How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

fbs -> How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/6/2010 7:49:40 PM)


From memory, the only fully independent countries I can remember are Japan, Siam and USSR. I don't know much about history of the Commonwealth, but the impression I have is that Australia and New Zealand were semi-independent, at least in the beginning of the war.

Any clarifications on that?

Also, if the war in the Pacific was a war between independent states (Japan, USA, UK, Netherlands and USSR) over colonies/protectorates, then that makes the war in the Pacific just another colonial war, exactly like the American-Spanish War of 1898? What do you guys think about that?

Thanks,
fbs



Puhis -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/6/2010 7:56:57 PM)

I guess China was independent too, or should I say Chinas (Nationalist China and Communist China).



fbs -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/6/2010 8:19:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

I guess China was independent too, or should I say Chinas (Nationalist China and Communist China).



That's a good point, but I'm not sure how independent China was since the second Opium War of 1860. After all, if the UK could maintain garrisons and navigate warships up into Chinese rivers, then perhaps China wasn't fully independent...

Thanks,
fbs



Bearcat2 -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/6/2010 8:22:43 PM)

Not independent; but East Timor[and the area around Oecussi ] was Portuguese. It was invaded by the allies in early 42' and then the Japanese.



Puhis -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/6/2010 8:33:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

I guess China was independent too, or should I say Chinas (Nationalist China and Communist China).



That's a good point, but I'm not sure how independent China was since the second Opium War of 1860. After all, if the UK could maintain garrisons and navigate warships up into Chinese rivers, then perhaps China wasn't fully independent...

Thanks,
fbs


I think most of the China was ruled by local warlords. So I doubt UK or weak emperor of China or any ruler had much authority in distant rural areas anyway...



Mobeer -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/6/2010 9:43:28 PM)

Included on the map area are Tibet, Bhutan, Mongolia, Tonga, maybe others as well. In WitP (original) only Tibet and Mongolia have national outlines and names on the map. Only Mongolia and Tonga have bases.



Reg -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/6/2010 10:08:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs


From memory, the only fully independent countries I can remember are Japan, Siam and USSR. I don't know much about history of the Commonwealth, but the impression I have is that Australia and New Zealand were semi-independent, at least in the beginning of the war.

Any clarifications on that?


Wow, that's going to get a bite. First of all lets start with a definition:

Commonwealth is a traditional English term for a political community founded for the common good or in which all participants have equal standing. [Wikipedia]

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) was passed on 5 July 1900 and given Royal Assent by Queen Victoria on 9 July 1900. On 1 January 1901 the Proclamation of the Commonwealth of Australia was issued which permitted the formation of the Australian federal parliament and high court. So Australia has been a fully independent country since 1901 though it was and remains a member of the British Commonwealth.

Though British influence in Australia was strong under a Liberal (Conservative) government, "It is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war." Yet only two years later under a Labour government the declaration of war against Japan was issued independently (as were other Commonwealth countries).

New Zealand decided against joining the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, and instead changed from being a colony to a separate "dominion" in 1907, equal in status to Australia and Canada.

quote:


Also, if the war in the Pacific was a war between independent states (Japan, USA, UK, Netherlands and USSR) over colonies/protectorates, then that makes the war in the Pacific just another colonial war, exactly like the American-Spanish War of 1898? What do you guys think about that?

Thanks,
fbs



If the test of a countries independence is the ability to make a declaration of war, then have a look at this link Timeline - December 1941.

Countries that also declared war against Japan included Canada, Union of South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Free France, The Kingdom of the Netherlands, Britain, United States, Colombia (broke diplomatic relations), Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Panama, China (formally declares war on Japan), Cuba, Mexico (broke diplomatic relations), Poland, & Nicaragua. (Note the order of the declarations)

Draw your own conclusions...





Torplexed -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/6/2010 11:09:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs
Also, if the war in the Pacific was a war between independent states (Japan, USA, UK, Netherlands and USSR) over colonies/protectorates, then that makes the war in the Pacific just another colonial war, exactly like the American-Spanish War of 1898? What do you guys think about that?

