History Thread of Going Back in Time

[benji]

I know Joe likes some History, tis mah career, I'm sure there's others.

Anyway, thought I'd start the thread due to some stuff I was reading. We can split off into topical threads if there actually turns out to be interest that warrant it.

I know there's a number of Aussies on here, and we had an ANZAC Day thread. I was wondering how much common knowledge there is Aussieland about the Brisbane Line. It's one of those "completely reasonable in retrospect but politically damaging at the time" things from my POV.

And yes, you can Google and Wiki it. I was just wondering if has anywhere near the popular recognization as ANZAC Day. (I already know what Americans don't know about History.)

Oh, and feel free to hijack this thread for anything "history" related. History = hott shit.

[Matthew]

Is it possible to be more vague?

[benji]

Eh? I'm not sure where I was vague. Unless the "Brisbane Line" has multiple meanings for Aussies. I mean it could be googled or Wikied as I said. But I guess I'll be more specific.

I was interested in the World War II era plan (which was not universally accepted, especially as the war progressed) where if the Japanese invaded, the Aussies and Allied Forces would employ scorched earth tactics back to the "Brisbane Line" and resist the Japanese forces from there. And whether or not Aussies knew of this from the history classes, in general, etc.

[The X]

I had never heard of it before you mentioned it....the main ANZAC (Australia and New Zealand Army Corps for the people who didn't know) themes covered in history are Gallipoli Campaign (for Australia, especially The Battle of Lone Pine, & for New Zealand, I'd say the The Battle of Chunuk Bair)....that's where the ANZAC spirit begun....

obviously there has been many campaigns since, like in Egypt, Kokoda (PNG) etc....

but yeah, never heard anything about the "Brisbane Line" before now....

[shadowgrin]

I'm not surprised it's not generally taught or known of, with words like these:

I was interested in the World War II era plan (which was not universally accepted, especially as the war progressed) where if the Japanese invaded, the Aussies and Allied Forces would employ scorched earth tactics back to the "Brisbane Line" and resist the Japanese forces from there. And whether or not Aussies knew of this from the history classes, in general, etc.

[[Q]]

I'm not surprised it's not generally taught or known of, with words like these:

I was interested in the World War II era plan (which was not universally accepted, especially as the war progressed) where if the Japanese invaded, the Aussies and Allied Forces would employ scorched earth tactics back to the "Brisbane Line" and resist the Japanese forces from there. And whether or not Aussies knew of this from the history classes, in general, etc.

just like it's not generally taught or known that American citizens are taken to prison camps during World War II on American soil.

[Joe']

The Brisbane Line isn't subject of general knowledge because

a) there isn't sufficient evidence it wasn't just a myth,

b) even if it wasn't a myth, it was highly improbable it was ever going to be put to use, I mean the Japanese never really had an interest in attacking Australia (they would have had to pull men from other fronts and put them in one that was useless to say the least.) And if they did attack, considering they had a much more competent navy than they did an army, I don't think they would have begun their invasion attacking Darwin, as alleged, or any of the Northern Territory, I think they would've gone with a direct attack on the British/Aussie fleets in the main ports in southern part of the continent

c) World War II had many "forgotten" battles which have always been obscured by the main confrontations. It is plausible a myth such as the Brisbane Line isn't common knowledge for Australians and others alike.

[shadowgrin]

I like the google ads displayed in this thread:

"Meet Military Singles Today!"
UsMilitarySingles.com
Search Now!"

[benji]

I don't see how you can definitively determine it is a myth, instead of a misinterpretation. It could have been improbable to ever have been deployed, but I don't think a government refutation of, a controversial with the public, plan is any more trusthworthy than MacArthur and his associates who seem to think it was plausable enough to exist.

And Japan probably had no interest in the undertaking based on the cost-benefit ratio. (Although they did have interest in isolating Aussieland.) But it's completely understandable that in early 1942 when they were at their height of power and had struck at the U.S., the Aussies would be concerned about Japanese actions against Aussieland proper.

just like it's not generally taught or known that American citizens are taken to prison camps during World War II on American soil.

I don't know about that, I thought the Japanese Internment at least was standard curriculum in most of the country.

Although FDR is still portrayed as a great man, and the internment necessary because of that, instead of a dictator.

[Matthew]

Eh? I'm not sure where I was vague. Unless the "Brisbane Line" has multiple meanings for Aussies. I mean it could be googled or Wikied as I said. But I guess I'll be more specific.

