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.

Daggy... no one would be more in rejoicing mode about some Aussie plan of self reliance and military readiness than me...
let me know what you come up with..I'm all ears mate.

Hey.. have to watch those Boomerangs..they tend to come back and hit you in the back of the head :)
cheers

dag, the problem of self reliance is easy: just needs a nation of people who want to be self reliant, and a government that is willing to let them.

hmm, maybe not so easy.

perhaps if we asked nicely, our american masters would station the 7th fleet in queensland. the bases do wonders for the local economy. and the common people will love them and welcome them.

we'd feel so much safer, wouldn't we?

I can’t comment on what type of preparedness Andrew Ross is claiming but it sure wasn’t technological. Australia sent its 4 AIF divisions overseas deficient in virtually every area. The rest of the military, including the militia were almost without modern arms of any kind. Tanks, planes, machine guns even trucks, you name it, we didn’t have it. So if you please, an example of these credible weapons would be welcome

If we were so organised why did Bob Menzies sell the Japanese the iron that was vital to their military ambitions? We were complacent in the extreme and what saved Australia was the American fleet and the valiant men of the Australian defence forces on the Kokoda track and at Milne Bay. The initial militia units sent to PNG had the WORST preparedness of any units in the army. They were sent there with almost no training and were used as labourers, digging fortifications and unloading ships. Their incredible feats can be attributed to an unshakeable sense of commitment to each other and to their country.

There is no traction to be had on this issue for the proponents of the overpopulation argument. Our level of preparedness had nothing to do with population and everything to do with defence spending. We thought that being a part of a global super power relieved us of any need to properly defend ourselves. The British encouraged us in this respect. When arms treaties limited the number of capital ships a country could command, Britain asked Australia to sail our biggest and best warship out of Sydney harbour and sink her.

The sole shining success of Australian weapons manufacture during ww2 was the Owen sub machine gun and that can be attributed to the genius and drive of Evelyn Owen.

Demos said “the Swiss take the democrat's view..” Demos, the Swiss took the fence sitters view and made billions from it. There is absolutely nothing noble about the Swiss participation in ww2. The Germans didn’t need to invade, the Swiss surrendered in advance and then helped enable the Nazis financially strip their conquered victims.

Demos also said “look at what's happening in iraq- a few thousand resistance fighters are tieing 150,000 soldiers, and 180,000 mercenaries, in knots” You must be joking, a few thousand. You have a credible source for this do you?

He also said “small professional army can not defend the nation, it's purpose is to enforce the government's will on enemies foreign and domestic” Good one Demos, the new Air warfare destroyers and the Abraham tanks, Over the horizon radar etc, they’re all about intimidating the public into toeing the line are they. The defence of Australia does not end at our shores. And as for the regular forces not being able to defend Australia, they are the equal or better of all our credible enemies and the region knows it.

Another quote “perhaps if we asked nicely, our american masters would station the 7th fleet in queensland. the bases do wonders for the local economy. and the common people will love them and welcome them. we'd feel so much safer, wouldn't we?” Demos should stick to his fanciful flights of utopian society and leave defence issues to the realists. The ‘common people’ he refers to are also the people he wants to give direct democracy to. The type of democracy which relies on the peoples' intelligence and motivation, something Demos clearly has little faith in.

Of course Australia was prepared before WW2. Well prepared.

I consider myself to be something of an historian on Australian military history.

Not the slightest significance can be given to the fact that in the early years of the war we took Trophy Weapons from Drill Halls and in some cases from Public Parks and refurbished and converted them for use by our forces.
Any one looking at a 'Gun, Machine, Maxim,(Ger.).303 Convd. Mk IV'
in a Military museum, should realise that these conversions were not done in desperation but were merely an interesting exercise showing what could be done in desperation if desperation ever became necessary.
The conversions were from German guns captured in France, they weren't doing any good in the halls and parks so why not put them to good use?

We were not short of rifles either and the calling in of Civilian arms was a security measure and not as is often stated as another desperate attempt to arm the Army.
True the Army did use the better Lee-Enfield target rifles from the Military Rifle Clubs as Snipers' Rifles until they managed to get really organised.

