this is the quote of the century

</thread>

there won't be a war

methinks Alin didn't understand Dibs' reference to 1984...

Australia was never going to be invaded, Both the navy and the army favoured an isolate and blockade policy of both NZ and Australia. Japan would of invaded Hawaii before they invaded Australia.

I have studied this aspect of WWII extensively and can not find one credible source that backs the argument that Japans Navy wanted to invade, the only leading commander who was pushing for this was a captain on the General Staff's planning section of the Navy. The main plan endorsed by Tokyo was to move through the Solomons, to New Caledonia and then through the south pacific, Fiji, Samoa and onto Kiribati from there Hawaii. Tonga, Niue, French poly and the Cook Islands were all going to be isolated along with NZ and AU.

If WWIII broke out between the super powers as most people agree here it would head towards nuclear war. If that was the case then Australia not having any nuclear weapons would be a low priority target, which makes NZ even a lower priority target and very highly unlikely to be nuked.


Now lets look at conventional wars, the only two serious possibilities would be China vs America and allies or Russia vs america and allies (or both Russia and China vs America and allies though very unlikely) so lets say China got into a war with the US, they again would see no need in invading NZ or AU, they would probably follow Japan's strategy of Island Hoping and moving through to get to the American mainland as soon as possible due to America's industrial might and the need to remove that threat as quickly as possible, wasting time on AU and NZ would allow America to produce more war materials than they could allow. Russia on its own vs us and allies? well that would be mainly fought on mainland Europe. there may be small scale isolated fighting on some islands in the pacific but you will find that would mainly be kept in the north, Russia would most likely go through the bearing sea and into Alaska and invade that way, again that would only be after the war in Europe was won, now the chances of Russia winning a land war in Europe and then invading America and winning are very very slim and they would need to complete both of these objectives before looking at the south pacific and invading Australia and New Zealand.

I am sorry but your premise that New Zealand holds any strategic value in a world war has no basis. Admittedly you are not the only person to believe that we would be a strategic base but im afraid there is absolutely no evidence to support this theory. The fact remains our allies (US and the commonwealth) would have to be so thoroughly beaten before any potential enemy would consider invading our lands, the natural defensive terrain (think of Italy before D-Day and how long it took the allies to advance, but worse!), our location and our true strategic value make the prospect simply not worth the cost when we can be isolated and the supplies/men be used for much better potential gains.

If you can provide any evidence to substantiate that the Japanese (other than the captain on the planning staff) seriously considered to invade AU and NZ I will be very surprised.

Only Peter Jackson holds any interest in NZ

you are incorrect, but i dont suspect that we will agree since you seem to think you are educated on the subject, so whatever.

I am not incorrect, prove I am incorrect, give me one Japanese seaman above the ran of captain who was for invading Australia.

What else of my post is incorrect, do you disagree that New Zealand is not completely defensive terrain that would be a fluff for anyone to try to take? Do you disagree that NZ would get nuked if it was a nuclear war?

Back up your statement, or are you like KC and wont admit when you are wrong.

i know its wiki but here is somewhere for you to start

http://en.wikipedia.org/...ralia_during_World_War_II

"Debate between the Army and Navy

Japan's success in the early months of the Pacific War led elements of the Imperial Japanese Navy to propose invading Australia. In December 1941 the Navy proposed including an invasion of Northern Australia as one of Japan's 'stage two' war objectives after South-East Asia was conquered. This proposal was most strongly pushed by Captain Sadatoshi Tomioka, the head of the Navy General Staff's Planning section, on the grounds that the United States was likely to use Australia as a base to launch a counter-offensive in the South-West Pacific. The Navy headquarters argued that this invasion could be carried out by a small landing force as this area of Australia was lightly defended and isolated from Australia's main population centres.[4] There was not universal support for this proposal within the Navy, however, and Isoroku Yamamoto, the commander of the Combined Fleet, consistently opposed it.[5]"

"Captain Sadatoshi Tomioka" Is the highest ranking official who was pushing for the invasion, I would like to see if you can find someone in higher rank...

"The Chief of Japan's Navy General Staff, Admiral Osami Nagano, wanted Japan to invade northern Australia in
early 1942 and then cut Australia's lifeline to the United States."

http://www.pacificwar.org.au/...ust/JapdebAustinvade.html


my first google search. you are incorrect, and not really worth my time proving. WWII history is my fluff, you might want to pick a different topic. especially if your debate tactics include changing "most strongly pushed for" into "highest ranking officer for it"

"Underlying this basic (Navy) policy was support for the invasion of Australia, the main area from which the United States would launch counter-offensives against the Japanese."
From Senshi Sosho, the official Japanese war history published by the Japanese Defense Agency. See reference below.

"The Navy High Command wanted to invade Australia, in order to eliminate it as a potential springboard for a counter-offensive by the Allies, but the Army baulked at this because it would require an excessive commitment of manpower."
From "Japanese air operations over New Guinea during the Second World War" by Hiroyuki Shindo, Assistant Professor, Military History Department, National Institute for Defense Studies, Tokyo. The article was published in "Journal of the Australian War Memorial, June 2001, Vol. 34.

