Churchill's rage over the loss of Singapore




 
--
 
November 22nd, 2011  
samneanderthal
 

Topic: Churchill's rage over the loss of Singapore


In 1941 Churchill sent hundreds of Hurricanes and tanks to Stalin (who had managed to lose 20,000 tanks and planes by December 1941 and whom Churchill had bitterly criticized for years as the most barbaric dictator). In so doing, Churchill left Singapore, Burma, etc, with only a few obsolete planes (Brewster Buffaloes, Gladiators, etc,) and without tanks.

Moreover, in spite of having seen huge numbers of troops defeated by smaller numbers with tanks and planes in France, Holland, Greece, Libya, etc, and huge ships being defeated by airplanes, Churchill sent over 100,000 men to Malaysia-Singapore without a single tank, with extremely limited field artillery and with the very obsolete and few planes mentioned above.

Finally, once the invasion had started and most of the British planes had been promptly shot down, he sent in yet more troops and a few dozen Hurricanes that were shot as they arrived. He also sent (against his admirals' advice) the modern Prince of Wales, the old repulse and a carrier which didn't make it because it ran aground in Jamaica.

The Japanese with hundreds of modern planes flying from carriers and from Indochina promptly sank the two ships (which didn't have air cover) and used 200 light tanks and a huge fleet to land at several points and provide naval artillery support, so that Percival was defeated and all those men lost (no exemplary evacuation this time) and Ironicallly, Churchill was furious.

The tanks that Stalin received were pretty useless in the snow with their narrow tracks, heavy bodies and 40 mm guns, so Moscow was saved by the 1,000 tanks and planes that Zhukov brought from Siberia. However, the hundreds of British tanks would have been extremely effective against the Japanese toy tanks.
The hundreds of Hurricanes that Stalin received were considered too clumsy by Soviet pilots but would have been very appreciated by the poor chaps flying the few Buffaloes and biplanes. Churchill even provided Stalin with some pilots in Murmansk, who had very few flying hours in that lousy weather.

Churchill had a responsability to protect the eastern colonies, instead of providing more tanks and planes to the country that used them less dextrously in history and was extremely lucky that the Japanese stupidly attacked Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, instead of invading the poorly defended Ceylon (the British Pearl Harbor), Aden, Abadan and South Africa, otherwise Britain would have lost access to the millions of Indian, Australian, South African and Australian service men, access to the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean and Red Sea and to Persian oil and probably to Lend-lease (nobody keeps financing long term a loser).

Had Churchil had any decency, he should have apologized to Percival, the people of Singapore, the families of the sailors lost in the Prince of Wales and Repulse and the families of the 130,000 men who fell prisoners, instead of being infuriated by the loss of Singapore. The same goes for Burma, etc,
November 22nd, 2011  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
In 1941 Churchill sent hundreds of Hurricanes and tanks to Stalin (who had managed to lose 20,000 tanks and planes by December 1941 and whom Churchill had bitterly criticized for years as the most barbaric dictator). In so doing, Churchill left Singapore, Burma, etc, with only a few obsolete planes (Brewster Buffaloes, Gladiators, etc,) and without tanks.

Moreover, in spite of having seen huge numbers of troops defeated by smaller numbers with tanks and planes in France, Holland, Greece, Libya, etc, and huge ships being defeated by airplanes, Churchill sent over 100,000 men to Malaysia-Singapore without a single tank, with extremely limited field artillery and with the very obsolete and few planes mentioned above.

Finally, once the invasion had started and most of the British planes had been promptly shot down, he sent in yet more troops and a few dozen Hurricanes that were shot as they arrived. He also sent (against his admirals' advice) the modern Prince of Wales, the old repulse and a carrier which didn't make it because it ran aground in Jamaica.

The Japanese with hundreds of modern planes flying from carriers and from Indochina promptly sank the two ships (who didn't have air cover) and used 200 light tanks and a huge fleet to land at several points and provide naval artillery support, so that Percival was defeated and all those men lost (no exemplary evacuation this time) and Ironicallly, Churchill was furious.

The tanks that Stalin received were pretty useless in the snow with their narrow tracks, heavy bodies and 40 mm guns, so Moscow was saved by the 1,000 tanks and planes that Zhukov brought from Siberia. However, the hundreds of British tanks would have been extremely effective against the Japanese toy tanks.
The hundreds of Hurricanes that Stalin received were considered too clumsy by Soviet pilots but would have been very appreciated by the poor chaps flying the few Buffaloes and biplanes. Churchill even provided Stalin with some pilots in Murmansk, who had very few flying hours in that lousy weather.

Churchill had a responsability to protect the eastern colonies, instead of providing more tanks and planes to the country that used them less dextrously in history and was extremely lucky that the Japanese stupidly attacked Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, instead of invading the poorly defended Ceylon (the British Pearl Harbor), Aden, Abadan and South Africa, otherwise Britain would have lost access to the millions of Indian, Australian, South African and Australian service men, access to the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean and Red Sea and to Persian oil and probably to Lend-lease (nobody keeps financing long term a loser).

