Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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 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....My question is, why does every question start with the US saving everyone from ww2 Now that does puzzle me greatly.
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 ,
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.population approximately 6 million
The facts that Australia is huge and 5-6,000 miles from Japan is also a factor.
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?It would have been a cakewalk for the Japanese.
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.....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"...
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"...
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?