Matrix Games Forums

February 15

1942 Singapore falls to Japan


Singapore, the "Gibraltar of the East" and a strategic British stronghold, falls to Japanese forces.

An island city and the capital of the Straits Settlement of the Malay Peninsula, Singapore had been a British colony since the 19th century. In July 1941, when Japanese troops occupied French Indochina, the Japanese telegraphed their intentions to transfer Singapore from the British to its own burgeoning empire. Sure enough, on the eve of the Pearl Harbor attack, 24,000 Japanese troops were transported from Indochina to the Malay Peninsula, and Japanese fighter pilots attacked Singapore, killing 61 civilians from the air.

The battle between Japanese and British forces on the Malay Peninsula continued throughout December and January, killing hundreds more civilians in the process. The British were forced to abandon and evacuate many of their positions, including Port Swettenham and Kuala Lumpur.

On February 8, 5,000 Japanese troops landed on Singapore Island. The British were both outmanned and outgunned. Pro-Japanese propaganda leaflets were dropped on the islands, encouraging surrender. On February 13, Singapore's 15-inch coastal guns--the island's main defensive weapons--were destroyed. Tactical miscalculations on the part of British Gen. Arthur Percival and poor communication between military and civilian authorities exacerbated the deteriorating British defense. Represented by General Percival and senior Allied officers, Singapore surrendered to Japanese Gen. Tomoyuki Yamashita in front of Japanese newsreel cameras. Sixty-two thousand Allied soldiers were taken prisoner; more than half eventually died as prisoners of war.

With the surrender of Singapore, Britain lost its foothold in the East. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill attempted to prop up morale by urging Brits "to display the calm and poise, combined with grim determination, which not so long ago brought us out of the very jaws of death."

60 years and 2 days ago Dresden was bombed.

So?

So war is, in reality, a horrible thing. I am glad we only killing ones and zeros (and yes I enjoy it very much. I also enjoy taking out cardboard counters on table tops. ) My thoughts and prayers go to the men and women serving in armed forces in all parts of the globe.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

So?

So many civilian died that night.

ORIGINAL: Harald1050

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

So?

So many civilian died that night.

thousands.

ORIGINAL: Harald1050

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

So?

So many civilian died that night.

Try Coventry, Bristol, Bath, Southhapton, Portsmouth, the blitz. What goes around comes around.

ORIGINAL: Bobthehatchit

ORIGINAL: Harald1050

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

So?

So many civilian died that night.

Try Coventry, Bristol, Bath, Southhapton, Portsmouth, the blitz. What goes around comes around.

Rome, Milan, Turin, Genova, Treviso.....

ORIGINAL: Bobthehatchit

ORIGINAL: Harald1050

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

So?

So many civilian died that night.

Try Coventry, Bristol, Bath, Southhapton, Portsmouth, the blitz. What goes around comes around.

I know these cities too.

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

ORIGINAL: Bobthehatchit

ORIGINAL: Harald1050



So many civilian died that night.

Try Coventry, Bristol, Bath, Southhapton, Portsmouth, the blitz. What goes around comes around.

Rome, Milan, Turin, Genova, Treviso.....

War is a nasty past time.

Neither side was whiter than white, some were just more guilty than others. Yets just hope we never see another world war and that we have learnt our lessons.

ORIGINAL: Harald1050

ORIGINAL: Bobthehatchit

ORIGINAL: Harald1050



So many civilian died that night.

Try Coventry, Bristol, Bath, Southhapton, Portsmouth, the blitz. What goes around comes around.

I know these cities too.

All rather sad. And so unneccary, what in the end did it acheive? Nothing just the deaths of millions.

I don't think there is anyone on the forum arguing that the bombing of Dresden or anywhere else is a good thing.

I am in the middle of a book that tries to give a more balanced very of the bombing. I grew up with the story of the "beautiful peaceful city with no miltary value that was senslessly destroyed." Until I started reading this book I pretty much believed it.

There were a lot of beautiful places destroyed during the war Dresden was one of them but after reading more about it I can't say that the destruction of Dresden was some how more sensless or a greater loss than the destruction of any other beautiful city.

The idea that it was not a military center or had no military value is simply not true, it just makes for a good story.

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

I don't think there is anyone on the forum arguing that the bombing of Dresden or anywhere else is a good thing.

I am in the middle of a book that tries to give a more balanced very of the bombing. I grew up with the story of the "beautiful peaceful city with no miltary value that was senslessly destroyed." Until I started reading this book I pretty much believed it.

There were a lot of beautiful places destroyed during the war Dresden was one of them but after reading more about it I can't say that the destruction of Dresden was some how more sensless or a greater loss than the destruction of any other beautiful city.

The idea that it was not a military center or had no military value is simply not true, it just makes for a good story.

No the bombing where not a good thing, but they were necessary Dresden was as you as a rell military target. The loss of life was unfortunate though

60 years and 2 days ago Dresden was bombed.

[&:][&:]

Mr Harald1050:

After all, wasn’t this a nazi city, lesson learn, next time do not start a war you can not win.

Don't forget Warsaw and Amsterdam just to add a few more.

Yes, I do so love when the aggressor whines about his lost cities. Ignoring the cities lost on the other side and the fact that he STARTED the whole affair. I have read that more people died in the London blitz then died in Dresden.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Yes, I do so love when the aggressor whines about his lost cities. Ignoring the cities lost on the other side and the fact that he STARTED the whole affair. I have read that more people died in the London blitz then died in Dresden.

All this harping on about who killed who is a bit pointless isnt it...

[>:]

Look here. 3rd & 4th mpg.file from above.
http://www2.edu.ipa.go.jp/gz/p-rek1/p-s ... rek480.htm

use here to read Japanese
http://babelfish.altavista.com/

ORIGINAL: stubby331

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Yes, I do so love when the aggressor whines about his lost cities. Ignoring the cities lost on the other side and the fact that he STARTED the whole affair. I have read that more people died in the London blitz then died in Dresden.

All this harping on about who killed who is a bit pointless isnt it...

[>:]

Useless? When one tries to rewrite history and portray events not as they were it is MOST definetely not useless. Some would have us believe that places like Dresden were autrosities and that there was no reason to attack them and that the allies were somehow bloodthirsty, while ignoring who started the war and who committed what autrosities.

Useless, I dont think so.

Evil is always on one side , isn't it?
Noone wants to rewrite history. Only to remember and to remember everything, not just selected lines of history.