85,000 British, Australian and New Zealand soldiers VS 36.000 Japanese soldiers

>85,000 British, Australian and New Zealand soldiers VS 36.000 Japanese soldiers

>Result: Decisive Japanese victory


Why couldn't the Anglos defeat the Japanese in WW2?

gonna go out on a limb here and say indian soldiers

Because the fucking dog eating pricks gave us shrimp on the barbie.

looks like the nips had more equipment and back up forces aren't supposed to stand ground against an invading main force

Nope if you actually look at the forces they were overwhelming British and Australian troops but they still lost to the Japanese bigly

History student here. Will tell why Anglos lost to a group of weebs.

>Japanese had the advantage of placing spies inside British territory, planning their attack in advance

>Japanese propaganda: Asian for asian, led the colonized people in the British Empire to support the invaders rather than defenders.

>Britain military power was weakened after WW2 and they focused much on the European battlefield than their own colony.

>Japanese forces have high spirits, they already BTFO'd chinks and slavs, while the brits cower in the singaporean defensive shield

>Japanese blitzkrieg, using mobility and lightning strike air superiority to destroy British forces, even sinking two Churchill warships Repulse and Prince of Wales

>Why couldn't the anglos defeat anybody in WW2?

we had the worst generals in human history

Yeah but the Anglos still outnumbered the Japs 3 to 1 and they had the defensive position i just expected that the Anglos would have did much better against the Japs

This. Arthur Percival was a cuck.
>The Anglos had a defensive position
It was worthless, the Japanese attacked from the rear (from Siam to Singapore, instead of attacking head on to Singapore) and by the time they reached Singapore, they took control of water supply, hence draining the morale of the defenders

>outnumbered Japs 3 to 1
Reminder that a large portion of Anglo army are conscripted from Indians, Malays and Chinks, they arent really a competent fighting force, and this incompetence, coupled with jap propaganda led the British army to fought poorly against a rag-tagged weebs with bicycles and small tanks.

Most Indians and Sikhs defected to Japs, and some Malays are supporting Japanese for nationalistic agenda, only Chinks fight alongside Anglos because chinks and japs are natural enemies

most of the soldiers were captured lel.
looks like they were outgunned.

>Result: Decisive Japanese victory
Because the British surrendered. That's it.

When the Japanese were pressing the attack and it seemed there was no real way to gain the initiative, the Allied commanding general Percival had a meeting. He gave his people two options, either surrender or counterattack, and they argued it out. They decided that counterattack would not work and the best idea would be to surrender.

However, with hindsight being 20/20, it is now believed that a counterattack could have broken the Japanese advance, despite the fact that the British position was logistically insufficient.

But there is something else at play, here. Something more fundamental and spiritual than mere logistics and the temporal aspects of military command. To order 80,000 of your men to surrender, while they are still alive and have even some capacity to fight, is extremely dishonorable.

As an Armyfag, it is my hope that if the US ever found itself in such a situation, that we would never surrender to the enemy and fight to the last man. When your commanders fail you strategically, it is up to you to do your part to fix the situation tactically. I know that very many of the British at Singapore would have rather fought than surrendered, and I am perplexed as to why the order was not met with more resistance.

I've been away from Malaysia for so long now, is the scandal at 1MDB and Najib kor still brewing?

Yeah given the amount of troops they still had i dont understand why they surrendered. Worst case scenario the Anglos still had more men than the Japanese i dont think 36000 Japs would have been able to beat 80000 Anglos but they just surrendered....

Also does anyone else notice that the Anglos seemed to do much better against the Germans than they did against the Japanese i wonder if the Japs had better soldiers than the Germans

Hits him quite hard but Najib stands strong

He imprison, kills and eliminates any critics of him. You know his Deputy Prime Minister, Muhydin, even the person who criticized him got sacked. So far, he has removed basically any opposition against him. Except for that old Mahathir though, Najib will probably win the next election. 1MDB is western lies

Arthur percival was a cuck who surrendered to weebs rather than fighting to his death. A shame.

