A “Jewish Mutiny”?

Jews were housed together with German Nazis and Italian Fascists in several camps in the Tatura area. The fact that this constellation harbores a strong potential for conflict was of little interest to the Australian military in charge. The commander of Camp Tatura 3 removed the elected representative of the Queen Mary Jews by order because he pointed out the problem too often and, at some point, too frustrated and too loudly. The internees’ support of their elected camp leaders was defamed as mutiny and was to be broken with harassment. After a massive Nazi provocation, three Jews beated up a Nazi functionary. The Nazis were not punished. Despite the events, an “experimental” joint accommodation was ordered.

Peter Dehn, June 2025.

„Under British protection …“

In addition to the 200 Britons of Italian descent, other “Australian Italians” were interned in the Tatura camps, who were considered supporters of the fascists. This group, like the Queen Mary internees, included wives and single women.

The Australian military officers in charge of the camps ignored the potential for conflict in housing the known enemy groups together. This ignorance was paired with militaristic arrogance at the worst cliché level: the officers in charge of the 17th Garrison Battalion responsible for the Tatura region derived their authority to harass Jewish prisoners from their command. The Nazis, on the other hand, were even allowed to install a force of around 80 thugs known as “Saalschutz”. One of their tasks was to secure the election of the camp leader for Camp Tatura 3 desired by the camp’s internal NSDAP leadership[4] Cf. Attachments to report of military intelligence of Tatura camps No. 58 of Feb  12, 1944 , p 15ff. In NAA_ItemNumber428433, retrieved Jan 16, 2025..

The removal of the Jewish internee Camp leaders

In June 1941, Major James Sproat, commander of Camp Tatura 3, dismissed Gerhard Seefeld, who had been elected “Camp Leader” by the Queen Mary Group in Compound C, and his deputy Paul Schlesinger and ordered a new election. The “Official Visitor’s” report[5] "Report of official visitors to internment camp no.3 Tatura", July 21, 1941. National Archives of Australia, NAA_ItemNumber3357204, p. 29ff, retrieved Dec. 20, 2024. of July 21, 1941 on the situation in Camp Tatura 3, accompanying documents and other archival materials shed light on the background and the dramatic consequences of this decision. First of all, this included the camp commandant’s justification:[6] Minute paper from dept. of the Army to office of Minister from Jul 21, 1941 according to Report of the official visitor, p 15 no. 33, ibid.

However, this proved to be a big mistake. The internees – including the Italians – did not allow themselves to be fooled. The above-mentioned report proves this.

“Jewish mutineers“?

In fact, Seefeld and his deputy Paul Schlesinger organized an extraordinary meeting for a new election on 5 July, as ordered. After the topic was mentioned, both left the room to prevent any impression of their influence[10] Statement G. Seefeld (copy) of July 16, 1941 NAA_ItemNumber3357204, p. 45ff., retrieved Dec 20., 2024. on the debate and election The internees “only re-elected Seefeld. The camp commander told us that he considered the internees to be mutineers as a result[11] Report of the official visitor loc.cit., page 34, no. 33.”, the official visitor recorded without further comment. The previous dismissal of the internee representatives Bianchi and Joseph due to (allegedly) “distasteful” complaints is mentioned there, also without further explanation, while Seefeld and Schlesinger had allegedly not been dismissed because of their complaints.

After Seefeld and Schlesinger informed the camp commandant of their new choice, he repeated the suspensions. He also announced a series of harassments against the internees: “I will block all incoming and outgoing mail until I am informed of two new names.” Sproat then asked the representative of the Italian group, Giovanni Batista Reginato, and later Dr. Richard Koch, to accept nominations as camp leader. Both refused.

Dr Koch organized a meeting of Germans and Italians on 6 July. The resolution passed there firstly stated that they fully support the two representatives Seefeld and Schlesinger, who had been re-elected the previous day, and that they did not accept the refusal to forward the mail. The commander was asked to forward a telegram to the Official Visitor in order to involve him in a clarification on the spot. Major Sproat was obviously not interested in the participation of neutral persons in a mediation. He doggedly refused to forward[12] Statement G. Seefeld loc.cit., p. 4. the resolution until a new Camp Leader had been elected.

Insults and harassment in response

The Official Visitor and Gerhard Seefeld agreed that Sproat’s superior, the commander of the 17th Garrison Battalion, Lt. Col. Garrison Battalion commander Lt. Col. William Thomas Tackaberry, “in the course of what Seefeld called an intemperate speech, compared the Jewish or non-Nazi internees unfavorably to the Fascist Italians, saying that they former pretended to be friends of Britain (…) but by their conduct showed that they were less to be respected than the Italian Fascist internees in the same compound.” Seefeld regarded the officer’s appearance as an insult to the many internees[13] Report of the official visitor loc.cit., Statement G. Seefeld loc.cit., p. 49. who had nothing to do with the criticism of Seefeld’s behavior, the report noted. Even the representative of the Italian fascists, Reginato[14] Report of the official visitor loc.cit. no. 33., criticized that the speech would affect the relationship between his group and others in the camp.

In his statement, Gerhard Seefeld described Tackaberry’s speech as “highly irregular”. It amounted to “intimidation and harassment”. Seefeld recalled, among other things, the camp regulations and the fact that

„no references to Fascists, anti-Fascists, Nazis and anti-Nazis are to be made inside the compound to any gatherings, and it seems strange, that a Commanding Officer should not know his Regulations better. There can also be no greater insult to a community of mainly Jewish refugeees who fled from Nazi oppression, who saw the horrors of the Nazi-Concentration Camps to be told that they are ‚unfriendly‘, meaning that they are more ore less enemies of the British Empire …“

Seefeld also quoted two sections of the camp rules published by Tackaberry himself in March 1941:

„An internee shall not be liable tob e punished for submitting a petition or complaint with regard to the conditions of his internment even though the petition or complant is found to be groundless.“ (§ 9(6))
„The victimisation of any Internee or prisoner of war holding Anti-Nazi oder Anti-Fascist views, or for any other reasons, ist prohibited.“ (§ 15)

The peaceful coexistence[15] Statement G. Seefeld loc.cit., p. 5/6. of the opposing groups in his compound only worked because he and Reginato had known each other for 15 years and were able to reconcile their differences.

Harassments – a selection

The Official Visitor’s report referred to a plethora of complaints. Regarding the order to withhold mail, Tackaberry stated that the mail was to be handed out by the Camp Leader. As there was no Camp Leader, no mail could be issued. The Official Visitor stated that this was a punishment.

According to Seefeld, all other groups in the camp had received their mail, unlike the Jews. Following Tackaberry’s speech, the Jews were “anti-British”, but still not enough Nazis or Fascists to enjoy the same privileges as these actual enemies of the Empire, Seefeld sarcastically remarked.

In his report of July 21, 1941, the Official Visitor mentioned a number of other points in connection with Seefeld’s dismissal that could be interpreted as punishment and harassment[16] Report of the official visitor loc.cit., page 34, no. 33.. Here is a selection:

• The internees Duldig and Stiwelband (both names misspelled in the document) criticized the separation from their sons. Artur Duldig (19) and Oswald Stiwelband (18) were transferred to other compounds from January 2 to May 12 and again from July 11 (i.e. after the removal of the camp leaders, dunera.de) to make room for new arrivals. The two Jewish internees suspected that the fascists and Nazis in their compound[17] Ibid, no. 37. were to be reinforced by new arrivals.

