Talk:Kokoda Track campaign/Archive 1

Balance perspective
This is an excellent entry, but could use some balance in perspective, as the narration of the history is told almost exclusively from the Aliied point-of-view. Who were the Japanese commanders and what was their thought process? Where did they succeed or fail? What was their larger place in the Japanese strategy? Etc.

Remember, Wikipedia is a global resource, and not the history of any one nation or language group.

Again, though, great job so far.

-A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.101.98 (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What About
There is not mention of the 36th Battalion. Ike's Marines. Which did play a significant part.--Spud85 15:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! They had NOTHING to do with the Kokoda Track battles. Significant part! Pigs Arse!

THIS IS THE TRUTH ABOUT THE KOKODA TRACK

Befor this campain started a Major A Becett (probably incorrect spelling ) was given the job he refused to send raw hardly trained young men against the Japanese Elite because it was too dangerous and he was given a very hard time from his piers also there was a talk on the ABC RADIO schools program on ANZAC day at my school 1960? Iam 52 now This program spoke all about him my grand father was friends with him and had a picture of him on the wall of his house my grandfather offered to go to my school and talk about him he is the real hero of this campain not a yes man sycaphant There is a street named after him in Melbourne oposite RMIT

The Americans played no part in the Kokoda campaign until the Japanese finally withdrew short of Imita Ridge, where combined 39th,2/14, 2/16 and 2/17 combined forces took their final stand. No American troops were deployed until the 2nd advance. Even then, they cut across country to cut off the retreating Japanese forces. There are NO MEMORIALS to ANY American forces south of the Kokoda Plateau- they did their fighting on the beaches of Bona-Guna-Sanananda. I don't give a rat's ass who has a street named after a Melbourne city street. I finished the track 5 days ago.

As for the "real heroes" of this campaign, I'll tell you who they are- people like Potts, Honner, Kingsbury, Butch and Stan Bissett. The only American who had anything to do with this is campaign is Macarthur and his name should make every Australian sick to the stomach. Damn dumbass American couldn't have caught syphillis in a Filippino whorehouse if he tried. Proberton (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you can do much better. ;) Ike's Marines were the 36th Infantry Battalion. Now you're back you can find out who flew the aircraft that dropped supplies, who the black guys were who built the wharf at Port Moresby, who built the air bases and the roads, who was manning the ack ack defences, and unloading the ships. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the post again: No American served on the Kokoda Track prior to the Japanese withdrawal from Ioribaiwa Ridge. They may have served in New Guinea, either at Pt Moresby or at Buna-Gona-Sanananda but they didn't serve on the track. As for your comment "I'm sure you can do much better"... I have. I walked the Kokoda Track, which is nothing any US Soldier in PNG can claim to have done. Proberton (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Missing?
This article is interesting, but misses several important things:
 * firstly there is not much mention of the terrain and only a passing mention of Malaria.
 * There is almost nothing from the Japanese perspective and the whole campaign is told from the POV of the (eventually victorious) Australian and American side.
 * There is no mention of the extensive criticism of Brisbane HQ and MacArthur, who only turned up once and most times implied that he was handling things from the front line (which he was not).
 * There is no mention of how supplies were dropped without parachutes and the disasterous consequences to the troops (ala damaged munition - dropping them without parachutes caused the death of several men on the campaign).
 * No mention of Japanese atrocities (raping and killing Kokoda natives, bayonetting Australian troops for "exercise"). The Webb report was created after the campaign and extensively investigates this
 * No mention of how the fuzzy-wuzzy angels were often enforced labour and often treated badly by both sides
 * No information on the incredible censorship of the press. In early 1942 Osmar White, a war journalist, wrote:
 * In my belief the present oppressive censorship is the illogical outcome of many months of official bungling and confusion. Censorship officers in the field are tired of trying to make sense out of an insane censorship literature … every time a new problem arises, it seems that a new instruction is promulgated to solve it. Individual interpretations of these instructions are almost as varied as the instructions themselves. [Consequently] when I first arrived in Moresby no reference could be made to it as an operational base for attacks in New Britain. But within a week of my arrival Moresby was referred to as an operational base by the Minister for Air. Reference to spotting stations and observation centres in New Britain was forbidden yet a reference to them was published on the mainland and in a broadcast. At least one spotting station was [then] promptly bombed by the Japanese. [Finally] the military censor at Port Moresby [became] so confused and agitated by the censorship anomalies that he refused to pass any message unless he had been present at the interviews in which the information had been obtained.

