Comments on: What If Singapore Had Not Fallen?

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:10:41 +0000

The importance of Singapore was that Britain could use it as a base to deny Japan the oil of Borneo and the Dutch East Indies. Without oil, the Japanese war effort was ultimately doomed.

By: J

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:40:21 +0000

This is an example of racism

By: Mike H.

Mike H. — Fri, 04 May 2012 04:50:28 +0000

Coming back to the origional topic, even with a few dozen Spitfires, and up-gunned armor; the Brits would not have been able to hold against the Japanese. Yamashita and his troops had been fighting for a long time before the campaign for Malaya & Singapore, against a colonial force that was a parade-ground delight…not a combat-ready one, by any definition. The Spitfire, while a fine fighter in Europe, was no match in dogfighting with the Mitsubishi A6M-5 type "Zero"…Few, if any, could. It was light, fast, nimble, could turn on a dime and give you nine cents change. Weaknesses? No armor, self-sealing fuel tanks…the list goes on, but our side didn't know that in 1941. Consequently, when Spitfires went up against Zeros, they got shot down…until later, when they changed tactics. but, in 1941, Singapore was doomed from the start.

By: percevale

percevale — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 02:15:13 +0000

It's called "technological advantage" and it happens every time when you play Civilisation sending a Musketman or Rifleman against a spearman or warrior.

By: Charles Xavier

Charles Xavier — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 01:50:06 +0000

Ar, your comment is laughable as it is stupid. If White Men are cowards, how was it that they were able to enslave and rule over much of Africa, America and the Far East?

If you look at history, armies led by White Men have done nothing but dominate non Whites.

By: ac

ac — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 04:16:04 +0000

white men are cowards, esp when they dont feel a sense of belonging to Spore. History repeats itsself – Vietnam, Afganistan, and now Iraq. Nobody will hold you ground if you dont feel you belong, not when one has to put your life on the line

By: P.J. Moore

P.J. Moore — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 19:59:32 +0000

I strongly disagree with the premise because it ignores several aspects of that conflict. 1st, if the Brits had held out, it would have cost the Japs in men, materiel, and time, as well as a good port/base. Percival's relatively quick surrender freed up those resources for the Japanese to deply elsewhere with no trade off for the British. Worse, surrendered British resources were subsequently used against the Allies.
2nd, the Japanese lost all potential respect for their Western enemies after what they viewed as cowardice on a grand scale by Percival, especially since he significantly outnumbered the Japs. This likely emboldened them to fight harder and hold out longer in subsequent engagements against the Allies, costing more lives.
3rd, I guarantee that most of the men he surrendered would rather have died fighting than being abused to death slowly and watching their comrades die by the same inhumane hands. I realize that hindsight is 20-20 but the Japs had a pre-existing reputation for ruithlessness and barbarity, so Percival could not reasonably have expected decent treatment for the men he surrendered to Japanese 'mercies.' Also, the effect on Allied morale and the propaganda value of these actions are indeed strategic considerations, and not merely "humanitarian" as posed by the author, Mr. Grimsley.

By: Singapore debacle

Singapore debacle — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 16:37:54 +0000

[...] [...]

By: baldknobber

baldknobber — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 03:52:40 +0000

Mark: An interesting what-if. I have often wondered – what if the Brits had not shifted forces to Greece, but finished off the Italians in Libya instead. Could this have freed up forces, especially air and armored units, that could have successfully defeated the Japanese on the ground in Malaya? Could a few Matildas and Valentines, supported by some Spitfires and Hurricanes, have bolstered the defense of Malaya?