Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> Chat >> Japan attacks Australia WW2
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1561631470

Message started by Aussie on Jun 27th, 2019 at 8:31pm

Title: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Aussie on Jun 27th, 2019 at 8:31pm
I have been sniffing around this stuff to get some research to toss at some Yanks at a Yank Forum.

Fact is that Pearl Harbour was not some aggressive action against the US by the Japs to take America.  It seems it was an attempt, after years of frustration, to get the yoke of US economic sanctions off their back.

Reminiscent, anyone?

Anyway, how did we get involved?  Why did the Japs attack us?

Well....we declared War on them on the 9th December, 1941 after Pearl Harbour.  They had never attacked us or our interests prior.

Their first attack on us was at Darwin on the 10th February 1942.

And on.........


Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by .JaSin. on Jun 27th, 2019 at 8:45pm
So the fact that Australian Military is nothing more than just a MERCENARY force on behalf of the UK & USA - has just dawned on you?

Listen, of all the guns that John Howard collected. Only 2% were destroyed (and filmed for Propaganda) - the rest were sent to Papua New Guinea.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Gordon on Jun 27th, 2019 at 8:57pm
In recent history, what has China done which parallels Japans invasion of Manchuria, rape/massacre of Nanking?


Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by AiA on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:00pm
"us" and "we" were very much part of Anglosphere in those days. Now, less so, but I suspect with the rise of Sinosphere and Russosphere, Anglosphere might want to start taking itself seriously again.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by .JaSin. on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:01pm

Gordon wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 8:57pm:
In recent history, what has China done which parallels Japans invasion of Manchuria, rape/massacre of Nanking?


Yes. I don't think the USA will be able to protect Japan from the Chinese getting revenge.


Chinese Military moving towards their Russian and Indian Borders.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by freediver on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:04pm

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 8:31pm:
I have been sniffing around this stuff to get some research to toss at some Yanks at a Yank Forum.

Fact is that Pearl Harbour was not some aggressive action against the US by the Japs to take America.  It seems it was an attempt, after years of frustration, to get the yoke of US economic sanctions off their back.

Reminiscent, anyone?

Anyway, how did we get involved?  Why did the Japs attack us?

Well....we declared War on them on the 9th December, 1941 after Pearl Harbour.  They had never attacked us or our interests prior.

Their first attack on us was at Darwin on the 10th February 1942.

And on.........


So the Japs bombed Pearl Harbour in order to normalise trade with the US?

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Aussie on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:13pm

freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:04pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 8:31pm:
I have been sniffing around this stuff to get some research to toss at some Yanks at a Yank Forum.

Fact is that Pearl Harbour was not some aggressive action against the US by the Japs to take America.  It seems it was an attempt, after years of frustration, to get the yoke of US economic sanctions off their back.

Reminiscent, anyone?

Anyway, how did we get involved?  Why did the Japs attack us?

Well....we declared War on them on the 9th December, 1941 after Pearl Harbour.  They had never attacked us or our interests prior.

Their first attack on us was at Darwin on the 10th February 1942.

And on.........


So the Japs bombed Pearl Harbour in order to normalise trade with the US?


You tell me Effendi.  I am not the font of all wisdom or tactics.

What is your explanation for that attack, Effendi?

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by freediver on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:27pm

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:13pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:04pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 8:31pm:
I have been sniffing around this stuff to get some research to toss at some Yanks at a Yank Forum.

Fact is that Pearl Harbour was not some aggressive action against the US by the Japs to take America.  It seems it was an attempt, after years of frustration, to get the yoke of US economic sanctions off their back.

Reminiscent, anyone?

Anyway, how did we get involved?  Why did the Japs attack us?

Well....we declared War on them on the 9th December, 1941 after Pearl Harbour.  They had never attacked us or our interests prior.

Their first attack on us was at Darwin on the 10th February 1942.

And on.........


So the Japs bombed Pearl Harbour in order to normalise trade with the US?


You tell me Effendi.  I am not the font of all wisdom or tactics.

What is your explanation for that attack, Effendi?


It was a world war. They wanted to get first strike on the US. I guess they didn't believe the US was going to sit it out.

Do you think an effort to normalise trade is even a plausible explanation?

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by AiA on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:29pm
Donald J Trump recently said:


Quote:
"If Japan is attacked, we will fight World War III. We will go in and protect them with our lives and with our treasure. But if we're attacked, Japan doesn't have to help us. They can watch it on a Sony television."

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by freediver on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:31pm

AiA wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:29pm:
Donald J Trump recently said:


Quote:
"If Japan is attacked, we will fight World War III. We will go in and protect them with our lives and with our treasure. But if we're attacked, Japan doesn't have to help us. They can watch it on a Sony television."


Diplomatic as a brick.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by AiA on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:47pm

freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:31pm:

AiA wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:29pm:
Donald J Trump recently said:


Quote:
"If Japan is attacked, we will fight World War III. We will go in and protect them with our lives and with our treasure. But if we're attacked, Japan doesn't have to help us. They can watch it on a Sony television."


Diplomatic as a brick.


Trump doesn't realize that Sony has gotten out of mass consumer electronics ...

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by freediver on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:48pm

AiA wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:47pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:31pm:

AiA wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:29pm:
Donald J Trump recently said:


Quote:
"If Japan is attacked, we will fight World War III. We will go in and protect them with our lives and with our treasure. But if we're attacked, Japan doesn't have to help us. They can watch it on a Sony television."


Diplomatic as a brick.


Trump doesn't realize that Sony has gotten out of consumer electronics ...


Yeah. That's what's wrong with it.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Aussie on Jun 27th, 2019 at 10:01pm

freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:27pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:13pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:04pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 8:31pm:
I have been sniffing around this stuff to get some research to toss at some Yanks at a Yank Forum.

Fact is that Pearl Harbour was not some aggressive action against the US by the Japs to take America.  It seems it was an attempt, after years of frustration, to get the yoke of US economic sanctions off their back.

Reminiscent, anyone?

Anyway, how did we get involved?  Why did the Japs attack us?

Well....we declared War on them on the 9th December, 1941 after Pearl Harbour.  They had never attacked us or our interests prior.

Their first attack on us was at Darwin on the 10th February 1942.

And on.........


So the Japs bombed Pearl Harbour in order to normalise trade with the US?


You tell me Effendi.  I am not the font of all wisdom or tactics.

What is your explanation for that attack, Effendi?


It was a world war. They wanted to get first strike on the US. I guess they didn't believe the US was going to sit it out.

Do you think an effort to normalise trade is even a plausible explanation?


Not a World War at all.  Sure, Europe was having a War, even Japan was invading and pissing off China...and the US was strangling them with economic schit.  Just like they are now with Iran.

Obviously, Pearl Harbour was a massive mistake...but it did not just happen for no 'good' reason, and it sure did not happen with the Japs thinking they could take the USA.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Gordon on Jun 27th, 2019 at 10:21pm

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 10:01pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:27pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:13pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:04pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 8:31pm:
I have been sniffing around this stuff to get some research to toss at some Yanks at a Yank Forum.

Fact is that Pearl Harbour was not some aggressive action against the US by the Japs to take America.  It seems it was an attempt, after years of frustration, to get the yoke of US economic sanctions off their back.

Reminiscent, anyone?

Anyway, how did we get involved?  Why did the Japs attack us?

Well....we declared War on them on the 9th December, 1941 after Pearl Harbour.  They had never attacked us or our interests prior.

Their first attack on us was at Darwin on the 10th February 1942.

And on.........


So the Japs bombed Pearl Harbour in order to normalise trade with the US?


You tell me Effendi.  I am not the font of all wisdom or tactics.

What is your explanation for that attack, Effendi?


It was a world war. They wanted to get first strike on the US. I guess they didn't believe the US was going to sit it out.

Do you think an effort to normalise trade is even a plausible explanation?


Not a World War at all.  Sure, Europe was having a War, even Japan was invading and pissing off China...and the US was strangling them with economic schit.  Just like they are now with Iran.

Obviously, Pearl Harbour was a massive mistake...but it did not just happen for no 'good' reason, and it sure did not happen with the Japs thinking they could take the USA.


You call what Japan did in China, pissing them off? What would they have to do for you to label it an atrocity?

