Did the US save Australia from the Japanese?

Smokey Stover · May 5, 2018

Greg Boeser said:
Let's remember a few facts.
Japan launched its "Southern Offensive" across a huge expanse of the globe with one objective. To cause, to use a modern term, "shock and awe" to the Allied powers. Quickly gobbling up isolated bases within their sphere of control (Hong Kong, Guam, Wake) and overrunning poorly defended colonial territory in SE Asia, the Allies were to be so demoralized that they would sue for peace. They expected a cakewalk, but reality intervened. In spite of rapid victories in Malaya, Burma and the Philippines, and the rapid seizure of Rabaul, the Japanese quickly found themselves overextended. Resistance at Wake Island delayed the Japanese timetable two weeks and required additional forced to accomplish. Ditto the Philippines, which held out until May and resulted in the commander of the operation being relieved. The surprise attack by the Lexington and Yorktown on the Lea-Salamaua landings 10 March, 1942 cost the Japanese three transports critical to further expansion and damage to other ships resulting in a month long delay in launching the Port Moresby operation. Without these critical delays we don't know how much the Japanese could have achieved in severing the lines of communication to the US and UK. Would Australia stand alone against the Japanese if their Allies could not support them? Or would they accept the new status quo? Japan does not have to fight for every inch of Australia, just seize the key ports.

Thats quite right. There were a number of Aussie special forces hiding out in the jungle (with huge help and support of the local indigenous people) making guerrilla style hit and run tactics holding up to 2000 Japanese troops for weeks, and totally cut off from any chain of command as there was no effective radios until they pieced one together from stolen parts after raids into occupied territories. People often overlook the little contributions, concentrating on major battles that in some cases were no more important than nuisance raids.

swampyankee · May 5, 2018

Did India* save the UK from the Germans?

I think this sort of question has many problems, most of which have been addressed, but the ones that I see are:

If the US was neutral, would Australia have been attacked? I think not, as I think the major reason for the Japanese invasion of both the NEI and Malaya was the US-led embargo. I also happen to think that the US and Japan had been on a course towards war since before Tsushima, largely because of US interests in China and US domestic racial politics.
"Neutral" doesn't mean that the US would not be supplying goods under favorable conditions.
Would Japan have been able to occupy the country? Australia is large, but the population is highly concentrated on the coasts.
Would the populace resist? I think this is certainly a "yes." China is not a good example; they hadn't had an effective central government for decades, nor is the Philippines, as that had been under colonial administration for centuries. There would, of course, had been some percentage of the populace who cooperated, a larger percentage who would be silent, and a small percentage who would resist.

Capt. Vick · May 5, 2018

I think yes, but then you took Mel Gibson so we are even!

pbehn · May 5, 2018

Capt. Vick said:
I think yes, but then you took Mel Gibson so we are even!

He was Scottish wasn't he?

Smokey Stover · May 6, 2018

Exactly. With respect, Australia was simply not worth invading. Japan simply had no interest or resources to invade a country that has little or no material or strategic value. I mean unless they wanted to spend there days burning in the outback and hunting skippy it was hardly a realistic threat/venture, even on paper. As for the India reference i have no idea what that even means....

swampyankee · May 6, 2018

Smokey Stover said:
s for the India reference i have no idea what that even means....

Quite a few Indian soldiers fought in North Africa and Europe. There was a great deal of interdependence between the Allies, so the question "did X save Y" can be asked, but not necessarily answered, for any values of X & Y, with some value of "yes," based on how much and what type of assistance.

