Did the US save Australia from the Japanese?

[Smokey Stover]

Australia saved Australia from the Japanese. At least in the early war years. The British and Americans, Dutch, French, all were kicked out of the Pacific region. There simply wasnt the men or more importantly, resources to do anything else other than man the beaches best they could and pray for a miracle. I guess in a way you could liken it to Britain in the summer of 1940. The threat was there/real, and if an invasion had happened it would have been very difficult to repel. Luckily in both cases it didnt happen. So as far as im concerned it's completely open to speculation/opinion. My question is, why does every question start with the US saving everyone from ww2 Now that does puzzle me greatly.

 

[swampyankee]

For my little extract I am assuming that the USA stays neutral during much of the Pacific And European War. It was the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour that finally bought the USA into the War. I am also assuming that if the USA stays out of Pacific it is much less likely to worry with a European War even to the extent of Lendlease not really being active.

The US provided a lot of necessary help to Australian troops in the Pacific. The US had a heavy bombing component and also provided long-range fighters such as the P-38 Lightning which helped in the Pacific Campaign. A lot of the terrain that was being fought over was unknown. My mother tells me the American Command used to call my Grandfather into the Australian and American Headquarters when he was on leave from the US Small ships to explain and detail sections of map for them. He was an Australian serving as an American during the Papua New Guinea Campaign.

Also without US air and Naval support in the Pacific, Japan does not actually need to invade Australia to control it. With sufficient submarines, a very successful campaign of attrition could be conducted. Even with the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation, a lot of the better designs for fighters and bombers in Australia were coming from overseas. Then the Japanese carriers can just come across and conduct attrition raids. The Zeros were a match for early aircraft such as the P-40s and such that made up the bulk of the early Pacific airforces... Britain wouldn't be much help in the early period of the War being involved in throwing every possible resource at protecting itself from Operation Sealion. America coming into Europe with lend-lease helped by providing extra resources to throw at the Germans, including heavy bombers capable of conducting daylight raids on German cities. An Allied bombing campaign without the American B-17s would have bled Britain and the Empire dry of qualified pilots assuming the pilots got to Europe... Conveys would be at the mercy of submarines- both German and Japanese torpedo attacks.

As I see it without American Air support in the Pacific, large areas of the Pacific are at risk of being swept up by the Japanese. Large amounts of oil, rubber, and other resources get subverted into the Axis cause. This hampers the Allied cause as artificial substitutes have to be developed to take the place of scarce resources, as attempted to happen in Germany in 1944-1945. Meanwhile, forces are getting pushed by buildups in other areas. The Japanese finally have the resources to build lightweight Zeros, other fighters and bombers in sufficient numbers to do massive damage. So in this version, Pearl Harbor gets launched latter in greater numbers, and succeeds in producing very significant damage, even if the Aircraft Carriers are not there. The repair facilities are damaged, and it requires a major rebuild of the base to bring it back to operational standards while it is getting harassed by Japanese raids. I still think that in the later scenario, Australia may be lucky to survive a Battle of Britain type siege possibly long enough for the Americans to finally counter the Japanese offensives; although it may take a while if America gets involved in fighting a German Axis with Far East Resources flowing in... I think that the end result is still the Allies win, but the result is much bloodier... I can't see the US staying totally neutral if it is challenged in the Pacific which is virtually the USA's Naval Backyard...

I disagree that it was Pearl Harbor that brought the US into the war in Europe; it was German aggression, including that against the US: the German Navy had already attacked and sunk US warships and had performed major acts of espionage within the US, including the theft of the complete plans for the Norden bombsight: German military diplomacy would be as successful in keeping the US out of WW2 as it had been in keeping the US out of WW1. Pearl Harbor hastened US entry into the War in Europe, but I'd predict the US would be involved no later than mid-1942. The Pacific is different: Japan could have avoided war with the US, but any president who acted with any resolve against Japanese aggression in China would have brought Japan into war with the US: the only way for the US to avoid direct conflict with Japan, which was inevitable once the US placed an embargo against them, was the sort of appeasement that has made Chamberlain a bête noire to many. In other words, the only way for the US to avoid conflict with Japan was for the US to give Japan carte blanche in China. Having done that, there would be little reason for Japan to attack the Dutch East Indies, which it did for the oil, and which is why there was any kind of threat against Australia.

