Mary Monro is an osteopath based in Edinburgh. She wrote a biography/memoir of her father, Lt Col John Monro MC, RA (1914-81), called Stranger in My Heart (Unbound, 2018). Her father (Brigade Major at the time) fought at the battle of Hong Kong, was imprisoned at Sham Shui Po and then escaped 1200 miles across China to the wartime capital at Chongqing. He was made Assistant Military Attaché in China 1942-43 and hatched a plan to evacuate the PoWs he’d left behind. He ended his war in the blood and sweat-stained hell of Burma 1944-45.
Mary transcribed her Dad’s wartime letters and diaries and comprehensively researched the context of his story. Not satisfied by the written word, she learned some Mandarin and retraced her father’s escape route across China. At her book launch, she was honoured by the presence of other families whose loved ones had served and suffered in Hong Kong.
Ken Hewitt’s father, Colour Sergeant John Hewitt, served with the Leicestershire Regiment during the Malaya Campaign and became a prisoner of war with the fall of Singapore. In 2006, 20 years after his father’s death, Ken started to research his father’s military career, and this led to an interest in all 936 men of the 1st Battalion Leicestershire Regiment during the Malaya Campaign and subsequent captivity.
In 2015, to commemorate VJ70, Ken presented his research findings in an illustrated talk to FEPOWS, FEPOW relatives and other interested parties. Following this, he was strongly encouraged to document his research more formally and in 2022 Tigers in Captivity was published.
Ken has given a number of talks on various topics relating to his FEPOW studies, and the veteran’s association of the Royal Leicestershire Regiment now recognise Ken as the authority on this period of the Regiment’s history and refer all relevant enquiries to him for response.
Gautam Hazarika grew up in India and moved to Singapore 20 years ago. He is a history enthusiast and is researching the lesser-known aspects of World War II in the Far East. This started when he acquired a manuscript We Published in Prison typed in Changi Prison in 1942.
The authors Harry Miller and Gus Harold Wade of the Straits Times were the publishers of the Karikal Chronicles and Changi Guardian newspapers issued in the male civilian internee camps in wartime Singapore. Miller/ Wade were among the over 4000 men, women & children interned. Most of these men were British colonial officials, planters, rubber/palm oil brokers, doctors, lawyers, priests and teachers. The women (mainly housewives) and children were segregated. Their experiences were both similar and different from that of the POWs. He has spoken and written about this as he continues his research.
Gautam is also researching Indian POWs in Singapore. Many joined the Indian National Army, and most of the rest went in Hell Ships to New Guinea/ New Britain near Australia to forced labour camps with death rates of over 70%. He is doing oral histories with children of the few survivors, has found an unpublished memoir, and even met a member of the Rani of Jhansi (INA) regiment, a still sprightly 95-year-old grandmother.
The Pacific War started for the Americans at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, but it was a few hours later and on the other side of the international dateline that Britain woke to war in the Far East and a threat to its Asian territories. The battle of Hong Kong, though key to events in China and ultimate victory, is a largely forgotten part of the Pacific War.
Churchill felt that it would be better for Hong Kong to fall into Japanese hands – to be recovered later – than to fall into Chinese hands, from which it might never be reclaimed. He certainly didn’t expect that Hong Kong could be held and refused to ‘waste’ extra resources on its defence. After receiving a request in January 1941 to strengthen the garrison, Churchill noted:
‘If Japan goes to war there is not the slightest chance of holding Hong Kong or relieving it. It is most unwise to increase the loss we shall suffer there…. I wish we had fewer troops there, but to move any would be noticeable and dangerous.’
Oliver Lindsay, military historian, commented:
‘For political and moral reasons Hong Kong had to be defended. Many Chinese would have been seriously discouraged from continuing their weary and interminable struggle against Japan, if Britain had lacked the courage and determination to resist and had abandoned the colony to the mercy of the Japanese before they had even declared war. Such a sordid act of appeasement would also have shaken the neutral Americans, who were then strengthening their forces in the Pacific while critically assessing Britain’s determination to fight on.’
