Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
JayAss
| Reward Points: | 2 |
| Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 100% |
| Arguments: | 2 |
| Debates: | 0 |
Japan's idealogical goal was to be a dominant power in south east Asia. However at that time, China was slowly being unified and a unified China would spell trouble for Japan's dominance over Southeast Asia. Thus, Japan invaded Manchuria to disrupt that unification.
No. General Percival should not be made responsible.
He is not to blame for the downfall of Singapore. The main problem lies with Britain's decision. They underestimated the Japanese and thought the Japanese were weaklings. Hence, they only provided Singapore with basic equipments and the weaker troops.
Another reason is that Britain itself was also fighting a war themselves and they could not be bothered much with the South-east Asia war. They only gave the Singapore weaker troops keeping the better ones with them. They could not provide much naval support for Singapore so they only sent Singapore two warships. However, the ships did not have air-support and were quickly sunk by japanese planes. So Singapore was weaker.
The last reason is that the Japanese threatened General Percival that if he do not surrender, he would start killing the innocent people and torture them. General Percival was a kind hearted man and did not want the civilians to be harmed hence, he surrendered.
Due to the following reasons, General Percival should not be made responsible.
|
||||||||||||
