was largely engaged at a strategic level. Likewise, Sugano, now also a Major in command of the 1st Battalion, was involved in the more practical work of constructing the track. Thus, the extent of their contact is not clear but certainly became less once the line had been completed. By this time, Sugano was permanently based in Burma, while Futamatsu enjoyed a much wider brief. His exact status – although always senior – is not known until March 1943 when he was made personal adviser to Colonel Imai who was in charge of a new gunzoku formation with special responsibility for bridge-building.33 This is partly explained by the peculiar nature of the Japanese military system: the need to always maintain ‘face’ and the complex relationship between engineers and regular soldiers. This is well illustrated by the impractical suggestions made by one visiting Staff Officer which were initially agreed but later quietly circumvented.34 These were tactics which Futamatsu was reluctantly obliged to accept and he also understood the need for the Railway to be built to replace the dangerous shipping route to Rangoon.35 He seems less sure about the concept of employing POWs to help construction for he does not fully agree with the suggestion that their dispersal from Singapore would help the Japanese administration to provide an enhanced level of food and other supplies.36 However, he does consider that it was both legal and proper for prisoners to be made to work and felt that it was differences between Western and Japanese cultures and attitudes that made the imposition of physical punishment such a bone of contention between the two sides.37
This reluctance to condemn Japanese policy may be thought to be compounded by his criticism of many POWs who were accused of being ‘negligent’ and thus excuses the engineers who ‘scolded’ them.38 Futamatsu also points out that Japanese discipline was traditionally physical with inferiors being customarily punished by kicks and blows from their superiors. The fact that this system was applied to prisoners as well as Japanese troops was, he felt, quite understandable.39 This view, not shared by many prisoners, is further undermined by his belief that their Korean guards were ‘good-natured people’ which was not the experience of many of their captives.40 The lot of those he describes as ‘coolies’ was, he admits, much worse than that of the POWs. This was because they were frequently provided with only very small rations of what were often the wrong foods for their difference religions and virtually no systematic medical attention. In Futamatsu’s words: ‘...one was forced to divide them within their huts: at times it was no different from driving them into their graves.’41
Both prisoners and local labourers suffered in varying degrees from a wide variety of diseases including malaria, dysentery, cholera, bubonic plague and beriberi.42 These problems were made worse by the heavy rainfall – one of the highest in the world43 – and paradoxically at times by a shortage of drinking water for much was contaminated by mud, rotting vegetation and excrement. This meant that all water needed to be boiled which, in the circumstances, was frequently very difficult.44
The combination of heavy rainfall, contagious diseases, malnutrition and mountainous, jungle terrain made the building of the Railway exceptionally difficult. Nevertheless, Japanese determination and ingenuity, plus their ability to ignore the cost in human lives, ensured that it was completed in a particularly short time. On the other hand these massive problems, allied to a significant shortage of equipment and materials, meant that, ‘...we ended up with an imperfectly-constructed railway with no prospect of maintaining transport viability’.45 These technical deficiencies were then to be exacerbated by the growing scale of Allied bombing and even though a system of rapid repairs was successfully introduced throughput failed to keep up with demand.46 Futamatsu later learned, perhaps with some envy, the progress of the Indian Railways (and availability of transport aircraft) and concluded that their success in carrying and supplying British forces was a major factor in the battle for Burma.47
Any attempt at assessing the writing and beliefs of Futamatsu must take into account his upbringing and the fact that for most of his life he only had access to Japanese sources. While this changed in the post-war years his knowledge was constrained in many ways and his contact with former POWs only came about when he was approached by Geoffrey Pharaoh Adams (at my suggestion) during his visit to Japan in 1981. This led to a subsequent introduction to James Bradley and Futamatsu was then given copies of their works which he has quoted extensively in his biography.48 However, in spite of these links he still does not seem to have been aware of the immense literature in English and it was only through my intervention that he learned of the existence of such a relevant study as Slim’s Defeat into Victory.49
These omissions in Futamatsu’s background knowledge appear to have made it difficult for him to make informed, impartial judgements and he remained convinced that the United States and Britain started the Pacific War. As a consequence he continued to believe that the Geneva Convention – even if it had been signed – would not have been relevant to the employment of POWs in Thailand. However, he makes no comment on the suggestion that following the deaths of a number of Japanese prisoners at Featherston Camp in New Zealand in February 1943 the Military Authorities felt justified in adopting an even harsher regime for its work-force building the Railway.50 He also seems to have been equally content for the prisoners at Selerang Barracks to be forced to sign a declaration that they would not attempt to escape even though this was later used to justify the execution of those who were captured after seeking freedom.51 While he argues these points with some force his only comment on the execution of Chinese Merchants without trial after the fall of Singapore was that it was: ‘..a well justified necessity’.52
Many of the items outlined above are further expanded in Futamatsu’s account of his war service which follows. Apart from considerable additional material this provides a distinctly Japanese point of view, free from the Western preconceptions, which may have inadvertently distorted this Preface and other studies. Futamatsu was, of course, originally writing for a Japanese readership and had no wish to offend, but I am convinced that his work accurately reflects his recollections and genuinely-held opinions. At only one point can I detect a deliberate distortion and this appears to be for personal or prudish not political reasons. This item concerns the setting up of a ‘field hospital recuperation centre’ at Hin Dat Hot Springs in which he fails to mention that its real purpose was to provide a ‘comfort station’ for the benefit of Japanese troops and Korean auxiliaries.53 With this minor exception Futamatsu’s study not only gives much insight into the construction of the Railway from one at the very centre of events but it also supplies a unique counterweight to the many and varied publications produced by Western authors.
The defeat at Imphal and the subsequent retreat of the Japanese army placed great strains on the Railway which was intensified by the increasing level of Allied air attacks. As many locomotives were destroyed by this bombing campaign more were ordered from Japan and in the Summer of 1945 Futamatsu was sent to Saigon to arrange for those just landed to be moved to Thailand.54 He was still there when on 15 August 1945 he heard the Emperor announce his decision to surrender.55 Soon afterwards he was able to return to his unit in Bangkok and was then to share their internment in a number of different camps.56 Western readers may be interested to learn that these new prisoners then occupied themselves much as British POWs had done in Germany and Italy though not in Japan. These activities included educational and occupational courses: the manufacture of many articles from local materials and numerous theatrical productions which ranged from serious drama to song-and-dance concerts.57 It is not clear to what extent Futamatsu joined in these events – he seems to have been mainly concerned with studying English in private; he was fortunate in being released after less than a year in captivity.
Following the Japanese surrender a system had been created whereby any individual suspected of a war crime could be nominated by the persons involved or their friends. In this event potential witnesses would be asked for their opinion and a case would be prepared if a consensus seemed certain. Thus, when Teruo Saitoh, second in command at the Bridge Camp, was accused of minor infractions by some former prisoners at Tamarkan he was exonerated by evidence provided by Philip