The Allies in Hong Kong were woefully unprepared for a land-based attack and were poorly supported at every level. They were 15,000 men against over 50,000 Japanese, who were battle hardened from four years fighting in China. The garrison included Hong Kong Chinese, two Indian battalions, two newly formed Canadian battalions, British forces and the Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps. Initially the Japanese air force knocked out the Allies’ capability for air defence and reconnaissance, before ground troops began to push south from the Chinese border. The lack of air cover combined with few troops defending the mainland meant that the Japanese made rapid progress through the New Territories. The mainland was lost by 13 December, following a last stand at the Devil’s Peak peninsula.
After refusing a Japanese demand for surrender there followed three days of bombardment of the Allied positions on Hong Kong Island. General Sakai demanded surrender again on 17 December after this punishing shelling but, again, the British refused. Fierce fighting raged for the next few days as the Allies obstinately refused to admit defeat. The Governor of Hong Kong, Sir Mark Young, eventually surrendered the colony to the Japanese on Christmas afternoon, 1941. In his official despatch General Maltby, General Officer Commanding explained:
‘The deployment by the enemy of such superior forces and armament, the exhaustion after sixteen days of continuous battle with no reliefs for any individuals, our vulnerability to unlimited air attack, the impossibility of obtaining more ammunition for the few mobile guns I had remaining, the serious water famine immediately impending – these were the factors which led to the inevitable conclusion, namely, that further fighting meant the useless slaughter of the garrison, risked severe retaliation on the large civilian population and could not affect the final outcome.’
Subsequently known as ‘Black Christmas’, the surrender of Hong Kong cost the Allies around 11,000 captured as well as 2,287 killed/missing and 1,300 wounded during the battle. Japanese casualties in the fighting numbered 1,895 killed and around 6,000 wounded. For the captured, this was the start of a long struggle for survival. Thousands died, either in Hong Kong or when they were shipped to Japan, with over 800 PoW fatalities on the Lisbon Maru ‘hell ship’ alone. Almost a quarter of Far East PoWs died in captivity. Very few men escaped from Hong Kong, where Japanese troops patrolled the colony and it was thought that the local Chinese might hand you over to the enemy. Besides, disguise for Caucasians was impossible and China was an unknown territory, with poor transport links and the Japanese army advancing across it. Only 33 men ever escaped from Sham Shui Po camp, for example, thankfully including my father.
Not that he ever talked about his experiences. It was though he, like so many veterans, kept a vow of silence after the war. The annual commemoration of the Great War (later known as the First World War) with two minutes’ silence is a ritualised version of the night vigil, when the dead were watched over by their surviving comrades. The purpose was to protect them against mutilation, looting or being eaten by scavengers; to guard their honour rather than as an act of remembrance. Perhaps survivors’ lifelong silence, particularly from the First and Second World Wars, served to guard the honour of their dead and their own scorched youth. But the families of veterans are left with a tantalising blindspot, a frustrating ignorance of what their loved ones did, achieved, suffered and felt.
On this 80th anniversary, what are we commemorating and how does the act of remembrance help us in our lives today? For those of us with personal connections to the Battle of Hong Kong, we can take this opportunity to collectively remember our loved ones, even if their specific role in the battle and its aftermath remain unknown to us. We are deeply indebted to Prof Kwong Chi Man of Hong Kong Baptist University for creating a commemorative, interactive map of the battle and its actors at https://digital.lib.hkbu.edu.hk/1941hkbattle/en/index.php. There you can see details of battle infrastructure, the chain of events, unit movements and biographies of individual combatants, pausing, zooming in and learning more as you go. It is an extraordinary achievement and a resource to be treasured.
