MMMmmmmmmmmmmm.......sheep steak. Yum. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

__________________
MUSTANGS FOREVER
FACTS ARE JUST THERE TO ARGUE YOUR OPINIONS

Now, you have made me hungry!!! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

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[s] down under

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

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.

__________________

WWII Forums Rogues Gallery - send in your photo!
Comments, questions or feedback? Contact me at

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." Socrates

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

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.

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

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.

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

Would provide any verifiable source to support this statement?

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Sir Winston Churchill was a very sharp operator he never wrote about his hatred towards Australia and Australians but he often made damn sure that in conversations he would condem Australians as i put it "Colonial Sleaze" He often berated Australian officers under his command, he also blamed the Galipoli fiasco directly at our feet to him that sad military failure wasn't a British but an Australian failure

I sense Liberation!

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

So that's a no then for any verifiable source?
I must have read Dozens of books relating to, or written by, Churchill. Not once have I heard this allegation. If it did come up it would surely have been mentioned in Alanbrooke's rather candid and often critical diaries, but no, quite the opposite is the picture formed. Even Roy Jenkins's frank and thorough biography makes no mention of it. There does seem to have been an attempt by a Time journalist to present this untruth too, an attempt that involved contacting Churchill study centres worldwide with a similar 'quote' and asking them to back this up, not one reference appears to have been found by people who devote their lives to the man, both pro and anti.
The main emotion Churchill ever displayed in later life over the Dardanelles/Gallipoli business was intense regret, it figured largely when his 'black dog' of depression was upon him and led to much hesitation by him whenever similar style operations were on the cards during the second war to an extent that exasperated Alanbrooke. He certainly tried to lay the blame for that disaster elsewhere, but the nationalities of those he hunted about looking to blame were not apparently an issue.
Churchill berating officers? Hardly any surprise. He berated senior officers, again, regardless of nationality or achievement, and then the next day was as likely to be warm and congenial towards them.
If Churchill was so anti-Australian then it would have been widely known amongst the 'great and good' of that country, there would be nowhere near so many honours and honorifics heaped upon him, or trusts and fellowships raised in his name there.
Try typing "colonial sleaze" (with the quotes) into Google... 3 results... none of them relating to churchill, rather surprising if such a well studied man had actually uttered the phrase. It also strikes me that he would be most unlikely to have used such a phrase given his own strongly 'colonial' background. It doesn't even sound right as a contemporary expression to me.

In short; It simply ain't so.
Churchill's multiple flaws may have very near outweighed his genius over many issues, but a distaste for Australians does not appear to have been one of those flaws, whether in public life or private conversation.

Hmmm...
Time for a lie down...

Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
"Wars cannot be fought with dream stuff" - Sir Percy Hobart.

I said that "Colonial Sleaze" was my saying, but the inferrence of his loathing towards Australians stands. Just the other day i visited a museum run by Ex-Servicemen and i asked them if i was correct about Sir Winston Churchill' and his absolute hatred towards Australians, well I was wrong. He just did not like us.

Have taken tablet and now lying down.

Ok...so...The attack on pearl harbour resulted in the destruction, beyond repair of the pacific fleet as originally planned by the japanese, and the following battle of the coral sea, due to the japanese recon planes sighting the main body first rather than the other way around. The main body of the fleet at that stage is minus the ones repaired in reality, so is a weaker force. The defeat of the allies results in a severely hampered pacific front for the Americans. Japan proceeds with its initial idea of invading northern Australia for the purpose of stopping America using it as a staging point over Timor and Indonesia, Papua (modern names I know). There is no further push south as Australian forces pull back to the prepared Brisbane line of defence. The purpose of the invasion is to control the pacific and hold territory, to strengthen positions, gain more oil to increase production, to hold off the allies until peace is sued for...the result is their co-prosperity sphere extending from manchuria down to north Australia...plausible?

I wanted to see this question again and to address it as is.

Firstly if the Japanese did take Australia and New Zealand then it would certainly change the war. It would mean that Japan would have one of the largest iron ore deposits in the world, it would also have some of the best steel maunfacturing cities under control such as Newcastle and Illawarra. Also it would have Australia's vast agriculture production with wheat and wool and then let us not forget Australia's industrial capacity.

Japan would have mined,

Gold, lead, silver, kobalt, manganese, copper, tin, iron, Bauxite (Aluminium) Uranium and many more minerals.

This would have made the Japanese Empire almost unbeatable.

The USA had a Germany first policy with the British and if that was to carry out the day then the USA would have to come to our liberation sometime in 1946, giving the Japanese some 4 years to entrench itself.

Yes but like the USA most likely in 1946.

One aspect is that Australia did have the Brisbane Line of Defense but that was realisticly nothing we had at most 7 Infantry Divisions and two Armoured Division in formation.

To be continued.......