Thanks,
fbs



Using that definition the entire war in North Africa and East Africa was a colonial war as well. You could even extend it to those parts of the Soviet Union (Ukraine, Baltic States)that didn't want to be in the Soviet Union.



fbs -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 12:22:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Torplexed

Using that definition the entire war in North Africa and East Africa was a colonial war as well. You could even extend it to those parts of the Soviet Union (Ukraine, Baltic States)that didn't want to be in the Soviet Union.



Oh, most definitely North Africa was a colonial war started by Italy. Fully agree.

The reason that I raised the question is that from a Western point of view the war in Asia/Pacific was not a colonial war -- it was a war of defense against Japanese aggression in China, Pearl Harbor, DEI and Malaya/Burma. But, from a Japanese point of view, the war in the Pacific was a war of liberation against Western colonialism -- at least by those (Japanese Army not included) that believed in the concepts of Asia for Asians and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

I mean, while the Japanese Army and the British Army both practiced something else, Asia for Asians is a precise counterpart to Rudyard Kipling's Burden of White Men -- and despite the despicable actions of the Japanese Army I tend to find the former a more acceptable concept than the latter.

Thanks,
fbs



fbs -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 12:34:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

From memory, the only fully independent countries I can remember are Japan, Siam and USSR. I don't know much about history of the Commonwealth, but the impression I have is that Australia and New Zealand were semi-independent, at least in the beginning of the war.

Any clarifications on that?


Wow, that's going to get a bite. First of all lets start with a definition:

Commonwealth is a traditional English term for a political community founded for the common good or in which all participants have equal standing. [Wikipedia]




Yeah, that's why I made a point to say that I don't know much of the Commonwealth. It is easier to understand the moment of independence when there is a Declaration of Independence -- less clear when the process is gradual. I was thinking the year of 1942 as a clear cut for complete Australian independence because that's when Australia ratified the Statute of Westminster -- which is the one that establishes self-governing for the dominions.

Not knowing any Australians myself, that's what I could find by searching -- I didn't intend to offend anyone from Australia, Canada or New Zealand.


Thanks,
fbs



Reg -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 1:51:32 AM)


No offence taken. That's what I like about this forum, there is all this little known information presented and you just learn so much (no matter how much you thought you knew. [:D])

Without going into too much detail, the degree of Australian independence from Britain has always been contentious issue and was definitely a hot topic between the Menzies and Curtin governments in the late 30's and early 40's (and into the 50's and 60's if we are honest). The career of Menzies who was a central figure during this entire period makes interesting reading. The ratification of the Statute of Westminster in 1942 really was just a case of legislation catching up with reality under wartime necessity. It was issued in 1931 after all.

Growing pains and all that....

Edit: I think a key point to be made is that even though the Dominions weren't completely legislatively independent of the British parliament prior to the ratification of the Statute of Westminster, Britain wasn't in a position to impose her will upon the Commonwealth Dominions either.... (hence the requirement for ratification).




Mynok -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 2:24:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

I mean, while the Japanese Army and the British Army both practiced something else, Asia for Asians is a precise counterpart to Rudyard Kipling's Burden of White Men -- and despite the despicable actions of the Japanese Army I tend to find the former a more acceptable concept than the latter.



Well, let's be honest. The Japanese weren't really about Asia for the Asians but about Asia for the Japanese. I find little to distinguish that from "the white man's burden".



morganbj -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 2:29:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

The reason that I raised the question is that from a Western point of view the war in Asia/Pacific was not a colonial war -- it was a war of defense against Japanese aggression in China, Pearl Harbor, DEI and Malaya/Burma. But, from a Japanese point of view, the war in the Pacific was a war of liberation against Western colonialism -- at least by those (Japanese Army not included) that believed in the concepts of Asia for Asians and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

I mean, while the Japanese Army and the British Army both practiced something else, Asia for Asians is a precise counterpart to Rudyard Kipling's Burden of White Men -- and despite the despicable actions of the Japanese Army I tend to find the former a more acceptable concept than the latter.

Thanks,
fbs

You've got to be kidding me.



