). He states:

Although the PWIB at first insisted that no information was available, the matter was pressed and a letter dated 6 Jan 43 from the Japanese Navy Dept to the PWIB was then discovered, stating that 845 PW and 208 civilians who were embarked at Rabaul on "Montevideo Maru" on 22 Jun 42, had been lost when that ship was torpedoed off Luzon on 1 Jul 42. A Mimeographed nominal roll of about 48 pages in Japanese of the PW and civilian personnel who were lost was attached.
(AWM 54 779/1/1 "Report on Investigation In Manila and Japan Re Aust PW and Civilians By Maj H.S.Williams, LO1 Aust PW Contact & Enquiry Unit 31 Aug. 45 to 6 DEC 45)

It is clear from the above that the Prisoner of War Information Bureau insisted that it had no information about the POWs from Rabaul. Why would the PWIB have information on the loss of the Rabaul prisoners? Information on the prisoners massacred at Tol plantation on the shores of Wide Bay New Britain hadn't been forwarded to the PWIB? So why would the Japanese forward details of the prisoners on a ship supposedly torpedoed by an American submarine? It must be remembered all this took place in the first seven months of the war. The Japanese Navy had just taken over from the Army at Rabaul and were establishing a base, planning for the invasion of mainland New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. POWs were a hindrance, having to be guarded and fed.

The nominal roll mentioned in Williams's report has always been a contentious issue for researchers, for names appear on the roll of people whose bodies were discovered in Rabaul after the war. The possible reason for this is that the nominal roll is the one taken in the Rabaul camp in 1942 as described by Gordon Thomas on the previous page. Major Williams considered the nominal roll so important that he brought it back to Australia for translation and war crimes purposes. To this day it has never been seen again.

After the war Gordon Thomas listed the people who were in Rabaul after the sailing of the ship. He notes the ones who had died of natural causes and those who he suspected were executed.

List written by Gordon Thomas post war.

John May, chaplain of the 2/22nd Battalion wrote a letter to the relatives of the Rev. Dan Oakes in 1947. The following is an extract from his letter:

I was in Rabaul P.0.W camp from 29 April to 22 June, 1942, during which time I frequently saw and spoke to Mr. Oakes. Early on the morning of Sunday 22 June, the whole camp was roused and all the civilians and military personnel (except officers and eight civilians) were later marched out of camp. I saw Mr. Oakes march out with them. The Japanese told us that they were being taken to a ship. Later we heard that they had left Rabaul and the Japanese report was that the ship had reached its destination, a journey supposed to be covered in 4 or 5 days. None of us saw the prisoners march on to the ship because the camp was not visible from the water but there is not the least doubt in any of our minds but that the men sailed on that day, While I was in Japan a certain camp official Lieut. Hosotani told certain prisoners that the ship carrying the Rabaul personnel had been sunk.(This was not official, nor was it public in the camp). [Original letter held by George Oaks]

Thomas, McKechnie, Ellis and Creswick were housed outside the main camp at the Rabaul ice works. So this letter confirms eight other civilians remained in Rabaul after the sailing of the ship. Why was Chaplain May told by the Japanese that the trip was only going to take 4 or 5 days and that the ship had reached its destination?

I have discovered a secret document that summarizes the post war interrogation report of Captain Stewart Nottage. It also supports the two ship theory. Nottage PWIR

There are also the stories of the Japanese ships Akikaze and the Kowa Maru. In both cases, at the end of the war the Japanese claimed that POWs were being transported and had died when these ships were sunk by the Allies. Both these stories were proved to be false and in fact the POWs had been massacred. Which begs the question, if there was enough suspicion in the Australian War Crimes section in 1947 to reinvestigate the case of the Kowa Maru and the death of 32 men from Kavieng, surely the disappearance of over 1000 people, which the Japanese maintained was caused by the sinking of Montevideo Maru needed to be reconsidered.

Williams received a report from the O.S.K [Osaka Shosen Kaisha] Line, the owner of the Montevideo Maru on 20th October 1945. This report states that 17 crew members of the Montevideo Maru survived the sinking. Unfortunately Williams didn't interview any of these survivors. Historian and one time resident of Rabaul Albert Speer has never believed the official story of the Montevideo Maru. After a trip to Japan in 2002 he discovered Mr Hisashi Noma's book "JAPANESE MERCHANT SHIPS AT WAR" . The book revealed that a Japanese survivor of the sinking was still alive in Japan. With the kind assistance of Mr Noma, Albert was able to contact Mr Yohiaki Yamachi the survivor. After 60 years some of the questions about this ship and the Australian prisoners on board were able to be answered. Albert then alerted the Australian Broadcasting Commission and with the aid of his research it was able to interview Mr Noma and Mr Yamachi for Australian Televisions 7.30 Report of 6/10/03.

The Montevideo Maru was sunk by the USS Sturgeon skippered by Lt. Cdr Wright on the 1 July 1942. Cdr Wright's Log states: 30 June 1942: Patrolling northwest of Bojeador as before. Dove at dawn, surfaced at dusk. At 2216 sighted a darkened ship to southwest. At first, due to bearing on which sighted, believed him to be on northerly course, but after a few minutes observation it was evident he was on a westerly course, and going at high speed. He quite evidently had stood out of Babuyan Channel, headed for Hainan. Put on all engines and worked up to full power, proceeding to westward in an attempt to get ahead of him. For an hour and a half we couldn't make a nickel. This fellow was really going, making at least 17 knots, and probably a bit more, as he appeared to be zig-zagging. At this time it looked a bit hopeless, but determined to hang on in the hope he would slow or change course toward us. His range at this time was estimated at around 18,000 yards. Sure enough, about mid night he slowed to about 12 knots. After that it was easy.
"1 July 1942: Proceeding to intercept target as before. Altered course to gain position ahead of him, and dove at 0146. When he got in periscope range, it could be seen that he was larger than first believed, also that his course was a little to the left of west, leaving us some 5,000 yards off the track. Was able to close some 1,000 yards of this, and then turned to fire stern tubes as:
i) Only three tubes available forward, and at this range and with large target four torpedo spread desirable.
ii) After tubes had 70D/ heads, while heads forward were small ones.
"At 0225 fired four torpedo spread, range 4,000 yards, from after tubes. At 0229 heard and observed explosion about 75-100 ft. abaft stack. At 0240 observed ship sink stern first. 0250 surfaced, proceeded to eastward, completing battery charge. Ship believed to be Rio de Janeiro Maru, or very similar type, although it is possible it was a larger ship, he was a big one. A few lights were observed on deck just after the explosion, but there was apparently no power available, and his bow was well up in the air in six minutes. Dove at dawn, No further contacts."

Mr Yamachi states that the Montevideo Maru slowed as it was meant to rendezvous with two destroyers which were to escort it to Hinan. When the destroyers weren't at the agreed position, the captain of the Monteideo Maru slowed to wait for their arrival. Thus the Sturgeon was able to catch the Montevideo Maru and sink it. He also states that the Montevideo Maru was loaded at a dock via a gang plank and that only fit young men boarded the ship. So what happened to the other older men and wounded in Rabaul? In Rabaul at about the same time as the Montevideo Maru there were possibly two other ships. The Naruto Maru and the Buenos Aires Maru. In his war crimes statement Masao Kanazawa former Vice Admiral and Commander 8 Base force Rabaul states:

There were practically no prisoners left in Rabaul after their evacuation aboard the Buenos Aires Maru and the Naruto Maru.

It is possible that Vice Admiral Kanazawa inadvertently named the wrong South American city when he named the Buenos Aires and not the Montevideo Maru in his statement taken in 1949 but if this document supported the official line it would probably be termed "prime source material" by historians.

After the war the natives stated that they had helped their masters carry their belongings to small boats that took them out to the ship anchored in the harbour. The Naruto left Rabaul on the 6th July 1942 with the officers of the 2/22nd, 1st Independent Company and the nurses from Vunapope Mission aboard. The officers knew of their destination Zentsuji POW camp, prior to their embarkation but for the nurses their transfer to Japan was a complete surprise. The nurses were taken out to the Naruto Maru anchored in Simpson harbour by barge from the Toboi wharf.

