The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > '1942, Australia’s greatest peril' > Comments

'1942, Australia’s greatest peril' : Comments

By Bob Wurth, published 5/9/2008

Those who insist that the Japanese invasion threat to Australia in 1942 was a 'myth' need to consider the Japanese records.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Examinator,

Actually, as I thought I already said above, Australia did defend itself. The Japanese Army's knowledge our country's defence preparations convinced it to veto the Japanese Navy's plans to invade Australia in 1942. They judged, almost certainly correctly that they did not have sufficient forces to easily overcome the 8 iAustralian Infantry divisions that this country could have put into the field by June 1942, the earliest possible date by which the Japanese could have invaded, given the logistic needs of such an undertaking(Ross, pp408-410).

On top of that, Australia could have put into the air sufficient numbers of locally manufactured Boomerang fighters as to be able to deny an invading Japanese army total air supremacy.

Obviously if Australia had to face Japan on its own and without the U.S. as allies our situation would have been far more dire. However, I agree with Andrew Ross that was nowhere near defenceless in 1942.

You ask: Why does what happened in 1942 still important 66 years later?

Well, the elites who have taken control of our destiny in recent years have been able to convince most of us that it is impossible using our own resources and ingenuity to be able to stand on our own feet. They have convinced many of us that unless we effectively surrender our sovereignty to global capitalists and allow record high immigration, we are doomed to remain an impoverished backwater.

The evidence presented in Andrew Ross's book shows that it was possible in effectively only two decades (or even less, if we take into account the needless cockups) to change from an essentially rural based economy to become one of the world's most advanced industrialised countries.

Also, as I wrote earlier, I think many of the lessons of that war would still hold today should a new conflict for control of this continent ever occur (and, again, I say, let's hope not), particularly, if the growing scarcity of natural resources make it more difficult for ourselves and other countries around us to sustain the technologies developed since the 1940's.
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 6 September 2008 7:28:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think your argument convincing, daggett. The globalizing plunderers would indeed prefer a helpless, passive and dependent view to prevail in Australia on this aspect of our history. I'm concerned that the repeated resignations by state premiers - in the context of various privatization/looting schemes - just emphasizes how far this country's sovereignty has been violated.

Taken together, Andrew Ross's more strategic perspective should add to Wurth's consideration of the actual combat which brought victory in the "Battle of Australia".

Also, it is important to note Wurth's points about the internal conflict between the Imperial Japanese Navy and the Japanese Army: if Milne Bay / Coral Sea had gone their way, clearly their Army would not have prevailed in warning against attacking Australian coastal base areas. Key parts of Australia's mainland itself would have become a target for more direct attack and loss of sovereignty, directly even if only temporarily.
Posted by mil-observer, Sunday, 7 September 2008 6:55:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Daggett,
It seems we are talking at cross purposes. I was commenting on the nature and intent of Wurth’s article i.e. to generate controversy to sell books. I see in this approach to potentially inviting unfortunate consequences for our imperfect cultural memory. In which the thrill of controversy over shadows the real purpose of national remembrances by simply clouding the focus. Confusing people with a myriad of battle names and which most people will forget arguments based on nuanced controversies .

I contend, we need to be clear of focus if remembrance is to provide a lasting meaningful legacy . We should remember/honour the reality of their SERVICE and SACRIFICE (the horror, terror mayhem and slaughter of INDIVIDUALS, real people at a time of our need and how that affects us today. Dare I say even to the service of those who fought in unnecessary or unpopular wars.
The fault/criticisms of any war(s)should be aimed at the country’s Hierarchy not the fighters.( a point we seem to agree on).

We as a people tend indulge in the spectacular and therefore unfairly rank battles service/sacrifice even bravery of others. I remember Viet vets being boo-ed because the war was unpopular. Even some RSL’s at the time saw Vietnam as a lesser war.

It seems to me that this best way to honour their legacy is in its lessons for the future. Hopefully it will make us more cautious to enter into wars that we can/should avoid. Stand on our own feet and make our own decisions.

In this context and of current national circumstances in 2xxx +that I fail to see the value of ‘what if arguments’ and nuanced 60 yo historical events except to correct the record. Which clearly not the intention of the author.( The wrong way and place to sell books on this topic )

I agree that history should be a bulwark against governing propaganda ? Which thinking person today believes our leaders that implicitly anymore. Neither you nor I seem to.

In the light of other postings my thread is off the main line sorry!
Posted by examinator, Sunday, 7 September 2008 5:53:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't apologise, Examinator, for being off-topic.

You are far more on-topic than you may think. This article does appear to have aspects of the generation of a controversy to sell books. In reality it is more probably an attempted ripost to a very well timed and effective expose, carried out by Peter Stanley (who formerly worked for 27 years at the Australian War Memorial, where he was head of Historical Research and then Principal Historian for 20 years) of the seemingly serendipitous timing of the release of a book with an Australian government propaganda campaign.

One can only speculate that the recent announcement by the Prime Minister of the 3rd of September as 'Battle for Australia' day was intended to coincide, more or less, with the release of this book, '1942, Australia's greatest peril'. If that speculation is correct, however, it brands the book as nothing more than Rudd government propaganda, and shows that government as seeking to bask in past glories of a battle that never happened, in the process perverting the honour due the service and sacrifice of all who served in that six year war to a most inglorious cause. This post, and others by me, to the comments thread on Peter Stanley's article 'Understanding the invasion myth': http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7725#120646 may serve to clarify what I mean.

As Peter Stanley says of his own book, released in July 2008:

"So 'Invading Australia: Japan and the Battle for Australia 1942' is not just about an argument about how we should interpret the events of 1942. It is also about the way Australia’s history has been subjected to manipulation and official sanction, about how a nation’s history can so easily be hijacked by partisans and lobby groups. It is about the importance of historical evidence - there is no evidence for Japanese invasion plans, but a widespread popular assumption that invasion plans must have existed."

History should indeed be a bulwark against government propaganda.

Date's right, but the year wrong.

It was 1939!
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Sunday, 7 September 2008 10:53:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, mil-observer and examinator for your interest in my posts. Even critical responses to my views (which I would describe as simultaneously 'left-wing' and 'politically incorrect'), which are not very widely propagated these days, is appreciated.

(mil-observer, I think the resignation of Costa and Iemma was a fantastic development. Also, I don't mourn the loss of past Premiers like Bracks, Carr and Beattie. In the case of NSW it seems just possible that, for a change, we may end up with a government that is not totally servile to the corporate sector, but I won't be counting on it.)

examinator, I am also concerned about the propensity of our Governments to build up myths to serve ideological ends in recent years. Whilst it is clear, for example, that treatment of many Australian soldiers returning from the Vietnam War was not justified, it is also true that this has been exploited by many to whitewash our involvement in that immoral war.

I don't really know, at the moment, how to respond to what you write of Bob Wurth's article and his book (not having read the latter).

I think we should acknowledge that many males (if not females) have a (probably perverse) fascination with war. I certainly did and still do, but I sure hope I never have to learn at first hand, what it is actually like.

(tobecontinued)
Posted by daggett, Monday, 8 September 2008 2:05:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continuedfromabove)

I think the real battle of Australia was fought and won by the industrialists, military personnel, politicians, scientists and public servants who prepared Australia to meet the threat of invasion prior to the Second World War. Even though it was a not a blood sacrifice in the sense that like the sacrifice of our soldiers on the battlefield was their hard efforts and vision should still be honoured.

Whilst our Second World War death toll was 29,000 too high (roughly 20,000 battle + 9,000 POW's from my recollection) it could easily have been much higher. At the end of "Armed and Ready" Ross convincingly argues that, if it were not for our scientific and industrial development, the battle casualties could easily have been double what they were, and had the Japanese not been deterred from actually landed on Australian soil they would have been vastly more.
Posted by daggett, Monday, 8 September 2008 2:08:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy