Talk:Batu Lintang camp

untitled
So far, I am the main (and sadly, pretty much the only) contributor to this article.

'''I am researching the World War II Japanese-run camp for POWs and civilian internees at Batu Lintang, Kuching, Sarawak, Borneo. I would be delighted to hear from anybody who has any information about or interest in this camp - you can either leave a message on this page, on my talk page, or email me by hitting the 'Email this user' link in the toolbox on the left of the screen on my user page or talk page. Thank you. Jasper33 (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)'''

Rating
Well done Jasper33, this is not far off Good article status. Grant | Talk 01:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow! This is perhaps the most comprehensive article for DYK I've ever seen. Of course not far off GA status. In fact, it might go for a FA candidacy, provided some more days of work is done!! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, Jasper33! You put me (a local) to shame.– Matthew A. Lockhart (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done! I'd say this is not far off Featured article status. --Camptown 21:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what all of them said. This is amazing! J Milburn 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an extraordinary interesting article! Jasper33, does any of your sources include a map of the camp? Were there ever any individual escape attempts? Bondkaka 23:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all your kind words. I appreciate it - but can't take sole credit - I had a huge amount of help from User:Grant65, who specialises in the Pacific War (amongst very many other things).

About maps: I have three different versions, the first two of which are very similar but have slight differences in the information given: one is in Ooi Keat Gin's 1996 Japanese Empire in the Tropics: Selected Documents and Reports of the Japanese Period in Sarawak, Northwest Borneo, 1941-1945 Ohio University Center for International Studies, Monographs in International Studies, SE Asia Series 101 (2 vols) ISBN: 0-89680-199-3 on page 139 (he has drawn it from two earlier sources which I don't have access to just yet); the second is online (yay!) at http://www.far-eastern-heroes.org.uk/Baldwin/html/war.htm (scroll down a bit past the sketch location map to a more detailed plan of the camp layout). I would have loved to put it in the article but don't know where it originally came from or what the copyright status is. The third is one I have saved on my computer from a website I visited long ago, way before I thought about writing this page. I stupidly didn't make a record of where I got it from and I can't find it again. Doh! It seems to have been made earlier in the life of the camp as it shows a smaller area. And as for escape attempts - I haven't found any records of any in my brief survey. That's not to say there weren't any, of course ... ;) Jasper33 23:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just added the http://www.far-eastern-heroes.org.uk/Baldwin/html/batu_lintag.htm map to the article as an external link. Thanks Bondkaka - wouldn't have thought of it otherwise! Jasper33 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I went there today. If anyone uses Google Earth, here are the places I have visited and subsequently marked; and here is an alternative map of the camp that was scanned from Kuching: 1839-1970 by Elizabeth Pollard (1st edition 1972). – Matthew A. Lockhart (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a map of the teacher's college, from Who shall separate us by Abang Yusuf Puteh (1999). The author studied there beginning in 1949 while most of the older buildings are still intact and was used for educational purposes. I believe that this map is the most accurate amongst all three, especially when compared to aerial photographs. – Matthew A. Lockhart (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Matthew - again, thank-you. This map is wonderfully detailed. Jasper33 19:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Extra Dutch references
The Dutch normally call the place Kuching, which now and then leads to strange googles because of a "camp" for backpacker tourists in the neighbourhood of another Kuching in Kalimantan. I was able to find some Dutch material - do not know whether it could help improve the article for FA/GA status or corroborate other sources but here goes:


 * mentions that Dutch and mixed race children were taken from women camps on Dutch territory (now known as Kalimantan) and transferred to Kuching/Batu Lintang on reaching the age of ... 10. The reference at the end of this text to 20 children being killed (14 beheaded, 6 died during interrogation) for allegedly starting a fire is to a camp on Java. That little incident happened in June 1945. (Mentioned just in case someone doubts the veracity/possibility of the Japanese planning to kill off the prisoners.)


 * report of a pilgrimage by an RC nun of the same order as the then imprisoned nuns (Franciscan sisters now in the monastery at Etten, Netherlands, claim spiritual descendancy). She meets Father Aichner, who lived in Kuching from the 1930s, but was never treated as a prisoner because he happened to be Austrian, and was therefore considered a German ally by the Japanese (he died in August 1995: ) The account confirms that the complex is now a school, and that there are some reminiscences of the camp in the neighbourhood.


 * a different map of the camp, drawn by a priest and a small picture of inmates waving at passing planes (well, that is what is claimed, but I do not see it myself). This text also says that after liberation on September 11th, survivors were then taken to Labuan to get well again. A slight inconsistency with the text here. Strangely, the text also mentions an RC brother (Claudius Sommen) dying in 1946 from dysentery while still at the camp ...

