Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

What If Australia and New Zealand had been lost?

Discussion in 'What If - Pacific and CBI' started by Kiwi Ace, Oct 2, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kiwi Ace

    Kiwi Ace Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok lads, cut the sheep jokes... :mad: :D

    Carl, didn't you read the contract for me joining [​IMG] :D ;)
     
  2. Mustang

    Mustang Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2002
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    BBBbbbbaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! :D [​IMG] ;)
     
  3. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    Ok Kiwi, when are you coming to Texas? I'll take you to the Texas Roadhouse for THE BIGGEST steak you will ever eat. :D
     
  4. Kiwi Ace

    Kiwi Ace Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carl, why don't you just come down here, see our 45 million sheep (Or how ever many there are) :D

    We do have steak here too ya know :D :D
     
  5. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    I guess I could eat some veal parmesian (Sp?)or veal cutlet--I havent had either in years. [​IMG]
     
  6. Mustang

    Mustang Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2002
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    MMMmmmmmmmmmmm.......sheep steak. Yum. [​IMG] :D ;)
     
  7. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    49
    Now, you have made me hungry!!! [​IMG]
     
  8. landownunder

    landownunder Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2002
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    well to my knoledge the Japanese forces had done there reasearch and had no intention in invading the countries of Australia and New Zeland due to their expanding supply lines. Their intention was to continue with their naval assult of port moresby and "hopefully" have their navy still intack. but as we know they were beaten in the battle of the Coral Sea. Thus stopping this alternative. but anyway............then applying pressure to the two countries and forcing them to discontinue there efforts seeing though there supplies from the us were not continuing to come from the US. But the hard attitude of the ANZAC countries would have held strong and they would have had no alternative but to invade us which would have had extremely similiar succes to that of operation barborassa. they would have had quick and large amounts of success, due to the Brisbane line which was drawn across the whole of Asutralia stating where the Australian Forces would b able to defend from with their Headquarters situated in Gowan Brae, now part of Kings.

    i have no idea what the New Zealanders had in mind for their defence but it would be as feirce and as patriotic as Asutralia. Because we are both bloody good countries. Land down under

    Sorry if i have just wasted a bit of your time with my crap
     
  9. Otto

    Otto Rested & Resupplied with MREs. Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    9,589
    Likes Received:
    1,707
    Location:
    DFW, Texas
    Not at all downunder, the defensive line you mentioned I completely forgot about but you reminded me of it. I also think australia would have been atough nut to crack. Two factors in particular would have made it difficult, the logistical nightmare in trying to conduct operations that far away from Japan, and the tenacity of the Australian fighting man. I have heard on several occasions from axis and allied veterans alike, that Australians were solder for soldier the toughest Allied fighting man.

    By the way, welcome to the forums DU! ;)

    A sidenote: I spent four years of my life in Melbourne, and have been to Sydney a few times as well, to visit my brother.
     
  10. landownunder

    landownunder Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2002
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    you cant forget that the Pacific theatre of the war was only a side show to that of the "main" threat of germany in europe. in other words the Australian and New Zeland forces would have been up against the Japanese with only a few pome's and some yanks.

    As much as i agree that the Australians are very good fighters the japanese wernt exactly the worst fighters. But it would be just like the invasion of america as Yammamato stated "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" and i feel that this would also mean very patriotic men holding those guns aswell, in both countries.
     
  11. JOL

    JOL Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with most that Australia and NZ would be a tough nut to crack, especially as extended as the Japanese were.

    But I tend to think the Pacific war would have been over sooner if Japan had tried, it would have seen a large occupation force to keep those ANZAC partisans from having their way, and they would have most likely whithered away while the Americans marched through the Pacific. Or consider this, a large all or nothing mobile battle over Australia, that I think the American with Australia/commonwealth help would easily win, instead of the long island hopping campaign. Japan's Stalingrad if I may.
     
  12. camz

    camz Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    1
    As Otto has stated there was to be a line drawn from Sydney to Adelaide and the majority of the population was to fall back behind this line.As some one else said us aussie's were good at jungle fighting on the kakoda track out numbered we beat em back.
    Also bombing darwin is alot diffrent to invading Sydney is some 2000km away though.

    i nice link one of the only surving fully australian built tank (no much match for a panther) though i doubt a panther downunder:)
    http://www.armytankmuseum.com.au/sentinel.htm
     
  13. Spitfire King

    Spitfire King Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    2
    So hypothetically, if an invasion plan had been created, how would the invasion of Australia taken place, given what resources were in the area. What do you think the plan would have been?
     
  14. von Rundstedt

    von Rundstedt Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    29
    This is interesting because British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill and American President Franklyn D Roosevelt did discuss this i think at the Yatla Conferrence. And they made the decision that Australia and New Zealand were expendable, this was the consequences of the "Germany First" policy.

    The plan was to evacuate all US forces out of the South Pacific (Excluding Hawaii) and divert all of the American millitary to Europe and once Germany was defeated then concentrate in recapturing the Pacific.

    But the one fly in the ointment was General Douglas MacArthur, he use his considerable political and military influence, to overturn this, Australia cold not be allowed to fall into Japanese hands, because once established Australia and New Zealand would remain Japanese territories.

    Plus it worked out that without Australia and New Zealand the historical island hopping campaigns would and could not have begun.
     
  15. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    17,544
    Likes Received:
    2,136
    Location:
    Alabama
    The Yalta Conference was in Feb 1945. I highly doubt that at that late point in the war, the merits of throwing the Kiwis and the Ozzies to the Japenese wolves would have even been a concern, much less discussed.
     
  16. Carl W Schwamberger

    Carl W Schwamberger Ace

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    81
    Most of those were drawn up from men & materials taken from the US West Coast ports and channeled through Oahu. The USN plans prewar or during had little use for Australia or New Zeland. The line of attack Adm King proposed, pushed for, and executed ran from Oahu through the Central Pacific and thence to Japan. Island groups like the Carolines, Marshalls, or Ryukus (Okinawa) we the key land masses in the operations Adm King authorized.

    MacAurther was obssesd with retaking the Phillpines. He used the forces sent to defend Australian & the South Pacifc region as a basis for his own offensive strategy. Then he used his prestige to gain additional forces for a continued attack towards Manila. This offensive from the South Pacific/Australian region was very nearly a seperate war from that based in Oahu. While ships, air units, and ground forces were switched back and forth between the two areas the Central Pacific offensive was in no way dependant on Australia/New Zealand as a base for operations. Two different theatres, commanders, supply lines.

    For a good analysis of the Pacific war I'd recomend the closing chapters of Ellis's 'Brute Force'. (Tho I disagree with his conclusion on strategy). A broader and more detailed analysis of the Pacific war would be John Costellos 'The Great Pacific War of 1939-1945. Both make it clear the difference between the two theatres of operations in the Pacific.
     
  17. Spitfire King

    Spitfire King Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ok, fair enough assesment of what actually happened, and the strategy that took place historically, but if you were the person in charge of the Imperial Japanese Forces, and "IF" you attacked Australia, based on historical ideology, and changeable historical fact, aka the battle of the coral sea never took place or the third wave of aircraft was launched at pearl harbour destroying everything completely, or Hitler didn't declare war on America (how far back do you want to go?)...what chain of events could you have forseen that resulted in the Japanese sphere of Co-prosperity being extended to Australia. Obviously resources available and advantage gained from invasion would have to be taken into account, but what plausible plan could have taken place if all factors went the way of the Japanese hypothetically?

    I'll try to come up with one myself, but not having access to many historical resources, the one I come up with could be pure fantasy, will post soon however. Cheers guys, as an Aussie I'm very curious about all this :D
     
    Slipdigit likes this.
  18. von Rundstedt

    von Rundstedt Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    29
    I was wrong on the Yatla Conference thingy but i was correct on the agreement by Messers Churchill and Roosevelt that they considered Australia and New Zealand expendable. Churchill had a profound hatered of Australia and Australians he considered us convict sleaze.

    I can say that if Japan had taken Australia and New Zealand then there is no way America even with her industrial resources could launch an offensive to retake the South-East Asian and South Pacific Theatres, Japan would become to powerful. Japan would have all the oil, rubber, iron ore, agriculture to feed her growing empire. And to finish off 8 miilion extra slaves to do her dirty work.
     
  19. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    5,945
    Likes Received:
    762
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    What exactly would the Japanese plan and TO&E be for such an operation? If we are going to discuss this at least provide some reasonable means for the Japanese to carry this out
     
  20. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    17,544
    Likes Received:
    2,136
    Location:
    Alabama
    Would provide any verifiable source to support this statement?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page