Lots of problems. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

While the Fuzzy Wuzzy's were conscripted by both sides during the conflicit, they were treated quite well by the Allies, especially the Australians.

I agree that a lot is left out but we risk turning the entry into a novel if we include everything. I can address some points quickly.


 * Japanese POV: The 2/27th has numerous letters taken from the bodies of Japanese that they copied before forwarding to next of kin. Some give much detail on Japanese thinking. Despite their atrocities the letters show many had much respect for the Australians as fighters.
 * MacArthur (and Blamey): The allies had cracked the Japanese codes and had the entire NG invasion plan. These two officers ignored it completely as MacArthur believed it was impossible for troops to cross the ranges so reinforcements would not be required. They then sent the militia to Kokoda over the supposedly impassable ranges. For months these officers strategy was based entirely on the invasion being a minor skirmish that 500 militia soldiers could hold back even after finding how large the Japanese force was. When the truth dawned it became a case of covering up their own incompetence, hence the "rabbit" incident and MacArthur writing to the US asking for American troops to replace the incompetent Australians who lost Kokoda.
 * Censorship: Was widespread in all theatres of war. Eg. Few know that the Syria campaign was every bit as heroic as Tobruk and fought against an enemy superior to Rommel's Afrika corp. Curtin ordered that the fighting there was not to be mentioned at all so the 7th Division who fought it became known as the "Silent 7th" as the public were led to believe they never saw action. The reason? The enemy was the French Foreign Legion and France was our ally.

Speaking of the rabbit incident. The entry says the hospital "run rabbit run" episode is "apocryphal". My father was a patient in that ward and he told me that story 30 years ago. Wayne 14:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Some comments: Hawkeye7 11:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Although the Allies had broken into the Japanese codes, they did not have the entire Japanese plan. ULTRA was unable to identify Horii's South Seas Detachment - this information came from the troops fighting on the Trail. And neither ULTRA nor the troops correctly identified the Japanese force at Buna, thus setting the Allies up for their next string of embarassments.
 * Calling the Vichy French "an enemy superior to Rommel's Afrika Korps" is pure hyperbole. Rommel and his men did, after all, defeat the French Army in 1940.
 * Curtin never ordered that the fighting in Syria was not to be mentioned. It was the British Middle East headquarters ordered that there be no references to any fighting, and the BBC broadcasts which disturbed the troops. However, the Australian correspondents were not so restricted and the campaign was correctly reported in Australia. Indeed, British newspapers discovered they had been had from the Australian reports.
 * I'm far from convinced that the "rabbit" incident has any historical significance whatsoever. Are we saying that the 7th Division really was undisciplined and its leadership was defective? If it is indeed apocryphal, should it be deleted?

Paul Ham reading
Will find the info and add it later... I seem to have misplaced the book! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Kokoda. Paul Ham, HarperCollins (Australia) published 27-10-2002 ISBN:  0732276934

This is a terrible book. Paul Ham is a journalist, not a historian and it really shows. The number of errors is very high. Hawkeye7 11:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What If?
A book in this series argued that it saved the Pacific from Japanese dominiation and was highly critical of MacArthur's attitude towards the Aussies. Please find Ham's book and fill in all the points you listed, and I'd be delighted to make my own contributions if you don't mind. Very much looking forward to seeing what you come up with. Fergananim 24.8.05.