Did the Buenos Aires Maru or Naruto Maru leave Rabaul with the older and wounded men and if so what happened to them?
Why were these ships never investigated at the end of the war?

Gordon Thomas in his unpublished book states that before the sailing of the Montevideo Maru there were many rumours including one about the older men being returned to Australia:

These were the days of rumours. One day we were all to proceed to Japan; another day all men over 45 years of age were to return to Australia. Singapore had fallen; the US fleet was doing damage in the Gilberts and the Marshall Islands; a Jap aircraft carrier was anchored in the harbour after having attacked Australian northern ports.

The Japanese stated that the men on the Montevideo Maru were being taken to work on Hinan Island. Most of the older civilian men had been in the tropics for many years. They would have been of little use as manual labour. If these older men were told that the reason they were going onto another ship was to be repatriated they probably would have gone willingly.

To support the two ship theory there is a post war interview with Captain Peter H. Brown who was an officer in the Rabaul camp on the day of the men leaving. He states:

About two o'clock one morning, the majority of the camp had no suspicion whatsoever of the fact that we were going to be sent away. We were all aroused and orders were given to pack up and prepare to be searched. The officers were all told to remain in their hut and were not to leave under any circumstances. The whole movement was carried out by Japanese Naval personnel and was very well organised, as were the majority of naval operations.

The sailors and their officers arrived with placards labelled "Civilians", "Sergeants", Privates, etc., and in quite an efficient manner different groups were called forward with their belongings and searched. The search consisted of all the kit being turned out on a tarpaulin, items such as knives or any weapon of any description, or any thing that they did not consider the person should take. The person repacked, rejoined his group and as the different groups were completed (after several checks of course, of names etc.) they were marched out to an unknown destination which we soon found was an unnamed boat anchored in the Bay. This movement included large heaps of fire wood, produce, and cooking equipment which had been assembled, without suspicion, over the last two months. Actually we thought that these were emergency rations in the event of large scale air raid and nobody disabused us on this.

We soon found out from earlier parties, who returned to assist in the removing certain camp equipment, what had happened, although every effort was made to keep us apart.

The vast majority marched out of the camp but one person was carried on a stretcher and several limped out on crutches and were assisted by comrades. The morale was terrific as the majority of people were glad of any change to relieve the monotony and secretly thought we were being moved in view of the Allied attempts to recapture Rabaul, and that the movement would be to a neighbouring Island there was a very strong rumour to that effect.

This interview supports many aspects of a two ship theory. The segregation of the civilians from the other ranks that would be necessary if they were to be loaded onto different ships, the men were embarked onto a ship anchored in the bay not berthed at the wharf as the Montevideo Maru was, the loading of fire wood and cooking equipment which Mr Yamachi said was used on the deck of the Montevideo Maru. It mentions the rumour of being taken to a nearby Island. If the second ship was going to a nearby island it would have only taken 4 or 5 days. Did the second ship reach its destination thus the statement to John May by the Japanese confirming its arrival? He also mentions the checking of names. What were the Japanese checking the names against? This supports the theory that Japanese were using the roll that had been taken previously.

Mr Yamachi states that when the Montevideo Maru sank there were some Australian survivors. They were clinging to pieces of wood which had been deck loaded to fuel cooking fires. On his return to Japan in 1942 he states he was told that some of the Australians were rescued when the destroyers finally arrived at the agreed position and that they were taken back to Japan. This is of course hearsay evidence and as yet there is no evidence of Japanese destroyers being in the area.

The mystery is that on the 18th September 1945 three officers of the 2/22nd Battalion, who had been liberated in Japan, made statements to Australian war crimes officers in Manilla. They brought with them a photograph of POWs moving rice bags from the Osaka Mainichi news paper of the 11th November 1942. Lt R B Parkhill kept this photograph for over 3 years in captivity for he and two other officers were convinced that the two men in the photograph were troops from Rabaul. Parkhill named the two men as Gunners Bjorklof and Ryan of the 17th Anti Tank Battery.

The photograph was dismissed by the war crimes investigators as the article with the photograph stated that the men were American and British. The investigators stated that the men in the photograph were wearing British uniforms not Australian which was further evidence of their nationality. The investigating officers tried to establish positive identification using the men's official recruitment photographs but were unsuccessful possibly due to the profiles in the Japanese picture. There was a second photograph of these men taken on the same day that has been discovered which seems never to have been investigated.

So why did the Australian Government disregard and not investigate all of this information? Was it because the Army had accepted the 48 page nominal roll given to Major Williams by the Japanese as being the people on board the Montevideo Maru at the time of its sinking? A form letter communiqué to the three officers recovering in Manilla after their liberation, dated 29th Nov. 1945 states:

There is no doubt that there was a total loss of prisoners of war aboard the transport named (Montevideo Maru). There is, however, always a possibility (remote though it may be ) that some one named on the nominal roll did not embark on that particular vessel and was therefore not lost with it.

It is thought from Comparison of the newspaper picture with official photographs of the members named, that identification has not been established. Furthermore the men in the group are not wearing Australian pattern uniform, and there is nothing in the caption to suggest that those in the group are Australian. (National Archives Australia B3856/0)

The question of the uniforms seems quite ridiculous. What uniforms would men who had left the tropics of Rabaul and crossed the Equator when the Montevideo Maru was sunk have been wearing at the time of the sinking? What pieces of their uniform would have survived the sinking? Historians also argue that Japanese destroyers wouldn't have stopped to pick up the Allied men in the water due to the submarine being in the area. There is at least one precedent in the Philippines where in fact a Japanese ship did stop and pick up Allied survivors. In his book "Mr Michel's War from Manilla to Murken an American Navy Officer's War with the Japanese 1941-1945" (see book list for details ) John J.A Michel describes the sinking of the USS Pope and the rescue of the survivors of the sinking by a Japanese destroyer. He also notes that the survivors were wearing practically nothing when rescued and as it became colder with the POWs moving north the Japanese offered them many different clothes. Mr Michel selected an Australian Army tunic and a pair of civilian pants. So this is just one example of a US Navy officer POW being in an Australian uniform so why not Australian POWs in British uniforms?
There is at least one example of an Australian being in English uniform in the Australian War Memorial. You can view this photograph by searching the Memorial data base (copy this number P03849.033 to the "Enter Search Term(s" box and click search).

Why didn't the officers investigating the photograph relay the information to Major Williams who was in Japan till December 1945? Surely the loss of over 1000 people deserved further investigation? Why was it that although the nominal roll's details were called into question there was no investigation of these facts in Japan?

Williams endeavoured to get the nominal roll translated in Japan and he forwarded part lists to LHQ Manila on a near daily basis. This in itself caused confusion as the following document shows:

Despite the confusion and the problems of translating the Katakana script into English the nominal roll is accepted by the Australian Government as a list of those onboard the Montevideo Maru. Unfortunately without the original 48 page Japanese document it is impossible to confirm if the English lists are accurate, for if the officers of the 2/22nd or the survivors of Rabaul names appear on the Japanese list it cannot be a loading manifest rather it is the roll taken in the Rabaul camp in 1942.

The following is an extract from his final report written by Major Williams in January 1946:

(AWM 54 779/1/1)

Major Williams regarded the nominal roll so important that he brought it out of Japan back to Australia. Unfortunately the Japanese nominal roll cannot be found today. What does exist is the nominal roll that was put together in English from the translated Japanese nominal roll and the other lists provided by survivors in Rabaul possibly after taking into account the anomalies of the various names that were on it.

With all the confusion after the war many of the relatives of the people lost in Rabaul didn't accept the story of the Montevideo Maru and believed the true story was covered up. Many families received letters saying that their relations had been on the Montevideo Maru. The Ashby family received a letter stating that Stan Ashby was on the Montevideo Maru even though his name doesn't appear on any lists or nominal rolls. He was last seen alive on New Island and appears never to have been in Rabaul after the Japanese invasion.

Most of the information above is from Australian archives. There seems to be little information in Japan about the Montevideo Maru. One mention is in the published diary of Prince Takamatsu Mia (brother of Emperor Hirohito http://www.kunaicho.go.jp/enobuhito/enobuhito.html which was published in 1995. On the 8th of July 1942 he attended a briefing where he diarised the war news. The following is a rough translation of the Montevideo Maru item from that day.

At 1800 Hours on the 7th, the Army in Northern Luzon reported to Navy 3rd Fleet that the ship Montevideo Maru, on passage from Rabaul carrying POWs to Hainan Island, was sunk by the Allies on 1 July at 0000 Hours. The Captain, Sergeant Major Kawakami and 100 survivors landed at POUPON and went south to LAOAG.

One other document I have located is from the Japanese National Institute for Defense Study.

Date	Departure	Arrival	Post	Report
01.06.1942			Kure	Departed Surabaya on 28/05 Bound for Rabaul.

09.06.1942		Rabaul		Passengers land. Received continuous air-raids (2-5) all day and all night everyday. Luckily, no damage was inflicted despite the number as many as 13 of attacks. Total of 27 prison guards and petty officers boarded the ship. Prisoners (1157) were put on board on 22/06.

22.06.1942	Rabaul			Bound for South Sea islands

01.07.1942				About 20 miles west of Luzon, N18-40 E119-31, an enemy submarine torpedoed the ship, which listed and sank immediately. The dead were 11 security guard petty officers and 19 crew on board the ship. The survivors, including the ship’s captain, boarded two rescue boats. Following day, on 02/07, at 19:00, they drifted and landed near the lighthouse on the shore of Cape Bojeadore? on Luzon and managed to get some rest with the help of the natives. At 06:30 next morning, discovered sailing equipment inside the craft had been stolen. At 09:00, were attacked by about 100 of surviving enemy soldiers and 50 treacherous natives. Decided to request rescue missions from our army and Manila naval base force. Meanwhile survivors, to the last man, to take greatest care. Bravely and brazenly, made a narrow escape from the enemy. On 06/07, requested aid from Manila Army Northern Guard Unit (Watanabe unit), as well as Manila Naval base force. Immediately, 100 retaliatory soldiers arrived in vehicles. Most of the Montevideo crew came to heroic deaths from this battle. Army Commander Watanabe reports. A radio message was found on an enemy radiotelephone-operating soldier captured by our unit on 08/07. It reads in part as follow. We seized and destroyed a hundred Japanese marines at Bubon?. There were a few ?. At their death, all shouted Long Live Emperor or Long Live. They were ? and heroic at their deaths. Their end was a very honorable one. END

There are a couple of interesting things to note from this document. Firstly after arriving in Rabaul and unloading it's troops and cargo on the 9 June 1942 it suffered continuous air raids and didn't depart till two weeks later on the 22 June 1942. Why?
Who were the 100 surviving enemy soldiers? It's possible that they were Americans fighting with the native guerillas.
The last part of the document seems to be pure propaganda.

This only leaves the investigations carried out by Major Williams in Japan. I again emphasize it is extremely important to remember that the Montevideo Maru was sunk only seven months after the beginning of the war for at this time the Japanese were wining the war and the American State Department's Special Division were making numerous enquires about internees in Japan. Williams had a difficult job being only one man in Japan in September 1945. Incredibly in this short three month period, September to November 1945, Major Williams managed to complete and close 14 various investigations including the Montevideo Maru.

The American Special Division had been in contact with the Japanese Prisoner of War Information Bureau via the Swiss since the beginning of the war. As the war went against the Japanese in late 1944 they decided to replace the head of the POW information Bureau General Hamada with a hardliner, General Tamura. (American archives Huddle to Hull, December 2 1944 Box 219, RG 59) In his report 11 October 1945 Williams names the former heads of the bureau, so he must realize Tamura wasn't in command of the bureau when the Montevideo Maru was sunk:

From the document above it is obvious that Major Williams possibly didn't understand the function of the POW Bureau. Of course the Bureau was dissemintaing false information. The Allies had units doing exactly the same. It is out side the scope of this web page to go into the workings of the Japanese POW Bureau, but needless to say it served an important purpose for the Japanese.

The following extract from Major William's report of 10 October 1945, seems to suggest that he had concluded that the reason the Montevideo Maru sinking hadn't been reported to the Red Cross was because of the inefficiency of the POW Bureau even though the International Red Cross and Swiss Legation firmly state the opposite.

