WI- USA gets Singapore in 1940's Destroyers for Bases Agreement

GarethC

Donor
Is it ASB for Churchill to offer US basing rights at Singapore as part of the 1940 agreement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyers_for_Bases_Agreement
It's not really necessary - the US has Manila which is already the Asiatic Fleet base.

The US wants to project power against Japan and into China and the DEI, not west of the Malay Barrier into the Indian Ocean, and the Philippines are just fine for that (and closer to the West Coast)
 
It should be pointed out that a division of destroyers from the Asiatic Fleet was on its way to Singapore to help escort Force Z (Prince of Wales and Repulse) They got there too late, and we all know what happened to Force Z on 10 Dec 41.
 
Basing rights at Singapore, maybe being offered. However given the status of the USN when this would be offered, it actually weakens the US presence in the Pacific. Winston would certainly love the idea of US forces at Singapore, further entangling the US & UK, and also potentially allowing some British forces to move closer to home. Unlike the bases in the Caribbean, Newfoundland, and Bahamas which were close to the US and were seen as improving the position of the US for hemispheric defense, moving forces from Hawaii or the PI, which were US territories, any basing in Singapore before PH would be seen as diverting US forces from US defense to defend European colonies. The isolationist elements would jump all over this, and in this case they would be right as the basing of any US forces in Singapore would only make problems in the Pacific worse.
 
I have to agree. Basing rights is one thing, but no way would the UK give up its Pearl and Prime Base of the Indian Ocean. Plus it does nothing for American policies at that time.
 
Is it ASB for Churchill to offer US basing rights at Singapore as part of the 1940 agreement?

No, but it would be ASB for the U.S. to accept. The OTL deal was sold to the U.S. public as a way to enhance the defense of the continental United States. Singapore has no possible utility for any purpose the U.S. public would support in 1940 or even 1941. The U.S. already had bases in the Western Pacific (the Philippines, Guam).
 
I have to agree. Basing rights is one thing, but no way would the UK give up its Pearl and Prime Base of the Indian Ocean. Plus it does nothing for American policies at that time.
None of the destroyers for bases included an outright transfer of territory. The USA never got to keep Newfoundland, but got the rights to base forces there.
 
It wouldn't be a sell, from the start the US was ready t lose the islands and then recapture it at a later date. Signapore would be nothing but a replenish abd preparatiob base to begin a long journey home through the Atlantic since the assumption was that area of the Pacific would be a Japanese lake
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
None of the destroyers for bases included an outright transfer of territory. The USA never got to keep Newfoundland, but got the rights to base forces there.
'tis more the pity.

We need more frozen, icy, storm tossed, no dry season, cold summer-

Actually we don't.

Moving on.
 
Top