James Purser(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=818#14720),

I am perfectly familiar with the version of history which depicts Australia having been wide open to Japanese attack and ripe for the taking, however there is compelling evidence to suggest otherwise presented in the book "National Insecurity" referred to earlier (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=818#14715):

"This view is grounded on a misconception that Australia was unprotected; that it had made no serious war preparations, lulled by a false sense of security in the British fleet and the defences of Singapore; and that it was only US military might which saved Australia. Yet a close look at the most carefully assembled evidence reveals these to be a baseless assumption. As path-breaking archival research now shows, Australia had been preparing for a possible confrontation with Japan for most of th e1930's and had built a credible threat in terms of industrial military capability through these years under a policy label of military/national 'self-containment'. The Japanese navy was willing to launch an assault on Australia (as it did in the bombing raids over Darwin and the submarine attack on Sydney Harbour) but the army was not so wiling as it was well-informed on the subject of Australian military preparedness. ...

"This military preparedness was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what saved Australia from Japanese invasion in 1942. Such is the thesis of the painstakingly researched book by Andrew Ross, 'Armed and Ready' (1995 - http://www.computeroutpost.com.au/store/item.asp?code=TA-03). This seminal study overturns the doubts about Australia's readiness and instead shows how some determined industrialists, government officials. and politicians managed in spite of the obstacle to build credible weapons and munitions industrial systems in Australia."

So, Australia does have a proud history of self-reliance and technological advancement at a time when Austalia had a much lower population and low immigration. This history which has seemingly inexplicably been hidden from us demonstrates utterly demolishes the argument that technological advancement can only be achieved through high immigration.

Dagget old son :) yep.. sure.. ok.. thats why we had crappy old Wirraways to fight the Zero's with.

I wonder.. does anyone know of any particular preparations done during that time ? I was born in 48, so... I'm a vegetable about that. My dad is gone and he never told me, but there are many out there who's fathers and mothers are still alive and who would be aware of any 'master plan of self reliance' and I'd surely love to hear about it.

Such a plan would need a LOT more than a few well equipped factories, it would require a national network of civilian/reservists trained,equipped and ready for the fight of their lives.

ALL INFO IS WELCOMED. (make sure it is verifiable)

We did have a master plan at the time. It basically involved giving up everything north of Brisbane.

dagget, the overwhelming evidence is against the concept that Australia could by itself have seen off the Japanese. Not only were we undermanned in this theatre of operations (remember, most of our trained fighting men were in North Africa at the start of the Japanese move against PNG), we did not have the infrastructure in place to move the large numbers of men and material quickly around the country (multiple rail gauges and so on).

The question is were the Japanese "well-informed" with the truth, or were they fed a few stories?

i once came across a translation of a japanese military policy document which said australia was more trouble than it was worth. they had no intention of invading.

but oz was not well prepared. compared to the swiss, oz wasn't prepared at all. the swiss take the democrat's view: "it's your land, get a gun and learn to use it." even the werhmacht weren't able to convince themselves this was a place to go.

oz can be self reliant, but only if ozzians want to be. a national militia raises the tooth-to-tail ratio of a nation enough that invasion is always unattractive. just look at what's happening in iraq- a few thousand resistance fighters are tieing 150,000 soldiers, and 180,000 mercenaries, in knots and creating an intense desire to leave in the usa and it's accomplices.

the problem is cultural: british nations look on the people as dangerous to the rulers if armed and organized, so keep military capability locked up in a "royal' army. this small professional army can not defend the nation, it's purpose is to enforce the government's will on enemies foreign and domestic.

I can't verify the claims that Australia was militarily prepared for myself, however, the claims were made in the book "National Self Interest" and, as stated above, were based on another work "Armed and Ready" which I am trying to get hold of.

It seems unlikely, although not altogether impossible, that they would make such a claim if it were not soundly based. In an endnote, they write: "The book by Ross(1995) has attracted little attention in Australia despite the depth of research that underpins its convincing argument".

Don't know if Wirraways would have stood up to Zeroes (aka Zekes), but Australia did produce a potent and successful fighter aircraft, the Boomerang, although it was phased out in favour of Kittihawks, Spitifres and Mustangs.

It is also worth noting that the Finnish air force, with a stock of dated fighter planes performed very well against more advanced Soviet models in the wars (on the wrong side, in the overall scheme of things) against the Soviet Union from 1939 until 1944.

---

It seems to me that there are powerful vested interests which prefer to bury Australia's proud past industrial and technological achievements. They have calculated that they can better prosper by helping to turn Australia into a neo-colony and allowing its mineral wealth to be dug up and exported cheaply within this generation and allowing its land to be flogged off on the international real estate market.

A more recent example was when Sol Trujillo, Telstra CEO, boasted on the occasion of the launch of the 3G network in October 2006, that, under his management of Telstra, Australia had been transformed into a 'leader' of telecommunications technology instead of a 'follower'.

This was nonsense. Australia was acknowledged as a leader in telecommunications technology, until Telecommunications minister Beazley, back in the 1990's chose to destroy that advantage by giving slices of the market to foreign companies all in the name of supposed competition. This was has since been followed through with the more complete deregulation of the telecommunications market and the full privatisation of Telstra by the current Government.