Brian Ross wrote on Feb 29
th, 2020 at 1:28pm:
Why is a sensible defensive plan as the Brisbane Line considered a bad one?
It would abandon largely unsettled land for time to allow the Australian forces to be better organised to mount a counter-offensive. The Japanese would capture largely empty land and not much else. The plan would centre the defense on the most important part of Australia the SE Corner, where the majority of the population resided and where the majority of our industry was centred.
However it was only a plan. The Japanese had no plans to invade Australia. They lacked the forces and the transport to sustain such an invasion. Better a plan than no plan.
What a load absolute tripe ... that country was already well settled albiet sparsely.
Darwin, Alice Springs, Cairns, Innisfail, Ingham, Townsville, Ayr, Homehill, Bowen, Mackay, Rockhampton, Bundaberg, Maryborough, Gympie, Nambour ... were all large established regional centres.
You've just proven what an absolute prat you really are.
So surrendering 3/4 of the country to hide in the south east would make it easier to defend?
Corkhead extraordinaire.
Of course it would make it easier to defend. You are only attempting to defend 1/3 of the area you would have to defend if you tried to defend the whole continent. There was basically little settlement and no industry out there. You've name a few of the major settlements but how many people were there in real life? A few tens of thousands. Most of the population was in the SE Corner of the continent, along with most of the industry.
Anyway, it didn't matter 'cause the Japanese never had any plans to invade Australia. Basically, it was a sensible defensive plan which never was implemented. There was no real threat, except in the imaginations of deluded fools like you. The Japanese lacked the forces required to occupy Australia.