I hope I did not waste your time; perhaps the Austrian guy could be added. Congratulations on this fine work, BTW. When I find the time I may start a Dutch article on the camp. --Pan Gerwazy 10:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Pan. Thank-you for your kind words about the article, and for your contributions here: the more the merrier, and you certainly aren't wasting anyone's time. I was very interested to read your comments as I am very aware that the article is weighted towards British (and to a lesser extent Australian) experiences of the camp: that's because, to my shame, I can only read English. Please feel free to add any information you have (as well as a reference so it can be checked if anyone wants to). The web article (no 4, with an English translation) was interesting as it gives figures for each of the camps.  I have got many different sets of numbers for the various camps, as they fluctuated greatly, but hadn't been able to find much about the Dutch fathers' camp. The plan of the camp was useful - could you translate the legend within the Dutch religious camp for me? - it refers to 106 and 23 - is that a total of 129 Dutch religious men or does the 23 refer to something else?
 * Broeders van Huijbergen is Brothers of Huijbergen (106), while Religieuzen is Religious (23). I'm not really sure about the latter, but I think it refers to the Roman Catholic priests. – Matthew A. Lockhart (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about adding the Austrian father as it sounds like he wasn't interned in the camp and is therefore beyond the remit of the article. By the way, web article (4) mentions some Dutch priests arriving at BL in July 1943: there were certainly some Dutch fathers already interned there by October 1942, when a batch of women and children arrived from Jesselton. The diary entry of one of the women records her reaction on seeing the fathers there (Ooi 319-20 and 314, 342 and 344).


 * By the way, the photo in (4) of the waving prisoners looks like it's the same one as in the Wikipedia article, but cropped slightly closer. You can click on the Wikipedia photographs and that will bring up a slightly larger version. If you do that, you can just see the outstretched arms of the waving men. Jasper33 17:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, I had to read the text before the map, because "Religieuzen" is ambiguous and refers to male and female, but also to priests who care for them. "Religieuzen" on the map here means male members of a religious order. The Brothers of Huijbergen is one of these orders. Elsewhere in the Dutch text it says that there was a subdivision of about a hundred "religieuzen" including missionaries. I would go for the version with the 23 included in the 106. "Including missionaries" implies that there were not many priests there. Most of them must have been Dutch and Indo (mixed race) men who had join an RC religious order. Some may have emigrated to Indonesia from the Netherlands or the UK. I found documents on the net for these religious orders which were basically in memoriam notices for members of the order who died that year, and which mentioned their career in Indonesia. Apart from Dutch, there were Austrians and British. So, Aichner and the British "religieuzen" you found seem to have joined a Dutch religious order in order to go to Indonesia.


 * Do you need help with the Dutch words on the map? Wacht= guard. Hoofdwacht: main guard. "Toren Japanse wacht": Japanese guard tower. Officieren: officers. Militairen: military, probably non-officers. Burgers: civilians. Tuin(en): garden(s). Vrouwen: women. Kinderen: children. Zusters: nuns. Kantoor: office. Gevangenis: prison (probably something awful) I suppose you know what gudangs are.


 * Two asides: the children of 10 and older that I mentioned, were of course boys. The Japanese considered them men at that age. I am not sure whether they were treated as men in this camp or sent to the women's part. The people who transferred them probably did not have that last thing in mind. On the other hand, 2 or 3 of the children on the Dakota airplane picture look like they may be over 10. I am sorry (!) to say I noticed a slight divergence between the two accounts of the first American planes seen over the camp on March 25. That source 4 says two American planes flew over during Mass, and caused everybody to hide into trenches. I suppose that people who ducked, did not have the ability to continue to count more planes, so 15 may be correct after all.


 * Thanks for pointing out the picture here. I suppose I did not recognize it because of the different hues.--Pan Gerwazy 22:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pan. Thanks for the translations. A few I was able to work out (kinderen and the military terms), but it's nice to have them confirmed, so thanks. And no, I don't know what gudangs are. Some of the children were over ten at liberation, but I'm not sure whether any of the older ones were boys. Must go back and check.

