Update JUL 2024:
A new photo just appeared extracted from a period video showing the damaged corner of the monument.
Unfortunately, it fails to show the original of the English language icon except that in the video this is also shown. This would suggest that it was indeed the original corner item and that there was never an actual English language inscription. Nor does it hint at what the current blank panel contained.
Update AUG 2023:
I have a new perspective on the language chosen to mark the presence of the Javanese at the TBR. First it is certainly not Javanese. That regional language has a unique script is only spoken on the island of Java. Within the Dutch East Indies, the lingua franca was a version of Malay infused with Dutch words. The origins of this language are also complex but most simplistically it was the language of trade by a group known as the Malaccans, who occupied southern Malaya, Singapore Island and an adjacent area of Sumatra; all straddling the Malacca Strait on modern maps.
With the arrival of the Dutch East Indies Company, they adopted this Malaccan-Malay language since it was already a common language of trade spoken across the many islands the archipelago. The Dutch were solely interested in trade and profit not colonization per se.
For many of these same reasons this Malaccan-Malay language became the basis of the Indonesian language after their independence. It was further aided by the fact that it could be rendered in either the western alphabet or a version of Arabic unique to the area.
In short them the language of the inscription used to mark the presence of the Javanese at the TBR was a language that could be understood by a large number of peoples across the southern Pacific area.
Update June 2023-2:
My fellow TBR aficionado Thansawath came up with such an obvious ‘out of the box’ idea that I’m embarrassed that it never entered my mind! The temple behind the CWCG Don Rak cemetery is referred to locally as Wat Yuan. Yuan is the Thai slang word for Vietnamese. There had been a Vietnamese community in this area perhaps dating back to the reign of King Rama 3 (reigned 1824-51). WHATIF the Vietnamese people cited in this memorial were simply ‘locals’ and not transported from Vietnam? This may not explain some of the other references to Annamese (an ethnic group in then French Indo-China), but it deserves some consideration. There couldn’t have been a huge population of working-age young men, but those that existed were there for the taking.
Update June 2023-1:
Once again, I stand corrected. It has been pointed out to me by no less than the eminent Prof. Boggett that I had misinterpreted the nature of this memorial in calling it a shrine! There are references to the participation of a Shingon priest which I had confused with Shinto! Shingon is a sect of Buddhism. The professor (who taught in Japan for decades) points out that in the Shinto religion there would be shrines but not memorials to the dead; that is a Buddhist tradition.
Based on his understanding of Japanese cultural, he also argues that the ‘blank panel’ would more likely have been in Burmese than Dutch. He believes that the IJA would have viewed all the “white men” with one (disdainful?) eye and included them in whatever the original English plaque contained. My problem is that no one mentions Burmese as being among the languages used.
He also makes the argument that for such a controversial memorial to the dead to proceed, it would have had to have been supported at a higher level than CPT Noguchi, the local camp commander. Both he and MG Ekuma are mentioned in various accounts as the inspiration. Noguchi likely oversaw the construction, but Ekuma was probably the main proponent.
In his seminal works on the romusha, he points out that there was a great overlap in the use of the Sumatran dialect on the Malay Peninsula and well as as language of commerce throughout the area. The question as to why the Sumatran dialect was used on this memorial seemingly to remember the Javanese romusha has lingered for some time. He also points out that Sumatran can be rendered in Roman script (as it is on the panel here), but that Javanese had its own unique script. So we have another overlap (controversy?). The inscription mentions Muslims who died but not specifically any ethnic group. We know that there were Malayans of Chinese ethnicity among the romusha. But other muslims? There were also a large number of Javanese. So was this panel designed and dedicated in such a way as to address the participation of both groups? The Sumatran dialect did become the official language of Indonesia following their independence from the Dutch, but this occurred years later.
April 2023 update 1:
In another one of my late-nite musings I had something of a revelation. One of the ways I approach these musings is to place myself in the mind of someone from the period and try to proceed as he would have. In this musing, I was exploring the Thai-anusorn memorial. We know that in 1945 during one of the raids on the wooden bridge some of the bombs fell short. Those that hit the nearby POW camp killed a dozen Dutch and wounded others. One of those bombs hit the memorial and destroyed the SW corner. Today we view that rebuilt corner and see it completely different from the other three. One plaque is indeed marble but it depicts an icon not an inscription or dedication. The second is blank! No marble, no inscription, nothing except cement!
Speculation is that originally these were English and Dutch language inscriptions that were not then reproduced. Assuming that the memorial’s creator, would have wanted his creation repaired as soon as possible, would he not have called upon the POWs to rebuild that corner?
There is no point in speculating as to why the original inscriptions would not have been reproduced. We’ll simply never know. Or could we? It is of passing interest to note that in his War Dairies Dr. Dunlop records the English plaque in the original corner memorial as simply saying “Rest in Peace”. I find this a bit incredulous and think it might be a later edit / addition to the text. I say this for the simple reason that the other four language plaques contain poignant messages of condolence towards the deceased members of their ethnic group. With the vast majority of the POWs speaking English, why would there not have been a similar inscription in English? Why a simple icon? I tend to believe that what we see today is indeed a post-war reconstruction of the corner that was damaged by the bombs and that the original inscription has been lost to history. I also note that in that same paragraph he states that one of the corner plaques displayed an inscription in Hindu. I suppose it is easy enough for him to have mistaken the Tamil for Hindu since he had no experience in that area of the world, but it does suggest a lack of editorial due diligence in the publication of those diary entries. Per Dunlop, BG Varley’s contribution was to quote the 1914 Binyon poem For the Fallen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_Fallen So we have a conundrum as to what the original English inscription actually was.
If you were a POW sent to repair this corner would you not find debris from the original strewn around the area? Would you not simply recycle as much of that material as possible? But what then of the missing fragments of marble?
My ‘revelation’ is that they are still there! Would the repairmen not have cleaned the area and rebuilt the corner by using the debris as fill for the new section? As one walks around that corner and its mates, it is nearly impossible to tell that one is a reconstruction. Surely much of the original material – the rocks embedded in cement that form the outer-facing walls – was reused in the rebuild! Why not use and preserve the marble as fill for the interior of the structure? I’d be willing to bet that if the blank cement panel was opened and excavated by archeologists, they would find chunks of that marble. Just like their Middle Eastern counterparts re-align and reconstruct ancient scrolls, those fragments could be scanned and fitted back together like a 3D puzzle[1]! We are told that the 8 original plaques were marble tabletops that the IJA had confiscated locally[2]. Marble is a medium-soft material; easily carved and worked but not so soft that it would be reduced to powder by a bomb blast. They could at least confirm which two languages were present on the originals. And the likelihood of finding enough fragments to read the inscriptions would be quite high.
It is my understanding that a group of Japanese actually bought the park where the monument stands. I would wonder how receptive they would be to a proper archeological entry through the blank cement facing as it sits today. Worst case, nothing is found and the cement is redone. But wouldn’t it be magical to be able to reconstruct the original plaques!
Again, I speculate on what the alternative would have been in 1945 as the repairmen arrived = recycle the debris into the corner or throw all the marble into the river!
[1] Egyptians found entire bas reliefs broken up and used as fill for the interior of later walls. This was an ancient stone mason’s procedure.
[2] I’m not sure that marble is a locally quarried mineral but these seem to have been readily available and not specially imported.
April 2023 update 2:
The inclusion of the Thai and Aminese (Vietnamese) language plaques is interesting in that we have no documentation that any Thai workers died during their brief (JUN-DEC 42) participation in the TBR build. It is not impossible that there may have been accidental deaths, but the conditions and terrain that faced the Thais were immensely different from those endured by those who followed. So much so that I tend to place the Thai workers in their own (non-romusha) category. Of course, as the host country, as Thai language inscription to the deceased seems quite appropriate.
Although none are documented, Indonesian (Javanese or Sumatran) and ethnic Chinese deaths also undoubtedly occurred. One can further speculate as to whether or not the Chinese inscription is dedicated to the latter or was placed by the IJA using Chinese characters for their message. None the less, the inclusion of an ancient poem in the eighth plaque seems a bit strange. But we have to place all of this in the context of the memorial itself that is dedicated to those who died “in the service of the Emperor” who when alive were held in such low esteem as to be practically murdered by their captors!
April 2023 update 3:
Another puzzle piece that has just come to my attention is that the Sumatran dialect that is mounted with the Tamil was spoken by enclaves of migrants in Malaya. Apparently, these groups had crossed the strait that separates Sumatra from Malaya in an effort to escape the Dutch colonial authorities. So it is within the realm of possibilities that this inscription was there to honor another group of Malayan workers and not the Javanese who were documented to be present.
Where does this documentation of a Javanese presence come from? None other than Sir E E Dunlop’s war diary. In it he notes meeting a group of Javanese who passed through his camp at Hintok en route to their assigned work place. Generally speaking, the Allied POWs had trouble identifying the various ethnic Asians the encountered. Why should Dunlop be any different? He’d be able to identify these men specifically as Javanese because he had been captured on Java. The vast majority of the Dutch, Australian and US POWs captured on Java were sent to Burma via Singapore. Dunlop was a member of the group known as D Force who were sent to Thailand not Burma.
He fails to identify whether these were civilians or military men. The Dutch East Indies Army (KNIL) consisted of three factions. There were the European Dutch who were often the regular army officers and senior NCOs. Many were half-caste Dutch-Asians who joined at the outset of WW2 as their homeland fell to the Nazis. Lastly, there were local native conscripts who may have constituted the bulk of the ranks. It would have been consistent with IJA policies to have separated the native forces from those with European blood. It is likely the latter who were sent to Burma. We do have some post-war records that tell us that many Javanese — civilians and military alike — were sent off the island to other Japanese territories as a form of romusha. So it is highly likely that some were part of F Force sent to Thailand in APR-MAY 43.
April 2023 update 4:
Vandalism
One common story that has been repeated over the years is that the damage to the Thai-anusorn Memorial was caused by former POWs in an act of retaliation or revenge. I personally believe this to be a myth. I have found no documentation of such.
The 13 FEB 45 bombing raid on the wooden bridge that killed the Dutch POWs is well documented. Linking it directly to the damaged memorial is a bit more problematic but makes sense as to the geographical alignment of the camp and the memorial.
I would further speculate that if one were going to vandalize this structure there would be more wide-spread damage. Many of the POW accounts briefly mention the memorial and they also relate events post-liberation when such an act of vandalism would most likely have occurred. None mention any such act. Many do comment on the lack of retaliation against the Korean guards and IJA Engineers who remained at the Thamakam camp after the IJA cadre had fled. The POWs seemingly showed remarkable restraint. In later interviews, many expressed the sentiment that those men were indeed simply ‘following orders’ and that retaliation would not have been appropriate for soldiers to enact. Again, a most humane observation. Later, specific individuals would be identified as warranting trials for war crimes, but as a group the POWs did not hold the guards in overt contempt.
I would admit that if any retaliation were contemplated, this memorial would have been an easy target. It was, after all, the singular item that directly linked the Japanese and POWs. But if it were to be attacked, why such a limited attack? One corner destroyed and another damaged slightly? How would that exhibit the anger that the POWs must have harbored? No damage at all to the corner reserved for the Japanese nor to the main obelisk itself? It just doesn’t make sense. Why not simply deface or destroy the entire memorial?
Then there is the question of the repairs to the state we see today. Who would have done this and when? The POWs might have had time to cause damage then do some repairs, but to what end? Why not leave partially damaged inscriptions as evidence of their anger? Why obliterate something then literally plaster over it? Surely, there is no indication that the Thais themselves would have played a hand in any late reconstruction. This returns us to the entire history of the lack of interest and involvement of the Thais except as it relates to commercial interests.
My modus operandi in these musings is to place myself in the mind of those involved and to explore possibilities as they present themselves. To me, the forced – if incomplete — restoration of a damaged structure makes more sense than exacting one’s revenge on the IJA by such minimal damage to a structure that all the POWs seemed to revile.
I have a hard time explaining the disappearance of the broken marble plaques. If they were not recycled into the repair, what became of them? Surely they were not reduced to powder. Would they have been buried nearby or thrown in the river? Conceivable, but to what end? The minor damage that we see today in the adjacent corner is said to have occurred at the same time. There is nothing to suggest that the entire corner was blasted away. It only would have had to sustain major collateral damage to the face. Might the floor of the structure exhibit signs of other repairs? Might there be evidence of a bomb strike in the immediate area? Might a metal detector find residual bomb fragments? Surely whoever performed the clean-up and repairs would not have scoured the area for metal fragments!
Given the current ownership, the semi-religious status of this memorial and the lack of interest by the Thais in any actual historical documentation, I would not expect that there will be any further examination of this site for clues as to its destruction and repairs.
I am forced to do a cross-over comparison to my Gettysburg renderings. For decades, a story persisted that MG Heth’s men approached Gettysburg on 1 July looking for shoes. No one seems to have been able to trace the exact origin of that story, but historians have since debunked it. There simply is no indication that there was ever a factory or any cache of shoes that would have drawn the attention of the Confederates. Yet, the story found its way into numerous accounts and film depictions of the battle. Then there is the myth of the ‘copse of trees’! But I’ll cease there!
TOOSEY
The published memoirs of LtCol Toosey contain the best account that I have read about the dedication of the Thai-anusorn memorial. I returned to that text and found that it contained an interesting list that I had forgotten. He claims that at the ceremony a list of deceased POWs was read that included 129 British; 57 Dutch; 15 Australians and 1 USA[1] POWs who died at Thamakam. Since the dedication ceremony was held on 13 Mar 44, I suppose that this could have been an ‘as of now’ number. I’d also point out that all of the Allied POWs had yet to arrive there. The largest US group did not arrive until May.
I was unable to find any references in that book about post-liberation retaliation or vandalism. There is also no suggestion that the IJA soldiers (thought to be about 1000) who died during construction were included in this memorial.
[1] Per my tally, TXNG PFC C M Collins died at KAN of dysentery in FEB 44; the sole one there prior to the dedication.
June 2022 update:
In another series of late-nite musings, I’ve been trying to understand the content of the panel I call P5 in Corner #3 of this memorial.
The only person who addresses this panel is Prof Boggett. He provides us with the translation as: “Paying our respects to the souls of Moslems [sic] who worked here. Allah rewards you.” and further states that it is written in the Sumatran dialect from the islands that in the WW2-era were part of the Dutch East Indies. That dialect was apparently later selected as the national language for the newly independent country of Indonesia. But why was it there in 1944? There is a suggestion in Rohan Rivett’s book BEYOND BAMBOO (pg 176) that as many as 4600 Sumatran natives may have accompanied what is known as the British Sumatran Battalion to Burma. But this begs the question of the inclusion of their language when Burmese is not included in so far as the memorial is in the Thai Sector overseen by the 9th Reg while the Burma Sector belonged to 5th Regiment.
I’ll leave the dialect alone for now and concentrate on what the planners / builders were trying to tell us. I realize that one could drive one’s self crazy by trying to unravel the thought processes of these WW2-era Japanese, but we must remember that they had only 8 chances to leave their message. Of those 8, 5 seem reasonably explainable even if 1 of those 5 (the Vietnamese language panel) is a bit of an enigma.
We know for sure that the Allied POWs who were considered to be Dutch were, by and large, native Javanese conscripts into the KNIL. Most of the officers and some of the senior NCOs of the KNIL were European Dutch but the rank and file soldiers were Javanese. There is speculation that the panel that is left blank today (P4 on C2) once held an inscription in Dutch. This would make sense in that the main inscription on the center obelisk clearly states that the memorial is dedicated to all who died during the building of the TBR. Both POWs and romusha are clearly mentioned[1].
We also know that some Javanese civilians were sent to other Japanese-controlled areas of the Pacific, but we have no documentation that any actually worked the TBR as civilian romusha rather than KNIL POWs. So this panel in this language is open to speculation. Not with standing that it is not in the Javanese dialect, was it meant to commemorate the Javanese; either as KNIL POWs or romusha? Were there really any of the latter present?
If the builders went so far as to recognize Dutch East Indies citizens, should they not also have mentioned the true Dutch among them? This cycles us back to Corner #2 and its icon and blank panels. Surely, these must have originally held English and Dutch language messages! The vast majority of the POWs spoke English as their native language. Dutch would have been a distant second. The native KNIL conscripts would have spoken both Dutch and the dialect of the island of Java. Despite the dialect used, there is absolutely no reason to entertain the notion that there were any native Sumatrans involved in the TBR. Like the presence of the Vietnamese panel, this memorial is the singular suggestion that there were DEI natives at the TBR. But there is scant evidence that these would have been anything but KNIL POWs.
