Churchill's rage over the loss of Singapore

[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 (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,

 

[lljadw]

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

 

[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 evidence—not 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.

 

[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 today’s standards, even the greatest of our historical heroes become monsters.

I believe fair judgment requires both knowledge of historical context and scrutiny from today’s 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 haven’t stood the test of time.
As Harvey Dent learned the hard way, it is difficult to be a decent man in an indecent time.

 

[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.

 

[BritinBritain]

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?

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

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),

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.

the extreme corruption involved in the B-24 (which cost many lives), etc,

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

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."

 

[VDKMS]

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.

 

[BritinBritain]

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.

 

[lljadw]

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

 

[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

 

[samneanderthal]

On the contrary, were it not for the atomic bomb, which stopped Soviet expansion, thanks to Churchill, Europe would still be under the Soviet jackboot.

 

[BritinBritain]

On the contrary, were it not for the atomic bomb, which stopped Soviet expansion, thanks to Churchill, Europe would still be under the Soviet jackboot.

If you believe that, your a bigger idiot then I thought you were.

 

[42RM]

On the contrary, were it not for the atomic bomb, which stopped Soviet expansion, thanks to Churchill, Europe would still be under the Soviet jackboot.

What about the Truman Doctrine with its policy of containment to stop communism spreading and the Marshall Plan, massive aid aimed at supporting collapsing economies which were letting communist sympathisers gain power. Military alliances as NATO.

You're a Neanderthal in terms of understanding world history.

 

[BritinBritain]

What about the Truman Doctrine with its policy of containment to stop communism spreading and the Marshall Plan, massive aid aimed at supporting collapsing economies which were letting communist sympathisers gain power. Military alliances as NATO.

You're a Neanderthal in terms of understanding world history.

He's a legend in his own mind.

 

[42RM]

He's a legend in his own mind.

All foam, no beer.

 

[samneanderthal]

Without the A bomb, after the Americans pulled out by far most of their forces to fight Japan and to return home in 1945 the Red army would have easily taken over Europe.
The Marshall plan was in 1947, by then, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, India, China, Korea, etc, would be part of the USSR. (Kennedy would not have been able to trigger the Cuban missile crisis by placing Missiles in Turkey).
Britain would not have been able to do anything at all and the American people would have been fed up with intervening in Europe and Asia.

 

[lljadw]

Without the A bomb, after the Americans pulled out by far most of their forces to fight Japan and to return home in 1945 the Red army would have easily taken over Europe.
The Marshall plan was in 1947, by then, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, India, China, Korea, etc, would be part of the USSR. (Kennedy would not have been able to trigger the Cuban missile crisis by placing Missiles in Turkey).
Britain would not have been able to do anything at all and the American people would have been fed up with intervening in Europe and Asia.

A lot of nonsens.
Better : only nonsens

 

[Seehund]

On the contrary, were it not for the atomic bomb, which stopped Soviet expansion, thanks to Churchill, Europe would still be under the Soviet jackboot.

The atom bomb is not a war winner in and of itself, but is a game changer.

After the taking of Berlin the Red Army was not in a very good shape logistically speaking, basically at the end of the rope and go further will be difficult. This not counting in the fact that Uncle Joe was a bastard, but a very cautious bastard if he was not certain at 100% to not begin or at least win a war with the rest of the allies after this blatant grab of land he will not even try. His change will be not very good, logistic problem, cut of external aid, facing a serious strategic bombing campaign, allied air superiority and monopoly of the a-bomb will be cause the soviet to retreat.

The Soviet war economy would have collapsed within months. It was basically being kept going only through lend lease. Once that runs out all they have to support their armed forces are whatever left over plus the devastated western portions of the nation, which include the majority of its resources and agriculture.

In any case there are some aspects you need to be mindfull of:

1. manpower: the soviets were scraping the bottom of the barell in terms of reinforcements, while the western allies (especially the USA) still had a huge manpower pool. If WWIII lasts for more than a few months it's the soviets who are going to find themselves with a steadily shrinking army faced with endless wawes of enemies.

2. economy: they need to reorganize the economy, especially by strengthening areas where they are most dependant of lend lease. Since I'm not very knowledgeable about the relative impact (not the absolute numbers) of lend lease on the soviet war-making capability, I don't know how easy this will be. In any case, it is likely to result in an even greater slowing down of soviet offensives.

3. air power: the Soviets were inferior to the westerners in exactly 2 areas: navy and strategic airforces (including high altitude fighters). If the former will probably not be a major problem, the latter will definitely be one. Allied strategic bombers will be able to do great damage even with conventional payloads, and once the atomic bomb comes online they become even more dangerous. Therefore, going to war without a sure way of stopping the bombers would be madness on the part of the soviets. While the soviet airforce of 1945 was very powerfull at low lever its ability to perform interceptions at high altitude was very limited.

4. Allies: The soviets are again at a disadvantage because most of the minor allies are more simpathetic towards the Anglo-Americans, and most of the former axis countries feel the same. In eastern europe in particular, the soviets were hated in many areas so at least initially they will be fighting on hostile ground. They need to strengthen the puppet governments as much as possible, at least in those areas where there is some hope of success. (I rate Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia as the countries most sympathetic towards the soviets, while Romania and Hungary are the most hostile, being essentially lost causes).

A full strength commitment by the US, Britain, Canada, France, supported by Polish and other Allied forces as well as whatever rearmed German units could be put together, stands a decent chance of holding the Rhine-Alps-Piave line provided that they have air superiority and some sense of strategic warning. This buys time for strategic bombing by the USAAF and RAF and eventual deployment of USN carrier fleets to Europe; the former have the ability to hammer railheads and supply lines to the substantial detriment of the Red Army's future offensive capacity.

On the strategic point of view, one of the best targets for Allied bombers in WWIII in the USSR would be the Kaukasus oil fields. Easy to reach from British controlled Iran, not well defended. Shut them down and the Soviets are screwed.

 

[samneanderthal]

You are assuming that the US would have fought. I think that a few months after Germany fell, and once the Americans have removed 95% of their forces from Europe and Stalin has invaded Mongolia, Korea and Eastern China, Stalin could have taken the rest of Europe, China and India and the US would not have fought another war, against Russia a mega power, with billions of people and most of the world's reources.

The US did not want to fight in WW II, it was dragged into it by Japan. As long as Stalin does not attack the US, Americans would not want to go through an even larger war in late 1945 and with fewer allies.
Just like America reluctantly allowed Germany to take over part of Europe, it would have reluctantly allowed Stalin to take over all of Europe.
There is a big difference between losing 3 to 8 million Americans in a conventional campaign in a USSR that covers most of Eurasia or sending in dozens of bombers with A-bombs to wipe out a few million Soviets in days.
I don´t think Stalin would have hesitated for long before invading Eurasia, expanding his formidable army with billions of Asians, had he not faced the A-bomb.
He was worse than Hitler. He invaded Bessarabia, risking war with Romania and didn't care. He invaded Lithuania, against what he had agreed with Germany before invading Poland. The bastard wanted to expand and didn't worry about war even when his army was weak, much less when it was the strongest in the world.

 

[Seehund]

Just like America reluctantly allowed Germany to take over part of Europe, it would have reluctantly allowed Stalin to take over all of Europe.

:horsie: