British "Fighting Spirt"

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
Lightbob
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 11 Feb 2010, 16:36

Re: Why Was Britain Defeated in Malaya?

#16

Post by Lightbob » 08 Jun 2011, 19:22

Steve says;
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but you basically advocate two arguments why Britain was defeated in Malaya
.

No, the break up of the Anglo Japanese treaty combined with the US/Brit embargos etc. gave Japan no alternative than take a risk of going to war and perhaps if we had not broken that treaty Japan would not have attacked Malaya. An idea held by ‘Billy’ Hughes the Australian Prime Minister when he pleaded for Britain to maintain its treaty with Japan in 1921. Japan was very proud of its relationship with Britain and felt insulted by its abrogation. See Thompson’s ‘Battle for Singapore’.

I also said that the weakness of British intelligence which from 1936 onwards allowed the Japanese to infiltrate all levels of colonial society. Although the intelligence service failed it had been noticed that the Japanese had a habit of investing personnel at key strategic points such as Terengganu and Kelantan and across Johor from Kota Tinggi to Batu Pahat
on the west coast. They had contact with the Malaya nationalist and formed a limited 5th Column and the Indian Army with plans for it to change sides. The Japanese had agents in situ gathering information from loose talk, The Japanese also had information regarding the intentions of the British toward Singapore, gained by the German surface raider ‘Atlantis’ when she captured the Blue funnel liner ‘Automedan’. I think that Japanese intelligence together with their excellent reconnaissance troops certainly undermined the confidence of the allied troops

Regarding lack of fighting spirit and power, I have previously said that basis of this deficiency was the effects of WW1 and after. Regarding the Senior officers I suppose it is true to say that the better ones died in the Flanders mud. But I suppose the German ones died also. The junior officers were almost entirely recruited from the middle class. The ordinary regular soldier tended to be apolitical and any sympathy for their civilian brothers was soon knocked out of them by a military establishment that was on the whole almost extreme rightwing. Of course the regulars all develop ‘espirite de corps’ from the first day of training.

Steve goes on;
And this argument only holds for up to somewhere into 1942-43.
Not quite, there is a lot debate among historians that the British never quite recovered their true spirit. There is much argument that the British performance in Normandy was much behind the German’s and the Americans. What is true that Montgomery’s strategy and tactics were designed not particularly for speed but economy in lives, by letting fire power take the brunt, not blood.

You are quite right about the regular battalions did fight well after suffering a number of disasters. I think that there are a number of associated reasons for that. Did it increasingly become a fight for survival, or perhaps the stories of the IJA bayoneting their prisoners made them fight harder and I would like to think they had began to get the measure of the INJ

Norway, was an ill founded operation from the start, the regular brigade fought well and at Kvam, 1/KOYLI secured a victory, stopping the Germans in their tracks. But the 49th TA Division, short one of its brigades had a torrid time but managed to escape thanks to Norwegian Railways and the RN. The same Division in Normandy earned the sobriquet from the Germans as the ‘butcher bears’ Their Div sign was a polar bear. But still the division lost a battalion in Normandy the 1/6th DWR were sent back to UK as unfit for battle. See;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_We ... Battalions

In 1940 whilst the rest of the BEF were being evacuated at Dunkirk, a Brigade of Riflemen were sent to hold Calais. With orders to hold it until Dunkirk was clear and they did. The brigade consisted of two regular battalions and a TA battalion. So in every campaign there are exceptions perhaps they prove the rule. Strangely enough the best divisions in the war were on the whole TA divisions.

Steve adds;
As a comparator, the Australians, exceeded, they were all volunteers. Was it because they held a looser discipline regime, allowing more independence of action at that level, or just plain good fighting spirit.


Good fighting spirit, but only in Johor! In Singapore the Australians literally fell apart. They are accused of by Percival’s staff officers of failing to carry out patrols across in Johor. In fact the patrols were supposed to give the defenders an early warning. When finally persuaded to patrol the warning of IJA activity arrived at GHQ after the Japanese had landed.

