Although it was common knowledge at the time, very few people alive today are aware of exactly what British imperial strategy was for Australia in World War Two. They wanted to virtually give Australia to Japan, just as they had many other British-controlled territories in the lead up to and early months of the war. That was until the Australian Labor Party presented the people with evidence of the scheme and won the next election. Prime Minister John Curtain then went on to forge an historic alliance with the USA under President FDR. http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/publ...0512_026-britains_pacific_plot_against_th.pdf Although there are US archives maps & public quotes from General Douglas MacArthur proving its existence and whole books written on the subject, Australia's UAP (now named the Liberal Party), to this day denied its existence and the supporting evidence. The Brisbane Line. A Reappraisal, by Professor Drew Cottle, Upfront Publishing, Leicestershire, UK 2002 - available via Amazon. It was British strategy to have the USA exhaust itself against Japan in a 15 year long war with enormous casualties at enormous costs. To this end, Churchill induced PM Menzies to send nearly all of Australia's trained Manpower to Africa and the Middle East. Then, Britain would turn on a much weaker USA and have its wet dream of total world domination. The US War Plan Red and War Plan Orange addressed this known possibility. Now, back to the Brisbane Line. The professor's book shows that this line on the map (page 38 of the link), wasn't a defense strategy, but a political one organised by Australia's wealthy individuals and corporations to cede Australia to Japan and rule it on their behalf, just like the Vichy government in World War Two France. There is extensive documentation available in the Menevee Archives at UCLA proving the whole project was organized by the Synarchist Movement of Empire. Further, there are Tank Traps built along this line created by the Menzies Government just before the war (really, its only war preparation!). There are various photos of the signs and remains of these on Google Images, which can be seen today in real life.
Does this comment refer to my posting frequency? Or perhaps to possible incoherent grammar or spelling? Or do you disagree with the content? Or are you asking for further evidence to back the given claims? Or have you read through all of my links and published works as shown and you believe they are out of sync with what I have written? Or am I in violation of any forum rules? I have never taken drugs and am very much opposed to the drug-fueled money laundering practices of the British Financial Institutions which still continue today despite a multitude of court cases against banks such as HSBC recently for that very same practice which have been stopped from going ahead due to the nonsense that these banks are of "systemic importance" to the economy. It is very clear to many, perhaps many more in years gone by, that the great majority of wars and revolutions ever since the Six Weeks War were started, controlled on both sides or perpetrated (often all three at once) by Imperial England. Please do not take this the wrong way. I'm not referring to the English people, nor even British Parliament. I'm referring to worldwide domination and control for the purposes of Power, Pelf and Profit by the Royal Families and Oligarchy of Financial Cartels of Europe. As soon as people en-mass can recognize this for themselves, they will see a pattern throughout world history that repeats and repeats itself and do something about stopping it, just like the Americans did in the early days and countries like the BRICS network are doing today, for example. This will take quite some time to demonstrate properly in every single instance, but I'm well-prepared to take the time to do a reasonable job and people might just think again about what they read in the Murdoch Press and other mass media or at least have an interesting read, which will eventually make sense. History is Always written by the victors. Any other version has always been violently or otherwise discredited, when it should have been investigated thoroughly and independently.
One presumes you, that is, you personally, can produce these mysterious documents which prove your thesis, in their entirety, for our perusal? That you have, indeed, personally examined documents and can describe them in detail as you publish them for our benefit? If you wish to convince your readers then it is wise to show your evidence rather than repeat the strange agent missives of conspiracy mongers. Your citation of an article by Walter Tarpley is laughable. First of all, it is from a rag promoted by one Lyndon LaRouche, you know, the neo-Marxist-Trotskyist dialectical philosopher (now there’s a hopefully near extinct breed), the guy who claims Queen Elizabeth II is at the center of a vast conspiracy to take over the world economy . . . and if I may quote Wiki on his maunderings: “. . . LaRouche is known for alleging conspiracies by the British. LaRouche has said that the dominant imperialist strategic force acting on the planet today is not the United States, but the "Anglo-Dutch liberal system" of the British Empire, which he asserts is an oligarchic financial consortium like that of medieval Venice, more like a "financial slime-mold" than a nation.[44] According to this theory, London financial circles protect themselves from competition by using techniques of "controlled conflict" first developed in Venice, and LaRouche attributes many wars in recent memory to this alleged activity by the British.[45]” (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement) And if you don’t believe that, tiptoe through the LaRouche site from where your article is reprinted (http://www.larouchepub.com/) and get a quick “OMG! Are these clowns for real? And from what planet did they come?” moment. Tarpley, of course, sees conspiracies everywhere. One can’t decide to laugh or cry. Another quick Wiki trip, complete with footnoted references tells us: “. . . Tarpley maintains that the September 11 attacks were engineered by a rogue network of the military-industrial complex and intelligence agencies as a false flag operation.[10] “On November 21, 2011, while traveling to Syria, Tarpley told Syria's Addounia TV that the Syrian Civil War was a NATO-CIA ploy to destabilize Syria using mercenaries and death squads against the population and the Syrian government.[11] “On April 2, 2012, C-SPAN aired 9/11, False Flags, and Black Ops: An Evening of Debate, in which Tarpley debated his critic Jonathan Kay on conspiracy theories, specifically the truth behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.[12] “On June 7, 2012, interviewed for the NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation) regarding the 2011 Norway attacks, Tarpley said, "I believe that the evidence points to a private network, or even a NATO network, within the police that contributed the long time delay until they stormed the Island."[13] “Tarpley proposed on June 18, 2013, at PressTV, that revelations about the National Security Agency (NSA) by NSA computer system administrator Edward Snowden outlining global and domestic spying by US intelligence agencies might be seen as a ‘CIA limited hangout operation,’ that is, to publicize minor public manipulation operations to conceal greater covert misdeeds such as promoting war in the Middle East. He claimed such "gullibility" operations could be traced from Daniel Ellsberg to Julian Assange's WikiLeaks, with a legacy in perfidious politics and governance since the 17th century.[14]" See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_Tarpley Tarpley is almost as much fun as reading Stinnette as long as one has a plentiful supply of duct tape. It is painfully obvious that you are parroting someone and that your actual real knowledge of pre WWII US war plans, specifically War Plan Orange (war against Japan, which by the end of WWI the US Navy and, grudgingly, the US Army believed would come about eventually) and War Plan Red (war against Great Britain, which no one ever seriously believed would happen), you know, what you have really bothered to research, the actual documents, the real stuff and not some conspiracy screed, is probably shorter than this paragraph. Oh yeah, the LaRouche/Tarpley Brisbane Line conspiracy theory is about as believable as all the money you’ll make when you set up a toll booth on that bridge in Brooklyn that I can arrange for you to purchase at a discounted rate. I mean, really, to mention the late nutcase Menevee and the quaint Synarchist Movement of Empire conspiracy theory as your proof positive? Oh, please, do you think we are all unread dolts? If you wish to play voodoo conspiracy history, I am sure that there are plenty of places to do that, where your correspondents will sagely nod their heads in agreement, without bothering the those of us who prefer their history with a heaping helping of reality.
Thank you for your interest in this topic. I will see what I can do to provide you with as much as I can find on the matter. The most complete analysis is contained within the 250 page book I provided the details of initially for those interested in the argument in its entirety. Unfortunately Amazon in the UK is out of stock at the moment, so I would suggest a trip to your state library for a long session in their reading rooms, which possibly may also be had without charge, as it is here. I included the link as it was easy to find online to give readers a quick overview of the situation. Unfortunately, you underwent a detailed analysis of who wrote the article and their association with a group and a further analysis of the guy who started it. If you had only put a similar effort into examining the actual topic, you would have almost got it by now. I also understand, that by your omission, you have had no trouble in accessing the relevant archives I cited initially from the University of California and Los Angeles? And the quotes from General MacArthur are available in the Public Domain, so I take it you have also had no problems in finding these too? Let us know if you require anything further on these specifically. I can also give you a quote from the leading British Permanent Civil Servant, Edwin Montagu, when he said the following to Prime Minister Herbert Asquith in 1915: "I would far rather cede Australia to the Japanese than cede to Australia anything the Japanese want"! It's actually quite a big issue down here, so I can present to readers some present day photos on Google Images of the ruins of tank traps and a newspaper cartoon at the time: https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...d=0ahUKEwi-v43e3r7KAhVFKJQKHdm2DW4QMwgjKAYwBg https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...d=0ahUKEwi-v43e3r7KAhVFKJQKHdm2DW4QMwgoKAswCw https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...d=0ahUKEwi-v43e3r7KAhVFKJQKHdm2DW4QMwglKAgwCA As the link you have somewhat studied shows, War Plan Red was on the books right up until the start of the war. You can check this out in the Operational Archives of the US Navy Department on page 54 dated April 13, 1928, just as the same link shows. Surely what I have provided by now is sufficient for readers to look into the topic further?
No, dear boy, I am absolutely certain you totally misunderstand the situation. Any further discussion and you will be writing a monologue to yourself. Had you wanted to discuss someone drawing a line on a map as a place to set up a defensive line, that would have been one thing. But as soon as you try to buttress your exposition with words from deep dark conspiracy fools, nutcases and looney tunes, there is, then, nothing whatsoever to discuss. You drag out LaRouche, Tarpley, and Menevee; you are apparently under the influence of these and other fantasy mongers; and you seem to want to subscribe to that oh, so, logical, Synarchist Movement of Empire. You provide a 1915 out of context quote made by one Edwin Montagu, who, in case you had not noticed, died in 1924, to one Henry Asquith, who likewise died in 1928, as some sort of defining policy word on handing over Australia to the Japanese in 1942 . . . I don’t think either of those gents had a vote in the matter. You tell us of “tank traps” (more below) which prove your thesis, yet conveniently gloss over that said “tank traps” at Tenterfield are some 300 Km away, south southwest to be exact, and near an army training ground, from your evil line on a map somewhat just to the north of the city of Brisbane (or maybe you are just parroting someone else and never bothered to check yourself, but I suspect I am being overly charitable). You drag out that the US services had, GASP OH MY GOD, a plan for dealing with war with Japan, another for war with Great Britain, but then you fail to mention that there were multiple other plans for dealing with other adversaries or situations . . . you do understand that this is what operational planners do, do you not? Do you really understand that they develop plans for not only the most likely, but also the most implausible situations? Why they even draw up plans for dealing with worse-case scenarios of foreign invasion . . . but note, most, if not all, are just paper plans, never to be executed in their written form. For example, one can find numerous parallels in the US War Plan Orange and the way things eventually panned out in the Pacific, but no, the written plan was not, ever, never, followed. PAPER . . . PLANS . . . NOT EXECUTION. Or maybe poor overworked staff officer was told to develop a plan, as the bad guys to the north were rolling over everyone in sight, to provide a last ditch stand against an invader . . . so he dragged out a map and found a convenient choke point. Frankly, the, oh, so, clever, thoughts of amateurs, journalists and politicians on what constitutes a plan and what constitutes action have always been a mystery to me. I can think of but one poster on these boards who might be interested in discussion but only if you proclaim his NOVEL to be an accurate recitation of the facts . . . which, of course, it is not . . . you know, novels are fiction. It was suggested that you take your LaRouche, Tarpley, Menevee and Synarchist nonsense to a conspiracy forum where it might be better appreciated . . . that remains very good advice. Oh, as someone with some small experience in the operation large tracked vehicles equipped with large guns, I would suggest that you and your conspiracy fan boys learn the correct terminology . . . a “tank trap” is a large hole in the ground from which a tank is unable to extricate itself without great difficulty. What you and your friends call “tank traps” are tank obstacles, things which project out of the ground. If you are even going to attempt to be believable, conspiracies aside, you should use the correct nomenclature and not the “oh the breathless excitement of it all” words of conspiracy nuts or less than knowledgeable journalist types. Have a nice trip. As far as I am concerned you are on your own.
