The indigenous Australians would tell a very different story. Australia has arguably been at war with itself since its inception but we like to forget that. Do only conflicts between powerful nations count? The inevitable subjugation of an ancient culture to colonial greed is a bit more difficult to acknowledge.
These issues are very important. It is the very reason Australia and New Zealand remained separate nations and there are no “United States” of Oceania. Things would be very different if this had been resolved. *hint hint
The Australian troops in Africa fighting in Tobruk were the 9th devision, they were know as “the magnificent 9th” or “the rats of Tobruk” they were the hardest toughest men Australia had and Erwin Rommel was quoted “if I had to take Hell, I’d use The Australians to do it and the New Zealanders to hold the ground”, he also said “give me two Australian devisions and I will conquer the world for you”. Germans thought it was a good idea to mortar The Australian throughout the night so they couldn’t sleep so the the rats climbed through no mans land and went into the German trenches and slit the throats of the Germans, if the Aussies can’t sleep, neither could the Germans, the Germans learned to stop shelling at night for fear of the Anzacs. The 9th devision was pulled out of Tobruk when Japan started its move towards Port Moresby, Churchill was pissed about that. “My God, I wish we had [the] 9th Australian Division with us this morning” - Major General Freddie de Guingand, Chief of Staff, Allied Land-force Headquarters Europe, 1944 D-Day. These guys were fucking legends. When they went to Kakoda they relieved The Australian reserve soldiers who were copping a beating against japans greatest soldiers, they sent 10,000 to kakoda of the emperor’s personal greatest fighting force, they did all kinds of dirty tactics but when Japan met the 9th devision they learned what real war was, they fought the most terrifying force they’d ever seen in hand to hand who out played them, with supplies getting stretched for the japs as it got harder to reinforce their front lines they were force to retreat. It should be know that Australians wear the emu and the kangaroo, these are the only two animals who cannot go backwards, only forwards just like the soldiers, go forward, dig in and hold and then push forward again. They should make a god damn HBO TV series based on these guys like they did with band of brothers so more people can learn about them.
My father fought in the desert and in the Jungle,they where a different breed of Australians than the diluted version that walks the streets of our major cities today.Imagine going to war with China,we would have to intern the inner city of Melb for a start
Uh mate are you talking about the Second World War here, or the First World War? If it's Second there were no trenches, or No Mans Land. They were fighting in holes in the ground.
@@darrylwikohika9068 You clearly no nothing of the situation if you did you'd no most of them are getting deported and "America saved our asses" as that why you need us in Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, and signed the ANZUS treaty as far as i can tell you need you just as much as we need you, maybe more, cause remember there's always China to buddy up to ;)
Australian Liaison Officer on MacArthur's staff was asked, "what would you do if 50,000 Japanese landed on the north coast?" His answer:- "I would wait 3 months and then go out and pick up the bones" I know what he means, I have driven all over it!
I have as well john. Unless you know the land in North Australia you won’t last long at all. The Japanese forces wouldn’t take long to perish from thirst or starvation..
I think there are two factors you are forgetting here. 1- Australians at that time all knew how to shoot, where to find water, and how to avoid getting killed by the native wildlife. The "old men" would be battle hardened veterans of WWI. 2- The Australians had native tank and aircraft production - while our tanks were nothing compared to the European theater, they would be very effective against most, if not all, of the Japanese armour of the time. Another thing to consider is that all Australians at that time would do anything to defend their homeland, with a ferocity rivaling that of the Japanese soldier. Nothing is stronger at that time than the Australian mateship. Basically every household had a firearm, and more than one person knew how to use it, and use it well. This was a time when kids were taught to shoot, and most people living bush had the ability to track, trap, hunt, and live off the land. While I dont like what was done to the aboriginal people at this time, I would like to think that something like a Japanese invasion would unite them with the white aussies to form effective raiding parties all along the Japanese supply lines. You say that Americans would come to our defence and turn the tide. This may be true, but never underestimate the effectiveness of a pissed off aussie. We would have given them hell, as proven by our grit and determination when basically starved and unarmed on the kokoda trail.
The Fridge "The Australians had native tank and aircraft production" Which production of tanks? in 1939, Australia owned only 14 tanks, 10 british Mark VIs and 4 Mark IIs, 13 M3 light tanks arrived in September 1941, while another 400 more were soon delivered. In 1939 the Australian aircraft industry barely existed, at the end of the war Australia had produced about 2,200 aircraft, Japan 64,000 (US 324.000). Without the huge American industrial power there was no possibility for Australia and probably not even for the United Kingdom against Japan.
Having and using are different things. We had native tank design by the latter half of the war. The Sentinal series of tanks, armed with everything from door knockers to 25lb'ers. We also had some rebuilt aircraft - to say that we took designs from others and reworked them into a heavy fighter/attacker. The facilities that were built for war production is what kicked off our manufacturing in heavy industry after the war. By the time we were in a position to be invaded, we were also in a position to be able to put up a resistance. With Japan running such a long tail, and us in our own back yard, we had the advantage in several key areas. We know the terrain, we had cutting edge medical aid in the capital cities, and the ability to recover and repair mechanized forces - as well as recovering downed airmen operating over land. Also, the ANZAC spirit of mateship was still very strong, meaning that our boys would have the iron will just like the fanatical Japanese.
Japan has never intended to invade Australia, this is a well established historical fact as it went beyond its industrial and military capabilities especially after the attack on Pearl Harbor Harbor and the war with the American industrial giant. However, the Australian war production was absolutely insignificant, the Sentinel tank was built in 62 units and the aeronautical production was minimal, as I have already written, it is not a denigrating intent, just an analysis of the data. In truth nobody can know what would have happened in case of hypothetical Japanese invasion of Australia, the WW2 showed huge surprises, no one imagined that France, great European power, collapsed in 6 weeks, that the little Greece would reject the Italian invasion or that Singapore would fall in a week. On the other hand, history is not made with "ifs". Of one thing I am absolutely convinced, the WW2 was not won by those who were more courageous, determined or produced better weapons, but who produced more weapons than ever, the US and the USSR are the proof.
Oi! Don't slander the good name of the Hugh Mungus penis tank... I mean the Sentinel cruiser tank. It was a bloody good machine, we just got supplied with other bloody good machines quicker than we could produce our own. Matilda IIs, Shermans, even Lees.
I like the post, just adding that the mateship extended to NZ and when it came to ground combat in harsh conditions Those Boys Can Fight. If the entire world united just think about how powerful this world would be. That would be scary.
Australia were going to use a scorched earth policy for everything north of Brisbane, and the Australian troops were removed from North Africa while the New Guinea campaign was still ongoing. Therefore there would have been little effect on the North African campaign. Longer supply lines would have overstretched the Japanese navy, as the Japanese would have had to import everything, down to water for the Northern Australian tropical conditions. Australian sappers would have been able to sabotage Japanese inland bases. To get any foothold, they would have had to invade Townsville, while the Australian military was busy sabotaging everything. With the north from Brisbane onward being evacuated, there would be no base of slave labor, and with retreating soldiers burning everything of use to the Japanese, they would have had a fierce battle not just against the Australians and the US, but against the summer heat. They would have to take Brisbane to be able to get the infrastructure to even start a full invasion, but that is one hell of a stretched supply line. This would have weakened the Japanese military, both army and navy, and opened the pacific islands more open to invasion. The result may have been a faster loss for Japan, depending on the results of the battles for Townsville and Brisbane.
Absolutely well said. Add a couple of extra features to the process however. At this time we were also ramping up the female activity in Australia with most women on the land already capable with guns and dangerously aggressive to boot to handle their very masculine partners. The war would have pushed us forward to full integration of armed forces making attempts at capturing Australian cities much like fighting in Stalingrad with widow makers a standard feature of war in Australia. Most women in the war above the age of 30 were going to sewing clubs (which often had gun training and guerrilla warfare training included, [Palmolive hair soap is a firm favourite for many of these older women for a reason]), Further the z forces were already in active swing and most farmers were veterans of the first world war and the industrial capacity highly protected at the end of the railway in South Australia and you get a nation salting the earth, mining the land and sea, utilising the killer nature of the land, placating the indigenous natives by loosing them on the Japanise (their hatred against the "Jap's" was far greater than that against the white folk thanks to their bombing of Darwin and attack on papa new guinea), and it would become the next best thing for hell for the Japanese. The meat grinder would have cost Australia tens of thousands of men and women but at an occupation cost of well over 30 to 1.If the japanise were thinking 200k troops they were really missing the mark on how many people it would have cost to get a beach head, let alone an occupation.
The Australian militia also was significantly better trained and equipped than he claimed and they and the population in general would fight fanatically against a foreign invader. An invasion of Australia even with a decisive Japanese Victory at Coral Sea would have turned into a blood bath. And as you said even if Port Moresby falls in May, the 7th Australian Division is already in Australia and the 6th is only weeks away, and the 9th would very quickly be released in the event of a Japanese landing as was agreed between Churchill and Curtin during the war. And the 1st to 5 Australian Divisions plus independent attached troops were more than 200,000 strong a significant force. It would have been a complete disaster for Japan even before you factor in their supply issues. TLDR I agree
There were also 100,000 United States troops stationed in New Zealand during the war, not sure when they started being stationed there though but they could go across the Tasman Sea.
Not to mention that most farmers were used to being self sufficient, and were dam good shots (ammo is expensive, and of course most of what was being made was being sent to the troops, so they soon learned not to waste bullets). The guerilla resistance north of Brisbane would have tied up Japanese resources.
I really don't know why I once again decided to look up this channel. Maybe I thought it would grow, learn? Once again, complete nonsense analysis. Started relatively fine, first blunder started with the invasion itself and the supply lines and at "Italy going communist" I just had to stop. Listen Whatifalthist, you really need to up your game. What would happen if Japan invaded Australia? The same thing that happened in our timeline with the sole exception that Japan would be kicked out of their Pacific holdings faster. That is it. Analysis done. Australian army mutiny? Nope, never would have happened. As it did not happen when they themselves were used as cannon fodder countless times in this and previous war. A mutiny in Africa would also mean nothing - those people were not as stupid as you might think. They would want to go back to defend their home? OK, how would they get there? Only by RN ships, the same people they just mutinied against. Nope. They would stay, fight, and if anything be more determined to finish and be allowed to, in part, return to Australia if it was required. Also, Australia did NOT have only boys and old men left. In 1940-1941 Australia had over 7 million people. Of those, at most in one time, in ALL theaters of war, in 1942 at its peak, served 476.000 people. That means that, by a standard conscription in the time of war of 1 soldier per 10 civilians, Australia would still have around 300.000 pool of standard soldier material to put to use. Only after that initial pool of some 700.000 men would you see teenagers and old men get conscripted. Add new Zealand and some US help that could be spared, and Japan would have to field over 500.000 men in order to take Australia - and even that if we consider that 1:1 ratio would be enough. It would not, Japan would have to field at least 2:1 in combat units plus another 300.000-400.000 support troops for non-combat tasks. Something they certainly did not want to do or could actually do. So no, the whole analysis is broken at its starting point. Once again you did not fact check anything and you just made a series of ludicrous assumptions without baking them with anything. You just make an outlandish claim and then when explanation is expected, it is in all effect "Because I said so". All that would happen is: 1. Australia does what most countries did and initiates a standard rate mobilization 2. Japan is defeated and gets kicked out of Pacific faster That is it. I am not even going to start about those Germans reaching "middle eastern oil fields" thing because no one in their right mind and having any knowledge of history would go and say that. But to help you out: 1. Army needs infrastructure. There was none. 2. Distance from the Libyan border to then existing middle eastern oil fields is some 2000km *in a straight line over land* . Distance between Berlin and Moscow is 1600km in a straight line. In Soviet Union Germans had roads and railways, yet they could not supply their troops that far. In Africa-Middle East without roads and railways? Take a guess. 3. Just because there were *some* oil fields at the time there, how on earth do you think that it would be transported back and used? No can do. That is why it was never actually considered to go and look for oil there. It was so ludicrous that even invading the Soviet Union was seen as a better prospect for getting oil - that alone should tell you volumes about that topic. Fact check, fact check and then some more. If your goal is to create even remotely realistic "what if" scenarios. As I said before, if you just want to make videos for the sake of videos, then cool. You can do what ever you want, you don't have to make sense. But if you want to do anything with any meaning, *please* pay more attention.
You definitely have an understanding of WW2. You destroyed his ass. Lol, I knew he was way off too but what if scenarios are interesting. Give him credit for that.
nobody seemed to notice the fact that at 1:30 he said the battle of the coral sea was fought off the north west coast of australia...even though the coral sea is actually off the north east coast of the north eastern aussie state of queensland...points for making the image right after that statement a map of australia showing the coral sea to...the north east. kek
jesus christ... 1. Australia actually had a MILITIA with standardised military service, included a lot of veterans of the First World War. 2. the 2AIF was entirely volunteer and was less than 10% of able-bodied adult males by wars end over a million men of the 7 million population volunteered for the war, imagine what would have happened if the threat of invasion was actually realised. 3. the 2AIF in North Africa ACTUALLY WENT HOME because the Prime Minister told Churchill that they were needed to defend Australia, and you've completely overlooked the NZEF and the Indian forces in North Africa 4. the Australian 7th Division was already in the Pacific operating in Singapore and another Division was being raised at the same time 5. By 1942 the 2AIF was back in the Pacific 6. "Britain conquered Indonesia..." should be Australian and American troops under Macarthur liberated the Dutch East Indies who returned it to Netherlands, who granted it independence in 1947. 7. America would prefer to invade from the south instead of the East... you mean like how they did? the Pacific Allies worked their way from three fronts to attack Japan, from Burma from Australia and from Hawaii Nimitz and the Marines went from Hawaii, Macarthur and the Army (both US and Australian) went Island Hopping from the South 8.90% of Australia's population lived in Sydney and Melbourne, conversely all manufacturing was ALSO within this area. it was the Second World War and the need to develop Northern Ports which is what developed both Darwin and Brisbane. 9. While not proven, the supposed Brisbane Line Doctrine would have ceded everything North of Brisbane to defend everything within. 10. Australia did not have only "old men and young boys" to defend it, again Australia was a volunteer army. 11. America would dedicate a significant chunk of their forces to liberate Australia... Fortress Australia was already a thing with over 3 million Americans BASED IN AUSTRALIA DURING THE WAR entre US Army groups where deployed to Australia, and they still had the manpower to land an Normandy and provide to the war in the Pacific... you forgot that America also fought a war in two fronts.... Even your what ifs fail to grasp the actual history of the situation. Japan would have to have gutted their occupation armies in Asia to even attempt to successfully invade Australia, and they would suffer from the fact that there isn't a lot of water and supplies readily available in the north of the country anyway, so all their supplies would have to be provided from Japan, which means over extended supply lines... and we saw the effects of that on Kokoda, for a prolonged invasion of mainland Australia, they would need to secure ports, and have a supply line that stretched back to Indochina... which is a LOT of open water for submarines to play in. you really dropped the ball here, and then dropkicked the ball into the wall
Nicely put and I read it, but you didn't have to start with a blasphemy did you? No serious writer or geo-poitical interested author does that. Get serious and correct in your writing, not careless and offensive.
@@aussiejim1616 Nope! Nuthin normal about that. Men in Australia rarely use it. I know. Only the low classes use it, but it is a useful means to identify people.
"The Japanese would press down the East coast of Australia towards Sydney, which they would likely conquer." How? Disregarding the assumptions about how easily they would invade Brisbane, a fairly militarised region by this time of the war due to already fighting the Japanese, you just skim over how they would so simply conquer Australia's largest city. First of all, it's a long way. It will take time. Next stop, Newcastle. A vital industrial port and mining city (especially steel production) that would be staunchly defended. The region, at the time, had a population around half a million and its workforce were dock workers, miners, steel makers, and farmers, a group that would likely form a decent militia and not that of boys and old men. Given how long it should take the Japanese to arrive they would likely be moderately well trained (if very quickly). Assuming Newcastle is beat they must then cross the Hawkesbury, a river and valley system that is only passed today by a single artery of road and rail. Then, and only then, do the get a chance at Sydney, a city that had a ww2 population of ~1.5 million, split by a major river, and a well defended harbour. All of this is not something that just sweeps through. This invasion and capture of Sydney would take many months. Also, The bomb is still ready by mid 1945.. The war isn't reaching 1946 no matter what the Japanese have managed so far.
This is the best comment so far Whatitalthist doesn't understand Australian terrain or Australian people. The tiny Japanese invading force would have faced an enemy resolved to total war. They had very limited resources, particularly with regard to mobility. It's easy enough to ride a bicycle along the Malay peninsula, but considerably more difficult to ride from anywhere they could possibly make a beachhead to anywhere of significance. Don't forget that Australia was at that time capable of its own industrial production and would have rolled armour directly to the front line. Australia also had the fourth largest Air Force in the world by 1945. The Japanese high command of our timeline knew they couldn't defeat Australians on Australian soil, that is why they made the decisions they made and didn't invade Australia. Any hypothetical involving Australia would have seen Japan weakened beyond measure, their supply lines would've collapsed in South East Asia and they would've been attacked by enemies on all sides: China, Russia, and the USA would've made short work of what was left, while the Australians (or rather "British" as they were known at the time) would've taken back New Guinea, Indonesia, Philippines, and Malaya with superior jungle fighting technology.
Well said on the whole re: the conquest of Australian cities. It took months upon months of incredibly bloody, proto-Stalingrad-cum-trench-war urban fighting for the Japanese to conquer the major Chinese cities on the Yangtze Delta even with absolute naval dominance, near absolute aerial dominance, superior equipment and trained soldiers. The fighting in Brisbane and Sydney would probably be even more taxing, since even if the overall scale is a lot smaller and the Japanese aren't QUITE as brutal and alienating as they were in China (itself a massive and doubtful assumption), they are still the world's largest ocean away from the Home Islands and facing an enemy that is competitive in the naval and air war. And a Mongol-style "besiege and/or raze the city to the ground" isn't going to work since Japanese logistics were already dubious and past Port Moresby are going to be tangential, meaning they're not going to have the munitions to simply carpet-shell the cities until they aren't there anymore, even if it had been desirable. That, it was frankly a miracle the atomic bombings were as effective as they were and very nearly didn't end the war. The Big Six were still evenly divided on Unconditional Surrender even after confirmation it was an atomic bomb, news that the Soviets had entered the war, and news that Nagasaki had been nuked reached them. It took the personal intercession of the God-Emperor personally chewing out the holdouts and *ordering* they submit to Foreign Minister Togo's doves to fold up the holdouts among the Big Six like Anami (and even then they continued arguing for hours afterwards). And even AFTER that you had the coup attempt by rando Japanese middle manage officers to try and destroy the records of Japan's surrender in the dead of night. The Pacific War can stretch into 1946 fairly easily and in some cases it kind of did (given fighting in Indonesia and Japanese holdout clearance).
Is this a joke? Did you even study the geography of Australia? If the Japanese landed in Northern Australia, the only thing the Aussie would do is send out search and rescue parties a month later to save the Japanese.
Australia had stockpiled one of the largest chemical weapon arsenals in the world during ww2. The plan was to use chemical weapons on a Japanese army if it landed. Australia would have been utterly ruthless in the use of these weapons, no doubt with the help of the US. The Japanese wouldn't have got far.
Hirohito: "WHAT DO YOU MEAN OUR INVASION FORCE WAS EATEN BY SHARKS AND CROCODILES?!?!?" "Well, not all of them, Your Majesty. Some of them died of snake or spider bites instead."
I had family who fought in Kokoda. They found crates of Japanese One pound invasion notes to be used in Australian territories once invaded. I kept the notes as a good bit of history.
D Duckman my Grandfather fought on Kokoda but it was so bad for him that he never spoke about it to his family. He would only speak to my other Grandfather who fought in Africa. My father was lucky enough to know what he knows, my maternal Grandfather was a wealth of information regarding WW2. He was talking to the nurses about it while he was going through Cancer treatment, they were genuinely sad knowing he wouldn't have long. I could have learnt more about it if he was still around I used to love hearing about his experiences.
Thanks so much for sharing that, your grandfather is one of the hero’s who made our country what it is. What breaks my heart is there isn’t many of them left. I also had 3 grandparents in ww2 and it’s up to us to keep there spirit and memory alive. I wanna thank your family for serving our great country ❤️🇦🇺❤️
@@Dev.85 thanks for sharing your story, my great great grandpa also didn’t share and of his story’s of the Kokoda because of the traumatic experience. My grandpa was in a group of 106 soldiers my 1 of 2 soldier’s who actually survived . When he was on the trail he got both trench foot and malaria which made him very sick. When on the Kokoda trail he found 2 Japanese soldiers who he captured and transport back to his base. When he arrived back to Australia he never was the same he was always sad and depressed he never talked about his experience to anyone. Sorry if grammar isn’t good.
I live in Townsville, 1300 km (800 Miles) north of Brisbane. The environment in the North Queensland bush is pretty harsh & dry, not to mention being full of animals & plants that want to either eat, bite, sting, poison, or give you a fascinating tropical disease. The rainforests are wetter, but the critters that live there are, in my experience, more voracious. When you're born & grow up here you know about these things, and how to recognize & deal with them. The Northern Territory can be just as inhospitable, as well as being hotter than it is here. The Japanese were pretty good at dumping an army in the middle of nowhere and then not supplying them. If they'd done that here I think it would have been a disaster for them. I think they also recognized that.
ant4812 They did that on many Pacific Islands with similar extreme environments and they still managed to have the ability to carry out operations and attacks (somehow). They're surprisingly resilient and adaptable to their environments.
@@nkvdcomradeorion7336 Your point is noted, however, I would respectfully question the accuracy of your logic and argument. No 'Pacific island' bears more than a superficial resemblance to some areas of thè northern parts of the Australian continent. In terms of size and inhospitable country there is simply no comparison. Over seventy five percent of the continent is uninhabitable desert and the distances are formidable. As well, the inhabitants would never allow an invading force to gain more than a foothold and any invader would be constantly harassed by the angry population. As well, the invader's lack of familiarity with the country would present a most difficult stumbling block. Supply lines, men and materiel would be so overstretched that an invasion would take many years to accomplish, if indeed it ever was. Do you have any real idea of how huge a place Australia really is??
All of you have great points, though I think the concensus is, Yeah this country of ours is bloody harsh. Not just back then but now as well unless you are prepared. Backpackers forget that and they suffer. Getting lost mixed with heat is a death sentence.
Yes one Australian officer was asked what would he do if 50,000 Japanese soldiers landed on the north coast? His answer was simple. “ nothing, I’d leave them there for 3 months, then send up my soldiers too pick up their bones” the Japanese wouldn’t last long in the harsh north Australian bush.
The australian army at the time was volunteers. the british wouldn’t be able to stop the aussies in north africa from going home because they’re still free men. not under mandatory service.
Bombed a few times ? Actually there were 350 sorties on the Northern Territory of Australia, a submarine attack on Sydney, in New South Wales and 22,000 Australians captured (many from the 8th Division in Singapore). The Battle of the Coral Sea halted the Japanese prelude to invasion and the Japanese were stopped by Australians and Americans in New Guinea.
"The Australian, who are the men our troops have had opposite them so far, are extraordinarily tough fighters. The German is more active in the attack, but the enemy stakes his life in the defence and fights to the last with extreme cunning." - Major Ballerstedt (German Officer writing to his superiors). If you have read anything into the North African campaign you would know that the Australian soldiers are very highly regarded amongst both Allied and Axis leadership. A force largely comprised of Australians managed to hold on at the siege of Tobruk for 5 months under terrible conditions facing a force much larger than their own. I think it is highly unlikely that these soldiers would mutiny just because their home land had been invaded. They were well aware that their homeland was under threat and yet they still fought to the death in many battles in the European theatre. Your claim that they would mutiny makes this video highly unbelievable.
plus tell them that saving Australia was a top priority to the British and that it was being liberated by the Americans and British forces would probably keep them loyal. plus add in that the soon the African korp is beaten the sooner the can go home to fight and save there motherland they might be inspired to fight harder than ever before. plus if they revolt there stuck in a German dominated Africa without no navy to transport them home.
he is also missing the fact that at this point in time in his timeline, the 2AIF is already on its way home... so there wouldn't have been any need for a mutiny
Australians have a reputation of being stubborn and intractable when faced with conflict; fighting until their very last breath. I should know, I am one.
There's a whole book series on this What If scenario.. and part 1 was made into a movie that didn't do too well because nobody really liked the books in the first place.. maybe you've heard of it.. It's called "Tomorrow when the war began". Basically, Japan invades Australia and takes over a small town. A group of teenagers organise a small resistance and fight in very brief hit and run and unconventional warfare until the proper armed forces arrive and decimate the occupying force. Whilst it's never outright said that the invasion force is of Japan, they're heavily implicated along with Korea and China. Australia is brutally uninhabitable if you don't know where you're going or what you're doing, especially back then. I highly doubt Japan would've made it as far as Sydney by land, they'd of had to take the sea route. Which also means a LOT of land would remain unseen. You can literally come into one of our towns and it would still take a small army a week to scout out the entire place. It would be more likely that word would reach the populace of the invasion force hitting quite quickly, and Australians back then still had regular access to firearms (in fact they weren't outright taken from us until the 1980's). Japan would face a united civilian populace armed to the fucking teeth, terrain that is wildly unfamiliar and hostile to them, and weather that would make anyone second guess themselves.
Saying that we did not have any trained troops in Australia is not true there were thousands of US and Australian troops mainly American troops based around many smaller on the coast like Townsville and also the Japanese consistently bombed Australian air strips.
@@aetu35 like this? 1. Australia actually was invaded by the Japanese as New Guinea was actually an Australian territory but more on this in my third point. 2. "No major atrocities" please look up The Stolen Generation at a minimum. 3. Australia actually was invaded by the Japanese as New Guinea was actually an Australian territory and that is why conscription was allowed to occur causing the conscripts that you talk about on the Kokoda Trail, and it is kind of offensive to call them a militia. I sincerely doubt you would call American conscripts a militia. 4. You failed to mention the Brisbane Line which is actually the primary Australian initial reaction to the invasion of the mainland and essentially it was a plan that if the Japanese successfully preformed an invasion of the mainland the Australian government was prepared to surrender all territory north of Brisbane to the Japanese to buy peace. This is surrounded by some historical disagreement as to whether it would have happened but there is evidence that it existed so definitely should have been mentioned. 5. Generally speaking, you are hugely dismissive of the Australian armed forces despite acknowledging how in Kokoda despite being vastly outnumbered and equipped managed to hold back the Japanese Imperial Army. I would think it stands to reason that conscripts on the Australian mainland would be even more effective at countering the Japanese Army especially with supply lines stretched so thin. Since many in the comments have mentioned what both Ally and Axis army generals said in judgement of the ADF I won't go over it again. 6. I don't think it would have come to mutiny in North Africa and the reason is there was in our timeline concern over having our main forces in North Africa and if the mainland was invaded the Australia government would have ordered our forces back in defense. I believe the main outcome here would have been far more strained relationship between the UK and Australia and quite possibly even a declaration of independence directly post war. 7. The USSR already did most of the fighting in Europe and most Nazi resources went to the Eastern Front throughout the war. I would say at most the war in Europe would have only extended by a few months maybe six months but that seems a stretch (if a D-Day-esque invasion had happened). 8. I would have mentioned it would have been unlikely that the Holocaust would have become public knowledge until possibly even the collapse of the USSR as in our timeline they liberated all the death camps and in a European theatre without as much US involvement it is conceivable that no concentration camps are liberated by Western Powers. Given the distrust between the Soviets and the West it is likely the Western governments would continue to keep this knowledge hidden (as they did in our time) but this would last until the collapse of the USSR most likely. 9. Given the loses the Japanese would maintain invading then failing to hold the Australian mainland and assuming they had to take these divisions of men from Manchuria I would say with the defeat of Germany and given the longer route taken by the USA south from Australia to Japan it would have been more likely that either the entire Japanese mainland would be taken by the Soviets or the Japanese would hastily surrender to the USA to stop themselves falling to communism as the USSR fast successes in Manchuria had more impact on the Japanese leaders decision making than the use of nuclear weapons against them (sorry not sorry anyone from the US reading this).
@@alexandrabeecraft9286 1. Thats like saying UK was invaded by Japan because they lost Hong Kong 2. Stolen generation isn't a *major* atrocity 3. See 1. 4. Brisbane line also involved a scorched earth policy which while would stun the Japanese advances, would also not go well for Australia in general especially NSW and much more flammable & dry areas (which is most of Australia) 5. You didn't even explain your reasoning lol 6. If we retracted our troops from North Africa, the siege at Tobruk would have never happened, leading to Rommel taking Cairo. 7. We talking about Australia 8. We still talking about Australia 9. So basically what happened irl
Exactly. Atom bombs were ready in 1945, and likely would have been during this timeline also. Unless you're going to posit some sort of major disruption at Hanford or Oak Ridge. Also, Jewish scientists would still have fled to the U.S. from Germany prior to the war.
My first thought as well, if not used against Japan because of Russian ground invasion on the island, which would have been a useful soak of Russian forces from the U.S. perspective: let them take the mass casualties that would require. Then atomic weapons would have been used against Russian capital cities as soon as any post WW2 hostilities. Trying to intimidate the Soviets into submission would not have been as likely an attempt in this timeline. WW2 ends, Soviets in stronger position decide to grab some more real estate from tired allies. High altitude bomber (U.S. planes were better, Heck a lot of Russian planes were lend lease from the West) drops nuke on Stalingrade (and Stalin and leadership), chaos as government falls apart and ethnic minorities persecuted by Stalin revolt. Soviet empire falls apart fast. In fact Stalin and the Russians were so hatred that it was a serious tactical blunder of the Nazis in the invasion of the USSR to let the SS be involved. Many client states welcomed the Germans, as liberators throwing off the oppressive Soviet yoke. Only to realise that the Nazis were worse. If the Germans had played nice, they could have gotten allies from the local peoples to fight the Russians.
During 1940s Australia had very high gun ownership which was also a reason Japan was hesitant to invade. If they had of invaded be a lot of guerilla warfare in non urban areas.
"In the end the Japanese could have invaded Australia if they wanted to" no, they couldn't. both the IJN and the IJA stated that they did not have the logistics, troops or the shipping to do so. Logistics is everything. Shipping December 1941, Japan had almost 6.5 million tons of shipping, however the Japanese economy and existing military needs required 6.5 million tons of shipping to operate, there was no leeway and any diversion of shipping had to be temporary as it would mean cutting into strategic materials stockpiles. (The Japanese Merchant Marine in WW2 by Mark P Parillo). In December 1941, the Japanese tanker fleet totalled only 575,000 tons. (Brute Force by John Ellis). The IJA drafted 2,160,500 tons of shipping (roughly one third of the fleet!) at the start of the Pacific war (for supply and invasion forces), the IJA estimated that after July1942 they would be able to return all but 1 million tons. The Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) drafted 1,740,200 tons of shipping- (270,000 tons of which was comprised of tankers, almost half of the available tanker fleet). All up this was roughly 2/3 of the available shipping diverted to military control, leaving the economy with only 1/3 of the minimum shipping it required to function. But it is worse than that - 840,000 tons of the shipping left under civilian control were passenger vessels ill suited to cargo transport. (The Japanese Merchant Marine in WW2 by Mark P Parillo). The practical effect of this is that, even without US intervention, Japan was not in a position to keep even this amount of shipping under military control in an effort to invade Australia, such an effort would destroy their economy. Available Forces Australia, in 1942, was able to almost fully motorise 8 Divisions (and had 8 Divisions worth of troops in Australia at the time {The Australian army status report (AA MP729, series 6, file 42/401/142) }) and was also in a position to requisition vehicles as necessary from the large number of available civilian vehicles to make up any shortfalls. I could keep going, but lack of shipping alone ends the discussion.
Politeness You are dead right. Logistics is everything. It is said that amateurs think tactics the professionals think logistics. As General Nathan Bedford Forrest of the Confederacy said ‘Get there the firstest with the mostest’
They would have never had the shipping to keep Midway Island supplied, had they won it. Possible, but difficult. Now think about supplying an invasion army for Australia.
Mate, one of the items you failed to mention was command/supply lines, as well as size of force needed to invade a country with an entrenched enemy. There would have been no point in the Japanese juist seizing the coastal strip between Darwin and north of Brisbane because the resources they needed to prosecute the war were not to be found there. Your estimate of a 150K force (which equates to roughly 10 divisions) would have been grossly insufficient to hold this area with supply lines extended too far from Japan and their other conquered lands. No, there was no way an already overstretched Japanese military was going to invade Australia.
whatifalthist Australia called battle hardened soldiers from Europe when the Japanese started fighting the Australians in New Guinea. and by the time the Japanese landed most of Australia's soldiers would have been called back from Europe and North Africa
@@anthonyeaton5153 The Australian 6th infantry division fought in the defence of Greece from Nazi invasion in 1941. Australia was also involved in the Italian campaign.
I think you underestimate the sheer size of Australia. An invasion by the Japanese would have failed due to the sheer logistical nightmare. It's effectively impossible to control the East Coast of Australia with an invading force due to the vast distances between the cities which is why the Japanese concentrated more on stopping Australia as a staging post for the Americans which is what the bombing of Darwin and the Battle of the Coral Sea were about. Had the Japanese seriously attempted that invasion they would have lost the war quicker because they would have been stuck trying to invade and control a huge continent whilst fending off attacks from the US and the local population without the help of their Navy or Air Force which would be spread too thin to effectively stop any counter attack. They could well have controlled a part of Australia in the North but any movement towards Sydney would have been a disaster as they would overextend their supply lines and abilities to counter the inevitable retaliation. The best they could have hoped for is taking Darwin and North Queensland around Townsville and Cairns - any movement further south is simply not sustainable. The rest of the Pacific is very different as the Japanese were well suited to taking small Islands and the like but as you mentioned they found New Guinea nigh on impossible because it was a big sparsely populated island which they couldn't completely control and it's small in comparison to Australia.
they called them ‘chocolate soldiers’, assuming that the australians would melt as soon as they were faced with any meaningful conflict, but they held the line, and fought bravely in the jungles of south east asia.