When you make a thread to talk about history, anything could be discussed. I could talk about what I had for breakfast, for example. I'm not trying to ruin your thread of "hott shit" but I'm saying it's vague. It'd be like me making a thread in NBA talk saying "hey talk about basketball here"...

[Joe']

I never definitely determined it was a myth, there just isn't enough evidence to prove the plan actually ever existed.

I don't completely agree on your statement. While I agree Australia's preoccupation is understandable, I believe you could say they were over-concerned, alarmist. They wittingly and greatly exaggerated the danger Japan set on them.

The Japanese never planned to launch a campaign against Australia. As you said, all they intended to do was isolate Australia from the US, by invading Midway, in a battle the Aussies didn't participate to. The so-called Battle for Australia was almost entirely fought in New Guinea. You could actually make an argument the US and the Netherlands were more involved in the Battle for Australia than Australia itself.

On a side note, how did Menzies manage to stay in office for over sixteen years?

In response to the "vague thread" accusations: I don't see how it's vague, it's a thread about history in general, a topic has been set by Benji and a new one will be set by whoever wants to participate once we get tired of the current one...

[Matthew]

Wow someone takes himself a little too seriously. Japan never planned to launch a campaign against Australia? The explains the attack on Darwin and the Submarine attacks along the west coast. And yeah, Japan was really going to stop at New Guinea. It must of been just a creation by the media! Maybe Australia should apologise to them too.

The reason for America being more involved in the battle for Australia is Australia had sent the majority of its troops to Europe to help Britain. When they requested them back, Britain refused. America helped defend Australia and this led to a changing of alliances. Australia really didn't have a strong relationship with America pre ww2.

What was wrong with Menzies being in office for 16 years? John Howard was PM for 12 years, Bob Hawk had a long run as well. I don't see why you're curious about this?

[Andrew]

I've heard of it but I don't remember it ever being mentioned in school. I did Modern History in Years 11 and 12 but the topics we covered focused on Germany and Hitler's rise to power with a side study of Albert Speer, so we weren't studying Australia's involvement. I did study Australian history earlier in high school but to the best of my recollection it wasn't touched upon.

[benji]

When you make a thread to talk about history, anything could be discussed.

Well that was kinda the point...as Joe has it:

I don't see how it's vague, it's a thread about history in general, a topic has been set by Benji and a new one will be set by whoever wants to participate once we get tired of the current one..

My apologies for not explaining it better. I was intending it as an all purpose thread, where the topic currently is Aussieland in WWII. But once that dies, someone could revive it in a couple days or whatever to bring up a new "historical" topic.

I never definitely determined it was a myth

This came close to sounding like it:

It is plausible a myth such as the Brisbane Line isn't common knowledge for Australians and others alike.

As you said, all they intended to do was isolate Australia from the US, by invading Midway, in a battle the Aussies didn't participate to.

IIRC, Midway has nothing to do with Aussieland. It was intended to deliver the second knockout blow to the American navy due to its location. Which is pretty far from Aussieland. Port Moresby would be the one I'm thinking of.

I don't see why you're curious about this?

I think it may be because Labour wins around 50% of the vote in a bunch of those elections. Yet Menzies continues to be PM due to his coalition. I don't think it's that odd, since Labour doesn't come back until 1972. And Menzies headed up the party.

[cyanide]

When you make a thread to talk about history, anything could be discussed. I could talk about what I had for breakfast, for example. I'm not trying to ruin your thread of "hott shit" but I'm saying it's vague. It'd be like me making a thread in NBA talk saying "hey talk about basketball here"...

Except your breakfast wouldn't be "history" by conventional terms, and there's no History thread while there is a NBA Talk thread. I think benji made himself pretty clear.

[Joe']

Wow someone takes himself a little too seriously. Japan never planned to launch a campaign against Australia? The explains the attack on Darwin and the Submarine attacks along the west coast. And yeah, Japan was really going to stop at New Guinea. It must of been just a creation by the media! Maybe Australia should apologise to them too.

The reason for America being more involved in the battle for Australia is Australia had sent the majority of its troops to Europe to help Britain. When they requested them back, Britain refused. America helped defend Australia and this led to a changing of alliances. Australia really didn't have a strong relationship with America pre ww2.

Look, you obviously have your opinion on the matter, I have mine. But while there actually is proof the Japanese never intended to lead an invasion of mainland Australia, there is none to back up your theory/opinion.

