What if the Japanese Invaded Australia in World War 2?

Um, no, not really. Yes it technically continued until the Whitlam years, but the mass migration of Southern Europeans was not something that fit at all within what was termed the White Australia Policy. Until then, the policy was not only about the colour of one's skin, hence the name, but also about one's ethnicity and nationality. i.e. Brits were welcome, but few others. The decision to accept Southern Europeans was an important step in overturning the White Australia Policy, though those behind it - including Menzies - may not have seen it in that way. To label it part of the White Australia Policy is not correct.

Menzies would not have seen his immigration policy as anything less than a continuation of the White Australia Policy.

 
Menzies would not have seen his immigration policy as anything less than a continuation of the White Australia Policy.

No, he would have seen it as not being inconsistent with the White Australia Policy, but clearly it was a change and hence it brought about pressure from the xenophobes to show a continued favouritism toward the British. My point is you can hardly call a move to allowing people of different backgrounds - even if still "white" - as a continuation of the White Australia Policy when it was clearly a shift in how that policy was applied, which was a step toward the end of the policy itself.
 
Superb info do you keep that sort of thing on a website?
No I don't.
You can see the effect of the wall st crash on international trade, and the dire state of the US shipping industry prior to the crash.
The point of putting the spreadsheet in was to show that the Depression affected the Japanese merchant marine far less severely than the others, particularly Great Britain's and that there was enough trade in the 1930s to support a larger Japanese merchant marine.

I don't have information on the size of the British Merchant Navy in 1929, 1932 and 1938. The best I have its size in 1937 from Appendix I of the British Official History on Merchant Shipping and the Demands of War by C.B.A. Behrens. In that it says there were 17,436,000 GRT of merchant ships over 100 GRT. Using that my "guesstimates" are:

1929 - 3.54% compared to 0.96% of the Japanese Merchant Marine

1932 - 18.82% compared to 5.84% of the Japanese Merchant Marine

1938 - 2.51% compared to 0.14% of the Japanese Merchant Marine

The following is Appendix I from the British Official History which compares the World Merchant Fleet of 1937 with that of 1914. It shows that the Japanese fleet grew 162% and rose from 6th to 4th place in the world. At that time Japan carried 54% of its imports in its own ships. By the end of 1941 it had grown to 6 million tons (75% built in Japanese yards) and 63% of Japanese imports were carried in Japanese ships. However, according to the United States Strategic Bombing Survey history on the attack on Japanese transportation.
Japan's tanker position before the recent war was in sharp contrast to the degree of over-all maritime self-sufficiency indicated above. Up to the outbreak of hostilities, she relied heavily on foreign tankers for oil imports. At the time of Pearl Harbor, she had only about 400,000 tons of tankers afloat of which she had de livered about 60 percent from her own yards in the 6 years, 1934 through 1939.
World Merchant Fleet 1914 and 1937-2.jpg
 
To be simplistic about it Japan was deeply in debt and building merchantman was a capital expense they could not afford. They were already borrowing to fund public expeniture so any further spending on merchant ships would have to be at the expense of the armed forces.
As I wrote I wasn't expecting anybody to agree with any of it.

However, one piece of military expenditure I am prepared to sacrifice are the small destroyers built under the First and Second Fleet Replenishment Programmes in favour of more tankers. 12 small destroyers were built out of the 20 planned. The machinery of these ships had a similar output to the American Cimarron class so I thought that 12 or even 20 fast tankers could have been built with the same money. The Americans also converted 4 of the first 12 Cimarrons to Sangamon class escort carriers, which were the largest, fastest and carried the most aircraft.

It might have been better to build more tankers of that type instead of the 3 submarine depot ships and 4 seaplane carriers built under the "shadow" aircraft carrier programme. IIRC some of them were so designed that they could be completed as fast tankers, depot ships or auxiliary aircraft carriers.

Ditto the subsidized passenger liners with the possible exceptions of Hiyo and Junyo.

According to the British Official History on Merchant Shipping and the Demands of War the Japanese only had 47 tankers (over 1,600 GRT) displacing 430,000 GRT. I think that can be increased by at least 50%.

For comparison the British had 420 tankers of 2,977,000 HRT and the Dutch 107 tankers of 540,000 GRT. Interestingly (at least it is to me) the Japanese ships with an average displacement of 9,149 GRT were of considerably larger than the British and Dutch whose average sizes were 7,088 and 5,047 GRT respectively.
I haven't had time to read that yet, but I intend to.
 
