BS: British atrocities in Malaya

Subject: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 13 May 04 - 08:56 AM

Anyone know if there are photos online of the British atrocities in Malaya - you know, those famous pictures of the lads with the heads of the Malay insurgents strung around their belts?

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 13 May 04 - 11:44 AM

Not Malaya, Sarawak, during the time when President Sukarno decided to take over the whole of the Kalimantan and swallow up the Eastern Malaysian provinces of Sarawak and Sabah and the Sultanate of Brunei.

I believe there was one photograph, published by - you've guessed it - The Daily Mirror. It showed a Ghurka Sergeant returning from patrol with the heads of three Indonesian insurgents tied to his webbing. In no way could his action be described as an "atrocity" the insurgents were killed in combat, they were armed with assault rifles, the Ghurka sergeant was armed with a Kukri (knife).

In Borneo, the British forces enjoyed the total support of the native population (Ibans and Dyaks) who had no wish to become part of Sukarno's "greater Indonesia". The local tribesmen who acted as guides "in country" helped set up ambush positions. The Ghurkas impressed the hell out of the Ibans and Dyaks, they could go into ambush stay there for 24-48 hours and depart, on returning to the site of the ambush even the locals had great difficulty telling that there had been anybody there.

If operating closely with Ghurkas, the advice given was to look out for any who had a white thread sewn round the brim of his jungle hat. The significance of the white thread was that it marked someone out who had a personal grudge/slight/score to settle. The only way that thread could be removed was by taking a head - normally once the the situation went hot he wasn't fussed who's head it was, so you kept clear.

On another thread Wolfgang asked me, my opinion of the standard and calibre of soldiers in the British Army - it can be argued that the Ghurkas are the best light infantry soldiers in the world. The Sultan of Brunei was so impressed with them that he now uses them as his Royal Guard.

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: Metchosin
Date: 13 May 04 - 11:54 AM

a lot of undemocratic people are impressed with the taking of heads as battle trophies throughout history. Myself, I think we should whack their peepees off and use them as decorations to demonstrate our prowess. Much more manly!

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: Metchosin
Date: 13 May 04 - 11:56 AM

I've heard scrotums make excellent tobbacco pouches.

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: Metchosin
Date: 13 May 04 - 12:00 PM

can you just imagine what uses a hacked off woman's breast can be put to! Not just decoration, but many useful purposes....the mind boggles at the prospect!

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 13 May 04 - 12:07 PM

Hmm, Metchosin, our ideas of manliness are different!

You sure it wasn't Malaya, Teribus? I understood that a bounty was offered for killing insurgents, and that first heads, then ears were acceptable to the British authorities as proof of killing; how it was proved that the dead person was an insurgent I don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 13 May 04 - 12:13 PM

Well Metchosin, you've got to take into account the setting and the location. In Borneo, the taking of the bits you suggest:

a) Wouldn't kill a man armed with a rifle outright, so you might not live to enjoy your souvenirs

b) Would be regarded as sensless mutilation, deserving of no respect at all.

Borneo and the Kalimantan on the other hand had quite a history of head hunters. Taking an enemies head in battle was to be greatly respected and in the beliefs and customs of the area, among the locals, it promised increased success and power over one's enemies for the person taking the head.

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 13 May 04 - 12:21 PM

Yeah, Celts did it too; I believe, also, when the Tower of London's moat was excavated lots of skulls were dug out, having been tossed into the river after being mounted on pikes outside the tower to teach their ex-owners a sharp lesson.

Genghis Khan was fonder of ears; didn't his soldiers send home four sacks of ears after one city was sacked?

It seems a bit odd to me to think of cutting off one bit of a person as senseless mutilation, while cutting off another would be worthy of respect; but then this killing thing is a bit odd altogether, imho.

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: Metchosin
Date: 13 May 04 - 12:52 PM

ah hell Teribus, if the best of British soldiers to date where the Ghurkas, why stand on ceremony or succumb to cultural sensibilities? Rise to new heights! Cut to the chase! Cut off a few balls! I'm sure there would be some that would be impressed.

How about a few pulled teeth..... you can make excellent necklaces with those....very chic.

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: Cluin
Date: 13 May 04 - 02:10 PM

Metchosin, the US Cavalry did all those things to Native Americans a hundred years ago. You knew that, right?

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 May 04 - 03:40 PM

The confusion is that Malaya is the mainland part of the country known as Malaysia, which includes various overseas provinces, where this happened.

All colonial wars include atrocities, it seems pretty safe to say. All wars include atrocities for that matter. "Atrocity" meaning an atrocious thing that is against the rules, and in theory would count as war crimes, unlike other things that may be equally or even more atrocious, that aren't against the rules, and don't count as war crimes.

