Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

ORIGINAL: fbs

The reason that I raised the question is that from a Western point of view the war in Asia/Pacific was not a colonial war -- it was a war of defense against Japanese aggression in China, Pearl Harbor, DEI and Malaya/Burma. But, from a Japanese point of view, the war in the Pacific was a war of liberation against Western colonialism -- at least by those (Japanese Army not included) that believed in the concepts of Asia for Asians and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

I mean, while the Japanese Army and the British Army both practiced something else, Asia for Asians is a precise counterpart to Rudyard Kipling's Burden of White Men -- and despite the despicable actions of the Japanese Army I tend to find the former a more acceptable concept than the latter.

Thanks,
fbs

You've got to be kidding me.

Not at all. I'm a Westerner and I tend to think that Japan was a small empire trying to grab colonies from other empires, so I tend to think that WW2 in the Pacific was a colonial war just like the American-Spanish War, or the several French-British wars.

But I try to keep my mind open to other interpretations: in the context of most of Asia/Pacific under colonial rule and with few independent countries, the idea of Asia for Asians must have been a powerful drive to locals. Some Japanese believed in Japan leading Asia for Asians, and while the actual Japanese government was inept at promoting the idea, perhaps some of the locals believed that WW2 would be the way for independence.

Now, it's not that I believe that WW2 in the Pacific was fought in the context of Asia for Asians - I don't. I'm a Westerner. Yet, I would love to hear an Easterner's point of view about Asia for Asians vs. WW2 in the Pacific.


Thanks,
fbs

ORIGINAL: wwengr

Here's tp confuse the issue about Australia... The Statute of Westminster was passed in the British Parliment on December 11, 1931, but it was not adoped in Australia until October 9, 1942, but the effective date was back-dated to September 3, 1939.

As discussed above, this backdating would have been to legalise Australia's right to issue both declarations of war against Germany and Japan.

Edit: Wikipedia uses the phrase "to clarify government war powers, backdated to 3 September 1939—the start of World War II."

ORIGINAL: fbs

Not at all. I'm a Westerner and I tend to think that Japan was a small empire trying to grab colonies from other empires, so I tend to think that WW2 in the Pacific was a colonial war just like the American-Spanish War, or the several French-British wars.

But I try to keep my mind open to other interpretations: in the context of most of Asia/Pacific under colonial rule and with few independent countries, the idea of Asia for Asians must have been a powerful drive to locals. Some Japanese believed in Japan leading Asia for Asians, and while the actual Japanese government was inept at promoting the idea, perhaps some of the locals believed that WW2 would be the way for independence.

Now, it's not that I believe that WW2 in the Pacific was fought in the context of Asia for Asians - I don't. I'm a Westerner. Yet, I would love to hear an Easterner's point of view about Asia for Asians vs. WW2 in the Pacific.


Thanks,
fbs

I think "Asia for Asians" was certainly one of the wartime goals for Japan, if only as a propaganda tool. It was probably the goal lowest on the list, but ironically, the only they succeeded at. However, outside of Chandra Bose's Indian National Army which melted away after the Imphal debacle, not many Asians took up arms for Tokyo's vision of a united Asia. They wisely waited until it collapsed and then individually fought their wars for independence. Shrewd move on their part.

Cool topic guys...very imfomative.[&o] Love this forum.

Not at all. I'm a Westerner and I tend to think that Japan was a small empire trying to grab colonies from other empires, so I tend to think that WW2 in the Pacific was a colonial war just like the American-Spanish War, or the several French-British wars.

But I try to keep my mind open to other interpretations: in the context of most of Asia/Pacific under colonial rule and with few independent countries, the idea of Asia for Asians must have been a powerful drive to locals. Some Japanese believed in Japan leading Asia for Asians, and while the actual Japanese government was inept at promoting the idea, perhaps some of the locals believed that WW2 would be the way for independence.

Now, it's not that I believe that WW2 in the Pacific was fought in the context of Asia for Asians - I don't. I'm a Westerner. Yet, I would love to hear an Easterner's point of view about Asia for Asians vs. WW2 in the Pacific.

Sorry fbs, but I thought it was pretty common knowledge that there's not a single country in Asia (and unlike what the Chinese mainland would think, this includes Taiwan, where japs were called "dogs" and Chinese collaborators cops "three legs", for they were somewhere between "the man" and the "animal"...) where the Japanese had a good reputation as an occupier. Thailand maybe perhaps? If you want to make it sound like this, the "Japan vs Western allies" phase of the War in Asia is indeed a colonial war, but it's hardly about anything else than the Japanese replacing the Westerners as new (and most of the time harsher) colonizers. Even in countries where they gave up the sovereignty in the last days of the war to trick the returning Allies, their image is far from positive. And just like European countries in Africa, Japan's involvement in the economics everywhere in Asia has often been felt like a form of neo-colonialism. "Asia to Asians" was a coold idea back in the late XIXth century, when people from all over Asia would go to Japan seek a new Asian way. But this hardly applies to whatever followed, Japan's view of its role turning from a "safe haven and collective rebirth place for the Asian nations" to that of an "enlightened superior race to rule them all, and get fed by them"...

I shall remind you btw as a Westerner that out there, there's still 1+ billion of people whose "war" against Japan started in 1937 (or 1931) btw, and will arguably tell you that, back then, although divided, China was hardly any kind of a vast colony - actually rather the oldest country out there.

ORIGINAL: fbs

But, from a Japanese point of view, the war in the Pacific was a war of liberation against Western colonialism -- at least by those (Japanese Army not included) that believed in the concepts of Asia for Asians and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Warspite1

fbs, I think that the notion that the Japanese went to war with the US and the Commonwealth because they wanted to free Asians from their white rulers, is totally wrong. Japan never had any regard for their fellow Asians - look at their treatment of Koreans and Chinese (comfort Women, Rape of Nanking etc).

The Japanese were a proud people that in a space of a few short years had gone from being an inward looking society, to a highly industrialised one - all without the benefit of their own natural resources; that is some feat.

Fact was though - they wanted those resources - they were too reliant on others for oil and other vital strategic resources, and could only get them via conquest. The British (India), French (Indo-China), Dutch (NEI) and Americans (Philippines) had captured resources and territory through war so why not them? Must have irked them big time - and did.

Things came to a head when the US turned the economic screw. But this only happened because of their war in China. How does attacking China free Asians from Western domination?

I don`t doubt (as with Ukrainians greeting the Wehrmacht), when the Japanese landed in Malaya and NEI and Burma, there were some inhabitants who thought it a good thing and treated the Japanese as liberators. I also think that feeling was pretty short lived......

BTW, I like the thought provoking questions you bring to the forum [:)]

Colonial possessions in 1941, on the map:

• Papua (Australia)
• Norfolk Island (Australia)
• Canton and Enderbury Islands (jointly administered by US & UK)
• New Hebrides (jointly administered by France & UK)
• Pondicherry - French India (France - Loyal to Free French)
• French Indochina (Japanese occuppied - Administered by Vichy)
• Kwangchowan (Loyal to Free French)
• New Caledonia and Dependencies (Loyal to Free French)
• Shanghai - French Concession (Vichy)
• Tianjin - French Concession (Vichy)
• Tianjin - Italian Concession
• Tianjin - British Concession
• Tianjin - Japanese Concession
• Korea (Japan)
• Karafuto - Sakhalin (Japan)
• Kwantung - British Concession
• Kwantung - Japanese Consession
• Malaya, Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis, Straits Settlements (aka Singapore, Malacca, Dinding, Panang), Terengganu (UK)
• Guam (US)
• Wake Island (US)
• Midway Atoll (US)
• Hawaii (US)
• Alaska (US)
• American Samoa (US)
• Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef (US)
• Panama Canal Zone (US)
• Taiwan (Japan)
• Nauru (Australia, New Zealand, UK)
• New Guinea (Australia)
• South Pacific Mandate - Kwajalein, Palau, Saipan, Truk, Majuro, Jaluit Atoll and other islands (Japan)
• Western Samoa (New Zealand)
• Netherlands East Indies (Netherlands)
• Cook Islands (New Zealand)
• Niue Island (New Zealand)
• Union Islands (New Zealand)
• Macau (Portugal)
• Portuguese India (Portugal)
• Portuguese Timor (Portugal)
• Aden (UK)
• Bhutan (UK)
• Fiji, Gilbert and Ellice Islands, Pitcairn Islands, Solomon Islands, Tonga (UK)
• Brunei, North Borneo, Sarawak (UK)
• Burma (UK)
• Ceylon (UK)
• Falkland Islands (UK)
• Hong Kong (UK)
• India (UK)
• Maldive Islands (UK)