There's quite a bit of divergence in many of the accounts, so I've had to tread carefully. For the planes, the numbers of the 25 March planes were only mentioned in two of the sources - Agnes Keith in Three Came Home, who talks about two 'poached egg' planes (not sure what she means by that - perhaps the circular insignia on the planes?); and E. R. Pepler, an NCO in the RAOC in Ooi, who counted 15 and mentions that the planes were identified by a Canadian fighter pilot, JP Flemming. Pepler talks about them bombing the airfield. As the minimum number was therefore 15 (and Agnes' two could have been in that group) and they were positively identified by a pilot, I went with that figure. It's been a problem throughout - many times the sources directly contradict each other: sometimes it's possible to work out who is in error (getting the date wrong is a common one) but sometimes I've just had to leave the ambiguity in when it can't be resolved (such as "Sources vary in the date, but at some point between 24 and 28 August, Suga officially announced to the camp that Japan had surrendered" as there were several different versions, all with different takes on the date). I'm also aware that, although these are published sources, the conclusions that I can draw from them might verge on the dreaded 'original research'. It's been a tricky one! Jasper33 22:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, OR is often very close. One crucial link may go dead, and then your "theory" becomes something that YOU made up on the basis of comparing the contradictions in the other sources you linked to. Does Agnes Keith also mention a Mass, or people throwing themselves into ditches? Perhaps the two sources are connected? I encountered a Ducth bookseller's page which suggested the Agnes keith book was translated into Dutch. A gudang (sometimes goedang in Dutch) is an Indonesian word signifying a long galleried shed for storage - of anyting, food, tools, weapons, ... For people who know Dutch --Pan Gerwazy 01:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've rechecked and feel very foolish as I think the poached egg planes must be Japanese ones. Keith was working in the fields when the Allied planes came over on March 25. The camps were kept separate at all times so it seems the fathers were celebrating mass on their own. The planes came over in the early part of the afternoon according to Ooi 604 (I'd recommend Ooi to you most highly - it's essentially a collection of many personal records of the camp, introduced and edited by Ooi). A lot of the sources directly contradict each other, often in the date.  It must have been hard keeping a calendar in the camp. If both are available. I've generally taken the military source over the POW/internee one as I reckon that the military record-keeping is likely to have been better. Having said that, I've found some boo-boos in the AWM captions to the photographs ... Jasper33 19:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * About Mass on March 25: I remember I checked this when I first saw it and found it was a Sunday. Would they celebrate Sunday Mass on their own? The Dutch text seems to imply at least some other people were present. Of course, by that time the food shortage was so acute that not everybody who would normally attend (if they were RC) would have done so. --Pan Gerwazy 14:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In all the sources I've read so far it is stressed, stongly, that the camps were kept separate at all times (the only exceptions being the lone RC priest who took mass with the nuns - one of the women complains that the CofE priests weren't allowed the same access; and the married couples who were only allowed visits once a month). So I think it seems most likely that the Dutch religious internees celebrated mass on their own. Jasper33 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, Pan, Agnes Keith refers to the numbers of women and children in the camp by nationality. She says there were 10 Eurasian Dutch women, 4 Javanese Dutch women, 3 European Dutch women and 3 Dutch children. I found refs to Thérèse and Vicki, a Dutch brother and sister; and two Javanese children called Kusha and Mitey.  Vicki was referred to as one of the 'older' boys. Jasper33 23:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That is strange, in the Netherlands Thérèse and Vicki are BOTH girls' names. Though the Belgian POW that my mother befriended during the war was called Victor - so perhaps it was a common name in the Low Countries at the time, but English speaking people were not accustomed to the name, and so he was not called "Tor", "Door" or "Viek", as would be usual for boys in everyday Dutch parlance (short diminutives in -je or -ke like "Doortje" or "Viekje" are typically used for girls). Kasian ("unfortunately" in Indonesian), I have no idea about the gender of the names "Kusha" or "Mitey". Eurasian Dutch women were women who had both Javanese and Dutch forefathers. The Dutch had been there for centuries. The women would have had Dutch names and been Christian (usually protestant, but there were Roman Catholics too). Javanese Dutch women were local women (definitely not Chinese) who had married Dutch (or Eurasian) husbands. --Pan Gerwazy 01:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * At first reading I thought Vicki was a girl, then the context suggested he was a boy and then Keith explicitly stated it. He might well have been a 'Victor' as -y, -ie and -i dimunutive endings are common in English, although less so for boys (Robert = Bobby, William = Billy etc). As most of the secular female internees were English and Scottish, it might have been a nickname given to him, and that Keith used.  She was a mother of one of the children in the camp and names all 34 in her book (just first names in most cases. No other names are obviously Dutch.Jasper33 19:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose we may safely assume then that the boys over 10 who got transferred to Batu Lintang from Ducth territory, were transferred to the Dutch male adult civilian part. --Pan Gerwazy 14:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * L. E. Morris's account mentions a British civilian internee called Don Tuxford whose eight year old son was in the camp with him, while Tuxofrd's wife and daughter Julia were in the women's camp. (Ooi 354) So it seems likely that the 10 year old boys might well have been sent to the men's camp with their fathers. By the way, there are photos of the Dutch fathers in the AWM archive. I can let you have the ref nos if you want, or you could search under 'Kuching'and 'Dutch' in the WW2 section of the AWM collections database and that should bring them up. Jasper33 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Photographs
Of course, the visit will not be complete without them. I will upload the photos after I have sifted through them. Meanwhile, please have this.– Matthew A. Lockhart (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've found this one on my web trawls, but funnily enough, it's the only official US one I've found. There must have been many others taken. Have you found any others?  I didn't include it in the 'Liberation' section of the article as there were so many to choose from and not that much space as the section is quite short. Looking forward to your photos Jasper33 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Should we start a gallery? – Matthew A. Lockhart (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about that, but have several qualms. Generally I think photos work best if they are within the text, rather than stranded at the end of the article - helps to keep them in context. Also the article is very long as it is (61kb last time I looked) - or maybe images aren't counted? (No idea: I'm not a techie!).  I have saved hundreds of AWM thumbs of Batu Lintang on my computer, and deciding which to use to illustrate the article wasn't easy.  I wonder if we'd have the same problem deciding with a gallery.  I do however think a photo of the site as it is today would be useful, placed in the relevant part of the text. I'm also tempted to put up the two plans you've provided as external links, although the second one takes rather a long time to download. What do you reckon? Jasper33 20:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Gallery is located here for the time being.– Matthew A. Lockhart (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Matthew, what was I thinking? Your photographs are superb and I think they would be wonderful in the gallery at the end of the article. (And besides, I think I'm getting perilously close to displaying ownership of this page, and we've got the blessed consensus - you don't need me to tell you to add away!) We could see about perhaps trying to incorporate some of them: I'm thinking of the 'Punjabi barracks' in particular - do we know which camp this was originally part of? I was interested to read on the plaque that Sarawakians had been held at Batu Lintang as I have found no reference to this so far.  Do you have any information on this?  We ought to put it into the article. Thanks again for the photos - seeing the place, however changed, in colour somehow brings it more immediately to life. You get little sense of how lush with tropical greenery the place is from the B&W photos (even though you can see the palm trees and bamboo) - perhaps fitting given the starkness of what else they show. Jasper33 07:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If we were to use Abang Yusuf Putih's map as a reference, the Punjabi barracks is the building numbered 25. It is not actually the building itself; rather the building seen in the photograph is constructed "using the old concrete stumps of a Punjabi camp building". The concrete stumps are most likely to be pre-war, during the time when the camp was the barracks of the Punjabi regiment. As for whether Sarawakians were held in the camp or not, I'll need time to find out.– Matthew A. Lockhart (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Aerial photographs of the camp
The Australian War Memorial (AWM) collection of images from Batu Lintang is considerable. The following are aerial photgraphs which give an idea of the camp layout, or parts thereof. They can be viewed on the AWM website (www.awm.gov.au) in the collections database. Jasper33 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 044152
 * 106498
 * 106499
 * 106500 (Higher altitude photo of part of Kuching, joins 106501)
 * 106501 (ditto, joins 106500)
 * 129037 - same as OG3454
 * 157483
 * OG3249
 * OG3251
 * OG3454 - same as 129037
 * OG3455
 * OG3456
 * P00014/024
 * P0987/004
 * P0987/006

Useful reading list
This 2007 summer school (Jan 2007) at the University of Cape Town sounded interesting. It was titled 'Japanese Camps during World War II: the civilian experience'. The web page has a good reading list, including some Dutch references. Web page here. Jasper33 23:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Undercover University
I'm surprise no one has mentioned this yet. Frank Bell (1916-1989), along with his fellow prisoners ran an 'undercover university' in the camp. They ran classes, wrote text books and award diplomas. The book, 'Undercover University', was first published privately in 1990. I'll see if I can get the ISBN.– Matthew A. Lockhart (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added some info but couldn't find out much about it. I'll see if I can get the book from Amazon. Jasper33 12:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hurrah for Amazon - the book arrived this morning. I have created a stub on Frank Bell but will need a while to digest the contents of the book before I make any additions to the BL article. Jasper33 11:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes
This category was removed by an editor, but I have reinstated it. War crimes were committed in this camp: several of the Japanese army staff involved were executed for their part in these crimes. Jasper33 11:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Jas; I couldn't agree more, especially since Captain Negata and Dr Yamamoto were actually convicted of war crimes. Grant  |  Talk  17:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Grant. Still reading my many purchases, whilst getting distracted by other things, but I will get round to my major overhaul at some point... I groaned when I got on to Defying the Odds: Surviving Sandakan and Kuching by Michele Cunningham, as it's a brilliant synthesis of the camp's history - albeit with an Aussie bias ;) - and I wish I'd had it when I started the page as it would have saved me an awful lot of donkeywork!  She's done a fantastic amount of research on the War Crimes trials, and provides lots of detail on the proceedings. Well worth rooting out. Jasper33 19:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Plans of the camp
These are the plans I have found so far. In addition, a lot of the AWM aerial photos give pretty good birds-eye views of the camp (see Aerial photographs of the camp section above for reference numbers).

