Ahhhh, so Paul goes the 'what-about' route. What about Lindbergh, what about the anti-war activists in the US, (bizarrely) what about the Brisbane Line.

Essentially the 'what-about' argument says, OK I agree that these people I support were wrong, but others over there were bad as well...so there. Of coarse Paul will never bring himslef to concede that the communists of the time were less than saintly, but the what-about argument is a tacit admission. Good.

OK Lindbergh...he was hopelessly naive, probably anti-Semitic and certainly attracted by fascism. He opposed war just like Seeger. But the difference was that Seeger opposed the war because of his support for Russia and supported it to support Russia. Lindbergh was always about the US. He opposed it because he thought that was best for the US and he threw himself into the war effort when the US was attacked.
He also repented from his fascist leanings once he learned of the atrocities of Nazism whereas Seeger never repented of his communism despite the ample evidence of the atrocities of communism. (has Paul repented?).

Charles Lindbergh, resigned his commission in the US Air Corps at the outbreak of the war and never regained it. He become an employee of the Jew hater Henry Ford in 1942 and spent the war as a well paid Ford executive.

Lindberg quote; "I was deeply concerned that the potentially gigantic power of America, guided by uninformed and impractical idealism, might crusade into Europe to destroy Hitler without realizing that Hitler's destruction would lay Europe open to the rape, loot and barbarism of Soviet Russia's forces, causing possibly the fatal wounding of western civilization."

Could that be interpreted as the words of a Nazi apologists?

AL; Obviously given your line that an Axis victory in WWII would have been appropriate and beneficial. I take it you disagreed with the father-in-law fighting the Japanese. He would have been much better off if they had taken him into captivity in one of their POW camps, say in Burma.

P1405, again you presume. I don't know, maybe he would not have lost half his stomach through lack of food due to the supply ships not arriving on time because your mates were stopping them from leaving port with food and supplies.

Seeing as how, apparently, you were in a POW camp in Burma at that time, perhaps you could tell us how bad it was. At least he would have been fed, even if very little!

AL

The accounts in the Colebatch book suit your world view, and you say your F-I-L might have been better off in a Japanese POW camp. Understandable considering your view is we would be "all" better off had there been a Japanese victory in WWII.

OK Paul, can you say categorically that we would not have been better off if the Germans and the Japanese had one the war. Did the allies go storming in to Japan and Germany, after the war, killing and exacting revenge for their part in the war?

No we actually helped them rebuild and get them back on their feet, at the same time helping ourselves along the way.

The same courtesy would have been awarded to us had we lost the war.

I gather, by your inference that you foresaw a situation whereby we would be stood over like in the POW camps.

That was not the case. Remember, before and after the war, these were people just like you and I going about their daily lives.

What did the allies do with the POW's after the war? Well the same or similar would have been the case for us if we had lost.

"The same courtesy would have been awarded to us had we lost the war."

ALTRAV you are certainly showing your true colours. Could any Australian in their right mind agree with you. I don't think so.
The track record of both the Nazi's and the Japs in countries they conquered was abysmal. We did not ships millions of people off to gas chambers from occupied countries. You are now up to your neck in it!

Concerning the treatment of Australian POW's by the Japanese, there is a mountain of documented evidence as to how shockingly there were treated.