Historical Kalisz-type Scenarios

[Raellus]

I agree with Chalk's assessment that the Japanese could never have fully conquered the vastness of Australia. In the absence of the U.S.N., however, the Japanese probably could have conquered the coastal population centers or blockaded them into some degree of submission. Trying to maintain control of said cities for any sustained period of time would have been extremely difficult, if not totally impossible, for the Japanese military. I foresee a "conquered" Australia quickly becoming Japan's Vietnam.

I'm not a flag-waving jingoist reactionary but I do take some umbrage at any attempt to discount America's contribution to the ultimate outcome of WWII in the Pacific. Simply being sick of something doesn't make it any less valid. I'm not sure the claim of Australia "holding [its] own" against Japan can be made with any credibility considering the massive involvement of the U.S. military in the Pacific Theater. That's like Americans claiming that they could have/would have won the war in Europe without the help of the Soviet Union. Really? Come on.

By all accounts, the Australian militiary contribution in North Africa and Italy was outstanding. Due to the U.K.-directed commonwealth system, the bulk of Australia's best units served in the ETO, though. According to Max Hastings' (a Brit) in Retribution, the performance of the Australian military in the Pacific, as her forces inched further from their home country/continent, was less than spectacular, if not highly suspect. Dockworker strikes in Australia also disrupted operations in the region. That dockworkers decided to go on strike in the middle of an ongoing World War- a war that directly threatened Australian sovereignty- is almost beyond belief. I haven't read that much specifically on the subject of Australia's military contribution in the PTO so I don't necessarily take Hasting's assessment entirely at face value but if what he writes is even partly true, it further discredits any claims that Australia could have "held [its] own" against the Imperial Japanese military.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Take as much umbrage as you want because I wasn't discounting the US effort in the Pacific at all, what I stated was that I take umbrage at those people who claim that Australia would have been speaking Japanese if it wasn't for the US saving our arse.
The fact is, that both the US and Great Britain plus Australia herself (geographically as much as militarily), prevented the Japanese from taking over Australia.
While the Japanese may have been able to blockade Australian ports, it would have been next to useless as they could not have stopped the flow of supplies from landlines to those ports. What they would have achieved was the temporary prevention of some supplies being received/sent from those ports but within a short enough period of time other ports would have been used. The country is so vast the Japanese would not have had enough ships to permanently blockade enough Australian ports to prevent us from receiving supplies from Great Britain and the US.
The port of Fremantle in Western Australia was one of the most significant ports in Australian wartime use and if the Japanese had succeeded in doing any damage to that port, the next port in Bunbury would have been used and then after that it would have been Albany. Bunbury is approximately 100km away from Fremantle and Albany about 1200km away from Fremantle. Australia's geography alone helped prevent some Japanese ambitions.
The Australian policy of 'Scorched Earth' which would see the complete destruction of all resources and infrastructure would have further made any territory conquered by Japan a hollow victory.

[Targan]

Nobody in Australia would dispute that it was the USA's efforts that won the war in the Pacific, but saying that Australia held its own against the Japanese in no way discounts America's winning of the Pacific war. No one is suggesting that Australia could have beaten the Japanese in the Pacific by ourselves but we most certainly could have beaten them here in Australia.

As for the quality of Australia's forces fighting in the Pacific theatre, just take a look at the Kokoda campaign. Poorly trained, poorly equipped Australian militia forces (not even regular army) performed EXTREMELY well in Papua New Guinea against the Japanese Imperial Army. We thumped the Japanese, mostly through sheer grit, toughness and determination.

We would have done even better against the Japanese if it wasn't for the gutless British generals who totally botched the defence of Singapore. Had it been up to Australia's military commanders there is no way in hell we would have surrendered all those thousands of Australian troops in Singapore. Absolutely pathetic bloody decision by the British. Many hundreds of Australian troops tried to get back to Australia by themselves rather than surrender. The Australian officers on the ground should have allowed any Australian who wanted to withdraw to do so.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Targan

As for the quality of Australia's forces fighting in the Pacific theatre, just take a look at the Kokoda campaign. Poorly trained, poorly equipped Australian militia forces (not even regular army) performed EXTREMELY well in Papua New Guinea against the Japanese Imperial Army. We thumped the Japanese, mostly through sheer grit, toughness and determination.