Had Churchil had any decency, he should have apologized to Percival, the people of Singapore, the families of the sailors lost in the Prince of Wales and Repulse and the families of the 130,000 men who fell prisoners, instead of being infuriated by the loss of Singapore. The same goes for Burma, etc,
A lot of nonsens
November 22nd, 2011  
Seehund
 
Historical thinking involves the ability to define and frame a question about the past and to address that question by constructing an argument. A plausible and persuasive argument requires a clear, comprehensive and analytical thesis, supported by relevant historical evidenceónot simply evidence that supports a preferred or preconceived position. Additionally, argumentation involves the capacity to describe, analyze and evaluate the arguments of others in light of available evidence. It involves the capacity to extract useful information, make supportable inferences and draw appropriate conclusions from historical evidence while also understanding such evidence in its context, recognizing its limitations and assessing the points of view that it reflects.
--
November 22nd, 2011  
42RM
 
The leaders of WWII were simply operat­ing from the perceptions of their time. We cannot expect the people of the past to conform to our understanding of right and wrong any more than we could ask President Barack Obama to govern from the paradigm of those living 100 years in the future. If judged by todayís standards, even the greatest of our historical heroes become monsters.

I believe fair judgment requires both knowledge of historical context and scrutiny from todayís standards. To adopt either view exclu­sively would be to commit to an incomplete under­standing of who these people were and what they did. To the extent that our national heroes stood for prog­ress and advancement, they should be admired, even if some of their beliefs havenít stood the test of time.
As Harvey Dent learned the hard way, it is difficult to be a decent man in an indecent time.
November 22nd, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
Hi Seehund and 42RM,
I fail to see any evidence or arguments at all in your posts.
It seems to me that in your opinion, historical thinking implies swallowing the lies fed to us by Churchill in his award winning books and by Stalin's historians (he didn't even bother to write his own lies). True history implies objective scrutiny and will often destroy the tangled web of deception to which we have been exposed throughout our lives.
In conventional WW II history it is extremely difficult to find detailed and objective information about perhaps the longest and bloodiest battle (on both sides): Rzhev, which was neatly ommitted both by German and Soviet sources (Zhukov's darkest hour). It is also extremely difficult to find information about the tanks that Churchill sent from Malaya-Singapore to the USSR (in addition to the documented hundreds sent from Britain), Patton's criminal act of sending a few men deep into enemy territory to liberate POWs and who were killed or captured (along with the liberated prisoners), the extreme corruption involved in the B-24 (which cost many lives), etc,
Unfortunately, it is these mistakes that really teach us about the chaos and costly blundering during war time, not the neat, immaculate heroe-packed poppicock we are fed in school and most books.

In your view Churchill is a tenacious genius who saved Britain and made brilliant decisions. In my opinion he is a pompous, blundering fool who wasted hundreds of thousands of allied lives, betrayed the colonies which he used so much, attacked France unnecessarily, murdered many more civilians than did the atomic bombs, sucked everything he could from the US, but didn't fulfill his promise to liberate Burma promptly and left Britain with a 31 billion dollar, 60 year debt with the US alone. Never had so many troops and so much equipment been used so daftly, with the exception of Stalin.
November 22nd, 2011  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
Hi Seehund and 42RM,
I fail to see any evidence or arguments at all in your posts.
It seems to me that in your opinion, historical thinking implies swallowing the lies fed to us by Churchill in his award winning books and by Stalin's historians (he didn't even bother to write his own lies). True history implies objective scrutiny and will often destroy the tangled web of deception to which we have been exposed throughout our lives.
Where are your checkable references to your accusations?


Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
It is also extremely difficult to find information about the tanks that Churchill sent from Malaya-Singapore to the USSR (in addition to the documented hundreds sent from Britain),
What the hell are you talking about, Britain didn't have any tanks in Singapore. By the way have you ever been to Singapore or Malaya? I have, I served there. You are talking absolute rubbish

[quote=samneanderthal;612030]Patton's criminal act of sending a few men deep into enemy territory to liberate POWs and who were killed or captured (along with the liberated prisoners),[QUOTE]

All of us are wise after the event. You need to be in the shoes of those at the time, not sit in your armchair puffing your chest out full of bluster and typing bullsh!te.


[QUOTE=samneanderthal;612030] the extreme corruption involved in the B-24 (which cost many lives), etc,[QUOTE]

Every aircraft has problems when first designed. The Spitfire had skew gear problems forcing Alex Henshaw to bail out or crash land mre then once, the Rolls Royce Griffon had problems with spark plugs being forced out of the cyclinders, Rolls Royce Merlin engines over heated when fitted to Wellington Bombers. The list goes on and on

Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
Unfortunately, it is these mistakes that really teach us about the chaos and costly blundering during war time, not the neat, immaculate heroe-packed poppicock we are fed in school and most books.
Name me one war where there wasn't chaos or blundering?

