The Sun Will Never Set On The British Empire.

[Thongkorn]

Maybe the British Empire did not fall , Maybe they (we) saw sense and realized that Any Empire has a limit .And maybe Common sense and fair play which is a value of The UK prevailed,

[JohnLeech]

The information about Australian troops at singapore comes from "Singapore: The Pregnable Fortress." You can hardly blame them though General Bennett and two of his staff officers told the troops to stay and they left and made it back to Australia.

Peter Elphick's paper has been dismissed by every serious military historian as a baseless fabrication, only partially supported at best by the so-called Wavell Report which was not written by General (later Field-Marshal) Wavell who only ordered an investigation into the fall of Singapore, but by an Indian Army Major and a Captain in the Gurkhas, both staff officers. The only notable thing in the report is the absence of any mention of any desertion by Indian Army troops or the FIA and the number of anecdotal reports about Australian troops later proved to be totally false.

Peter Elphick subsequently changed his line in his later book, Far East on Fire, in which he claimed that "new evidence" showed that there had been a similar number of British deserters. Again, there is little to support his claims, and the figures and names he gives bear no relation to nominal rolls of casuaties, prisoners and evacuees; a number of those he names are not on any nominal roll of those units serving in Singapore.

Try reading Lynette Silver's point by point rebuttal of his paper.

[JohnLeech]

The liberation of the Falklands is a sterling example. Against terrible odds, and in difficult conditions the courage and bravery of HM defense forces liberated an island invaded by faciast thugs. The UK didn't just liberate the Falklands, they also enabled the return of elections in Argentina.

Hardly, and any idea that Britain still stands for "justice and freedom" disappeared when the UK took part in the unjustified invasion of Iraq.

Prior to the Argentian invasion negotiations were already well under way between Britain and Argentina to hand over sovereignty of the Falklands to Argentina (without consulting the islanders). Galtieri, however saw the invasion as the only way he could remain in power and either avoid elections entirely or avoid losing at the elections, and was never prepared for a military conflct.

The campaign could possibly have been avoided and a negotiated settlement reached, brokered by the US, had the political decision not been taken to sink the Belgrano, which was outside the exclusion zone and heading away from the Falklands.

Without belittling the courage, bravery or ability of the British troops, the odds were hardly "terrible". With the exception of the limited Argentine Air Force and their Exocet missiles, which inflicted the bulk of British casualties, and a very few Argentinian special forces and marines, the Argentine forces were poorly trained and equipped and primarily conscripts who put up little resistance to the far better trained, equipped and supported British ground troops.

[thepanicandthevomit]

The liberation of the Falklands is a sterling example. Against terrible odds, and in difficult conditions the courage and bravery of HM defense forces liberated an island invaded by faciast thugs. The UK didn't just liberate the Falklands, they also enabled the return of elections in Argentina.

Hardly, and any idea that Britain still stands for "justice and freedom" disappeared when the UK took part in the unjustified invasion of Iraq.

Prior to the Argentian invasion negotiations were already well under way between Britain and Argentina to hand over sovereignty of the Falklands to Argentina (without consulting the islanders). Galtieri, however saw the invasion as the only way he could remain in power and either avoid elections entirely or avoid losing at the elections, and was never prepared for a military conflct.

The campaign could possibly have been avoided and a negotiated settlement reached, brokered by the US, had the political decision not been taken to sink the Belgrano, which was outside the exclusion zone and heading away from the Falklands.

Without belittling the courage, bravery or ability of the British troops, the odds were hardly "terrible". With the exception of the limited Argentine Air Force and their Exocet missiles, which inflicted the bulk of British casualties, and a very few Argentinian special forces and marines, the Argentine forces were poorly trained and equipped and primarily conscripts who put up little resistance to the far better trained, equipped and supported British ground troops.

So what? You can only fight what's in front of you.

Sinking the Belgrano was a master stroke - how many of OUR troops would have died if we hadn't 'Gotcha'd'. Who cares where it was heading? Responsibility for that act and the conflict as a whole lies solely with Galtieri and the Argentinian people, many of whom STILL yearn for conflict over that godforsaken windswept bit of rock in the middle of nowhere. Why do so many wimpy Eglish types pander to these nutjobs? Why is self flagellation such a turn-on to some people?

As much as I hated her at the time, Thatch got it spot on - no nation should be able to illegally invade sovereign soil and get away with it. One nation holds its head held high; Britain. The Argentinians, French and Americans should hang theirs with shame.

[thepanicandthevomit]

My employment conditions run 7 pages. The privacy convention runs 10 pages.

Aaah ............ The Stig!

[IanForbes]

And as so many have said before me.... This subject of the Falkland Islands war is of what importance to Thailand? The topic is hardly Thai related.

[endure]

And as so many have said before me.... This subject of the Falkland Islands war is of what importance to Thailand? The topic is hardly Thai related.

This is in General. It doesn't necessarily have to be Thai related any more than pictures you regularly post of things you've shot or shagged have to be Thai related.

[IanForbes]

And as so many have said before me.... This subject of the Falkland Islands war is of what importance to Thailand? The topic is hardly Thai related.

This is in General. It doesn't necessarily have to be Thai related any more than pictures you regularly post of things you've shot or shagged have to be Thai related.

I don't really care, Endure, but I've seen MANY topics closed in the General forum that were more Thai related than a discussion on the British Empire. I find it ALL interesting and occasionally something that makes me do a little research. And, I'm NOT questioning moderation. The mods can do anything they see fit.

[samran]

care factor = zero

[canuckamuck]

If you want to appreciate the influence the British had where they set up shop, just have a look at the current state of former French colonies.

Although I am not British, I admire the standards they once stood for, and can barely recognize it in modern England

[mark45y]

I live in Thailand because of the honesty/consistency of the country. Everybody lies, everybody is corrupt and everybody knows it.

Seems refreshing after reading the news of the west.

You really mean to say 'everybody'?

If this is your experience then i pity you. It makes me feel bad, as I meet a lot of honest people here.

I hope tomorrow you will meet at least one person, that proofs you wrong.

It was a tongue in cheek answer. I go to immigration a couple of weeks early to fend off the attempted scams and when it does not happen I am pleasantly surprised. If it does, I was expecting it. I take a taxi where the Thai rate is 10 baht. I always offer 15 baht. Sometimes they give me 5 baht back, sometimes they ask for 5 more baht.

In any case I am not upset.

[mark45y]

The information about Australian troops at singapore comes from "Singapore: The Pregnable Fortress." You can hardly blame them though General Bennett and two of his staff officers told the troops to stay and they left and made it back to Australia.

Peter Elphick's paper has been dismissed by every serious military historian as a baseless fabrication, only partially supported at best by the so-called Wavell Report which was not written by General (later Field-Marshal) Wavell who only ordered an investigation into the fall of Singapore, but by an Indian Army Major and a Captain in the Gurkhas, both staff officers. The only notable thing in the report is the absence of any mention of any desertion by Indian Army troops or the FIA and the number of anecdotal reports about Australian troops later proved to be totally false.

Peter Elphick subsequently changed his line in his later book, Far East on Fire, in which he claimed that "new evidence" showed that there had been a similar number of British deserters. Again, there is little to support his claims, and the figures and names he gives bear no relation to nominal rolls of casuaties, prisoners and evacuees; a number of those he names are not on any nominal roll of those units serving in Singapore.

Try reading Lynette Silver's point by point rebuttal of his paper.

There have been a lot of documents released recently about WW II from the files of the British secret service. They all serve to try and lessen the obvious errors of the British government at the expense of commonwealth countries. Australians at Singapore and Canadian troops drunk at the battle for Hong Kong.

At the time of the Singapore campaign General Wavell was head of the ABDA (American- British- Dutch- Australian) Command which included Singapore, Malaya the Dutch East Indies and certain other regions. 1 General Percival was thus Wavell's subordinate.

In a secret report dated June 1942, and only recently declassified, Wavell is said to have asserted:

For the fall of Singapore itself, the Australians are held responsible, while their presence in the town in disproportionately large numbers during the last days, with the escape of large numbers on ships and in boats has aroused great indignation.

Who knows the differency between running away from a lost battle and desertion? Did General Bennett escape or desert? He told his troops to stay and fight and he went back to Australia, thats for sure. Bennett commandeered a sampan at gunpoint and crossed the Strait of Malacca to the east coast of Sumatra, where they transferred to a launch in which they sailed up the Jambi River. They then proceeded on foot to Padang, on the west coast of Sumatra. From there Bennett flew to Java and then to Australia, arriving in Melbourne on 2 March 1942.

The controversy over Bennett's actions became public in 1945, when the war ended and Percival was released from Japanese captivity. Percival, who had never got on with Bennett, accused him of relinquishing his command without permission. Blamey convened a court of enquiry under Major General V. P. H. Stanke, which found that Bennett was not justified in handing over his command, or in leaving Singapore.

My own opinion, had he been a common soldier he would have been shot.

Singapore was lost on the Malay penninsula. Could the Japanese have been stopped on the Malay penninsula?

Sure, the Thais could have stopped them. A lot of people don't know the Thais defeated a 50,000 man French army only a year before. The Thais got beaten at sea by the French but not on land.

I think that was the reason Churchill was still so upset with the Thais at the end of the war. They could have made a major difference in the Empire. When the Brits occupied Thailand in 1946 the only reason they left was problems in India.

[geriatrickid]

And as so many have said before me.... This subject of the Falkland Islands war is of what importance to Thailand? The topic is hardly Thai related.

Really? The liberation of the Falklands was moment in time that offers a valuable lesson to the ruling class of Thailand. Put your thinking cap on and channel your thoughts to the Preah Vihear Temple.

The Argentinians chose violence and confrontation over diplomacy.There was a path to peace at the Temple too. Instead, Thai special interest groups sought to ratchet up the tension and to provoke a violent confrontation to distract from more serious problems. What was achieved? Had it not been for international intervention there would have been a lot off dead people. Thailand would have won the initial skirmishes but would have lost the war and suffered serious economic damage. (And yes, several foreign ministers and secretaries from ASEAN nations, the USA, EU and Scanadanavian nations spoke up.)

In the Falklands, the USA was caught off guard. President Reagan was still finding his way with the UK, but he probably made his boldest descision when he bucked public sentiment and gave full support to the UK. Sidewinder missiles were released to the UK as the RAF had sent its sidewinders into battle. More importantly, USAF and USN assets were deployed to provide full support to the British liberators transiting the UK overseas territory, Ascenscion Island. Other European nations did their best too with France providing support and assistance. As the aircraft used by the Argentinians was all French sourced, France was able to provide the same aircraft and the training pilots to allow the RAF to train against. Full specs were given to the UK. Canada served as as a discrete training area for the French and British airforces. Chile and Columbia supported the UK. Peru and Brazil sent weaponary to Argentina. Again, this too is applicable to the PV Temple dispute with Cambodia. Thailand assumed it would be just Thailand against the poorly equipped scattered Cambodian troops. It was not expecting foreigners to weigh in, especially Vietnam.

The liberation of the Falklands required the UK to raise and equip a task force in a short period of time, and to voyage across storm battered seas. Had the Argentinians waited just 3 months, several of the RN's ships would have been decommissioned (e.g.HMS Hermes).

