Dunkirk was a strategic retreat. No surrender there. Singapore was indefensible without adequate air and naval support. In neither case was Britain defending its home turf.
>Dunkirk was a strategic retreat. No surrender there.
Dunkirk was an act of survival for the UK. If the Nazis had captured the BEF there the war would have been over.
>Singapore was indefensible without adequate air and naval support. In neither case was Britain defending its home turf.
UK forces screwed the pooch there. Japanese troops went overland without supplies to attack the city in the rear. However, it shouldn’t have worked. The Japanese force was a 1/4 the UK force and the city was heavily fortified. All they had to do was put a minor resistance and the Japanese army would have had to withdraw. But as typical in WW2 UK commanders were awful and turned what should have been an easy victory into a defeat.
Baloney, typical pro England propaganda. The bottom line is the British fled the battlefield leaving the northern French point completely exposed. Notice how the British surrender’s are always classified as a brilliant tactical decisions?. As for Singapore being indefensible can anyone imagine a Japanese force surrendering to a British force 1/3 their size?
France simply suffered a military defeat that was inescapable. Britain would’ve suffered exactly the same outcome if not for the channel. And the collaboration would’ve been about the same, based upon the behavior of numerous British aristocracy members, including royalty.
It’s just as legitimate to call the Brits tea drinking surrender monkeys as it ever is to slander of the French. The fact is it’s kind of childish to point out surrenders in the face of absolute defeat and destruction as some kind of moral failing. Numerous Union and Confederate soldiers, nazi soldiers, US forces on Bataan, Brits, Russians and many others have surrendered when it was impossible to change the outcome.