Talk:Military history of Australia during World War II

message: As heroic and memorable as Kokoda and so forth were, one can not tell the true history of Australis in WW2 without going into considerable depth on the labour unrest, near mutinies, and general malaise that were the defining, dare i say it, rather shameful legacy of Australia in the last year of the war.  Sure, it's not as exciting to write about as battles and divisions, but in terms of occupting the largest number of australians and really being the core of what was going on at the time, the almost total omission of this topic from this article is nothing less than inexcusable.   This is supposed to be an online encyclopedia, not a puff-piece. The hard facts need to be told.  I suggest one start with Max Hastings' recent book as a starting point, as he has an excellent chapter in this about this blackest of black periods in australia's, nay, perhaps any nation's history.  It is especially important since Australians today seem to be completely and totally ignorant of this episode. 86.9.166.7 (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for volunteering to help expand this article and the Australian home front during World War II article. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, so there's nothing stopping you from contributing. That said, if you regard the political disagreements and industrial unrest in Australia during 1944-45 as being the worst time in the history of Australia or the history of any country you should expect to see that material removed, as it's patently not correct. Hastings book is generally good, but his chapter on Australia is nonsense and isn't supported by Australian histories. The sources he gives for the Australian chapter are notably weak and he seems to have picked out the material which supports his views while ignoring more common views. --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homefront 1944-1945 - probably the second most important story of Australia in WW2 - completely ignored 

message: I am starting a major expansion of this article, and have added lots of sub-headings and references. I intend to expand these sections and draw on the references, so please don't remove them! I strongly encourage anyone who'd like to help with this article to contribute - and replace anything I add if you don't like it! --Nick Dowling 01:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major expansion 

message: this article requires information on the citizens military force.
--58.107.82.245 03:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. The article discusses the AIF in considerable detail, but there's very little on the militia force which always seems to have been larger than the AIF. --Nick Dowling 08:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: oh, forgot that it changed to the australian army reserve, but mention of the CMF should be in this article. --58.107.82.245 08:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  things to add 

message: I dunno who Max Keogh was but he certainly wasn't the only Australian soldier to land on D-Day. I remember hearing Jo Gullett speak about his experiences on D-Day. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've removed it. Hundreds of Australians participated in the D-Day landings, including several RAAF squadrons. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: The Australian Government frustrated MacArthur's plans to extend the offensive to include the liberation of Java in July 1945, however, by not agreeing to his request that the 6th Division form part of the operation
Not quite. The decision was not so firm. MacArthur replied: 
The decision conveyed to me in your letter of 27th February 1945 to limit the Australian component of our assault forces to the 7th and 9th Divisions has been noted. I hope you will not eliminate entirely the possibility of using the 6th Division in the operation outlined above if it becomes a reality. MacArthur to Curtin, 5 March 1945
In order to free up the 6th Division (and the 3rd Base Sub Area) for Java, MacArthur provided additional resources to Aitape operation, enabling the landing at Wewak in May, in order that the Japanese forces there would be sufficiently reduced to allow for the 6th Division's relief.
At GHQ everything proceeded on the assumption that the 6th Division would be available. The big change came when the Joint Chiefs approved Olympic. GHQ could only allow operations which would not prejudice its target date. So Oboe I, II and VI went ahead while Oboe III and IV were cancelled. 
Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: David Horner states that "there is no doubt that withholding the 6th Division halted MacArthur's plans to assault Java in early July", and that the Australian government's decision to not release this division was one of the factors which led to the invasion of Java not going ahead. It could have gone ahead had the war continued into 1946, but this obviously didn't occur. I'll tweak the wording so it makes it clear that there were other factors, however. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Java plan escaped my attention until I read this article. Considering the criticism of the Oboe ops, I wonder how would we now regard an invasion of Java in mid-45, since it had even fewer strategic attractions than Borneo(!) Grant | Talk 02:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borneo Campaign 