The UK operation also served as a sobering education for the ministry of defense. Many deficiencies and operational weaknesses were exposed. Although UK service personnel were lost, their sacrifice meant that equipment was re-examined and that the air defenses of the RN were completely overhauled. Thailand has yet to learn from its equipment failures. When the bomb detector fiasco was exposed, the Thai military command went to ground. No public inquiry, no accountability. When RN personnel suffered horrific burns because of the fabric type used in their uniforms, the situation was analyzed. (The polyester melted to the skin when there was intense heat as was evidenced by the Excocet missile devastation.) The investigations conducted in the UK changed the fabrics used for battle dress uniforms in most western navies. Not once has there ever been any transparency when things go wrong in Thailand's mlitary.

And most importantly of all, the brave Falkland Islanders stood firm against the invading Argentinians.They resisted and there were no collaborators. As soon as the Argies arrived, they changed the official language to Spanish and attempted to force the inhabitants to change the side of the road they were driving on. There was also intimidation and brutality.Yet, the loyal UK said no.. When the brave, tough SAS units arrived, they knew they could count on the support of a local population eager to be free again.

No, the sun didn't set on the empire. The United Kingdom may be battered and abused by ingrates, but it is a long way from collapse and will recover. It always does. The UK did itself proud and defended freedom when it stood up to the faciast thugs of Argentina.

[mca]

And as so many have said before me.... This subject of the Falkland Islands war is of what importance to Thailand? The topic is hardly Thai related.

This is in General. It doesn't necessarily have to be Thai related any more than pictures you regularly post of things you've shot or shagged have to be Thai related.

I'm waiting for Ian to post pics of things he's shot AND shagged.

[harrry]

And as so many have said before me.... This subject of the Falkland Islands war is of what importance to Thailand? The topic is hardly Thai related.

This is in General. It doesn't necessarily have to be Thai related any more than pictures you regularly post of things you've shot or shagged have to be Thai related.

I'm waiting for Ian to post pics of things he's shot AND shagged.

Or the picture of Ian shot by the shagged

[Kwasaki]

Wavell Report - This report states that "for the fall of Singapore itself, the Australians are held responsible". (PDF Document)

» Scapegoats for the Bloody Empire - Lynette Silver responds to Peter Elphick's charges of Australian desertion.

» Interview with Roydon Cornford whom Elphick named as a deserter in his book. (RealVideo)

May be of intrest, many Indian troops when over to the Japs and the Jap numbers were far higher than reported by the Japs and many other reasons for the fall of Malaya and Battle of Singapore:-

On 13 February, with the Allies still losing ground, senior officers advised

Lieutenant-General Arthur Percival to surrender in the interests of minimizing civilian casualties.

Percival refused, but unsuccessfully sought authority to surrender from his superiors.

That same day military police executed a convicted British traitor,

Captain Patrick Heenan who had been an Air Liaison Officer with the Indian Army.

Japanese military intelligence had recruited Heenan before the war, and he had used a radio to assist them in targeting Allied airfields in northern Malaya.

He had been arrested on 10 December and court-martialled in January.

Heenan was shot at Keppel Harbour, on the south side of Singapore, and his body was thrown into the sea.

By the way my dad when he came back from the war, dad use to say over 50years ago England had gone to the dogs and made the arrangements for us to emigrate to New Zealand.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Kwasaki

[travelmann]

Geriatrickid expressed himself so clearly that I didn't want his post lost in the shuffle.

He painted such a clear picture of a stereotype of the colonial cast on foreign shores trying to bring order and morality to the troubled and morally challenged natives.

He clearly sees the drunken ex pats in the same light as the missionaries saw the drunken sailors in the South Seas and the other paradises that all saw the same conflict between the locals and the missionaries.

There have been books written and movies made that are classics expressing the same conflicts.

The last civilized man standing from the dying empire.

He doesn't see it. He doesn't get it.

He has memories of the British Empire as a civilizing force when in fact it was a terrible corrupt regime.

From the East India company or the Hudson bay company or all the other commercial exploitive enterprises designed to extract labor and resources from helpless countries to feed and enrich the British Isles.

He has mixed up the good and bad guys by a lack of knowledge or ignorance or sticking his head in the sand. But he has done so eloquently.

I appreciate the fact that he explains his position and does not just condemn out of hand.

The first mistake you made was saying "right or wrong".ask a dog what right or wrong is.

.

[enerzne]

It was a tongue in cheek answer. I go to immigration a couple of weeks early to fend off the attempted scams and when it does not happen I am pleasantly surprised. If it does, I was expecting it. I take a taxi where the Thai rate is 10 baht. I always offer 15 baht. Sometimes they give me 5 baht back, sometimes they ask for 5 more baht.

In any case I am not upset.

First I did not like The things you said. :jap: But now. Maybe I start to understand.

I even might start to like your way.

[KeyserSoze01]

Got news for you, the sun has already set on pommie-land.

With some areas of England having 84% of the population on the dole, that giant swishing sound you hear it the British economy flushing down the porcelain convenience.

Enjoy

Edited October 12, 2010 by KeyserSoze01

[sirineou]

I think a better topic would be, "The Sun Will Never Set On A Chinese Restaurant."

That would be more interesting as I would imagine that 99%+ of the readers here could give a recommendation either in Thailand or around the world.

Was that off topic?

The sun will never set on the British empire because God would not trust an Englishman in the dark

5555555555 Good one,

even though most of the respondents to this topic seem to be in the dark about the realities of the British empire, and for that mater, every empire in history,

I am sure the people that got raped by it, do not miss it.

Who will now carry the" white mans burden"

ohhh nostalgia ...............

Edited October 12, 2010 by sirineou

[mahtin]

[sirineou]

I think a better topic would be, "The Sun Will Never Set On A Chinese Restaurant."

That would be more interesting as I would imagine that 99%+ of the readers here could give a recommendation either in Thailand or around the world.

Was that off topic?

The sun will never set on the British empire because God would not trust an Englishman in the dark

5555555555 Good one,

even though most of the respondents to this topic seem to be in the dark about the realities of the British empire, and for that mater, every empire in history,

I am sure the people that got raped by it, do not miss it.

Who will now carry the" white mans burden"

ohhh nostalgia ...............

BUT, l wonder where some of the empire would be now if it wasn't for the influence of those years of occupation by the English.

Ethnocentrism is a very damaging concept,

cultures by definition, are not better or worst, they are different.

good or bad are subjective terms, subject to ones cultural mores and morays.

applying ( or trying) to apply ones cultural mores and morays to other cultures can at best be disruptive and more often is destructive,

as witnessed in the challenge that face todays Africa.

The British Empire was not better or worst than preciding empires , it followed the predictable evolution that all empires have followed through history , and while "fighting the barbarians" weakened , declined, and was replaced by the American empire, who is in reality an extension of the British empire.

Now the American empire is following the same predictable evolution,with one exception. Technology has the capacity to make damages to the world irreversible.

As far as to the Question :l wonder where some of the empire would be now if it wasn't for the influence of those years of occupation by the English.

Different Society systems would had being allowed to progress ( evolve) linear , ( good to better) rather than take all these lateral diversions.

and eventual the better system would have prevailed. I know "better" by who's definition? I guess better as defined, " Happy, healthy. long term survival"

one can also argue that the better system has prevailed 5555555555555

but the question is academic, because if it was not the English, it would had being some one else.

At least the British brought " tea and crumpets" to the party

P.S. who needs every one else, I am doing fine arguing with my self, I hope this time i win, Mmmhaahhahah

[canuckamuck]

Actually the sun is continually setting on the British empire.

[mark45y]

The British Empire was quite a bit different than the American Empire. The Americans colonial ambitions were quite restricted to a few islands.

The American Empire you refer to after WW II was a zone of political and trade dominance. Not colonial in the same way as British colonies were in Africa, India, Asia and other places.