Taking body parts as souvenirs would count as being a war crime I believe, at least in theory. It would also be seen as a military offence, which potentially could be treated seriously. Sometimes it has been.

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah
Date: 13 May 04 - 07:54 PM

You're right, McGrath. Fortunately, after the sharp lesson the Brits gave the Indonesians in this conflict they are less keen to start colonial wars these days. They are out of East Timor, thanks (belatedly) to the Aussies - now for West Papua...

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 May 04 - 08:19 PM

Actually the British used to chop off the heads of Communist insurgents in the Malayan War - the reason being given was for identification purposes, rather than as trophies, and the practice was authorised and defended by Lt Gen Gerald Templer, the British high commissioner.

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 May 04 - 08:20 PM

Actually the British used to chop off the heads of dead Communist insurgents in the Malayan War - the reason being given was for identification purposes, rather than as trophies, and the practice was authorised and defended by Lt Gen Gerald Templer, the British high commissioner.

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: GUEST
Date: 13 May 04 - 08:42 PM

Just a nit-picking detail to the above, "the Gurkha sergeant was armed with a kukhri", he probabably WAS carrying his kukhri but he would also have been armed with either a 7.62mm rifle or a Sterling sub machine gun.

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: Metchosin
Date: 13 May 04 - 08:53 PM

Wow! sort of like the old bounty on vermin and cutting off the fox's tail and all that. Jolly good show!

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 May 04 - 09:20 PM

Friends, Romans, Country, lend me your ears!

What you got in that sack?

Ears!

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 13 May 04 - 09:50 PM

From Frazer: 'The Golden Bough' p230

"Many peoples regard the head as peculiarly sacred; the special sanctity attributed to it is sometimes explained by a belief that it contains a spirit which is very sensitive to injury or disrespect. Thus the Yorubas hold that every man has three spiritual inmates, of whom the first, called Olori, dwells in the head and is the man's protector, guardian, and guide. Offerings are made to this spirit, chiefly of fowls, and some of the blood mixed with palmoil is rubbed on the forehead. The Karens suppose that a being called the 'tso' resides in the upper part of the head, and while it retains its seat no harm can befall the person from the efforts of the seven Kelahs, or personified passions. "But if the tso becomes heedless or weak certain evil to the person is the result. Hence the head is carefully attended to, and all possible pains are taken to provide such dress and attire as will be pleasing to the tso." The Siamese think that a spirit called khuan or kwun dwells in the human head, of which it is the guardian spirit. The spirit must be carefully protected from injury of every kind; hence the act of shaving or cutting the hair is accompanied with many ceremonies. The kwun is very sensitive on points of honour, and would feel mortally insulted if the head in which he resides were touched by the hand of a stranger. The Cambodians esteem it a grave offence to touch a man's head; some of them will not enter a place where anything whatever is suspended over their heads; and the meanest Cambodian would never consent to live under an inhabited room. Hence the houses are built of one story only; and even the Government respects the prejudice by never placing a prisoner in the stocks under the floor of a house, though the houses are raised high above the ground. The same superstition exists amongst the Malays; for an early traveller reports that in Java people "wear nothing on their heads, and say that nothing must be on their heads … and if any person were to put his hand upon their head they would kill him; and they do not build houses with storeys, in order that they may not walk over each other's heads."

(I love that book...)

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: HuwG
Date: 13 May 04 - 11:46 PM

Britain was involved in two low-intensity wars in South-East Asia after World War II: the Malayan Emergency (1948-1960) and the "Confrontation" with Indonesia over Sabah and Sarawak on the island of Borneo (1963-1965).

As McGrath of Harlow points out, heads were sometimes taken during the Malayan Emergency, but for identification purposes. It was much easier than carrying an entire enemy corpse through several miles of dense "ulu" (Malay word for jungle, still in use in the British Army thirty years later).

However, there were one or two genuine atrocities. These were not usually wanton cruelties. More often it was a case of civilians being killed or injured when young and inexperienced National Service Officers and OR's panicked and opened fire without cause. This was the conflict which spawned literature like Leslie Thomas's "The Virgin Soldiers". For the early years of the Emergency, the British Army was not properly trained or organised to fight elusive guerillas.

To the best of my knowledge, British forces committed no war crimes or atrocities against civilians during the Confrontation with Indonesia. As has been pointed out, they enjoyed the support of the bulk of the population, and were generally well-trained and prepared.