• Internee Raffael Holper also complained about being separated from his son Allesandro (22), who was transferred to another compound.
• A similar complaint by internee Bratspies was answered by Sproat and Tackaberry’s superior with the almost derisive remark that it seemed difficult for parents and son to talk to each other for more than 10 to 15 minutes. They could “talk at any time from one compound to the other[18] Army HQ, reply to the official visitor’s report, aao. File MC 20/8/p (not dated), p 3 no. 21. over a distance of about 25 feet (7.62 meters)”.
• The internee Lichtenstern asked to bring his five-and-a-half-year-old son Kurt, who was staying at the boarding school, to visit the camp during a week’s vacation. The ban was justified[19] Ibid, no. 42. by the shortness of the upcoming vacation. He was allowed to apply again for longer vacations at a later date.
• The internee Bischofswerder was to be taken to hospital on doctor’s orders. The visitor was told that no ambulance[20] Report of the official visitor loc.cit., no. 11. was available for this purpose.
• Werner Baer criticized on behalf of a group of professional musicians that a piano financed by donations from the Jewish Society had been taken away and transported to Compound A. This was a punishment for not choosing the camp leader. Tackaberry and superiors, however, claim that the donor had left the placement of the instrument to the camp commander[21] Army HQ, reply loc.cit.,  no. 40., who had exercised this right. “We were left with the impression that this change – whether temporary or permanent – was meant as a punishment,” commented the official visitor[22] Report of the official visitor loc.cit., no. 33..

Small talk across barbed wire and guard posts? The photo of the situation between Compounds A and B of Tatura Camp 1 was taken in June 1943.
Photo: James Tait, Australian War Memorial No. 052408 (public domain).

• Ms. Horowitz criticized her transfer from a single room to a double room. Both women accommodated there were seriously ill and disturbed each other’s sleep. Separate individual accommodation was therefore appropriate. “This can no longer be permitted”, commented the superior department[23] Ibid, no. 41. in Melbourne laconically.
• Ms. Goldstein[24] Ibid, no. 45., who was ill too, also criticized her communal accommodation, while young Nazi and fascist girls were assigned individual rooms.
• The participation of representatives of Compound D in a long-prepared table tennis tournament of the four compounds was forbidden by order without justification, Seefeld noted.
• Internee Fischer’s question, taken over by the Official Visitor, as to why he was not permitted to marry an internee, was answered brusquely: “It is the policy of the authorities that no such marriages are permitted[25] Ibid, no. 22 and Report loc.cit. no. 25. during internment.” This decision was later reversed; the wedding[26] Cf. Service and Casualty Forms for Hans Fischer (NAA_ItemNumber8615266) and Lotte Calm (NAA_ItemNumber8615249). took place on September 8, 1941.

The officers were apparently not even afraid to include the provision of food for the internees in their list of punishments. Seefeld noted[27] Statement Seefeld loc.cit.:

„During the inspection of the Koitchen, Liet. Gordon complained the smell. He was told that the meatration that morning was not up to the mark and that further there was hardly any firewood left.“ The officer replied that he could do nothing, „since complaints had to be made through the Camp Leader.“ He explained this, knowing full well that there was no one accepted by the commander. At the same time, it was said that the officers to be contacted, Sproat and Tackaberry, had suddenly fallen ill and could not be contacted.

„Enemy propaganda“ and Hitler’s books

The confiscation of the book “The Internment of Aliens” by the commander can also only be seen as harassment, although responsibility was passed up the chain of command to Southern Command. There, the book by the British author Francois Lafitte[28] Francois Lafitte „The Internment of Aliens“ was the first book about Britain's treatment of the refugees. It was published in England in September 1940, so it could not take into account the events on the Dunera and in the camps. was classified as “enemy propaganda[29] Reply of Army HQ loc.cit, no. 14.”. Franz Eichenberg, spokesman for Compound A, which housed many of the Dunera Boys who had disembarked in Melbourne, wrote: „This book is to be bought in practically every bookshop throughout the British Empire. (…) The book can only be considered as a very good British propaganda at all, for it shows clearly that the British Government has not hesitated to admit an repair mistakes … Nothing should be done to create the impression, as it the authrities are not prepared to let the truth be know.“ The book also mentions 15 Internees[30] Franz Eichenberg to the official visitor from July 7, 1941 in NAA_ItemNumber3357204, p. 41. by name.

