MovieChat Forums > Tomorrow, When the War Began (2012) Discussion > The liberal Aussies would never surrende...

The liberal Aussies would never surrender to the Asians


Get real, folks! Australia is a country whose government might try to fancy itself as some kind of liberal socialist state. But the Australian people are a lot tougher than that. The Australians would never, I mean never, surrender, especially to the Asians. The Australians didn't give in to the Japanese in WWII, even though the terrified Aussies realized their government's willful and negligent lack of pre-war military preparation left them completely vulnerable to the enemy. Why would the Aussies throw in the towel now? Never. Maybe the Australian government in the book series is depicted as having no backbone but the Australian writer should understand his own people a lot better than us foreigners whose impression of Australians is that they are a tough people who like drinking and fighting. (sounds like a lot of other peoples, too) When you have a situation where the Aussies would willingly take orders from hostile Asians then I have beachfront property in Nevada to sell to anyone.

I wrote this next point months ago and got trolled by fans of the book series who told me I was focusing on the wrong idea.
The idea that the United States would not directly and quickly intervene with all of its military air, land, and naval forces is ridiculous. Believe me that the American government will respond quickly, even if for selfish national reasons. The American government is not going to allow Australia to fall into the hands of a hostile foreign power or powers who would quickly turn Australia into a massive military base to lock up all of the Southwest Pacific Ocean. A hostile Australia under a new, hostile government means the Americans would have to invade. That was a nightmare battle scenario the U.S. government contemplated in 1940. A Nazi-occupied England (not including Scotland and Wales) would have meant a hostile American invasion launched directly from the East Coast and possibly Greenland and Iceland as forward bases.

The writer should be ridiculed for his ridiculous facade of avoiding the national ethnic identity of the enemy because, it's supposed to be a story about a group of friends coming together and not about the enemy. Huh? Then what are these group of friends doing? Then who are they fighting, the Mormons? If that were seriously the case, then the writer should have depicted invading extraterrestrials. The enemy is clearly Asian and it's patently stupid to pretend otherwise because of tiresome political correctness, and supposedly, according to the trolls, it's supposed to be a story about a group of friends, stupid me! I can believe a hostile coalition of Asian nations whose primary partners include Red China and Indonesia. Then throw in some other countries like Malaysia and Burma. Now that gets scary. Those nations can put together an invasion force of millions of men. Now I know that limitations in military equipment, supplies, heavy weapons, and necessary naval and air transport will limit the initial invasion to just tens of thousands. But those countries can continue to pump in men unless the United States can sever the coalition's supply and logistical transport lines. The enemy Asian coalition of the book series can invest hundreds of thousands of men into Australia before the U.S. Navy can totally sever the logistical lines. Sorry for the tirade, folks. But I really like Australia and don't like seeing the country put up to foolish ridicule that this movie will portray, despite the heroics of a bunch of brave Aussie young adults.

reply

How would they fight back? Unfortunately someone IRL took away the guns from the Australian civilian population.

http://DanteDreams.com/ <-My webcomic
"Jesus saves, everyone else takes damage" -Tshirt

reply

As long as people are willing to fight, arming them isn't that big a problem, especially for australia who has tons of allies willing at the very least to provide weapons. And with it's geographic location and high tech sensor and communication systems, they won't be taken by surprise, buying time to mobilize and arm the greater population.

reply

Just saying: It would be easier to take over an unarmed population over and armed population.

http://DanteDreams.com/ <-My webcomic
"Jesus saves, everyone else takes damage" -Tshirt

reply

But they will surrender to the Viet Congs. If the Viet Congs can defeat the Americans they can defeat anyone.

reply

U.S lost the vietnam war cause they had a bad strategy. In the areas controlled by australia who used different tactics and strategy, the viet cong and north vietnamese were soundly defeated, and they chose to avoid them instead. Look it up, if australia was in charge of u.s forces in vietnam, they would have easily won the war.

reply

if australia was in charge of u.s forces in vietnam, they would have easily won the war.


I'm pretty sure the Chinese, Japanese, French, and the Americans said a similiar thing. You're forgetting that Vietnam has a history of being invaded by other countries and time and time again they came out on top. Strategy will only get you so far but the will to fight will get you even farther.

reply

You need to question the leadership, size and troop quality of those military campaigns, that's why they failed.

Vietnam is no nation of supermen, no nation is.

reply

during the Vietnam war North Vietnam had the fifth largest army in the world and the US had the fourth.

reply

Heh I'm going to think if someone made fantasy history. He probably would say George Washington doesn't shoot fireballs from his hands to win the war. It's way too unrealistic.

reply


When people start asking aloud, "Is it OK if I defend myself against people who want to kill me?"... you know their nation is circling the drain.


The Doctor is out. Far out.

reply

The idea that the USA would not assist is not ridiculous. The USA failed to assist Ukraine when it was invaded. When the Falkland Islands were invaded the USA debated assisting Argentina, and only one US cabinet member had the intelligence to argue for supporting the UK - the already senile Reagan then did what he was told. Future president Trump has already called for the USA to withdraw from NATO. There is no guarantee that the USA would want to assist Australia - assuming that it was able to.

reply