Talk:Battle for Australia

Battle missing

One battle is missing from the campaignbox- the Battle of Brisbane.:) Cla68 02:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need that one. Or even Cowra breakout. Grant65 | Talk 07:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It was used early on: In 42 Curtin said "the fall of Singapore opens the battle for Australia." One would imagine that in time, isolated, alone and full of pig iron and oil, Australia would have become a target. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.34.85 (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Bias

The article is heavily biased toward Peter Stanley's opinions, which are a revisionist history by the way, and I suggest it take into account criticism of Stanley's positions and the idea that the Japanese never had a plan to invade Australia.--74.69.58.3 (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm amused to see the conclusions of the official history (Australia in the War of 1939-1945) in the 1950s and almost all subsequent research labeled as 'revisionist'. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that you presume this article is your personal property and prevent all others from making any changes that you disagree with it comes as no surprise at all Peter that you would label other peoples opinions as 'amusing'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.62.191 (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You've mistaken me for someone else. My first name is actually Nick. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about the term "battle of australia". It is about Peter Stanley's opinion of that term and the user Nick-D's obsession with ensuring that nobody other than himself can alter it. It is, in essence, a personal webpage for the user Nick-D. If you disagree then just try adding a counter argument to Peter Stanley's views and watch how quickly his disciple Nick deletes it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.164.191 (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

You guys are all wasting your time. This page belongs to Nick. I have seen numerous attempts to criticism of Stanley's arguments and Nick just erases them. I had a laugh hearing you call him Stanley. Perhaps he is Stanley in disguise just blowing his own trumpet. Lol. But back to my point, Nick owns this page. It is his personal property and pet (at least in his head). You won't change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.183.194 (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Material not supported by its citation

I've just removed the following sentence from the article:

Imperial General Headquarters still believed that Japan's top strategic objectives in the South Pacific must be to sever Australia's lifeline to the United States; deny the United States access to Australia as the springboard for a counter-offensive; and pressure Australia by intensified blockade into submission to Japan.

I couldn't see where in the reference given for this sentence (Bullard (2007), pp. 90-93, 98, 119-120) where this was stated (I'm assuming that like the other references these are from the PDF edition of the book, which has different page numbers to the hard copy). Instead these ranges of pages repeatedly states that Operation FS had been cancelled though it was hoped to re-launch it in either September or November 1942. I might be missing something here, so please point out the text in the book. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Japan's Southward Advance and Australia states that "nothing more was heard of pressuring, much less invading, Australia" after the Battle of Midway and the decision to cancel the FS Operation on 11 July (p. 173). It's of course perfectly feasible for two different reliable sources to disagree, but this does highlight the need to clarify where Bullard's translation said that Japan still placed priority on blockading Australia and forcing it "into submission". Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Nick: Fair call on removal of a previous edit by me on possible political basis behind resurgence of Battle for Australia (not the one you mention above but one I did last week, one above is someone else). I'll get some more source materials together before reentering that claim. In the meantime I've added Curtin's statement that started the whole debate. Am more than a little surprised that it wasn't there already. I think it's a bit of an anomaly that everyone is commenting on the debate without any reference to the man and statement that brought the term Battle for Australia into existance? Still hold belief that recent resurgence of usage of the term is for political purposes, but until I have conclusive source materials will hold off on posting any edits to that effect. Suggest that would be a good policy to follow for all wiki contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.67.156 (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

We need a secondary source pointing to Curtin's statement as the origin of this historiographical debate. Australian Prime Ministers say a lot of things, we aren't exactly going to have a "pass the fucking butter" article because Bob Hawke remarked this at the kitchen table. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Kokoda Campaign material

I think that the current material on the Kokoda Campaign is much too detailed. I'd suggest that this be reduced to about three or four paragraphs, with an emphasis on what the campaign meant for Japanese and Allied strategies. There's no need for such a detailed blow-by-blow account of the campaign given that there are existing articles on it any several of its key battles. Nick-D (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Decisive vanishing?