During this period, soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army murdered Chinese civilians and disarmed combatants who numbered an estimated 40,000 to over 300,000,[7][8] and perpetrated widespread rape and looting.[9][10]





Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Ye Grappler on Jun 27th, 2019 at 10:31pm
Well ..... the beautiful, peace-loving, flower-sniffing Nipponese did attack the British and French Empires and the Chinese ....... I suppose that somehow made them the enemy of Australia, given their rapid southward advance..... they also attacked and sank Australian ships and killed many civilians and soldiers in Malaya ..... including female nurses massacred ... and then committed atrocities countless along the way, such as beheading missionaries on New Guinea's north coast in front of their children before doing the same to those children, not to mention murdering Australians captured on The Trail and at Milne Bay etc, and beheading captured airmen...

If the beautiful, peace-loving, flower-sniffing Nipponese hadn't attacked the Chinese - killing millions, attacked US warships on Chinese territory, steadily advanced and taken over more and more territory in a clear move to control the entire Asian-Pacific Basin, and clearly positioned themselves to achieve just that ........ and then hadn't attacked Pearl Harbour, The Philippines and Shanghai, Hong Kong, Malaya and the Dutch East Indies ... they would not have been bombed back to the Dark Ages that they just emerged from...

I suppose to the discerning eye that could create certain comparisons with modern-day Imperialist Neo-Mandarin Expansionist China.... but don't let me hold you back - you were going so well there for a moment....

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Gordon on Jun 27th, 2019 at 10:35pm

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 10:31pm:
Well ..... the beautiful, peace-loving, flower-sniffing Nipponese did attack the British and French Empires and the Chinese ....... I suppose that somehow made them the enemy of Australia, given their rapid southward advance..... they also attacked and sank Australian ships and killed many civilians and soldiers in Malaya ..... including female nurses massacred ... and then committed atrocities countless along the way, such as beheading missionaries on New Guinea's north coast in front of their children before doing the same to those children, not to mention murdering Australians captured on The Trail and at Milne Bay etc, and beheading captured airmen...

If the beautiful, peace-loving, flower-sniffing Nipponese hadn't attacked the Chinese - killing millions, attacked US warships on Chinese territory, steadily advanced and taken over more and more territory in a clear move to control the entire Asian-Pacific Basin, and clearly positioned themselves to achieve just that ........ and then hadn't attacked Pearl Harbour, The Philippines and Shanghai, Hong Kong, Malaya and the Dutch East Indies ... they would not have been bombed back to the Dark Ages that they just emerged from...

I suppose to the discerning eye that could create certain comparisons with modern-day Imperialist Neo-Mandarin Expansionist China.... but don't let me hold you back - you were going so well there for a moment....


Bravo.
End thread.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Ye Grappler on Jun 27th, 2019 at 10:37pm

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 10:01pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:27pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:13pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:04pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 8:31pm:
I have been sniffing around this stuff to get some research to toss at some Yanks at a Yank Forum.

Fact is that Pearl Harbour was not some aggressive action against the US by the Japs to take America.  It seems it was an attempt, after years of frustration, to get the yoke of US economic sanctions off their back.

Reminiscent, anyone?

Anyway, how did we get involved?  Why did the Japs attack us?

Well....we declared War on them on the 9th December, 1941 after Pearl Harbour.  They had never attacked us or our interests prior.

Their first attack on us was at Darwin on the 10th February 1942.

And on.........


So the Japs bombed Pearl Harbour in order to normalise trade with the US?


You tell me Effendi.  I am not the font of all wisdom or tactics.

What is your explanation for that attack, Effendi?


It was a world war. They wanted to get first strike on the US. I guess they didn't believe the US was going to sit it out.

Do you think an effort to normalise trade is even a plausible explanation?


Not a World War at all.  Sure, Europe was having a War, even Japan was invading and pissing off China...and the US was strangling them with economic schit.  Just like they are now with Iran.

Obviously, Pearl Harbour was a massive mistake...but it did not just happen for no 'good' reason, and it sure did not happen with the Japs thinking they could take the USA.


Japan had signed a treaty of co-operation with Nazi Germany and Italy............... looks like their intentions were pretty clear....

Does it matter to you that the Japanese used Indian prisoners for target and bayonet practice after capture under some delusion of racial superiority*?

*methinks most of you need to look closely at the Grappler concept of Wars of National Inferiority Complex - as hinted at in the homework I posted earlier..... I think that if you do you will see a bright dawning of reality for the future of the world you know.....

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Bias_2012 on Jun 27th, 2019 at 10:56pm

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 8:31pm:
Fact is that Pearl Harbour was not some aggressive action against the US by the Japs to take America.  It seems it was an attempt, after years of frustration, to get the yoke of US economic sanctions off their back.



The US didn't like Japan going into China so sanctions were imposed. But besides China, the Japs wanted to expand further south and south west. The Japs knew the US was unprepared for war but the US had war ships that could menace Japans efforts to take more islands and small nations in the south and south west Pacific

Pearl Harbour was just to knock out the US war ships. Japan was not worried about sanctions, they were going to get oil and rubber from Asia, booty from conquests

The US would have learned a lesson from imposing those sanctions - to have a sizable military ready to act at a moments notice, just in case the sanctioned nation acted militarily against the them and/or other US friendly nations .... How prepared is the US military today?

It wasn't till the following April in 1942 did the US do something about the pesky Japanese - the Doolittle raid. In the meantime, Japan was invading Malaysia, Formosa, Hong Kong etc 

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Ye Grappler on Jun 27th, 2019 at 11:06pm
Any of this ringing any alarm bells for any of you yet?

Mid-Term assignment, due 18th June. 10% of total final mark (we mark hard at Grappler Free U - the REAL U).

Read the following excerpt from -
Blossoms In the Wind - Human Legacies of the Kamikaze , M.G Sheftall.


a. Determine and explain  the underlying factors in generation of a group psyche as described in the excerpt.

b.  Seek similar group psyches occurring today, discover their root causes, expound on those in comparison with that shown by Sheftall as pertaining to pre-WW II Japanese society.

c.  Consider the effect of the same values ascribed to the West by such 'new' groups in the development and continuation of such group psyches - define the group(s) you are considering.

d.  Is the West, therefore, condemned to fight an endless series of wars, due to the group psyches developed as described.....and if so .. what is the level of preparedness, both physically and spiritually, of the West?

"Educated Japanese males of Onishi's generation who had spent their time living and studying in the West - especially America - tended to harbour extreme feelings at both ends of a love-hate continuum toward their former hosts and teachers, ranging from unabashed schoolboy hero worship to utter repulsion fueled by a desperate need to believe in their own racial and cultural superiority.  The emotional packages of most comprised a tortuous Freudian melange of admiration and inferiority complex: a healthy respect for the Westerner's technological prowess, material abundance and sheer physical size; disdain for their shameless materialism, their smug, easy pride, their maddeningly nonchalant tolerance of disorder, their racist immigrant legislation and the woeful history of the American Negro.  Not to mention the poisonous, half-buried memories of patronising cocktail party slights ("Oh, your English is excellent.  Were you taught by missionaries?"), sneering hotel clerks, withering locker room anxiety, and the impotent rage of coming home to see giggling Japanese girls on the arms of strapping white men in the streets of the larger port cities.  Just as everyone tapping pointers on maps in the war rooms of Tokyo and cutting orders for young men to die at the front carried his own personal portfolio of similar psychological baggage regarding Westerners, none of them ever really expected the nation to win its duel to the death with the West - win, that is, in the sense of Japanese troops marching down Pennsylvania Avenue and pitching their tents on the White House lawn.  Nor did they see the war as being pursued primarily for the practical strategic objectives of securing vital industrial resources and fuel.  Seeing it in such simple terms was to confuse means with ends.

The goal, really, had always been, first and foremost, to humble the West - to daub the teacher's face with mud - by kicking the white man out of Asia and bringing about an end, once and for all, win or lose, of what former Prime Minister Konoe had so aptly termed Anglo-Saxon global hegemony.  The Caucasian bogeyman - and the unspeakable fear that he might really be the superior being he seemed to think himself - had whispered in the ear and haunted the nightmares of the Japanese psyche for the last ninety years, since Commodore Matthew C Perry's Black Ships first fouled the waters of Uraga Bay, humiliating the nation by forcing it to accommodate to Americans and their insulting demands."


All enquiries to Professor Grappler, Grappler Defence Force Academy.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Ye Grappler on Jun 27th, 2019 at 11:06pm
blip

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by UnSubRocky on Jun 28th, 2019 at 1:18am
I had the impression that Japan attacked Darwin because the USA had their navy there at the time.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by freediver on Jun 28th, 2019 at 2:14am

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 10:01pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:27pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:13pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:04pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 8:31pm:
I have been sniffing around this stuff to get some research to toss at some Yanks at a Yank Forum.

Fact is that Pearl Harbour was not some aggressive action against the US by the Japs to take America.  It seems it was an attempt, after years of frustration, to get the yoke of US economic sanctions off their back.

Reminiscent, anyone?

Anyway, how did we get involved?  Why did the Japs attack us?

Well....we declared War on them on the 9th December, 1941 after Pearl Harbour.  They had never attacked us or our interests prior.

Their first attack on us was at Darwin on the 10th February 1942.

And on.........


So the Japs bombed Pearl Harbour in order to normalise trade with the US?


You tell me Effendi.  I am not the font of all wisdom or tactics.

What is your explanation for that attack, Effendi?


It was a world war. They wanted to get first strike on the US. I guess they didn't believe the US was going to sit it out.

Do you think an effort to normalise trade is even a plausible explanation?


Not a World War at all.  Sure, Europe was having a War, even Japan was invading and pissing off China...and the US was strangling them with economic schit.  Just like they are now with Iran.

Obviously, Pearl Harbour was a massive mistake...but it did not just happen for no 'good' reason, and it sure did not happen with the Japs thinking they could take the USA.


So WWII was not a world war?

Do you think an effort to normalise trade is even a plausible explanation?

What was the "good" reason for Pearl Harbour?

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Valkie on Jun 28th, 2019 at 5:35am
But more importantly

As long as the terminally twisted can marry
The muzzos can kill, rape, murder and be criminals
As long as our politicians and senior public servants can take in ever increasing lumps and as long as multinationals cn make more and more obscene profits.

ALL IS RIGHT WITH THE WORLD

Isn't it?

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Ye Grappler on Jun 28th, 2019 at 12:20pm
Well....... I suppose the Darwin bombings could have been in retaliation for the sneak attack on Kyoto Harbour by the RAN and its fleet of carriers.......... wait a minute.... ummmmm...

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Brian Ross on Jun 28th, 2019 at 12:40pm

Bias_2012 wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 10:56pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 8:31pm:
Fact is that Pearl Harbour was not some aggressive action against the US by the Japs to take America.  It seems it was an attempt, after years of frustration, to get the yoke of US economic sanctions off their back.


The US didn't like Japan going into China so sanctions were imposed. But besides China, the Japs wanted to expand further south and south west. The Japs knew the US was unprepared for war but the US had war ships that could menace Japans efforts to take more islands and small nations in the south and south west Pacific

Pearl Harbour was just to knock out the US war ships. Japan was not worried about sanctions, they were going to get oil and rubber from Asia, booty from conquests


Japanese war aims were a little more obscure than that.  The Japanese actually weren't interested initially in going anywhere, other than into Manchuria and from there, into Siberia.  Japan had plans to invade or more appropriately, re-invade the fUSSR.  Japan had been the last non-Communist interventionary force to vacate the newly establish fUSSR when it finally left in 1928 from Vladivostok.  The UK, France, US and Japan had all in turn and basically seperatedly had invaded the fUSSR in 1918.   They all eventually left because of domestic and international pressure to do so.

The Japanese decision to go south did not occur until about 6 months before the outbreak of the war in the Pacific.   The Japanese decision was prompted by the US, UK and Dutch decisions to cut off oil to Japan until it withdrew from China.   Indeed, the Imperial Japanese Army had not started training in Jungle Warfare until the decision to go south was made.

Japan had about 18 months of oil in reserve,  six months if intensive combat operations were undertaken.  Without oil, the Japanese economy would grind to a halt.   The Japanese knew that the US would more than likely intervene if they were to attack the Dutch East Indies and Malaya in order to secure raw materials for themselves.  So, the decision was also made to attack the US fleet at Pearl Harbor.   Yamamoto came up with the plan to attack it in harbour, based upon the British attack at Taranto in Italy.  If you ever watch the movie "Tora! Tora! Tora!" It is all explained in the first 20 minutes.   For those more interested in the real history, there are numerous books on the topic.


Quote:
The US would have learned a lesson from imposing those sanctions - to have a sizable military ready to act at a moments notice, just in case the sanctioned nation acted militarily against the them and/or other US friendly nations .... How prepared is the US military today?


Well, the US Navy was readied for war up to three months before the outbreak of war.  It was patrolling to the North and West of Hawaii.  However, with the approach of winter and a need to refurbish it's patrol units, the US Navy stood down it's patrols to the North, considering the North Pacific to become too rough for fleet operations.  Guess where the Japanese fleet attacked from?  The North.  It crossed the North Pacific before the real rough weather and caught the US fleet unawares.

The surprise attack horrified the United States.  It lives with the legacy of that attack today.  It was reinforced by the Cold War and the fear of the ability of the fUSSR to mount a surprise attack on the US.  This is why the US maintains a large body of troops, ships and aircraft at a high level of readiness.   It was why it was able to respond so rapidly to the first Gulf War but even then, they had to wait three months for the weather to turn in their favour before mounting an offensive operation against the Iraqis.


Quote:
It wasn't till the following April in 1942 did the US do something about the pesky Japanese - the Doolittle raid. In the meantime, Japan was invading Malaysia, Formosa, Hong Kong etc 


It wasn't until April 1942 that the weather in the North Pacific had improved sufficiently to allow the US Navy to mount an operation against the Japanese home islands.   Weather plays a much larger role than you appear to understand or believe in military operations.   ::)


Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Bobby. on Jun 28th, 2019 at 12:42pm

Jasin wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 8:45pm:
So the fact that Australian Military is nothing more than just a MERCENARY force on behalf of the UK & USA - has just dawned on you?

Listen, of all the guns that John Howard collected. Only 2% were destroyed (and filmed for Propaganda) -
the rest were sent to Papua New Guinea.



Link - or did you just make that up?

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Bobby. on Jun 28th, 2019 at 12:43pm

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 8:31pm:
I have been sniffing around this stuff to get some research to toss at some Yanks at a Yank Forum.

Fact is that Pearl Harbour was not some aggressive action against the US by the Japs to take America.  It seems it was an attempt, after years of frustration, to get the yoke of US economic sanctions off their back.

Reminiscent, anyone?

Anyway, how did we get involved?  Why did the Japs attack us?

Well....we declared War on them on the 9th December, 1941 after Pearl Harbour.  They had never attacked us or our interests prior.

Their first attack on us was at Darwin on the 10th February 1942.

And on.........



Why were the sanctions applied?

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Fuzzball on Jun 28th, 2019 at 1:21pm

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 8:31pm:
I have been sniffing around this stuff to get some research to toss at some Yanks at a Yank Forum.

Fact is that Pearl Harbour was not some aggressive action against the US by the Japs to take America.  It seems it was an attempt, after years of frustration, to get the yoke of US economic sanctions off their back.

Reminiscent, anyone?

Anyway, how did we get involved?  Why did the Japs attack us?

Well....we declared War on them on the 9th December, 1941 after Pearl Harbour.  They had never attacked us or our interests prior.

Their first attack on us was at Darwin on the 10th February 1942.

And on.........


Absolutely nonsense from an idiot...........the Jap carrier fleet were on their way to Hawaii whilst the Jap representatives were round the table with the American negotiators in Washington. They timed the attack to coincide with the US Pacific Fleet being anchored in Pearl Harbor.......and their representatives fuqqing off out of the US...........you prick.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Aussie on Jun 28th, 2019 at 1:23pm

Bobby. wrote on Jun 28th, 2019 at 12:43pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 8:31pm:
I have been sniffing around this stuff to get some research to toss at some Yanks at a Yank Forum.

Fact is that Pearl Harbour was not some aggressive action against the US by the Japs to take America.  It seems it was an attempt, after years of frustration, to get the yoke of US economic sanctions off their back.

Reminiscent, anyone?

Anyway, how did we get involved?  Why did the Japs attack us?

Well....we declared War on them on the 9th December, 1941 after Pearl Harbour.  They had never attacked us or our interests prior.

Their first attack on us was at Darwin on the 10th February 1942.

And on.........



Why were the sanctions applied?


Read Mr Ross's Post ^^^^^^.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Bias_2012 on Jun 28th, 2019 at 1:44pm

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 28th, 2019 at 12:40pm:
It wasn't until April 1942 that the weather in the North Pacific had improved sufficiently to allow the US Navy to mount an operation against the Japanese home islands.   Weather plays a much larger role than you appear to understand or believe in military operations.



