End of Empires: who and what was responsible? (post WW2)

[JMA]

Moderator's Note

In the thread 'Popular rebellion, state response and our failure to date: a debate ' several posts have appeared of late on the role of FDR (President Roosevelt) and the demise post-1956 of the mainly European empires: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=13002. Those posts have been relocated to this historical thread, so a debate can occur.(Moderator ends).

Decolonialisation rebellions were also often rather based on the idea of sovereignty than on organisations.

Almost.

But it was always organisations (political parties) that exploited the idea and motivation of the concept of sovereignty and self determination among the people/masses in order to achieve power.

How many of the colonies that were granted independence after say 1950 led to a country where the people and not some dictatorship ruled?

That this was not anticipated or alternatively that this outcome was deemed inevitable and therefore acceptable says much about the driving force behind this decolonialisation process ... the USA under FDR.

While Stalin and Mao presided over the repression on a grand scale no one person delivered people into the death grip of dictators and repression like FDR. Truly a man who should be placed right up there in the rouges gallery next to Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Enver (Turkey), Pol Pot, Assad, Mengistu, Mugabe etc etc due to the number lives and human suffering his incompetent statesmanship cost.

[Dayuhan]

That this was not anticipated or alternatively that this outcome was deemed inevitable and therefore acceptable says much about the driving force behind this decolonialisation process ... the USA under FDR.

While Stalin and Mao presided over the repression on a grand scale no one person delivered people into the death grip of dictators and repression like FDR. Truly a man who should be placed right up there in the rouges gallery next to Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Enver (Turkey), Pol Pot, Assad, Mengistu, Mugabe etc etc due to the number lives and human suffering his incompetent statesmanship cost.

I'm not sure the USA was the sole or primary driving force behind the decolonization process... in most cases the colonies were going to break free no matter what the US did. The only colony the US had made a transition into (dysfunctional) democracy. I'm not at all sure that the US could ever have controlled the decolonization process or the form of postcolonial government for colonies of other countries.

Certainly decolonization was handled clumsily by the European powers, who generally couldn't hang on and wouldn't let go... though admittedly the British were slightly more gracious than some about accepting the obvious. I don't see how that can be blamed on FDR or the US.

I do think that one of the great American failings of the Cold War was allowing the communists to seize the moral high ground and historical momentum of opposition to fading empires and at least some of the post-colonial tinpot dictators. Swimming against the tide is rough work, and we paid (and are still paying) a price for that... but that came well after FDR.

[JMA]

I'm not sure the USA was the sole or primary driving force behind the decolonization process... in most cases the colonies were going to break free no matter what the US did. The only colony the US had made a transition into (dysfunctional) democracy. I'm not at all sure that the US could ever have controlled the decolonization process or the form of postcolonial government for colonies of other countries.

Certainly decolonization was handled clumsily by the European powers, who generally couldn't hang on and wouldn't let go... though admittedly the British were slightly more gracious than some about accepting the obvious. I don't see how that can be blamed on FDR or the US.

I do think that one of the great American failings of the Cold War was allowing the communists to seize the moral high ground and historical momentum of opposition to fading empires and at least some of the post-colonial tinpot dictators. Swimming against the tide is rough work, and we paid (and are still paying) a price for that... but that came well after FDR.

Oh dear, is it a case of selective memory or just a lack of knowledge of the history of the US? Read up on the FDR days and how he set the ball rolling and then jump to 1960 when JFK discovered that certain actions/promises/etc were "worth a lot of negro votes".

The pretense that the US does not carry the lions share of responsibility for the shambolic manner in which decolonization, certainly in Africa, was carried out is either a calculated deceit or a simple matter of denial.

[Dayuhan]

Oh dear, is it a case of selective memory or just a lack of knowledge of the history of the US? Read up on the FDR days and how he set the ball rolling and then jump to 1960 when JFK discovered that certain actions/promises/etc were "worth a lot of negro votes".

Why do I suspect that we're about to embark on yet another round of exorbitant revisionism? Through History With JMA, or What the Americans Should Have Done If They Only Had a Ball.

Given that FDR was dead before decolonization was more than an abstract fantasy, it's hard to see how he got any balls rolling. Certainly nothing FDR said in the last days of his Presidency would have had much influence on what the Europeans actually did as it became clear that they were not going to be able to hold onto their "possessions".

Jumping from FDR to JFK would skip rather a lot, no?

I can fault the US for meekly allowing the restoration of empire in SE Asia, where they had dominant force and influence... especially with the French in Indochina and the Dutch in Indonesia. That would be hindsight speaking though, and it would be silly to think things were as clear at that time. In Africa the US had virtually no knowledge, experience, or exposure; difficult to see what FDR or Truman could have done to change the future.

The pretense that the US does not carry the lions share of responsibility for the shambolic manner in which decolonization, certainly in Africa, was carried out is either a calculated deceit or a simple matter of denial.

I why wouldn't "the lions share of responsibility for the shambolic manner in which decolonization, certainly in Africa, was carried out" rest with the colonial powere who were carrying it out... unless of course we start with the assumption that America is necessarily responsible for everything, everywhere, all the time?

Just for the sake of amusement, what do you think the leaders of post-WW2 America could or should have done, and how exactly would that have assured orderly decolonization?

[JMA]

David, I understand and appreciate the decision to separate this aspect from the main thread.

While Stalin and Mao caused death and misery to millions within the geographical bounds of their countries and Hitler wreaked havoc across the areas where his armies invaded and occupied the legacy of FDR is more pernicious than any in that his actions led to eastern Europe being delivered to a 40 plus year period of servitude under the Soviet jackboot and if that were not enough his strong anti-colonial position led to an all too rapid race for and granting of self-determination among colonies which devastated virtually all of Africa leaving a legacy of death, destruction and misery still evident today.

The historical record is clear that the actions of FDR thrump the likes of Mao, Stalin and Hitler in the shear scale and breadth of the death, destruction and misery his policies and actions caused peoples and countries across the world.

I understand that the historical record with regard to FDR is not palatable to most Americans and that subsequently it has been "glossed over" or misrepresented to avoid the the kind of national angst Germany has suffered since WW2 but is it not time for the nation to face up to the truth and relegate this destructively failed statesman to the scrapheap of history... after all he deserves no better.

[davidbfpo]

Whatever role FDR and other Americans played in the demise of empires IMHO it was to act as a catalyst, aided by a refusal to provide support for a revival after victory. The empires were exhausted by WW2, their national focus had always been on "home affairs", the colonies had a mixed profit/loss record and there was a massive loss of confidence. FDR just speeded things up, although it took sometime for the colonies to be disposed of.

India for the UK was 'the jewel in the crown' and after 1947 colonial policy was missed its central hub.

Nor must we be too UK-centric, others had colonies, notably France and the Netherlands. Portugal took longer - 1974 marking the end.

When I say 'other Americans' my recollection is limited. Were there not Americans in a variety of roles around the empires "doing their bit"? I recall there was an OSS mission with the Viet Minh in French Indo-China (in North Vietnam) and did they not advocate a handover to Ho Chi Minh?

I wonder what was the impact of seeing French colonial administration in North Africa? After Operation Torch the French remained in power and the USA used the area as a base for the Italian / South France campaign.

[Dayuhan]

the legacy of FDR is more pernicious than any in that his actions led to eastern Europe being delivered to a 40 plus year period of servitude under the Soviet jackboot

What exactly did FDR do that "led to eastern Europe being delivered to a 40 plus year period of servitude under the Soviet jackboot"? Please don't refer to Yalta, because when that took place eastern Europe was already under the Soviet jackboot. I've no doubt that FDR hadf an excessively rosy view of Stalin and the Soviets, but whether a different view would have changed anything is very much open to question. Restricting lend-lease supplies during the war would have crippled the Soviet effort, but would have also made the Allied effort in Europe vastly more difficult; under the circumstances it's difficult to fault the decision to supply the Soviets. The US would not in any event have pushed forces farther into Europe than Germany, and once the Germans fell the Soviets would in all likelihood have pushed into eastern Europe anyway.

What exactly would you have wanted the US to do?

his strong anti-colonial position led to an all too rapid race for and granting of self-determination among colonies which devastated virtually all of Africa leaving a legacy of death, destruction and misery still evident today.

A truly remarakble and quite unsupportable position.

Yes, FDR was anti-colonial, a quite reasonable position. Yes, colonies fell after WW2. Can you cite any evidence to demonstrate that colonies fell because of FDR's anti-colonial position?

There's no way on earth that a colonial power that saw their colonies as a productive, profitable asset, desired to retain them, and had the capacity to retain them would suddenly leap up and decolonize because a dead American had expressed anti-colonial sentiments. None at all. The idea is too absurd to warrant consideration. The colonial powers divested because the colonies were no longer productive or profitable and they no longer had the capacity to retain them, not because of anything FDR said, thought, or did. He was a President, not God, he didn't the kind of influence that would compel powers to dispose of colonies long after his death.

Have you any evidence that establishes a causative link between FDRs opinions and subsequent colonial divestments?

Whether an extended colonial period would have made decolonization any easier or more orderly is another question. It's very much a debatable question, but since the colonial powers never had the capacity or (in many cases) the will to maintain the crumbling and anachronistic system, it's also an irrelevant question.

The historical record is clear that the actions of FDR thrump the likes of Mao, Stalin and Hitler in the shear scale and breadth of the death, destruction and misery his policies and actions caused peoples and countries across the world.

I understand that the historical record with regard to FDR is not palatable to most Americans and that subsequently it has been "glossed over" or misrepresented to avoid the the kind of national angst Germany has suffered since WW2 but is it not time for the nation to face up to the truth and relegate this destructively failed statesman to the scrapheap of history... after all he deserves no better.

Your interpretation of the historical record is clear. That's not exactly revealed truth, and given the pronounced absence of any supporting evidence it's not the most credible of positions either. The problem is less a lack of palatability than a lack of credibility.

If the US could go back and do thje cold war over again, knowing what we know now, There were numerous mistakes. One of them, IMO, was the failure to accept the momentum of history and take a more aggressively anti-colonial position. Too often we hitched our wagon to falling stars in the name of fighting communism; support for the French in Indochina is only the most egregious example. History doesn't afford the luxury of second chances, though, and the degree of blame that can be assigned to those who were neither omniscient nor clairvoyant is limited. Easy to look back and point out mistakes. Whether any of us could have done better in their shoes is doubtful.

I asked this before, and it wasn't answered:

Just for the sake of amusement, what do you think the leaders of post-WW2 America could or should have done, and how exactly would that have assured orderly decolonization?

Easy to criticize what was done; but what would you suggest as a practical alternative, even with the benefit of hindsight?

[Barton]

There seems to be a lot of hot discussion on this tiopic, so lets start from the begining. In 1940 the United States wanted a series of rights in Britain's Carribean colonies in return for a number of obsolete American tin can destroyers. It can be argued that FDR and is progressive Demnocratic party saw Britains empire as inherently evil. Some of this view is a natural conclusion drawn from America's birth in the American revolution or rebellion depending on your point of view.
As a Canadian I also saw some Canadians (such as Prime Minister King saw this as a time to escape from the Britrish. King worked in the Unitewd States as their ideal. King went to several American universities and wsork for a time within the American civil service before returning to Canada.
FDR saw Britain's condition during the Second World War as a advantage to crack open the Pound`s trading sphere. Ignoring the fact that the America`s dollar sphere was based on the same operating system the American diplomatic corps pushed for the desolution of Britain`s trading system And Britain was in no position to fight the USA oin this. By the end of the war Britain was drained of most of her financial resources. Britain had told the US that she coundn`t support any longer the anti-cxommunist forces in Greece and that the United States had to fill in her place.
As for the United States abandoning east European peopler there coundn`t be anyway around it. Churchill place a sheet before Stalin showing the spheres of diplomatic domination. To quote a modern statement the Soviets had boots on the ground and there was very little that the United Kingdom and the United States could short of full war. Both theb UK and thew US sent in small military teams with little effect showing except the killing of these teams by oviet forces.
FDR was anti-imperialist to his core and tried to bind the UK ninto the dismantalling of the British Empire. He was assisted after this death by Britain`s Labour Party. Labour wanted out of India as soon as possible. So Britain pulled out of India with disasterous effects. Britain allowed for the dismantalling of Greater India with the creation of Pakistan. The British threw in their cards and left the scene. Those Labour ministers were never held to account for the results of their actions. British actions led to untold numbers of dead and the the movement of masses of people during the midnight hour.The effects of this is still with us today. Pakistan was meant to be a secular state instead of what it is today. I suspect Pakistan`s founding father is spinning in his grave considering what happened to his creation.
All in all the decolonisation of the British Empire is complex affair ands what has been stated above is very simple. The dismantling of Britain's African Empire is another chapter and the French and Dutch Empires have not been discussed at all.

[JMA]

If I may pick and choose from your post:

In 1940 the United States wanted a series of rights in Britain's Carribean colonies in return for a number of obsolete American tin can destroyers.

It can be argued that FDR and is progressive Demnocratic party saw Britains empire as inherently evil.

FDR saw Britain's condition during the Second World War as a advantage to crack open the Pound`s trading sphere.

FDR was anti-imperialist to his core and tried to bind the UK ninto the dismantalling of the British Empire.

... Britain pulled out of India with disasterous effects. ...All in all the decolonisation of the British Empire is complex affair

I just wanted to summarize what you said to indicate that we are largely in agreement over the attitude of FDR towards screwing the Brits for economic advantage... and too hell with the consequences.

[Dayuhan]

I just wanted to summarize what you said to indicate that we are largely in agreement over the attitude of FDR towards screwing the Brits for economic advantage... and too hell with the consequences.

We've yet to see anything beyond very speculative evidence that FDR or the US actually succeeded in "screwing the Brits for economic advantage", or in fact that any US policy had any significant impact on the breakup of the British Empire.

Why would we need to speculate over a US impact that is anything but self-evident when so many very reasonable causes are right in front of us? Colonies were far more expensive to maintain in the face of growing resistance to colonial rule, the military force needed to sustain them was no longer available, and anti-imperial sentiment was growing on the home front... what more do you need? Nobody needs an outside influence to encourage them to dispose of colonies that are losing money and requiring unavailable military force to protect from a populace that no longer wants to be colonized, especially when the home-front electorate's interest in maintaining empire is rapidly evaporating.

US influence was really not required to "crack open the pound's trading sphere". The British no longer had the capacity to sustain it, so it collapsed, from within. Others naturally took advantage, and helped the trend along as they could, but the core cause was the lack of capacity and will on the British side combined with a rapidly expanding desire on the part of the colonies to break free of an arrangement that was set up to benefit the British at their expense. Why would any of the colonies have wanted to continue as a part of that sphere? Not like it was doing them any good...

There's really no evidence to suggest that US economic intrusion played a role in Indian independence. How much of the India trade actually moved to the US between 1945 and Indian independence in 1947? It's not about what was said or agreed, but about the actual economic impact, and there's little evidence that it was significant in any way, certainly not compared to a surge of strikes, riots, and mutinies that the British lacked the capacity and will to suppress.

[JMA]

We've yet to see anything beyond very speculative evidence that FDR or the US actually succeeded in "screwing the Brits for economic advantage", or in fact that any US policy had any significant impact on the breakup of the British Empire.

Sorry, can't help you.

I suggest that you embark on a journey of research to lift the scales from your eyes in this regard. Won't be a pleasant journey to be sure but I assure you that you will be wiser in the end. That surely would make the whole exercise worthwhile... yes?

[Bob's World]

To provide some supporting fires to one of Dayuhan's points:

FDR was absolutely against colonialism (though much of that was his hate of the way it served to exclude the US from participating in rich markets. During WWII FDR met with the leaders of Tunisia, Morocco, etc and sold "democracy" and "self-determination" to an audience buying "liberty" while Churchill sat there and stewed (no booze at the dinner may have been his chief complaint). FDR also went in great detail about the value of doing business with the US...

So, when colonialism expired at the end of WWII as we were calling for that to happen; there were also long suppressed populaces newly empowered by a modern info age standing up and making the cost exceed the benefit of such arrangements.

Similarly, at the end of the Cold War while Reagan called for the Wall to be torn down by Gorby, at the same time it was the empowered populaces of that info age that also actually brought down another empire that was no longer cost viable.

It is like if I had my kid say "abracadabra" while I push the button on my remote control. He may well think it is the power of his word that makes the channels change or the garage door open. The truth is another matter.

[Dayuhan]

Sorry, can't help you.

I suggest that you embark on a journey of research to lift the scales from your eyes in this regard. Won't be a pleasant journey to be sure but I assure you that you will be wiser in the end. That surely would make the whole exercise worthwhile... yes?

Ever the resort of those who can't or won't support their arguments... "learn more and you will come around to the exalted Truth which I alone purvey". Have you considered starting a religion? That's a style that prevails in that field of endeavour, but it hasn't much place in the realm of rational discourse.

Suppose I were to say the same thing? Where would that get us? How difficult would it be for me to suggest that you embark on a journey of discovery and understand that your cherished construct is in fact an insubstantial mirage?

Since you were the one that maintained that FDR had a direct influence of the course of decolonization, isn't it up to you to support that rather improbable assertion?

[JMA]

As for the United States abandoning east European peopler there coundn`t be anyway around it.

No agreement here. Read up on the Tehran Conference and note that a "sick" FDR was prepared to concede just about anything to Stalin just to get him to the conference and once Stalin was there he got what he wanted. Churchill's plan of an invasion through the Mediterranean was ignored. FDR sided with Stalin.

