Comments by "Keit Hammleter" (@keithammleter3824) on "The History Chap" channel.

  1. 3
  2. 3
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. I have seen a few documentaries on the fall of Singapore and read a few books on it. This video is unusually good and covers the main points well. I do have some minor quibbles though: 1. Since Percival was a known dipstick, much more blame must lie with Churchill, who should have sent someone else; 2. At 6:50 it was said that the British held the view that "The Japanese might be ok in China" but were inferior to British and Australian troops. This, as later events showed, was actually an accurate assessment. The Japanese attempted to invade and capture New Guinea, sending supposedly crack experienced troops for China equipped with machine guns. Australia was forced to send recruits who had completed only half their basic training, equipped with rifles. The Japanese in New Guinea outnumbered the Australians by 4 to 1. Never the less, although it took a while, the Australians won. They won because they were better trained, despite only being half trained. The Japanese were led by a General Hori, who was an inexperienced blathering idiot. The Australians were led by General Blamey, a very experienced British-trained blathering idiot. When you look at these facts, you can see that although perhaps neglected by London, Percival with twice the troops the Japanese had, had plenty more than enough to defend Singapore - a fact that the Japanese general said at the time. Regarding the film Bridge Over River Kwai (an excellent film), the reason why Percival and others objected to it was not that it portrayed the British commander as a collaborator, it didn't, it in fact portrayed him as a worn out fool who had lost the plot. They objected to the film because the film accurately portrayed that the Japanese had no respect for British officers, treating them as ordinary grunts, due to capturing Singapore so easily. What is worse to an old school British Officer than getting captured, is not having their upper classness recognised. The film could give the unwashed some ideas. And to some extent they didn't like the film because while many men died building a bridge as slaves for the Japanese, the film makers had a contactor build a full size bridge for $250,000 (about 8% of the film budget) and did it in half the time using a lot fewer men. It was seen to belittle the effort of the POWs who slaved on the real bridge.
    1