1. Memoirs: Churchill, Winston, The Second World War, III, London, 1950, chaps. 21–25; IVGoogle Scholar, 1951, chaps. 1, 3 and 6; Percival, A. E., The War in Malaya, London, 1949Google Scholar; Bennett, H. G., Why Singapore Fell, Sydney, 1944Google Scholar; Tsuji, MasanobuSingapore. The Japanese Version, 1951, (Trans. Lake, M. E.), Sydney, 1960Google Scholar.

War Histories: UK, Kirby, S. W., The War Against Japan, vol. I, The Loss of Singapore, London, 1957Google Scholar; Roskill, S. W., The War at Sea, I, London, 1954, chap. 26Google Scholar; Australian Wigmore, L., The Japanese Thrust, Canberra, 1957Google Scholar; New Zealand, Wood, F. L. W., The New Zealand People at War, Political and External Affairs, Wellington, 1958, chap. 16Google Scholar; Ross, J. M. S., Royal New Zealand Air Force. Wellington, 1955Google Scholar, chap. 7.

Commentaries: Grenfell, R., Main Fleet to Singapore, London, 1951Google Scholar; Gordon, B. K., New Zealand Becomes a Pacific Power, Chicago, 1960Google Scholar; Owen, F., The Fall of Singapore, London, 1960Google Scholar; Leasor, J., Singapore, London, 1968Google Scholar; Barber, N., Sinister Twilight. The Fall of Singapore 1942, London, 1968.Google Scholar

2. The main sources used here for reconstructing the story of the building of the naval base are the printed memoranda of the Committee of Imperial Defence prepared, in most cases, for the Imperial Conferences, which have recently been made available under the thirty year rule. The following proved particularly useful and will be referred to, henceforth, by their numbers: Imperial Meetings, 1921. CID 143-C, “Singapore. Development of as a Naval Base” (Memo. No. 501 M of the Oversea Defence Sub-committee, 7 June 1921); Imperial Conference, 1923. E-60. “Establishment of Naval Base at Singapore and its Effect upon the Foreign and Naval Policy of the Empire”, 30 06 1923Google Scholar; CID 317-C, “Singapore Defences”, 1 May 1928; CID 329-C, “Singapore Base”, 30 11 1928Google Scholar; Imperial Conference, 1930, E(30) 3, “The Singapore Base”. Memo, of the Oversea Defence Sub-committee, 4 June 1930; CID 336-C, “Defence of Singapore”, Report By the Chiefs of Staff Sub-committee, 15 July 1929; CID 394-C, “Air Requirements for the Defence of Singapore”, Report of the Chiefs of Staff Sub-committee, 20 April 1934. See also two works by Parkinson, C. N., Britain in the Far East. The Singapore Naval Base, Singapore, 1955Google Scholar and “The Pre-1942 Singapore Naval Base”, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, 09 1956, 939–953Google Scholar, and there is a mine of misclellaneous information in “The Singapore Naval Base Supplement”, Singapore Free Press, 14 02 1938.Google Scholar

3. On the abortive Eastern Fleet before 1914 see Jose, W. A., The Royal Australian Navy, 1914–1918, Sydney 1937Google Scholar, introd; Gordon, D.C., The Dominion Partnership in Imperial Defence 1870–1914, Baltimore, 1965, pp. 278–9, 290–1Google Scholar; Preston, R. A., Canada and ‘Imperial Defence’ 1867–1919, Durham, NC, 1967, p. 399Google Scholar; Marder, A. J., From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow, 1904–1919, vol. I, London, 1961, pp. 40–2, 85, 238.Google Scholar

4. Admiralty Memorandum G. T. 4571, “Naval Defences of the British Empire”, 17 05 1918.Google Scholar Copy in the Sir Joseph Cook Collection, consulted by courtesy of the Australian War Memorial, Canberra. Discussion of the paper in Imperial War Cabinet, 21st Meeting, 27 06 1918, minute 15.Google Scholar

5. Vols. I of the Australian and New Zealand reports (the only published parts): Commonwealth of Australia Parliamentary Paper No. 177-F-I6069, “Naval Defence. Report of Admiral of the Fleet Lord Jellicoe on Naval Mission to the Commonwealth of Australia”, pp. 25–6Google Scholar; Appendices to the Journal of the House of Representatives, New Zealand (AJHR), 1919, A-4Google Scholar, “Naval Mission to the Dominion of New Zealand” , pp. 23–4.Google Scholar

6. NZ Report, Vol. III, p. 8, para. 25. Vols. II “Naval Bases” and Vols III “Naval Situation in Far Eastern Waters” were not published and the Australian volumes remain unavailable. The New Zealand volumes are now in National Archives, Wellington, AD series 17/2.

