Could Singapore been held?
-
With everything being said,today incidentally is V-J day. A pleasant reminder that Singapore,in the end, was liberated.
-
Well, it's true that a lot of Chinese and European prisoners did suffer, but many also survived too. And don't forget the other races, such as the Malays, who were largely left alone, and the Indians, who were given a chance to join the Indian National Army and hopefully elude the Japanese grasp later.
Anyway, all these and what have seen said here regarding what happened after the surrender is with the benefit of hindsight. With Percival's limited knowledge of Japanese intentions and culture at that time, I don't think he could've predicted with any degree of usefulness what the Japanese would do after he'd handed Singapore over to them. I believe the foremost consideration in his mind as a military commander would have been to save his troops from sacrificing themselves to what was to him a lost cause. Hence I consider his surrender a humane decision but not cowardly. -
Besides the sources of intelligence mentioned, there was another that was mentioned in the papers some time ago but that person's identity wasn't disclosed - probably due to the information still classified by the Brits.
Another point is that Percival totally screwed up (besides being incompetent)... a British army engineer officer had questioned Percival why he did not want to implement defence works in Malaya & the reply was that he did not want to demoralise the population at large!!! -
Actually the reasons the Thais collaborated with the Japs was not out all of cowardice.Originally posted by Jia Liao Bee:Let me put it this way. The REAL COWARDS are actually the THAIS. If they have fought along with malayans and british troops, singapore will NOT be captured. Instead, Thailand welcomed the Japs to use their land as a base to launch massive air strikes against her neighbours.
They were the only independent country (kingdom) in this part of Asia. Up north Burma and the rest of Indochina like Cambodia, Vietnam Laos were all colonised by French and Brits.
Down South Malaysia, Singapore, Indo and Philippines were all colonised by Brits, Dutch and US. The Thais actually hated all the white colonials - with good reasons, of course. Who wants to be colonised?
The Thais were militarily very strong in WW2 with a modern airforce. They attacked French Indochina in 1940. They declared war on Britain in 1942
http://www.pcug.org.au/~eugen/thai_history.htm
It is very hard to find information on the Kingdom of Thailand during the war and exactly what they did as I'm sure the Thais are not keen to publicise it. But one of the aircraft in their inventory was the Japanese Ki-43 Type 1 Hayabusa (Peregrine Falcon), or Oscar, a very capable fighter. -
May those who perished, RIP.Originally posted by fallin:With everything being said,today incidentally is V-J day. A pleasant reminder that Singapore,in the end, was liberated. -
Well, you can't say bad things to General Percival. I remember taht my History teacher wold me that Percival had alrady enticipated that an attack from the north very well early in the war. He suggested to the British superoirs in UK that more troops should be place to form a "wall" in Malaya. But the seniors in UK thought that such a plan would not be possible. The superiors thought that the Japanese would attack from the south VIA Sentosa as the Japanese "could not fight in the dense jungles of Malaya". Therefore, they built four powerful forts in Sentosa.
-
Yo all esp moca :
There is a road named after Percival====Percival Road at Fort Canning........
There is also a Haig Road named after the WW1 General whose victories came thru the blood of thousands in the trenches.
Not to mention Petain Road named after French WW 1 hero Marshall Petain ( but collaborated with Hitler in WW2)
I think someone should take up the issue to replace these names.........failing which we should all piss on them........... -
The forts were built way before WW2. In fact, the defences were in progress right after Singapore was accquired as a trading port of the British. Most were built during the late 1800s and upgraded over the years. There is indeed a strong defence towards to south. But alas! The Japanese strolled right in from the North.
1) The guns did face inland to impede the Japanese advancement.
2) Most rounds used were not anti-personal but rather armour-piercing to sink vessels.
3) With no air support, the guns were like sitting ducks to aerial bombardments.
A well-written site describing the guns and its role played during the fall of Singapore.
http://www.fortsiloso.com/history/1919.htm -
What a disgrace!!!Originally posted by Dr Who:Yo all esp moca :
I think someone should take up the issue to replace these names.........failing which we should all piss on them...........
Yeah, piss on them
-
Alright, it's true that Haig was easily one of the worst commanders-in-chief during World War I, sending thousands of his countrymen to death at battles of the Somme and Ypres.Originally posted by Dr Who:Yo all esp moca :
There is a road named after Percival====Percival Road at Fort Canning........
There is also a Haig Road named after the WW1 General whose victories came thru the blood of thousands in the trenches.
Not to mention Petain Road named after French WW 1 hero Marshall Petain ( but collaborated with Hitler in WW2)
I think someone should take up the issue to replace these names.........failing which we should all piss on them...........
But Petain, prior to his disgrace as a Nazi collaborator during WWII, was actually one of the most outstanding generals of WWI. He led the defence and succeeded in holding Verdun against the German onslaught in one of the fiercest battles of the war, and he revived French morale and fighting spirit after the mutiny of 1917 by showing genuine concern for the welfare of his soldiers. His subsequent collaboration with the Nazis had more to do with his personality rather than any actual belief or endorsement of Nazi ideology. Petain was a staunch patriot and possessed a somewhat melancholic character, and his military skills were geared more towards conservation and defence rather than attack and conquest. When the Nazis broke the power of the French army with Operation Sichelschnitt, Petain believed that the only way for the French Republic to continue in existence was through collaboration with Hitler, and hence he agreed to become the head of the Vichy. This I believed stemmed more from his patriotism than from any belief in Nazism, and so I think we should not see Petain in such a bad light as some others have made him out to be.
If you are interested, you can try reading Corelli Barnett's The Swordbearers, which has a good deal of material on Petain during WWI. -
That might not be possible for several reasons.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Better to die fighting than be executed like flies in Changi.
I think we would have given them a harder time than the Chinese in Nanking, had the ammo and weaponry be available to us.
I for one, would love to turn Orchard Road into Sniper's Alley like Sarajevo.
Firstly I doubt the population of Singapore then was really up for resistance like the Soviets. While some of the population did engage in active resistance back then, they were not exactly top on the British to-do list which was more worried about the Jerries.
Do the British trust the local populace enough to arm them and send them against the Japanese? I doubt it? In fact the British back then (for that era), had a general contempt for the concept of the fighting ability of any race that wasn't white.
While a lot of the Chinese there had some reason to resist the Japanese, I don't think the same could be said for the other races then. Also I do not think the Chinese were as well organized as the Soviets were, who were fighting with their backs to the wall on their homeland. We would have had less motivation to fight for an island owned by the British then where we were we didn't really call home then.
Hmm speculative history.. but let's say that Singapore was an independent state in WW2, and had roughly the same abilities of the SAF translated into those times... hmm... it might be a different issue but we could still lose if the Japanese threw enough resources at us and we have no way to run.
The Chinese weren't totally ineffective against the Japanese during WW2 though, given their resources they actually inflicted a surprising abount of damage and actually won some battles. But overall politics and outdated technology hampered their style. -
Looking back human always question wat will happens if this didnt happens tat didnt happens
Could Singapore be held ? Maybe can maybe not.Will japan won e war if e carriers were sunk on 7 dec or had they mass produced e "Grace" Could e Germans had won if they achieve e planned 4000 strong He-162. Does it matters now wat matters is we dun make e same mistakes again EVER 
-
The Japanese could never outlast our resources. Remember, they were trying to occupy Leyte Gulf and Philippines too.. most of the invading troops were replaced by the MP troops...Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:That might not be possible for several reasons.
Firstly I doubt the population of Singapore then was really up for resistance like the Soviets. While some of the population did engage in active resistance back then, they were not exactly top on the British to-do list which was more worried about the Jerries.
Do the British trust the local populace enough to arm them and send them against the Japanese? I doubt it? In fact the British back then (for that era), had a general contempt for the concept of the fighting ability of any race that wasn't white.
While a lot of the Chinese there had some reason to resist the Japanese, I don't think the same could be said for the other races then. Also I do not think the Chinese were as well organized as the Soviets were, who were fighting with their backs to the wall on their homeland. We would have had less motivation to fight for an island owned by the British then where we were we didn't really call home then.
