The Whale has Wings

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ramp, the ‘where de white wimmin at’ thing is offensive, beneath you and wrong.

Intermarriage was not a societal problem in WW1 for Britain (or France particularly), British Indian (if muslim) or French muslim troops and there is considerable evidence to support that. Equally the level of interracial marriage in the UK between residents and the very large number of sailors from non white backgrounds particularly South Asian is steady and rises after WW1. In fact its been steady and infrequently commented factor in British life since at least 1800.

The main reasons for not using more Indian troops in Europe in WW1 were:

High number of (British) officer casualties and inability to replace them with qualified Brit officers (language and cultural skills)
Poor equipment - No organic artillery (only had SMLE issued in France as well).
Climate problems mainly the wet I would imagine.
Fighting closer to home as Steve says.
It might be slightly anachronistic but earlier some Indian troops had religious issues travelling overseas (literally).

None of which affected the recruitment of 300,000 (Brit and French) Egyptians Chinese, Africans and Indians in labour corps during WW1 of which 50,000 Indian. Not sure whether these guys are the same as the Indians that served in British divisional ammunition columns throughout the war but they certainly were employed on front line fortifications.

All of those are persistent problems into WW2 but all rectifiable.

Calling India a colony is missing the point. British India, had its own League of Nations seat and Olympic Team for example. The Government of India Act 1935 with minor text changes is the constitution of the Dominions of India & Pakistan in 47 so that should give you a flavour of the relationship the UK was working with, though practically the 1919 Act remained in force in many areas. The UK/India relationship is one where the UK either has to pay for things or negotiate to get consent albeit the UK owns the printing press so can always print the Sterling.

The 35 act also separates Burma and the Gulf from India but I expect in TTL there would be a negotiation to allow either very favourable rates or something else as it makes obvious sense to the Govt of India to have Indian army troops fighting in Burma/Malaya not India and the purpose was (rather like the Aussie militia thing) to prevent Indian troops being used on Imperial missions without Indian consent. For example the terms of enlistment for new troops could be hostilities only in a defined area.

The merging of the Burma and Malaya fronts would economise on troops and while I can see some UK divisions, maybe African, being withdrawn I think that’s less likely for Indian Army troops (and 1/3 of the infantry are brits in those.) but possible for selected formations, Ghurkhas are on different terms of service to the rest of the Indian Army. As time progresses and I think this means late 43 (maybe), 44 on I could see entirely Indian and Indian Officered (KCIO/IO) formations of at least Brigade size. OTL this was at the very end of the war and immediately post war but actively pushing for this now makes it more likely and that could be one of the negotiating points allowing for deployment of Indian Army formations out of area. Think ANZAC in WW1.
 
Because by then Malaya and Burma, and at least the important parts of the Dutch East Indies are secured and no longer in danger. And, by then there's going to be need for more troops in Europe.

Sure, make a token effort in Indochina, mostly gun running, but once Malay and the Dutch East Indies are safe, the Pacific Theatre drops massively in importance in British Eyes. If the US insists, the can supply the troops.
Sounds like a plan. Could the French perhaps convince the US that French Indochina is important enough to help anchor and secure southern China to run supplies to and call for a quid pro quo from the British for north Africa - say they supply the manpower and most of the supplies, the other two supply the transports and some carriers to provide cover since in this timeline the Free French are in a much better position?

Throw the Japanese out of south east Asia, once most of their major naval forces have been taken care of a lot of their garrisons become trapped and mostly cut off from supplies so taking care of them one by one becomes a much smaller job - allowing you to shift a majority of your troops back west, let the US keep supplying the Chinese to fight in China as that's their baby, and they'll no doubt want to liberate the Philippines themselves even with a Europe first policy and have the resources to do so. At that point with Operation Overlord probably kicking off about then and no nuclear weapons yet rather than go for Operation Downfall we could see them decide on a policy of blockade and bombing, which ultimately would probably lead to mass starvation. Then when Europe is taken care of turn around and finish what you started with Japan, if the country hasn't collapsed in on itself by that point.
 
How willing are the Thais to rebel against the Japanese? Could maybe those guys be armed and trained to a point where they could be a real help in kicking the Japanese out of FIC, or will they mostly remain Japanese heels? And what about the ANZACs, could they hold back a few men from European service?
 
How willing are the Thais to rebel against the Japanese? Could maybe those guys be armed and trained to a point where they could be a real help in kicking the Japanese out of FIC, or will they mostly remain Japanese heels?