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Sorry fbs, but I thought it was pretty common knowledge that there's not a single country in Asia (and unlike what the Chinese mainland would think, this includes Taiwan, where japs were called "dogs" and Chinese collaborators cops "three legs", for they were somewhere between "the man" and the "animal"...) where the Japanese had a good reputation as an occupier. Thailand maybe perhaps? If you want to make it sound like this, the "Japan vs Western allies" phase of the War in Asia is indeed a colonial war, but it's hardly about anything else than the Japanese replacing the Westerners as new (and most of the time harsher) colonizers. Even in countries where they gave up the sovereignty in the last days of the war to trick the returning Allies, their image is far from positive. And just like European countries in Africa, Japan's involvement in the economics everywhere in Asia has often been felt like a form of neo-colonialism. "Asia to Asians" was a coold idea back in the late XIXth century, when people from all over Asia would go to Japan seek a new Asian way. But this hardly applies to whatever followed, Japan's view of its role turning from a "safe haven and collective rebirth place for the Asian nations" to that of an "enlightened superior race to rule them all, and get fed by them"...

We both (and probably most in the forum) think the same way, that is, WW2 in the Pacific was an attempt by a small empire to grab colonies from larger empires. Also, it's clear that the Japanese Army's ruthlessness in pursuing the war didn't promote any idea other than thievery -- as my idol John Keegan said, "many times war is just large-scale, organized theft".

But I think that Asia for Asians was an undercurrent of the time. It must have been powerful, as within 20 years of end of WW2 all the colonies were free, and I think that Japanese intellectuals of the time actually believed that Japan's actions were part of Asia for Asians -- and some other non-Japanese too, for example Dr. Ba Maw.

I wonder if Japanese rule had been more enlightened and less brutal, that perhaps they could have capitalized the idea of Asia for Asians; in game terms that might mean more trouble for the Allies in keeping re-occupied territories.


Thanks,
fbs

But I think that Asia for Asians was an undercurrent of the time. It must have been powerful, as within 20 years of end of WW2 all the colonies were free

If you are trying to imply, deduce, that the Japanese motto (the Co-Prosperity thing) helped the cause of decolonization, I think you are basically wrong [8D]

The Asian states (or territories) invaded by the Japanese knew perfectly that they were a bunch of gangsters... as opposed to some sort of "liberation army".

Now the Japanese did something which "helped" (or encouraged) the anti-colonization struggle: the Russo-Japanese war on 1905 [;)] But this has nothing to do with the gangsters of the 30s and 40s...

What helped the decolonization struggle (in Asia and elsewhere) was 1) the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 (the native intelligentsia of the colonies would be either communist or nationalist) and 2) the fact that the two main Empires (the English and French) were ruined and surpassed via WW2... USA and USSR. And the two new masters did NOT want colonies anymore... The English understood pretty soon. The French didn't (Indochina and Algeria wars, defeats)...

Philosophically I agree with what you write, and I believe that it would have been great if it becomes a political reality. But the fact is, that if you look at the creation of Imperial Japan, the "constitution" they had, and the "channels" through which power flowed, you'll see that it was never possible, and they actually "railroaded" themselves to this outcome (utter defeat and destruction) at the very start.

This is my belief based on what i read about the era.

ORIGINAL: fbs

ORIGINAL: Torplexed

Using that definition the entire war in North Africa and East Africa was a colonial war as well. You could even extend it to those parts of the Soviet Union (Ukraine, Baltic States)that didn't want to be in the Soviet Union.

Oh, most definitely North Africa was a colonial war started by Italy. Fully agree.

The reason that I raised the question is that from a Western point of view the war in Asia/Pacific was not a colonial war -- it was a war of defense against Japanese aggression in China, Pearl Harbor, DEI and Malaya/Burma. But, from a Japanese point of view, the war in the Pacific was a war of liberation against Western colonialism -- at least by those (Japanese Army not included) that believed in the concepts of Asia for Asians and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

I mean, while the Japanese Army and the British Army both practiced something else, Asia for Asians is a precise counterpart to Rudyard Kipling's Burden of White Men -- and despite the despicable actions of the Japanese Army I tend to find the former a more acceptable concept than the latter.

