If Japan had not attacked pearl harbour, they could have crushed the australians with impunity, and probably gather up new zealand and tasmania along the way. Sydney and Melbourne would have become japanese towns with japanese names, and who could imagine what they would do to the caucasian population after all that hatred they feel towards westerners. Does anyone know of any novels which describe such alternative history?
shareI don't mean to be rude, but do you have any idea what you're talking about? What the hell have the Americans got to do with Kododa? They didn't fight there.
shareYou seriously do not take into account the sheer logistics of what you are saying.
Japan suceeded in attacking small island nations who were not part of a larger alliance as australia was. The fact that they could only take a small part of china and not the rest of it shows how difficult it is to actually attack and HOLD a nation of large size. Not to mention Australia being mostly desert. The difficulty of defending that kind of terrain is one of the reasons the US are having difficulty in iraq. Back in ww2 it was common for an army that crossed a desert to lose up to a quarter of its men to the elements alone, let alone the enemy.
Also any occupation by japan would be tenuous at best. Since Australia is so far away from japan, the supply lines would be so long as to make it easy targets for guerilla warfare and airial bombardment.
Not to mention the fact that Australians were the best soldiers in ww2, often used as shock troops by the british to break german lines. You only use the best of the best to do that. Thats why our casualty rate is the highest out of any allied country in ww2. If you have that type of soldier fighting to defend his own land, he is worth ten of the enemy. Perhaps more.
Visit America, Before America visits you - US Tourism Board
[deleted]
[deleted]
hah australians are cannon fodder. Yanks use you as meat shields. ROFL!
Good fighters? I will have to concede but at least the japanese were not only good, but smart fighters.
Anyway, the yanks won world war 2 for everyone else. End of story.
[deleted]
I think the Russians, and the rest of the soldiers of the world would have something to say about that my friend.
It is a well known fact that the Eastern front which the Russians were victorious on sucked all the troops away from the Western front. The Germans were more worried about Russia than Britain or America.
So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, is that the world thanks Russia more so than America or Britain for WW2 victory. I will also like to add that not only were the Australians the first to beat the Japs on land but were also the first to defeat and halt Rommels Afrika Korps.
Lastly your words referring to Australians as "cannon fodder" only serve to betray your self promotion as some "educated" person. Australian troops fought for their country and territory (PNG was Australian territory) which every Australian is severely proud of. Belittling the efforts of men such as this only make you look like a weak, mean spirited American elitist.
Unfortunatley the Us soldier is by far a pretty ordinary soldier.
My father has been a soldier all is life and is currently training troops iraq. He points to the fact that US soldiers have a student to teacher ratio that is much higher than other countries who prefer to have a better equiped and better trained smaller army. The latter are more effective.
According to Sun Tzu - "attacking with sheer weight of numbers will not necessarily defeat a better equiped, trained and determined smaller foe."
The fact that everyone outside of the english speaking world is afraid of or outright hates the US due to its fascist empire building foreign policy just makes the poor US soldier in the field a greater target.
Australia recently invaded a nation - east timor and had very few casualties. Unlike the US who have led a multi national force into a dangerous situation that have got a lot of their troops killed, Australia led a multinational force - New Zealand, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, Norway, Philippines, Portugal, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand and faired much better. Australian soldiers suffered very few casualties against the indonesian-aided militia because they are better trained, ARE NOT GUNG HO IDIOTS, and actually made sure the strategic justification of being there in the first place WAS ACTUALLY SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL POPULATION.
America might actually bother to study the effective use of military force for a change, instead of blundering stupidly into unnecessary wars to profit the wealthy elite who keep the rest of america illiterate and hungry. It is the poor working class boys from places like texas, alabama, florida and new orleans that are the real CANNON FODDER.
In the case of Iraq, trying to force a central democratic authority onto a people who for thousands of years have been governed based on the de centralised co operation of a lot small autonomous tribal groups is about as stupid as trying to push a square peg through a round hole. But then these are american leaders we are talking about and who needs logic or a conscience when youre lining your pockets ...
Visit America, Before America visits you - US Tourism Board
To the Yank sack of *beep* that initated this post. Your ignorance vindicates the notion that Americans are fat headed arrogant *beep* bags. Australian soldiers were fighting both the Germans in North Africa and the Japanese in the Jungles of SE Asia for 2 *beep* years before the Yanks had the war brought to them at Pearl harbour. Australian troops held Tobruk from the undefeated Rommel for 6 months and were the first ones to beat back the Japs on land at Isurava.
The soldiers who fought the Japanese in the jungles of PNG were militia, formed hastily and poorly equipt and with minimal training; this fact only serves to excentuate the feats accomplished by these men.
The invasion of Australia at the time was a threat, but if you had the inclination to actually pick up an atlas you would have an understanding of the distances that have to be covered by an invading force of Australia at the time. This in turn creates logistical issues which have been found to be beyond the scope of the Japanese forces at the time. The Japenese in Papua New Guinea were at the end of a very long supply chain, they werent able to move on to Port Moresby due to supply constraints and other factors such as the toll tropical warefare places on men and machines. The suggestion that New Zealand would be "gobbled up" is laughable at best.
Deriding these men as "Cannon foder" shows ignorance of even America's history, if Australian soldiers were cannon fodder in WW2 for the yanks then what were american soldiers in Vietnam????? 500,000 troops, 53,000 come home in body bags, probably double that wounded and maimed. Australia contributed 50,000 troops to that conflict between 1965 and 1973 of which there were 500 KIA. Ever heard of a battle called Long Tan??? Probably not.
For a more contemporary example Australian SAS played a pivitol role in ensuring that alot of Americans suvived Tora Bora in Afghanistan, didnt you clowns let Osama get away then??? During the opening stages of that glorious piece of Geo-strategic brilliance Operation Iraqi freedom Australians were tasked with securing large tracts of western Iraq. Again how many americans have needlessly perished there? It would be pushing about 2200+ and another 11,000 wounded to varying degrees. The difference bewteen me and you mate is that I wont belittle them as "cannon fodder", the point was made in another post these soldiers are from poor areas, how many politicians or Haliburton executives have kids serving in the streets of Samara, Tikrit or Bagdhad?? By your deffinition these poor guys are cannon fodder for some *beep* corporations profits.
Get a *beep* life and pull your head out of your national collective *beep* you ignorant *beep* bag.
"were the first ones to beat back the Japs on land at Isurava."
The holding action at Isurava was a great feat of arms but not a victory
for the Australians.
The Isurava position was ultimately lost to the Japanese or abandoned
so as not to be overrun.
The first defeat on land for the Japanese was at Milne Bay.
And some americans wonder why they get such crap of people.The aussies were superb in this battle,and me being a brit(though half irish),i am so glad they stood shoulder to shoulder with us in ww2,just wish some american check ther own military *beep* ups first before ranting and raving,you guys have like everyone had just as many bad times and belive it or not are not invincible.
shareI'm guessing you're just a 15yo american kid. Am I right? Or is it just that you American's really are just thick. History documents that US soldiers turned and ran from the Japanese in Papua. Even the knob-head MacArthur acknowledged the fact and prefered Australian troops to combat the Japs. Not bad when you consider it was a militia (later backed up by the AIF) that held the Japs. Those poor Americans must have been frightened!
shareLets be fair Australian milita units ran from the Japanese at Isurava
history documents that as well.
but it still remains FACT that the Japanese fighters would have overrun australia if they didn't attack pearl harbour and instigate the yanks.
shareI just read some of your other posts on IMDB.
You're a f ucking idiot!
Ah!...Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
not really. actually, no. What does my sexual opinions have to do with the military? you're an idiot. Go beat off and release some of that tension, then come back. I'm sure its been 3 hours since your last wank boy.
share[deleted]
It doesn't matter what you think, like I said, you're a f ucking idiot!
Mostly, but not only because, your thoughts immediately leapt to visions of me beating off, you saucy devil, but because on this board's subject matter you know nothing and are therefore a f ucking idiot!
Ah!...Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
like I said, go beat off foo'
u don't wanna keep him waiting, he's all over you already, You're whiny like a princess with PMS
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz...................you f ucking idiot!
Ah!...Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
zzzzzzz you
shareLet me call a truce here. I may have been a little hard on you and your lack of historical knowledge. But the reason is that I am utterly pissed off with loud-mouthed yanks sounding off about how how the world owes them a living and it's eternal gratitude.
Apparently in the US it must be acceptable to big-note yourself and brag about your own high opinion of yourself. There was a time when that was considered ill-mannered, boorish and extremely low behaviour. In most of the world it still is.
Your post amounted to one of these and I've had enough, as would anyone whose ears are constatly assailed by strangers shouting at them about how good they think temselves to be.
The facts of this post are: After WW2 it was learned that Japan never had any intention of including Australia in the "Great South East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere". The reason being that Australia, Like Russia, is defended by it's own expansive and harsh geography. That is why even today our defence rests on a comparatively large submarine force (for a small country) and an airforce capable of carrying harpoon missiles. All to sink any troop carrying force trying to land on the East Coast, which any invader must do. To come from the north would be tantamount to trying to cross the Sahara desert. The Japanese couldn't and so didn't. Australia is a f ucking big, hard country.
Australian forces gave Japan it's first defeat at Milne Bay, New Guinea and we don't need f ucking loud mouthed yanks horning in on a movie about our heritage's glory with shouts about how we owe everything to them.
I do not know of any books with the scenario that they did succeed in invading, sorry.
Ah!...Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
actually now that you sound more even minded, I respect you :)
nah I was just saying that the Japanese would ahve defeated the Australians, if not for american rescources (then someone had to bring up that whole old yanky thing - if you guys think yanks are so stupid, why are they treated like bronzed gods in australia especially by the sheilas? - but no pun intended). This was very probable in that the australians were dangerously undermanned and under equipped. Therefore, it was Pearl Harbour that saved the brave Australians. If Japan has invaded Australia and Amrerica had not intervened, australia would ahve ultimately lost, logistically speaking and considering all factors. In fact, they defeated the Russians in land and sea and conquered vast swathes of formerly Russian land despite Russian numerical superiority and equality in armaments, and this was way back in the early 1900's, before the Japanese even became the worlds 3rd most powerful naval force which could have made an invasion of Australia on its wide relatively undefended coastline relatively easy.
The japanese dismissed plans for an invasion of Australia as they judged quite correctly that an occupation would be resisted, ala Finland. Basically it was viewed that the Australian character would not permit an occupation by the Japanese. This was only even more confirmed by their performance in New Guinea. The most realistic thing they could hope for was a limited occupation of the northern cities. But even this was deemed too risky so their strategy became occupation of port Moresby in Papua New Guinea and through ships and aircraft they would isolate and contain Australian military exports and the Australian military as a threat.
But this plan failed as Australian soldiers stopped their advance on the Kokoda track, even though greatly outnumbered and outgunned.
But theoretically, if the U.S didn't get involved in WWII. Germany would still have lost to Russia and most of Europe would have become soviet controlled. The japanese would have become a new world power with it's new asian colonies.
But due to the performance of Australian soldiers in New Guinea, the japanese gained a new found respect for them. (they viewed themselves as the highest race in the world and everyone below them, so this point is more important than people realise) And for that reason, an invasion and occupation of Australia would never have been carried out even if in the future it was in their capability. Instead just like Australia from that moment on in WWII tied it's military alliances more closely with the U.S and not Britain. (As it's willingness and ability to defend them was unimpressive) Australia in that new world order would have tied it's military and economic future more closely with the new japanese superpower. (similar to what it's doing now with China only times 20) So Australia would have been flooded with asian chicks via immigration, the future could definitely be worse.
Mate you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The japs would have needed 50 million soldiers to take over this country and even if by some fluke that was acheived we would be still fighting now because, ( i'll let you in on a little secret here ), AUSSIES NEVER GIVE UP - EVER! Now before you go shooting your mouth off again i suggest you go and talk to some 'nam or iraq returned soldiers and they'll tell you how it was and still is. Because they've seen it for real!
ED ; Can i get any of you *beep* a drink?
would they have bothered invading Australia? The raw materials they wanted were much closer.
sharehow exactly would australia defend against Japan even if it wanted to? there is too much to defend, too little soldiers, and too much desert, it would have been like Erwin Rommel and his desert corps.
Plus, the australians are an honoroable people and if they are defeated, most wil just accept it and move on. There will be no prolonged urban terrorism, although initial sieges will last long.
Just to rpove my point, Australia was thinking of evacuating its northern states and making a "last stand" in the southern states when the Japanese began bombing Darwin, which goes to show that the Australians definitely understood who was likely to win, something which many of you seem to find quite hard to accept.
It wasn't even in Japan's interest to consider invading Australia. There was no reason, and certainly none of the resources to do so. You'll find a statement at the Australian War Memorial down in Canberra saying as much. At best Australia's role was to help wear the Japanese military down, rather than to halt any further advances. It's a ludicrous notion that they could reach, let alone defeat, New Zealand.
I think the assertions at the end of the film are disingenous, but it was decent otherwise.
This conversation should end here.
I understand what somecollegeguy and the rest of u are saying, and i agree with some of the comments made by both sides.