Jasper33 11:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Other ranks"
Never mind - I found other ranks so many times in the article I looked it up. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Death Order
One missing interesting piece of information would be who issued the death orders mentioned in the article. Sagu? Some person above Sagu? I find it intriguing because both death orders were after the surrender of japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.217.15.89 (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * the source simply says 'high command', but Colonel Tsuji was responsible for taking many such execution orders in his own hands and issuing them as if they came from higher up in the Japanese army - need a source, tho' - Toland does not specify him for this incident in Rising Sun ... HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia pages as unacknowledged sources by an academic: Children of the Camps: Japan's Last Forgotten Victims by Dr Mark Felton
A book published in January 2011, Children of the Camps: Japan's Last Forgotten Victims by Dr. Mark Felton of Fudan University in Shanghai has clearly used both the Wikipedia Batu Lintang camp page and the Tatsuji Suga page as the main source for his information on Batu Lintang and Colonel Suga, without acknowledging this use. I started and am the main editor contributing to both these pages.


 * All the information that is in his book is already in these two Wikipedia pages or can be extrapolated from them.
 * Some of the speculative and interpretative information that he has added in his book is incorrect, presumably because he misunderstood the Wikipedia information. Some of the errors are basic and show he had not fully researched the subject.
 * All fourteen of the quotations he uses in his book are in these two Wikipedia pages. He even uses the misquotation of a passage that I misquoted. Bit of a smoking gun that.
 * The basic layout of the relevant passages and the phraseology in Felton's book very closely echo the layout and phraseology I used for the Batu Lintang and Tatsuji Suga pages.

I have been researching this camp for eight years, and so know it pretty well by now. I am not claiming 'authorship' in any way. I based the Batu Lintang page I made in 2007 on many different sources, not all of which I cited. Felton publishes information from these uncited sources, yet only cites Ooi Keat Gin, Southwell and Firkins as his sources: he wouldn't be able to cite the other sources as he wouldn't know what they are. I summarised many sources to create the Wikipedia Batu Lintang page; Felton has clearly used the Batu Lintang page and yet quoted the sources I used as his main sources, rather than acknowledging his massive debt to Wikipedia. By not acknowledging Wikipedia, Felton is passing off other people's research and hard work - it took me a bloody long time to put those pages together - as his own.

So Felton 2011 should not be used as a source for the Batu Lintang page or the Tatsuji Suga page, as Felton 2011 is in itself based on and a 'mirror' of these two Wikipedia pages. Jasper33 (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How do I contact Jasper ?
I am trying to contact Rebecca (Jasper), the talk or email element appears not to be working. I have a newspaper article about My uncle who was interned in Batu Lintang until liberation. It may be of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.165 (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am so sorry - I am five years late seeing this message. If you see this again, you can email me via my talk page, but you have to sign in using a username - the email facility isn't available to anonymous IP editors. (I don't want to put my email address up here as I will get inundated with spam!) Thanks. Jasper33 (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The generator needed to turn . ..
at 3000 revolutions per minute? Is this a typo? Surely he wasn't cranking at 3000rpm? 2001:558:6022:19:95B9:3EA:9A42:48E4 (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have gone back to the source, and it says this: "The illumination, afforded by three tin lids holding a few drops of coconut oil using pieces of rag as wicks, enabled us to see the two pulley wheels and the lid of the oil drum were in their places and the piece of Japanese belt that was to do duty as the driving belt was already in place. Alan ... was stripped to the waist and standing at the handle which would turn the oil drum lid, this in turn speeding up the smaller pulley wheel and this in turn forcing 'Ginnie' to turn at the required 3000 revs. per minute." ie there was a mechanical advantage given by the use of the pulleys and the oil drum lid that allowed this rate to be achieved. The author is Corporal GW Pringle. Jasper33 (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)