MacAurthur

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by Raverdave


Elphick is a very poor source to base your claims on. Elphick is an Author who is part of the British revisionist push that started in 1992, whom are trying to blame the fall of Singapore on the men of the 8th Div. The fact is that the Japanese lost half of their troops during the attack on Singapore itself, and the assault came through the Aussie lines...if the Aussies broke and ran as claimed by Elphick, then why did the Japanese loose so many men?

Elphicks main sources are second-hand hearsay, which he admits himself that he has not followed up. He claims that an Aussie Captain (Blackwood???) forced his way on board a ship leaving Singapore, yet there is no records of any such person ever being in the 8th Div!

No Australian from the 8th Div has ever been before a court-martial for looting or desertion in regards to Singapore.

For the record, I would just like to make it clear that I have nothing against Australia, Australians or The Australian armed forces. Galipoli, Tobruk, NewGuinea are testimont to the proud traditions of the AIF. That being said. Soldiers are only good as their leaders and unfortunately the leadership in thoughout the Malaya campaign was severly lacking. From Brooke Popham, Percival, right down to the Brigadier level and including Bennett and his Brigadiers. Consequently as a whole the UK Divisions did not aquit themselves well under the circumstances. Certainly individuals, Companies, and even Battalions fought bravely. Nor does it does diminish the horrible suffering they had to endure as prisoners.

Regarding Elphick as a credible source. I dont feel I am qualified to argue the point. I will say however, that contrary to your statement. His main sources as far as I can tell from his extensive notes and bibliography, include very credible first hand accounts, official British and Australian documents and reports and numerous other published works. I would also like to point out there is a reason for the revisionist history after 1992. It was in that year that heretofore top secret documents were release to the public after being sealed for 50years. These documents shed new light on a subject thats been covered up for political reasons.

Regarding Blackwood. The only mention of him in Elphicks book is on the Subject of the "Empire Star" in which quotes souces abord that ship that a senior officer going by the rank and name of Capt. Blackwood may have been among the deserters. He never states it as fact nor does he states that he was with the 8th Division. There were several Australian Auxillary units not officially attached to the 8th Div. at Singapore. Nor does it preclude the fact that a deserter could have been masquarading as an officer. Regardless its insignificant because there is irrefutable evidence that a least 139 Australian deserters forced there way at gun point onto the Empire Star which on Feb.9th. This is documented in the ships log, the Captains Report and the Harbor officials at Batavia, where the ship disemebarked and the deserters were arrested.

In my opinion Elphick is quite credible and even handed in his book. He absolves the Australians for any resposiblity in the defeat on the mainland. He puts the loinshare of the blame on the commaders, faulty pre-war planning, blatant uderestimating the enemy and politics.

[Raverdave]

Tim

It is a pity that you don't live here in Australia, there was a great doco on this subject the other night. They had a Professor Farrell from the University of Singapore (History department), who de-bunked most of the claims made by Eilphant, and used compelling evidence to back it up, stats of Japanese casualties against Aussie troops in the final stage of the attack on Singapore Island proper (I must see if this guy has anything in writing). If as Eilpant claims, the Aussie troops broke and ran en-mass then you would expect that Japanese looses would be very light. In fact, where ever the Japanese came into contact with the Australians there losses were very high....not something that you would expect if the troops were fleeing.

Tim, I have no problem with admitting to poor behaviour by Australian troops, indeed I can give you many examples of Aussie troops who activlly DID loot. The 30th Brigade, consisting of the 39th,49th and 53 Battalions, in Port Moresby during Dec/Jan 41/42. These guys looted anything that was not nailed down in PM ! (But they did go on to redeem themselves on the Kokoda track). But what I DO have a problem with is unsubstantive finger-pointing and hear-say from people who WERE not there or troops that WERE there, (read British troops), trying to lay the blame on others. There was a great deal of resentment on the side of the British troops towards the Australians because of disparity in pay rates (the Aussies were getting 5 shillings against the British one shilling). Rations were another source of friction....Aussie troops got a larger meat ration and on the whole better food. The lax displine that is a characterist of Aussie troops was also a source of resentment.
So it can be seen that given a chance, British soldiers would be more than happy to put the boot in.