The documents, which included internal correspondence between various military institutions and with the Official Visitor, does not show that the Official Visitor recommended any measures.

“Mein Kampf” and another of Hitler’s books were photographed in the window of a Melbourne bookshop for the “Herald” newspaper on September 26, 1942. (Australian War Memorial No. 136881 (public domain).

Francois Lafitte’s book was the first critical assessment of the British treatment of refugees and was published in September 1940, while the Dunera was still on her way.

Heard nothing, saw nothing, punished nothing

The calming down reported by Major Sproat after the dismissal of Seefeld and Schlesinger had therefore not taken place at all. On the contrary: Major Sproat and his superior, Lieutenant Colonel Tackaberry, had exacerbated the problems and conflicts with their insults and inappropriate collective punishments. The next serious incident occurred two months later.

Young Nazis had sung Nazi songs at the fence between their Compound D and Compound C of the Jewish refugees on September 28, 1941 at around 7.40 pm. Possibly to celebrate a military success of the Wehrmacht. The Jews stated on record that they had been provoked by anti-Semitic songs. The Nazis explained that it had been children and harmless folklore. Major Sproat stated that no soldier with knowledge of the language was present so that there was therefore no proof of the nature of the songs. By that he acquitted the Nazis[38] „Disorders at No.3 camp Tatura“, Report to Army HQ, not dated (possibly end of October 1941). In NAA_ItemNumber347069, p. 14 f.. In any case, it would have been children under the age of ten, he said, again following the Nazis’ claim. These exercised power behind the scenes in the Nazi compounds of Tatura Camps 1 and 3.

The character of the Nazis’ repertoire is illustrated by their Tatura-Lied[39] Quoted from Albrecht Dümling "The vanished musicians", Cologne 2016, page 270.‘ with the refrain

“Patience, comrades, be of good cheer
Once Germany’s won,
all will be well again”.

However, the allegedly non-racist folklore performance prompted the Australian NSDAP “Ortsgruppenleiter” Waldemar Weber[40] Waldemar Weber was the head of NSDAP in Sydney. He had been transferred from Camp 1 to Camp 3 to be with his wife Irma Nora. Both had come to Australia in 1937. Cf. personal files NAA_ItemNumber9902329, NAA_ItemNumber8613358, NAA_ItemNumber8613829 and NAA_ItemNumber9902792., who was imprisoned in Compound C together with Jews, to assist his fellow choristers over the fence with multiple loud shouts of “Bravo” and “Heil Hitler” and the Nazi salute. Weber himself confirmed this violation of the camp rules when questioned.

Unsurprisingly, the Jews from Singapore were highly agitated after both incidents. Especially as Weber’s wife Irma Nora, also described as a Nazi by Sproat, was also provocative. She complained to the battalion commander Tackaberry, who had been called in to help by the overstrained Sproat, about an alleged insult as a “Nazi swine” by a Jewish internee. The Jewish woman criminalized[41] Major Sproat, „Report of disturbance ‚D‘ Compound“ from Sep 29, 1941. In NAA_ItemNumber347069, p. 45f. in this way (the name “Tylly Heimann” in the document is incorrect and ambiguous) was not afraid to make an agitated and gesticulating complaint in the presence of battalion commander. The Jewish woman was locked in a solitary cell, allegedly “only” for an hour.

A brawl behind bars

Exited Jewish internees[42] Report to HQ, loc.cit, page 5. – Beer, Liebrecht and Bratspies were named[i] – had then beaten up Mr. “Ortsgruppenleiter” Weber “as a direct result of his behaviour” and inflicted him “a small cut” on his head. A guard had prevented worse by firing a warning shot. “One Jewish internee was hit in the face by a stone, resulting in very slight injury”, Major Sproat explicitly worried about the balance of pain[43] Major Sproat, „Report …“ loc.cit.. Weber was transferred back to Tatura Camp 1. He had previously been taken from there to end his separation from his wife.