So you think that if the weather was favorable that Doolittle could have set out for Japan the day after Pearl Harbour? No they couldn't, it took time to train aircrews to take off from a carrier, and the planning of the operation itself would have taken months

At the time of the attack on Pearl Harbour, Americans were still in the frame of mind to stay out of war, so their military had been neglected. Pearl Harbour changed that and the US went on full war footing, but it couldn't be done overnight. The Doolittle raid was only to boost morale in the US and did nothing of consequence to Japan.

After that, it was not until August '42 did they land on Guadalcanal, and February '43 before taking the Island, one year and three months after the Pearl Harbour attack

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Bias_2012 on Jun 28th, 2019 at 2:14pm

Bobby. wrote on Jun 28th, 2019 at 12:43pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 8:31pm:
I have been sniffing around this stuff to get some research to toss at some Yanks at a Yank Forum.

Fact is that Pearl Harbour was not some aggressive action against the US by the Japs to take America.  It seems it was an attempt, after years of frustration, to get the yoke of US economic sanctions off their back.

Reminiscent, anyone?

Anyway, how did we get involved?  Why did the Japs attack us?

Well....we declared War on them on the 9th December, 1941 after Pearl Harbour.  They had never attacked us or our interests prior.

Their first attack on us was at Darwin on the 10th February 1942.

And on.........



Why were the sanctions applied?


This explains it ...

https://faroutliers.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/effect-of-economic-sanctions-on-japan-1941/

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Brian Ross on Jun 28th, 2019 at 2:15pm

Bias_2012 wrote on Jun 28th, 2019 at 1:44pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 28th, 2019 at 12:40pm:
It wasn't until April 1942 that the weather in the North Pacific had improved sufficiently to allow the US Navy to mount an operation against the Japanese home islands.   Weather plays a much larger role than you appear to understand or believe in military operations.


So you think that if the weather was favorable that Doolittle could have set out for Japan the day after Pearl Harbour? No they couldn't, it took time to train aircrews to take off from a carrier, and the planning of the operation itself would have taken months/


Look up the US Navy's "Plan Orange".  You might be surprised what the US Navy planned to do the day after they were attacked by Japan.   Thankfully, that plan was scrapped that day, instead of being implemented.   As it was, it formed the basis of the mobilisation plans of the US military.   Weather was the major delay determinant of the Doolittle raid.   Without good weather, there was no point in attempting it.  The ships had to cross the Pacific, the pilots had to navigate to and across Japan and to China.  None of that would have been possible without good weather.


Quote:
At the time of the attack on Pearl Harbour, Americans were still in the frame of mind to stay out of war, so their military had been neglected. Pearl Harbour changed that and the US went on full war footing, but it couldn't be done overnight. The Doolittle raid was only to boost morale in the US and did nothing of consequence to Japan.


Oh, it had consequences in Japan.  The IJAAF and IJNAF started development of interceptor aircraft.  The both forces withheld medium and heavy anti-aircraft guns from the Pacific war.  The IJN started building more destroyers and destroyer escorts to protect the home islands.

As to the US - yes, the majority of the population still had an isolationist mindset but the US military was well and truly starting to be geared up for the war by mid-1941.   A war in Europe, admittedly but still a war to be fought.  The majority of the population was also expecting a war in Europe as well.  The Pacific War was a surprise, which is course what the Japanese intended.


Quote:
After that, it was not until August '42 did they land on Guadalcanal, and February '43 before taking the Island, one year and three months after the Pearl Harbour attack


The Pacific was a sideshow for most of the war, despite what the population would have preferred.  FDR and his government focused primarily on Europe because the Nazis were considered the greater threat. "Hitler first!" was the main thrust of Allied strategy throughout the war until Germany was defeated.  Even with the reduced forces allocated to it's prosecution, the Pacific war was wound up with substantially fewer forces than were employed in Europe to defeat the Nazis.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Brian Ross on Jun 28th, 2019 at 2:19pm

Bias_2012 wrote on Jun 28th, 2019 at 2:14pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 28th, 2019 at 12:43pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 8:31pm:
I have been sniffing around this stuff to get some research to toss at some Yanks at a Yank Forum.

Fact is that Pearl Harbour was not some aggressive action against the US by the Japs to take America.  It seems it was an attempt, after years of frustration, to get the yoke of US economic sanctions off their back.

Reminiscent, anyone?

Anyway, how did we get involved?  Why did the Japs attack us?

Well....we declared War on them on the 9th December, 1941 after Pearl Harbour.  They had never attacked us or our interests prior.

Their first attack on us was at Darwin on the 10th February 1942.

And on.........



Why were the sanctions applied?


This explains it ...

https://faroutliers.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/effect-of-economic-sanctions-on-japan-1941/



Quote:
The sole obstacle to Japanese hegemony in South-East Asia was America


Really?  It appears that Mr. Ferguson has ignored the existence of the British Empire (including Australia and New Zealand and India) and the Dutch Empire.  How typically American to believe it was only America that stood up to the Japanese and fought against them.    ::) ::)

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by UnSubRocky on Jun 29th, 2019 at 4:27pm

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 28th, 2019 at 12:40pm:
The surprise attack horrified the United States.  It lives with the legacy of that attack today.  It was reinforced by the Cold War and the fear of the ability of the fUSSR to mount a surprise attack on the US.  This is why the US maintains a large body of troops, ships and aircraft at a high level of readiness.   It was why it was able to respond so rapidly to the first Gulf War but even then, they had to wait three months for the weather to turn in their favour before mounting an offensive operation against the Iraqis.


As much as I would like to think that the US military is ready to strike within hours in response to a threat or attack, the military would have had to acclimatise to the Iraq desert conditions. In addition to the fact that the conflict started in August of 1990 and continued through to January 1991, we could assume that the bulk of the fighting would have been conducted in late 1990 to allow for conditions to cool for the troops. I don't believe that any military would be capable of ground operations in conditions where daytime temperatures can reach at least 40-degree Celsius.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/weather/longterm/historical/data/baghdad_iraq.htm?noredirect=on

Much of the United States military success would have been determined by their technologically advanced military capabilities, as well as their well-trained soldiers. The overwhelming number of troops the US had, as well as the backing by European and Middle Eastern powers economically and strategically made relatively short work of Iraqi defiance. Contrast that era with today's slow-moving conflict the USA has had with Iraq since 2003, it is like comparing apples to kiwi fruit. One is more bitter and harder to consume than the other.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Mr Hammer on Jun 29th, 2019 at 5:36pm

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 10:01pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:27pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:13pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 9:04pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 8:31pm:
I have been sniffing around this stuff to get some research to toss at some Yanks at a Yank Forum.

Fact is that Pearl Harbour was not some aggressive action against the US by the Japs to take America.  It seems it was an attempt, after years of frustration, to get the yoke of US economic sanctions off their back.

Reminiscent, anyone?

Anyway, how did we get involved?  Why did the Japs attack us?

Well....we declared War on them on the 9th December, 1941 after Pearl Harbour.  They had never attacked us or our interests prior.

Their first attack on us was at Darwin on the 10th February 1942.

And on.........


So the Japs bombed Pearl Harbour in order to normalise trade with the US?


You tell me Effendi.  I am not the font of all wisdom or tactics.

What is your explanation for that attack, Effendi?


It was a world war. They wanted to get first strike on the US. I guess they didn't believe the US was going to sit it out.

Do you think an effort to normalise trade is even a plausible explanation?


Not a World War at all.  Sure, Europe was having a War, even Japan was invading and pissing off China...and the US was strangling them with economic schit.  Just like they are now with Iran.

Obviously, Pearl Harbour was a massive mistake...but it did not just happen for no 'good' reason, and it sure did not happen with the Japs thinking they could take the USA.

The japs were trying to take out the US pacific fleet and in particular their aircraft carriers. That way they could go on stealing other peoples countries without interruption. Well that's what they thought anyway.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Mr Hammer on Jun 29th, 2019 at 5:37pm
;D

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Brian Ross on Jun 29th, 2019 at 8:09pm

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 29th, 2019 at 4:27pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 28th, 2019 at 12:40pm:
The surprise attack horrified the United States.  It lives with the legacy of that attack today.  It was reinforced by the Cold War and the fear of the ability of the fUSSR to mount a surprise attack on the US.  This is why the US maintains a large body of troops, ships and aircraft at a high level of readiness.   It was why it was able to respond so rapidly to the first Gulf War but even then, they had to wait three months for the weather to turn in their favour before mounting an offensive operation against the Iraqis.


As much as I would like to think that the US military is ready to strike within hours in response to a threat or attack, the military would have had to acclimatise to the Iraq desert conditions. In addition to the fact that the conflict started in August of 1990 and continued through to January 1991, we could assume that the bulk of the fighting would have been conducted in late 1990 to allow for conditions to cool for the troops. I don't believe that any military would be capable of ground operations in conditions where daytime temperatures can reach at least 40-degree Celsius.


Well, personally, I have undertaken military operations in 50+ degree heat, UnSub.  It is of course a matter of acclimatisation to be effective.   What held up the Americans was that they were not prepared for what Saddam Hussein did.  They lacked the forces in the region to force him out of Kuwait.   They had to import forces from Europe.  Thankfully, the Cold War was effectively over and they were able to move several divisions of troops and vehicles from Europe to Saudi Arabia.

The US and allied forces had basically been preparing for over 40 years to fight a high tempo war in Europe against the fUSSR.  They had been equipped and trained in round-the-clock operations.  The Iraqis were not.  The Iraqis were preparing to fight their last war - against the Iranians and their strategy reflected that.  They captured Kuwait and then dug in, extending their defences westwards towards Jordan.  They expected to be able to hold the US and Allies forces on or near the border.  They failed.   The lost control of the air and after that, the US and Allied ground forces started moving to liberate Kuwait.  The Iraqis weren't interested, for the most part, in fighting and routed out of Kuwait and away from the western border.


Quote:
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/weather/longterm/historical/data/baghdad_iraq.htm?noredirect=on

Much of the United States military success would have been determined by their technologically advanced military capabilities, as well as their well-trained soldiers. The overwhelming number of troops the US had, as well as the backing by European and Middle Eastern powers economically and strategically made relatively short work of Iraqi defiance. Contrast that era with today's slow-moving conflict the USA has had with Iraq since 2003, it is like comparing apples to kiwi fruit. One is more bitter and harder to consume than the other.


The second Iraqi war was founded on a lie and only the closest US allies supported it.  The creation of a casus belli by the US administration was almost painful to watch.  The US population however swallowed it, hook, line and sinker. The initial part of the war - the invasion - went well for the US and allied forces.  Again, the Iraqis proved unwilling to fight and folded easily.  The US occupation however was botched and botched badly.   ::)


Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by UnSubRocky on Jun 30th, 2019 at 12:21am
Brian, somehow, I don't believe that you would be able to handle conducting military operations in 50+ degree heat. Given that 50+ degrees celsius rarely gets reached anywhere in the world, even around the hottest parts of the world, I would probably call your claims very remotely plausible.

I don't consider my region to get all that hot during the summer months. I see daytime temperatures anywhere from September to March of any year to have daytime temperatures any range from 30 to 35 degrees -- except during cloudy and rainy days. But for the 150 sunny days of the 'summer' months, it is difficult to work outdoors. I could assume that Iraq would be hot enough to see soldiers keel over from dehydration if they are not drinking a large bottle of water every couple hours.

I cannot remember the 1990 Gulf War very well -- being that I was 11yo when the war started and finished. But I seem to recall that much of the early campaign was more of an air war. Bombers targeting valued targets. It was not really the army's job to fight until after the air campaign was very much over. I can tell you, not from experience in the military, but through living in a hotter climate. You would not fight a war in desert conditions when the temperatures exceed 40 degrees celsius. The Americans would have waited until the Autumn months before launching ground forces.

Enough media has been posted on the Americans involvement in Iraq from the year 2003. Obviously, the motivation was oil related. Much like the motivation for the 1990 conflict. 2003 to 2011 was all about protecting oil fields and enforcing business deal onto the Iraqi oil men in favour of the USA. GWB would not be sending $1 trillion worth of military commitments to the Iraq conflict if it was not oil interests. If the Americans wanted to counter terrorist activity, they should be reassessing their people working at the Pentagon.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Brian Ross on Jun 30th, 2019 at 2:35pm

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 30th, 2019 at 12:21am:
Brian, somehow, I don't believe that you would be able to handle conducting military operations in 50+ degree heat. Given that 50+ degrees celsius rarely gets reached anywhere in the world, even around the hottest parts of the world, I would probably call your claims very remotely plausible.


There is a world of difference between the official BoM temperatures and what actually occurs away from the temperature gauge.  Then there is the difference between "in the shade" temperatures and what is experienced "in the sun".  In 1979 I was an infantryman conducting exercises near Port Augusta in January.  The official temperature was approximately 47 degrees in nearby Port Augusta.  Out on the range, we measured 52 degrees.   We conducted mock operations there.  It was hot.  We had a cool change part way through the exercise and the temperature dropped to 42 degrees.   We appreciated it.


Quote:
I don't consider my region to get all that hot during the summer months. I see daytime temperatures anywhere from September to March of any year to have daytime temperatures any range from 30 to 35 degrees -- except during cloudy and rainy days. But for the 150 sunny days of the 'summer' months, it is difficult to work outdoors. I could assume that Iraq would be hot enough to see soldiers keel over from dehydration if they are not drinking a large bottle of water every couple hours.


If they aren't careful, yes.  Doonesbury an American cartoonist portrayed the US troops being briefed on how much water they should consume.  The closing panel had one saying to the other. "I'll cover you while you drink!"   In reality, it isn't that bad once you become used to it.  You do need to wear gloves though as everything metal is boiling hot and that includes weapons and tools.   You should also make frequent rests.

11 years old?  You're only a youngster.


Quote:
I cannot remember the 1990 Gulf War very well -- being that I was 11yo when the war started and finished. But I seem to recall that much of the early campaign was more of an air war. Bombers targeting valued targets. It was not really the army's job to fight until after the air campaign was very much over. I can tell you, not from experience in the military, but through living in a hotter climate. You would not fight a war in desert conditions when the temperatures exceed 40 degrees celsius. The Americans would have waited until the Autumn months before launching ground forces.


It was all relative, UnSub.   The gulf experiences lower temperatures in the autumn/winter but they still average round 30 degrees.  They also experience fogs.  So there are pluses and minuses.  Perhaps the biggest plus is the improved vision.  Ground reflections are reduced and mirages almost disappear.   This allowed the Western MBTs to out range the Iraqi MBTs.


Quote:
Enough media has been posted on the Americans involvement in Iraq from the year 2003. Obviously, the motivation was oil related. Much like the motivation for the 1990 conflict. 2003 to 2011 was all about protecting oil fields and enforcing business deal onto the Iraqi oil men in favour of the USA. GWB would not be sending $1 trillion worth of military commitments to the Iraq conflict if it was not oil interests. If the Americans wanted to counter terrorist activity, they should be reassessing their people working at the Pentagon.


Oil wasn't that important, directly to the US.  Iraq and the Middle East was an important oil source fo Japan and Europe.  Without oil, they would not be able to trade.  Without trading partners, the US economy would die.

In 1990-91, the Saudis basically footed the bill.  They paid over two thirds of the cost of the war.  They were happy to do so.  2003 however, the Saudis weren't interested in playing and so the coalition was forced to mount it's operations from Kuwait.   Kuwait was more than willing to do that but still it wasn't interested in paying for it.   Most of the cost of the invasion and occupation was footed by the US's own citizens.   

Money was squandered during the Occupation.  Over a billion dollars simply "disappeared".  It was loaded onto helicopters by the CIA and flow out to tribal leaders and they accepted the pay offs happily.  No effort was made to account for the money.  Where the US botched the Occupation was in disarming the Iraqi military and police.  This left hundreds of thousands unemployed and without any pay.  So they were embittered towards the US and Allied Occupation forces and joined the Resistance or created their own.  If they had kept the Iraqi Military and Police in existence they would have had a better handle on controlling the populace.    ::)

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Fuzzball on Jun 30th, 2019 at 7:28pm
Poor Bwian.......or should I say Hans Christian Andersen........... ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Brian Ross on Jun 30th, 2019 at 10:02pm

Fuzzball wrote on Jun 30th, 2019 at 7:28pm:
Poor Bwian.......or should I say Hans Christian Andersen........... ;D ;D ;D




Run along, Fuzzy.  I can hear you being called back to your little kiddies' playground where you belong.   ::)

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Ye Grappler on Jun 30th, 2019 at 10:58pm
Yes - those global temperature changes drove Japan etc to attack Darwin....... the Oriental brain simply cannot stand any change in temperature.... they're that good!

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Ye Grappler on Jun 30th, 2019 at 11:00pm
We don't always agree - actually hardly agree - but at least Brian has some good things to say.... he knows stuff ...

But siding with him would be like a Manchester member changing to Liverpool ... or a Celtic fan to Rangers.....

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by UnSubRocky on Jun 30th, 2019 at 11:09pm
Brian,

I think I have the name of this author right. Do you read up on David Kilcullen's books? And, if so, do you like his work? I started reading his book -- which I have around here somewhere -- a few months ago. He spoke about why the United States was failing in their objectives to contain terrorism in Iraq. One section of the book spoke about how the United States had basically left a power vacuum brought about by removing Saddam. This lead to tribal and religious leaders taking to fighting for power in the regions that lead to attacks intensifying against the Americans. Part of the reason for the ISIS threat was because of the power vacuums in the Middle Eastern region, provoked by the United States.


Quote:
There is a world of difference between the official BoM temperatures and what actually occurs away from the temperature gauge.  Then there is the difference between "in the shade" temperatures and what is experienced "in the sun".  In 1979 I was an infantryman conducting exercises near Port Augusta in January.  The official temperature was approximately 47 degrees in nearby Port Augusta.  Out on the range, we measured 52 degrees.   We conducted mock operations there.  It was hot.  We had a cool change part way through the exercise and the temperature dropped to 42 degrees.   We appreciated it.


Yes, not a problem understanding that. But, you made it seem like you were talking about shade temperature. I can understand that outside temperatures can reach over 50 degrees. My can almost reach shutdown riding from the university to my house in 40 degree temperatures (in the shade), when I can set off feeling fine but lose focus before I reach home. It is worse if I mow the lawn in the late afternoon, and it is still over 30 degrees outside. But, either of those situations are only mere short term examples of what American soldiers would have faced in combatting Iraqi heat in August. I still claim that they waited because of the air strikes and for better weather conditions.

Oh, and I still don't believe that you worked during 47 degree (in the shade) heat.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Brian Ross on Jul 1st, 2019 at 7:26pm

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 30th, 2019 at 11:09pm:
Brian,

I think I have the name of this author right. Do you read up on David Kilcullen's books? And, if so, do you like his work? I started reading his book -- which I have around here somewhere -- a few months ago. He spoke about why the United States was failing in their objectives to contain terrorism in Iraq. One section of the book spoke about how the United States had basically left a power vacuum brought about by removing Saddam. This lead to tribal and religious leaders taking to fighting for power in the regions that lead to attacks intensifying against the Americans. Part of the reason for the ISIS threat was because of the power vacuums in the Middle Eastern region, provoked by the United States.


I have read one of Kilkullen's books, "The Accidental Guerrilla".  It was interesting and while he made many claims in it, that wasn't one of them that I remember.  Kilkullen's analysis gells with my own - the US decision to invade Iraq was the wrong one made for the wrong reasons.  Saddam needed to go but the reasons - the casus belli - that Washington invented to justify the invasion was blatantly and obviously false from the get go.  The Occupation was botched as well.  The US basically abandoned it's responsibilities for a proper reconstruction of Iraq and the Iraqis resented that.


Quote:
[quote]There is a world of difference between the official BoM temperatures and what actually occurs away from the temperature gauge.  Then there is the difference between "in the shade" temperatures and what is experienced "in the sun".  In 1979 I was an infantryman conducting exercises near Port Augusta in January.  The official temperature was approximately 47 degrees in nearby Port Augusta.  Out on the range, we measured 52 degrees.   We conducted mock operations there.  It was hot.  We had a cool change part way through the exercise and the temperature dropped to 42 degrees.   We appreciated it.


Yes, not a problem understanding that. But, you made it seem like you were talking about shade temperature. I can understand that outside temperatures can reach over 50 degrees. My can almost reach shutdown riding from the university to my house in 40 degree temperatures (in the shade), when I can set off feeling fine but lose focus before I reach home. It is worse if I mow the lawn in the late afternoon, and it is still over 30 degrees outside. But, either of those situations are only mere short term examples of what American soldiers would have faced in combatting Iraqi heat in August. I still claim that they waited because of the air strikes and for better weather conditions.[/quote]

I think you made an assumption there, UnSub.   One I never expressed.  You're obviously talking about a region with comparatively high humidities.  I'm talking about arid places with low humidity.  You can stand temperatures much higher there.  Much higher.  I am used to high 30s, low 40s in summer where I live.  A dry heat.


Quote:
Oh, and I still don't believe that you worked during 47 degree (in the shade) heat.


You've obviously never lived in central Australia then.   Tell me, how do you think the miners out in the outback survive and work in such temperatures, Mmmm?    ::)


Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by freediver on Jul 1st, 2019 at 7:32pm
Most of the criticisms of the occupation are based on the US not putting the Baath party back in charge of the country. But that would have defeated the entire purpose. It would be like putting the Nazi party back in charge of Germany after WWII. You cannot put the dictators back in charge and expect them to manage a transition to democracy.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Brian Ross on Jul 1st, 2019 at 11:48pm

freediver wrote on Jul 1st, 2019 at 7:32pm:
Most of the criticisms of the occupation are based on the US not putting the Baath party back in charge of the country. But that would have defeated the entire purpose. It would be like putting the Nazi party back in charge of Germany after WWII. You cannot put the dictators back in charge and expect them to manage a transition to democracy.


Most of the criticism was about how the US mishandled the management of the Occupation.  The US believed it had no responsibilities after they had invaded and defeated the Iraqi Army.  The result was chaos as the Ba'ath Party was no long in control and the Iraqis who'd been suppressed for the last 30+ years, were let loose with their rivalries and desires all coming to the fore.  Iraqi society was dominated by three main groups - the Kurds, the Sunni and the Sh'ites and none of them liked each other very much at all.   

There were real fears that Iraq would break up for a period but the Americans realised their mistakes and put David Petraeus in charge.  He was their most able counter-insurgency commander and he forced the Pentagon to put sufficient troops back into Iraq to control and improve the situation.  Coupled with al Q'ada making massive mistakes in trying to marry into the existing tribal structure (as the Iranians had done in Lebanon with Hezbollah) which pissed them off and turned them against al Q'ada.  With the defeat of the various separatist movements, Iraq appeared to be on the road to reconstruction, then Daesh invaded.   ::)

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by UnSubRocky on Jul 2nd, 2019 at 12:04am
Well... considering that my uncle retired from mine work, after working for the past 40 years, he had told me that he would drive around in airconditioned vehicles. Underground, it could get very hot. But, out of the sun, it can be okay conditions.

Rockhampton happens to usually have either humid or dry summer days. I can get through 40 degrees summer day with dry heat. But, it is difficult to get through a 35-degree day that would see a likely thunderstorm at the end of the afternoon.

Whilst I can appreciate that Port Augusta can be generally hotter than Rockhampton, with PA getting desert heat. The reality is that your squad of infantrymen would have been lead by a crazy officer into doing military exercises during 47 degree heat. Whether you are telling the truth or not is not the issue. The actual concept of doing military exercises is just ludicrous. I cannot see yourself or fellow infantrymen doing anything the next day. You would still be in recovery mode.

And this is what I was trying to put across to you regarding American troops in Iraq, in 1990. They would have picked their battles as best as possible according to weather conditions. The Japanese would have been brave to handle heavy seas in December 1941. The Vietnamese dragging their cannons uphill in the conflict against the French(?) in the 1950s. Both of which would have been amazing feats during war. But, I would be sure that the Americans would have learned more from Hitler's mistakes of overextending his invasion of Russia in WW2. No American needs to be executing a military maneuver on a target if they were facing difficult weather conditions.

500 years of European military strategy is based on the sound concept of fighting battles that can be won under ideal conditions. As well as planning for battles when conditions are not ideal.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Brian Ross on Jul 2nd, 2019 at 2:54pm
An interesting albeit naive analysis, UnSub.   Weather plays a factor but it is now always the major factor.  In WWII battles were fought in the depths of winder (Winter War, Moscow, Stalingrad) and the heights of summer (Western Desert, Burma, New Guinea, etc.).  After WWII, you have Korea and Vietnam, as well as Algeria and other "brush fire wars"  being fought in adverse weather conditions.  Invariably it was usually the better equipped foe that won the battle.  Occasionally it was the more determined one.