After the Franco-Thai War, I imagine that the French authorities are not particularly keen of letting the Thais change sides cleanly, and the British now also have an interest in reducing their future room for maneuver. The US was very pro-Thai, but unlike iOTL they won't have anything like the same influence, given that the British are quite likely to militarily conquer Thailand during the war, rather than accepting a surrender after Japan's defeat.

IOTL, the British intended to directly annex Pattani to Malaya, and to demilitirise and control the administration of all of Thailand up to Prachuap Khiri Kha as a strategic buffer. The Americans, both diplomatically in the State Department and via support for the Free Thai resistance by the OSS, successfully resisted this. Here, the Americans simply won't have the leverage.
 
IOTL, the British intended to directly annex Pattani to Malaya, and to demilitirise and control the administration of all of Thailand up to Prachuap Khiri Kha as a strategic buffer. The Americans, both diplomatically in the State Department and via support for the Free Thai resistance by the OSS, successfully resisted this. Here, the Americans simply won't have the leverage.
That was rather... ambitious of them, I must say. A shame that a bit of common sense couldn't break out and they let the Thais switch sides similar to how Italy was treated. No matter how improved matters on the ground are militarily for the Allies, moving through a cooperative country is much faster than having to fight your way through, even with the balance of forces much in your favour.

One way to get around this could we perhaps have the US convince the French that allowing Thailand to switch side for minimal penalties is the fastest and most efficient way of opening up the door for the liberation of French Indochina, and the two of them gang up on/pressure the British? From a US perspective if the invasion is going to be a purely Free French and Imperial affair then they don't really lose anything, it helps secure southern China, and it obtains their goal of an intact Thailand.
 
After the Franco-Thai War, I imagine that the French authorities are not particularly keen of letting the Thais change sides cleanly, and the British now also have an interest in reducing their future room for maneuver. The US was very pro-Thai, but unlike iOTL they won't have anything like the same influence, given that the British are quite likely to militarily conquer Thailand during the war, rather than accepting a surrender after Japan's defeat.

IOTL, the British intended to directly annex Pattani to Malaya, and to demilitirise and control the administration of all of Thailand up to Prachuap Khiri Kha as a strategic buffer. The Americans, both diplomatically in the State Department and via support for the Free Thai resistance by the OSS, successfully resisted this. Here, the Americans simply won't have the leverage.

That was rather... ambitious of them, I must say. A shame that a bit of common sense couldn't break out and they let the Thais switch sides similar to how Italy was treated. No matter how improved matters on the ground are militarily for the Allies, moving through a cooperative country is much faster than having to fight your way through, even with the balance of forces much in your favour.

One way to get around this could we perhaps have the US convince the French that allowing Thailand to switch side for minimal penalties is the fastest and most efficient way of opening up the door for the liberation of French Indochina, and the two of them gang up on/pressure the British? From a US perspective if the invasion is going to be a purely Free French and Imperial affair then they don't really lose anything, it helps secure southern China, and it obtains their goal of an intact Thailand.

Guys

I'd never heard that about plans to annex/demilitarise parts of Thailand. Does seem less than wise under the circumstances. Might be a cultural basis in that I think the region is mainly Muslim and has more in common with Malaya than Thailand but not something I would go for.

From what I have read, albeit not a lot, the Thais were divided about the alliance with Japan. The border conflict with FIC was a factor but probably more important was that Japan could/would send troops and Britain couldn't supply substantial aid to defend Thailand against the Japanese. As such, with Japan rapidly going down the drain and the desire to secure the situation in the east I would rather encourage a Thai rebellion and have them welcome us as liberators than seek to fight our way through them. Especially since the Japanese have done such a good job, in an amazingly short time, to win many over to the allied camp.;)

Quite like Simon's argument for getting France and the US together to liberate both Thailand and FIC. Not sure that London would offer much if any opposition to such a move. [Wondering if the plan for Pattani was more something one of the local administrators or military men had in mind rather than the central government?]

Steve
 

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
Gannt, I am sorry if I caused offence, it wasn’t my intention. And I might point out you left out of your list one of the biggest problems with employing Indian troops in the European theatre, food, trying to integrate there religious dietary needs into the supply chain was a nightmare. They didn’t at the time eat tinned meat, and the basic staple of the diet was a form of flower that wasn’t really available in Europe. That said, the question of interracial relations did loom large in the minds of many in the British establishment. There had been problems during WWI, in the rest areas in Brighton, and attempts were made at the time to keep the troops away from local women.

Yes Britain wasn’t as racialist as some other nations, but in a very peculiar British way. British racism was as much about class as anything else. An Indian prince wouldn’t have had any trouble booking into one of the best hotels in London, and could have gotten a table at any top restaurant in town. Nor in the principal ports and docks was it unusual for mix race marriages to take place, in fact it was fairly common. But move out of these areas, and among Britain’s middle classes, and things would have been very different. It is often said the top and bottom of British society have more in common than ether do with the middle.

But at a certain level, inside the establishment, all that toleration went out the window. Very strict efforts were made to keep the races apart, especially in India. Indians had their place, and it wasn’t in a relationship with a white woman. Now no one was anywhere near as upset at a low born British male having an Indian girlfriend, mistress or wife. But if you were a member of the Indian Civil, you would have been asked to leave if you were found to have done this. These are not my views; I am strictly reflecting what were widely held views at the time. And this would and was one of the considerations in the deployment of non British, by that I mean non white personnel, during WWII. One among many, and I does us no good not to face up to the sometimes unpleasant facts that were part and parcel of British colonial rule. For all it benevolence in comparison to others it was at its base based on a belief that we the British were the master race, and all others were inferior.

In regard to payments etc, in the end Britain got away with a lot, other than with the Americans, she could and did spend what she liked, on the understanding that the bill would be paid later. What ever the relationship between the British government and the government of India, in the end, money wasn’t a problem; the monies could be found, to pay for what ever was needed. It was the lack of an industrial base in India, and the need to import most of the weapons and equipment that was the problem. Unlike the “white colonies/dominions,” which did have an industrial base that could be exploited, India didn’t. if you read Bill Slims excellent book Defeat into Victory, you will note just how poor as a logistic base India was.

Dathi, usertroon2020, I am sorry but I just do not see the logic behind your statements, in regard to the redeploying of troops from the Far East back to Europe. There wasn’t at the time IOTL a major shortage of troops in Europe. If anything there had been too many young men called up, most of whom were just sitting around with not a lot to do. And ITTL, with the far lower losses to date, this will be even more so. Britain didn’t really hit the buffers until after D-Day, when things really did start to get tight. And what is it you propose these troops do, there is no chance of an invasion of the mainland from Britain, there just isn’t the equipment to do it, nor will there be for some time to come.

As for stopping/shutting down the campaign in the Far East, how do you propose to do this? The Japanese are not going to suddenly stop fighting, and they would see any lowering of effort as reason to go on the attack. Logic says that you drive your enemy as far away from your base as you can. And that means in the modern day, beyond bomber range, which requires that FIC is cleared, and the Japanese pushed back into Southern China. Which also has the happy bonus of providing more routes to supply Chiang and the nationalists. America might not want the French to regain their colony, but they want to support Chiang even more, and that means opening up more routes, which means “liberating” FIC. Campaigns take on a life of their own, and this one is going to run until the end of the war. It might not be high on the priority list, much as it wasn’t IOTL, but it will still get more than it did, given the generally better position that the British are in.
 
That was rather... ambitious of them, I must say. A shame that a bit of common sense couldn't break out and they let the Thais switch sides similar to how Italy was treated.

It did. It was all irrelevant in the end, Japan surrendered, and Operation ROGER, the invasion of Thailand never occurred.

No matter how improved matters on the ground are militarily for the Allies, moving through a cooperative country is much faster than having to fight your way through, even with the balance of forces much in your favour.

Given the state of the infrastructure in Thailand at that point, whether the Thais co-operated or resisted makes very little difference. We're talking about a region that didn't have roads, has a single railway,

One way to get around this could we perhaps have the US convince the French that allowing Thailand to switch side for minimal penalties is the fastest and most efficient way of opening up the door for the liberation of French Indochina, and the two of them gang up on/pressure the British?

After the Franco-Thai War, the French are even more hostile to Thailand than the British are, and given how they know they will be even more weakened post war, even more keen on crippling it. The French will be siding with the British in telling the Americans that it's none of their business how they choose to punish the Thais for their aggression.

From a US perspective if the invasion is going to be a purely Free French and Imperial affair then they don't really lose anything, it helps secure southern China, and it obtains their goal of an intact Thailand.

The thing is, after what the Thais did in first 1940 and then in 1941, the British and French are actively hostile to the notion of an fully independent Thailand. It has just demonstrated that it is both a strategic threat to their possessions and does not keep the treaties it makes. This latter point is a particularly sore one at the current point, given that such treaty breaking is strongly associated with Nazi behaviour.

Both the British and French are looking at securing their post war security, and they've jsut been shown that Thailand as currently constituted is incompatible with that.

Essentially, they're going to push treating it like Japan was treated, as they planned to iOTL, and the Americans don't have the leverage to stop them.
 
I'd never heard that about plans to annex/demilitarise parts of Thailand. Does seem less than wise under the circumstances. Might be a cultural basis in that I think the region is mainly Muslim and has more in common with Malaya than Thailand but not something I would go for.
Pattani is a predominantly Malay/Muslim area, yes. IOTL there's been some kind of armed action by a local separatist movement there in recent years.
 
I'd never heard that about plans to annex/demilitarise parts of Thailand. Does seem less than wise under the circumstances. Might be a cultural basis in that I think the region is mainly Muslim and has more in common with Malaya than Thailand but not something I would go for.

Search for "Thailand's Secret War: The Free Thai, OSS, and SOE During World War II By E. Bruce Reynolds". Page 365 onwards discusses this, and, more importantly, gives references, to Foreign Office papers and Eden's correspondence.

It seems pretty clear cut what British intentions were, which were to annex the parts of Thailand south of the Kra Isthmus and demilitarise and have administrative control over the Isthmus itself.

From what I have read, albeit not a lot, the Thais were divided about the alliance with Japan. The border conflict with FIC was a factor but probably more important was that Japan could/would send troops and Britain couldn't supply substantial aid to defend Thailand against the Japanese. As such, with Japan rapidly going down the drain and the desire to secure the situation in the east I would rather encourage a Thai rebellion and have them welcome us as liberators than seek to fight our way through them. Especially since the Japanese have done such a good job, in an amazingly short time, to win many over to the allied camp.;)

Essentially, as they'd broken the 1940 Anglo-Thai treaty, the British no longer saw the Thais as reliable partners, so didn't think there was any point working with them. Britain actively wanted to destroy the pre-war Thai state and create an occupation government to make sure that it would not be a threat post-war, as they had decided that it was untrustworthy. Fighting and defeating the Thai army in the open field was an essential component of this, it was counter to British grand strategy to encourage a Thai rebellion.

We can see this in the British attempts to frustrate OSS efforts to support the Free Thais during the war.

Note that the Thai government being willing to break another treaty and changing sides does nothing to make the British see them as a suitable neighbour.

Quite like Simon's argument for getting France and the US together to liberate both Thailand and FIC. Not sure that London would offer much if any opposition to such a move.

As I say in my earlier post, it was the French who were the most determined to punish Thailand for the Franco-Thai War and to make sure they wouldn't pose a threat in future, by crippling the post-war Thai state. They had the least strategic interest of all in Thailand being able to change sides cleanly.

[Wondering if the plan for Pattani was more something one of the local administrators or military men had in mind rather than the central government?]

This was Eden, so as central as it gets.
 
Back to the PIAT for a moment, HE, Hesh and smoke rounds were all either issued or trialed forthe PIAT. With the indirect fire range of 300 yards or so HE becoms quite useful and of course the Hesh round would be pretty good at demoliating palm log Bunkers. Unlike rocket (Bazooka) or Recoiless weapons the PAIT has no back blast to betray it's users location and the general lack of Lauch signeture is advantages especialy in setting up ambushes. IMHO a harsh recoil kick is a small price to pay for this weapons versatility and tactical usefulness.
 
Ramp

I agree with the general point but I think you are overstating things the ICS was only about 1200 strong and I don’t think the British ever believed they were the master race, just better than foreigners and there is a difference. Notably that certain people - Sikh, Gurkhas, Maori’s, Jats, Rajputs etc rank rather higher than say the bloody French, and can certainly play cricket which counts for a lot.

I have read Slim and with the exception of some specific industries - cloth and to some extent ammunition/artillery production there is a very limited industrial base at the start of the war. The interesting things are the rate at which the production base was created during the war. I am not sure whether its viable but there was assembly work on jeeps beginning in 44 so assembly of parts is feasible if they can be provided. Astro has already hinted at landing craft.

For example Tata’s steel ingot production is 10% of Japanese maximum ( and 10x minimum.) its not going to change the world balance of power but it’s a million tons and there was a marine industry so some things are feasible.

Generally

I think the limiting factor on troops in the Far East will be shipping/supply and that applies as much to shipping them back to Europe as to using them going forward.

The Indian army troops in Persia though would probably be as easily deployed to the Middle east as anywhere else if its feasible to move them at all and merginf the Malay/Burma fronts could enable the creation of a fairly meaty strategic reserve for the far east once shipping is available.

There are enough reasons to see the heroic Thai people as victims of Japanese agression, which they were on the whole. Noone will back a land grab provided there is significant support for the allies when they arrive.
 
On the subject of land grabs in Thailand...

One possibility is that once the Empire has driven the Japanese back, to make the southermost part of Thailand an independant province under general control of the British. Given that the inhabitants have been occupied by the Japanese, with the aid of their own government, the locals might be quite keen on this idea.

