The seizure of Indo China by Japan, the final step to war

Please use the word "Japanese", not "Jap", not to mention we have some Japanese members on this forum as well.

 

Thanks for posting the polls, OP. I was particularly surprised that sentiments against Japan ran stronger in Britain than they did in the U.S. in 1939, though support for outright war looked a little soft. (Of course Japanese attacks on British and U.S. possessions certainly changed that in a hurry.)

Scipio, as to Japan buying oil: Where were they going to buy it? The Dutch signed onto the same July 1941 oil embargo as the U.S. and the U.K., so Japan couldn't get it there. In August Britain (with Russian aid) invaded Iran, so they weren't selling. I can't believe the Russians would have sold any to a country with which they had so recently been at war. I believe that accounts for all the world's major suppliers at that time. Which is to say that if Japan wanted oil they either needed to appease the U.K. and the U.S. or take it from someone by force. Given that they were unwilling to make concessions in China that really only left one option.

(Of course it's possible the U.S. would have remained neutral for a while had Japan not attacked us directly, so I tend to think their best option, working from the then extant Japanese political realities, was an invasion of the Dutch colonies alone.)

Also, scipio: I can't read the document you posted. I can only get a very very small version of it.

 

I have been reading this thread with some interest, but, I know little about the British pre-war view of Japan.

As to Japan buying oil. Were they not going broke with the war in China and their military build-up? IIRC, they would have been bankrupt sometime around mid or late 1942. If that is true, the use of force becomes the only viable option open to Japan.

 

Sorry about that - just quicker to type - nothing derogatory intended.


You can call me a Brit - will not take offence

 

My point is that the Dutch Government set up a government in exile unlike the Belgian and the French. They therefore had the independence to sign the embargo. I don't want to belabour the point but a Vichy style Indonesia which is what could have happened if the Dutch had not opted for exile, then they would have merely sold oil in the normal way - would Britain or the USA have attacked them? The British did in Vichy Syria and Madagascar because it was so crucial.

I know this is one of those "what ifs" but the Dutch Government decision to continue to resist Germany had repercusions even in Indochina.

Sorry did my best but could not get it larger. If you hit the link next to it you should get a larger, readable version with luck.

 

Certainly some interesting stuff to get the teeth into OP but I have been struggling to find the info referred to in this statement - what should I be looking at and where?

 

The Dutch had no choice , their territory was entirely occupied, unlike Vichy France (until November 1942).
The Belgian king chose to stay with his people to ease their sufferings.

 

I went to the HTML version of the 1939 poll questions and did a search for "Britain."

The statistics I found most surprising related to these questions:

"What country do you like least?"

Their first set of responses (which I believe are the US responses, based on the way the responses to the preceding question are laid out) broke down like this:

Germany.......................... 58%
Italy................................. 12
Russia.............................. 8
Others............................. 22

The British responses, on the other hand, broke down as follows:

Germany........................... 54%
Japan................................ 11
Italy.................................. 9
Others.............................. 26

And the French responses (just to be complete):

Germany........................... 70%
Italy.................................. 9
Russia............................... 5
Others.............................. 16

Also relevant to the present question:

"Asked in Great Britain: How far should Britain go at the present time to defend her interests in China?"

Fight Japan if necessary.................................. 22%
Forbid all trade between Britain and Japan... 37
Supply credits and munitions to China.......... 17
Withdraw our ambassador as a protest.......... 9
Do nothing.......................................................... 15

 

On the other hand, the differing opinions of Japan really shouldn't surprise me all that much. The U.S. had a small but substantial immigrant population from Japan which was, I think, pretty well regarded before the outset of hostilities. And the U.S. had under T. Roosevelt enjoyed a rather close relationship with Japan. Granting that this was a while back, but certainly within memory in the late 30s. And Britain was, at least initially, a much stronger opponent of militaristic nationalism. We were perhaps too worried about socialism to really see where the threat was. (Some things never change.)

 

Not correct. The US (read white citizens) had quite a racist attitude towards Asians in general. In fact, some laws that were passed in California at the turn of the century infuriated the Japanese to no end, and it required a federal intervention to block them.

 

I believe you miss the point about a government in Exile - it is an important point. The government in Norway and the Netherlands (not sure about Denmark) decamped to the UK, Lonndon, and carried on governing in exile. They were the legitimate the Government and their citizens were duty bound to obey if possible.

On the other hand, although he may have had good intentions the King of the Belgians chose to stay. So the legitimate Government ruled from Brussels. They then were under the noses of the Germans and hence lost most of their independence. The King was forced to abdicate by his own citizens after the War for this action. The Dutch Royal Family were and are admired for taking the opposite decision.

The French Government similarly under Petain chose not to go into exile. Whilst they had some measure of independence ruling from Vichy, this was very limited in practice. Thus De Gaulle was regarded as a traitor. He only managed to persuade French Equatorial Africa to join the Free French. When he attempted to do the same at Dakar, (Senegal), French West Africa his representatives were fired on. Thus all the French overseas provinces Except French Equatorial Africa obeyed the Vichy Government and in Vietnam gave biased neutral support to the Japanese.

If the Dutch had done the same as the French or Belgians then I am suggesting that Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) probably would have been given instructions from a Government in the Hague to do the same.

Gosh I wish I had kept my thought to myself.

 

Well, the French would have done so, even if they had received opposite orders from Vichy - the French forces in Indo-China were too weak to oppose Japan, and, after Mers-el-Kebir events, help from the British forces in the region was excluded.

Regards,

 

Mers-el-Kabir (plus Dakar next)!!! This is a ridiculous statement. I have finished my contribution to this thread

 

Indeed, but as regards to the British, the position is somewhat different.

As a future threat yes, which is why British policy in the Summer/Fall of 1940 was to avoid conflicts with Japan, they closed the Burma road & continued to sell oil to them. However the likelihood of war with Japan was not that high in 1941/1942. (unless policy changed)

And what part did you find surprising?
(BTW, you should also post the poll dates, as they are relevant)

Here are some other polls