The British Pacific Fleet in 1944: Why did they bother?

It doesn't matter how happy the locals might be with any stunning British victory over the Japanese. Britain was not going to pay out scarce money it didn't have to keep an expensive and pointless empire going.

They were all going to get independence whatever happened (as in the case of Belize [and to a lesser extent Malta] where they were made independent in the face of local opposition to it.)

The post war world was not one where Britain went about wailing about losing an empire. It was about changing Britain into a confident post industrial european technology, service and trading nation.

The intention to play a part in defeating Japan was all about defeating Japan. Not some seat on some peace treaty table.
 

abc123

Banned
Just one suggestion of a possible consquence. The defeat at Singapore broke the British reputation, and in the event it never had a chance to be restored, the war ended and the British come back to Malaya and rounded up a surrendered force. However, if the war dragged on for another 2 months and the British launched their operations in Malaya the chances are the British would have given the Japanese a hiding in full view of the locals. The locals would see Lincoln bombers and other very impressive stuff in action and see that the British were much more powerful than the Japanese. This would go a considerable way to restoring their repuation annd probbably affect the resulting independence movements.

True. But BPF was not at Malaya or Singapore or Dutch East Indies, they were at Okinawa...
So, again, no use for Britain...
 
It doesn't matter how happy the locals might be with any stunning British victory over the Japanese. Britain was not going to pay out scarce money it didn't have to keep an expensive and pointless empire going.
IIRC several of the colonies in the Far East actually turned a profit for the British, Malaya in particular thanks to resources like rubber and tin I believe, or at the very least were generally self sufficient outside of military commitments. Plus there's the strategic position of places like Singapore that you have to balance against any financial cost.
 
IIRC several of the colonies in the Far East actually turned a profit for the British, Malaya in particular thanks to resources like rubber and tin I believe, or at the very least were generally self sufficient outside of military commitments. Plus there's the strategic position of places like Singapore that you have to balance against any financial cost.

Yes, but the British Empire was already winding down before World War II. India's independence was just a matter of time, and once that happened, it was only a matter of time before more colonies would follow suit, as most of the rest of the Empire was pretty much built around India.
 
True. But BPF was not at Malaya or Singapore or Dutch East Indies, they were at Okinawa...
So, again, no use for Britain...

The first BPF strikes were conducted against the oilfields of Palembang, Sumatra in January 1945 before heading to join the 5th fleet. Okinawa ended in June 1945, plenty of time to get back to Malaya for operations in September.
 
IIRC several of the colonies in the Far East actually turned a profit for the British, Malaya in particular thanks to resources like rubber and tin I believe, or at the very least were generally self sufficient outside of military commitments. Plus there's the strategic position of places like Singapore that you have to balance against any financial cost.

This is very true and forgotten 50 years after decolonisation. As late as the 60s Britain was a world power with a very big fleet, worldwide bases and considerable global power and influence. It wasn't much of a big deal to send a fleet to the Pacific in 1944, they'd already sent one in late 1941 and another in early 1942.
 
I think the eagerness of the British to withdraw from empire is being overstated here. Under the Attlee ministry, the British planned to stay in Malaya into the 80s, before handing over to a pro-British elite. The UK wasn't trying to cut costs by withdrawing from the colonies, but trying to make unprofitable ones turn a profit, hence the disastrous Groundnut Scheme in Tanganyika. Even after the Suez crisis exposed the UK as no longer being capable of independent action, she retained her East of Suez commitments until 1971, when, due to the financial situation, it was impossible to remain any longer. It must also be emphasized that Malaya was both profitable, her rubber vital for the balance of trade, and quiescent, as the native Malays supported the colonial government against the Chinese dominated Communists.
 
I think the eagerness of the British to withdraw from empire is being overstated here. Under the Attlee ministry, the British planned to stay in Malaya into the 80s, before handing over to a pro-British elite. The UK wasn't trying to cut costs by withdrawing from the colonies, but trying to make unprofitable ones turn a profit, hence the disastrous Groundnut Scheme in Tanganyika. Even after the Suez crisis exposed the UK as no longer being capable of independent action, she retained her East of Suez commitments until 1971, when, due to the financial situation, it was impossible to remain any longer. It must also be emphasized that Malaya was both profitable, her rubber vital for the balance of trade, and quiescent, as the native Malays supported the colonial government against the Chinese dominated Communists.

Not only that the British were committed to developing their African colonies to compensate for the loss of India.

Indian Independence was supposed to be an extension of the status already given to the White Dominions not the end of Empire.
 
The post war world was not one where Britain went about wailing about losing an empire. It was about changing Britain into a confident post industrial european technology, service and trading nation.

The intention to play a part in defeating Japan was all about defeating Japan. Not some seat on some peace treaty table.

No, no, no.

Britain did wail about losing the Empire and most of the post war generation believed the world owed them a debt and that those people who wanted independence from Britain were ungrateful.

Britain remained an industrial society with class conflict, strikes and finger pointing for decades. Britain refused to get involved in the EEC believing it was still a global power and cared very much about having a seat at the top table.
 
Thats about the size of it. The real tragedy is that they squandered their chance to stay at the top table with a succession of stupid decisions concerning the hard power needed to keep that status. They spent the required money, but stupidly and wastefully, and fell from power when they didn't need to.
 
Thats about the size of it. The real tragedy is that they squandered their chance to stay at the top table with a succession of stupid decisions concerning the hard power needed to keep that status. They spent the required money, but stupidly and wastefully, and fell from power when they didn't need to.

Unfortunately true. British history after 1945 is about short sightedness and chasing the wrong goals.

I think the British believed the job was done on VE Day and thought they could then sit back, relax and make a living as an after dinner speaker.
 
Top