RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific?

RE: 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

USSAmerica -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 4:59:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fbs 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 Gee, nothing inflammatory in those comments. [8\|] No argument here that the war in the Pacific was mostly a colonial war. If you want to be honest, don't look at things from the Allied/Western point of view or the Japanese point of view. Look at it from the point of view of the people who saw one colonial power replaced by another. I don't think they would find either of your concepts more acceptable that the other, outside of the way they were treated by whichever power was in charge at the time.

DeriKuk -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 7:52:14 PM)
The interesting exception on the map is the Kingdom of Thailand (Siam). It was never colonized by a European power, and [in the game] it remains nominally independent, although co-operating with Japan for the most part.

Micke II -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 9:26:13 PM)
Interesting to know is in December 1940 Siam kingdom declared war to France and invaded Laos and Cambodge which were french colonies responding to Vichy. Siam army was much more powerful and gained easily ground on their east borders. In January 41 the french fleet (5 ships including a light cruiser) based in Indochina launched a raid against the Siam fleet in Ko Chang near Bangkok. The Siam fleet was entirely destroyed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Koh_Chang Japanese imposed a stop to this war. On december 8th 1941 Japan declared war to Siam to force a path to his troops for the invasion of Malaysia. A battle took place in Prachuab Khirikan but stopped very quickly. Siam decided to join the the japanese side for the rest of the war.

TulliusDetritus -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 9:32:36 PM)
hjalmar99, Siam (or Thailand) was independent because of one simple reason: it was a buffer state between the British and French empires... It's exactly like Mongolia: a buffer state between two giants who don't like each other (Russia and China that is). The good thing? You don't have to have a lot of troops along the border... [:D]

DeriKuk -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 10:21:15 PM)
Thanks, Micke II. I was not aware of the Franco-Thai Conflict of 1940-41. It seems to have been one of those opportinistic little wars that rode on the coat-tails of the larger conflict. [8D]

fbs -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/7/2010 10:40:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: USS America Gee, nothing inflammatory in those comments. [8\|] Sorry for that; I try to bring interesting WW2 Pacific topics in a way that (hopefully) does not degenerate in a forum meelee. You have my apologies for inflammatory comments. What I meant by that post is that by myself I'm for Self-Determination, so I don't believe in colonies, protectorates or spheres of influence. That's why I wrote that I believe more in Asia for Asians than in Colonialism. Having said that, I'm not trying to be apologetic of Japan in WW2, as I think the dominant faction in Japan was colonialist (and that whatever the rhetoric the main motivation for wars is economic, imho). I just mean that perhaps WW2 Pacific was mixed with a larger de-colonization movement -- perhaps India was the best example of that. From this point of view, even if Japan could achieve a settlement that would give them new territories, they wouldn't be able to keep them, and any territorial gains would be swept in the vast post-WW2 de-colonization movement. Thanks, fbs

Fishbed -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/8/2010 12:11:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fbs From this point of view, even if Japan could achieve a settlement that would give them new territories, they wouldn't be able to keep them, and any territorial gains would be swept in the vast post-WW2 de-colonization movement. I seriously doubt that. Japan's view on colonialism was no different from this of a country like Nazi Germany. France lost its colonies because it was a democracy, trying to live with this complete paradox while waging war (against an adversary well supported by neighbouring countries and antagonistic world powers) - and doing a lot of other things, for war isn't supposed to be its motto. Totalitarian regimes don't work the same, and have quite much more resources to allocate to this nice aspect of statehood (namely "law and order tonight is provided by the Kempeitai!"). In a world where Japan would actually keep its gain (aka a world where Germany prevailed, USSR wasn't a threat and the US were probably under-siege) I don't see how they would actually get threatened...

