The central theme of this book is how the Commonwealth soldiers, with the help of the Americans airmen, eventually re-grouped, trained and through small victories scored in patrols, turned their beliefs around and came to recognise that the Japanese were not invincible. The Japanese could be defeated by a side who trained better and planned better, a side that was determined not to be forced into retreat again. The story of how they overcame the lack of resources, broken promises of higher command due to exigencies in other theatres, and maintained and improved their morale makes for a good lesson in leadership and practical intelligence.
The writing is another reason I enjoyed the book. The writer was able to give very vivid descriptions of events (pg. 28), scenes and people (pg. 31) all written in a style uncommon in military history and rare today as we push for the use of Business English. There are a few occasions when I even felt the writing poetic. For that, one should see the author's description of Northern Burma (pg. 246), the opening of Chapter 12, and about the great Irrawaddy (pg. 416), written with such respect. He also had a great sense of humour such that the book is peppered throughout with funny anecdotes (see pg. 44, 61, 141, 330). His reflections on the loss of Burma (pg. 120 onwards) also contain invaluable insights.
Some may accuse the author of being a borderline racist in his writing (pg. 281) based on today's politically correct rhetoric but I personally did not detect disrespect. If he disapproved of his Asian allies or was disappointed by them, he did not link any of this to their race, but to the lack of training or the conditions under which they had to operate. In fact he had high praises for the Indian units fighting for him and maintained the highest respect for the Gurkhas.
The one question that kept coming back to me as I read the book was why this theatre receive so little attention, especially given that it resulted in a convincing victory for the the British. Was it one that really mattered so little in the bigger scheme of things? Wouldn't it be disastrous had Burma/India ended up like Singapore? An earlier book I read had indeed speculated that the outcome of the war might be different had the British been defeated in Burma and India, and India, while geographically huge, might not be difficult to sway towards the Japanese, given the independence movement led by the Congress Party.
But like all speculations, it is hard to predict what really would happen. All we know is that the Japanese were defeated by the British and her allies for the first time and this is part of the general pattern of the war for the Japanese from then on. Interestingly, Japanese sources, both left and right-wing (Handō, 2009; Ienaga 2010; Yakuta & Watanabe, 2013), pay more attention to the defeat they tasted in Imphal, putting the blame squarely on Lieutenant General Renya Mutaguchi's lack of leadership, capabilities, and decisiveness.
Even if the victory here did not serve the overall cause strategically, there are reasons for one to learn about this theatre if just to know how an army, so lacking in resources could turn defeat into victory against an enemy that seemed so invicincible. And there is no one better to learn from than the one who was instrumental in the victory.
(This review is based on the edition published by The Reprint Society, Ltd.)
(Find this book at Goodreads)
References
Handō, K. (2009), Showa Shi 1926-1945 Volume 2, Heibonsha Limited, Tokyo: Japan.
Ienaga, S. (2010), The Pacific War 1931-1945, Pantheon Asia Library, NY.
Hyakuta, N and Watanabe, S. (2013), Zerosen To Nihontou, Maple House Cultural Publishing, Taipei: Taiwan.
