How 80,000 British Troops Surrendered at Singapore
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 сен 2024
- Support the channel(s) on Patreon / historigraph
Come join the historigraph discord: / discord
Buy Historigraph Posters here! historigraph.c...
► Twitch: / historigraph
► Main Channel: / @historigraph
► Twitter: / historigraph
►Facebook: / historigraph
►Instagram: / historigraph
►Patreon: / historigraph
The full Historigraph video on the fall of Singapore will be uploaded tomorrow at 1800 UK time!
In the mean time, check out the new Battle for Malaya poster: historigraph.creator-spring.com/listing/the-battle-for-malaya
As a Singaporean, I thank you for this series.
Beautifully done!
Bennett managed to join with evacuees and made it back to Australia.
Yes indeed, got quite a lot of flak for it
You can say what you want about Percival but at least he took responsibility and stayed with his men
@@manatarms7652 At least Percival went through the hells together with his subordinates as POWs, clearly seen by his physical state during the surrender of the japanese on the Missouri.(If memory serve me right, he was there)
@@ww2expert283 Not really, he and other high ranking pows were sent to vip pow camps and just laid around waiting for wars end.
@@yellowpete79 Actually not wrong ngl but I doubt they bothered treating him with respect
Yamashita literally troll Percival into surrendering
He had a ton of reserves ready anyway
The allies were bamboozled, even before the invasion of Singapore.
I'm imaging Blackadder in this role, complaining how he thought he had picked a nice, quiet place to finish his service
Once travel restrictions are lifted, do come to Singapore. The factory where the surrender took place is still there and is now a museum, Memories at the Ford Factory.
We have a museum at Opium Hill too where Lt. Adnan and his men made the last stand.
Would love to visit one day
Yes, agree that foreign tourists are welcomed to visit Singapore when travel restrictions ease further. 2022 is an especially poignant year because it marks the 80th anniversary of the fall of Singapore. So the visit to the former Ford Factory would be meaningful.
If I'm not mistaken, the museum at Kent Ridge Park (formerly known as Opium Hill) to recognise the valiant defence of the Malay Regiment, was used for ammunition storage during the Battle for Pasir Panjang Ridge. The building that housed the actual regimental HQ, which had been demolished sometime in the mid-1980s, used to be situated on what is now a car park on the slightly lower level of the hill. It's unknown precisely where on the hill Lt. Adnan and his men made their last stand. So I stand to be enlightened with proof.
I love how you made dialogue as interesting as a battle montage
Are we still going to get a video on the main channel about the Japanese landings on Singapore and the Battles like at Bukit Timah? Overall, this was very informative and I liked it very much 👏👏👏
Ye it’s coming out tomorrow, he talked about it in a community post on the main channel
well done! i think this is the first time i've watched a vid solely covering a surrender.
Thanks for this. When people talk about the fall of Singapore you get the impression that Percival surrendered the minute the first Japanese troops crossed onto the Island, not when they were on the doorstep of Singapore city. Many also take Yamashita's claim that he was outnumbered 3-to-1 and critically outgunned and under supplied on its face value while assuming the british were well equipped, well supplied and dug in instead of out of water and scrambling to establish defensive positions.
I agree with your comment except the 3-1 outnumbered
That one is true, no matter how “propaganda” it felt
The British were defeated by an outnumbered enemy _on the defensive_
This is an excellent example of British leadership incompetence and the severe underestimation of the enemies’s capabilities
@@comradekenobi6908 I was referring to the other video by Historigraph on his main channel. The Japanese were outnumbered about 2 to 1 rather than 3 to 1. Still a big numerical advantage to the British but other than numbers the Allied troops were inferior in everything else to the Japanese (Equipment, Supplies, Morale, Training) not to mention the Japanese had complete control of the air and superiority in artillery.
The Malaya campaign was a disaster but in popular history it always seems to end up as "Lol Wavell was fucking coward me mum could have held Singapore"
@@burningphoneix not Wavell, Percival
@@burningphoneix Yup. Doesn't matter if you outnumber the other guy 10:1, if they've got ammo and modern weapons and you don't have ammo for your guns you're likely going to lose. Just look at Rorke's Drift.
