Indonesia boosts military presence near Australia and ramps up efforts to increase its firepower

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by daaskapital

 

I think there is a reason as to why Japan forfeited their Australian invasion plans.

Oh, there was a BIG reason. It's name was MacArthur and he was one pissed puppy as he led the fight back up the island chains to Japan itself. All done with invaluable help from Australians, of course.

And the help of The British and other nations of course.

reply to post by Australiana


Not their own people being fleeced to the Max !

THEIR PEOPLE SMUGGLERS - fleecing slightly well heeled folk - into buying a shortcut.

Simple as that. Appeal to greed to make money !!

It is a disease.

alldaylong

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by daaskapital

 

I think there is a reason as to why Japan forfeited their Australian invasion plans.

Oh, there was a BIG reason. It's name was MacArthur and he was one pissed puppy as he led the fight back up the island chains to Japan itself. All done with invaluable help from Australians, of course.

And the help of The British and other nations of course.

From my understanding, Britain wasn't actively involved in the island hopping campaign to Japan. The Battle of Singapore had a pretty significant impact on Britain, resulting in the majority of their forces pulling out of the Pacific theatre, leaving Australia and New Zealand to their own defences.

It was at that time, under threat of invasion, did Australia turn to the USA for help in defeating Japan.

reply to post by alldaylong


Not so much the Brits. They were a little - self absorbed at the time.

The Fuzzy Wuzzies ??? They are legends !!!

Wow - Australia Day this long weekend !

daaskapital

alldaylong

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by daaskapital

 

I think there is a reason as to why Japan forfeited their Australian invasion plans.

Oh, there was a BIG reason. It's name was MacArthur and he was one pissed puppy as he led the fight back up the island chains to Japan itself. All done with invaluable help from Australians, of course.

And the help of The British and other nations of course.

From my understanding, Britain wasn't actively involved in the island hopping campaign to Japan. The Battle of Singapore had a pretty significant impact on Britain, resulting in the majority of their forces pulling out of the Pacific theatre, leaving Australia and New Zealand to their own defences.

It was at that time, under threat of invasion, did Australia turn to the USA for help in defeating Japan.

But you had the Bruma campaign which lasted to the end of the war. Tied up a very huge chunk of Japanese resources.

reply to post by alldaylong

And the help of The British and other nations of course.

You'd have to show me where the British were a major factor in the Pacific side of World War II. It's great to want to be all inclusive, but more important to be historically accurate, IMO...and historically speaking, Britain was scope locked on their own survival as a people and keeping Mr. Mustache from making the English Isles into something entirely different from what the residents cared to see.

In fact, the agreements between London and Washington had the force of Europe freed up to fully turn to the Pacific Campaign after Germany fell ..which was what was in the process of happening (the full bulk shifting from Europe to the Western Pacific) when that end of the war came to a close, as well.

It doesn't lessen anyone's contribution to the outcome of a World War, but who did what in which theater of it is pretty critical for history, IMO.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by alldaylong

 

And the help of The British and other nations of course.

You'd have to show me where the British were a major factor in the Pacific side of World War II. It's great to want to be all inclusive, but more important to be historically accurate, IMO...and historically speaking, Britain was scope locked on their own survival as a people and keeping Mr. Mustache from making the English Isles into something entirely different from what the residents cared to see.

In fact, the agreements between London and Washington had the force of Europe freed up to fully turn to the Pacific Campaign after Germany fell ..which was what was in the process of happening (the full bulk shifting from Europe to the Western Pacific) when that end of the war came to a close, as well.

It doesn't lessen anyone's contribution to the outcome of a World War, but who did what in which theater of it is pretty critical for history, IMO.

Id say tieing up a good part of the japanese army in burma for most the war was a pretty good contribution. It was a few hundred thousand less japs you guys had to deal with which means a few thoudand more Americans and Aussies that came out the war with there skins in one piece.

reply to post by crazyewok


Indeed... British were present in some aspects of the Pacific War. The facts from history are England was about 98% TOTALLY focused on the European theater and rolling back Germany once and for all and forever given that being the 2nd fight in a relatively short time for the scale of things.

It's no slight on the United Kingdom to simply note they were focused on their own citizens before shifting to the Pacific. The agreements weren't handshake and a nod, but formal in that respect for priorities on theater focus and what came after Berlin fell for everyone turning full focus to Japan.

National Pride has no room in history, IMO... It is what it is and that was recent enough to still have some recent accounts from living memory of events. Add to that, what was referenced earlier for accounts, records and very detailed planning for strategy among both Japanese and German Commands as we can all now read in their own words. They were not unclear as to what nations posed the greatest threats to them, in which theaters, as it was very different from one to the other.

Europe is where England shined brightest ..and the Pacific is where Australia and the United States shined brightest..each in individual efforts and combined contribution to the respective theater.

stirling

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by daaskapital

 

I think there is a reason as to why Japan forfeited their Australian invasion plans.

Oh, there was a BIG reason. It's name was MacArthur and he was one pissed puppy as he led the fight back up the island chains to Japan itself. All done with invaluable help from Australians, of course.

Jeezuz wrabbit youd think Mac Arthur was superman....i guess all those Kiwis,Aussies,Ghurkas,Tommies,Canadians,and SE Asian soldiers and guerillas did SFA.....

People do seem to work exceptionally hard at times to minimize and marginalize the United States in what was a pure historical event.

I've never understood that....almost agenda driven. (well..no almost about it, in my personal view. It's outright and blatant...but opinions vary, of course)

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Indeed... British were present in some aspects of the Pacific War. The facts from history are England was about 98% TOTALLY focused on the European theater and rolling back Germany once and for all and forever given that being the 2nd fight in a relatively short time for the scale of things.

It's no slight on the United Kingdom to simply note they were focused on their own citizens before shifting to the Pacific. The agreements weren't handshake and a nod, but formal in that respect for priorities on theater focus and what came after Berlin fell for everyone turning full focus to Japan.

National Pride has no room in history, IMO... It is what it is and that was recent enough to still have some recent accounts from living memory of events. Add to that, what was referenced earlier for accounts, records and very detailed planning for strategy among both Japanese and German Commands as we can all now read in their own words. They were not unclear as to what nations posed the greatest threats to them, in which theaters, as it was very different from one to the other.

Europe is where England shined brightest ..and the Pacific is where Australia and the United States shined brightest..each in individual efforts and combined contribution to the respective theater.

I would say it not even about national pride.

Burma is a very forrgoton front and I knew a few old Vets form there who roles are sadly all but forgotton, alot of British and Indians fought some pretty hard battles and hsitory has overlooked them sadlley. USA and Australia of course had a bigger role. But alot of Brits and Indians did give there lifes to tie up a pretty big portion of the Japanese military.

reply to post by crazyewok


Well, I wouldn't want to minimize the British fighting in Burma and South Asia. It was, truly a World war, after all and fighting was on all but one continent. (some would debate that last one, too). I'd also never minimize the losses England took in what it did in South Asia and campaigns like Burma. They gave as good as they got and all gave everything they had to give. After all, THAT war was all or nothing.

However, the U.S. had one thing that no one else on Earth did for THAT particular war and it made all the difference to everyone involved on both sides of it.

Unlike any other major industrial production center of that war, the U.S. was geographically isolated from the fighting. It gave us the unique ability to produce unlimited quantity of war material in a true non-stop stream of tanks, planes, ships and weapons of all description without interruption or threat of loss to the production ability.

Conversely, Russia was a mess...England was in tatters and Europe was just a total ruin after the years of fighting. Australia sure had the safety but just hadn't chosen to turn their nation into a big industrial park like the US did (and good for them on that...they didn't have the legacy of pollution and much more which came afterward).

So the points on America aren't subjective opinions, but a factor with very solid basis in logic and reason for why it existed and how it played such a pivotal role for the world in the outcome to the war. It's a quirk of fate and pure map layout, but that quirk defined outcomes for that one. Likely the last one we'll ever have that with, too.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Indeed, Wrabbit - very well put and you have a good insight as to the happenings of the War...

Everyone did what they could and endured what they must, even if you guys did join the party late

(just teasing!)

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by alldaylong

 

And the help of The British and other nations of course.

You'd have to show me where the British were a major factor in the Pacific side of World War II.

I can show you here:-

The Battle Of Okinawa

en.wikipedia.org...

That is just one example. You can have more if you wish.

reply to post by alldaylong


I appreciate the link...to a battle fought by the United States Marine Corps and the United States Navy in support. I have no doubt there were, somewhere across the 300 some warships, 1,100+ other naval vessels, a little bit of every other nation represented to some degree.

The British did have Task Force 57 seconded to American command for the battle of Okinawa, to be specific on it. That helped, I'm sure. Was it a deciding factor? Nope... The numbers just didn't rate for the virtual armada assembled to that last major battle of the Pacific War.

It would be like saying the United States was a deciding factor in the 'battle of Britain' and the air war over British home soil. That would be an absurd claim to make and totally without any historic support to make it ...despite the fact the US was hardly an uninterested party to it.

Credit where it's due...and my opinion isn't necessary. History stands for it's own record. In battles, we can get very specific down to the unit levels for records on who did what, where and what degree of contribution any one side likely made to any given battle or campaign.

Why the hard core push to "put America in it's place" so to speak, on having some pride in the outcomes of a World War fought with the full help of half the world ...and absolutely required as a team effort? Some just gave more in SOME areas of it or in SOME ways, than others ...and yet, that seems a MAJOR issue for others to focus on. Hmm..

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by alldaylong

 

I appreciate the link...to a battle fought by the United States Marine Corps and the United States Navy in support. I have no doubt there were, somewhere across the 300 some warships, 1,100+ other naval vessels, a little bit of every other nation represented to some degree.

The British did have Task Force 57 seconded to American command for the battle of Okinawa, to be specific on it. That helped, I'm sure. Was it a deciding factor? Nope... The numbers just didn't rate for the virtual armada assembled to that last major battle of the Pacific War.

It would be like saying the United States was a deciding factor in the 'battle of Britain' and the air war over British home soil. That would be an absurd claim to make and totally without any historic support to make it ...despite the fact the US was hardly an uninterested party to it.

Credit where it's due...and my opinion isn't necessary. History stands for it's own record. In battles, we can get very specific down to the unit levels for records on who did what, where and what degree of contribution any one side likely made to any given battle or campaign.

Why the hard core push to "put America in it's place" so to speak, on having some pride in the outcomes of a World War fought with the full help of half the world ...and absolutely required as a team effort? Some just gave more in SOME areas of it or in SOME ways, than others ...and yet, that seems a MAJOR issue for others to focus on. Hmm..

Im not trying to dimish Americas role by the way. I was just pointing our a what seemed forgotton front even in britain.

I wont deny in the pacific the USA took most the brunt.

Just a note for clarity... history is a passion of mine. More and more as time goes on and I've started to learn it formally, atop my own thirst for knowledge across the years.

I don't suggest..for a moment..the US was superior in any way but that geographic quirk that gave us the industrial base no one else had the luxury of having without threat or regular destruction of factories and infrastructure alike.

Likewise, no nation..no nation on Earth, could have stood in that war without everyone they had beside them, and won. No none. Including the US. If the US was able to focus SO much in the Pacific, it was only because the European theater WAS so heavily manned with British men and equipment, among others. It all worked together and no one piece could work without pieces from other nations as well.

In reality, had the US entered the war after England fell and we'd been more or less alone? We'd have been merely fighting to make a damn good show of it, before being defeated from both coasts at once in a fight for pure survival to the last person. So... I never want to give the impression I don't appreciate the need and necessity of that joint effort among all involved. It's equally important ...for historical accuracy...to give that credit where it is due (British in Burma, as the Ewok helpfully reminds) and the US in the enormous Naval power assembled in the Pacific for both direct force to the Imperial Japanese Navy and troop carry capacity that no one else had at that point in time.

To each their own and each has their own to be proud of.

Reply rather than edit

Wrabbit2000
Just a note for clarity... history is a passion of mine

As you know it is of mine.

Why I do alot of digging into some of the more forgotton fronts and wars.

Be it Burma, Vietnam and at some point Korea.

I'd say it's rhetoric aimed at a typically non-aggressive country being used as an excuse to build up defense, but the real reason for arming is because of another nation expanding it's naval influence along with some island-grabbing ambitions. They want to be ready, but don't want to appear overtly hostile to that which they're actually getting ready for.

Really, why suddenly be mad over something that happened a few years back? But it certainly makes a nice convenient excuse.

Either that speculation might make sense, or I'm just an idiot when it comes to guessing the real strategy behind this after reading other stuff in recent news.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by daaskapital

 

I think there is a reason as to why Japan forfeited their Australian invasion plans.

Oh, there was a BIG reason. It's name was MacArthur and he was one pissed puppy as he led the fight back up the island chains to Japan itself. All done with invaluable help from Australians, of course.

The Yanks did do well against the Japs in the Pacific, but they did not help to the extent you portray to protect Australia.

You'd be surprised how well Australia did with its under resourced soldiers in conjunction with local Tribes in Papua New Gunea and the like to repel the Japanese by themselves.

The Australians quickly learened that they could overcome the superiority of the japanese at the time by drawing them out and stretching their supply lines......then in seriously difficult terrain they would ambush the japs.

Then disappear, to come back later on and draw out the japs again and again ambush them......this tactic worked on many occasion.