Talk:Military history of Australia during World War II

Homefront 1944-1945 - probably the second most important story of Australia in WW2 - completely ignored

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)

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)

Major expansion

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)

things to add

this article requires information on the citizens military force. --58.107.82.245 03:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Trivia

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)

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)

Borneo Campaign

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)

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)

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)

Number of fatalities

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))

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)

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)

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)

Agree: Seems like a reasonable compromise, acknowledging the discrepency in the text is a good idea. Anotherclown (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's astounding that the number of battle deaths exceeded the number of combat wounded (usually wounded far exceeds killed). What is the reason for this? The disparity should be noted/acknowledged, and explained. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Addition to homefront section

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)

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)

Very long

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)

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)

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)

(Outdent) Yes it's long, but I can't see that it's excessively so. None of the sections or subsections leaves me feeling there was unnecessary info included. For comparison, USS Iowa turret explosion, which is FA, is about 80% the length of this one and covers a single incident in US Navy history. I'd be very dubious about editing Military history of Australia during World War II with the express intention of culling it, since it's been carefully put together and flows well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

No worries - I think that the article shouldn't be any longer! Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Link to ww2db.com

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: Morgan Bell (16 January 2009). "Australia in World War II". The World War II Database. Retrieved 16 January 2009. 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)

HMAS Armidale

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)

Done. HMAS Voyager was also lost when she ran around while landing reinforcements at Timor. Nick-D (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm writing a chapter on HMAS Armidale in my book about all ships lost on RAN service. Happy to contibute. Armidale's loss and the failure to rescue survivors in good time was a scandal that did not break. 04:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Beartoo (talk)

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)

Source

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:

• Ashworth, Norman (1999). How Not To Run An Air Force! The Higher Command of the Royal Australian Air Force During the Second World War. Australia: Royal Australian Air Force Air Power Development Centre. ISBN 0-642-26550-X.

Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Dubious: Australia declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

File:HMAS Sydney (AWM 301473) cropped.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:HMAS Sydney (AWM 301473) cropped.jpg, 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)

Source David Horner

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)

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)

USA

While Australia gave good contributions and acted bravely, I think it should be made explicitly clear that the U.S.A won the war and that in all these operations they were being lead by the U.S.A. Without America the war would've been lost i.e. Okinawa, Guadalcanal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:8161:C100:1DE2:8E9E:5B6A:2662 (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI the Imperial Japanese Army lost more troops in the Burma Campaign than it did in the whole of the Pacific war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.228 (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The Allies won the war - the United States would have been sorely hurting without Australia as a base of operations in the southern half of the Pacific front. The military might/industrial might of the U.S. is beyond question in the war, but America had help - and was grateful to its allies, Australia, the Chinese, etc. Americans have never claimed to have done it alone.

External links modified

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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 {{dead link}} 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Declaration of war for Italy and Japan

Just curious, but where are the declarations of war dates for Italy and Japan coming from? The lead paragraph mentions "the Australian government later declared war" on Italy on 11 June and on Japan 8 December, but it has no citation there, and it is not mentioned again in the actual article body.

I mean, considering the dates for the aforementioned declarations provided were all before the date the Statute of Westminster was ratified in Australia, wouldn't the Australian "declarations" against Italy and Japan be akin to how they did it with Germany (i.e. the British declaration)? Leventio (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, found one source for Japan (corrected the date as well, as the source indicates the proclamation of war occurred on the 9th [sneak edit: I just realized that today is the anniversary of that proclamation.... so bit of a fun coinkydink there]). That said, I could not find a source for the Italian declaration of war, which sorta makes me suspect the veracity of the Italian portion of that prose, with the source used for Japan being a listing of past proclamations of war published by the Australian gov't (than again, Italy as a whole was just seemingly absent from that document so it could just be a simple omission). In any case, I just added a CN tag next to it for now. Leventio (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Leventio: G'day, I don't know much about this topic so can't confirm categorically, but this source appears to support an 11 June 1940 declaration: [1] (click on June). This book by Gianfranco Cresciani on pp. 97-98 seems to have something as well: [2] (seems to clarify that Menzies asked the British government to state that Australia was also at war with Italy, along with Britain, following Italy's declaration on 10 June). Not sure if this helps at all. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Haha, I'll be honest, Australian history isn't really my "cup of tea," per se (was working on Diplomatic history, and jumped over here for a quick check of some info, and noticed the dates didn't align with the dates presented in Declarations of war during World War II which was what led to the question).

With that in mind though, I think the Italian date is correct than (corroborated by those two sources), but the second source seems to indicate that a separate Australian declaration of war against Italy wasn't issued, and was largely handled in the same way as the Nazi Germany declaration (i.e. Menzies telling the British to tell the Germans that they are associates of Britain, and that their declaration would include them). Leventio (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

So I edited the declare part to "entered a state of war,". Not sure if thats the best wording for it tbh, so feel free to correct that however. Leventio (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

No worries, that looks fine to me, thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Internment camps

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)

MENTION SHOULD BE MADE OF HMAS SHEPPERTON & BENALLA'S ROLE IN SURVEYING THE US LANDINGS FROM MILNE BAY TO LYETTE GULF 31.125.43.238 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)