@@Shenaldrac More importantly they were running out of water. The Japanese did not even need to attack, just wait.
My Grandfather was there, the defence and surrender was a huge mistake.
1) the British thought the Japanese army had tanks as they heard them going through the jungle. However, it was just wheel rims as the tyres had burst on the lorries. No Tanks!
2) they thought they would be treated with honour, even though my grandfather (acting commissioner of police Malaysia and ex WWI pilot with huge gallantry) knew that they wouldn’t, Percival ignored his pleas.
Result my grandfather was sent to changi, abused by the Korean guards regardless of rank, he wasn’t fit to return after the war for three years and passed away two and a bit years later.
Charles Reginald Morrish (first to sink a U Boat from the air and to conduct a Air Sea Rescue as part of the early Fleet air arm) lest we forget!
After how the British treated people karma I say
At 0:52
A.B.D.A. Com. =
American-British-Dutch-Australian (ABDA) Command, or ABDACOM, was the short-lived supreme command for all Allied forces in South East Asia in early 1942.
4:47 BASED A.F.
Virgin Percival vs Chad Yamashita
Better to have died fighting than to have been marched, beaten, starved, and tortured to death.
Become POW under Japanese army are another the worst hell experience in the world ever! 💀☠️
Strangely, Singapore still have a road named in honour of Percival, the bucktoothed Staff Officer promoted beyond his capabilities. No road named to honour the other Generals, not even a rat infested backlane.
Well said. Percival was a coward.
this video and the one about the fall of singapore are so good, thanks.
Great video! I know some people like to scapegoat Percival for the surrender, but once the Japanese got a foothold on Singapore, it was practically over. Heck, even if they hadn't, Singapore would soon be cut off by the Japanese anyway and there would be little hope to relieve the defenders any time soon.
It's over Percival. I have the high ground.
The latter part is certainly underrated, one only needs to look at the total IJN losses/RN responsible IJN losses to see that the Royal Navy was…not in any situation to even spit at the Japanese
@@looinrims yeah. His video on how the IJN in an hour sunk 2 British battleships. Basically forcing the rest to retreat to the Indian Ocean. There is no shame in surrendering.
@@ryanelliott71698 go watch Binkov’s Battleground’s “What if the US stayed neutral in WW2?” It shows that some 12 odd not submarines and 15 submarines were destroyed by the Royal Navy
Of the over 1000 ships that were lost
He is less blamed for the surrender than for the lack of defence preparations and tactical reactions to the japanese attack.
The siege could have lasted for many more months, weakening and delaying the japanese.
Percival acted much as Douglas MacArthur. The American General knew of the Japanese build of hostilities, knew of the atrocities committed on Chinese populace, and was warned numerous times to increase his defenses. Instead Dug Out Doug didn’t even park his planes in safe distance from each other.
When Imperial Japanese forces invaded the island American and Pilipino defense forces retreated to Corregidor island. MacArthur cowered inside the cave, never once coming out to boost the morale of his men, and never seeing to the defenses. Instead he abandoned his men and left leadership to another commander while he retreated, promising to return when enough American resources and his courage could be gathered.
And he was given a Medal of Honor for it. 😡
Imagine how his men felt, being left behind to die slowly while their leader got to give speeches about his “heroic defense.”
Seems like all of them were cowards..
The battling bastards of Bataan were famous for their spirited defense, in fact the Philippines resistance lasted 8 months longer than Singapore. The Brit’s and Aussies capitulated while the Filipinos and Americans had a bit more fight and fought on. Macarthur didn’t deserve any accolades though.
British troop always look tough when confronting unarmed and untrained local civilian population in Singapore and Malaya, but immediately 'hand up' when met with extremely cruel and brutal Japanese Imperial Army invaders during WW2. It's disappointed to see so many obediently dropped their firearms n surrendered at Singapore and Malaya. 😮💨😮💨
The warning signs were there long before the invasion of South East Asia
The part invasion of China by the Japanese should have been a clear sign of things to come,not just for the British but for the Americans and Filipinos and the Dutch East idines but the Vichey French in indo China.
They are cucks and cowards..
