Were Britain’s global holdings more a hindrance than a help in winning the war?

Mangekyou · Mar 7, 2021

Chlodio said:
Hong Kong, Malaya, and Burma proved impossible to defend, consumed precious resources, and ultimately contributed little to Britain's war effort. Just trying to defend Singapore cost Britain (and the CW) three divisions and two battleships.

William Slim proved Burma and Malays weren't impossible to defend. It was just poorly managed until he took over. It was mostly an administrative issue, and once he put the house in order, the potential and ability of the troops shone through.

Pruitt · Mar 7, 2021

Slim had real problems before he was put in Command of XIV Army. The Indian Army was determined to tell him what to do.

Pruitt

Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 · Mar 11, 2021

UK's holdings at least in Africa were what allowed it and eventually the US to fight a war against Germany post 1940. Without North Africa WW2 between the UK and Germany would have become a phony war again, at least on land. While UK couldn't have been invaded and/or would have been unfeasible to invade the same was true in reverse and there would be nothing they could have done to hurt the Axis. Unlike in WW1 where the UK's historically gigantic navy allowed them to slowly strangle Germany via blockade in WW2 this would be undoable even without the advent of airpower. The war in North Africa opened up one of the additional fronts which were likely necessary for Germany to be totally defeated and thus in the long term was not only beneficial to the UK and the Allies but was a key to victory.

Asian holdings were a hindrance. For the brief period the UK was fighting Japan before the USN took over that front they diverted much needed units from a tough naval fight in the Atlantic/Mediterranean(a fight which was not going well before the US entered the equation) to an unwinnable fight against the Japanese. End result being both the European fleet was stretched even thinner and the units sent to Asia being unable to do anything and/or being destroyed.

Chlodio · Mar 11, 2021

Mangekyou said:
William Slim proved Burma and Malays weren't impossible to defend. It was just poorly managed until he took over. It was mostly an administrative issue, and once he put the house in order, the potential and ability of the troops shone through.

Slim only proved that Burma could be conquered, which we already from the Japanese conquest. Burma was conquered twice, it was never successfully defended, at least not in WW2. Please explain Slim's proof of how Malaya could be defended. Yes, if you make the conquest of some place a priority, you might be able to conquer it, but you can't make everything a priority at the same time. In early 1942 Britain's priority was North Africa and the Battle of the Atlantic so Malaya and Burma, were by definition, lower priorities. By 1945 Britain had the resources to make Burma a priority so Slim succeeded. Even the great William Slim would not have succeeded in 1942. To successfully defend your empire one must be able to do so when the enemy attacks, not just when it's convenient to you.

But my point was really more about the fact that Hong Kong, Malaya, and Burma were conquered so they contributed nothing to Britain's war effort. The OP asked, Did the scattered empire help or hinder? I responded that Hong Kong, Malaya, and Burma consumed resources in failed efforts to defend them while contributing little or nothing to the defeat of Germany, Italy, or Japan.

Mangekyou · Mar 11, 2021

Chlodio said:
But my point was really more about the fact that Hong Kong, Malaya, and Burma were conquered so they contributed nothing to Britain's war effort. The OP asked, Did the scattered empire help or hinder? I responded that Hong Kong, Malaya, and Burma consumed resources in failed efforts to defend them while contributing little or nothing to the defeat of Germany, Italy, or Japan.

Lets stick to the point at hand then, as there is no need to devolve this into a biography of that war in this thread.

I agree perhaps with Malaya and Hong Kong, outside of the naval bases it provided (which in itself is an asset). Burma I disagree with. Yes, the British were forced out of Burma, however the subsequent fight to regain ground was important for a number of reasons:

1) The overland route to China
2) Defence of India - The Indian national party, which was situated there, was going to use it as a platform for future invasions of India
3) It tied down a lot of Japanese Army support in a theatre of war that they would defend en masse, given their own proclivities for a "greater Asian prosperity sphere"
4) UK could not afford to lose all its lands in Asia and the East, this a political move, she had to show strength and contribution to that area of the war.

Chlodio · Mar 11, 2021

Mangekyou said:
Lets stick to the point at hand then, as there is no need to devolve this into a biography of that war in this thread.