The trouble with a lot of these questions, especially in the Pacific, is that US-Japan relations had been fraught for decades, and these relations were a significant, if not the sole, driver of the attacks by Japan into regions where it became a direct threat to Australia. To answer the OP's question, then, is much more difficult than to answer a like question regarding the liberation of Europe, as the US relations with Germany were not quite so rancid as were US-Japanese ones. As I said earlier, the US's domestic racial politics and attitudes were intimately tied with the nature of US-Japan relations

GrauGeist · May 6, 2018

I have never heard of Imperial Japan making the decision to attack the U.S. based on the treatment of Japanese-Americans.
The relationship between the U.S. and Japan had started deteriorating after Japan defeated Russia and condinued to gain momentum as Japan's conquest of Asia drew stronger sanctions and embargoes from the U.S.
Otherwise, if we go by poor treatment of a population, Imperial Japan would have been justified for declaring war on Brazil, who had a far worse track record with it's Japanese population, which happened to be the largest number of Japanese in the world outside of Japan itself.
Add to that, Canada, who had a less than perfect track record with thier Japanese citizens...

pbehn · May 6, 2018

GrauGeist said:
I have never heard of Imperial Japan making the decision to attack the U.S. based on the treatment of Japanese-Americans.
The relationship between the U.S. and Japan had started deteriorating after Japan defeated Russia and condinued to gain momentum as Japan's conquest of Asia drew stronger sanctions and embargoes from the U.S.
Otherwise, if we go by poor treatment of a population, Imperial Japan would have been justified for declaring war on Brazil, who had a far worse track record with it's Japanese population, which happened to be the largest number of Japanese in the world outside of Japan itself.
Add to that, Canada, who had a less than perfect track record with thier Japanese citizens...

In view of how Japanese troops behaved in China it is a complete "non sequitur".

swampyankee · May 6, 2018

GrauGeist said:
I have never heard of Imperial Japan making the decision to attack the U.S. based on the treatment of Japanese-Americans.
The relationship between the U.S. and Japan had started deteriorating after Japan defeated Russia and condinued to gain momentum as Japan's conquest of Asia drew stronger sanctions and embargoes from the U.S.
Otherwise, if we go by poor treatment of a population, Imperial Japan would have been justified for declaring war on Brazil, who had a far worse track record with it's Japanese population, which happened to be the largest number of Japanese in the world outside of Japan itself.
Add to that, Canada, who had a less than perfect track record with thier Japanese citizens...

It's wasn't the treatment of Japanese-Americans (as an aside, look up the Cable Act if 1922..), but the way that US racial attitudes fed into US reactions to Japanese actions: it wasn't that the Japanese government particularly cared about the treatment of Japanese Americans, but how the US government -- which is composed of people who frequently drove and certainly used the racial attitudes -- reacted to Japanese competition, and how this was affected by US racial attitudes.

People's attitudes will feed into their decision making process, and the Yellow Peril was a very real social meme of the era.

Freebird · May 7, 2018

Smokey Stover said:
Not to mention for 3 years the only real allied help they received (apart from US/UK reject aircraft and equipment) all they got was cans of corned beef. To which when opening them, joked "we're opening the second front".

With respect, wildly inaccurate...

Hurricanes and A-20s weren't "reject aircraft" it was what the British were using in the Western desert.
Nor were Matilda IIs and Valentine's reject equipment

Shortround has already addressed the dodgy geography, Italy is indeed part of Europe.

Regarding the Soviet myth "no help until late 1943"

Allied assistance began immediately, notably high octane gasoline - produced by the British refinery at Abadan, and paid for with US $.

In just the first 4 months of the Eastern Front, some 156,000 tons of high octane gasoline was delivered - a product that was vital for improved performance of Soviet & Allied aircraft, but which the Soviets couldn't produce domestically.

From June to the end of October 1941, $92,000,000 worth of strategic goods were delivered from the United States to the Soviet Union, including payment for deliveries of aviation gasoline. In the first part of the war, before Lend-Lease was extended to the USSR, these deliveries totaled 156,335 short tons, of which 25,185 tons were more than 99 octane aviation gasoline; 130,729 tons were 87-99 octane aviation gasoline

Oil of Russia : www.oilru.com : No. 2, 2010 / LEND-LEASE OIL DIMENSION

Note - source isn't wiki....

Shortround6 said:
I guess my geography lessons were totally inadequate too, I also thought that Italy was part of the European continent. Now I find out it isn't, either that or the Allies didn't land at Salerno Until 1944?Let alone Sicily.