I didnt know France had a commander in that battle

Oh well, maybe when they build the railway from mainland China to KL, we can tell them "Look at me, I am the Bumiputra now."

If the japs could defeat US forces in bataan then why do you think they couldn't defeat the anglos, they are masters of invasion

Is that the main reason for their surrender?

He wastes to much money on grand projects and our economy suffers as a result. Is vietnam a good place to live in?

Their commander was a cuck so probably yes

The anglos have the tendency to be defeated despite underwhelming odds
Maybe its years of dealing with padjeets and ooga boogas swinging sticks

They like foreigners. I can't ask for more. Also, real estate here are in the booming stage like in pre-1990 Singapore. Prices are roughly 1/3 of what you can get in comparison to Singapore, like $200k for a condominium unit near city's center in Ho Chi Minh.

I intend to stay here for long or maybe pursue US citizenship in the near future. Malaysia is a sinking dinghy.

Food's amazing too.

>>Why couldn't the Anglos defeat the Japanese in WW2?
Yeah man it's not like the Japanese lost the war or anything

lack of trucks apparently

They got fucked by America while bongland cried in the corner

Quite delicious, is it pork? I like shao nyuk, the crispiness is what i like about it. Not a peninsula chink, a borneoan native christian here

I would like to visit vietnam one day. I heard it is a beautiful country and the girls are also qt. Any tips for travelling there?

Not this shit again...

Out of those 85,000 soldiers 35,000 were British, the rest were Indian. They had no heavy equipment and only two ships in the area and no hope of any relief or support.

The Japanese landing was 36,000 but another 200,000 were in South Japan and less than 24 hours away. This was a time before people know how the Japs would treat their PoW's.

Just a reminder, 90,000 Americans surrendered to the Japanese in the Philippines.

The fact was nobody gave a fuck about the Pacific until 1945. The US Pacific fleet was toying with them and still kicked their arse. The British beat them at Imphal and Kohima on a shoe string budget in 1944 in the first land battle defeat. After that they folded faster than a deck of cards.

The Japs were only ever going to be a regional power.

But they did? 90,000 Americans surrendered in the Philippines.

The Japs got BTFO by America in most battles though while the Brits got BTFO by the Japs in most battles maybe all the best British soldiers were stationed in Europe?

I'm a Sarawakian myself. That's basically siu bak with rice noodle sheets and veggies. Sounds normal but fucking amazing.

Don't hesitate when you cross the road and don't trust shifty eyed pedestrians. Do not trust the locals when they pass you a plate of sketchy mysterious meat. I almost eat a dog in my first month here.

Hello fellow borneoan, i am sabahan living in west coast in beaufort.
The british got BTFO'd in Dunkirk

> America in Vietnam. Every advantage.

> British at Rorke's Drift. 100 men against 4000.

Yep, that checks out.

How would letting the entire British Expeditionary Force be destroyed at Dunkirk have been a good thing?

We had to leave because the French surrendered.

>Out of those 85,000 soldiers 35,000 were British, the rest were Indian

So? There was only 36000 Japanese soldiers even if there was only 35000 British solders out of the 80000 and the rest were Indian /Asian you should have still been able to win instead 35000 British troops surrendered to a much smaller army

> Just a reminder, 90,000 Americans surrendered to the Japanese in the Philippines.

Nice deflection just a reminder that America defeated Japan and you were unable too, Britain lost almost every battle against Japan

Speak for yourself, you cant even prevent Hitler from bombing and launching rockets into your cities during WW2

You made a mistake helping the french when you could cooperate with Hitler. Or even better, stay neutral in the war. But i suppose you can blame Fat Controller churchill for that

because who'd want to die over singapoor ?

>British at Rorke's Drift. 100 men against 4000.

You mean 100 solders armed with guns vs 4000 uncivilized savages armed with sticks and rocks not that impressive tbqh

There weren't though, 200,000 Japs were on the way so even if they did defeat them (and they would have if they'd fought) they would have been wiped out in a few months. They were told in no uncertain terms there was no support.

I have no problem with the Americans who surrendered, why throw away lives if you cannot win. As a commander you have a duty of care to the men under you. If a position is hopeless then it's the right thing to do. All I'm saying is this was in no way an exceptional surrender.

Britain won every battle against Japan in 1944 onwards. You know, after we could spare some men from Africa, Italy and Europe.

We did though, we won the war.

Fascism is a fucking failure, you're worse than communists. 'No no it'll work next time, this isn't real fascism'.

Reminder size of armies does not determine outcome of a battle. You can defeat a large force with fast strikes, air superiority and planned ambush. Thats why japan won against british even when outnumbered

They actually had hundreds of captured guns and the Martini-Henry was a breach loading single shot rifle. You were lucky to kill a handful before they closed in.

Only reason we lost is because the commanders weren't all Kiwis.

>Why are the Poles little girls incapable of defending themselves and with no loyalty to their country?

The big guns all faced the sea and the Japs cut off the supply route. It was only a matter of time.

>You mean 100 solders armed with guns vs 4000 uncivilized savages armed with sticks and rocks not that impressive tbqh
lol

equally 35,000 unsupported overstretched brits vs the enitre japanese army is no match either

>t. the first country to get wrecked in WW2

The myth of British incompetence in WWII needs to end.

uh logistics?

80,000 troops doesn't mean effective 80,000 fighting men

especially when they were cut off from supplies.

It's the same thing like the Italians

Good soldiers but poor equipment and leadership.

>200,000 Japs were on the way so even if they did defeat them (and they would have if they'd fought) they would have been wiped out in a few months.

They still surrendered to a smaller invading army seems pretty cuckish

>Britain won every battle against Japan in 1944 onwards.

Britain hardly fought against Japan after your earlier losses, 90% of battles won against japan were won by Americans

well we couldn't beat some fishermen with our actual navy so maybe that's where it comes from.

> There army is 250,000 men with all the equipment of the Japanese Empire.

> We have 85,000 with no heavy guns.

> We still apparently had numerical superiority.

I know you're American but this is basic maths.

> Britain hardly fought against the Japs.

Kek, no.

See the Burma campaign which lasted two years and saw the Japanese Expeditionary force completely destroyed at the Battle of Sitting Bend.

You're only showing your ignorance of the Second World War.

They were so butthurt after we occupied them in WWII.

Even if you have 85,000 soldiers, if they're from 3 different countries, that ends up being less than 29k soldiers per country. And with the associated language barrier it's easy to see how 36k Japanese soldiers would therefore outmatch them.

Sorry Sittang Bend, autocorrect fucked me.

churchill decided he hadnt got enough ANZAC's slaughtered the first time around and was itching for another go

a worthless fat cunt

>equally 35,000 unsupported overstretched brits vs the enitre japanese army is no match either

That wasn't the case though you were only fighting 36000 Japs not the entire army and you had 40k more troops than the Japs did

If you actually know about the battle its not really that impressive considering at that point Japan had no air force and no Navy and no supplies and fewer troops than the British ,

>There army is 250,000 men with all the equipment of the Japanese Empire.

You mean the army is 36,000 men....

I see, but when the Japs have more men than us, more equipment and air support we're incompetent?

Didn't stop you.

because anglos are pseudo-jew and all jews fear the samurais

>Gordon Bennett
Found your answer

>I see, but when the Japs have more men than us,

The Japs NEVER had more men than you it was 85k British soldiers vs 36k Japanese soldiers

How many times do I have to spell it out to you. I know Wikipedia is apparently the fountain of knowledge but there were 200,000 men less than 24 hours away.

Do you think Japan would attack an island with only 36,000 men? This was the advance party. They knew the rest were on the way and so they surrendered. The article should be amended.