Back to Australia, then: Japanese aggression into China brought a US diplomatic response that resulted in Japan's decision to attack the DEI and Pearl Harbor. A neutral US would mean that Australia would not be threatened.

 

[GrauGeist]

...My question is, why does every question start with the US saving everyone from ww2 Now that does puzzle me greatly.

I believe that question persists because the United States, with it's vast food supply and mass manufacturing ability, was able to provide much needed materials to it's allies in order to defeat the Axis.

I can honestly say that I have never seen someone ask "What if Mexico never entered the war?" or "How would Britain fare against Germany if Brazil never declared war?".
The fact is, that the U.S. did provide crucial materials that provided an impact in nearly every theater of the war - even if their military forces were not directly involved.

Maybe the question of "saving" everyone is overly dramatic and could better be asked as "How would Australia be impacted without U.S. involvement"...

 

[parsifal]

without the US as an active member in the Pacific, it would be an impossible task to defend Australia. However the chances of the US remaining neutral whilst imperial japan devoured the whole region were zero.

Plausible what if scenarios might be a string of one sided defeats at sea. This was still a very long shot indeed. but catching the US carriers in port would have been a good start, or better yet, fighting them at sea just after the attack on Pearl would have robbed the USN of its ability to fight effectively.
,
From January to june the IJN would complete its conquest and consolidation of the far east , and then the So Pac and SW Pac. The allies would resist in the islands, but with the Japanese able to concentrate their forces at will and with their carriers unfettered by US carriers, it would be easy to isolate and destroy any allied controlled island in the pacific.

Australia and NZ would not be forced to fight as they did historically. They would mobilise home production more effectively, institute the fortress Australia strategy and on the basis of all available information, would have received massive help from the british. At least that's what Churchill said he would do and in this scenario I believe him. The british could afford to send about 6 divs, and about 1000 a/c to help defend Australia, and still hold the allied vital interests in the ETO and MTO . Sizable battle squadrons from the RN could be deployed

,

Given the shortages of shipping, both sides would have suffered massive logistic problems, However with those relatively modest reinforcements for the allies , I cannot see the Japanese being able to occupy mainland Australia in its entirety at all, and any enclave they might push to take would have been very vulnerable.

So no, with any realistic scenario, there is no chance of japan being successful in a conquest of Australia before the US returns to the battle at the end of 1943.

As a war gamer ive fought many hypotheticals like this, using mostly SPIs "War In The Pacific" system, USN suffers catastrophic one sided defeats, and is forced to retreat for a year or so. Australia and other Pacific nations are forced back onto their their own resources. Its hard, but the Japanese simply don't have the resources to comquer them, but they can do a lot of damage just the same.
​

 

[parsifal]

Australia was not well-industrialized, and would need external sources for munitions; that supplier became the US.

There wasn't really an alternative the US, as every other major industrial country was a Japanese ally, under German occupation, or trying not to be under German occupation.

The Japanese were not a fully industrialised nation either. As far as munitions are concerned (in the traditional sense of bullets and bombs) Australia was a signficiant exporter of these products by 1942. We were an exporter of most small arms in British use. Our shipbuilding capabilities were poor and our aircraft manufacturing just beginning. having said that , if we had been left to our own devices in 1942 (with say US assistance in engine manufacture) our aero industry would have been a lot more significant than it was .

US involvement was vital, but there was unused potential in our war making ability that should be considered ,

 

[swampyankee]

The Japanese were not a fully industrialised nation either. As far as munitions are concerned (in the traditional sense of bullets and bombs) Australia was a signficiant exporter of these products by 1942. We were an exporter of most small arms in British use. Our shipbuilding capabilities were poor and our aircraft manufacturing just beginning. having said that , if we had been left to our own devices in 1942 (with say US assistance in engine manufacture) our aero industry would have been a lot more significant than it was .

US involvement was vital, but there was unused potential in our war making ability that should be considered ,

My contention wasn't that Australia couldn't defend itself, but that a neutral US would preclude the need for Australia to defend itself against the Japanese. I just happen to think that for there to have been a neutral US, the American' government would have had to accede to Japan's aggression in China. Aggressive Japan triggered a lot of racial phobias in the American polity in ways that aggressive Germany did not.

 

[The Basket]

Don't forget the sharks and crocodiles and killer spiders and snakes!!!!!
The physical size and climate would make any invasion pretty much a folly.