A plan was proposed but it was discarded immediately as it consisted in pulling army soldiers from the Chinese front and putting them in one where the possibility of victory was much lower and where, as Benji said, the cost-benefit ratio wasn't exactly favorable to them.

The air raids on Darwin and Broome? You pretend me to believe they're good enough causes the Japanese intended to invade Australia? They lasted give or take 36-40 hours, combined. And one occurred more than a month after the other, excluding the possibility the two attacks were both part of the same plan.

I would have given you the attack on Sidney Harbor, but still it doesn't, at all, make me change my opinion. I still believe the Japanese's purpose was to simply restrain the Allied forces and not to invade Australia. I still don't think the South West Pacific was one of the main theaters in WWII, let alone mainland Australia.

What was wrong with Menzies being in office for 16 years? John Howard was PM for 12 years, Bob Hawk had a long run as well. I don't see why you're curious about this?

Nothing wrong with it, I'm just curious because it's a hell of a long time. I'm not at all familiar with Australian politics, and most countries have elections every four to five years (two to three years here in Italy considering how fucked up the coalition system is) and the candidates can't serve more than two terms so I was just wondering what kind of election system was in force in Australia at the time...

[Matthew]

Look, you obviously have your opinion on the matter, I have mine. But while there actually is proof the Japanese never intended to lead an invasion of mainland Australia, there is none to back up your theory/opinion.

There is proof, not opinion, of your opinion?

If you look at it logically, Japan was moving its way down East Asia. Why would they stop at New Guinea and not move into Australia? Why would they attack Australia? It's awfully naive to think "hey they wouldn't attack us..." when, in a war, they had moved all the way down the Pacific and for what? To be closer neighbours with Australia? I don't think so.

The air raids on Darwin and Broome? You pretend me to believe they're good enough causes the Japanese intended to invade Australia? They lasted give or take 36-40 hours, combined. And one occurred more than a month after the other, excluding the possibility the two attacks were both part of the same plan.

Excuse me? They did invade Australia. They might of realised at this point a ground invasion would not work, but they still invaded here.

I know that you probably didn't understand that so I shall spread it out for you:

Japan

invaded

Australia.

Understood?

I would have given you the attack on Sidney Harbor, but still it doesn't, at all, make me change my opinion. I still believe the Japanese's purpose was to simply restrain the Allied forces and not to invade Australia. I still don't think the South West Pacific was one of the main theaters in WWII, let alone mainland Australia.

It was a main theatre for the Australian mainland but I am yet to see anyone say it was as significant as some of the battles in France or Russia.

What is interesting is you say "Australia was overacting, there is no proof that Japan wanted to invade Australia", almost implying that people assume incorrectly that Japan was making its move to control not just Australia but virtually every country in East Asia. But then you jump to the conclusion that people think that the fighting in Timor and Guinea was a significant part of ww2 when compared to some of the battles in Europe.

Nothing wrong with it, I'm just curious because it's a hell of a long time. I'm not at all familiar with Australian politics, and most countries have elections every four to five years (two to three years here in Italy considering how fucked up the coalition system is) and the candidates can't serve more than two terms so I was just wondering what kind of election system was in force in Australia at the time...

The way it works is once a Government is formed, they can call elections whenever they want within 4 years. If they don't, elections will be forced so you cant have one term more then 4 years.

Australian voters, myself included, aren't typically passionate about politics. We vote because it is mandatory. So when things are going ok, and the prime minister or premier of the individual states, aren't completely arrogant, they tend to be voted back in. Quality of the opposition is also a reason for voting; "well i dont like the current Prime Minister, but he's better then the opposition so I'll vote him back in.."

Now I wasn't around so I can't say why Menzies had such a long run, but it isn't that unusual for Australian Prime Ministers to have long runs.

[benji]

Nothing wrong with it, I'm just curious because it's a hell of a long time. I'm not at all familiar with Australian politics, and most countries have elections every four to five years (two to three years here in Italy considering how fucked up the coalition system is) and the candidates can't serve more than two terms so I was just wondering what kind of election system was in force in Australia at the time...

It's British-style parliamentary. As long as the party stays in power, the party leader can be PM. And as I said above, the coalition never broke up, and dominated from 1949-1972.

[Andrew]

Nothing wrong with it, I'm just curious because it's a hell of a long time. I'm not at all familiar with Australian politics, and most countries have elections every four to five years (two to three years here in Italy considering how fucked up the coalition system is) and the candidates can't serve more than two terms so I was just wondering what kind of election system was in force in Australia at the time...

