Surrender - Page 2




 
--
 
November 14th, 2014  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
I think he was trying to point out that had the British forces known what was ahead of them in Japanese captivity, it may have been preferable to fight it out even with all the limitations.

Whether or not that is a reasonable assumption is up for debate...I think if I knew I was about to be captured by ISIS(or the Japanese of 1941/ Russians in 1943) I would rather take my chances dying on my own terms as opposed to execution, starvation, overwork, disease, gulag, freezing to death, torture or any number of ways you could die in these instances...of course, hindsight is 20/20...foresight is much more difficult.
Much of the time that was the case in Burma after Japanese atrocities towards POW's became known. However, Percival had the civilian population of Singapore to consider not just the men and women under his command.

Many lessons were learned with the fall of Singapore, lessons that Orde Wingate learned and put to good use when he formed the Chindits. He proved that the Japanese were not super soldiers, they could be beaten and beat them they did.
November 14th, 2014  
JOC
 
 
The Chiindits were excellent jungle fighters and caused the Japanese in Burma no end of troubles. They penetrated deep behind the lines blowing up bridges, outpost and railway lines. They outfought the Japanese in many actions deep in Burma where they caught the Japanese completely off guard.
November 15th, 2014  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
In the case of the 6th army and parts of 4th panzer army at Stalingrad they had no food or ammunition left to fight with and were freezing and starving. Also the vast majority of them had already died or been wounded so only ~ 1/5 of the army actually surrendered. The fate of all POW's taken on the eastern front was very grim.
This is not correct : it is the old German propaganda that faced by the choice between surrender to the Soviets and dying for the Führer,the German soldier preffered the the latter .

German strength on 15 october (including reinforcements til 3 february):

339009 men

a)not in the pocket (= not encircled) :156269

b) transported from the pocket : 16345

c) remaining in the pocket : 158630

d) not clarified : 7765


From those remaining in the pocket,some 91000 surrendered between 31 january and 3 february,and some 10000 surrendered before.

This means that the majority of the Germans who were encircled (b+ possibly d) surrendered to the Soviets and that a minority died .An unknown part of these were KIA,the others became DOW/died of illness.

Source = WWII stats ,abwicklungsstab group A Stalingrad.
WWII stats is using the official German sources (BA/MA) ,thus,one can consider these as reliable .
--
November 15th, 2014  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
This is not correct : it is the old German propaganda that faced by the choice between surrender to the Soviets and dying for the Führer,the German soldier preffered the the latter .

German strength on 15 october (including reinforcements til 3 february):

339009 men

a)not in the pocket (= not encircled) :156269

b) transported from the pocket : 16345

c) remaining in the pocket : 158630

d) not clarified : 7765


From those remaining in the pocket,some 91000 surrendered between 31 january and 3 february,and some 10000 surrendered before.

This means that the majority of the Germans who were encircled (b+ possibly d) surrendered to the Soviets and that a minority died .An unknown part of these were KIA,the others became DOW/died of illness.

Source = WWII stats ,abwicklungsstab group A Stalingrad.
WWII stats is using the official German sources (BA/MA) ,thus,one can consider these as reliable .
The number of German casualties was as I stated or higher.

http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/fascism_and_war/Stalingrad.htm
http://historyofrussia.org/battle-of-stalingrad-facts/
http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=3
November 16th, 2014  
lljadw
 
Communist and Soviet sources should not be used for the German side : the only who knew how much men were encircled at Stalingrad were the Germans,not the Soviets .
November 16th, 2014  
Remington 1858
 
 
Yes, American forces did surrender in the Philippines, after holding out for five and half months, out of everything, ammunition, food, medical supplies. There was no disgrace in their surrender; anger, disappointment, shock but no disgrace. Churchill was aware of this when he heard of the fall of Singapore. He was in the White House visiting President Roosevelt. Churchill felt that they should have held out longer. There were clearly some leadership problems at Singapore and General Percival was not the only the wrong choice for command. Some of his subordinates let him down. They simply had never accepted the idea that Singapore could be attacked in the manner it was and by the Japanese, an adversary for whom they had contempt.
November 17th, 2014  
tetvet
 
The civilians of Singapore suffered greatly under Japanese rule , many Singapore civilians blamed the British surrendering for the cause of their misery , many Filipinos blamed the Americans for they're plight , many American Soldiers felt the Filipinos were useless and could have done more .
November 17th, 2014  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remington 1858
Yes, American forces did surrender in the Philippines, after holding out for five and half months, out of everything, ammunition, food, medical supplies. There was no disgrace in their surrender; anger, disappointment, shock but no disgrace. Churchill was aware of this when he heard of the fall of Singapore. He was in the White House visiting President Roosevelt. Churchill felt that they should have held out longer. There were clearly some leadership problems at Singapore and General Percival was not the only the wrong choice for command. Some of his subordinates let him down. They simply had never accepted the idea that Singapore could be attacked in the manner it was and by the Japanese, an adversary for whom they had contempt.
It was believed that the Japanese would attack Singapore from the sea not from the Malayan mainland. Many senior officers held the belief that the jungle was impassable, the Japanese proved them wrong. Not only that, some British/Commonwealth troops put up hard fight along the road down to Singapore holding up the Japanese advance, the Japanese simply commandeered anything that would float and by passed the problem by sea.
November 17th, 2014  
tetvet
 
The Japanese advance down the Malaysian peninsular is one for the history books by the time the Japs arrived in the Singapore area they were out of food , ammunition and troops , there were only about 30,000 of them Percy had about 100,000 .
November 18th, 2014  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tetvet
The Japanese advance down the Malaysian peninsular is one for the history books by the time the Japs arrived in the Singapore area they were out of food , ammunition and troops , there were only about 30,000 of them Percy had about 100,000 .
The Japanese were not out of food, ammunition or troops, even if they were they could have simply waited until supplies arrived. Percival was going no where, he had run out of water on the Island as well as food, and medical supplies, his defence line was shrinking daily. Many of the Japanese troops had fought in the Manchurian/Chinese campaign and were battle-hardened. Many of Percival’s 90,000 men had never seen combat.
 


Similar Topics
Japanese surrender aircraft
Surrender talks set with separatists in Ukraine as standoff lasts into Easter
"Decoy" used to force a military body into surrender.
More protest leaders surrender (AP)
Karadzic should surrender, says senior Serb cleric