"..the (Japanese) Navy General Staff sought as early as December (1941) to press for control over all of Australia as a major 'stage two' war objective."
From "Japan's Southward Advance and Australia" (1991), by distinguished Japan scholar and historian Professor Henry Frei (1991) at page 163.

http://battleforaustralia.org/...JapNavy_AustInvasion.html


lol, you did some research alright.

fordy, please take it easy on scodey. hes special

i am perfectly fine for "idiots" to exist in this world. i am not ok when "idiots" tell me im incorrect on a matter in which i have extensive knowledge via both formal education, and a hobby like interest.

we got a badass up in here

Fixed that for you!

lol at you guys. im not a historian, never claimed to be.

but WWII military, along with other US engagements, that is a specific subject that i have focused on.

you guys are funny with your overreaching assumptions though. it is cute and endearing.


you are only making yourselves look stupid by taking comments out of context, and only focusing on me when iscode made the exact same claim a couple of posts up, and was even proven incorrect in his affirmations. i am grateful for the attention, but at what cost?

Mine was just a quote from The Simpsons I make whenever anyone claims to be a historian.

I picked you because if I picked iScode I would have had to make a Japanese semen "fixed that for you" joke instead.

Forgive me for missing the reference. I have never watched an episode of the simpsons.

Here is my question:

How does the West respond if Putin drops a nuke on the Estonian capital in retaliation for the West getting involved in any potential conquest of Estonia? In my opinion, he gets away with it. The West won't respond with nuclear retaliation for fear of a global nuclear war.

i dont really know what would happen, you might be right about no military action, but russia would probably be cut off from the outside world sanction wise, and they might lash out to try to gain resources. would probably start WWIII inadvertently

but i doubt it will happen in the first place. re: the global economy. Putin might not ever give up power democratically, but he loves his money. he wants to keep making it, stating a war would be just as bad for him as it would be us, right now. that could change.

"Although the historical evidence points clearly to a limited invasion of the Australian mainland having been planned and approved at the highest levels of Japan's Navy General Staff and Navy Ministry in 1941 and early 1942, it is necessary at this point to raise and squash a bizarre claim that has been promoted by Dr Peter Stanley of the Australian War Memorial. Dr Stanley has claimed since 2002 that any proposal to invade Australia in 1942 was limited to discussions between "middle-ranking naval staff officers" and did not proceed above that level. To the best of my knowledge, Dr Stanley has produced no credible historical evidence to support this claim, and it appears to be supported only by those with inadequate knowledge of the dynamics of the Pacific War in 1942. Dr Stanley initially claimed that the distinguished Japan scholar Professor Henry Frei supported his controversial revisionism, but when I pointed out in letters to newspapers and on this web-site that Professor Frei's authoritative work "Japan's Southwards Advance and Australia" directly contradicted Dr Stanley's revisionist views on this theme, Dr Stanley withdrew his claim that Professor Frei supported him. For a detailed treatment of Dr Stanley's revisionist claims on this theme see the chapter "Dr Peter Stanley showcases his ignorance of the Pacific War". I am frankly surprised to find the Australia's national war memorial still displays a text exhibit that contains numerous significant historical errors."

All though at the start I was under the impression that we were discussing a full invasion by the Japanese, not a limited invasion (which I believe you are championing.) It seems you are infact correct and I am incorrect. I stand corrected and I apologise.

However I still stand by my belief that 1. It was never going to go ahead because they had higher priorities, and 2. That New Zealand was never under threat because at most they would of only gone for the limited invasion of costal areas, meaning that NZ would never of been invaded.

On a side note, does anyone now want my book that I have by Dr Peter Stanley? Free to a good home, but you have to pay postage :P

On another side note, ford you read anything by David H Lippman?

It is funny that you use western authors as your sources when I used actual Japanese historians. Do you even research bro? Apparently not well. You can think what you want, you were wrong. Ha!

Well first of all:
Stalin - that was some sort of mutual support. The war could have gone terribly wrong if somehow, Stalin would have sided with Hitler.

Pinnochet, Noriega, Saddam Hussain - local dictators. The best way to keep undeveloped countries under control is to reinstate dictators. But dictators always become greedy megalomaniacs, and they sort of bite back the hand that feed them. At that point, comes into discussion WMDS, money laundering, war crimes ( basically a reason to remove them, a reason for the local and international media ). The smart/soft ones just resigned (Hosni Mubarak), and the ones that put a fight just end hanged ( Saddam ).

Ossama - here we have another story. Ossama was raised by the (CIA)USA. The money came from USA, the logistic came from USA - the orders probably also came from USA ( here i am talking about the Afghanistan war, and shortly after ). My believes are that, in the early nineteens, while U.R.S.S was collapsing, USA start to draw and build another enemy. But this time not a visible and palpable one, but an invisible one - "the war on terror and terrorism". We had a fail WTC , than some other small attempts until - the final blow. Which was like wining at the lottery of wars. Because now, billions of $ can be justified at the cost of fighting a mirage, this so called "War on terror". All you have to do is to paint someone as a terrorist and/or a possible future threat, and you "WIN" the money. At the moment Bashar al-Assad and some African dictator ( i can`t remember the name of that one ) are next in line. But this is always a 2 way street - tomorrow or next year it could be somebody else.

Those are my beliefs. Sure, they might not be accurate, and i fully a-knowledge they might hurt some feelings. If it matters, i will always prefer the freedom (tought it is a controlled freedom) USA exports in the detriment of what Russia gives you ( waking up in the morning, to find T-34 on the streets).

What if the WWIII will be between USA/Russia vs China?. China has almost 1/4 of the population of this world. They are a population bomb, and very soon they will surely need more space.

the answer to the original question, Will USA and Russia go to war?, is YES. But it wont be with each other. For the US's part, they haven't been to War since the second one, spineless congress or cover their ass mentally ? you can be the judge.

Edited.

n00b auto-Quote post.