Re: Singapore - what happened
- From: Disco_Stu <camfairweather@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:42:05 -0400
I'll just add what I can (from memory) to the topic, and mix in a rant
about uninspired British command.
* Churchill's direct orders to prepare ground fortifications for the
island were ignored multiple times. The defending commander believed
it would lower civilian morale.
* The Island was over fortified by troops who were under supplied and
some under trained. A famous quote from an Australian soldier being
interviewed on arrival in Singapore goes "How long have you been in
the army private?", "Two weeks now" was his reply. There were too
many mouths to feed and not enough food supplies. A better result may
have been gained by garrisoning with less troops, but with more
* A Japanese account of the siege I read recounts how the Japanese
had thought the attack had failed. They no longer had the infantry
forces to to continue the assault and their artillery was down to the
last few rounds. In frustration, the order was given to fire one
final barrage at the defenders. To the surprise of the Japanese, the
British then surrendered.
* The far east was a less important theatre than Europe, the Atlantic
or North Africa. As a result of this, a lower standard of equipment
(especially aircraft) was sometimes found. Also, IMHO a lower
standard of British officer was to be found (at least initially). I
get the feeling the far east was the sort of place one might find the
kind of British officer 'fit for garrison command only'. A tidy
corner of the empire where a commission could be found in for the 3rd
son in a perfectly respectable regiment.
- Prev by Date: Re: Could North Africa have costed Hitler Stalingrad
- Next by Date: Re: Could North Africa have costed Hitler Stalingrad
- Previous by thread: Re: Singapore - what happened
- Next by thread: Re: Singapore - what happened