Historically inaccurate reporting on the 80th anniversary of the Fall of Singapore

The genesis of Japan's victory came in December 1941 when its forces decided to attack Singapore from Malaysia and not the sea on the same day they launched their attack on the US naval base Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.

Full article


Richard Wood, the author of the article, ignores the international dateline. Under General Yama#a, the Japanese invasion of Malaysia was a combined operation involving air, naval and ground forces that began December 8, 1941.

Moreover, Yama#a's forces took the approach of amphibious operations in Northern Malaysia and the more direct route of moving land forces through Thailand.

Nor was the initial avenues taken by enemy forces a surprise to the British. In a less known historical twist: In 1936 - 37, Percival was stationed in Singapore. Upon analysing the matter of Singapore defences, he concluded that the threats would come from landings in Northern Malaysia and through Thailand. Therefore, the soundest defence of Singapore rested with the RAF and ground forces in Northern Malaysia.

Interestingly, Major General William Dobbie, the General Officer Commanding Malaysia, supported his conclusions. But the civilian colonial order laboured under the belief that Malaysia and Singapore acted as an impregnable fortress. As a result, they ignored or sought to obstruct any efforts to improve local defences.

Lastly, such basic factual errors concerning a well documented historical event is a sign of why there is no reason for anybody to trust mainstream media outlets.

a reply to: xpert11

Some knowledge of the Second World War used to be a common thing. No longer.

It has moved from the realm of "recent history" to "distant history", with a commensurate drop in understanding the details of the event.

Cheers

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2


An excellent and insightful observation. The last WW2 veterans, followed by people with memories of the conflict dying out, coincides with the emergence of the hourly internet-based news cycle. The pressures of that news cycle sometimes explain the lack of fact-checking by media outlets concerning unfolding events.

However, since the dates and outcomes of historical events are known, writers have time in advance to prepare their works.

a reply to: xpert11

Your mention of hourly news cycles points to, IMO, a general difficulty concerning focus and proper analysis of information. Too much of it spilling out of various sources to do much besides look here and take a gander there.

It is also, IMO, changing how people think. Short attention spans. Not conducive to the mental discipline that good writing demands.

Perhaps you can provide some insight on a question of mine. How do people in the UK perceive the Fall of Singapore today? Is it even a topic anymore?

Cheers

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

I live in New Zealand, so I can't answer your question specifically concerning the UK. But in terms of the impact: the Fall of Singapore plays a significant role in Australian military history. Yet, in New Zealand, the strategic implications from that catastrophic disaster are a mere footnote in comparison.

The Singapore Strategy's failure had flow-on effects, including the withdrawal of Australian troops from North Africa and the Bombing of Darwin.

Curiously, the confinement of geography/military history knowledge doesn't span to the political leaders behind the AUKUS Agreement. I am a supporter of AUKUS, but beyond the sharing of sensitive military technology, there are a lot of matters left unresolved.

I do think that your point concerning people's attention spans is valid. Also, the advent of Twenty20 cricket backs up your assertion.