In addition to what Matthew and Ben have said, there's no limits on how many terms a prime minister can serve so as long as the elections keep going your way, you (or at least your party) will remain in government.

[Joe']

There is proof, not opinion, of your opinion?

Yes, actually there is proof. Research has found the Japanese never intended to lead an invasion in mainland Australia, and most historians would agree with me. It's common knowledge pretty much anywhere in the world that while Australians played an important role in WWII (in both North Africa and Sicily,) Australia did not.

If you look at it logically, Japan was moving its way down East Asia. Why would they stop at New Guinea and not move into Australia? Why would they attack Australia? It's awfully naive to think "hey they wouldn't attack us..." when, in a war, they had moved all the way down the Pacific and for what? To be closer neighbours with Australia? I don't think so.

If you look at it logically, Japan could've never supported even just one division in Australia. The closest Japanese port to Darwin is Osaka. Osaka is over 3,000 miles away from Darwin, even more from Sydney or the ACT.

Considering in the 40's it would take about a month and a half to travel that distance, that's three months (or 90 days) to make a round trip. Assuming the Japanese only needed three ships per week to support one division (the US needed six ships a week to support one division,) that's twenty-seven ships needed to support one tiny division in Darwin.

Of course more ships would've been needed if they decided to invade Sydney, and of course, you can't lead an invasion with just one division (consider the Japanese were struggling in China with over four, and Nazi Germany needed over 100 divisions to invade France) especially an invasion of a place as big as Australia, strategically impossible to invade in any practical way in that time period, particularly considering the British and Americans were stationed there.

Australia wasn't a major enemy to Japan, the US was. What they planned to do was invade all the major surroundings to isolate Australia, therefore preventing it from being used by as a base for American forces.

Excuse me? They did invade Australia. They might of realised at this point a ground invasion would not work, but they still invaded here.

I know that you probably didn't understand that so I shall spread it out for you:

Japan

invaded

Australia.

Understood?

Unless the word "invasion" has a different meaning in Australian/British English than it does in American English, the Japanese did not invade Australia. They bombed Darwin, yes, but they did not lead an invasion.

It was a main theatre for the Australian mainland but I am yet to see anyone say it was as significant as some of the battles in France or Russia.

That's because it was not. The battles in France and Russia determined the fate of this planet. Tens of millions died. The bombing of a city in a place irrelevant to the war and a few submarine attacks, not to mention talks of an invasion that was never planned don't have the same effect on the world.

[shadowgrin]

I have to agree with Joe.
The Japanese had no balls in invading Australia, what with it's massive kangaroo army, deadly ninja koalas, dingo guerillas, and all.

[Matthew]

There is proof, not opinion, of your opinion?

Yes, actually there is proof. Research has found the Japanese never intended to lead an invasion in mainland Australia, and most historians would agree with me. It's common knowledge pretty much anywhere in the world that while Australians played an important role in WWII (in both North Africa and Sicily,) Australia did not.

I never disputed that Australia wasn't a big theatre in WW2. I'm saying there is no proof of your theory that Japan never invaded Australia, because they did.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasion

"1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army. "

Darwin, and the West coast of Australia is Australia.

Sorry.

If you look at it logically, Japan could've never supported even just one division in Australia. The closest Japanese port to Darwin is Osaka. Osaka is over 3,000 miles away from Darwin, even more from Sydney or the ACT.

Considering in the 40's it would take about a month and a half to travel that distance, that's three months (or 90 days) to make a round trip. Assuming the Japanese only needed three ships per week to support one division (the US needed six ships a week to support one division,) that's twenty-seven ships needed to support one tiny division in Darwin.

Of course more ships would've been needed if they decided to invade Sydney, and of course, you can't lead an invasion with just one division (consider the Japanese were struggling in China with over four, and Nazi Germany needed over 100 divisions to invade France) especially an invasion of a place as big as Australia, strategically impossible to invade in any practical way in that time period, particularly considering the British and Americans were stationed there.

Australia wasn't a major enemy to Japan, the US was. What they planned to do was invade all the major surroundings to isolate Australia, therefore preventing it from being used by as a base for American forces.

And Germany had no chance of capturing Russia, whilst bombing the bejesus out of England and trying to maintain a hold on France but yet they still tried.

