WI: Japan Invades Australia in WW2

[Emperor Norton I]

There was a fear by Australia during the Second World War that the Japanese would invade. That didn't happen, and the limitations and state of the Japanese military at the time, as we have found out over the years, makes such an invasion difficult to fathom happening, at least successfully. However, it has been one of the alternate possibilities of WW2 that interests me most.

So how can Japan be made to invade Australia, and what would be the results of that?

 

[d32123]

So how can Japan be made to invade Japan, and what would be the results of that?

I'm pretty sure the Japanese invasion of Japan would be pretty successful.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

I'm pretty sure the Japanese invasion of Japan would be pretty successful.

I like to drink.

 

[Color-Copycat]

The Japanese weren't dumb enough to attempt it IOTL because Tojo and Yamamoto had enough clout to dissuade the Navy faction from attempting such a strategy. All due respect to Admiral Yamamoto, but it doesn't take a military genius to see that landing forces in northern Australia would be an absolute waste of war materiel and manpower. There's nothing there of strategic value. Nothing.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

I suspect that getting to the invasion sites would be surprisingly easy in the logistical sense.

 

[Kongzilla]

The Japanese weren't dumb enough to attempt it IOTL because Tojo and Yamamoto had enough clout to dissuade the Navy faction from attempting such a strategy. All due respect to Admiral Yamamoto, but it doesn't take a military genius to see that landing forces in northern Australia would be an absolute waste of war materiel and manpower. There's nothing there of strategic value. Nothing.

Quite Right. Half of the Invasion forces would be dead before they even got into battle with Australian soldiers.

 

[Evermourn]

I recall some discussion on this site awhile back about how it actually made a lot of sense for Japan to just land and take Darwin, then sit tight. This would take out the main air and naval base in the north, but due to the distances and lack of infrastructure in the north of Australia they would essentially be on an island. The problem of taking it back would be all on the Allies, and thus a big resource sink.

 

[Riain]

Japan lacked shipping for even just maintaining her empire, it's very difficult for Japan to find the ships to invade anywhere, let alone Australia.

 

[Pangur]

I recall some discussion on this site awhile back about how it actually made a lot of sense for Japan to just land and take Darwin, then sit tight. This would take out the main air and naval base in the north, but due to the distances and lack of infrastructure in the north of Australia they would essentially be on an island. The problem of taking it back would be all on the Allies, and thus a big resource sink.

I can't see how it would make sense. Once they have captured the area around Darwin - what next? They get cut off and starved. The US navy based a fair few subs out of both Freemantle and Brisbane so a trip for them up to the NT would a very sort run which in turn means more time hunting for Japanese ships. Actually the allies might be the ones to be tempted to explore the resource sink with the Japanese sinking resources into holding on to what ever part of the NT they captured

 

[MattII]

Sounds like the USM adapted to eastern geopolitical arrangements, and about as likely to succeed.

 

[Evermourn]

I can't see how it would make sense. Once they have captured the area around Darwin - what next? They get cut off and starved. The US navy based a fair few subs out of both Freemantle and Brisbane so a trip for them up to the NT would a very sort run which in turn means more time hunting for Japanese ships. Actually the allies might be the ones to be tempted to explore the resource sink with the Japanese sinking resources into holding on to what ever part of the NT they captured

I'm just having a look at a map of Australia and the surrounding regions, and really Indonesia, PNG and the Solomons are all just as close to either Freemantle or Brisbane, or even closer. And the Japanese took or tried to take all of those islands. Also I notice that to get at Darwin's shipping from either side of Oz you have to cross a choke point either side (more so on the East approach), which I would assume would assist Japanese forces in defending against subs. There would be a lot of pressure on the Australian government to push the Japanese off home soil, I could see some hasty action being taken which the Japanese could punish severely.