message: I don't think I'm in the proper area, however the Australian War Memorial states that 39,366 Australian mititary deaths occured during WWII, not 27000.
Is this correct?(Slrppppppp (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's confusing me as well. The official histories use the figure of 27,000, and there's a detailed break-down of casualties in Gavin Long's book The Final Campaigns which I've reproduced at Australian casualties of World War II. These figures were recently used by Joan Beaumont in her book Australian Defence: Sources and Statistics and by the Oxford Companion to the Second World War. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Disagree: I believe the reason for the difference is due to the difference in the methods used by AWM and the offical history in gathering these stats. The AWM has used a broader definition of war casualty and includes those killed in training and from disease etc, as well as including many fatalities that occurred amoungst returned personnel after war (that were the result of their war service). Personnally I believe that using the AWM stats is best as they are more comprehensive and upto date (AWM is current where as Gavin Long's book is more than 3 decades old). That Beaumont also uses these figures shouldn't suggest that they are current as Beaumonts work is just a compilation of sources and statistics (i.e. just repeats what has previously been published and as such its not a source in its own right). To this end and for uniformity I suggest using the AWM figures for the entries on all Australian wars (see: http://www.awm.gov.au/research/infosheets/war_casualties.asp). This will obviously mean editing a number of other pages however. Anotherclown (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The casualty figures in the official history were compiled in the 1960s and no-one forced John Beaumont or the editors of the Oxford Companion to the Second World War to use them over the figures the AWM developed using its criteria for including names on the Role of Honour; presumably they did so as they consider them to be more meaningful data. The best solution here would be to find some way of briefly covering this discrepancy either in the text, or probably better still, as an end note. I'd be reluctant to only use AWM figures in other articles as the AWM doesn't have a monopoly on Australian military history and where other well-sourced figures exist they should be noted. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree: Seems like a reasonable compromise, acknowledging the discrepency in the text is a good idea. Anotherclown (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of fatalities 

message: I read Max Hasting's latest book Retribution about six months ago and he describes some crippling labor strikes that occurred in Australia during the war and how these had some pretty negative effects at the time.  I do not have the book at hand but would it be worth noting in this article?--Looper5920 (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hastings grossly over-states the extent of industrial disputes in Australia at the time (his chapter on Australia was widely criticised by Australian historians and seems to be based on dubious sources), but they probably are worth a mention here and more in-depth treatment at Australian home front during World War II. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to homefront section 

message: The article is currently very long (which is why I've added the template). One way to split it up would be along the areas.--Oneiros (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please elaborate? There are already much longer articles on most topics this article covers, and as Australia's war effort was both huge and fragmented, summarising these events leads to an unavoidably long article. I think that the area which could be most easily trimmed is the 'Home front' section (the whole thing could be moved to Australian home front during World War II as it's now a bit out of scope). In general, most of the major campaigns and other events get a single paragraph, which doesn't seem excessive. Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted a notification of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force which I hope is OK. Nick-D (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree this article is huge, but place it into context; this article covers six years of a country's substantial involvement in the largest war the world has ever seen. If campared with Operation Market Garden, one will find that Market Garden is only slightly shorter but covers an eight day period. With this in mind, I cannot see how this article could be shortened any further. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's long (I printed it for better reading), but the length is justified - and I don't think splitting it up would help the topic. Sorry for the noise; I've removed the template.--Oneiros (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries - I think that the article shouldn't be any longer! Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's say that now's the time to take a well-deserved breather and see how it travels at GA, then A/FA...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; There are a few areas which need to be tweaked and referenced, and then I'm going to nominate it for an A-class review. I've printed it off and read through it twice in the last couple of weeks, but I'm sure that I've missed stuff! Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, even though the length is justified, I think that is the exact reason why it hasn't been reviewed for GA yet; it's keeping everyone away! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very long 

message: An IP editor has added this link to the 'external links' section of the article and re-added it after I removed for being a non-reliable source:  I've just removed it again as I don't think that it meets the standards set at WP:EL. In particular, I think that this link to a essentially self-published article, which is not properly sourced and contains a number of inaccuracies, falls under criteria 1 and 2 in the list at WP:LINKSTOAVOID. As the IP's edits are limited to adding links to this website to various articles I also suspect that it falls under criteria 4. That said, other editors may have different views on this and I'd be interested in the IP editor's views (the editor is using a dynamic IP, so it's not practical to attempt a discussion on their talk page). Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to ww2db.com 

message: Is the sinking of HMAS Armidale during its resupply of troops on Timor worth mentioning in the section on NEI and Rabaul? Dale Marsh's painting of Sheean rates for me as one of the most iconic Australian images of the war. Lawrencema (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. HMAS Voyager was also lost when she ran around while landing reinforcements at Timor. Nick-D (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Extra material on the sinking this ship best belongs at the HMAS Armidale (J240) article, and not in this high-level article. Nick-D (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMAS Armidale 

message: I don't want to mess with this article since it's a potential FA candidate, but if anyone wants to start a "Further reading" section, I suggest considering the inclusion of the following reference:
*
Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: Failure to pass Westminster Act until 1942.  Ming quite clearly said that "as a consequence" of the UK declaration Australia was at war.  Later Australia declared war when it achieved that power. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, though the official history does call it a 'declaration of war' before discussing the legal and constitutional ambiguity. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence still seems misleading. It's fine to call it a declaration of war in the midst of explaining the ambiguity, but isolated from such a discussion (as in the lede), you'd think Australia's declaration of war was like that of other nations. But it wasn't. Srnec (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What new wording do you suggest? The current wording is basically accurate as Australia did enter a state of war against Germany, but I agree some some more nuances might help. Would replacing 'declaring war on Germany on 3 September 1939' with 'joining the war against Germany on 3 September 1939' be an improvement? Nick-D (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ming's words are being misinterpreted here. He saw it as a consequence of the crown being indivisible, not of any action by the British government. And he did have the Governor General issue a formal proclamation of war. The Governor General declaration of war with Japan was made simultaneously with Britain after sending advice to the King from the Australian government. This came to the fore when Britain declared war on Bulgaria on 13 December 1941. Australia did not follow suit until 6 January 1942, thereby overtly rejecting Menzies' constitutional opinion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious: Australia declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:HMAS Sydney (AWM 301473) cropped.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I have a problem with this source:
* Horner, David (1993). "Defending Australia in 1942". The Pacific War 1942. Canberra: Department of History, Australian Defence Force Academy. ISSN 07292473.
I suggest that this is an article in the book The Pacific War 1942 but if I follow the given ISSN, I get to the magazine War & Society in Worldcat.org. As I can't find an archive of this magazine anywhere, what is the correct data of this source? Thanks --Bomzibar (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually Volume 11, Number 1 of the journal War & Society, but was sold under the title 'The Pacific War 1942' to attract greater interest (I presume). The contents of the work are the papers from a conference held in 1992, hence my use of the conference template. The ISSN is what's inside its front cover. I've just tweaked the reference details to reflect that it's actually an issue of the journal. Thanks for raising this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source David Horner 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Military history of Australia during World War II. 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/20081121141223/http://www.navy.gov.au/RAN_in_the_Second_World_War to http://www.navy.gov.au/RAN_in_the_Second_World_War
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100814153739/http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq69-2.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq69-2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109101849/http://www.navy.gov.au/Publication%3APapers_in_Australian_Maritime_Affairs_No._15 to http://www.navy.gov.au/Publication%3APapers_in_Australian_Maritime_Affairs_No._15
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Military history of Australia during World War II. 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/20080610000416/http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/remembering1942/dday/index.asp to http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/remembering1942/dday/index.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080117081233/http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/index/ww2.asp to http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/index/ww2.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Military history of Australia during World War II. 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/20090315094248/http://www.awm.gov.au/research/infosheets/war_casualties.asp to http://www.awm.gov.au/research/infosheets/war_casualties.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080310212502/http://www.awm.gov.au/events/conference/2003/clark.asp to http://www.awm.gov.au/events/conference/2003/clark.asp
*Added  tag to http://www.army.gov.au/Our-future/Publications/Australian-Army-Journal/Past-editions/~/media/Files/Our%20future/LWSC%20Publications/AAJ/2007Winter/03-WhatIsTheBattleForAustr.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Military history of Australia during World War II. 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/20090727161227/http://www.awm.gov.au/Encyclopedia/cowra/ to http://www.awm.gov.au/Encyclopedia/cowra/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080722074330/http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/merchant_navy.asp to http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/merchant_navy.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090520080518/http://www.awm.gov.au/events/conference/2001/cooper.asp to http://www.awm.gov.au/events/conference/2001/cooper.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091002233842/http://www.awm.gov.au/wartime/28/article.asp to http://www.awm.gov.au/wartime/28/article.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070613015253/http://awm.gov.au/events/conference/2003/stanley.asp to http://www.awm.gov.au/events/conference/2003/stanley.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Military history of Australia during World War II. 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/20141109220745/http://www.defence.gov.au/adc/cdclms/Command%20evolution.doc to http://www.defence.gov.au/adc/cdclms/Command%20evolution.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Thousands were put in the internment camps. 
Internment camps were set up by the Australian government during World War II. Between 1940 and 1947, there were 10,000 to 13,000 civilians interned in the camps at different times.
2603:7000:2143:8500:1D57:F56F:F459:8F5E (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internment camps