This looks to be a very useful and interesting book.

It seems consistent with what was written in Andrew Ross's "Armed and Ready - The Industrial Development and defence of Australia 1900-1945" and referred to in "National Insecurity" (2007) John Mathews et al. I wrote of it in "The myth of the Howard Government's Defence Competence" of 21 November 2007 at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6665

Whilst Ross would agrees that the threat was real, he shows, contrary to the previously accepted view that Australia was saved by the battles of Coral Sea and Midway, that our own industrial development, which made possible our defence preparations, is what convinced the Japanese Army to veto the Japanese Navy's invasion plans. He argues compellingly that the Japanese Army's assessment of Australia's ability to defend itself was correct.

I seem to recall - when I served as Senior Medical Officer for RAAF Base Darwin that there were strafing bullet holes - from Japanese aircraft - in the rafters supporting the ceiling in the Officer's Mess. Left there as a salient reminder for many years they were removed by a contractor during 'renovations' in the early 1990s.

I honour the service; sacrifice of all our veterans. Including those from Iraq, Afghanistan wars as individuals…they did their duty.

Criticism of wars should be aimed higher up than at the military personnel . However “Context” is the Gorilla in the corner and can’t be ignored we were part of the British Empire then and without USA we would have eventually gone under.

None of this means we should deify a fiction like the “Battle for Australia”.
Celebrating ‘glorious’ sounding battles cease to have the personal connection and belies the truth of horror, terror, excruciating injuries and carnage that are their integral components of ANY battle regardless of size . Battles are fought by individuals it is their service and sacrifices that needs to be remembered and honoured.

It irks me the way battles are ranked in the public eye those that involve spectacular numbers seen as memorable while the rest are all but ignored or lumped into ‘they fought too’. IT WAS A COLLECTIVE EFFORT, remove even the most mundane part and who knows?

“Battle deification” is what allows governments to disguise the horrific truth and gain support for otherwise dubious military adventures by “steroiding” (perverting) Patriotism in catch phrases e.g. “Domino effect”,” weapons of mass destruction”, “war against Terrorism” et al

I haven’t read the author’s book and won’t because what's the point? Salivating over some 66 year old nuanced question “Were the Japs going to invade Australia?”. Controversy sells books!

Evidence suggests that despite plans in some circles their Govt had no sanctioned plan to invade.
Would they have eventually? Does it matter now?

In context Australia as such was a side issue. If they did it want to invade it was to stop the US.
Logistically and strategically the conquering and control of Aust would have been a nightmare spreading their resources too thin. Certainly the naval battle in the Coral Sea stopped any ambitions they may have had.

Honour the service not the battles.

I disagree with examinator.

The issue is relevant. Today this country's sovereignty is threatened by globalised capitalism and our country is effectively on sale to the highest bidder. Should any government have the backbone to stand up to those (both domestically and internationally) who are plundering our natural resources and destroying our children's future, it is not hard to see that the political, demographic and economic means now in use to undermine our sovereignty could be replaced with more overt military means.

The fact that Australia once stood up to the threat of an invasion (somewhat contrary to the thesis of Bob Wurth's Book, which I have since learnt, regarded Australia in 1942 as "an almost defenceless nation" (http://www.1942.com.au/)) would indicate that our circumstances might not be altogether hopeless in that situation.

Of course, our first line of defence should be to aim through diplomatic initiatives, to achieve world agreement to confront all the extremely serious environmental, economic and social threats which we face, but should that fail, we will need to be able to defend ourselves militarily.

For this reason, I think it is important that we understand the past.

Also, given the decline in the supply of natural resources, it may well be that the military technology that has been made possible by modern industry may not be as prevalent as before, and that future conflicts over this continent should they happen - and let's try to make sure that they don't - may, in many respects, more closely resemble the Second world War, the First World War or even earlier conflicts.

Peter Stanley, in his article 'Understanding the invasion myth' http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7725&page=0 concludes with this statement:

"As 'Invading Australia' shows (drawing upon both primary sources and on the historical literature) the Japanese did not plan to invade Australia, though it also explains why such an idea should have such a tenacious longevity. The invention of the Battle for Australia detracts from the real significance of World War II for Australia, obscuring the importance of the great contribution Australia made to Allied victory far beyond Australia’s shores.

Small minded parochialism for the time being seems to have trumped clear sighted, evidence-based, historical scholarship. The debate continues, as it must."

It seems Peter Stanley was right. The debate does continue. The comments on his article may shed some light as to why. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7725&page=0

Interesting Bob Wurth quoting General Tomoyuki Yamashita's words via author John Deane Potter:

"He said that after he had taken Singapore, he wanted to discuss with Tojo a plan for the invasion of Australia … Tojo turned down the plan, making the excuse of lengthened supply lines, which would be precarious and open to enemy attack …"

At the time of the actual signing of the surrender agreement at Singapore it is interesting to note the claim made as to the chief-of-staff to Lt Gen Nishimura having explained to Maj Gen Key that Japan's envisioned conquests did not include India or Australia. Hard to believe that Brigadier would have done this if his force commander held different ideas.

This incident is recounted in 'Singapore, 1941-1942', by Louis Allen, at page 184. See: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZSnQFtKRUWEC&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq=Lt+Gen+Nishimura&source=web&ots=oO5Z5B3nqR&sig=9gcadbnCK8GRv55hXAezaOvoS6s&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA184,M1

The Japanese discussed invasion, understandably, but did not actually plan it.

Have only recently found out about WA artillery gunners being butchered by Japanese during the invasion of Ambon in February 1942.

Was originally part of a draft of Chocos who became attached to the permanent artillery in early 1941.

As I became a specialist in larger fortress range-finding, etc, before the Japs came into the war, I was not sent away with a sergeant Harry Holder and gun crew to fortify part
of Ambon, even before Pearl Harbour.

Apparently the quietude has been kept to protect the name of
a high-ranking Australian officer who gave the order for most of the said Gull Force, including aircraft, etc, to get out, leaving our gunners to be butchered, it is said by the Japs through sinking a Jap minesweeper clearing away mines previouly laided by the Dutch.

Regards, BB, Buntine, WA.