 

[Torch]

There's a book called Lucky 666, It's basically a story of a B17 crew but the book goes into the history of the battles in that area. Pretty interesting read.

 

[C.Warren]

Reading the wiki on Lease-Lend is very to the point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
A very complex issue that would have to be considered at each point in time for different options available to military or politians, way out of my ability.

 

[Mungo60]

All the comments i have read above are very interesting and do give me pause for thought on the "what if's". I know what the Northern approaches to Australia are like because i have operated and exercised over many years in the Northern reaches of Australia, Pacific Islands and the various South East Asian country's like indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand etc . And given that back in the WW2 war years distance was harder to overcome than it is now, any lodgement / invasion etc would be pretty hard set to expand a beach head and break out to take ground of importance, totally different to Normandy for instance. IF it had of happened I think it would have been a futile operation and would not have succeeded, indeed if the Japanese did make a lodgment all we would have needed to do would be to isolate and leave them to the forces of nature especially with the seasonal changes that we have - eg Wet season, Dry season in the North. As for the US saving Australia, i believe that without the US in the theatre if Japan won the Pacific Australia would have withered on the vine and eventually would have been absorbed into the Japanese Empire. I dont want to sound obsequious or fawning, but i am very greatful for the US war effort in the Pacific, the US suffered thousands of casualties and fought many bloody and hard battles and utterly destroyed the Japanese militarily and economically. And Australia is deeply indebted for that. This is my opinion.

 

[VBF-13]

population approximately 6 million

Is that in Koalas or Kangaroos? Really, Japan had 10 times that. Were it not for U.S. involvement in the South Pacific, Australia was a Japanese colony. We even minted Australia's money for it, as we did for the Philippines. It was unacceptable for Australia to be taken. That wasn't going to happen. That's not to take anything away from the Australian resolve and contributions. Think of the Japanese blueprint for the Philippines, that was the blueprint for Australia.

 

[pbehn]

The facts that Australia is huge and 5-6,000 miles from Japan is also a factor.

 

[Shortround6]

It is a bit closer but the Japanese have enough difficulty with shipping without trying to supply a force in Australia.
Landing a force in Australia and seizing one or two ports/cities are one thing. Staying there and trying to take the rest of the continent is another.
For example it is 1446 miles by air from Cairns IN Queensland to Melbourne which is roughly 100 miles further than the distance from northern Taiwan to the south end of the Philippines. or roughly the same distance as Gibraltar to Benghazi or 100 miles shorter than London to Kiev.

It is going to take a lot of time and a whole lot of logistic support to try to take even a majority of Australia and the defensive problem is huge as the British/AMericans have a large area to strike back at and any contingent of troops might as well be on an island for all the mutual support they might get from the closest other Japanese group.

 

[parsifal]

When I was in the navy we undertook a tactical exercise on "invading Australia". Wasn't exactly Japanese, but it was 1950's technology and force structures. There were two teams formed, red and Blue

In the first instance Red Force were the attackers and attempted to land without access to a deepwater port. There are not many such ports in Australia.
The invasion went ashore in our deep north and failed within a month of landings due to the lack of supplies that could be shipped in. The distances are immense, the infrastructure almost non-existent, In the burning heat of the central deserts the invaders just melted..

The second attempt was by blue force. Instead of bypassing the main ports of entry (PEs), the blue force commander went straight for Sydney Harbor, the most important port this side of San Diego. Though mines and harbor defences were available they had not been deployed and the invaders just sailed into the harbor at night and took the key defences without a shot. The Japanese suggested this might be possible in 1942 with their midget sub attacks. If they had plastered the allied air power out of existence beforehand, it might have been possible to take by coup de Maine one of the ports like Townsville in this way.

Japanese believed they could capture Australia with 10 divs and 2million tons of shipping. It was a price they were not prepared to pay. I think a more realistic estimate is 15-20 divs with about 3 million tons of shipping. they would need to evacuate China and allow their economy to fall into unrecoverable ruin to do this. I think they made the right decision to not risk it.

Japanese invasions have been gamed out many times using various gaming systems including Seatag and PW as well as the commercial WITP. None of the what ifs played out well for the Japanese.

