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".