The representative of the fascist Queen Mary Italian Reginato probably also played an inglorious role in this matter: among other things, he demanded the intervention of the Swiss representation[44] Switzerland had taken over the representation of the interests of German prisoners of war and internees. “after a violent attack by Jews on one of our section” of the camp, thus placing himself on an “internment axis[45] Major Sproat, „Report …“ loc.cit., p. 50.” with the German Nazis.

Seen but not identified

Later that evening, a “Palestinian internee[46] This refers to German Templars, mostly Nazi supporters, who had been deported from Palestine by the British in 1941.” had tried to climb over the fence from Compound C to Compound D. This was also prevented by warning shots from a watchtower. The report is limited to the fact that the perpetrator could not be identified and therefore could not be punished.

A soldier checking a Lewis machine gun on one of the watchtowers.
Photo from 1943: Australian War Memorial No. 064999 (public domain).

„To prevent recurrences of similar disturbances, instructions were issued by this Command to remove all Nazi and Fascist internees from Compoud ‚D‘ leaving Jewish internees exclusively[47] Report to Army HQ by Southern Command (undated) p. 14 f. in that Compound.“ The camp leaders of Compounds A, B and C were ordered to refrain from doing anything „might cause the Jewish fraternity in ‚D‘ Compound provocation.” The responsible military officers admitted that they had made wrong decisions. However, there was perhaps no effective separation. A separation of the two groups was only possible “within the limits of the available space”, promptly followed the excuse with which the instruction was undermined.

A Jewish intrigue?

Remarkable is the conclusion that Battalion Commander Tackaberry[48] Confidential report of the battalion commander, Lieutenant Colonel Tackaberry, 29.9.1941, in NAA Ibid, page 45. reported to his superiors, contrary to Sproat’s assertion that everything is calm:

„The compound concerned was giben a great deal of trouble during a period of several moths., and the Jewstherin are continually asking fort he removal of the Nazis and Fascists who are interned with them. (…) I am of the opinion that the disturbance of last night and today was a planned demonstration in ordert o advance their case for the removal of the Nazis and Fascists. None of the Jews, including the Compound Leader, evinced any desire to help the Camp Commandant to restore order.“

Responsibility is thus shifted to a Jewish plot and mutiny (see above). This thoroughly anti-Semitic language is reminiscent of Commander Scott, for whom the Nazis on board the Dunera were an excellent group and the Jews were troublemakers. The simple realization and experience that you don’t lock up hostile groups together had not even reached those responsible in the Australian army when it was too late.

Addendum

The Australian Army remobilized veterans of the First World War of all ranks for service in their home country. Their tasks included, among others, guarding internees and prisoners of war.

Thomas William Tackaberry, born in Ireland in 1879, was brought out of retirement in 1939. He was appointed commanding officer of the 17th Garrison Battalion and commander of the assigned internment camps with the rank of lieutenant colonel in September 1940. He was discharged from service on April 11, 1942. Shortly afterwards, in a letter to the editor of a newspaper, he rejected the claim that the internees were enemies. “In fact, they were mostly classified as ‘Refugee Aliens[49] Cyril Pearl „The Dunera Scandal“, Angus & Robertson 1983, p. 209.‘ and not as ‘Enemy Aliens’ and had left Germany and Austria because of their hatred and fear of ‘Hitlerism’ and ‘Nazism’.” This does not answer the question of why he treated the refugees as he did.

Major James Sproat in December 1942.
Photo: C.T. Halmarick. Australian War Memorial 030203/02 (public domain).

James Sproat was born in Scotland on November 14, 1887. He was remobilized to the 17th Garrison Battalion with the rank of Major. From there he was transferred to the 23rd Garrison Battalion, which was responsible for POW Camp 13 near Murchison (Tatura region), on November 13, 1941 (shortly after the harassment of Jewish internees he had ordered). He retired on December 4, 1943.

Footnotes