What was the importance of military defeats in South East Asia
State before WW2:
-
-
-
Singapore – Seen as the “Malta of the middle East” – a strong naval base which was not only
crucial for British interests in South East Asia but also a “supposedly impregnable fortress”
India – “was still the largest purchaser of British goods, but this was 30.5%” (60% in 1910),
“After WW2 the government of India was forced to accept that the Indian Army could only be
used for civil obedience and the defence of the borders and not, as Britain had hoped, to
maintain British power elsewhere”. Economic value of India declining yet still important as she
was more self-sufficient.
Burma and Malaya – “The materials of the empire were mobilized as ever before, such as
Malaya’s rubber and tin”. Malaya was particularly important in giving the empire such
resources. “No roots in the life of the people of that country” – Times description of the
Malayan government in ww2 but applicable to both countries before WW2.
Imperial presence nearby – Suez Canal of great importance in Britain accessing Asia. Australia as
a nearby dominion had a military presence in Asia.
Empire was bigger than it had been at any other time, but stretched thin and unrest occurred in
colonies such as Palestine and India.
WW2
-
-
-
Burden of Empire – Colonies in South East Asia added to Britain’s imperial burdens. They had to
be protected. These colonies were close to the Japanese Empire making it easier for the new
superpower to take over them. When South East Asia was conquered (for the most part) it fell
to the African countries to stimulate economic growth for the Empire. Black labourers as a
result were in higher demand.
Fall of Singapore - fell on Feb 1942, “revealed a fundamental flaw in the imperial system”. It had
a shock effect on the confidence of the Empire since none had predicted its downfall.
“Singapore was crucial to imperial defence”. Winston Churchill called it “the greatest disaster
and largest capitulation in British history”.
Fall of Burma and Malaya – Once countries like Malaya were lost a – “higher premium than ever
was placed on the mineral and agricultural products of African countries”. The loss of Malaya
was particularly detrimental to the Imperial war effort. “The Malayan campaign dealt a body
blow to the British war effort. Any pretence to naval supremacy ended with the sinking of HMS
Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse; approximately 140,000 men were lost as casualties or
POW’s”. Britain has always been a naval power and this loss would have been particularly
embarrassing for the Empire (added to this sinking a ship called the Prince of Wales!). Added to
this both Japan and Britain being both (historical) maritime powers the conflict was likely to be
(mainly) resolved at sea (as opposed to air and nuclear supremacy, which dominated the
American-Japanese conflict which ended fittingly and horrifically in the bombing of Nagasaki).
The fall of Burma was also deemed to be significant since for one it was right next to India (as
well as being a great loss of territory). “The enemy went on to conquer Burma, reach the gates
of the Raj itself and even bombard Australia”. Stockwell portrays Burma’s fall here as leading to
the vulnerability of India and Australia because of the territory gained by the Japanese.
-
Dependency on the US – The US valued the colonies of the British Empire much less significantly
than overall victory and was pro-self determination. This attitude lessened the amount to which
the allies would protect the territory of the British Empire.
Consequences
-
-
On South East Asia – The failure of the British to protect Singapore, Malaya and Burma meant
that confidence in its ability to protect South East Asia was undermined. Nationalism was
rampant in these countries as well as India as a result, leading to their independence.
On Empire – Australia became even less connected diplomatically during WW2 as it saw
Britain’s failure to protect it from Japanese bombing raids and the internment of Australian
soldiers who fought at Singapore led it gaining more of a nationalist identity. A knock on effect
of the South East Asian countries gaining independence affected all areas of the Empire. As well
as this the black labourers, after the war, promoted nationalist movements as a result of the
war and the loss of the South East Asian countries. “They would return from the front with
radical aspirations”.
Conclusion
-
-
-
On India – The nationalist movement for independence had already been underway long before
the start of WW2 so it is incorrect to suggest that lack of confidence in the British military was
the sole reason for independence.
On South East Asia – In the other countries before WW2 there hadn’t been well developed
nationalist movements so it is certainly feasible that the military defeats in the area and the
resulting lack of military confidence in the British Empire contributed to independence. Yet
other reasons can also be found such as the US insistence on the self-determination of countries
On Empire – Palestine was the only other country to be granted independence after WW2, and
this was simultaneously given with India’s and Burma’s independence so there is little to
suggest that it was inspired by Burmese independence. Australia already had independence so
the Aussies being a bit upset with us isn’t much of a big deal, if only weakening commonwealth
solidarity. Independence for other colonies such as the ones in Africa probably happened
because of a multitude of other reasons such as the profitability of the nation to the British, the
nationalist movements in such nations and America’s anti-imperial foreign policy stance
III- Stockwell, A.J.
III- Judith M Brown sheet