As to Thailand declaring for the allies. they may well, but they still wont be trusted.
 
On the subject of land grabs in Thailand...

One possibility is that once the Empire has driven the Japanese back, to make the southermost part of Thailand an independant province under general control of the British. Given that the inhabitants have been occupied by the Japanese, with the aid of their own government, the locals might be quite keen on this idea.

As to Thailand declaring for the allies. they may well, but they still wont be trusted.

They're the Italians of South East Asia.:eek: And like the Italians they have that growing feeling they've backed the wrong horse.
 
Alratan

Thanks. Goggled it and got the summary. Does sound rather bad for Anglo-Thai co-operate, which I suspect would be an error on our part, despite understandable reasons for it.:( I think Garrison gives a good description but they have in quick succession upset both France and Britain. Presuming that in TTL Thailand still does a dow on the allies in Jan 42.

Steve

Search for "Thailand's Secret War: The Free Thai, OSS, and SOE During World War II By E. Bruce Reynolds". Page 365 onwards discusses this, and, more importantly, gives references, to Foreign Office papers and Eden's correspondence.

It seems pretty clear cut what British intentions were, which were to annex the parts of Thailand south of the Kra Isthmus and demilitarise and have administrative control over the Isthmus itself.



Essentially, as they'd broken the 1940 Anglo-Thai treaty, the British no longer saw the Thais as reliable partners, so didn't think there was any point working with them. Britain actively wanted to destroy the pre-war Thai state and create an occupation government to make sure that it would not be a threat post-war, as they had decided that it was untrustworthy. Fighting and defeating the Thai army in the open field was an essential component of this, it was counter to British grand strategy to encourage a Thai rebellion.

We can see this in the British attempts to frustrate OSS efforts to support the Free Thais during the war.

Note that the Thai government being willing to break another treaty and changing sides does nothing to make the British see them as a suitable neighbour.



As I say in my earlier post, it was the French who were the most determined to punish Thailand for the Franco-Thai War and to make sure they wouldn't pose a threat in future, by crippling the post-war Thai state. They had the least strategic interest of all in Thailand being able to change sides cleanly.



This was Eden, so as central as it gets.
 
Alratan

Thanks. Goggled it and got the summary. Does sound rather bad for Anglo-Thai co-operate, which I suspect would be an error on our part, despite understandable reasons for it.:( I think Garrison gives a good description but they have in quick succession upset both France and Britain. Presuming that in TTL Thailand still does a dow on the allies in Jan 42.

Steve

It's been a lot of pages but I think they did, and of course at that time it didn't look like a bad bet. The Japanese were sweeping all before them and of course IOTL that would continue until well into '42. The Thais and the Italians have both had the timeframes for realizing the scale of their mistake telescoped and they both have 'allies' who aren't going to let them just walk away. And of course their enemies aren't going to let them switch sides without paying a high price.
 
On the subject of land grabs in Thailand...

One possibility is that once the Empire has driven the Japanese back, to make the southermost part of Thailand an independant province under general control of the British. Given that the inhabitants have been occupied by the Japanese, with the aid of their own government, the locals might be quite keen on this idea.

As to Thailand declaring for the allies. they may well, but they still wont be trusted.

is there also the possibility of putting it under nominal control of the DEI?
Especially since this part of thailand and the area of Atjeh/Aceh already have close ties. In the long run after (partial) decolonisation this would throw a spanner in the works for both thailand trying to re-unite and any potential tries for a united sumatra or even java trying for dominance as both areas might tend to stick together due to cultural ties.
 
This was Eden, so as central as it gets.
Bugger. The only upside seems to be that it wasn't Churchill. Only way to avoid this then as far as I can see then is if Blamey via the Australian government or Alexander get in contact with Churchill and as the commanders on the ground make a convincing argument that it would be best to accept the Thais crossing over with minimal penalties - the French get their territory back, the British the Malay/Muslim areas in the very south, and some reparations payments - and in a fit of Churchillian quixoticism he accepts it as the outline of future policy.

But all this talk of Thailand is boring, lets have the next update so we can see just how well Yamashita has been doing. Something tells me he's not going to be known as The Tiger of Malaya in this timeline. :D
 
But all this talk of Thailand is boring, lets have the next update so we can see just how well Yamashita has been doing. Something tells me he's not going to be known as The Tiger of Malaya in this timeline. :D

Sure he will! He'll just be more specifically the Paper Tiger of Malaya. :D
 
One of the things that struck me recently was that with far less captured territory and it being held for likely much shorter periods of time, this gives the Japanese much less time to be getting up to any naughty stuff which could mean fewer war crimes trials in the future.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top