Sub Machine Guns were another matter entirely and it is understandable that every obstacle was placed in the way of Evelyn Owen and Lysaghts in manufacturing this weapon.
The very valid objections of the Military were that sub machine guns were gangsters' weapons and that if we did get any then they should be British.

In conclusion, as an Historian, I can only say that I am amazed that anyone could think that Australia was not prepared.

Australia cannot ever be self reliant for national defence. We have a vast coastline and a sparse population for a start!
The reality however is that no country can now be self reliant for their national defence...we all depend on someone.
Best form of self defence is properly targetted foreign aid. If people are happy living where they are then they have far less interest in invading others. Does not always work of course but it does go a long way towards helping.

Communicat,

You've hit the nail on the head, foreign aid is the answer, especially to those close enough to pose a threat.

Take Indonesia, we give them aid for ,say, food and this saves them spending on that commodity so the have more money to update their air force (or whatever).

This makes us much safer. Bravo.

Ise, I also consider myself an amateur historian on matters of Australian military historian and I would like you to provide some evidence of your assertion. Shortages of modern military equipment for the AIF are well documented. Our naval force structure was designed to fulfill a particular niche in the Royal Navies battle plans. Our army was split between two conflicting groups with little regard for practicalities. We allowed ourselves to be seduced by the Empire Air Training Scheme which took our best and brightest and scattered them throughout the RAF, making them impossible to retrieve as cohesive units.

Lets look at technology. The AIF went into battle in north Africa substantially short of trucks, bren gun carriers, machine guns and anti tank guns etc. Those they did have were stripped from home service units leaving them without much at all. The lack of transport aircraft in New Guinea exacerbated the crisis of supply on the Kokoda track.

As an amateur historian I am surprised that anyone could claim Australia was prepared without providing any evidence.

As for your comments on foreign aid, I totally agree. The wishful thinkers out there assume that the world is filled with soft lefties like them who only want world peace and puppies. They don’t understand that some people out there hate us and giving them money isn’t going to change that. Especially regimes who already sell their people short in order to attain military strength.

Foreign aid should be a hand up to countries that have shown an intention to improve the lives of their citizens, not a hand out which just makes things worse. Handouts to many nations in our region are more likely to be returned as bullets

Nothing about history, especially the complexity of WWII should ever be expressed as "beyond a shadow of a doubt."

Some other events which were also relevant in avoiding a Japanese invasion of Oz - probably more so than anything done in Australia, include:

The Battle of Britain - Had Britain failed to win that 'touch and go' conflict, the loss of all British and Commonwealth possessions in the Pacific would have been a forgone conclusion, and indeed it is likely the US would have stayed out of any ensuing conflict had the British not shown some pluck.

Battle of Midway - This naval battle, whilst not remotely in our region was a very significant battle fought by the Americans, and was important from Australia's point of view primarily because it made the following victory possible.

Battle of the Coral Sea - This battle, also fought almost entirely by the US (though there were relatively small Australian naval/air forces involved) was directly crucial because it prevented Japan from gaining control of the seas off QLD and allowed the maintenance of supplies to Australian land forces in New Guinea.

War in China - The strain and drain of the long (1937 - 1945) and very very bloody war in China, probably more than anything else, left Japan, particularly its army, without the forces to fulfill all the adventures which it's naval leaders dreamt of (including the invasion and occupation of Australia).

Australia was a small player in a very big 'game' and quite naturally was dependant on other, 'bigger players,' particularly the US. We never had any other choice and there is no shame in that. In that sense it is a nonsense to point to our preparation as what saved us.

(continued)

That so many in Australia deny the important role that the US and Britain played in in protecting Australia in WWII seems shameful to me. A great many Americans were killed in the battle of the Coral sea which in military terms was a very risky engagement and was done largely to prevent the isolation of Australia. Britains own efforts at protecting Australia and others from the Japanese, while futile, cost many British lives and should also not be forgotten or belittled - they had their hands full after all!

Whilst the US and Britain had their own reasons to want to prevent Japanese control of this region, the price they paid and the benefits Australia received for those sacrifices should not be treated lightly by Australians today. Australia exists today in no small part, by the blood of these other nations. Claiming we did it all ourselves is an ungrateful slight to their sacrifice.

I'm very proud to be Australian, but it shames me when Australians are too proud to give our friends due credit.

totally agree on all counts

Paul.I.

