NZ | Military Thread

[KIWIKAAS]

The losses incured by Australia and New Zealand are highly exadurated.

Here are some WW2 stats.
Deaths as a percentage of the population in 1939

Australia 0.57%
New Zealand 0.67%
U.K 0.94%
U.S 0.32%

Now let's get into the grit...
A few selected countries

Germany 10.47%
Poland 16.07%
USSR 13.71%
Latvia 11.38%
Lithuania 13.71%
Portugese Timor 11.00%
Greece 4.31%
Hungary 6.35%
Japan 3.75%
Yugoslavia 6.67%
Belgium 1.02%
Netherlands 2.32%

[metroman]

That figure would have been civilians and military. I would say the U.S.S.R. as it was called at the time had a population of 70-80 million.

[KIWIKAAS]

Yep. It's civilian and military.
The USSR had a population of 168,500,000 in 1939 and lost 23,100,000 lives. HUGE

[metroman]

Milan, that was what I was getting at. New Zealand hardly gets a mention on ANZAC day over here in Australia.

[metroman]

Thanks for confirming that. Russia has over 144,417,000 as of 2001, although it is significantly reduced because of the breakdown of the U.S.S.R.

[Milan Luka]

Originally Posted by metroman

Milan, that was what I was getting at. New Zealand hardly gets a mention on ANZAC day over here in Australia.

I hear you brother. No offence is meant by not giving credit to the Kiwi contribution. At the same time it is no excuse. I got a little overwhelmed by the "digger this, two up that, little Aussie battler" tripe that you hear so much. I remember Anzac Day 1999, the Courier Mail had a front page pic of a soldier at Gallipoli with the Kiwi and Aussie flags behind him fluttering away in a big breeze. The caption read something like 'Australian soldier in front of Australian flags'. I think its in grade one we learn the difference between the two flags.

Besides, when it comes to commemorating battles or war dead I always feel very uncomfortable. My country did terrible things in WW2 which alot of my compatriots prefer to forget about and focus just on the atrocities paid to us in the 90s.

[minimum chips]

Hey Luka Im not sure if i can answer your question. My oldies never really mentioned the second world war other than i lost a few great uncles and a great aunt. That was bad of course on its own but made worse because they were only just getting over the first world war. Near to our families home is a a place called Ypres. It was totally annihilated and rebuilt at great cost. I think its mentioned often in Belgium.

Its good to have the day off on Anzac Day. Everyone enjoys a public holiday but it is a good idea for the nation to reflect- even if it feels a little contrived and forced.

[wowsim]

Originally Posted by KIWIKAAS

The losses incured by Australia and New Zealand are highly exadurated.

Here are some WW2 stats.
Deaths as a percentage of the population in 1939

Australia 0.57%
New Zealand 0.67%
U.K 0.94%
U.S 0.32%

Now let's get into the grit...
A few selected countries

Germany 10.47%
Poland 16.07%
USSR 13.71%
Latvia 11.38%
Lithuania 13.71%
Portugese Timor 11.00%
Greece 4.31%
Hungary 6.35%
Japan 3.75%
Yugoslavia 6.67%
Belgium 1.02%
Netherlands 2.32%

I guess the difference is that NZ and Australia willingly chose to bear those losses for the benefit of their allies and the world in general, in a war that realistically was never a credible threat to their territories. Whereas the European countries had war forced on them by invasion and/or necessity.

Would those countries have born similar losses protecting Australia/NZ/US Pacific interests in an alternate scenario where there was no European war?

[Neitzsche]

Originally Posted by wowsim

I guess the difference is that NZ and Australia willingly chose to bear those losses for the benefit of their allies and the world in general, in a war that realistically was never a credible threat to their territories. Whereas the European countries had war forced on them by invasion and/or necessity.

You've never heard of the Brisbane line then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane_Line

NZ and OZ most certainly was under threat by the Japanese and their "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". Both nations would have only been secondary considerations as the main threat, the U.S., was their main concern. Had the Japanese succeeded in their effort against the U.S. then the threat to us ANZAC'S would have been credible indeed.

[wowsim]

Originally Posted by Neitzsche

You've never heard of the Brisbane line then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane_Line

NZ and OZ most certainly was under threat by the Japanese and their "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". Both nations would have only been secondary considerations as the main threat, the U.S., was their main concern. Had the Japanese succeeded in their effort against the U.S. then the threat to us ANZAC'S would have been credible indeed.