7. Sec. Navy Dept to Sec. PM's Dept., 8 Nov. 1920; copy of cable Gov-Gen to Sec. of State for Cols. 16 Nov. 1920. Commonwealth Archives Office, Canberra, (CAO) item A 981/350. part I, section 3.

8. This appears to be the first usage of the well-remembered word “impregnable” in relation to Singapore. The three C-in-C's were: Vice Admiral Sir Alexander Duff (China) Chairman, Rear Ad. Sir Hugh Tothill (E. Indies) and Rear Ad. Sir Percy Grant (Australia). Copy of their report, 13 March 1921, in CAO, A 981/350(I)3.

9. Imp. Conf. 1923. CID, E-60, 30 06 1923, p. 1.Google Scholar

10. Imp. Meetings, 1921. 8th meeting, 28 06 1921Google Scholar, on “Anglo-Japanese Alliance”, p. 12.Google Scholar

11. Commonwealth of Australia Parliamentary Debates (CPD), 1924, vol. 107, 25 07, p. 2544.Google Scholar

12. Minutes of Council of Defence, 30 August 1923, p. 5 CAO, A981/330.

13. Jansen, R. D., “The Idea of Singapore as a Naval Base and the Abandonment of that Idea, 1885–1905”.Google Scholar Research Exercise, consulted by courtesy of the History Dept., Univ. of Singapore.

14. See exchange in House of Commons in committee on Naval Estimates, 1 May 1923. 5th series, Hansard, 1923, vol. 163, cols. 1229–30, 1247–8, 1266–7.Google Scholar

15. Jellicoe, to Liverpool, 3 10 1919.Google ScholarAJHR, 1919, A-4, p. 8.Google Scholar

16. Imp. Meetings, 1912, 8th meeting, p. 12.Google Scholar

17. Speech on 30 Sept. 1921. CPD, 1920–1921, vol. 97, 11638.Google Scholar

18. Copy of cabled press release. CAO CP/447/3. SC 15.

19. “The Reasons why a Naval Base at Singapore Is necessary”. CAO, A981/331 (II).

20. “Memorandum on the Effect of the London Naval Treaty on New Zealand Naval Policy”, 8 08 1930.Google Scholar Department of External Affairs, Wellington (EAWell.) PM 455/7/1 file 3.

21. Imp. Con f., 1926. 5th meeting “Statement on Colonies, Protectorates and Mandates”, pp. 14–15.Google Scholar

22. Eg. speeches by Curtin, John 25 08 1937.Google ScholarCPD, 1937, 154, 106Google Scholar; 5 October 1938. CPD. 1938, 157, 493.Google Scholar

23. C. N. Parkinson in works cited in fn. 2.

24. See Balfour's speech in the House of Lords, 4 March 1925. 5 Hansard, 1924–1925, 60, 386–7.Google Scholar Conversations between Balfour, Kato and Hughes, 22 Jan. 1922, relating to Article 19 defining the status quo area, led to Balfour's amendment of sect. 2, so that British possessions in the Pacific to which the treaty applied were “east of the meridian of 110° east longitude”. A record of these conversations was kept by E. L. Peisse, head of the Pacific Branch of the Australian Prime Minister's Dept. Report of Major Piesse, 12 July 1922, “Fortifications in the Pacific”. Piesse Papers, National Library of Australia, MSS 882 pp. 9–10. (I am grateful to Professor Poynter for this reference.).