The Japanese can cause an upset but its just the opposite to over-extending themselves. they need to clobber the US Navy early, not over extend themselves, fortify their defensive perimeters and build up reserves. With an adequate reserve, fully functioning convoy system and fortified outposts it can cause such bloody looses on the US attackers as to force them to the negotiating table. They do not win by embarking on risky adventures across the pacific

 

[pbehn]

Japan invading Australia with active surface and submarine fleets in the region would be a great way to lose a whole army.

 

[MiTasol]

The facts that Australia is huge and 5-6,000 miles from Japan is also a factor.

And the fact that Australia had no fighters to defend the country is an even bigger factor.

Australias front line fighter was the Hawker Demon.

They only bought 64 to start with back in February 1934 and by Pearl Harbor at least 27 were written off or converted to mechanical training schools.

So at best 37 Demons to defend against hundreds of Oscars and Zeros.

And a handful of Wirraway trainers - which outperformed the Demons anyway.

As for the Army, it was far more modern and up to date but all in England and the Middle East, little more than training facilities in Aus itself.

It would have been a cakewalk for the Japanese.

 

[pbehn]

It would have been a cakewalk for the Japanese.

A landing would be perhaps, but after that, so long as Australians don't leave anything useful, keeping an army supplied 6,000 miles away is a problem. Do they use convoys for 6,000 miles or just leave their supply ships on their own?

 

[Smokey Stover]

I believe that question persists because the United States, with it's vast food supply and mass manufacturing ability, was able to provide much needed materials to it's allies in order to defeat the Axis.

I can honestly say that I have never seen someone ask "What if Mexico never entered the war?" or "How would Britain fare against Germany if Brazil never declared war?".
The fact is, that the U.S. did provide crucial materials that provided an impact in nearly every theater of the war - even if their military forces were not directly involved.

Maybe the question of "saving" everyone is overly dramatic and could better be asked as "How would Australia be impacted without U.S. involvement"...

Well at least you can admit that industrial might alone doesnt mean a victory is assured. As much as it grieves me to say it, if any country was responsible for defeating the bulk/cream of the German armed forces it was Russia. I dont have the facts or numerous of the top of my head but the majority of Germany were defeated in the east long before American, Britain and Canada even set foot on the continent. And there manufacturing ability far eclipsed what the US was able to produce and under severe military strain too. Not matter what one might think of Russia, they were able to absorb and eventually turn the tide in the east to become to pursuers instead of the pursued.....

 

[swampyankee]

I believe that question persists because the United States, with it's vast food supply and mass manufacturing ability, was able to provide much needed materials to it's allies in order to defeat the Axis.

I can honestly say that I have never seen someone ask "What if Mexico never entered the war?" or "How would Britain fare against Germany if Brazil never declared war?".
The fact is, that the U.S. did provide crucial materials that provided an impact in nearly every theater of the war - even if their military forces were not directly involved.

Maybe the question of "saving" everyone is overly dramatic and could better be asked as "How would Australia be impacted without U.S. involvement"...

The US economy was, in the 1930s, even with the depression about 20 to 25% of the World GDP. The data I have seen place its war production ahead of any other single country. Because it wasn't at war with any neighbors, it was able to purchase goods from them and didn't need to use significant resources to "guard its back."

That said, I think that it's likely Japan would not have attacked the DEI or Malaya were the US to remain neutral, as these were the result of US refusal to accept Japanese aggression in China. On the other hand, even the most isolationist of US ideologues limited that disdain for foreign involvement to Europe: Japan was the Yellow Peril which must be resisted.

 

[MiTasol]

A landing would be perhaps, but after that, so long as Australians don't leave anything useful, keeping an army supplied 6,000 miles away is a problem. Do they use convoys for 6,000 miles or just leave their supply ships on their own?

They would have used the supply ships to take back to Japan the food etc that Aus was sending to the UK.

The bloody wharfies would no doubt have willingly loaded the Japanese ships, something they refused to do for so many ships taking food and supplies to Aus troops in war zones.

I very much doubt that many Aussies would have destroyed crops, herds or flocks or anything else useful. Many of the unions were more pro German/Japanese than pro allies and would not have damaged anything even if the government had told them to.

Even now the government is maintaining its hypocrisy and the double standards one expects from our politicians of all stripes - and it is not the same brand who were in power in ww2. This bunch have sold the port of Darwin to the Chinese but are all uptight about a smaller pacific nation possibly allowing the Chinese navy port access.