GrauGeist · May 7, 2018

swampyankee said:
It's wasn't the treatment of Japanese-Americans (as an aside, look up the Cable Act if 1922..), but the way that US racial attitudes fed into US reactions to Japanese actions: it wasn't that the Japanese government particularly cared about the treatment of Japanese Americans, but how the US government -- which is composed of people who frequently drove and certainly used the racial attitudes -- reacted to Japanese competition, and how this was affected by US racial attitudes.

People's attitudes will feed into their decision making process, and the Yellow Peril was a very real social meme of the era.

Yes, the lingering "Yellow Peril" semtiment from the 1800's may have been floating about, but it was also the United States that presented Japan with her first modern warship, the CSS Stonewall (renamed Kōtetsu) as well as a flourishing trade and alliance that lasted until the prelude to WWII.
So the idealogy that racism played an important part in Japan's decision to go to war with the U.S. is not going to hold water.
Again, if anyone cares to take the time to look at the deteriorating relationship with Japan in the 1930's, they will note that it started when Japan started her conquest of the Asian mainland. Oddly enough, the savage racist Americans were protesting the Japanese invasion of Sovereign "Yellow" nations and the horrific treatment of the "Yellow" natives.
When the racist American Iron and fuel oil became embargoed to the poor, misunderstood Japanese, they had no recourse but to look for their raw materials elsewhere.
Knowing that the racist Americans would eventually intervene, they decided on a pre-emptive strike against U.S. assets in the hopes that the racist Americans would sue for peace...but why am I even saying this?
It's common knowledge why the U.S. and Japan went to war...however, the racist angle is bullsh*t and reeks of modern-day social media safe-space crap.
* hey, let's go find a statue to pull down! *

swampyankee · May 7, 2018

GrauGeist said:
Yes, the lingering "Yellow Peril" semtiment from the 1800's may have been floating about, but it was also the United States that presented Japan with her first modern warship, the CSS Stonewall (renamed Kōtetsu) as well as a flourishing trade and alliance that lasted until the prelude to WWII.
So the idealogy that racism played an important part in Japan's decision to go to war with the U.S. is not going to hold water.
Again, if anyone cares to take the time to look at the deteriorating relationship with Japan in the 1930's, they will note that it started when Japan started her conquest of the Asian mainland. Oddly enough, the savage racist Americans were protesting the Japanese invasion of Sovereign "Yellow" nations and the horrific treatment of the "Yellow" natives.
When the racist American Iron and fuel oil became embargoed to the poor, misunderstood Japanese, they had no recourse but to look for their raw materials elsewhere.
Knowing that the racist Americans would eventually intervene, they decided on a pre-emptive strike against U.S. assets in the hopes that the racist Americans would sue for peace...but why am I even saying this?
It's common knowledge why the U.S. and Japan went to war...however, the racist angle is bullsh*t and reeks of modern-day social media safe-space crap.

The question isn't the "poor, misunderstood Japanese" but whether the US would have behaved the same had a European power been doing the same things as Japan, and why isolationist opposition to foreign intervention seemed to apply only to Europe; there was much more political outcry against some sort of sanction against Germany's rampage through Europe than Japan's in China, e.g., the America First movement.

I'm certainly not arguing that Japan was maltreated by the US in the 1920s and 1930s; the "provoked to war" argument, which sometimes seems manifest in Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorists, is not one I believe, just as I do not believe Germany was forced to war by Versailles. Both countries' leadership chose naked aggression completely voluntarily.

* hey, let's go find a statue to pull down! *

I'm sure we could agree on some.

Graeme · May 7, 2018

Smokey Stover said:
With respect, Australia was simply not worth invading.

No offense taken...

Smokey Stover · May 7, 2018

swampyankee said:
The question isn't the "poor, misunderstood Japanese" but whether the US would have behaved the same had a European power been doing the same things as Japan, and why isolationist opposition to foreign intervention seemed to apply only to Europe; there was much more political outcry against some sort of sanction against Germany's rampage through Europe than Japan's in China, e.g., the America First movement.

