Extent of Japanese Occupation and other questions

[OldBill]

While browsing today I came across this site: https://www.pacificatrocities.org/blog/ ... est-extent which has the map showing the greatest extent of Japanese occupation until the end of WWII. Is it accurate? Also, I saw an area adjacent to what I think is Swatow that isn't shown as occupied. There seems to be a river there (north of Swatow, between two islands) which isn't shown as occupied by the Japanese. What river is that? Rivers were so useful for trade and travel I am wondering why it wasn't occupied. Many Thanks!
Regards, Bill

[jerryasher]

Hi Oldbill, The river is the Han, but I think there is also more than one Han River in China. Overall, Japan was overextended. The visual presentation of occupation I suggest may be very misleading, there were many areas that were no go zones, often what is shown as occupied was only temporal, it was occupied only as long as you had more firepower and wanted to park troops there. Shantou functioned as a port, and all that was necessary was to defend a circumference that didn't interrupt with that role. In itself it was strategic only in the sense of denying it from becoming a secret submarine base, or earlier in the war a supply route to evade the blockade. It did function as one of the myriad of Japanese anchorages used to reduce undefended coastal shipping. Hope this helps.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Much of the occupied territory was actually occupied and administered by local warlords who submitted or Allied with Japanese rule. As long as they paid up the agreed protection payment/taxes Japanese soldiers were never seen in those districts. Other areas were more of a 'drive by' occupation. Periodically Japanese army units would march through collecting taxes, or shooting "bandits". then disappear for extended periods.

[OldBill]

Thanks fellows, just now able to log in again or I'd have said "Thank You" earlier.