The testimony of a 'stanger'

Dr Charles Rowland Bromley Richards has provided us with two books articulating his perspective. Charles Groves Wright Anderson has left us with no comprehensive and coherent account of his life on the ‘Burma Railway’. We have some comments about his experiences preserved for us in Hansard. There are his forwards to R.F. Oakes’ memoirs and those of ‘Cornel Lumiere’. And, we have a few scattered notes from various other sources.

There is one other source of information provided us by the Honorable Charles G. W. Anderson. We have the comments, all too brief, found in the four hours of audio recordings and their transcript which were gathered for the Parliamentary oral history project. These are available through the National Library of Australia. The materials provide us with an invaluable look at the man, his life and his times.

However, they do not linger for long on the prisoner of war years.

Perhaps our most comprehensive and compelling testimony of the character of Colonel Anderson’s leadership as a prisoner of the Japanese derives from Kura! by ‘Cornel Lumiere’. It is an inestimable resource. Or, better, it may well be such a resource. However, there are some difficulties to be sorted out first. In doing this, will I be able to have a care for Cornel’s reputation? I worry about just that.

A third possibility

Captain Richards did understand the strain that he and the other officers were under. At times, their judgment was negatively influenced by this strain. Combined with their various perspectives, this meant that the officers did not always see eye to eye on the appropriate way of dealing with situations. Sometimes, they even said or did things that they would later regret.

Colonel Anderson was the proper military authority. His way of dealing with situations had precedence over all others not supported by military regulations. It was sometimes necessary to swallow your pride as a junior officer and just do as you were told. But, this would be no easy thing. It could leave a foul taste in your mouth for years. You might, in the end, speak your bitterness as a man and not as a doctor.

Thus, you proffer no diagnosis. Instead, you offer an epitaph, “He was mental.”

In the second book, I read the situation in just this way. Therefore, in my opinion, The Survival Factor was the more appropriate articulation of the difficulties. A Doctor’s War may be a personal memoir; but, care must be taken not to treat of the dead unfairly.

Today, fewer people will know about or have access to the testimony of the first book. This is certainly a sad state of affairs. Thus, we are cautioned to call no man ‘happy’ (judged to have lived a truly good life) until he is dead. We recognise that even the circumstances of our dying or of our being dead can conspire against our good name.

Therefore, it becomes the responsibility of the living to take due care with the reputation of the dead. Ensuring the possibility of such care may require access to alternate sources of information. That is especially true of this case; we do need other resources for evaluating the cares and concerns of the protagonists of this drama.

In terms of Colonel Anderson, this is something of a problem.

Two possible answers..both unsatisfactory

In his foreword to the memoir of Roland Frank (Roly) Oakes, Singapore Story, Charles Groves Wright Anderson (15 February 1948:i-ii) made the following observation:

Post mortems and laying the blame are ugly things. A great national disaster such as the fall of Singapore is one that readily invites public demand for enquiry, especially when its importance is enhanced by the critical time at which it occurred; but I would rather hold my judgment until commander’s despatches and Civil authorities’ reports are sifted by the Historian and made known...There are at times in the field of human endeavour conflicting forces operating to bring about conditions that even the wisest and ablest man cannot straighten out. (Emphasis added)

This is both a sound observation and good advice. However, it is not always heeded. In the case of Richards verses Anderson, what are we to make of the doctor’s ‘diagnosis’? I think that there are at least three possible readings that we could consider. Having considered them, I will propose an approach that provides one of the reasons for this ‘digital biography’.

The first possibility goes something as follows. If Captain Richards actually believed that Colonel Anderson truly was mentally ill and a danger to himself and others, then Colonel Anderson should have been relieved of his command. As RMO, the responsibility for taking this action might well have fallen to Captain Richards. He would have, no doubt,  required the support of the other medical officers.

I have been reading and reviewing the various reports and, especially, the diary of Brigadier Varley, for many years. I have also read the official history. I have yet to discover any indication this action was ever taken. There is nothing noted in the portion of Colonel Anderson’s military record available to the public.

So, unless there has been some insidious cover up, it hardly seems credible that such an event had actually occurred. If it had and had been covered up, this would surely be something that Dr Richards would wish to alert the public about. But, he does not mention this.

Of course, there is a second possibility. Captain Richards may have believed that Colonel Anderson was unfit for command at the time. Despite his concerns, Captain Richards may have failed in his duty to report such a circumstance. However, such a failure would hardly be characteristic of Captain Richards. It certainly would not redound to his credit. So, why would he raise it and incriminate himself?

There is a final reading to be considered.

A puzzlement

The Survival Factor was published about a year before Colonel Anderson’s death. Almost twenty years later, Doctor Rowley Richards published a second book based on his experiences during World War II, A Doctor’s War. This is a more personal account. The book is no case-study. It is a memoir and, perhaps, represents the last chance to put the record straight.

I suppose that this is why I was so shocked to read Dr Richards’ surmise as to why Colonel Anderson acted ‘strangely’ at times. Ostensibly, instead of well considering the strain that each of them were under in a balanced appraisal, Dr Richards abruptly concluded that his commanding officer was ‘mentally ill’. You cannot libel or slander the dead. But, you can give your reader serious pause.

What am I to make of this? It would seem that Captain Richards had not gotten over the Colonel’s comments about his bedside manner. Given the fact that the Colonel had not retaliated when the Captain accused him of potentially committing murder, it seems somewhat odd to make this sort of assessment. I have often puzzled over this.

When is cooperation collaboration with the enemy?

