Question about Dutch Colonies

[Japan]

Would it be possible for the Axis to install a Puppet Government in Nederlands, who would give the Dutch colonies to Japan, something similar to what the French Vichy Government did?

I understand that Java, Sumatra ect was more or less ministering themselves, but owned territories by Nederlands, so technically having a Dutch government giving them to Japan would at lease given legitimacy for Japan to enter only those terretorys ? Internationally I think it would been better then a suprise attack on the US, as Japan would had a larger chanse to avoid conflict, not sure they would avoided it, but the chase would defiantly been bigger then by attacking US directly.

Any here who is skilled on the political situation, and who could made a professional dudgement of the possibilities of success if Japan and Germany would implemented the above theoretical sulution.

At lease it would not made the US Population so eger to go and die for their country, as the suprise attack did.

[stuman]

I think that since the official  Dutch goverment was in exile residing in London that any puppet goverment would be considered illegal under international law.

[Alfred]

Vichy France is not an appropriate example.
 
(1)  Vichy was the "legitimate" government of France.
 
(2)  Those French colonies which remained loyal to France were in effect armed neutrals, wary of  both the Allies and the Axis - the situation which developed in Indochina was really an acceptance of an adjacent military force majeure, a situation not applying on Madagasscar nor in the Dutch Indies.
 
(3) There is no doubt that the Dutch population and institutions remained totally loyal to the transplanted legitimate government - again France is not comparable as Vichy never had the same level of loyalty.
 
(4)  Even had there been some local coups engineered in some of the Dutch colonies in order to "transfer" them to Japan, British/Commonwealth forces acting upon a request from the legitimate Dutch government, would have intervened before the Japanese could have consolidated their "gain".
 
(5)  The oil embargo against Japan directly stemmed from the Japanese acquisition of bases in Indochina - any partial acquisition of Dutch colonies would very likely have resulted in a more powerful US riposte, such as the placement of US forces to protect the colonies for the Dutch - in other words a response akin to the movement of US forces onto Iceland.
 
Alfred

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Vichy France is not an appropriate example.

(1)  Vichy was the "legitimate" government of France.

(2)  Those French colonies which remained loyal to France were in effect armed neutrals, wary of  both the Allies and the Axis - the situation which developed in Indochina was really an acceptance of an adjacent military force majeure, a situation not applying on Madagasscar nor in the Dutch Indies.

(3) There is no doubt that the Dutch population and institutions remained totally loyal to the transplanted legitimate government - again France is not comparable as Vichy never had the same level of loyalty.

(4)  Even had there been some local coups engineered in some of the Dutch colonies in order to "transfer" them to Japan, British/Commonwealth forces acting upon a request from the legitimate Dutch government, would have intervened before the Japanese could have consolidated their "gain".

(5)  The oil embargo against Japan directly stemmed from the Japanese acquisition of bases in Indochina - any partial acquisition of Dutch colonies would very likely have resulted in a more powerful US riposte, such as the placement of US forces to protect the colonies for the Dutch - in other words a response akin to the movement of US forces onto Iceland.

Alfred

Ok sir, thanks alot for your replay.
Many nice perspectives here, thanks alot sir.

[rtrapasso]

Vichy was the "legitimate" government of France.

Yep - strangely, (or maybe not so strangely), France was the about the only European power that didn't have a government in exile in Britain... they had an ARMY in exile, but no government...

i guess this means that the French actually lost WW2 TWICE - once when the Germans invaded, and once when the Allies invaded. [X(]

[Sarganto]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
i guess this means that the French actually lost WW2 TWICE - once when the Germans invaded, and once when the Allies invaded. [X(]

I tend to like that point of view

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
i guess this means that the French actually lost WW2 TWICE - once when the Germans invaded, and once when the Allies invaded. [X(]

Actually, they lost it twice to the Germans. Once as France in 1940, and again as Vichy France in 1942.

[Thesix]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Actually, they lost it twice to the Germans. Once as France in 1940, and again as Vichy France in 1942.

Right.
The lesson is probably that any democraty in the world should carefully select its politicians when voting.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
i guess this means that the French actually lost WW2 TWICE - once when the Germans invaded, and once when the Allies invaded. [X(]

Actually, they lost it twice to the Germans. Once as France in 1940, and again as Vichy France in 1942.

Well, maybe then they lost the war three times?? [:D]

[Japan]

Well  Denmark had no Goverment in exile... but a Goverment in Dennmark ^^

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Vichy was the "legitimate" government of France.

Yep - strangely, (or maybe not so strangely), France was the about the only European power that didn't have a government in exile in Britain... they had an ARMY in exile, but no government...

They were also the only ones to actually sign an armistice with Germany. Most of the others (except Denmark, indeed) had a large part of their government withdrawing to London. Four belgian ministers, the dutch royal family (and I don't remember how many ministers), etc, while from France De Gaulle alone came across the Channel - and he was only a very minor member of the government.

Free French forces actually were at a risk of charges of treason...

[stuman]

Never thought about it like that. Got to be some kind of record [;)]

[Heeward]

Here is a link to some information on Japanese negotiations with the Dutch
 
http://www.geocities.com/dutcheastindies/DEI_oil.html

[JeffroK]

If germany captured the Dutch Royal Family & Government would this possibility increase.

But I believe the Brits would have tried to occupy & garrison Sumatra & Java, using troops destined for Malaya as they had little else to spare.

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

If germany captured the Dutch Royal Family & Government would this possibility increase.

But I believe the Brits would have tried to occupy & garrison Sumatra & Java, using troops destined for Malaya as they had little else to spare.

Well if they had captured the Royal Family and Goverment, and then installed a Puppet Goverment, and Britain invaded Dutch East Indies... Then the Dutch Flendres (Dutch Voulentere Divition) could "liberated" the dutch east indies.
Also, the Dutch Puppet Goverment could then requested assistanse from Japan to "liberate" the Dutch east indies.

[YankeeAirRat]

From various books that I have read stated the locals in nearly all of the European Pacific colonies were very excited to see the Japanese come in and throw off the oppressors before the war. However things changed drasitically when the Japanese actually came in and started to be worse off then what the Europeans ever were. So I think that even if the governments had caved in to the Japanese and given thier thier colonies over, the nationalist movements that were simmering in the various colonies would have fought against even a puppet regime.

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

If germany captured the Dutch Royal Family & Government would this possibility increase.

But I believe the Brits would have tried to occupy & garrison Sumatra & Java, using troops destined for Malaya as they had little else to spare.

Quite certainly. The DEI had natural ressources that Germany needed too, so UK would not have left a "neutral/surrendered" Netherlands trade with Germany. Exactly as they invaded Iceland in May 1940, to prevent the Germans from using the island ; or the way they invaded Syria and Lebanon in June-July 1941 ; or the invasion with the Soviets of neutral Iran/Persia in August-September 1941.

[Skyland]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
i guess this means that the French actually lost WW2 TWICE - once when the Germans invaded, and once when the Allies invaded. [X(]

Actually, they lost it twice to the Germans. Once as France in 1940, and again as Vichy France in 1942.

Well, maybe then they lost the war three times?? [:D]

Actually after 1942, there was only one french gov, in exile (former free french), who won the war on allied side. All former vichy forces joined this gov, except Indochina territory who tried to avoid to be destroyed by japanese forces with some success until march 9th 1945.