Well they did kinda avenged themselves in Burma and India
Years of using Malaya and Singapore , British Crown see no reason to fight hard , sacrifice soldiers for these fully exploited colonies anymore. @@whiteclouds26
@@bowlampar they kinda redeemed themselves in Burma and India thanks their colonial troops
Yamashita, one of the greatest military leaders in contemporary times.
Befitting that a statue of him be erected somewhere in Bukit Timah.
As for the looting and the debauchery, it was solely done by Anglo troops a couple of night before the City fell.
No mention on Gordon Bennett, who stole a sampan from a poor struggling native fisherman and fled Singapore in panic just before the official surrender.
i can imagine what in his panic face 🤣🤣.......that poor fisherman maybe feel amazing because 1st time see a white man paddling his sampan in panic.
Propaganda, but NOT History, has led us to believe that the Empire of Japan began its territorial expansion in the 1930’s, invading China, creating the puppet State of Manchukuo and “Provoking” the war with the Western Powers. But, Was this really, how events happened? Did Japan invade China and South East Asia? It seems so. However, the Propaganda does NOT say that for centuries, all Asia was invaded by Western Powers. England occupied India, Burma (Myanmar); Singapore, Malaysia and China (Hong Kong, Nanking, Shanghai, etc). France dominated all Indochina. The Netherlands intervened by the Force of its Arms, to all of Indonesia. And Belgium, Germany, Portugal, Spain, and of course, also the United States were in South East Asia cuz, for example this country, the US, occupied the Philippines since 1898. (Spanish-American War). Thus the panorama in the 30's, the Empire of Japan, when defeating to the Tsarist Russian Empire, it also decided to "Grow" by invading its neighbors. In those years, all European nations had colonies in Africa, India, the Middle East, Asia and America. (England came to occupy almost ¼ part of the planet). For its part, the US, in 113 years of existence as a nation in those years, had "Grown" 711 the size of its territory from its original 13 colonies. Now is the picture clear? Japan for its part, had fought on the side of the winners in World War I (1914-1918), and they, the Japanese, not awarded any "Gain". The western victors of WWI divided the world. Japan was excluded. Thus, Japan's motives for attacking and expanding as the Europeans and the US did seem clearer, right? Then they, the Japanese, attacked China in 30’s, which was occupied by 6 Western Powers for almost a century. None of the Western Powers occupying China at this time, OPPOSED or fought Japan for Invading China. NONE! Then, 11 years later after having occupied the territory of China and coexisted without any problem with the Western Powers within China, they, the Japanese, attacked Hawaii, which in turn, this Island had been occupied and annexed by the US in 1898. (In 1900-01, Hawaii became US territory and Hawaii ceased to be an independent nation after more than 630 years of sovereignty. By the time Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the United States had just completed the 40th anniversary of the military occupation and annexation of Hawaii). They, the Japanese, attacked Singapore, which was then a Colony of England. They, the Japanese, attacked the Philippines, which were occupied by the US and whose Gov’r, Douglas MacArthur reined as Emperor. Yup… Truly like an Absolute Autocrat. Therefore, the Japanese did NOT attack (In the 40’s), Singapore, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Borneo, Timor, the Philippines, etc. In reality, the Japanese attacked England, France, Belgium, Holland, the US, etc. That is, the Japanese attacked the Western Powers invading all of Asia. That is the verifiable truth. But, Propaganda has made us believe that the good guys were us, the US. And of course… Nanking was a horrendous Genocide committed by Japan, but, it was no more horrendous than the 12 Genocides committed by the United States in his History and all over the world. Nor was it less horrendous than the Genocide committed by King Leopold II of Belgium, in Central Africa. Nor was Nanking more or less horrendous than the Genocides that the British Empire committed in America, Africa, Australia, Middle East, India and also in China too. And now, the Japanese are our friends and allies... Yup… But, to fight against China, AGAIN!!! Well… No More. No More British Malaya nor British Borneo nor British wherever. No More French Indochina. No More Dutch Indies. No More Portugese Domains. No More US Domain here. Asia is for Asians and “The China Sea” belongs to CHINA!!!