Japan's tanker position before the recent war was in sharp contrast to the degree of over-all maritime self-sufficiency indicated above. Up to the outbreak of hostilities, she relied heavily on foreign tankers for oil imports. At the time of Pearl Harbor, she had only about 400,000 tons of tankers afloat of which she had de livered about 60 percent from her own yards in the 6 years, 1934 through 1939.
Isn’t this because oil tankers were overwhelmingly owned by the oil companies whose product they were delivering? In which case it would be somewhat peculiar for an oil-free nation to be massively investing in tankers. Doubly so if they are fast military-style tankers whose only conceivable use would be supplying expeditionary naval forces.
 
Isn’t this because oil tankers were overwhelmingly owned by the oil companies whose product they were delivering?
If that's a rhetorical question I simply don't know, but it does make sense.
In which case it would be somewhat peculiar for an oil-free nation to be massively investing in tankers. Doubly so if they are fast military-style tankers whose only conceivable use would be supplying expeditionary naval forces.
Again, I presume that's a rhetorical question. I take your point. AFAIK many of the commercial tankers that the Japanese did build in the 1930s were built with requisition by the IJN in wartime in mind. Furthermore (AFAIK) the subsidised commercial fast tankers built by the Americans in the 1930s were also built so they could be requisitioned by the USN in wartime.
 
If that's a rhetorical question I simply don't know, but it does make sense.
It’s not something I have seen authoritatively stated, but in WW2 accounts an awful lot of tankers seem to have names along the lines of <oil company name><inoffensive thing> or vice versa, e.g. Atlantic Sun, owned by Sun Oil Company. Then you have normal names like MV Cliona belonging to Shell Oil.

The US T2 tankers were apparently based on the design of the sister ships Mobilfuel and Mobilube, so a useful fleet auxiliary would probably still be civilian enough to pass unremarked. Not sure about something like the T3 but presumably the blistering top speed of 18 knots could be kept secret.
 
It’s not something I have seen authoritatively stated, but in WW2 accounts an awful lot of tankers seem to have names along the lines of <oil company name><inoffensive thing> or vice versa, e.g. Atlantic Sun, owned by Sun Oil Company. Then you have normal names like MV Cliona belonging to Shell Oil.

The US T2 tankers were apparently based on the design of the sister ships Mobilfuel and Mobilube, so a useful fleet auxiliary would probably still be civilian enough to pass unremarked. Not sure about something like the T3 but presumably the blistering top speed of 18 knots could be kept secret.
Another example is British Petroleum (BP) tankers which usually had two word names and the first word was nearly always British. I have a tile with 163 of them on it as part of my Royal Fleet Auxiliary 1939 spreadsheet.
 
Another example is British Petroleum (BP) tankers which usually had two word names and the first word was nearly always British. I have a tile with 163 of them on it as part of my Royal Fleet Auxiliary 1939 spreadsheet.
Hmmm. Do you have tonnages? Would be interesting to compare BPs tanker fleet to Japans...
 
Hmmm. Do you have tonnages? Would be interesting to compare BPs tanker fleet to Japans...
The spreadsheet has all the BP Tankers operated from the formation the company's formation to 1945 and includes some second-hand ships dating back to 1880.

The fleet at the beginning of 1939 consisted of 95 tankers built 1899-1938. Their combined displacement was 617,893 GRT - Average size 6,504 GRT.

This included 21 tankers built 1931-38 with a combined displacement of 166,368 GRT - Average size 7,922 GRT.

The Company acquired 33 tankers 1939-45 inculding Empire ships operated for the Ministry of War Transport. They had a combined displacement of 265,947 GRT - An average size of 8,059 GRT.

Also from Post 64
According to the British Official History on Merchant Shipping and the Demands of War the Japanese only had 47 tankers (over 1,600 GRT) displacing 430,000 GRT. I think that can be increased by at least 50%.

For comparison the British had 420 tankers of 2,977,000 GRT and the Dutch 107 tankers of 540,000 GRT. Interestingly (at least it is to me) the Japanese ships with an average displacement of 9,149 GRT were of considerably larger than the British and Dutch whose average sizes were 7,088 and 5,047 GRT respectively.
Those were the figures at 1939 from Appendix VII. The information reads more clearly as:

Japan - 47 tankers (over 1,600 GRT) displacing 430,000 GRT - average size 9,419 GRT

Netherlands - 107 tankers of 540,000 GRT - average size 5,047 GRT

Great Britain - 420 tankers of 2,977,000 GRT - average size 7,088 GRT

I already had the spreadsheet scanned so here is Appendix VII in full

World Merchant Fleet 1939.jpg
 
The spreadsheet has all the BP Tankers operated from the formation the company's formation to 1945 and includes some second-hand ships dating back to 1880.

The fleet at the beginning of 1939 consisted of 95 tankers built 1899-1938. Their combined displacement was 617,893 GRT - Average size 6,504 GRT.

This included 21 tankers built 1931-38 with a combined displacement of 166,368 GRT - Average size 7,922 GRT.
:hushedface: So BP alone had 143% of Japan’s tanker tonnage in 1939? That’s a big hill to climb.

It is interesting that the JP ships are bigger, even when compared to the modern thirties BP tankers which might be equivalent. Perhaps because they are meant for “long-haul” bulk carriage to Japan rather than pottering in and out on short runs? Greater need for fuel-efficiency? Lower cost of capital? Built in larger more modern yards? I find myself disappearing down rabbit holes like this all the time.
 
upload_2018-3-10_12-37-20.gif
So BP alone had 143% of Japan’s tanker tonnage in 1939? That’s a big hill to climb.

It is interesting that the JP ships are bigger, even when compared to the modern thirties BP tankers which might be equivalent. Perhaps because they are meant for “long-haul” bulk carriage to Japan rather than pottering in and out on short runs? Greater need for fuel-efficiency? Lower cost of capital? Built in larger more modern yards? I find myself disappearing down rabbit holes like this all the time.
I have no idea either.
Isn’t this because oil tankers were overwhelmingly owned by the oil companies whose product they were delivering? In which case it would be somewhat peculiar for an oil-free nation to be massively investing in tankers. Doubly so if they are fast military-style tankers whose only conceivable use would be supplying expeditionary naval forces.
However, I was having a look at the table in Post 70 and I noticed that Norway had 268 tankers of 2,109,000 GRT (half her total tonnage of 816 ships of 4,209,000 GRT). That's the third largest tanker fleet in the world after the UK and USA plus it's eight times the size of the Dutch tanker fleet, yet Norway has no oil (well not in 1939).
 
However, one piece of military expenditure I am prepared to sacrifice are the small destroyers built under the First and Second Fleet Replenishment Programmes in favour of more tankers. 12 small destroyers were built out of the 20 planned. The machinery of these ships had a similar output to the American Cimarron class so I thought that 12 or even 20 fast tankers could have been built with the same money. The Americans also converted 4 of the first 12 Cimarrons to Sangamon class escort carriers, which were the largest, fastest and carried the most aircraft.

It might have been better to build more tankers of that type instead of the 3 submarine depot ships and 4 seaplane carriers built under the "shadow" aircraft carrier programme. IIRC some of them were so designed that they could be completed as fast tankers, depot ships or auxiliary aircraft carriers.

Ditto the subsidized passenger liners with the possible exceptions of Hiyo and Junyo.

According to the British Official History on Merchant Shipping and the Demands of War the Japanese only had 47 tankers (over 1,600 GRT) displacing 430,000 GRT. I think that can be increased by at least 50%.

For comparison the British had 420 tankers of 2,977,000 HRT and the Dutch 107 tankers of 540,000 GRT. Interestingly (at least it is to me) the Japanese ships with an average displacement of 9,149 GRT were of considerably larger than the British and Dutch whose average sizes were 7,088 and 5,047 GRT respectively.I haven't had time to read that yet, but I intend to.
My second choice after building more tankers is building more ore carriers. Japanese merchant shipbuilding declined from 1937 after the construction and repair of warships was given priority over the construction of merchant ships. However, not all of the available shipbuilding capacity was used because of a shortage of steel. This wasn't due to a lack of steel making capacity in Japan, but rather a shortage of high quality iron ore due to the lack of shipping to import it from Malaya.

This table from the US Strategic Bombing survey report on the Japanese iron and steel industry demonstrates this.

Production 1937, 1941 and 1944 Mk 2.jpg
 
I have no idea either.However, I was having a look at the table in Post 70 and I noticed that Norway had 268 tankers of 2,109,000 GRT (half her total tonnage of 816 ships of 4,209,000 GRT). That's the third largest tanker fleet in the world after the UK and USA plus it's eight times the size of the Dutch tanker fleet, yet Norway has no oil (well not in 1939).
I’ve never been able to figure out whether Norways oversize shipping fleet was just a dirt-poor rocky coast producing nothing but sailors who occasionally made it to shipowning, or an early European flag of convenience, or a maritime-focused example of state aided capitalism. Probably a bit of all 3. Just because they were Norwegian-flagged does not mean they weren’t oil company owned. E.g. https://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3099.html and searching for “The Texas Co (Norway) A/S” on that site brings up a total of five of their tankers lost to uboats. However most Norwegian tankers lost to uboats seem to be registered to various Norwegian shippers?
 
Norway was like Greece - maritime tradition couples with a small country limited natural resources and arable land means seafaring/shipowning way to go...
 
Top