Yeah but no one gives a shit about that I kill thousands of emus every year they are a dumb and stupid bird they run into fences as if there were drunk they are nothing but drongos mate
Japan: “We’re coming to attack you Australia”. Australians: “LOL ok mate”. Australians: *Laugh hysterically as Japanese landing craft are ripped in half by giant Sharks and Crocs.* Australians: *Laughs even harder and spit takes their VB when the Japanese troops that arrive by air are instantly wiped out by a horde of frenzied Emus and Kangaroos.* Australians: *Rolls on the floor, laughing their arses off when the Japanese Commander has his face crushed in by a wombat’s giant arse.*
right??? a divided Korea is bad enough, a unified communist one and a divided Japan would be horrifying. japan is a capitalist powerhouse. w/out it America would have a significantly smaller sphere of influence in Asia. but I also have several questions regarding the outcome. 1: wouldn't the fact that the Americans were sending more resources to the Pacific mean that the war would end sooner there and with more resources couldn't they have been able to say adopt a 2 front assault on the Japanese empire (both an island hopping campaign and a more infantry based push from the south up towards Japan?) 2: If Japan did in fact get split in 2 would we have the Japanese equivalent to the Korean war? also since you mentioned an invasion of Taiwan (a sort of counterpart to Okinawa) would this give the US grounds to support the Chinese civil war and if so, who wins that one??? rip: US influence in Asia if commies win, but a big W for America if the US wins because it would mean that the communist Korea would be surrounded by rival powers and would likely succumb to revolution (remember no communist China to prop up the failed state) and a possible similar situation with N.Japan only being able to receive financial support from Russia via Vladivostok (pretty much their only Major port in the region) making it much harder to keep control of. 3: where are the nukes in this timeline. even if America was unable to take places like Iwo Jima and Okinawa (right at japan's doorstep) they would have captured the Marianas which is where the Enola Gay and Bockscar were deployed from anyways. surely America would have used them in this timeline, if not to crush the Japanese - than at least to gain political leverage against the soviets at the negotiating table
they did alot worse than invade though look up rape of nanking and the Units they had full of torture alot of Aussie were captured by the japanese. my pops brother survived that but he came home a broken man.
then englands flag would be like the proposed northern flag where the st George cross follows the scandinavian flag rule if you haven't seen the flag it looks si9ck like i am from the north and i would honestly be pro having that flag
Darwin, Australia's most northern city, was bombed by the Japanese air force over 300 times during ww2. That's an invasion!!!! (IMHO) and the Japanese Army was stopped on the Kokoda trail in New Guinea. Please check facts before asking silly drongo questions.
1. Australia actually was invaded by the Japanese as New Guinea was actually an Australian territory but more on this in my third point. 2. "No major atrocities" please look up The Stolen Generation at a minimum. 3. Australia actually was invaded by the Japanese as New Guinea was actually an Australian territory and that is why conscription was allowed to occur causing the conscripts that you talk about on the Kokoda Trail, and it is kind of offensive to call them a militia. I sincerely doubt you would call American conscripts a militia. 4. You failed to mention the Brisbane Line which is actually the primary Australian initial reaction to the invasion of the mainland and essentially it was a plan that if the Japanese successfully preformed an invasion of the mainland the Australian government was prepared to surrender all territory north of Brisbane to the Japanese to buy peace. This is surrounded by some historical disagreement as to whether it would have happened but there is evidence that it existed so definitely should have been mentioned. 5. Generally speaking, you are hugely dismissive of the Australian armed forces despite acknowledging how in Kokoda despite being vastly outnumbered and equipped managed to hold back the Japanese Imperial Army. I would think it stands to reason that conscripts on the Australian mainland would be even more effective at countering the Japanese Army especially with supply lines stretched so thin. Since many in the comments have mentioned what both Ally and Axis army generals said in judgement of the ADF I won't go over it again. 6. I don't think it would have come to mutiny in North Africa and the reason is there was in our timeline concern over having our main forces in North Africa and if the mainland was invaded the Australia government would have ordered our forces back in defense. I believe the main outcome here would have been far more strained relationship between the UK and Australia and quite possibly even a declaration of independence directly post war. 7. The USSR already did most of the fighting in Europe and most Nazi resources went to the Eastern Front throughout the war. I would say at most the war in Europe would have only extended by a few months maybe six months but that seems a stretch (if a D-Day-esque invasion had happened). 8. I would have mentioned it would have been unlikely that the Holocaust would have become public knowledge until possibly even the collapse of the USSR as in our timeline they liberated all the death camps and in a European theatre without as much US involvement it is conceivable that no concentration camps are liberated by Western Powers. Given the distrust between the Soviets and the West it is likely the Western governments would continue to keep this knowledge hidden (as they did in our time) but this would last until the collapse of the USSR most likely. 9. Given the loses the Japanese would maintain invading then failing to hold the Australian mainland and assuming they had to take these divisions of men from Manchuria I would say with the defeat of Germany and given the longer route taken by the USA south from Australia to Japan it would have been more likely that either the entire Japanese mainland would be taken by the Soviets or the Japanese would hastily surrender to the USA to stop themselves falling to communism as the USSR fast successes in Manchuria had more impact on the Japanese leaders decision making than the use of nuclear weapons against them (sorry not sorry anyone from the US reading this).
A small Japanese exploratory raid from the sea is said to have happened in the Northern Territory under darkness but most participants got eaten by saltwater crocs. There is also a book called 'The Hidden Chapter's by Robert Piper published back in 1995 that covers several raids in it's last chapter. It mostly covers Lt Mizuno from the 'Matsu Intelligence Organisation (Naval). One of the plans was to insert badass convicted criminal to conduct guerrilla activities around the country to cause mass panic.
I will have to double check but Churchill had given his word, that if Australia was invaded, he would release the remaining Aussie Division to return to Australia, other than that is was interesting thank you. While I served in the RAN I read a book from the ships library call the Battle of Sydney by John Vader. Also you didn't mention the scorched earth polices of the Govt, that was in effect, after the bombing of Darwin and the Brisbane Defence Line, both where vital in the defence of Australia,
A few thoughts, sorry for the tear down hoping this is more constructive criticism :) We've had a number of bad atrocities, Native population wiped out in Tasmania for eg, or the many many smaller individual massacres throughout Victoria and NSW in particular off the top of my head. Invasion points: Darwin and Townsville were two of Australia's most militarised cities at the time, still are really. Imperial Japan (careful distinction there, especially with how much I love modern Japan lol) would really struggle there. Darwin was bombed because of this, but more to try and keep us away from New Guinea (technically this was part of Australia at the time also) The Daily Yomiuri a few years back released some awesome papers on "The Showa War" (Japan's name for WWII) and it's plans, including the proposed Australian invasion. I can't remember where they planned landings, but you are right in that Brisbane was critical to their plans. Take a look at their archives for this series, was a great read. Australian defence would have gone as follows: if the Chocko's on the Kokoda Track had failed, as we expected of them (hence their nickname - they were expected to melt in the heat!), then Port Moresby would be lost. We were recalling our African veteran troops already, the Brits had no say in that udecision, fresh from giving a bloodied nose to ol' mate Rommel in Tobruk and El Alamein. These were hard, HARD fellas and would have been well suited to the aggressive campaign our government had planned. Someone else commented below as well, so I'll not take all their glory (@dangerouslytalented it was) but I will confirm the "Brisbane Line" plan was legit, called for total evacuation and scorched earth policy. Everyone able would have been called upon for the fight in addition to this, men women and children and we would be a damn different country if so, I reckon we'd have made Vietnam look like cake at Christmas. Add to that I *REALLY* doubt the Yanks would come and save us as they'd write us off and concentrate more on their own objectives ie the Phillipines. So we'd be on our own, and all a bit F U to the world. Even if assuming US comes to "Save Us" (/me quietly vomits into my beer) their tanks wouldn't necessarily be able to be used. The Great Dividing Range is a series of hills and low mountains running along the east coast behind our big cities from Brisbane all the way down past Melbourne, that's where most of us have always lived, and it is not open country. Full of towns, hills, parks and forests, it'll be variable land that infantry would love. No, a fight in Australia would mean infantry on infantry in the populated areas, and the open areas frankly we'd just say have 'em, you try keeping them under control a la Brisbane Line ;P Still, all good thoughts and an interesting take on it all. Love to hear what you think of our comments, maybe a revisit down the line? :) Thanks for appreciating our Kokoda Track lads (and of course our Rats of Tobruk :D )
To be fair to the US politicians of the 40s and 50s I do think they genuinely, and naively, thought they were on the side of the angels standing up against wicked old European empires. I do find it hilarious (in a chilling way) how the three great land empires, China, Russia and the US, don't see themselves as empires. Just because you didn't have to get into a boat to nick some poor bugger's land doesn't mean it's not an empire. Please don't mistake me, I love and respect the US and as for Russia and China, well I love and respect the US. I just think we should be honest about history. The Zulu killed and conquered their way south into what we call Kwa Zulu today, the Chinese conquered dozens of folk to create the 'China' we know today. Russia started as a land the size of France centred around Moscow etc. etc. There are no 'good guys' .
What if Benedict Arnold never defected to the British army during the Revolutionary War? What if the Byzantine Empire never fell? What if the Knights Templar order was never destroyed? What if Hawaii never became a U.S. state?
They could win easily. All they need is to finish the Trans-Siberian railway earlier, and not have the Doggerbank incident so the Russian fleet can use the Suez Canal, and get to Port Arthur quicker. And boom Japan is crushed.
Star dust honestly they wouldn't even need the Navy to force the Japan off the continent, it was mostly administrative incompetence and nepotism in the underfunded military that lost the war for Russia. The Russians had a much larger population, and I believe that if they could mobilize their population in the way the Japanese could they would have won handily without the trans Siberian railroad
I couldn’t finish this garbage. I grew up listing to stories about a grandfather that went from Africa to Kokoda. Took a grenade to the chest, came home, healed, went back to fight because he wouldn’t leave his mates. Was offered a promotion to stay home and apparently said “you don’t kill the enemy from behind a desk” Kokoda was hell, I’m told by the time you saw the enemy it was often too close for guns. It’s bayonets and fists. Everyone was sick and wounded. At Gona the Anzacs went in under their own artillery. You’ve no idea what you’re talking about.
As it turned out the Japanese twice asked Australia to surrender. They sent their best troops (the Nanking Massacre division) to New Guinea where they were wiped out suffering 90% losses. Meanwhile the Americans couldn’t kick the Japanese off a tiny island called Guadalcanal and Australia defeated another Japanese landing at Milne Bay.
What are the arrows at 4:03 supposed to mean? They can't be fleet or army movements as the arrow from Chile would in no way connect with NZ. They'd have to use the south equatorial just like the US, unless they wanted to take a trip and the globe.
Man this really demonstrates how far your channel came in a relatively short period of time. And I remember this was considered groundbreaking back in the day.
G'day Whatif, Thank you for this video and for your excellent pronunciation of Australian locations (a rare thing). You were 100 per cent right, IJF had no plan to invade Australia for the reasons you stated and a few more you didn't. When the IJF seriously attacked the islands north of New Guinea and were moving to take New Guinea, the Australian Government and Army C-I-C, General Sir Thomas Blamey, decided to move most of the Australian forces out of the Middle East, leaving only the 9th Division in place, for a while. The British did not prevent this move as it was clearly stated to Britain at the start of WW2 that Australian forces would not be commanded by British Generals, as was the, disastrous, case in WW1. General Blamey was armed with a Charter, he wrote and was endorsed by the Australian PM, giving to him complete control of Australian forces deployed overseas in the '2nd A.I.F.'. When the Australian Militia forces were first sent to New Guinea needed reinforcement, the 9th Division was withdrawn from the Middle East and sent directly to New Guinea. (Churchill wanted these troops sent to South East Asia. He was ignored by the Australian PM.) These seasoned, battle hardened troops ably assisted the less experienced Australian forces, ultimately driving the Japanese to the north of New Guinea, now with US troops assisting, the Japanese were easily routed from the shores of New Guinea. But then your 'What If' timeline goes haywire. You placed far too much importance on the fact of Australian troops being withdrawn from the Africa campaign. Your 'knock-on' effects would certainly not have caused the, almost, global ramifications you go on to postulate. There were never enough Australian troops in Africa to make a win or lose scenario even a remote possibility. Sure, Australian forces were highly effective fighting in Africa and were repeatedly commended for their actions in battle, if not their actions in bars or townships ;) Still, there simply weren't enough of them for their absence to swing victory to defeat. Finally, even before MacArthur was sent to Australia from the Philippines, there were large numbers of US forces in Australia and many, many more arrived after MacArthur. Had the IJF made a deliberate move to invade Australia then these US forces would have stayed in Australia, or returned there, to help the Australians defeat the invaders. The main reason the IJF did not even seriously consider an Australian invasion was simply geographical. They knew enough about the topography of our country to know that one has to travel at least 600 miles; up to 2 thousand miles to reach all the capital cities, except for Hobart, across Bass Strait. Unlike Russia and Europe, there are no towns or villages of any note where armies can loot supplies of food, water, fuel or ammunition. There is nothing to support an army, especially an army with no experience of desert warfare. Japanese tanks were, to be frank, a joke. They could be picked off with a few well-placed hand grenades or .50 MG fire. To make an invasion work, the IJF would have to construct several large airfields. Transporting the many thousands of tons of cargo to do something like this was simply out of their capability. Their merchant shipping was being steadily sunk by the USN and the RAN. Troopships bringing 800K+ IJA soldiers to Australia would be ‘sitting ducks’ for Allied naval power. Aboriginal members of the Australian Army were, and are, skilled survivalists able to find 'Bush Tucker' (food) and water just about anywhere. Although not enough to feed armies, these natural sources of food would amply supply small groups of commandos and raiding forces that could move through the bush, undetected setting ambushes and explosive traps for the Japanese. The modern Australian Army has formally incorporated many Aboriginal survival skills into its routine training for our Northern Force that have the capability of moving swiftly throughout our northern regions. There is a significant air base in this region, at Tindal, while the RAN can swiftly move vessels to any part of the Australian coastline. Thank you, again, for your interesting video, however, one can take a relatively small event and exaggerate its on-going effects to a point where there are too many 'what ifs'. Cheers, BH
I was waiting for someone to comment something like this, even if the Japanese somehow managed to take control of Australia. militia forces would be extremely hard for the japanese to deal with, the fact is that the population of australia consisted of miners, farmers (not just 'boys and old men') and aboriginals who have lived on the land for millennia, a militia force would cripple any operations the japanese tried
@@the_donz G'day DW, Yes, the invasion of Australia was never on the table for the IJF. In the age of the Dreadnoughts, you'll recall, Japan modelled its armed forces structure on the British, especially its Navy on the Royal Navy. We were all 'friends' back then and RAN ships used to join RN and IJN ships in exercises. Japanese merchant shipping was beginning to become common to and from Australia and I'm certain that casual intelligence gathered by the Japanese Merchant Marine (at least its equivalent) was not ignored come wartime. Of course, it would have been relatively easy for the IJN to land parties on our Western and Northern coasts, from submarines, to scout Australian terrain. As this coastline is so vast and, generally, uninhabited. Quick raiding parties to seek out natural resources to support an invasion would have been able to go about their missions without ever being noticed. Our research has not encountered proof of this, however, that’s not to say it didn’t happen as a secret, covert operation to check us out. One way or another, they learned the truth. Yes, the Japanese were fully aware of the difficulty of a full scale invasion of mainland Australia and, early on, decided against it. They had sufficient problems supplying their Pacific island forces after the USN ironed out its problems with their torpedoes. USN subs and anti-ship Catalinas from the US and the RAAF harassed Japanese supply convoys. It was actually a couple of 'off the cuff' press interviews given by Douglas MacArthur, after he arrived in Australia, that really stirred up fears of a Japanese invasion, and incidentally, where the myth of the Brisbane Line became as good as truth, thanks to MacArthur. He really did a lot of damage to Australia's war effort and morale. Prime Minister Curtin knew nothing of military matters, nor did he know how to manipulate the press and radio. He actually handed over the right of censorship of the Australian media to MacArthur's senior staff officers. This was unprecedented for a foreign country to place its media in the hands of a foreign general. Prime Minister Curtin didn’t really like the then head of the Army, General Sir Thomas Blamey, but he really did respect his tenacity and background as a British-trained Intelligence Officer before WW1. Luckily, we had General Sir Thomas Blamey who, in the Australian military structure, actually outranked MacArthur. Blamey saw to it that he kept a close rein on the goings on in MacArthur's Brisbane H.Q. General Blamey set out to tap all of MacArthur's phones in his H.Q. so, to cover this move, he actually tapped all of the phones in Brisbane. Blamey was able, on a few occasions, to head off MacArthur before he could do further damage to Australia's morale and war preparedness. At the time, thanks partly to PM Curtin, MacArthur was seen by Australians to be a 'saviour' sent by FDR to protect Australia. Nothing was further from MacArthur's mind. At his farewell dinner, thrown by PM Curtin before he left Australia, MacArthur, in his speech thanked the Australian government and people but then added some rambling remarks about how he would have done what he had done in Australia anywhere else. He referred to Australia as a 'virtual aircraft and supply carrier' or words to that effect. Basically saying that Australia was just the right place at the right time for him to further his quest to get back to the Philippines. He only briefly made passing reference to the fact that Curtin had handed over most of Australia's manufacturing industries to equip American soldiers. We made everything from US insignia badges to uniform sox for the Americans. Then they left. Australia's battle proven Army and its Militia, who had also seen heavy action, were sidelined by MacArthur and relegated to 'mopping-up' operations. This was not accurate. Some of the 'mopping-up' campaigns were among the bloodiest actions of all the land battles in the South Pacific. These and many other details are from our research on Blamey and MacArthur my co-producer and I have done, over the last 14 years for a TV/Internet documentary series that we have been unable to finance or complete shooting because of the pandemic. We hope to resume our work on this huge project soon. There are details on: www.TheBlameyEnigma.com.au Thanks for your comments and interest. Cheers, BH Commander-In-Chief Productions
@@BillHalliwell thanks for taking to time to reply, I never knew about MacArthur's time in Australia. I'll be sure to check out your website/documentary. It sounds interesting
@@BillHalliwell I'm interested to see some of that content. History is written by the victors, but for the amount of war-winning Australia has done, it hasn't written enough history. Perhaps you could post some snippets or trailers for your doco?