Not apples to apples.

[IanForbes]

Not apples to apples.

More like apples to mangos. Generalities are just that... quite general. I'm just taking your oil and other natural resources for your own good.

[geriatrickid]

The British Empire was quite a bit different than the American Empire. The Americans colonial ambitions were quite restricted to a few islands.

The American Empire you refer to after WW II was a zone of political and trade dominance. Not colonial in the same way as British colonies were in Africa, India, Asia and other places.

Not apples to apples.

Oh is that so? Then <deleted> was the Roosevelt Corollary? Remember when Teddy Roosevelt declared that the USA had the "right" to intervene in the internal affairs of Caribbean and Central America nations if they were unable to pay their international debts? Gosh, what do you think the US reaction would be today if the Chinese and Arab creditors said, hey USA, we want to intervene because you guys have really f*cked up your economy. And what of the Iran Contra fiasco of the US government under Reagan? The USA in large part was forged by the violent aggression of its east coast inhabitants. It was essentuially a colonial march to nation building. Florida, Texas, California, Oregon were not assumed through hugs and kisses and the exchange of furtive glances. It is the height of imperialistic arrogance for USN nuclear powered submarines o secretly power through sovereign Canadian territory without permission. The Northwest passage is Canadian territory and the two countries with the greatest desire to impinge on that sovereignty are Russia and the USA. As the Thais say, same same.

I said it before, and I will reiterate. The British Empire should not be looked at solely from the perspective of military might, but rather from the concept of shared values and common good. The legacy of the Empire is one of functional government, of civil rights, of an independent judiciary and of a shared system of values. The British Empire evolved. Appreciably a great many people, particularly those from regions where creationism is a way of life may not understand the concept of evolution.

Edited October 13, 2010 by geriatrickid

[mark45y]

The British Empire was quite a bit different than the American Empire. The Americans colonial ambitions were quite restricted to a few islands.

The American Empire you refer to after WW II was a zone of political and trade dominance. Not colonial in the same way as British colonies were in Africa, India, Asia and other places.

Not apples to apples.

Oh is that so? Then <deleted> was the Roosevelt Corollary? Remember when Teddy Roosevelt declared that the USA had the "right" to intervene in the internal affairs of Caribbean and Central America nations if they were unable to pay their international debts? Gosh, what do you think the US reaction would be today if the Chinese and Arab creditors said, hey USA, we want to intervene because you guys have really f*cked up your economy. And what of the Iran Contra fiasco of the US government under Reagan? The USA in large part was forged by the violent aggression of its east coast inhabitants. It was essentuially a colonial march to nation building. Florida, Texas, California, Oregon were not assumed through hugs and kisses and the exchange of furtive glances. It is the height of imperialistic arrogance for USN nuclear powered submarines o secretly power through sovereign Canadian territory without permission. The Northwest passage is Canadian territory and the two countries with the greatest desire to impinge on that sovereignty are Russia and the USA. As the Thais say, same same.

I said it before, and I will reiterate. The British Empire should not be looked at solely from the perspective of military might, but rather from the concept of shared values and common good. The legacy of the Empire is one of functional government, of civil rights, of an independent judiciary and of a shared system of values. The British Empire evolved. Appreciably a great many people, particularly those from regions where creationism is a way of life may not understand the concept of evolution.

I lived in Florida and Texas and both states were at one time or another ruled by six different nations.

I prefaced my previous comments by looking at the British Empire around WW II (recent history).

How many colonies did the US have in 1940? How many did Canada have? Australia?

My real point and something I actually believe is that if Thailand had been courted a bit better by the Brits and Yanks Singapore would not have fallen. If Singapore did not fall, India might have been a whole different ballgame. China might also have been a completely different ballgame if Singapore did not fall. The Chinese communists may have had to work out a diplomatic solution with the Nationalist Chinese government. And what would have happened to the Middle East?

