What if the Dutch had surrendered?

[Q-Ball]

The surrender of France and the establishment of a Vichy regime facilitated the occupation of Indochina by Japan. No question Vichy made this possible. The "What if Japan hadn't attacked the US" thread is interesting, but to me is sort of a far-fetched notion. But I thought of a question perhaps more within the realm of possibility: What if the Dutch government surrendered in 1940?

Dutch forces in Holland surrendered in 1940, but the Dutch government didn't; the Queen fled to England. There was never any question of the Dutch in the DEI fighting with whatever limited resources they had; they were an Allied power. But what if the Queen stayed in the Netherlands, and submitted to a Nazi occupation, like Denmark did initially?

If the DEI was effectively neutral, or even "Vichy-esque", this would present some opportunities for Japan. As it happened, the KNIL forces didn't stop the Japanese, but they definitely helped buy time for the Allies.

Anyone have further thoughts on this?

[Ron Saueracker]

Yeah...if you had a sex slave and the place of her origin was busted (yet nobody connected your girl to the bust), why emmancipate her?[:D]

[John 3rd]

Would be a WILD scenario to start with Japan having occupied BOTH Indochina AND Java! That would be pretty crazy...

[jeffs]

A

Would be a WILD scenario to start with Japan having occupied BOTH Indochina AND Java! That would be pretty crazy...

At that point would Japan have bothered to go to war........If the US threatened, but did nothing out of PI....Hard to see that they would have needed a war.
That said, the military was pretty pig headed......But if the Dutch gave in on their own....War might not have happened...

[John 3rd]

True enough.

Think of the position the Brits and Aussies would have been in. That would be an impossible fight/...

[Historiker]

The war may start with an allied offensive. I.e. additional US troops in the PI, maybe in China.
No PH, additional ships in the Pacific, developed and garrisoned bases in the southern pacific. That's not that wild at all...

[JeffroK]

The British might have felt reason to occupy the DEI, they took on the Vichy in Dakar, Mers el Kebir, Syria & Madagascar.

Or a Free Dutch movement might have formed in their Colonies.

[Fishbed]

I think we can't compare the DEI to French Indochina: Vichy didn't care that much about giving Indochina up, that's one of his less important and further colonies, and hardly 5 or 10% of what its colonial ground standed for out there (gross estimate, didn't take a look at the numbers, but knowing a third of Africa was made of French colonies...). DEI were everything to the Dutch, that had nothing left anywhere. I think they may have fought if the Japanese had made such a move.

Tell me if I am wrong, but the Dutch retreat looks like part of a plan, wasn't it? I mean, I don't think the Dutch ever thought that they would actually stop a German offensive, even before the world heard of Blitzkrieg, I guess that this kind of event was covered by the doctrine (unlike in France, where no-one would have thought such an total defeat even remotely possible)

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Or a Free Dutch movement might have formed in their Colonies.

I think earlier that Indonesia then is raised in 1941 or 1942, And that the Dutch where send home.


Mayby a interesting note. I have read a article from the Militairy Spectator (A magazine for militay personel) that in 1941 is to start to reorganize there forces on Java. The plans where that on the end of 1942 the forces on Java excist out 6 Brigades, each 2 Infantrybataljons mechanized on Overvalwagens, 1 Gevechtswagen bataljon with 90 AFV's (Light Tanks, Armored Cars) and 1 SP Artillerybataljon.

[Mike Scholl]

Well, it was the occupation of French Indo-China that brought on the US Oil Embargo.  Hard to say what an attempt to occupy the Netherlands East Indies would have involved.   Of course there's also the probability that the capture of the Queen might have resulted in the creation of "Free Holland" in 1940.  The East Indies were a far more viable base than anything DeGaulle had.  Or of US "protective occupation" as was done in Iceland.

Some interesting possibilities..., but based on an unlikely premise.  Why would the Dutch Government not flee to England?  They'd already seen what happened to the  Governments of Austria and Denmark and Norway.

[gladiatt]

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

I think we can't compare the DEI to French Indochina: Vichy didn't care that much about giving Indochina up, that's one of his less important and further colonies, and hardly 5 or 10% of what its colonial ground standed for out there (gross estimate, didn't take a look at the numbers, but knowing a third of Africa was made of French colonies...). DEI were everything to the Dutch, that had nothing left anywhere. I think they may have fought if the Japanese had made such a move.

Tell me if I am wrong, but the Dutch retreat looks like part of a plan, wasn't it? I mean, I don't think the Dutch ever thought that they would actually stop a German offensive, even before the world heard of Blitzkrieg, I guess that this kind of event was covered by the doctrine (unlike in France, where no-one would have thought such an total defeat even remotely possible)

i thought Vichy France did as usual for Indochina: no real decision at all; a bit of this, a bit of that. There were a few ships (some threadster would find wich one, no doubt) that get in fight with the Siam Navy in 1940 IIRC, also a few troops. Vichy France governement was still in the idea that a batallion of local militia leaded by french leaders could resist to asiatic units (usual occidental blindness of the time).
The idea was still to "colaborate" with the stronghest side, trying to preserve a kind of independancy (wich last until march 1945 IIRC ???).
Indochina was not the largest colony, nor the most populated, but one of the richest (rubber trees for tires for example, and also some copper or precious metals).
French people (soldiers, admins, settlers, politicians) were divided and puzzled: most of them didn't knew what to do, what was the right choice (or, if not the right, the wisest).
Had France not surrender, some efforts could have been made to try to deny Indochina to Japan (firstly by political means), and resist some time (once in conflict). But it would have been only buying time. Anyway, in a global conflict, this could have help a bit the allies side.

[Fishbed]

By 1941, as you said there was little preparation nor real choice, although the French on the ground opposed a symbolic resistance on the ground and in the air during the first days. Japan being soon to be formally allied to Germany and Vichy having distanced itself forever from the British after Mers-El-Kebir, while being tricked by the negociations with Japan without being in any position favorable enough anyway, with still some token guarantees from the Japanese side, decided to stop (probably in the same fashion as in Europe, with the self-reassuring but obviously Utopian thought that it was just in order to buy some time). But war was actually waged for some days.

[CaptBeefheart]

I'd guess the UK would've taken upon themselves to administer the DEI, same as they did from 1811-15 when Holland was annexed by Napoleon. However, if for some reason a pro-Axis DEI existed unmolested in 1940, they probably would've traded oil with Japan and Japan would then have lost its need to go to war. A free trading DEI would've suited Imperial Japan's needs just fine without an invasion.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: jeffs

A

Would be a WILD scenario to start with Japan having occupied BOTH Indochina AND Java! That would be pretty crazy...

At that point would Japan have bothered to go to war........If the US threatened, but did nothing out of PI....Hard to see that they would have needed a war.
That said, the military was pretty pig headed......But if the Dutch gave in on their own....War might not have happened...

Of course there was the small issue of the US telling Japan to 'get out' of China and the Embargo that ensued that might have forced the issue anyway.

[ckammp]

If Japan had been able to occupy the DEI as the did French Indochina, thay would not have needed to start a war with the UK or the US. They would, instead, attack the USSR, most likely in conjunction with the German attack, and with the hope that it would be a quick victory.

[vlcz]

ORIGINAL: JeffK
The British might have felt reason to occupy the DEI, they took on the Vichy in Dakar, Mers el Kebir, Syria & Madagascar.

Or a Free Dutch movement might have formed in their Colonies.

Completely agree, given the politics of the time there is no way the commonwealth could accept Japan between singapore and Australia. My only question remains how much can be US out of this conflict, losing his main pressure weapon against japan.

Perhaps a interesting scenario to work in the editor?

[topeverest]

I dont see this as a possible eventuality. Any strategic mind of the time knew the importance of DEI to Japan, and the cost of letting it fall in their hands, given Japans imperialistic sights. While a potentially interesting scenario to play to give the Japs a real one-up and chance to win outright, I find no basis in fact to make this reality.

If by chance it did fall into Jap hands as is supposed by this line of thought, I agree with the sentiment that there would be no need for Japan to goto War with the Allies. I think a left turn against Russia and China would have been the most likely outcome. I dont see a war with Commonwealth and USA - and more importantly, I dont see USA and Commonwealth going after Japan for China.

The allies might go after Japan for a Russian war. I think this basis would be a much better war scenario grounded in potential reality - but pretty hard to design due to its highly specualtive nature.

[oldman45]

I doubt they would try Russia again but with the DEI in their control and assuming they had no interest in India then they could consolidate China and really thumb their noses at the US and the embargo.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: vlcz

ORIGINAL: JeffK
The British might have felt reason to occupy the DEI, they took on the Vichy in Dakar, Mers el Kebir, Syria & Madagascar.

Or a Free Dutch movement might have formed in their Colonies.

Completely agree, given the politics of the time there is no way the commonwealth could accept Japan between singapore and Australia. My only question remains how much can be US out of this conflict, losing his main pressure weapon against japan.

Perhaps a interesting scenario to work in the editor?

Why not let the Allies intervene while Japan is in the process of occupying the DEI?

[Alfred]

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.
 
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?
 
(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).
 
(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?
 
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.
 
(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.
 
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?
 
(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.
 
(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.
 
Alfred