We now know how close the men on the ‘Burma Railway’ came to being annihilated. It was not merely the working conditions and the lack of food and other supplies that threatened their lives. The Japanese were prepared to eliminate prisoners with callous disregard for their moral responsibilities. We know this from the actions undertaken by the Japanese military on Ambon and at Sandakan. At these locations, they literally drove the Australians into their graves.

Colonel Anderson knew that he must appease the Japanese or they might murder his men. Having witnessed the hard justice of the Japanese, perhaps he understood this intuitively. He was, by all accounts, a keen judge of character. However, it is also very likely they he took heed of the insights of the Dutch interpreter assigned to Brigadier Varley’s staff, Honorary Ensign Cor Punt.

Unlike Captain Dower, who was also a brave officer and an intrepid interpreter, and Colonel Williams, who was a courageous combat officer, Colonel Anderson was willing to placate the Japanese. He was willing to meet the captors on their terms. At least, he was willing to allow them to save face while he maneuvered them into a more favourable stance regarding the survival of his men.

He had done this during the Battle of Muar where his courage and leadership were both well manifested. The Japanese recognised in Colonel Anderson a man of valor. He had defeated them in battle. They gave him their respect and Colonel Anderson used this respect. He combined it with his own cunning, and with the good work of his men, to gain everything that he could for their welfare. However, this was not always enough and his tactics were not always understood.

Captain Richards was a young medical officer who had cross-trained as an artilleryman. He gave of himself unstintingly in his fight to save the lives of those entrusted to him. The Captain certainly earned the praise and regard of all those who owed him their lives and their well-being. His reputation has continued to grow over the years. He can rightly expect our respect. However, he was not always able to see, hear and move in one motion, as it were.

The Wild Angry Shot or Two

In The Survival Factor, Charles Rowland Bromley ‘Rowley’ Richards, a former Captain and Royal Australian Army Medical Corps officer, sought the answer to an important question: why did some men survive their ordeal as captives of the Japanese in World War II and others did not? Captain Richards was himself a member of ‘A Force’ on the ‘Burma Railway’. He was later transferred to Japan. As a medical officer for Anderson and Williams Force, he was charged with keeping men alive through the various means available to him.

The book is co-authored with Marcia McEwan. It takes what might be termed a case-study approach and is written in the third person. As a result, there is some distance between Richards the co-author and Richards the regimental medical officer. This lends a great deal to the sense of objectivity that comes across in the book.

When Colonel Anderson and Captain Richards find themselves at odds in The Survival Factor, there is a fine sense of balance between their positions. The former officer in the King’s African Rifles during World War I and big game hunter, Colonel Anderson, is portrayed as a wise commanding officer. His proclivities and quirks are balanced by his keen sense of what is required to deal with the Japanese. His qualities as a military tactician are approved.

In this book, Captain Richards recognises that his fight to save each and every man is complemented by Colonel Anderson’s fight to save the 'Force' which is each man’s ultimate means of survival. When there are heated differences of opinion and approach, there is still an understanding that the men share a common goal.

So, when Captain Richards virtually accuses the Colonel of wanton action that is akin to ‘murder’, the Colonel recognises the strain on the Captain and refrains from comment. In turn, the Captain acknowledges the gentlemanly demeanor of his commanding officer. Still, he cannot understand the Colonel’s logic at times. The Captain also appears to lack an appreciation for the military humor used by the Colonel to deal with what he views is Captain Richards' lack of finesse as a young doctor.

Yet, there is one incident that caused the Captain considerable distress. The Colonel upbraided the Captain for lacking the confidence of the men due to the medical officer's poor ‘bedside manner’ during sick parades. However, the Captain contested this assessment. He sought and received the support of a fellow medical officer and the Colonel backed down from his claims.

The Captain seems to have remained unsatisfied with this. Despite the favourable comments made by the Captain as to the military bearing and prowess of the Colonel, the strain between the two men never was resolved. There is another dimension to all of this. As a reader, I am not convinced that the Captain had understood fully an important truth: if the whole forest goes up in smoke, his concern for the individual trees will be moot.

Facing Up to The Consequences of Our Actions

I sometimes wonder why we seem so prone to ‘cherry picking’. I know that I am. I will construe and construct a great deal from a very few select facts. I do it on the fly. Sometimes it is possible to do this well; you can also fail miserably.

When I was a young boy, I was taught ‘proper’ hunting etiquette by my father and the older men. They made me carry an unloaded rifle for a season. I was to learn to look, listen and take care not to point the rifle at anyone. When I was careless, my ear was soundly thumped.

Try as I might, I had a hard time listening, seeing, and pointing safely. It just did not pull together for me during that first hunting season. Yet, the others could literally scan the signs and draw very probably conclusions. They could see, hear and move in one motion as it were. If we had not been able to do so as hunter/gatherers, we probably would not have survived as a species.

Yet, it is possible to misstep. You can read the indications wrong and wreck your day. You can, of course, destroy your life or that of the person standing next to you. I have seen it happen. A mistake is made and someone is no longer with you. A friend is lost. A companion gone. You are shaken to your core.

Can you ever make a life-staking decision again? You must. Life goes on.

Should you allow your child to be vaccinated? Should you sign the consent form permitting the operation your unconscious partner requires? Do you send your child on a two week camp a day’s drive away? Do you drive an extra hour before you stop for the night?

We pause with each question asked because the unthinkable does happen.

When it does, for the remaining span of our years, nagging thoughts can routinely undermine us. What if...what if I had?...would they?...I honestly do not know. Am I just hiding from the truth? Perhaps I simply cannot let myself know too much. These thoughts can haunt anyone responsible for another. P. D. James captured this ever so well in her novel, The Children of Men.

So, it should be no surprise to discover that an experienced commander and a young medical officer clashed over what they believed was the right action to be taken by whom on the 'Burma Railway'.