This is valid for Australians anywhere (and in both world wars). Their resistance at Tobruk was impressive if not outstanding. No doubt that without Australia, US would have had greater difficulties to win in the Pacific.

[Mohoender]

One last point Stainless.

You wrote the following under the thread "People of the world":

And lastly, we have a very bad tendency to encourage free speech except when you criticize something Australian (then you are evil, unAustralian or a bloody foreign troublemaker).

If I had any doubts about it, these are gone. Actually, that goes even a little further, LOL.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

This is valid for Australians anywhere (and in both world wars). Their resistance at Tobruk was impressive if not outstanding. No doubt that without Australia, US would have had greater difficulties to win in the Pacific.

My paternal grandfather was a Captain in the New Zealand Army during WWII and fought at Tobruk and El Alamain leading a Bren gun carrier company. His war ended when he had half of his moustache shot off and needed facial surgery and rehab. By the time he was fit to fight again the war was almost over. It was his father, New Zealand Minister of Works Bob Semple, who designed and had built the Bob Semple Tank: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Semple_tank

Yes it is a pretty crap tank but I'm still proud that my paternal great grandfather designed a tank. I'll take what I can get

[Mohoender]

Targan

You are right to point that out about Neo Zeelander as what is said is equally valid for them. Anyway, UK would not have done much without the commonwealth and Free France nothing without its colonial troops.

[ChalkLine]

Having studied Australian involvement in World War Two, I could go into serious rebuttal of some of the thoughts here.

Japanese massacre of all the Australian citizens was simply impossible, and I really think that many people have no idea just how big Australia is. The plan of a Japanese incursion onto the Australian mainland before full US commitment was to withdraw down to a parallel at Brisbane and make a final defence there. I'm sorry Mohoender, but the Japanese couldn't supply their troops in New Guinea, they had as much chance of comprehensively invading mainland Australia as they had of invading the moon.
What they could do is dominate the air over Darwin and other northern ports, which they did with some vigour. Darwin, on mainland Australia, suffered 64 separate air raids, more bombs were dropped on Darwin than Pearl Harbour, 243 people dying in the first air raid alone.

Tojo was totally against invading Australia, in his own words;

We never had enough troops to do so [invade Australia]. We had already far out-stretched our lines of communication. We did not have the armed strength or the supply facilities to mount such a terrific extension of our already over-strained and too thinly spread forces. We expected to occupy all New Guinea, to maintain Rabaul as a holding base, and to raid Northern Australia by air. But actual physical invasion—no, at no time.

Australian troops and the Australian public fought fairly well during WW2, the dock strike was due to profiteering more than union rights.

Industrial conscription and the drive to increase productivity led to an increasing degree of industrial unrest over time. Many workers were required to work long hours in poor conditions and were not able to change their employment due to the manpower laws. Poor work conditions were exacerbated by the Government's austerity measures reducing workers' standards of living. As a result, strikes and other forms of protest disrupted Australian production, especially from 1943 onwards. These protests attracted considerable criticism from other civilians and members of the military. In May 1943 the Government introduced policies which enabled workers who were undertaking unlawful industrial action to be conscripted into the military, but this had little impact due to the shortage of skilled labour in the industries most prone to industrial disputes.

What most people fail to understand is that the Japanese couldn't beat the Chinese, let alone the first world powers. If Germany had not been absorbing so much attention of the British it is liable they could have beaten them by themselves. The USA managed to use 90% of its air force on another enemy and still beat Japan. After 1944 the Germans were so battered by US and commonwealth air-power that they had 80% of the Luftwaffe on the western front. China managed to hold off the Japanese while fighting a civil war, and more Japanese troops lost their lives fighting in China than anywhere else.