I agree perhaps with Malaya and Hong Kong, outside of the naval bases it provided (which in itself is an asset). Burma I disagree with. Yes, the British were forced out of Burma, however the subsequent fight to regain ground was important for a number of reasons:

1) The overland route to China
2) Defence of India - The Indian national party, which was situated there, was going to use it as a platform for future invasions of India
3) It tied down a lot of Japanese Army support in a theatre of war that they would defend en masse, given their own proclivities for a "greater Asian prosperity sphere"
4) UK could not afford to lose all its lands in Asia and the East, this a political move, she had to show strength and contribution to that area of the war.

But these have little to do with Burma being part of the British Empire. If Burma had been French in 1939 (or independent like Thailand) the Japanese would have still invaded in 1942 and the British would likely still have liberated Burma in 1943-5. The war would have unfolded pretty much the same as it actually did. Burma being part of the British Empire had no effect on the war except to drag Britain into commitments she could not afford.

Mangekyou · Mar 12, 2021

Chlodio said:
But these have little to do with Burma being part of the British Empire. If Burma had been French in 1939 (or independent like Thailand) the Japanese would have still invaded in 1942 and the British would likely still have liberated Burma in 1943-5. The war would have unfolded pretty much the same as it actually did. Burma being part of the British Empire had no effect on the war except to drag Britain into commitments she could not afford.

If you think the British would have still liberated it, then what is the difference? they are still committing resources. Even if they didn't own Burma, they still would've been actively defending the borders of India, which is where most of the manpower for that sector, and resources came from anyway.

Chlodio · Mar 12, 2021

Mangekyou said:
If you think the British would have still liberated it, then what is the difference? they are still committing resources. Even if they didn't own Burma, they still would've been actively defending the borders of India, which is where most of the manpower for that sector, and resources came from anyway.

OK, as to the OP's question 'Did Burma help or hinder the British?' I agree that Slim's 1945 campaign didn't hinder, but the 1942 retreat from Burma did cost Britain resources that could have been better used elsewhere. Burma also did not help Britain's war effort since Burma was occupied by the Japanese for most of the war, and Burma's resources were therefore unavailable to the British.

Mangekyou · Mar 12, 2021

Chlodio said:
OK, as to the OP's question 'Did Burma help or hinder the British?' I agree that Slim's 1945 campaign didn't hinder, but the 1942 retreat from Burma did cost Britain resources that could have been better used elsewhere. Burma also did not help Britain's war effort since Burma was occupied by the Japanese for most of the war, and Burma's resources were therefore unavailable to the British.

And that is a very respectful way to analyse and approach it, and I appreciate the change of pace there. From that perspective, I do agree with you

Zip · Mar 12, 2021

It seems to me this discussion raises the question of whether or not the empire was actually of benefit to the UK itself. Was the empire a profitable enterprise or one that lost money? If the resources and money spent on maintaining empire were kept in the UK itself would the UK be more powerful rather than less in a war confined to Europe?

Chlodio · Mar 12, 2021

Zip said:
It seems to me this discussion raises the question of whether or not the empire was actually of benefit to the UK itself. Was the empire a profitable enterprise or one that lost money? If the resources and money spent on maintaining empire were kept in the UK itself would the UK be more powerful rather than less in a war confined to Europe?

I'm sure the Empire as a whole was profitable. If it wasn't the British would have stopped growing it long before WW2 and would have even forced colonies to become independent rather than pay the costs to defend and administer them. Many colonies were money losers, but India was highly profitable, so much so that it subsidized the rest of the Empire. Once India was gone the rest of the Empire became unsustainable. Note that in the post-war decades as so many of Britain's colonies gained independence the domestic British economy struggled. There were many causes, but I suspect one of them was the loss of those colonial inputs. The Empire was good for Britain in peacetime. Parts of it proved difficult to defend in wartime.

Hoosierhiver · Mar 12, 2021

1,440,500 troops from India
629,000 troops from Canada
413,000 troops from Australia
136,000 troops from S Africa
128,500 troops from NZ
134, 000 troops from other colonies.

I'd say it helped.

Philliposeur · Mar 12, 2021

Hoosierhiver said:
1,440,500 troops from India
629,000 troops from Canada
413,000 troops from Australia
136,000 troops from S Africa
128,500 troops from NZ
134, 000 troops from other colonies.

I'd say it helped.

Might I ask where those figures are from as the one for India seems rather low. It's usually quoted as around 2.5 million at the end of the war. The article on the Indian Army contributed by Lakshmi Subramanian in 'The Encyclopedia of Western Colonialism since 1450' even gives a precise figure:

"The Indian Army’s contribution to the war effort came in the form of personnel, and the number of men that India have to the Allied cause was impressive. The Army had 189,000 soldiers in its ranks in 1939, a number that rose to 2,644,323 in 1945, when the army was at peak strength."

pugsville · Mar 12, 2021

Philliposeur said:
Might I ask where those figures are from as the one for India seems rather low. It's usually quoted as around 2.5 million at the end of the war. The article on the Indian Army contributed by Lakshmi Subramanian in 'The Encyclopedia of Western Colonialism since 1450' even gives a precise figure:

"The Indian Army’s contribution to the war effort came in the form of personnel, and the number of men that India have to the Allied cause was impressive. The Army had 189,000 soldiers in its ranks in 1939, a number that rose to 2,644,323 in 1945, when the army was at peak strength."

Could be the served overseas figures.

Pruitt · Mar 12, 2021

It might not include Labor Corps people. The wastage of the men in the Porter Corps in Africa in the First World War was terrible. In the Second World War many African troops were sent home after a period.

Pruitt

Tulius · Mar 12, 2021

Chlodio said:
Can anyone say if east Africa contributed troops or other resources to the war outside of Africa? I don't know.

Yes. Units fought on Burma, while others served as garrisons in several places (that allowed other units to be free for other duties), besides fighting in Africa, as you mentioned.

I think that the OP is asking something like: would the UK be an empire without the Empire?

royal744 · Mar 12, 2021

Picard said:
Depends on which one. Canada and Australia were major help, and of course Egypt was important due to Suez canal, and Malta helped interdict much of Axis shipping in the Mediterranean. Other than those, however, they were a significant liability.

Don’t forget India. The Indian Army was large and well trained and they supported the British throughout the war, and they knew the British were going to grant them independence. Even though the Japanese nurtured the Indian army put together by Subash Chandra Bose, in the end they did not directly attack India, which was probably a smart move on their part.

pugsville · Mar 12, 2021

Britian was also able to import a lot f stuff form commonwealth countries payingin pounds which really helped.

Naomasa298 · Mar 12, 2021

IIRC, both Canada and Australia also provided warfare materiel to the British war effort.

As for Burma and Malaya - were they really indefensible, or were they indefensible because of British policy and tactics?

Let's suppose Force Z had adequate air cover (which they had the opportunity to have) and had managed to destroy the Japanese transports landing in Malaya - the whole Japanese plan for SE Asia would have been different. As it was, it seems to deficiencies in the defence of British SE Asian holdings was in the provision and use of air cover. There were squadrons of RAAF aircraft in the area that were not deployed where they were needed until it was too late.

Chlodio · Mar 12, 2021

Naomasa298 said:
As for Burma and Malaya - were they really indefensible, or were they indefensible because of British policy and tactics?

Let's suppose Force Z had adequate air cover (which they had the opportunity to have) and had managed to destroy the Japanese transports landing in Malaya - the whole Japanese plan for SE Asia would have been different. As it was, it seems to deficiencies in the defence of British SE Asian holdings was in the provision and use of air cover. There were squadrons of RAAF aircraft in the area that were not deployed where they were needed until it was too late.

Force Z was intended as a deterrent. The decision to send it to Singapore was made before Pearl Harbor, and Force Z arrived in Singapore a few days before Pearl Harbor. Because Force Z was a deterrent, Churchill had announced its deployment. The Japanese knew exactly what they were up against, and they were confident they could deal with it. The air attack was only their Plan A. They also had a Plan B (nighttime torpedo attack) and a Plan C (daytime gun battle with Kongo and Haruna) which proved unnecessary, but each could also have succeeded if the air attack had failed.

Search

Search

Were Britain’s global holdings more a hindrance than a help in winning the war?

Mangekyou

Pruitt

Emperor of Wurttemburg 43

Chlodio

Mangekyou

Chlodio

Mangekyou

Chlodio

Mangekyou

Zip

Chlodio

Hoosierhiver

Philliposeur

pugsville

Pruitt

Tulius

royal744

pugsville

Naomasa298

Chlodio

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions