The Second Photograph
of the men
unloading rice bales Japan 1942

Access code to the photo archives is http://photobank.mainichi.co.jp/

Please follow these instructions to see the image.
You will get a Mainichi Photobank screen. Please click the second line
from the bottom. You will get a search screen. Go to the third line from the
bottom and type the ID number 00036546. And then, click the left icon at
the bottom. Click the image to make it larger.

Unfortunately in the second photograph both men are looking down and their features are indistinguishable.
However it does help confirm features of the first Photograph seen below.

First photograph

The large characters on the cloth sashes that the POWs are wearing are hard to make out, even when zoomed, but the clearest character on the tag of the man wearing the Scottish cap ('tam-o-shanter') is definitely the "Shiba" character from "Shibaura" , to the right of the sash. The middle and leftmost characters ( 2nd contained within a circle?) may read "Unso" ( meaning "transport") but we cannot be absolutely sure of this. There appears to be some censor's white ink covering something else on these sashes?

In the Mainichi photograph the Japanese labourer on the left in the happy-coat is wearing an armband which may say "Shio Dome", - another company in the Shibaura area.

Each POW has a small additional tag pinned somewhere on his person (the Scottish 'tam-o-shanter' guy has it on his cap).
The smaller tag characters are indistinct but appear to be handwritten instead of printed - I was hoping these might show a name in katakana, but it is difficult to determine even if katakana or other characters or numbers are on the small tags.

I have a further suspicion that this picture would have been taken sometime around September 1942 when Allied POWs first arrived
at the "Tokyo Main" camp at Shinagawa. I am thinking that the "novelty factor" of white prisoners first appearing in Tokyo would
have been a good reason to send a propaganda photographer along there. The uniforms of the POWs also appear reasonably fresh,
as if they haven't been labouring in them for many days. The second photograph shows that the uniforms are ill fitting and very new.

The photos were probably taken around September. From June till about September 20th the weather is too hot for winter
clothing let alone performing manual labour in it.

The Mainichi photograph clearly indicates that the hat on Bloke 2 is the regulation 'tam-o-shanter' which forms part of the uniform of certain Scottish regiments. It also clearly indicates that Bloke 2 is wearing the other ranks' 'Service Dress' tunic, i.e. Single-breasted khaki serge tunic with stand-and-fall collar. Five general-service pattern buttons in front, patch breast and side pockets with flaps and buttons, matching rounded shoulder-straps. Note that the tunic buttons are polished brass [not oxidized as was the case in the Australian Army throughout World War II]. Service Dress was replaced by 'Battle Dress' throughout the British Army during 1939
and 1940, but in the Australian Army was not replaced by Battle Dress until 1951. Most of the blokes in these two photos are wearing the Battle Dress blouse, i.e. Single-breasted blouse with stand-and-fall collar and pleated patch breast pockets, gathered with waist-band with buckle right of center. My guess is that the Service Dress would have been worn by regular Scottish regiments embarking for the Far East in 1938 or 1939. On arrival, it would have been placed in the Base kit-store and the troops issued with tropical kit.
The Argylls that fought throughout the Malaya-Singapore campaign were a Regular battalion and they, I think, embarked before 1940.

The serge cap worn by Bloke 1 and several others in the photos ('forage-cap', to civilians; 'cap-FS' to the soldiery) was the standard 'undress' head-gear throughout the British Army but was withdrawn from issue in the Australian Army before 1941. It had two small buttons at the front right. These could be undone and re-buttoned under the chin, making it into a sort of balaclava. Just aft of the buttons the metal Regimental hat-badge was inserted.

The discovery of the second photograph 60 years on, begs the question that if the investigation into the photograph brought back by the officers of the Rabaul battalion was as thorough as we are led to believe, why wasn't the second photograph discovered?
Was any investigation carried out in Japan or was the fact that the men, being in British uniforms, weren't Australians accepted by the investigation. It should be remembered that by the time the officers were interviewed the official line was that all the Rabaul men had died on the Montevideo Maru.

Using today's technology researcher James Oglethorpe has concluded that the men weren't from the 2/2nd Battalion.

BJORKLOF AND RYAN'S ENLISTMENT PHOTOS

Albert Speer has obtained the Army files of Bjorklof and Ryan, which fortunately included their enlistment photos which were probably used by the Army when evaluating Parkhill's report that the two men had been identified in the press clipping.