- noting the lack of Japanese POV. This would be rather difficult considering the Japanese suffered pretty much a 100% death rate during this campaign.
 * Unlike Allied soldiers, Japanese soldiers and sailors were actually encouraged to keep diaries. Along with the offical war diaries, there is quite a bit of documentation of the Japanese point of view.203.206.162.148 (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a new book, called The Path of Infinite Sorrow, which gives fairly good detail on the Japanese side. Also, the Senshi Sosho, of which some translated excerpts are available on the Australian War Memorial website, has some good info. Cla68 (talk) 09:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I recently read The Path of Infinite Sorrow and it was pretty interesting (though not really a success as a military history). Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know this is editorializing, but I really wish that western historians would try a little harder to obtain translated copies of the diaries written by many of the IJA officers which survived the New Guinea and Solomons campaigns. I think that a surprising number of their descendent families who still have possession of the diaries would allow them to be used as source material.  Western historians just need to make the time and effort (and some expense, to be sure) to ask them. Cla68 (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. There's still a common perception that Japanese soldiers were either automatons who either had nothing interesting to say about their experiences or were all killed and that Japanese post-war histories are some kind of unreliable propaganda. I read an Australian military history book recently in which the author portrayed finding out that the National Library of Australia has a complete set of the Senshi Sosho and that it was very useful as being some kind of major discovery! Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've heard that the new book on the Battle of Imphal does a better job at getting Japanese accounts, but I haven't looked at it yet. Cla68 (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That said in one review I read The Path of Infinite Sorrow was fairly heavily criticised as revisionist history which largely neglects and even excuses Japanese war crimes during this and other campaigns. Anotherclown (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Was that the review in Australia and New Zealand Defender? I read it before I read the book and thought the reviewer was wrong (and unfamiliar with recent historiography). The book's coverage of the massacres which followed the capture of Rabaul is pretty poor, but otherwise it's fair. It got a good review in the AWM's magazine. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it was, you're very widely read aren't you! Not surprising though, ANZD obviously has its own POV... Anotherclown (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Continuing the Myth
In addition to the isssues stated above, the article continues several other myths:

- that the Kokoda campaign saved Australia. There probably wasn't a campaign to invade Australia (see the article by Australian War Memorial Principal Historian Peter Stanley ). Even if there was a plan, it was thwarted by the Battle of the Coral Sea.

- that all the Aussies bravely fought against the odds. The fate of the 53rd Battalion is often ignored. As Paul Ham writes:

"At the sight of the enemy, a whole company of these men threw down their weapons and ran into the jungle. Some were found by the side of the track quaking with fear and unable to move. The same happened to hundreds of American troops who later landed at Buna. Scores hid in the jungle refusing to fight."

"One doesn't judge these men; it was a gross failure of military leadership, which neglected adequately to train them or lead them. A soldier, if he is expected to kill, must be properly trained, and properly led. But my discovery of the 53rd Battalion's court martial documents - yes, four Australian officers were court-martialled for cowardice and desertion - showed the other side of the Anzac legend."

There are also papers in the Australian War memorial which show that sone soldiers injured themselves so that they would be evacuated.


 * Of course it deserves mention but really - it's not a huge point to make. For instance, it's quite common for soldiers to ehh... poo themselves the first time they come under artillery fire. It's perfectly human and dosn't reflect upon courage - pure instinct. If you haven't been trained adequately as is the case with these millitia troops even less can be expected. The point is there is a lot of stuff in war you don't hear much about - a lot of stuff hollywood glosses over. In this case it should probably be noted since the courage of the Aussies are linked to some myths and so on - just do it in the right context, with adequate explanations and - respect. Celcius 12:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

