What If Australia and New Zealand had been lost?

Hi Everyone,

What do you think would have happened if the Americans had not been able to hold the Japanese from taking Australia and New Zealand?
Would have it changed the out come of the war?
Would have the US pulled out of Europe?
Would have the UK come to our rescue?

Australia had pulled their Army back (right?) but we (NZ) had not...

What do you think?

 

Hmmm i could picture a few things.
1. It would obviosly extend the war in the pacific if the US decided to liberate Australia and New Zealand.
I think it would be sometime before Great Britian could do anything about the fall of Australia and New Zealand...same as how it took until late 44 to mid 45 for the British to be quite active in the Pacific again.
Since it would require some time to liberate these areas and quite a bit of men and material i think of this option as the least likely because i think i would have taken from forces going to Europe.

I think the more likely situation would be the US competely bypassing that area of operation if the area was captured. Fighting it's way to the Philippines through the central pacific only. Attempts to rid the area of Japanese would not occur until the very last months of the war primarily by British forces.

 

I agree with Ron completely - I think the US would have bypassed that route. Hell, didn't we originally want to bypass North Africa and/or Italy, but Churchill convinced us otherwise?

Seems that most of the commonwealth in Asia was busy fighting the Japanese in or around their own backyards and the Brits. were pretty busy in Europe themselves. You folks would've been abandoned for quite a while.

Brings up an interesting idea - The Austrailian / New Zeland resistance!!!!! I bet the really would've whupped some Jap butt!!!!!

 

Perhaps the war would have been shortened. It would have yet again extended Japanese forces and resources.

 

Thanks guys, interesting points.

I think that before the war a Japanese Military officer (may have even been Yamato) wrote a report on NZ and Australia saying that they would be almost impossable to take the two countries because everyone there knew how to use firearms effectivly.

 

Yeah, I was thinking about that. A very large land mass with a very ticked off population. Granted, the Japanese were in china, but I have a strong feeling you guys would have been better armed and tougher than the average subseviant (sp?) chineese peasant.

 

I don't think the Japanesse would have been able to invade Australia. The Japanesse Army was certainly incredibly efficient and well trained but for terrains they knew, but they were pretty bad in mobile-mechanised-warfare, needed to invade Australia. Japanesse infantry and artillery did all the job in small isles and in the jungle, but I don't think they would have been able to fight such good soldiers as the aussies with that. New Zealand could have been easier. But how are you going to reach New Zealand with Australia in the middle?

 

yeah i don't really think Japan could have invaded the whole continent...but hey...maybe through attacking key cities they could have forced the government to the table? Since a lot of the center of Australia is outback anyway.
You think?
That would be the only way i can see for Japan to defeat Australia.

 

You know, Ron? I was thinking about the same very thing. I can see the Japanesse attackind (and winning) Perth, Sidney, Melbourne and Canberra... But I can also see the Australians withdrawing in-land to later counterattack with help from... somewhere?

 

I think that the war would've lasted longer. In Europe too. In 1947 the first Boeing B-36 Peacemaker rolled off the assembly line. The B-36 could take off from the USA and drop atomic bombs any where in the world and land back in the USA without refueling. Loaded with atomic bombs, ONE B-36 carried more destructive force than all of the bombs dropped on Germany in WWII. It was originally designed to single-handedly take on the Hitler war machine by taking off from the USA and land safely back in the USA.

 

If the war lasted longer in Europe too then you'd have to consider the German Luftwaffe.

 

Don't forget the Japanese did attack the Australian mainland. Dawin (Australia's northern most city) was bombed and Sidney harbour was attacked by mini submarines.

I have to disagree, I think it would have been imposible to retreat an Army into the Australian outback. There would be no way of getting enough water or food to feed an army with, let alone the effect of the heat.

But I do agree that maybe attacking the key cities would probably have forced Australia into surrender. That then would put New Zealand into the fight, and with our Army overseas I don't think we would have lasted long.

 

In attacking NZ and Australia do they use troops they had in China, Burma, or the Philipines? In any case cut off the head (Japan) and the body will die. Taking the Philipines back wasn't necessary and following the same route to Japan would have ended the war as it did after the dropping of the bombs. The troops in Australia and NZ would be cut off from being relieved or transported back to Japan for its defence. Japan was having a hard time reinforcing the islands and was forced to leave them there. I do believe the Australians as well as NZ would have put up some stiff resistance and it would depend on the determination of the Japanese and their evaluation as to the strategic importance.

IMHO

 

If the Japs had landed in Australia they would have had a very hard time.

Most likely they would have landed via Papau New Guinea as the straits between us and them would be easily controlled by Japanese air cover. However, at that time the roads in Northern Australia were usually not much more than dirt tracks and distances between towns in the north and the main cities in the south is pretty far. Most of the industry etc is in South eastern Australia so armament production would not have been affected for quite a while.

And yes, just about every Australian male knew how to fire a rifle. The Japanese would have been facing a very determined civilian population. They had a very hard time fighting the Australians in New Guinea, being beaten on more than one occassion by outnumbered Australian troops.

Imagine what they would have had to face on the Australian mainland. Aussies don't take kindly to people trying to take over and tell them what to do. Besides if worse did come to worse and they did manange to totally control Australia, I'm pretty sure a hell of a lot of Aussies would have gone to New Zealand to continue the fight there.

And I'm pretty sure the US would lend a hand. There were a lot of US troops in Australia, MacArthur had a HQ here, and the US Navy had warships and submarines operating out of Australian ports.

The war might have lasted longer in the Pacific, and yes maybe they would have bypassed Australia until they had dealt with Japan itself, but it's highly unlikely the Japanese would have had a very easy time.

 

Good points sniper. The Japs really would've had a hard time taking and keeping all of Australia. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I've got a feeling a few lives would've been lost. If the Japs did manage to keep Australia then you know that the Aussies would have set up a militia or two as well.

No rules just right.

 

Well-in the aftermath-say the Japs took Australia and New Zealand, and *GULP* were victorious in World War 2-HOW GOOD IS YOUR JAPANESE???

 

Had a Japanese girlfriend once. All I can say is thank God she could speak English.....

 

You might be right about Japan taking all Australian main cities, they are in the Coast, so it would have been relatively easy. But all the military and civilians there would have given a hell of a fight!

 

I agree with whats said and--the New Zealanders would have lost all their sheep to the Japanese

 

Hmmm, sheep eggrolls, now there's an idea!!!