Um...to continue with the "what if" part of the thread, what if Australia had been invaded after proper planning by the Japanese, if only to control the northern airfields that enabled the allies to mount an air offensive on Papua and surrounding Islands. To continue with the Japanese 'take and hold' method, to deprive their enemies of assets, and protect their interests in the north. This does not mean that Japan wins the war, and History follows the general trend that it did, as the power of the allies would eventually win out, BUT, WHAT IF...Japan invades northern Australia after winning the battle of the coral sea, taking Papua, and the fall of Singapore, entrenching themselves until prised out by the allies. What if it took till 1946/47/48 to get rid of them? Would the "bomb" have been used to devestate them, or bitter fighting like the island wars ensued.
Take this scenario with a grain of salt, knowing that the allies do win, and nor would have the assets of Australia provided much to the Japs, other than delaying the inevitable (which fits with their mindset, and the attitude of famous senior officers) but happened. What scenarios would we have seen? I look forward to the comments of those living in Australia and those outside our waters,
SK

I agree that it would be possible for the Japanese to land and hold certain areas of the Australian continent. I concede that it would be a logistical nightmare but still it would be doable.
It would be not be feasible for the Japanese to actually attempt to conquer the whole of Australia considering that a large part of their army is involved in mainland Asia.
From my point of view, I think the Allies would limit their objectives in this hypothetical situation since The Japanese forces there have nowhere else to go. The Allies would adopt the same strategy of going for the Japanese jugular via island hopping and a vigorous submarine campaign.

The only thing I can think of that might force the Allies to be more agressive is if the Japanese transform their controlled areas in Australia as bases for further operations in the Indian Ocean. This is unlikely but not impossible since this is, of course, a what-if.

Another point that is also highly probable in my view is heavy Allied sub activity off the coast of the Japanese controlled areas. If successeful, it's possible for the Australians themselves to root out the Japanese on their own because the Japanese would be short on supplies, namely ammo and fuel. The Japanese would have to ship them in and since the Japanese historically had a poor convoy record, I definitely do think the Australians can handle the Japanese on the continent.

I also don't think it would lengthen the war if the Japanese had forces on Australia.

You fail to realize that I am not making light of the contribution of Australia. Facts are facts and your statement about the net effect of loss of Australia and NZ to the Japanese having a substantial positive effect on Japanese war production is misguided.

What I am left to wonder, reading your statement about the production abilities of the United States with a reduced population, is what factual data you could possibly reference to back this assertion and what possible relevance, if any, it has to the discussion of whether or not Japan would be significantly better off in possession of the Antipodes as to be considered a “industrial powerhouse.”

I will answer your statement in this thread later tonight.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

I will say that in your first paragraph, at the time yes Australia was a bit player in production and resources, i know that and that is is a fact.

Onto your second paragraph you have mentioned time after time of the industrial capacity of the United States and the vast quantities of war related materiel it produced, i assert that if the situation was reversed and the United States had a 7 million population with almost 10%+ serving in the armed forces throughout WW2 it could never have produced what it did, it would have lacked man power, but i will grant you one thing if Australia had your population, Japan would never have invaded.

Quote:

Onto your second paragraph you have mentioned time after time of the industrial capacity of the United States and the vast quantities of war related materiel it produced, i assert that if the situation was reversed and the United States had a 7 million population with almost 10%+ serving in the armed forces throughout WW2 it could never have produced what it did,

I had planned on confronting this missive with some numbers, but then I decided that if you can make the statement, you can defend it. Do you have anything to prove this claim, other than biased opinion?

I normally shy away from nationalistic bravado but I feel your besmirching the effort of the US cannot go unchallenged. As it serves no end, I have striven to avoid belittling the efforts of New Zealand and Australia, while still provided factual numbers. Can you do the same?

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Well said. While Australia put up a gallant fight, the US contribution to the war effort ( while not the largest ) can not be downplayed!

__________________
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

Let me state for the record i am not saying Australia is anyway better than America, look you guys really helped our arses in WW2 with the convoys and the deployment of men and the importation of war material that we could never have achieved by ourselves. We here in Australia were restricted to a small population of 7 million.

But i have to say one thing when did i besmirch America, did i call them cowards and the like, no i did not, without America Australia would have certainly have fallen to the Japanese, and if that were to happen then it would have been up to America to rescue us once they had dealt with the Germans. And you want to know something the Americans would have welcomed with open arms as our liberators, hell we could have become the 51st state.

von Runstedt,

Let's work together and pull this thread out of the dumpster.

Australians put up one heck of a fight where ever they fought, North Africa, Bougainville, New Guinea and even Singapore, when their senior officer apparently bailed on them, and the people of the country are first rate. I consider Aussie as some of our best friends.

I took your statement to imply that US workers were not as dedicated to bringing an end to the war as were Aussies and you provided nothing more than opinion to support your statement. The US was able to parlay huge natural resources and strong work force into great wealth and arms production. Couple that with the lack of enemy within gun or bombing range of the nation and a country is bound to have a massive industrial capacity. I don't think a lot of people realize just how expansive US industry was during that era.

Anyway, lets move on.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Slipdigit

I have done some more research and my previous numbers were incorrect

Autralia's Population was

6,900,000 not 7,000,000

and total service personel throughout the war was

1,395,000 not 800,000 brining our percentage to 19.175% of the population.

And to finish off yes we should work together, but also have passionate dissagreements when the time arises.

That's a mighty contribution, I applaud the Australian effort.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Thank you for the recognition and if it wasn't for America i'd be speaking Japanese.