Mike Scholl -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 2:41:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

I mean, while the Japanese Army and the British Army both practiced something else, Asia for Asians is a precise counterpart to Rudyard Kipling's Burden of White Men -- and despite the despicable actions of the Japanese Army I tend to find the former a more acceptable concept than the latter.



Well, let's be honest. The Japanese weren't really about Asia for the Asians but about Asia for the Japanese. I find little to distinguish that from "the white man's burden".




Actually there is a difference. Kipling's admonishment to "take up the White Man's Burden" reflects a determination on the part of at least some European colonialists that with colonial control came the responsibility to "raise up the native peoples to the European level of education and sanitation and such". Not all followed such policies (the Belgians in the Congo were notorious for exploiting the native population), but the idea and practice did exist. Look at Ghandi..., and English educated lawyer.

It's virtually impossible to find any such feeling and practice in the 40-year Japanese rule of Korea. Japanese notions concerning colonial peoples were strictly of the "hewers of wood and haulers of water" variety.



Alfred -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 2:50:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

From memory, the only fully independent countries I can remember are Japan, Siam and USSR. I don't know much about history of the Commonwealth, but the impression I have is that Australia and New Zealand were semi-independent, at least in the beginning of the war.

Any clarifications on that?


Wow, that's going to get a bite. First of all lets start with a definition:

Commonwealth is a traditional English term for a political community founded for the common good or in which all participants have equal standing. [Wikipedia]




Yeah, that's why I made a point to say that I don't know much of the Commonwealth. It is easier to understand the moment of independence when there is a Declaration of Independence -- less clear when the process is gradual. I was thinking the year of 1942 as a clear cut for complete Australian independence because that's when Australia ratified the Statute of Westminster -- which is the one that establishes self-governing for the dominions.

Not knowing any Australians myself, that's what I could find by searching -- I didn't intend to offend anyone from Australia, Canada or New Zealand.


Thanks,
fbs


It is very easy to get into an argument here because (a) no one has defined what is meant by independent country and (b) legal terms are too often used loosely with the result that they are ascribed a false meaning.

For example both Reg (sorry this is going to sound like nit picking even though your overall meaning is understood and good enough outside a court of law) and fbs are not accurate enough in their depiction of the Australian situation.

In law, it would be a quite reasonable argument to state that Australia was not fully independent until it ratified (by passing the relevant legislation) the Statutute of Westminster in 1942. Why? Because although the Commonwealth of Australia came into existence in 1901, the United Kingdom still retained the technical capacity to direct the Commonwealth. It retained this capacity principally in two ways.

Firstly, the Parliament at Westminster could directly and unilaterally pass legislation. This is what the 1931 (IIRC the year) Imperial conference which led to the Statute of Westminster specifically addressed. Once ratified by Dominions (and each one had to do so by passing their own enabling legislation) legislation passed by the Parliament of Westminster could not take effect in the Dominion unless it itself consented to the Act by passing its own complementary legislation.

This can best be illustrated by the 1950s transfer of the British territory of Christmas Island (in the Indian Ocean, off Indonesia). That was accomplished by the UK parliament passing an act to transfer the territory to Australian administration, and the Australian Commonwealth parliament passing an Act to accept the transfer. Prior to the Statute of Westminster, in theory the UK could simply have foisted the transfer onto Australia.

Secondly, if one reads the relevant correspondence from the Governor-General (and relevant contemporary commentary), it is clear that the UK government expected the Governor-General to be the conduit through which Australian foreign policy in particular would be conducted. It is quite revealing to see how the Governor-General at the start of World War I (IIRC Munro) saw and actually carried out his duties. It is not until the combative Hughes became Prime Minister and more obviously the appointment of the first Australian (Isaac Isaacs) to the position of Governor-General was made, was this "informal" channel of direction by Britain removed.

One can certainly argue that at least in its first 3 (or more precisely 4) decades of existence, the Commonwealth of Australia did not have full sovereignty. One should not in this context, that the first Australian embassies (not High Commissions which is quite a different beast) were not established until 1940. Nor was the international genus "Australian citizen" created until 1949. Prior to that Australians travelled abroad as British citizens on their passports.

