Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Japanese Invasion of Australia in WWII
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
I understand that Darwin was actually bombed by the Japanese air force / navy in WWII Not sure of how much damage was caused and if these air raids were "pin pricks" as opposed to meaningful attacks on Australia. However got me thinking in "What If" style, Could the Japanese actually have launched an assualt (with ground troops) on Darwin and other Austrailian mainland targets such as Brisbane and Sydney etc with a view to occupation?
I.E. would any Australian mainland territory be worth the Japanese forces occupying with regard to securing resources for the war effort?
Say prior to dragging the U.S. into the Pacific war, Once the Japanese had Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia (Dutch Indies back then), New Guinea and the Solomon Islands under their control, Australia would be a prime target to attack from a geographical perspective.
Or would the more obvious targets such as the Philippines, Burma (with a view to going into India) and China be more of a priority as proved the case in real life? -
Message 2
Posted by clankylad (U1778100) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
The attacks on Darwin certainly weren't pinpricks - they were launched from four carriers, involved over 200 aircraft and caused devastation and widespread panic.
However, rather than invasion, the main Japanese plan seems to have been to make Australia's strategic position untenable by occupying New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Fiji, preventing reinforcement from the US.
I think Aussie readers may be able to give you chapter and verse on this better than I can, though. -
Message 3
Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Thanks, I was just wandering if the Japanese attacks in Darwin were serious or more token / shock bombings like the US attack on Tokyo in 42, after Pearl Harbor, basically saying "we can hit you any time we want at any place" But not really causing significant devestation.
But obviously from your reply, looked like the Japanese meant business, Which leaves me wandering could the Japanese have feasibly assualted the Aussie mainland like Darwin with a full on amphibious attack with gound troops, air cover etal and could the Aussies have repelled it without US intervention?
They certainly appeared to have the tools to do it i.e. carriers, air cover and territory in the region in which to supply an attack. -
Message 4
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Friday, 13th January 2006
Darwin was flattened. It was not a big place , more a town than a city, but the Japanese attack involved the same planes and pilots that a few weeks before had attacked Pearl Harbour.
Australia was bombed about 250 times, Sydney was attacked by midget submarines, but the attacks are generally regarded as an attempt to isolate Australia from the US with whom it had allied to fight the Pacific War.
It's thought the Japanese High Command discussed invading Australia, but quickly abandoned the idea as they were overstretched. Instead they aimed for Port Moresby in New Guinea, first attempting an amphibious landing (Coral Sea) and then the Japanese Army tried the impossible - coming over the mountains through thick jungle. There are some well known battles involving Australians - probably not well known elsewhere- defeating the Japanese in New Guinea
Australia was in a very difficult position in 1942 and it is just as well Japan gave up on the plan to invade. Australia was almost totally undefended, having sent virtually all its forces out of the country 2 years earlier for the war against Germany. The Australian PM John Curtin made a desperate plea to FDR in December 1941 and subsequently Australia served as a US base
It aso resulted in a very nasty falling out between Curtin and Churchill over the defence of Australia and Curtin's decision to call for the return of Australian troops from the Middle East. Another story! -
Message 5
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 13th January 2006
I remember reading a What if. many years ago, where the japs. invaded, and fought their way south. only to be stopped on the Sydney Harbour Bridge. There was a film, based on the truth, where all cattle and sheep were moved south to stop them falling into the invaders hands if the Japs. did invade.
Fred -
Message 6
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 13th January 2006
Before the Americans took control of the defence of Australia the Aussie government planned to pull back to just the south-east of the country (from north of Brisbane south to encompass the main population areas) if the Japanese invaded. The government thought that they did not have the resources to defend the whole of the country. I'm not sure what the situation with Perth was though, whether that would have been defended or not.
The Americans changed the plan though once they took over control. -
Message 7
Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Friday, 13th January 2006
So to all intents and purposes, a Japanese invasion of Australia in 41/42 was feasible with a depleted Australia missing the bulk of it's armed forces away fighting the Germans? Particularly before meaningful US intervention.
Its interesting,
Could go down as one of the biggest let offs of WWII
(hindsights great eh
)certainly looks a missed opportunity from an Axis perspective. The repective German and Japanese high commands could of worked a real tactical masterstroke here, the Germans could of tied down the British Commonwealth and American forces in the European and African theatres, while had the Japanese invaded / occupied mainland Australia the whole Pacific campaign would of taken on a new importance as no doubt the liberation of Australia would of become a main priority. -
Message 8
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Friday, 13th January 2006
Interesting thread!! My grandfather, Gunner William "Scotty" Melvin was there during the bombing of Darwin, indeed he was very involved as he was a ack ack gunner on a 40mm Bofors! Our family has a whole album of photagraphs taken by him of Darwin at the time of the raids - amazing photographs. One of the pubs was know as the "Hotel de Blitz".
He said he felt a bit useless as the Japanese often flew too high for the Bofors... later on he got involved in clandestine small ship stuff, not as a spy or anything, but because he was good on boats (ex north sea fisherman from Stonehaven). -
Message 9
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Sunday, 15th January 2006
So to all intents and purposes, a Japanese invasion of Australia in 41/42 was feasible with a depleted Australia missing the bulk of it's armed forces away fighting the Germans? Particularly before meaningful US intervention.
