Re: PHIL ALLISON: WW2 US - Australian relations. As off-topic asI can make it :-)



Mark Aitchison wrote:

west wrote:
"Patrick Turner" <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
west wrote:
Phil ... Wouldn't you be speaking Japanese if it weren't for us "Yank
Pigs?"
Never under estimate the fighting ability of Australians on their home
ground.

The history of WW2 is kinda complicated - one problem was that Australia
and NZ had committed a big chunk of their resources to helping Britain
in Africa etc (which was a sore point at the time, when "Fortress
Singapore" fell and Oz was staring down the barrel of the Japanese
invasion forces). To be honest, Australia would have struggled to slow
them down, let alone win, without help. But the reliability of the help
is where some of the complications flood in... Britain, before WW2
basically seemed to be a good protector in the Pacific (like the USA
looked a decade ago?) - with the most powerful navy (by far) then. The
US not only hadn't much of a navy (and soon was to have much less!),
they had a policy of isolationism, going to great lengths not to but
their noses in other countries. (Ironic they copped flack for that
then, and flack for the exact opposite now!)

The basic problem before WW2 was that certain countries were increasing
their military strength at a great rate, with obvious intentions... they
were putting so much money into it that they could only have a plan of
attacking other countries to make the investment pay off. Countries
like Poland were not stupid, nor thought horsemen could hold off tanks,
but simply could not afford to increase their military strength to keep
pace with the big three who ignored the League of Nations; they had to
rely on promises of the likes of Britain and France etc to step in and
squash any attacks. Australia (and NZ) were in that same situation; and
(sensibly - or with no other option) were like chicks who protected
themselves by helping the "mother hen" (England) keep the peace. For
example, Sir Keith Parks, who helped Dowding set up the RAF
fighter+radar defence (and was in charge of the all-important area of
England) was a New Zealander (as were 20% of the top fighter aces in the
RAF - not a bad percentage given the tiny size of New Zealand!).

The reason the plan almost failed was not that Chamberlain was
mesmerized by a piece of paper (peace in our time), but because Britain
had already let Germany get ahead in air power, and truly struggled to
build up strength. That "slip" in allowing the luftwaffe to expand (or
even exist, given the Treaty of Versailles) was not so much not knowing
about it but a lack of unity of purpose before Chamberlain. Partly a
matter of hoping a strong Germany would resist USSR's expansion (ironic
how those two actually joined together at the start!), partly because of
a feeling of guilt over excesses in punishing Germany years before, but
largely because their conclusion that "the bomber will always get
through" led to totally stupid conclusions (basically a forerunner of
Mutually Assured Destruction, and no inkling that Germany could occupy
France so Britain would have a hard time bombing Germany, but Germany an
easy time bombing Britain). The only reason Britain won the Battle of
Britain (and consequently Germany got bogged down in fighting on two
fronts so Japan had to carry on without help in its invasion of the
Pacific) was: a couple of guys in the RAF, running a part of the RAF
nobody thought would be of any use in a real war - namely the fighters -
kind of sneaked technological advances past the noses of the top brass
for whom bombers were the apple of their eye, and argued long and hard
to get monoplane fighters like the Hurricane and Spitfire, and set up a
miraculous radar system.

So the problems with smallish countries relying on bigger allies coming
to help include some pretty serious hitches: they might sort of like the
idea of your enemy having a bit of power; they might be incompetent;
they might end up being too busy fighting for their own lives to be able
to help you. This isn't unique to Britain's failure to adequately
protect other countries; the USA promised to defend France, if it were
attacked (sort of as a way of saying "sorry" for not joining the League
of Nations), yet didn't follow through. If all the countries not only
carried out their promises of support, but made it clear in advance they
would effectively act in concert to stop any aggression, WW2 would not
have started.

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, America declared war on Japan only,
not Germany or Italy - even that was not enough to get it to enter WW2,
just to respond to the problem in its back yard. In doing that, it was
indirectly, but not directly, helping countries like Australia. It was
only when Germany itself declared war on the US that they entered World
War 2. (Why did Hitler do that? The reason is documented: even though
his generals strongly advised against it, he did so to stop Japan
picking up British empire countries like Australia art bargain prices -
it was not really a matter of fulfilling a promise to support Japan).
The way WW2 was supposed to run was this:

1. Germany attacks European countries quickly, lightning war, so the
individual countries cannot respond fast enough, and it is all over
before their allies can come to their rescue. In fact most countries
did very little (if anything), very late to help others - even if they
promised specific strength/actions.

2. Germany realistically thought Britain would loose the air war in a
matter of weeks. This was after it realistically thought Britain would
cave in and ask for terms. German aircraft outnumbered the RAF by
something like 3:1 at the start of the war (and it got to 7:1 at one
stage), although it has been said those numbers cannot be exactly
compared because they included different types of aircraft. It has also
been said that the Germans were in a bad position because they decided
to stop making 4-engine bombers (the type most suitable for a prolonged
air bombing campaign) some years earlier - but they were simply
concentrating on what they needed for a quick battle, which everything
pointed to beforehand. They needed to win the air war - or to be
precise - to wipe out virtually all air power that could make mincemeat
of the channel invasion. That is true, and they started doing exactly
the right things - attacking channel shipping to entice the RAF into
battles where they could be wiped out. Most strategists would have done
what the "big wing" proponents wanted - go in strength to attack and try
to win, which is what the Germans wanted, and what really could not have
worked for Britain. The main two people in charge of the fighter
defence of Britain did the right thing - their goal was to "not lose"
the war rather than to win it, a subtle difference, but absolutely
essential. Plus they had the technology and strategy and tactical skills
to carry it off, like a chess game. Park really was at least equal to
the Duke of Wellington, or Lord Nelson, in his skilled handling of the
situation, but some miracles (in the form of Germany - incredibly -
changing tactics when they were onto a good idea) also helped!

3. Because Germany didn't win the air war after a painfully long time
(I hesitate to say Britain won it, in fact they didn't need to)...
Germany had to give up trying to cross the channel, and carry on with
plans that were delayed so much they were about to turn to custard. One
thing was they attacked the USSR while they were still fighting Britain
and her chicks, meaning their force was split (with non-trivial problems
in Africa and Malta carrying on), so they didn't take out the USSR
before winter set in (and the Rusky generals got enough experience to
start winning some battles - Stalin had purged their best ones, and all
armies start out a war with some ideas that simply are wrong - not
battle-tested). It wasn't so much that the USSR's might got the better
of Germany and saved the world for us, it was that the original plan,
that had a chance, was messed up terribly by Germany still having a
major fight on its hands when their timetable (or Hitler's unstoppable
greed, or the dictator's need to give his people a victory) made them
take on another big war.

4. Meanwhile, Japan was getting impatient - when was Germany going to be
ready to help them expand into the Pacific? They were busy fighting in
China, and needed resources like steel to carry on with their plan, yet
Germany was still back, mired in what should have been a simple 3-week
task. Hitler certainly would have promised Japan to join in the fight
during one of their secret meetings, because he was obviously determined
to join in later (after Pearl Harbour) when the cost/risk was great
indeed. He had expected to pick up Australia, India, etc for free after
Britain fell; he certainly did not want Japan to get them for themselves
because the master plan was to side with Italy and Japan at first, then
make sure Germany came out on top. A bit like a game of Risk... there
will only be one winner in the end, no matter what pacts are made along
the way. If Germany only gained old battle-worn European countries but
not their valuable possessions/allies around the world, they would have
to play second fiddle to the country that struck gold, and that was
looking like Japan. Hence failing to win the Battle of Britain made
Hitler back Japan and declare war on the USA.

5. If Germany had not have declared war on the USA 3 days after Pearl
Harbour, it is unlikely America would have helped in the European war
(because it certainly had the chance to do so without prodding, but did
not). They might have stopped Japan's advance to save themselves, but
then again they might have done a deal that allowed Japan to take some
countries like Australia but stop there - that isn't saying America was
selfish, but following a philosophy of keeping to itself that people
today might be implying it should return to. Also recall that Germany
often got away with snatching some "unimportant" country or two so long
as he promised on a stack of Bibles not to go further, and America
presumably didn't disagree then. And remember, not only was there the
overt Nazi Bund foothold in American politics, for a time many officials
- especially union people - very much resisted the US helping Britain.

6. What would have probably happened, if Germany had squeezed a
surrender out of Britain early on, as it planned, would have been more
than countries like Australia being given help, the massive
technological help given, gratis, from Britain to America (how to break
"unbreakable" codes like Ultra and eventually Purple; radar - including
leading-edge technology airborne radar prototypes and scientists; how to
organise an air force; even, later in the war, computers)... all of
these were incredibly valuable in getting the US up to speed in fighting
a war, and worth gazillions of bucks up to the present day. Britain was
never paid for them, by the way, but America insisted Britain pay back
all the war loans!

7. So The USA owes an incredibly large amount to the guys who stopped
Germany winning the Battle of Britain. Everything hinged on that. So
America should be thankful to a Scotsman, Dowding, and the New
Zealand-born son of another Scotsman, Park. We'd like to collect the
debt now, thanks!

Gee, isn't there anyone who still likes us? I'm starting to feel alone and
rejected.

west

It very much reminds me of those role-playing games where "mana" is used
up (that's a Maori/polynesian term sort of relating to prestige/honour
and the strength/influence that comes from the esteem you are generally
held in). The USA have basically used up all of their mana. Even
superpowers need it - they cannot say any longer (to quote Sledge
Hammer) "Trust me, I know what I'm doing!". Which means the have opened
the door for some countries to get away with murder with no realistic
chance of action if America needs a united front against them. People
will, in fact, distrust any claims made by America, even though it was a
limited number of people that lied/misled/were misled/were incompetent.

Mark A.


Obviously WW2 history was much more complex than whatever I stated; your
post is gripping in its story line but concludes the US has used all its
mana.

Oz has always backed the US in its war ventures since WW2, but
only proportionately to its size, or no more than has the state of
Carlifonia helped its other states of the Union.
But that State is much more closely tied to Washingtons edicts than we
are,
despite our having leaders at times where it seems they'd be happy
be another State of the Union.

I recall being warned by school teachers of 1960s about the "yellow
peril" and
"yellow hordes" to our north and that we'd have to fight them
on their soil where the poison of communism had taken hold.
The fears held by the elders of our tribe were never realised.
The yellow perils were just flat out solving internal troubles of
casting off
their colonial masters, eg, the French in Vietnam.
The Vietnamese were not thinking of invading Oz.
China had unsuccessfully tried taking Vietnam for 2,000 years and
failed.
China didn't head south in conquest like the Japs.
Later Robert McNamara stated how America and its alies completely
misunderstood the
south east asian mindset, and said that Vietnam was a real BS artist's
war
which should not have occurred, ie, a big mistake.
I could see that in 1965, and no way would I have allowed myself to be
conscripted to it.
China doesn't have to invade us, all they do now is manufacture most of
our imports
at 20dB under the cost we would make the same crap, and they laugh to
the bank.

Anyway, in 1960 we were all like mushrooms, ie, fed on BS and kept in
the dark,
the right wing leaders of the time were up to their necks
in the usual deception *** and Menzies speaches about Vietnam
were in the same vein as Blowards speaches in today's era, full of poop,
and designed to frighten ppl into feeling OK about
fighting wars.

Instead of yellow perils and communists we now get terrorists.
Most are just the guys defending their dirt, and their nations riches,
such as the oil. An ever demanding and somewhat rapacious world wants
that black gold.
It seems to me that major powers including America thinks that
just because a nations peoples live in the deserts above the oil, it
doesn't mean they own the stuff, so lets get it, and squash all the
people
between us and the oil because it belongs to all people of the world.
Its like, lets cut down all the forests of Borneo, because the world
needs the wood,
so *** the locals while we profit obscenely. My teachers told me to
beware communism, for
it enshrined the notion that the end justifies the means, and that
for Mao's China, democracy grows from the barrel of a gun.
Seems like the West has addopted the very policies it condemned.
America never said,
..."shooks, we wanna that oil, OK, so we gonna shoot a few folks in the
way, OK."
But we should read the deeds, not the words, because words are full of
BS.

Currently, Oz has a new Labour leader who has the intellectual capacity
to become a prime minister and methinks his tone toward the US will not
to be
throw away the Aust - US alliance, but I don't see him hanging onto
Bush's coat tails either. America and Australia share a very similar
culture and level of personal wealth and there is a big financial
interest tying both nations together. Its not all the liking of many
here
when yet another Oz company ends up being taken over by some
predator US company.
So the more we sell out, the more likely the US would come to our aid
if for example Indonesia decided to add Oz to its territory.

But if the US takes on Iran, I think it'd be most foolish for Oz to send
a thousand men.

Obviously I am not an expert in world affairs. I
am naively simplistic about the world, basically I am tired of the
BS spun at us by leaders and just want justice and the truth. Sure the
oil belongs to us all,
just like all the wood in the forests, but so does the duty of care to
see the
poor are able to improve their lot to that of our standards
while treating the natural environment with sustainable respect.
This is always the hard part nations ignore; greed seems to intervene,
so the Chinese
work 12hrs a day for $2, or under $1,000 per anum, and don't have any
idea of the conditions of
an average Oz person who now earns aud $44,000 per year, often just by
sitting on his arse
in front of a screen, certainly not down some filthy coal mine or in a
sweat shop factory.
So how come $43,000 is missing from the Chinese average wage?
If they did get our wages, i'd be competitive making amplifiers;
I could make any damn thing and be competitive, but
at present I can't make anything and compete.
So who designed this situation? leave him with me, I wanna rough him up
a bit,
for I think its the only language he understands.

But I only have a vote, and I can vote only for the clowns, and cannot
vote
for the policies of the circus.

Patrick Turner.
.

Quantcast