More generally we can think about the values and behaviours that the Allied forces expressed. Britain, its empire and its allies had been at war for two years by this time and was facing an unknown, imperilled future. The opening of a new theatre in the Far East meant stretching scarce resources and, potentially, the loss of many more lives. It was widely accepted in Hong Kong that the fate of the colony was doomed and yet they fought to the bitter end.
These men were fighting with commitment, determination, camaraderie, fortitude, conviction, resilience and courage, in defence of freedom and in defiance of inevitable defeat. Like their colleagues in Europe they fought against tyranny, aggression and greed. They lost colleagues, friends and family and often suffered terribly themselves and yet they fought on. The Hong Kong civilian population suffered too but did not turn against the Allies, often supporting them at risk to their own lives. The battle was a joint effort, with Allied troops of every colour, culture and creed united against a common foe. Local defeat was the price of ultimate victory, with the China theatre keeping half the Japanese forces busy for the rest of the war.
We need this same spirit of teamwork, cooperation and willingness to make sacrifices in our approach to present day global issues such as the Covid pandemic and the climate crisis. This is a moment in history to stand together and to value our common characteristics above our differences in order to achieve a lasting security. Let us remember and honour that, with those brave people who fought for us lighting the way.
 Oliver Lindsay The Lasting Honour: The Fall of Hong Kong 1941 (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1978), 201
 General Christopher Maltby The London Gazette, 27 January 1948
We naturally focus on the long, terrible suffering of the FEPOWs. But what if there could have been an earlier end to the war? This is the question that struck me when I uncovered my father’s part in trying to liberate the PoWs in Hong Kong.
Major John Monro RA escaped, with two colleagues, from Sham Shui Po PoW camp in Hong Kong in February 1942, making their way 1500 miles across China to the wartime capital at Chongqing. In August 1942 he was made Assistant Military Attaché there, where his chief role was liaison with Col Lindsay Ride, founder of the British Army Aid Group (BAAG), a humanitarian and intelligence organisation supporting the Hong Kong PoWs.
My father also had close links with US Air Force Chief of Staff, Col Merian Cooper, who served General Chennault of Flying Tigers fame. Cooper had long been a pilot and he was also a film maker, creating and co-directing King Kong. He flies the plane that kills the beast in the final scene.
In autumn 1942 the Japanese seemed to be an unstoppable force and competing strategies were being considered by Allied Command. General Stilwell, Commander of Allied Forces in China, was an infantryman and land war proponent. Chennault was a forward thinking airman who believed that retaking control of China’s airspace and major ports would enable the Allies to attack Japanese shipping, disrupt their supply lines and ultimately attack the Japanese islands themselves.
Part of Chennault’s analysis was the intelligence supplied to him by BAAG, giving him confidence in his plan to retake Hong Kong. My father saw an opportunity to liberate the PoWs as part of this plan, knowing that they were now too weak and sick to escape. He put his idea to Cooper and Ride and they hammered out the details.
At the Casablanca Conference in January 1943 the air war strategy was approved and reported in the press – an interesting read for the Japanese! Chennault and Stilwell travelled to Washington for the Trident Conference in May 1943, where they put their detailed and opposing plans to President Roosevelt. He was in favour of the air plan, as was Churchill, who famously said ‘going into swampy jungles to fight the Japanese is like going into the water to fight a shark.’
The air plan won the vote and Roosevelt wrote a directive for the War Department. He showed it to Chennault to check that it included everything he needed, but omitted to sign it, ‘FDR’. The War Department was headed by land war and Stilwell supporters, who ensured the error was never corrected. Chenault never received the planes, pilots, ammunition and fuel that he needed. The land war in Burma went ahead, with huge suffering and loss of life. Had Chennault’s plan been properly resourced, perhaps the war in the Far East would have ended early. Allied resources would have redeployed to Europe, shortening the war there. As many as 9 million lives might have been saved.
Remembering captivity across Southeast Asia and the Far East during the Second World War