Matrix Games Forums

Indeed, in places like Burma, anti-japanese resistance was mainly motivated by the idea that the locals hoped to get some kind of reward after the war from the former colonizers. It actually happened to be mostly the case in the British colonies, but not elsewhere. In the Philippines, it wasn't even an issue: as they were supposed to gain independance in the forties, they knew who the enemy was by december 1941.

The Chinese? Not many.

Well a Chinese "not many" is still much more than the sum of all collaborative european troops who fight alongside Nazi Germany [;)]
But well anyway this has to be compared to French troops fighting for Germany for instance - it's not really about colonialism here.

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Indeed, in places like Burma, anti-japanese resistance was mainly motivated by the idea that the locals hoped to get some kind of reward after the war from the former colonizers. It actually happened to be mostly the case in the British colonies, but not elsewhere. In the Philippines, it wasn't even an issue: as they were supposed to gain independance in the forties, they knew who the enemy was by december 1941.

The Chinese? Not many.

Well a Chinese "not many" is still much more than the sum of all collaborative european troops who fight alongside Nazi Germany [;)]
But well anyway this has to be compared to French troops fighting for Germany for instance - it's not really about colonialism here.

Fight? That's the rub. The Nazi's did get quite a bit of combat service from the Italians, the Rumanians, the Finns, Slovaks, a whole host of strange nationalities fighting in the SS, and even a Division of Spaniards. What the Japanese got from their Chinese collaborationists forces was a lot of mouths to feed and some unreliable garrison troops.

Japan SAID a lot about "Asia for the Asiatics", but the iron boot of the IJA and the Military Police quickly showed the other natives that the only "Asiatics" the slogan referred to spoke Japanese. With the exception of the Belgians, it would be hard to find another "colonial power" as reviled by it's subjects as the Japanese.

ORIGINAL: Termite2

Not independent; but East Timor[and the area around Oecussi ] was Portuguese. It was invaded by the allies in early 42' and then the Japanese.

Are you sure , Portugal was neutral was it not ?

Interesting debate. While it is true that many in Japan thought of the war in an "Asia for Asians" sense, and believed in that, the truth was that was propoganda, sold by the real movers and shakers of Japanese policy, the Army and Navy, but particularly the Army.

The way the IJA ran Manchukuo, and make no mistake they ran Manchukuo not the natives and certainly not the civilian government in Japan, tells you all you need to know about the real intentions of the Army, and how they wanted to run Asia. "Asia for Asians" and Co-Prosperity was a bill of goods sold to the domestic population and Asian peoples by the Japanese military, who were in charge. It's a nice idea, but was a complete fabrication.

Rarely is it so easy as "Japan thought this" or "Japan intended to do that". Japanese politics was infinitely more complicated than that pre-war. There were peace and war factions, and factions within factions, conflict between the service branches and conflict within the service branches. It's a wonder policy got made at all, and it's certainly no mystery how it became radicalized.

ORIGINAL: cavalry

ORIGINAL: Termite2

Not independent; but East Timor[and the area around Oecussi ] was Portuguese. It was invaded by the allies in early 42' and then the Japanese.

Are you sure , Portugal was neutral was it not ?

Termite2 is correct. Technically, the Dutch and Australians violated Portuguese neutrality and late December 1941 when they moved troops in to prevent Japanese occupation. The Portuguese governor protested and the Dutch troops withdrew. The Japanese landed and quickly defeated the small Australian force. Portugal basically ignored the whole thing, but reasserted their colonial rights at the end of the war.

ORIGINAL: wwengr

ORIGINAL: cavalry

ORIGINAL: Termite2

Not independent; but East Timor[and the area around Oecussi ] was Portuguese. It was invaded by the allies in early 42' and then the Japanese.

Are you sure , Portugal was neutral was it not ?

Termite2 is correct. Technically, the Dutch and Australians violated Portuguese neutrality and late December 1941 when they moved troops in to prevent Japanese occupation. The Portuguese governor protested and the Dutch troops withdrew. The Japanese landed and quickly defeated the small Australian force. Portugal basically ignored the whole thing, but reasserted their colonial rights at the end of the war.

The Japanese moved in under cover of written "negotiations" with Portugal. They claimed that they were merely maintaining Portugal's legal rights to the territory, until of course Portugal could enforce them itself.

Alfred

ORIGINAL: cavalry

ORIGINAL: Termite2

Not independent; but East Timor[and the area around Oecussi ] was Portuguese. It was invaded by the allies in early 42' and then the Japanese.