I have heard and read somewhere that a rumour went around the Australian division that they were being evacuated causing the troops to abandon their positions. Where did the rumour come from? One apophasis is that news got out that Bennet and his staff were already leaving, seeming to confirm the rumour, since Bennet had planned much earlier to leave it is easy to see how rumours would soon get round.

Steve your comment regarding the Essex where did you find that they left Malaya? I know they served in Burma with the Chindits but can find no record of their service in Malay until after the war during he Emergency.

Lightbob
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 11 Feb 2010, 16:36

Re: Why Was Britain Defeated in Malaya?

#17

Post by Lightbob » 08 Jun 2011, 19:32

Steve
Regarding the Argyles they were and still are among the most elite regiments in the Army, with the morale and espirite de corps associated with elite regiments. They trained hard but I'm afrai tha the Jungle training was to say the least elementry. However their basic military skills were more than a match for the INJ


Lightbob
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 11 Feb 2010, 16:36

Re: Why Was Britain Defeated in Malaya?

#18

Post by Lightbob » 08 Jun 2011, 19:36

ECB says;
Fighting spirit" is a vague and dangerously abstract idea. Not everyone agrees on the definition or proper application of that phrase. It makes more sense to survey tangible factors that control behaviour in the organization; state of leadership, training, discipline, equipment, supply, and all written protocols that governed its overall combat readiness. The results could vary substantially from one battalion to another if the officers commanding did not pay attention. [
This reads like the DS solution to a problem set to cadets at Sandhurst or West Point. The parameters you set are only valid when the unit or officers in that unit can affect fighting spirit and of course they cannot. They can affect Morale, and to some extent espirite de corps, but fighting spirit is something of the inner man
‘Health, happiness and success depend upon the fighting spirit of each person. The big thing is not what happens to us in life - but what we do about what happens to us.’- George Allen
Fighting spirit is rarely missing in professional soldiers however conscripts are a different kettle of fish.

Churchill was a great believer in fighting spirit and in WW2 and was at a loss that his army would not fight in the same manner as in WW1. I think you will find that some of the finest equipped, best trained and well led troops suffered from lack of fighting spirit and have lost. And often poor generals were saved by the pure fighting spirit of their troops. Guerrilla armies such as Tito’s were never lacking in fighting spirit even though they lacked every thing else

Hoist40
Member
Posts: 215
Joined: 30 Oct 2009, 17:59

Re: Why Was Britain Defeated in Malaya?

#19

Post by Hoist40 » 08 Jun 2011, 21:24

Lightbob says

No, the break up of the Anglo Japanese treaty combined with the US/Brit embargos etc. gave Japan no alternative than take a risk of going to war
You left out that fact that Japan was already at war and had been for years, since 1931 they had grabbed Manchuria, China, IndoChina. How was the Anglo-Japanese treaty going to stop this? Was not having a oil embargo going to stop these wars? Was Britain going to sit and watch Japan grab all of the Far East?

User avatar
EKB
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 18:21
Location: United States

Re: Why Was Britain Defeated in Malaya?

#20

Post by EKB » 09 Jun 2011, 09:38

Lightbob wrote:Regarding lack of fighting spirit and power, I have previously said that basis of this deficiency was the effects of WW1 and after. Regarding the Senior officers I suppose it is true to say that the better ones died in the Flanders mud. But I suppose the German ones died also. The junior officers were almost entirely recruited from the middle class. The ordinary regular soldier tended to be apolitical and any sympathy for their civilian brothers was soon knocked out of them by a military establishment that was on the whole almost extreme rightwing. Of course the regulars all develop ‘espirite de corps’ from the first day of training.

For me, "fighting spirit" is just another pompous cliche that has no place outside of propaganda films. Your interpretation is probably different than mine, but unless you clearly define it, the ideas of morale and morality will always be a movable line for you.

