WI Brisbane Line adopted?

In 1942 there was considerable controversy in Australia over the existence of contingency plans to abandon much of the country to Japan in the event of invasion.

The Brisbane Line was an imaginary line drawn from the eponymous city to Perth (or possibly Adelaide). Everything north of this would be abandoned as indefensible and military assets concentrated to better defend the area with the highest population, most industry, etc.

Ultimately, this never occured; indeed, possibly the strategy never existed. Many Australians were furious at the idea of surrendering more than half of the country, and made their displeasure clear. Instead, Australia made its stand in Papua New Guinea, and was ultimately successful.

Assuming the Line existed, what would be the consequences of the government adopting it? Would the IJA actually attempt an overland march to reach the South-East?

Also, instead of regarding the measure as a last resort, could the Allies consciously employ it as a trap, drawing in the IJA to perish in the desert? And would this later result in a more successful counterattack?
 
When was this plan meant to have taken effect, at invasion, or in lieu of holding a line further north, in PNG or elsewhere?
 
I think certain AH texts dicsuss the Brisbane Line in fair detail, such as in AXIS OF TIME 2 DESIGNATED TARGETS, plus the chapter on the Jap invasion of nth Qld in Tsouras' RISING SUN VICTORIOUS.
 
Considering the half of Australia surrendered consists mainly of desert occupied by kangaroos, I cant see why they are so terribly upset at the idea.
The idea of trying to defend all of Australia with the very limited manpower available is bizarre, but then so was the attitude of the Oz government at the time...
 

Markus

Banned
.
Assuming the Line existed, what would be the consequences of the government adopting it? Would the IJA actually attempt an overland march to reach the South-East?

The idea of a Japanese invasion of Australia is as ASB as the invasion of PH or the Operation S....n. Even if the IJA had been willing to send the troops the IJN could have never supplied them.

By the way, Axis of Time is not AH but trash. The author takes the reader´s stereotypes and feeds them back.
 
The historical reality is that there was no actual plan of this feature in the defence plans beyond rough proposals from a Defence Committee.

BUT, since most of Australias industry at the time lay on the East Coast between Brisbane and Adelaide (even then a majority in New South Wales and Victoria) it does make some military sense. Theres nothing save agriculture north of Brisbane at the time and the major garrison towns in Queensland could be bypassed and the North Coast railway line easily cut or bombed. Darwin had no suitable land connection to anywhere else, indeed its only within the last few years that a railway joined it to the rest of the nation. Perth is simply to isolated from attack to be considered.

It was more political than anything else and a dirty little trick on behalf of certain individuals.

Ok. Say the Japanese take Port Morseby with a successful Australian 'Dunkirk'. They would have to capture Darwin because of its strategic airfields, harbour and garrison. However the Japanese would be unable to march South from there because of conditions, lack of infrastructure, supplies and jsut about everything else. The only other place, having pacified the Torres Strait would be to land in Cape York, probably near or at Cairns as that would be the best place to capture port and a railhead. However then its a damn long slog down the QLD coast. Can't go inland. The allied navies are going hell for leather raiding convoys and such. Basically, the fighting is along the North Coast Railway line as that is the easiest way of supplying troops and reinforcements for both sides.

The Japanese would have to be truely stupid to wonder off into the desert into a trap.
 
When was this plan meant to have taken effect, at invasion, or in lieu of holding a line further north, in PNG or elsewhere?

As I understand it, the plan would have been effected while the Japanese and Allies were still battling in New Guinea; Allied forces would (I presume) be evacuated once the Line had been prepared or the situation became untenable. In any case, I believe the intention was to have the line formed up before the invasion occurred.

Considering the half of Australia surrendered consists mainly of desert occupied by kangaroos, I cant see why they are so terribly upset at the idea.
The idea of trying to defend all of Australia with the very limited manpower available is bizarre, but then so was the attitude of the Oz government at the time...

A few factors to consider:
1) There are Australians living north of the Line - indeed, by some accounts Perth would be left for Japan. They feel betrayed and abandoned, and their more fortunate brethren southward feel guilty. Incredibly so.

2) Certain states are very obviously prioritised. Given that one of the key reason for federation was mutual protection from external threats, this dents the government's credibility massively. This is enhanced by pre-existeng tensions between Western Australia and the federal government.

3) It's defeatist. Regardless of the impracticalities of defending Australia's vast coastline (which they can't manage, even today), it's acknowledging that the enemy is too strong to fight. Consider the emotions of Russian soldiers retreating in 1812 or 1941, giving up their country without ever retaliating; Tolstoy captured it quite well. To shore up morale, it was imperative that a stand be made.

All of which would make the Brisbane Line extremely unpopular but perhaps not entirely impossible.

Precisely what bizarreness of attitude on the part of the Australian government are you referring to?
 
Theoretically, this is actually a rather sound basic stratefic concept, if done correctly. If the Japanese land and cannot be simply pushed back into the sea (maybe quick japanese victory along the kokoda trail leads to fall of Moresby?), then it would make sense to abandon the beachheads (most likely around Darwin and Cairns), and, after devastating the local infrastructure, fall back to a defensible position (for example, around katherine) while drawing the Japanese in to the point where their stretched logistics break down, and then counterattack along their exposed flanks.

That said, the idea of a brisbane-Perth or brisbane-adelaide defense line is somewhere between pointless and idiotic. The scale involved makes a strong defense impractical, there isnt any real geographic advantage, and there isnt any need. Even if Japan were attempting a landing against australia, the idea that they could scrounge up enough shipping to get anywhere near that deep into the continent is ridiculous. Yes, it makes sense to protect the areas of the country that actually need it, and the north coast could be abandoned with few long-term costs. But to simply surrender half the country to a nation without the capability to take it or occupy it like this is a sign of either an incredibly brilliant and subtle strategist or gross incompetence.

BTW, a Japanese plan to try and occupy Australia would probably involve offensives down the coasts (land-based and/or leap-frogging amphibious assaults) which would render a perth-brisbane defensive line (although not necessisarily space for time) ineffective.
 
Top