Hmm speculative history.. but let's say that Singapore was an independent state in WW2, and had roughly the same abilities of the SAF translated into those times... hmm... it might be a different issue but we could still lose if the Japanese threw enough resources at us and we have no way to run.
The Chinese weren't totally ineffective against the Japanese during WW2 though, given their resources they actually inflicted a surprising abount of damage and actually won some battles. But overall politics and outdated technology hampered their style.
so there, you see that Yamashita could not commit the elite forces for too long, that's why he played poker with Percival, and he won. If not, the SEA campaign would have changed quite radically. -
That is depend on many factors, but one thing is true was that the Japanese had a heavy reliance on quick, easy victories with minimal cost. Fighting a war of attrition is a thing that they were very poor at doing.Originally posted by LazerLordz:The Japanese could never outlast our resources. Remember, they were trying to occupy Leyte Gulf and Philippines too.. most of the invading troops were replaced by the MP troops...
so there, you see that Yamashita could not commit the elite forces for too long, that's why he played poker with Percival, and he won. If not, the SEA campaign would have changed quite radically.
But losing the battle of Singapore (assuming they have taken Malaya) might have other bearings on them. They might have not fought their other more costy battles and bought some time to consolidate their strength. If they had avoided their little adventure in Burma, they might have a lot more troops to throw at SEA, and that might still not be a good thing.
Of course even with all that, had they carried on to lose Midway the war would probably still have gone in the way of the Allies. -
Yamashita was told he had to finish the campaign within 100 days so that his formations could be used elsewhere.
This can be found in Singapore Burning by Colin Smith. -
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=38639
The point of divergence in the timeline above is that instead halting,Hitler's panzers charge towards Dunkirk. Following a devestating defeat, Winston Churchill is removed from power and Lord Halifax becomes Prime Minster. Subsequently, Lord Halifax brokers a peace deal between GB and Germany. Due to the lack of the European conflict, GB is able to send more resources to support the Pacific Campaign. So instead of getting Buffalos, we get Spitfires, instead of Percival, we get Montgomery. How would a situation like that work out? -
I don't think Adolf would be happy with GB working against axis powers, if GB wants to make peace with Germany then they will have to make peace with Japan in a way as well.
Then we'll have to consider the Japanese response... will they grudgingly give up the fight and hold onto all that they have overrun? Or will they disregard GB's suing for peace and carry on with the war?
I doubt Adolf is going to sit around to do nothing as well, given the chance he would take Britan. And if Britan has diverted its resources to SEA, it might make it a tempting target for the Nazis to break their accords (and they have a history of doing that).
But then again, Adolf is going to try for Russia anyway, and if things play out as they do after Stalingrad... the war might still be on the side of the allies. But if Adolf did not try for Russia and went for Britan instead... it might be a different story.
But it all depends on Adolf, if he had made a few choices not to fight a two-front war or piss off so many powers, the war might have turned out differently as he would have avoided many costy mistakes. -
I beg to differ. Hitler felt that the British were fellow Aryans. In fact, he very much wanted to sue for peace with them. In Mein Kampf, it was written that he wanted to form alliances with them. So a British-Nazi peace treaty would not be hard to imagine.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I don't think Adolf would be happy with GB working against axis powers, if GB wants to make peace with Germany then they will have to make peace with Japan in a way as well.
Then we'll have to consider the Japanese response... will they grudgingly give up the fight and hold onto all that they have overrun? Or will they disregard GB's suing for peace and carry on with the war?
I doubt Adolf is going to sit around to do nothing as well, given the chance he would take Britan. And if Britan has diverted its resources to SEA, it might make it a tempting target for the Nazis to break their accords (and they have a history of doing that).
But then again, Adolf is going to try for Russia anyway, and if things play out as they do after Stalingrad... the war might still be on the side of the allies. But if Adolf did not try for Russia and went for Britan instead... it might be a different story.
But it all depends on Adolf, if he had made a few choices not to fight a two-front war or piss off so many powers, the war might have turned out differently as he would have avoided many costy mistakes. -
What about the Japanese then? Will the Nazis turn on them or something?
-
I find that highly possible. I've always believed that even if the Axis Power won, it would be an inevitable that both powers go to war with each other. Both nations had at that time, racist beliefs, each believing that their race was greater than all others so I say it wouldn't be hard to have a war between them in event of a stable situation.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:What about the Japanese then? Will the Nazis turn on them or something? -
I remember reading that the Nazi sociologists had to scratch their heads really hard to work out the twisted logic behind giving the Japs the title of 'Honorary Aryans'.Originally posted by fallin:I find that highly possible. I've always believed that even if the Axis Power won, it would be an inevitable that both powers go to war with each other. Both nations had at that time, racist beliefs, each believing that their race was greater than all others so I say it wouldn't be hard to have a war between them in event of a stable situation.
The Japs took the easy way out - they simply saw the Germans as an inferior race to be treated nicely nonetheless.
Sigh... the day when we all truly start seeing each other as fellow humans and not have superiority complexes across racial boundaries is the day when things would be a whole lot better than they are now...
-
Let's see.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I don't think Adolf would be happy with GB working against axis powers, if GB wants to make peace with Germany then they will have to make peace with Japan in a way as well.
Then we'll have to consider the Japanese response... will they grudgingly give up the fight and hold onto all that they have overrun? Or will they disregard GB's suing for peace and carry on with the war?
I doubt Adolf is going to sit around to do nothing as well, given the chance he would take Britan. And if Britan has diverted its resources to SEA, it might make it a tempting target for the Nazis to break their accords (and they have a history of doing that).
But then again, Adolf is going to try for Russia anyway, and if things play out as they do after Stalingrad... the war might still be on the side of the allies. But if Adolf did not try for Russia and went for Britan instead... it might be a different story.
But it all depends on Adolf, if he had made a few choices not to fight a two-front war or piss off so many powers, the war might have turned out differently as he would have avoided many costy mistakes.
A weakened European front, Britain gets kicked in by Adolf after Russia decides to push east towards Berlin.
America doesn't get sucked into the Pacific War. Her naval supremacy is untested and subsequently shrinks?
Many things might have happened. The Japanese Army might have pulled back to Penang. What if the Thais decided to take on the Japs?
What if Montgomery, if he was here, decided to push northwards by land? Would the British end up fighting nascent rebellions in Burma and be hindered? -
Percieval didn't realise that they were much stronger and had a numerical advantage over the invaders. Had Singapore held out for a few more days, Japan would have withdrawn. Instead, mind games were played, and that's how Singapore was lost
-
The fact that he overestimated the strength of the Japanese troops is not enough reason for surrender.Originally posted by nanren4ever:Percieval didn't realise that they were much stronger and had a numerical advantage over the invaders. Had Singapore held out for a few more days, Japan would have withdrawn. Instead, mind games were played, and that's how Singapore was lost
The fact was that irregardless of the strength of the Japanese, he had more than enough men to hold the island at least for a few days if not weeks if they have more determination. Yes it would be hell but HEY - it's war!!!
We read courageious people give up when they are down to their last round of ammo, or everyone's dead or dying...etc.
But Percival was not lacking manpower, ammunition, and no one is dying of thirst or hunger.
THEY JUST SIMPLY GAVE UP!!!
There was not one Singaporean - military or civvy - who tried to persuade the British against fighting the Japs in order to spare Singapore from further destruction. I think most Singaporeans had a pretty good idea what the Japs will do once they arrive. So it was preferable to fight or die trying - like Lt Adnan & Lim Bo Seng - than to be butchered helplessly as a surrendered people.
That's why I think Percival deserved a court martial. His incompetence tarnished the image of the "angmo" forever.
But again, like I said, his decision to surrender must have had the agreement of London, which is why he wasn't tried so that other VIPs in London won't be implicated in the debacle. -
Hahaha... Then we would have heaven on earth.Originally posted by fudgester:Sigh... the day when we all truly start seeing each other as fellow humans and not have superiority complexes across racial boundaries is the day when things would be a whole lot better than they are now...
But, do you feel racially equal to the Rwandan Tutus, who decided to massacre 800,000 fellow Rwandan Tutsis?
Damn, I am not racist but i feel that there's something dangerous about that race.