Thank you for acknowledging the part about untrained Australian militia defeating the Japanese in New Guinea at Kokoda, even though those few young Australians available at the time were out-numbered 3 to 1. It must have been hell. The absence of regular armed forces was due to them being engaged in North Africa & the Middle East defending the British against the Germans & Italians. My father fought on both fronts with the 9th Division Australia Infantry Forces (AIF), the most decorated division of the AIF. At the battle of El Alamain (North Africa) & at Kokoda (New Guinea), these were the first battles of WWII where the Germans & the Japanese respectively were first defeated. On both occasions AIF were involved. At Kokoda however, it was exclusively Australian militia. Most Australians used to own guns. As a 14 year old (c. 1966) I was trained in Air Force cadets to shoot a 10 shot Lee Enfield 303. However, treasonous Prime Minister John Howard in collusion with globalist 'do-gooder' agendas, FAKE media & a now brain-washed multi-cultural general public, gun ownership has been banned in Australia, except for police & cunning criminals of course. Australia? Few 'modern Australians' realize that from the the 1860's to the mid 1960's Australians had created a standard of living rated between the 1st & the 3rd highest in the world. We achieved this in less than 200 years from being a British penal colony where convicts were considered less than slaves, being of no commercial value. However, thanks to what was to quickly become an educated white Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation, thanks to access to the Bible & the 'tryanny of distance' Australians were forgotten & left to their own devices to become the once great nation it was. However, due to multi-culturalism, thanks to U.N. globalist (socialist) agendas, the Australia I grew up in from the 1950 & 60's no longer exists. For example, the mid 1960's was the time we won a couple of international Formula One (F1) championships, in race cars designed, built & driven by Australians. Our engineering standards were second to no one & we had many companies with sophisticated R&D facilities. In the 1920's for example we built 3 massive dams, the Sydney Harbour Bridge & an extensive tram & heavy rail system, including the Sydney underground rail system... all this for Sydney alone, we built it ourselves. And except for the harbour bridge, much was financed by bond issues without the use of internationally controlled PRIVATE banking cartels, AKA the Reserve Bank of Australia, the U.S. equivalent of which is known as the Federal Reserve Bank. Later there was the vast Snowy Mountains Scheme to irrigate which diverted the annual snow melt from the Southern highlands, diverting for irrigating of a our flat but fertile dry regions of New South Wales. However, after many decades of successive self interested right & left (Liberal & Labor Parties) & of course, Vatican (Jesuit) determinations to destroy what was a progressive Protestant religious heritage Australia is in shambles. Today, our industrial manufacturing base has been systematically dismantled & the major, & rather sole industry left is the high rise building game. The education system has been taken over by atheistic, communistic, feminist & or homosexual interests, where the only Australian history taught with any enthusiasm is that of Australian stone age aborigines & their rainbow serpent 'dream-time', didgeridoos, boomerangs & dot paintings. Australia's one time highly productive, white Anglo-Saxon Protestant heritage is shunned, because it doesn't fit with modern 'dream-time' leftist & globalist Vatican philosophies. I could see this coming decades ago & decided not to have children. Tough call, but necessary, (any feminist understands how necessary it is not to have children), however, natural thinking women can't understand that position, & so several times I had to walk away from loving relationships because they wanted children. I'm glad I did however, knowing what I know of where this 'nation [now] without a clue' (Australia) where it is & where it's heading. Too few realize that what was the lawful Government of the Commonwealth of Australia (dejure) has become the legal (but unlawful) Australian Government (defacto). What does that mean? It means that while most, especially migrants & the socially progressive, were too selfish & greed driven to bother to maintain a homogenized Australian culture. Instead they trampled our culture with theories & or replace what was an egalitarian Australian culture, with tribalism. All the while, Australia was/ has already vanished in a silent coup d'état. In case you still don't know, multi-culturalism eventually leads to relativistic culture, along with minimal standards for most everything, except deceit, debt, violence & theft of all property (including your children) by the state. Australia has been successfully divided, conquered & destroyed because it was the finest example of how things were & 'could have continues being', i.e. until the Vatican/ socialist/ globalist agendas were effectively implemented by do-gooders, narcissists & traitors.
Well, you could have raised your children to be good hard working Australians resistant to this shit like my dad did with me and I hope to do with my son's, the decision not to breed of many of the elder generation has made Australia what it is, now there is no hope of fixing it. Through anti-natalism, actual Australian natives are now a hated underclass, current plans are to evacuate the cities and form enclaves in private towns and grow our own food, educate our own kids, what are they Gunna do to stop us? Waco us? I dare em to, it's either that or we just flee to America and do it there where there's steady rainfall and cheap land aplenty. I know how ya feel as my dad regrets not taking his training (5rar) and doing something when he was young and geed up from nam. The ocker fighting man is still the greatest in the world. We just haven't had a chance to prove it this generation, but we will.
4:03 you made this part up. Although internment camps for Japanese Americans where a common occurrence, it wasn’t because of racism, it was mostly due to the wartime fear of Japanese spying. I came here for history, not editorialization. Shame.
Indonesia would be a strong economic power and its geographic position would make it more strategically important than Japan or south Korea. This is due to its size and with a small fleet it can easily control all trade in between the Indian ocean and the pacific. Also having this territory would make winning the Vietnam war easy due to Indonesian support with their army already being skilled in jungle combat.
If the Germans take Egypt and Iraq they could then move south to North toward Baku - that is were there is break in the mountains. So they actually take the Caucus mountains - no Stalingard in fact the immediate propsect of taking Baku would like keep Hitler focused on the oil rather than the fact Stalingard is named Stalingard. And that likely means they bag Turkey as an ally and overun Iran and Saudi joins Germany and all the Arabian Pennisala falls to Germany.
Over run iran depends if they got there before 1941 iran would be happy to let em in, since iran hated ussr and gb. If they made it after they will have to fight ussr and britain there plus indian forces.
As an Australian and history/alternate history fanatic, I’ve always wondered about this question in real life terms. Great work. P.S Love the channel and recommended it to friends. Fascinating, well-researched and addictive content. Also massive props for not punctuating your videos with annoying jump cuts or dumbing the content down with memes every 5 seconds. Features which render similar what if channels basically unwatchable.
You have forgotten about The Manhatan Project, it was initially creating a weapon to defeat Germany and it would not have really matter where it was used first the part of the axis alliance would probably have sued for peace would have also kept The Soviets in line as it would be another four years before they had the bomb.
Australians: Ohh, the Japanese are coming. What do we have to fight them with? Stronger industry? No. More soldiers? No. More venom? YES! SEND THE EMUS THE DINGOS AND THE SNAKES!
Sukarno was a fascist with pro-Hitler tendencies. Along with Francisco Franco, he was one of the few remaining people running far right fascist governments. In fact, there was a communist revolution in Indonesia in the 1950s I believe that was so wide spread that the US supported Sukarno's government, even after the revolutionaries were defeated. In this timeline, the US, seeing communism as a far larger threat since the Soviets have Denmark, Norway, Italy, the Netherlands, all of Germany, all of Korea, and half of Japan, along with Mao's revolution being successful in China, the US government would be more willing to cooperate with these nazi countries (I am NOT claiming the US would become nazi, just that it'll help these countries more than in our timeline). Seeing the French Communist Party gain popularity and the fact that the Allies invaded France so late in the war, the US would be scared the French people might turn communist, especially with Germany and Italy right next door. Therefore, Francoist Spain, as a method of having a stronghold on continental Europe, would join NATO along with Portugal, leaving Iberia as a last layer of defense. In addition, Sukarno and Indonesia would be as important of an ally as South Japan. Thus a sort of Pacific alliance would form between the US, Canada, South Japan, Indonesia, Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand (Canada simply for convenience, Philippines since it was a former US colony, and the last two due to the US's large influence in WWII. Perhaps Taiwan could join, although a fully communist Korea may somehow give China the chance to launch a naval invasion. For sake of argument, I'll say the situation in our timeline remains, and, to prevent war, Taiwan doesn't join the alliance). This could just be a bunch of common defense treaties or a formal union like NATO. If it is a sort of Pacific Treaty Organization (PTO), the Soviets may wish to create a global alliance, expanding the Warsaw Pact to include countries outside of Europe (them being Mongolia, China, Korea, and North Japan). The hightened tensions would certainly cause a Korean War type fight in Japan, which I'll call the Japanese War. Having two points of invasion, from the north and by a naval invasion from Korea, the communists may win. Keep in mind Japan in this timeline was defeated by invasion not surrender, meaning the people are more prone to be angry and eager to become powerful (also, nationalist tendencies may still prevail). I believe either the whole of Japan becomes communist under the North Japanese government or just the main island of Honshu with Kyushu and Shikoku being home of the South Japanese government, although once the communists take Tokyo its pretty set in stone that the South Japanese people will think of the North as the legitimate government. After that, its hard to predict. Maybe instead of trying to contain communism, the US and its allies will isolate themselves and their colonies, since communism will have reached from the Netherlands to Japan all under a single united massive Warsaw Pact.
you know what, you probably are one of the most original AH youtubers. no one else would do an interesting and unique TL like Japanese invasion of Oz, at least not on youtube.
The Battle of the Coral Sea was in the north EAST of Australia. It was not only American ships involved, Australia and the Netherlands also had forces there.
Very strange results without any reason: 1. Ok, Japan can invade Australia with the SU border troops and some luck, and probably SU would not do anything, seeing it a good opportunity to use his own border troops against Germany. 2. USA dropping everything for Australia: Why? They did not do it for France, Most of Europe or even for the SU which at the start could resulted with a total German (Axis) victory. 3. Ok, USA diverts some stuff from Europe, giving less to UK and much less to SU, and instead fight with Japan. This would mean a quicker victory over japan, not a longer one, even with larger initial losses and maybe even with more total losses (Esp if they need to land in Japan mainland), but no reason for longer war. 4. This would not mean a better SU endresults. SU was in a very tricky spot and greatly helped by UK and US support, not by military stuff (less thaan 10% of the SU military equipment arrived in the convoys), but with logistical stuff (around 30% what the SU has arrived from UK and US) and mostly in food, 5-20 million people could have starved to death without those food supplies. Reduced or even nulled supply would mean a possibly SU collapse and WWI style armistace or even surrender from SU, which would mean either peace with most Europe except the British Isle in Axis hand or lengthy bombings and than nukes dropped (in worse case in both ways.) 5. IF the SU did not collapse (enough food arrived or Stalin holds out even from Asia), the Japan defeat would mean the entire US industry would start to kill the Axis warmachine, D-day in early '45 and quick run to the Germans, while the Eastern front still beyond SU original borders, most of Europe falling into Allied hand and SU never recovering from the war. Also without SU aid the Communist Chinese would have no chance against the Nationalist, so no Commie China too.
Very interesting video. You seem to have an interest in history, which is cool, and it's fun to theorize alternate history events like this. Although I wanted to point something out. If the USSR were to invade Japan, They'd most likely invade from the Korea's. They MAY be able to island hop the Kuril Islands. But I can't see Japan split into 2. Stalin, though he wished he could have all of Japan, was aware it would dangerous and vulnerable to deal with the Japanese home islands, and would probable put his focus mostly on China. It's also possible Japan would be split into 4 sectors like Germany was. But I still just see an American occupied Japan.
Ruben Gallardo Then Hungary would have broken apart earlier,which surely wasnt Austria's aim,it just wanted to be the dominator of the german states,not a unification.
reaperz No,thats not what i meant.Austria didnt just include austria,but also hungary and other mostly slav-populated territories.If it would have initiated a german unification,it couldnt have included hungary and the other territories into it,which would have split its territories and in the end would have made it far weaker than before.It wouldnt have accepted this.
minecraft and i said that Germany is much richer than czech rep and hungary so they would be far richer owning germany than hungary and those other poorer balkan lands
It was strange hearing you mention Bundaberg when talking about where Japan would've invaded from, considering I only live about half an hour south of there.
Depending how you look at it the indigenous population of Australia was estimated to be 300,000 to 1.2million pre Western arrival. A population smaller then Ireland when the Roman invaded Briton, in a place about the size of Europe, don't get me wrong it was a hard place to live at the time but with over 250 languages with 100s of sub groups within that and tribe's the biggest have about 200 individuals in it without western settlement it probably be one he'll of a mess now lot's of fighting that's if the Asian powers didn't move in which they would have.
but in our timeline when the threat of japanese invasion was near our forces were under australian control and were able to leave whenever. the only hinderance was relying on british transports which was delayed anyway in our timeline by the british.
Australia also had massive stockpiles of poison gas scattered along the east and north coast as well. Something not well known. The cruisers Canberra, Australia and Hobart also saw considerable action in the Coral Sea. Some controversy surrounds the loss of the heavy cruiser Canberra to friendly fire...
I would like to mention two things: The first is how utterly Australian and New Zealand patriotism revolved around the British. There is absolutely no way that any Australian would have mutinied against the British, beyond the fact that they didn't even know it. Papua New Guinea was at the time considered a part of the Australian nation, as our colony, and very much was the Kokoda trail felt like a war on our own sovereign land, and a loss there would have sent the significant remaining adult population into full mobilisation. The second part is that Darwin, despite its relatively low population, was armed to the teeth. I've been there myself and seen the artillery, the river was fortified to prevent submarine invasion and the majority of the city's adult population was ready to mobilize to defend it due to how pressing the fear of an invasion was. More concentrated population areas like Brisbane were less fortified and thus more practical to take, but it is honestly just unlikely that Japan would be able to take northern Australia with few enough casualties to consider the rest of Australia valuable.
We pulled troops out of Africa and the Middle East after the Japanese invaded png. Plus we had American troops helping towards the end of the Kokoda track campaign, do you think they would have contributed if they were taken out of png in time?
"....no major war has scarred the land"
did you really forget about the great emu war?
Utterly disrespectful to the 2,500 emus that lost their lives.
Does the war against dingos count?
The emus would have devastated the Japanese.
The indigenous Australians would tell a very different story. Australia has arguably been at war with itself since its inception but we like to forget that. Do only conflicts between powerful nations count? The inevitable subjugation of an ancient culture to colonial greed is a bit more difficult to acknowledge.
These issues are very important. It is the very reason Australia and New Zealand remained separate nations and there are no “United States” of Oceania. Things would be very different if this had been resolved.
*hint hint
The Australian troops in Africa fighting in Tobruk were the 9th devision, they were know as “the magnificent 9th” or “the rats of Tobruk” they were the hardest toughest men Australia had and Erwin Rommel was quoted “if I had to take Hell, I’d use The Australians to do it and the New Zealanders to hold the ground”, he also said “give me two Australian devisions and I will conquer the world for you”.
Germans thought it was a good idea to mortar The Australian throughout the night so they couldn’t sleep so the the rats climbed through no mans land and went into the German trenches and slit the throats of the Germans, if the Aussies can’t sleep, neither could the Germans, the Germans learned to stop shelling at night for fear of the Anzacs.
The 9th devision was pulled out of Tobruk when Japan started its move towards Port Moresby, Churchill was pissed about that.
“My God, I wish we had [the] 9th Australian Division with us this morning” - Major General Freddie de Guingand, Chief of Staff, Allied Land-force Headquarters Europe, 1944 D-Day.
These guys were fucking legends.
When they went to Kakoda they relieved The Australian reserve soldiers who were copping a beating against japans greatest soldiers, they sent 10,000 to kakoda of the emperor’s personal greatest fighting force, they did all kinds of dirty tactics but when Japan met the 9th devision they learned what real war was, they fought the most terrifying force they’d ever seen in hand to hand who out played them, with supplies getting stretched for the japs as it got harder to reinforce their front lines they were force to retreat.
It should be know that Australians wear the emu and the kangaroo, these are the only two animals who cannot go backwards, only forwards just like the soldiers, go forward, dig in and hold and then push forward again.
They should make a god damn HBO TV series based on these guys like they did with band of brothers so more people can learn about them.
My father fought in the desert and in the Jungle,they where a different breed of Australians than the diluted version that walks the streets of our major cities today.Imagine going to war with China,we would have to intern the inner city of Melb for a start
Uh mate are you talking about the Second World War here, or the First World War? If it's Second there were no trenches, or No Mans Land. They were fighting in holes in the ground.
@@dennisdobin1918 wow this the most "Boomer comment I've seen
@@phantasyboy1031 the second world war had trenches too, it just wasn't a huge stalemate.
@@djkaibaxter419 No there were no trenches in the Second World War only First World War. They had ditches in the Second.
Obviously the Emus would revolt and force the Japanese out
and how!
but first they had to get past the salt water crocs....
The emus wouldn't need to revolt, they would repel them originally.
Emu... if your Australian you will know Cassowary will beat the shit out of you
Cassowaries tend to avoid fighting when possible
Kangaroos of that time were trained to punch the enemy
Tojo: let's invade Australia!
Meanwhile in Australia...
Dingo1: why are you smiling?
Dingo2: I've never tasted Japanese before!
puchy110 hilarious
puchy110 Dingo sushi
puchy110 lol
If it happened in the current year
“Let the Japanese in you bigot”
Dingos can't talk
I'm guessing this lad hasn't actually met any Australians.
Haha i highly doubt it
@@darrylwikohika9068 You clearly no nothing of the situation if you did you'd no most of them are getting deported and "America saved our asses" as that why you need us in Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, and signed the ANZUS treaty as far as i can tell you need you just as much as we need you, maybe more, cause remember there's always China to buddy up to ;)
@@darrylwikohika9068 Lmao the Sudanese are nothing compared to Australians.
Without the US, Australia would be a Japanese prefecture today.
@@jeanbethencourt1506 yeah I'm sure they'd love a land full of desert.
An American who can pronounce Brisbane and Melbourne correctly...good on ya mate.
Still waiting an Aussie to accurately pronounce Houston and New Orleans......
They've seen Ron Howard's "Apollo 13"; they know how to pronounce "Houston".
It's not Mel-burn tho
Lol try pronouncing Mandjoogoordap or toodyay! That will stump ya.
@@cameraman655 what accent would you like that in? 👍😁
3:45 “Australia would scrounge up a small Militia of young boys and old men which would fail” Kokoda proves otherwise
I think he has australia confused with nazi Germany at the end of ww2
Sean Davies me or the guy who made the vid?
Guy who made the video mate
Who dat?
The young boys and old men of Australia are the WORST. They are the last people you want to meet in a fight as the enemy.
Australian Liaison Officer on MacArthur's staff was asked,
"what would you do if 50,000 Japanese landed on the north coast?"
His answer:-
"I would wait 3 months and then go out and pick up the bones"
I know what he means, I have driven all over it!
I have as well john. Unless you know the land in North Australia you won’t last long at all. The Japanese forces wouldn’t take long to perish from thirst or starvation..
I think there are two factors you are forgetting here.
1- Australians at that time all knew how to shoot, where to find water, and how to avoid getting killed by the native wildlife. The "old men" would be battle hardened veterans of WWI.
2- The Australians had native tank and aircraft production - while our tanks were nothing compared to the European theater, they would be very effective against most, if not all, of the Japanese armour of the time.
Another thing to consider is that all Australians at that time would do anything to defend their homeland, with a ferocity rivaling that of the Japanese soldier. Nothing is stronger at that time than the Australian mateship.
Basically every household had a firearm, and more than one person knew how to use it, and use it well.
This was a time when kids were taught to shoot, and most people living bush had the ability to track, trap, hunt, and live off the land.
While I dont like what was done to the aboriginal people at this time, I would like to think that something like a Japanese invasion would unite them with the white aussies to form effective raiding parties all along the Japanese supply lines.
You say that Americans would come to our defence and turn the tide. This may be true, but never underestimate the effectiveness of a pissed off aussie. We would have given them hell, as proven by our grit and determination when basically starved and unarmed on the kokoda trail.
The Fridge "The Australians had native tank and aircraft production" Which production of tanks? in 1939, Australia owned only 14 tanks, 10 british Mark VIs and 4 Mark IIs, 13 M3 light tanks arrived in September 1941, while another 400 more were soon delivered. In 1939 the Australian aircraft industry barely existed, at the end of the war Australia had produced about 2,200 aircraft, Japan 64,000 (US 324.000). Without the huge American industrial power there was no possibility for Australia and probably not even for the United Kingdom against Japan.
Having and using are different things.
We had native tank design by the latter half of the war. The Sentinal series of tanks, armed with everything from door knockers to 25lb'ers.
We also had some rebuilt aircraft - to say that we took designs from others and reworked them into a heavy fighter/attacker.
The facilities that were built for war production is what kicked off our manufacturing in heavy industry after the war.
By the time we were in a position to be invaded, we were also in a position to be able to put up a resistance.
With Japan running such a long tail, and us in our own back yard, we had the advantage in several key areas.
We know the terrain, we had cutting edge medical aid in the capital cities, and the ability to recover and repair mechanized forces - as well as recovering downed airmen operating over land.
Also, the ANZAC spirit of mateship was still very strong, meaning that our boys would have the iron will just like the fanatical Japanese.
Japan has never intended to invade Australia, this is a well established historical fact as it went beyond its industrial and military capabilities especially after the attack on Pearl Harbor Harbor and the war with the American industrial giant. However, the Australian war production was absolutely insignificant, the Sentinel tank was built in 62 units and the aeronautical production was minimal, as I have already written, it is not a denigrating intent, just an analysis of the data. In truth nobody can know what would have happened in case of hypothetical Japanese invasion of Australia, the WW2 showed huge surprises, no one imagined that France, great European power, collapsed in 6 weeks, that the little Greece would reject the Italian invasion or that Singapore would fall in a week. On the other hand, history is not made with "ifs". Of one thing I am absolutely convinced, the WW2 was not won by those who were more courageous, determined or produced better weapons, but who produced more weapons than ever, the US and the USSR are the proof.
Oi! Don't slander the good name of the Hugh Mungus penis tank... I mean the Sentinel cruiser tank. It was a bloody good machine, we just got supplied with other bloody good machines quicker than we could produce our own. Matilda IIs, Shermans, even Lees.
I like the post, just adding that the mateship extended to NZ and when it came to ground combat in harsh conditions Those Boys Can Fight. If the entire world united just think about how powerful this world would be. That would be scary.
Emus and Australians would join together
"I nerver thought I'd fight alongside an emu"
"How about a friend?"
"I could do that "
Hahaha I have tears from the mateship and the absurdity. Needs to be a movie.
Australia were going to use a scorched earth policy for everything north of Brisbane, and the Australian troops were removed from North Africa while the New Guinea campaign was still ongoing. Therefore there would have been little effect on the North African campaign. Longer supply lines would have overstretched the Japanese navy, as the Japanese would have had to import everything, down to water for the Northern Australian tropical conditions. Australian sappers would have been able to sabotage Japanese inland bases. To get any foothold, they would have had to invade Townsville, while the Australian military was busy sabotaging everything. With the north from Brisbane onward being evacuated, there would be no base of slave labor, and with retreating soldiers burning everything of use to the Japanese, they would have had a fierce battle not just against the Australians and the US, but against the summer heat. They would have to take Brisbane to be able to get the infrastructure to even start a full invasion, but that is one hell of a stretched supply line. This would have weakened the Japanese military, both army and navy, and opened the pacific islands more open to invasion. The result may have been a faster loss for Japan, depending on the results of the battles for Townsville and Brisbane.
dangerouslytalented well said
Absolutely well said. Add a couple of extra features to the process however. At this time we were also ramping up the female activity in Australia with most women on the land already capable with guns and dangerously aggressive to boot to handle their very masculine partners. The war would have pushed us forward to full integration of armed forces making attempts at capturing Australian cities much like fighting in Stalingrad with widow makers a standard feature of war in Australia. Most women in the war above the age of 30 were going to sewing clubs (which often had gun training and guerrilla warfare training included, [Palmolive hair soap is a firm favourite for many of these older women for a reason]), Further the z forces were already in active swing and most farmers were veterans of the first world war and the industrial capacity highly protected at the end of the railway in South Australia and you get a nation salting the earth, mining the land and sea, utilising the killer nature of the land, placating the indigenous natives by loosing them on the Japanise (their hatred against the "Jap's" was far greater than that against the white folk thanks to their bombing of Darwin and attack on papa new guinea), and it would become the next best thing for hell for the Japanese. The meat grinder would have cost Australia tens of thousands of men and women but at an occupation cost of well over 30 to 1.If the japanise were thinking 200k troops they were really missing the mark on how many people it would have cost to get a beach head, let alone an occupation.
The Australian militia also was significantly better trained and equipped than he claimed and they and the population in general would fight fanatically against a foreign invader. An invasion of Australia even with a decisive Japanese Victory at Coral Sea would have turned into a blood bath. And as you said even if Port Moresby falls in May, the 7th Australian Division is already in Australia and the 6th is only weeks away, and the 9th would very quickly be released in the event of a Japanese landing as was agreed between Churchill and Curtin during the war. And the 1st to 5 Australian Divisions plus independent attached troops were more than 200,000 strong a significant force. It would have been a complete disaster for Japan even before you factor in their supply issues.
TLDR I agree
There were also 100,000 United States troops stationed in New Zealand during the war, not sure when they started being stationed there though but they could go across the Tasman Sea.
Not to mention that most farmers were used to being self sufficient, and were dam good shots (ammo is expensive, and of course most of what was being made was being sent to the troops, so they soon learned not to waste bullets). The guerilla resistance north of Brisbane would have tied up Japanese resources.
I really don't know why I once again decided to look up this channel. Maybe I thought it would grow, learn?
Once again, complete nonsense analysis. Started relatively fine, first blunder started with the invasion itself and the supply lines and at "Italy going communist" I just had to stop.
Listen Whatifalthist, you really need to up your game.
What would happen if Japan invaded Australia? The same thing that happened in our timeline with the sole exception that Japan would be kicked out of their Pacific holdings faster. That is it. Analysis done.
Australian army mutiny? Nope, never would have happened. As it did not happen when they themselves were used as cannon fodder countless times in this and previous war. A mutiny in Africa would also mean nothing - those people were not as stupid as you might think. They would want to go back to defend their home? OK, how would they get there? Only by RN ships, the same people they just mutinied against. Nope. They would stay, fight, and if anything be more determined to finish and be allowed to, in part, return to Australia if it was required.
Also, Australia did NOT have only boys and old men left. In 1940-1941 Australia had over 7 million people. Of those, at most in one time, in ALL theaters of war, in 1942 at its peak, served 476.000 people. That means that, by a standard conscription in the time of war of 1 soldier per 10 civilians, Australia would still have around 300.000 pool of standard soldier material to put to use.
Only after that initial pool of some 700.000 men would you see teenagers and old men get conscripted.
Add new Zealand and some US help that could be spared, and Japan would have to field over 500.000 men in order to take Australia - and even that if we consider that 1:1 ratio would be enough. It would not, Japan would have to field at least 2:1 in combat units plus another 300.000-400.000 support troops for non-combat tasks. Something they certainly did not want to do or could actually do.
So no, the whole analysis is broken at its starting point. Once again you did not fact check anything and you just made a series of ludicrous assumptions without baking them with anything. You just make an outlandish claim and then when explanation is expected, it is in all effect "Because I said so".
All that would happen is:
1. Australia does what most countries did and initiates a standard rate mobilization
2. Japan is defeated and gets kicked out of Pacific faster
That is it.
I am not even going to start about those Germans reaching "middle eastern oil fields" thing because no one in their right mind and having any knowledge of history would go and say that. But to help you out:
1. Army needs infrastructure. There was none.
2. Distance from the Libyan border to then existing middle eastern oil fields is some 2000km *in a straight line over land* . Distance between Berlin and Moscow is 1600km in a straight line. In Soviet Union Germans had roads and railways, yet they could not supply their troops that far. In Africa-Middle East without roads and railways? Take a guess.
3. Just because there were *some* oil fields at the time there, how on earth do you think that it would be transported back and used? No can do. That is why it was never actually considered to go and look for oil there. It was so ludicrous that even invading the Soviet Union was seen as a better prospect for getting oil - that alone should tell you volumes about that topic.
Fact check, fact check and then some more. If your goal is to create even remotely realistic "what if" scenarios. As I said before, if you just want to make videos for the sake of videos, then cool. You can do what ever you want, you don't have to make sense.
But if you want to do anything with any meaning, *please* pay more attention.
You definitely have an understanding of WW2. You destroyed his ass. Lol, I knew he was way off too but what if scenarios are interesting. Give him credit for that.
Александар Матић A@
Good to see someone debunking his inaccurate assumptions.
thank you.
nobody seemed to notice the fact that at 1:30 he said the battle of the coral sea was fought off the north west coast of australia...even though the coral sea is actually off the north east coast of the north eastern aussie state of queensland...points for making the image right after that statement a map of australia showing the coral sea to...the north east. kek
jesus christ...
1. Australia actually had a MILITIA with standardised military service, included a lot of veterans of the First World War.
2. the 2AIF was entirely volunteer and was less than 10% of able-bodied adult males by wars end over a million men of the 7 million population volunteered for the war, imagine what would have happened if the threat of invasion was actually realised.
3. the 2AIF in North Africa ACTUALLY WENT HOME because the Prime Minister told Churchill that they were needed to defend Australia, and you've completely overlooked the NZEF and the Indian forces in North Africa
4. the Australian 7th Division was already in the Pacific operating in Singapore and another Division was being raised at the same time
5. By 1942 the 2AIF was back in the Pacific
6. "Britain conquered Indonesia..." should be Australian and American troops under Macarthur liberated the Dutch East Indies who returned it to Netherlands, who granted it independence in 1947.
7. America would prefer to invade from the south instead of the East... you mean like how they did? the Pacific Allies worked their way from three fronts to attack Japan, from Burma from Australia and from Hawaii Nimitz and the Marines went from Hawaii, Macarthur and the Army (both US and Australian) went Island Hopping from the South
8.90% of Australia's population lived in Sydney and Melbourne, conversely all manufacturing was ALSO within this area. it was the Second World War and the need to develop Northern Ports which is what developed both Darwin and Brisbane.
9. While not proven, the supposed Brisbane Line Doctrine would have ceded everything North of Brisbane to defend everything within.
10. Australia did not have only "old men and young boys" to defend it, again Australia was a volunteer army.
11. America would dedicate a significant chunk of their forces to liberate Australia... Fortress Australia was already a thing with over 3 million Americans BASED IN AUSTRALIA DURING THE WAR entre US Army groups where deployed to Australia, and they still had the manpower to land an Normandy and provide to the war in the Pacific... you forgot that America also fought a war in two fronts....
Even your what ifs fail to grasp the actual history of the situation.
Japan would have to have gutted their occupation armies in Asia to even attempt to successfully invade Australia, and they would suffer from the fact that there isn't a lot of water and supplies readily available in the north of the country anyway, so all their supplies would have to be provided from Japan, which means over extended supply lines... and we saw the effects of that on Kokoda, for a prolonged invasion of mainland Australia, they would need to secure ports, and have a supply line that stretched back to Indochina... which is a LOT of open water for submarines to play in.
you really dropped the ball here, and then dropkicked the ball into the wall
Nicely put and I read it, but you didn't have to start with a blasphemy did you? No serious writer or geo-poitical interested author does that. Get serious and correct in your writing, not careless and offensive.
@@gortnewton4765 shut up
@@gortnewton4765 Hey take your delusional fantasies away. He started with a very normal aussie expletive.
@@aussiejim1616 Nope! Nuthin normal about that. Men in Australia rarely use it. I know. Only the low classes use it, but it is a useful means to identify people.
@@gortnewton4765 What a pretentious prick you turned out to be - a real drongo.
"The Japanese would press down the East coast of Australia towards Sydney, which they would likely conquer."
How?
Disregarding the assumptions about how easily they would invade Brisbane, a fairly militarised region by this time of the war due to already fighting the Japanese, you just skim over how they would so simply conquer Australia's largest city.
First of all, it's a long way. It will take time.
Next stop, Newcastle. A vital industrial port and mining city (especially steel production) that would be staunchly defended. The region, at the time, had a population around half a million and its workforce were dock workers, miners, steel makers, and farmers, a group that would likely form a decent militia and not that of boys and old men. Given how long it should take the Japanese to arrive they would likely be moderately well trained (if very quickly).
Assuming Newcastle is beat they must then cross the Hawkesbury, a river and valley system that is only passed today by a single artery of road and rail.
Then, and only then, do the get a chance at Sydney, a city that had a ww2 population of ~1.5 million, split by a major river, and a well defended harbour.
All of this is not something that just sweeps through. This invasion and capture of Sydney would take many months.
Also, The bomb is still ready by mid 1945.. The war isn't reaching 1946 no matter what the Japanese have managed so far.
This is the best comment so far Whatitalthist doesn't understand Australian terrain or Australian people. The tiny Japanese invading force would have faced an enemy resolved to total war. They had very limited resources, particularly with regard to mobility. It's easy enough to ride a bicycle along the Malay peninsula, but considerably more difficult to ride from anywhere they could possibly make a beachhead to anywhere of significance.
Don't forget that Australia was at that time capable of its own industrial production and would have rolled armour directly to the front line. Australia also had the fourth largest Air Force in the world by 1945.
The Japanese high command of our timeline knew they couldn't defeat Australians on Australian soil, that is why they made the decisions they made and didn't invade Australia. Any hypothetical involving Australia would have seen Japan weakened beyond measure, their supply lines would've collapsed in South East Asia and they would've been attacked by enemies on all sides: China, Russia, and the USA would've made short work of what was left, while the Australians (or rather "British" as they were known at the time) would've taken back New Guinea, Indonesia, Philippines, and Malaya with superior jungle fighting technology.
Well said on the whole re: the conquest of Australian cities. It took months upon months of incredibly bloody, proto-Stalingrad-cum-trench-war urban fighting for the Japanese to conquer the major Chinese cities on the Yangtze Delta even with absolute naval dominance, near absolute aerial dominance, superior equipment and trained soldiers. The fighting in Brisbane and Sydney would probably be even more taxing, since even if the overall scale is a lot smaller and the Japanese aren't QUITE as brutal and alienating as they were in China (itself a massive and doubtful assumption), they are still the world's largest ocean away from the Home Islands and facing an enemy that is competitive in the naval and air war.
And a Mongol-style "besiege and/or raze the city to the ground" isn't going to work since Japanese logistics were already dubious and past Port Moresby are going to be tangential, meaning they're not going to have the munitions to simply carpet-shell the cities until they aren't there anymore, even if it had been desirable.
That, it was frankly a miracle the atomic bombings were as effective as they were and very nearly didn't end the war. The Big Six were still evenly divided on Unconditional Surrender even after confirmation it was an atomic bomb, news that the Soviets had entered the war, and news that Nagasaki had been nuked reached them. It took the personal intercession of the God-Emperor personally chewing out the holdouts and *ordering* they submit to Foreign Minister Togo's doves to fold up the holdouts among the Big Six like Anami (and even then they continued arguing for hours afterwards).
And even AFTER that you had the coup attempt by rando Japanese middle manage officers to try and destroy the records of Japan's surrender in the dead of night.
The Pacific War can stretch into 1946 fairly easily and in some cases it kind of did (given fighting in Indonesia and Japanese holdout clearance).
not to mention we fight like utter basterds
Is this a joke?
Did you even study the geography of Australia?
If the Japanese landed in Northern Australia, the only thing the Aussie would do is send out search and rescue parties a month later to save the Japanese.
Wow, you are so ignorant, what about the fact that a few Australian teenagers beet some of the emperor's best troops while being outnumbered 3 to 1
@@nanochad2979 Do you know how to read?
@@Pantone2695 Oh no, i have been discovered lol
@@Pantone2695 *write
@@adampaul5237 No, I meant "read". The damn fool was too stupid to even recognize that I was complimenting the Aussie troops.
Australia had stockpiled one of the largest chemical weapon arsenals in the world during ww2. The plan was to use chemical weapons on a Japanese army if it landed. Australia would have been utterly ruthless in the use of these weapons, no doubt with the help of the US. The Japanese wouldn't have got far.
