It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
I remember reading that Japan was very well going to invade Australia by landing their forces at two main areas. They had originally planned to land a force in Darwin, but upon realising that it would have been too dificiult to take the city, and gather forces to traverse the Australia continent, had relocated their plan to land a force in between Brisbane and Townsville. Their first objective would be Brisbane, and their second, Sydney. If Australia wouldn't surrender by the time Sydney and Brisbane had been taken, they would have taken Melbourne.
Apparently, it was only two things which stopped the Japanese invasion.
1: Australian forces had defeated the intended Japanese invasion force in New Guinea.
2: Australian and US forces had cut off the supply lines through island hopping.
All of this information was stated by a Japanese national who was at the nerve centre of the Japanese Navy. Upon the release of the aforementioned information, he was taken in and interrogated/tortured by the US in the presence of an Australian officer, before coming out and saying that the information was incorrect.
Mr. Sato indicated that the Japanese Navy was responsible for the implementation of plans to invade and occupy Australia. He indicated that he was always at the nerve centre of the Japanese Navy.
The article indicated that Mr Sato had stated that the Japanese had realised that it would have been too difficult to move a large force south from Darwin and had then decided to attack the Queensland coast midway between Townsville and Brisbane. He indicated that communications were good and the population was sparse in that area of Queensland.
The city of Brisbane was reportedly the first objective of this so-called Invasion Plan of Australia. It was believed that Brisbane could be taken quite readily with a minimum of cost and resistance.
Sydney was the next objective and was to be attacked by land and amphibious forces. They then planned to move on to Melbourne, but by this time, they anticipated that Australia would have surrendered. Mr Sato claimed that moral in Australia was low at that time, and that Australian complaints about Britain deserting Australia was evidence of this fact.
According to Mr. Sato, things changed when orders were issued for the Japanese forces to take Milne Bay and Port Moresby. The Japanese were not willing to risk another operation in Australian while their supply lines were in peril. Again, according to Mr. Sato, the Japanese campaign in New Guinea used up all the forces originally intended for the invasion of Australia. Mr. Sato indicated that the Japanese had initially thought the Australian forces would be a pushover in New Guinea. This they abruptly found not to be the case. Despite this underestimation of the Australians fighting ability, Mr Sato indicated that the Japanese believed that Australia could be persuaded to become neutral. The Japanese propaganda machine turned itself to achieving this goal.
Mr. Sato indicated that Australians would not have been treated very harshly if we had surrendered. He seemed to know a great many leading Australians and he indicated that he was quite certain a good number of Australians would have agreed to co-operate with the Japanese.
The article stated that Mr. Sato had a "pile of information about Australia feet high." He indicated that the information had been obtained by:-
monitoring Australian broadcasts
and at the notorious Ofuna POW Camp
Following the publication of this article on 1 January 1946, Mr. J.B. Chifley, the Prime Minister of Australia wrote to General Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers in Japan on 21 January 1946. MacArthur immediately ordered an investigation by his military intelligence group.
Mr. Sato was interrogated by US military intelligence in the presence of Major R. L. Hughes of the Australian Service Mission. They wrote a report dated 2 March 1946 detailing their interrogation of Ken Sato. General Douglas MacArthur, then wrote to Mr. Chifley on 5 March 1946, attaching a copy of the report by the interrogation officer, which contained the results of the interrogation of Mr. Ken Sato and listed the Australians with whom Sato claimed acquaintance.
Sato indicated that the newspaper had misquoted him.
Sorry for the extensive quote:
To address MacArthur, a lot of Australians actually do not/did not like him. During wartime, he was known to have chastised Australian soldiers for the smallest of defeats, only to claim American victory for battles of which the Australians would win...
Thanks for the comment.edit on 23-1-2014 by daaskapital because: sp
Indonesia's foreign minister says a heightening of his country's border security is not meant to be an unfriendly act towards Australia, despite admitting the nations are going through a 'difficult patch'.
Marty Natalegawa, in Davos for the World Economic Forum, admitted to Australian reporters on Thursday that there have been concerns recent tensions between the two countries have the potential to get out of hand.
However, he insisted bilateral relations were still in a 'very good state' overall.
Although he wouldn't go into specifics, Mr Natalegawa effectively confirmed media reports out of Jakarta claiming a number of Indonesian Navy warships have been deployed and four Air Force defence radars have been programmed to closely monitor the southern border.
He said Indonesia had upped its border patrol in the wake of recent incursions by Australian navy vessels, but played the move down when asked if it was designed to be provocative towards Australia or put his country on a war footing.
'It's not meant to be an unfriendly act to anyone,' Mr Natalegawa said.
'It's just a country that is keen to ensure our sovereign border is properly protected.'
Rumour floating around that a Collins class sub arrived in port at HMAS Larrakeyah over night.....
Couple of my mates in Surveillance Australia have mentioned that the Indo navy are getting pretty active out on the boarders when the RAN are intercepting the boats.
Now it doesn't look like such a bad idea to have all those american military bases in Australia does it....Australians? :p
reply to post by daaskapital
Nice avatar. ..... I wouldn't be too worried about this. Sounds more like posturing than anything serious. In a couple of months this won't even be remembered.
I am confused by Indonesia getting shirty about the Australian Navy ships in their waters, because under international Law they are allowed access, transit rights etc...
It does seem like they are trying to find a reason to have a scrap...
so there is that one at least but that seems more of an intelligence base as opposed to a military garrison/out post
The facility consists of a large computer complex with 14 radomes protecting antennae and has over 800 employees. A long-term NSA employee at Pine Gap, David Rosenberg, has suggested that the CIA runs the facility.:pp 45-46 The location is strategically significant because it controls America's spy satellites as they pass over the one third of the globe which includes China, parts of Russia and Middle East oil fields. Central Australia was chosen because it was too remote for spy ships passing in international waters to intercept the signal.:p xxi The facility has become a key part of the local economy.
also seems if Indonesia wants to get feisty with Australia they would do well to remember our mutual defense pact between united states and Australia
U.S./Republic of the Philippines (Mutual Defense Treaty, 1951) U.S./Australia/New Zealand (ANZUS – U.S., 1952) U.S./Republic of Korea (Mutual Defense Treaty, 1954) U.S./Japan (Mutual Defense Treaty, 1960)
so any attack on Australia will be answered by the usa among other nations (uk france etc)
In addition, PACOM's area of responsibility covers Taiwan whose defense relationship with the United States is governed by the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. Furthermore, while the SEATO organization was disestablished in the late 1970s, SEACDT, the Collective Defense Treaty, still formally binds the U.S., France, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, and the Philippines.