What the OP meant by "independent" was really sovereign. In that context, there is no doubt that China retained its own sovereignty. The fact that concessions and enclaves had been given to several European nations following the various Opium Wars of the nineteenth century did not in law extinguish Chinese sovereignty. Outside of the concessions, europeans did not have the protection of metropolitan law and personnel. At the League of Nations, China (and not its warlords) was quite clearly treated as being a sovereign country. One should not confuse the lack of military and political power to treat on equal terms with powerful european nations, as somehow diminishing sovereignty. I'm certain that if Bolivia had tried to bully China in the 1920s/1930s, it would have seen just how much sovereignty (or if you prefer "independence") China enjoyed.

In the context of sovereignty, it is misleading to rely upon the Free French declaring war on Japan in December 1941. The Free French were not a sovereign nation.

Alfred



Alfred -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 2:53:18 AM)

Sorry Reg, I was busy composing my post whilst you and others posted.  Hope no offence was taken.

Alfred



Mynok -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 3:01:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

I mean, while the Japanese Army and the British Army both practiced something else, Asia for Asians is a precise counterpart to Rudyard Kipling's Burden of White Men -- and despite the despicable actions of the Japanese Army I tend to find the former a more acceptable concept than the latter.



Well, let's be honest. The Japanese weren't really about Asia for the Asians but about Asia for the Japanese. I find little to distinguish that from "the white man's burden".




Actually there is a difference. Kipling's admonishment to "take up the White Man's Burden" reflects a determination on the part of at least some European colonialists that with colonial control came the responsibility to "raise up the native peoples to the European level of education and sanitation and such". Not all followed such policies (the Belgians in the Congo were notorious for exploiting the native population), but the idea and practice did exist. Look at Ghandi..., and English educated lawyer.

It's virtually impossible to find any such feeling and practice in the 40-year Japanese rule of Korea. Japanese notions concerning colonial peoples were strictly of the "hewers of wood and haulers of water" variety.



Kipling may have had noble ideas for his "white man's burden" but the practice of it differed little from the Japanese. True, it was mostly less destructive (if that term can be defined in actuality), but only in degree, not intent. The only good thing that might said to have come from European colonialism is the expediting of missionary efforts which actually did enhance the lives of the natives and give them some hope.



Reg -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 3:19:33 AM)


Hi Alfred,

Only an insecure person would be offended by the facts. [;)]

I was just trying to keep it simple and highlight that even though Australia wasn't legally completely independent, it exercised a lot of these privileges by necessity.

However, now that you have laid it all out I'm sure all the forum will now have benefited from your excellent explanation of what is a complicated situation and hopefully clarified how Australia's political position fits into the war situation as a whole.



wwengr -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 3:37:23 AM)

I'll stay away from the Kipling thing. Sovereign States represented on the map in 1941: (EDIT: I forgot England is shown on one of the off-map/map locations, so I moved it up a category)

  • Australia
  • Canada
  • Republic of China (not to be confused with the PRC)
  • Mongolia
  • Nepal
  • Japan
  • New Zealand
  • Panama
  • South Africa
  • USSR
  • Thailand
  • United States
  • Yemen
  • Netherlands
  • United Kingdom

Sovereign States with only Colonial Possesions on the map:

  • France
  • Italy
  • Portugal

States recognized as sovereign by several sovereign neutral states, but with dubious sovereignty:

  • Manchukwo (Japanese puppet state)
  • Nanjing - Republic of China (Japanese puppet state)
  • Tuvan People's Republic - (Soviet puppet state)



wwengr -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 3:44:00 AM)

Here's to confuse the issue about Australia... The Statute of Westminster was passed in the British Parliment on December 11, 1931, but it was not adoped in Australia until October 9, 1942, but the effective date was back-dated to September 3, 1939.



fbs -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 3:48:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

The reason that I raised the question is that from a Western point of view the war in Asia/Pacific was not a colonial war -- it was a war of defense against Japanese aggression in China, Pearl Harbor, DEI and Malaya/Burma. But, from a Japanese point of view, the war in the Pacific was a war of liberation against Western colonialism -- at least by those (Japanese Army not included) that believed in the concepts of Asia for Asians and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

I mean, while the Japanese Army and the British Army both practiced something else, Asia for Asians is a precise counterpart to Rudyard Kipling's Burden of White Men -- and despite the despicable actions of the Japanese Army I tend to find the former a more acceptable concept than the latter.

