In a different thread this was talked about UK taking a Dutch territory.
Yes, this is not considered to be an attack, and should be done during noncombat movement.
Why in noncombat?
Is the purpose for noncombat move/take territory because Japan may have surface warships in the seazone of the Dutch territory UK and/or ANZAC is trying to take?
I thought I read somewhere (rule Q&A’s are long and spread out on the forum): Does UK/ANZAC have an agreement with the Dutch AND the French to take their territories? (Whereas Japan does not have that type of agreement?)
Your reply was:
It’s done in noncombat movement simply because it isn’t an attack. The Dutch and French are Allied powers whose capitals are held by the enemy (Germany). As fellow colonial powers, the UK and ANZAC are simply taking taking guardianship of the territories. The US may not take guardianship of these territories, as it has an isolationist policy and doesn’t want to get involved. Japan, on the other hand, is an enemy power (allied with Germany), so it must attack these territories to claim them, and it must do so before UK/ANZAC units arrive if it doesn’t want war with the remaining Allied powers.
I highlighted the words above, in red, and this is where my question is.
The Errata (and rulebook Page 8 ) states:
"Page 8, The Political Situation: The last two sentences of the first paragraph should read “Japan is free to attack China and invade unoccupied French territories without provoking war with the other Allied powers. However, any combat movements against British, Dutch, ANZAC, or American territories, troops, or ships, or disruption of their convoys, by the Japanese (unless they are attacked by that power first) will bring all of the Allied powers into the war.”
By you statement (in red), can Japan attack the empty Dutch territories without bringing the US into the war?
I assume Japan can attack the empty French territories without bring the US into the war. Is this a correct statement?