Southeast Asia's View of Japanese Occupation during WWII

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ryz05

Junior Member
In light of how many in Southeast Asia view Japanese occupation as a good thing, and see how Imperial Japan drove out western colonizers like the British, I would like to point out that:
1. Imperial Japan colonized Southeast Asia to help fuel their wars
2. Imperial Japan never intended for their independence. It was only after Japan's defeat by the United States did they leave, thus it was chance that Japan left its Southeast Asian colonies. In essence, it was the US that saved Southeast Asia from colonialism, so thank the US for their good deeds.

Those that still claim it was the Japanese that freed their country are obviously mistaken and carried away.
 
Last edited:

szbd

Junior Member
Yeah. And one thing need to be point out, Thailand was never colonized by any country and was an ally of japan in WWII. So Thailand does not serve in this argument.

Another thing, if you wanna thank japan, by this logic, you should pay more thank to Nazi. Because Nazi gave Britain, Netherland and France a really hard bleeding so that they could come back and rule again.
 

Violet Oboe

Junior Member
Many people in India know indeed all too well that the six years of intense warfare against Nazi Germany torn the claws of the British lion out!

The longterm leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Lal Krishna Advani (home minister in the Vajpayee cabinet 1998-04) has written repeatedly in several articles and books that every hindu patriot owes a fair deal to the national socialist movement since Hitler's struggle against Britain had accelerated India's independence dramatically. There is absolutely no morality in international politics and in certain situations you are forced to accept help from the devil; or to quote L.K. Advani:
(regarding a question comparing Hitler and Stalin) "Only the greatest victories turn devils instantly into gods!"
 

Ryz05

Junior Member
Many people in India know indeed all too well that the six years of intense warfare against Nazi Germany torn the claws of the British lion out!

The longterm leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Lal Krishna Advani (home minister in the Vajpayee cabinet 1998-04) has written repeatedly in several articles and books that every hindu patriot owes a fair deal to the national socialist movement since Hitler's struggle against Britain had accelerated India's independence dramatically. There is absolutely no morality in international politics and in certain situations you are forced to accept help from the devil; or to quote L.K. Advani:
(regarding a question comparing Hitler and Stalin) "Only the greatest victories turn devils instantly into gods!"

Nazi Germany might have weakened the British, but who knows what they would've done had British lost - they could have taken India as its own colony. In the view that Nazi are racial supremists, life would undoubtedly be harder under their rule as millions become slaves for the Third Reich. Be thankful that the United States saved the day and freed Southeast Asia from colonialism by Nazi or Imperial Japan.
 

Violet Oboe

Junior Member
Well, Hitler may have been strategically inept but he was certainly not stupid.

Several german intellgence services and the foreign organization of the Nazi Party had been courting hindu nationalists like Chandra Bose for years and thousands of indian POW's were trained in german camps for an eventual fight against the British. Additionally Hitler was aware of the fact that India was ´founded´by the Aryan people 3500 years ago and his beloved swastika is obviously a holy hindu symbol by origin. ( Quite hilarious if copycat Arier would have colonized the original Aryans!:rofl: )

Berlin would have been content by installing Chandra Bose as the ´leader´of an allied national socialist India and of course he would have had to show his loyalty by complying to Germany's economic and strategic demands (like other axis partners (Italy, Romania, Hungary) also did) but this situation would have been a huge improvement over british imperial rule. (Also remember: Spanish dictator Franco had a military pact with Berlin and Rome but he maintained a considerable maneuvering space and remained ´neutral´ in the war. Probably an indian fascist regime would have been able to play Tokyo and Berlin against each other and correspondingly would have been able to safeguard India's interests.:D )
 

The_Zergling

Junior Member
In light of how many in Southeast Asia view Japanese occupation is good, and see how Imperial Japan drove out the western colonizers like the British, I would like to point out that:
1. Imperial Japan colonized Southeast Asia to help fuel their wars
2. Imperial Japan never intended for their independence. It was only after Japan's defeat by the United States did they leave, thus it was all chance that Japan left its Southeast Asian colonies. In essence, it was the US that saved Southeast Asia from colonialism, so thank the US for their good deeds.