I agree that on the whole Elphick is even-handed in his assement of the fall of Singapore, but I still feel that in regards to issues such as his claims of troops fleeing,raping and looting has NOT been researched. Yes he has listed sources but he has failed to do the leg work himself and acutally contact the Aussie troops that he names as being those whom ran and looted. In most cases these guys are still alive! One would think that allegations as serious of these would be better investigated by the author, but in Elphicks case the answer is no, which leaves him open to attacks of simply being "sensationalist" in the name of book sales.

Inaddition, the records that were released in 1992 were BRITISH records and accounts. To be objective one would need to cross check these against Japanese and Australian records. Wavell, of course, would be more than happy to lay the blame else where, and this he did in spades.

I do however agree with you Tim, in regards to the leadership, which on the whole was lacking....how else can it be explained that a numerically inferior force wins the day?

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by Raverdave
Tim

It is a pity that you don't live here in Australia, there was a great doco on this subject the other night. They had a Professor Farrell from the University of Singapore (History department), who de-bunked most of the claims made by Eilphant, and used compelling evidence to back it up, stats of Japanese casualties against Aussie troops in the final stage of the attack on Singapore Island proper (I must see if this guy has anything in writing). If as Eilpant claims, the Aussie troops broke and ran en-mass then you would expect that Japanese looses would be very light. In fact, where ever the Japanese came into contact with the Australians there losses were very high....not something that you would expect if the troops were fleeing.

Tim, I have no problem with admitting to poor behaviour by Australian troops, indeed I can give you many examples of Aussie troops who activlly DID loot. The 30th Brigade, consisting of the 39th,49th and 53 Battalions, in Port Moresby during Dec/Jan 41/42. These guys looted anything that was not nailed down in PM ! (But they did go on to redeem themselves on the Kokoda track). But what I DO have a problem with is unsubstantive finger-pointing and hear-say from people who WERE not there or troops that WERE there, (read British troops), trying to lay the blame on others. There was a great deal of resentment on the side of the British troops towards the Australians because of disparity in pay rates (the Aussies were getting 5 shillings against the British one shilling). Rations were another source of friction....Aussie troops got a larger meat ration and on the whole better food. The lax displine that is a characterist of Aussie troops was also a source of resentment.
So it can be seen that given a chance, British soldiers would be more than happy to put the boot in.

I agree that on the whole Elphick is even-handed in his assement of the fall of Singapore, but I still feel that in regards to issues such as his claims of troops fleeing,raping and looting has NOT been researched. Yes he has listed sources but he has failed to do the leg work himself and acutally contact the Aussie troops that he names as being those whom ran and looted. In most cases these guys are still alive! One would think that allegations as serious of these would be better investigated by the author, but in Elphicks case the answer is no, which leaves him open to attacks of simply being "sensationalist" in the name of book sales.

Inaddition, the records that were released in 1992 were BRITISH records and accounts. To be objective one would need to cross check these against Japanese and Australian records. Wavell, of course, would be more than happy to lay the blame else where, and this he did in spades.

I do however agree with you Tim, in regards to the leadership, which on the whole was lacking....how else can it be explained that a numerically inferior force wins the day?

Hi Raverdave

Yeah I would love to live in Australia. Let me know if you find any published works from that Proffessor. I am particulary interested in his calsualties numbers for the Singapore attack. All I have is the total Japanese killed in the campaign was 9,824. How many of that were loss in the Singapore attack I have no idea. Although its not neccessarly suprising considering how vulnerable they were crossing the straits. High calsualties might also be explained by the fact that the Japanese were extremely low on ammo at the time of the attack and were in fact incouraged by Yamashita to make ample use of the bayonet. Japanese Bonzai charges usually ended in high death tolls.

[TIMJOT]

Raverdave

I dont wish to belabor the point, becuase it was never my intent to single out the Australians for the fall of Singapore. As I already stated, piss poor generalship must ultimately be held responsible for the break down of moral and discipline throughout the Malaya command. However you cant discount that this breakdown was at the very least detrimental to the defence of Singapore and in all probabilty was the root cause in the shortness of the siege.

Here are just some of many eyewitness accounts that you had asked for. I choose 3 different nationalities to be fair.


Capt. David James( Australian Military Intelligence)

Quote; By 0800 hours 9th Feb., hundreds of bedraggled Aussies were streaming down Bukit Timah Rd. on the way to the city. The Military Police (UK and AIF) attempted to check them but they were in no mood for homilies from 'Red Caps'. Some paused long enough to accept a cigarette. light it and say, 'Chum, to hell with Malaya and Sinagpore. Navy let us down, airforce let us down. If the bungs(natives) wont fight for their bloody country , why should we?


Dr. Cecily Williams (British Doctor Tan Tok Seng Hospital)

Quote; During the last week everything became more and more harrasing and disintergrated. When I drove about, the town was full of evacuating and deserting soldiers, most of them Australians looking utterly disorganised and defeated. They had mostly thrown off their equipment, they were looting the shops or sitting in rows with their boots off near the quays; they were pushing women and children out of the way to get behind buildings when bombs were falling nearby ; they were crowding females and children off the boats that were getting away. Many of them must have been killed by the Japanese on the islands off Singapore. it was a terrible show.


Mr. Chin Kee (Chinese) "Singapore Upside Down" 1946
Siteing reports in the Chinese community in Sinagapore.

Quote; It was alledged that even before the entry of Japanese troops, rape had already been commited by stray patrols of retreating Australian and Indian soldiers . They were somehow temporarily isolated by the sudden forced retreats..... Bewildered, confused and without proper leadership, disipline among them went to pieces. Unfortunate women here and there fell victims to these disorganized troops, who at the time of the outrages were soaked with strong drink.

Again I understand there were certainly desertions among the British and Indian soldiers as well, but the fact is the Japanese attacked the Australian sector magnify the consequences of the Australian disertions. True there is no way of knowing for sure just how many soldiers deserted. It is unlikley that any survivors would freely admit if they did. We do know however that some 3,000 Aussies without orders reached Sumatra before the Fall of Singapore. Most of these soldiers were later captured and rejoined their fellow prisoners in captivity.

[TIMJOT]

Raverdave

I agree with you; if the British are looking for anyone to blame then they should look into a mirror. I for one, am tired of phoney excuses and fairy tales that try to explain the defeat as fait accompli

"Guns didnt face lanward": Farytale
"Captured water supply" : Not critical
"No Jungle training" : Irrevelent (most fighting along roads)
"Japs led by German officers": Not worth commenting on

The truth is the defeat was far from enevitable. The British were superior in number, had the advantage of defence, with favorable terain and were retreating toward there supply base. The Japanese had to attack with inferior numbers, down hundreds of miles of difficult terain, with over extended and tenous supply lines.

All things being equal. Can anyone deny, had the British been led by a superior general like "Slim" and the Australians had been led by a likes of a "Mooreshead" things could have been very different. Retreats dont always have to be demoralizing defeats. A skillful retreat can be an advantage. It is said that the true test of generalship is a succesful retreat. Gen O'Connor (Beda Fomm Fame) said he would never consider himself a successful general until he had lead his troops in a retreat. Rommel passed the test twice. Percival and Bennet failed miserabley and the troops suffered for it.

[Raverdave]

Indeed Tim Indeed !!!!!!! So many what if's ! This is a theme that is constantly repeated....poor leadership...in the early years of the war.
Take a close look at PNG, that was a close one as well, the Garrison unit for Port Moresby was a disgrace.

Now here is an interesting question for you all, what if Singapore had NOT fallen?

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by Raverdave
Indeed Tim Indeed !!!!!!! So many what if's ! This is a theme that is constantly repeated....poor leadership...in the early years of the war.
Take a close look at PNG, that was a close one as well, the Garrison unit for Port Moresby was a disgrace.

Now here is an interesting question for you all, what if Singapore had NOT fallen?

Well, for one thing it would have allowed time for the vetran 7th Arm. Bgd. to be deployed to Singapore, which would have greatly enhanced the defensive capability on the Island. It intern would certainly allowed time for the 6th and 7th Aus. Divisions to be deployed in DEI, greatly enhanceing the defence of Java and Sumatra. Which would have allowed time for the substantial Airforce replacements already in route from the US and Mideast to make a substantial difference in holding the Malaya Barrier. Most importantly it would have thrown a wrench into the Japanese strict time table for which their planning depended upon.

An interesting twist is that Singapore not falling might have resulted in the Philipines falling quicker. The fall of Singapore made it possible to move up the timetable for the attack of DEI. Which intern caused the early withdrawl of Homma's 48th Div from the Philipines. Had he been able to keep that division he might have been able to finish of Battaan much quicker. On the other hand, holding the Malaya barrier might have made it possible to reinforce the Philipines.

I also think that the early major sea battles would have shifted from to Coral Sea and Solomons to the Java Sea. Which probably would have resulted in much more cooperation between the British Eastern Fleet and the US Pac. Fleet.

[Raverdave]

A wonderful topic for a new thread............."What if"

[Jeremy Pritchard]

(Major Tom here)

In regards to AT guns on Corregidor, I have (or had) a book of "Great Land Battles of WW2" by Ian Hogg (now lost!) that stated the defenders of Corregidor had, on the beaches, some 37mm AT guns, some of which were used on the initial landings. These were a part of the 4th Marine Regiment. I am not quite sure about the believability of the book, but it did have very accurate reportings of OOB's and TOE's (when compared to other sources).

Remember, the Australians at Miline Bay managed to defeat a small number of Japanese tanks without a single AT gun. Not having AT weapons does not mean that tanks have nothign to fear.

In regards the the B-17's, these were the early versions (B-17C or D I think)that held a higher bomb load then later versios (at the expense of defensive armament). Just 30-35 of them attacking the IJNAF and IJAAF bases at Formosa would have caused significant losses. What would the losses have been to the B-17's? Probably very few, since the Japanese aircraft were grounded by a fog, that did not lift until 10:00 am, about the time the US bombers were planned to arrive. So the Japanese would have been caught on the ground, and the B-17's would not have to worry about CAP since they would still be on the ground.

Sure, MacArthur did realize that all of his plans would have faced enevitable defeat withotu resupply, but his actions made the defeat much more disasterous for the American-Filippino force then if he had kept with the original plan and did not lose his supplies so early. His defence of the Luzon plain cost him 50% of his tanks, 70% of the 26th Cavalry Regiment (best force in his army), and around 25% of the I and II Corps, all with limited Japanese losses. Sure, the 12th US Division would have caused havoc on the 48th IJA Division at Linguayan, but would have then to have moved back to Manila to stop the 16th IJA Division advancing from Legaspi, that if the 48th IJA Division was only totally repulsed, otherwize, the 12th US Division would have been trapped guarding the beaches, and then eliminated by the 16th IJA Division attacking from its rear, unless the I and II corps could stop it in the Luzon Plains.

What should have MacArthur done? Kept with his original plan, then been as aggressive as possible with his subs and aircraft. His subs performed poorly, but should not reflect on MacArthur since it was up to the individual sub commanders to act. He did allow his air force to be destroyed on the first day, which resulted on any chance of defending the beaches to fail.

History Bites, sometime it takes longer for it to bite then others. MacArthur allowed for incompetence to rise again when he advanced too far north in Korea, stretching his forces too thin and yet again ignoring intelligence reports about enemy activity. Too bad since he managed to gain his credibility back during the later part of WW2 and during the early part of Korea.

[TIMJOT]

Major Tom

Well I think if you read more indepth accounts of the attack on Corrigedore. You will find that most of the guns they did have had been knocked out by constant air and artillary bombardment.

Its easy for us to say. There are other ways to knock out a tank. Last year the columnist for the opinion page "Desk top General" in PC Gamer Magazine. Took that view; stateing that the defenders could have used satchel charges to knock out what he termed "flimsy Japanese tanks". He even went as far as siteing a SPWAW scenerio he had run as proof. Well to his credit; in a following issue he posted a letter he had recieved from a 4th Marines Vet; who basically reemed him a new A-hole. He flately stated there were no satchel charges on corregedore, that they had nothing larger than 30 cal Browings to try to knock out those supposedly flimsy tanks. He said after watching belt after belt of the 30s just bounce of the tanks. He personal witness two Philipino scouts out of desperation climb up on a tank and try to stuff hand grenades down the hatch. Both were cut down.

The Corregedore defenders put up a good fight in a hopeless cause. The calualties list of 800 dead and over 1000 wounded, is proof enough of that.

Second; regarding the B-17s. They were caught on the ground for two reasons. One they were refueling after being scrambled in a false alarm earlier in the afternoon. Two; they were awaiting report from a recon flight. Without it there would have been no chance of a successful attack. The USAFFE had virtually no intellegence of the bases on Formosa. Its a very big island with dozens of airfields, whose locations were only vaguely known. High level bombing is not a very effective way to knock out an airfield. The norden bombsite was not at all what it has been cracked up to be. 30 or so B-17 flying unescorted trying to find and attack dozens of scattered airfields would have been a virtually impossible task. They would have certainly have suffered heavy losses from the zeros on the trip home. The attack on Clark cost the USAAFE 17 out of 36 B-17s. An attack on Formosa might have cost them all.

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by TIMJOT

The norden bombsite was not at all what it has been cracked up to be.

Was the Nordan bomb site used that early in the war???????

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by Raverdave


Was the Nordan bomb site used that early in the war???????

yup, albeit its earliest variant, but 36 B-17s attacking a wide range of targets in a area as large as Taiwan would have been insignificant anytime in WWII. Even 36 B-29 would have been insignicant.

[tohoku]

Originally posted by Von Rom
To quote Shakespeare:

You guys need to read a good biography of both MacArthur and Patton.

MacArthur was eventually revered by his former foes, the Japanese, even to the extent of wanting him to be their first President.

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Von Rom ]</p>

<ahem>

I hate to tell you this, but we don't *have* 'presidents' - we're not a republic and hopefully never will be, and no one in their right mind would want an egotistical showman like MacArthur anywhere near running their country. The political moves to have him continue running Japan have litle to do with MacArthur and lots to do with the power it would have given the polticial factions supporting that option.

MacArthur is regarded as a fool in Japan. Japan was just too polite to mention it to him. Of course, the small matter of having a lost a war to the country he represented may have had something to do with it too...




tohoku

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by tohoku


<ahem>

....and no one in their right mind would want an egotistical showman like MacArthur anywhere near running their country.

MacArthur is regarded as a fool in Japan. Japan was just too polite to mention it to him.



tohoku

lol:D

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by tohoku


<ahem>

I hate to tell you this, but we don't *have* 'presidents' - we're not a republic and hopefully never will be, and no one in their right mind would want an egotistical showman like MacArthur anywhere near running their country. The political moves to have him continue running Japan have litle to do with MacArthur and lots to do with the power it would have given the polticial factions supporting that option.

MacArthur is regarded as a fool in Japan. Japan was just too polite to mention it to him. Of course, the small matter of having a lost a war to the country he represented may have had something to do with it too...


tohoku

How old are you Tohoku? Because He may or may not have been a fool, but I very much doubt your grandparents felt that way. In a country use to obeying a supreme ruler, Mac was basically looked upon as a psuedo emperor.

. Oh yeah..... your for all practical purposes 1 party parlimentary system is sooo much better than a republic. How many PMs now in the past 10years? Everyone knows the real power in your country belong to the burueacrats. Your recession has been going on for how long now? Going on ten years isnt it? Maybe its time you guys try a Republic.

[Raverdave]

Hey TimJot,

I have found the transcript of the doco on the Fall of Singapore that I told you about a few days ago, goto the following link.....enjoy!

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s498399.htm

[Ranger-75]

This person tohoku, is just another reminder of the Japanese collective unwillingness to face up to the realities of their ancestors' agression. If anyone wwants to get a dose of reality, read hirohito's surrender proclamation. One of the funnier parts is when he stated:

"Despite the best efforts of our armed forces, the progress of the war has not nescessarily gone to Japan's advantage."

This was after to two big booms and after the soviets had nearly overrun all of Manchuria and korea (in less than a week).

the proclamation, like the earler proclamation declaring war (a day after the peaceful US and Great Britain were attacked) is full of this type of absolute bullsh!t. The Japanese have never admitted to their guilt in starting the war, remember that.

I still blame Mac for the failure to protect the air strength on day 1.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Frankly I think that everyone has been pretty rough on Tohoku here. He merely corrected a fact that Japan does not have presidents, and that the Western perception that MacArthur was a desired leader might have been faulty. He might very well be a Troll, but reading his post over, and over again I can see nothing that deserves him, and his entire society being called totally blind to the past.

