What do you think?
Rate this book
Moon Over Malaya Hb
What really happened in Singapore and Malaya during the dark days of December 1941 to February 1942? Britain’s worst military disaster is looked at here in a new light using firsthand accounts from the men on the ground. Their story is told for the first time and is conclusive proof that some British soldiers did fight the enemy and, in fact, held them back for long enough to enable many to escape from Singapore to fight another day. The accusation that British soldiers in Malaya did not fight is put in its proper context for the first time.
- GenresHistoryWorld War II
260 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
2 people are currently reading
19 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
December 16, 2017
This book is fun to read, but on a closer reading I find it unacceptably flawed. The authors rely heavily on first-hand anecdotes, and whilst this can make for lively reading, it is not good history if no trouble has been taken to make sure that an anecdote is anything more than a platform for the storyteller to become the star of his own show.
As an example, we get about a third of a page relating to an incident about boots, over which a man has been harboring a grievance for some fifty years. In the process of telling his story, he maligns his company commander. But the officer is never given a chance to tell another side of the story. This same man later accuses the same officer of hysteria and cowardice, but once again, the officer is given no voice in the matter. The fact that the officer in question (Major Robert Kennard) was mentioned in dispatches and won the Military Cross would suggest that he was a rather better man than his loquacious accuser suggests. In the hands of a better historian and a more able and conscientious editor, stories like this would have been weeded out, which would have made for a better and more reliable book. A historian should insist on nothing less than the fullest, and most comprehensive, balanced research. This book falls sadly short of those ideals.
As an example, we get about a third of a page relating to an incident about boots, over which a man has been harboring a grievance for some fifty years. In the process of telling his story, he maligns his company commander. But the officer is never given a chance to tell another side of the story. This same man later accuses the same officer of hysteria and cowardice, but once again, the officer is given no voice in the matter. The fact that the officer in question (Major Robert Kennard) was mentioned in dispatches and won the Military Cross would suggest that he was a rather better man than his loquacious accuser suggests. In the hands of a better historian and a more able and conscientious editor, stories like this would have been weeded out, which would have made for a better and more reliable book. A historian should insist on nothing less than the fullest, and most comprehensive, balanced research. This book falls sadly short of those ideals.
Displaying 1 of 1 review