Those that still claim it was the Japanese that freed their country are obviously mistaken and carried away.

... you're arguing that the Southeast Asian nations should be grateful for all the United States has done for them during and after the war, and that their perceptions of US imperialism are incorrect?

(I actually rarely see the sentiment that Japanese occupation was generally positive. In South Korea the infrastructure was largely put in place during the occupation, but that was primarily to make the colony more profitable than anything else, and the South Koreans point this out readily.)

In case you're wondering, yes the US has bombed various Southeast Asian countries since the end of World War II:

Indonesia 1958
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70

Does this mean these countries should hate us? Not necessarily. But it does implore us to stop and consider their reasons for not embracing us wholeheartedly as liberators.
 

Ryz05

Junior Member
Well, Hitler may have been strategically inept but he was certainly not stupid.

Several german intellgence services and the foreign organization of the Nazi Party had been courting hindu nationalists like Chandra Bose for years and thousands of indian POW's were trained in german camps for an eventual fight against the British. Additionally Hitler was aware of the fact that India was ´founded´by the Aryan people 3500 years ago and his beloved swastika is obviously a holy hindu symbol by origin. ( Quite hilarious if copycat Arier would have colonized the original Aryans!:rofl: )

Berlin would have been content by installing Chandra Bose as the ´leader´of an allied national socialist India and of course he would have had to show his loyalty by complying to Germany's economic and strategic demands (like other axis partners (Italy, Romania, Hungary) also did) but this situation would have been a huge improvement over british imperial rule. (Also remember: Spanish dictator Franco had a military pact with Berlin and Rome but he maintained a considerable maneuvering space and remained ´neutral´ in the war. Probably an indian fascist regime would have been able to play Tokyo and Berlin against each other and correspondingly would have been able to safeguard India's interests.:D )

During WWII, Indians were debating on whether to help the British and Americans in their fight against Japan and Nazi, but decided to be on the British side, which is a good choice because much aid was carried over the Himalayas to China.

Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan viewed the world differently from Americans and British. Instead of dividing people into the free (people having advantage) and those seeking freedom (people having disadvantage), the Nazi and Japanese viewed the world as a struggle between the oppressed countries and the oppressor countries, similar to how Soviet Union and Maoist China viewed the world as a struggle between the social classes and imperialism. Thus, it is no doubt that if Nazi Germany had won against England, their oppressive ideology would have led them to colonize India and eventually fight against Imperial Japan (given their successful victory over China and colonization of Southeast Asia) with India's abundant resources.

It was a good thing the United States intervened.

... you're arguing that the Southeast Asian nations should be grateful for all the United States has done for them during and after the war, and that their perceptions of US imperialism are incorrect?

(I actually rarely see the sentiment that Japanese occupation was generally positive. In South Korea the infrastructure was largely put in place during the occupation, but that was primarily to make the colony more profitable than anything else, and the South Koreans point this out readily.)

In case you're wondering, yes the US has bombed various Southeast Asian countries since the end of World War II:

Indonesia 1958
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70

Does this mean these countries should hate us? Not necessarily. But it does implore us to stop and consider their reasons for not embracing us wholeheartedly as liberators.

My whole point was trying to convince those who say Japanese are liberators by kicking out the western colonizers in Southeast Asia that they are wrong, without viewing how it was actually Japan who conquered them and robbed their resources to fuel its wars. And, it was the Americans who ended Japanese occupation in Southeast Asia, so Americans were the ones who liberated the area.

The main reason why they chose to ignore America's good deeds is because of envy for America's power. This is a common view shared by other countries in Central Asia and Western Asia as well.
 
Last edited:

Violet Oboe

Junior Member
@Ryz05:
In contrast to your lofty speculations ("...there is no doubt that Nazi Germany would have colonized India...") I have given some hard facts in my post (Chandra Bose and other hindu nationalists and the activities of german intelligence services to undermine british rule in India and even Mahatma Gandhi had a polite letter friendship with the Führer prior '39) that suggest convincingly that Berlin would probably have treated a´liberated´ national socialist India similarly to other axis partners like Italy, Romania, Hungary or the more distanced franquist Spain.

