Proposal to purchase of Japanese aircraft for RAAF in 1939/40
- Thread starter MiTasol
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Very informative! Love the Zero from Oz.
Admiral Beez
Major
In December 1939, Britain ordered three hundred Re.2000 fighters from Italy, Reggiane Re.2000 Falco I - Wikipedia
Australia approaching Japan shouldn't have been any more revealing of the Empire's shortage of advanced fighters than Britain's order above. Had they taken the order Japan's relations with Australia might have taken a different route. Japan desperately needs a face saving exit back to its recognized borders in Manchuria and Korea - perhaps something brokered by Oz?
If Australia avoids war with Japan what would they do with their new Japanese aircraft? And why the Zero? Without a RAN carrier, wouldn't IJAF fighters be more suitable? RAAF Oscars over North Africa would be something else.
Australia approaching Japan shouldn't have been any more revealing of the Empire's shortage of advanced fighters than Britain's order above. Had they taken the order Japan's relations with Australia might have taken a different route. Japan desperately needs a face saving exit back to its recognized borders in Manchuria and Korea - perhaps something brokered by Oz?
If Australia avoids war with Japan what would they do with their new Japanese aircraft? And why the Zero? Without a RAN carrier, wouldn't IJAF fighters be more suitable? RAAF Oscars over North Africa would be something else.
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Might the IJAAF be more comfortable with Ki-27s to Australia? I took a BRIEF glance at the Boomerang and the Ki-27. If the RAAF is looking to just fill out its roster and build bridges, perhaps that way?
- Thread starter
- #7
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
The Ki-27 was definitely a major improvement over the RAAFs front line fighter on Dec 7, 1941 (the Hawker Demon) but the Ki-43 would have been a much better option.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I was thinking in the political terms of The Admiral's scenario. The deal itself may be more important than the equipment. Like sending F-5Es instead of F-15Cs.
Admiral Beez
Major
If the deal goes through the new geopolitical circumstances will see the RAAF using its new fighters against the Italians and Germans in North Africa. Ki-27 vs. Bf 109 or even the Re.2000 might not go well.
I have to wonder what Asia would have looked like into the 1960s if Japan had withdrawn to its recognized territory in Korea/Manchuria and avoided war with the West. What happens to Korea? Does DEI become Indonesia? I think an Australian buy of Japanese warplanes might be one of those butterflies or forks in the road of history.
Last edited:
There was effort on this - see here:
The Manchurian crisis and the genesis of Australian foreign policy | The Strategist
September 2021 marked 90 years since the Manchurian crisis, when the Imperial Japanese Army attacked and proceeded to occupy the Chinese province of Manchuria. This action precipitated the establishment of the puppet state of Manchukuo ...
- Thread starter
- #11
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
The "RAAF" squadrons in the middle east were actually RAF units with Australian in the title so your proposal is probably not a likely outcome.
The Wackett mission in 1936 also went to Japan and there were two files in the Australian National Archives that were roughly titled Japanese aircraft under consideration for manufacture in Australia and Negotiations with Sumitomo metals for producing aircraft alloys in Australia. These were sent to the RAAF for declassification around 1987 and the RAAF "lost" them.
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Major
Fascinating info, thank you for sharing. It's interesting how reticent Britain was in recognizing Manchukuo when it was so quick to recognize and sign-off on Germany's annexation of Austria and Sudetenland in 1938. There is some precedent, as Britain refused to recognize Italy's annexation of Ethiopia in 1936, but clearly, the threat of Japan to Australia and Britain's empire in the east, including India was not taken seriously by London.There was effort on this - see here:
The Manchurian crisis and the genesis of Australian foreign policy | The Strategist
September 2021 marked 90 years since the Manchurian crisis, when the Imperial Japanese Army attacked and proceeded to occupy the Chinese province of Manchuria. This action precipitated the establishment of the puppet state of Manchukuo ...www.aspistrategist.org.au
A Pacific security pact that included recognition of Manchukuo as described in the article above may well have given Japan its face-saving exit from the rest of China. This means the end of the US oil embargo and no invasions of DEI, FIC, etc. I expect the Thais to still go to war against an otherwise defeated Vichy France. And eventually the beast that is China will recover and want to fight on. But imagine the sight of the Kido Butai peacefully entering Singapore before sailing up the Red Sea to Suez to join the fight.
If I was the RAAF and was shopping in the Asian section I'd want the Ki-43, Ki-51 dive bombers, Ki-55 advanced trainers and super long range flying boats. Heck, I'd invite Mitsubishi to open an office and assembly plant, Australia | Mitsubishi Corporation
If Australia has found the mettle to tell London to STFU then I expect Canberra has become a little more conditional on the forces being sent outside of the I/PTO for Britain's sake.
Last edited:
No.3 Squadron RAAF in the MTO was an RAAF Squadron, much like No.10 Squadron RAAF in the UK. It was not one of the Article 15 Squadrons, whose Squadron numbers were all in the 400 and up series reserved for the RAF Squadrons associated with the Commonwealth Air Forces. It was raised in Australia and deployed from Australia with the understanding that it would receive its aircraft and support equipment from the RAF when it arrived in the MTO, where its primary role was initially supposed to be to provide Air Force support to the Australian Army units that had been sent to the MTO.
As such, No.3 Squadron RAAF, 'answered' to the RAAF; and the Australian Government via the RAAF had a far greater say in its personnel, employment and movements than the Article 15 Squadrons. On a number of occcasions that did lead to 'stern words' between Governments and friction in the relationship. It also led to issues within the Squadron in terms of potential for advancement and rotation out back to Australia of experienced personnel once hostilties had opened in the CBI and Pacific and provision of their replacements.
Problem was, the Australian government was publicly admonishing the British for not being able to help the colonies, but smarter Australians were working behind the scenes at procuring aircraft. Australian and NZ representatives had talks in Washington regarding the purchase of P-40s in 1941 before the shooting started in the Pacific.
Admiral Beez
Major
I don't see the problem. Those seem like consistent not contradictory routes. Australia is telling Britain they need more imperial defence and preparing to go it alone if it's not forthcoming. Given the importance of Britain's Australasian and SSE Asian territories for manpower, rubber, tin, food, etc, it's remarkable how little Britain invested into its defence between the wars.
Mind you, the £60 million cost of the Singapore base could have paid for more than a dozen fully equipped Ark Royals (£3 million each, plus CAG). Treaties and shipbuilding capacity won't allow this, but you can see how much was wasted on that base that could have gone to I/PTO defence.
Last edited:
I don't believe they are. Britain can't help, so blaming them for their predicament when they are a primary supplier of equipment and trade is not smart. Going to other sources is, but bad mouthing the British has a tendency to alienate the country's position with regards to other countries. Let's say the Brits turn around and say, right, you ungrateful sods, go buy someone else's aeroplanes, then! and the P-40s from Lend Lease don't eventuate since they are from British stocks, then what?
Diplomacy is essential at times like that.
It's a bit like blaming the Chinese for COVID when your own country is responsible for managing its response - just because the British didn't or couldn't deliver aircraft, blaming them isn't going to solve the problems, it just creates division among Allies.
Admiral Beez
Major
That will not go well for the British, giving Australia, already smarting from Gallipoli, 61k deaths in WW1 et al the nudge it needs to go its own way. For starters forget about the three Oz infantry divisions for North Africa, they'll either stay home or maybe go to Malaya. And for the RAAF, they'll buy/trade for whatever they can for whomever is selling. Diplomatically Aus will be looking for new friends, including the Japanese. Next the Kiwis and South Africans will question their imperial ties.
One has to ask how Australia benefited whatsoever in the 20th century from its connection to Britain? The Empire sent Australians boys into the grinder in France and Turkey in WW1 and did SFA to defend Australasia interwar and in WW2. Australians fought alongside US Marines and Army through PNG and the Solomons, where they must have questioned their loyalty to the British crown. WTF are those poms the Australians must have been asking. Sure, Britain was distracted in the ETO and MTO, but that ignores the question above, what's in it for Australia?
Last edited:
Cutting off your nose despite your face, much? How about the Aussies not bad mouth the hand that feeds them and actively supports the war effort and leaves the complaints for the after-match function, while securing equipment from the USA, like little ole New Zealand; we were in the same political and military boat and our infrastructure was far less robust for going to war compared to Australia's. It could be done.
Kiwis won't stray from the Commonwealth and South Africa was already a Union with anti-British sentiment by the war because of the majority Afrikaner sentiment.
- Thread starter
- #19
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
you have to remember that Britain still controlled most of Australias foreign affairs and tax and finance and Aus had to beg for money to make non-British purchases - and pay import duty to Britain on them.
Churchill was draining the Aus treasury to buy goods for Britain.
After the Balfour Declaration of 1926 and the subsequent Statute of Westminster in 1931, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland & Newfoundland were treated as self governing Dominions. That meant that no U.K. laws, with a few relatively minor exceptions, applied to them unless they chose to enact similar legislation. Similarly they became responsible for managing their own foreign affairs.
en.m.wikipedia.org
That new status was reflected in what happened with the declaration of war in 1939 compared to 1914. In 1914 the British Empire went to war. In 1939 each Dominion had to decide what to do. Ireland chose to stay neutral for example. Canada and South Africa voted to declare war but not until several days after Britain. Australia found itself in an odd position because it had not adopted the Statute of Westminster. It's Govt chose to consider itself bound by the British DoW.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Those Dominions could therefore have chosen to spend more on defence between the wars, and to raise the money to do so, but it was their decision not to. It was their choice to remain so reliant on Britain for their defence. Australia in particular chose to take advantage of the period of peace promised by the Washington Treaty of 1922, and substantially reduced the RAN. It also reduced the size of the army and postponed increasing the Air Force. That was an Australian decision not a British one.
One thing that played a large part in decisions around a naval base in Singapore was a desire by Britain to protect its very substantial trade routes to places like Australia and New Zealand and the rest of the Far East. Those routes grew in importance in the 1930s as imports to Britain from the Empire grew. Most of the imports from and exports to these places were carried in British registered shipping.
So it is nowhere near as simple as blaming Britain for the defence woes of the Dominions in 1939.
Balfour Declaration of 1926 - Wikipedia
That new status was reflected in what happened with the declaration of war in 1939 compared to 1914. In 1914 the British Empire went to war. In 1939 each Dominion had to decide what to do. Ireland chose to stay neutral for example. Canada and South Africa voted to declare war but not until several days after Britain. Australia found itself in an odd position because it had not adopted the Statute of Westminster. It's Govt chose to consider itself bound by the British DoW.
Dominion - Wikipedia
Those Dominions could therefore have chosen to spend more on defence between the wars, and to raise the money to do so, but it was their decision not to. It was their choice to remain so reliant on Britain for their defence. Australia in particular chose to take advantage of the period of peace promised by the Washington Treaty of 1922, and substantially reduced the RAN. It also reduced the size of the army and postponed increasing the Air Force. That was an Australian decision not a British one.
One thing that played a large part in decisions around a naval base in Singapore was a desire by Britain to protect its very substantial trade routes to places like Australia and New Zealand and the rest of the Far East. Those routes grew in importance in the 1930s as imports to Britain from the Empire grew. Most of the imports from and exports to these places were carried in British registered shipping.
So it is nowhere near as simple as blaming Britain for the defence woes of the Dominions in 1939.
