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.

Examinator & others,

Let us assume, for the sake of argument only, that as at December 1941 the Japanese had formulated no plans to invade Australia.

Let us further assume that somehow the Curtin government knew this for certain. I am not sure how they COULD know. Let's pretend that Yamamoto had a lover in whom he confided and who was an Australian spy.

Under those circumstances, should the Curtin government have joined the US and UK in declaring war on Japan?

Given what was known at the time, unless you are:

--A complete naïf;

--Totally blinded by hatred of the US and UK;

--An unconditional pacifist.

There is only one rational answer.

Yes.

Imagine if Japan had won. Imagine if the Japanese navy controlled all Australia's trade routes. Remember Japan's ruthless treatment of Chinese and Koreans.

What would Australia's position have been as a helpless island in a sea dominated by the Japanese navy? The Japanese would not have to invade. A few warships could have controlled Australia's access to the rest of the world. Australia would have had no choice but to agree to whatever the Japanese wanted.

Perhaps it would have worked out well. Perhaps Australia could have worked out a peaceable modus vivendi with Imperial Japan.

But given what was known at the time most Australian governments would not have wanted to place Australia at the mercy of the Japanese Navy.

So let's get real

An interesting and timely discussion - I support daggett's view about the direct, ongoing and intensifying threats to Australian sovereignty and interest as posed by the globalizing plunderers. However, as I alluded elsewhere on OLO, this would rarely become an overt military threat when dealing with a defiant Australia: terrorism is the specialized dirty work in such a case. It'd be likely dressed up and fronted as "Muslim, Wahabbist", etc., but that's a standard deal now for such corporate ultra-thuggery.

I believe the most apt semantic and historiographical comparisons here are with the generally accepted "Battle of Britain" tale. We know that Seeloewe was officially written off after Goering's tactical incompetency in the air war, but that aspect neglects how half-hearted those preparations really were. Moreover, that issue ignores also the profound, bizarre Anglophile tendencies among top Nazis, and their ardent wish to form an alliance with a Tory, and more influentially royalist, Britain.

So the "Battle of Australia" did not necessarily imply an impending Japanese "invasion" and occupation. The actual battle, where hypothetically permitted by success at Milne Bay, etc., would have followed as more limited strikes to disrupt the US launching pads. It was not to be Hastings, Kursk or Normandy.

Steven
I am none of your selections of options, if there is a rational answer sadly your "what if" scenarios aren't it.
Supposing on what might have bee 66 or so years ago is the stuff of old men and novelists… pointless. It simply didn’t happen.

The bit I dumped from last post because of space was might help
“My adopted dad died prematurely (42) as a consequence of being a prisoner on the Burma Railway at 17. One could say the man he was or could have been died in Burma and only a very troubled husk returned. In effect he gave his life for the defence or Australia”
(As an aside Steven, I’ve posted before how my birth parents were victims of the Nazis. And I was born a physically damaged Reffo)

Today I posted against Anti Americanism perhaps you should read that.

I always make a big point that Context as key to understanding events.

Me? A Pacifist? hell no! Age has taught me that humans often jump to bellicosity too soon, too willingly. (In my post.)

It’s tragic that you seem to be in a siege mind set. There’s no justification for Israel’s current attitudes here. Time to move on.

And DAGGETT
I also acknowledged that Aust would probably been invaded except for the US forces.

The point of my post was to say we should honour the service and sacrifices of out veterans as individuals rather than lose it in some fantasy ultimate ‘Battle for Australia’. I also said that it was the collective of every individual service person’s efforts that is the point not some battle of nameless numbers. No one battle saved Australia. Coral Sea Battle was the closest to that and even that needs qualification.

Daggett,
Perhaps you can explain to me how an event that old has relevance today other than for historians and authors?
Times/ circumstances are different and require different actions. Sure we need to stand up to foreign hegemony but War? And how will 60 yo history help?

bushbred,

You say: "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."

Even before Pearl Harbour!

How interesting. That could be consistent with the scenario laid out in this post: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7725#120548 and in subsequent posts throughout the remainder of the thread. Be aware there is a fair amount of off-topic stuff in this thread, which can't be helped.

With reference to the Ambon atrocity, is this link a correct description of the one you mentioned? http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres_pacific.html It is under the heading of 'The Laha Airfield Executions', and is the fourth item on George Duncan's webpage 'Massacres and Atrocities of WWII'.