Of course even the vibrant Chandra Bose would have to been relegated playing second fiddle to an indeed irrational and unpredictable Hitler but at least he would have had illustrious company with Mussolini, Antonescu, Horthy and Franco. Interestingly also in our times there are still enough politicians who are perfectly willing to play even the role of a little poodle enthusiastically wiggling with his tail every time his master goes on rampage to make the world safe for democracy. (who dares to think about Blair and Howard...:rofl:)

So dear Ryz05 would you please back up your argument with some hard facts like articles or books from known experts about Nazi Germany's foreign policy (regarding the indian question). (As far as I know: I have never heard about plans to colonize India made during the nazi period ('33-'45) and as for your speculation about a war with Japan after a nazi victory in Europe: there exists indeed a single document produced by two mid level officers of the german navy regarding a potential war with Japan after 1946 but nobody in the german leadership took that seriously and there are no confirmed comments by Hitler, Goering and other relevant nazi leaders about a war with Japan whatsoever.
 

Ryz05

Junior Member
@Ryz05:
In contrast to your lofty speculations ("...there is no doubt that Nazi Germany would have colonized India...") I have given some hard facts in my post (Chandra Bose and other hindu nationalists and the activities of german intelligence services to undermine british rule in India and even Mahatma Gandhi had a polite letter friendship with the Führer prior '39) that suggest convincingly that Berlin would probably have treated a´liberated´ national socialist India similarly to other axis partners like Italy, Romania, Hungary or the more distanced franquist Spain.
Nazi Germany would do anything to weaken their enemy the British, even if it means making a quick ally with someone they despise, like their pact with Soviet Union before Nazi invasion of Poland.

So dear Ryz05 would you please back up your argument with some hard facts like articles or books from known experts about Nazi Germany's foreign policy (regarding the indian question). (As far as I know: I have never heard about plans to colonize India made during the nazi period ('33-'45) and as for your speculation about a war with Japan after a nazi victory in Europe: there exists indeed a single document produced by two mid level officers of the german navy regarding a potential war with Japan after 1946 but nobody in the german leadership took that seriously and there are no confirmed comments by Hitler, Goering and other relevant nazi leaders about a war with Japan whatsoever.
The potential of Nazi colonization of India with British defeat is always there, especially when you look into history on how Imperial Japan acquired German colonies after their defeat in WWI, so there's no need to confirm with Nazi documents. Also, Nazi Germany was still too occupied with the holocaust, the war in Europe against British and later the Soviet Union to have thought about what they would do after victory or even an eventual showdown against Imperial Japan, so of course any such documents would not be taken seriously by the leadership.
 
Last edited:

Violet Oboe

Junior Member
After all a scenario along the lines of the actual relationship between the Sovietunion and the PR China seems to be much more likely in my analysis (i.e. after a phase of 10-15 years of cooperation based on common ideology the presumably weaker partner breaks away; indeed it is more than likely that Hitler's successors would have been fully absorbed by maintaining their european empire).

The conflicting elements of nazi foreign policy between ideology and pragmatism made Hitler's decision making process very unpredictable but although he was decidedly more impulsive than Stalin he was still aware of Germany's limited resources. Some of Hitler's less known comments are about his conviction that the British empire would fall apart even without a major war in the coming 20 years (and Hitler was not happy about this development) and his revealing statement that his call for resurrection of the german colonies in Africa was a mere propaganda bluff intended to pressure the British to make concessions (fitting in this picture: the bizarre plans of german foreign office bureaucrats to ´resettle´the european jewry in Madagascar).

P.S.: Only objective analysis can produce useful results and correspondingly the same standard has to be applied in every case. Accepting US policy intentions at face value and dismissing that of other powers regardless of available facts is certainly not a way of getting a balanced view of reality.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top