Israel was for much of its history one big defeat away from destruction and had some close calls
Countries That Exist, but Easily Could Have Not
- Thread starter Sphenodon
- Start date
TDM
Kicked
While I take your point about how the Bengali's were treated, I can't see split Pakistan working longterm no matter what
The difficulties in conquering Australia for the IJA & IJN is not number of opposing regular army and tanks, it's size of territory and how far away it is in terms of supply lines. It would swallow up what IJA could get there, and the IJN would run itself ragged trying to keep what IJA it could keep in contact with, supplied.
You know who would be hugely in favour of this idea? the USN (hell the RN might even free up some ships to take a bit of revenge)
Only the troops in New Guinea were needed in New Guinea, or are you going to just bypass it? (that would make supplying forces in Australia harder)
However I do think the New Guinea campaign is relevent here because it kind of highlights the issues with operating in difficult terrain at the end of your (contested) supply lines.
The campaign resulted in a crushing defeat and heavy losses for the Empire of Japan. As in most Pacific War campaigns, disease and starvation claimed more Japanese lives than enemy action. Most Japanese troops never even came into contact with Allied forces, and were instead simply cut off and subjected to an effective blockade by the US Navy. Garrisons were effectively besieged and denied shipments of food and medical supplies, and as a result, some claim that 97% of Japanese deaths in this campaign were from non-combat causes
If you ignore Darwin it will become the nexus for behind your lines action. Cairns would I think do the same it was historically staging area for the pacific campaign anyway (not that I actually think the IJA would get far enough for Cairns to ever be behind it's lines, unless it literally landed in Cairns)
"Concentrate on isolated Perth and then swing over to Brisbane"
That is (on the A1) 4300km
that not forgetting that Perth is 4000km from Darwin, (Brisbane is 3400km)
Also you are going to go to Perth and then Queensland & NSW!
Last edited:
Well, an earlier rise of Hindu nationalism in India could make Bengalis and Punjabis more willing to see themselves as "Pakistanis" first.
TDM
Kicked
A more unified attitude would help, but the geographical problem think that is insurmountable
You don't seem to understand the logistical difficulties involved. The Japanese do not have the capabilities to pull this off. They don't have the ships needed to land a force big enough, let alone supply it. Even if they did have the ships, the distances we are talking about would make it absolutely impossible to escort these convoys.
Fascination? Darwin is the only part of Australia the Japanese could possibly take. And even then they wouldn't be able to supply it for any given length of time.
Going for Perth is absolutely insane, let alone Perth AND Brisbane. Again, you don't seem to understand Australia is a continental landmass.
Ming777
Monthly Donor
@Rickshaw. I think you do not understand how big Australia is.
It is the Sixth Largest Country in the World by Land mass. It sits on 3 time zones. A Modern Airliner takes over 3 hours to cross from Brisbane to Perth. You'd need to drive 46 hours between these two cities.
And the majority of the interior is basically desert or wasteland. And then there is the wildlife...
It is the Sixth Largest Country in the World by Land mass. It sits on 3 time zones. A Modern Airliner takes over 3 hours to cross from Brisbane to Perth. You'd need to drive 46 hours between these two cities.
And the majority of the interior is basically desert or wasteland. And then there is the wildlife...
Montenegro of course--the vote in the 2006 independence referendum was fairly close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Montenegrin_independence_referendum
I live in Australia. I appreciate the size of the place.
The wildlife is much over appreciated overseas for some reason.
I understand them very well. You, like most Europeans/Americans are fascinated by roads/rails for some reason. If I was attacking Australia in 1940s, I would use sea borne logistics. Ignore the under developed roads/rails. Attack the capital cities which are nearly all on the coast. Funny that.
You are assuming they need to occupy the whole continent. They don't.
You are assuming there would be sufficient of the US and RN left to take that revenge. Why?
You are assuming that the US and Australia would have sufficient forces to occupy New Guinea and defend Australia. Why?
It also indicates the poor planning ability of the IJN... They needed more native porters to supply their forces across that difficult terrain than existed in New Guinea.
Ignore it for the most part, yes. Ignore it completely? No. Darwin was a suckhole for Japanese and Allied forces. Japanese forces to attack it which was a waste of time and Allies because it needed forces to defend it. Darwin was never of much importance in reality. It was a minor port in a minor theatre.
"Concentrate on isolated Perth and then swing over to Brisbane"
That is (on the A1) 4300km
that not forgetting that Perth is 4000km from Darwin, (Brisbane is 3400km)
Also you are going to go to Perth and then Queensland & NSW!
Not across country if that is what your talking about. It was never my attention. My intention was to apply forces from the sea. You know, land them from the sea.
