Talk:Fall of Singapore/Archive 1

Singaporean support for China?

The introduction states that one motive for Japan to occupy Singapore was "to eliminate the sources of charitable aid and philanthropy from Singapore that were supporting the Chinese resistance. Aid from the population of Singapore in its several forms became part of Imperial Japan's motivation to attack Singapore through Malaya." Do we have a source for this? I am not necessarily disputing it, I just think it needs a reference. Grant65 | Talk 03:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@ Grant 65: I am a Singaporean, and yes. Our forefathers have donated sums of money to China. You can use a history textbook anywhere from Singapore to prove itBenjaminMarine9037 (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recall this from my history textbook. There should be other sources hanging around — I think if one investigates the Sook Ching anyone with connections with the charities were branded as anti-Japanese and executed. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While of interest, length of content in article on this topic implies this was major motive and thereby understates the only real japanese strategic motive, the securing of Malay and Indonesian strategic resources, chiefly oil, rubber and certain metals to support the Japanese military machine, at war with china, while the European colonial powers were weak and after the USA embargo of oil.~~Howard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.170.250 (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically Singaporean Chinese propaganda. Singapore was targetted because it was a key fortress of the British Empire, which the Japanese aimed to supplant. While some local Chinese did support independence fighters in China, this was hardly significant from the Japanese point of view. I will delete this passage.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dutch

at the battle of singapore muesueum at fort silso says that there were dutch saliors involved in battle and taken prisoners can anyone verify this on net? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.197.71.40 (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

On the Same Subject i once read in a book on the battle that said there was mongolian officers there to that surrenderd although it didnt mention there fate. Wonx2150 14:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox picture

I think that having a photo of the surrender to illustrate the battle is quite uncool. Don't we have a map or at least a battle photo? -- Миборовский 08:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Link

I think the first link is dead.

Aftermath

I know the article touched a little on what happened afterward (the Japanese Occupation), but shouldn't there be at least some indication of what happened after the British surrender? The museum at Fort Siloso indicates that the surrender only applied to the British army. The local Malayan forces continued to resist the Japanese occupation from hidden jungle bases through guerilla warfare. --Dubtiger 00:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing for totals captures

The totals for troops captured listed in the intro needs to be sourced. --Lendorien (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

especially considering that 5,000 + 2,000 + 80,000 = 87,000 and not 85,000. So dd the British pull 2,000 men out of their hats or what? Tourskin (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surrender

Someone keeps changing the corect number..1,000 armed British forces were left armed to provide order after the surrender, NOT 100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.170.242 (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article says:

The terms of the surrender included:

The unconditional surrender of all military forces (Army, Navy and Air Force) in Singapore Area.

If it was an unconditional surrender then there could be no terms of surrender. Perhaps the phrase "terms of the surrender" needs to be re-written. Also was it an unconditional surrender or a surrender at discretion? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troop totals and tactics

In Brian P. Farrell's exhaustive study of the campaign (The Defence and Fall of Singapore, 2005) (not just the final seige), he gives troop totals as:25th Army (Japan) 125,408, all ranks ; Malay Command (Brit) 130,264, all ranks. This is very different form the totals expressed in the article. Does the article mean combat arms only? Source? Also, greater remark might be made of not only superior japanese infantry technique but the great advantages coming from sea and air control,along with light armour, that flat footed the defenders.~~Howard

Mongolians

Im not able to verify any references to this as i don't know the book. A year or so ago my father read a book that mentioned that 7 or 8 Mongolian offices surrendered at the fall of Singapore. They where there as military observers or something. I don't know the book i haven't read it my self and my fathers memory isn't great. So we have no idea what the book was now. Anyone else ever heard this though? or has any knowledge about it?

Wonx2150 (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civilians

How far did the decision to surrender depend on the loss of food and water for the civilian population? Any sources?Keith-264 (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese POW at Alexandra Hospital massacre

The statement is made that "Those to lose their lives included a corporal from the Loyal Regiment, who was impaled on the operating table, and even a Japanese prisoner who was perhaps mistaken for a Gurkha." Is the last part of that statement from a reliable source or is it original research? I find the speculation that the Japanese was killed because he was mistaken for a Ghurkha dubious. Yaush (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox numbers mismatch

I'm currently seeing these numbers:

Strength: Allies: 85,000 Japanese: 36,000

Casualties and losses Allies: 134,500 9,500 killed 5,000 wounded 120,000 captured

Japanese: 4,485 1,713 killed 2,772 wounded

Casualties and losses combined should not exceed army strength IMO. Civilians should not be included. 89.190.197.130 (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Desireability of quoting Churchill's telegram of February 14 and Wavell's of February 15

The text quotes at length Churchill's telegram of February 10, which made it clear the Prime Minister and the CIGS expected General Percival to hold out, no matter what. It also, in the list of events of February 13, says that Percival requested authority to surrender, and was refused, which was true for that day only.

