WHO DID WORSE AGAINST THE JAPANESE IN 1942, THE BRITISH OR THE AMERICANS?

The Fall of Singapore is often presented as the "death knell" of the British Empire, as a cataclysmic and humiliating event that ensured the downfall of what had up until them been the leading global power. 

However, this is absurd, because around the same time the Americans had an equally or possibly even more devasting defeat in the Philippines. If the British Empire collapsed due to the Fall of Singapore, then why didn't the fall of the Philippines nip the post-war American Empire in the bud? The fact is that both countries ended up on the winning side of World War II, any subsequent downfall of the British Empire was for entirely different reasons and had almost nothing to do with what transpired in Malaya and Singapore.

But let us compare these two demoralising events. Which one was the worst?

The existing historical consensus seems to lay special emphasis on Britain's humiliating defeat, which is generally cast in a very poor light compared to the "plucky" US defence of the Bataan Peninsula and later Corregidor Island. But the established facts of the case present a more complex picture.

Firstly, what are the established facts? (I have Chat GPT to thank for these).

When Singapore fell on February 15, 1942, after a campaign of around 2 months, 80,000 British Empire troops surrendered to the Japanese.

Likewise, when the final American strongpoints of Bataan and Corregidor surrendered in April and May 1942 after a campaign of four to five months, 23,000 United States troops laid down arms. 

Open and shut case, isn't it? The Americans fought longer and harder, with a smaller prisoner count at the end. Clearly the Americans did better. 

Or so you would think if you only looked at these isolated facts. But there are other facts to take into account. Singapore and Bataan-Corregidor were merely parts of bigger campaigns. If we compare the entire Malaya and Philippine campaigns, we get the following number of POWs:

British Empire: 130,000 prisoners

United States: 111,000 prisoners

So, although the numbers are much closer, it looks like the Americans are still doing better. But are they?

It is well known that both armies were very far from being composed exclusively of Brits and Yanks. How many actual Brits and Yanks were in these armies? Of the 130,000 "British Imperial" troops who surrendered, only around 25-30,000 were British. Of the 110,0o0 US forces who surrendered, 25-31,000 were actual Americans. The rest of the "British" POWs were Australians (15,000), Indians (60,000) and Others (25,000–30,000). Of the latter group, most were locally recruited Malays. As for the US POW numbers, this was filled out by Filipino troops, with around 80,000 surrendering. 

Now, things start to look more equal, but a neutral and objective observer would still be inclined to say that the Americans put up a stiffer fight and were thus less humiliated. But there are still a few other awkward facts to be mentioned.

Firstly, the force attacking Malaya was bigger and higher quality than the force attacking the Philippines. The Japanese army invading Malaysia had a strength of 70,000, against the 43,000 that initially invaded the Philippines. The Malayan force included the elite Imperial Guards Division, the best in the Japanese army, along with the 5th Division and 18th Division, both "battle-hardened" units from the war in China.

The Philippines invasion force included the 16th and 48th Divisions and the 65th Brigade, basically two "battle-hardened" divisions alongside a recently raised unit below the divisional level. So, all-in-all the Philippines force was numerically and qualitatively weaker. This force was later reinforced in early 1942 by less experienced troops, with its best division, the 48th Division, being pushed into the fight against Dutch forces in Java.

Taking account of this, it looks like the British didn't do so badly as we may have thought. Also, it should be pointed out that while both the British and American forces were rolled up, the British final position at Singapore was a lot less defensible than the mountainous Bataan Peninsula and Corregidor Island position, where the Yanks held out for a few months more.

Another factor was the threat to civilian life. Any prolonged fighting on Singapore Island would have placed a large number of civilians in danger. Fighting in Bataan and Corregidor did not have this drawback. This concern played a major role in the British high command's decision to surrender. 

Based on this and the more potent Japanese force sent against them, the British surrender was in my view at least more understandable and thus less humiliating than the American defeat. Although, in favour of the US forces is the fact that their longer campaign exacted higher Japanese casualties, but only a measly 3000 killed and wounded, while the British only killed and wounded around 1500. Both numbers are embarrassingly small. 

But there is one more fact that, I believe, makes America's defeat in the Philippines clearly more shameful than Britain's defeat. This is the fact that Britain was already at war in Europe and North Africa at the time, desperately fighting against Nazi Germany at its strongest, along with Germany's allies, most notably Italy.

This obviously sucked up most of Britain's military strength and attention at the time, meaning that the quality, numbers, and equipment of its forces in East Asia suffered as a consequence. America, however, had no such debility or excuse.