Simply put could the US have done what it did during the war with the population size of Australia approx 7 million.

More importantly than simply the population base was the economic base. To the best of my knowledge, no other nation in the world at that time, could have churned out the war materials necessary for that victory.

__________________
www.mapsatwar.com

Always on the lookout for good information on 6.SS-Nord

"If you don't like the way we do things here, go to a different jail!"

This is true. It was a war of attrition. Something America could not do today!

I have to disagree. Aside from the US, the Soviet Union also proved it had a similar potential industrial capability as the US. The Soviet Union was able to produce in quantity most of the stuff their military needed, despite the hardship of having to move their industries eastward and undergoing the rigors of an invasion.
The US had the fortunate position of being a major combatant nation that did not have its mainland directly invaded or experiencing a series of major attacks.

As for viewing the economic base as more important as the population base, I beg to disagree again. It's been historically proven in general that these two are so intertwined that one can't say that one base is more important than the other. Speaking in general, if a nation with a low population base but a high industrial base suffers heavy casualties, it is inevitable for that nation to eat into its labor manpower pool.
This would inevitably lead to adverse effects on industry. When I say casualties, I combine both military and civilian. The ideal would be a large population base and strong economic base. Having both would be an advantage during times of war. Such a nation would be able to endure losses better and replace them. (Think of the situation of the Soviet Union).

Absolutely correct, Australia's workforce during the war was something like approx 3 million with the rest being the aged and children, take into account during the war Australia's total contribution to the armed services and militias came to 700,000 10% of the population and we were stretched to breaking point. While America was never stretched to breaking point, it never faced invasion, being bombed from the air, it did not have 10%+ of its population in the Military but if it did it still could cope with its tens of millions in the workforce. The United States could never have done what it did with the population of Australia.

I would agree. Not while conducting a war on two fronts. I believe that the Air Corps alone numbered about 2 million I believe. According to the US Census a total of 16.1 million served in the armed forces during WWII.

US Census Press Releases

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

No nation would be able to accomplish what the US did in the war with a population on 7 million... How could it?

__________________
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

ha, good point. If it was possible, then Australia would have done it. Good call Slon

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

That's 16 million out of a population of 140 million in 1945 Source . Do the math, that 11.4% of the total population. As I asked in another thread, please validate your claims.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Got it from the US Census Bureau of which I inserted the link

US Census Press Releases

Don't shoot the messenger.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

I was replying to the above message.

Oops, Ike I didn't include the message I was reply to. I'm with you, man. I was wanting vR to validate his claims. I apologize if a bullet whizzed by your head. That is the thing with friendly fire, it ain't "friendly."

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Whew! Man that was close. I already had the Walther to my head. Wasn't about to wait for to get me. Cheers

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Well i have read more on the respective nations of Australia and America

According to Ellis

1, Australia had a population of 6,900,000
Total service personel during WWII 1,350,000
which in total comes to 19.56% of total population serving
leaving 5,550,000 to sevice the ecconomy and keep the nation running.
remove 50% pertaining to children and aged that leaves an available
workforce of 2,775,000

2, America had a population of 129,000,000
Total service personel during WWII 16,500,000
which in total comes to 12.79% of the total population served
leaving 112,500,000 to serve the ecconomy and keep the nation running.
remove 50% pertaining to children and aged that leaves an available
workforce of 56,250,000

Overall the the US had available 20.27 time the workforce than Australia.

America could not have done all the things it did with a workforce of 2,775,000.

That is just it, vonRun, there is no way to quantify your theory. All you have provided is population numbers, with no production numbers. Did the US produce 20, 30 or 40 times what Australia did? Does it really matter?

Let's face it, we're both very proud of our countries and we obviously have very little personal insight into the psyche and moral strengths of our own nations 60+ years ago, much less a country on the opposite side of the world.

You might also ask could Australia produce what the US produced with the same population as the US. Probably not, the lack of equal natural resources would hobble production and the pervasive desert would prevent the food production number associated with the US now and during the period. But again, does it really matter?

This discussion is going nowhere. I've enjoyed talking with you about it, I'm moving on my friend.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Thats a ridiculous question; how could the US possibly have an army of 16 million, if the total population was only 7 million?

I'm not trying to belittle Australia when I say this, because they did contribute an amazing amount considering their size, but I highly doubt Australia was essential or significant to the axis or allies war plans or the eventual outcome of the war.

You have made the dumbest observation in the history of the ww2f forum, where do you think the military headquarters was located for the entire South East Asia-Pacific theatre, it was right here in Australia, many of the largest military dumps in vehicles, supplies and ammunition was located here.

Many of the heavy bomber squadrons were initially operated out of Australia, Australia and New Zealand were the first ports of call for the trans-pacific convoys coming from America. And one last call if Australia and New Zealand did fall where in the hell would the Americans begin their island hopping campaigns

Another thing the US could have done that Australia couldn't have, at least easily, is import foreign labor as is still being done today. That is, the US could always bring in Hispanic workers from Central and South America along with workers from Caribbean Islands. These could have made up for shortages to some degree.
Australia really didn't have a like source of labor to rely on. I suppose that Indians might have been brough in but that would have been far more difficult to accomplish than the US using labor from neighboring countries.

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

Really? I was trying to be nice about this, but trust me, America DID NOT need Australia in any way to accomplish what it did. Australia was way too far away from anything to be useful as a bomber or air base, and most american supplies went through hawaii. Sending American supplies through Australia would have been stupid, as it would have directed them further south than needed and would have made them more vulnerable and just less efficient in general. Hawaii was also the main naval base of America, and was much more important than Australia.

You should really learn some history before you start calling others stupid. I have read a few of your threads and it is obvious that either you get your info from incredibly biased sources or just dont uses sources at all. Almost all, if not all, of your arguments have logical fallcies within them, and it seems like your only goal is to try making Australia look like some super power or much more important than it was.

Furthermore the question asked is stupid to begin with. What are you trying to prove? That if America wasnt as big and it's resources werent as plentiful, it couldnt have done what it did? Is that even a question worth discussing? If Australia had only 1/20 of it population, could it have made the same contributions it did with a population of 7 million? Of course not.

I'm not belittling the Aussies that helped us and made sacrifices during the war. I wouldnt mind having discussions with you if you'd stop acting like a 12 year old.

Gentlemen,

Civility is a major tenant of this forum. We can either discuss this appropriately or I will close the thread. If that happens, our friend could come calling.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Yes i completely forgot about foreign labour yes at the time the US could have just opened up its borders and let in millions of foreigners, that would certainly have boosted your war effort tremendously, and to Indian migrant workers coming to Australia, no it could not be done, lack of housing for a start and infrastructure.

Slipdigit considered myself warned and will edit my last post, thank you.