Methinks you like throwing around catchphrases like fighting spirit with less appreciation for the motivational tools. That could be nothing more than a drill sergeant, or it could be radical political or religious indoctrination. After all brainwashing is a matter of degree in any military service.

You imply that substantial elements of the British Army were supposedly less motivated to fight owing to economic conditions, or because their fathers and brothers might have been used as cannon fodder in previous wars. I wonder if you can apply the same logic to other militant organizations. The Imperial Japanese Army, the Waffen-SS, the Viet Cong, the Khmer Rouge, the PLO, the Taliban, all showed us differing standards of making acceptable personal sacrifices for the goals of the group.

So in your opinion where does the British soldier fit in when it comes to risking all hazards for the greater good?

Lightbob
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 11 Feb 2010, 16:36

Re: Why Was Britain Defeated in Malaya?

#21

Post by Lightbob » 09 Jun 2011, 12:06

EKB says;
For me, "fighting spirit" is just another pompous cliché that has no place outside of propaganda films. Your interpretation is probably different than mine, but unless you clearly define it, the ideas of morale and morality will always be a movable line for you.

Methinks you like throwing around catchphrases like fighting spirit with less appreciation for the motivational tools. That could be nothing more than a drill sergeant, or it could be radical political or religious indoctrination. After all brainwashing is a matter of degree in any military service.

You imply that substantial elements of the British Army were supposedly less motivated to fight owing to economic conditions, or because their fathers and brothers might have been used as cannon fodder in previous wars. I wonder if you can apply the same logic to other militant organizations. The Imperial Japanese Army, the Waffen-SS, the Viet Cong, the Khmer Rouge, the PLO, the Taliban, all showed us differing standards of making acceptable personal sacrifices for the goals of the group.

So in your opinion where does the British soldier fit in when it comes to risking all hazards for the greater good?
Strange that old Drill Serjeant Winston Churchill had great faith in fighting spirit and if you read any books written by or about him, a great deal is made of fighting spirit. Also as a Prime Minister who was on the right of politics, allowed the development of a socialist agenda for after the war, and in 1942 the report was announced See;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 696207.stm

Regarding your remark about sons and brothers in WW1, Do you not think that the losses and at times poor management of the war affected the populations of British and France and the prospect of another slaughter? After all the morale boosting slogans such, ’it’ll all be over by Christmas’ or ‘the war to end wars’ and ‘a land fit for heroes’ In stead penury, malnutrition and mass unemployment. During both wars Quaker Ambulance units had very good morale but refused to fight.

Germany already had a more advanced social system than the UK pre 1939. However Hitler developed it further gaining the objectives that the Beveridge report hoped for with his report in 1942. During the early part of WW2 the British wondered at the German good provision of Spectacles and the high state of dental health. In fact during the war I thought that when a man joined the army he automatically had his teeth out and dentures provided, was given two pairs of spectacles. Of course both the Germans and Japanese thought their country worth fighting for and trusted their leadership. Certainly the British working class did not trust the Conservative government. The VC, KR, PLO, and Taliban all display a certain fighting spirit. Since 1945 third world Guerrillas and Armies have proved that their superior fighting spirit was able to defeat, well equipped and supposedly well trained Western armies.

Where does the British Soldier fit in. I know this, almost all through out its history with a few notable exceptions the British soldier has not been particularly well used by his leaders, but were prepared to follow them providing they provided victories. However with the arrival of conscription in WW1 the landscape changed. The death sentence was used for desertion for the first time, this problem was exacerbated by the change in 1915 by the burden of proof was changed and a man on a capital charge had to prove his case and not the prosecution. As you probably know that in most armies deserters usually return at some time. Over 300 British soldiers were shot in WW1 and this does not include those shot summarily by the Battle Police. Strangely enough capital and corporal punishment was stopped in 1930 because it was unfair and did no good. Strangely no British soldier was executed in WW2 for a purely military offence, Although the Americans executed at least one and the Germans executed over 7000 in-between June 1944 and May 1945. A short answer a conscript British Army will fight for the greater good if the cause is worth fighting for. But in 1939 many in UK and not only the working class, for various reasons, thought that we should not have gone to war with Germany

Definitions ‘Fighting Spirit

Cambridge Dictionary - the willingness to compete or to do things which are difficult

Japan ( 1930 - 1945) - Yamato Damashii simply translated is "Japanese spirit", primarily the spirit of old Japan*. The words conjure up more than just the spirit of Japan, but have taken on meanings such as "fighting spirit", "never give up", or "no surrender". Although used infrequently from ancient times, the phrase was popularized in the 1930’s in the years leading up to World War Two as a propaganda tool to encourage the fighting forces of the Japanese Imperial Army and Navy to give it their all and sacrifice everything necessary for the country and emperor. It would seem that IJA were well aware of fighting spirit

Lightbob
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 11 Feb 2010, 16:36

Re: Why Was Britain Defeated in Malaya?

#22

Post by Lightbob » 09 Jun 2011, 21:06

RCB
In 27 yars service with an elite battalion including 5 campaigns. I have never heard a political lecture or any motivational speech. I and other did not see it as neccessary the Riflemen were educated enough to make up their own mind from the newspapers and TV. I cannot remember any soldier going absent before going on active service. never once did we ever come back with anything but an unblemished record. No murder, no illegal shootings and no unneccessary violence. But these were proffessional Riflemen who were well trained and well informed, no brain washing and no flag waving

User avatar
EKB
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 18:21
Location: United States

Re: Why Was Britain Defeated in Malaya?

#23

Post by EKB » 12 Jun 2011, 12:54

Lightbob wrote:Strange that old Drill Serjeant Winston Churchill had great faith in fighting spirit and if you read any books written by or about him, a great deal is made of fighting spirit.
That's because Churchill was the incurable romantic. Whenever he interfered with military affairs it was done with one eye on outdated colonial maps, for he was obsessed by the notion of resurrecting the British Empire to its old Victorian glory. He lived in the past through faded images of the fleet and redcoats testing their mettle during invigorating global-conflict battles.

Likewise, he was a major advocate of high-risk, high glamour special operations. All national leaders knew the propaganda value of behind-enemy-lines adventures -- a quick way to make headlines with news agencies and raise political capital in the face of detractors -- and with smaller losses than large-scale conventional land battles. It was a win-win proposition for politicians, but not so much for all the troops who did not return from these missions. Unfortunately Churchill was not very objective about measuring the military value of special forces, or how they might be better tailored to strategic planning.


Lightbob wrote:Germany already had a more advanced social system than the UK pre 1939. However Hitler developed it further gaining the objectives that the Beveridge report hoped for with his report in 1942. During the early part of WW2 the British wondered at the German good provision of Spectacles and the high state of dental health. Of course both the Germans and Japanese thought their country worth fighting for and trusted their leadership. Certainly the British working class did not trust the Conservative government.
You say that Germans were more motivated to fight than Brits … because Hitler's troops had more teeth and better dentists?

Dare I say that you might have looked in the wrong places for motivation. Many German soldiers believed that they had no choice but to fight harder. They worried about losing their homes to bombings and foreign invasion, and they feared that their families might be enslaved by the Russians.

A thorough examination of morale would take some time, but incidentally, in 1944 the British Chindits were on the verge of mutiny and as far as I know, the quality of their dental care was not the cause. Their trust of the Churchill regime could not be an issue, for he was their best friend in high places. The Chindits were intended for daring missions behind enemy lines, but after their lunatic founder was lost in a plane crash, the lightly-armed troops found themselves drawing assignments normally given to regular infantry. They were not properly equipped for that role, General Slim did not believe that the original mandate for using the Chindits was a sound one, and eventually they were disbanded.


Lightbob wrote:Regarding your remark about sons and brothers in WW1, Do you not think that the losses and at times poor management of the war affected the populations of British and France and the prospect of another slaughter? After all the morale boosting slogans such, ’it’ll all be over by Christmas’ or ‘the war to end wars’ and ‘a land fit for heroes’ In stead penury, malnutrition and mass unemployment. During both wars Quaker Ambulance units had very good morale but refused to fight.

France and Germany suffered just as terribly, if not more so. If the postwar aftershocks somehow affected the British more profoundly, the reasons you put to this are not very convincing.

Lightbob wrote:The VC, KR, PLO, and Taliban all display a certain fighting spirit. Since 1945 third world Guerrillas and Armies have proved that their superior fighting spirit was able to defeat, well equipped and supposedly well trained Western armies.

If you refer to VC guerrillas that is not correct. They were all but extinct five years before the NVA with its T-54 tanks and heavy artillery rolled into Saigon. Because the guerrillas were destroyed and the North Vietnamese Army reacted with a large-scale invasion, the war in South Vietnam was a very conventional one from 1972-1975.

As well, you are mistaken about the fighting spirit of the VC guerrillas. Alas, there was trouble in worker's paradise according to Trần Văn Trà, the officer commanding the Vietcong forces in 1968. After the war he wrote a book that condemned the Communist strategy because the irregular troops were massacred in a succession of badly-planned military disasters from which they never recovered. The Communists were able to save face largely because of press coverage in the United States that misjudged the situation. For his candor, Trần Văn Trà was placed under arrest until he died in 1996.

Lightbob wrote:In 27 yars service with an elite battalion including 5 campaigns. I have never heard a political lecture or any motivational speech. I and other did not see it as neccessary the Riflemen were educated enough to make up their own mind from the newspapers and TV. I cannot remember any soldier going absent before going on active service. never once did we ever come back with anything but an unblemished record. No murder, no illegal shootings and no unneccessary violence. But these were proffessional Riflemen who were well trained and well informed, no brain washing and no flag waving.

If you say so, but a quick trip through the BBC archives tells me that not all other British battalions before or since have lived up to your fine example. It was not always the fault of the leaders or "the system". Maybe certain cases can be traced to social-cultural problems but sometimes people just behave badly.
Last edited by EKB on 12 Jun 2011, 22:32, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4005
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: Why Was Britain Defeated in Malaya?