Most of them were sorry they did not fight to the end.
Great video on a somewhat forgotten front.
The British got whooped on a bluff honestly
Thanks a lot for the most interesting and informative video (and also for the other previous videos on the campaign).
Do you intend to go on with the invasion of Burma?
Nice video. As foreigners, the British had a choice of retreating home and returning when times are better.
Agree in present day context. But not in the context of WWII. While the British had a choice of abandoning its colonies, pride, honour and prestige as colonial masters forbade them to do so then. The next time you visit Singapore, go to Kranji war cemetery. Buried in the graves are the hundreds of British and Commonwealth soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice in defence of Malaya's and Singapore's freedom. After the surrender, then British Governor Sir Shenton Thomas honourably marched with the other allied prisoners of war to Changi Prison. Every year to this present day, the British, Australian and NZ representatives gathered at the Kranji war cemetery to remember the fallen. Based on your response, inter-generational values have changed since then. Sigh!
British : Marching South to Singapore..
Defeated and surrender...
And the nightmare begins..
The Malaya series was outstanding.
It's still hard to believe this happened. Maybe if they knew what awaited them they wouldn't have surrendered.
I just wonder how such a large force could be so unprepared for battle.
Perhaps in these soldiers' minds they were just enjoying a cushy overseas posting?
Soldiers ? Nope. The coward British commanders and leaders? Yes.
This is great! In future would you please be able to remove/change the music behind the video. The high-pitch is quite distracting
In fact there wasn’t any ammunition left because Percival had ordered it to be stored mostly in one spot, which the Japanese had captured. Where the Japanese had broken through was on the Australian lines, where the ammunition had run out, and Percival refused their resupply or reinforcements. Although only 20% of the force, the Australians were almost 70% of the casualties in the campaign. The Japanese were enraged by the resistance the Australians had put up and they were the only troops who had summary executions inflicted on them after the surrender, including every Bren gunner.
Later the British officers clubbed together to jack up a story that the surrender was entirely due to Australian cowardice, and that was backed by report by Wavell. The investigation into the falsehood was brokered by Prince Phillip after the war and will not be realised until 2048. Then we will know precisely which British officers failed in their duty, and which ones lied to cover their backsides.
Are you saying it's going to take them until 2048 to finish the investigation, or that the documents are going to be unclassified in 2048? cuz I very much struggle to believe it's going to take them another 24 years to find out what happened 80 years ago
@@Laotzu.Goldbug The fake report put together by the British officers imprisoned in Singapore to blame everyone but themselves won’t be released until 2046. The British MOD deemed the conduct of Percival’s force to be too humiliating to reveal until all had well and truly passed on.
Winner writes it history. On the other, I would have branded Pervical a coward
Less than 50% of the troops that became POW's were British. The combined total of British and Australian's were outnumbered by Indian Army troops. So less than 40,000 of those captured were actually British.
The non Anglo Commonwealth troops were commanded by British Anglo Officers. Also by the end of WW2, the British still had not liberated Singapore or much of SE Asia. All the while the US had pushed the Japanese back to Iwo Jima and pushed the Japanese out of the Philippines. Frankly the contrast was obvious, the British Commonwealth was not a match for the Japanese. The Americans on the other hand were.
@@nickzadkeyvanfar657
Kinda like the hundred of thousands of Japanese captured by the British at wars end eh.
@@samcam8284 The bulk of the Japanese prisoners taken by the British during the fighting was never hundreds of thousands , that is factually incorrect. The mass surrenders only occurred after the fighting when the Japanese Government surrendered after the US bombed them with nukes. The Japanese forces were ordered by their Government to lay down their arms.
Cope
@@elliskaranikolaou2550well. It seems - it all boiled down to the cowardice of British commanding officers ( cuck i should say) - if they had wanted - they could have fought till last man .. Indian troops were ready to fight
What percentage of the troops that surrendered survived?
If British have well organised, capable and plenty enough of tank and armour division, warships and powerful aircraft for assault and defensive support, then result shall be completely different.
Has any historian(s) of British military history or World War Two history from 1945 to the present ever postulated that General Percival was incorrect in his judgment that resistance was useless and surrender of British forces in Malaysia was his only option?
