Talk:Battle of Singapore
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Singapore article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on February 15, 2005, February 15, 2006, February 15, 2007, February 15, 2008, February 15, 2009, and February 15, 2010.|
- 1 Singaporean support for China?
- 2 dutch
- 3 Infobox picture
- 4 External Link
- 5 Aftermath
- 6 Sourcing for totals captures
- 7 Surrender
- 8 Troop totals and tactics
- 9 Mongolians
- 10 Civilians
- 11 Japanese POW at Alexandra Hospital massacre
- 12 Infobox numbers mismatch
- 13 Desireability of quoting Churchill's telegram of February 14 and Wavell's of February 15
- 14 Various
- 15 Won back by Allies in 1945
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)
@ 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)
- 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)
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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
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)
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)
I think the first link is dead.
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)
Sourcing for totals captures
- 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)
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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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
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?
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)
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
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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
"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))
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.
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 188.8.131.52 (talk)