What if the Dutch had surrendered?

[JeffroK]

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]

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]

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

[dwg]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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). 

[Anonymous]

It is not so much politics and military theory it is all in the people. We Dutch are very hard headed and sometimes do not know when the wind blows away from us. It is the people and Queen Wilhemina and Prins Bernhard would never surrender to a Nazi government occupation and many commanders would take their own matters to hand. So think what you wish with all your might but think also that the Dutch do not bow to anybody.

MO

[Mike Scholl]

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.

[Anonymous]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
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.

They did many things more efficienty. They fought and fought hard just like Tromp and die they might but they fought. So come to visit Holland for a while or maybe come with me to visit a province like Saba or Statia and think of what you see and hear and you will know Holland or the provinces will never surrender. We are very hard to kill and we are very independent and out governments knows this so do not ever beilieve that Holland will surrender to a bully, we will die first.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Well,
 
if the dutch surrender completly the japanese could "buy" the dutch colonies.

Sure, the brits will cry and be upset - but what could they do?
1.) Japan is NOT the enemy, not in public.
2.) the dutch are the "bad" ones... the japanese "free" the supressed people. How would the USA fight for colonisation? How could R. explain his country that the USA risks a war against an other nation? No Pearl Harbour... no sneak attack.
Sure, the strategic situation would be bad - but they could have done nothing.
3.) The brits neverever would risk a war against japan in this situation. They have zero publicity for an embargo of dutch oil to japan.
All they did in history (US and UK) was an embargo of SELLING goods to japan. They denied ressources from their countries. They never tried to denied ressources from other countries.
 
So - the dutch surrender would give japan the chance to liberate the formerly dutch colonies. This means a big bad situation for Roosevelt and Churchill. [:)]
The war against the nazis give the japanese a free hand.
 
No war for colonies - Roosevelt could not create an incident. Sure - some dead americans would upset the people, but enough americans would ask "why did they try to stop japanese tankers from free shipping trade?"
 
The japanese could steamroll australia and kick british a§§es from rangoon to dehli...  and the russians could also not send so many troops to man the counterattack in dec 1941.
 
In the end the a-bombs takes care for the result. But dutch and british colonisation could end in 1945. And - with the war later and without Pearl Harbour, maybe the japanese could achieve something different to total surrender?
 
An interesting scenario and a good what-if

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Well,

if the dutch surrender completely the Japanese could "buy" the dutch colonies.

Buy them from whom? The Dutch who were living in them? Buy them with what? What little the Japanese had in foreign currency reserves were "frozen". It's a silly notion..., the only way the Japanese were going to get hold of the Dutch East Indies was by force.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

The japanese could steamroll australia and kick british a§§es from rangoon to dehli...  and the russians could also not send so many troops to man the counterattack in dec 1941.

And - with the war later and without Pearl Harbour, maybe the japanese could achieve something different to total surrender?

An interesting scenario and a good what-if

Warspite1

No - a totally bizarre scenario and what-if.

With what troops exactly are the British Commonwealth going to be kicked back to Delhi? The 5,000 earmarked for Midway perhaps?? Yeah that should do it......... [8|]

I think you have completely missed a second point too. Roosevelt put huge economic pressure on Japan because of her insistence on waging war in China. Do you really think that having done that, the USA are going to sit back and watch Japan secure her oil supplies through the "buying off??" of the Dutch East Indies??

What a ridiculous idea. Do you honestly believe that in the dark days of late 41, with Germany seemingly about to crush the Soviet Union and Japan -now awash with NEI oil and free to grab Malaya and Burma, from the weakened Commonwealth, that the USA are not going to enter the war if the Japanese tried anything in the NEI? No they would have taken the view to fight now with some Allies or fight later.. alone.... against a victorious Japan and Germany.

[John 3rd]

I think the more interesting idea would be to start the war with all military forces taken out of Java.  The Dutch are gone.  Whomever could grab the islands first gets them with no damage and ready-to-go.  The Japanese would have to open with attacks but the race would be to capture this position ASAP.  How could the Allies form ANY type of defense?  Crazy ideas...
 

[Jaroen]

Definately an interesting "what if" to the OP!!!

Some remarks concerning Dutch surrender:
1. The Queen/King is not the head of state and does not qualify for any formal decision making.
2. She had a strong personality and did influence politics herself by strong willing ministers etc.
3. The government did formally surrender Holland to the Germans but not the overseas areas.
4. Some in between acting government was formed in London but had no real consitutional basis.
5. That in between acting government was not continued after the war was won.
6. After Japanese surrender the British were overseeing the DEI for a few years.

And:
I believe the Dutch Governor of the DEI did surrender to the Japanese like the Philipines/Americans did. Is there no way to implement such a thing into the WitP model? It does offer the Japanese player a more realistic approach to taking possession of all bases.

[xj900uk]

Yes that is true,  the Governor of the DEI did formally surrender to the Empire of Japan in early '42.  However it was such a token gesture that history (and the Japanese themselves) largely ignored the fact.

[bklooste]

I dont think it is possible , their is normally a lot of hatred if somoene takes your home . If they were neutral why would Japan start WWII  , the Dutch would just sell them the oil ...It would make the Northern option the likely one .

[Adnan Meshuggi]

sorry - we talk about second world war, correct?

The american people would not support a president who tells everyone that the nazis are the evil enemy and then he declare war with japan?

Maybe i am stupid, but that sound ill. No way without a sneak attack the USA attacks Japan. Maybe declaration of war with germany - another incident, another sunk destroyer (hitler avoided declaring war until Pearl - even if his submarines wer openly attacked by us ships)

Now, explain why the american people would support a war with japan because of the "official" liberation (and new contracts between the "free" indonesian people with japan who "helped" to liberate the poor supressed people) from colonisation.

Sure - as i wrote - the strategic situation for the americans are bad. With the indonesian oil the japanese could not be struggeld for china (the american people cared nil for china - if it needs a war to end the situation)

How would R. explain his agressions? No - the american politics could do nothing against this. Don´t forget that a lot people in indonesia will greet the japanese as liberators.

The brits get hit by the elephant IF they try to embargo the free sea lanes to dutch indonesia. In this case the brits are the agressors - the japanese just defend themself and the poor indonesian people against the evil imperailistic slaveholders and colonisations criminals.

Hope you understand. How would the brits avoid full and total naval anhilation if the americans stay neutral? Don´t forget - war in europe runs bad and the russians are no great help cause the japanese can invade sibiria cause they have all resources they need.

It´s a what-if. Sure. But the scenario sounds realistic IF the dutch royals accept the defeat and - with pressure from germany - give up their colonies (basicly to japan - offical the indonesians gets liberty and the japanese are just at the next corner to "help") Say Hitler asks if the dutch want 200.000 people get slaughtered or the colonies goes to japan. The answer will be easy.

Historically the french and the allies could do NOTHING against the "liberation" of indochina by the japanese army. Why should this be different with dutch indonesia?

The allies never ever could explain war with "we want to struggle japan - so we start war cause if the japanese get the ressources of indonesia they are to strong". Yeah - that is the bad thing with democracy. You have to explain things

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Yes - you are right

The question about the queen is sympolic. Like "the dutch surrender completly and the treaty says, the colonies will be "liberated" and in the future the japanese will "help" em to be "free".
Silly political nonsens. In the end, japanese troops will "defend" the ressources and the duch colonies will be in japanese hands.

short: queen stays and the dutch accept complete defeat in europe AND in the dutch indonesian area, japanese grab the colonies (they call it liberation)

For the game: japanese have the oil and the ressources of the "former" colony and no need for a sneak attack at pear harbour.

Complete different situation, even a later start date could be possible.

It is completly ahistorical. Just another scenario. It gives the japanese a huge advantage. Australia will be better prepared (and in europe the brits will miss these troops), the americans will be better prepared too.

It is fun - and it is not fantasy. All you need is some better geopolitical unterstandig from the nazi-side and a good timing from the japanese side. They still could "sneak attack" Pearl (for game purpose) but the dutch colonies are japanese from the beginning. You could give another start-date - say, spring 42 - and the sneak attack will be just an attack (functional radar etc.) This could be bad for the japanese (lots of pilots get killed) but also the us carriers could be IN the harbour and get sunk.

As you see, the scenario could be interesting. A better japanese position will make the game more interesting - without to much fantasy (like 10 new yamato-class-battleships or 10.000 zero-planes prebuild)

[Adnan Meshuggi]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Well,

if the dutch surrender completely the Japanese could "buy" the dutch colonies.

Buy them from whom? The Dutch who were living in them? Buy them with what? What little the Japanese had in foreign currency reserves were "frozen". It's a silly notion..., the only way the Japanese were going to get hold of the Dutch East Indies was by force.

Please look at the "" in it.
The japanese have nothing in it - just the "end of colonisation". But - with help from hitler - the dutch could "recognize" that they do not want any longer colonies. Say 200.000 dead dutch civilians or to give up these colonies. (just take the frame. the netherlands did surrender to germany in this scenario. So they can give up secretly the colonies cause the japanese give war emergency goods to germany for the colonies - tungsten for example. It is a what-if. Not history.
At the end it IS force. Like indochina. But the way to do it avoids war with the USA or UK (at last UK will do nothing against it without the USA. Also both wanted the US in the war with germany, not with japan) As long as the japanese do not start war, the allies will not start one either.
Do you belive that the USA attack Japan for the dutch colonies? Why should they - for indochina they didn´t. How will you explain the american people such war?

Indochina is the example... no US declaration of war
In this what-if: instead of indochina it is dutch indonesia...

I hope this explain the thing. In the end - it is a what-if. Not a historical lesson (in this case no war at all cause it is plain madness)