Thanks,
fbs

You've got to be kidding me.



Not at all. I'm a Westerner and I tend to think that Japan was a small empire trying to grab colonies from other empires, so I tend to think that WW2 in the Pacific was a colonial war just like the American-Spanish War, or the several French-British wars.

But I try to keep my mind open to other interpretations: in the context of most of Asia/Pacific under colonial rule and with few independent countries, the idea of Asia for Asians must have been a powerful drive to locals. Some Japanese believed in Japan leading Asia for Asians, and while the actual Japanese government was inept at promoting the idea, perhaps some of the locals believed that WW2 would be the way for independence.

Now, it's not that I believe that WW2 in the Pacific was fought in the context of Asia for Asians - I don't. I'm a Westerner. Yet, I would love to hear an Easterner's point of view about Asia for Asians vs. WW2 in the Pacific.


Thanks,
fbs



Reg -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 3:57:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wwengr

Here's tp confuse the issue about Australia... The Statute of Westminster was passed in the British Parliment on December 11, 1931, but it was not adoped in Australia until October 9, 1942, but the effective date was back-dated to September 3, 1939.


As discussed above, this backdating would have been to legalise Australia's right to issue both declarations of war against Germany and Japan.

Edit: Wikipedia uses the phrase "to clarify government war powers, backdated to 3 September 1939—the start of World War II."




Torplexed -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 5:13:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

Not at all. I'm a Westerner and I tend to think that Japan was a small empire trying to grab colonies from other empires, so I tend to think that WW2 in the Pacific was a colonial war just like the American-Spanish War, or the several French-British wars.

But I try to keep my mind open to other interpretations: in the context of most of Asia/Pacific under colonial rule and with few independent countries, the idea of Asia for Asians must have been a powerful drive to locals. Some Japanese believed in Japan leading Asia for Asians, and while the actual Japanese government was inept at promoting the idea, perhaps some of the locals believed that WW2 would be the way for independence.

Now, it's not that I believe that WW2 in the Pacific was fought in the context of Asia for Asians - I don't. I'm a Westerner. Yet, I would love to hear an Easterner's point of view about Asia for Asians vs. WW2 in the Pacific.


Thanks,
fbs


I think "Asia for Asians" was certainly one of the wartime goals for Japan, if only as a propaganda tool. It was probably the goal lowest on the list, but ironically, the only they succeeded at. However, outside of Chandra Bose's Indian National Army which melted away after the Imphal debacle, not many Asians took up arms for Tokyo's vision of a united Asia. They wisely waited until it collapsed and then individually fought their wars for independence. Shrewd move on their part.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 6:58:58 AM)

Cool topic guys...very imfomative.[&o] Love this forum.



Fishbed -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 7:23:32 AM)

quote:

Not at all. I'm a Westerner and I tend to think that Japan was a small empire trying to grab colonies from other empires, so I tend to think that WW2 in the Pacific was a colonial war just like the American-Spanish War, or the several French-British wars.

But I try to keep my mind open to other interpretations: in the context of most of Asia/Pacific under colonial rule and with few independent countries, the idea of Asia for Asians must have been a powerful drive to locals. Some Japanese believed in Japan leading Asia for Asians, and while the actual Japanese government was inept at promoting the idea, perhaps some of the locals believed that WW2 would be the way for independence.

Now, it's not that I believe that WW2 in the Pacific was fought in the context of Asia for Asians - I don't. I'm a Westerner. Yet, I would love to hear an Easterner's point of view about Asia for Asians vs. WW2 in the Pacific.


