WI: WW2 Singapore

Cook

Banned
Numerous. They generally involve actually preparing to defend Malaya and Singapore in 1941 instead of stripping them of every asset that could possibly be used in the war in North Africa.

The leadership would to change for a start.
 
Better question might be " What are the effects of Singapore actually holding out?'

It really isn't too difficult, the defeat in Malaya was as much an own goal by Percival as it was a victory for Yamashita.
 
Better question might be " What are the effects of Singapore actually holding out?'

It's undoubtedly a better question, but it's still one which has been answered repeatedly on these boards.

Check out the link Bearcat already provided and the Search function will provide many more.
 
I read online a while ago that Admiral John Jellicoe visited Singapore in 1919 and said that the position, as it was, was virtually undefendable from an attack overland across Malaya and said that the main British base of operations in the Pacific should be in Darwin instead. He suggested building a Naval Base in Singapore but also suggested one in Darwin and leaned towards Darwin being the more important.
 
I read online a while ago that Admiral John Jellicoe visited Singapore in 1919 and said that the position, as it was, was virtually undefendable from an attack overland across Malaya and said that the main British base of operations in the Pacific should be in Darwin instead. He suggested building a Naval Base in Singapore but also suggested one in Darwin and leaned towards Darwin being the more important.


Odd, I've always read the exact opposite and here's a cite from an actual book too. Read both pages 20 and 21.

In 1919 Jellicoe advised the selection of Singapore over Sydney for the same strategic reasons discussed on this board fairly recently. He even advised that enough battleships and battlecruisers be stationed in the East to match Japan's 8+8 building program.

Initially the Admiralty, mindful of Australian opinion, downplayed Jellicoe's advice. In 1921, however, the Admiralty decided to follow it his advice and the plans were ratified at an Imperial conference that year.
 
Well, considering my source was an online referance that I can even remember where I got it from I think your version is more correct.
 
Well, considering my source was an online referance that I can even remember where I got it from I think your version is more correct.


Not more correct, just more explanatory. :)

When you read the passages I linked, you see where the "Jellicoe preferred Sydney" story came from. For a couple of years between Jellicoe's report and the Singapore plans being officially adopted, the Admiralty played a double game with an eye towards public opinion talking down Singapore, talking up Sydney, and all the while begrudgingly acknowledging Jellicoe's thinking in private.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Yes, Singapore could have been held. The Japanese got several extremely lucky breaks during the campaign, and the British made innumerable critical errors. There are probably a dozen easy PODs that would lead to Singapore holding out, and probably a few that would see the Japanese force in Malaya destroyed.

Furthermore, a POD of Singapore holding could easily result in a Pacific War that ends quite a bit earlier than IOTL, and has massive reprecussions for the British Empire in the post-war world.
 
Top