Why would the media to be any more informed on this subject than any other subject?
I still believe any Japanese invasion of Australia would have failed, as such a venture would have gone the way of the German attempt to invade the Soviet Union.
Even if Japan could find and transport the troops, which it couldn’t, any invasion from the north or west was probably well beyond Japan‘s capacity after the landing, and was probably doomed if it was attempted. Just transporting water for the troops would have been a fair exercise. Rations would have introduced problems that didn’t apply in other campaigns. Japanese supply processes were often based on initial complete ration issues for landing troops with lower subsequent rations in the expectation that they would forage in the field to supplement the lower maintenance rations. That wasn‘t going to happen anywhere between, for example, Broome or Darwin and Broken Hill, especially if most livestock was killed or driven ahead of the invaders as planned. So Japan has to take and pack rations from somewhere else and transport them here with shipping it doesn’t have.
The lines of supply across the continent would probably have been beyond Japan‘s land transport capacity. Japan would not have been able to capture much transport because of Australia’s scorched earth policy, and even without it there wasn’t enough up there anyway to supply 10 to12 divisions. So Japan would have had to find and take vehicles from somewhere outside Australia and transport them here, thus requiring more shipping which it didn’t have. (The vehicles weren’t going to come from Japan. In 1940, the last year for which wartime figures are available, Japan had 217,000 registered motor vehicles, about 60,000 fewer than New Zealand and about 590,000 fewer than Australia according to Japanese estimates at the time.) As Japan advanced further across the continent it would have chewed up more and more precious fuel, which it would have had to transport here thus using more shipping it didn’t have to use fuel it needed for other purposes.
Japan’s problems get progressively worse the further it advances into the continent, with the longest lines of supply from Japan it had in WWII and the longest land supply lines it had in WWII in the most inhospitable country it faced in WWII. And that’s without the surface and submarine attacks that are going to harry its sea transport and the air attacks that are going to damage its lines of supply on land. Depending upon the air forces Japan commits to the operation, which have to be land based rather than carrier planes, and require more shipping and land transport Japan didn’t have to transport fuel, supplies, and ground crew etc, Australia has a good chance of weakening or even stranding the invaders in the desert just by air attacks on Japan‘s land lines of supply. All this is a problem for Japan before we even begin to consider the forces available to defend the south east corner by the time Japan gets there with whatever manages to cross the continent. Meanwhile Australia has all the advantages of short supply lines from its supply sources which are protected by its land forces while Japan wears itself out just crossing the continent.
The only invasion that had a reasonable chance of avoiding all the problems of a northern or western landing and succeeding in taking the Adelaide - Brisbane south east corner where all the main agricultural and industrial assets were had to land on the east coast and no further north than Townsville, preferably a lot further south to overcome land transport problems.
Any east coast landings put much larger strains on Japan’s shipping and fuel oil as the ships now have to travel much further and spend more time at sea. This problem got progressively worse the further down the east coast they landed and advanced. Any east coast landing required many more ships and much more oil to provide the same effective level of transport for a north or west invasion, which ships and oil Japan didn’t have as it didn’t even have the ships and oil for the initial phase of a western or northern invasion.
A major problem with any land invasion advancing down the east coast was that it was also heading straight into the most heavily defended area on a front contained by the sea on the east which, as Australia would probably have an extended westward defence line in depth at some point, requires Japan to use vehicles it didn’t have and couldn’t ship to go westward inland to hook behind the defence line. It’s not going to be a foot or bicycle advance like Malaya. Nor will landings further down the coast behind the main front have the same effect as they did in Malaya as they are going to run into other forces there, assuming they can get through the concentration of air and naval forces which Australia will have deployed there. Japan is also going to encounter, for the first and only time in WWII, united, cohesive and competently led forces fighting on their own soil for their, their families’ and their nation’s survival.
If you talk to a range of Australians who lived through that time, there would have been a reasonable amount of panic among sections of the civilian population but the blokes in the services had in many cases resolved to put up what amounted to a no-surrender and even kamikaze defence of a type that Japan never encountered in the war.
While in the not too detailed plans which suggest 12 divisions were needed for such a venture, caution to the idea was thrown up that to garrison and defend the country would probably require a force of up to one million men.
Which is about 50 divisions, which is about the number of divisions Japan had at the start of the war in 1941. It used only about 15 divisions for its thrusts outside China, the other 35 being required in China. It couldn’t garrison Australia in a fit. Which then exposed it to the guerilla problem.
Nothing changes the fact the Japanese never had the resources to carry out such a venture and for anyone to suggest there was ever an “imminent threat of invasion of Australia” as some people have suggested is just plain wrong.
Agreed. There was a long term risk of conquest, and maybe invasion, but there was no imminent threat at any time. Although in 1942 anyone in Australia was perfectly reasonable in concluding from Japan’s advance towards Australia and its belligerent attitude towards Australia and demands for its surrender that Japan intended to invade.
In case you haven’t already come across them, there are two interesting articles by Dr Peter Stanley, the Principal Historian at the AWM. I think he goes over the top on a number of issues and is frankly laughable on some, as well as being very superficial in his understanding of some relevant events and issues, but there’s some worthwhile stuff in his articles if you can sift it out from the nonsense.
“He’s not coming south” http://www.awm.gov.au/events/conference/2002/stanley_paper.pdf
He wrote a subsequent and more contentious paper “Threat made manifest” which used to be available free here
http://www3.griffith.edu.au/01/griffithreview/past_editions.php?id=201 but now it seems you have to buy it. Unless you enjoy raising your blood pressure by reading nonsense which shows why some academic-type historians need to get more sunlight, it’s not worth spending the money.