IRL how much have Japanese got from conquered territories

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: mogami

Empires always drain more then they feed in.

Not 'always'. Empires often drain the colonial power. There are exceptions, such as the 16th-17th century Spanish empire in the Western Hemisphere. The Spanish economy depended on the massive annual treasure fleets. The British got more from India than they put in. Think of all the 'Indians' who died fighting for the Allies in WWI and WWII.

[mogami]

Hi, Zorch, I think you are looking on the surface only. Spain was ruined by her treasure fleets. (they never spent the money improving Spain) As far as soldiers dying for the empire I think that helped bring about it's end. Hard to keep the natives down when they have bled for you. In fact several more ancient regimes went out of their way to import soldiers from their own culture rather then employ "native" troops (think the Ptolemies) But Then I am sure you can counter this. The point I am attempting to make is simple. When you spend all you energy and resources maintaining an empire you find you don't really put that much more in the bank. Empires always need to expand. There is no safe border. As such you may need to occupy deserts.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: mogami

Hi, Zorch, I think you are looking on the surface only. Spain was ruined by her treasure fleets. (they never spent the money improving Spain) As far as soldiers dying for the empire I think that helped bring about it's end. Hard to keep the natives down when they have bled for you. In fact several more ancient regimes went out of their way to import soldiers from their own culture rather then employ "native" troops (think the Ptolemies) But Then I am sure you can counter this. The point I am attempting to make is simple. When you spend all you energy and resources maintaining an empire you find you don't really put that much more in the bank. Empires always need to expand. There is no safe border. As such you may need to occupy deserts.

I respectfully differ with you.
Empires, when run well, supplement the owning country. Great Britain would not have been a world power without her colonies. Colonies that became part of the Commonwealth and have economic ties that survived independence. This is not to say that all powers ran their colonies sensibly. They had to learn the hard way that independence was inevitable; and to educate the indigenous people for that day.

Spain was not ruined by the treasure fleets, but on how she chose to spend that money (and by irrational governance).

Empires do not 'always need to expand'. Although expansion/foreign adventure serves as an outlet for destabilizing elements in a country. That's why the French Foreign Legion was formed - to get young foreigners out of France.

Rome generally stopped expanding under Augustus; it has been argued that subsequent conquests (such as Britain) were not economically viable but done for the vanity of emperors.

Please cite an example to support your statement, 'When you spend all you energy and resources maintaining an empire you find you don't really put that much more in the bank.'

[rustysi]

This is only a game. This is only a game.

And a wonderful 'what if' game at that.

[rustysi]

As far as soldiers dying for the empire I think that helped bring about it's end. Hard to keep the natives down when they have bled for you.

Yup, and its not only just the natives. We Colonials got a bit uppity at one point too.[:D]

The point I am attempting to make is simple. When you spend all you energy and resources maintaining an empire you find you don't really put that much more in the bank. Empires always need to expand.

Agreed.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

As far as soldiers dying for the empire I think that helped bring about it's end. Hard to keep the natives down when they have bled for you.

Yup, and its not only just the natives. We Colonials got a bit uppity at one point too.[:D]

The point I am attempting to make is simple. When you spend all you energy and resources maintaining an empire you find you don't really put that much more in the bank. Empires always need to expand.

Agreed.

The Ruler's megalomania is the thing that needs to expand, if you ask me.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The greatest "what if" for me is what would have happened if the Japanese had went in with a "liberating" mindset rather than a colonial one.

I've spent some time reading on the Japanese occupation of the DEI. For the first three months, the Indonesian people felt this was their chance at freedom and welcomed the Japanese invasion. Over time it became clear that the Japanese were just replacing the Dutch.

...A complete fantasy given the Japanese mindset of the time, but interesting nonetheless.

The war would have taken a drastic turn if the Japanese had established popular national government under their umbrella from the start.

I was thinking more along the lines that the Japanese favours immediately establishing national governments to replace the colonial administration in Vietnam, Malaya and Indonesia. Of course, these governments would be under obligations to the Japanese but even so, this could have been an excellent opportunity on so many levels to give Japan an improved strategic position for the war.

warspite1

I’m glad you’ve caveated this comment with the sentence in bold. Yes, this is interesting in the same way that Hitler deciding to give Ukrainians their freedom is interesting – neither is a realistic scenario but interesting to consider.

But I'm interested to understand how you think this policy would have drastically altered Japan’s position?

Surely this policy would only mean a significant alteration of Japan’s position if such a policy had greatly affected production, extraction of resources or manpower for the army. Presumably you are still factoring in that even with a more 'enlightened' policy, this would not necessarily mean 100% of the population deciding to side with the Japanese. What sort of effect, what numbers are you suggesting would be possible that would significantly improve Japan's dire strategic situation?

Edit: Spelling

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: spence

With the focus of AE in mind, the Bengal Famine springs immediately to mind.

I haven't read extensively about the Bengal Famine of 1943 (there were apparently several famines and not all when the Brits were in charge). It does seem that the colonial overlords had a role to play in that disaster but exactly how much of a role seems to be in dispute.

There's not much dispute worth talking about. The famine came about as a direct result of British wartime measures against the Japanese. What food was on hand was taken and restrictions on shipping (to move grain) put in place.

It's interesting that it's been compared with the Great Hunger in Ireland and for good reason. The food was availible, the political will to distrubute it wasn't.

But it seems that there are only a few of the same sort of nationalists that started WW2 with the US that dispute the starring role of the Japanese Army in the Nanking Massacre of 1937 (the same ones that say it must have been the Martians who sank the USS Panay and strafed the crew as they abandoned ship). The only thing that is really in dispute about that massacre is the number of dead Chinese created by the IJA in those two weeks.

Sorry but leopards don't change their spots.

The conduct of the IJA in China was deplorable, but in the very murky world of political morals, it's notable only for it's scale. The Dutch, for example, did not run a progressive regime in Indonesia and it was far from peaceful.

The failure of the Japanese to properly capitalzie on this lost them the chance to massively complicate the war.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

There's not much dispute worth talking about. The famine came about as a direct result of British wartime measures against the Japanese. What food was on hand was taken and restrictions on shipping (to move grain) put in place.

warspite1

I've read a bit on this and it's clear that there were many causes of the famine. Which of these one chooses as the most important largely depends on one's political outlook/axe one has to grind etc - although that is true of much in life. From what I've read I can't be certain of exactly where the main fault lies but the comment above - and particularly that the famine was just the result of British wartime measures against the Japanese and then their restrictions on alleviating the suffering - is waaay to simplistic. It's also the easy route to take - simply blame the colonial rulers - and of course Churchill - and bingo. Could more have been done? That appears to be unarguable? Was there any truth that Churchill was looking to punish the Indians for the quit India movement? I like to believe not, but there are questions that need answering. But what needed to done? Whose fault was it that more was not done? That is less clear. Simply 'doing more' is not always - indeed rarely - an actual, practical answer to a problem - and often only available with hindsight.

[mind_messing]

It's also the easy route to take - simply blame the colonial rulers - and of course Churchill - and bingo.

It's also the correct route. On the highest level, it wasn't even India's war. On the lowest, it was colonial policy to ship rice surplus out of threatened areas and seize shipping (the means to move the rice) to deny it to the IJA.

To bring the discussion back to the original point, the IJA behaved deplorably in China. The British were willing to cause hunger and eventually starvation if it meant they could dump it in the laps of the IJA in the event of an invasion. There was no colonial regime that can claim any sort of moral high ground in the Pacific War.

But what needed to done?

Accept food imports.

Whose fault was it that more was not done? That is less clear.

That lands at the War Cabinets door.

Simply 'doing more' is not always - indeed rarely - an actual, practical answer to a problem - and often only available with hindsight.

This is true, but it needs to be considered within the wider picture. The argument that food imports was impossible due to shipping losses has some merit, but no real effort was made. The food was moving, just not to India. Granted, a global conflict will inevitably lead to shortages, but that's no excuse for blundering the relief attempt.