Major Williams knew of the Rabaul nurses and officers being in Japan but the nurses had left Japan before his arrival and he didn't personally interview the officers. What is ironic is that if Major Williams had interviewed theses people he would have known that in July 1942 when they first arrived in Japan the Japanese Foreign Office was very concerned for their well being. The nurses having spent 10 days in the hold of a ship were put through a customs inspection on arrival in Yokohama and then put up at a modest tourist hotel by the Japanese Foreign Office. They were taken for a walk in the nearby Yamashita park and were well fed. The officers who had arrived on the same ship were at this time also well treated. The reason for the good treatment was because the Japanese wanted reciprocating treatment for the Japanese civilians and diplomats held by the Allies. Australia held many Japanese internees from the near east Indies [Indonesia] and the South Pacific islands which were valuable due to their knowledge of the oil and rubber industries. Is it any wonder the Japanese didn't release the information about the death of the Australians, which included all the civilian men from Rabaul? Considering the diplomatic negotiations taking place for the return of their internees from Australia, from a propaganda point of view, the loss of the Montevideo Maru would have been a disaster for the Japanese Foreign Office! Was it incredible muddle and inefficiency that the Japanese never informed the IRC or Swiss of the sinking or simply good diplomacy? Is it possible that the Foreign office instructed the PWIB not to release the information of the sinking?

The next extract is from the 6 Nov. 1945 final report on the Montevideo Maru from Major Williams in Tokyo. Although Williams states that the PWIB was still being deceptive and evasive he, after 3 attempts, manages to get General Tamura to write a statement which is acceptable to his interpretation of the evidence. This was done even with the knowledge that General Tamura wasn't at the PWIB when the Montevideo Maru was sunk.

So to the present day the accepted history of why Australia wasn't informed of the sinking of the Montevideo Maru, the greatest single loss of Australian life in WW2, is from a Japanese hard-line Lt General who is head of what was described by the Australian investigating officer as " a Bureau for the dissemination of false information", after being instructed to rewrite his statement three times!

After completing his tour with the Australian war crimes unit in Japan Major Williams returned to Japan and reestablished his businesses.

As part of my research into the sinking of the Montevideo Maru I wrote to Greg Michno author of "Death on the Hellships" (Naval Institute Press, 2001) about the sinking of the Montevideo Maru. Here is his interesting reply:

Rod, I know there were survivors from the Montevideo--at least there were supposed to be about 18 Japanese who made it to land on Luzon, although a number of them were killed on land. I never heard that there might have been Australians that made it ashore. I went to look up the Montevideo Maru in my lists. I have sailing lists, naming all the POWs on board every hellship that was sunk during the war. There are orders from the US military demanding the lists from the Japanese. The order was complied with, and the cover sheet/index, supplied by the Japanese, lists 14 ships, with about 10,000 names, and the last listed is Montevideo.

I have used these lists before when American and English survivors or descendents called me and wanted to know if a particular person was aboard a certain ship. No one has ever asked about Montevideo before. Now that I look, I find lists for every ship but number 14, the Montevideo!

Now that is strange, and I never noticed it before. The lists came from the US National Archives and were quite expensive. Everything seemed in order, but I never noticed that Montevideo was missing. Evidently it was never copied for me, or it was lost previously (not by me), or it was never submitted to the military in the first place. Did someone try to hide something?

From this information we can only assume that the Americans never received a copy of the nominal roll.

So the question remains why did the Military and the Australian Government accept the Japanese version of why we weren't informed of the sinking? On this point we can only speculate. Sunk by friendly fire was possibly an acceptable reason for the loss of so many considering the men of the 2/22nd and civilian men had been left as hostages to fortune by the Australian Government in 1942.

There is one other factor which has never been investigated, made clear through the writing of Gordon Thomas and the diaries of the nurses that were in Rabaul at the time of the sailing of the Montevideo Maru. I hope to reveal a little-known fact shortly with the publication of my book "Lost Women of Rabaul" about the Rabaul nurses. Of all the military and civilian people captured in Rabaul and Kavieng in January 1942 only 4 men survived Thomas, McKechnie, Ellis and Creswick. Why?