|
|
|
Mind and Matter: The Practice of Military History with Reference to Britain and Southeast Asia
Brian P. Farrell
| Wayne Lee is right: military historians need not see any contradiction between studying the "operational" and "humanistic" dimensions of their subject. The Western military experience in Asia only underlines his argument; in the study of that history, the "matter" side of the equation has never been neglected, and the field remains "war-centered." This does indeed provide "the significant advantage of encouraging transnational and comparative perspectives."1 But most scholars in that field have, when framing their questions, paid careful attention to the connections between military operations and the societies, cultures, and peoples that fought in them. That approach was driven more by the nature of the military experience than by a preference for certain methods or techniques. The Western military presence in the region, a product of imperialism, total war, and the Cold War, had to be examined through a broad humanist prism in order to make sense of it. English-language scholarship naturally concentrates on the British and American experiences, with two notable caveats. The literature on the French war in Vietnam remains lively and multifaceted, as does the study of the "other," be it the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA), the Chinese People's Volunteers, or the Vietnamese National Liberation Front. Wayne Lee and Ron Spector have already explored the more familiar American questions related to World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. My commentary will try to broaden this round table by discussing how recent scholarship examines the military history of the British presence in the "Malay world" during and after World War II. While that literature may remain war-centered, revolving as it does around global war and conflicts driven by the Cold War and decolonization, its evolution justifies Lee's argument that cultural analysis bolsters, rather than undermines, the importance of contingency in military history. |
1
|
|
The staying power of clichés is enormous. Take for example Winston Churchill's description of the fall of Singapore in 1942 as the "worst disaster" in British military history. His assertion cannot stand up to any examination based on consequences; the "loss" of the thirteen colonies in 1783 surely outranks even a humiliating defeat in a war the British went on to win. But his label framed a generation of scholarship that emphasized contingency: a shallow British gamble on grand strategy was exposed by a Japanese onslaught that underlined how overstretched the British Empire really was. The military and psychological consequences of losing the "impregnable fortress" to an Asian power made it "the beginning of the end" of the British Empire in the Far East, with all that entailed. Yet, from the start, that "disaster" crossed national fault lines. It was the heaviest defeat both the Indian and Australian armies had ever suffered, and it exposed Australia to the threat of a Japanese invasion from the "Near North"—so very different a concept from the "Far East." Those fault lines were aggravated in the 1990s when official records that were retained for fifty rather than thirty years were finally released for research. This breathed new life into the topic, with studies that went beyond contingency to examine strategic culture more closely. |
. . . |
There are about 1977 more words in this article.
Please log in (or, if you are not yet an
authorized user, please go to the
User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
|
