Aussies -

egalitarian one day, xenophobic the next

Wobbles,had Japan taken Papua New Guinea would they have just stopped there?Why did they bomb Darwin and send miniature subs to sink ships in Sydney.Just because there were no overt plans ,doesn't mean it won't happen.Things change very quickly in times of war.

Our affluence has made us very complacent,and really do wonder how much we can rely on the US paricularly if they become stretched by more wars in the Middle East and suffer a sever economic downturn.
It is a difficult civilian mentality today in our western democracies.People were lied to about Iraq,Vietnam was unnecessary.The Bush administration may have cried wolf too often because if a real crisis erupts,it won't have the backing of it's own people.That is my concern for our security.Perhaps we rely on the US too much or do you think we can rely on the UN?

Outside a theocracy DB the law is amoral. Which is fine - anything less and we'd end up taking the OT literally.

Gadget,

Your post suggests we're no better than the Chinese. Like Marilyn, I'd like us to walk the walk, not simply point out it could be worse.

Arjay,
Darwin was bombed because the air base was the most likely place from where to to launch a counter-offensive after the fall of Singapore.

The minisubs were hunting damaged US battleships from the battle of the Coral Sea to finish them off (that's what minisubs are used for).

There were also minisubs sighted off the coast of Gibraltar at around the same time. This was to mislead the Allies into thinking that the Japanese Navy were in the Mediterranean. Nobody has ever suggested that Japan had plans to invade Europe.

Japan was trying to sieze the oil and gas fields in South-East Asia, after their usual supplies had been cut off (The US embargo that provoked Pearl Harbour)and their main target was most likely still China.

These are some of the arguments put forward by the historian I mentioned earlier. I heard him interviewed and he had valid explanations for every point raised and it's his contention that despite exhaustive searches, no physical evidence of any invasion plan was ever found after the war - only to the contrary.

That debate was going on a few years ago and caused some heated discussion in some areas. To my knowledge it has yet to be disproven so I have an open mind about it.

I only raised the point to illustrate that much of what we are told can be inaccurate or completely wrong and that history is subject to a constant state of revisionism - depending on prevailing circumstances.

We get most of our history taught through a Hollywood lens.

Idle,don't just stop there with a few short words enticing our imagination.I'd really like to know the feeling and the reality that permeated Darwin then.