Next steps in researching this panel:
Verify the translation offered by Prof Boggett.
Investigate any evidence of Javanese romusha at TBR.
[1] The controversy as to whether or not it had originally been intended to honor the Allied POWs was cleared up when the translation of the central obelisk script was made with the aid of a older Chinese character dictionary that clearly references the POWS.
Building the Thai-Anusorn memorial
[extracted from: ‘The Will To Live’: Chapter 30 – A Monument to Our Dead, & Allied Aircraft by Len (Snowie) Baynes ]
On the eleventh of December [1943], and without much notice, we were told to pack up and parade to board a barge for Tamarkan. I could scarcely believe my ears or my good luck. It would be good riddance to dirty, thieving Chunkai, where a good dose of Col. Toosey was what was really needed. Thrilled to bits, I climbed aboard the boat, and arrived at Tamarkan an hour or so later; but Col. Toosey and Capt. Boyle the interpreter had left the previous day.
The Japs lined us up to tell us why we had come here. The railway had been completed with ‘the diligent help of the prisoners.’ As a token of appreciation of the work done by The Imperial Japanese Army, and out of respect for the lives laid down by the prisoners, we were to build a memorial under the guidance of Japanese soldiers. When finished it would be dedicated to all races, whatsoever their religion or colour.
We commenced work immediately, forming human chains from the river bank to the hillock two or three hundred yards away where the monument was to be erected. Baskets of sand were filled and passed back to be emptied in a heap at the top. Our task was to transport so many cubic meters per day, and when we had accomplished that we could go ‘home’.
The guards regarded the work in exactly the same light as before, and every now and then there would be the inevitable shout of ‘Courra!’ perhaps followed by a blow, as someone was spotted not working hard enough.
On the second day, it was decided that we had enough sand for the time being, and we were put to collecting shingle. We had to crawl along the beach selecting stones as near an inch in diameter as possible.
When we had gathered all the shingle they required, we were sent over to the foot of the Ack/Ack hill to gather small rocks. These, we were told, were to be built into a plinth which would form the base of the . We carried them back by the hundredweight, in barrows and on stretchers, until it was decided that there was a big enough heap of these.
Lastly, as far as materials were concerned, the Japs gave us dozens of old marble table tops; they must have raided every cafe in Thailand to find them all. Every one was badly stained and our immediate job was to clean the faces up ready for names to be carved in them. Although we tried everything from soap to sand, the stains refused to budge.
Our next task was to clean up a big heap of old timber, which was to be used as the form work in which to pour the concrete. The timber was full of nails, and very rough-sawn. We had no tools like planes or scrapers, so I told the guards that it was not suitable, but was just ordered to get on with it. In fact when they said that they were satisfied, the timber still looked pretty awful, and it was clearly going to be unsatisfactory.
The Japs now issued us with wood cutting saws, and told us to make batch-boxes for measuring the ingredients of concrete. I was surprised to see that Japanese saws work in reverse to ours, cutting when pulled instead of when pushed. They are shaped something like a large butcher’s cleaver, with the teeth starting small by the handle and gradually getting larger towards the further end. Two hands are necessary to hold the long handle, so the wood has to be held with a foot or by a comrade. None the less, they seemed to work very well.
Three days later we started mixing concrete. Two men at a time were required to do the mixing, working at breakneck speed until relieved. The mixers had to keep in front of the measurers who had to pile up the cement sand and stone on the end of the wooden staging. The staging stretched right up to the memorial itself, and as the mixers were required to turn the mix over four times in all, at the last turning the concrete went straight down into the form-work. This proved a very efficient way of working, and I think the concrete went in faster than if we had had mechanical mixers.
The pace set by the Japs was so fast, that after a couple of days only a private soldier named Mooney and I could stand up to it, so we got the job full time. I did not really mind, especially as we knew that at least we were not assisting the Jap war effort, as we had been on the railway work.
Out on the memorial, the Japs were in a bad mood now, and set us bigger tasks to complete. The first day back at work they gave us thirty-six bags of cement to mix with nine times the volume of aggregate, and we had to stay until the work was done. Mixing that lot in the blazing sun, by hand and with no respite, was almost too much for me, and I thought I was tough.
We were worked so hard for the next few days that it seemed likely that the shrine would be followed by another in memory of those who died on building the shrine!
Our shrine was now beginning to take shape. It consisted of a cubic base or plinth with a tapering ‘needle’ rising from it; all cast from very rough concrete.
Our next task was to travel down to Kanburi by barge to fetch a load of rocks; these and the smaller ones from the Ack/Ack hill were to be used to build a wall round the site. The marble table-tops were going to be stuck on; it seemed to me that it was going to look a very scruffy monument. However, I was never to see the finished job, as the next time I returned to Tamarkan I was too ill to go out on working parties, and the shrine was outside the camp boundary.
Original content from prior to MAR 2022 is here below:
JAN 2022 Update: I have come to the realization that I have spelling the name of this monument incorrectly. In Thai it is ไทย อนุสรณ์ literally meaning Thai Memorial (Thai Anusorn). I had been adding an extra ‘Y’ which is actually the ‘ย’ in the word Thai (ไทย). Why something so obvious is just now coming to light I attribute to my blind acceptance of someone else’s faulty transliteration of these words. I shall attempt to replace the word Thaiyanusorn with Thai-anusorn wherever it occurs in this text.
