What if the Dutch had surrendered? (Full Version)

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



Message

Q-Ball -> What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/9/2010 5:36:28 AM)

The surrender of France and the establishment of a Vichy regime facilitated the occupation of Indochina by Japan. No question Vichy made this possible. The "What if Japan hadn't attacked the US" thread is interesting, but to me is sort of a far-fetched notion. But I thought of a question perhaps more within the realm of possibility: What if the Dutch government surrendered in 1940?

Dutch forces in Holland surrendered in 1940, but the Dutch government didn't; the Queen fled to England. There was never any question of the Dutch in the DEI fighting with whatever limited resources they had; they were an Allied power. But what if the Queen stayed in the Netherlands, and submitted to a Nazi occupation, like Denmark did initially?

If the DEI was effectively neutral, or even "Vichy-esque", this would present some opportunities for Japan. As it happened, the KNIL forces didn't stop the Japanese, but they definitely helped buy time for the Allies.

Anyone have further thoughts on this?



Ron Saueracker -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/9/2010 6:38:55 AM)

Yeah...if you had a sex slave and the place of her origin was busted (yet nobody connected your girl to the bust), why emmancipate her?[:D]



John 3rd -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/9/2010 6:53:41 AM)

Would be a WILD scenario to start with Japan having occupied BOTH Indochina AND Java! That would be pretty crazy...



jeffs -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/9/2010 7:08:40 AM)

A
quote:

Would be a WILD scenario to start with Japan having occupied BOTH Indochina AND Java! That would be pretty crazy...


At that point would Japan have bothered to go to war........If the US threatened, but did nothing out of PI....Hard to see that they would have needed a war.
That said, the military was pretty pig headed......But if the Dutch gave in on their own....War might not have happened...



John 3rd -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/9/2010 7:10:10 AM)

True enough.

Think of the position the Brits and Aussies would have been in. That would be an impossible fight/...



Historiker -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/9/2010 7:11:58 AM)

The war may start with an allied offensive. I.e. additional US troops in the PI, maybe in China.
No PH, additional ships in the Pacific, developed and garrisoned bases in the southern pacific. That's not that wild at all...



JeffroK -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/9/2010 7:32:26 AM)

The British might have felt reason to occupy the DEI, they took on the Vichy in Dakar, Mers el Kebir, Syria & Madagascar.

Or a Free Dutch movement might have formed in their Colonies.



Fishbed -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/9/2010 7:50:05 AM)

I think we can't compare the DEI to French Indochina: Vichy didn't care that much about giving Indochina up, that's one of his less important and further colonies, and hardly 5 or 10% of what its colonial ground standed for out there (gross estimate, didn't take a look at the numbers, but knowing a third of Africa was made of French colonies...). DEI were everything to the Dutch, that had nothing left anywhere. I think they may have fought if the Japanese had made such a move.

Tell me if I am wrong, but the Dutch retreat looks like part of a plan, wasn't it? I mean, I don't think the Dutch ever thought that they would actually stop a German offensive, even before the world heard of Blitzkrieg, I guess that this kind of event was covered by the doctrine (unlike in France, where no-one would have thought such an total defeat even remotely possible)



Jo van der Pluym -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/9/2010 7:54:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Or a Free Dutch movement might have formed in their Colonies.



I think earlier that Indonesia then is raised in 1941 or 1942, And that the Dutch where send home.


Mayby a interesting note. I have read a article from the Militairy Spectator (A magazine for militay personel) that in 1941 is to start to reorganize there forces on Java. The plans where that on the end of 1942 the forces on Java excist out 6 Brigades, each 2 Infantrybataljons mechanized on Overvalwagens, 1 Gevechtswagen bataljon with 90 AFV's (Light Tanks, Armored Cars) and 1 SP Artillerybataljon.



Mike Scholl -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/9/2010 8:06:31 AM)

Well, it was the occupation of French Indo-China that brought on the US Oil Embargo.  Hard to say what an attempt to occupy the Netherlands East Indies would have involved.   Of course there's also the probability that the capture of the Queen might have resulted in the creation of "Free Holland" in 1940.  The East Indies were a far more viable base than anything DeGaulle had.  Or of US "protective occupation" as was done in Iceland.

Some interesting possibilities..., but based on an unlikely premise.  Why would the Dutch Government not flee to England?  They'd already seen what happened to the  Governments of Austria and Denmark and Norway.



gladiatt -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/9/2010 8:14:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

I think we can't compare the DEI to French Indochina: Vichy didn't care that much about giving Indochina up, that's one of his less important and further colonies, and hardly 5 or 10% of what its colonial ground standed for out there (gross estimate, didn't take a look at the numbers, but knowing a third of Africa was made of French colonies...). DEI were everything to the Dutch, that had nothing left anywhere. I think they may have fought if the Japanese had made such a move.

Tell me if I am wrong, but the Dutch retreat looks like part of a plan, wasn't it? I mean, I don't think the Dutch ever thought that they would actually stop a German offensive, even before the world heard of Blitzkrieg, I guess that this kind of event was covered by the doctrine (unlike in France, where no-one would have thought such an total defeat even remotely possible)



i thought Vichy France did as usual for Indochina: no real decision at all; a bit of this, a bit of that. There were a few ships (some threadster would find wich one, no doubt) that get in fight with the Siam Navy in 1940 IIRC, also a few troops. Vichy France governement was still in the idea that a batallion of local militia leaded by french leaders could resist to asiatic units (usual occidental blindness of the time).
The idea was still to "colaborate" with the stronghest side, trying to preserve a kind of independancy (wich last until march 1945 IIRC ???).
Indochina was not the largest colony, nor the most populated, but one of the richest (rubber trees for tires for example, and also some copper or precious metals).
French people (soldiers, admins, settlers, politicians) were divided and puzzled: most of them didn't knew what to do, what was the right choice (or, if not the right, the wisest).
Had France not surrender, some efforts could have been made to try to deny Indochina to Japan (firstly by political means), and resist some time (once in conflict). But it would have been only buying time. Anyway, in a global conflict, this could have help a bit the allies side.



Fishbed -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/9/2010 8:21:27 AM)

By 1941, as you said there was little preparation nor real choice, although the French on the ground opposed a symbolic resistance on the ground and in the air during the first days. Japan being soon to be formally allied to Germany and Vichy having distanced itself forever from the British after Mers-El-Kebir, while being tricked by the negociations with Japan without being in any position favorable enough anyway, with still some token guarantees from the Japanese side, decided to stop (probably in the same fashion as in Europe, with the self-reassuring but obviously Utopian thought that it was just in order to buy some time). But war was actually waged for some days.



CaptBeefheart -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/9/2010 9:08:02 AM)

I'd guess the UK would've taken upon themselves to administer the DEI, same as they did from 1811-15 when Holland was annexed by Napoleon. However, if for some reason a pro-Axis DEI existed unmolested in 1940, they probably would've traded oil with Japan and Japan would then have lost its need to go to war. A free trading DEI would've suited Imperial Japan's needs just fine without an invasion.



Shark7 -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/9/2010 2:23:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffs

A
quote:

Would be a WILD scenario to start with Japan having occupied BOTH Indochina AND Java! That would be pretty crazy...


At that point would Japan have bothered to go to war........If the US threatened, but did nothing out of PI....Hard to see that they would have needed a war.
That said, the military was pretty pig headed......But if the Dutch gave in on their own....War might not have happened...


Of course there was the small issue of the US telling Japan to 'get out' of China and the Embargo that ensued that might have forced the issue anyway.



ckammp -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/9/2010 2:29:18 PM)

If Japan had been able to occupy the DEI as the did French Indochina, thay would not have needed to start a war with the UK or the US. They would, instead, attack the USSR, most likely in conjunction with the German attack, and with the hope that it would be a quick victory.



vlcz -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/9/2010 3:38:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
The British might have felt reason to occupy the DEI, they took on the Vichy in Dakar, Mers el Kebir, Syria & Madagascar.

Or a Free Dutch movement might have formed in their Colonies.


Completely agree, given the politics of the time there is no way the commonwealth could accept Japan between singapore and Australia. My only question remains how much can be US out of this conflict, losing his main pressure weapon against japan.

Perhaps a interesting scenario to work in the editor?





topeverest -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/9/2010 5:55:14 PM)

I dont see this as a possible eventuality. Any strategic mind of the time knew the importance of DEI to Japan, and the cost of letting it fall in their hands, given Japans imperialistic sights. While a potentially interesting scenario to play to give the Japs a real one-up and chance to win outright, I find no basis in fact to make this reality.

If by chance it did fall into Jap hands as is supposed by this line of thought, I agree with the sentiment that there would be no need for Japan to goto War with the Allies. I think a left turn against Russia and China would have been the most likely outcome. I dont see a war with Commonwealth and USA - and more importantly, I dont see USA and Commonwealth going after Japan for China.

The allies might go after Japan for a Russian war. I think this basis would be a much better war scenario grounded in potential reality - but pretty hard to design due to its highly specualtive nature.



oldman45 -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/9/2010 6:10:17 PM)

I doubt they would try Russia again but with the DEI in their control and assuming they had no interest in India then they could consolidate China and really thumb their noses at the US and the embargo.



Historiker -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/9/2010 6:46:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vlcz


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
The British might have felt reason to occupy the DEI, they took on the Vichy in Dakar, Mers el Kebir, Syria & Madagascar.

Or a Free Dutch movement might have formed in their Colonies.


Completely agree, given the politics of the time there is no way the commonwealth could accept Japan between singapore and Australia. My only question remains how much can be US out of this conflict, losing his main pressure weapon against japan.

Perhaps a interesting scenario to work in the editor?




Why not let the Allies intervene while Japan is in the process of occupying the DEI?



Alfred -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/10/2010 12:50:22 AM)

This is a clear hypothetical but in the responses to date, I think there has been some muddied thinking about what would be the relevant facts.

1.  There was no certainty that the Dutch government in its entirety would flee to London.  The Belgian king did not flee, nor as already pointed out, the Danish government remained.

2.  Posters are assuming that the same factors which led to the creation of the Free French also applied to the Dutch situation.  This is not correct.  Significant differences between the French and Dutch positions were:

(a)  the Free French movement was fundamentally a military revolt.  In 1940 it had a somewhat "rebellious" leader in De Gaulle (even before 1940 and during the 1940 battles consider his views on the use of armour which were contrary to the establishment's views), whose initial importance was greatly boosted by British propaganda/support.  Anyone care to nominate a similar individual from the Dutch military to lead a military revolt?

(b)  there would have been no military substance to the Free French revolt without having access to the trained French military manpower which was evacuated from Dunkirk.  There was no similar Dutch manpower pool to seed a Free Dutch rebellion (just as there was no similar Free Belgian revolt).

(c)  I can't recall a single significant French overseas garrison (in terms of size and relative quality of materiel)or colony which revolted against Vichy France in 1940.  Why exactly would the same not have applied to Dutch colonies?

3.  IIRC there was some thought given by the British to the possibility that they might have to move into the DEI, but this was primarily in the context of not having to combat an active Dutch resistance.  Implementation of this would have been affected by the following:

(a)  it is hard to see where the British would have found sufficient forces to move into all of the DEI.  Throughout 1940/41 they were accutely aware that they were considerably short of the forces needed to hold Malaya.  All they could scrape up was basically a battalion to move into Thailand in the event/to forestall a Japanese move into Thailand.

(b) the situation which pertained during the Napoleonic Wars was simply not comparable.  Then there was no counter vailing third power to oppose the British move.  A British move could be made on the cheap.  In 1940/41 there was a Japan which was much more powerful than the local British Empire forces in the region.

4.  Should the Dutch not have participated in the oil embargo instigated by the USA, are we really certain that an overstretched British Empire or a peacetime sized American military, would have been that keen to take on additional burdens.  After all throughout the entire period of 1939-1945, Spain, Sweden and Turkey were allowed to continue trading with Germany.  To Germany's war effort, access to foreign sources of tungsten and iron ore were just as vital as were foreign sources of rubber and oil to the Japanese in allowing them to conduct their war in China.

5.  The American move into Iceland is not comparable to a similar move into the DEI for these reasons:

(a)  it had the tacit acquiesence of the Danish government.  Would a surrendered Dutch government have been similarly inclined?

(b)  there was no local hostile population.  Would the anti Dutch Acehnese, Javanese etc been keen to see their white dutch overlords been keen to see them replaced by equally white Americans?

(c)  Iceland was seen as a valuable asset to have in the undeclared war with German submarines in the Atlantic.  there was no similar tactical reason to encourage an American move into the DEI.

(d)  in practical terms Iceland was safe from a German invasion, hence the size of the American garrison could be kept quite low.  Remember, Iceland was occupied after the amphibious lift capability of the Kriegsmarine had been shredded off Norway.  Nor did the resources of Iceland draw envy from German economic planners.  The same conditions did not apply in the DEI against a potential Japanese opponent.

Alfred



JeffroK -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/10/2010 2:45:45 AM)

Anyone care to nominate a similar individual from the Dutch military to lead a military revolt?

6 1/4

Alfred, a lot of interesting comments, maybe some opposite thoughts

This is a clear hypothetical but in the responses to date, I think there has been some muddied thinking about what would be the relevant facts.

1. There was no certainty that the Dutch government in its entirety would flee to London. The Belgian king did not flee, nor as already pointed out, the Danish government remained.
By dec41, we are suppossing that the Dutch either fled to England or stayed at home, plus IMHO the Danes felt they were "safe" under German occupation.

2. Posters are assuming that the same factors which led to the creation of the Free French also applied to the Dutch situation. This is not correct. Significant differences between the French and Dutch positions were:

(a) the Free French movement was fundamentally a military revolt. In 1940 it had a somewhat "rebellious" leader in De Gaulle (even before 1940 and during the 1940 battles consider his views on the use of armour which were contrary to the establishment's views), whose initial importance was greatly boosted by British propaganda/support. Anyone care to nominate a similar individual from the Dutch military to lead a military revolt?
de Gaulle was an odd man out, but if he didnt raise the banner there were a few others who may have, many of the Colonies who rose under the FF probably would have anyway.

(b) there would have been no military substance to the Free French revolt without having access to the trained French military manpower which was evacuated from Dunkirk. There was no similar Dutch manpower pool to seed a Free Dutch rebellion (just as there was no similar Free Belgian revolt).
Probably right, but most of the French lifted off Dunkirk went back to France, the number left were not substantial but there enough of French descent to get the ball rolling and they absorbed more French plus much larger numbers of their colonial soldiers and kept getting larger. The Dutch could only draw on Suriname & the DEI but there were a lot of people of Dutch descent in the New World to motivate and draw upon.

(c) I can't recall a single significant French overseas garrison (in terms of size and relative quality of materiel)or colony which revolted against Vichy France in 1940. Why exactly would the same not have applied to Dutch colonies?
The Vichy were smart enough to replace anyone with FF leanings with hardened Vichyites. A Dutch Occupied Govt would probaly do the same

3. IIRC there was some thought given by the British to the possibility that they might have to move into the DEI, but this was primarily in the context of not having to combat an active Dutch resistance. Implementation of this would have been affected by the following:

(a) it is hard to see where the British would have found sufficient forces to move into all of the DEI. Throughout 1940/41 they were accutely aware that they were considerably short of the forces needed to hold Malaya. All they could scrape up was basically a battalion to move into Thailand in the event/to forestall a Japanese move into Thailand.
If you increase the threat, maybe the Brits would release some of the Division they were hoarding in the UK plus release more of the RN & RAF. Plus, Australia might have received something a bit better than the Wirraway to fit out the RAAF.

(b) the situation which pertained during the Napoleonic Wars was simply not comparable. Then there was no counter vailing third power to oppose the British move. A British move could be made on the cheap. In 1940/41 there was a Japan which was much more powerful than the local British Empire forces in the region.

4. Should the Dutch not have participated in the oil embargo instigated by the USA, are we really certain that an overstretched British Empire or a peacetime sized American military, would have been that keen to take on additional burdens. After all throughout the entire period of 1939-1945, Spain, Sweden and Turkey were allowed to continue trading with Germany. To Germany's war effort, access to foreign sources of tungsten and iron ore were just as vital as were foreign sources of rubber and oil to the Japanese in allowing them to conduct their war in China.
We are talking about the period after May 40, a small RN/USN task force based out of Singapore & Subic Bay could have created a blockade to enforce the embargo. Spain & Turkey had land communication with Germany & the Swedes basically the Baltic Lake to traverse. I'm [positiove the RN kept trying to blockade shipments out of Narvik.
5. The American move into Iceland is not comparable to a similar move into the DEI for these reasons:

(a) it had the tacit acquiesence of the Danish government. Would a surrendered Dutch government have been similarly inclined?
We'll never know, a surrendered Danish Govt let its land be occupied.
(b) there was no local hostile population. Would the anti Dutch Acehnese, Javanese etc been keen to see their white dutch overlords been keen to see them replaced by equally white Americans?

(c) Iceland was seen as a valuable asset to have in the undeclared war with German submarines in the Atlantic. there was no similar tactical reason to encourage an American move into the DEI.
Oil, and many other resources to be kept from an enemy as much as being useful to the Allies, not just the USA. Plus a strong strategic position to block japanese movement.

(d) in practical terms Iceland was safe from a German invasion, hence the size of the American garrison could be kept quite low. Remember, Iceland was occupied after the amphibious lift capability of the Kriegsmarine had been shredded off Norway. Nor did the resources of Iceland draw envy from German economic planners. The same conditions did not apply in the DEI against a potential Japanese opponent.
Occupying the DEI isnt going to stop the japanese, it just makes them think twice, and I'm sure the kriegsmarine would have loved Iceland as a UBoat & LR Bomber base!!

Alfred




topeverest -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/10/2010 3:39:07 AM)

Very interesting comments. Debate will be endless, but a scenario certrainly could be built.

Players who are aching to get their hands on a scenario where Japan might win outright or force a complete stalemate are likely to love this postulation, as are Allied enthusiasts looking for a bigger challenge.

I see a partial and complete DEI pre-conquest scenario. Is someone offering to take the lead and dive into this effort, or is it just playeful bantor?



Fishbed -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/10/2010 4:27:52 AM)

A Japanese-British standoff in the East Indies in late 1940 would be totally awesome, gameplay wise indeed!



dwg -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/12/2010 2:15:16 PM)

quote:


Posters are assuming that the same factors which led to the creation of the Free French also applied to the Dutch situation.  This is not correct.  Significant differences between the French and Dutch positions were:

(a)  the Free French movement was fundamentally a military revolt.


From the Free French perspective it was a refusal to accept orders from a government under duress, precisely the situation that would exist for the DEI, and rather than each unit having to decide individually which way to go the DEI have an entirely separate government infrastructure with its own head of state in the governor general and its own armed forces able to make the decision as a whole.

quote:


Anyone care to nominate a similar individual from the Dutch military to lead a military revolt?


The governor general, van Starkenborgh, doesn't seem to have been too much of a slouch in imposing martial law as soon as the Netherlands fell. Admiral Helfrich appears to have been extremely aggressive in directing the naval defence of the DEI as does his subordinate, Rear Admiral Doorman. Lieutenant General Berenschot, CiC of KNIL, was apparently an extremely capable organiser and diplomat and his successor after his death in a plane crash, Lieutenant General ter Poorten was a solid soldier but less of a diplomat. Any of these should have been at least as capable as De Gaulle, Berenschot probably better.

quote:

there would have been no military substance to the Free French revolt without having access to the trained French military manpower which was evacuated from Dunkirk.  There was no similar Dutch manpower pool


KNIL had 35,000 men under arms, the Home Guard was apparently around 40,000, add in the Navy, Gouvernmentsmarine and paramilitary forces and you are getting towards 100,000. In July 1940 the Free French OOB stood at 7000 men and 3700 in the Navy. Much of the eventual Free French strength was made up of conscripted colonial troops, the Dutch East Indies had a population of c100 million to call upon.

quote:

it is hard to see where the British would have found sufficient forces to move into all of the DEI. 


The Australian CMF is the obvious choice. If the DEI surrender to the Axis then the DEI become Australia's northern border. That's not the case for Malaya with the DEI government siding with the allies and acting as a buffer zone for the Australian mainland.

quote:


5.  The American move into Iceland is not comparable to a similar move into the DEI for these reasons:

(a)  it had the tacit acquiesence of the Danish government.  Would a surrendered Dutch government have been similarly inclined?


