Could Singapore been held?

last SG · 2006-08-15T21:20:40+00:00

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...

madcampus SG

like i said, singapore can definitely be held longer. but not for long. it's a matter of time before singapore fell into japanese hands.

1) yamashita's forces were running low, but reinforcements were easily available than the british counterparts who were cut off by land, sea and air.

2) there were constant bombardment of singapore prior to its surrender. air superiority definitely plays a strong role.

3) the invasion of malaya/singapore had no linkage to philippines. 25th army was the charge of the campaign here whereas the 14th army is in philippines. yamashita went over to philippines only after it was captured and resist the americans from recapturing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamashita_Tomoyuk

to note, the main staging area for the japanese invasion of malaya/singapore was in vietnam or french indochina then (french surrendered to germany and granted japan access to their colony) and thailand was another "neutral" country on the side of the japanese. on the other hand, the indonesians are just too happy to see their dutch colonial masters' arse kicked.

hence, there's no other way then to surrender.

acwire_2125 SG

THe Japanese had the upper hand when they conquered Johor. IF the British were to continue to hold on, I don’t see why they would not have win the war. There were also many local citizens who would fight the Japanese along with the Allied British, Australian and other forces.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Hmm... there are many 'what ifs'.

But in any case Southeast Asia was given to the Japanese far too easily in WW2. Had the allies put up a stouter fight instead of the routing in the face of the Japanese and dragged the war into one that was more costly... the Japanese would have lost a lot more material and men and made their positions in their empire a lot more fragie.

It could have been a shorter war, and their fight with China then would have been compromised. Not to mention it might divert resources from their Pacific operations. The Japanese were not as good as replacing men and material as the allies were, and hence would have been hit far harder from a lack of victory.

If Singapore became their Burma, one might suspect they might not even try Burma at all, or in any case it would be bad for the Japanese back then.

On the flip side, in the face of such heavy fighting... the Japanese army back that might be inclined to take it out more then they had on the civillians of Singapore after it fell. Who knows, it could have led to a 'Rape of Singapore'.

LazerLordz SG

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.

fallin SG

With everything being said,today incidentally is V-J day. A pleasant reminder that Singapore,in the end, was liberated.

dakkon_blackblade SG

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.

cmeptb SG

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!!!

moca SG

Actually the reasons the Thais collaborated with the Japs was not out all of cowardice.

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.

LazerLordz SG

May those who perished, RIP.

acwire_2125 SG

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.

Dr Who SG

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...........

madcampus SG

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. Mad

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

moca SG

What a disgrace!!! Twisted Evil

Yeah, piss on them Mr. Green

dakkon_blackblade SG

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.

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.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

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.

spartan6 SG

Looking back human always question wat will happens if this didnt happens tat didnt happens Sad 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 Wink

LazerLordz SG

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.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

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.

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.

Si Geena SG

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.

fallin SG

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?

« Previous Page Next Page »