However, Percival's commander, General Wavell, sent Churchill a telegram updating the situation in Singapore on the 14th which concluded, "Fear however that resistance not likely to be very prolonged."

Hours later Chuchill replied to Wavell, "You are of course sole judge of the moment when no further result can be gained at Singapore, and should instruct Percival accordingly. CIGS concurs."

Wavell then, on the 15th, sent the following to Percival: "So long as you are in position to inflict losses and damage to enemy, and your troops are physically capable of doing so, you must fight on....When you are fully satisfied that this is no longer possible, I give you discretion to cease resistance."

This exchange of telegrams is found in the same source as the telegram which IS quoted, namely, Churchill's The Second World War, Vol. IV.

Thus, when Percival finally surrendered, he had indeed been authorized to do so, both by Churchill and Wavell. Not having this information in the article makes it sound as though Percival did NOT have permission to surrender. It is suggested that at least the telegrams from Churchill to Wavell and Wavell to Percival be quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.78.139 (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"you must fight on....When you are fully satisfied that this is no longer possible, I give you discretion to cease resistance." But Percival was able to fight on, he had over 80,000 men. Some soldiers arrived at the battle only to surrender immediately. (Fdsdh1 (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Various

As there is not enough room in the edit summary box, I've put my observations here:

1. Why, in the intro, is Singapore called "an Allied stronghold", then in the next sentence it is a "major British military base"? I thought at the time 'the Gibraltar of the Far East' was part of the British Empire. I think this part of the article could do with a bit of a rewrite for clarity.
After all, Malaya was er, 'British Malaya', (according to the second sentence of the 'Outbreak of war' section).

2. I don't understand this extract in the 'Air war', para 5: "...they flew back to Kallang halfway through the battle, hurriedly re-fuelled then returned to it." Returned to what? And if 'they' returned to the battle?, does that mean 'they' re-entered the battle without re-arming, something which was standard practice throughout WW II.

3. 'Air war' para 6: "On the evening of 10 February General Archibald Wavell ordered the transfer..."

I've added "C - in - C Far East," between 'Wavell' and 'ordered' If this appointment is wrong, would somebody more knowledgeable than I please correct the edit, but we still need some sort of introduction for Wavell. He can't just suddenly crop-up.

RASAM (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Won back by Allies in 1945

A small section mentioning the date in 1945 when the island was won back by the Allies would be useful, or at least a link to the relevant battle article here on Wiki (I assume there is one). 09:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.68.233 (talk)

Actually the British re-occupied Singapore after the Japanese surrender in September 1945. Something has been added on this now though. Anotherclown (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The British helped the French reoccupy Vietnam so they could justify retaking Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong. (213.122.144.137 (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

The British didn't need to 'justify' re-taking anywhere. The territories of Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong had been British before they were illegally occupied by Japan in 1941-42. The inhabitants of these territories were British subjects and had the right to be defended and liberated from their enemies just as any Englishman, Scotsman, Welshman, or Northern Irishmen had. Singapore was surrendered because the promised help from the UK arrived just too late and by that time and stage in the fighting the geography of the island meant that further fighting would likely lead to large numbers of civilian casualties among the local (native) population, due to Japanese artillery overshoots that missed the defenders going into the city itself.

British troops temporarily occupied French Indo-China to prevent anarchy and a possible civil war before the re-instatement of the proper pre-war legal government, which had been French. What then subsequently occurred between the French and the Vietnamese was their business, not Britain's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's one perspective. Although the loss of Signapore may ultimately have been inevitable given the overall war situation, all the signs are there of massive leadership failure, poor training, poor preparation, poor tactics and a general clusterf*ck during this battle.

Japan's occupation was certainly 'illegal' but no more so that the British. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Britain had no right to be occupying Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka etc. The Japanese permanently destroyed the European colonial powers in World War II. (MarekValenti (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Singapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Fall of Singapore had no significance

Trolling by sockpuppet of banned editor User:HarveyCarter Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The UK had already signed the Atlantic Charter in 1941. Colonialism was over. (MarekValenti (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I ma confident they didn't actually see it that way at all. I mean, the US issued a declaration of independence saying that "all men are created equal" and continued practicing slavery for another 84 years. The Brits had every intention to hang onto their colonies and 'influence' wherever they could. DMorpheus2 (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The British had agreed to give up all of their colonies. The Atlantic Charter was designed to dismantle the European colonial empires. (MarekValenti (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