As I said, "You need to be in the shoes of those at the time, not sit in your armchair puffing your chest out full of bluster and typing bullsh!te."
November 22nd, 2011  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
Hi Seehund and 42RM,
I fail to see any evidence or arguments at all in your posts.
It seems to me that in your opinion, historical thinking implies swallowing the lies fed to us by Churchill in his award winning books and by Stalin's historians (he didn't even bother to write his own lies). True history implies objective scrutiny and will often destroy the tangled web of deception to which we have been exposed throughout our lives.
In conventional WW II history it is extremely difficult to find detailed and objective information about perhaps the longest and bloodiest battle (on both sides): Rzhev, which was neatly ommitted both by German and Soviet sources (Zhukov's darkest hour). It is also extremely difficult to find information about the tanks that Churchill sent from Malaya-Singapore to the USSR (in addition to the documented hundreds sent from Britain), Patton's criminal act of sending a few men deep into enemy territory to liberate POWs and who were killed or captured (along with the liberated prisoners), the extreme corruption involved in the B-24 (which cost many lives), etc,
Unfortunately, it is these mistakes that really teach us about the chaos and costly blundering during war time, not the neat, immaculate heroe-packed poppicock we are fed in school and most books.

In your view Churchill is a tenacious genius who saved Britain and made brilliant decisions. In my opinion he is a pompous, blundering fool who wasted hundreds of thousands of allied lives, betrayed the colonies which he used so much, attacked France unnecessarily, murdered many more civilians than did the atomic bombs, sucked everything he could from the US, but didn't fulfill his promise to liberate Burma promptly and left Britain with a 31 billion dollar, 60 year debt with the US alone. Never had so many troops and so much equipment been used so daftly, with the exception of Stalin.
That's not a nice way to treat a person with remarkable capabilities and insight. To me Churchill was the right man at the right place at the right time. Did he made mistakes? Off course, we all did and still do. But he aslo did superb things like saving an American disaster by persuading them to land on the beaches of Africa instead of Western France.
When you want to write a book about WWII you write about the important battles and events. When you write about the things you mentioned you are writing a book about things that happend in WWII.
November 22nd, 2011  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
That's not a nice way to treat a person with remarkable capabilities and insight. To me Churchill was the right man at the right place at the right time. Did he made mistakes? Off course, we all did and still do. But he aslo did superb things like saving an American disaster by persuading them to land on the beaches of Africa instead of Western France.
When you want to write a book about WWII you write about the important battles and events. When you write about the things you mentioned you are writing a book about things that happend in WWII.
Fortunately samneandertha opinion doesn't count for much.
November 22nd, 2011  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
Hi Seehund and 42RM,
I fail to see any evidence or arguments at all in your posts.
It seems to me that in your opinion, historical thinking implies swallowing the lies fed to us by Churchill in his award winning books and by Stalin's historians (he didn't even bother to write his own lies). True history implies objective scrutiny and will often destroy the tangled web of deception to which we have been exposed throughout our lives.
In conventional WW II history it is extremely difficult to find detailed and objective information about perhaps the longest and bloodiest battle (on both sides): Rzhev, which was neatly ommitted both by German and Soviet sources (Zhukov's darkest hour). It is also extremely difficult to find information about the tanks that Churchill sent from Malaya-Singapore to the USSR (in addition to the documented hundreds sent from Britain), Patton's criminal act of sending a few men deep into enemy territory to liberate POWs and who were killed or captured (along with the liberated prisoners), the extreme corruption involved in the B-24 (which cost many lives), etc,
Unfortunately, it is these mistakes that really teach us about the chaos and costly blundering during war time, not the neat, immaculate heroe-packed poppicock we are fed in school and most books.

In your view Churchill is a tenacious genius who saved Britain and made brilliant decisions. In my opinion he is a pompous, blundering fool who wasted hundreds of thousands of allied lives, betrayed the colonies which he used so much, attacked France unnecessarily, murdered many more civilians than did the atomic bombs, sucked everything he could from the US, but didn't fulfill his promise to liberate Burma promptly and left Britain with a 31 billion dollar, 60 year debt with the US alone. Never had so many troops and so much equipment been used so daftly, with the exception of Stalin.
a lot of nonsens
November 22nd, 2011  
Alan P
 
Please Samdeanderthal engage the brain before making silly statements.
Churchill was the right man at the right time, not only for Britain and its then Empire but for the whole world.
Remember without him Europe would still be under the jackboot
 


Similar Topics
New weight loss program
Singapore bans military blogs
Indian Navy mulls joint patrol with Singapore, Malaysia
Rage Report - 9/11 and al Qiada
EF Typhoon jets to arrive in Singapore for evaluation