The question is, would any other British officer, giving the
current thinking and resources given to the Malayan war by the
Brits at that time, have done any differently from Percival?
I'm not entirely certain, it seems more to me Percival ended up the
scapegoat for most things that could not have been stopped given
British thinking and their way of fighting the war at that
time.
Of course, I don't exactly think the mass mobilization of the
population was very in British thinking at that time, given it was
always their idea "hey chums, the British Army can protect you in
war.", they simply didn't have any idea on even how to begin, and
of course being able to mobilize a populace does not actually make
sure they can win, given their equipment and resources.
With 20/20 hindsight, we can see what they could have done back
then... but if we were really back then with them with no
indication of what was going to happen next, not to mention in
their culture, I wonder if we can really do much better.
One thing is to learn from their mistake, it's another to judge a
person according to his culture's thinking and way of fighting with
20/20 hindsight and the modern standard.
