Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

something I don't quite understand about Allies

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> something I don't quite understand about Allies Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
something I don't quite understand about Allies - 5/8/2013 7:00:56 AM   
mantrain

 

Posts: 395
Joined: 9/3/2008
Status: offline
At the time the Japanese struck against Britain and the USA on December 7, 1941, France was governed by the Vichy Government, a Puppet of the Third Reich, and Holland, I think was also a puppet of the Third Reich, whom in turn were aligned with the Imperial Japanese Govt through the Tripartite pact. Did not the Netherlands and French derive material from their eastern colonial possessions, such as tin, rubber, oil, or whatever, that was imported into the European market, and ultimately into the coffers of the Nazi war machine? Was it not a bit of irony that the Japanese were going after possessions which should have had some measure of protection from within the Tripartite Pact? Did the Japanese actually fight against French colonial possessions which were transferred to Vichy control in '40? And the Dutch, what were they doing fighting alongside the Allies when they are already conquered by the Germans. I don't get it. Were the colonial possession of the Dutch and French not under continental control during the period when their homeland was under German occupation, and this explains it all? Did Dutch and French continental capitulation not entail language in the surrender terms which defined ultimate control of colonial possessions to the puppet governments and therefore implicitly providing Tripartite protection?

< Message edited by mantrain -- 5/8/2013 7:13:17 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: something I don't quite understand about Allies - 5/8/2013 7:19:08 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 20232
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mantrain

At the time the Japanese struck against Britain and the USA on December 7, 1941, France was governed by the Vichy Government, a Puppet of the Third Reich, and Holland, I think was also a puppet of the Third Reich, whom in turn were aligned with the Imperial Japanese Govt through the Tripartite pact. Did not the Netherlands and French derive material from their eastern colonial possessions, such as tin, rubber, oil, or whatever, that was imported into the European market, and ultimately into the coffers of the Nazi war machine? Was it not a bit of irony that the Japanese were going after possessions which should have had some measure of protection from within the Tripartite Pact? Did the Japanese actually fight against French colonial possessions which were transferred to Vichy control in '40? And the Dutch, what were they doing fighting alongside the Allies when they are already conquered by the Germans. I don't get it.
warspite1

The pro-Allied Dutch Government in Exile controlled the NEI - the colony did not surrender to the Germans in 1940.

The Japanese did not need to fight the French in Indo-China. The French regime was powerless to stop the Japanese using the country as a staging point for the invasion of Malaya.

Even if this was not the case and the Dutch tried to send oil and other materials to feed the "coffers of the Nazi war machine" I think the Royal Navy may have had something to say about the material laden ships traversing the oceans of the world trying to get back to Nazi-occupied Europe!

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to mantrain)
Post #: 2
RE: something I don't quite understand about Allies - 5/8/2013 7:25:43 AM   
Shellshock


Posts: 279
Joined: 12/31/2010
From: U.S.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mantrain

Did the Japanese actually fight against French colonial possessions which were transferred to Vichy control in '40? And the Dutch, what were they doing fighting alongside the Allies when they are already conquered by the Germans. I don't get it. Were the colonial possession of the Dutch and French not under continental control during the period when their homeland was under German occupation, and this explains it all? Did Dutch and French continental capitulation not entail language in the surrender terms which defined ultimate control of colonial possessions to the puppet governments and therefore implicitly providing Tripartite protection?


Yes, the Japanese did initially fight against the French in their takeover of French Indochina. In August 1940 the Japanese began to pressure Vichy to permit Japanese troops to be stationed in northern Indochina. Diplomatic pressure was accompanied by military pressure when Japanese forces begin crossing the border.

The French, whose positions at Lang Son and Dong Dang crumbled under attack by Japanese tanks and infantry, asked for a cease fire and a reopening of negotiations. Militarily weak and isolated from all help they eventually acceded to total Japanese control of the colony, although the Japanese still allowed the French to run domestic affairs.

Although Holland itself was overrun by the Germans in 1940, the Dutch government fled to Britain to continue the war. Much of the funding for the exiled government came from the oil fields of the Netherlands East Indies. The Dutch in the Netherland East Indies never considered themselves a province of the Nazi empire.

