Funny, I've been reading a lot lately that the war in the Desert (El Alamein etc) was really just a sideshow. The British fought there partly because it was the only place they could fight the Germans, with Mainland Europe being occupied by the Germans.

Invading North Africa was Mussolini's bag, not Hitler's, and Hitler just sent the Afrika Corp there to back up his shaky Italian allies. Did the battles in the desert really contribute to Hitler's defeat all that much? I'd say Stalingrad was THE turning point.

Maybe Kokoda didn't save Australia entirely, but you could argue that it saved Australia from the possibility of Japanese troops landing in Australia at all.

Love your work all the same.

Stephen,
I just saw your encounter on Lateline and was disappointed by the emotional spin that you were subjected to.

I have heard and read the same things mentioned in your article back as far as 2002 by Mark Forbes of The Age, and again in 2003 by Dr Peter Stanley, the Principal Historian of the Australian War Memorial.
Both offered views that the Allies knew there was no threat of Japanese invasion in 1942 but (understandably) decided not to inform the public.

Unfortunately the facts were never corrected after the war and it has always been asserted that America "saved us" from the Japanese and we therefore owe them an eternal debt of gratitude.

I for one, don't have the interpretation that your article detracts in any way from the individual heroic deeds performed at Kokoda. Reopening debate about this chapter in our history can only add to our appreciation of the human cost involved.

On the other hand, your timing could not have been worse so brace yourself for the onslaught that will surely follow.

Thanks, I appreciate your comments.
Have to say i am surprised at how emotive Tony Jones was- which just underscores how important it is to have these debates and to question these myths.
Cheers
Stephen

Stephen,

Saw you the other night on Lateline, and mate, I have to admit I was outraged.

I instantly went searching for your article in the Australian to get a better indication as to what it was all about. Upon locating it, I found it to be a much more balanced and cogent analysis than you provided in the Lateline interview.

Don't intend to be nasty, but shame your written points did not convey better in the interview with Tony.

Cheers,

SDB

I don't think you were the only person I managed to outrage, but I want to thank you for taking the time to actually read what I had to say.

Dear Steven,

I also saw the Lateline program and I think Tony Jones was very poorly informed about your actual views.

In terms of what Curtain thought about the significance of the battles in New Guinea, I thought you would be interested in this 1943 extract from letter that I have just stumbled across while searching for something else in a NZ History database (http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2-2Doc-c10.html).

-

The Prime Minister of Australia to the Prime Minister of New Zealand

1 June 1943

Your High Commissioner has made known to me the decision of your Parliament regarding the retention of your Division in the Middle East. I do not presume to offer any opinion on the conclusion reached as this represents the will of the New Zealand people. It does not, however, alter the facts:

(1)That the immediate defence of New Zealand is in the Pacific Ocean, and that the concentration of enemy strength is in the islands to the north of Australia, which is between the enemy and New Zealand. If we had not insisted on the return of the AIF, New Guinea would have been lost and we would have now been fighting on the mainland of Australia....

Those letters make facinating reading