I was, of course, referring to the European theatre, where the majority of our ground forces were killed.

As for the Brisbane Line, well that was Australia's fear, not Japan's plan.

[metroman]

Milne Bay in New Guinea was a last ditch effort which had it failed would have left Australia wide open to invaision. New Zealand's presence in the Pacific could have been more significant had we used the division which was stationed in Italy. I have often wondered why this happened as Australia withdrew its divisions after North Africa had been secured.

[metroman]

Up to $776 million worth of new helicopters have been ordered for the RNZAF.

[metroman]

What sort of aircraft would be suitable for an aircombat role for the air force given we no longer have our Skyhawks?

[KIWIKAAS]

Micro-lights armed with bee bee guns? Should kick some terror into those pesky seaguls

[Drunkill]

Originally Posted by Neitzsche

You've never heard of the Brisbane line then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane_Line

NZ and OZ most certainly was under threat by the Japanese and their "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". Both nations would have only been secondary considerations as the main threat, the U.S., was their main concern. Had the Japanese succeeded in their effort against the U.S. then the threat to us ANZAC'S would have been credible indeed.

The threat was real. The japs had even printed off Invasion Money for Australia and New Zealand, which they carried when fighting near Aus on the islands.

[KaneD]

I think it was fair to say that NZ and Oz could possibly be thankful for the Atomic Bombs that the US dropped on Japan.

While the US would ultimately have been unlikely to fall to the Japanese completely without the A-bombs, it did a big job in stopping the Japanese war effort flat. Japan had caught the Americans off guard in Pearl Harbour and that would have given them a big moral boost for not only their effort against the Americans, but also to troops on other battle fronts and would have even encouraged further attacks on NZ and Oz.

But given that the Americans retaliation was to drop the atomic bombs, it was a weapon far more destructive than anything else the world had seen, and more importantly, a weapon that Japan had no answer to and therefore had no option other than to surrender. This was a defining moment when Japan pulled out of the war.

So the question that begs is that if the US had not have had the atomic bomb, and instead had resorted to more conventional warfare, how much longer would have Japan been fighting a war not only with the US, but on other fronts such as with Australia or New Zealand. I suspect that a real battle on our own soil may have well been a reality.

[KIWIKAAS]

No. That's fantasy.
Japan had already lost the war and the US was already planning it's invasion.
The usual reasons given for the use of the A-bomb was to spare US lives as it was thought that the Japanese would have fought to the last man, woman and child (prompted by the Iwo Jima & Okinawa experience). Of course that's quite unlikely.
Another reason which is understandably less publicised is that the US military and Truman wanted to use the A-bomb to see what the results would be. Truman even refered to the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a succesful ''experiment''.
The real motives may be a combination of the two.
The Japanese were well and truely beaten and Japanese officials in the Military and Parliment were already discussing terms of surrender before the bombs were dropped.

Australians and New Zealanders may like this fanciful tale that they were saved from invasion from the Japanese but the reality is that such an invasion wouldn't have taken place (atleast after 1942 when Japan simply wasn't capable).

[Neitzsche]

Interesting point Kaas. I've come across accounts saying that the Japanese were ready to surrender and that a conventional invasion was unlikely. Apparently attempts to negotiate were ignored by the US, and the argument goes that the US wanted a 'demonstration' to show off the new toys in their arsenal. Maybe, maybe not.

I agree with you re the Japanese threat. Once the US entered the war against the Japanese, while they may have had intentions they lacked the means to credibly threaten NZ and Oz.

[KIWIKAAS]

With Japan's blue water fleet pretty much destroyed after Midway and Coral Sea I can't imagine that anyone seriously thinks a Japanese invasion of NZ was remotely possible.
The Japanese advance through Asia was essentially stopped by Australian and US troops in Papua New Guinea and the Battle of the Coral Sea destroyed Japans naval capability. So Japan's goose was pretty much already cooked by June 1942 and it was just a matter of time from then on before their defeat.
When the A-bombs were dropped the US already had Okinawa and was in a prime possition to bring Japan to it's knees. Hundres of thousands of civilians had already died due to ''conventional'' and fire bombing by the US on the Japanese mainland. The Japanese had no fuel left and had to resort to compressing pine-roots for aviation fuel - hense the famous Kamikaze raids (no fuel was one of the reasons).

And oh yes, there is some contention as to what degree the US was taken by surprise at Pearl Harbor.

[metroman]

Well they are well and truly here now one of them married my best mate.