How many wars of aggression has the United States not owned up to? Spanish-American War? Vietnam War? War of 1812? Mexican War? Nicaragua/Guatemala interference? Sure, Japan is not the most enlightened nation in the world, but they do not deserve to be singled out, merely because they will not appologize for starting a war against us. We never appologized for our wars of aggression, so why should they?

Many might say that the US offered Japan no other option but war in 1941. Diplomacy reached a level where the US would accept nothing but Japan giving back all territory from 1931 (or 37), which was seen as unconditional surrender, and a severe loss of face. This is equivalent to Japan dictating that the US must remove all troops and influence from Central America in the 1940's, tantamount to US unconditional surrender (i.e., defying Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine). Japan was merely operating in their percieved sphere of influence, just like the US was operating in theirs. Sure the Japanese were guilty of war crimes during the 1937 invasion, but that was not a factor in the reasons for the US demanding that Japan leave the region. This reason was economic. Since the 19th Century the US realized the potential of China as a consumer for American produced goods, however, under Japanese dominance, they would face unfair trade barriers.

Both Japan and the US have shown little regard for the populations in their sphere's of influence other then their economic value. Frankly, the US (and entire Western world) is just as guilty of failing to own up to their evil deeds. You should not get mad at Tohoku for defending his nation if there is actually some sort of bias of history.

I guess it is true, the losers cannot rewrite history, but the winners can.

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
Frankly I think that everyone has been pretty rough on Tohoku here. He merely corrected a fact that Japan does not have presidents, and that the Western perception that MacArthur was a desired leader might have been faulty. He might very well be a Troll, but reading his post over, and over again I can see nothing that deserves him, and his entire society being called totally blind to the past.

How many wars of aggression has the United States not owned up to? Spanish-American War? Vietnam War? War of 1812? Mexican War? Nicaragua/Guatemala interference? Sure, Japan is not the most enlightened nation in the world, but they do not deserve to be singled out, merely because they will not appologize for starting a war against us. We never appologized for our wars of aggression, so why should they?

Many might say that the US offered Japan no other option but war in 1941. Diplomacy reached a level where the US would accept nothing but Japan giving back all territory from 1931 (or 37), which was seen as unconditional surrender, and a severe loss of face. This is equivalent to Japan dictating that the US must remove all troops and influence from Central America in the 1940's, tantamount to US unconditional surrender (i.e., defying Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine). Japan was merely operating in their percieved sphere of influence, just like the US was operating in theirs. Sure the Japanese were guilty of war crimes during the 1937 invasion, but that was not a factor in the reasons for the US demanding that Japan leave the region. This reason was economic. Since the 19th Century the US realized the potential of China as a consumer for American produced goods, however, under Japanese dominance, they would face unfair trade barriers.

Both Japan and the US have shown little regard for the populations in their sphere's of influence other then their economic value. Frankly, the US (and entire Western world) is just as guilty of failing to own up to their evil deeds. You should not get mad at Tohoku for defending his nation if there is actually some sort of bias of history.

I guess it is true, the losers cannot rewrite history, but the winners can.

Just for my interest, was Canada involved in the Pacific war? I don't recall reading or seeing anything about it......just curious.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Canada's Contribution...

Hong Kong 1941

The Royal Rifles of Canada
Winnipeg Grenadiers


Alaskan Islands 1943

13th Infantry Brigade
Many RCAF Fighter and Bomber Squadrons
Much Canadian Shipping including 2 AMC's


Ceylon 1942

Canadian FAA Pilots spotted the IJN TF heading for Ceylon, and allowed the builk of the Eastern Fleet to flee to Addu Atoll.


Indian and Pacific Oceans


HMS Uganda (Later HMCS Quebec)
HMS Ontario


Burma

Canadian Pilots filled out many RAF P-47 Squadrons in the Arakan region, and experienced heavy fighting.


Proposed Operation Olympic

6th Infantry Division



Sure, our contribution was not as much as most nations involved, but we had 99% of our forces fighting in Europe. Since we had a population of only 1/10 of the US we, like Australia, could only fight (in strength) in one theatre at a time. However we did experiene high proportional losses (especially with our forces at Hong Kong).