25. Report of the Penang Naval Conference, 13 March 1921. Appendix c. CAO, A 981/350(I)3.

26. IM Interim Report of the Curzon Committee. CID, C. P. 124(25), 27 Feb. 1925. Copy in EAWell, PM 455/7/1 file 1.

27. Imp. Conf. 1930. E (30)3, p. 5.Google Scholar

28. Curzon's announcement came as a response to a critical motion of Viscount Wimborne. 5 Hansard, 1924–1925, 60, 381–399.Google Scholar

29. Speech on the Navy Estimates, 12 March 1923. 5 Hansard, 1925, 161, 1083–99.Google Scholar

30. Imp. Conf. 1923. 8th Meeting, 15 10 1923, pp. 19–21.Google Scholar

31. Sec. of State for Cols, to Gov. Gen. NZ. (cable) 6 March 1924. EAWell, PM 455/7/1 file 1.

32. Paraphrase of cable Gov. Gen. S.Af. to Sec. of State for Cols. 7 March 1924. National Archives, Wellington, NZ 10/2.

33. Ibid. Gov. Gen. Aust. to Sec. of State for Cols. 11 March 1924.

34. Jellicoe, to Massey, (private) 7 03 1924. EAWell, PM 455/7/1 file I.Google Scholar

35. Ibid. PM to Gov. Gen. 10 March 1924; copy of cable Gov. Gen. to Sec. of State for Cols. 11 March 1924; Wood, , The People at War, p. 15.Google Scholar

36. Mr. Ammon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, on Navy Estimates. 18 March 1924. 5 Hansard, 1924, 171, 288–9.Google Scholar

37. Reply of First Lord to Question, 17 Jan. 1924. 5 Hansard, 1924, 169, 276.Google Scholar

38. Guillemard, L.. Trivial Fond Records, London, 1937, p. 111.Google Scholar

39. Imp. Conf. 1930. E (30)3, p. 4, para. 15.Google Scholar

40. Sec. of State for Cols, to Gov. Gen. NZ (Cable) 4 December 1924. EAWell, PM 455/7/1 file 1.

41. 5 Hansard, 1924–1925, 179, 49.Google Scholar

42. Imp. Conf. 1930. E(30) 3, p. 6, para. 20.Google Scholar

43. Speeches by Bruce, to House of Representatives, 27 06 1924Google Scholar. CPD; 1924, 107, p. 1703, 3 08 1926Google Scholar, CPD, 1926, 114, 4782Google Scholar. The naval programme was for 2 cruisers, 2 submarines and 1 seaplane tender. Hasluck, P., The Government and the People 1939–41, Canberra, 1952, p. 30.Google Scholar

44. CID, 900–B, “Review of Imperial Defence by the Chiefs of Staff”, 25 06 1928Google Scholar. CID Papers, 1920's, file S/7. Department of External Affairs, Canberra, (EACan). Details of progress can be followed from Singapore Free Press, supplement, 14 02 1938.Google Scholar

45. Parr, to Coates, (confidential) 13 07 1928Google Scholar. EAWell, PM 455/7/1 file 2.

46. Casey, to Bruce, (airmail) 10 01 1929Google Scholar. EACan. CID Papers, 1920's, file S4/17.

47. Sec. of State for Doms to PM Canberra 7 July 1929. Decypher of cable in CAO. A931/350 (III).

48. Ibid. Decode of cable from Casey, 8 July 1929.

49. Ibid. Copy of decypher of cable from PM to Sec. of State for Doms. 12 July 1929.

50. Ibid. Decode of cable from Casey, 17 July 1929.

51. Ibid. Decode of cable from Casey, 20 July 1929.

52. Ibid. Decypher of Sec. of State for Doms, to PM Aust. 30 July 1929. Extract of minutes of CID meeting of 25 July. A981/331 (I): Parr to PM NZ 25 July 1929. EAWell, PM 455/7/1 file 2.

53. Reply by Alexander, A. V. to question, 13 11 1929. 5Google ScholarHansard, 1929–1930, 231, 2012–3.Google Scholar

54. Decode of cable from Casey, 15 November 1929. CAO, A981/350(III).

55. Reply to question, 21 November 1929. CPD, 1929, 122, 67Google Scholar

56. Thomas M. Wilford (for PM) to Gov. Gen. 13 Nov. 1929: Gov. Gen. NZ to Sec. of State for Doms. 13 Nov. 1929. EAWell, PM 455/7/1 file 3.

