Matrix Games Forums

From memory, the only fully independent countries I can remember are Japan, Siam and USSR. I don't know much about history of the Commonwealth, but the impression I have is that Australia and New Zealand were semi-independent, at least in the beginning of the war.

Any clarifications on that?

Also, if the war in the Pacific was a war between independent states (Japan, USA, UK, Netherlands and USSR) over colonies/protectorates, then that makes the war in the Pacific just another colonial war, exactly like the American-Spanish War of 1898? What do you guys think about that?

Thanks,
fbs

I guess China was independent too, or should I say Chinas (Nationalist China and Communist China).

ORIGINAL: Puhis

I guess China was independent too, or should I say Chinas (Nationalist China and Communist China).

That's a good point, but I'm not sure how independent China was since the second Opium War of 1860. After all, if the UK could maintain garrisons and navigate warships up into Chinese rivers, then perhaps China wasn't fully independent...

Thanks,
fbs

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.

ORIGINAL: fbs

ORIGINAL: Puhis

I guess China was independent too, or should I say Chinas (Nationalist China and Communist China).

That's a good point, but I'm not sure how independent China was since the second Opium War of 1860. After all, if the UK could maintain garrisons and navigate warships up into Chinese rivers, then perhaps China wasn't fully independent...

Thanks,
fbs

I think most of the China was ruled by local warlords. So I doubt UK or weak emperor of China or any ruler had much authority in distant rural areas anyway...

Included on the map area are Tibet, Bhutan, Mongolia, Tonga, maybe others as well. In WitP (original) only Tibet and Mongolia have national outlines and names on the map. Only Mongolia and Tonga have bases.

ORIGINAL: fbs


From memory, the only fully independent countries I can remember are Japan, Siam and USSR. I don't know much about history of the Commonwealth, but the impression I have is that Australia and New Zealand were semi-independent, at least in the beginning of the war.

Any clarifications on that?

Wow, that's going to get a bite. First of all lets start with a definition:

Commonwealth is a traditional English term for a political community founded for the common good or in which all participants have equal standing. [size=-3][Wikipedia][/size]

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) was passed on 5 July 1900 and given Royal Assent by Queen Victoria on 9 July 1900. On 1 January 1901 the Proclamation of the Commonwealth of Australia was issued which permitted the formation of the Australian federal parliament and high court. So Australia has been a fully independent country since 1901 though it was and remains a member of the British Commonwealth.

Though British influence in Australia was strong under a Liberal (Conservative) government, [size=-1]"It is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war."[/size] Yet only two years later under a Labour government the declaration of war against Japan was issued independently (as were other Commonwealth countries).

New Zealand decided against joining the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, and instead changed from being a colony to a separate "dominion" in 1907, equal in status to Australia and Canada.

Also, if the war in the Pacific was a war between independent states (Japan, USA, UK, Netherlands and USSR) over colonies/protectorates, then that makes the war in the Pacific just another colonial war, exactly like the American-Spanish War of 1898? What do you guys think about that?

Thanks,
fbs

If the test of a countries independence is the ability to make a declaration of war, then have a look at this link Timeline - December 1941.

Countries that also declared war against Japan included Canada, Union of South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Free France, The Kingdom of the Netherlands, Britain, United States, Colombia (broke diplomatic relations), Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Panama, China (formally declares war on Japan), Cuba, Mexico (broke diplomatic relations), Poland, & Nicaragua. (Note the order of the declarations)

Draw your own conclusions...

ORIGINAL: fbs
Also, if the war in the Pacific was a war between independent states (Japan, USA, UK, Netherlands and USSR) over colonies/protectorates, then that makes the war in the Pacific just another colonial war, exactly like the American-Spanish War of 1898? What do you guys think about that?

Thanks,
fbs

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.

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

ORIGINAL: Reg

ORIGINAL: fbs

From memory, the only fully independent countries I can remember are Japan, Siam and USSR. I don't know much about history of the Commonwealth, but the impression I have is that Australia and New Zealand were semi-independent, at least in the beginning of the war.

Any clarifications on that?

Wow, that's going to get a bite. First of all lets start with a definition:

Commonwealth is a traditional English term for a political community founded for the common good or in which all participants have equal standing. [size=-3][Wikipedia][/size]

Yeah, that's why I made a point to say that I don't know much of the Commonwealth. It is easier to understand the moment of independence when there is a Declaration of Independence -- less clear when the process is gradual. I was thinking the year of 1942 as a clear cut for complete Australian independence because that's when Australia ratified the Statute of Westminster -- which is the one that establishes self-governing for the dominions.

Not knowing any Australians myself, that's what I could find by searching -- I didn't intend to offend anyone from Australia, Canada or New Zealand.


Thanks,
fbs

No offence taken. That's what I like about this forum, there is all this little known information presented and you just learn so much (no matter how much you thought you knew. [:D])

Without going into too much detail, the degree of Australian independence from Britain has always been contentious issue and was definitely a hot topic between the Menzies and Curtin governments in the late 30's and early 40's (and into the 50's and 60's if we are honest). The career of Menzies who was a central figure during this entire period makes interesting reading. The ratification of the Statute of Westminster in 1942 really was just a case of legislation catching up with reality under wartime necessity. It was issued in 1931 after all.

Growing pains and all that....

Edit: I think a key point to be made is that even though the Dominions weren't completely legislatively independent of the British parliament prior to the ratification of the Statute of Westminster, Britain wasn't in a position to impose her will upon the Commonwealth Dominions either.... (hence the requirement for ratification).