To put the actions under fire of the 53rd Battalion in context we should look at the Battalions history and points that Paul Ham mentions but gives too little detail about. The Battalion was originally for the defense of Darwin and far under stength. To bring it up to strength they recruited in Melbourne, and at a time when you needed your parents written permission to enlist if aged under 21, the average age of the new recruits was 18.6 years according to several sources. They were under the impression they were to be a "home guard" but without any training, nor knowing where they were going, and not even being allowed to contact their parents before leaving, they were embarked on the Aquitania for New Guinea. The majority had never handled a gun before and they were shown how to fire a rifle on the journey over. When they arrived, instead of now being trained they were put to work building roads and labouring on the docks. In this condition they were sent to defend Kokoda. That they performed as well as they did says volumes about their character. Wayne 13:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted " or even saved it, since the Australian people may have faced invasion, had the campaign been lost." There was no chance of invasion, "plan" or not; IJA had neither the shipping capacity nor the manpower, nor the support of IJN, necessary to carry it out. Trekphiler 03:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Naming
The "Kokoda Trail" is constantly being incorrectly called Kokoda Track ! In the excellant book "The South West Pacific 1941-1945" by Colonel E.G.Keogh, MBE.,ED. R. Aust. Inf. (retd.) used as an official text book for many years to train Officers in Military History, the word "Trail" is used. "Kokoda Trail" was adopted by the Battles Nomenclature Committe in Oct. 1957 as the official British Commonwealth battle honour. It was officially Gazetted as "Kokoda Trail" in 1972.

Why is it that you do not use the correct terminlogy when portraying such an important historic event in Australian History !

Clive Whelan, Glen Waverley.Australia.
 * Clive, in the first place we aren't obliged to use official names, especially when they fly in the face of common usage. My understanding is that it was called the "Kokoda Track", or simply "the Track", both before the campaign and during the campaign, by the soldiers concerned; i.e. "Kokoda Trail" was devised in official/media circles to engage the American public, who would have assumed a "track" to be a railway and understood a rough thoroughfare through forest to be a "trail". Has anyone heard a different explanation for the renaming? Grant65 | Talk 14:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Clive mate, give the bloody exclamation marks a rest, would you? Let me guess; you're the kind of irritating old bugger who corners you in the pub and shouts very loudly. So just quieten down, OK? 124.170.123.65 (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done
I must say, I am very impressed with this article, considering most of the rubbish I encounter on wikipedia. It is a credit to the contributors. I have read two of the books referred to at the bottom of the article and I would thoroughly reccomend Paul Ham's book Kokoda to anyone with an interest in the topic. He is thoroughly readable and very gives a very balanced view. If you are looking to include some Japanese perspective this book contains quite a bit of info. aussietiger 16:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Also try "Field guide to the Kokoda Track" (revised edition) by Bill James, Kokoka Press 2008. It is an excellent set of track notes and history, with aerial photographs, sketches and references to primary sources. It carries the endorsement of Hank Nelson, Peter Fitzsimons and Stan Bisset ( yes, THE Stan Bisset). Thoroughly worth the read. Proberton (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Corrections
Have made some corrections. Hawkeye7 12:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The allegation on the discussion page that MacArthur thought the trail was impassible is incorrect.
 * General Rowell is cited as the commander of New Guinea Force who ordered the 39th Infantry Battalion to Kokoda. He wasn't; Major General Basil Morris was in command at the time.
 * The 7th Division had arrived in Australia six months before it was ordered to New Guinea, not "recently"

Cannibalism?
How did they know it was the Japanese, and not the locals coming out of the bush?

Happell, Charles (2008). The Bone Man of Kokoda. Sydney: Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-4050-38362. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudtalkman (talk • contribs) 15:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Notable people prior to the War?
Does anyone know of any individuals that has some notoriety prior to the war who served on the Kokoda Track campaign? I was reading about rugby league player Clem Kennedy but just wondering about any others, thanks.--Tiburon 02:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The FitzSimons reference writes extensively of Captain Stan Bisset whom the author calls the "oldest living Wallaby" (in 2003). I think he may have been a Wallaby after WWII -Sticks66 13:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

They found parcels of human flesh in the pockets and back packs of dead Japanese troops. Will Hunter (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Geography - Papua and New Guinea
Port Moresby, and the entire Track through Kokoda to Buna and Gona was in the Territory of Papua which, technically, was then part of Australia with its administration based in Port Moresby. New Guinea is a term loosely used to describe the whole island and surrounding islands, but which consisted of Papua, The Mandated Territory of New Guinea (administered by Australia from Rabaul) and Dutch New Guinea. This is why the Papuan Infantry Batallion was at Kokoda, and the New Guinea Volunteer Rifles were at Lae and Salamaua.