OCT 2021 update
Recent developments have shed light on two of the mysteries of this memorial. These are: 1) were the Allied POWs included in this memorial? 2) What was on the two corner plaques that were replaced due to bomb damage?
Translation of the inscription on the obverse of the obelisk clearly contains the characters for POW! So despite the expressed opinions of many, it seems that the deceased POWs were, indeed, included in this memorial.
The rest of the translation goes “during construction of the Thai-Burma link railroad people from Southern countries and POWs unfortunately died from illness, and this memorial was built to console their spirits. February, Showa 19 (1944),
Japanese Army Railway Corps.”
I find the phrase “unfortunately died from illness” particularly interesting in this context. First, it seems to downplay the ‘involvement’ of the IJA as culprits. Secondly, there were more than a few POWs who are documented as having died by other means. One US POW was KIA in an Allied bombing raid. Other POWs no US) died as a result of construction accidents (i.e. falls, injuries from explosives). Some died as direct results of beating or torture (see Section 6.4). Lastly, some were directly executed for perceived severe infractions of the ‘rules’ (see Section 3.6.9). It makes one wonder IF it was the intention of Capt. Naguchi to include their souls in this remembrance.
Here is just one man’s opinion. A passage from US POW Benjamin Dunn’s Book The Bamboo Express:
Every POW hated that monument and what it was meant to stand for. We would all have volunteered to attend and to stand in the sun for days if it would have brought back just one of our friends left in the jungle.
All during the ceremonies at the monument, the men back in camp were sullen and poured out their hate of the Japanese and their monument—always hoping American bombers would destroy it. We hadn’t worked willingly in the building of the railroad; we weren’t proud of the finished work; and we definitely were not proud o f the monument. It meant nothing to us but a mockery of our dead.
Second, there is a passage in the biography of LtCol. Toosey written by his granddaughter that states that he observed that there were corner plaques in English and Dutch. Since there are currently no plaques in Dutch and only the icon in English – not an inscription like the other 6 – we must assume that these are the damaged / replaced plaques. But solving that ‘mystery’ generates two more: 1) what did those original plaques say?; 2) why weren’t they simply replaced as they were as opposed to leaving 1 of 8 corners blank? A plaque in English would lend credence credence to the argument that the POWs were, indeed, included in this dedication. Most of the Allied POW spoke English but none of the romusha had that as a native language.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: I have chosen to leave the original text of this ever-lengthening essay intact rather than do a major re-write as new information is found. I hope that this conveys the journey of discovery that this small section of the website was been. ]
PREFACE: the information below for this initial section comes mainly from two sources available to me: The Burma-Thailand Railway by Australian historian Gavan McCormack and Across the Three Pagodas Pass: The Story of the Thai-Burma Railway by Japanese Engineer Yoshihiko Futamatsu as translated by (former POW) Ewart Eckert. These men offer us the Japanese perspective on this massive engineering event. It is often quite different from the story as told by the Allied POWs.
This obelisk or cenotaph monument just a few hundred meters from the existing bridge has two important functions. First is marks the path of the rails that crossed the river on the wooden bridge. Detailed bomb damage aerial photos clearly show the monument’s alignment with the bridge. With modern development, it is getting more difficult to precisely place the original bridge.
Secondly, the existence of this monument gives us an interesting insight into the working of the Oriental mind and the Japanese Bushido warrior mindset. It was conceived during the war and dedicated (per LtCol Toosey) on 13 March 1944; a ceremony attended by over 100 POWs and many local dignitaries.
The Thai-anusorn Memorial, as it is formally known, is a central obelisk set off with four corner tablets. It was the brainchild of the Kanchanaburi Camp Commander, Capt. Naguchi. It is dedicated to the POWs and the Asian workers who died during its construction.
Collectively, these Asian workers were known as ‘romusha’ which is simply the Japanese word for laborer or coolie, but during the widespread Japanese occupation of the South Pacific it took on a somewhat different meaning. When they decided to build the Thai-Burma Railway, the Japanese occupiers made offers of work across their conquered lands; in Singapore and the Malay Peninsula particularly. Tens of thousands of these ‘volunteers’ were sent north to Burma and Thailand. Some also went to Sumatra to work on the lesser known Railway that connected the coal mines to the coast at Pakan Baroe.
This group included many Malayan Tamils of Indian ancestry, Burmese, Chinese, Thai, and other Southeast Asian peoples. Initially, they served as the advance parties. They would be sent to an area where the Allied POWs would eventually work. They would first make a clearing in the jungle and then build the huts that would house the Allied POWs. That is why there always seemed to be a basic infra-structure — no matter how primitive – when the POWs arrived at the numerous jungle locations. Once the string of camps was complete, the romusha were simply added to the workforce laying the foundations and rails for the TBR. Tamil laborers are credited with building the ‘Pack of Cards Bridge’ just past Hellfire Pass. The bridge or trestle is so named because it collapsed several times during construction. It is also of historical note that it no longer exists having collapsed or been dismantled after the war and that no photos of it are known to exist. Many of the romusha worked alongside the Australians who made the Hellfire Pass cutting as well. [see Section 20 for a more complete history of this population of ‘economic soldiers’]
British doctor Robert Hardie wrote:
“The conditions in the coolie camps down river are terrible. They are kept isolated from the Japanese and British camps. They have no latrines. Special British prisoner parties at Kinsaiyok bury about 20 coolies a day. These coolies have been brought from Malaya under false pretenses – ‘easy work, good pay, good houses!’ Some have even brought wives and children. Now they find themselves dumped in these charnel houses, driven and brutally knocked about by the Jap and Korean guards, unable to buy extra food, bewildered, sick, frightened.”