Its interesting,
Could go down as one of the biggest let offs of WWII
(hindsights great eh )certainly looks a missed opportunity from an Axis perspective. The repective German and Japanese high commands could of worked a real tactical masterstroke here, the Germans could of tied down the British Commonwealth and American forces in the European and African theatres, while had the Japanese invaded / occupied mainland Australia the whole Pacific campaign would of taken on a new importance as no doubt the liberation of Australia would of become a main priority. Β
That scenario was Curtin's nightmare. It's a wee bit late to be recalling your own forces after the invasion.
It was clear that Churchill's priority for British/ Commonwealth and US forces in 1942 was the European War and had FDR not agreed to the positioning of Australia as a US base, Curtin would have brought more Australian forces back. It's no secret that Australian troops in the Middle East were threatening mutiny if not returned to fight in the Pacific. The Australian population was small, 7 million, had been at war with Germany for 2 years and was now under direct attack from Japan
Curtin also had to deal with Douglas MacArthur when he arrived. MacArthur made it clear that the US had no interest in 'saving Australia' nor interest in the Australian people. Australia was simply seen as a strategic base to defeat the Japanese.
Hence the significance of the New Guinea campaigns in Australia. These are viewed as the Battle for Australia, as distinct from the rest of the Pacific war against Japan
The whole affair was a dose of realpolitik about strategic alliances. It led further down the track to the ANZUS Treaty and to a shift to regional policy ie from north/south to east/west -
Message 10
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Sunday, 15th January 2006
As I understand it, the Japanese realized that their army was simply not big enough to make any attempt to occupy the Australian mainland, but they did realize that it could represent a supply dump and jumping-off area for American forces. Consequently, rather than attempting to occupy the huge island, they sought to isolate it by occupying New Guinea, thus severing (or at least seriously interfering with) communication between the US and Australia.
As noted by others (above) the efforts to occupy New Guinea were thwarted by the US navy at the Battle of the Coral Sea, and by Australian forces when the Japanese attempted to take Western New Guinea by sending their forces across the Owen Stanley Mountains. This latter was resisted by Aussie troops and resulted in a series of pitched battles and near-guerilla-warfare-type engagements that took place in the worst of conditions. The Australian forces took terrible casualties and experienced horrible hardship in the process (as did the japanese, of course). The Aussies had done a magnificent job, yet it was never acknowledged. MacArthur's boot-licking general staff (often referred to as his ''Palace Guard'') was headed by a moronic, fanatic sycophant named Willoughby, who informed the General that the Australian troops were not handling the situation rapidly enough. Consequently MacArthur, instead of recognizing the tremendous job the Aussies had done and giving out the praise they richly deserved, publically castigated them and their leaders. It was a most reprehensible act and was roundly resented by the Australians.
As you can probably infer, MacArthur is not one of my heroes. -
Message 11
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Sunday, 15th January 2006
Blamey, the Australian General was also critical of the Australian troops. It was based on poor knowledge of the tactics being used. They thought the Australians had given up and retreated
In fact the Australians were outnumbered about 10:1 by the Japanese who were using a jungle track through the mountains (Kokoda). The jungle was too dense to stray far off the track so the Australians used a fighting withdrawal with ambushes of the Japanese. It was tactically very successful and the Japanese were stopped just a few kilometres short of Port Moresby. Then they were pushed back - and used their own fighting withdrawal.
Yes, terrible losses on both sides
Curtin managed to get along with MacArthur. MacArthur's frankness was accurate. Initially Australia had little to offer the alliance in the Pacific War except as a US base. The fact that this was because its forces were off in another war was of no use to MacArthur. -
Message 12
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Monday, 16th January 2006
I ought to have included the local Papuan people in mention of the New Guinea campaigns.
They were involved in the fighting but more critically they kept up the supply line through the jungle and that was a major factor in tipping the balance. -
Message 13
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Monday, 16th January 2006
Certainly was a major factor Wollemi! There are those amazing photographs taken by Damien Parer that testify to the difficulties of the whole Papuan theatre of war. Of course being an Aussie I was brought up on stories of the war in PNG.
And I still think it's disgraceful how we abandoned the West Papuans to thier fate and be swallowed up by Indonesia after the war... -
Message 14
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Monday, 16th January 2006
Could Australia have influenced the outcome?
The Dutch held on to West Papua until the 1960s, well after Indonesia fought them for independence. The Dutch wanted to grant the West Papuans independence or even to link up with PNG's emerging independence I believe.. It was really the UN monitored 1969 Act of Free Choice (so called) that sealed their fate. That and the Cold War politics of the era which involved placating the Indonesians -
Message 15
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Monday, 16th January 2006
On a side note, if you can find it the book "Throwim way leg" is really interesting. Its about a mammologists travels in both West Irian and PNG. The authours name excapes me but he also wrote "The Future Eaters".
-
Message 16
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Monday, 16th January 2006
Tim Flannery -
Message 17
Posted by Big Bird Kiwi- (U2871390) on Monday, 16th January 2006
AT least NZ did not get invaded.
-
Message 18
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 16th January 2006
Only by the British, the Yanks, and the film makers.
Fred
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.