Most of Australia is uninhabitable desert? There are certainly large deserts, but the entire continent (including the deserts) has been inhabited by human beings for a lot longer than the Americas. Still is.
The eastern third of Australia is well vegetated and had perfectly good roads even back in the 40s. The Japanese only definitely decided against mounting an invasion of Australia when they were defeated by Australian troops - with minimal support from the US - in New Guinea. New Guinea was Australian territory at the time, too, so technically the Japanese did invade.
In 1941 they could have. After the battle of Midway all they could hope for was to hold on to what they had or make it so expensive that the americans would grow tired and quit. They did not understand the likes of Bull Halsey, Nimitzs and others.
One fact that is seldom discussed is the thinking of the Navy at the time.
On December 6th the US Navy was a battleship navy. By the afternoon of Dec 7th the US Navy became a Carrier Navy, it was forced to. The US Navy did not consider carriers that important. If Pearl had not happened the US would have attempted to go to war against a carrier Navy with it’s battleships.
Japan had 6 fleet carriers to send to Hawaii and I believe they had 2 others though somewhat smaller. They were converting one of their battleships being constructed into a carrier.
In the Pacific Fleet the US had only 3 fleet carriers, 1 back on the west coast in a Naqvy Yard.
True, but only in 20/20 hindsight. Both the US and Japan continued to build new battleships right up to the end of the war. At the beginning of the war carriers were regarded as useful but not supreme, and battleships continued to play a role in any situation where the enemy didn’t have air superiority, such as besieging enemy held islands. And for a long time, even when it was realized that battleships were vulnerable to aircraft, many still thought it was just a matter of beefing up the battleships’ air defenses- more AA guns, etc.
Rubbish. We beat the Japanese in New Guinea before the US was involved in any serious way.
Look up the battle of Milne Bay, look up the Kokoda campaign. Actually read the history of what happened and when it happened. US involvement was small, and US supplies hadn’t started flowing in large quantities by that point.
Those were Australian victories. The first land victory over the Japanese, and the first successful defeat of a Japanese invasion force, were Australian achievements with a small amount of US support. Claiming credit for the US is a direct insult to the Australian troops who pulled off a magnificent victory under extremely difficult circumstances. The morale boost to the allies that came from proving that the Japanese were not unbeatable was arguably a bigger contribution to the war effort at that point than all the supplies that were coming from the US.
The major US contribution to the New Guinea campaign was, as I said, oil. Not fighting troops, and not war machines. Whether Australia could have kept the fight up until the Japanese invasion was fought off with a shortage of oil is an interesting question, but while no-one is denying that the US made a valuable contribution, it’s a direct insult to your allies to claim all of the credit.
You’re absolutely right, of course, but unfortunately far too many Americans are unable to accept that they didn’t win WWII single-handedly.
Australia was manufacturing pretty much everything they needed by that stage of the war- admittedly our aircraft were cough a bit average, but the soldiers fighting on the Kokoda Trail were generally armed with nothing fancier than Lithgow-made SMLE rifles, Bren Guns, Austen SMGs, and Mills Bombs, for the most part.
Yes, America did contribute to the success of the New Guinea campaign, but- like WWI- they showed up late and missed the good bits, but were still there to help for the remaining time until the credits rolled.
Ok, this is a MAJOR highjack…and after it’s answered, we can return to your regularly-scheduled Pearl Harbor discussion…
This will show my lack of WWII naval history…
In the movie, “The Hunt for Red October,” there is a scene that has always puzzled me (precisely because of my lack of WWII naval history). The Americans have boarded the Red October, and Ryan has made a big deal several times of how brilliant the Russian captain is. At this moment in the film, they are facing imminent head-on impact with a torpedo, when there is a brief exchange between the Russian captain and Ryan, and the Russian says, “I know this book. Halsey acted stupidly.”
It is apparent from the expressions on the faces of Ryan and the other Americans that their faith in the brilliance of the Russian captain is now in question due to the Russian’s statement. What has always bothered me is, what did the Russian mean, Halsey acted stupidly?
He was probably referring to the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944. Halsey was in command of Third Fleet and he had been told to cover the landings of American troops in the Philippines. The Japanese sent a carrier force to try to draw him away from the area so they could sent a second force in to attack the landing sight at Leyte Gulf.
Halsey fell for the bait. He sent his entire force after the Japanese carriers and left nothing behind to cover the approaches he was supposed to be protecting. (The other admirals at Leyte Gulf and back in Hawaii mistakenly thought Halsey has split his force and left some ships behind.) The result wasn’t a complete disaster because the ships landing the troops at Leyte Gulf were able to offer enough resistance that the Japanese admiral lost his nerve and withdrew after sinking several ships.
Assuming the wink at the end didn’t mean ‘I’m just kidding about all this’, I’ll say: total horseshit. You are making the same mistake as someone who thinks America did everything by claiming this, especially in the South Pacific campaign. To be sure the Aussies did quite a bit…but without the US hammering the Japanese (especially their merchant fleet, but also their battle fleet) I’m unsure how long they would have fended them off in the long run. True, the Aussies won some major land victories…but they didn’t have the fleet to interdict the Japanese merchant fleet or take on Japans battle fleet, and without that Japan would have been able to keep trying…and to eventually interdict Australia, NZ, etc.
The victories in WWII were a team effort. The US did it’s part and without us the outcome would have been different, especially in the Pacific but also in Europe. The same can be said for Britain, Russia, Canada, Australia, China, etc etc. And just FTR, the outcome would have been different had we stayed out of WWI (as we SHOULD have), despite us coming late to the dance. After all, it wasn’t OUR dance at all.
The Great War would have ground on longer, but how do you believe the outcome would have been different? I thought the Germans lost when they screwed up the Von Schlieffen plan.
The Great War was all about who would collapse first. Germany basically collapsed first…but the allies were equally on the edge there at the end and it is anyone’s guess who would have folded first. The intervention of the US basically gave the allies a shot in the arm when they needed it…and equally was another blow to the Germans who’s troops and economy, like the allies, was worn to the breaking point. It could have gone either way, but I seriously doubt that Germany would have folded when and how they did if the US hadn’t intervened. Even if Germany would have collapsed first that was no guarantee that the allies wouldn’t have collapsed as well in the aftermath had the war gone into 1919 or '20…or further.
As for those Euro’s who complain that the US joined late all I can say is…it wasn’t OUR fight, it was YOUR fight.
One of the interesting things about WWI is how long it took arms design to catch up with the changed realities of warfare.
British rifles had sights graduated to 2,000 yards(!) and, until 1915, had volley sights that went even further than that.
The Luger P08 was about as ill-suited for trench warfare as a handgun can be- even if kept in perfect condition they’re still liable to jam if the wrong brand of 9mm ammo is used in them.
And the French were issuing an LMG with an exposed magazine that fed from under the gun- right where all the mud was.
I could go on for ages about this sort of thing. At least the US forces in WWI had Lewis Guns, Browning M1917s, and BARs to work with later on…
There were those who advocated the US comming in on the side of Germany. And British acts against US merchant ships almost forced us onto the German side.
The sinking of the Lousitiania was used to sway public oppion against Germany. She was a passenger ship. At the dock where she was loading passengers was a large sign. I do not remember the exact words but they were along the lines of , citizen of neutral nations do not board this ship, she is going to sunk by the German Navy before she reaches her destination.
IN all probability she was carring war materials, which made here a proper target for the German Navy.