Their numbers are debatable and largely undocumented. Compared to the rather meticulous records that the Japanese kept of their Allied detainees, their romusha records are non-existent having been destroyed by the IJA immediately post-war. It is thought that as many as 90,000 Burmese and 150,000 Malayans (largely Tamils) worked the TBR. Other uncounted nationalities were Karen, Mon, Javanese, and Singaporean Chinese. Some documents suggest that more than 100,000 Malayan Tamils were brought into the project and around 60,000 perished. No one kept records of their lives or their deaths. Often they were isolated in the jungle; sometimes they were housed near – but never with – the Allied POWs. Despite their own dire situation the western POWs took pity on the Asians and assisted them whenever they could, but they had little enough themselves to share very much. No one can determine the death toll among these disparate groups, but it was excessively high; at least 50-60%. Often they were simply left in the jungle where they died, unburied and undocumented. Even when they were consolidated to the huge Kanchanaburi camp, they were kept separate and treated to few of the comforts that camp afforded the others. When at the end of the war, the Allied ex-POWs had a plethora of assistance arrive almost immediately, the plight of the romusha continued as no one cared about getting them ‘home’.
It was to this group of laborers that the Japanese dedicated the Thai-anusorn memorial. Per Andrew Snow, a researcher at the prestigious Thai-Burma Railway Centre in downtown KAN, Noguchi’s thought process went something like this: These people had been ‘invited’ to work by the Emperor. They toiled to complete a task that he ordered and therefore they were working on his behalf. The fact that they died performing that task was a sacrifice made to the Emperor himself. Therefore, their deaths warranted recognition. So Capt. Noguchi commissioned a memorial in honor of those who had died in service to the Emperor. Seemingly no consideration was given to the fact that the plight of those who had survived the building of the TBR was by no means over once the TBR was finished.
The only hint that it included the Allied POWs is the one that says: “MEMORY OF DECEASED PRISONERS OF WAR”. Per the Japanese way of thinking, the Asian romusha were very different. Per Noguchi, they sacrificed their lives for the Emperor and thus deserved respect and remembrance. Not so for the Westerners!
[NOTE: the above opinion is somewhat debunked in that the POWs were clearly noted to have been included]
Noguchi recruited POWs who had stone work experience to assist in building it according to his plans. Apparently they worked willingly at their tasks. At least one of those was USS HOUSTON crewman Leo Bird who had been a stone mason. He is credited for having a hand in building the four corner markers. Those corners hold plaques in six different languages of the romusha peoples. But there are eight such positions.
The memorial was dedicated in MAR 1944. Many people look at this date and think it is in error but indeed it was placed months before the end of the war. Many of the Allied POWs were ‘made to attend’. It stands today in a quiet park-like setting just a short distance from the famous Bridge, but perhaps less than one percent of the bridge tourists ever even look for it.
Mourning Epistle of the Emperor of Japan March 12, 1944 as read by Major General Ishida Ekuma at the dedication of the Thai-anusorn memorial:
To commemorate and mourn the spirits of those who died of disease due to the construction of a railway linking Thailand. -Myanmar
Therefore, the ceremony invites the souls of those who sacrificed their lives for great benefits to create a presence at the monument.
Which is evident to you, honourable, here. Meanwhile, he died as a result of suffering from this illness.
I have prayed for the grace of Sri Rattanatrai and the sacred things in the world to protect them.
But with this fervent effort, it cannot inspire you out of harm’s way, which is deeply saddening.
Those families, too, are hard to break their hearts in the sadness of remembering their passing away.
However. Every human being, every name, must be as defined by heaven above.
To mourn in the spirit of those who devote their lives to fighting against the Lord Majesty, and to bring peace to him.
As a result, the construction of railroads to provide a peaceful ground connection and a sign of permanent and peaceful peace on the ground. The world is always known for its perpetuality.
At this end, may those souls, which dwell in heaven, come down to dwell. This monument, to protect and inspire peace on this earth, Tern.
Mourning Epistle of the Emperor of Japan,
Post-war changes
There are two anecdotes about this monument that seem to get repeated in the literature. One always needs to step back and ask
”Are they true?”; “Where did they originate?”
The first concerns two holes that is seen today in the Tamil and Indonesian language plaques. I’ve read three explanations of their origin that tie in with the other major anecdote below. One is that these were damaged after the POW liberation when some angry POWs attacked the monument with sticks and stones. The other explanation is that these are the result of bomb fragments. Will the REAL story please identify yourself? In part X (aka #28) of his essays, Prof. Boggett devotes considerable space to this topic of post-war attacks on this memorial. The last bit of speculation (without documentation) is that pot-war tourists damaged the two plaques. But those exhibiting damage are the Indonesian/Malay and Tamil language plaques. Why would those be singled out for attacked as opposed to the Japanese/Chinese plaques? Given the alignment of this corner with the corner that was replace post-war, I’m inclined towards the bomb damage explanation.
The second anecdote is similar and seeks to explain the ‘missing corner’. The SE corner marker contains the English language icon with “Memory of Deceased Prisoners of War”. But the second section of the corner has NO inscription; just a blank wall. It is told that this corner was indeed damaged by 1945 Allied bombing of the Bridge and that this is a replacement plaque.
It would certainly seem that if you had only 8 spaces to write about your monument, you would not leave one of them blank! As of yet, I have found no firm documentation to explain any of these stories. Again, per LtCol Toosey, there were English and Dutch corner panels although he does not mention the content of those inscriptions.
Revisionist or True History?