I'm certainly not arguing that Japan was maltreated by the US in the 1920s and 1930s; the "provoked to war" argument, which sometimes seems manifest in Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorists, is not one I believe, just as I do not believe Germany was forced to war by Versailles. Both countries' leadership chose naked aggression completely voluntarily.

I'm sure we could agree on some.

Duly noted. But the E.T.O & P.T.O were quite separate wars, militarily and politically speaking. Imo. Also i feel the writing was on the wall with Japanese intentions long before Germany started to rearm/organize for war, or at least a trouble free takeover. Unlikely but every dictator hopes to try, and to a degree hitler pulled it off early on but thats another story. I think the US's mistake (if one can call it a mistake) was totally being ignorant of the Japanese and there culture. And at the risk of repeating what others have said, the US having an outdated racial mentally of the Japanese being totally inferior people. I think both sides could have done more to avoid all out war. But America surely had to realize what sanctions, especially on oil would do to Japan, and lead them to having only one option if they wanted to be a super power. Was it expansionism by Japan or merely the need to be recognized as a superpower. Either way Pearl harbour was not inevitable. And by how bad relations were mid 1941, America should have known better or at least be prepared. It makes one wonder why they weren't. And im no conspiracy buff either.

Smokey Stover · May 7, 2018

You can give a country an arsenal of weapons and supplies but that doesnt guarantee a victory. It's funny how in all the years since ww2 the only argument i and i imagine the rest of europe has ever heard over and over again is the mass production spiel. We gave you X, Ergo thats why you won the war. May i also remind you folks the war started in 39/40. Not 41 or 42. And some of the most defining moments happened in those first one to two years.

michaelmaltby · May 7, 2018

"... Was it expansionism by Japan or merely the need to be recognized as a superpower."
Expansionism was a route to resources required for the growth that Japan strives(d) for ... the US had no empathy for Japanese imperial ambitions, it is an over-simplification to suggest this American attitude was simply racist though there was a strong element of that in reality.

China .. in the 20s, 30s and 40s was more on the American consciousness than one might surmise. American Christians had devoted $$$ and love for China ... which they believed it was their Christian duty to bring to Jesus ... and this, coupled with The Good Earth, Pearl Buck's empathetic novel, created a bond that many Americans felt for the Chinese .. the atrocities resulting from the Japanese invasion were likely more disturbing to middle America than antisemitic events in Germany, IMHO. FDR's wife, Eleanor, was constantly pushing the President to do more for China. Thus the aid kept pouring in and the corruption and incompetence was swept under the rug .. and in the end American received little to no value for their investment.

I have come to understand that events involving China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, etc. interacting with each other, have a very long timeline .... and should not be judged simply by the Post-Perry black fleet realities, or the East India Company opium war indulgences in China.

Japan wanted an empire ... that was only fair and just, they believed. China was an empire that was disintegrating from the impact of imperialism and technology. It was historically 'natural' for Japan to colonize China.

Not a pretty process, history.

Shortround6 · May 7, 2018

There is also a big difference between not surrendering (losing right away) and going over onto the offensive and actually overrunning the initial aggressor.

You don't "Win" total victory by keeping from being totally knocked out yourself.

The Americans certainly had little to do with keeping the Germans from invading England or even stopping the Germans at the gates of Moscow.
But without the Americans the invasion of Europe from the west or the advances of the Russians from 1943 on would have been much harder and taken much longer.

Without the Americans would Germany have been forced to surrender or would there have been a negotiated "peace" in 1946-48 with Germany still occupying large parts of Europe?

If so is that considered "winning" for the allies?

I would also note that that American planes were showing up in Europe in 1939 (paid for in cash not gifts), American tanks stated showing up in North Africa in Nov of 1941, considering they had to be shipped around the Cape of Good Hope and crews needed a bit of training that means the supplies were affecting things months before the US actually declared war.
US Neutrality patrol did free up at least a few ships for the British.

