South Pacific Study Vol. 17, No. 2, 1997

301

The Pacific War in Relation to Japanese Settlers
in Papua and New Guinea
Hiromitsu IWAMOTO 1)

Abstract

The Pacific War ended the presence of Japanese settlers in Papua and New Guinea. It was a tragedy, as they
were forced to leave when the war began and were never allowed to return. They lost all they had assets, properties, friends and families. This tragedy was caused by imperial and colonial policies of both Japan and Australia.
The Japanese invasion of the South Pacific made the Australian government intern the settlers in Australia. Afterthe war, the Australian government deported them back Japan in order to reinforce their colonial rule in New
Guinea. In these events, the settlers suffered the worst. Their physical losses were never compensated by either
Japanese or Australian government. Their families were separated. They were too few and too powerless against
great nations. In this paper, I shall analyse this case in terms of the development of war-time perceptions toward
them by both Japanese and Australians, which appeared in the maturity of nanshin-ron in Japan and in the development of Australian fear of the invasion from the north. I also examine validity of those perceptions in an attempt
to present the reality of the settlers so that I can depict comprehensively the relations between the national policies(which were greatly affected by the perceptions) and the fate of the settlers.
Key words: Pacific War, Japanese settlers, Papua and New Guinea, nanshin, Australia

Introduction
The Pacific War enabled both Japanese and Australians to consolidate their perceptionsof the Japanese settlers in Papua and New Guinea. To the Japanese, they were patriots whopioneered the development of the tropical islands for the Empire. To the Australians, they
were spies subtly mingled with Papuans and New Guineans in order to prepare the way for
the Japanese invasion. The settlers were caught between those perceptions and experienced
one of the most tragic events during and after the war.

1. Internment
The Australians promptly interned Germans and Italians upon the outbreak of war in
1) Collaborative researcher. Kagoshima University Research Centre for the South Pacific, Kagoshima, Japan302

South Pacific Study Vol. 17, No. 2, 1997

Europe and later Japanese and others. It was the reiteration of the exercise at the time ofWorld War I when Germans ’were arrested, often at gunpoint in their homes or at work, andimmediately imprisoned without knowing what offence they were supposed to have committed.’1) At this time the wide concept of ’enemy aliens’ developed, which included
naturalised or even Australian-born people who had ’enemy origin’ one or two generations
back.2)In the late 1930s, the internment policy further developed with a wider concept of enemy
aliens and stronger government power. The internment was one of the ’Special Internal
Security Measures’ and was executed not under the National Security Regulations but as theprerogative of the Minister:
The draft National Security Regulations include provisions for the making of orders imposing on any person such restriction as may be necessary to prevent him from acting in amanner prejudicial to the public safety or the defence of the Commonwealth. These restrictions could be applied to any suspected person, irrespective of his nationality; but theywould be applied only to the individuals as such, and the internment of enemy aliens as aclass would be carried out, not under these Regulations, but under the Prerogative......
Restriction orders and detention orders would be issued under the authority of the Minister,or by officers to whom this power may be delegated by the Minister.3)

Probably Japanese nanshin in French Indochina greatly affected the internment policy.
The Australians regarded the Japanese as most dangerous enemy aliens and set a policy
different from those for Germans and Italians. The Japanese did not receive the consideration on account of old age, although the government ’had previously decided not to intern
enemy aliens over 70 years old or those who had resided in Australia more than 20
years.’4) This strict policy was based on the War Cabinet’s view of Japanese that ’theirwell-known fanaticism and devotion to their country would probably lead to attempts at
sabotage on the part of any Japanese here in a position to do this.’5) Consequently, the rateof Japanese internment was the highest among enemy aliens in Australia and its territories:
the Japanese 97 percent, Italians 31 percent and Germans 32 percent.6)
In the last two months before the Japanese invasion, ’leaders of the Rabaul community
tried to maintain an appearance of normality.’7) But the coming of the war was obvious to
all townsfolk. From early December, Japanese reconnaissance planes appeared, which
forced the War Cabinet to order compulsory evacuation of civilians from Papua and New
Guinea. At the evacuation, the colonisers revealed their ugliness. They left New Guinean
servants and labourers without any instruction and rejected the evacuation of about several
thousand Chinese ’regardless of their request.’8) They also distrusted New Guinean policemen and disarmed them.
As in Australia, the administration interned enemy aliens promptly in Papua and New
Guinea. Germans were the first. They were interned no matter how long their residence
was, as John McCarthy, a patrol officer, recollected:

IWAMOTO : The Pacific War in Relation to Japanese Settlers in Papua and New Guinea

303

Now suddenly their nationality was important. Whether they supported Hitler didn’t matter;they were different from other men.9)

The same principle was applied to the Japanese, although some Japanese had already left
New Guinea, because they knew that the war was about to break out. The Japanese government secretly informed them of the likelihood of the war in the near future.10) They weretold that the arrival of Nan’yo Boeki’s liner Takachiho Maru in March 1941 was the lastchance for evacuation.11) Just before the war, the Japanese government set up the Evacuation
Committee in the Department of Foreign Affairs and began to advise the Japanese in theSouth Seas to return to Japan. The government kept the actions top secret in order to prevent the leakage of war preparation.12) Despite that, most Japanese (33 people) remained in
New Guinea.13) Most were long time residents for more than thirty years and had establishedbusinesses. Above all, ten of them had New Guinean or local wives and had children.
Early in the morning on 8 December 1941, as soon as the news of Japanese attack against
Pearl Harbour and Malaya reached Rabaul, the internment of the Japanese, who were scattered in New Guinea, began.14) At eleven o’clock, all twenty two Japanese in Rabaul werearrested and interned in the Rabaul jail.15) On the following day, two plantation managers
in Manus, Ikesaki and Hagiwara, were arrested.16) On the same day, Kikuchi Matsukichi, afisherman, was captured in Buka Island adjacent to Bougainville.17) On 10 December, ten
Japanese (Ikeda and Ishibashi families) were arrested on the same Island.18) On 12
December, Nakamura was arrested in Talasea.19) The last Japanese was Sasaki Hikokichi, afisherman and a plantation hand and the only Christian Japanese (Anglican), who wasarrested at Madang on 7 May 1942.20)
The internment was a dreadful event particularly for the ten Japanese who had local
wives. They were separated from their families. The administration imprisoned the husbands in the Rabaul jail with other Japanese, while keeping their wives and children in a
separate compound.21) Then the administration sent the Japanese husbands with otherJapanese to Australia for internment. It also tried to take some young mixed-race Japanese,following the policy decided by the War cabinet in June 1940 to intern ’all Japanese males
over 16 years within Australia and its territories, except those with diplomatic or consularprivileges.’22) But this attempt failed, because their mothers resisted desperately. Mapole
Nakamura was one of brave mothers. She threatened to kill herself if they took her son
away.23)
The internment agonised Nagahama who had just married in Japan and his wife was due
to join him in New Guinea soon. He married Fusae, a woman of his home village Goryo,whom he met when he was back home on a holiday from May 1938 to December 1939. But
he alone came back to New Guinea because Fusae was pregnant. She delivered a baby girlin April 1940. But while she was preparing to come to New Guinea, the internationalsituation deteriorated and finally the war broke out and she could not come to herhusband.24)
The internment caused complicated feelings to the Japanese. Although they felt that they

304

South Pacific Study Vol. 17, No. 2, 1997

were betrayed by the Australians with whom they had been in good term for a long time,they still had a deep attachment to New Guinea where they had lived for over thirty years.
Probably those who had experienced World War I expected that the battle would be smallin scale and soon over and they would resume their civilian life. At the same time, theirpatriotism may have been aroused, hearing air-raid sirens and actual bombing. Some hopedin vain that Japanese troops might come to rescue them, then New Guinea would be a
Japanese territory and they would enjoy all privileges that their white counterparts had.
Some wrote on the wall of the jail in Japanese that they would help the troops as interpreters
so that the troops would try to free them from the internment.25)
However, without seeing the Japanese troops, they were loaded in an evacuation ship, theMalaita, with other white evacuees at five thirty p.m. on 8 January 1942. The ship sailed
during the night to avoid Japanese planes and reached Sydney on 11 January via Kieta,
Samarai, Cairns and Brisbane.26)
In Papua, Tanaka and Murakami were interned on 9 December. The recollection of J.
Gill, an Australian intelligence officer, is symbolic of the internment policy. He recalledthat ’I had met both Tom Tanaka and Murakama [sic] and whilst I do not think they werepart of the Japanese war machine I suppose it was necessary in the interests of national
security to intern them, especially as the Japanese had begun bombing Nauru and Ocean
Island.’27) Both were sent to Australia by R.A.A.F. airplane.28)

2. Pacific War in Papua and New Guinea
On 23 January 1942, the Japanese South Seas Force, led by Major-General Horii Tomitaro, crushed a small Australian force at Rabaul ’in a matter of hours.’29) The landing force wasmore than 5,000 men strong. And their landing was supported by about 100 planes from 4
aircraft carriers. The Australians did not have resources to counter such overwhelming
force, mainly because they had not militarised New Guinea abiding by the non-militaryclause set to the mandate territory. The defence line was ’so thin that it was stretched toinvisibility.’30) No major military forces had existed, apart from the New Guinea Volunteer
Rifles, comprising of about eighty militiamen trained from the outbreak of the war in
Europe, until March 1941 when the 2 22 Battalion arrived. Although in September the 17th
Anti-Tank Battery was added, the total defence capability remained only two 6-inch guns,
searchlights and three out-dated 3-inch anti-aircraft guns.31) Then the War Cabinet, seeing
the loss of Prince of Wales and Repulse, decided to reinforce Port Moresby but deserted
Rabaul, arguing that ’it was important to retain the garrison at Rabaul as "an advanced
observation line", but its reinforcement was not possible because of the hazard of transporting a force from the mainland and of maintaining it.’32)
The Japanese occupation of Rabaul was followed by occupation of other New Guinea

IWAMOTO : The Pacific War in Relation to Japanese Settlers in Papua and New Guinea

305islands. Their main aim in New Guinea and the Solomon campaigns was ’to cut the USAustralia line’ in the south-west Pacific in order to defend Japanese positions in Micronesia
and the Philippines.33) Ideologically the operation was performed under the whole scheme
to construct the Dai Toa Kyoei Ken [Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere].
However, the Japanese forces were ’entirely unprepared for the geography’ of New
Guinea, because the army had had few interest in the area until the outbreak of thewar.34) Most troops were transferred from China and were equipped for continental warfare.
Like their counterparts, they knew little about jungle warfare and a tropical climate.
The Japanese victory did not last long. From the mid-1942, the Japanese began to lose;
the Allied forces defeated the Japanese at Milne Bay and pushed back their advance on
Kokoda Trail. Then the Allied forces started mopping up retreating Japanese from Morobe
to West Sepik, while re-taking Manus and air-raiding Rabaul. The Japanese could not strikean effective counter-attack due to lack of their logistic planning. Although the Japaneseconstructed a strong fortress at Rabaul and occupied some other parts, most of Papua and
New Guinea remained under Allied control. Japanese losses were enormous: about 60,000
were killed in battle and 110,000 died of sickness and starvation, whereas the Australians
lost about 14,500.35)
Some Japanese troops committed atrocities and intensified the Australian image of evil
Japanese. The best-known case was the Tol Massacre that about 160 Australian soldiers
were slaughtered after their surrender. Other cases are cannibalism and rape. The sinking of
the Montevideo Maru that carried Australian internees, although it was sunk by a US submarine, also deeply affected the postwar Australian perceptions of the Japanese in New
Guinea, because most internees were local residents.
However, it was undoubtedly Papuans and New Guineans who experienced most difficultand horrifying time. They were killed by bombing and forced to work for the troops (bothJapanese and the Allied) and their gardens were ravaged by starving soldiers. Their suffering was immeasurable, but the decline of their population in the early postwar period canshow the scale of the tremendous impact of the war.36)
Japanese waged propaganda war. Nanshin-ron advocates reinforced the justification ofJapanese southward invasion, while the Australians were busy depicting an evil image ofbarbarous and brutal ’Japs.’37) As a result, the images of patriotic Japanese residents in New
Guinea and the cruel Japanese military (this was true in some cases) were created and both
became the basis of postwar perceptions.
In Japan, publication of nanshin literature reached a climax. Although there is no data tocover the period from 1941 to 1945, according to the bibliography published by the Nihon
Takushoku Kyokai (Japan Colonisation Society) in 1944, the number of pieces (books andarticles) for general reference on the South Seas published in 1942 alone occupies 37.9
percent of the ones published from the Meiji period.38) Similarly, the literature about Papua
and New Guinea increased. The Society listed 40 books and articles for 1942 and 1943
against the total 84 from the Meiji period.39)

306South Pacific Study Vol. 17, No. 2, 1997

Nanshin-ron advocates continued to emphasise historical linkages.40) Irie wrote Meiji
nanshin shiko [History of southward advancement in the Meiji period] in 1943, in which
he re-introduced Enomoto’s plan to colonise South Pacific islands, in addition to introducing
Meiji nanshin-ron advocates and the stories of the Japanese who migrated to Southeast
Asia, South Pacific islands and Australia. He concluded that ’we have to express our sincere
gratitude to our pioneers who devoted their lives to the South Seas and left their footprints
after suffering from many hardships.’41) Similarly, Sawada Ken wrote Yamada Nagamasa tonanshin senku sha [Yamada Nagamasa and pioneers of southward advancement] in 1942
and introduced Japanese traders and entrepreneurs who were successful in the South Seas
since the 15th century. He argued that ’the Great Asia War is the expression of our national
strength that our ancestors have built in the last two thousand and six hundred years since
the foundation of the Empire.’42) Suganuma Teifu, one of the few militaristic Meiji nanshinron advocates who had been almost unknown until then, suddenly became popular. In 1942
two books were written about him: Eguchi Reishiro’s Nanshin no senku sha Suganuma Teifu den [Autobiography of Suganuma Teifu, a pioneer of southward advancement] andHanazono Kanesada’s Suganuma Teifu.43) Ota Kyozaburo, a successful entrepreneur who
owned a large Manila hemp plantation in Davao in the Philippines, was also admired;
Nomura Aimasa wrote Dabao no chichi Ota kyozaburo [Father of Davao, Ota
Kyozaburo].44)
The Japanese in New Guinea were no exception. Komine was repeatedly introduced infive books and one journal article which devoted whole or some part to Komine and otherJapanese.45) Ono and Nagakura highlighted Komine’s bravery in assisting German pacification of New Guineans and the Australian navy at the capture of the Komet.
Even a mixed-race Japanese was highlighted. Okada Seizo, a special correspondent of the
Asahi newspaper, devoted a chapter to introduce mixed-race boys. He wrote that Wakao
Yamashita (son of Yamashita Shichinosuke, one of the plantation managers in Manus)
paddled from Rabaul to Manus to tell the islanders to assist the Japanese, and the islanders
came to Rabaul on five hundred canoes full of provisions and surprised the Japanese. Okada
also wrote about Kai Chew, a Chinese boy. According to Okada, he had been waiting fora chance to take revenge on the British because his father was killed brutally by a British
official. After the Japanese occupation, Kai Chew joined the Japanese troops and served on
the Kokoda Trail and was killed.46) Oral evidence as well as common sense denies thesestories. Wakao never went back to Manus during the war and the islanders never paddled
five hundred canoes. Kai Chew was forced to work for the Japanese but he never went to
Kokoda and he was still alive when I interviewed in 1994.47)
New Guineans were also used as propaganda. The writers emphasised that New Guineans
were grateful for the Japanese who liberated them from Anglo-Saxon rule. Umino Juzo, anaval correspondent, described New Guineans as ’shin komin (new Imperial subjects)’:

IWAMOTO : The Pacific War in Relation to Japanese Settlers in Papua and New Guinea

307

We had been interested and also very worried to see what attitudes Papuans [and New
Guineans] would take towards us when we appeared in front of them all of a sudden. But,
contrary to our anxiety, they showed strong friendliness from the day we landed, andcooperated with us. In other words, they were waiting for the Imperial Force, and when
they saw us they rushed to see us. Why did this happen? One of the reasons is the brutal
treatment of their former rulers, Anglo-Saxons. Another reason is that the Japanese pioneers who had lived there over thirty years treated the natives well. Because of that, thenatives respect Japan, the country of those pioneers. The third is the strength of theImperial Force that overwhelmed the Australians whom the natives had thought the strongest race. The gentleness of the Imperial Force towards the natives also helped. The natives
were deeply impressed by those things, because they are simple.48)

Asahi gurafu [Asahi Photograph], a photographic magazine, conveyed a visual image ofcooperative New Guineans. It showed smiling faces of local children learning Japanese ina school established by the navy at Kavieng, and of adults constructing roads: some of those
New Guineans were wearing caps with the emblem of the rising sun.49)
All those nanshin propaganda were to reinforce one of the ideological backbones of theGreater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere hakko-ichiu (the eight corners of the world under
one roof). The ’one roof’ is of course Japan.
Contrary to the propaganda, the mixed-race Japanese were not always loyal to theJapanese forces. In Rabaul the Japanese occupation caused mixed feelings to the remaining
families, particularly to the mixed-race children. They saw their fathers ’country’s army
defeat and ill-treat the Australians who were their fathers’ long time friends. Perhaps someolder ones rejoiced to see some friendly and kind Japanese soldiers and willingly helped
them.50) But most children feared the Japanese, seeing or hearing about public beheading orother punishment, and obeyed them. Phillip, a son of Tabuchi Yoshimatsu, recollects: ’wewere told to work for the Japanese, or see the consequence.’51) Small ones did not understand what was happening and just did what they were told by the Japanese or white missionaries. In contrast, New Guinean wives had a different view. They simply did not want
to be involved in the war, and kept away from the Japanese or went to bush to hide likeother New Guineans.52)
The sons of Yamashita, Sakane and Ikesaki, were staying at Nagahama’s residence at thetime of the internment. They were the oldest group of the mixed-race children. Nagahama
was looking after Wakao Yamashita, after his father (Shichinosuke), committed suicide in
Manus. Wakao attended the Mission School in Rabaul. Nagahama also looked after Phillip
Sakane after his father died in 1934. Phillip also attended the Mission School and took acarpentry class but was dismissed from the class because of his misbehaviour. After that, he
was learning boatbuilding at Izumi’s yard.53) Nagahama told the two boys to take care of his
five houses when he was taken to Australia.54) After the Japanese landed at Rabaul, Wakao
and a son of Ikesaki collaborated with the Japanese. They went to Wide Bay with theJapanese troops and worked as clerks to record particulars of Australian soldiers and308South Pacific Study Vol. 17, No. 2, 1997

civilians who escaped from Rabaul.55) In March 1942, Wakao was ordered to work as adriver.56) Probably he was working reluctantly and disobeyed the order. He was imprisoned
with the Allied prisoners from January to May in 1944. During his imprisonment, he often
witnessed the Japanese beating prisoners.57)
Eleven mixed-race Japanese children stayed in the Vunapope Catholic Mission. Soon theKempei (Military Police) found them and demanded that the Mission give them better
treatment. The Bishop Leo Scharmach reluctantly agreed:
The Japanese children and the Sisters in charge of them were called up to the Kempei. The
major [Sakakibara] was present too. The police declared that they were going to provide
better food for the part-Japanese children. The youngsters got one bag of rice between
them and a tin of bully beef or fish each. The Kempei impressed on the Sister: ’this foodsupply is exclusively for the Japanese children.’ The Sister stated bluntly: ’It all goes into
the one pot. I am sure the Japanese children get their share.’ And off she went.58)

Later the Japanese removed the five boys, telling the Father that they would educate themin the Japanese language and way of life with a qualified teacher. But they left six
girls.59)
Pius Yukio Kikuchi, the third child of Kikuchi Ichisuke, was among the five boys. At theJapanese camp, he did not receive much education but spent most time working for theJapanese. But Kikuchi relates that it was not a hard life for him; the Japanese were kind andtaught many things about Japan. The new life was an exciting time for a young boy. He
recalls:
From 1943 to 1945, I worked for the Japanese force. All mixed-race Japanese children
were told to work for the Japanese force. I looked after horses and pigs and dug tunnels.
I worked for the gunshuku-han butai [Accommodation Unit] in Toma. Bonny Shigeru
Nakamura, Jo Kisaburo Nakamura, Paul Izumi and Endo were there, too. Bonny was acook and once ran away, but caught, and beaten by the back edge of katana [Japanesesword] as punishment. I worked for Sergeant Kanai and Watanabe. Watanabe was higher
than Kanai. Kanai is the one who beat up Bonny Nakamura, but usually he was a very kindgentleman. He beat Bonny to show the seriousness for disobeying the order. I also worked
for Major Sakakibara. Japanese soldiers treated children well and were never cruel.60)

Three sons of Asanuma Ichimatsu (Michael, Felix and Anthony) worked in the MP
headquarters. They were put in a school and were taught Japanese language and songs, butthey spent most time fixing boots for the soldiers.61) It was alleged that the MP used theboys to punish others. At the Rabaul War Trial a white civilian witness stated that ’a [NewGuinean] boy was flogged insensible by Felix Asanuma, a half-caste resident of Rabaul,then in Japanese uniform working for the Ramale Kempei.’62) However, no oral evidence
from either New Guineans or mixed-race Japanese can confirm the flogging.
Louise Asanuma, a wife of Ichimatsu, was in Rabaul when the Japanese landed, but she

IWAMOTO : The Pacific War in Relation to Japanese Settlers in Papua and New Guinea

309

fled to her Filipino father’s plantation at Wide Bay to avoid the battle. Louise’s sister
Josephine, who married Kimura Hidejiro, was also with them. However, soon the Japaneseforces advanced in Wide Bay, chasing retreating Australians. The family was caught in an
awkward situation. The Japanese commander asked them about the Australians. The familyprobably knew where the Australians went, but they said they did not know. The Japanesebelieved it because they considered the family was pro-Japanese after finding out that thetwo women were married to Japanese. The Japanese treated the family well and provided
food.63)
In Manus, the remaining families went to the bush to hide and local people looked after
them. Ikesaki family was looked after by Dipon family (a large clan in
Momote).64) Yamashita family left Pityilu Plantation for the bush in the mainland
Manus.65)
In Papua, the remaining families were ill-treated by the Australians who feared the possibility of their assistance to the Japanese. Adults were taken to a compound at Gili Gili andwere forced to construct the airfield or to do other manual labour. Children were kept in acompound at Baraga throughout the war.66) Mary Tanaka was probably the worst treated.
Some villagers alleged that she looked after a wounded Japanese. The Australians believed
this without investigating and locked her up in a cell until the end of the war despite herplea that it was other Papuans who helped the Japanese.67)
Tashiro Tsunesuke was the only Japanese resident who came back Rabaul during the war
and experienced the war in Papua and New Guinea. Probably he had the same dilemma as
Komine had at the outbreak of World War I, caught between patriotism and relations withlocal people. Although it is hard to know how strong his patriotism was, both written andoral evidence show that he cherished his good pre-war relations and saved lives of New
Guineans, white missionaries, Chinese planters and Australians.
In March 1941 he went back Japan in the last Nan’yo Boeki liner. As soon as the war
broke out, he was called up to serve the navy as a gunzoku (civilian).68) At that time thenavy was recruiting Japanese civilians who had an experience in the South Seas.69) On 26
December he was posted to the 2nd Nazuru Naval Special Landing Party at Saipan. On 1
February 1942 he was transferred to the 8th Base Force which was commanding the operations in New Guinea. Then on 10 April he was back in Rabaul, being assigned an additional
post under the command of the minsei-bu (civil administration department) in New
Britain.70) Until the end of the war, he worked mainly as an interpreter, because he spoke
fluent English and Pidgin English and had local knowledge. He was extremely useful forthe navy which knew little about New Guinea. He was dispatched to Milne Bay,
Bougainville, Nakanai, Talasea and Manus.71)
Tashiro impressed Vice-Admiral Kusaka Jin’ichi, supreme commander of the naval
forces in New Guinea. Kusaka wrote about Tashiro’s service in his memoir. Kusaka praised
his service which saved the naval land unit in the Milne Bay and quoted Tashiro’s diary
fully over three pages. The following is his diary.
On 24 August [1942], I left Buna. I was assigned to the landing operation of the Sasebo

310South Pacific Study Vol. 17, No. 2, 1997

5th Special Land Battle Unit which was to attack Rabi. On the way, at midday on 25th, we
stopped at Goodenough Island in the north of Rabi and were attacked by ten enemy fighters. All our seven landing boats were sunk with most of our food, ammunition and radios,and about ten were killed. Since then, 350 officers and men were isolated on the island.
Every day enemy planes machine-gunned us. We maintained our strength with food fromthe natives, although not enough, while investigating the island and collecting information
about the enemy. Then we planned to contact the main force at Buna by despatching aparty on a canoe; the party had to paddle 130 miles. About one week later, we managed
to obtain a canoe from the natives and despatched three men on it. However, we did nothear anything from them for a week and sent a second canoe. Around this time, the men
began to die one after another because of the lack of food and medicine. Many got weak
and succumbed to malaria. Still we did not hear anything from Buna, and we began toprepare a third dispatch as a last resort, this time by a cutter with a sail. Then our fighter
came and dropped a communication cylinder saying ’Stick it out’ and two packets of ko(cigarettes). At least one of our previous dispatches was successful. The whole unit was
overjoyed. From this time, however, the enemy intensified their raids. The fighters
machine-gunned us from daybreak to sunset. Our planes also appeared from time to timeand dropped supplies of ammunition and biscuits. Meanwhile, malaria patients increased
and died daily. To cremate their bodies in the jungle at night when the enemy reconnaissance plane was not in the sky was the saddest and most difficult task. Before long, oursubmarine arrived and unloaded a radio, chart, rice and landing boat, and picked up about
sixty injured and seriously ill men. Unfortunately, the second submarine only unloaded aboat and left, as the enemy night reconnaissance plane noticed its arrival. Later, when wewere radio-communicating with the 18th Unit early in the morning of 24 October, theAustralian forces landed on the island. We fought for two days and finally rebuffed theenemy, although we lost a platoon leader and other ten men. At night on the 16th, we got
aboard the two boats and reached the adjacent Normandy [sic]72) Island. At eleven o’clockat night on the 27th, we were picked up by the battleship Tenryu, and in the morning on
the 28th, 200 of us returned to Rabaul.73)

Since then, Tashiro engaged in the tasks such as investigating the construction site forairstrips, recruiting and placating New Guineans mainly at Rabaul and Bougainville.
According to Kusaka, he once succeeded in recruiting a thousand New Guineans, andKusaka expressed deep gratitude for Tashiro’s hard work.74)
However, Tashiro did not betray his local friends. In Bougainville, he acquiesced in thepresence of Lieutenant Mason, an Australian coast watcher, and the leaking of information
by Wong You, a Chinese planter at Kieta.
He [Wong] states that he owed his life to Tashiro, Japanese Intelligence Officer, who had
told the officer in charge, who had accused of withholding information concerning myself,that ’this man has known Mason twenty years. You he has known only a day. You cannot
expect him to betray a lifelong friend to a stranger.’75)

According to oral evidence, Tashiro ’did not do harm to locals.’76) He was indeed instructing
the islanders in Pidgin to take a neutral stand for their safety, lest other Japanese officers
could understand.77) Similarly, in Rabaul he was protecting the interests of the mixed-race
people and Chinese and visited the Vunapope Mission to see that children were well-

IWAMOTO : The Pacific War in Relation to Japanese Settlers in Papua and New Guinea

311

treated.78)

3. Internment life in Australia
Australians treated the internees well, abiding by the letter and spirit of the Geneva
Convention; the internees received the same amount of rations as the camp guards and weresimilarly housed.79) Most Japanese internees had no bitterness about their treatment by thecamp authorities and conditions in the camps.80) It was also the Australian expectation ofgood treatment of their prisoners of war and internees kept by the Axis that gave the campauthorities a sense of responsibility in their conduct.81)
Upon their arrival at Sydney, the Japanese from Rabaul were entrained to Hay Camp ina grazing area about 750 kilometres inland. They arrived at the camp on 27 January and met
Tanaka and Murakami from Samarai and the Japanese from the New Hebrides. In the camp
there were already about 900 hundred Japanese mainly from Australia and New Caledonia.
On the following day, the camp officers body-searched the new Japanese and confiscatedall cash and other belongings.82)
Mixing with other Japanese was a new experience to those from New Guinea. A small
group, whose main social contact had been with non-Japanese, was suddenly swallowed up
in a large group of the same race. Naturally that gave them a new and clear sense of theirnational identity. The news of Japanese victories stimulated their patriotism; they needed nolonger hide their practices of Shintoism or Buddhism nor their admiration of the Empire.
Nagahama’s diary shows the rise of patriotism in the camp.83) Hearing about the fall ofSingapore, the Japanese in the camp gathered and worshiped towards the direction of Japanand prayed silently for the souls of the Japanese soldiers who perished in the battle. They
also heard that the Allied bombers raided Tokyo and other cities, but presumed the news
was propaganda. They celebrated the Emperor’s Birthday on 29 April, singing a national
anthem and praying for Japanese soldiers. They had a feast and enjoyed a sumo tournament.
In the camp the Japanese considered the Battle of Coral Sea a Japanese victory and held acelebration with a gorgeous dinner. The news of the Japanese abortive midget submarine
attack against Sydney and Newcastle was solemnly conveyed. And from time to time, they
organised a lecture series, entitled kokusei taikai (Conference on National Situation), delivered by academic internees in the camp. The lectures were designed to keep their moralehigh.
On 12 April 1943, the Australian government made a new decision on the status ofJapanese internees. It classified merchant seamen as prisoners of war (POW) and distinguished them from ’internees’. After this, the government decided that Hay Camp hold only
POWs and Loveday Camp in South Australia only internees.84) The new status was inconsistent in the case of the Japanese from Papua and New Guinea. Technically all were engaged in maritime industry, because even planters or plantation managers had to operate312South Pacific Study Vol. 17, No. 2, 1997

vessels to transport copra. But at this stage only Izumi, a boat builder, was considered amerchant seaman and thereby a POW, while other boatbuilders or fishermen were considered civilians.85)
On 10 May 1943, 350 Japanese were transferred from Hay to Loveday Camp in South
Australia. All the Japanese from Papua and New Guinea except Izumi were among
them.86) The Australians thought the Loveday was ’one of the best locations chosen for the
purpose of internment camps’ with ’its temperate climate and its abundance of reticulated
water.’87) On the contrary, Loveday did not impress the Japanese. When they arrived, a sandstorm was raging. Their first impression of the camp site was that they were brought to the
middle of the desert.88) About two months later, the camp authority rechecked the occupation of the Japanese and re-classified Endo, Onoue, Hatamoto, Nakamura and Kimura as
POWs and sent them back to Hay Camp with about a hundred other Japanese.89)
The Japanese found camp life satisfactory. Nagahama recalled no complaints about thetreatment and Hatamoto recalls good treatment. Although they were forced to do various
tasks (farming, carpentry, wood cutting, etc), they were not too hard. They were fed well.
They could receive medical treatment in the camp hospitals. And they had time for theirown pastimes such as sports or organising other entertainment. For instance, Hatamoto used
to enjoy making toys for the children in the camp in his spare time.90)
The Australian guards observed that the Japanese were the most placid and many were
not security risks.91) A Loveday camp official described:
The Japanese: Subservient, were model prisoners. Their fanatical desire to maintain ’face’made them easy to handle in their eagerness to obey all orders and instructions to theletter.92)

However, the camp authority was concerned about Nagahama who had managed to keep
substantial cash and was lending it to others. In Loveday, the Japanese suffered from minor
financial hardship. Their pocket money was so little: they received from the Japanese government only ’six shillings per week on signing allegiance to the Emperor and his regime.
’93) The camp official interviewed Nagahama about his lending and reported:
NAGAHAMA stated that he had unexpectedly been allowed to bring the money from his
estate at Rabaul, and he considered that he ought to help others who had not been so
fortunate and had little or no money. He lent the money without interest, and on the wordof the camp leader (IJ.51736 ANYEI Morio) that those receiving loans would repay him
the sums received when they returned to Japan.94)

The camp authority banned transfer of money among internees, although admitting that
Nagahama’s lending was a bona fide action and did ’not appear to represent an attempt on
his part to gain for himself "political" influence in the Compound.’95) Similarly, the authority
did not approve of his lending of ￡40 to Tsurushima, which Nagahama attempted to sendin exchange for three rings.96) He also tried to send money to Onoue at Hay Camp in vain.

IWAMOTO : The Pacific War in Relation to Japanese Settlers in Papua and New Guinea

313

Nagahama wrote:
About money it is most disturbing but on application to the Authorities, we were told it
was absolutely impossible to send money over there, so inconvenient situation though it is,please try to bear up. Even here we have been in an awkward situation over money for 2
or 3 months we can no longer transfer to any person more than ￡1 in a week. Everyone
here, too, is inconvenienced, but as it is a Military Order we can do nothing about it.97)

The authority kept watching Nagahama’s money lending with deep suspicion; it even refused his offer to pay for the poultry for New Year’s Day on the ground that ’this apparent
generosity is really intended to extend Nagahama’s influence in the compound.’98) We canonly speculate how Nagahama managed to possess a large sum of cash, because usuallyinternees’ money was confiscated at the time of internment. He might have had savings inan Australian bank and made a special arrangement with the camp authority to withdraw
cash or he might have been running an unauthorised business like trading rations or gambling which was very common among Allied POWs in Japan.99)
Many Japanese died at Loveday, because quite a few Japanese were interned in spite of
their old age: 108 Japanese died compared to 18 Italians and 7 Germans.100) Tanaka Taichiro was among them. He got sick and was hospitalised. In the Barmera Base Hospital his
name was placed on the ’dangerously ill’ list on 30 May 1945.101) Then he recovered forsome time and his name was moved to the ’seriously ill’ list on 10 July.102) However, his
condition deteriorated once again and his name was placed on the ’dangerously ill’ list on
20 November: the cause was unresolved pneumonia.103) Then he finally succumbed to theillness. He developed a cerebral vascular accident and passed away on New Year Eve in the
64 Camp Hospital. His burial was held at eleven o’clock in the morning on New Year Day
in 1946.104) He was 68 years old.105)
Some Japanese experienced accident and sickness, although not fatal. At Loveday,
Kikuchi Ichisuke was struck by a truck and admitted to the camp hospital, suffering froma fractured left ankle.106) At Tatura, Ikeda Kunizo’s wife, Toshie, got sick and was taken to
the camp hospital on 19 October 1945.107)
Those who had been separated from their families in New Guinea were anxious about
their safety, hearing the news of the Allied bombing of Rabaul and other areas and the battlein Manus. Lack of communication increased their anxiety, except Kikuchi and Asanuma
who were lucky enough to receive letters from New Guinea.108) Others did not hear anythingfrom their families although they wrote many times. Nakamura’s letters never got through,and a sympathetic official of the International Red Cross Committee sought advice from the
Minister of State for External Affairs on Nakamura’s communication with his family.109)
Similarly Hagiwara and Sasaki got no replies from their families.110)
In 1943 the negotiation on exchanging internees began between Japan and Australia. The
Japanese government nominated 678 Japanese including four from New Guinea (Hatamoto,Mano, Nagahama and Tsurushima).111) The Australian government refused the exchange of314South Pacific Study Vol. 17, No. 2, 1997

the four for the obvious reason that they were very likely to pass their knowledge of New
Guinea to the Japanese military.

4. Deportation
The end of the war was good news to the internees. They expected to be freed from theconfinement of three and half years and go home to see their families. However, throughnewspapers and correspondence with their families, they knew of the devastation of Rabaul.
Probably they knew about a huge number of Japanese POWs and their trials: they could
imagine the ill-feeling by the local white residents against themselves. They also knew thedevastation of Japan atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the occupation by
the Allied forces.
The Australians were determined to make New Guinea a Japanese-free area for the
defence and governance of New Guineans. The Australians regarded the pre-war Japanesepresence as part of nanshin: the Japanese were all associated with espionage activities. They
also thought that the Japanese occupation undermined the Australian authority. Therefore
the Australians decided that any Japanese influence had to be eliminated in order to restore
their pre-war colonial rule.
The repatriation of Japanese internees began in late February 1946. According toAustralian sources, at least seven Japanese from Papua and New Guinea (Murakami,
Asanuma, Hagiwara, Ikesaki, Kikuchi [Matsukichi], Kikuchi [Ichisuke] and Sasaki) formally applied for release in Australia.112) Then six out of the seven (leaving Kikuchi
Matsukichi) were transferred to Tatura Camp.113) On 21 February 1946, 18 Japanese internees from New Guinea were deported to Japan with over 2,000 other Japanese, according toRegulation 20C of the National Security (Aliens Control) Regulations. It is unknown
whether they wished to return to Japan. They included families of Ikeda and Ishibashi,
Arata, Kikuchi (Matsukichi), Mano, Mori, Nagahama, Segawa, Tashiro, Tsujii and
Tsurushima.114) The rest of the ten Japanese applied to return to Papua and New
Guinea.115) The Australian government could not deport the ten, because they had local
wives in Papua and New Guinea who were technically British subjects, and their release
had to be negotiated with the Attorney-General.116)
Roland Browne, the Acting Director-General of Security, interviewed the ten who werethen moved to Rushworth Camp, following the instruction of the Attorney-General. At theinterviews they all expressed their strong desire to go back to live with their families.117)
Browne found that ’in all of these cases there is no objection to release’ and reported no
objection to their return provided that approval be granted by the Department of External
Territories.118) The only exception was Kimura who, Browne thought, ’is an intelligent typeand has a very good knowledge of New Guinea waters and it may be thought desirable thathe should be required to return to his own country.’119)

IWAMOTO : The Pacific War in Relation to Japanese Settlers in Papua and New Guinea

315

However, the Department of External Territories objected, supporting the view of theadministrator Murray who was firmly against their return because of the possible ’ill-effect’on the natives:
The fact that the Territory of New Guinea has been occupied for three years by a Japanesearmy as conquerors makes it highly undesirable to enable a native population to be incontact with Japanese nationals, both in their interests as well as in the interests of theJapanese themselves.120)

The administration’s first task after the war was restoration of the pre-war relationshipbetween white masters and black servants. Any Japanese influence that undermined theauthority of white masters had to be removed. White planters also feared the destruction of
the pre-war colonial relations and petitioned the Minister of External Affairs:
In putting forth this request, we have taken into consideration the fact that great numbersof native inhabitants who have been under Japanese control in the occupied areas will be
unfit to take on employment for some time, and, by adopting the action submitted, it will
be possible to give these natives a rest period to allow them to reinstate themselves in theirpre-war way of life.121)

Murray was aware of an ethical issue that the rejection to the return of the ten Japanesemeant separation from their families. But he argued that:
In considering the separation from their families that the long war separation will act as ashock absorber and moreover it must be recollected that in some instances the bonds ofaffection are no greater that would be expected of the general run of irregular unions as no
doubt many are.122)

Oral evidence denies Murray’s argument. Their wives and children were all longing to see
the return of their husbands and fathers.123)
Browne objected to Murray’s view and emphasised the point that ’they have been awayfrom Japan for many years, ranging from 29 to 45, and to separate them permanently fromtheir wives and families now in my opinion be wrong,’ and recommended that ’to returnthem to their home surroundings, from which they were taken into custody, is the only
reasonable solution to the problem.’124)
Browne and Murray kept on pressing their arguments to the Attorney-General’s
Department.125) However, Browne’s view met overwhelming opposition from the DirectorGeneral of Security, Murray, Deputy Administrator Phillips and the Assistant Secretary of
the Department of External Territories. The Director-General of Security reiterated a traditional Australian fear of Japan’s nanshin:Japanese who were in the islands pre-war, can only be regarded as having been part of theJapanese system of infiltration and espionage related to their so-called ’southward expansion movement’.... The South West Pacific area is a vital strategic region in which unremitting vigilance is a constant requisite. Clearly, no Japanese should again be allowed anywhere within such strategic zone..... Upon all material counts the re-entrance of any
Japanese would be of ill-effect and it is strongly advised that none be allowed to proceed
to any of the areas referred to.126)

316South Pacific Study Vol. 17, No. 2, 1997

When Browne argued that the Japanese never exhibited anti-British sentiments before thewar,127) Phillips countered saying that they simply had no chance to express such sentiments
and emphasised that ’the loyalty of Japanese to their Emperor and country is so notoriousthat I find it hard to imagine that these Japanese would not have immediately rallied to
Nippon had they still in the Territory when the Japanese forces arrived.’128) Phillips alsoscored a point by arguing that ’their return may constitute an extreme provocation toEuropean, Asiatic and native residents who suffered terribly at enemy hands during theoccupation.’129)
The Assistant Secretary of the Department of External Territories was more aggressive.
He firmly denied the ethical case, regarding the intermarriages as ’all part of the espionage
and infiltration plan’ and presented a blatant racist view that ’Japanese have amongst othermany undesirable characteristics, a complete lack of any sense of gratitude and certainly nosense of affection or even liking for any others than their own people.’ More importantly,
he made a point, which was quite persuasive then, that their return would be a betrayal to
the Australians killed in war in Papua and New Guinea.
Finally, and remembering the actions in New Guinea itself, of the Japanese forces before
they were ejected, any permitted entrance or re-entrance of any Japanese to the Islands
would be likely to be regarded by every Australian in the territory (and in Australia aswell) as an affront particularly to those bereaved as a result of Japanese aggression.130)

Meanwhile the Department of the Army was eager to close the camp due to the cost of
maintaining it. As a result, the issue was left to the jurisdiction of the administration, andthe Japanese were to be returned to Papua and New Guinea, although their release was yet
to be decided.131)
The Department of the Army prepared transport for their repatriation. At the last moment,
Murakami changed his mind and applied for repatriation to Japan.132) Probably he knew that
he would not live long due to his old age (75 years old then) and wished to see his homecountry again before his death. But his application was rejected. All ten were sent back to
Papua and New Guinea. Cynically, only Murakami was released at Samarai upon his return,while the other nine were kept in custody in Rabaul.
Murray still resisted the release of the nine. They were held in a compound next to theone for the Japanese war criminals who were waiting for trial or serving their sentences in
Rabaul. It was an illegal detention, and the Australian officials were aware of that. Cyril
Chambers, Acting Minister of External Territories, wrote to the Cabinet:
The six civilian internees were held in pursuance of the National Security (Aliens Control)
Regulations and orders for their release were signed on 27th November, 1946, and theRegulation in question expired on 31 12 1947, five of these appeared to be held illegally......It is not clear whether the three who are regarded technically as prisoners of war
who are still held......are legally held.133)

While they were in the compound, Izumi died of sickness. He was 54 years old, and was

IWAMOTO : The Pacific War in Relation to Japanese Settlers in Papua and New Guinea

317

buried in the cemetery near Talwat where Japanese war criminals were buried. He was notallowed to be buried in the European cemetery like other pre-war Japanese, because antiJapanese feelings were so strong among residents, particularly among those who had suffered under the Japanese occupation. Some greatly resented the pre-war presence of theJapanese in the town and pulled out all Japanese graves (including Komine’s memorial
erected by Tatsue) in the European cemetery and threw them into the sea.134)
Most families of the Japanese visited the compound, but the Japanese were never allowed
to return to their homes even temporarily. In order to justify this illegal detention, theAustralians even fabricated a story. The District Officer in Rabaul reported that ’only one
wife of the Japanese internees wished for their husband’s return, the native wives of theirinternees having re-married.’135) Oral evidence contradicts this. Most families were anxious
to see the Japanese back home, and the re-marriages took place some years after theJapanese were deported to Japan.136)
However, some Australians were sympathetic. Gordon Ehret, a long time friend of
Asanuma, was back in Rabaul from his military service in the Middle East. He requested
the administration to release them, explaining that they had nothing to do with the Japaneseforces. His request was not accepted. In fact, Ehret experienced ’the most unpleasant job’.137) He was appointed as a guard for the compound, as he was one of the few civilians who
had military experience. Over the fence, Asanuma begged Ehret for his release. Asanuma’s
voice still lingers in Ehret’s ears:
We are mates, aren’t we? Why do you do this to me?138)
Also in Manus, some Australians tried unsuccessfully to release the Japanese. Whitely and
Edison, planters in Momote, requested the administration to return Ikesaki and Hagiwara totheir plantations in Manus.139)
The administration officials knew that they had no statutory right to deport the Japanese:’the eight still held cannot be deported as prohibited immigrants owing to their long residence in New Guinea and in regard to the five civilians there is no war-time legislation
under which they could be removed from the Territory.’140) But finally the officials managed
to find a loophole. Under the Expulsion of Undesirable Ordinance 1935 of New Guinea,
they could be deported by the discretion of the administrator. Section 2 reads:
Where the Administrator is satisfied that any person who was not born in the
Territory(a) has since the commencement of the Laws Reprisal and Adopting Ordinance 1921
been convicted in the Territory of a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment for one
year or longer: or(b) is a person whose presence in the Territory is injurious to the peace, order, or good
Government of the Territory, or whose presence in the Territory is prejudicial to the wellbeing of the natives of the Territory,
the Administrator may make an order for the deportation of that person.

The eight Japanese were deported in 1949, after the longest internment suffered by any of318South Pacific Study Vol. 17, No. 2, 1997

the Japanese. They had been interned for seven years in total.
In contrast, Murray did not object to the release of Murakami in Samarai. Probably hisage (75 years) was considered, but the main reason is obvious: Milne Bay did not suffer
Japanese occupation and the damage to the Australian authority was minimal. The
Australians rebuffed the Japanese landing, and in Buna-Kokoda the Australians eventually
pushed back the Japanese advance. The postwar administration saw little physical damage
or need for rehabilitation.141) And within only two years ’almost complete rehabilitation to
pre-war standard’ was achieved.142) Thus by the time Murakami was back, pre-war conditions were restored and his return would have hardly affected the Australian authority.
Murakami rejoiced to meet his wife and son, but he had to bring bad news to Mary
Tanaka: her father Taichiro had died in Loveday. He also brought a bunch of Taichiro’s hairand gave it to Mary. It was his only legacy left to her. Tanaka’s prewar assets (schooners,
stores, boatbuilding yards, etc.) were all destroyed or confiscated during the war.143)
Murakami was fortunate to enjoy the last moment with his family and also to have support
from Timperly, a sympathetic Australian official, who was helping him by providing food.
Murakami died in Kuyaro in the same year that he returned.144)
A hard life was waiting for those deported from Australia and New Guinea. They went
back to poor villages and islands where they had found no bright future and had left decades
before. Most had never returned for a long time. They had no means to make a living
because all their assets and properties and even petty belongings were confiscated by theAustralians on internment and after the war. Moreover, chaotic social conditions in the early
postwar Japan made them difficult to adapt to the new life. Even more depressing, theirlosses of assets in New Guinea were never compensated.
Nagahama suffered the worst financially. He lost all the wealth which he had accumulated by hard work during almost forty years in New Guinea. The administration seized,
liquidated and distributed his assets, which amounted to ￡21,602, for the benefits of former
Australian POWs of the Japanese, according to Article 14 of the San Francisco Peace
Treaty of 1951 and to Section 13F of the Trading with the Enemy Act 1939 1957.145) He
passed away at his home village Goryo in September 1960 while his wife was watching. His
family suffered severe financial difficulties because Nagahama came back without any
money and he often became sick. After his death, his wife and daughter sent a petition to
the Japanese Foreign Ministry to inquire about the possibility of compensation for the lossof his assets in New Guinea.146) But the government did not reply.
Some were fortunate to resume their occupations, although it took many years because
they had to start again from scratch. Tsurushima opened a new store in
Shanghai.147) Ishibashi found a job as captain of a sight-seeing boat in his home in Misaki
in Kanagawa, and Hatamoto managed to start a boat building business in his island in Got
o in Nagasaki.148) Very likely most others sought support from their relatives and suffered

IWAMOTO : The Pacific War in Relation to Japanese Settlers in Papua and New Guinea

319

hardships. Some of those who were separated from their families in New Guinea kept on
writing for some years, but later some re-married in Japan.149)
In New Guinea, most wives of the Japanese went back to their home villages. In somecases, their mixed-race children were looked after by the Vunapope Catholic Mission in
Kokopo. Oral evidence indicates that the local population showed little bitterness against
them. Most were treated like before the war. New Guineans knew that those wives andmixed-race children were different from the Japanese forces. This is manifested well in theoral evidence of New Guinean elders who distinguish the Japanese before the war from theones during the war and relate their cordial relations with the former.150) For, example,
villagers of Momote remained loyal to their former plantation manager, Ikesaki, and kept
the plantation intact until his son, Peter, told them that the land was no longer Ikesaki’s andwould be returned to the villagers.151)
Like those in Japan, generally those left in New Guinea suffered from severe financial
hardships. Their breadwinners were taken away and never came back and their pre-war
assets and properties had all been destroyed or confiscated by the Japanese and theAustralians since the outbreak of the war. Some years after the war, when some local
residents began to receive war compensation, some descendants of the Japanese settlers
asked about compensation for the losses of their fathers’ assets. Andrew Nakamura inquiredof the officials at Rabaul, then the Australian High Commission at Port Moresby, but received a blunt reply that he should ask the Japanese government because he was partJapanese. He then asked an official from the Japanese Embassy, who visited Rabaul after
the independence of Papua New Guinea. The official promised to consider the matter but
never contacted Peter again.152)

Conclusion
The Japanese in Papua and New Guinea were victims of imperial policies. Japanese
nanshin-ron advocates created the image that they were patriots serving the expansion of
the Empire. And the Japanese military realised nanshin by invading Papua and New
Guinea. Naturally that exacerbated the Australian fear of the ’Yellow Peril’. As a result, theAustralians eliminated the Japanese from New Guinea. They bitterly recognised New
Guinea’s strategic importance and thereby the importance to keep their colonial rule tight.
This meant elimination of the pre-war Japanese influence from New Guinea, even thoughsuch elimination would cause separation of the Japanese families for ever. This was probably the least known tragedy caused by the postwar policy of the Australian government. But
the direct cause of the tragedy was the Japanese aggression−the final product of nanshinron. The event represents well the nature of Japanese imperialism that forced powerlessminority people to suffer the most. More depressing to the Japanese settlers and their descendants is that the postwar Japanese government has been ignoring their plea for compensation. Indeed, this is one of the explicit cases that Japanese emigrants are sometimes called320South Pacific Study Vol. 17, No. 2, 1997

kimin (deserted people).

Notes1) HARMSTORF, I. and CIGLER, M. 1985. The Germans in Australia, p. 129, AE Press,
Melbourne2) FISCHER, G. 1989. Enemy Aliens: Internment and the home front experience inAustralia 1914 1920, p. 66, University of Queensland Press, Brisbane3) Department of Defence. 1939. War Book of the Commonwealth of Australia,
Canberra, p. 2 (Chapter II)4) NAGATA, Y. 1993. Japanese Internment in Australia during World War II, p. 69, PhD
thesis, University of Adelaide, Adelaide5) Memorandum for the War Cabinet. 9 May 1941. Australian Archives (hereafter AA),
MP729 6 65 401 135, ’Internment of Japanese Policy’, Melbourne6) LAMIDEY, N. 1974. Aliens Control in Australia 1936 46, p. 53, Sydney
7) THRELFALL, N. 1988. From Mangroves to Frangipani: the story of Rabaul and East
New Britain, p. 361, unpublished, Australia National University, Canberra
8) WU, D. 1982. The Chinese in Papua New Guinea 1880 1980, p. 40, Chinese
University Press, Hong Kong
9) McCARTHY, J. 1963. Patrol into yesterday: my New Guinea years, p. 179, Cheshire,
Sydney10) Interview by the author with Tabuchi, Philip (son of Tabuchi Yoshimatsu), 4
February 1994, Kavieng, Papua New Guinea (hereafter PNG)
11) Interview by the author with Hatamoto Otosaku, 3 July 1993, Nagasaki, Japan
12) 後藤乾一 1986. 昭和期日本とインドネシア . 317頁, 勁草社, 東京. [GOTO,
K. 1986. Japan in the Showa period and Indonesia, p. 317, Keiso shobo, Tokyo]
13) Australian archives present inconsistent figures on the Japanese; the CommonwealthInvestigation Branch in Queensland recorded 29 Japanese (27 from New Guinea and2 from Papua) (’Japanese internments’, 9 Dec. 41, AA, BP242 1 Q39362, ’Japaneseinternment action’, Queensland), while the Prisoners of War Information Bureau
recorded 34 Japanese (33 can be confirmed coming from Papua and New Guinea but
one file is misplaced) (AA, MP1103 1 MJ18500-MJ18533, ’Registers of containing"Service and Casualty" Forms ((form A.112)) of Internees and Prisoners of War heldin camps in Australia, 1939 1947’, Melbourne). The author uses 33 as most accurate
figure.
14) About Japanese settlers in Papua and New Guinea, see IWAMOTO, H. 1995. ’The
origin and development of Japanese settlement in Papua and New Guinea, 1890
1914’, South Pacific Study, 15 (2): 97 133 and ’The impact of World War I on
Japanese settlers in Papua and New Guinea, 1914 1918’, South Pacific Study, 16 (2):
143 174; ’Japanese southward expansion in the South Seas and its relations toIWAMOTO : The Pacific War in Relation to Japanese Settlers in Papua and New Guinea

321Japanese settlers in Papua and New Guinea, 1919 1940’, South Pacific Study, 16 (2):
143 174, Kagoshima University South Pacific Research Center, Kagoshima.
15) Diary kept by Nagahama Taichi, 8 December 1941; Nagahama’s figure of theJapanese contradicts with that of Australian record. It was sixteen, according to AA,
MP1103 1 MJ18500 MJ18533, ibid.
16) AA, MP1103 1 MJ18508 and MJ18511, ibid.
17) Ibid., MJ18514
18) Ibid., MJ18525, MJF18526, MJF18526A, MJ18526B, MJ18527, MJ18528,
MJ18529, MJ18530, MJ18531, MJ18532
19) Ibid., MJ18519
20) Ibid., MJ18533; Dossier, AA, A367 C72587, ’SASAKI Hikokichi’, Canberra21) Interview by the author with Andrew Nakamura (son of Nakamura Soshichi), 23
January 1994, Rabaul, PNG
22) AA, AWM54, ’Written Records (1939 1945), 780 1 6, Report on the Directorate of
Prisoners of War and Internees at Army Headquarters, Melbourne, 1939 1951, Vol.
1, Part 1, Enemy Internees’, p. 4, Australian War Memorial, Canberra23) Ibid.
24) A letter from Nagahama Fusae to Kosaka Zentaro (Foreign Minister), September
1960, possession of Nagahama Fusae, Amakusa, Kumamoto, Japan25) Interview with Hatamoto, op. cit.
26) Diary of Nagahama Taichi, 8 to 26 January 1942, op. cit.
27) GILL, J. 1961. ’The last Days of Rabaul,’ Journal of the Royal Historical Society of
Queensland, Vol. IV, No. 3, p. 639, Brisbane28) ’Memorandum for the Director of Prisoners of War and Internees, Department of theArmy,’ 26 May 1947, AA, A518 1 BM836 1,’New Guinea miscellaneous. Death of
Tom Tanaka (Japanese internee)’, Canberra29) McCARTHY, op. cit., p. 197
30) Ibid., p. 188
31) WIGMORE, L. 1957. The Japanese Thrust, p. 394, Australian War Memorial,
Canberra32) Ibid., p. 396
33) 防衛庁防衛研修所戦史室 1967a. 南太平洋陸軍作戦 . 56頁, 朝雲新聞社, 東京. [Defence Agency, Defence Training Institute, War History Office. 1967a. The
army’s operations in the South Pacific, vol. 1. p. 56, Asagumo shinbun sha, Tokyo]
34) 防衛庁防衛研修所戦史室 1967b. 東部ニューギニア方面陸軍航空作戦 . 5頁,
朝雲新聞社, 東京. [Defence Agency, Defence Training Institute, War History
Office. 1967b. Eastern New Guinea area: the army’s air operations, p. 5, Asagumo
shinbun sha, Tokyo]
35) RYAN, P. 1972. ’World War II’ In: Encyclopedia of Papua and New Guinea (Ed. R
YAN, P.), Vol. 2, p. 1223, Melbourne University, Melbourne322South Pacific Study Vol. 17, No. 2, 199736) NELSON, H. 1993 September, ’Ol Japan: from incident to generalisation: Papua New
Guinea 1942 1945’, paper presented to the international conference: ’Stirrup, Sail andPlough: Continental and Maritime influence on Japanese identity’, 20th to 23rd
September, pp. 7 9, Australian National University, Canberra37) HORNADGE, B. 1971. The Yellow Peril: A squint at some Australian attitude towards
Orientals, p. 52, Review Publications, Dubbo
38) 日 本 拓 殖 協 会 編 1944.
増 補 南 方 文 献 目 録 . 大 同 書 院 , 東 京 . [Japan
Colonisation Society (ed.), 1944. Bibliography of the South Literature, revised edition. Daidoshoin, Tokyo]; the total number of books and articles for general reference
published since the Meiji period to the early 1943 was 2104, and the figure for 1942
was 798.
39) Ibid., pp. 233 235, pp. 318 319. The author found about 50 more literature published from 1942 to 1945, but uses the listing of the Japan Colonisation Society
because it indicates the general interest of the Japanese during the war.
40) About pre-war nanshin-ron, see IWAMOTO, H. 1996. ’Japanese southward expansion
in the South Seas and its relations to Japanese settlers in Papua and New Guinea,
1919 1940’, South Pacific Study, 16 (2): 143 174, Kagoshima University South
Pacific Research Center, Kagoshima.
41) 入江寅次 1943. 明治南進史稿 , p. 300, 井田書店, 東京. [IRIE, T. 1943. Historyof southward advancement in the Meiji period, p. 300, Ida-shoten,
Tokyo]
42) 澤田謙 1942. 山田長政と南進先駆者 , p. 2, 潮文閣, 東京. [SAWADA K. 1942.
Yamada Nagamasa and pioneers of southward advancement, p. 2, Chobunkaku,
Tokyo]
43) 江口礼史郎 1942. 南進の先駆者 菅沼貞風伝 , 八雲書林, 東京. [EGUCHI, R.
1942. Autobiography of Suganuma Teifu a pioneer of southward advancement,
Yagumo shorin, Tokyo]; 花園兼定 1942. 菅沼貞風 , 日本放送出版協会, 東京.
[HANAZONO, K. 1942. Suganuma Teifu Nihon hoso shuppan kyokai,
Tokyo]
44) 野村愛正 1942. ダバオの父 大田恭三郎 , 偕成社, 東京. [NOMURA A. 1942.
Father of Davao, Ota kyozaburo, Kaisei sha, Tokyo]
45) 大野吉晴 1942. 東亜共栄圏とニューギニア , 167〜176頁, 刀江書院, 東京. [ONO, Y. 1942. The East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere and New Guinea, pp. 167 176,
Toe shoin, Tokyo]; 長倉矯介 1943. 濠洲及び南太平洋 , 317 327頁, 日本書房, 東京. [NAGAKURA K. 1943. Australia and the South Pacific, pp. 317 327,
Nihon shobo, Tokyo]; 柴山武徳 1942. ニューギニヤ , 73 75頁, 日本拓殖協会, 東京. [SHIBAYAMA T. 1942. New Guinea, pp. 73 75, Nihon takushoku kyokai,
Tokyo]; 朝日新聞社 1943. ニューギニヤ , 61頁, 東京. [Asahi shinbun sha,
1943, New Guinea, p. 61, Tokyo]; 戸塚轟 1942. ｢ニューギニヤの開発者｣ 外
地評論 , 15巻43号, 86 87頁, 東京. [TOTSUKA, G. 1942. ’Developers of New

IWAMOTO : The Pacific War in Relation to Japanese Settlers in Papua and New Guinea

323

Guinea,’ Colonial Review, pp. 86 87, Vol. 5, No. 43, Tokyo]46) 岡田誠三 1943. ニューギニア血戦記 , 202 203頁, 朝日新聞社, 東京.
[OKADA S. 1943. Bloody Battle in New Guinea, pp. 202 203, Asahi shinbun sha,Tokyo]
47) Oral evidence collected by the author, January to March 1994, Rabaul, Kimbe,
Manus, PNG
48) 海野十三, 吉岡専造 1944. パプア , 118頁, 北光書房, 東京. [UMINO J. and
YOSHIOKA S. 1944. Papua, p. 118, Kitamitsu shobo, Tokyo]
49) ’｢南の果ての日本教育｣ アサヒグラフ , 1942年9月2日. 朝日新聞社 1975.
アサヒグラフに見る昭和の世相 (５) 所収, 68 69頁, 東京. [’Japanese education in the far South’, Asahi gurafu [Asahi Photograph], 2 September 1942. In: Asahi
shinbun sha 1975. Social aspects seen in Asahi gurafu in the Showa period, pp. 68
69, Tokyo]50) All oral evidence confirm that the Japanese soldiers treated well the mixed-race
Japanese children.
51) Interview with Tabuchi, op. cit.
52) Interview with Nakamura, Andrew (son of Nakamura Soshichi), 23 January 1994,
Rabaul, PNG
53) Statement of Nagahama in the interview with camp officer at Loveday, date unknown, , A367 C66677, ’NAGAHAMA Taichi’, Canberra54) ’Extracts from general file No.G 7035 42 re Japanese internees, Taichi
NAGAHAMA,’ 20 January 1943; ’Property statement internees, Taichi Nagahama,’ 2
March 1942, ibid.
55) ’Statement of L.L. Robinson of the New Guinea Volunteer Rifles to F. Holland
Esquire, a member of the New Guinea Administrative Unit at Wide Bay, South Coast
New Britain,’ 27 February 1942, AA, MP1587 1 97E, ’Evacuation prior to Japaneseinvasion of Rabaul’, Melbourne56) ’Full statement of atrocity or crime by Bernard Wakao Yamashita,’ 17 December
1945, ibid.
57) Ibid.
58) SCHARMACH, L. 1960. This crowd beats us all, pp. 212 213, Catholic Press
Newspaper Co., Sydney59) Ibid.
60) Interview by the author with Pius Kikuchi (son of Kikuchi Ichisuke), 18 March
1994, Brisbane, Australia61) Interview by the author with Michael Asanuma (son of Asanuma Ichimatsu), 21
March 1994, Brisbane, Australia
62) ’Full statement of atrocity or crime by Alfred Creswick,’ 12 October 1945, AA,
AWM54 1010 4 172, ’Questionnaire of civilians all captured at Rabaul, 23 January
1942’, Australian War Memorial, Canberra63) Interview by the author with Anthony Asanuma (son of Asanuma Ichimatsu), 19
March 1994, Brisbane, Australia; the same episode was introduced by 水木しげる M

324South Pacific Study Vol. 17, No. 2, 1997

IZUKI S. (a Japanese veteran who became one of the best-known comic artists), in his

factual comic, ｢レーモン河畔｣ 1993, 幽霊艦長 , 55 102頁, 筑摩書房, 東
京. [’By River Lemon’, Ghost Captain, pp. 55 102, Chikuma shobo, Tokyo]
64) Interview by the author with Lopar, John; Churuwas, Agnes; Chokoni, Lucas;
Nabraposiu, Joseph and Lopra, Matilda (elders), 28 February 1994, Papitelai, Manus,
PNG65) Interview by the author with Keksan, Kamui; Pokupeal, Sotil; Ngapen, Amos;
Pombuai, Hendry; Kahu, Kaspar and Sandrel, Simon (elders), 14 February 1994,
Pityilu Island, Manus, PNG66) Interview by the author with Namari, Kesaya (grand daughter of Tamiya Mabe), 30
December 1993, Biwa village; Tetu, Billy (grandson of Tamiya Mabei), 25
December 1993, Basilaki Island, Milne Bay, PNG
67) Interview by the author with Tanaka, Mary (daughter of Tanaka Taichiro), 22
December 1993, Samarai, Milne Bay, PNG.
68) ’Curriculum vitae’, date unknown, AA, 471 1 81211, ’War crimes. Proceedings ofMilitary Tribunal. Tashiro Tsunesuke’, Canberra69) Extract from 竹田光次 1943. ｢南方の軍政｣. 防衛庁防衛研修所戦史室編 1985.
南方の軍政 所収, 183頁, 朝雲新聞社, 東京. [TAKEDA, K. 1943. ’Civil administration in the South’. In: War History Office, Defence Training Institute, Defence
Agency (ed.) 1985. Civil administration in the South, p. 183, Asagumo shinbun sha,Tokyo]
70) ’Curriculum vitae’, op. cit.
71) ’Curriculum vitae’, ibid.; 草鹿任一 1968. ラバウル戦線異常なし , 74 77頁,
光和堂, 東京. [KUSAKA, J. 1968. All quiet on the Rabaul Front, pp. 74 77,
Kowado, Tokyo72) This is undoubtedly Normanby.
73) 草鹿, 前掲書, 75 77頁. [KUSAKA, op. cit., pp. 75 77]74) Ibid., p. 7775) A.I.B., Report on Bougainville New Ireland Choiseul (B.S.I.P.) Network, 21 Sep
44 to 31 May 1945, in LONG, G. 1963. The Final Campaigns, p. 137, Australian War
Memorial, Canberra; a similar comment was made in FELDT. E. 1946. The Coast
Watchers, pp. 136 137, Oxford University Press, Melbourne76) Interview by the author with Pulau, Joseph (elder from Bougainville; the first
Bougainvillean doctor and now lives in Rabaul), 25 January 1994, Rabaul,
PNG77) Read to Commander, H.Q. 8 M.D., 19 September 1946, AA, A471 1 81211, op. cit.
78)
Interview with Asanuma, op. cit.
79) BEVEGE, op. cit., p. 194
80) NAGATA, op. cit., p. 192
81) BEVEGE, op. cit., p. 144

IWAMOTO : The Pacific War in Relation to Japanese Settlers in Papua and New Guinea

32582) Diary of Nagahama, 27 and 28 January 1942, op. cit.
83) Ibid., 11 February to 20 July 194284) NAGATA, op. cit., p. 164
85) Diary of Nagahama, 10 May to 4 July 1943, op. cit.
86) Ibid., 12 May 1943
87) Advertiser South Australia 1946. Internment in South Australia, p. 21, Adelaide88) Interview with Hatamoto, op. cit.
89) Diary of Nagahama, 4 July 1943, op. cit.
90) Interview with Hatamoto, op. cit.
91) BEVEGE, op. cit. p. 150. One exception was the uprising at Cowra Camp in August
1944. But the incident did not affect the Japanese in other camps: the Japanese in
Loveday Camp indeed assured the camp authority that they did not follow suit.
92) Advertiser South Australia, op. cit., p. 1093) Ibid., pp. 14 1594) ’MJ.18518 NAGAHAMA Taichi lending of money to internees,’ 25 August 1943, AA,
A367 1 C666777, op. cit.
95) Ibid.
96) ’Ref these H Q memo 8267 of 21 Aug 43,’ 10 November 1943, AA, D1901 N2781,’Taichi NAGAHAMA’, Adelaide97) Nagahama to Onoue, 16 November 1943, ibid.
98) ’Ref. this H Q memo 10044 of 10 Nov 43’, 28 January 1944, ibid.
99) DAWS, G. 1994. Prisoners of the Japanese: POWs of World War II in the Pacific, pp.
307 314, William Morrow and Company, Inc., New York100) Advertiser South Australia, op. cit., p. 25
101) ’War Diary of Intelligence Summary, 14CD Loveday camp,’ 30 May 1945, AA,
AWM52, 8 7 42, ’War Diaries, Loveday Internment Group, 1943 1946’, Australian
War Memorial, Canberra102) 10 July 1945, ibid.
103) 20 November 1945, ibid.
104) 31 December 1946, ibid.
105) ’Coroners ACT, 1935, South Australia,’ date unknown, AA, A518 1 BM836 1, ’New
Guinea miscellaneous. Death of Tom Tanaka (Japanese internee)’,
Canberra106) ’War Diary of Intelligence Summary, 14CD Loveday camp,’ 24 October 1944, op. cit.
107)
’Tatura Internment Group Routine Orders No. 294. Part I,’ 21 October 1945, AA,
AWM52, 8 7 43, ’Tatura Internment Group, 1944 1947’, Australian War Memorial,
Canberra
108) ’Interviews with Japanese internees at no. 4 camp, Tatura’, 23 July 1946, AA, A367
C72533, ’ASANUMA Ichimatsu’, Canberra109) Morel to Evatt, 5 February 1945, AA, A1066 IC45 16 2 2, ’International co-326South Pacific Study Vol. 17, No. 2, 1997

operation communications with enemy countries. Japanese occupied territories.
Rabaul’, Canberra110) ’Interviews with Japanese internees at no. 4 camp, Tatura’, 22 July 1946, AA, A367
C72534,’HAGIWARA
Hikota’;A367
C72587,’SASAKI
Hikokichi’,Canberra111) The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, London to Prime Minister’s Department,
Canberra, 22 July 1943, AA, A1608 1 AF20 1 1 Part 2, ’Prime Minister’s
Department War Records prisoners of war Part 2’, Canberra112) Memorandum for the camp commandant, Loveday, S.A., 8 February 1946, AA,
A1066 4 IC45 1 11 5, ’Internees in Australia Japanese. Release’, Canberra. Somepetitions of ex-residents in Australia to release in Australia are kept in the same file.
113)
Nominal roll: internees marched out to Tatura Internment Group, 28 February 1946,
AA, AWM52, 8 7 42, ’War Diaries, Loveday Internment Group, 1943 1946’,
Australian War Memorial, Canberra
114) ’Order for repatriation under Regulation 20C of the National Security (Aliens
Control) Regulations,’ Minister of State for Immigration, 23 February 1946, AA,
A437 46 6 72, ’Japanese Internees (a) Release in Australia (b) Deportation Part 1’,
Canberra
115) Minister for Immigration to Attorney-General, March 1946, ibid.
116) Col. Lloyd to Attorney-General, 24 January 1946, ibid.
117) ’Interview with Japanese internees,’ 22 July 1946, AA, A367 C72533, ’ASANUMA
Ichimatsu’; C72534, ’HAGIWARA Hikota’; C72537, ’IKEZAKI Tokuyoshi’; C72538, ’I
ZUMI Eikichi’; C72539, ’ENDO Shigetaro’; C72540, ’KIMURA Hideichiro’, C72546, ’K
IKUCHI Ichisuke’; C72587, ’SASAKI Hikokichi’ and C72588, ’MURAKAMI Heijiro’,
Canberra
118) Browne to the Secretary of the Department of External Territories, 23 August 1946,
AA, A373 1 11505 48, ’Japanese internees’, Canberra
119) ’Case No. 91. KIMURA Hideichiro,’ date unknown, ibid.
120) Secretary of the Department of External Territories to the Director-General of
Security, 25 September 1946, ibid.
121) Secretary of the Pacific Territory Association to Minister of External Affairs, 18
August 1945, AA, A518 1 BB836 2, ’New Guinea miscellaneous use of Japaneseprisoners of war T.N.G.’, Canberra
122) Secretary of the Department of External Territories to the Director-General of
Security, 25 September 1946, op. cit.
123) Interview by the author with the descendants of Ikesaki, Kikuchi, Asanuma, Izumi,
Endo, Nakamura, Murakami and Tanaka families, December 1993 to March 1994,
PNG and Australia
124) Browne to Secretary of Attorney-General’s Department, 2 October 1946, AA, A373
1 11505 48, op. cit.
125) Ibid.; Murray to Secretary of Attorney-General’s Department, 20 February 1947,

IWAMOTO : The Pacific War in Relation to Japanese Settlers in Papua and New Guinea

327

ibid.
126) ’Japanese Internees Ex-islands’, 5 September 1947, AA, A472 W32123, ’Readmission of Japanese to Papua-New Guinea Island Group and related area’, Canberra
127)
Browne to Secretary of Attorney-General’s Department, 5 March 1947; Murray to
Secretary of Attorney-General’s Department, 20 February 1947, AA, A373 1 11505
48, op. cit.
128) ’Re Return to the Territory of Japanese Internees’ by Phillips, 12 January 1948,
ibid.
129) Ibid.
130) Notes taken from telephone conversation with the Assistant Secretary of the
Department of External Territories for inclusion in a Minute to the Minister for
External Territories, 29 September 1947, ibid.
131) Browne to Colonel Griffin, 15 April 1947, ibid.
132) ’New Guinea Japanese Internees,’ 1 August 1947, AA, A437 46 6 72, op. cit.
133) Chambers to the cabinet, 6 January 1949, AA, A6006 1 2nd CHIFLEY NOV.46
DEC.49, ’Deportation of Japanese internees from Papua New Guinea’,
Canberra134) Interview by the author with Uradok (elder from Matupi, a tour guide for Japaneseveterans), 17 January 1994, Rabaul, PNG; only two graves were not thrown into thesea and are now kept in the Kokopo Museum.
135) Chambers to the cabinet, 6 January 1949, op. cit.
136) Interview by the author with the descendants of Ikesaki, Kikuchi, Asanuma,
Nakamura, Endo and Izumi, January to March 1994, PNG and Australia137) Interview by the author with Ehret, Gordon, 22 March 1994, Brisbane,
Australia
138) Ibid. Ehret was sobbing when he was telling this to the author. He now has very good
relations with Asanuma’s sons in Brisbane who migrated to Australia.
139) Interview by the author with Pearse, Dick (ex-administration official and now anagent of customs in Manus), 14 February 1994, Lorengau, Manus, PNG
140) Chambers to the cabinet, 6 January 1949, op. cit.
141) Territory of Papua Report 1945 1946, p. 13, Canberra
142) Territory of Papua Report 1946 1947, p. 14, Canberra143) Interview with Tanaka, Mary, op. cit.
144) Interview by the author with Murakami, Kalo (son of Murakami Heijiro), 4 January
1994, Misima, Milne Bay, PNG
145) ’War damage to property regulations: claims of Taichi Nagahama, D.J. Hill, Delegateof the Controller of Enemy Property,’ 11 September 1961, AA, A1379 EP J 851 Sect
O, ’Taichi Nagahama & Others. Claim on Aliens Compensation Fund’, Canberra146) A letter from Nagahama Fusae to Kosaka Zentaro (Foreign Minister), September
1960, possession of Nagahama Fusae, Amakusa, Kumamoto, Japan328

South Pacific Study Vol. 17, No. 2, 1997147) A letter to the author from Sato Sadako (grand daughter of Tsurushima), 4 June
1993148) A letter to the author from Hatamoto Otosaku, 26 May 1993
149) Asanuma, Ikesaki and Nakamura re-married in Japan.
150) Oral evidence collected by the author, December 1993 to March 1994, PNG andAustralia
151) Interview by the author with Peter Ikesaki (son from the third wife of Ikesaki
Tokuyoshi), 26 January 1994, Rabaul, PNG
152) Interview with Nakamura, op. cit.; the author also inquired to the Japanese Embassyin Port Moresby about the compensation but have not received a reply, either.
(Accepted 1 December, 1996)