Sorry fbs, but I thought it was pretty common knowledge that there's not a single country in Asia (and unlike what the Chinese mainland would think, this includes Taiwan, where japs were called "dogs" and Chinese collaborators cops "three legs", for they were somewhere between "the man" and the "animal"...) where the Japanese had a good reputation as an occupier. Thailand maybe perhaps? If you want to make it sound like this, the "Japan vs Western allies" phase of the War in Asia is indeed a colonial war, but it's hardly about anything else than the Japanese replacing the Westerners as new (and most of the time harsher) colonizers. Even in countries where they gave up the sovereignty in the last days of the war to trick the returning Allies, their image is far from positive. And just like European countries in Africa, Japan's involvement in the economics everywhere in Asia has often been felt like a form of neo-colonialism. "Asia to Asians" was a coold idea back in the late XIXth century, when people from all over Asia would go to Japan seek a new Asian way. But this hardly applies to whatever followed, Japan's view of its role turning from a "safe haven and collective rebirth place for the Asian nations" to that of an "enlightened superior race to rule them all, and get fed by them"...

I shall remind you btw as a Westerner that out there, there's still 1+ billion of people whose "war" against Japan started in 1937 (or 1931) btw, and will arguably tell you that, back then, although divided, China was hardly any kind of a vast colony - actually rather the oldest country out there.



warspite1 -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 8:35:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

But, from a Japanese point of view, the war in the Pacific was a war of liberation against Western colonialism -- at least by those (Japanese Army not included) that believed in the concepts of Asia for Asians and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.


Warspite1

fbs, I think that the notion that the Japanese went to war with the US and the Commonwealth because they wanted to free Asians from their white rulers, is totally wrong. Japan never had any regard for their fellow Asians - look at their treatment of Koreans and Chinese (comfort Women, Rape of Nanking etc).

The Japanese were a proud people that in a space of a few short years had gone from being an inward looking society, to a highly industrialised one - all without the benefit of their own natural resources; that is some feat.

Fact was though - they wanted those resources - they were too reliant on others for oil and other vital strategic resources, and could only get them via conquest. The British (India), French (Indo-China), Dutch (NEI) and Americans (Philippines) had captured resources and territory through war so why not them? Must have irked them big time - and did.

Things came to a head when the US turned the economic screw. But this only happened because of their war in China. How does attacking China free Asians from Western domination?

I don`t doubt (as with Ukrainians greeting the Wehrmacht), when the Japanese landed in Malaya and NEI and Burma, there were some inhabitants who thought it a good thing and treated the Japanese as liberators. I also think that feeling was pretty short lived......

BTW, I like the thought provoking questions you bring to the forum [:)]



wwengr -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 12:31:37 PM)

Colonial possessions in 1941, on the map:

  • Papua (Australia)
  • Norfolk Island (Australia)
  • Canton and Enderbury Islands (jointly administered by US & UK)
  • New Hebrides (jointly administered by France & UK)
  • Pondicherry - French India (France - Loyal to Free French)
  • French Indochina (Japanese occuppied - Administered by Vichy)
  • Kwangchowan (Loyal to Free French)
  • New Caledonia and Dependencies (Loyal to Free French)
  • Shanghai - French Concession (Vichy)
  • Tianjin - French Concession (Vichy)
  • Tianjin - Italian Concession
  • Tianjin - British Concession
  • Tianjin - Japanese Concession
  • Korea (Japan)
  • Karafuto - Sakhalin (Japan)
  • Kwantung - British Concession
  • Kwantung - Japanese Consession
  • Malaya, Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis, Straits Settlements (aka Singapore, Malacca, Dinding, Panang), Terengganu (UK)
  • Guam (US)
  • Wake Island (US)
  • Midway Atoll (US)
  • Hawaii (US)
  • Alaska (US)
  • American Samoa (US)
  • Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef (US)
  • Panama Canal Zone (US)
  • Taiwan (Japan)
  • Nauru (Australia, New Zealand, UK)
  • New Guinea (Australia)
  • South Pacific Mandate - Kwajalein, Palau, Saipan, Truk, Majuro, Jaluit Atoll and other islands (Japan)
  • Western Samoa (New Zealand)
  • Netherlands East Indies (Netherlands)
  • Cook Islands (New Zealand)
  • Niue Island (New Zealand)
  • Union Islands (New Zealand)
  • Macau (Portugal)
  • Portuguese India (Portugal)
  • Portuguese Timor (Portugal)
  • Aden (UK)
  • Bhutan (UK)
  • Fiji, Gilbert and Ellice Islands, Pitcairn Islands, Solomon Islands, Tonga (UK)
  • Brunei, North Borneo, Sarawak (UK)
  • Burma (UK)
  • Ceylon (UK)
  • Falkland Islands (UK)
  • Hong Kong (UK)
  • India (UK)
  • Maldive Islands (UK)