57. Ibid. CID. 354-C, “Report of Committee, of the Imperial Conference on Singapore Base”, 27 10 1930Google Scholar. Minutes of the Committee, 16 Oct. 1930.

58. Casey, to Scullin, 5 06 1930Google Scholar. CAO, A981/331 (II).

59. CID, 1082, 23 February 1932. CID Papers, 1920's, EACan, file S/7.

60. “Singapore” — a summary of recent CID papers initialled by Keith Officer, 6 06 1933, p. 2. CAO, A981/331 (II).Google Scholar

61. Ibid. Sec. of State for Doms. Circular D. 10. 4 March 1934.

62. 2nd Informal Meeting, 7 May 1935. CAO, A981/135.

63. Imp. Conf. 1937. E(37) 1, “Review of Imperial Defence by Chiefs of Staff Sub-Committee of CID” as amended 25 02 1937, p. 5, para. 14.Google Scholar

64. Ibid. p. 12, para. 39.

65. Ibid. p. 15, paras. 55 and 56.

66. Ibid. p. 19, para. 79. See also Kirby, , War Against Japan, p. 17Google Scholar; Wigmore, , The Japanese Thrust, p. 6–7.Google Scholar

67. Imp. Conf. 1937. E(37) 1. p. 19, para. 81.Google Scholar

68. Eg. a lecture by Lieut. Col. Wynter to the United Services Institution, Melbourne, 1926, quoted in Wigmore, p. 8.Google Scholar

69. Part I, Report of Defence Conference, 25 April 1939. National Archives, Wellington, AD 12/22; Wood, , The People at War, pp. 76–78.Google Scholar

70. From Memo. “Australian and New Zealand Naval Defence”, 21 Nov. 1939 quoted in Lissington, P., “New Zealand and Japan — Relations until December 1941”. (War Narrative 36, National Archives, Wellington) p. 149.Google Scholar

71. Documents Relating to New Zealand's Participation in the Second World War, Wellington, 1963, III, p. 206Google Scholar. Wood, , The People at War, p. 194Google Scholar, suggests that this despatch had for New Zealand an “almost apocalyptic character”.

72. Ibid. 196. Full text in Documents, III, pp. 17–20. Churchill, , Second World War, II, p. 386Google Scholar, has a slightly different wording, and was possibly compiled from the PM's draft of the despatch which was actually sent by the Sec. of State for Doms.

73. Churchill, , III, p. 524.Google Scholar

74. Imp. Meetings, 1921. Memoranda Vol. III, CID 143-C, p. 7, para. 41.Google Scholar

75. Imp. Conf. 1930. E (30)3, pp. 5–6, para. 20.Google Scholar

76. Ibid. pp. 6–7, para. 23. Extract of Cabinet conclusions in CID, 317-C, 1 May 1928.

77. A summary of this meeting in Casey to Bruce (airmail) 10 Jan. 1929. EACan, CID Papers 1920s, file S4/1.

78. CID, 336-C, 15 July 1929. CAO, A981/331 (I).

79. Beavis, L. E., “The Defences of Singapore”, Stand-To, (Magazine of the Canberra R.S.L.), 1963 8 (2): 7–9Google Scholar. General Beavis points out here, too, that as all but one of the 15 in. guns were mounted on swivels they were not, as is often said, pointing only out to sea.

80. CID, 394-C, p. 1, para. 1.

81. Ibid. pp. 5–6, para. 31.

82. Kirby, , The War Against Japan, p. 14Google Scholar; Percival, , War in Malaya, p. 43.Google Scholar

83. Kirby, pp. 15–16Google Scholar; Percival, p. 44Google Scholar; Grenfell, , Main Fleet to Singapore, p. 70.Google Scholar

84. The Admiralty asked for 6 weeks in 1921. By 1932 the Chiefs of Staff said the fleet would ‘normally’ require 38 days. At the 1937 Conference it was fixed for 70 days, but this was increased to 90 days in July 1939. The Japanese actually took 55 days to drive down the Peninsula and 70 days before Singapore was taken.

85. Kiiby, pp. 35–6, 54Google Scholar; Appendix 9 on p. 511 gives aircraft strength in December 1941.

86. Ibid. pp. 529–533 for Directions to Supreme Commander ABDA.

87. Churchill, , Second World War, III. p. 551Google Scholar; Moran, Lord, Winston Churchill. The Struggle for Survival 1940–1965, London, 1966, p. 27Google Scholar discusses the effect on the PM. Months later he found Churchill musing in the bathroom: “I cannot get over Singapore”. He also records (p. 101) that the fate of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse preyed on Churchill's mind at the time of his stroke in 1953.

88. Naval Sec. to Cabinet Sec. 18 May 1923. National Archives, Wellington, NA 10/2; Massey's financial statement to House, 3 July 1923. NZPD, 1923, 200, 599.Google Scholar

89. Explanation by Gov. SirGuillemard, Laurence, 3 09 1923Google Scholar. Proceedings of the Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements (National Library, Singapore) 1923, B-126 and B-160, B-220.Google Scholar

90. Debate on 1923 Imp. Conf., 27 March 1924. CPD, 1924, 106, 73Google Scholar. Marks later claimed that he had called for an Australian contribution of £2 million. He had been visiting the House of Commons when Amery first sought a vote for the base in 1923.

91. Singapore Free Press, supplement, 14 02 1938.Google Scholar

92. Moved by the Sultan of Selangor, 23 June 1926. Proceedings of The Federal Council of the Federated Malay States, 1926, B-36–7, 141.Google Scholar

93. Churchill, to Ccates, 13 12 1926Google Scholar; Coates, to Churchill, (copy) 15 12 1926Google Scholar; Gov. Gen. NZ to Sec. of State for Doms. 22 April 1927. EAWell, PM 455/7/1 file 1. Statement by PM “Singapore and Naval Defence”. AJHR, 1927, A-7.Google Scholar

94. Casey, to Scullin, 5 06 1930Google Scholar. CAO, A981/331 (II).

95. “The Reasons Why a Naval Base at Singapore is necessary”, p. 2Google Scholar. CAO, A981/331 (II) file 10.

96. UK Parliamentary Paper: Cmd 2083, 25 March 1924. Massey's views in Gov. Gen. NZ to Sec. of State for Cols. 19 March 1924. EAWell, PM 455/7/1 file 1.

97. Ibid, file 2. Gov. Gen. NZ to Sec. of State for Doms, 10 August, 1929.

98. Ibid, file 3. Gov. Gen. NZ to Sec. of State for Doms, 15 Nov. 1929.

99. Imp. Conf. 1930. CID 354-C. Minutes of the Singapore Sub-committee, 16 Oct. 1930.

100. For a glimpse at the exchanges between Premiers see Arnold-Forster, M., “Chanak Rocks the Empire. The Anger of Billy Hughes”, Round Table, 1968 58 (230): 169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

101. Quoted in Edwards, C., Bruce of Melbourne, London, 1965, p. 87Google Scholar; sec also Watt, A.. The Evolution of Australia's Foreign Policy, 1938–1965, Cambridge, 1967 p. 32Google Scholar. New Zealand appointed a Liaison Officer in 1938.

102. Proc. of the Leg. Co., of the SS, 1925, 26 10, B-195Google Scholar; Proc. 1927, 11 07, B-80–1, 31 Oct. B-142–162Google Scholar; Proc. 1928, 20 Oct., B-136–143Google Scholar; text of despatch from Col. Sec. to Gov. 30 April 1928 in C-183–5; Proc. 1929, 28 10, B-151–3Google Scholar; Proc. 1930, 13 10, B-138–53Google Scholar; Proc. 1931, 28 09 B-125, 1 Dec. B-177–190Google Scholar. First gift, Proc. 1934, 12 Feb. B-5–8.Google Scholar

103. Imp. Conf. 1937. Australian Delegation Memo, “Political and Strategical considerations relating to Imperial and Local Defence”, 8 03 1937, p. 7Google Scholar. CAO, A981/145 A folder 4.

104. Richmond, H., Statesmen and Sea-Power, Oxford, 1946, p. 328.Google Scholar