ORIGINAL: fbs

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.

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".

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.

ORIGINAL: Mynok

ORIGINAL: fbs

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.

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.

ORIGINAL: fbs

ORIGINAL: Reg

ORIGINAL: fbs

From memory, the only fully independent countries I can remember are Japan, Siam and USSR. I don't know much about history of the Commonwealth, but the impression I have is that Australia and New Zealand were semi-independent, at least in the beginning of the war.

Any clarifications on that?

Wow, that's going to get a bite. First of all lets start with a definition:

Commonwealth is a traditional English term for a political community founded for the common good or in which all participants have equal standing. [size=-3][Wikipedia][/size]

Yeah, that's why I made a point to say that I don't know much of the Commonwealth. It is easier to understand the moment of independence when there is a Declaration of Independence -- less clear when the process is gradual. I was thinking the year of 1942 as a clear cut for complete Australian independence because that's when Australia ratified the Statute of Westminster -- which is the one that establishes self-governing for the dominions.

Not knowing any Australians myself, that's what I could find by searching -- I didn't intend to offend anyone from Australia, Canada or New Zealand.


Thanks,
fbs

It is very easy to get into an argument here because (a) no one has defined what is meant by independent country and (b) legal terms are too often used loosely with the result that they are ascribed a false meaning.

For example both Reg (sorry this is going to sound like nit picking even though your overall meaning is understood and good enough outside a court of law) and fbs are not accurate enough in their depiction of the Australian situation.

In law, it would be a quite reasonable argument to state that Australia was not fully independent until it ratified (by passing the relevant legislation) the Statutute of Westminster in 1942. Why? Because although the Commonwealth of Australia came into existence in 1901, the United Kingdom still retained the technical capacity to direct the Commonwealth. It retained this capacity principally in two ways.

Firstly, the Parliament at Westminster could directly and unilaterally pass legislation. This is what the 1931 (IIRC the year) Imperial conference which led to the Statute of Westminster specifically addressed. Once ratified by Dominions (and each one had to do so by passing their own enabling legislation) legislation passed by the Parliament of Westminster could not take effect in the Dominion unless it itself consented to the Act by passing its own complementary legislation.

This can best be illustrated by the 1950s transfer of the British territory of Christmas Island (in the Indian Ocean, off Indonesia). That was accomplished by the UK parliament passing an act to transfer the territory to Australian administration, and the Australian Commonwealth parliament passing an Act to accept the transfer. Prior to the Statute of Westminster, in theory the UK could simply have foisted the transfer onto Australia.

Secondly, if one reads the relevant correspondence from the Governor-General (and relevant contemporary commentary), it is clear that the UK government expected the Governor-General to be the conduit through which Australian foreign policy in particular would be conducted. It is quite revealing to see how the Governor-General at the start of World War I (IIRC Munro) saw and actually carried out his duties. It is not until the combative Hughes became Prime Minister and more obviously the appointment of the first Australian (Isaac Isaacs) to the position of Governor-General was made, was this "informal" channel of direction by Britain removed.

One can certainly argue that at least in its first 3 (or more precisely 4) decades of existence, the Commonwealth of Australia did not have full sovereignty. One should not in this context, that the first Australian embassies (not High Commissions which is quite a different beast) were not established until 1940. Nor was the international genus "Australian citizen" created until 1949. Prior to that Australians travelled abroad as British citizens on their passports.

What the OP meant by "independent" was really sovereign. In that context, there is no doubt that China retained its own sovereignty. The fact that concessions and enclaves had been given to several European nations following the various Opium Wars of the nineteenth century did not in law extinguish Chinese sovereignty. Outside of the concessions, europeans did not have the protection of metropolitan law and personnel. At the League of Nations, China (and not its warlords) was quite clearly treated as being a sovereign country. One should not confuse the lack of military and political power to treat on equal terms with powerful european nations, as somehow diminishing sovereignty. I'm certain that if Bolivia had tried to bully China in the 1920s/1930s, it would have seen just how much sovereignty (or if you prefer "independence") China enjoyed.

In the context of sovereignty, it is misleading to rely upon the Free French declaring war on Japan in December 1941. The Free French were not a sovereign nation.

Alfred

Sorry Reg, I was busy composing my post whilst you and others posted.  Hope no offence was taken.
 
Alfred

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Mynok

ORIGINAL: fbs

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.

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.

Hi Alfred,

Only an insecure person would be offended by the facts. [;)]

I was just trying to keep it simple and highlight that even though Australia wasn't legally completely independent, it exercised a lot of these privileges by necessity.

However, now that you have laid it all out I'm sure all the forum will now have benefited from your excellent explanation of what is a complicated situation and hopefully clarified how Australia's political position fits into the war situation as a whole.

I'll stay away from the Kipling thing. Sovereign States represented on the map in 1941: (EDIT: I forgot England is shown on one of the off-map/map locations, so I moved it up a category)

• Australia
• Canada
• Republic of China (not to be confused with the PRC)
• Mongolia
• Nepal
• Japan
• New Zealand
• Panama
• South Africa
• USSR
• Thailand
• United States
• Yemen
• Netherlands
• United Kingdom

Sovereign States with only Colonial Possesions on the map:

• France
• Italy
• Portugal

States recognized as sovereign by several sovereign neutral states, but with dubious sovereignty:

• Manchukwo (Japanese puppet state)
• Nanjing - Republic of China (Japanese puppet state)
• Tuvan People's Republic - (Soviet puppet state)

Here's to 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.