Put it this way, compare the response of the Allies to the famine in Bengal.

Then compare it with the response to the Hongerwinter in the Netherlands.

Then keep in mind that Bengal did not suffer occupation, nor wholesale destruction of it's transportation infrastructure.

The Allies had the ability to provide major famine relief, they just choose not to use it to help the people of Bengal.

[warspite1]

Fair enough, we’ll agree to disagree. You’ve chosen to ignore all but one cause, downplayed the problems specific to the region (comparison with Holland in terms of scale, geography, logistics, infrastructure, and just about any other measure , should make clear that comparing the two is pretty meaningless),and simplified the solutions. And to suggest it was not India’s war* is wholly wrong - and a great many Indians - including those campaigning for independence - knew that to be false. The largest non-conscript army in history and the lack of volunteers for the INA says something. Yes India was brought into the war without any say, courtesy of her then status within the empire (it is a great shame she was not given Dominion status in the 30’s), but to suggest that makes it not her war simply ignores what the war was about.

* The whole question of neutrality (although can’t really apply here where India was (whether we are comfortable with it or not with our 21st century values) part of Britain’s Empire) is interesting in a war like WWII but is a whole other subject in itself!

[mind_messing]

Fair enough, we’ll agree to disagree. You’ve chosen to ignore all but one cause, downplayed the problems specific to the region (comparison with Holland in terms of scale, geography, logistics, infrastructure, and just about any other measure , should make clear that comparing the two is pretty meaningless),and simplified the solutions.

Surely even you can see the fact that the the removal of the rice surplus and the denial of the boats for fishing and food transportation was key in precipitating the breakdown of the food supply chain that caused the famine?

As for the comparison with the Netherlands, I don't see it as a meaningless comparison. The people in the Netherlands were starving, and were given aid. The people in Bengal were starving, and were given token measures of aid. Why do you think that was?

And to suggest it was not India’s war* is wholly wrong - and a great many Indians - including those campaigning for independence - knew that to be false.

The Quit India movement (rightly) developed as a result of the British government bringing India into the war without any consulatations with the Indians. They ended up in prison as a result.

The Indians weren't given the slightest choice as to their involvement in the war.

The largest non-conscript army in history and the lack of volunteers for the INA says something.

I'd disagree; India always has been a populous nation, and considering the massive opportunity that armed service had for escaping poverty and social advancement, it's really no surprise. It's been a regular feature of imperial rule to offer service in the armed forces as a means to escape financial and social hardship.

The First INA recruited a significant portion of the Indian troops that had been captured in Malaya - 12,000 out of 40,000. That's effectively one in four. Doesn't exactly paint a picture of the Royal Indian Army as being the happy, motivated, all-volunteer force that you'd like it to be.

Yes India was brought into the war without any say, courtesy of her then status within the empire (it is a great shame she was not given Dominion status in the 30’s), but to suggest that makes it not her war simply ignores what the war was about.

It really wasn't. India was only involved in WW2 to start with as a result of events in Europe. Indians (rightly) chaffed at the high-handed nature of getting them involved without any consulatation. The same again when the Japanese entered the fray. It's hard to be claim it's right to fight in a war to liberate occupied Europe when your own nation is strongly desiring independence. It's also hard to be in the right to fight to defend a colonial empire when your own nation is a colony within an empire.

[warspite1]

“Even you” - well that set the tone nicely......

You genuinely don’t see any difference between Holland and Bengal? No difference in terms of populace, infrastructure, shipping, road and rail logistics, health of the general populace, geography, potential for the spread / containment of disease? Well the differences could hardly have been greater and the solutions to ease the Dutch suffering could hardly have been less difficult to implement compared to Bengal (not that there weren’t challenges for the situation in the Netherlands - after all we are talking about starving people here).

[warspite1]

Of course the Indians were given no choice. As said that was a function of where the country sat within the Empire in 1939. It’s a shame, and it doesn’t make it right by the standards of today but its what it was. Look at the Dominions. In WWI they weren’t consulted - but by WWII these Dominions had evolved and were countries in their own right with parliaments to look to and the strings to the mother country loosened with each passing year. By WWII they made their own decision on war. Sadly by 1939 India had not been granted Dominion status. So yes, by definition (and they way things were back then) it was very much her war (whether fair or not by the standards of today) and, as said, many in the independence movement understood this.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I'd disagree; India always has been a populous nation, and considering the massive opportunity that armed service had for escaping poverty and social advancement, it's really no surprise. It's been a regular feature of imperial rule to offer service in the armed forces as a means to escape financial and social hardship.

The First INA recruited a significant portion of the Indian troops that had been captured in Malaya - 12,000 out of 40,000. That's effectively one in four. Doesn't exactly paint a picture of the Royal Indian Army as being the happy, motivated, all-volunteer force that you'd like it to be.

warspite1

I’ll come back to the INA, but sorry, no, while of course the military has been an active recruiting ground for those seeking employment and a way out of poverty in all countries since the start of time, the sheer size of the army (given the political situation) suggests its more than that.

“The happy, motivated, all-volunteer force that you’d like it to be” again, a very unnecessary snide remark and as you should know full well, does not reflect my thinking.

[warspite1]

“ The people in Bengal were starving, and were given token measures of aid. Why do you think that was?”

There are - as touched upon previously - myriad reasons for the cause of the famine and the resulting disease suffered by the Bengallis. This subject has been much debated, the ‘experts’ can’t even agree on the main cause, Why do I think the famine and resultant disease outbreaks happened? Well I could believe that the cabinet and the Viceroy’s office sat round twirling their moustaches malevolently while agreeing on a policy of mass murder (like all good conspiracy theorists) or I could believe that this tragedy was caused by numerous factors that came together to create a situation that, with hindsight, could have been better handled, but was not for all the usual reasons that can and do from time to time engulf humans. You choose to attach blame to British denial of food but no blame to the Japanese (remember them? they declared war on the British in December 1941) and the effect of the invasion of Burma, the World War that was going on (do you know the shipping situation at the time?) the local conditions, crop disease, typhoons, the corrupt practices of local politicians, the strife between the Hindu and Moslem elements, the health of the locals even before the problem, the climate, the poor infrastructure, the terrain, the geography, the competing claims on food and supplies in southern Europe etc etc etc. All this going on but you expect those in charge to have exactly the right answer to all the questions and problems as they arose over a period of time..... and if they muck up (tragically so in this case) its not for excusable reasons - it has to be for what reason? Why do you think that was?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

It's also hard to be in the right to fight to defend a colonial empire when your own nation is a colony within an empire.

warspite1

No not at all. The campaign for a different status for India - whether entirely free, as a Dominion or whatever - was being waged (and was accelerated due to the war). The campaign to free herself (or have Dominion status) would all be a bit pointless if Hitler/Mussolini and later Tojo had won the war. As said, many forward thinking, wiser Indians understood this - even some within the independence movement. The campaign to change India’s status would continue, but there was a bigger picture and a war to be won first. Sadly not all Indians thought this way - and British high-handedness did not help their own cause. I regard those in the first category in the highest regard, and whilst I understand the latter, they have been ultimately proved wrong. They risked simply replacing the British with something far, far worse.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

“Even you” - well that set the tone nicely......

You genuinely don’t see any difference between Holland and Bengal? No difference in terms of populace, infrastructure, shipping, road and rail logistics, health of the general populace, geography, potential for the spread / containment of disease? Well the differences could hardly have been greater and the solutions to ease the Dutch suffering could hardly have been less difficult to implement compared to Bengal (not that there weren’t challenges for the situation in the Netherlands - after all we are talking about starving people here).

Nah, I just feel that this is the old colonial vs post-colonial debate that we seem to have on a semi-regular basis.

How so?

If anything, the Bengal famine was even easier to aid given that:

- The rest of India was unaffected.
- Bengal (and India as a whole) was not subject to enemy occuption.
- Bengal was not occupied, nor was it subject to occupation.
- The logistical network was in place to support Allied troops in the region.

The Netherlands had German occupiation since 1940, had been transited twice by invading armies and most of the transportation network, bridges and barges had been bombed.

In Bengal, the local shipping had been seized (note seized, not destroyed), and besides bombing raids on Calcutta and sub operations in the Indian Ocean, Japan did not manage to inflict the same destruction of infrastructure as the Allies in Europe.

So yes, by definition (and they way things were back then) it was very much her war (whether fair or not by the standards of today) and, as said, many in the independence movement understood this.

There's a reason they put Ghandi and the INC in jail for the duration of the war; the Quit India movement made it quite clear that not all Indian's felt it was "their war".

I’ll come back to the INA, but sorry, no, while of course the military has been an active recruiting ground for those seeking employment and a way out of poverty in all countries since the start of time, the sheer size of the army (given the political situation) suggests its more than that.

“The happy, motivated, all-volunteer force that you’d like it to be” again, a very unnecessary snide remark and as you should know full well, does not reflect my thinking.

The '41 census reported some 318 million persons living in India. An army of 2.5 million represents 0.7% of the total population. Granted, that goes up considering the young, the old and women that wouldn't fight, but is it any suprise that so many jumped at the oppertunity to buck the system that was designed to keep India an undeveloped nation to consume British goods?

“ The people in Bengal were starving, and were given token measures of aid. Why do you think that was?”

There are - as touched upon previously - myriad reasons for the cause of the famine and the resulting disease suffered by the Bengallis. This subject has been much debated, the ‘experts’ can’t even agree on the main cause, Why do I think the famine and resultant disease outbreaks happened? Well I could believe that the cabinet and the Viceroy’s office sat round twirling their moustaches malevolently while agreeing on a policy of mass murder (like all good conspiracy theorists) or I could believe that this tragedy was caused by numerous factors that came together to create a situation that, with hindsight, could have been better handled, but was not for all the usual reasons that can and do from time to time engulf humans. You choose to attach blame to British denial of food but no blame to the Japanese (remember them? they declared war on the British in December 1941) and the effect of the invasion of Burma, the World War that was going on (do you know the shipping situation at the time?) the local conditions, crop disease, typhoons, the corrupt practices of local politicians, the strife between the Hindu and Moslem elements, the health of the locals even before the problem, the climate, the poor infrastructure, the terrain, the geography, the competing claims on food and supplies in southern Europe etc etc etc. All this going on but you expect those in charge to have exactly the right answer to all the questions and problems as they arose over a period of time..... and if they muck up (tragically so in this case) its not for excusable reasons - it has to be for what reason? Why do you think that was?

Bolded sections are factors where you can attribute blame to the colonial government.

The decision to implement measures to deny foodstuff to the Bengal region was made in India, not Tokyo.

No not at all. The campaign for a different status for India - whether entirely free, as a Dominion or whatever - was being waged (and was accelerated due to the war). The campaign to free herself (or have Dominion status) would all be a bit pointless if Hitler/Mussolini and later Tojo had won the war. As said, many forward thinking, wiser Indians understood this - even some within the independence movement. The campaign to change India’s status would continue, but there was a bigger picture and a war to be won first. Sadly not all Indians thought this way - and British high-handedness did not help their own cause. I regard those in the first category in the highest regard, and whilst I understand the latter, they have been ultimately proved wrong. They risked simply replacing the British with something far, far worse.

The ones that disagreed found themselves in jail...

[mogami]

If empires are so great why are they always in debt? Subject to "bubbles" and crashes

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mogami

If empires are so great why are they always in debt? Subject to "bubbles" and crashes

warspite1

Always in debt? Different empires have had different levels of success. Even the successful ones have come to grief ultimately but many had been successful for a time. No different to individual countries big or small. In this day and age and with our values and standards now, empires are no longer considered great - or shouldn’t be. But we can still study them, understand them and admire or vilify them as the case may be.