Churchill's arguments against Far East expenditure rested on conflicting estimates of British power. One held that further spending was pointless because Britain could never defeat Japan. He also argued that Britain was so powerful that Japan would avoid a war it expected to lose. Those premises assign Britain opposite levels of relative strength while reaching the same conclusion against investment. The inconsistency suggests that the desired spending conclusion was shaping the strategic premise.
Notable Point · 1:16:04-1:16:32
Churchill's deterrence case contradicted itself
The case against Far East spending claimed both that Britain could never defeat Japan and that Japan would never challenge British power.