Military operations slow but don't cease in adverse temperatures.  Surrendering the battle field to your opponent merely because your troops don't like the heat or the cold is bad tactics and strategy.   You must make the enemy pay for anything they try.   Hiding in a bunker or a house while the weather is hot or cold doesn't win you battles.

Your uncle might have moved around in an airconditioned car  but when I was in the Army there were no airconditioners in our vehicles.  Indeed, the Army at one stage paid Nissan to remove the airconditioner which was standard in their cars because they believed it would make the soldiers, "soft".   I've driven in trucks with the bonnets locked open to cool the engines.  It was bloody hot!  You just had to keep going because you knew the enemy might be just that bit harder than you and would keep going.  The Australian Army has always risen to the challenge.   

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by UnSubRocky on Jul 2nd, 2019 at 3:44pm
The Australian Army will go to great lengths to make their soldiers tough. The SAS selection is one of the most grueling in the world. However, I doubt very much that any officer would conduct military exercises during the heatwave. Had there been exigent circumstances necessitating the exercise, I would understand the need to toughen up the soldiers in quick time.

I doubt you really have any military strategy understanding. I would not wear out my soldiers in combat when the conditions are not favourable to see a likely victory. A rescue operation may be necessary during a cyclone. But, a military operation is not. You only fight when you have to fight.

The Vietcong won the Vietnam War not because they were the more determined, but because they used sound military strategy to outwit the Americans.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Brian Ross on Jul 2nd, 2019 at 5:08pm

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 2nd, 2019 at 3:44pm:
The Australian Army will go to great lengths to make their soldiers tough. The SAS selection is one of the most grueling in the world. However, I doubt very much that any officer would conduct military exercises during the heatwave. Had there been exigent circumstances necessitating the exercise, I would understand the need to toughen up the soldiers in quick time.

I doubt you really have any military strategy understanding. I would not wear out my soldiers in combat when the conditions are not favourable to see a likely victory. A rescue operation may be necessary during a cyclone. But, a military operation is not. You only fight when you have to fight.


No one has suggested "wearing soldiers out," UnSub.  The point I have been making is that you do not surrender the battlefield to your enemy simply because it is too hot/cold.  The Australian Army has always had an aggressive spirit.  It was why we came to dominate "no mans' land" in WWI.  It was they came to dominate the Italians, Germans and Japanese in WWII, the DPRK and PLA troops in Korea and the NLF and PAVN troops in Vietnam and the Taliban and Iraqi resistance forces in Afghanistan and Iraq..   We undertook aggressive patrolling - sending patrols out when it was too hot/cold/night time when the other armies were sheltering in their trenches/positions/buildings rather than contesting the ground with us.  It meant we knew what they were doing and they didn't know what we we were doing.


Quote:
The Vietcong won the Vietnam War not because they were the more determined, but because they used sound military strategy to outwit the Americans.


Actually, they made their own share of mistakes.  Victors are the ones who make the least mistakes.  The US made numerous mistakes and their worse was that they failed to bring their home population with them with the consequence they lost the home front.  Most Americans point to the Tet Offensive of 1968 as the turning of the war but it was a military defeat for the North.   They failed to provoke a general uprising against the Southern Government and the American and Allied occupation of South Vietnam.  Their forces were essentially eliminated because they stood and fought the Americans rather than melting away in front of the American overwhelming firepower.  They killed numerous Southern supporters or those they believed were in sympathy with the South Vietnamese Government, particularly at Hue and this alienated numerous other Southerners.   Then, in 1972 they believed they had it in the bag and they undertook a massive conventional military offensive and were defeated by the ARVN and US air force.   Why the North won in the end was because they outlasted the US's resolve "to see it through."   America has always had problems in extended wars.  Their staying power is on average about 4-5 years.  After that, they get restless and see it as an "endless war".

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by UnSubRocky on Jul 3rd, 2019 at 5:51am
We are never going to agree on military strategy, Brian.

I recall a high school history class. The teacher talked about how the Japanese had better maps of Australia than had Australians. I could understand that. The Japanese would have overwhelmed the Australians in New Guinea, had the Americans not won the Battle of the Coral Sea. Whatever happened next could be anyone's guess. But, I reckon the Japanese would not have overextended their forces taking out Australian civilians.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Brian Ross on Jul 3rd, 2019 at 5:24pm

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 3rd, 2019 at 5:51am:
We are never going to agree on military strategy, Brian.

I recall a high school history class. The teacher talked about how the Japanese had better maps of Australia than had Australians. I could understand that. The Japanese would have overwhelmed the Australians in New Guinea, had the Americans not won the Battle of the Coral Sea. Whatever happened next could be anyone's guess. But, I reckon the Japanese would not have overextended their forces taking out Australian civilians.


*SIGH*, the myths continue.   Japan would not been able to "overwhelm" anybody in the Owen Stanleys.  They were facing a severe shortage of supplies and retreated because a Japanese staff office had decided that he would lie about how many Native Porters the Japanese Army needed to cross the Owen Stanleys.   The result was that the Japanese were short, well short, of the required numbers to sustain offensive operations in New Guinea.  The Japanese were forced to retreat because they didn't have sufficient food to feed their troops.  The Japanese had decided that ammunition was more important than food and the result was a retreat that turned into a rout back to the north coast where the Battle of the Beachheads occurred (Buna, Sananda).   The Australians retreated back to Imitar Ridge and stood there until the Japanese retired..

As for Japanese maps - that is complete bullshit.  The Japanese never sent any surveying parties to Australia so they were reliant on what the Australian Government published - translated into Japanese.   No surveys, no topographic information.   As Japan never intended to invade Australia, there really weren't any need for maps.   Indeed there was a conference in early 1942 between the Imperial Japanese Navy and the Imperial Japanese Army about "where to go next", after the fall of Singapore.  The IJN wanted to invade Australia but the IJA did not believe that the IJN had the resources to move, feed and defend an invasion force.   The result was the "isolation" strategy which led to the Guadalcanal campaign.

The IJN was suffering from "victory disease" - too many easy, early victories and they believed they were themselves invincible.  The IJA was more cautious.  They knew they had won with only a small, skeleton force, against poorly trained, poorly led for the most part Colonial Troops.   They realised that the Australians, defending their homeland would be a whole different kettle of fish.  They had listened to what the Germans had told them about the performance of the AIF in North Africa and Syria.   Australians had been trained successfully in open, manoeuvre warfare with Armour, whereas the Japanese had shown they were not masters of that warfare when faced with the Soviet Army in Mongolia.  The Japanese were also aware that the AIF had basically returned from the Middle East to continental Australia.  Australia would be no push over.


Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by UnSubRocky on Jul 4th, 2019 at 1:16am
It is generally accepted that the Japanese were the better against the Australians in New Guinea. It is also accepted that the food rations were in such short supply that cannibalism was alleged to have occurred by the Japanese in New Guinea. What is not well known is the fact that the air drops of supplies to Australians were not very well planned.

The RAAF were filmed doing drops of supplies to troops. Some of the problems were the fact that the RAAF's drops lead to injuries upon the soldiers. Allegedly, some soldiers were killed from the falling supplies. Another issue had to be about the lost supplies that the Japanese soldiers, scouting near Australian camps, were able to acquire some of the airdrop supplies. They then fled back into the jungle, falling back to lines where they would share their finds among their comrades. The Japanese had commented that the food of the Australians was "very good". Obviously, the situation of food rations had run low among the Japanese.

The Japanese were in no position to be attacking Australia. Had they not provoked the Americans, the Japanese would probably be in considerably better command of attacking Australia. Obviously. But, had that been the case, the Japanese might well have concentrated on southeast Asia. I don't believe the Japanese would have needed to overextend themselves on conquering Australia.

And the maps I talked about the Japanese having in relation to Australia were maps about the Coral Sea. Sorry if I gave you the impression I meant the Australian mainland.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Brian Ross on Jul 4th, 2019 at 3:32pm

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 1:16am:
It is generally accepted that the Japanese were the better against the Australians in New Guinea.


Depends which year.  1942-43, yes they were.  After 43?  Nope, the Australians were more successful.  The Japanese tended to be tactically inflexible - they would attack, bypass any strong points and set up their own, cutting of their enemy and then attack until they succumbed.  In desperation, they would often mount a "Banzai" Attack, with troops rushing the enemy positions in successive waves.  Invariably in the face of modern firearms, it lead to excessive casualties and more often than not, a failure to achieve the objective - if the enemy's nerve held.  In 1944-45, Australian troops were well experienced and their nerve was stronger than that of the Japanese.  Indeed, one Australian unit when told it was to be relieved asked, "Why?  We are enjoying ourselves too much!"   Australian troops used the Jungle, unlike the Japanese who just moved through it.   


