Effective defense

[AirGriff]

There was a whole lot of "I don't want my country's troops under your country's general/admiral". Things could have worked out even better than it did, but then people being people, could we really expect anything different? We're lucky the whole war wasn't fought independently by the Sovs, Brits and Americans.

From what I've read, the guys that deserve the big Cooperation Award of the whole war are the Aussies. They had to swallow their pride so many times it's a wonder they have any left. And the stink of it is they probably had the toughest troops out of 'em all, at least in the first year or so. Given that, I still don't get why they were so hell bent on participating, and pissed off when told not to participate in some of the nastiest battles ever. If I was an Aussie and the Americans said "no thanks, we'd like to do the Iwo Jima thing all by ourselves" I'd say, well, gosh, if you say so, and send the boys home to start making babies again.

[Nikademus]

lol...reminds me of a blurb from Bergerud's Touched with Fire....(IIRC)

If a battle was won where US Troops were in a majority, MacArthur would announce it as "US Troops did such and such..."

If a battle was won where Oz troops had been in the majority, it was "Allied troops did such and such.."

[AirGriff]

Yep, it's a wonder the Aussies didn't declare war on us at some point after some of MacArthur's shenanigans.

[niceguy2005]

I'm sure that pride played a major part in it, but don't underestimate the politics that were going on. The UK was THE dominant world power at the time. The US was overtaking and the USSR was also wanting that titlte. I think everyone knew that the fascists would not stand up to that coalition and the one or two countries that emerged on top of this world conflict would have a lot to say about the shape of the world going forward. The other winners would also have some say. I think this is why there was limited cooperation during the war. There was a decent amount of jockying for position as world leader. I think this is why Australia wanted in on the final defeat of Japan. It would gain them recognition as an emerging world power.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

I think this is why Australia wanted in on the final defeat of Japan. It would gain them recognition as an emerging world power.

Not sure about that. I don't think they were under any illusions of such in comparison to such industrial sized giants like the US or USSR. I think it was more, "hey, we fought em, we bled to help stop them and turn the tide.....we want to be there for the finish, not banished to some backwater theater and forgotten"

Mac it seems was determined to have "his" boys grab all the glory in the end, as well as spend as many American lives as it would take to clear out his beloved PI's...even those areas that were not strategically vital.

[niceguy2005]

Well, I'm not certain either. I am sure Australia wasn't expecting to be the industrial power house of the US or the USSR, but they may have been thinking about local pacific influence. It would be easier to negotiate favorable treaties with other pacific nations if they were viewed as having the ability to project some power into the pacific area.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

To be fair, from what I've read King didn't like the British prior to the carrier request incident either.

I have a book at home (can't think of the title, but remind me and I will post it) that has a lot about the "politics" in the Pacific Theatre. King - and generally most Pacific American Admirals - didn't like the British for their basic Germany first attitude and the though that they British weren't doing anything to take the pressure off the Americans by fighting in Burma.

King was constantly at odds withhis British counterparts during Combined Chief of Staff meetings and siphoned off as much material as he could get away with to send to the Pacific. The British wanted to just hold in the Pacific and presented a plan that after the defeat of Germany had a scheduled end of the Pacific war sometime in 1948. This was unacceptable to the Americans and the plan was shelved.

Other than the request of the carrier King did request some landing craft from the British which they fell over backwards providing. But once the landing craft transitted the Panama Canal and was inspected by the Americans they were found to be unfit for use in the tropics and were never used. Near the end of the war when Churchill offered the pride of the British fleet to Admiral King he was told no thanks which infuriated Churchill who took it up with Roosevelt which is why the British fleet was finally allowed in. The reasons cited by King (lack of fleet train, etc) really didn't hold water to be honest and was probably sour grapes and his anti-British attitude.

Another item Churchill tried was to send British Admiral Bruce Fraser as commander-in-chief British Fleet for the Pacific which King rejected since Fraser would basically have outranked just about every American admiral in the Pacific and King wouldn't have any of that. The end result was that Fraser, a very capable admiral, sat useless in Australia instead of commanding anything.

I can give page references for everything I just posted if people want to confirm what I wrote. I'm just at my Oracle class right now and don't have my books handy at the moment.

[AirGriff]

Yeah, between King and MacArthur the Brits and Aussies never stood a chance to have much go there way. Within 6 months of Dec. 7th King got in there and basically ripped the Germany first strategy apart from the inside while making the outside look nice for the folks reading newspapers. I can't remember the numbers, but I think the tonnage of stuff was about equal between the 2 theatres throughout the war.

Nik and Niceguy, I think the truth is somewhere in between what you guys are saying. The Australians (and New Zealanders, of course) felt the need to throw as many punches as they could in the war just because of what they had suffered through and at the same time were very interested in what was going to happen to the region after the war. Take a good look at Indonesia right now and I think most would agree that would have been a very legitimate concern.

[Kadrin]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Actually Admiral King did request UK assistance in late 42 after the loss of Hornet left only one rather battered CV left in the Pacific. (assistance in the form of a CV) The UK was initially resistant, earning them King's eternal scorn.

You are absolutely correct. I had forgotten that. I believe it was HMS Victorius and she served in and around the Coral Sea.