The explanatory plaque that is at the entrance today (seemingly correctly) cites the memorial as dedicated to the “memory of the Allied Forces together with other people, who died during the construction”. It is my understanding that the memorial grounds are maintained by a Japanese group that holds an annual ceremony there – although this is unverified by me.
In his book The Burma- Thailand Railway, Gavan McCormack offers the view that the Thai-anusorn Memorial was indeed meant to include the Allied POWs who died. He offers as ‘proof’ that the corner stones of the memorial contain dedications in 7 languages: Japanese, English, Thai, Vietnamese, Chinese, Indonesian and Tamil. He has no explanation why there is no Dutch or Burmese inscription [see below].
[see the translations of the rear panel inscription on the obelisk added to the end of this section for an update]
Ah, these poor people,
The glory of East Asia,
Working together on this great project,
They arrived at this special area,
To begin building the railway,
And they toiled and suffered so very much.
said to have been damaged by Allied bomb
It would certainly seem that if you had only 8 spaces to write about your monument, you would not leave one of them blank! As of yet, I have found no firm documentation to explain any of these stories. Professor David Boggett (Bg20pg152) speculates that this section contained a Burmese language inscription. This corner structure was seemingly destroyed in one of the many bombing runs of the two bridges. The monument was literally only meters from the wooden bridge. Logically it would have had two different language plaques. He does not speculate as to what languages we are now missing. Since the rebuilt corner contains the English language icon (rather than a true inscription) we might assume that the damaged panels were written in English and Dutch.
The contrast between this corner and the other three could not be more striking. The blank portion speaks volumes that upon reconstruction, something was left out. What could that have been? What ethnic group was no longer deemed ‘worthy’ of remembrance? Surely, (as Prof Boggett speculates) a Burmese language plaque should have been included in the original design. Or would it? If indeed this monument was the brain-child of the Kanchanaburi Camp Commandant — which seems to be well documented — then as a member of the 9th Railway Command responsible for the Thai portion of the TBR, he may not have included the Burmese since they almost exclusively worked under the 5th Railway Command. So once again, we are left with questions if not an enigma as to what that original corner structure contained. The inclusion of a Javanese/Sumatran language panel is only indirect evidence that Javanese even actually worked the TBR. We know that like the Allied POWs captured on Java, many Javanese civilians were exported to a large number of places across SEA. But how many and where any worked the TBR is another fact lost to current knowledge. So it begs the question as to why there are currently no Burmese or Dutch language plaques as part of this monument. Of all the nationalities known to have worked the TBR, the Dutch are the largest group who receive no recognition in this memorial.
When we had gathered all the shingle they required, we were sent over to the foot of the Ack/Ack hill to gather small rocks. These, we were told, were to be built into a plinth which would form the base of the . We carried them back by the hundredweight, in barrows and on stretchers, until it was decided that there was a big enough heap of these.
When we had gathered all the shingle they required, we were sent over to the foot of the Ack/Ack hill to gather small rocks. These, we were told, were to be built into a plinth which would form the base of the . We carried them back by the hundredweight, in barrows and on stretchers, until it was decided that there was a big enough heap of these.
.
in the upper left next to the rails leading to the wooden bridge.
Translations: A valued friend provided this translation of the Thai language plaque:
Original
ไทยานุสรน์
งานไดซึ่งก่อเกิดผลเปนส่วนรวม ผู้ที่ทำงานนั้นย่อมได้รับการยกย่องสันเสิน
ก้มกรเหล่านี้ร่างกายและชีวิตของเขาดับไปแล้วก็จิง แต่ความดีที่เขาได้ช่วยกันส้างไว้หารู้จักดับสูนย์ไม่
Current Thai
ไทยานุสรน์ (ไทย-อนุสรณ์)
งานใดซึ่งก่อเกิดผลเป็นส่วนรวม ผู้ที่ทำงานนั้นย่อมได้รับการยกย่องสรรเสริญ
ก้มกรเหล่านี้ร่างกายและชีวิตของเขาดับไปแล้วก็จริง แต่ความดีที่เขาได้ช่วยกันสร้างไว้หารู้จักดับสูญไม่
English
Thai-anusorn (Thai Memorial)
Any what they did for community would be honored and praised.
With respect to their body and soul (life) that was deceased, their merit could not be extinguished (remains in our memorial).
Translations of the Tamil and Indo language plaques.
Prof Boggett points out that the Malay language and that of the Dutch East Indies (DEI; later Indonesia) in this era were largely indistinguishable; particularly the Sumatran dialect that differed only slightly from that spoken on Java. Therefore, in his estimation, the plaque at panel #5 may ‘cover’ both the Malaya and DEI romusha.
More language speculation:
My mind naturally seeks logic and symmetry in all things. I tend to collect and classify things and place them into buckets or niches to be compared and contrasted later. And so it is with this
When we had gathered all the shingle they required, we were sent over to the foot of the Ack/Ack hill to gather small rocks. These, we were told, were to be built into a plinth which would form the base of the . We carried them back by the hundredweight, in barrows and on stretchers, until it was decided that there was a big enough heap of these.
.
Let’s first simply examine the 4 corners of this memorial. Each is built as a right-angle section; each of the 8 portions containing a plaque. As one enters the gate from the road, to one’s left is what I will call corner #1 (C1). It contains two plaques; one in Thai and the other Vietnamese (see more about this below). C2 is at the rear left (closer to the river). This is the section of the memorial that was reportedly damaged in 1945 bombing raids on the nearby Bridge. What we see today is the replacement section the provenance of which is severely lacking. To date, I have yet to find a description of what the original C2 looked like. What languages were its plaques written in? The modern-day C2 is completely different from the other 3 corners. It contains not an inscription but an icon or symbol with an English language phrase.
The rear-most portion of this corner (I’ll call it panel #4) is a blank panel! One cannot not help but speculate on why, when there are only 8 possible places to say something of significance, 1 of 8 is completely blank! Much less that it is paired with an English icon that seems utterly out of place.
Continuing our journey around the perimeter, C3 is something of a mirror of C1. Its plaques (panels #5-6) are in Tamil and Indonesian languages. Finally, on C4 (to one’s right upon entry) there are plaques written in a script that I am told is actually mainly Chinese characters but one that the ordinary IJA soldier could read and understand. Many describe these two plaques as Japanese and Chinese, but I have been informed that there is no actual Japanese script used here. Frankly, I am personally baffled by this inter-changeability between these two languages, but I’ll not belabor this; just accept it as fact and move on. As described above, Prof Boggett states that one of these panels is a poem written in an arcane script.
Trusted translations (see above) of each of these plaques reveal (not unexpectedly) a similar theme of dedication to departed souls of each ethnic group. But let’s examine these 4 corners for what they tell us about the meaning of the memorial itself. Here we have to decide between two opposing interpretations of the precise meaning and breadth of this memorial. Was it dedicated only to members of the romusha workers who sacrificed their lives on the TBR? OR does it extend its coverage to the Allied POWs who similarly died here? In as much as the obverse of the central obelisk states that the memorial if dedicated to both romusha and POWs, we can only speculate as to what English and perhaps Dutch inscriptions might have been included in the original corner — destroyed and then replace pot-war. Why is there no proper English much less Dutch inscription to be found?
The IJA claimed one quarter of the panels (2 of 8 possible) as their own. It was after all their memorial! Thai, Vietnamese, Indo and Tamil plaques remain from 1944. Then there was added a simple English phrase overlain on an icon; completely different in style and appearance from the other 6 corner panels plus one completely panel!
Let’s examine some possibilities as to what the original C2 may have contained. It is well documented that the majority of the romusha were impressed and imported from Malaya. Confusion reigns as to the exact geographical origin of these various groups. Statistics (based only on fragmentary records) usually state that ethnic Chinese comprise up to a third of all the romusha. But these could have originated from either Malaya or Singapore, since both had high percentages of ethnic Chinese populations. There were also both native Malays and Tamil-Indian ethnic workers. Some speculate that the Tamils comprised the majority of all the imported romusha workers. For a period, early in the construction effort, Thais were hired (not so much enslaved as were the others) but this ended with the BanPong Incident in DEC 1942. [see Section 20.3]
History records that very few Thais perished while working on the NongPlaDuk to Kanchanaburi portion of the TBR. The accepted translation of the Thai does mentioned deceased, but we do not know the context nor who was the author of this inscription (nor any of the inscriptions). We have two givens: 1) the TBR was largely on Thai soil; 2) some Thais participated in the build. But we also know that the overall experience of the Thais was nothing like that of the romusha! But yet we have a Thai language inscription in panel #1.
The companion plaque (panel #2) also raises similar questions. The role of any Vietnamese contingent in the TBR is hardly documented. There is passing mention of their presence, but in small (perhaps even insignificant) numbers compared to any of the other ethnic groups. So one must ask why they have a plaque at panel #2.
Panel #3 (on C2) is the English icon; #4 the blank panel. Panel #5 is Indo and #6 Tamil. Panels 7 & 8 are the Chinese/Japanese inscriptions/poem. Malay and Tamil workers comprised a large portion of the romusha. But there were others: exported from Singapore who were ethnic Chinese and there were many thousands of Burmese who worked the western end of the TBR as the Thais did the easternmost section. Yet there is no Burmese language plaque (at least not remaining). There is, perhaps, one easy and plausible explanation for this. If we accept that this memorial was, indeed, the brainchild of the Kanchanaburi Camp Commander, Capt. Naguchi then the lack of any acknowledgement of the Burmese is possibly explained by the fact that Naguchi was part of the 9th Railway Command that built the eastern sector of the TBR. Any and all Burmese would have worked under the auspices of the companion 5th Railway Command on the western end of the TBR. The lack of any acknowledgement might be due to such a command authority split. This leads to speculation as to how the Vietnamese were included but the Burmese not. Seemingly few Vietnamese ever worked the TBR. Their presence at other projects in eastern Thailand (Issan; closer to Vietnam/Laos) is better documented than any TBR connection. It is, however, possible that those projects were overseen by 9th Railway personnel and hence included by Naguchi. But that is pure speculation.
That still leaves us with the dilemma of why there is nothing in the Dutch language, if indeed, there was any intention of including the Allied POWs in this memorial. In the same vein, I am forced to speculate as to why the post-war reconstruction of C2 left one of the panels completely blank.
For such a rather simple looking memorial upon first impressions, this memorial seems to harbor a myriad of unanswered questions.
The obelisk itself contains a somewhat arcane script which is proving difficult to translate. Many of the characters are seemingly no longer in common use. This also hearkens back to the overlap between the use of Chinese and Japanese characters in many of these inscriptions.
The panel on the rear apparently refers to both Asian laborers (‘romusha’) and POWs (‘horyo’) and roughly translated says :
“during construction of the Thai-Burma link railroad people from Southern countries and POWs unfortunately died from illness, and this memorial was built to console their spirits.
February, Showa 19 [1944],
Japanese Army Railway Corps.”
If this translation holds up to further scrutiny, then we seem to have confirmation that there was an intention to include the Allied POWs among those memorialized in by this monument. This is in contravention to the memories of some of the survivors who express the opinion that only the romusha were being commemorated.