Today, 16 August, is the date in 1945 when many in the Far Eastern prisoner of war camps were released. Most of the men had been POWs for 3 ½ years. Of the 60,000 who were forced to work on the notorious Thailand-Burma Railway, over 12,000 never returned. A shattering statistic. In other parts of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere the death toll was even higher. In all, 130,000 prisoners of war and the same number of civilians were held captive. The story of their plight is well documented in books, films, broadcasts and newspapers. Some of their tales are truly harrowing. Less often does one read about reconciliation between the former prisoners and the Japanese. However, today I was reminded of one man who, despite suffering appallingly, forgave his captors.
I first met Bill Drower, or Captain William M. Drower to give him his full name, when I was researching the biography of my grandfather, Philip Toosey, which appeared in 2005 as The Colonel of Tamarkan: Philip Toosey and the Bridge on the River Kwai. I had been out in Thailand with my mother to see the bridge over the river Kwai, the camps where Toosey had been senior British officer and to talk to some of the prisoners who had been in captivity with him. When I got home there was an envelope on my desk with spidery writing. I opened it and read the first sentence which began: ‘My dear Miss Summers, My name is William Mortimer Drower and your grandfather was kind to me when I got into a spot of bother in the camp gaol…’
I knew the story of Bill Drower’s imprisonment, of course I did. Anyone who has read about the railway knows that he fell out with one the guards in the officers’ camp in May 1945, only to be hauled up in front of the psychotic camp commander, Noguchi, and condemned to spend the rest of his life in a hole in the ground. For 77 days he lay in solitary confinement, quietly losing his mind, being fed on just one rice ball a day. Once he woke to find a rat gnawing at his foot. On 16 August 1945 the camp at Kanchanburi was liberated and Bill Drower was dragged out of his prison, more dead than alive. He was suffering from Blackwater fever and was delirious. Some ‘spot of bother’. Amazingly he recovered and the next time my grandfather saw him was in London six months later, when Bill was physically restored to his spectacular 6’3” frame.
Fifty years later Bill was invited to go on a reconciliation mission to Japan. He agreed on one condition: that he would be allowed to give a speech in Japanese. He had worked at the Japanese Embassy in London in the 1930s and spoke the formal, honorific form of the language. As a translator on the railway he was expected to speak informal Japanese, the language accorded to the lowest in society. His wish was granted and he gave a speech, in honorific Japanese, in Tokyo. It went down extremely well. As a sign of respect and gratitude to this great and humble man, the Japanese hosts offered Bill a trip on the Bullet Train, which he accepted with alacrity. He was chatting to the guide and translator about the train and learned from them that the bullet train had been designed by one of their most famous railway engineers.
The guide continued:
‘This engineer designed a railway in Thailand in the Second World War.’
‘I know,’ replied Bill, ‘I helped him to build it.’
Bill Drower was one of the most impressive men I have had the privilege to meet in the whole of my life. I think of him often, and especially today, on the 68th anniversary of his release from imprisonment.
Category: Uncategorized
Jambusters
Now that this book is published, people are beginning to comment on the name, I just want to put the record straight and explain its origin. The title came from my younger brother, Tim.
I was at home in the kitchen with my family in November 2009, celebrating the fact that Simon & Schuster had agreed to publish a book on the WI in wartime. During the War the WI made jam but they also did a great deal more. They looked after evacuees, knitted some 16 million garments, ran National Savings schemes, sat on government committees on housing, rural development, education, health and post-war reconstruction. And above all, they dealt with everything in a no-nonsense, practical way, circumventing bureaucracy and focusing on what could be done rather than what could not. The book needed a title and as the book was going to show the WI in an impressive light – far more impressive than many people would expect – it needed a really good title.
We began a texting dialogue with Tim, who was at home in Aboyne. Various suggestions flew back and forth (sadly, I have not got the text stream anymore) but I remember one was a play on 633 Squadron and another on The Guns of Navarone. I confess that the fascination with war film titles probably comes from the family association with the Bridge on the River Kwai, which I had written about in 2005, and the fact that Chris has worked on and off in the film industry for years.
Then came Jambusters. I was standing by the toaster and Chris was at the table. I recall it very clearly. I read out the name Jambusters. There was a stunned silence. Then I shouted ‘That’s it! Brilliant! We’ve got it!’ I rang Tim immediately and said I would try it out on Mike Jones at S&S. He loved it, my literary agent loved it, but now I had to try it on the WI and I was seriously worried they would find it flippant and possibly even insulting. I was wrong and now it seems as if the title is taking on a life of its own.
Claudia Winckleman mentioned it on her show on Friday 22nd March, even while the book was still under embargo (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qqc2w – 34 minutes in) and quipped: ‘The Jambusters are coming!’ They are indeed. One of my friends sent me a quote from his brother-in-law who was a Dambuster: “Winning a war would be impossible without the women left at home.” Too right. I honour and celebrate those women, the Jamubsters.
So that is how the title was called into being and I owe my brilliant brother Tim a very large hug.
Follow me on Facebook or twitter:
The Joys and Pitfalls of Oral History
If someone in the pub tells you a story about their past, do you believe it wholly or do you think it might have been embellished a little to make it a cracking good yarn? It probably depends on who is telling you the story and how far-fetched it seems to you, given your experience. Normally, it does not matter. You can take it or leave it. However, when you come to interview someone about their past, particularly their childhood, for an article or a book, can you be sure you are hearing the whole truth? The short answer is, you cannot. Yet oral history is a discipline and, when well used, can add fascinating detail and vivid colour to a story. So how, as a writer, do I work out whether someone is embellishing their story to make it seem more interesting, or fabricating it entirely?