Are you sure , Portugal was neutral was it not ?

So were early Vichy and Iran. The Allies didn't care much about this...

And naturally the IJA allowed the Portuguese authorities to exercise full authority over all matters not purely related to defense. Or should we not ask what became of the colonial administrators?

Sorry? Should I take that as an answer to my post or did I misunderstood? For if it's an answer, you misunderstood me, and you'd better brace for impact calling me a IJ apologist, Spence.

That Allies didn't give a damn about Iran, Portuguese or Vichy sovereignty. That may have been for the greater good, but that's a fact.

ORIGINAL: spence

And naturally the IJA allowed the Portuguese authorities to exercise full authority over all matters not purely related to defense. Or should we not ask what became of the colonial administrators?

The Portuguese Governor, Manuel de Abreu Ferreira de Carvalho, was initially cut of from communications with Portugal. The Portuguese civilians had a double problem. The Japanese were mildly hostile to them and the Native Timorese population were hostile to them. About 26 Portuguese civilians were killed during 1942, as a result of attacks credited to the native Timorese by the Japanese. The Governor tried have the Potruguese population moved to an outlying Island, but Lisbon never responded to his request. In October 1942, the Japanese moved the Portuguese population, about 600, into an interment camp. Shortly after that, the Governor and the Mayor of Dili were granted a reprieve and returned to their residences where they waited out the war.

The Portuguese military garrison included a Light Infantry company of 271 troops, but an effective fielded strength of about 170; a guard detachment of 15 guarding the enclave of Oekussi; and a Frontier Cavalry Platoon of 69. The total number of non-native troops was 27.

There isn't a clear history, but it is believed that some of the troops left and joined the resistance with at least some fighting a guerilla war alongside the Australian troops.

In 1945, the Japanese handed control back over to Governor Manuel de Abreu Ferreira de Carvalho.

>> in places like Burma, anti-japanese resistance was mainly motivated by the idea that the locals hoped to get some kind of reward after the war from the former colonizers <<

I've just been doing some reading on special forces ops in Burma by Force 136, V Force and OSS Det 101 and it seems clear that the dominant anti-Japanese resistance was from the hill tribes, particularly the Kachins, whose opposition sprang primarily from Japanese atrocities, not from the politically dominant Burmans, who initially supported the Japanese -- Aung Sang and the 30 Comrades -- and only switched sides when things turned against the Japanese.

ORIGINAL: wwengr

ORIGINAL: cavalry

ORIGINAL: Termite2

Not independent; but East Timor[and the area around Oecussi ] was Portuguese. It was invaded by the allies in early 42' and then the Japanese.

Are you sure , Portugal was neutral was it not ?

Termite2 is correct. Technically, the Dutch and Australians violated Portuguese neutrality and late December 1941 when they moved troops in to prevent Japanese occupation. The Portuguese governor protested and the Dutch troops withdrew. The Japanese landed and quickly defeated the small Australian force. Portugal basically ignored the whole thing, but reasserted their colonial rights at the end of the war.

This is not the only case of the Allies violating the neutrality of some countries. Norway, for example, or the numerous flights over Switzerland (even bombing them once - a navigation error, I hope).
And let's not start speaking about Mers-el-Kebir... [8|]

EDIT: and from my European POV, "Asia to Asians" is well worth some Monroe Doctrine : a rising power telling older colonial powers that a given continent was their own playing field.[;)]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

ORIGINAL: wwengr

ORIGINAL: cavalry





Are you sure , Portugal was neutral was it not ?

Termite2 is correct. Technically, the Dutch and Australians violated Portuguese neutrality and late December 1941 when they moved troops in to prevent Japanese occupation. The Portuguese governor protested and the Dutch troops withdrew. The Japanese landed and quickly defeated the small Australian force. Portugal basically ignored the whole thing, but reasserted their colonial rights at the end of the war.

This is not the only case of the Allies violating the neutrality of some countries. Norway, for example, or the numerous flights over Switzerland (even bombing them once - a navigation error, I hope).
And let's not start speaking about Mers-el-Kebir... [8|]

EDIT: and from my European POV, "Asia to Asians" is well worth some Monroe Doctrine : a rising power telling older colonial powers that a given continent was their own playing field.[;)]

Warspite1

If you did not want to start speaking about Mers El Kebir, why mention it?