Many of the nations of Europe and the British commonwealth suffered high losses in men and wealth and it should be possible to honor them with trying to degrade the US effort.

I would note that Germany made slightly more steel during WW II than the British, Canada, and the USSR put together. German allies added slightly to this total.
The US out produced everybody combined by a large margin.

You need a lot more men, weapons, and ammunition to attack than to defend.

michaelmaltby · May 7, 2018

"... The US out produced everybody combined by a large margin."
America was the only principle participant in WW1 (Canada was not yet a totally independent state at this time, same for other Commonwealth participants, IDB) that was not wrecked economically, socially and politically by the war. The great Wall Street Crash (1929-1934 aprox) was nothing compared to the destruction WW1 caused European states.
Only America had the wealth, talent, productivity and 'daring do' to energize the Allied war effort.
German soldiers on the Eastern Front saw with their own eyes America's largess ...

Today ... America's situation in the world is somewhat different ... and that is understandable ... the Marshall Plan and the Cold War were huge outlays that America made ... only to face the challenge of a rising China and a resurgent Russia

parsifal · May 7, 2018

Japan was hardly touched by WWI either.

Other nations suffered varying levels of destruction. The major European nations all suffered massive financial losses. France, Germany, Poland, other European (continental) nations, suffered massive destruction of property. but the biggest losses were manpower losses. For Germany there were additional losses , mostly in prestige and a sense of betrayal that made all these other losses that much more unpalatable.

The US emerged with the least damage of the great powers, but Japan also was relatively unscathed

An article I found from the ABC is pretty good in describing our national psyche between the wars.

We didn't choose to join WWI - nothing has changed

Hansie Bloeckmann · May 7, 2018

michaelmaltby said:
"... Was it expansionism by Japan or merely the need to be recognized as a superpower."
Expansionism was a route to resources required for the growth that Japan strives(d) for ... the US had no empathy for Japanese imperial ambitions, it is an over-simplification to suggest this American attitude was simply racist though there was a strong element of that in reality.

China .. in the 20s, 30s and 40s was more on the American consciousness than one might surmise. American Christians had devoted $$$ and love for China ... which they believed it was their Christian duty to bring to Jesus ... and this, coupled with The Good Earth, Pearl Buck's empathetic novel, created a bond that many Americans felt for the Chinese .. the atrocities resulting from the Japanese invasion were likely more disturbing to middle America than antisemitic events in Germany, IMHO. FDR's wife, Eleanor, was constantly pushing the President to do more for China. Thus the aid kept pouring in and the corruption and incompetence was swept under the rug .. and in the end American received little to no value for their investment.

I have come to understand that events involving China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, etc. interacting with each other, have a very long timeline .... and should not be judged simply by the Post-Perry black fleet realities, or the East India Company opium war indulgences in China.

Japan wanted an empire ... that was only fair and just, they believed. China was an empire that was disintegrating from the impact of imperialism and technology. It was historically 'natural' for Japan to colonize China.

Not a pretty process, history.

A older movie bears out your wording:" American Christians had devoted $$$ and love for China-- The Sand Pebbles-- Candice Bergen plays an American Christian missionary (who must have read Pearl S. Buck's book-) who flogs her faith to the hopeless Chinese, caught in a trap of not their own making-- We sided with Chang Kai Shek and his English speaking wife against the overwhelming Japanese invasion of Manchuria and mainland China-- because of economic factors- Japan, an island Country, had to import her raw materials-China not so much-- The anti-Asian prejudices of Americans date back to the early railroad expansion eras in American- Chinese coolies worked on railroads, operated laundries and other service oriented businesses--

Did the US save Australia from the Japanese?

Banned

Chief Master Sergeant

Moderator

Colonel

Banned

Chief Master Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Colonel

Chief Master Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Chief Master Sergeant

1st Sergeant

Banned

Banned

Colonel

Major General

Colonel

Colonel

Senior Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads