PDA

View Full Version : What if thread - Australian troops rescuing Sandakan POWs



T3ngu
05-05-2010, 12:07 AM
This is something i would like to hear others opinions on. This is largely based on books i have read, and me pinching from Wiki and other websites.

I have recently finished reading a book on the Australian actions on Tarakan during the closing period of WW2.

Essentially the Oboe 1 operations were used to capture the oil producing island of Tarakan, but many argue that the 251 allied dead, and over 669 allied wounded did not to need to occur in the first place. The Australian historian Gavin Long concluded "the results achieved did not justify the cost of the Tarakan operation".

With Oboe 1, approxiamtely 15,000 (i have read more) troops were landed on Tarakan, which was approximately 270 kilometres from Sandakan.

At Sandakan, on Borneo, reports say around 3,600 civilian labourers, and around 2,400 prisoners of war were held by the Japanese. Of these, only 6 soldiers (5 Australian) survived to tell the tale. This is regarded as the single worst atrocity suffered by Australian servicemen during the second world war.

As the war neared its close, the Japanese saw the writing on the wall, and began a series of forced marches from Sandakan to Ranau (around 150 kilometres in a straight line). What made things worse was that the locals who were asked to construct the track that the POWs travelled on, thought the track was for the Japanese and made the track as impassable as possible. This in turn, made things worse for the POWs.

During the first march of 470 troops, stragglers, many of whom were unfit to start with, and could not survive the nine days on four days of food, were killed, or left to die. During the second march, of the 536 that left, only 183 managed to get to Ranau and found only six of the original marchers alive.

The final march started with the 250 troops still alive. However, it was decided that another group of men (75) would be sent on a final march. Many were so weak that none survived further than 50 kilometres. As each man collapsed they were shot. Those remaining at Sandakan were killed or died from starvation and sickness prior to the japanese surrender.

At Ranau, there were 38 POWs still alive at the end of July. As they were so weak and sick, the POWs were shot by the guards during August, some say up to 12 days after the end of the war.

Operation Kingfisher was proposed during 1944, with a view to rescuing the POWs at Sandakan.

The AWM's website states



{72} It seems then that a prime focus of AGAS operatives was to gather intelligence relating to the Sandakan POWs. Apparently this objective proved to be quite successful because "an extensive system of contacts has been extended, and agents have been placed in and around SANDAKAN, BELURAN, LINKABAU, KUDAT and LANGKON".65 (http://www.awm.gov.au/journal/j37/borneo.asp#65) Acting upon the information received from AGAS, the results were as follows:


The destruction by air of approx. 600 Japs in SANDAKAN, plus 9 motor launches. ...
Much reliable information has been passed on as to Japanese movements from SANDAKAN to RANAU, the extent of troop movements and concentrations in KHOTA [KOTA] BELUD, LANGKON and KUDAT, and the move of the PW Camp, previously in SANDAKAN, in groups to RANAU. ...

{73} It is amply clear that AGAS operatives in the field possessed detailed as well as accurate information as to the situation of the POWs of Sandakan, including their movements "in groups to RANAU", namely the "Death March". Furthermore, Major Chester, the leader of AGAS, claimed inter alia that "There has been no break or trouble in communication from the date of the first contact [February 1945] up to the present moment [May 1945]".66 (http://www.awm.gov.au/journal/j37/borneo.asp#66)