The evidence is all there, in the Military Museums etc and in the handbook: GUN, Machine, Maxim, (Ger) Convd. Mk IV'

That is the evidence for un-prepardness.
Go back and read my sarcasm laden post again.

Only a country in desperation would need to take neglected war trophies from 20+ years before,and convert them to our ammunition.
I have not only seen examples of these but in the 1960s did a lot of firing of one.

No Mise, food is not good aid...the fishing line is better aid. Food aid is only of value in disaster settings. The rest of the time people need help to feed themselves...it also keeps them occupied.

I will have to put the argument on the issue of Australia's defence capabilities back in 1941 on hold until I am able to get hold of a copy Andrew Ross's book except to note that:

1. the Authors of "National Insecurity" support Andrew Ross's claims,

2. None of the arguments presented on this forum against Andrew Ross's claims are new and Andrew Ross would have been well aware of them at the time he wrote his book.

3. I have not found, at least on the 'Net, any attempt by academics to dispute Andrew Ross's claims.

The fact that Australia's armed forces were under-equipped at the outset of the war does not definitively refute Andrew Ross's thesis. The same was also true, to an extent of the United States, which explains the disaster of Pearl Harbour, why the U.S. were driven out out of the Philippines and lost many island strongholds in the pacific Ocean including Wake Island and even lost at least two islands off the coast of Alaska. However, the issue with the U.S. as we know, was not the preparedness of the U.S. for attack in 1941, but the underlying industrial/military capacity. That is why the commanders of the Japanese Navy wanted to avoid a war with the U.S.

That neither the U.S. or Australia were well prepared on the ground to meet the initial thrust of the Japanese (or Nazi Germany for that matter) could possibly be explained by other political and social economic priorities.

I think if the Japanese had decided to launch an all-out attack on Australian soil, the may have succeeded if they were not fighting the U.S. at the same time, but the cost compared to the benefits would have been unlikely to have been unacceptable to the Japanese. That is why the Japanese Army was opposed to invading Australia.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

The same could have been said of Switzerland. In fact, there were aerial clashes between the Swiss Air Force and the Luftwaffe in 1940 in which the Luftwaffe was roundly defeated, ironically by German supplied Messerschmidt 109 fighters. After that the Germans decided to do business with the Swiss became effectively integrated into the German Military industrial financial complex whilst retaining their political independence. (Canadian author Paul Erdman wrote of this in his fictional work "The Crash of '79" in 1976)

---

I agree that Australia behaving decently in international affairs would considerably reduce further military threats to this country.

Perhaps we should take a closer look at Australia's behaviour as an international citizen in recent years under John Howard's stewardship. Consider

* sabotage of efforts at the 1997 London conference to ratify the Kyoto Protocol by John Howard so that Australia could go on exporting ever higher volumes of global-warming coal(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Australia). Precious time in the fight against climate change was loss and now many regions of the world face inundation with sea water.

* AU$300 million in bribes paid to Saddam Hussein's regime in the years prior to the 2003 invasion in order to secure Australia's share of wheat sales to Iraq.

* Australia's participation in invasion to overthrow the same regime propped up with Australian bribe money, against the wishes of the UN, world public opinion and the warnings of informed experts including intelligence officers and the UN weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq at the time.

John Howard's reckless actions have helped to make the world more dangerous for everyone, yet he has undermined Australia's military defences by his "Buy American" policy and discrimination against Australian and European defence equipment manufacturers as shown in the book "National Insecurity" (I gave some examples in a review of the book at:http://candobetter.org/node/96).

Daggett,

Your comments about the actions of Australia under the Howard government appear a little off topic and demonstrate a general left wing bias.

You appear to be under the impression "behaving decently" is the key to protecting Australia, whereas decency is, unfortunately, hardly an issue given the apparent ammorality of most nations. Our behaviour no doubt should reflect sound morality, but moral positions, of themselves, do not protect us.

In relation to your points, and morality aside, I make the following observations:

Kyoto - although not a pleasing position to most contries in the region and elsewhere it was VERY PLEASING to our most important ally the US. In that sense it improves the likelihood the US would intervene in our favour were we threatened and probably helps secure our access to superior military hardware, and intelligence.

