Talk:Brisbane Line

Evily wrong

THIS PAGE IS EVILY WRONG! The Brisbane line called for the country to be split in half horizonally, sort of. Some one fix damn it!

If you know more about the issue please add/amend the article yourself. Bastie 07:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's right either. Every article i've ever read suggested the brisbane line was supposed to be quite a few hundred Kms north of brisbane. Why the hell would they surrender Brisbane City but defend the sparsely populated areas south of brisbane. Makes no sense at all. I'll try to find a source and if I can I will change the article. Factoid Killer 12:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps looking into documents from the Royal Commission in the matter of an inquiry into a statement that there was a document missing from the official files in relation to "The Brisbane Line" might help.--cj | talk 14:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a plethora of information available on the NAA web site. It includes images of newspaper articles which were compiled into a document (I gave it as a source), court action taken by ward against the Sydney morning Herald and the Age and the original files of the enquiry.

There's a lot we can do with this article. There are all sorts of angles to the story. For instance, General Mcarthur's admission that the Australian defence forces did have such a policy, suggestions that Ward made his statement for political gain, the exact statements made by ward (verbatum).

I don't have time to do much with it any time soon but anyone else can feel free to use the links i've provided in the sources section and peruse the documents naa documents. Factoid Killer 15:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A Time Line

There are so many events pertaining to this topic spanning a period of 50 years. I think a time line might be a good format in which to describe the events that took place in chronological order. Factoid Killer 15:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

False photo

The current pic in the article is clearly ludicrous. There is no evidence that plans for the 'line' existed let alone defensive walls. Unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary I will have to remove the photo.

Also the use of a time line would be a good idea. TransylvanianTwist 02:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be described as evidence that the Brisbane line exists. That's why I changed the descriptor. I've heard stories about ppl claiming certain structures were evidence of the Brisbane line. As long as we can get a source that the structure in the image is claimed by someone, being quoted in reliable source, to be possible evidence of the Brisbane line i'm happy for it to stay. Factoid Killer 12:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This is slightly crazy. The 'brisbane line' (if it existed) was only a plan. As I said before the pic is ludicrous. Provide evidence or I intend to remove it on the grounds of lack of any evidence. TransylvanianTwist 05:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OK well firstly if you vandalise this page I will report you. Secondly if you remove the image without providing evidence for its removal I will restore it. Thirdly I didn't add the image and even if I did there is no need to be rude and finally, during my research for this article I did come across claims of structures in place which were suggested as evidence of the Brisbane Line. Feel free to peruse the myriad of information I placed in the sources section. Factoid Killer 21:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I just read the 'references'-they all state that the line was fictious. So to have a pic of some 'remnants' is clearly crazy. Have you read your 'references'? You are defending the indefensible. TransylvanianTwist 04:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah so you read this then 'Even today, older Australians point to tank traps and the like in various parts of northern Australia that they firmly believe are physical evidence of this non-existent Brisbane Line' from here: http://www.defence.gov.au/army/ahu/books_articles/brisbaneline.htm.htm

This article is not about a factually existing brisbane line. It is about the allegations made. An allegation that was neither proven nor disproven. If these structures are included in the allegation they belong in the article. It makes absolutely no difference what-so-ever if the Brisbane Line was real or not. Based on your logic none of the national archives documents should be included or sighted either because the Brisbane line didn't exist. Factoid Killer 09:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've written to Celcom requesting a source that this particular structure has been alleged to form part of the allegedly proposed Brisbane Line. I've given him 1 week to respond and at which time I will agree to the removal of the image. Factoid Killer 10:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

'The Brisbane line would of run approximately east and west across the entire width of the country at a latitude north of Brisbane'

I've left out these edits as part of the reversion intentionally. Apart from being worded very poorly, the artcile as it currently stands makes it blatantly obvious that this was an alleged 'proposal'. It isn't necessary to refer to the line in this way just as it isn't necessary to refer to the tropic of capricorn as something that doesn't exist.

Furthermore, as an 'alleged proposal' what was actually supposed to have been proposed is quite ambiguous. There are three separate claims i've heard. The original allegation was that the 'top part of the country' was to be surrendered. General McArthur's claims are that the line ran from Brisbane to Perth and others have claimed the line was marked by the murrumbidgee river protecting only the heavily populated areas of the east coast of Australia. So having said that I do agree that the current wording needs to change. Factoid Killer 10:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

A close look at the Australian defence map from the MacArthur report shows the fabled Brisbane Line, not as the marked fortification line just south of Maryborough, but as the shaded area running down the coast (incorporating Tasmania) and across to the eastern section of the Great Australian Bight. This line is marked on the map as a "Main Defense Area". It fits the folklore as it runs approximately from Brisbane to Port Augusta. It also makes more sense militarily for the coastal strip to be defended rather than vast swathes of land with little infrastructure.

Although, as has been stated, there is no real evidence for the existence of the Brisbane Line proper, it does make sense when the MacArthur map is taken into account. I believe that the allegations of plans to abandon the rest of the country to the Japanese to be simply a misunderstanding on MAJ Howe's part which was compounded by Mr Ward's own non-military mental filter. Plans for evacuation of civilians from areas under threat as well the implementation of a "scorched earth" and strategic demolition policy are well-documented. Examples of these wartime plans may be viewed via the NAA and the AWM online and in their reading rooms.

The circled areas on the MacArthur Map clearly show mutually-supporting defence zones from which to project sea, land and air power against any enemy landing force. These were the first line of defence. If each of these fell or were beseiged, the Brisbane Line would protect the vast majority of Australia's critical infrastructure and population. If the Brisbane Line was overrun, there existed a contingency to defend at all costs the so-called Southeastern Boomerang. This was an area comprising the Newcastle - Sydney - Kembla region. I believe that this also extended west to Lithgow. Australian Bunker Project 14:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If this military strategy had been adopted there would be no reason to defend WA. The mines could be blown up, and livestock etc could be moved to the south-east. There would be no reason to use a latitude as the line. The idea was to defend the population and industrial centres of the south-east, and not to try to defend the vast empty coastline and the vast arid empty inland area with Australia's meagre forces. During WW2, livestock in NSW was being moved west over the Great Dividing Range. The Western Plains of NSW were relatively safe from invasion. There was no need to abandon them.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No Evidence?

There actually is evidence of this proposal. The most compelling of which are General McArthur's remarks. You may or may not see this as 'enough' evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the line existed, however, it is still factually innacurate to suggest there is 'No' evidence that the Brisbane Line existed.

Nobody has added this to the article yet. I just wanted to pre-empt any attempts to do so because I can see this was used as an argument for removing the aforementioned image. 62.254.168.102 10:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree but no evidence has been offered supporting this image is as much as suspected to be part of the brisbane line by anyone. I gave the contributor 1 week to provide evidence and he didn't. Factoid Killer 22:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

More work and research needed

• Note to self... First section of timeline (March 1943) is based on a what may be an unreliable source. This needs to be verified by another source. We don't know exactly what was said nor do we know who this was reported to? ie. was it a statement in parliament or an interview with a journalist. Who reported it? Is the suggestion that the line ran from Brisbane to Adelaide correct? No other source seems to mention this.

• Exactly what were Douglas MacArthur's comments to the press conference in March 1943. We know it was a press conference and that he was answering a question put to him. We know that whatever he said was in favour of Mr Ward's allegation.

• In the 1950s or 60s MacArthur came made a public coment (or did someone else make it in a biography of MacArthur) that the line existed, he opposed it and it was to run from Brisbane to Perth. I can't remember where I read this exactly.

194.46.244.45 21:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)... that was me Factoid Killer

Plausible

I think anyone familiar with military history would find this plausible, if unpopular. The miliary, however, are notorious for cover-ups and instead of defending it as a "scorched earth policy" went into denial mode, continuing to today.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

PS This article has a rather biased tone. It seems to be more concerned with denigrating the idea than evaluating the evidence. I have attempted to give Mackay's proposal the prominence it deserves, but it needs more work.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, 'notorious for cover-ups' or rightly concerned about operational security? If anything I would argue that it is usually the civilian political elite that is responsible for the 'cover-ups' and the military that has to do what their told. I would be surprised if that wasn't the case in this instance also. Anotherclown (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)\

I'm not sure that the military really does what it's told.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Goto pages 290-307

Reading MacArthur's biography American Caesar in the 290-307 page range, it's pretty clear that there was active ongoing pressure from Curtain's war cabinet to adopt a defense strategy that was some variant of this. Since biographers delve carefully into private and public correspondence (primary sources) and Manchester features the line, at least inferentially, as a political factor covering several pages of background information—then baldly states MacArthur threatened to resign before Curtain's government backed his strategy... Well there's lots of smoke...

In particular, it's plain there must have been significant infighting over this difference on his multinational GHQ staff (forward versus passive defensive strategies) for William Manchester to describe most of the staff as shocked and surprised when Mac began giving orders for a forward defense, (see the three quoted & cited excerpts I inserted [here] yesterday. Manchester clearly states it corresponded more or less to the line of the tropic of capricorn, though iirc, he may have qualified that as within two degrees or twenty miles or other language offsetting the line. American Caesar should be available in most any of even the worse small town libraries, and will definitely be in the better ones. Good hunting. // FrankB 14:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You can be sure there were some contingency plans thought out. The Japanese advance seemed to be unstoppable after Singapore, and it would have been irresponsible for Cabinet not to have an invasion strategy. Documents would have been drafted outside of the normal recorded meeting framework, and would have been destroyed at the earliest time of danger abating. In the end, it was the Japanese Army's own incompetence at maintaining supply lines that stopped them from invading.220.244.91.152 (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Discovery of documents in NSW State Archives

I note that much of the discussion on this article centres on the paucity of documents. I would direct the attention of editors to historian Sue Rosen's 2017 book "Scorched Earth", which is based in part on the chance discovery of documents in the NSW State Archives, which do in fact confirm the fact that the Brisbane Line was a proposed strategy. Search engine Sue Rosen and Brisbane Line, and much material will appear online. A review is here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14490854.2018.1416540?journalCode=raha20. Updating this article is on my to-do list, but I thought I would alert other editors to this. Research17 (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)