Both sides occasionally executed prisoners. It was impossible to take them along, especially if in enemy territory or if wounded, but fatal to let them go free to guide pursuers after their former captors.

I doubt whether Gurkhas ever went on patrol armed with nothing but a kukhri, but there are several cases on record where, rather than clear a jammed rifle or machine gun under fire, a Gurkha would drop it and charge with a kukhri. In the dense forest, the ranges at which ambushes or contacts took place were often short enough to allow this.

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 14 May 04 - 03:36 AM

Guest is correct the particular Ghurka sergeant was armed with a Sterling 9mm sub-machime gun, he chose, for reasons best known to himself to use his Kukhri.

"Borneo" and the "Indonesian Confrontation" that followed on immediately after were not "colonial wars" Kevin. By the time they started Malaysia was an independent confederation of states who had a defence treaty with the UK. When Sukarno threatened to invade Britain honoured its treaty obligations and sent troops to assist the Malaysian Government. The confrontation deemed all over bar the shouting in 1965 actually frittered on until about 1968, the first year since the end of the Second World War that a British serviceman was not killed on active service.

HuwG's description of the terrain is perfectly correct. In some locations long range could sometimes be defined as about 10 yards.

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 May 04 - 09:58 AM

I seem to remember that The Carpetbaggers, had one of the baddies keep his tobacco in what he described as a "Squaws Tit Baccy Pouch"
Horrible thought innit?
JGM

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 May 04 - 11:11 AM

I'd say that colonial wars is a fair term for these kinds of conflicts. Strictly speaking most of the British Empire didn't consist of "colonies" - I don't think the Indian sub-continent actually contained any territories which were legally "colonies".

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 May 04 - 05:24 PM

Interesting bit of British history. Keep it coming.


'Ulu' is used in Alaska to mean an Inuit (Eskimo) woman's knife- it's a curved blade, usually about 4 inches long, topped with a bone or antler handle that fits in the palm of the hand. Vegetables are cut in a rocking motion rather than chopping. It beats any straight blade I have ever used.

The on-line dictionary is not familiar with the word.

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: Raedwulf
Date: 14 May 04 - 05:36 PM

For once I'll side against you, Kevin. Regardless of the nature of the conflict, 'colonial' has perjorative connotations that are inappropriate here. Sort of the difference between 'necessity' & 'wanton cruelty', if you see what I mean?

HuwG's 'low intensity' may sound a little bureaucratic, but seems a remarkably accurate descriptor. The difference between legally accurate & how you can conveniently describe things has unfortunate parallels with the publicity hungry editor of the Daily Mirror & certain apparently stunted pictures in current circulation.

Talk is cheap - those doing the talking rarely seem to consider the implications for others & can always 'justify' their prejudices. I'm not implying anything of you (&, FWIW, my general attitude toward Iraq is one of abhorrent necessity), McG, but it is a point worth making, I feel. People are very good at tossing allegedly innocent 'words' around without consideration of the consequences for those beyond 'their' pale!

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: HuwG
Date: 14 May 04 - 09:22 PM

There is some literature available on the Malayan Emergency and the Confrontation. For the "Emergency", try "The War of the Running Dogs" by Noel Barber. For the "Confrontation" there is "Undeclared War" by Denis Sheil-Small. This unfortunately is largely a blow-by-blow account of the doings of the units involved, with special attention paid to the Gurkhas. (Sheil-Small was a former Gurkha officer).

Machetes were issued to British troops, and were a common source of injury to the inexperienced. Gurkhas obviously kept the kukhri. One British officer I met who had served with the Queen's Gurkha Signals wore his everywhere, including while skiing. A fall could have been very, very, painful.

Incidentally, the Armalite AR15 (the commercial model of the American M16) was issued on a small scale to British troops in the Far East, long before the US Army got hold of it. As might be expected from the British Army, the first unit to get their greedy hands on the weapon was not the Special Air Service, or any of the units involved in the fighting in Borneo; it was a Guards unit in Singapore, so that they could work out the ceremonial drill movements for it.


British Army slang or jargon is derived from many sources; Malay, Arabic and pigeon-German words can be heard (although it is over twenty years since I wore a uniform). Another Malay word occasionally heard was "Bukit", meaning mountain. Senior NCOs could sometimes refer to "bucketing" for "climbing". Great imagination is shown in producing frivolous meanings for pompous initials. There are also some soldier-specific terms (such as "Divvies", for folding money, from "DV" or "Drinks Voucher").

Subject: RE: BS: British atrocities in Malaya
From: Metchosin
Date: 15 May 04 - 12:42 AM

Yes Cluin, I knew that and yes Giock, it is.