fbs -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 3:42:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Sorry fbs, but I thought it was pretty common knowledge that there's not a single country in Asia (and unlike what the Chinese mainland would think, this includes Taiwan, where japs were called "dogs" and Chinese collaborators cops "three legs", for they were somewhere between "the man" and the "animal"...) where the Japanese had a good reputation as an occupier. Thailand maybe perhaps? If you want to make it sound like this, the "Japan vs Western allies" phase of the War in Asia is indeed a colonial war, but it's hardly about anything else than the Japanese replacing the Westerners as new (and most of the time harsher) colonizers. Even in countries where they gave up the sovereignty in the last days of the war to trick the returning Allies, their image is far from positive. And just like European countries in Africa, Japan's involvement in the economics everywhere in Asia has often been felt like a form of neo-colonialism. "Asia to Asians" was a coold idea back in the late XIXth century, when people from all over Asia would go to Japan seek a new Asian way. But this hardly applies to whatever followed, Japan's view of its role turning from a "safe haven and collective rebirth place for the Asian nations" to that of an "enlightened superior race to rule them all, and get fed by them"...




We both (and probably most in the forum) think the same way, that is, WW2 in the Pacific was an attempt by a small empire to grab colonies from larger empires. Also, it's clear that the Japanese Army's ruthlessness in pursuing the war didn't promote any idea other than thievery -- as my idol John Keegan said, "many times war is just large-scale, organized theft".

But I think that Asia for Asians was an undercurrent of the time. It must have been powerful, as within 20 years of end of WW2 all the colonies were free, and I think that Japanese intellectuals of the time actually believed that Japan's actions were part of Asia for Asians -- and some other non-Japanese too, for example Dr. Ba Maw.

I wonder if Japanese rule had been more enlightened and less brutal, that perhaps they could have capitalized the idea of Asia for Asians; in game terms that might mean more trouble for the Allies in keeping re-occupied territories.


Thanks,
fbs



TulliusDetritus -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 4:25:29 PM)

quote:

But I think that Asia for Asians was an undercurrent of the time. It must have been powerful, as within 20 years of end of WW2 all the colonies were free


If you are trying to imply, deduce, that the Japanese motto (the Co-Prosperity thing) helped the cause of decolonization, I think you are basically wrong [8D]

The Asian states (or territories) invaded by the Japanese knew perfectly that they were a bunch of gangsters... as opposed to some sort of "liberation army".

Now the Japanese did something which "helped" (or encouraged) the anti-colonization struggle: the Russo-Japanese war on 1905 [;)] But this has nothing to do with the gangsters of the 30s and 40s...

What helped the decolonization struggle (in Asia and elsewhere) was 1) the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 (the native intelligentsia of the colonies would be either communist or nationalist) and 2) the fact that the two main Empires (the English and French) were ruined and surpassed via WW2... USA and USSR. And the two new masters did NOT want colonies anymore... The English understood pretty soon. The French didn't (Indochina and Algeria wars, defeats)...



gajdacs zsolt -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 4:39:33 PM)

Philosophically I agree with what you write, and I believe that it would have been great if it becomes a political reality. But the fact is, that if you look at the creation of Imperial Japan, the "constitution" they had, and the "channels" through which power flowed, you'll see that it was never possible, and they actually "railroaded" themselves to this outcome (utter defeat and destruction) at the very start.

This is my belief based on what i read about the era.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.984375