Actually Thailand fighting for the Japanese may have completely altered the course of history and instead of a small backwater to WWII may have been the linchpin that drove the changes we now see.

[mark45y]

Not apples to apples.

More like apples to mangos. Generalities are just that... quite general. I'm just taking your oil and other natural resources for your own good.

Ian, if you remember, America had lots of oil during WWII. They were not importing they were exporting.

The British and French governments concluded a secret treaty (the Sykes-Picot Agreement) to partition the Middle East between them and, additionally, the British promised via the Balfour Declaration the international Zionist movement their support in creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Although historically known to be the site of the ancient Jewish Kingdom of Israel and successor Jewish nations for 1,200 years between approximately 1100BC-100AD, the area had been Canaanite 8,000 years prior to that period and had a largely Muslim Arab population for over 1,300 years since (and a largely Byzantine Christian population in between). When the Ottomans departed, the Arabs proclaimed an independent state in Damascus, but were too weak, militarily and economically, to resist the European powers for long, and Britain and France soon established control and re-arranged the Middle East to suit themselves.

[JohnLeech]

So what? You can only fight what's in front of you.

Sinking the Belgrano was a master stroke - how many of OUR troops would have died if we hadn't 'Gotcha'd'. Who cares where it was heading? Responsibility for that act and the conflict as a whole lies solely with Galtieri and the Argentinian people, many of whom STILL yearn for conflict over that godforsaken windswept bit of rock in the middle of nowhere. Why do so many wimpy Eglish types pander to these nutjobs? Why is self flagellation such a turn-on to some people?

As much as I hated her at the time, Thatch got it spot on - no nation should be able to illegally invade sovereign soil and get away with it. One nation holds its head held high; Britain. The Argentinians, French and Americans should hang theirs with shame.

So what? So nothing in particular, p&v, except that it wasn't quite as geriatrickid described it.

How many of OUR troops would have died? Possibly none. Galtieri had already provisionally accepted the peace proposal by Belaunde Terry (President of Peru), where Britain retained sovereignty of the Falklands, but when the Belgrano was sunk the proposal was, not surprisingly, rejected, so we'll never know.

no nation should be able to illegally invade sovereign soil and get away with it. I couldn' t agree more - unfortunately illegally invading sovereign soil and getting away with it is exactly what Britain assisted the Americans in doing in Iraq rather more recently, to Britain's shame.

Edited October 14, 2010 by JohnLeech

[JohnLeech]

There have been a lot of documents released recently about WW II from the files of the British secret service. They all serve to try and lessen the obvious errors of the British government at the expense of commonwealth countries. ...........

In a secret report dated June 1942, and only recently declassified, Wavell is said to have asserted:

For the fall of Singapore itself, the Australians are held responsible, while their presence in the town in disproportionately large numbers during the last days, with the escape of large numbers on ships and in boats has aroused great indignation.

Actually, Mark, the report was de-classified nearly 20 years ago and is readily available; it was widely quoted in the press in 1993. If you are as interested as you appear to be you should read the report yourself as it is clear that Wavell did not say that and in the only part of the report that he wrote himself (the covering page) he actually distanced himself from that particular statement, which is nothing more than the Staff Officer concerned's opinion of then current opinion, as Wavell made clear in his penultimate paragraph (para 4): "I have also allowed Appendix B to remain since it represents accurately much current opinion." What you have quoted, and Peter Elphick has mis-quoted, is from that Appendix B which was based on statements by those who had already left Singapore, and which the author (Major HP Thomas) actually rebutted himself.

Wavell played down the significance of the report, ending (para 5) "finally I would remind you of what I know you will bear in mind, that the statements available are those of comparatively junior officers with a limited view; and that the great majority of the senior officers whose preparation, planning and conduct of the operations are criticised, have not had the opportunity of explaining their actions. Signed ……"

(Sorry for the late reply - I have been on a brief "posting holiday". I think you know the feeling!)