USSAmerica -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/8/2010 1:08:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fbs quote: ORIGINAL: USS America Gee, nothing inflammatory in those comments. [8\|] Sorry for that; I try to bring interesting WW2 Pacific topics in a way that (hopefully) does not degenerate in a forum meelee. You have my apologies for inflammatory comments. What I meant by that post is that by myself I'm for Self-Determination, so I don't believe in colonies, protectorates or spheres of influence. That's why I wrote that I believe more in Asia for Asians than in Colonialism. Having said that, I'm not trying to be apologetic of Japan in WW2, as I think the dominant faction in Japan was colonialist (and that whatever the rhetoric the main motivation for wars is economic, imho). I just mean that perhaps WW2 Pacific was mixed with a larger de-colonization movement -- perhaps India was the best example of that. From this point of view, even if Japan could achieve a settlement that would give them new territories, they wouldn't be able to keep them, and any territorial gains would be swept in the vast post-WW2 de-colonization movement. Thanks, fbs fbs, I think I over reacted a bit. It seems that your comments and observations were taken in the manner you meant them, and not as inflammatory. Things have been a little heated around the forums lately, burning a couple of friends, and I didn't want to see more of it. My apologies. [:)]

Mike Scholl -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/8/2010 1:54:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mynok 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. I would say it differed quite a bit from the Japanese. The real proof is in the number of effective "colonial troops" the two sides recruited. Philippino's fought right alongside their "colonial masters" to the end on Bataan. Indian Army troops were a massive part of Britain's war effort in Europe as well as Asia. Who FOUGHT for the Japanese? Koreans? Used as forced labor, but not given weapons. Thais? Fought a bit for Thai claims in Burma, than sat out the war. Bose's "Indian Army"? Signed up to get out of POW camps and get three squares a day..., melted away when asked to fight. The Chinese? Not many. Most were again "forced labor" or "garrison troops". What fighting they did was more of the "save your own skin, because your own countrymen will kill you as traitors if your caught". That's a BIG difference!

Runyon -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/8/2010 4:31:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus hjalmar99, Siam (or Thailand) was independent because of one simple reason: it was a buffer state between the British and French empires... It's exactly like Mongolia: a buffer state between two giants who don't like each other (Russia and China that is). The good thing? You don't have to have a lot of troops along the border... [:D] Yes, Siam was a buffer state between two empires, but this didn't happen by accident. The Thai deserve credit for bringing about this state of affairs. King Chulalongkorn, in particular, was simply masterful at playing the western empires against each other as they each tried to increase their influence over Siam and SE Asia throughout the late 19th century. A key part of his strategy was accepting gifts and aid only when he could be absolutely certain that it would not result in an imperial power gaining leverage over his kingdom. In this way he was able to modernize his country while remaining independent. While he died in 1910, long before the Japanese entered the scene, I think his legacy can be seen in the way Thailand managed to ride out the choppy waters of WWII without losing their sovereignty. quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl I would say it differed quite a bit from the Japanese. The real proof is in the number of effective "colonial troops" the two sides recruited. Philippino's fought right alongside their "colonial masters" to the end on Bataan. Indian Army troops were a massive part of Britain's war effort in Europe as well as Asia. Who FOUGHT for the Japanese? Koreans? Used as forced labor, but not given weapons. Thais? Fought a bit for Thai claims in Burma, than sat out the war. Bose's "Indian Army"? Signed up to get out of POW camps and get three squares a day..., melted away when asked to fight. The Chinese? Not many. Most were again "forced labor" or "garrison troops". What fighting they did was more of the "save your own skin, because your own countrymen will kill you as traitors if your caught". That's a BIG difference! As for India and the Philippines, while it is true that they fought alongside the British and the Americans, it was probably more a case of the-enemy-I-know-is-preferable-to-the-enemy-I-don't, than anything else. Both countries were engaged in long, slow marches towards promised independence. Progress was slow but steady, and hard won. With a new colonial power in the Japanese to contend with, all that progress would have been lost and both countries would have had to start their independence movements all over again. I also think many Indians and Filipinos probably felt that if they could prove themselves to their colonizers, they would find them to be much more amenable to the idea of independence. It is noteworthy that both countries eventually attained their goals within two years of the end of the war.

Fishbed -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/8/2010 6:21:42 AM)
Indeed, in places like Burma, anti-japanese resistance was mainly motivated by the idea that the locals hoped to get some kind of reward after the war from the former colonizers. It actually happened to be mostly the case in the British colonies, but not elsewhere. In the Philippines, it wasn't even an issue: as they were supposed to gain independance in the forties, they knew who the enemy was by december 1941. quote: The Chinese? Not many. Well a Chinese "not many" is still much more than the sum of all collaborative european troops who fight alongside Nazi Germany [;)] But well anyway this has to be compared to French troops fighting for Germany for instance - it's not really about colonialism here.

Mike Scholl -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/8/2010 7:23:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fishbed Indeed, in places like Burma, anti-japanese resistance was mainly motivated by the idea that the locals hoped to get some kind of reward after the war from the former colonizers. It actually happened to be mostly the case in the British colonies, but not elsewhere. In the Philippines, it wasn't even an issue: as they were supposed to gain independance in the forties, they knew who the enemy was by december 1941. quote: The Chinese? Not many. Well a Chinese "not many" is still much more than the sum of all collaborative european troops who fight alongside Nazi Germany [;)] But well anyway this has to be compared to French troops fighting for Germany for instance - it's not really about colonialism here. Fight? That's the rub. The Nazi's did get quite a bit of combat service from the Italians, the Rumanians, the Finns, Slovaks, a whole host of strange nationalities fighting in the SS, and even a Division of Spaniards. What the Japanese got from their Chinese collaborationists forces was a lot of mouths to feed and some unreliable garrison troops. Japan SAID a lot about "Asia for the Asiatics", but the iron boot of the IJA and the Military Police quickly showed the other natives that the only "Asiatics" the slogan referred to spoke Japanese. With the exception of the Belgians, it would be hard to find another "colonial power" as reviled by it's subjects as the Japanese.

Cavalry Corp -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/8/2010 2:20:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termite2 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. Are you sure , Portugal was neutral was it not ?

Q-Ball -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/8/2010 3:16:13 PM)
Interesting debate. While it is true that many in Japan thought of the war in an "Asia for Asians" sense, and believed in that, the truth was that was propoganda, sold by the real movers and shakers of Japanese policy, the Army and Navy, but particularly the Army. The way the IJA ran Manchukuo, and make no mistake they ran Manchukuo not the natives and certainly not the civilian government in Japan, tells you all you need to know about the real intentions of the Army, and how they wanted to run Asia. "Asia for Asians" and Co-Prosperity was a bill of goods sold to the domestic population and Asian peoples by the Japanese military, who were in charge. It's a nice idea, but was a complete fabrication. Rarely is it so easy as "Japan thought this" or "Japan intended to do that". Japanese politics was infinitely more complicated than that pre-war. There were peace and war factions, and factions within factions, conflict between the service branches and conflict within the service branches. It's a wonder policy got made at all, and it's certainly no mystery how it became radicalized.

wwengr -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/8/2010 11:09:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cavalry quote: ORIGINAL: Termite2 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. Are you sure , Portugal was neutral was it not ? Termite2 is correct. Technically, the Dutch and Australians violated Portuguese neutrality and late December 1941 when they moved troops in to prevent Japanese occupation. The Portuguese governor protested and the Dutch troops withdrew. The Japanese landed and quickly defeated the small Australian force. Portugal basically ignored the whole thing, but reasserted their colonial rights at the end of the war.

Alfred -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/9/2010 12:24:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wwengr quote: ORIGINAL: cavalry quote: ORIGINAL: Termite2 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. Are you sure , Portugal was neutral was it not ? Termite2 is correct. Technically, the Dutch and Australians violated Portuguese neutrality and late December 1941 when they moved troops in to prevent Japanese occupation. The Portuguese governor protested and the Dutch troops withdrew. The Japanese landed and quickly defeated the small Australian force. Portugal basically ignored the whole thing, but reasserted their colonial rights at the end of the war. The Japanese moved in under cover of written "negotiations" with Portugal. They claimed that they were merely maintaining Portugal's legal rights to the territory, until of course Portugal could enforce them itself. Alfred

Fishbed -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/9/2010 3:32:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cavalry quote: ORIGINAL: Termite2 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. Are you sure , Portugal was neutral was it not ? So were early Vichy and Iran. The Allies didn't care much about this...

spence -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/9/2010 4:33:24 AM)
And naturally the IJA allowed the Portuguese authorities to exercise full authority over all matters not purely related to defense. Or should we not ask what became of the colonial administrators?

Fishbed -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/9/2010 7:52:34 AM)
Sorry? Should I take that as an answer to my post or did I misunderstood? For if it's an answer, you misunderstood me, and you'd better brace for impact calling me a IJ apologist, Spence. That Allies didn't give a damn about Iran, Portuguese or Vichy sovereignty. That may have been for the greater good, but that's a fact.

wwengr -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/9/2010 1:00:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spence And naturally the IJA allowed the Portuguese authorities to exercise full authority over all matters not purely related to defense. Or should we not ask what became of the colonial administrators? The Portuguese Governor, Manuel de Abreu Ferreira de Carvalho, was initially cut of from communications with Portugal. The Portuguese civilians had a double problem. The Japanese were mildly hostile to them and the Native Timorese population were hostile to them. About 26 Portuguese civilians were killed during 1942, as a result of attacks credited to the native Timorese by the Japanese. The Governor tried have the Potruguese population moved to an outlying Island, but Lisbon never responded to his request. In October 1942, the Japanese moved the Portuguese population, about 600, into an interment camp. Shortly after that, the Governor and the Mayor of Dili were granted a reprieve and returned to their residences where they waited out the war. The Portuguese military garrison included a Light Infantry company of 271 troops, but an effective fielded strength of about 170; a guard detachment of 15 guarding the enclave of Oekussi; and a Frontier Cavalry Platoon of 69. The total number of non-native troops was 27. There isn't a clear history, but it is believed that some of the troops left and joined the resistance with at least some fighting a guerilla war alongside the Australian troops. In 1945, the Japanese handed control back over to Governor Manuel de Abreu Ferreira de Carvalho.

dwg -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/10/2010 3:45:43 PM)
>> in places like Burma, anti-japanese resistance was mainly motivated by the idea that the locals hoped to get some kind of reward after the war from the former colonizers << I've just been doing some reading on special forces ops in Burma by Force 136, V Force and OSS Det 101 and it seems clear that the dominant anti-Japanese resistance was from the hill tribes, particularly the Kachins, whose opposition sprang primarily from Japanese atrocities, not from the politically dominant Burmans, who initially supported the Japanese -- Aung Sang and the 30 Comrades -- and only switched sides when things turned against the Japanese.

Ambassador -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/10/2010 6:06:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wwengr quote: ORIGINAL: cavalry quote: ORIGINAL: Termite2 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. Are you sure , Portugal was neutral was it not ? Termite2 is correct. Technically, the Dutch and Australians violated Portuguese neutrality and late December 1941 when they moved troops in to prevent Japanese occupation. The Portuguese governor protested and the Dutch troops withdrew. The Japanese landed and quickly defeated the small Australian force. Portugal basically ignored the whole thing, but reasserted their colonial rights at the end of the war. This is not the only case of the Allies violating the neutrality of some countries. Norway, for example, or the numerous flights over Switzerland (even bombing them once - a navigation error, I hope). And let's not start speaking about Mers-el-Kebir... [8\|] EDIT: and from my European POV, "Asia to Asians" is well worth some Monroe Doctrine : a rising power telling older colonial powers that a given continent was their own playing field.[;)]

warspite1 -> RE: How many independent countries were there in WW2 Asia/Pacific? (2/11/2010 12:39:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ambassador quote: ORIGINAL: wwengr quote: ORIGINAL: cavalry quote: ORIGINAL: Termite2 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. Are you sure , Portugal was neutral was it not ? Termite2 is correct. Technically, the Dutch and Australians violated Portuguese neutrality and late December 1941 when they moved troops in to prevent Japanese occupation. The Portuguese governor protested and the Dutch troops withdrew. The Japanese landed and quickly defeated the small Australian force. Portugal basically ignored the whole thing, but reasserted their colonial rights at the end of the war. This is not the only case of the Allies violating the neutrality of some countries. Norway, for example, or the numerous flights over Switzerland (even bombing them once - a navigation error, I hope). And let's not start speaking about Mers-el-Kebir... [8\|] EDIT: and from my European POV, "Asia to Asians" is well worth some Monroe Doctrine : a rising power telling older colonial powers that a given continent was their own playing field.[;)] Warspite1 If you did not want to start speaking about Mers El Kebir, why mention it?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.703125