#24

Post by Attrition » 12 Jun 2011, 15:34

~~~~~Maybe certain cases can be traced to social-cultural problems but sometimes people just behave badly.~~~~~

Perhaps 'just war' thinking determines good or bad military behaviour? Since the citizen army finished disbanding in the early 60s the army has hardly covered itself in glory.

Lightbob
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 11 Feb 2010, 16:36

Re: Why Was Britain Defeated in Malaya?

#25

Post by Lightbob » 15 Jun 2011, 17:34

ECB
That's because Churchill was the incurable romantic. Whenever he interfered with military affairs it was done with one eye on outdated colonial maps, for he was obsessed by the notion of resurrecting the British Empire to its old Victorian glory. He lived in the past through faded images of the fleet and redcoats testing their mettle during invigorating global-conflict battles.


Perhaps you are right, However you forget that WSC commanded a battalion in the bloodiest war ever fought by the British Army so he had no illusions regarding red coats etc. he was a great believer in the British Empire but then again so was Hitler. They considered it a bulwark against communism.

ECB goes on;
Likewise, he was a major advocate of high-risk, high glamour special operations. All national leaders knew the propaganda value of behind-enemy-lines adventures -- a quick way to make headlines with news agencies and raise political capital in the face of detractors -- and with smaller losses than large-scince ale conventional land battles. It was a win-win proposition for politicians, but not so much for all the troops who did not return from these missions. Unfortunately Churchill was not very objective about measuring the military value of special forces, or how they might be better tailored to strategic planning.
All very true except you forget it was the only way that the British could carry the war to the enemy until 1943-44. We had over a million troops in England to all intense and purposes unemployed, reinforcing the arguments of those who wished a negotiated peace with Hitler.
However, There were other reasons;
These operations all had some tactical and strategic reasons such as St Nazier lock gates the Bruneval Radar Raid and the Viaduct raid at Calitri. They also were used to develop small unit tactics and improve weaponry. Apart from Dieppe which had a political background ( to prove to the US army that an invasion on mainland Europe was not on in 1943) these raids had success far out weighed the casualties suffered. Strange that the Germans also carried out raids in 1940 for instance they carried out 11 to the British 6.
The US on arrival in the UK in late 1942 set up Ranger battalions trained by the British. Since 1945 it would seem that every country in the world as copied WSC philosophy on special forces. Regarding losses on these raids were small compared to the losses in one trench raid in WW1. By the way Churchill did not plan the raid he only insisted that raid should be carried. Better tailored to strategic planning, sorry but you are jumping from a period that landing craft had not been had no been properly developed, Gliders were in their infancy, paratroop carrying aircraft were not in the RAF vocabulary at this time and even small portable radios were not yet fully developed.

ECB goes on;
You say that Germans were more motivated to fight than Brits … because Hitler's troops had more teeth and better dentists?
You miss the point, during WW2 the British army recruitment was hampered by the poor physical condition of the regular and conscript. Many of these men were suffering the after effects of childhood diseases and stunted growth of malnutrition and poverty. Whereas the German prisoners where of far better stature, all had good teeth proper spectacles, all in all far better specimens.

ECB
Many German soldiers believed that they had no choice but to fight harder. They worried about losing their homes to bombings and foreign invasion, and they feared that their families might be enslaved by the Russians.
Another jump in the time line in 1939-41 The RAF bombing campaign was not really efficient and did not get so until late 1942-43, Who was going to invade them, after all they had invaded Poland and the low countries creating buffer zones. After the victories of 1940 the Germans would have followed Hitler anywhere and after the battle of France he demobilized his reservists . Invaded by Russia, I don’t think Hitler thought that possible, otherwise why did he declare war on the US. Perhaps the reasons you give did increase German fighting spirit in 1944 as the Beveridge report increased the British in 1943 onwards. Remember 1940 to 1943 The British had Hitler on their doorstep, Bombers overhead almost every night and his U boats attempting to cut our life line at sea You must admit that Britain was in greater Danger than Germany at this time.

ECB;
A thorough examination of morale would take some time, but incidentally, in 1944 the British Chindits were on the verge of mutiny and as far as I know, the quality of their dental care was not the cause. Their trust of the Churchill regime could not be an issue, for he was their best friend in high places. The Chindits were intended for daring missions behind enemy lines, but after their lunatic founder was lost in a plane crash, the lightly-armed troops found themselves drawing assignments normally given to regular infantry. They were not properly equipped for that role, General Slim did not believe that the original mandate for using the Chindits was a sound one, and eventually they were disbanded.