Pushing your book eh Bob? Pretty unfortunate that someone has debunked the ideas that you are proposing. It is also interesting that your old employer, the ABC, via Radio National, has given time to the person who disagrees with your ideas.

That must hurt.

I would be more sympathic to hearing from someone who either hasn't got a financial interest in the debate (ie whose income is not derives from book sales), or at least from those whose work is peer reviewed by professional historians.

No one doubts that Australia was 'under threat' from Japan in 1942, but that threat did not include invasion. To argue that Austraia, because it was bombed by Japanese aircraft, was to be invaded is like saying that the Japanese empire was going to try to occupy Pearl Harbor. The Japanese put their efforts into other areas, like the Burma front and China, the Pacific was something of a sideshow, the establishment of a maritime ring of bastions, to deter the west from interfering with the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

A tad inconsistent on the principles there, Hamlet. "No financial interest" but "work... peer-reviewed by professional historians". Obviously both of your preconditions imply "financial interest", more or less!

Besides, what use is "peer-reviewed" if the historian's peers are mostly hacks of the Crown, for example?

Wurth's case is clear, and his agenda is an important one to pursue - not to "honour battles" necessarily, but to honour the memory of those who fought them, and to expose those - like Churchill - who would have impeded such victories as "the Battle of Australia".

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.

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.

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!

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!

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)

(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.

Somewhere among my belongings I have some Japanese paper money that came into my possession whilst in New Guinea during WW2.This "money" is of a very low denomination (halfpence & pence).Some of it is clearly marked either with "OA" which I took to mean "occupied Australia",or "OC" which I took to mean "occupied country", This,obviously bogus money had been removed from Japanese soldiers,I believe.
All of which raises the question; Was it meant to be used in the occupation of Australia,perhaps to pervert the Australian currency ?
Whatever the reason, it seems to add weight to the "Invasion Theory"

There is one claim in this article with which, despite what I said in my earlier post (the fifth in the thread), I am now prepared to agree; that of the title:

"1942, Australia's greatest peril".

It's true Australia's greatest war peril began not in 1942, but on 3 September 1939, with the outbreak of WW2. By mid 1940 Australia stood alone with Britain and the other Commonwealth nations against an incipient world-wide tyranny.

The war peril began not because of Australia's being nominally part of the British Empire, but because of the virtual identicality of world view with that of Britain arising from our common heritage, expressed in this nation's preparedness to go to war in such adverse circumstances.

The war peril may have indeed been perceived by the Australian public to have reached its zenith in 1942, but by then the real peril was not so much from external military threat as from internal political opportunism and attempted subversion of the Constitution. That same peril exists today, having relatively recently intensified. I have given some indication of its precise nature here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7725#120548 and in subsequent posts in the comments to the article 'Understanding the invasion myth'.

(That article has in recent days dropped off the default OLO index page, but can be easily found by clicking the 'one quarter back' option on the index page, and even more easily, at around the present time, by then clicking on the 'last post' button to display the index page in order of recency of posts.)

Many thanks, Forest Gump.

Must say, that because Ambon owing to its location, was suited more for West Australian gunners being sent to Ambon rather than other locations such as Rabaul where a standard 9.2 heavy battery was located.

Another type of heavy artillery used was the tyred mobile Puteaux 155 millimetre used extensively after Pearl Harbour.

Further, it seems that two types of artillery gunners were sent to Ambon - both anti-aircraft and anti-ship, the latter called coastal defence.

Harry Holder, as I mentioned was in charge of the rookie section me and my young brother trained under. And the last I heard of Harry was that he became a war prisoner captured by the Japs.

I must say that for the rest of the war we spent much of the time on Garden Island, WA, where Z-force did much of its training at the time, and who were also part of our Australian Defence Force, by means of mini-submersible attack.

However, it seems the true story of Ambon has been kept from us till recently and must say it has left me distressed remembering how young those rookie kids were at the time.

Finally, there is also anger over the report that our gunners were left to keep on firing while the rest of Gull Force including aircraft were ordered to get out.

PS. Talking about the Japanese mine-sweeper, there is also a report that after it became damaged by the Dutch mine, it was sunk by our so-called heavy artillery battery, no doubt really annoying those Japanese bastards.

Regards, BB, WA.