Darwin, 1942: Remembering Australia's 'Pearl Harbor'

reply to post by Jace26


Greetings,

LOL... give that man a cigar!!!

No, no date, just that when "IT" happens, I presume WW3, and when China decides to expand its borders...perhaps TIED to its claim for the ENTIRE South China Sea...?? (my speculation)

It was kinda weird.. because I tossed in that I was going to move to Australia to live there with my wife. Then Mr Deyo... started asking me questions about OZ, and where, and that he had family down there, etc..

Then he rapidly tossed out the thing about the coming invasion...for Oz.. I was kinda blown away by his comment, but not surprised, as I have my own "doubts" about Chinas future peaceful nature...and was going to bring the conversation around to the original question and answer... but then didnt want to be a radio show host "PIG".. Mr. Deyo had agreed to hold over for his scheduled hour by demand.. and I got in to him in the holdover period.. so kinda quickly got off the interview so maybe someone else might get a question in to the guest speaker..before they closed it, and moved on.... I think he stayed for 1hr 20 min, originally scheduled for just the 1 hour window.

I am still learning this website, and as of yet cant find where they archive a particular radio show... I listen to the replays sometimes... not sure they archive radio shows as of yet.. but it was a good one! lol...

Nobody knows what the "bad guys" are up to unless you are one of the bad guys, or have a "printed program" and map of the plans. When wars break out, they historically kinda go their own direction, the thumb of control gets slippery sometimes.

If China ever decides to go on a resource consolidation expansion war campaign, due to its own desires, or by necessity due to BLOCKADE like the world did to Japan, and caused Japan to lash out.. (Japan was baited)..

But IF China ever decides to take over territory, for whatever reasons... they will make Japans conquest look small.

Pravdaseeker

Originally posted by daaskapital

You have only read what the US history books tell you, and we all know, the Americans aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed when it comes to history.

When you say this:

"I guess history books are written by the most important, and most victorious..."

Are you implying that the USA is the most important country? Believe me, the USA, hasn't really done anything important besides the limited op's in the Pacific. They entered at the end of both world wars, to give off the illusion that they helped, when in all seriousness, the enemies were practically defeated, by the other allied forces (France, Britain, Australia, and many more).

That's not what I am saying at all.

First off, I have studied internationally, and read history texts written by both United States historians such as Traditions and Encounters, written by University of Hawaii professor Jerry Bentley, and international textbooks, such as Howard Spodek's World History 4th Edition (English professor). So, lets not call me an "ignorant American" simply because I live in America. Painting with a broad brush are we?

Let's start with your claim that the American's did very little to help in the world wars..
World War 1: Sure, we were a young nation, flexing our military muscles on the international stage for just the second or third time in our history. We supplied over 600,000 troops to a struggling, deprived allied force, although it is true we saw very little combat (outside of the Argonne region). Also, we supplied millions, if not billions in aid, to both sides, up until ~1917 when we completely cut off aid to the Axis. Should we look at the Committee for Relief in Belgium, one of hundreds of programs sponsored by the U.S government, in which we supplied the most aid out of any nation to help the Belgium people survive and resist the German Occupation.

World War 2:

We entered the war two years into its start, officially declaring war on December 8th, 1941, the war beginning officially on September 1, 1939. Over the course of its 6 year span, the United States would supply over 16 million troops to the fight, including 61 divisions in the European, 14 in the Mediterranean and 21 in the Pacific. So, the United States actually provided almost a million soldiers in the European theater...

Please, let us not forget the Lend-Lease Act which allowed English and French forces to essentially trades useless, poorly-manned bases, for ships and weapons to fight their enemies with. Or maybe the Cash-Carry provision of the Neutrality Acts that allowed for the U.S to help aid (although relatively unsuccessfully) any nation that agreed to use its own shipping.

I could point out more, but I think your claim that the United States' "hasn't done anything important" is ignorant to history.

Also, I do believe the United States to be an important player in world affairs. Perhaps I overstepped claiming it was "the most important" and for that I apologize. Although, behind Russia, who else would you consider the most important factor in the allied victories in World War I and II?

Darwin was clearly known to Japan, who were adamant in invading Australia. The reason as to why they didn't was because of the defeat they had against Australian forces in New Guinea.

www.ozatwar.com...

Furthermore, there was not only 1 bombing on Darwin, but 64. Does this indicate to you that Darwin was important? It was obviously important to the Japanese

www.ozatwar.com...

Sure, the Japanese were adamant on invading Australia, at this I make no qualms. It was the cause of the Battle of the Coral Sea. It was the primary reason for the invasion of Borneo, Indonesia and the Marshall Islands. However, Darwin was not important when it was attacked the first time. Also, the first attacks on Darwin were NOT a precursor to an invasion.

At the time many Australians believed that the Japanese planned to invade Australia. Many experts today, however, believe that the Japanese plan was to wipe out as much of Australia's and the Allied Forces air and sea defence in order to gain control of the resource rich countries of South East Asia and establish strong defences against any counter-attacks from the USA, Australia and any European powers in the region.

Link


Written by the Australian Government... so much for American's skewed perspective...

Now, I will credit you. It does mention that the attacks killed between 900-1100 people but that was over almost two years of fighting. Nothing to the ~2 hours that comprised Pearl Harbor.

Underlying again, the ignorance of Americans.

Way to paint us all with a broad brush. When in fact your attacks on my intelligence are not only disrespectful, but ignorant.

reply to post by daaskapital

Are you implying that the USA is the most important country? Believe me, the USA, hasn't really done anything important besides the limited op's in the Pacific. They entered at the end of both world wars, to give off the illusion that they helped, when in all seriousness, the enemies were practically defeated, by the other allied forces (France, Britain, Australia, and many more).

Darwin was clearly known to Japan, who were adamant in invading Australia. The reason as to why they didn't was because of the defeat they had against Australian forces in New Guinea.

I'll pile on to this one too, in reference to WWII.

In Africa, the American landing was decisive. Rommel and MacArthur had been chasing each other back and forth, back and forth for 3 years and accomplishing exactly didly squat except keeping each others troops out of Europe (and the German's out of the Middle East oil fields, of course). When he got to Sicily, at the first sign of resistance, MacArthur wanted to stop and plan for a couple of months. Patton ignored him and forced him to press on or be humiliated.

The Invasion of Europe was fundamentally an American operation that was "allowed" to happen only because England had defeated the German Air Force, with American planes (and British planes too, but the American planes were the ones that tipped the balance).

The Pacific War was won by American's almost solo. The Aussies stopped the Japanese in New Guinea, the first time they were stopped anywhere, and certainly a lot more noteworthy than the British efforts. Churchill basically abandoned Burma, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, etc. The Australian Prime Minister had to tell Churchill to go fornicate himself when he insisted that more Australian troops should be sent to the Middle East.

But it was the Battle of the Coral Sea that was the turning point of the Pacific War, causing a Japanese Invasion Fleet to turn back for the first time. This removed pressure on the Australian supply lines and allowed the Aussies to stop the Japanese on the Kokoda trail - the first time the Japanese were stopped on the ground. But stopping the Japanese on the ground was a long way from defeating them altogether and ending the war.

Coral Sea also crippled the Japanese Fleet for the Midway invasion. For all intents and purposes, Midway broke the back of the Japanese Navy and made the result inevitable.

The Pacific War was virtually all American. Yes there were others involved, especially Australians who did extremely important work in New Guinea, but they certainly didn't 'have the war won' before the Americans got there.

The European War was a true partnership between many nations, with the English destruction of the Luftwaffe a key to eventual success. But again, the English and the other allies had no hope at all of launching an invasion.

reply to post by isthisreallife

Now, I will credit you. It does mention that the attacks killed between 900-1100 people but that was over almost two years of fighting. Nothing to the ~2 hours that comprised Pearl Harbor.

Actually, in just the first attack (3 waves I think) there were more bombs dropped on Darwin than on Pearl Harbor, and more ships sunk. It is quite possible that that 900-1100 figure relates to just that first day. While not comparable to the entire complement of the Arizona at Pearl, it is way more than the Australians would admit to for decades.