{74} If the AGAS report is to be believed, and there is no apparent reason to doubt its veracity, why then was no attempt been made to effect the planned rescue of the Sandakan POWs – that is, implement Operation KINGFISHER? KINGFISHER, conceived sometime in mid-1944, proposed a rescue plan of POWs in Sandakan by a paratroop unit.67 (http://www.awm.gov.au/journal/j37/borneo.asp#67) The probable reason for aborting KINGFISHER has been hotly debated, with arguments ranging from a conspiratorial cover-up that implicated Australia's military elite to MacArthur's non-cooperation in providing vital support for the operation.
{75} Blamey's speech at the Second Annual Conference of the Australian Armoured Corps Association in Melbourne on 19 November 1947 apparently "let the cat out of the bag". Lieutenant Colonel (later Sir) John Overall's 800-strong paratroop battalion which had been training at the Atherton Tableland for a covert operation that never came through knew nothing of the details of their mission until Blamey's address.
We had complete plans for them [paratroopers]. Our spies [AGAS and its local agents] were in Japanese-held territory. We had established the necessary contacts with prisoners at Sandakan, and our parachute troops were going to relieve them. ... But at the moment we wanted to act, we couldn't get the necessary aircraft to take them in [emphasis added]. The operation would certainly have saved that death march of Sandakan.68 (http://www.awm.gov.au/journal/j37/borneo.asp#68)
{76} Lynette Ramsay Silver argued that Blamey blamed MacArthur as an excuse to cover-up an SRD bungle in the gathering of accurate intelligence.69 (http://www.awm.gov.au/journal/j37/borneo.asp#69) The Blamey-MacArthur relationship had never been cosy, each accusing the other of attempting to undermine his authority. Blamey, she claimed, told Air Vice-Marshal George Jones, the Chief of the Air Staff, that "while he [Blamey] had not submitted his rescue plan to the Australian government or other authorities, he had raised it with MacArthur, 'who did not favour it'".70 (http://www.awm.gov.au/journal/j37/borneo.asp#70)

{77} Silver denounced Blamey's claim about "getting the necessary aircraft" as utter nonsense which was not supported by evidence. First, she said, it was absurd to blame MacArthur and the American reluctance to supply the necessary air transport. No such request was made to MacArthur, who evidently then had at his disposal 600 C-47s. If the Americans were reluctant as was claimed, the RAAF had in its own pool of 71 C-47s. According to KINGFISHER, only 34 aircraft were required. Secondly, and more conclusively, there was no need of American planes or that of the RAAF, as SRD itself had its own exclusive Air Section, codenamed 200 Flight, which had been established in February 1945. As of March, there were in operation six Liberators (B-24s) utilized in dropping personnel and "storpedoes"71 (http://www.awm.gov.au/journal/j37/borneo.asp#71) in Borneo and Timor. http://www.awm.gov.au/journal/j37/borneo.asp

My question is this. Given the build up of troops in the area, and considering the kingfisher operation planning, and the troops already on the ground.

Would it have been prudent, or possible to extend the Oboe operations in a way which would have supported kingfisher.

I am very interested in others thoughts on both operations, and the potential interconnections which could have occurred. Im ashamed that kingfisher didn't go ahead, given the loss of life that occurred, especially as we already had people on the ground providing intel.

Chiptox
05-05-2010, 01:29 AM
Would it have been prudent, or possible to extend the Oboe operations in a way which would have supported kingfisher.
Extend, hell, make the entire operation's goal the rescue of POW's. Fat Man and Little Boy were on their way and there was no point to operations for further advance in that theater unless to support humanitarian goals in the post-war environment.

Of course hindsight is 20/20 and planners had no idea that the war would end so abruptly. Hindsight also applies to the knowledge that the POW's would be death marched. So there we are.

T3ngu
05-05-2010, 02:03 AM
Extend, hell, make the entire operation's goal the rescue of POW's. Fat Man and Little Boy were on their way and there was no point to operations for further advance in that theater unless to support humanitarian goals in the post-war environment.

Of course hindsight is 20/20 and planners had no idea that the war would end so abruptly. Hindsight also applies to the knowledge that the POW's would be death marched. So there we are.


It is amply clear that AGAS operatives in the field possessed detailed as well as accurate information as to the situation of the POWs of Sandakan, including their movements "in groups to RANAU", namely the "Death March". Thats the thing, they had intelligence on the ground and knew it was happening. Hindsight is one thing, but knowing and doing nothing due to a perceived "lack of airlift" is another.

Chiptox
05-05-2010, 03:01 AM
Thats the thing, they had intelligence on the ground and knew it was happening. Hindsight is one thing, but knowing and doing nothing due to a perceived "lack of airlift" is another.
Oof, that is a bitter pill. My apologies. So we would assume, in your scenario, that they posessed the knowledge that the POW's were to be executed but that the invasion of Japan was also still looming?

Your "what if" in that context that is well beyond my knowledge. I have a hard enough time digging up resources for my great-uncle's company on New Guinea. A forgotten theater for us yanks, unfortunately. I do look forward to the responses.

TheKiwi
05-05-2010, 03:15 AM
I've got say that Blamey really wasn't a good enough commander for this kind of operation to get the go-ahead. His imagination was rather limited, but he was very good at schmoozing up to the politicians.

From the information provided above, it seems as though it may have at least in part succeeded. I suspect that the camp guards would have done their best to massacre the prisoners, but no doubt the number of survivors would have been higher than in real life.

Alfacentori
05-05-2010, 03:47 AM
Of course hindsight is 20/20 and planners had no idea that the war would end so abruptly. Hindsight also applies to the knowledge that the POW's would be death marched. So there we are.

I would think that by this stage of WW2 that allied war planners and intelligence would have had a very good idea of the way that allied prisoners were being treated by the Japanese, so I don't think that ignorance of what might happen is a viable reason/excuse. (as T3ngu pointed out)

Alfa

Violet Fashion by Mindy
05-05-2010, 06:36 AM
There was no real airfields in the region. Intelligence was lacking in that regard. The airfield at Tarakan was believed to have been able to be brought up to operational readiness in a short time. As it turned out it was a mess and the whole reason for taken Tarakan became void apart from the oil facilities which were only of secondry importance. So even if we tried to rescue the POW's how could we provide the neccessary transport to get them out. Plus if we can't get the intel right about an airfield designed for future operations how are we supposed to get the intel right about POW's camped in the jungle?

As much as it pains me to say I honestly don't think there was a hole lot we could of done. There was also Malay natives being held as well. Even though the writing was on the wall for Japan. The last oil shipment from Sandakan occured 12 months previously, as the Japanese showed time and time again there was no guarentee that they would throw in the towel. Now if we did go for the POW's, we don't have the means really to get them out, and the Japanese counter attack the operation then what?

Say we managed to rescue 2000 pow's and 1000 civillians. That's 3000 people that become a burdon to any force the Japanese decide to attack. 3000 people who are starving, can hardley walk and by all accounts will end up passing away anyway.

Whilst there was scope and even a plan brought forward I think they took probably the only option that was really possible. Secure the military victory needed and hope that we can then rescue the survivors.

MN_Air
05-05-2010, 09:40 AM
I've got say that Blamey really wasn't a good enough commander for this kind of operation to get the go-ahead. His imagination was rather limited, but he was very good at schmoozing up to the politicians.

From the information provided above, it seems as though it may have at least in part succeeded. I suspect that the camp guards would have done their best to massacre the prisoners, but no doubt the number of survivors would have been higher than in real life.


Haven't the Japanese guards executed prisoners before, when allied troops were looming in the distance?

gusto
05-06-2010, 02:40 AM
"Secondly, and more conclusively, there was no need of American planes or that of the RAAF, as SRD itself had its own exclusive Air Section, codenamed 200 Flight, which had been established in February 1945. As of March, there were in operation six Liberators (B-24s) utilized in dropping personnel and "storpedoes"71 in Borneo and Timor."

I don't think the B-24 was set up for mass Para drops, small teams yes but a Battalion of 800 no way.The RAAF and USAAF would have had to be used.I don't know where C-47s would of staged out of for a mass drop but I really wished that gave it a go.

On the subject of the Para drop I've read everything from Mac Arthur didn't want the publicity taken away from his troops.

To, Australian commanders were anti Para drop due to the slaughter they saw and inflicted on the German Airborne DZs in Crete.