How about I turn it on its head and say: why do I think this person is embellishing their story? Is it for me or is it for them? Did they have a bad experience and wish to put a positive gloss on it or are they trying to hit back at someone else? Are they simply trying to make themselves sound more interesting? Is it something that happened to them in childhood they remember clearly or something they have been told about so often it has become part of their narrative? Is this story coloured by collective memory, that common history that we all dip into? It could be a combination of all those things and I have to make up my mind as I am listening to them what is going on.
For me it was important from the outset of my writing to decide how I was going to use oral history. I used it, and still use it, to add a personal touch, a whiff of a smell, a dash of colour to a narrative or lend credibility to a well-known fact. A fellow author once gave me an excellent piece of advice when I was writing about the Thailand Burma Railway (Bridge on the River Kwai territory). ‘Never believe any story that you hear about atrocities on the railway or in the camps unless it is corroborated by at least one other piece of reliable evidence. Almost everything on that railway was recorded, either by the Allies or the Japanese.’ A sound piece of advice. So many books have been written about the railway that even those with the clearest recollection necessarily picked up bits and bobs of collective memory. It does not mean that there are not individual stories that are valid. There are. But you have to look for them. Learn to hear them.
When I was researching and writing Jambusters I had far fewer problems with collective memory embellishments than I did with The Colonel of Tamarkan, about the Bridge on the River Kwai, or When the Children Came Home. The former dealt with well trodden territory and the latter book dealt with people’s childhood, which is the part of our past that gets calcified as we go through adolescence and a narrative is created to make sense of our adult lives. In Jambusters my problem came when I was using reported material that was sexed up for propaganda. What was Lady Denman’s real agenda when she broadcast to the WI in 1942? She was speaking to the nation, a platform bigger than any she would have had at an AGM, and she exploited it. Could I really believe the story about the three women who dug up a whole allotment of dry, clay soil and grew a crop of potatoes that were better than any of those grown by the men? Embellishment, certainly, but why not? After all, there was a war on. So I used the material with care.
I have developed a few ground rules when using oral history about the Second World War. If a story involves an event tied to a date in the war, such as an Atlantic crossing or a court case for overselling eggs, I cross check it against other things that happened on that date in newspapers, books, on the internet. If someone tells me a story that I am wary of but swears blind it is true, I put it in the book as a direct quote in order to let my readers make up their minds. If someone tells me something I doubt or directly disbelieve, I leave it out. It is not worth undermining the integrity of other oral history.
But it is not just about pitfalls, the joys of oral history are clear. Personal stories are wonderfully colourful and they add to an historical account. Some are funny, such as the recollection of one lady who, seeing the evacuees from East London, was thrilled to overhear them shouting with joy in an orchard ‘look! Apples! The real fing. On trees, not on barrers!’ Others are deeply moving, and a few are so unbelievable as to be wholly believable. One of my favourites from Jambusters was the story of a WI in Lincolnshire who had collected together so many tin cans for the salvage scheme that they rang the local council to ask them to send round a steam roller to flatten the cans for ease of storage and transport. You just couldn’t make that up. Could you?
One Foot . . . And then Another
As we walked away from Henley Royal Regatta yesterday, my friend, Fiona, and I mused that it had been a strange week. The weather in the build-up to the regatta and during the five days of racing had proved testing, to put it mildly. The stream was strong and the wind often even stronger, so that crews, umpires, organisers and spectators alike were faced with unpredictable conditions. Mölndals Tk & Strömstads RK 1992 record time in the Fawley Challenge Cup still stands and they celebrated it with a row-past this weekend. No records fell. Or did they?
People who know me will appreciate my delight when I realised that an extraordinary record was set on Sunday and one unlikely to be broken any time soon. It is all about a foot. Or two, to be precise, and five years apart at that. In Rowing in Britain I told the story of the Princess Elizabeth Challenge Cup final in 2007 when Shrewsbury School beat Brentwood College School, Canada, by one foot. ‘For the boys of the winning crew and their parents, unsurpassed joy, a matter of lifetime pride and for one man in particular this was a sweet victory. Eighty-three-year-old Michael Lapage watched his grandson, Patrick, help to win this great battle. Nearly seventy years earlier, on the same stretch of river, Mike had won silver for Great Britain in the 1948 Olympic Games. The legacy of a Henley win is a long one. It unites generations and brings tears to the eyes of the strongest of men.’ I certainly did not expect to see the same family involved in a similar Henley drama but on Sunday 1 July 2012 a little bit of history was made and the legacy of Henley was enriched by one more jewel in its enormous crown.
Mike Lapage was back in a boat. He was sitting in the stroke seat of the magnificent royal barge Gloriana along with seventeen other Olympic medal-winning oarsmen and women. The Gloriana made stately progress down the course. Time to Fawley: about 15 minutes. It was a spectacle and a moment of celebration for British rowing and an acknowledgement of great achievements. The river bank was packed and the barge was cheered all the way from the start to the finish. There was an atmosphere of pride and awe. Four hours later a crew from Harvard University took on Leander Club in the final of the Ladies Challenge Plate. For the record, the time to Fawley was 3:09. It was a titanic battle with Leander taking almost a length’s lead in the first half of the race before Harvard pushed to draw level in the Enclosures. They raced neck and neck past the Progress Board and on to a photo finish. The commentary was silent for what seemed like an age. Then the announcement: Harvard University of the United States of America beat Leander Club. The Verdict: One Foot. The smallest winning margin of the regatta, the fastest time of the day and the stroke of the Harvard University crew was one Patrick Lapage.
A record? Indeed. By one foot, and then another.
Julie Summers
Oxford, 2 July 2012