--202.6.56.2 04:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Blakkekatte

Actually, the Papuan Infantry Battalion fought at Lae and Salamaua in 1943. Hawkeye7 21:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Running Rabbits Incident
User:123.136.46.98 writes: It is nonsense to speak of the Australian troops eating "lettuce" How could they eat lettuce, when lettuce would have had to come over 2000 miles away?

It's called a Reefer (ship) - a ship with a refrigerated hold. These were used to transport fresh fruit and vegetables from Australia to the troops in Papua-New Guinea.

The Army also ran its own farms around Port Moresby and Wau, which supplied hospitals with fresh produce.

However, the only camp hospital in the area was the 46th Camp Hospital, which closed in September 1942. Hawkeye7 20:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:WLRoss writes: ''My father was one of the patients and told me this story in much more detail. It is accepted as true by Australian historians.''

If it is accepted by historians, please provide an appropriate citation.

Given that this incident portrays members of the 7th Division in a bad light, and that some of them may still be alive, we have to bear in mind the Wiki policy that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles".

I regret that your father's testimony is a "primary source". Please provide an appropriate citation. Hawkeye7 20:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don’t agree that it shows the 7th in a bad light as these men were outnumbered 10/1, had no artillery (which the Japanese had plenty off) yet held the Japanese back. The Japanese were elite marines with 5 years experience in jungle warfare and wore jungle camouflage while the Australians were still in summer weight desert uniforms and had no jungle training at all. To put it in perspective these men had run out of food 6 weeks earlier (most of the patients were in the hospital for malnutrition not wounds) and had not just low ammunition but almost no ammunition. It is documented that one company had only a revolver and a single rifle with 4 bullets between them and many soldiers armed themselves with rocks and home made spears (this was the retreat to Menari). They should have gotten medals not condemnation. Wayne 02:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The story is recounted in Peter Brunes book "A Bastard of a Place". My father told me this story many times over the last 30 years as he was particularly proud of "sticking it up Blamey". In fact it was the only story he would tell of Kokoda as he didn’t like to remember the fighting and the first time he told it to me was when he read that Potts had died. According to him the nurses told the patients what had happened on the parade ground and this added to the anger of the troops who were already upset that Potts had been replaced. Then when they were told blamey was coming to see them the nurses smuggled in lettuce as it was not part of the normal diet. Blamey was furious.


 * I've added a citation to Brune's book, which confirms the entire paragraph. 'A Bastard of a Place' was well recieved and is regarded as highly reliable, though I do doubt that Brune's claim that Blamey's speech was "the greatest dressing down of all time" is accurate! --Nick Dowling 06:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect it is accurate as, although my father did not witness the parade ground speach, he said the troops were very close to mutiny and actually broke ranks. Potts was extremely popular with his men and Blamey was hated with a passion for calling the soldiers cowards. My father also hated McArthur and from what the guys at the RSL have to say about him I'm surprised he (and blamey) didn't lose the war for us single handed. Brunes book is excellent and until I read it I suspected my father of exaggeration but Brune recounted several things my father told me about. Wayne 15:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Brune also confirms that the troops were extreamly angry during the parade and had to be controlled by their officers. Re MacArthur and Blamey: I think that Brune is unfair to both of them as the Kokoda Track campaign was as much a learning experiance for the generals as it was for the soldiers. Both generals performed poorly, but learned from their experiances and proved to be highly successful. It's notable that nothing like the battle of Gona-Buna occured again, with MacArthur side-stepping Japanese fortifications whenever possible. --Nick Dowling 22:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Generals are promoted on their experience and existing knowledge ( what they've learnt on the job already) its NOT a work experience placement. Proberton (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Netherlands?
I'm a bit suprised to see that the Netherlands is in the infobox as one of the combatants. What role did Dutch forces play in this campaign? AFAIK, the Dutch/NEI forces in Australia were reorganising at this stage of the war. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * KNILM aircrew serving with the US 374th TCG. I'm thinking now that this contingent is too small. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been reminded of Dutch crews of the Lilliput fleet - Bantam, Balikpapan, Bontekoe, Jepara etc. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm following User:Svlah2 reverting his changes. This user seems to have a bee in his bonnent about removing the US from Australian history. I wasn't making any comment about the Netherlands involvement. Brettr (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