Ah, the Chindits, No I think you are confusing the Chindits with Merrill’s Marauders, they did mutiny and refused to back into the Jungle. However I believe you are referring to Mad Mike Calvert’s 77th Chindits Brigade. Here is an extract from Philip Chinnery’s book 'March or Die - The Story of Wingate's Chindits'

In May, the Chindit brigades moved north. The monsoon had broken and floods impeded the Chindits' operations. In June 1944, Calvert's brigade was ordered by the American General Joseph Stilwell to capture the town of Mogaung. Although his men were greatly weakened by shortage of rations, exhaustion and disease, he succeeded in doing so against desperate Japanese defenders, by the end of the month. His brigade had suffered 800 battle casualties in the siege; half of its strength. Of the remainder, only 300 men were left fit to fight.
On receiving orders to move to Myitkyina, where another Japanese garrison was holding out, he closed down his Brigade's radio sets and marched to Stilwell's army's headquarters in Kamaing instead. A court martial was threatened, but after he and Stilwell finally met in person and Stilwell after inspecting the Brigade, appreciated for the first time the conditions under which the Chindits had operated, 77th Brigade was evacuated to India to recover. Calvert was awarded a bar to the DSO for the second Chindit expedition.

Wrong again regarding Bill Slim’s opinion of the Chindits. Slim was against all special forces, simply because in his opinion the drew off the best soldiers from ordinary units weakening their leadership and that ordinary battalions given proper training could carry out special forces roles. But the Chindits were not made up from selected men they were complete ordinary units given improved training. The Chindits were disbanded for political reasons but they had outlived their usefulness The British/Indian Army were now masters of the IJA in the jungle.

Now that Lunatic Wingate won 3 DSO an important decoration and had statues, schools, colleges, memorials dedicated to him and his Chindits in Israel, Ethiopia and two in London. I suggest you read David Rooney’s Book ‘Wingate and his Chindits’ or look at;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orde_Wingate


ECB goes on;
France and Germany suffered just as terribly, if not more so. If the postwar aftershocks somehow affected the British more profoundly, the reasons you put to this are not very convincing.
The casualties in WW1 a percentage of population, the French 11%, The British 8% and the Germans 9%. However the French were not particularly affected by the 20 -30s slump because they made good use of the indemnity paid by the Germans and had a large rural economy. The Germans also had a large farming sector and an excellent social system and a fear of communist revolution. On the other hand the British who had won the war was subject to a severe monetarist policy that screwed the working class into the ground. One must not forget that That the british made the disasterous mistakeof recruiting volunteers from all sectors of the community. Kitchener took the best, the brightest and the Bravest and they were wasted on the Somme and at Ypres. The Germans and French they had selected conscriptions and although they suffered grave casualties. They were not the nations very best.

ECB again;
If you refer to VC guerrillas that is not correct. They were all but extinct five years before the NVA with its T-54 tanks and heavy artillery rolled into Saigon. Because the guerrillas were destroyed and the North Vietnamese Army reacted with a large-scale invasion, the war in South Vietnam was a very conventional one from 1972-1975
Jumping the Time lines again. The Dutch were defeated by the Indonesian Guerrillas led by Sukarno in the war of 1947-48

The French were defeated by the Viet Mhin led by Ho Chi Min in 1954

Again the French lost Algeria in 1962.

The Russians got a bloody nose in Afghanistan

The British gave up their African colonies after a badly organised revolt in Kenya. Which was put down in a rather savage manner by the Kenya Police

All I have to say about the US Vietnamese war is the rather ignominious sight of the evacuation from the embassy.

ECB also said;
If you say so, but a quick trip through the BBC archives tells me that not all other British battalions before or since have lived up to your fine example. It was not always the fault of the leaders or "the system". Maybe certain cases can be traced to social-cultural problems but sometimes people just behave badly.


Of course I agree, but a breakdown of discipline in the British Army is normally an aberration. I would like to see the web site you pursued. But I think that the extreme violence in Iraq was generated and condoned by your government and when the ’balloon went up’ the blame was placed firmly on people behaving badly. Historically in Europe they have referred to the British Soldier as England greatest ambassador.

Lightbob
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 11 Feb 2010, 16:36

Re: Why Was Britain Defeated in Malaya?

#26

Post by Lightbob » 15 Jun 2011, 17:51

Attrition says;

~~~~~Maybe certain cases can be traced to social-cultural problems but sometimes people just behave badly.~~~~~

Perhaps 'just war' thinking determines good or bad military behaviour? Since the citizen army finished disbanding in the early 60s the army has hardly covered itself in glory.

No, a man is a good man either as a soldier or a civilian. Killing the enemy is soldiers duty, torturing prisoners and murdering civilians is not. It is dicipline that maintains a unit or individual does the right thing

Your statement about the citizen army is nonsense. From 1945 to 1961 when national service finished the Army was almost a third regular.

The citizen army did not perform any miracles they always performed well, they lacked training that the present day soldier gets. The regular army's victories in Borneo, Falklands, the action in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Sierra Leone were operations that any army, conscript or regular would be proud of. By the way I served in both a citizen and regular army.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4005
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: Why Was Britain Defeated in Malaya?

#27

Post by Attrition » 15 Jun 2011, 19:24

1915-1918 and 1939-1963. Two just wars, one Welfare State. That's not bad. ;O)

There's an interesting historiographical essay in 'Did Singapore Have to Fall: Churchill and the Impregnable Fortress' by Kevin Blackburn http://www.amazon.co.uk/Did-Singapore-H ... K3Z5RZUS0J which can be read on the AmazonUK page.

Lightbob
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 11 Feb 2010, 16:36

Re: Why Was Britain Defeated in Malaya?

#28

Post by Lightbob » 17 Jun 2011, 10:31

Attrition Says;
1915-1918 and 1939-1963. Two just wars, one Welfare State. That's not bad. ;O)
Don’t you think you have skewed the position of the Citizen army a little.

In 1914 the initial rush were all volunteers and not conscripts. 1916 saw the beginning of conscription and many conscripts served for over three years and at any time their length of service would have caused them to be regulars, nevertheless they were the best of the nation. But 1917 they trawled and caught men in the conscription net who should never have been asked to serve. Men who were to old to serve in the trenches were sent in and many just could not survive. Lunatic asylums were scoured for men. However it was easy for upper and upper middle class to avoid service claiming mental illness. The case of Virginia Wolff’s husband avoiding service caused a lot of fuss after the war and he was only the point of the problem. Of course you fail to mention that the lack of food rationing meant that the families of the solders left behind were often short of food as the allowances paid to wives etc were just not enough. But of course the well off had no trouble getting sufficient food. The attempts of FM Haig to get the officers better disability pensions than the soldiers. Did not really make the case for equality of sacrifice. Perhaps your citizen army was not so democratic. At least the powers that be did not make the same mistakes in WW2.

In WW2 response of the population in 1939 was not one of a rush to get into Khaki, in fact it was one of ‘I’ll wait until they send for me’ The welfare state perhaps the difference to winning or loosing a war.

Lightbob
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 11 Feb 2010, 16:36

Re: Why Was Britain Defeated in Malaya?

#29

Post by Lightbob » 17 Jun 2011, 11:46

Attrition;

An after thought, the Kitchener Army of enthusiastic volunteers did not get into the war until the Somme in August 1916, two years after the war started ( with the exception of one division, 21st who were involved at Loos gaining a very unfair poor reputation). Conscription was not brought in until the end of 1916- beginning 1917. Well who held the fort in 1914, and the bloody battles of 1915 and until the Kitchener men were ready?

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4005
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: Why Was Britain Defeated in Malaya?

#30

Post by Attrition » 17 Jun 2011, 12:45

Citizen as opposed to mercenary ('professional'). I don't disagree with your class analysis by the way, only with the details. It was the existence of millions of demobilised citizen soldiers (how many of them were willing to fight in the civil war?) that ensured that however parsimonious the Poor Law was interwar, it was still there. After 1945 the boss class had to concede more but as we have seen since the 70s, Britain has been recolonised and the working class descendants of the two citizen armies stripped of their entitlements (which have been redistributed to the bosses). It's a bit like Germany after the Weimar republic was assassinated in 1930 by the pre-1914 oligarchs. Callaghan and Thatchler's gleichschaltung turned out to be more durable than Bruning's.

Post Reply

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”