I am an australian who has had family serve in papua and other places in the australian 9th division during world war two and am very proud of it, but i do honestly think that the americans did win the war.
Look before they came in, france fell to the germans and the Uk were getting the crap bombed outa them by the germans, and in asia japan was having a lot of success. It was the americans that played a major role in pushing the germans back and liberating paris and it was the americans that ended the war officially by dropping the nuke on japan, without the americans i do honestly think germany would have gradually taken over the Uk, i dont think the russans could have forght the war by themself, and japan would have taken over all of asia in time.
The comment that somecollegeguy said was that japan would have defeated australia, in post war research, there is no evidence that japan wanted to invade australia, but infact wanted to isolate it from major allied powers.
But if it was japans intentions to invade australia, i think that the australians would have lost because we were a long way from any help and the european allies were fighting their own battles and wouldn't be able to give us aid, and in the end we wouldn't be able to defend such a huge country from such a powerful nation at its time.
Dont get me wrong, i love australia, i respect and admire all the vets who have forght for this country, i love what this country has done and is still doing...Its just looking back in history, i dont see how the allies could have won without the americans joining the war, thats all im saying
Hey Muzza,
I agree with Collegeguy that we couldn't have defeated the Japanese, 9 million people against 100 million just doesn't work. But I also doubt that the Japanese could have successfully invaded and occupied Australia.
That said I only partially agree with you about who won the war. The US defeated Japan, I agree. BUT, it was the Soviets who defeated Germany. These are the maths of that side of the conflict:
The Germans had diverted only 60 divisions on the Western front, while the German High Command command maintained 259 divisions on the Soviet-German front.
The yanks think they beat the Nazis but they didn't, Ivan did, the western allies only helped. The same as we helped the US defeat Japan. And I do believe the Russians could have beaten Germany by themselves. Look at the size of their respective forces at war's end. The Reds were just getting better and stronger and the Germans were being pushed back from 1943.
Another interesting math statistic of the war is that during it, Japan operated 16 aircraft carriers. Within one year and a day of Pearl Harbor, the US launched it's 50th. Japan was never going to win.
Ah!...Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Australians might be honorable people but they descend from the convicts and believe in a fair go for all. They would NEVER have let some other people come and take their country away from them. They would especially not 'accept it and move on'.
Your point that Australia was going to concede the top part of the country was an urban myth that was circulated at the same time as the Darwin bombing. There was never any concrete evidence that Australia would surrender to the Japanese.
I am on Team Danny
So much stupidity in the one post, I can not believe it.
"how exactly would australia defend against Japan even if it wanted to? there is too much to defend, too little soldiers, and too much desert, it would have been like Erwin Rommel and his desert corps."
Are you talking of the corps which was defeated by a mainly Australian contingent? Are you talking about the Erwin Rommel that said "The Australians are the elite shock troops of the British empire".
"Just to rpove my point, Australia was thinking of evacuating its northern states and making a "last stand" in the southern states when the Japanese began bombing Darwin, which goes to show that the Australians definitely understood who was likely to win, something which many of you seem to find quite hard to accept. "
Did you just pull that from your arse? That is just such *beep* I just simply can not believe your stupidity.
What we do in life, echoes an eternity!
You really are a *beep* moron. We held Isuvara for days and only withdrew after inflicting 10 times as many casualties as we had suffered. The Japanese had a force 6-10 times the size of ours, what would be the point of staying there until eventually we were over run?
What we do in life, echoes an eternity!
Yeah but that was the 53rd Battalion who were tricked into fighting overseas. (in the harshest environment of WWII of all places). They were supposed to go to Darwin as a garrison force and not seve overseas but were taken to Port Moresby in New Guinea instead. In anycase they ran from a numerically superior and better armed japanese force, hardly the first time that happened in WWII. (allied forces surrendering, as well as running away from numerically smaller japanese forces was more common).
These forces were also by the far the least trained, much less than the poorly trained militia units. More than 10% of the force were conscripts who hardly knew how to use a rifle. They were also used as a work party during most of the campaign. Communications were also broken and their commanding officer was killed. So it's clear their morale was rock bottom, as was their equipment and training.
It really is an anomaly of Australian forces in WWII. Hey at least they didn't surrender, that's a bonus.
I heard the black american units were the worst for that actually and they did it in Europe too. Apparantly in the italian campiagn, an enitre black american division deserted their lines and to pluge the gap, the US army sent in a regiment composed of all Japanese americans who had volunteered while their families were being held in internment camps.
shareWe beat the Japs before anyone else did. The imperial Japanese army suffered its first defeat of the war at Milne bay, New Guinea at the hands of Australians, not americans. We kept them out of our country, not the Americans. Try reading a real history book for a change instead of believing everything that movies tell you.
shareOpticalchaos:
Yup, the Diggers sure did! But you have to factor in the 'loudmouth factor' for the other kid---I'm sure, IF he had a scrap of diplomacy he's explain himself more clearly----As I understood it, a large measure of advantage was the support provided by RAAF 75 & 76 squadrons; I wonder how the Milne Bay invasion AND the overall campaign for PNG would have gone had it had more direct air support from the IJN's carrier battle groups without they're having to be diverted to kill off the USN's carriers...but that being said there's no denying the Diggers & their bravery...no doubt at all;
NM
PS: I ain't even touching on how the Aussies felt about McArthur!
thewholebrevitything:
What you said! Logistics & Terrain precluded Japan from fully occupying Australia or even PART of Australia;
NM
What a wank, Americans fought in Kokoda as well you retard. In fact the man who commanded the troops on the ground was an AMERICAN! Stop being blinded with propaganda from your parents ie. "America is teh gayz and liek Auziez roxorx!1 Even thoh they savedzorz us from teh japaneez"
Just for the record the Japs were not actually planning to invade Australia. There has never been any evidence found suggesting a planned invasion of Australia.
Just for the record the Japs were not actually planning to invade Australia. There has never been any evidence found suggesting a planned invasion of Australia.
_______________________________
Well, after Japan's surrender, the US did give them weeks to burn all documentation. It is estimated that more than 90% of military documents were destroyed between the time of Japan's surrender and the US's occupation of the country. So, what they did do, and what they planned to do, is largely speculation.
That aside, I don't think the Japanese were quite stupid enough to try and and occupy such a vast (and distant) continent after their problems in nearby China.
...................
It's a movie, people! It's not, nor is it meant to be, real life!
Umm firstly Japan never wanted to invade Aus, only cut them out of the war
shareWhat you are saying relies on the idea that Australia is as overpopulated as the United States.
Tasmania is a state of Australia AND is not 'on the way' to Australia from Japan as it is south of the mainland. New Zealand is also south east of Australia and in no way is Tasmania nor New Zealand 'on the way' to Australia. To put it in terms that you *might* understand, it is like saying that New York would crush the Californians, gathering up Florida and Tennessee on the way. Yeah, only if they wanted to go RIGHT out of their way.
How do you propose that Australia would have been defeated by Japan when our own troops defended our shores anyway? The Americans never aimed to protect Australia. They stopped by briefly to fuel up before heading for the Pacific where they were protecting their own interests (ie: more land and resources for themselves)
I am on Team Danny
The Yanks has got a point Australia would have easily been gone without the US. If Japan would invade Australia you think they would bother and get it all of it.I dont think so. If you take Brisbane Sydney and Melboure you've basically got most of Australia. With the population back then at only what 7million Australians, plus with many of the troops over in Europe.Say if they didnt invade Japan would have helped strave Australia and sink all the ships around the harbours perhaps getting Australia to surrender.
And about the Eastern front Germany lost the not because the Russians were good fighters, was cause Hitler gave some of the most dummiest decusions
You're right. Every single observer at the time expected Hitler to win the war. Everyone was saying that the Russians were as good as dead and hopeless, and they might as well stop fighting. THe tide turned because Hitler did not move fast anough. He was paranoid, giving the Russians too much breathing space before they shipped their troops over from Mongolia.
shareHitler made to many bad decusions on the Eastern front and took to much manpower and resources to fight the west. Specially at the end when Germany was going to be defeated he should have put all resources at the east.
shareRight, give all the credit to the destruction of the Japanese war machine to the Australians because they defended one island. As if. Australia couldn't of finished Japan off, they couldn't take Iwo Jima or Guadalcanal the size of the military was too small. And as for the remark of Australians being the best army in the world, where did you get that *beep* from? Australia now recruits anyone who is overweight or underweight because they cannot recruit enough of the population. I would say that the British army is the best in the world in terms of training.
share"I would say that the British army is the best in the world in terms of training."
By Jingo.
What the bloody hell are you talking about mate.
In what way is this relevant? Brits being best trained army in the World
helped them how. In retreating to Dunkirk and loseing Singapore.
If you are going to put the boot in do it from some hight.
Wakey wakey!!
David you are an absolute idiot. It is a well documented fact that Australia has one of the toughest recruitment polices in the world.
What we do in life, echoes an eternity!
Our military was big enough to get the first land victories against both Germany and Japan.
shareJapan would have helped strave Australia and sink all the ships around the harbours perhaps getting Australia to surrender
During World War 2, Australia grew all of her own food. If you are going to make statements like that, make sure they are accurate.
I am on Team Danny
"If Japan had not attacked pearl harbour, they could have crushed the australians with impunity, and probably gather up new zealand and tasmania along the way. Sydney and Melbourne would have become japanese towns with japanese names, and who could imagine what they would do to the caucasian population after all that hatred they feel towards westerners. Does anyone know of any novels which describe such alternative history?"
Btw: the word you are looking for is "felt". Past tense. The War is over mate. It is funny how people like to pin the "racism" badge on Japan all the damn time. Well at least when there ARE racial issues here in Japan it is pretty damn obvious. In our Western nations, racist attitudes are so institutionalised, in our language especially, poeple don't even realise it anymore. What's worse? Overt ignorance or habitual ignorance?
Please refrain. We don't need any more incessant political correctness. There is no entrenched racism in Australia today, we don't owe the Aboriginals anything. Get over it.
shareThats an absolute load of *beep* somecollegeguy. If you new anything about the pacific war you would know that the Japanese navy proposed a plan to invade Australia at townsville but the Australian army refused saying they didn't have the man power to occupy such a large country. If America wasn't in existence Australia would have held out until the Soviets defeated the germans and then the Japanese. Yes thats right the Soviets beat the germans not the british or the americans. The germans Suffered 80% of their combt casualties fighting on the eastern front most of which were their elite units. If it wasn't for the soviet union holding out America would have been crushed into the dust like a bug fighting the full might of the German army. End of story.
shareLooks like you don't know a damn thing about the Eastern front and who and what contributed to the Russian success.. Oh and this whole thread is an idiotic one full of idiots making black and white statements.
shareThere is a book called "Rising Sun Victorious" with alternate history scenarios of WW2 from a Japanese perspective. One includes the attempted conquest of Australia. In the scenario, the Australians stall the Japanese advance with American assistance long before Sydney, and Japanese manpower and material does not suffice to complete the invasion. The Japanese get bogged down and finally lose WW2 due to their overstretched forces. Meanwhile, they commit plenty of atrocities in the occupied part of Australia.
No unlikely outcome. The Japanese were successful in the early stages of the war as the forces of Britain, France and the Netherlands were inferior and could only offer token resistance; they were also good against an at this time disorganized and inferior equipped enemy like China. In the later stages of the war they excelled in defense, though at heavy cost. But technologically, their equipment was for the most part inferior or became inferior in the course of the war.
In a fight against Australia assisted by US forces, the Japanese would have had a major obstacle to fight a land campaign without decent tanks.
Currently I am reading Max Hastings "Nemesis" which gives a good insight into at what disadvantage the Japanese forces were from 1944-45 compared to the Allies.
Years late to the thread, but OP is an idiot.
Australia's military were all off in Europe and North Africa, focusing on fighting the European Axis powers on the other side of the globe. Helping our allies.
Think of it like this: Imagine that the US sends all of its forces over to Europe to help with D-Day and the the invasion of Germany. And then, while all of the US forces are committed elsewhere, Mexico launches an invasion of the US.
Apologies to any Mexicans reading this thread, because Mexico would never have done that. And the US would probably have been able to fight them off using Texas as a choke point, anyway.
But OP has no idea about the situation that Australia was in at the time. If we Aussies had stayed neutral until Pearl Harbour, like the US did, then we would have been able to defend ourselves just fine.
We Aussies didn't stay out of the War until we were attacked. We Aussies helped fight the Nazis while you Yanks were still sitting on your hands.
Agreed on most people's opinions about the OP; he's either a wind up merchant or extremely Ill-informed about WW2 history. Apart from what people have rightly said about the logistical impossibility of Japan successfully invading Australia, Japanese war aims had nothing to do with attacking Australia. They wanted the oil and rubber of South East Asia and the East Indies, and be able to exercise a sphere of influence over the Western Pacific. The attempted occupation of New Guinea and air attacks on Australia were part of protecting their southern flank, not part of any intended invasion. Australia was so anglocentric in its economic and political outlook that it was never really considered a serious rival to Japan's economic strategy in the area.
share