On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:32:08 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


Deep down, however, I suspect he was actually thinking of the loss of
Singapore in February 1942. Unlike the situation in indefensible Hong
Kong, the early surrender of Singapore was a rather shameful moment in
British arms.

The surrender occurred only after the Japanese captured the reservoirs
and cut off water to the city. 2 million people without water dont survive
for very long in a tropical climate. Without air cover Singapore was
simply not defensible but as with the Phillipines it wasnt politically
possible to abandon it.

Nevertheless, while I'm usually the first to point out that the fall
of Singapore was fundamentally due to external factors (chiefly the
war cabinet decision to prioritise everything else, including supply
to Russia, above providing the recognised minimum in the way of
resources to defend the place effectively), the fact remains that the
forces which were there did not operate effectively enough even when
the external constraints were taken into consideration. Having said
that, at least Percival had the strength of character to surrender at
the end of practicable resistance rather than make grandiose postures
at the expense of the lives of everybody else - the sort of thing that
a lot of Wehrmacht commanders failed to manage.

Gavin Bailey