The name for the new Bridgewater Bridge could act as a tribute to our fallen soldiers, writes Andrew Wilkie I was talking to John Wood of Montagu Bay recently, and he made a compelling case for naming the new Bridgewater Bridge in recognition of the almost thousand Tasmanians who served in the 2/40th Australian Infantry Battalion during World War II. Perhaps it could be called the 2/40th Memorial Bridge, John suggested, in which case it would likely be called Memorial Bridge in everyday use.
Now I acknowledge that John’s idea is bound to be controversial, not least because there are so many people, organisations and historical events warranting recognition. The attempted genocide of Indigenous Tasmanians comes straight to mind, although I’m not going to repeat the mistakes of the countless old white men before me and tell First Nations peoples what they need or want or will have thrusted upon them, including a bridge named to commemorate their tragic history. It is worth noting, however, that the bridge is just down the road from where the Brighton Bypass desecrates the Jordan River Levee, despite it being noted on the National Heritage List as “a rare and ancient site that is one of the last remaining physical links for Aboriginal Tasmanians to their ancestors, traditional way of life and cultural practices.” The 2/40th was the only World War II infantry battalion comprised almost entirely of Tasmanians. Members of the battalion began their training just up the road from the Bridgewater Bridge, at Brighton Army Camp, and were eventually deployed to Timor in response to the Japanese thrust down through Asia and the Pacific. But intense fighting was upon the unit almost immediately and the main battle was over within days, with 59 Tasmanians killed fighting, dying of wounds or being executed by the Japanese. Most survivors were taken prisoner.
Afterwards 526 of the POWs were shipped off to work on the notorious Burma-Thailand railway and what followed was the stuff of nightmares. Building the railway, often through rugged terrain and dense jungle, would require many hundreds of bridges and earthworks. And the horrendous physical and environmental conditions were made all the worse by the abuse from the guards, starvation and overwork. Many prisoners died from diseases like beri-beri, cholera, malaria, dysentery and ulcers. The toll among the 2/40th was another 74 Tasmanians dead.
Of course, there is much more to the story of the Burma-Thailand railway, including that some 13,000 Australian POWs were ultimately involved. And there’s much more to the story of the 2/40th, in particular that 83 members perished when the POW vessel Tamahoko maru was torpedoed by a US submarine on June 24, 1944. Including Tasmanians aboard the ship from other units, this was the biggest loss of Tasmanian lives in a single day during World War II.
By the time the war was over, of the 850 members of the 2/40th who sailed from Hobart on January 7, 1941, 267 in total had perished.
Unsurprisingly the soldiers who somehow survived all this would likely never be the same again. Those of us that have never experienced such horrors can only speculate about the demons the survivors carried in the heads and hearts for the rest of their lives, not to mention the lifelong injuries and disability they also lived with.
Recognising all of this properly is the right thing to do. That almost a thousand Tasmanians embarked overseas in the same army unit, that so many died, and that those who were left then endured what they did, is truly one of the most remarkable episodes of tragedy and resilience in our state’s recent history. Surely something significant is called for if we are to finally honour these men, as well as their loved ones who mourned their death or lived with the consequences on the survivors. It would also be an apology of sorts for sending them to war so ill-equipped and unsupported.
Now I acknowledge that raising a military-linked name for the new bridge could make some people uncomfortable because they might feel it is to somehow glorify war. But even those of us who are anti-war need to remember that politicians declare wars, not the young men and women who enlist, fight and die, or survive and live with their injuries. Remembering them and memorialising their service is the right thing to do, disappearing their history is not. Including the word “Peace” somewhere in the name of the bridge might be appropriate.
In any case we need to call the new Bridgewater Bridge something and I see merit in John’s suggestion, or at least value in taking it as a prompt for a public discussion about the name for the bridge more generally. In any case the community must have ownership of the name eventually selected for what will be one of the biggest pieces of infrastructure in the state.
Maybe John’s idea of recognising the 2/40th is the way to go.
Andrew Wilkie is the independent federal member for Clark. He is also a retired infantry lieutenant colonel with service in 6 RAR, 11/28 RWAR and 8/7 RVR.
Published in The Mercury on the 16th of January.