He did, at the time, substantially outnumber IJA forces in the Singapore area, although granted, all were not frontline troops.
The Japanese on the other hand were, by the time they’d reached the city limits of Singapore stretched fairly thin and were “relatively” exhausted.
I am interested in this as well. I would suspect that the answer is no, the British never could have won, the Japanese would have eventually brought in the resources necessary and since at that point they control to see any major reinforcements to Singapore were impossible. I do think however it's possible that they could have held out for another few weeks, maybe a month or so, and been a thorn in the side of the Japanese like the Americans were on Bataan, putting a wrench in their timetable, at least temporarily
He was a coward. He wet his pants.
@@FilesdocumentsAndreposit-kr3vb Wow…,too bad some of his contemporaries didn’t catch that little “personality flaw” before he was put into command of the Gibraltar of the Pacific!
Might not have been possible to hold it in the long term, but it sure would’ve been nice to have made the bastards pay a higher price to take the place!
Especially since the fate of the garrison after the Japanese took them as POWs was so very unpleasant….
Actually, wetting one’s pants isn’t necessarily an indication of cowardice. It’s what one does immediately afterward that stands up for the measure of a person’s intestinal fortitude.
It may mean as little as not having time to locate a proper toilet just prior to kick’n some major ass! 👊🏼💥
I think he was terrified of the Japanese and technically it was a “conditional” surrender since he was allowed to keep 1000 men armed to maintain order inside the city itself. If the Japanese were to enter the city, who knows what would’ve happened to the civilians there. That and the city was effectively under siege with their water supply cut off. The cost of losing was too great and surrendering didn’t sound too bad. Singapore wouldve fell regardless since it was eventually completely cut off from the allies.
@@RaveN_EDM Percival was openly seen as coward by all the soldiers. He was a pussy.
Why is it that your figure is only 80,000? whereas the total Royal Allied Forces during the beginning of Japanese invasion in Malaya and Singapore was 130,000? what happened to the 50,000?
Dead, wounded, evacuated, captured prior to the battle
Odd choice in music, maybe something more calm/eerie?
"I should like to keep 1000 men under arms" no ""I should like to keep 1000 men under arms" >:l
Yamashita just wants his enemies to suffer as much suffering as possible. His "diplomacy" here is loud and clear.
How? Why are you bashing General Yamashita for winning whilst having odds against the Japanese? (3:1) He did what any good General does: wins battles. The war was never going to be won by Japan since it is industry and resources (especially oil) that determine the outcome of the war. With the US producing 80% of the world's oil at the time it was clear to Japanese leaders at the time who would win. General Yamashita and other Generals simply tried to win as many battles as possible and they did it very well.
I feel sorry for Lieutenant General Arthur E. Percival and his descendants who bear his family name. Yes, he was responsible for factors within his control for the fall of Singapore. But his prior assignment to inspect Malaya's defences and fortifications north of Singapore in the late 1930s influenced British High Command to assign him as General Officer Commanding (GOC) of Malaya to face the onslaught of the 25th Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) in 1941-1942, supported by Japanese air force and navy. As a staff officer, Percival was not an experienced field commander who could inspire his troops under crisis. He also faced many constraints beyond his control and could not make the best of the situation then. He dealt a tremendous blow to British pride and prestige by surrendering Singapore to the IJA. But his decision to surrender was a merciful one under the dire circumstances. Had he and his troops resisted longer, more people would die and the Japanese would have exacted greater revenge on the defeated soldiers and civilian population. Except for an empathetic audience with the British King, Percival was largely alienated and shunned by the British establishment after WWII. In the annals of history, the family name Percival will always be associated with the fall of Singapore. What ignominy!
It always baffles me how people have such a negative bias towards surrender/retreat compared to an equally large positive bias towards pointless resistance. Adnan might have fought to the last, but how much did it really accomplish? How much more good could he and his men have done if they'd lived to, quite literally, fight another day? The Japanese were brutal occupiers of course, I can understand not wanting to allow them control of your home, just look at Nanking, but if the choice is leaving and them occupying your home but you can take it back in the future *or* dying and they occupy it anyway... why go with the option that overall weakens the chances of your side's success in the long term?