 

[Pangur]

I'm just having a look at a map of Australia and the surrounding regions, and really Indonesia, PNG and the Solomons are all just as close to either Freemantle or Brisbane, or even closer. And the Japanese took or tried to take all of those islands. Also I notice that to get at Darwin's shipping from either side of Oz you have to cross a choke point either side (more so on the East approach), which I would assume would assist Japanese forces in defending against subs. There would be a lot of pressure on the Australian government to push the Japanese off home soil, I could see some hasty action being taken which the Japanese could punish severely.

However they (the Japanese) had next to no luck in the start of the war against US subs. I am not suggesting a land attack by the allies least ways until what ever air bases that the Japanese have set up are neutralized.

 

[Alex1guy]

I'm just having a look at a map of Australia and the surrounding regions, and really Indonesia, PNG and the Solomons are all just as close to either Freemantle or Brisbane, or even closer. And the Japanese took or tried to take all of those islands. Also I notice that to get at Darwin's shipping from either side of Oz you have to cross a choke point either side (more so on the East approach), which I would assume would assist Japanese forces in defending against subs. There would be a lot of pressure on the Australian government to push the Japanese off home soil, I could see some hasty action being taken which the Japanese could punish severely.

Why would there be massive pressure to push them off when it's more sensible to simply cut them off and pick them to pieces? The Aussies aren't stupid. Maintaining a battle line in Australia would be a waste of Japan's finite resources and would do nothing but open up a whole new front which they did not need. Deny some airbases is not a good excuse to try and invade a nation as big as Australia. The Japanese were literally rotating divisions across their embattled Empire and it would be a sink trying to hold a useless part of Australia. It would only accelerate their defeat and is a pointless move.

 

[Magniac]

I recall some discussion on this site awhile back about how it actually made a lot of sense for Japan to just land and take Darwin, then sit tight.

This must have been me, something or other I wrote about an invasion of Darwin and/or Broome being a good, practical feint at the time of the Battle of Coral Sea; because otherwise most people here who've dealt with the subject of Japan invading Oz (by which I mean not merely writing an OP with the intention of getting other members to flesh out/complete an AHC for them) are pretty negative about any size incursion being possible. Which is understandable, if a bit of a shame.

But even though I'm not a navalist, I still think a Japanese landing at Darwin with the intention of drawing the US fleet into the Indian Ocean sounds like something that was worth trying, from their point of view.

I can't see how it would make sense. Once they have captured the area around Darwin - what next?

In early-to-mid 1942, it's a warm water Attu and Kiska operation. It's not about taking land per se, it's about an attempt to manipulate the USN.

Why would there be massive pressure to push them off when it's more sensible to simply cut them off and pick them to pieces?

If they actually did take Darwin and/or Broome there would be massive domestic pressure on the Australian government to focus on reclaiming those northern continent areas first, even if it meant ignoring the situation in PNG. I'm not saying any Australian govt. would be allowed by MacArthur to adopt a 'Darwin First' policy at the expense of defending Papua, but there would be a lot of conflict around that. It would mean something in the short term.

 

[HMS Warspite]

There was a fear by Australia during the Second World War that the Japanese would invade. That didn't happen, and the limitations and state of the Japanese military at the time, as we have found out over the years, makes such an invasion difficult to fathom happening, at least successfully. However, it has been one of the alternate possibilities of WW2 that interests me most.

So how can Japan be made to invade Australia, and what would be the results of that?

The primary problem would be what the purpose of such an invasion would be. As Australia would not offer the japanese much in terms of resources, manpower, or other strategic goals, it would be more a burden, tan an asset, as the huge landmass had to be occupied by a considerable force of troops, something the Japanese had not plenty of, given their primary warobjective, the densly populated land of China.

In order to make Australia more atractive for such a risky operation, Australia itself had to be changed into a treasure of resources at least, but even than it would propably be left aside, being simpky too far away and too expensive to take and hold. Geography simply ruled out a Japanese occupation.

 

[Pangur]

Magniac has a point re trying to manipulating the US Navy. However thinking about this a bit further, why would they do that? To try and get them into a fight where they loose as many carriers as they can and if they can sink US battleships so much the better. That sounds rather like Midway to me where Midway was not a dirty great continent where the US could base as many aircraft as they could build crew and there. An attempt to draw the US Navy into a fight that close to Aussie would be frankly insane. The US would not jump the gun as it were, they would have built up the required forces - aircraft and troops, the Aussies - the very same. Actually on that matter I would be pretty sure that ever Aussie soldier overseas would have been brought home not just the 6th and 7th Divisions. Once the build up is done and the US subs have done there bit starving the invaders the allies go into the collect

 

[Hrvatskiwi]

What I think people are failing to realise in this thread is that capturing Darwin does not create a "battlefront". There is no-one to battle. The Australian Defence Force can't simply drive there. There's no infrastructure, unfavourable terrain for warfare in general and the only way to get there is the sea. It IS like an island, as one of the previous posters stated. It's not like seizing a town in Russia, where there's virtually infinite strategic depth, but most of the posters in this thread seem to think of it that way, given the size of Australia.

And I support the idea that any invasion of Darwin would require the Australians to focus on the recovery of Darwin. As it was, the presence of Australian troops in North Africa when Australia itself was threatened by the Japanese invasion of the Dutch East Indies was a massive political issue. With a Japanese invasion and occupation of Darwin, those in favour of recalling the Australian troops (or at the very least getting some American troops) are going to win politically. What effects this will have, I don't really know. But that's my two cents so far.

 

[Dominic]

Invading Australia =/= conquering Melbourne and Sydney. While the logistics of invading any part of the continent would likely be straining to say the least, as successful occupation of Darwin could possibly be of strategic use, in that it denies the allies the use of the port and airfield. That said, while retaking Darwin by land would be folly, by the time '43 and '44 role around the likely considerable forces located there would be easily cut off and defeated from the sea, making the venture a net loss.

Japan actually invading the places where most Australians live is another matter all together, in that while Darwin would be a bad idea, Queensland would be a really inexcusable moronic idea. Probably create some more awful Australiana as well, though at least it's cheaper to get drunk and be awful in Cairns than at Gallipoli.

 

[HMS Warspite]

Invading Australia =/= conquering Melbourne and Sydney. While the logistics of invading any part of the continent would likely be straining to say the least, as successful occupation of Darwin could possibly be of strategic use, in that it denies the allies the use of the port and airfield. That said, while retaking Darwin by land would be folly, by the time '43 and '44 role around the likely considerable forces located there would be easily cut off and defeated from the sea, making the venture a net loss.

Japan actually invading the places where most Australians live is another matter all together, in that while Darwin would be a bad idea, Queensland would be a really inexcusable moronic idea. Probably create some more awful Australiana as well, though at least it's cheaper to get drunk and be awful in Cairns than at Gallipoli.

A more likely option would have been to destroy Darwin as a base for some long time, simmilar as the other sorts of strikes had as a goal to remove Pearl Harbor and Ceylon as bases of operations, although both failed in their execution. There would be no need to actually land troops there as the strike would more be a hit and run operation. Darwin was not that important afterall, other than allowing large airforces to be bases, only capable of reaching Japanese hold territories in New Guinea and the Southern most islands of the Dutch East Indies. Both of these had no real strategic value, other than just being there.

Point is that there was no valid reason to invade even Darwin, as the strain on the already overstretched Japanese front, would be too much anyway, simmilar to the New Guinea campaign, which proved to be a failure as well. Guadalcanal on the other hand was more logical, as it was strategically well placed to intervene in the logistical routes from the USA to Australia, as well as forming the southern most buffer in the protection of the main base in the region: Rabaul.

 

[phx1138]

I'm pretty sure the Japanese invasion of Japan would be pretty successful.

You never know. Japanese troops didn't do well against defended shores.

As for invading Oz, they'd have better luck kidnapping the Wizard. Even IJA wasn't stupid enough to think this was a good idea (which should give anyone else pause at suggesting it).