Iceland had been independent since 1918, though in personal union with the King of Denmark and following Danish foreign policy. The British move into Iceland occurred after the occupation of Denmark and after British discussions with the Icelandic government on 9th April 1940 where they were invited to join the belligerent powers, which they declined. On 10th April the Icelandic government declared King Christian X to be unable to perform his duties and suspended the personal union, returning all powers to Iceland. British forces landed in May, transferring the defences to the US in July 1941 under a US-Icelandic defence agreement. The Danes were irrelevent to the process once the Icelanders concluded they were under duress, so this is actually a model for how the DEI might react following a Dutch surrender, though given the different national psyches it is likely they would have opted for siding with the Allies rather than the neutrality preferred by the Icelanders.

quote:

in practical terms Iceland was safe from a German invasion, hence the size of the American garrison could be kept quite low.  Remember, Iceland was occupied after the amphibious lift capability of the Kriegsmarine had been shredded off Norway.


In actuality the UK considered there to be an imminent risk of a German invasion of Iceland and Operation Fork, the occupation, was contemporaneous with the Norwegian campaign, not after it.

Thailand is another example of what happens when a government is considered to be acting under duress. When the Japanese occupied Thailand and a pro-Japanese government took power, the Washington Embassy defected en masse and together with the dowager Queen in London formed the Seri Thai movement, which by the end of the war was actually running the Thai government, the only thing stopping a consolidated uprising against the Japanese in conjunction with the Thai Army being Mountbatten's request that they hold off until Operation Roger, the allied invasion of Thailand via Phuket.



xj900uk -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/15/2010 1:29:23 PM)

2b honest though, in real life the Dutch troops in the DEI werren't that much opposition - they were largely swept aside by the Japanese forces even quicker than the British were in Malaya and southern Burma.  And Doorman's (on paper) powerful ABDA-cruiser/destroyer force delayed the Japanese invasion force by all of one day which ended up with nearly if not all its ships littering the sea bed...



oldman45 -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/15/2010 4:41:11 PM)

It might be an interesting scenario to play but think how it might play out.

Instead of Pear Harbor being hit you have the KB show up off Singapore, and the baby KB sail into the Java sea. A day or two later there is nothing to oppose the Japanese from landing where ever they want. They apologize to the US for any shipping sunk in the attacks and the pacifists in the US government keep a declaration of war from passing congress. Your game lasts 45 - 60 days as Japan consolidates the DEI and they build up their bases in the region. The focus goes back to China and then what do you do?



Hokum -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/15/2010 7:26:32 PM)

quote:


From the Free French perspective it was a refusal to accept orders from a government under duress, precisely the situation that would exist for the DEI, and rather than each unit having to decide individually which way to go the DEI have an entirely separate government infrastructure with its own head of state in the governor general and its own armed forces able to make the decision as a whole.


Noone thought that Vichy France was under duress at the time in 1940-1942. After all, it was the legitimate governement. As the initial poster said, it was a military revolt against the Armistice by people who thought that english and the empire's support could win the war ("France has lost a battle, she has not lost the war"). Even if the first ralliements were officially made by civilians, you will notice that energetic officers were not far behind. (Leclerc in Tchad, D'argenlieu in New Caledonia). 





Mike Scholl -> RE: What if the Dutch had surrendered? (2/15/2010 8:14:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

2b honest though, in real life the Dutch troops in the DEI werren't that much opposition - they were largely swept aside by the Japanese forces even quicker than the British were in Malaya and southern Burma.  And Doorman's (on paper) powerful ABDA-cruiser/destroyer force delayed the Japanese invasion force by all of one day which ended up with nearly if not all its ships littering the sea bed...



The Dutch fought to the best of their abilities with what they had available. But they did one thing far more efficiently than any of their allies..., they blew things up! The Americans left the Japs enough supply in the Philippines to feed their army for months. The Brits failed to demolish resources and oil wells in Malaya, Borneo, and Burma. The Dutch were much more successful at denial demolition throughout most of the East Indies.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.515625