Toh Boon Kwan's research note, "It was a thrill to see rows of B-29s going through the sky" in the Journal of Military History (abstract) presents a local perspective on the US bombing campaign against Japanese military targets in occupied Singapore; his findings largely confirm the view found in the literature, wrt bombing campaigns in Europe, that while the bomber was not an independent, war-winning weapon (a claim that strongly resurfaced following the 1991 Gulf War and 1999 Kosovo air campaign), it demonstrated to subjugated populations that the war was not over and the turning of the tide was possible.
In the methodology section of the article, Toh's lament about how 'the voices of the vast majority of Chinese dialect and Mandarin-speakers have been lost to posterity' continues to ring true. The Chinese language voice in Singapore's official circles plays second fiddle and this is echoed by the blogosphere in general as dialect usage continues to fall off a cliff (PDF); even when the Chinese language is used, it seems to be more of an attempt to project the official English voice futher afield via translation and dissemination. Though it is not without some irony that Toh himself forms and reinforces that the 'educational and class prejudices held by the creators of documentary records' that he is more critical and critically aware of.
Aside from the somewhat paradoxical effect of civilians cheering the bombing even though there was extensive collateral damage, it was interesting to note how there's collaboration and there's collaboration. For example Lim Chong Pang was officially appointed by the Japanese to mobilize the local Chinese community in support of Imperial Japan and was detained by the Allies following the Japanese surrender. Nonetheless he was eventually freed following a mass petition - no doubt a testament to his organizational skills but also a good measure, of something that's hard to measure, of the sincerity of his reluctance to collaborate. Likewise the mitigation efforts of the Nam Ann Siang Theon and Blue Cross Society which helped themselves and their fellow human beings also helped their oppressors; who duly recognized this with praise of their activities being 'socially responsible'. While a Hobbesian state encompasses all by appeal to the imperative of physical survival, the Lockean and Kantian counterpoise point out how thinly it quickly wears out.
A particular LOL moment in the article was when it was recounted how the Japanese did their utmost to prove to the population that the B-29s were not invulnerable by showing film footage of fighters knocking a few of them down, parading captured prisoners and so on. And yet the belief that the B-29s were invulnerable (thus being proof of Allied technological superiority) continued to persist. In Toh's words, 'perceptions... triumphed over reality.' It seems that an irrational suspension of disbelief is necessary not just for watching terrible Hollywood movies but also for hope in the possibility of change.

Comments (1)
Dear Ringsei,
Thanks for the fascinating article, especially one about the military history of Singapore that is so riveting. The multi-national archival research appears to be quite exhaustive and the representation multi-dimensional and approached with a critical eye. Given the paucity of insightful research on the occupation period (Versus the invasion period) of British Malaya, I think this is a very good contribution.
However, I still do not get from the article the temporal differences between the sight of American bombers and the spectacle of the Japanese planes, commercial flights and the British fighters? Were local residents more influenced by the overall understanding through slippages of news' reporting that the war was not going Japanese way (and collapsing on the European front) rather than the spectacle of strategic and careful bombings? Did the latter reinforced such a general perception or was it a pivotal experience for residents that shaped their perception towards themselves, the occupiers and the future regime? Also, how is the larger historiography of the technology and material culture of flight/planes in the modern period linked to this particular episode in the history of Empires? Did Singapore residents view American bombers differently from other groups of people at the same period of time?
Posted by Wayne | August 31, 2009 12:31 PM