As I understand it, for a page to even exist, there ought to be independent, reliable sourcing for its existence. I've never seen any mention of a "Battle for Australia" in any source, reliable or not. There were Japanese operations directed at Australia, or aimed at SLOCs to Australia. There were even notional plans for invasion (which even the delusional IJA leadership rejected). AFAIK, there was never an actual "Battle" remotely resembling, say, the Battle of Britain. A few attacks on Darwin & fighting in New Guinea do not a battle make, IMO. By that argument, fighting in Celebes or Guadalcanal might qualify. So might USN submarine operations out of Perth/Freemantle & Brisbane. Or air ops out of Townsville... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There are some Australian sources on this, and since 2008 the Australian Government has recognised a 'Battle for Australia Day'. The concept of a 'Battle for Australia' existing is not recognised in the international literature on the war, however, and is disputed by Australian historians. Tying the events covered by this 'battle' into a single campaign is, in my view, a bit of a stretch - particularly as the Japanese target was the lines of communication to Australia, and not the country itself, and the Japanese basically shelved their plans and went on the defensive after the Battle of Midway. Nick-D (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

With my sincere apologies to the author(s), I've been very bold and drastically trimmed the article. The reasons I've done this are:

• There was far too much repetition of existing article content in violation of current guidelines. This had already been pointed out multiple times.
• More importantly, the notability of "Battle for Australia" seems to lie in the controversy surrounding it as an attempt to tie together various battles and campaigns. If there's no agreement amongst historians as to whether it actually exists, we can't write the article as though it's a settled concept. I see a value in mentioning the battles etc that are said by its proponents to be involved, but we must avoid the complete loss of focus that had occurred.

I've also trimmed out an irrelevant external link (per WP:ELNO) and the unused refs. There are still some for Stanley that aren't being used in the article, and the entire "Modern concept of a Battle for Australia" is problematic with its only ref having nothing to do with the BfA concept.

Again I offer my apologies for seemingly butchering the article, but on reading it and the related messages around the 'pedia I felt this was the only way to bring it into a state where development can continue in the proper direction. With the best of intentions, EyeSerene^talk 13:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It's just been reverted back. I basically agree with EyeSerene - we've got articles on the actions which fall under this campaign, and it seems more sensible to use this article to discuss the historiographical debate and current commemorations. Some of the material which was added can be used to beef up the articles on the various campaigns as well as the proposed Japanese invasion of Australia article. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the revert :) At the risk of repeating what's already been said, I think it's highly problematic and very misleading for our readers to write about something whose actuality is disputed as though it's a fact. The existence of a Battle for Australia Day is not an issue, but the underlying concept clearly is. A secondary concern (based more in site policy than factual accuracy) is that per WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE we shouldn't be reproducing content that's already covered in detail in other articles; that's what wikilinks are for.

I'm reluctant to mention it, but a third issue is the conflict of interest involved in having an advocate for the BfA concept writing an article about it. Obviously I'm making some assumptions in tying the article author's username to the historian mentioned in the article; if these assumptions are wrong then I apologise.

I agree that any new content in this article about the battles and campaigns said to form the BfA, providing it's reliably sourced, would be better used to improve those articles. EyeSerene^talk 09:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

From James Bowen:

I find it difficult to believe that I am reading some of the statements here. I am not aware of any reputable Pacific War historian who denies that there was a Battle for Australia in the sense that is based on translations of the Japanese official history Senshi Sosho, namely, a clash of Japanese and American strategic war aims in 1942 with control of Australia as its focus. Both Senshi Sosho (as translated by Bullard) and Frei support this concept of a Battle for Australia. This concept is supported by leading Australian Pacific War historian Professor David Horner who agreed to be historical consultant to the Battle for Australia Commemoration Council (Victorian committee) in 1999 (his consent is supported by his letter). So much for suggestions that no historians in Australia support the concept of a Battle for Australia. I suspect that you would struggle to find a reputable Pacific War historian who rejects the concept as I have defined it, and as supported by reference to Japanese historical sources. Based on my own experience with Wikipedia, I am feeling that there is such partisan opposition to a professional and unbiased historical treatment of the Battle for Australia that there needs to be a publicly available treatment of the reliability and value of Wikipedia as a source of historical reference and financial support. If you care to put >Pacific War< into Google, you will come up with the top ten entries, one of which is the website of the Pacific War Historical Society at: www.pacificwar.org.au I am presently thinking very seriously about including a warning chapter on the Pacific War web-site headed: "Can Wikipedia be trusted to be non-partisan on historical issues". In support of that warning, I will be citing my unsatisfactory experience with trying to develop an article on the Battle for Australia against partisan opposition.

It is in my view gross exaggeration to suggest that anything that I have written is replication or duplication of major articles on those topics in Wikipedia. Please do a word count and you will find that my accounts of the major battles and campaigns are always much less than 20 per cent of the length of the main articles. I have tried to write about the Battle for Australia in a way that would be useful and interesting to history students, and save them wading through the very lengthy and detailed articles on Kokoda and Guadalcal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesBowen (talk • contribs) 09:40, 17 March 2011

James, I think that you're still mistaken about the purpose of Wikipedia - it doesn't exist to counter things such as "partisan opposition to a professional and unbiased historical treatment of the Battle for Australia". Rather, it's purpose is to give a neutral account of things. Structuring an article to promote one side of a contested concept isn't acceptable, and you really shouldn't be doing this given your roles in advocating the concept of a Battle for Australia (moreover, a description of what the 'Battle for Australia' comprised can be written by simply linking to the existing articles on the topic and describing the viewpoint that they were related without describing the decision making and events in any particular detail). Please note that under the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability we can only use published available information about people's views when developing articles. In regards to your last sentence, Wikipedia is intended to be a single encyclopedia, and what you're proposing is basically duplication of existing material (please see WP:SUMMARY for information on how this kind of thing is normally handled). Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nick is absolutely right. It's unfortunate you're seeing this as some kind of "us vs them" dispute. The fact is that we have well-developed and long-standing policies and guidelines on how articles should be written. If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia it's not unreasonable that the rules that apply to the rest of us should apply to you as well. Of course you're perfectly entitled to form your own views about these rules (most of us do at some point!), but claiming that other editors are partisan for applying them and hinting at some kind of off-site exposé isn't conducive to creating a collegiate environment.

The ideal Wikipedia article is a distillation of what we refer to as "reliable" third-party sources. In this context, "reliable" means mainstream published literature with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is not a slur on the personal opinions of individuals or groups or on the things they hold dear, but a reflection of the fact that unless we provide traceable quality sources for the information on the site, we're no more credible than what you'd find on any anonymous web forum. For example, the Australian Government's institution of a "Battle for Australia Day" can be verified by reference to sources like this. However, the main reference as to what comprised the BfA seems to be battleforaustralia.org, which as far as I can determine does not meet our requirements for reliable sourcing other than for supporting what the website itself claims. We really need to see published mainstream historical works dealing with the concept in those terms (ie that actually tie together the various battles and campaigns and call them the "Battle for Australia"). Until then, conflating the battles etc in the way the article currently does—as though there is no doubt over the existence or composition of a Battle for Australia—falls foul of our policy on original research and synthesis.

To clarify, what we are able to do under current site policy is:

• document that a Battle for Australia has been postulated, and that the concept is subject to historiographical debate;
• record the existence and nature of BfA Day; and
• report what BfA advocates claim to be the battles & campaigns that make up the BfA

What we can't do is:

• take sides (where a dispute exists, we must document the dispute in an objective way);
• present disputed theories as fact;
• present disputed theories out of proportion to their degree of acceptance in mainstream expert sources;
• conflate separate sources to end up with something that's not explicitly stated in any of them; and
• duplicate existing content in detail.