StrangeMedicine
Banned
City-states that could have easily been annexed by their same-language neighbors: San Marino, Vatican City, Monaco, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg
Belgium could easily have been partitioned between Holland and France (and still could be)
Switzerland could have been destroyed by the rising ethnonationalism in 19th century Europe
Britain could have probably held Ireland if they had given Catholic Irishmen equal rights earlier
All the Central European and Balkan countries wouldn't exist if not for the world wars
Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia could have survived if they were better managed
Post-Soviet states, if not for Yeltsin
Rhodesia could have survived if not for the lack of diplomatic recognition and sanctions (thus no Zimbabwe)
Algeria could have stayed with France even into the modern era, because it was administered as a French territory, not a colony, and had a large (15%) French population (think the French version of Alaska or Hawaii)
The Levantine countries and Iraq could have easily been united into some sort of Pan-Arab state in the early 20th century
Sudan could have stayed part of Egypt
Pakistan and Bangladesh could have stayed with India
Mongolia could have become another Tibet in the 1950s
Either Korea
Taiwan, if the Chinese Civil War goes a different way
The PRC easily could have never formed, but China as a civilization/country would still exist, just under different management
Singapore
East Timor
New Zealand (could have been annexed to Australia)
Canada (could have been handed over to America instead of becoming a dominion)
Turkey (if the Greco-Turkish War had gone the other day)
Persia/Iran (could have been colonized by Russia, Britain, or split between them during the Great Game)
Afghanistan (if Britain and Russia aren't so committed to avoiding a land border
Cyprus (could have been annexed to Greece through the process of enosis)
Namibia (If the Angolan Bush War had gone differently)
South Sudan and Eritrea (if Sudan and Ethiopia refused to let go)
All of the Central Asian -istan countries, they could all have been unified as "Turkestan" (more likely if Russia annexes Sinkiang in the 19th century)
Belgium could easily have been partitioned between Holland and France (and still could be)
Switzerland could have been destroyed by the rising ethnonationalism in 19th century Europe
Britain could have probably held Ireland if they had given Catholic Irishmen equal rights earlier
All the Central European and Balkan countries wouldn't exist if not for the world wars
Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia could have survived if they were better managed
Post-Soviet states, if not for Yeltsin
Rhodesia could have survived if not for the lack of diplomatic recognition and sanctions (thus no Zimbabwe)
Algeria could have stayed with France even into the modern era, because it was administered as a French territory, not a colony, and had a large (15%) French population (think the French version of Alaska or Hawaii)
The Levantine countries and Iraq could have easily been united into some sort of Pan-Arab state in the early 20th century
Sudan could have stayed part of Egypt
Pakistan and Bangladesh could have stayed with India
Mongolia could have become another Tibet in the 1950s
Either Korea
Taiwan, if the Chinese Civil War goes a different way
The PRC easily could have never formed, but China as a civilization/country would still exist, just under different management
Singapore
East Timor
New Zealand (could have been annexed to Australia)
Canada (could have been handed over to America instead of becoming a dominion)
Turkey (if the Greco-Turkish War had gone the other day)
Persia/Iran (could have been colonized by Russia, Britain, or split between them during the Great Game)
Afghanistan (if Britain and Russia aren't so committed to avoiding a land border
Cyprus (could have been annexed to Greece through the process of enosis)
Namibia (If the Angolan Bush War had gone differently)
South Sudan and Eritrea (if Sudan and Ethiopia refused to let go)
All of the Central Asian -istan countries, they could all have been unified as "Turkestan" (more likely if Russia annexes Sinkiang in the 19th century)
You might want to start reading my posts before replying to them. I specifically mentioned the inability of the IJN to escort convoys, and the lack of ships to form those convoys. Nowhere did I mention road or rail.
Darwin cannot be supplied, because again the IJN doesn't have the shipping available.
And no, invading Perth is still batshit insane simply because of the distances involved. And yes, again I'm talking about the distances by ship.
Attacking major population centres is a great way for the Japanese to get their teeth kicked in, since they simply don't have the troops available to make a decent go at it. And of course again the lack of shipping and inability to escort the landings and resupply runs.
This is not the thread for this. If you want to talk about a Japanese occupation of Australia in WWII, please start a thread on it. Do expect to get schooled by people who know much more about this subject than you or I.
Last edited:
TDM
Kicked
I'm not assuming that, I'm talking about the operating distances involved in even just keeping down the larger population centres
Why wouldn't there be, in RL the IJN had this happen to them it's part of why they couldn't resupply NG, and your plan makes it worse for them (are we assuming some large POD from OTL?)
No because if IJA can't take and control NG they're not invading Australia.. Even if they decide to bypass NG and try and strand the Australians there, it still doesn't matter because the issues with the IJA invading Australia are really not about how big the Australian army is.
and if they decide to ignore NG, then cool the USN uses it to cut the Japanese forces off in Australia
Yes in abstract (although supply cross country wasn't really the IJN's responsibility) but doing that is harder than just typing it. Also even if you do just want to blame the ILN's poor planning ability, what's going to make them suddenly better when trying for Australia?
In OTL kind of yes (minor theatre is subjective, plus it's still one the Japanese lost in), but you are talking about a IJA invasion
Right but you talking about using the IJN as a battle taxi landing (and supporting) the IJA at population points dotted around a 25,760 km coastline (subject to coastline paradox). Plus your going to have to not just take but hold and garrison those population points, i.e not jut land there and then pack up head off to the next one.