Hirohito: "WHAT DO YOU MEAN OUR INVASION FORCE WAS EATEN BY SHARKS AND CROCODILES?!?!?"
"Well, not all of them, Your Majesty. Some of them died of snake or spider bites instead."
I had family who fought in Kokoda. They found crates of Japanese One pound invasion notes to be used in Australian territories once invaded. I kept the notes as a good bit of history.
The Kangoroos, Emus, Dingos, And Saltwater Crocodiles would better arm themselves
The story of the Kokoda track is a legend in Australia
D Duckman my Grandfather fought on Kokoda but it was so bad for him that he never spoke about it to his family. He would only speak to my other Grandfather who fought in Africa. My father was lucky enough to know what he knows, my maternal Grandfather was a wealth of information regarding WW2. He was talking to the nurses about it while he was going through Cancer treatment, they were genuinely sad knowing he wouldn't have long. I could have learnt more about it if he was still around I used to love hearing about his experiences.
Thanks so much for sharing that, your grandfather is one of the hero’s who made our country what it is. What breaks my heart is there isn’t many of them left. I also had 3 grandparents in ww2 and it’s up to us to keep there spirit and memory alive. I wanna thank your family for serving our great country ❤️🇦🇺❤️
@@Dev.85 thanks for sharing your story, my great great grandpa also didn’t share and of his story’s of the Kokoda because of the traumatic experience. My grandpa was in a group of 106 soldiers my 1 of 2 soldier’s who actually survived . When he was on the trail he got both trench foot and malaria which made him very sick. When on the Kokoda trail he found 2 Japanese soldiers who he captured and transport back to his base. When he arrived back to Australia he never was the same he was always sad and depressed he never talked about his experience to anyone. Sorry if grammar isn’t good.
Angus, Legend means untrue.
Legend means untrue just almost all stories of Kokoda. Over sold.
I live in Townsville, 1300 km (800 Miles) north of Brisbane. The environment in the North Queensland bush is pretty harsh & dry, not to mention being full of animals & plants that want to either eat, bite, sting, poison, or give you a fascinating tropical disease. The rainforests are wetter, but the critters that live there are, in my experience, more voracious. When you're born & grow up here you know about these things, and how to recognize & deal with them. The Northern Territory can be just as inhospitable, as well as being hotter than it is here. The Japanese were pretty good at dumping an army in the middle of nowhere and then not supplying them. If they'd done that here I think it would have been a disaster for them. I think they also recognized that.
ant4812 They did that on many Pacific Islands with similar extreme environments and they still managed to have the ability to carry out operations and attacks (somehow). They're surprisingly resilient and adaptable to their environments.
@@nkvdcomradeorion7336 Your point is noted, however, I would respectfully question the accuracy of your logic and argument. No 'Pacific island' bears more than a superficial resemblance to some areas of thè northern parts of the Australian continent. In terms of size and inhospitable country there is simply no comparison. Over seventy five percent of the continent is uninhabitable desert and the distances are formidable. As well, the inhabitants would never allow an invading force to gain more than a foothold and any invader would be constantly harassed by the angry population. As well, the invader's lack of familiarity with the country would present a most difficult stumbling block. Supply lines, men and materiel would be so overstretched that an invasion would take many years to accomplish, if indeed it ever was. Do you have any real idea of how huge a place Australia really is??
All of you have great points, though I think the concensus is, Yeah this country of ours is bloody harsh. Not just back then but now as well unless you are prepared. Backpackers forget that and they suffer. Getting lost mixed with heat is a death sentence.
Yes one Australian officer was asked what would he do if 50,000 Japanese soldiers landed on the north coast? His answer was simple. “ nothing, I’d leave them there for 3 months, then send up my soldiers too pick up their bones” the Japanese wouldn’t last long in the harsh north Australian bush.
The australian army at the time was volunteers. the british wouldn’t be able to stop the aussies in north africa from going home because they’re still free men. not under mandatory service.
A hell of a lot of British servicemen volunteered.
Bombed a few times ? Actually there were 350 sorties on the Northern Territory of Australia, a submarine attack on Sydney, in New South Wales and 22,000 Australians captured (many from the 8th Division in Singapore). The Battle of the Coral Sea halted the Japanese prelude to invasion and the Japanese were stopped by Australians and Americans in New Guinea.
“Ever since the British colonization no major war has scarred the land”
-great emu war
The thing is no austrlian died and 25000 emus died so who really lost in this case
I mean they had two machine guns a truck and two men a only killed 25000
"The Australian, who are the men our troops have had opposite them so far, are extraordinarily tough fighters. The German is more active in the attack, but the enemy stakes his life in the defence and fights to the last with extreme cunning." - Major Ballerstedt (German Officer writing to his superiors).
If you have read anything into the North African campaign you would know that the Australian soldiers are very highly regarded amongst both Allied and Axis leadership. A force largely comprised of Australians managed to hold on at the siege of Tobruk for 5 months under terrible conditions facing a force much larger than their own.
I think it is highly unlikely that these soldiers would mutiny just because their home land had been invaded. They were well aware that their homeland was under threat and yet they still fought to the death in many battles in the European theatre. Your claim that they would mutiny makes this video highly unbelievable.
plus tell them that saving Australia was a top priority to the British and that it was being liberated by the Americans and British forces would probably keep them loyal. plus add in that the soon the African korp is beaten the sooner the can go home to fight and save there motherland they might be inspired to fight harder than ever before. plus if they revolt there stuck in a German dominated Africa without no navy to transport them home.
he is also missing the fact that at this point in time in his timeline, the 2AIF is already on its way home... so there wouldn't have been any need for a mutiny
Australians have a reputation of being stubborn and intractable when faced with conflict; fighting until their very last breath. I should know, I am one.
What if Germany never unifed
The Great Emu War AKA The deadliest conflict in human (and emu) history.
Ivy1Musical oh please stfu
all you got fuckface?
Was this actually a thing or are people making shit up?
Mr. Blue even though it wasnt a war just a few ex soldier's given 10000 rounds and failed at hitting them so they put bounties on them and it worked
ShAdOwMaN There was no formal peace signed between Australia and the Emu Empire.
There's a whole book series on this What If scenario.. and part 1 was made into a movie that didn't do too well because nobody really liked the books in the first place.. maybe you've heard of it.. It's called "Tomorrow when the war began". Basically, Japan invades Australia and takes over a small town. A group of teenagers organise a small resistance and fight in very brief hit and run and unconventional warfare until the proper armed forces arrive and decimate the occupying force. Whilst it's never outright said that the invasion force is of Japan, they're heavily implicated along with Korea and China.
Australia is brutally uninhabitable if you don't know where you're going or what you're doing, especially back then. I highly doubt Japan would've made it as far as Sydney by land, they'd of had to take the sea route. Which also means a LOT of land would remain unseen. You can literally come into one of our towns and it would still take a small army a week to scout out the entire place. It would be more likely that word would reach the populace of the invasion force hitting quite quickly, and Australians back then still had regular access to firearms (in fact they weren't outright taken from us until the 1980's). Japan would face a united civilian populace armed to the fucking teeth, terrain that is wildly unfamiliar and hostile to them, and weather that would make anyone second guess themselves.
Australia is the Siberia of the pacific, and as long as we have the will to fight heaven help anyone who comes here.
What if Spain won the Spanish-American war
Not really possible without pre-1800 intervention, but No Spanish-American war is fine.
calvin mcAfee Impossible.
Saying that we did not have any trained troops in Australia is not true there were thousands of US and Australian troops mainly American troops based around many smaller on the coast like Townsville and also the Japanese consistently bombed Australian air strips.
Mostly militia in the Aussie army in Australia by 1944.
Is this a school project? so many inaccuracies!!!
Because you dont want to believe it
Tell us them
@@aetu35 like this?
1. Australia actually was invaded by the Japanese as New Guinea was actually an Australian territory but more on this in my third point.
2. "No major atrocities" please look up The Stolen Generation at a minimum.
3. Australia actually was invaded by the Japanese as New Guinea was actually an Australian territory and that is why conscription was allowed to occur causing the conscripts that you talk about on the Kokoda Trail, and it is kind of offensive to call them a militia. I sincerely doubt you would call American conscripts a militia.
4. You failed to mention the Brisbane Line which is actually the primary Australian initial reaction to the invasion of the mainland and essentially it was a plan that if the Japanese successfully preformed an invasion of the mainland the Australian government was prepared to surrender all territory north of Brisbane to the Japanese to buy peace. This is surrounded by some historical disagreement as to whether it would have happened but there is evidence that it existed so definitely should have been mentioned.
5. Generally speaking, you are hugely dismissive of the Australian armed forces despite acknowledging how in Kokoda despite being vastly outnumbered and equipped managed to hold back the Japanese Imperial Army. I would think it stands to reason that conscripts on the Australian mainland would be even more effective at countering the Japanese Army especially with supply lines stretched so thin. Since many in the comments have mentioned what both Ally and Axis army generals said in judgement of the ADF I won't go over it again.
6. I don't think it would have come to mutiny in North Africa and the reason is there was in our timeline concern over having our main forces in North Africa and if the mainland was invaded the Australia government would have ordered our forces back in defense. I believe the main outcome here would have been far more strained relationship between the UK and Australia and quite possibly even a declaration of independence directly post war.
7. The USSR already did most of the fighting in Europe and most Nazi resources went to the Eastern Front throughout the war. I would say at most the war in Europe would have only extended by a few months maybe six months but that seems a stretch (if a D-Day-esque invasion had happened).
8. I would have mentioned it would have been unlikely that the Holocaust would have become public knowledge until possibly even the collapse of the USSR as in our timeline they liberated all the death camps and in a European theatre without as much US involvement it is conceivable that no concentration camps are liberated by Western Powers. Given the distrust between the Soviets and the West it is likely the Western governments would continue to keep this knowledge hidden (as they did in our time) but this would last until the collapse of the USSR most likely.
9. Given the loses the Japanese would maintain invading then failing to hold the Australian mainland and assuming they had to take these divisions of men from Manchuria I would say with the defeat of Germany and given the longer route taken by the USA south from Australia to Japan it would have been more likely that either the entire Japanese mainland would be taken by the Soviets or the Japanese would hastily surrender to the USA to stop themselves falling to communism as the USSR fast successes in Manchuria had more impact on the Japanese leaders decision making than the use of nuclear weapons against them (sorry not sorry anyone from the US reading this).
@@alexandrabeecraft9286 1. Thats like saying UK was invaded by Japan because they lost Hong Kong
2. Stolen generation isn't a *major* atrocity
3. See 1.
4. Brisbane line also involved a scorched earth policy which while would stun the Japanese advances, would also not go well for Australia in general especially NSW and much more flammable & dry areas (which is most of Australia)
5. You didn't even explain your reasoning lol
6. If we retracted our troops from North Africa, the siege at Tobruk would have never happened, leading to Rommel taking Cairo.
7. We talking about Australia
8. We still talking about Australia
9. So basically what happened irl
@@alexandrabeecraft9286 that’s like a book bro.
Where did the nuclear weapons go in this timeline?
Gared Tuttle- Manhattan project was 1945, AT THE END of WW2
Exactly. Atom bombs were ready in 1945, and likely would have been during this timeline also. Unless you're going to posit some sort of major disruption at Hanford or Oak Ridge. Also, Jewish scientists would still have fled to the U.S. from Germany prior to the war.
My first thought as well, if not used against Japan because of Russian ground invasion on the island, which would have been a useful soak of Russian forces from the U.S. perspective: let them take the mass casualties that would require.
Then atomic weapons would have been used against Russian capital cities as soon as any post WW2 hostilities. Trying to intimidate the Soviets into submission would not have been as likely an attempt in this timeline.
WW2 ends, Soviets in stronger position decide to grab some more real estate from tired allies. High altitude bomber (U.S. planes were better, Heck a lot of Russian planes were lend lease from the West) drops nuke on Stalingrade (and Stalin and leadership), chaos as government falls apart and ethnic minorities persecuted by Stalin revolt. Soviet empire falls apart fast.
In fact Stalin and the Russians were so hatred that it was a serious tactical blunder of the Nazis in the invasion of the USSR to let the SS be involved. Many client states welcomed the Germans, as liberators throwing off the oppressive Soviet yoke. Only to realise that the Nazis were worse. If the Germans had played nice, they could have gotten allies from the local peoples to fight the Russians.
@@casbot71 Without a navy, it would have been rather difficult to have a Russian ground invasion of the home islands of Japan.
During 1940s Australia had very high gun ownership which was also a reason Japan was hesitant to invade. If they had of invaded be a lot of guerilla warfare in non urban areas.
You what!
"In the end the Japanese could have invaded Australia if they wanted to"
no, they couldn't. both the IJN and the IJA stated that they did not have the logistics, troops or the shipping to do so.
Logistics is everything.
Shipping
December 1941, Japan had almost 6.5 million tons of shipping, however the Japanese economy and existing military needs required 6.5 million tons of shipping to operate, there was no leeway and any diversion of shipping had to be temporary as it would mean cutting into strategic materials stockpiles. (The Japanese Merchant Marine in WW2 by Mark P Parillo).
In December 1941, the Japanese tanker fleet totalled only 575,000 tons. (Brute Force by John Ellis).
The IJA drafted 2,160,500 tons of shipping (roughly one third of the fleet!) at the start of the Pacific war (for supply and invasion forces), the IJA estimated that after July1942 they would be able to return all but 1 million tons.
The Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) drafted 1,740,200 tons of shipping- (270,000 tons of which was comprised of tankers, almost half of the available tanker fleet).
All up this was roughly 2/3 of the available shipping diverted to military control, leaving the economy with only 1/3 of the minimum shipping it required to function. But it is worse than that - 840,000 tons of the shipping left under civilian control were passenger vessels ill suited to cargo transport. (The Japanese Merchant Marine in WW2 by Mark P Parillo).
The practical effect of this is that, even without US intervention, Japan was not in a position to keep even this amount of shipping under military control in an effort to invade Australia, such an effort would destroy their economy.
Available Forces
Australia, in 1942, was able to almost fully motorise 8 Divisions (and had 8 Divisions worth of troops in Australia at the time {The Australian army status report (AA MP729, series 6, file 42/401/142) }) and was also in a position to requisition vehicles as necessary from the large number of available civilian vehicles to make up any shortfalls.
I could keep going, but lack of shipping alone ends the discussion.
Politeness You are dead right. Logistics is everything. It is said that amateurs think tactics the professionals think logistics. As General Nathan Bedford Forrest of the Confederacy said ‘Get there the firstest with the mostest’
They would have never had the shipping to keep Midway Island supplied, had they won it. Possible, but difficult. Now think about supplying an invasion army for Australia.
Mate, one of the items you failed to mention was command/supply lines, as well as size of force needed to invade a country with an entrenched enemy. There would have been no point in the Japanese juist seizing the coastal strip between Darwin and north of Brisbane because the resources they needed to prosecute the war were not to be found there. Your estimate of a 150K force (which equates to roughly 10 divisions) would have been grossly insufficient to hold this area with supply lines extended too far from Japan and their other conquered lands. No, there was no way an already overstretched Japanese military was going to invade Australia.
whatifalthist
Australia called battle hardened soldiers from Europe when the Japanese started fighting the Australians in New Guinea. and by the time the Japanese landed most of Australia's soldiers would have been called back from Europe and North Africa
Where in Europe did the Australian army fight.
@@anthonyeaton5153 The Australian 6th infantry division fought in the defence of Greece from Nazi invasion in 1941. Australia was also involved in the Italian campaign.
No major war.....
The Emu War: Am i a joke to you?
I think you underestimate the sheer size of Australia. An invasion by the Japanese would have failed due to the sheer logistical nightmare. It's effectively impossible to control the East Coast of Australia with an invading force due to the vast distances between the cities which is why the Japanese concentrated more on stopping Australia as a staging post for the Americans which is what the bombing of Darwin and the Battle of the Coral Sea were about. Had the Japanese seriously attempted that invasion they would have lost the war quicker because they would have been stuck trying to invade and control a huge continent whilst fending off attacks from the US and the local population without the help of their Navy or Air Force which would be spread too thin to effectively stop any counter attack. They could well have controlled a part of Australia in the North but any movement towards Sydney would have been a disaster as they would overextend their supply lines and abilities to counter the inevitable retaliation. The best they could have hoped for is taking Darwin and North Queensland around Townsville and Cairns - any movement further south is simply not sustainable. The rest of the Pacific is very different as the Japanese were well suited to taking small Islands and the like but as you mentioned they found New Guinea nigh on impossible because it was a big sparsely populated island which they couldn't completely control and it's small in comparison to Australia.
they called them ‘chocolate soldiers’, assuming that the australians would melt as soon as they were faced with any meaningful conflict, but they held the line, and fought bravely in the jungles of south east asia.
My pop was one of the soldiers who stopped Japan
no major wars? excuse me. have you seen the catastrophie of the emu war?
Yeah but no one gives a shit about that I kill thousands of emus every year they are a dumb and stupid bird they run into fences as if there were drunk they are nothing but drongos mate
The emu war was not a war
Wow you must be the CEO of clowns with that over used and unfunny emu war joke
Japan: “We’re coming to attack you Australia”.
Australians: “LOL ok mate”.
Australians: *Laugh hysterically as Japanese landing craft are ripped in half by giant Sharks and Crocs.*
Australians: *Laughs even harder and spit takes their VB when the Japanese troops that arrive by air are instantly wiped out by a horde of frenzied Emus and Kangaroos.*
Australians: *Rolls on the floor, laughing their arses off when the Japanese Commander has his face crushed in by a wombat’s giant arse.*
now just think what would happen if we gave them guns
You... you pronounced Brisbane properly
*cries in happiness
This is the closest thing I have come to loving Yanks
Thank you japan for not invading Australia
right??? a divided Korea is bad enough, a unified communist one and a divided Japan would be horrifying. japan is a capitalist powerhouse. w/out it America would have a significantly smaller sphere of influence in Asia. but I also have several questions regarding the outcome.
1: wouldn't the fact that the Americans were sending more resources to the Pacific mean that the war would end sooner there and with more resources couldn't they have been able to say adopt a 2 front assault on the Japanese empire (both an island hopping campaign and a more infantry based push from the south up towards Japan?)
2: If Japan did in fact get split in 2 would we have the Japanese equivalent to the Korean war? also since you mentioned an invasion of Taiwan (a sort of counterpart to Okinawa) would this give the US grounds to support the Chinese civil war and if so, who wins that one??? rip: US influence in Asia if commies win, but a big W for America if the US wins because it would mean that the communist Korea would be surrounded by rival powers and would likely succumb to revolution (remember no communist China to prop up the failed state) and a possible similar situation with N.Japan only being able to receive financial support from Russia via Vladivostok (pretty much their only Major port in the region) making it much harder to keep control of.
3: where are the nukes in this timeline. even if America was unable to take places like Iwo Jima and Okinawa (right at japan's doorstep) they would have captured the Marianas which is where the Enola Gay and Bockscar were deployed from anyways. surely America would have used them in this timeline, if not to crush the Japanese - than at least to gain political leverage against the soviets at the negotiating table
Mr. Blue probably why?
lolnowhat awm they lost a war the emus
Lars Delver lol it wasnt a "war" the media is just retarded and called it that.
they did alot worse than invade though look up rape of nanking and the Units they had full of torture alot of Aussie were captured by the japanese. my pops brother survived that but he came home a broken man.
What if Wessex fell to the Danes/Vikings?
then englands flag would be like the proposed northern flag where the st George cross follows the scandinavian flag rule if you haven't seen the flag it looks si9ck like i am from the north and i would honestly be pro having that flag
Benjamin Pitt what if Harald Hardraga won agianst England sorry for bad name spelling.
Wessex did fall King Canute ruled all of England.
Darwin, Australia's most northern city, was bombed by the Japanese air force over 300 times during ww2. That's an invasion!!!! (IMHO) and the Japanese Army was stopped on the Kokoda trail in New Guinea.
Please check facts before asking silly drongo questions.
No there were no troops in Australia by your logic britain was invaded by Nazi Germany
@@IgorMgtowandVideoGames an air invasion yes. They literally bombed London a million times.
What if India was colonized by France
Heck, why not what if the whole world was colonized by France ?
IxousLouis sure man why not, I would
love to speak any besides English!!!
Altar of Freedom but would they?
French is a beautiful language. I would have no problem living in a Frenchified world.
Rip, it would be Nazi territory but they probably would have fought back with the sheer amount of numbers of Indians
1. Australia actually was invaded by the Japanese as New Guinea was actually an Australian territory but more on this in my third point.
2. "No major atrocities" please look up The Stolen Generation at a minimum.
3. Australia actually was invaded by the Japanese as New Guinea was actually an Australian territory and that is why conscription was allowed to occur causing the conscripts that you talk about on the Kokoda Trail, and it is kind of offensive to call them a militia. I sincerely doubt you would call American conscripts a militia.
4. You failed to mention the Brisbane Line which is actually the primary Australian initial reaction to the invasion of the mainland and essentially it was a plan that if the Japanese successfully preformed an invasion of the mainland the Australian government was prepared to surrender all territory north of Brisbane to the Japanese to buy peace. This is surrounded by some historical disagreement as to whether it would have happened but there is evidence that it existed so definitely should have been mentioned.
5. Generally speaking, you are hugely dismissive of the Australian armed forces despite acknowledging how in Kokoda despite being vastly outnumbered and equipped managed to hold back the Japanese Imperial Army. I would think it stands to reason that conscripts on the Australian mainland would be even more effective at countering the Japanese Army especially with supply lines stretched so thin. Since many in the comments have mentioned what both Ally and Axis army generals said in judgement of the ADF I won't go over it again.
6. I don't think it would have come to mutiny in North Africa and the reason is there was in our timeline concern over having our main forces in North Africa and if the mainland was invaded the Australia government would have ordered our forces back in defense. I believe the main outcome here would have been far more strained relationship between the UK and Australia and quite possibly even a declaration of independence directly post war.
7. The USSR already did most of the fighting in Europe and most Nazi resources went to the Eastern Front throughout the war. I would say at most the war in Europe would have only extended by a few months maybe six months but that seems a stretch (if a D-Day-esque invasion had happened).
8. I would have mentioned it would have been unlikely that the Holocaust would have become public knowledge until possibly even the collapse of the USSR as in our timeline they liberated all the death camps and in a European theatre without as much US involvement it is conceivable that no concentration camps are liberated by Western Powers. Given the distrust between the Soviets and the West it is likely the Western governments would continue to keep this knowledge hidden (as they did in our time) but this would last until the collapse of the USSR most likely.
9. Given the loses the Japanese would maintain invading then failing to hold the Australian mainland and assuming they had to take these divisions of men from Manchuria I would say with the defeat of Germany and given the longer route taken by the USA south from Australia to Japan it would have been more likely that either the entire Japanese mainland would be taken by the Soviets or the Japanese would hastily surrender to the USA to stop themselves falling to communism as the USSR fast successes in Manchuria had more impact on the Japanese leaders decision making than the use of nuclear weapons against them (sorry not sorry anyone from the US reading this).
A small Japanese exploratory raid from the sea is said to have happened in the Northern Territory under darkness but most participants got eaten by saltwater crocs. There is also a book called 'The Hidden Chapter's by Robert Piper published back in 1995 that covers several raids in it's last chapter. It mostly covers Lt Mizuno from the 'Matsu Intelligence Organisation (Naval). One of the plans was to insert badass convicted criminal to conduct guerrilla activities around the country to cause mass panic.
What if Greater Germany was formed in the 19th century? what would borders be like? what would culture be like?
What an intellectual conversation I must say. Now children stop squabbling and behave.
I will have to double check but Churchill had given his word, that if Australia was invaded, he would release the remaining Aussie Division to return to Australia, other than that is was interesting thank you. While I served in the RAN I read a book from the ships library call the Battle of Sydney by John Vader. Also you didn't mention the scorched earth polices of the Govt, that was in effect, after the bombing of Darwin and the Brisbane Defence Line, both where vital in the defence of Australia,
A few thoughts, sorry for the tear down hoping this is more constructive criticism :)
We've had a number of bad atrocities, Native population wiped out in Tasmania for eg, or the many many smaller individual massacres throughout Victoria and NSW in particular off the top of my head.
Invasion points: Darwin and Townsville were two of Australia's most militarised cities at the time, still are really. Imperial Japan (careful distinction there, especially with how much I love modern Japan lol) would really struggle there. Darwin was bombed because of this, but more to try and keep us away from New Guinea (technically this was part of Australia at the time also) The Daily Yomiuri a few years back released some awesome papers on "The Showa War" (Japan's name for WWII) and it's plans, including the proposed Australian invasion. I can't remember where they planned landings, but you are right in that Brisbane was critical to their plans. Take a look at their archives for this series, was a great read.
Australian defence would have gone as follows: if the Chocko's on the Kokoda Track had failed, as we expected of them (hence their nickname - they were expected to melt in the heat!), then Port Moresby would be lost. We were recalling our African veteran troops already, the Brits had no say in that udecision, fresh from giving a bloodied nose to ol' mate Rommel in Tobruk and El Alamein. These were hard, HARD fellas and would have been well suited to the aggressive campaign our government had planned.
Someone else commented below as well, so I'll not take all their glory (@dangerouslytalented it was) but I will confirm the "Brisbane Line" plan was legit, called for total evacuation and scorched earth policy. Everyone able would have been called upon for the fight in addition to this, men women and children and we would be a damn different country if so, I reckon we'd have made Vietnam look like cake at Christmas. Add to that I *REALLY* doubt the Yanks would come and save us as they'd write us off and concentrate more on their own objectives ie the Phillipines. So we'd be on our own, and all a bit F U to the world.
Even if assuming US comes to "Save Us" (/me quietly vomits into my beer) their tanks wouldn't necessarily be able to be used. The Great Dividing Range is a series of hills and low mountains running along the east coast behind our big cities from Brisbane all the way down past Melbourne, that's where most of us have always lived, and it is not open country. Full of towns, hills, parks and forests, it'll be variable land that infantry would love. No, a fight in Australia would mean infantry on infantry in the populated areas, and the open areas frankly we'd just say have 'em, you try keeping them under control a la Brisbane Line ;P
Still, all good thoughts and an interesting take on it all. Love to hear what you think of our comments, maybe a revisit down the line? :) Thanks for appreciating our Kokoda Track lads (and of course our Rats of Tobruk :D )
My great-great uncle fought on the Kokoda Trail, and during the campaign he received 2 military crosses.
what if you mixed all of your what if scenarios into one super scenario
>America being a devout anti-colonialist nation
HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHA
yeah that made me lol too.
Yup, love the Seppos, and their dearly held belief that they're NOT an empire is one of their more eccentric charming traits...
When he say we are anti colonialism it means we are against anyone but us being the empire
To be fair to the US politicians of the 40s and 50s I do think they genuinely, and naively, thought they were on the side of the angels standing up against wicked old European empires. I do find it hilarious (in a chilling way) how the three great land empires, China, Russia and the US, don't see themselves as empires. Just because you didn't have to get into a boat to nick some poor bugger's land doesn't mean it's not an empire. Please don't mistake me, I love and respect the US and as for Russia and China, well I love and respect the US. I just think we should be honest about history. The Zulu killed and conquered their way south into what we call Kwa Zulu today, the Chinese conquered dozens of folk to create the 'China' we know today. Russia started as a land the size of France centred around Moscow etc. etc. There are no 'good guys' .
Name one US colony
What if Benedict Arnold never defected to the British army during the Revolutionary War?
What if the Byzantine Empire never fell?
What if the Knights Templar order was never destroyed?
What if Hawaii never became a U.S. state?
sledge hammer : Or not even Steve McGarrett in Hawaii Five 0! How miserable
Time to add a funny banter about the Emu war. Gotta love the memes.
Watch out Australia!
"It's fight, work, or N E R I S H"
Can you do a what if Russia won the the russio Japanese war?
What the German won the batlt of bitin
www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/russia-wins-russo-japanese-war.343147/
Zachary Gilligan they'd need a pacific fleet, for one, not having to transport their Mediterranean fleet all the way around Africa
They could win easily. All they need is to finish the Trans-Siberian railway earlier, and not have the Doggerbank incident so the Russian fleet can use the Suez Canal, and get to Port Arthur quicker. And boom Japan is crushed.
Star dust honestly they wouldn't even need the Navy to force the Japan off the continent, it was mostly administrative incompetence and nepotism in the underfunded military that lost the war for Russia. The Russians had a much larger population, and I believe that if they could mobilize their population in the way the Japanese could they would have won handily without the trans Siberian railroad
I couldn’t finish this garbage. I grew up listing to stories about a grandfather that went from Africa to Kokoda. Took a grenade to the chest, came home, healed, went back to fight because he wouldn’t leave his mates. Was offered a promotion to stay home and apparently said “you don’t kill the enemy from behind a desk” Kokoda was hell, I’m told by the time you saw the enemy it was often too close for guns. It’s bayonets and fists. Everyone was sick and wounded. At Gona the Anzacs went in under their own artillery. You’ve no idea what you’re talking about.
you should do a video on what if the Spanish armada successfully invaded England in 1588
Louis Morrissey Quick video England become parts of Spain
As it turned out the Japanese twice asked Australia to surrender. They sent their best troops (the Nanking Massacre division) to New Guinea where they were wiped out suffering 90% losses. Meanwhile the Americans couldn’t kick the Japanese off a tiny island called Guadalcanal and Australia defeated another Japanese landing at Milne Bay.
For the memes and April 1st what if Germany lost ww1
you should do a video on what if greece won the greco Turkish war
I mean, Greece is damn hard to invade...
Turkey would join the axis, and they would have won WW2.
What are the arrows at 4:03 supposed to mean? They can't be fleet or army movements as the arrow from Chile would in no way connect with NZ. They'd have to use the south equatorial just like the US, unless they wanted to take a trip and the globe.
Man this really demonstrates how far your channel came in a relatively short period of time. And I remember this was considered groundbreaking back in the day.
Don't know who narrates this, but he is so far off on so many things, that it would take me too long to reply.
G'day Whatif, Thank you for this video and for your excellent pronunciation of Australian locations (a rare thing). You were 100 per cent right, IJF had no plan to invade Australia for the reasons you stated and a few more you didn't. When the IJF seriously attacked the islands north of New Guinea and were moving to take New Guinea, the Australian Government and Army C-I-C, General Sir Thomas Blamey, decided to move most of the Australian forces out of the Middle East, leaving only the 9th Division in place, for a while.
The British did not prevent this move as it was clearly stated to Britain at the start of WW2 that Australian forces would not be commanded by British Generals, as was the, disastrous, case in WW1. General Blamey was armed with a Charter, he wrote and was endorsed by the Australian PM, giving to him complete control of Australian forces deployed overseas in the '2nd A.I.F.'.
When the Australian Militia forces were first sent to New Guinea needed reinforcement, the 9th Division was withdrawn from the Middle East and sent directly to New Guinea. (Churchill wanted these troops sent to South East Asia. He was ignored by the Australian PM.) These seasoned, battle hardened troops ably assisted the less experienced Australian forces, ultimately driving the Japanese to the north of New Guinea, now with US troops assisting, the Japanese were easily routed from the shores of New Guinea.
But then your 'What If' timeline goes haywire. You placed far too much importance on the fact of Australian troops being withdrawn from the Africa campaign. Your 'knock-on' effects would certainly not have caused the, almost, global ramifications you go on to postulate. There were never enough Australian troops in Africa to make a win or lose scenario even a remote possibility. Sure, Australian forces were highly effective fighting in Africa and were repeatedly commended for their actions in battle, if not their actions in bars or townships ;) Still, there simply weren't enough of them for their absence to swing victory to defeat.
Finally, even before MacArthur was sent to Australia from the Philippines, there were large numbers of US forces in Australia and many, many more arrived after MacArthur. Had the IJF made a deliberate move to invade Australia then these US forces would have stayed in Australia, or returned there, to help the Australians defeat the invaders.
The main reason the IJF did not even seriously consider an Australian invasion was simply geographical. They knew enough about the topography of our country to know that one has to travel at least 600 miles; up to 2 thousand miles to reach all the capital cities, except for Hobart, across Bass Strait.
Unlike Russia and Europe, there are no towns or villages of any note where armies can loot supplies of food, water, fuel or ammunition. There is nothing to support an army, especially an army with no experience of desert warfare. Japanese tanks were, to be frank, a joke. They could be picked off with a few well-placed hand grenades or .50 MG fire. To make an invasion work, the IJF would have to construct several large airfields. Transporting the many thousands of tons of cargo to do something like this was simply out of their capability. Their merchant shipping was being steadily sunk by the USN and the RAN. Troopships bringing 800K+ IJA soldiers to Australia would be ‘sitting ducks’ for Allied naval power.
Aboriginal members of the Australian Army were, and are, skilled survivalists able to find 'Bush Tucker' (food) and water just about anywhere. Although not enough to feed armies, these natural sources of food would amply supply small groups of commandos and raiding forces that could move through the bush, undetected setting ambushes and explosive traps for the Japanese. The modern Australian Army has formally incorporated many Aboriginal survival skills into its routine training for our Northern Force that have the capability of moving swiftly throughout our northern regions. There is a significant air base in this region, at Tindal, while the RAN can swiftly move vessels to any part of the Australian coastline.
Thank you, again, for your interesting video, however, one can take a relatively small event and exaggerate its on-going effects to a point where there are too many 'what ifs'. Cheers, BH
I was waiting for someone to comment something like this, even if the Japanese somehow managed to take control of Australia. militia forces would be extremely hard for the japanese to deal with, the fact is that the population of australia consisted of miners, farmers (not just 'boys and old men') and aboriginals who have lived on the land for millennia, a militia force would cripple any operations the japanese tried
@@the_donz G'day DW, Yes, the invasion of Australia was never on the table for the IJF. In the age of the Dreadnoughts, you'll recall, Japan modelled its armed forces structure on the British, especially its Navy on the Royal Navy. We were all 'friends' back then and RAN ships used to join RN and IJN ships in exercises.
Japanese merchant shipping was beginning to become common to and from Australia and I'm certain that casual intelligence gathered by the Japanese Merchant Marine (at least its equivalent) was not ignored come wartime.
Of course, it would have been relatively easy for the IJN to land parties on our Western and Northern coasts, from submarines, to scout Australian terrain. As this coastline is so vast and, generally, uninhabited. Quick raiding parties to seek out natural resources to support an invasion would have been able to go about their missions without ever being noticed.
Our research has not encountered proof of this, however, that’s not to say it didn’t happen as a secret, covert operation to check us out. One way or another, they learned the truth.
Yes, the Japanese were fully aware of the difficulty of a full scale invasion of mainland Australia and, early on, decided against it.
They had sufficient problems supplying their Pacific island forces after the USN ironed out its problems with their torpedoes. USN subs and anti-ship Catalinas from the US and the RAAF harassed Japanese supply convoys.
It was actually a couple of 'off the cuff' press interviews given by Douglas MacArthur, after he arrived in Australia, that really stirred up fears of a Japanese invasion, and incidentally, where the myth of the Brisbane Line became as good as truth, thanks to MacArthur.
He really did a lot of damage to Australia's war effort and morale. Prime Minister Curtin knew nothing of military matters, nor did he know how to manipulate the press and radio.
He actually handed over the right of censorship of the Australian media to MacArthur's senior staff officers. This was unprecedented for a foreign country to place its media in the hands of a foreign general.
Prime Minister Curtin didn’t really like the then head of the Army, General Sir Thomas Blamey, but he really did respect his tenacity and background as a British-trained Intelligence Officer before WW1.
Luckily, we had General Sir Thomas Blamey who, in the Australian military structure, actually outranked MacArthur. Blamey saw to it that he kept a close rein on the goings on in MacArthur's Brisbane H.Q.
General Blamey set out to tap all of MacArthur's phones in his H.Q. so, to cover this move, he actually tapped all of the phones in Brisbane.
Blamey was able, on a few occasions, to head off MacArthur before he could do further damage to Australia's morale and war preparedness.
At the time, thanks partly to PM Curtin, MacArthur was seen by Australians to be a 'saviour' sent by FDR to protect Australia. Nothing was further from MacArthur's mind.
At his farewell dinner, thrown by PM Curtin before he left Australia, MacArthur, in his speech thanked the Australian government and people but then added some rambling remarks about how he would have done what he had done in Australia anywhere else.
He referred to Australia as a 'virtual aircraft and supply carrier' or words to that effect. Basically saying that Australia was just the right place at the right time for him to further his quest to get back to the Philippines.
He only briefly made passing reference to the fact that Curtin had handed over most of Australia's manufacturing industries to equip American soldiers.
We made everything from US insignia badges to uniform sox for the Americans.
Then they left.
Australia's battle proven Army and its Militia, who had also seen heavy action, were sidelined by MacArthur and relegated to 'mopping-up' operations. This was not accurate. Some of the 'mopping-up' campaigns were among the bloodiest actions of all the land battles in the South Pacific.
These and many other details are from our research on Blamey and MacArthur my co-producer and I have done, over the last 14 years for a TV/Internet documentary series that we have been unable to finance or complete shooting because of the pandemic.
We hope to resume our work on this huge project soon.
There are details on: www.TheBlameyEnigma.com.au
Thanks for your comments and interest.
Cheers, BH
Commander-In-Chief Productions
@@BillHalliwell thanks for taking to time to reply, I never knew about MacArthur's time in Australia. I'll be sure to check out your website/documentary. It sounds interesting
@@BillHalliwell I'm interested to see some of that content.
History is written by the victors, but for the amount of war-winning Australia has done, it hasn't written enough history.
Perhaps you could post some snippets or trailers for your doco?
"The Australians would scrounge up a army of boys and old men". Is it wrong that I find this hilarious.
You should combine this what if with your episode about what if Japan never attacked Pearl harbor. Would be very interesting
Thank you for acknowledging the part about untrained Australian militia defeating the Japanese in New Guinea at Kokoda, even though those few young Australians available at the time were out-numbered 3 to 1. It must have been hell. The absence of regular armed forces was due to them being engaged in North Africa & the Middle East defending the British against the Germans & Italians. My father fought on both fronts with the 9th Division Australia Infantry Forces (AIF), the most decorated division of the AIF. At the battle of El Alamain (North Africa) & at Kokoda (New Guinea), these were the first battles of WWII where the Germans & the Japanese respectively were first defeated. On both occasions AIF were involved. At Kokoda however, it was exclusively Australian militia.
Most Australians used to own guns. As a 14 year old (c. 1966) I was trained in Air Force cadets to shoot a 10 shot Lee Enfield 303. However, treasonous Prime Minister John Howard in collusion with globalist 'do-gooder' agendas, FAKE media & a now brain-washed multi-cultural general public, gun ownership has been banned in Australia, except for police & cunning criminals of course.
Australia? Few 'modern Australians' realize that from the the 1860's to the mid 1960's Australians had created a standard of living rated between the 1st & the 3rd highest in the world. We achieved this in less than 200 years from being a British penal colony where convicts were considered less than slaves, being of no commercial value. However, thanks to what was to quickly become an educated white Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation, thanks to access to the Bible & the 'tryanny of distance' Australians were forgotten & left to their own devices to become the once great nation it was. However, due to multi-culturalism, thanks to U.N. globalist (socialist) agendas, the Australia I grew up in from the 1950 & 60's no longer exists.
For example, the mid 1960's was the time we won a couple of international Formula One (F1) championships, in race cars designed, built & driven by Australians. Our engineering standards were second to no one & we had many companies with sophisticated R&D facilities.
In the 1920's for example we built 3 massive dams, the Sydney Harbour Bridge & an extensive tram & heavy rail system, including the Sydney underground rail system... all this for Sydney alone, we built it ourselves. And except for the harbour bridge, much was financed by bond issues without the use of internationally controlled PRIVATE banking cartels, AKA the Reserve Bank of Australia, the U.S. equivalent of which is known as the Federal Reserve Bank.
Later there was the vast Snowy Mountains Scheme to irrigate which diverted the annual snow melt from the Southern highlands, diverting for irrigating of a our flat but fertile dry regions of New South Wales. However, after many decades of successive self interested right & left (Liberal & Labor Parties) & of course, Vatican (Jesuit) determinations to destroy what was a progressive Protestant religious heritage Australia is in shambles. Today, our industrial manufacturing base has been systematically dismantled & the major, & rather sole industry left is the high rise building game.
The education system has been taken over by atheistic, communistic, feminist & or homosexual interests, where the only Australian history taught with any enthusiasm is that of Australian stone age aborigines & their rainbow serpent 'dream-time', didgeridoos, boomerangs & dot paintings. Australia's one time highly productive, white Anglo-Saxon Protestant heritage is shunned, because it doesn't fit with modern 'dream-time' leftist & globalist Vatican philosophies.
I could see this coming decades ago & decided not to have children. Tough call, but necessary, (any feminist understands how necessary it is not to have children), however, natural thinking women can't understand that position, & so several times I had to walk away from loving relationships because they wanted children.
I'm glad I did however, knowing what I know of where this 'nation [now] without a clue' (Australia) where it is & where it's heading.
Too few realize that what was the lawful Government of the Commonwealth of Australia (dejure) has become the legal (but unlawful) Australian Government (defacto). What does that mean?
It means that while most, especially migrants & the socially progressive, were too selfish & greed driven to bother to maintain a homogenized Australian culture. Instead they trampled our culture with theories & or replace what was an egalitarian Australian culture, with tribalism.
All the while, Australia was/ has already vanished in a silent coup d'état.
In case you still don't know, multi-culturalism eventually leads to relativistic culture, along with minimal standards for most everything, except deceit, debt, violence & theft of all property (including your children) by the state.
Australia has been successfully divided, conquered & destroyed because it was the finest example of how things were & 'could have continues being', i.e. until the Vatican/ socialist/ globalist agendas were effectively implemented by do-gooders, narcissists & traitors.
Well, you could have raised your children to be good hard working Australians resistant to this shit like my dad did with me and I hope to do with my son's, the decision not to breed of many of the elder generation has made Australia what it is, now there is no hope of fixing it. Through anti-natalism, actual Australian natives are now a hated underclass, current plans are to evacuate the cities and form enclaves in private towns and grow our own food, educate our own kids, what are they Gunna do to stop us? Waco us? I dare em to, it's either that or we just flee to America and do it there where there's steady rainfall and cheap land aplenty. I know how ya feel as my dad regrets not taking his training (5rar) and doing something when he was young and geed up from nam.
The ocker fighting man is still the greatest in the world. We just haven't had a chance to prove it this generation, but we will.
Fucking spot on
That took quite a turn
4:03 you made this part up. Although internment camps for Japanese Americans where a common occurrence, it wasn’t because of racism, it was mostly due to the wartime fear of Japanese spying. I came here for history, not editorialization. Shame.
It was largely due to racism.
Indonesia would be a strong economic power and its geographic position would make it more strategically important than Japan or south Korea. This is due to its size and with a small fleet it can easily control all trade in between the Indian ocean and the pacific. Also having this territory would make winning the Vietnam war easy due to Indonesian support with their army already being skilled in jungle combat.
This dude always has the allies win
If the Germans take Egypt and Iraq they could then move south to North toward Baku - that is were there is break in the mountains. So they actually take the Caucus mountains - no Stalingard in fact the immediate propsect of taking Baku would like keep Hitler focused on the oil rather than the fact Stalingard is named Stalingard. And that likely means they bag Turkey as an ally and overun Iran and Saudi joins Germany and all the Arabian Pennisala falls to Germany.
Saudi wouldn't join Germany, but be included in the Neo-Ottoman-Empire.
Why do think - they wouldn't? Love for the British Empire?
They would take French Syria and British Iraq. But Saudi would be part of the Italian empire than.
Over run iran depends if they got there before 1941 iran would be happy to let em in, since iran hated ussr and gb. If they made it after they will have to fight ussr and britain there plus indian forces.
As an Australian and history/alternate history fanatic, I’ve always wondered about this question in real life terms. Great work.
P.S Love the channel and recommended it to friends. Fascinating, well-researched and addictive content. Also massive props for not punctuating your videos with annoying jump cuts or dumbing the content down with memes every 5 seconds. Features which render similar what if channels basically unwatchable.
You have forgotten about The Manhatan Project, it was initially creating a weapon to defeat Germany and it would not have really matter where it was used first the part of the axis alliance would probably have sued for peace would have also kept The Soviets in line as it would be another four years before they had the bomb.
Australians: Ohh, the Japanese are coming. What do we have to fight them with? Stronger industry? No. More soldiers? No. More venom? YES! SEND THE EMUS THE DINGOS AND THE SNAKES!
Sukarno was a fascist with pro-Hitler tendencies. Along with Francisco Franco, he was one of the few remaining people running far right fascist governments.
In fact, there was a communist revolution in Indonesia in the 1950s I believe that was so wide spread that the US supported Sukarno's government, even after the revolutionaries were defeated.
In this timeline, the US, seeing communism as a far larger threat since the Soviets have Denmark, Norway, Italy, the Netherlands, all of Germany, all of Korea, and half of Japan, along with Mao's revolution being successful in China, the US government would be more willing to cooperate with these nazi countries (I am NOT claiming the US would become nazi, just that it'll help these countries more than in our timeline). Seeing the French Communist Party gain popularity and the fact that the Allies invaded France so late in the war, the US would be scared the French people might turn communist, especially with Germany and Italy right next door. Therefore, Francoist Spain, as a method of having a stronghold on continental Europe, would join NATO along with Portugal, leaving Iberia as a last layer of defense. In addition, Sukarno and Indonesia would be as important of an ally as South Japan.
Thus a sort of Pacific alliance would form between the US, Canada, South Japan, Indonesia, Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand (Canada simply for convenience, Philippines since it was a former US colony, and the last two due to the US's large influence in WWII. Perhaps Taiwan could join, although a fully communist Korea may somehow give China the chance to launch a naval invasion. For sake of argument, I'll say the situation in our timeline remains, and, to prevent war, Taiwan doesn't join the alliance). This could just be a bunch of common defense treaties or a formal union like NATO. If it is a sort of Pacific Treaty Organization (PTO), the Soviets may wish to create a global alliance, expanding the Warsaw Pact to include countries outside of Europe (them being Mongolia, China, Korea, and North Japan). The hightened tensions would certainly cause a Korean War type fight in Japan, which I'll call the Japanese War. Having two points of invasion, from the north and by a naval invasion from Korea, the communists may win. Keep in mind Japan in this timeline was defeated by invasion not surrender, meaning the people are more prone to be angry and eager to become powerful (also, nationalist tendencies may still prevail). I believe either the whole of Japan becomes communist under the North Japanese government or just the main island of Honshu with Kyushu and Shikoku being home of the South Japanese government, although once the communists take Tokyo its pretty set in stone that the South Japanese people will think of the North as the legitimate government.
After that, its hard to predict. Maybe instead of trying to contain communism, the US and its allies will isolate themselves and their colonies, since communism will have reached from the Netherlands to Japan all under a single united massive Warsaw Pact.
sukarno was aligning indonesia with the ussr in the 1960s thats why the cia had him overtrown and they insalled thier usa puppet suharto
you know what, you probably are one of the most original AH youtubers. no one else would do an interesting and unique TL like Japanese invasion of Oz, at least not on youtube.
Take a drink everytime he says Australia
It would be pretty cool to see a universe where Chileans boast that their Navy fought in both wars named after the pacific.
The Battle of the Coral Sea was in the north EAST of Australia.
It was not only American ships involved, Australia and the Netherlands also had forces there.
Did you get a new mic buddy? Your audio sounds fucking *CRISPY*. like, my main complaint about your channel has been solved.
it still sounds like he is standing in a hallway and has a tremendous cold.
The Japanese knew that if you fought the Aussies you did not go home.
Very strange results without any reason:
1. Ok, Japan can invade Australia with the SU border troops and some luck, and probably SU would not do anything, seeing it a good opportunity to use his own border troops against Germany.
2. USA dropping everything for Australia: Why? They did not do it for France, Most of Europe or even for the SU which at the start could resulted with a total German (Axis) victory.
3. Ok, USA diverts some stuff from Europe, giving less to UK and much less to SU, and instead fight with Japan. This would mean a quicker victory over japan, not a longer one, even with larger initial losses and maybe even with more total losses (Esp if they need to land in Japan mainland), but no reason for longer war.
4. This would not mean a better SU endresults. SU was in a very tricky spot and greatly helped by UK and US support, not by military stuff (less thaan 10% of the SU military equipment arrived in the convoys), but with logistical stuff (around 30% what the SU has arrived from UK and US) and mostly in food, 5-20 million people could have starved to death without those food supplies. Reduced or even nulled supply would mean a possibly SU collapse and WWI style armistace or even surrender from SU, which would mean either peace with most Europe except the British Isle in Axis hand or lengthy bombings and than nukes dropped (in worse case in both ways.)
5. IF the SU did not collapse (enough food arrived or Stalin holds out even from Asia), the Japan defeat would mean the entire US industry would start to kill the Axis warmachine, D-day in early '45 and quick run to the Germans, while the Eastern front still beyond SU original borders, most of Europe falling into Allied hand and SU never recovering from the war. Also without SU aid the Communist Chinese would have no chance against the Nationalist, so no Commie China too.
Very interesting video. You seem to have an interest in history, which is cool, and it's fun to theorize alternate history events like this. Although I wanted to point something out. If the USSR were to invade Japan, They'd most likely invade from the Korea's. They MAY be able to island hop the Kuril Islands. But I can't see Japan split into 2. Stalin, though he wished he could have all of Japan, was aware it would dangerous and vulnerable to deal with the Japanese home islands, and would probable put his focus mostly on China. It's also possible Japan would be split into 4 sectors like Germany was. But I still just see an American occupied Japan.
What if Austria unified Germany
Ruben Gallardo Then Hungary would have broken apart earlier,which surely wasnt Austria's aim,it just wanted to be the dominator of the german states,not a unification.
yh but minecraft it would be better with germany than hungary in case you haven't noticed Germany is way richer than Hungary
reaperz No,thats not what i meant.Austria didnt just include austria,but also hungary and other mostly slav-populated territories.If it would have initiated a german unification,it couldnt have included hungary and the other territories into it,which would have split its territories and in the end would have made it far weaker than before.It wouldnt have accepted this.
minecraft and i said that Germany is much richer than czech rep and hungary so they would be far richer owning germany than hungary and those other poorer balkan lands
The better question is, what if Australia unified Germany?
Does he know that Australian troops did immediately leave North Africa and Britain held north africa
No, they didn't. The 9th Division wasn't returned to Australia until 1943.
It was strange hearing you mention Bundaberg when talking about where Japan would've invaded from, considering I only live about half an hour south of there.
Him: no major war has happened
Me: The EMUS WAR
If Indonesia would have been conquered by the United States, they would be far more powerful, on par with Japans economy today perhaps.
"There have been no major wars or atrocities."
I mean, colonialism is a pretty big atrocity.
Not in the long term and definitely not for white settler states like Australia
Depending how you look at it the indigenous population of Australia was estimated to be 300,000 to 1.2million pre Western arrival.
A population smaller then Ireland when the Roman invaded Briton, in a place about the size of Europe, don't get me wrong it was a hard place to live at the time but with over 250 languages with 100s of sub groups within that and tribe's the biggest have about 200 individuals in it without western settlement it probably be one he'll of a mess now lot's of fighting that's if the Asian powers didn't move in which they would have.
but in our timeline when the threat of japanese invasion was near our forces were under australian control and were able to leave whenever. the only hinderance was relying on british transports which was delayed anyway in our timeline by the british.
Australia also had massive stockpiles of poison gas scattered along the east and north coast as well. Something not well known. The cruisers Canberra, Australia and Hobart also saw considerable action in the Coral Sea. Some controversy surrounds the loss of the heavy cruiser Canberra to friendly fire...
There was no war when we were colonised. Aboriginals were nomadic hunter gatherers and couldn't put up a resistance.
I would like to mention two things:
The first is how utterly Australian and New Zealand patriotism revolved around the British. There is absolutely no way that any Australian would have mutinied against the British, beyond the fact that they didn't even know it. Papua New Guinea was at the time considered a part of the Australian nation, as our colony, and very much was the Kokoda trail felt like a war on our own sovereign land, and a loss there would have sent the significant remaining adult population into full mobilisation.
The second part is that Darwin, despite its relatively low population, was armed to the teeth. I've been there myself and seen the artillery, the river was fortified to prevent submarine invasion and the majority of the city's adult population was ready to mobilize to defend it due to how pressing the fear of an invasion was. More concentrated population areas like Brisbane were less fortified and thus more practical to take, but it is honestly just unlikely that Japan would be able to take northern Australia with few enough casualties to consider the rest of Australia valuable.
We pulled troops out of Africa and the Middle East after the Japanese invaded png. Plus we had American troops helping towards the end of the Kokoda track campaign, do you think they would have contributed if they were taken out of png in time?
you should do a video on this topic