Thanks,
fbs

Gee, nothing inflammatory in those comments. [8|]

No argument here that the war in the Pacific was mostly a colonial war. If you want to be honest, don't look at things from the Allied/Western point of view or the Japanese point of view. Look at it from the point of view of the people who saw one colonial power replaced by another. I don't think they would find either of your concepts more acceptable that the other, outside of the way they were treated by whichever power was in charge at the time.

The interesting exception on the map is the Kingdom of Thailand (Siam). It was never colonized by a European power, and [in the game] it remains nominally independent, although co-operating with Japan for the most part.

Interesting to know is in December 1940 Siam kingdom declared war to France and invaded Laos and Cambodge which were french colonies responding to Vichy.
Siam army was much more powerful and gained easily ground on their east borders.
In January 41 the french fleet (5 ships including a light cruiser) based in Indochina launched a raid against the Siam fleet in Ko Chang near Bangkok.
The Siam fleet was entirely destroyed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Koh_Chang

Japanese imposed a stop to this war.

On december 8th 1941 Japan declared war to Siam to force a path to his troops for the invasion of Malaysia. A battle took place in Prachuab Khirikan but stopped very quickly.
Siam decided to join the the japanese side for the rest of the war.

hjalmar99, Siam (or Thailand) was independent because of one simple reason: it was a buffer state between the British and French empires...

It's exactly like Mongolia: a buffer state between two giants who don't like each other (Russia and China that is). The good thing? You don't have to have a lot of troops along the border... [:D]

Thanks, Micke II. I was not aware of the Franco-Thai Conflict of 1940-41. It seems to have been one of those opportinistic little wars that rode on the coat-tails of the larger conflict. [8D]

ORIGINAL: USS America

Gee, nothing inflammatory in those comments. [8|]

Sorry for that; I try to bring interesting WW2 Pacific topics in a way that (hopefully) does not degenerate in a forum meelee. You have my apologies for inflammatory comments.

What I meant by that post is that by myself I'm for Self-Determination, so I don't believe in colonies, protectorates or spheres of influence. That's why I wrote that I believe more in Asia for Asians than in Colonialism. Having said that, I'm not trying to be apologetic of Japan in WW2, as I think the dominant faction in Japan was colonialist (and that whatever the rhetoric the main motivation for wars is economic, imho). I just mean that perhaps WW2 Pacific was mixed with a larger de-colonization movement -- perhaps India was the best example of that.

From this point of view, even if Japan could achieve a settlement that would give them new territories, they wouldn't be able to keep them, and any territorial gains would be swept in the vast post-WW2 de-colonization movement.


Thanks,
fbs

ORIGINAL: fbs


From this point of view, even if Japan could achieve a settlement that would give them new territories, they wouldn't be able to keep them, and any territorial gains would be swept in the vast post-WW2 de-colonization movement.

I seriously doubt that. Japan's view on colonialism was no different from this of a country like Nazi Germany. France lost its colonies because it was a democracy, trying to live with this complete paradox while waging war (against an adversary well supported by neighbouring countries and antagonistic world powers) - and doing a lot of other things, for war isn't supposed to be its motto. Totalitarian regimes don't work the same, and have quite much more resources to allocate to this nice aspect of statehood (namely "law and order tonight is provided by the Kempeitai!"). In a world where Japan would actually keep its gain (aka a world where Germany prevailed, USSR wasn't a threat and the US were probably under-siege) I don't see how they would actually get threatened...

ORIGINAL: fbs

ORIGINAL: USS America

Gee, nothing inflammatory in those comments. [8|]

Sorry for that; I try to bring interesting WW2 Pacific topics in a way that (hopefully) does not degenerate in a forum meelee. You have my apologies for inflammatory comments.

What I meant by that post is that by myself I'm for Self-Determination, so I don't believe in colonies, protectorates or spheres of influence. That's why I wrote that I believe more in Asia for Asians than in Colonialism. Having said that, I'm not trying to be apologetic of Japan in WW2, as I think the dominant faction in Japan was colonialist (and that whatever the rhetoric the main motivation for wars is economic, imho). I just mean that perhaps WW2 Pacific was mixed with a larger de-colonization movement -- perhaps India was the best example of that.