Considering British control of the Indian Ocean I doubt if Germany ever saw much in the way of mineral wealth from the French possessions in Asia, Vichy or otherwise.

(in reply to mantrain)
Post #: 3
RE: something I don't quite understand about Allies - 5/8/2013 7:29:32 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 8374
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
The Dutch East Indies were run by the free Dutch government in London. Any resources they supplied were for the Allied war effort. The Dutch government escaped pretty much intact and could lay a legitimate claim to all overseas possessions. The German puppet government in the Netherlands had no influence outside of the borders of that country.

New Caledonia was Free French and similarly answered to the Free French government in London. Indochina was pretty much Vichy and Japan basically took over the colony before they started the war with everyone else. I think the French were nominally in charge throughout the war, but it was essentially at Japan's bidding.

The British maintained an effective blockade on the Germans just like they did in WW I. About the only shipping traffic they were able to receive was from Sweden and Norway. All other over water trade was essentially shut down for the duration. The Japanese did some minor trade with submarines, but the total tonnage moved was tiny.

Because the legitimate French government surrendered to the Germans, the Free French had a more tenuous claim to legitimacy. To a large degree Free or Vichy territories were decided by geography. If a French colony was closer to Allied territory, it tended to go Free either from the start or fairly early on. Territories that could not rely on support from the British or other Allies tended to remain Vichy at least until the winds were clearly blowing the other way.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to mantrain)
Post #: 4
RE: something I don't quite understand about Allies - 5/8/2013 7:29:58 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4616
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
As a sidenote, all other French colonies in the Pacific TOO, either immediately or after stubborn resistance from the locals, joined or aligned with the Free French instead of Vichy.

Edit: damn, that moderator is typing fast...

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 5/8/2013 7:31:41 AM >


_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to mantrain)
Post #: 5
RE: something I don't quite understand about Allies - 5/8/2013 7:41:34 AM   
Shellshock


Posts: 279
Joined: 12/31/2010
From: U.S.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mantrain

Did Dutch and French continental capitulation not entail language in the surrender terms which defined ultimate control of colonial possessions to the puppet governments and therefore implicitly providing Tripartite protection?


It's important to note that unlike the United Nations, the Tripartite Pact never became an effective alliance. Though there was considerable cooperation between Italy and Germany in Europe, Japan was too distant for effective military cooperation with the other two nations. A few German and Italian submarines operated from Japanese bases in Malaya and there was some exchange of technology and strategic raw materials, but the difficulty of running the Allied blockade, even with submarines, prevented this exchange from achieving decisive results. It also seems likely that the Axis partners never really trusted each other, and their policy towards Russia was completely uncoordinated in spite of the obvious value of coordinated policy towards the Soviet Union.

(in reply to mantrain)
Post #: 6
RE: something I don't quite understand about Allies - 5/8/2013 2:58:40 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 2126
Joined: 6/3/2006
Status: offline
I'm currently reading a history of the landings in North African (Desperate Venture), operation "Torch" and it is amazing how many differing factions there trying to lay claim to the "legitimate" government of all France, including overseas "Departments". So in truth, the allies didn't know who to turn to in regard to the "government" of France. The UK had its man in de Gaulle, the Americans favored first General Giraud and then Admiral Darlan. While the Germans and much of the world recognized Marshal Petain (who the USA had officially recognized as the true government of France) and his Vichy government! The allies didn't know which side units of the French army and more importantly it's navy, would take order from. In short is was one big mess. On the Dutch side however there was no mistaking anyone's position, the government in exile was in control of the colonies.

< Message edited by dr.hal -- 5/9/2013 12:50:37 AM >

(in reply to Shellshock)
Post #: 7
RE: something I don't quite understand about Allies - 5/8/2013 6:19:25 PM   
mantrain

 

Posts: 395
Joined: 9/3/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

I'm currently reading a history of the landings in North African (Desperate Venture), operation "Torch" and it is amazing how many differing factions there were that tried to lay claim to the "legitimate" government of all France, including overseas "Departments". So in truth, the allies didn't know who to turn to in regard to the "government" of France. The UK had its man in de Gaulle, the Americans favored first General Giraud and then Admiral Darlan. While the Germans and much of the world recognized Marshal Petain (who the USA had officially recognized as the true government of France) and his Vichy government! The allies didn't know which side units of the French army and more importantly it's navy, would take order from. In short is was one big mess. On the Dutch side however there was no mistaking anyone's position, the government in exile was in control of the colonies.



I'll have to check that one out. I am currently listening to audiobook, "Last Lion" the final volume written by William Manchester on Winston Churchill. He does go over the issues of De Gaulle. The fellow lacked diplomacy with respect to Roosevelt in particular. He was not liked at all by Roosevelt during the war and actually not respected much. I think it could be said that Deg Gaulle had that A typical french snobbery attitude that didn't fly well with the Americans who still saw France as a defeated nation.

I would recommend for any player of WITP William Manchester's autobiographical "Goodbye Darkness." This is an absolute must read because you had a genius (Manchester) who went to war as a marine raider, and came back to be a prolific writer. So his ability to portray the war as a common soldier, and illuminate the larger perspective, was/ is astounding. Manchester passed away a few years ago. So his final volume of The Last Lion had to be completed by a co-author post mortem, or whatever they call it when something is finished after death, oh yes, post-humanly, or something like that. Manchester also wrote "a world lit by fire" an amazing account of the middle-ages. He also wrote " American Caesar," a book I am sure many here have read.

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 8
RE: something I don't quite understand about Allies - 5/8/2013 6:26:57 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4678
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
I thought the Japanese and Vichy French had an agreement about the size of the Japanese force moving through Indo China and the Japanese handily violated it as there was nothing to stop them from doing so.


_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 9
RE: something I don't quite understand about Allies - 5/8/2013 8:23:22 PM   
Encircled


Posts: 1044
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
Wasn't one of the reasons Vichy Madagascar was invaded in '42 by the allies was to stop it being used as a submarine base?

(in reply to mantrain)
Post #: 10
RE: something I don't quite understand about Allies - 5/9/2013 11:16:45 PM   
barkorn45

 

Posts: 303
Joined: 1/17/2010
Status: offline
Axis foreign policy was very strange,under the tripartite pact if a member nation declared war on another nation the other members agreed
to do the same.But when Germany declared war on the soviet union the Japanese didn't honor the pact.
When japan started and declared war on the u.s hitler declared war 3 day's later,the only agreement he ever honored!

(in reply to Encircled)
Post #: 11
RE: something I don't quite understand about Allies - 5/9/2013 11:50:24 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 8374
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
Hitler declared war on the US for his own reasons. The U-boats were moved to the coastal waters of the US where most of the tankers from Texas and Louisiana were. Before the US got into the war, these tankers sailed very close to the US coast, well within the US territorial waters until they got to Nova Scotia where they were combined into convoys and sent to England.

Hitler rightly guessed that the US would continue peace time practices for a while after the war started and saw sinking a large number of tankers off the US coast to possibly be the straw that finally broke the back of England's war effort. He figured with England out of the war, if the US was still at war with Germany, it would be a while before the US came knocking which would give him time to take out the USSR. If he was lucky, the US would sue for peace with Germany when England did.

After a few weeks of a very successful U-boat campaign which did sink a lot of tankers for very light losses, Doenitz lost his nerve and pulled the U-boats back to the mid-Atlantic. Along the East coast of North America, the continental shelf extends out several hundred miles into the North Atlantic (it was above water during the last ice age). U-boats can't dive to maximum depth because they bottom out. (This is not true on the Pacific Coast where the continental shelf and the coastline coincide in most places.) U-Boats operating in eastern coastal waters of the US are at higher risk if attacked.

Doenitz over estimated the quality of the US response. The US was slower than he thought in responding to the coastal U-boat threat and the U-boats could have operated with near impunity for another month at least.

In any case, it was mostly a gambit to get the British out of the war.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to barkorn45)
Post #: 12
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> something I don't quite understand about Allies Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.086