That's because it was not. The battles in France and Russia determined the fate of this planet. Tens of millions died. The bombing of a city in a place irrelevant to the war and a few submarine attacks, not to mention talks of an invasion that was never planned don't have the same effect on the world.

Nobody. Said. It. Was.

They sky is blue

Nobody said it wasn't.

BUT THE SKY IS BLUE!!!!

[benji]

The battles in France and Russia determined the fate of this planet.

Most would argue only the battles in Russia did. When the Germans failed in Stalingrad they lost the war. D-Day just ensured that Soviet control of Europe stopped midway through the continent.

and Nazi Germany needed over 100 divisions to invade France

I wouldn't say they "needed" that many. The Germans learned from WWI and believed in the overwhelming force doctrine. That's why everyone in Europe fell so quickly.

It's like in any strategy game. You see your opponent has 40 units. Sure you can win with 60, but if you can, why not build 200 to steamroll them quicker?

And especially when everyone apparently couldn't foresee the Germans again coming through Belgium. It only almost resulted in the fall of Paris last time, surely they'd never try it again! (As always, I am simplifying all historical stuff slightly for mass consumption.)

And Germany had no chance of capturing Russia

Actually I'd say they did have a bit of a chance, but they screwed it up. They should've broke the treaty earlier. They might have been able to subdue the Soviets enough to reach some sort of favorable treaty as in WWI. It would've left a Cold War where Germany controlled Europe, with the Soviets as a constant threat on the border. But they could've knocked them out for a period.

Alternatively, they could've simply worked out some form of an agreement with the Soviets and given them Eastern Europe as payment. Forming an anti-US/UK axis. And ditching Japan.

trying to maintain a hold on France but yet they still tried.

Really, until D-Day, the Germans had zero problems holding France. They weren't even wasting major resources on the occupation despite the French Resistance. It's why the Soviets were so pissed off over the constant US delays in opening a Western Front. The Germans faced so little Western troubles they could throw everything against the Soviets. There was no reason for the Germans to even reach as far as Stalingrad, except that they could direct everything at them, especially after losing interest in doing anything against the British.

Not to trivalize the Western Front obviously, especially some things like the Bulge and Market Garden. But it didn't really matter much on the outcome. It certainly sped things up, but the Soviets probably would've finished the job alone in 1945. The Allies pushed so fast through the West because all of the Germans were in the Soviet Union getting owned.

Didn't mean to jump on one sentence of yours Matthew, just started rambling off of it as it was related to what Joe had said that I responded to first.

[Matthew]

I don't mind. I'm not a big world war 2 fan, so I don't know a great deal about it. But wouldn't it have made more sense for them, if they were going to take Russia, and they were beginning to lose to put more resources in their? Especially when you use the "have 200 to streamroll your enemy rather then 60 to win" argument.

That was my point. Germany tried too much at one time and as you pointed out a bad time. If they planned it better, they could of achieved what they set out to imo.

[Joe']

I never disputed that Australia wasn't a big theatre in WW2. I'm saying there is no proof of your theory that Japan never invaded Australia, because they did.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasion

"1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army. "

Darwin, and the West coast of Australia is Australia.

Sorry.

invade |inˈvād|
verb [ trans. ]
(of an armed force or its commander) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it

Japan never "entered" or "occupied" Australia as far as I know... A few air raids and a submarine attack months distant one from the other don't qualify as "occupying," therefore they don't qualify as "invading."

And Germany had no chance of capturing Russia, whilst bombing the bejesus out of England and trying to maintain a hold on France but yet they still tried.

The Nazis had what many would argue was the best army in modern history, Japan struggled in Manchuria and lost pretty much every confrontation in the Pacific subsequent to 1943.

Nobody. Said. It. Was.

They sky is blue

Nobody said it wasn't.

BUT THE SKY IS BLUE!!!!

Calm. The hell. Down.

I wouldn't say they "needed" that many. The Germans learned from WWI and believed in the overwhelming force doctrine. That's why everyone in Europe fell so quickly.

It's like in any strategy game. You see your opponent has 40 units. Sure you can win with 60, but if you can, why not build 200 to steamroll them quicker?

And especially when everyone apparently couldn't foresee the Germans again coming through Belgium. It only almost resulted in the fall of Paris last time, surely they'd never try it again! (As always, I am simplifying all historical stuff slightly for mass consumption.)

My bad, I should have picked a better combination of words. Still, my point stands, you can't lead the invasion of a huge country like Australia with just one division.