Don't get me wrong, I can fully appreciate fighting to the last if you're not in a position where escape is feasible. But the way which so much unnecessary death and suffering is glorified, while pragmatic action like Percival's is spat upon strikes me as pretty gross. The best you can do is not to die for your country, but make the other son of a bitch die for his.
@@Shenaldrac Thank you for your response.
You've raised a very pertinent issue (and a very good one) about the hard choice between pointless resistance versus surrendering early enough after withdrawing precious armed forces to fight another day. There're not just military and economic dimensions to your issue, but also moral and philosophical ones too. In the end, it's a judgement call, taking into account their circumstances.
With a tinge of intellectual humility, it's all too easy for us (including me) and other armchair critics to judge past events, often with the benefit of hindsight. If we're not careful, we tend to evaluate them based our perspectives, biases, beliefs and values today, that have been shaped by our past experiences, impressions, readings from limited sources, etc.
Here, I hope to address your being baffled by setting the context and culture as to how people have a negative bias towards surrender/retreat (pertaining to Singapore's fall). You may not personally agree with the context and culture then, but the following were as they were:
From a British Foreign Office Memorandum of 23 March 1920:
"The exposed position of the (British) empire in the Pacific…we should find ourselves confronted with a suspicious and possibly hostile Japan which would cause us considerable embarrassment in China, India and the Far East generally. Owing to our present need of economy and the increasing naval strength of Japan, it’s not possible for us to maintain forces in the Far East sufficient to support a strong policy involving a possible coercion of Japan, or even a fleet equal in size to hers…"
In other words, a full 21 years before the Japanese invasion, the British government foreknew that its overstretched empire couldn't defend its Far East possessions by itself, in view of an increasingly assertive and rearming imperial Japan. Post-1923, Britain had to rely on the USA to be drawn into the Pacific war to defeat Japan.
Having been grievously wounded by WWI, losing more than 700,000 of British soldiers and incurring a heavy war-induced national debt, the British public opinion was one of popular revulsion against war and in favour of social domestic spending. So between 1919 to 1939, successive British governments slashed defence expenditures. Sir Winston Churchill, then Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1926, made deep budget cuts to the Royal Navy (RN), severely reducing its number of ships and firepower. By 1940, Whitehall already knew that it couldn’t defend the British empire on multiple fronts simultaneously.
So, soon after Churchill became wartime PM, his cabinet prioritised limited resources to the defence of British homeland and homewaters against a more direct threat from Nazi German threat from continental Europe, and with it "God save the King". This is the first law of human nature in action: self-preservation. This was followed by keeping Britain’s Atlantic lifeline from the USA free of the German U-boat menace, then matching the combined German-Italian fleet in the Mediterranean, keeping North Africa and the Suez canal free of Nazi control, attacking Hitler’s "soft under-belly" in Southern Europe and giving token support to Russia’s defence against a German invasion. Lastly, proritising the protection of its Indian subcontinental colony and Burma over Hong Kong and Malaya (that included Singapore).
So Churchill turned down repeated appeals by his senior military commanders to send adequate reinforcements to Malaya. Despite criticisms of him that persisted decades after the war to this day, Churchill was in a genuine dilemma. With limited resources, he had to prioritise. Of course, one could disagree with his lower order of priorities. In the event, his priorities meant that he de facto made Malaya expendable in his global strategic priorities, and exposed Australia and NZ closer to the frontlines of Japanese invasion.
So, here’s the dilemma: What could Britain as a colonial master do, when it had long concluded that it couldn’t defend its Far East possessions against the might of the Imperial Japanese armed forces? Churchill couldn’t draw the USA into overt war yet, as US President Roosevelt needed Japan to commit the first act of overt war against US forces, to overcome pacifist and isolationist opposition among the American public.
As Churchill explained to the British House of Commons, if it had spread its limited empire armed forces too thin and too widely, it would lead to ruination (of the entire empire).
The alternative of “superior” white men surrendering to an “inferior” Asiatic force without a fight, or abandoning its colonized natives, however temporal, would be too disgraceful, humiliating and shameful for British imperial pride, glory and prestige. It would be an inconceivable and politically suicidal option.