I really hope this helps; no-one is trying to be obstructive but we all have to operate within site policy. If you really aren't able to take an objective view due to your personal involvement with the subject, it's highly likely that you'll end up being excluded from contributing. From the tone and content of your above post this appears to be the way we're heading, but I would be delighted to be proved wrong. Best, EyeSerene^talk 10:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• There was a very bad case of coatracking; and appears to be a very bad case of ownership here. I appear to have independently duplicated EyeSerene's edits because the state the article was in was unencyclopaedic. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Balanced?

From an admittedly hasty read of this edit, it seems to me that the disputed material may have genuine potential for inclusion in the article. The material in question seems to attribute the "Battle for Australia" hypothesis to specific claimants, rather than simply presenting it as an undisputed fact. Without this material, the article seems to be one-sidedly discounting the hypothesis rather than attempting to give a balanced view. It's not clear to me, at present, that the points mentioned last March by EyeSerene summarily rule out the current version of the disputed material. This is, of course, totally apart from any questions of whether the material in question is being pushed via edit warring and sockpuppetry; the material should, I think, stand or fall on its own merits. — Richwales (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The references to Frei and Frank don't actually support what's being attributed to them. These books provide a narrative account of Japanese intentions in 1942, but don't argue that this constituted a 'battle for Australia' as that text claims. Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the article, as it currently stands, is curiously one-sided — it says there is a disputed hypothesis, and then most of the verbiage is devoted to debunking the idea. If this claim has any genuine notability, there should be something available to back up a description of the claim. If there truly is nothing more to be found in reliable sources, I'm tempted to suggest AfD. — Richwales (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

...it's difficult. The concept is clearly notable (Peter Stanley wrote a book debunking it and the federal government has named it as a national day), but the literature supporting the idea is mainly limited to what Wikipedia would consider unreliable websites. I'll add some stuff. Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Term Used Well Before 1990s

Contrary to the quote from Peter Stanley that the phrase "Battle for Australia" wasn't used before the 1990's, I have a booklet from the period titled The War in New Guinea subtitled Official War Photographs of the Battle for Australia. Here is a scan of the cover. Here is a link showing that it was published in 1943. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.32.21 (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that I missquoted Stanley - he did note some wartime uses of the phrase, and his argument is that the term didn't reemerge until the 1990s. Thanks for raising this - I'll fix up the article later today. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks again. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the war time use of the phrase has to be seen in the context of the real fear that Australian public had, after the collapse of British forces in the Far East (in a similar way to the British after the fall of France) that they would be fighting in northern Australia in a matter of months. Given Churchill's rhetoric "The Battle of France is over, I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin" (June 1940), "Battle of the Atlantic" (February 1941), with his (politician's and not his historian's hat on), it is was almost inevitable that John Curtin, the Australian prime minster, would use the phrase "Battle of Australia".

If one were to use the ordered naming conventions that the Soviets brought to their historiography (strategic operation/regional operation/local battle ...) then the names of the "The Battle of France" would be something like the "Western Strategic Offensive Operation by Germany" with smaller engagements described as the "Ardennes operation by Germany" ... . But thanks to the popularity of Churchill's speeches for better or worse his names for various events have stuck and so for example the longest campaign of the Second World War is called the Battle of the Atlantic.

What would be interesting to add to this article is the use of the term "Battle of Australia" during World War II, for example when was it first used in a public speech, by whom, and is there any record of them consciously copying the usage of similar phrases in Churchill's speeches. Additionally it would be interesting to know why it did not enter the historical lexicography in the way that Churchill's names did. Does any one know if there are reliable sources that cover reasons for early usage and the lack of usage post war? -- PBS (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Peter Stanley covers most of those topics in his book Invading Australia. Japan and the Battle for Australia, 1942. The term was used only infrequently during the war, and not used by post-war historians. The modern 'battle of Australia' concept is somewhat different to its occasional wartime usage (in 1942-43 it was largely a rhetorical device, and in the 1990s some people decided that various battles in 1942-43 constituted a coherent campaign). From memory, Stanley argues that the main reason the term didn't catch on was that Australia was on the defensive for only about six months, and the influential official historians were well aware that the Japanese never intended to attack Australia directly and the battles in the vicinity of the country had quite different goals. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have found a useful paper on this subject:

• Rechniewski, Elizabeth (January 2010), "Remembering the Battle for Australia", PORTAL Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies: Fields of Remembrance, Special Issue, 7 (1), UTSePress, Sydney, Australia, ISSN 1449-2490

Among a lot of other useful information it states:

The history of the term ‘Battle for Australia’

The expression ‘Battle of Australia’ was used on only a few occasions during the Second World War, most notably by Prime Minister John Curtin when he told the country on 16 February 1942 that the fall of Singapore ‘opens the Battle of Australia’ (Day 2005: 272), echoing Churchill’s speech that the fall of France (Dunkirk) opened the ‘Battle of Britain.’ The expression was taken up with a slight modification as the ‘Battle for Australia’ in a 1944 Department of Information photographic booklet (Stanley 2008a: 165) but was then almost forgotten as a concept for fifty years, until the term was ‘resurrected in the 1990s by groups of veterans and those concerned that the sacrifices of the war years were being forgotten, ...

-- PBS (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggested move

At the moment his article starts off in a hectoring tone:

"The Battle for Australia is a contested historiographical term used to claim a link between a series of battles near Australia during the Pacific War of the Second World War".

I am reminded of of Shakespeare "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". Perhaps it would be a good idea to move the article to "Battle for Australia Day" and report on why it has come into existence. This would allow for a neutral lead with the controversy moved down to a section where it can be discussed in a neutral way, without it needing to be in the very first sentence of the article.

Such a section could point out that the first use by the "Australian Prime Minister John Curtin after Japanese announced The Battle for Australia when Singapore fell on 15 February 1942" when it was a prediction not a fact (Stanley, Peter (3 September 2008). "What 'Battle for Australia'?". ABC.).

In this it was similar to Churchill's "The Battle of France is over, I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin" (June 1940), and it could be argued that the Battle of Britain never took place, instead it has been attached to an air campaign (for which a similar campaign over Germany is not known as the "battle of Germany" but Big Week).

Pointing out that the term was first used during the war when it was thought by Australians that that they might have to fight such a battle, and that some new think that the holding operations north of Australia represent that battle ("Commemoration of the Battle for Australia Day". Australian High Commission: Papua New Guinea. 4 September 2008.).

If such a move is made to "Battle for Australia Day" the introduction can be rewritten in a style that follows the neutral tone of the Sydney Morning Herald "commemorating all who served and died in the defence of Australia in 1942 and 1943" (Blenkin, Max (26 June 2008). "'Battle for Australia' Day in September". Sydney Morning Herald.) which I think is more encyclopaedic than the current lead.

-- PBS (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That's hardly a solution: this actually is a contested historiographical concept, of which the 'Battle for Australia Day' is one result (the Rechniewski article you've kindly provided a link to above is mainly focused on this debate, for example). The debate over the concept is not a sub-set of the commemorative day (which has never gained much public attention), and the declaration of an annual 'battle for Australia day' didn't end the debate over the concept. Comparing the 'Battle for Australia' to the Battle of Britain isn't a good idea: there's no disagreement that the Battle of Britain took place, while most Australian military historians regard the concept of a 'battle for Australia' as being ill-informed. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle for Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111219061956/http://www.dva.gov.au/commems_oawg/commemorations/commemorative_events/major_anniversaries/Pages/index.aspx to http://www.dva.gov.au/commems_oawg/commemorations/commemorative_events/major_anniversaries/Pages/index.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051228071344/http://www.awm.gov.au:80/underattack/index.asp to http://www.awm.gov.au/underattack/index.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051220105355/http://www.anzacday.org.au:80/history/ww2/bfa/default.html to http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/bfa/default.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)