AWB/Iraq scandal - a terrible defence disaster because we lost public respect from the rest of the world and had the exact opposite effect on our US relations as Kyoto above.

Iraq war - For the same reasons as with Kyoto, but to a MUCH, MUCH, greater degree, our invovlement in the Iraq war improves Australia's defence position. Almost certainly the reason Australian troops are there now, (and under Hawke Keating in the previous showdown) is to show our solidarity with the US.

While many think we simply are led by a bunch of grovelling US lackeys, the truth is there are very good reasons why our leaders (Labor or Liberal) try to keep the US happy. Our leader's may not like to admit it, but we DEPEND on the US for our national defence.

Does it have to be this way? Probably not any more. We are big enough and have a sufficiently sizeable economy to maintain a sufficiently credible defence so as to dissuade aggression, but of course that would cost big $$$ and perhaps require us dirty options like maintaining own nuclear weapons arsenal. Better to outsource our defence requirements to the US.

Defence is one of the US' biggest exports didn't you know?

Daggett,
You and the authors have got to be joking.

(Quote)."...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 the 1930'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'..."(unquote)

We couldn't make enough rifles despite the fact that we had had the manufactory at Lithgow since WW.I.
We couldn't make enough light machine guns.
We couldn't make enough Medium MGs hence the conversions of trophies.
We didn't have more than a dozen or so Snipers' Rifles.
We couldn't manufacture pistols. The few that we did were never reliable and are now collectors items as most were destroyed.

As an aside a friend of mine carried an 1878 Colt 'Lightning' Revolver throughout WW.II He had supplied his own pistol when called up.

We had no Sub-Machine guns and as I posted earlier didn't want any.
For a good read on this and the attitude of certain military figures during the war see:

Wardell, G.S. 1982,'The Development and Manufacture of the Owen Gun', private printing. (but freely available).

G.S. Wardell was Chief Engineer at Lysaght's, Port Kembla from Jan. 1939 to 1965.

It was not until 20/11/1941 that the first substantial order for Owens was placed, 2000 guns, and it was not until 3/3/1942 that a further order for 17,900 guns was placed.

At the outbreak of war there were no plans for the production of sub-machine guns in Australia.

However one must admit that there were more than enough Swords, Cavalry in Ordnance stores to equip a sizeable army.
However the remount stations could not hope to provide sufficient horses.

Is Mise wrote:

"You and the authors have got to be joking."

Commendations printed on the back of "Armed and Ready"(1995) include:

"Ross' book will not only serve as a memorial to the wartime contribution of Australian scientists, technicians and workers but will enhance in lasting form our understanding of the evolution of Australin industry and its involvement in the Second World War."

- Dr Peter Stanley, Head, Historical Research Section, Australian War Memorial

"Dr Ross is one of the best analysts in the defence field"

- Associate Professor John MacCarthy, Australian Defence Force Academy

"De Ross' work triggers the industrialists to believe that here we have an academic who understands."

- Jeff Moran, Immediate past President, Institue of Industrial Engineers Australia

Of the Decision by the Japanese High command not to invade Australia made in March 1942, that is, before the Japanese defeat at the Battle of the Coral Sea from 4-8 May 1942, Ross writes:

"The basis for this Japanese decision (not to invade) was a proposal put forward in February/March 1942 by the Japanese Navy for a joint operation with the Army for the invasion and occupation of Australia. The Navy saw that Australia would become a US Base for a counter-attack along the Southern flank of Japanese conquests. The seizure of Australia would confront the US with huge logistical problemns in coming to grips with Japanese forces. However, the Japanese Army claimed that it would need at least 12 divisions for the operation and that it did not have the forces available. It refused to participate, which led to the proposal being droped." (p 408)

Ross then explained why the Japanese Army's objections were soundly based and not just an excuse that would have allowed it to save its strength for operations in China or against the USSR should the success of German offensive have provided them with oppurtinities to attack form the East.

Regarding all the stories of cock-ups posted earlier, Ross, writes in the concluding chapter:

"These achievements were gained with many mistakes in administration and engineering design, ..." (tobecontinued)

If we'd been preparing since the early 1930s then where were the Small Arms with which to repell the invaders?

You may have all the prepardness in production capacity and be able to make tanks and big guns and aeroplanes but if you haven't got sufficient rifles etc for your Infantry then all else is useless.

Wars are won by soldiers on the ground, by the PBI.

(continuedfromabove at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=860#14999) "... most of which have been outlined in previous chapters. Although projects such as the Wackett bomber, the Australian Cruiser tank, and the Owen gun and the earlier creation of coordination organisations could have been done better, they should not obscure the fact that all warring nations had similar experiences. Australia was not stopped from achieving the wartime industrial goals outlined by A.E.Leighton in 1920. The strategy was right, but the tactics were sometimes misguided.

"There were an astonishing number of technical and manufacturing successes as well. Australia succeeded in making all the major armaments categories used by the major combatants in the Second World War - excluding the atomic bomb. This was a clear indication that although the Australian economy was small in comparison to the great powers, it was well balanced and technically versatile. There was also an astonishing number of original contributions in major equipment design and manufacture. These included medium tanks, fighter aircraft, medium bombers, small arms, radar, field artillery, optical equipment, and the process of tropical proofing. ..."(p 433).

---

Is Mise, as I wrote before, the Japanese army refused to participate in the planned invasion of Australia. They refused to participate because they understood the capabilities of the Australian military and Australian industry. Bear in mind that it would have been logistically impossible to have attempted to invade before June 1942 as Ross shows on page 409. On Page 410, he writes:

"... there were more than enough munitions in Australia in June 1942, to fulfill the first line requirements of 8 AIF divisions organised into 4 corps. Furthermore, the surplus in equipment and ammunition was enough for training and sustained fighting, particularly when the rate of Australian production is taken into account ... "

I would say that notwithstanding stories of problems face by Australia in common with all combatant nations, the evidence is overwhelming that Australia did have the technological, industrial and military capacity to resist an invasion.(tobecontinued)

Whatever did or did not happen in the past, we can certainly defend ourselves now. Australia is a physically large country which would have very long supply chains for any potential invader. And if they invaded for our resources, we could certainly ensure that a significant amount doesn't get out. Look to Iraq for examples of this.

This sort of defence does not require large expenditures of money, or high technology, but simply willing and trained people. That used to be called "a militia". By such means, we can ensure that invading Australia for its resources would be counter-productive, they'd rather just buy them, much less hassle.

Now getting back to the question

well the answer is yes we could

but

if labor does get in there goes defence spending
will more than likely downsize the defence force again.

We can look back at the past and debate
but we do create ammunition
grenades
we could reopen the lithgow small arms factory
we could create a better force and at the same time create more employment.

To be secure is one thing but to know that you are secure is much better.

We could get all the illegal firearm users, send them north and use them.

After that the legal gun owners and even put kevin rudd on the line, right up front and he can show us how it is done.

With the rifle shooters at least you will get a kill for a round.

We should work on Australian
Produce Australian
Eat Australian

Every bit helps
but we are becomeing a nation of cannot do that here, want higher wages to do that job.
No farms
no production
just imports.

When the people get fed up and what something done they will winge but this just goes to the liberal and labor party so its a neverending story off crap.

When they say what they really mean and straight forward which will never happen, too much spin we might get somewhere.

Better to B*lls**t the people than the truth.
And if you do not like how I say it STIFF

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton

My God, tapp, your'e surely not suggesting that the Government should trust the people with arms.

What will become of us all?

No i was making a small point

The government trust us in cars, as we have noticed we still have people killing and maiming each other each day.
But that isnt as sensational as crims at shootout.

The other message was responsible gun ownnership is also by ex defence members.

Tapp, good idea about using Australian only goods. What happens when every other country decides that they won't buy Australian?

No markets for our exports, thats what. We would be a lot worse off if we didn't trade with the rest of the world, i absolutely guarantee you. Aust would become a banana republic for real.

No Mate

There off course would be certain things that would be needed to be imported, but lets tax them as much as they tax us.

Also standards, if they do not meet the standards of what is put on our own producers it doesnt come in.

Markets well we have to eat so the markets will still work but instead of us sending wheat overseas and getting flour back and paying more and inferior product do it ourselves.

So things can work out and this will also assist in the country's security as if we have to rely on other country's to eat we are really in trouble.

I beleive in looking after our own backyard first.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton

Can Australia ever be self-reliant for national defence?

Answer: Yes, Australia could have become self-reliant for its own national defence. And no, it has little to do with immigration-driven population growth, and much more to do with technological superiority. Look at Israel for example.

On the issue of whether we should use immigration-driven population growth to boost our national defence capabilities, Australia would be wise to tread very carefully. Do we really want a fifth column in our midst?

To quote the National Observer:

"On the one hand, it is clearly desirable for Australia's security that our population be much increased. But on the other hand, the acceptance of large numbers of ethnic Chinese, for example, may present security difficulties in future decades. China, despite its claimed heritage of civilisation, has proved to be most uncivilised in fact. The Chinese have behaved barbarously in terms of liquidating many millions for real or spurious political reasons and in systematic forced abortions. It is not clear how far Chinese territorial ambitions extend or to what extent the Chinese will come to regard themselves as entitled to prescribe policies for South-East Asian countries. Further, the presence of a large Chinese minority in Australia might be perceived by Communist China or a successor as a reason for interfering in Australian affairs. These are serious matters, and should not be disregarded at the behest of political correctness."

http://www.nationalobserver.net/1999_spring_br5.htm

To anyone still paying attention, I will attempt to wrap up what I wrote earlier.

I have to confess that about two months ago, when I read the claim in "National Insecurity"(2007) that Australia way militarily prepared to defend itself against a Japanese invasion in 1942, I was highly skeptical. I accepted the same conventional wisdom that others on this thread have attempted to argue, that is, that the U.S. had saved Australia.

However, the evidence to the contrary in Ross's "Armed and Ready - The Industrial Development and Defence of Australia 1900-1945"(1995) upon which the claim is based, seems conclusive and has not since been refuted by any comparably well researched work since then. Also, I have failed to find on the Internet any attempt to refute the details of his thesis.

Australia had between the First and Second World Wars changed from being a nation dependent upon imported technology to one which was self-reliant. The fact that in many regards Australian forces on the ground were not well prepared at the start of the conflict in the Pacific, as others have pointed out, is beside the point. As Ross wrote in the introduction:

"A huge industrial juggernaut was created, and by the time the Japanese were able to begin preparations to invade in early 1942, so much equipment and supplies had been manufactured that an enormous Australian military force was capable of being placed in the field in Australia. This is contrary to all perceptions of Australia's level of preparation at this time. But the Japanese knew. They had been studying Australia's industrial development from the early 1930's until late 1941. They had deduced that the munitions capability of Australian secondary industry and concluded that they could not supply and transport the size of invasion force deemed necessary to give a reasonable assurance of military success. General Macarthur did not save Australia. It was saved by the deliberate development of secondary industry by the captains of industry and Australian governments. ... " (tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove) "... They raised the threshold of the necessary Japanese invasion force beyond any possibility the Japanese had of supplying it." (p xv)

This revelation raises a number of important questions:

1. Why has Australia's proud history of technological and industrial achievement been allowed to have been forgotten?,

2. Why has Ross's groundbreaking work been largely ignored?, and

3. Why is it that this Government, supposedly the one which best has Australia's defence at heart, chosen to turn its back on our proud history and, instead, has discriminated against both Australian and European defence equipment suppliers in order to make Australia dependent upon inferior and more expensive equipment supplied by the U.S.? (See discussion on "National Insecurity" at http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2007/07/08/what-ive-been-reading-18/ and my own review of the book at http://candobetter.org/node/96#defence (admittedly based on that time on an incomplete reading).)

I can only conclude that it actually suited the predominant section of Australia's current ruling elite, who John Howard now serves, to have allowed Australia to have been turned from an advanced industrial nation that it was in 1945 into what it is today - an economic basket case which achieves the false illusion of prosperity by digging up and exporting to the world its climate-changing non-renewable mineral resources and by flogging its real estate on the world market.

The former requires effort, whilst the latter delivers easy money to those who are willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of fellow Australians and future generations.

---

As I have already mentioned on previous occasions this group has been referred to as "The Growth Lobby". It has been described in Sheila Newman's Masters thesis of 2002 "The Growth Lobby and its Absence : The Relationship between the Property Development and Housing Industries and Immigration Policy in Australia and France". It is a 2.6Mb pdf file, the core of which is 238 pages long and can be downloaded from http://candobetter.org/sheila