Note: Khrushchev was to later apply similar pressure on a weak 40 something President (also apparently ill at the time) at the Vienna Summit (1961) where the weakness of Kennedy led to the Soviet's pushing their luck in what led to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[davidbfpo]

Dayuhan in Post 180 writes:

Ask yourself, honestly... if the British hadn't assured the return of French rule in 1945, or if the Americans had not stepped in after the French defeat and forced the division of Vietnam in 1954... would that not have led to a Vietnamese solution to a Vietnamese problem?

Over the last few years with my irregular reading on post-VJ Day allied military action, including the USMC expedition in Manchuria, I have always been puzzled by the logistics of the period.

I understood that imperial allies such as the British Empire, the Dutch and French after VE Day and VJ Day relied upon American shipping, not only for national survival (food), but also to fight Japan and restore imperial rule. If true and to my knowledge neither France nor the Dutch had large serviceable merchant fleets, maybe not the British, then French and Dutch troops reached Indochina and what is now Indonesia on US ships.

Yes, Roosevelt was again empires and colonialism. Not so sure about Truman.

Just asking if anyone knows.

[Bob's World]

David,

You are correct. We will never know what would have happened if Roosevelt would have survived, but it is pretty safe to assume that the Colonial powers would have been denied from reasserting their influence over their former colonies. Not so much because Americans are such great libertarians, but we sure as hell hated the monopolies on trade and the restricted access we had to endure under the colonial system.

I suspect that Roosevelt would also not have bought into the Containment strategy. I suspect he would have been more in alignment with other, far less intrusive and expensive approaches offered by policy thinkers such as Walter Lippmann. But containment is the approach we adopted, and at tremendous cost of treasure and influence it sufficed to avoid a major conflict between the Soviet-led East and the American-led West. But it is long past time to move on. We continue to apply variations of containment as a whole to the globe, and to specific problems as well. We spent years containing Saddam's Iraq. We seek to contain AQ and their ideology in the FATA (which I will never understand), we seek to contain Iranian and Chinese influence within regions that are logically within their spheres of influence. We need to recognize that such spheres can, will and do overlap, and will do so to greater degree and frequency as other regional powers continue to rise and as the brief era of US hegemony fades. This is a return to a much more normal dynamic than what existed during the Cold War. It is a different thing, not a bad thing. What will make it good or bad is how well we adapt to deal with the changes.

What I find myself very frustrated with, however, are the following questions for my fellow Americans:

1. When did the Constitution become irrelevant?

2. When did the Declaration of Independence become inconvenient?

3. When did the thinking of our historic leaders, such as Washington and Lincoln become "illegitimate"?

Inertia is a powerful force, and it is one we are caught up within. The sooner we recognize that the better.
Not

[Steve Blair]

You mean the guy who made sure Imperial Japan was cut off from oil imports?

Quite. Ol' FDR was certainly into Containment of a sort. It depended on what his needs were at the time. I think it's more instructive to look at his behavior prior to the outbreak of the war than it is to look at decisions he made prior to Yalta and after. He was fading then, and certainly under sway of his own infallibility.

And I'd caution a couple folks in this thread to please debate issues and not personalities.

David, I tend to think Truman (who was a product of the St. Louis political "machine" if I remember correctly) was more concerned with domestic issues and didn't know much about foreign policy (a fairly common thing for many Democratic presidents). He tended to react in the foreign policy area, and was perhaps too dependent on his advisers (who were often FDR appointees). He was also concerned with appearing "weak," and thus would react to Republican accusations of weakness with perhaps more force than was necessary.

[Dayuhan]

I understood that imperial allies such as the British Empire, the Dutch and French after VE Day and VJ Day relied upon American shipping, not only for national survival (food), but also to fight Japan and restore imperial rule. If true and to my knowledge neither France nor the Dutch had large serviceable merchant fleets, maybe not the British, then French and Dutch troops reached Indochina and what is now Indonesia on US ships.

All from memory, don't have the references in front of me, but my recollection is that the Chinese were assigned to accept the Japanese surrender, disarm and repatriate Japanese troops, release POWs, and maintain order in northern Indochina. The British were to do the same in the south. Gen. Douglas Gracey was the British commander in the south, with Indian troops, and he made it immediately clear that he interpreted "maintaining order" as restoration of French rule. Japanese forces were deployed against the Viet Minh, and released French POWs were not repatriated, but armed and assisted in efforts to reassert French control. When French military units arrived they were transported by British ships. You'd think the British might have had other priorities, but apparently the though of a precedent for colonies breaking away was a matter of some concern.