No. The Atlantic Charter was part of the effort to win WW2. It is unbelievably naive to believe that the British actually intended to give up their colonies just because of that piece of paper. Ask yourself what they were doing in Suez in 1956.... DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Anglo-French invasion of Egypt was intended to maintain the sanctity of international agreements, as Nasser's seizure of the Suez Canal violated the agreement he had signed in 1954. (MarekValenti (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Again, I mean no disrespect, but I think you are unimaginably naive to believe that. Governments of all stripes pretty consistently say one thing and do another. DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eden and Macmillan both said if Nasser were allowed to get away with breaking the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement other Arab countries would be encouraged to nationalise their oil. The real motive of the Suez operation was economic rather than imperialistic. (MarekValenti (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Singapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090503114041/http://www.remuseum.org.uk/corpshistory/rem_corps_part16.htm to http://www.remuseum.org.uk/corpshistory/rem_corps_part16.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number of battalions

"There were at least 70,000 front-line troops in 38 infantry battalions—13 British, six Australian, 17 Indian, two Malayan—and three machine-gun battalions. The newly arrived British 18th Infantry Division—under Major-General Merton Beckwith-Smith—was at full strength, but lacked experience and appropriate training; most of the other units were under strength, a few having been amalgamated due to heavy casualties as a result of the mainland campaign. The local battalions had no experience and in some cases no training.[40]"

Not wanting to tread on any toes, so I have refrained from editing the article. The Australian Official History (see Chapter 14: https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C1417213) states that the 70,000 front-line troops were made up of the following:

"The infantry comprised 21 Indian battalions, including four Indian States Forces battalions for airfield defence; 13 of United Kingdom troops; 6 Australian; 2 Malay; and 3 of the Straits Settlements Volunteer Force-45 battalions in all. There were also 3 machine-gun battalions-one Australian and two United Kingdom-and a reconnaissance battalion." (pp.289-290)

That is a total of 49 battalions compared to the just 38 quoted currently in the article. It would appear that the discrepancy in part is due to the four Indian State Forces battalions not being considered "front-line", the volunteer forces not being included, nor the MG and Recon units.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Enigma, thanks for this. I've got no dramas with you adjusting the article to reflect this if you wish to. There are a couple of options: either a note explaining the discrepancy, or an adjustment to the text of the article. Either would be fine, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have amended the text per the above. :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I think I've dealt with the issue you highlighted with the fact tag, too, but if you could take a look and let me know, that would be greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But no one changed the count from 45 to 49, which should have been done. I've done that now. Grandpallama (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Error in first footnote

I don't think the Japanese didn't capture 300 "field fruits" in Singapore.

Pretty sure that's supposed to say "field guns", but since I don't know for sure I'm noting it here.

Thanks for pointing this out, it was vandalised with this edit: [1] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this vandalism lasted for around 3 months suggests that there's too much detail in the footnote. The figures in the infobox also seem to be totally wrong: given that the Allied forces destroyed large (huge?) quantities of equipment, the quantities captured by the Japanese obviously shouldn't be presented as the total. The suggestion that the Japanese were more mechanised than the Allies in this campaign is also false: multiple sources note that the Allies had lots more trucks than the Japanese (some argue they had more motor transport than was in their best interests, given this led to the force being overly road bound). I'd suggest simplifying this to the personnel numbers per the usual conventions. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, yes I can see the utility in doing that. Are there any concerns about this before we implement? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did they get the oil ?

Singapore was supposed to hold a huge oil supply for an arriving fleet. I wonder if Japan got that oil or what happened with it. Obviously it could have been burned but that fire would surely have been huge and well documented. Same goes for an oil spill. So ... where did it go ? I'm refering to the topic "Singapore strategy" where the WP says "Singapore was to have storage for 1,250,000 long tons (1,270,000 t) of oil." and further "It was estimated that the fleet would require 110,000 long tons (110,000 t) of oil per month, which would be transported in 60 tankers." ... So we know the Japaneese failed to destroy the huge oil depots at Pearl Harbor which would have delayed the US Navy for a full year. I wonder now what happened to the oil at Singapore. JB. --92.193.186.220 (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the naval oil tanks were destroyed by British engineers. The oil consummed a number of Japaneese atempting to wade/boat accross the straights (the burning oil floating on top of the water). The Japaneese invaded the north-west coast & the naval base was on the north-east coast where most of Percivals troops including all the heavy artillary were. ie the British had plenty of time & warning. After the disasters caused by British generals in WW1, you have to wonder how a fool like Percival made it to high command & why he was not replaced.144.139.103.173 (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]