The Whale has Wings

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Simon

Good point, although they could get pulled up for some of the stuff in China. Or simply a resentful Japan, bitter over their defeat by the decadent west simply concentrate more atrocities on the limited time and POWs/civilians they have. Probably at least a bit of this but hopefully a lot of the worst will be avoided.

Steve
 
They're the Italians of South East Asia.:eek: And like the Italians they have that growing feeling they've backed the wrong horse.
The Italians declared war on the British before asking for help from Hitler, Thailand didn't declare war until some time after the Japanese were already in the region, so at a stretch they could make it look like coercion in a way the Italians never could.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
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.

Siam (and at this stage it is Japanese occupied Siam) doesn't have much to offer except it's southern regions in the Kra peninsular. There is no rail link between Siam and FIC. The best logistic route is by ship. Port to port, probably straight from Singapore to FIC. The French and US have no horse in the race here. No say in Siam.
 
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.

Uh, that's generous of you. After the surrender at Bataan, the IJA were running up a score of war crimes from the first moments of the white flags going up. And don't get me started on Corrigador. Not to mention that IIRC the OTL Massacre of Balikpapen has also happened ITTL.:mad:
 
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.
Fewer trials? What a terrible thought. Given how many criminals got away with barely a slap on the wrist (or ended up in the post-war government!) that would be a very bad idea.

Even if the number of crimes committed is lower there should still be a vast increase in the number of trials, forcing Japan to actually face up to the crimes committed in a way I don't think they did (or even still have) in OTL.
 
And of course you still have Unit 731 and the use of "comfort women." Someone on here once said that basically every Japanese soldier who used those brothels was technically a war criminal. So there will be plenty to keep an international tribunal busy, the question is will the end of the War result in such a body? For example, if Japan runs out of oil and sues for peace just what terms would the Allies offer? The Americans and especially the Chinese will want to bring people to account, but could there be a deal in which Japan sacrifices the middle and lower level thugs and rapists while allowing those with command responsibility to escape punishment?
 
Doubtful I'd have though, the Americans would want some form of revenge for Pearl Harbour, and for that you really want big names on the stand since there would be a limited amount you could blame the pilots and crews for.
 
And of course you still have Unit 731 and the use of "comfort women." Someone on here once said that basically every Japanese soldier who used those brothels was technically a war criminal. So there will be plenty to keep an international tribunal busy, the question is will the end of the War result in such a body? For example, if Japan runs out of oil and sues for peace just what terms would the Allies offer? The Americans and especially the Chinese will want to bring people to account, but could there be a deal in which Japan sacrifices the middle and lower level thugs and rapists while allowing those with command responsibility to escape punishment?

EUREKA! It just occurred to me that without Dougie as the Supreme Allied Commander of the Army of Occupation (Jeez, who WOULD get that job?), maybe a more aggressive general will go after the guilty. It was my understanding that if anything it was the higher ups that got punished and too many middle-level (junior generals and colonels) who basically walked if they had anything remotely of value to offer.:mad:

EDIT: Yamamoto getting a P-38 cannon shell through the back of his skull, and Nagumo blowing his brains out at Saipan were two very convenient KIAs in WWII. Nobody but Tojo's family was sorry to see him go.
 
At what point does command responsibility become a war crime? At this point the responsibility clearly exists only in respect of POW. Yamashita standard is in the future and although under UN auspices is a US military court/SCOTUS judgement delivered within 7 months of the surrender.

This is more that a technical point as the whole war crimes bit OTL is Germany first with the Moscow declaration then Japan.

If that is reversed there is likely to be a different view forming on various issues and I use the word different advisedly. Firstly a Yamashita type judgement based on Bataan and especially Balikapan would apply up the German chain of command for Wormhoudt and Le Paradis for example. Secondly the framework for anglo/american views on war crimes would be formed without so much Soviet influence.

Not sure how this would play out though as the Wallies will be aware that their actions vs Japan are the precedent for UN actions vs Germany.
 
EUREKA! It just occurred to me that without Dougie as the Supreme Allied Commander of the Army of Occupation (Jeez, who WOULD get that job?), maybe a more aggressive general will go after the guilty. It was my understanding that if anything it was the higher ups that got punished and too many middle-level (junior generals and colonels) who basically walked if they had anything remotely of value to offer.:mad:

EDIT: Yamamoto getting a P-38 cannon shell through the back of his skull, and Nagumo blowing his brains out at Saipan were two very convenient KIAs in WWII. Nobody but Tojo's family was sorry to see him go.

Technically the Allies don't have to occupy Japan, they can insist that it gives up most of its Navy and warplanes and withdraw from China, Korea and Taiwan, Japan doesn't have the coal and steel that Germany does so it can't build up its military power by itself, and the resources it would need will be under Anglo-American control so it could be neutralised as a threat while the Allies focus on Germany.

However political and diplomatic pressures will necessitate some kind of an occupation, on the one hand Japan won't have been firebombed and nuked, it won't be on the brink of mass famine and won't need to be rebuilt from the ground up. On the other not having Doug has major implications, to his credit he played the shogun role well, his handling of Hirohito may have been unpalatable but in the long run it was the right thing to do. Even if TTL's overlord let's him keep his throne, I have a feeling that we'll have all the ingredients for a Japanese Doltchstosslegende myth, because Japan hasn't been as destroyed as comprehensively ITTL future Japanese Nationalists could well argue that Japan was let down by incompetent commanders such as Yamamoto and Yamashita and had people with the "right qualities" been in charge then Japan could have won.

It all depends how Astro let's it play out but I think it's unlikely there'll be a post war Japanese miracle ITTL.
 
The Italians declared war on the British before asking for help from Hitler, Thailand didn't declare war until some time after the Japanese were already in the region, so at a stretch they could make it look like coercion in a way the Italians never could.

Whats critically important is that the Italians didn't betray their word and break a treaty they'd just signed. After their experience with Germany, the British political class at the time had a special loathing for people who did that. They simply didn't think there was any point negotiating with such people, as they couldn't be relied on to keep their word.
 

GarethC

Donor
Astro, have any of Japan's enemies had any substantive thoughts on the terms of an acceptable surrender? OTL Cairo summit is more than six months away, but the question of Thailand post-bellum may arise sooner than that.

Have you given much thought to the outcome of the KMT/CCP conflict and what might happen in Korea?
 
Whats critically important is that the Italians didn't betray their word and break a treaty they'd just signed. After their experience with Germany, the British political class at the time had a special loathing for people who did that. They simply didn't think there was any point negotiating with such people, as they couldn't be relied on to keep their word.

Alratan

That is a point but does it relate to a nation or a government? If elements in Thailand approach the allies offering to basically change the government and switch sides, which would help the allies in the war in SEA, what would the reaction be?

Steve
 
That is a point but does it relate to a nation or a government? If elements in Thailand approach the allies offering to basically change the government and switch sides, which would help the allies in the war in SEA, what would the reaction be?

It pretty much applies to the institution of the government, not just the individuals who happen to be filling the roles, not just to, with a nice big dollop of racism to apply to the people as well. This is based on what the British wanted to do iOTL, when the Thais did replace the government which sided with the Japanese, and the British still wanted to treat Thailand in the same way Japan and Germany were treated, i.e. the original institutions of state dissolved and replaced with an occupation government, pieces carved off, and other regions placed under indefinite military control.

The US believed that the British were deliberately prolonging the war with Thailand in order to accomplish this, and they were probably right. They also believed that the British were doing their best to interfere in attempts to get the Thais to change sides...

Given the current military situation, the Thais changing sides doesn't actually help the allies in any significant way - the main Japanese limits on attacking the British are local logistics, so having to occupy the rest of the country doesn't really compete with that. Given Thailand's extremely poor internal transport links apart from railways laid to transport timber from the interior to the coasts, an allied Thailand doesn't even help much with liberating FIC - it's simply so much more efficient to ship men and supplies directly from Singapore compared to having porters and mules carry it overland.

British strategic interests are best served by militarily defeating Thailand, and imposing a military government on it as soon as possible, including annexing the southern provinces, to create facts on the ground well before the end of the war.
 
Alratan

That is a point but does it relate to a nation or a government? If elements in Thailand approach the allies offering to basically change the government and switch sides, which would help the allies in the war in SEA, what would the reaction be?

Steve
Honestly I think it would make things worse. The perception will be that not only are the Thais likely to break their word and betray treaties under pressure (and frankly it's no good keeping a treaty when times are going well, it's when when times are bad you want people keeping their word), you've also established that the government isn't stable and the country is now run by untrustworthy opportunists. After all where were those 'elements' when Thailand started breaking treaties and things seemed to be going well for Japan?
 
Whats critically important is that the Italians didn't betray their word and break a treaty they'd just signed. After their experience with Germany, the British political class at the time had a special loathing for people who did that. They simply didn't think there was any point negotiating with such people, as they couldn't be relied on to keep their word.
The treaty was signed by the government of Plaek Pibulsonggram, if he gets ousted then the Thais can switch sides perfectly legitimately, the same way the Italians did.

That is a point but does it relate to a nation or a government? If elements in Thailand approach the allies offering to basically change the government and switch sides, which would help the allies in the war in SEA, what would the reaction be?
Like the Free Thai Movement that got a good deal of support OTL?
 
Last edited:
If the British demand all but Unconditional Surrender of the Thais they can hardly be in a position to criticize if the US should demand that the same standard be applied to the major Axis powers. Otherwise, it looks like mere opportunistic ($$$) bullying against weaker powers while "being more reasonable":rolleyes: when facing tougher opponents.
 
If the British demand all but Unconditional Surrender of the Thais they can hardly be in a position to criticize if the US should demand that the same standard be applied to the major Axis powers. Otherwise, it looks like mere opportunistic ($$$) bullying against weaker powers while "being more reasonable":rolleyes: when facing tougher opponents.

Just a nitpick, nobody cared about the minors ... so if a peace means the Thai would start fighting the Japanese in some way, it would be accepted. Distrusted surely, but accepted.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top