Douglas MacArthur was quoted at the time as follows:

"If there is anything that makes my blood boil it is to see our allies in Indo-China ...deploying Japanese troops to conquer the little people we promised to liberate. It is the most ignoble kind of betrayal."

Of course MacArthur at the time was doing all in his power to assure that the pre-war elite, many of whom had collaborated with the Japanese, were re-established in power in the Philippines, including armed suppression of active anti-Japanese guerrillas who opposed that old feudal order... but I digress.

The charge that the British were responsible for the re-establishment of French rule in Indochina - and thus arguably for the Vietnam War - is supported by a fair bit of history.

Legitimacy, in my view, doesn't come from the takers of power being able to speak the same language as the people they gain power over. It comes from how they treat those people. Mass murder justified by that most pure and legitimate of votes, revolutionary victory, is still mass murder and vitiates any claim to legitimacy.

In actual practice, you get legitimacy by winning.

In most of the post-colonial world, legitimacy was achieved by whoever threw out the hated colonists. That's one place where the US didn't get it... for us it was all about communists vs capitalists, on site is was all about us vs them. In any event your opinion or mine on what's legitimate for China or Vietnam is about as relevant as the opinion of a Vietnamese or Chinese on what's legitimate for the US.

I know you were there and I wasn't and I say this at my peril, but there was just too much hard fighting and too many South Vietnamese casualties for me to not too see some determined, though ultimately futile, resistance to the communists. A lot of it may have been people doing what circumstances forced them to do, but that can be said about most people caught up in war. In my view, it is plain that South Vietnam fought long and hard, though not too well, to keep the communists at bay.

People in many parts of the (including Vietnam) world fought hard and long, many under the banner of communism, against antediluvian dictatorships installed and/or supported by the US in the name of fighting communism. Does that mean neither side was "legitimate"?

It is true that communist regimes will eventually fail. But I think they fail faster if opposed. That increment of time covered by "faster" means a lot of people not suffering as much as they otherwise would have. And of course, if those regimes are never installed at all, it normally means even less suffering.

If "opposed" means fighting a war on someone else's territory, that's going to create a lot of suffering too... and in many cases a government that has to fight for an extended period will be much more brutal about ruling than a government that takes power without extended conflict, because extended conflict tends to bring the harshest elements and those least amenable to compromise into positions of power. The idea that the US should try to determine who is or is not "installed" on the basis of our assumptions about who will or will not be brutal seems fairly flawed to me.

How do you propose that the US "oppose" the few Communist regimes remaining today? We can't afford an arms race and it would likely do us as much harm (or more) as it would to those we propose to oppose. Militarist posturing and rhetoric isn't going to intimidate them and provides abundant propaganda fodder to help them keep their domestic audience in line. What do you propose that the US actually do, particularly as related to RCJ's proposition that a smaller US military is desirable?

[davidbfpo]

Dayuhan added and edited down:

When French military units arrived they were transported by British ships. You'd think the British might have had other priorities, but apparently the though of a precedent for colonies breaking away was a matter of some concern.

Thank you. Leaving the French aside now. I was stunned to read that the Dutch massively mobilised to enable a large expeditionary force being sent to what is now Indonesia; something like 250k and again I expect US shipping was used.

Now for Douglas MacArthur who was quoted at the time as follows:

If there is anything that makes my blood boil it is to see our allies in Indo-China ...deploying Japanese troops to conquer the little people we promised to liberate. It is the most ignoble kind of betrayal

I am quite an admirer of MacArthur, albeit based on reading one biography. That aside the quote is a classic, no, not as I am an apologist for British decisions in 1945. Rather that in Manchuria the US intervention, with a US Marine Corps, used Japanese troops to secure the railways notably and IIRC fought off Chinese raids.

In Indonesia IIRC the Japanese Army played a very different role, partly as a large number had defected to the local nationalist cause and the bulk had been disarmed. Ironically the British Indian division that was in Saigon went onto Indonesia, where it was involved in some of the heaviest fighting it had seen in the war against the nationalists.

[davidbfpo]

Posts 119-123 first appeared on the current discussion 'What we support and defend' and have been copied here - where they sit better. I'd overlooked the issue had appeared here and my initial question over how the French had been shipped to Saigon was answered by JMM.