Japan wins the Battle of the Coral Sea

In the 'where did Japan go wrong' thread, aside from the perhaps more plausible 'launching an unwinnable war' theory, this POD comes up a lot.

So, how could Japan win the Battle of the Coral Sea, and what would be the consequences?

For starters, Port Moresby would fall, which would mean (symbolically) the first time that Australian territory has ever fallen under an official enemy military governor. (Not very symbolic, but still interesting). Supplies to Australia would become much more difficult, both through Japanese control of those waters and the loss of US ships.

An invasion of Australia is probably impossible in any scenario, since Australia has about two thousand miles of desert and rainforest between the bits that matter and the bits anyone else is close to, but Japan would definitely be in a stronger position once the rollback begins.
 
The point would be to solidify their territory slightly, not to invade Australia.
The loss of US aircraft carriers would mean that it would take that much longer before a US fleet could challenge a Japanese fleet.
 
The point would be to solidify their territory slightly, not to invade Australia.
The loss of US aircraft carriers would mean that it would take that much longer before a US fleet could challenge a Japanese fleet.

Japan's ultimate goal was to end the war on a negotiated settlement. They might have given up their holdings in Australia in exchange for the French & Dutch colonies and maybe the Philippines, along with their holdings in China.

The reason Midway occured was because Japan was turned back at Coral Sea. Australia was also the main staging area for MacArthur's push into New Guinea and the Philippines. The Japanese would have to be pushed out of Australia before this drive could happen.
 
Japanese would probably launch more air attacks like the one on Darwin in Otl,to demoralise the Austrailian population.
 
I seem to recall hearing about such a scenario on "Sliders", but anyway...

As mentioned earlier, the Japanese didn't want to occupy Australia. Come to think of it, IIRC, the IJN had no problem with an Aussie invasion, but the IJA was against it.

The goal for Japan was to cut Australia off from its allies, i.e. the US, not to come in with ground troops. By cutting off Austr., they would sue for peace with Japan.
 
The japanese seemed pretty confident that if they managed to cut off Austrailia from its allies[Britain,U.S],they could essentially walk into the nation.They figured that the Austrailians already felt abandoned by the British,the loss of U.S aid,would demoralise the population to a point where they would offer no resistance to a japanese invaision.The japanese also seemed to believe that there were a number of potential collaborators among the Austrailian population,which would aid them in an invaision and occupation.
 
MacArthurs strategy doesn't get a second glance and the US's entire effort is direct to Japan via a few key islands.


 
If they invaded it would not last long as it would streched their logistics to the breaking point.

What they did manage stretched them to breaking point so anything that includes an invasion of Australia is ASB terrotiry, its almost an Australian version of a certain aquatic mammal whose name shall not be mentioned here.
 
Well, if Australia was cut off by a victory at the Coral Sea, would there ever be a serious chance of an armistice with Australia? John Curtin, or at least any John Curtin from any history remotely like ours, would never settle for that.

How long could Australia survive for, were it cut off from American and British resupply? Even if the American rollback is inevitable (and frankly, there is no way America, having had Pearl Harbour attacked, would ever end the war in anything less than the total destruction of Japanese militarism), could we see a short-lived Vichy government in Australia?
 
...its almost an Australian version of a certain aquatic mammal whose name shall not be mentioned here.

No, it's nothing like Sealion - it's much more unlikely, and has much less of a point. :) Australia's a lot further away from Japan than the UK is from Germany. They could land in Australia, but they can't necessarily win on land, and they couldn't supply enough troops there to occupy even just the cities.

Even if Australia can be induced into making peace, all that does is remove some submarine bases and hit British morale which was never that close to breaking anyway. It does nothing to stop the Essex-class carriers that are Japan's real problem.
 
Hey, I never said an invasion was anything near possible. By 'military governor' in the first post, I was referring to Papua New Guinea, which was Australian territory at the time; well, Papua, anyway, since mandated territories were complicated.

So we've established that even if they win the Battle of the Coral Sea, there's no way Japan can invade Australia. But wouldn't cutting Australia off have the same effect?

Say Japan win the Battle of the Coral Sea. They take Port Moresby, blockade Australia, perhaps invade Samoa and Fiji. American aid can still come in through New Zealand (which is similarly impregnable to Australia), but it's under threat from Japanese air and sea assets. Northern Australia is bombed repeatedly, maybe a few, several-hour raids. (Think St Nazaire, not D-Day)

In such a situation, could we see the rise of an appeasing government in Australia? It would have to be during a very limited timetable, since Japan are going to fall sooner or later anyway, but if Curtin falls (maybe in the 1943 election?) there could be a short-lived government that sues for peace with Japan, maybe even setting up a Government of National Salvation (read: quisling dictatorship). Of course, as soon as Japan falls, everyone involved will be condemned as a traitor, but it could make for an interesting few months.
 
Port Moresby is taken by Japan. I could see them trying to take Darwin in hopes that morale crumble like dominos, but more likely they garrison Papua New Guinea, bombard N Australia, take E Santo/Samoa/Fiji, and plan the next operation. If enough men are free they might head for Ceylon and try to goad India into revolt, pressure Darwin or Chungking, or set out towards the Tunatavo(?) islands to gain air bases for shutting down supply lines into Aus/NZ. Australia and New Zealand would be offered peace in exchange for neutrality, I doubt they'll take it though. War lasts another 6-10 months with an atomic bomb being used against Okinawa first.
 
Okay to answer the broad questions...
1) Invasion of Australia? Possible... if you count three Japanese divisions sitting around on Cape York as an invasion.
2) Conquest of Australia? Utterly ASB...

How long could Australia survive for, were it cut off from American and British resupply?
Foodwise... indefinantly.
Military equipmentwise? No problem for small arms and ammo; aircraft are also going to be built but at a lower rate; possible serious problems with regards to tanks.
 
Foodwise... indefinantly.
Military equipmentwise? No problem for small arms and ammo; aircraft are also going to be built but at a lower rate; possible serious problems with regards to tanks.

Well, food and military equipment aren't all there is. How does Australia do with all its trade cut off? Our industry is probably self-sufficient, but we don't produce everything we need by ourselves. What things do we have to import?

But with food, probably. Without a really serious drought around then, which would be ASB (but not in a pejorative sense), we could probably produce enough food, with rationing, to stay alive for long enough for America to come galloping to the rescue.
 
Well, food and military equipment aren't all there is. How does Australia do with all its trade cut off? Our industry is probably self-sufficient, but we don't produce everything we need by ourselves. What things do we have to import?

But with food, probably. Without a really serious drought around then, which would be ASB (but not in a pejorative sense), we could probably produce enough food, with rationing, to stay alive for long enough for America to come galloping to the rescue.

What about Australia's incipient indigenous arms industry from 1942, which otl managed mto start producing alot of viable domestic weapons systems like the Owen SMG, CAC Boomerang ground-attack fighter, & Sentinel cruiser tank, not to mention license-producing other cool toys like the Bristol Beaufort/Beaufighter & 25-pounders ? Surely that would've counted for somethin significant in terms of the means to carry on fightin, esp in light of a greater threat to Australia's national security ?
 
What about Australia's incipient indigenous arms industry from 1942, which otl managed mto start producing alot of viable domestic weapons systems like the Owen SMG, CAC Boomerang ground-attack fighter, & Sentinel cruiser tank, not to mention license-producing other cool toys like the Bristol Beaufort/Beaufighter & 25-pounders ? Surely that would've counted for somethin significant in terms of the means to carry on fightin, esp in light of a greater threat to Australia's national security ?

Most probably, yes. You're vastly more knowledgable about this subject than I am, so I'll yield to your expertise.

But they're dependent upon fuel and raw materials. Raw materials we can probably self-supply for a while, but do we have enough fuel? Were the oil beds in the Bass Strait discovered then? Does Australia have enough oil and petrol stored up to fuel goodies like the ones you're suggesting?
 
Australia is not alone

Most probably, yes. You're vastly more knowledgable about this subject than I am, so I'll yield to your expertise.

But they're dependent upon fuel and raw materials. Raw materials we can probably self-supply for a while, but do we have enough fuel? Were the oil beds in the Bass Strait discovered then? Does Australia have enough oil and petrol stored up to fuel goodies like the ones you're suggesting?

The Bass Strait fields were discovered in the sixties according to wiki.

However one thing that does strike me is that while the Japanese may have the north bottled up, they don't have the south. New Zealand could be used as a staging area for convoys as well as contributing troops and material to the war effort.
 
Hey, I never said an invasion was anything near possible. By 'military governor' in the first post, I was referring to Papua New Guinea, which was Australian territory at the time; well, Papua, anyway, since mandated territories were complicated.

So we've established that even if they win the Battle of the Coral Sea, there's no way Japan can invade Australia. But wouldn't cutting Australia off have the same effect?

Say Japan win the Battle of the Coral Sea. They take Port Moresby, blockade Australia, perhaps invade Samoa and Fiji. American aid can still come in through New Zealand (which is similarly impregnable to Australia), but it's under threat from Japanese air and sea assets. Northern Australia is bombed repeatedly, maybe a few, several-hour raids. (Think St Nazaire, not D-Day)

In such a situation, could we see the rise of an appeasing government in Australia? It would have to be during a very limited timetable, since Japan are going to fall sooner or later anyway, but if Curtin falls (maybe in the 1943 election?) there could be a short-lived government that sues for peace with Japan, maybe even setting up a Government of National Salvation (read: quisling dictatorship). Of course, as soon as Japan falls, everyone involved will be condemned as a traitor, but it could make for an interesting few months.

Menzies would fit in perfectly as our homegrown Quisling.
 
"Rising Sun Victorious" had a chapter on a Japanese invasion of Australia... it didn't go well for the invaders... the author assumed that the battles of Coral Sea and Midway went as OTL, so the latter one pretty much sunk any dismal chance the Japanese had at all...
 
Top