Not only that but the nearest bit of that coast line is already at the end of a thousands of km long supply line!
All the while the USN is out and about!
Basically what you are describing is all the things that made the IJN's job hard in OTL, harder. Plus trying to take and hold a continent sized island* with the IJA which itself is overstretched and couldn't hold what it had taken in OTL!
Someone earlier linked the actual Japanese command's thoughts on this,
Seriously this is like antipodean Sealion in terms of bad ideas
*not a continent mum if you are reading this
Last edited:
Yet you had a map with the rail/road link between Perth and Brisbane all mapped out.
Depends on when. In 1941-42, they had the shipping. In 43 they still had the shipping. In 1944-45, they lacked it.
And what was going to interfere with the shipping?
An old post of mine on Mongolia:
***
Interestingly, Palmer argues in the "Epilogue" to *The Bloody White Baron* http://books.google.com/books?id=rt2lasCRsJ8C&pg=PA245 that the psychopathic baron ironically may have saved Mongolia after all:
"Without Ungern, the Chinese would have remained in Mongolia, the Soviets would never have taken over the country, and it would have remained a part of Chinese territory. From the point of view of anybody in Mongolia in the 1930s, Chinese oppression, however petty and brutal, would have been infinitely superior to the Soviet version. In the long run, though, Mongolia would have gone through exactly the same collectivisation, cultural destruction and mass homicide"--only twenty years later and under Mao instead of under Stalin's puppet Choybalsan. The difference according to Palmer is that Mongolia as a Soviet satellite remained Mongolian in population, so that after the collapse of the Soviet Union it could experience a new freedom:
"It kept its own culture and its own religion, however damaged by seventy years of Russian occupation." By contrast, the PRC "would have flooded Mongolia with Han settlers, as happened in the other non-Chinese provinces of the new Communist empire [including of course Inner Mongolia], leaving the Mongolians a minority in their own lands, culturally and economically marginalised."
(Big question in this scenario: What do the Japanese do about Outer Mongolia in the 1930's--and how does the Soviet Union react? The fact that in this no-Ungern ATL the Soviets are willing to let a weak China regain control of Mongolia after 1919 does not necessarily mean that Stalin will look on indifferently when a strong Japan tries to gain control there in the 1930's.)
***
Interestingly, Palmer argues in the "Epilogue" to *The Bloody White Baron* http://books.google.com/books?id=rt2lasCRsJ8C&pg=PA245 that the psychopathic baron ironically may have saved Mongolia after all:
"Without Ungern, the Chinese would have remained in Mongolia, the Soviets would never have taken over the country, and it would have remained a part of Chinese territory. From the point of view of anybody in Mongolia in the 1930s, Chinese oppression, however petty and brutal, would have been infinitely superior to the Soviet version. In the long run, though, Mongolia would have gone through exactly the same collectivisation, cultural destruction and mass homicide"--only twenty years later and under Mao instead of under Stalin's puppet Choybalsan. The difference according to Palmer is that Mongolia as a Soviet satellite remained Mongolian in population, so that after the collapse of the Soviet Union it could experience a new freedom:
"It kept its own culture and its own religion, however damaged by seventy years of Russian occupation." By contrast, the PRC "would have flooded Mongolia with Han settlers, as happened in the other non-Chinese provinces of the new Communist empire [including of course Inner Mongolia], leaving the Mongolians a minority in their own lands, culturally and economically marginalised."
(Big question in this scenario: What do the Japanese do about Outer Mongolia in the 1930's--and how does the Soviet Union react? The fact that in this no-Ungern ATL the Soviets are willing to let a weak China regain control of Mongolia after 1919 does not necessarily mean that Stalin will look on indifferently when a strong Japan tries to gain control there in the 1930's.)
I haven't posted a single map in this thread, nor have I mentioned rail or road links between Perth and Brisbane.
Wrong. The Japanese were chronically short of shipping during the entire war. Pre-war, they relied on foreign shipping to a large degree, which of course was no longer possible when they declared war on practically every country with a merchant marine. There was not a single moment starting from the attack on Pearl Harbor until the Japanese surrender that the Japanese had an adequate number of supply ships and tankers. Consequently, Japanese outpost garrisons were usually short of supplies, and offensives were on a very strict timetable, since the shipping was always needed elsewhere.
Well, since the Japanese don't have destroyers with the range to escort these convoys, anything and everything could interfere with the shipping. Land based air, submarines both surfaced and submerged, literally any allied ship that can carry a gun, and of course the distances involved which mean you need a lot of ships for these runs to begin with, since they will be underway for a very long time.
Turkey could easily not exist. Chop off the kurdish and Armenian parts, chop off the more Syrian parts, chop off the more greekish parts, balkanize the rest.
Or different out comes of wars during history could vastly change the area.
Egyptian core is moderately safe, but that said Israel didn't exist for like 2000 years, do Egypt could have been absorbed into a Greek and or Turkish state and remain in such manner.