BJORKLOF:

RYAN:

When looked at carefully at various magnifications side-by-side with photo editing software, It can certainly be seen why Parkhill and the other officers from Rabaul may have believed that the newspaper clipping showed their men. The resemblance is indeed pretty good, and the fact that Bjorklof and Ryan were mates, and were likely to have stuck together, would probably have enhanced this impression amongst the officers. (Gordon Chinn's response to 2nd Echelon of 16 Dec 45 makes exactly these points in the National Archives of Australia File B3856/0 Item 144/26/35.)

However, it can also be seen why the Army would have considered that "identification has not been established", when they compared the clipping to the official Army mug shots above. (Unfortunately though, there are no notes in the archive about the actual photographic comparisons, just their conclusion.) POW #2 appears to have a much deeper bridge to his nose than the real Ryan, and Ryan's upper ear is also clearly different.

In the case of POW #1, I can also see one slight reason for rejection, although this is not absolutely conclusive given the viewing angles available. The flare of the nostrils of the real Bjorklof in the face-on shot seems to me to be more bulbous than that of the man in the clipping.

The newspaper photo has been fairly heavily retouched for publication. Interestingly, the Japanese censor has even taken the trouble to erase the pom-pom on the top of POW #2's Tam-o-shanter! (Obviously they didn't want to reveal this secret weapon!)

THE SECOND SHIBAURA PHOTOGRAPH

When we examine the other photograph taken at Shibaura it gives us some crucial further information about the relative sizes of POWs #1 and #2 which was not available to Parkhill and the his fellow officers.

David Sissons was the first to realise the significance of the visible difference in heights of the two men. A careful comparison of various body-measurements shows that POW #2 is approximately 10% taller than POW #1. This is NOT consistent with the height measurements of Bjorklof and Ryan from their Army mug-shots above, where there was actually only a 1% difference in their sizes (Bjorklof 5' 7"; Ryan 5' 8"). This to me provides conclusive proof that the two POWs cannot be Bjorklof and Ryan.

But could POW #1 have been Bjorklof, irrespective of the fact that the other taller guy cannot be Ryan? In my opinion, the second photograph provides some further confirmation that the chiselled shape of the nose of POW #1 is not consistent with the shape of Bjorklof's nose. After careful examination of the high-resolution print I feel quite sure about this conclusion.

SO WHO WERE THEY REALLY?

I haven't yet come up with a true identity for the two POWs in Shibaura, but I think it may be possible to find out. Close examination of the second photograph shows that POW #2 has a tag attached to his Tam-o-shanter with the number "137" on it. (Note that somebody has incorrectly inked "134" on Parkhill's newspaper clipping.) This should be POW #2's camp registration number.

Its possible these POWs came from the nearby "Tokyo Main" POW camp at Shinagawa soon after it was established, probably in September 1942. This conclusion is based on the circumstantial evidence in the Mainichi newspaper article; that the 800 prisoners were reported to have aggregated 10,000 man-hours of work (which is less than two man-days each!). I have also relied on some information about Shinagawa camp that I have found on the Internet (see below) and the fact that the first arrival of western POWs in Tokyo would most likely have been a "news event" which would have justified despatching a photographer to the goods yard.

Below are a few Internet snippets which may place these POWs in the Shinagawa Camp. We know that in 1944/45, some of the survivors from the Behar laboured at Shibaura when they were imprisoned at Omori Island camp in Tokyo Bay, this was the successor-camp to Shinagawa.

http://www.warsailors.com/POWs/powcamps.html SHINAGAWA was a labor camp just outside Tokyo, where the first prisoners were British and Americans from Singapore and the Philippines.

http://www.warsailors.com/raidervictims/thor.html [Norwegian] Johan Sunde was sent off, after the Germans had found out through interrogation that he had been a volunteer soldier on the Finnish side in the "Winter War" 1939-1940. He was later placed at Shinagawa, Tokyo in Aug.1942, and died there in March 1944

http://www.warsailors.com/POWs/imprisonment.html - has quite a bit of detail about Ofuna and Omori camps, including work at Shibaura. Transport from the camp to the work site was by truck.