From this point of view, even if Japan could achieve a settlement that would give them new territories, they wouldn't be able to keep them, and any territorial gains would be swept in the vast post-WW2 de-colonization movement.


Thanks,
fbs

fbs, I think I over reacted a bit. It seems that your comments and observations were taken in the manner you meant them, and not as inflammatory. Things have been a little heated around the forums lately, burning a couple of friends, and I didn't want to see more of it. My apologies. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Mynok




Well, let's be honest. The Japanese weren't really about Asia for the Asians but about Asia for the Japanese. I find little to distinguish that from "the white man's burden".

Actually there is a difference. Kipling's admonishment to "take up the White Man's Burden" reflects a determination on the part of at least some European colonialists that with colonial control came the responsibility to "raise up the native peoples to the European level of education and sanitation and such". Not all followed such policies (the Belgians in the Congo were notorious for exploiting the native population), but the idea and practice did exist. Look at Ghandi..., and English educated lawyer.

It's virtually impossible to find any such feeling and practice in the 40-year Japanese rule of Korea. Japanese notions concerning colonial peoples were strictly of the "hewers of wood and haulers of water" variety.

Kipling may have had noble ideas for his "white man's burden" but the practice of it differed little from the Japanese. True, it was mostly less destructive (if that term can be defined in actuality), but only in degree, not intent. The only good thing that might said to have come from European colonialism is the expediting of missionary efforts which actually did enhance the lives of the natives and give them some hope.

I would say it differed quite a bit from the Japanese. The real proof is in the number of effective "colonial troops" the two sides recruited. Philippino's fought right alongside their "colonial masters" to the end on Bataan. Indian Army troops were a massive part of Britain's war effort in Europe as well as Asia.

Who FOUGHT for the Japanese? Koreans? Used as forced labor, but not given weapons. Thais? Fought a bit for Thai claims in Burma, than sat out the war. Bose's "Indian Army"? Signed up to get out of POW camps and get three squares a day..., melted away when asked to fight. The Chinese? Not many. Most were again "forced labor" or "garrison troops". What fighting they did was more of the "save your own skin, because your own countrymen will kill you as traitors if your caught".

That's a BIG difference!

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

hjalmar99, Siam (or Thailand) was independent because of one simple reason: it was a buffer state between the British and French empires...

It's exactly like Mongolia: a buffer state between two giants who don't like each other (Russia and China that is). The good thing? You don't have to have a lot of troops along the border... [:D]

Yes, Siam was a buffer state between two empires, but this didn't happen by accident. The Thai deserve credit for bringing about this state of affairs. King Chulalongkorn, in particular, was simply masterful at playing the western empires against each other as they each tried to increase their influence over Siam and SE Asia throughout the late 19th century. A key part of his strategy was accepting gifts and aid only when he could be absolutely certain that it would not result in an imperial power gaining leverage over his kingdom. In this way he was able to modernize his country while remaining independent. While he died in 1910, long before the Japanese entered the scene, I think his legacy can be seen in the way Thailand managed to ride out the choppy waters of WWII without losing their sovereignty.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I would say it differed quite a bit from the Japanese. The real proof is in the number of effective "colonial troops" the two sides recruited. Philippino's fought right alongside their "colonial masters" to the end on Bataan. Indian Army troops were a massive part of Britain's war effort in Europe as well as Asia.

Who FOUGHT for the Japanese? Koreans? Used as forced labor, but not given weapons. Thais? Fought a bit for Thai claims in Burma, than sat out the war. Bose's "Indian Army"? Signed up to get out of POW camps and get three squares a day..., melted away when asked to fight. The Chinese? Not many. Most were again "forced labor" or "garrison troops". What fighting they did was more of the "save your own skin, because your own countrymen will kill you as traitors if your caught".

That's a BIG difference!

As for India and the Philippines, while it is true that they fought alongside the British and the Americans, it was probably more a case of the-enemy-I-know-is-preferable-to-the-enemy-I-don't, than anything else. Both countries were engaged in long, slow marches towards promised independence. Progress was slow but steady, and hard won. With a new colonial power in the Japanese to contend with, all that progress would have been lost and both countries would have had to start their independence movements all over again.

I also think many Indians and Filipinos probably felt that if they could prove themselves to their colonizers, they would find them to be much more amenable to the idea of independence. It is noteworthy that both countries eventually attained their goals within two years of the end of the war.