Instead, the British media and propaganda machine conjured up images of Singapore as an “impregnable fortress” and “Gibraltor of the East”, to keep up the morale of troops and civilians on the ground. That's why when Malaya and Singapore fell in 70 days to an numerically inferior number of invading troops, it came as a shock to Britain and much of the rest of the informed world, and not least to Churchill, who described the fall of Singapore as “the worst disaster and largest capitulation in British history”. The shame and humiliation of a catastrophic defeat in Singapore became personal for Churchill.
It’s human nature to find scapegoats when disaster strikes. Percival was made a scapegoat by the British establishment to deflect the spotlight away from many other players, not least Churchill, who had contributed to Singapore’s fall. As history is written by the victors, so Churchill’s 1951 memoirs (Hinge of Fate) exerted considerable influence over the mainstream interpretation of WWII (surrounding Malaya and Singapore), until classified documents released 50 years after the end of WWII paint a more complete picture. In the decades following Singapore’s fall, most reviews have focused on critical judgments, but fewer contents reflected empathy towards others.
The other issue you’ve raised was the futility of fighting unto death in an unwinnable battle. I can understand and appreciate the practical value behind your view. The belated British/Australian reinforcements to Singapore, which could have been conserved to fight another day, were politically motivated after Churchill faced appeals and pressure from the likes of then Australia's PM Curtin. But for many natives in Malaya and other lands, as for Ukrainian fighters today, theirs are their only homeland. Many do not see withdrawing to other countries, however temporary, as their option. Their value was such that they would rather fight to the death, rather than retreat and come back to fight another day. It’s not for me to question their value.
In Lt Adnan Saidi’s case, the motto he chose for his platoon was “Biar putih tulang, jangan putih mata.” This means, “It is better to die in battle than to live with tears of regret.” Adnan and his men fought desperately against a superior force with limited ammunition, trying to make as many of the other (your quote from Patton) die for his country. When overwhelmed and captured, they chose death before dishonour. Adnan Saidi has since emerged as an inspiration to the current generation of Singaporean and some Malaysian citizens.
Was that coward Percival cuck so afraid to die? Why did he come to the profesion of army then??😊
Percival ignored the commanders underneath him till the end. Made horrible decisions because he thought he knew better and kept fighting after the island was lost. He is singularly responsible for the deaths and suffering of thousands
@@squiglemcsquigle8414 Ignored? Till the end? Singularly? Find out the facts before you judge.
Your comment only shows your ignorance.
Go do archival research first before rebutting.
Absolutely dreadful performance by Percival.
Indeed he was an incompetent coward.
honestly losing the channel islands is a bigger deal
While on Feb 15th they had no option the campaign before that had been fought with such a level of incompetence that Percival should have been executed post-war and even a half-competent officer could still have turned it around as late as Feb 10th
Turn around an isolated island with exhausted troops and no hope of resupply??? Mate you are worse than Percival. He should've surrendered the moment the Japanese had boots on the island and atleast saved a few lives
The surrender was planned ahead of time. Both americana britajn longer decided beforr they started the pacific war they would retreat to australia and sri lanka and focus on genociding Germany first before laying waste to Japanese.
Excuses
@@SOURAV-jw7kk Excuse of what? That was the plan. Germany first before Japan. Planned out months before Pearl Harbour when America was "neutral". Britain admitted it would use Japan to bring America into war on its side. All planned out years in advance.
Us
Ok, but did the 1000 men under arms stop the looting? How long did they get to keep the arms? Seems like a pointless video if the only condition of the surrender receives no further comment or outcome.
,
Wherever America, the sons of Israel, Russia and Europeans set foot, they left that region, leaving blood, tears and great unrest. Can you please show only one place in the world where there is peace and prosperity so far? If you are going to a region in the world, you should bring health, peace, peace and freedom there so that the peoples living here and the people of the world will thank you and appreciate you. These are the only measures of being human and being a Real Conqueror.
🤡
Great too finally have some un aired brushed British history sadly not taught in British schools shamefull but that's British for you