Quote:
It is also accepted that the food rations were in such short supply that cannibalism was alleged to have occurred by the Japanese in New Guinea. What is not well known is the fact that the air drops of supplies to Australians were not very well planned.

The RAAF were filmed doing drops of supplies to troops. Some of the problems were the fact that the RAAF's drops lead to injuries upon the soldiers. Allegedly, some soldiers were killed from the falling supplies. Another issue had to be about the lost supplies that the Japanese soldiers, scouting near Australian camps, were able to acquire some of the airdrop supplies. They then fled back into the jungle, falling back to lines where they would share their finds among their comrades. The Japanese had commented that the food of the Australians was "very good". Obviously, the situation of food rations had run low among the Japanese.


Dropping supplies, "blind" into dense rainforest/undergrown is always fraught with difficulties.  Indeed, it is not always confined to that sort of situation that the enemy will grab supplies before the intended recipients.  Just read about the airdrop at Arnhem.  The Germans were more often than not the recipients of Allied generosity.   As for Australians dying under falling supplies, doubtful after the first few.  Australians are not stupid but they can be subject to rumour and innuendo. 


Quote:
The Japanese were in no position to be attacking Australia. Had they not provoked the Americans, the Japanese would probably be in considerably better command of attacking Australia. Obviously. But, had that been the case, the Japanese might well have concentrated on southeast Asia. I don't believe the Japanese would have needed to overextend themselves on conquering Australia.


The Japanese attacked America because they feared American intervention if they moved south against the Dutch and British forces in SE Asia.  The Philippines was on their flank and it had a large US presence there.   So, they decided to eliminate the American threat - both at Hawaii and in the Philippines.  They paid the price for their impudence.


Quote:
And the maps I talked about the Japanese having in relation to Australia were maps about the Coral Sea. Sorry if I gave you the impression I meant the Australian mainland.


I suspect that the charts they had on the Coral Sea had their origins in the British admirality, rather than anything they had done independently.  Your apology is accepted, UnSub.


Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by polite_gandalf on Jul 4th, 2019 at 4:31pm

freediver wrote on Jun 28th, 2019 at 2:14am:
Do you think an effort to normalise trade is even a plausible explanation?

What was the "good" reason for Pearl Harbour?


You are verbling Aussie.

He said it was to get the yoke of US sanctions off them - not to try and "normalise trade" with the US.

You won't find a "good" reason for invading Pearl Harbour, because there is none - the decision was suicide. Once you accept that it was a stupid, irrational decision, then the idea that they thought it could achieve removing "the yoke of US sanctions" - doesn't sound so implausible after all.

They probably thought the US would scurry away with their tail between their legs after such a defeat - taking their sanctions with them - such was the Japanese regime's delusion.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by polite_gandalf on Jul 4th, 2019 at 4:32pm

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 3:32pm:
After 43?  Nope, the Australians were more successful.


Probably because by then the Japanese forces on NG were cut off, unsupplied and on the verge of starving.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by freediver on Jul 4th, 2019 at 5:36pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 4:31pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 28th, 2019 at 2:14am:
Do you think an effort to normalise trade is even a plausible explanation?

What was the "good" reason for Pearl Harbour?


You are verbling Aussie.

He said it was to get the yoke of US sanctions off them - not to try and "normalise trade" with the US.

You won't find a "good" reason for invading Pearl Harbour, because there is none - the decision was suicide. Once you accept that it was a stupid, irrational decision, then the idea that they thought it could achieve removing "the yoke of US sanctions" - doesn't sound so implausible after all.

They probably thought the US would scurry away with their tail between their legs after such a defeat - taking their sanctions with them - such was the Japanese regime's delusion.


It sounds a lot less plausible than just wanting to get in the first strike.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by UnSubRocky on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:41pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 4:32pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 3:32pm:
After 43?  Nope, the Australians were more successful.


Probably because by then the Japanese forces on NG were cut off, unsupplied and on the verge of starving.


That was basically what I was trying to say in another post. The battle of the Coral Sea meant that the Japanese were basically impeded in getting their supplies to New Guinea. Hence, the Japanese were starving in New Guinea as well as elsewhere.

Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by Brian Ross on Jul 4th, 2019 at 10:56pm

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:41pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 4:32pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 3:32pm:
After 43?  Nope, the Australians were more successful.


Probably because by then the Japanese forces on NG were cut off, unsupplied and on the verge of starving.


That was basically what I was trying to say in another post. The battle of the Coral Sea meant that the Japanese were basically impeded in getting their supplies to New Guinea. Hence, the Japanese were starving in New Guinea as well as elsewhere.



Well, first you have the initial landings on the North coast - Buna, Sananda - these came from New Britain and were basically Naval landing forces (ie Japanese "Marines").  They were controlled by the IJN and were supplied by them.   After that, the IJA added a brigade of infantry and it's support units which then pushed southwards, initially across the Owen Stanleys.   At the same time, the IJN decided it would be quicker to go 'round the coast and Coral Sea happened as a consequence.  This is also why Milne Bay was attacked.  All these forces were supplied by the IJN from New Britain and Truk.   That logistics route was interdicted (Battle of the Bismark Sea) from 1943 and the Japanese were cut off.

In the meantime, the IJA had invaded New Guinea on the North-West coast from the Dutch NEI.  They moved along the North coast towards the original beachheads but never made it.  The Australians had in the meantime reached the North coast and then moved North West, encountering the IJA forces.  This supply line wasn't interdicted until 1944 but it wasn't cut until the US forces moved towards the Philippines.

The Japanese were able to often survive off native gardens and the produce they produced.  While it wouldn't sustain them in offensive operations, it did keep them alive.  Only really at Buna and Sananda did the Japanese resort to cannibalism.   That was because they were basically cut off for months without any supplies arriving.   They ate their stockpiles and then resorted to eating Australian dead and their own comrades who had died.


Title: Re: Japan attacks Australia WW2
Post by tickleandrose on Jul 8th, 2019 at 12:01pm
Prior to the invasion of China, Japan was becoming an economic and military power house in the region and perhaps the world as well.  There were two schools of thoughts in Japan, at the time.  One is for slow expansion through economic and political control - e.g. the acquisition of Manchuria following China's own civil war.  And another was of course for rapid expansion.  The latter of course won out during the fever of nationalism.  It was said that Japan aimed to conquer the within 3 months or something along this lines.  At the time, in order to fuel their war machines, Japan itself has not enough supplies and so, it needed the raw material, resources, and slave labor that China can supply.  And plus at the time, the nationalist government of China, were at war with their communist counter part.   And whole of China were more or less ruled by various military divisions. 

But, it was a miscalculation.  Of course, the war in China lasted for at least 8 years, throughout WW2.  Japan was not able to fully control entire China.  In fact, China had additional help from both the Soviets -reinforcing the communist, and Allied countries to the nationalist government.   So the bulk of their troops where mired in China, with no real way out.   

And hence the longer the war went, the more atrocity happened.  Because, with the crippling of Japan's internal economy due to extraodinary cost of the war, it became not about expansion, but about taking and plundering. 

For example, as other mentioned the siege of Nanking.  The surrounding farm land, and road infrastructures were nearly completely destroyed.   And the back supplies of the Japanese troops were also weak.  So, after sacking of the city, there is not enough food for everyone.  And so the killing and lawlessness prevailed, the raping were part of it but not the main reason of it. 

When Australia was involved, the battle lines of Empire of Japan stretches over two continents, thousands upon thousands of km of coast lines.   And of course, a large virtually unaffected country sits to the East - the USA.   The Japanese assessment during that time (Which is probably correct): USA wanted to sit back and wait.  It will provide material support to both Europe and Asia.  And when the time is right, they will strike, ending the war with the least cost.   

With most of their land armies tired up in Asia.  Japan then turned its attention to USA.  Its not hopeing to able to invade USA - no... they cant even finish of China.   And probably not even Australia.  But they needed USA not to move as they secure their region.  And so, a plan was made to completely annihilate the Pacific Fleet, delaying the USA ability to match their navy force for hopefully 5 to 10 years.   

And so, Pearl harbour happened.  It is said, that even as the lower ranked troops celebrated their 'victory'.  The leaderships of Japanese navy were contemplating defeat as they failed to destroy any of USA's aircraft carriers. 

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.