American Flag
I've been vocal on the matter of Americans and their distinct absence on the track itself but even I think this edit war on the removal/restoration of the US flag on this page is ridiculous. On a technicality and most reluctantly at that, Macarthur's leadership- inept, incompetent and arrogant as it is - means the flag should be included, even though no Americans set foot on the track ( although participating in the subsequent battle at Buna-Gona-Sanananda ) Can we lock the article PLEASE?!Proberton (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The flag was in recognition of the Fifth Air Force, which flew transport and combat operations in support of the fighting on the track. Since USAAF transport aircraft landed at Kokoda, some Americans did set foot on the track. (MacArthur himself went as far as Owen's Corner.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the USAAF played a vital role throughout this campaign. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * MacArthur was a commander so the flag is appropriate for that. The USAAF and Netherlands did play a role so maybe their flags in "Belligerents" should have (support) alongside to make everyone happy and avoid the implication it was major role. Wayne (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say it, as I've been VERY vocal on the subject but I agree. Proberton (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The role of the ground forces was to defend the port and air bases at Port Moresby, and to capture the port (at Oro Bay) and airbase sites (at Dodbodura) around Buna. Whether it was the ground force or the air force that was "in support" is debatable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Australian strength
The info box says 30,000 Australian troops took part in the Kokoda Track Campaign. This is true. However the Kokoda Track Campaign included all the other battles in New Guinea through to 1945. On the other hand, the casualties in the info box is correct for the track itself, but not for the entire campaign. This article is only concerned with the period from July 1942 to January 1943 so I changed the number to how many fought in this date range. Wayne (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have set the figures back the way they were - with a citation added for you. The figures are for September 1942. They are not for the entire New Guinea campaign - this would be substantially higher for both sides. Australian strength alone in New Guinea hit 140,000 in late 1943. The casualties are only up to November 1942; they would be double four times as great if the fighting around Gona-Buna were included. I have changed the date in the info box - the article does not cover Buna-Gona, which is in a separate article.


 * Criticism of the campaign at the time - alluded to but not detailed in the article - was that General Blamey had "packed Papua with troops" all of which would inevitably be lost when the Japanese switched overwhelming air strength to New Guinea and cut them off. Now I'm sensing a myth that the Allies were outnumbered in Papua. (Is there a similar myth about Malaya?) Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

On my recent trek of the Track ( sorry I couldn't help throwing that in lol) I took photos of the memorials at Kokoda Station that listed the following statistics ( which are estimates only mind you) :

Australians on Kokoda 7,500 ( killed 625)(wounded 1,055)

Proberton (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I worked out 8,000 myself from counting the battalion strengths involved but put in 10,000 to cover error as some brigade strenghts were not clear. Only 7,500 (I accept this as accurate if it's on the memorial) actually took part in the track defense and no more than half that at any one time. Should we count those that arrived after 1942? Why do we include those units at Milne Bay who do not claim Kokoda battle honours? Keep in mind that the Japanese forces there are not included in the infobox total for this article. It would be correct to count only those units that actually claim battle honours for the Kokoda Track and that number is under 10,000. Wayne (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Info boxes always list the strengths of the two opposing armies. It would be very wrong to list only frontline strength. (The Australian WWII SWPA division slice was 31,000 so the strength implies nine infantry battalions.) The Japanese figure does indeed also include Milne Bay. I'll see if I can find a good figure for the size of opposing forces at Milne Bay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Until the Kokoda Track battles ended the total of Australian troops in New Guinea was, i believe, only around 15,000 (including Milne Bay). You are also over estimating Australian Battalion strength. Eleven battalions claim Kokoda battle honours with these battalions consisting of around 7,500 troops. Six battalions have Milne Bay honours and these total around 5,000 troops. The majority of the "missing" 15,000 didn't arrive in New Guinea until mid to late 1943 to take part in the Salamaua-Lae campaign. I feel it is wrong to include these in the article as they were not even in the country for Kokoda. If you check the other battles such as Milne Bay and Buna-Gona they only list participants not the total number of troops in New Guinea. Wayne (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The 30,000 were all present in Papua in September 1942, as per the reference. (I also have the actual strength returns here.) Why calculate when we know the correct figure? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The same plaque lists the Japanese strength on the Track at 13,5000, at Buna-Gona at 9,000 with a total of 12,000 dead from 22,500 troops. Regarding Milne Bay, I always thought it was considered a separate theatre. This article deals with the Kokoda Track Campaign, there were several other campaigns in |[PNG] including |[Milne Bay] which have their own well established articles. I'd actually encourage a narrowing the scope of this article to exclude |[Buna-Gona-Sanananda] as it has an article of its own here too. Thoughts? Proberton (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The article indeed does not cover the "subsequent battle of Buna-Gona". Milne Bay was not a different theatre - troops there were part of New Guinea Force. We are arbitrarily excluding them from what the Wikipedia calls the "Kokoda Campaign". This creates our problem with the sources, which lump them together.


 * Okay, I hadn't realised that. I haven't read anything of Milne Bay so I really can't contribute. I'm supposing that someone who came by this article by way of the PNG article would have an idea of the scope ( and could also navigate back through it to other articles). Off the top of my head I can't remember if there's a "see also" that could direct to the Buna-Gona article. Probably the most convenient way to address the issue? Proberton (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thoughts? Fellow battlefield traveller! I am afraid that plaques are, unfortunately, often utter nonsense. Did you visit the Western Front too? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh I heartily agree that a plaque is completely a law unto itself unless it cites its sources, and this one certainly lacks that. I went back and checked the photo again in hope that it did. I'm not so much a battefield traveller as a hiker with a warped sense of fun! Hiking Kokoda has always been a pipedream. Gallipoli or Ypres might be next on the list though. Proberton (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Red link
The article contains several red links. Editors involved in this page should create the respective articles.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've created Dwight Johns. Your turn. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Battalion Strength
Without clarification people reading the article will assume that when battalions are mentioned they would be around the standard American strength of 1,000 troops. The standard Australian battalion strength was 800 and even this was rarely achieved. The eleven battalions that fought at Kokoda consisted of 7,500 men in total when they first landed in New Guinea (this number is supported by the War Memorial) with some battalions barely over 400 men. I added battalion strengths as a note along with a reference and it was reverted by Nick-D. Shouldn't this be included so the reader knows how many troops the article is talking about? Wayne (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, but the material you added was incorrect, and the reference (to somebody's self-published website) is unreliable. You stated what the nominal infantry strength of the battalions' rifle companies was, but left out the men in the battalions' support/headquarters company (which included machine gun and mortar platoons which were an important part of the battalions' firepower - particularly in milita battalions which often (always?) had an integral machine gun company) and as you note stating the nominal strength is misleading given that battalions rapidly lost their strength in New Guinea during 1942. Could you please cite the AWM figure? Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the AWM a standard infantry battalion prior to 1941 was 29 Officers and 1007 Other Ranks. In 1941 the number was reduced to 33 officers and 759 Other Ranks and this included battalion headquarters, a separate headquarters company, administration, pioneer, carrier, signals, anti aircraft, medical, mortar and machine gun platoons. All the battalions that went to New Guinea were already under strength from fighting in the Middle East and averaged 680 men each. Fighting strength (subtracting those who stayed in Port Moresby was 450 - 550. I point out that the 39th battalion strength was 1068 yet only the 406 actually deployed to Kokoda are credited. Wayne (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for that. The best approach would probably to add a footnote with the entire nominal strength and organisation of a battalion (sourced back to the AWM/offical histories) and insert the actual strength of battalions into the article's text as appropriate. I've got some references on the organisation of Japanese units and might be able to find some stuff on their actual strengths from Steven Ballard's excellent translation of the Japanese official history. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Change Terms WP:WEIGHT
[1]. Retreat to Withdrawing

This change brings the term back to the original army terminology. The Australian Army does NOT use the work retreat in this context. The orders always say “Withdraw”, and in regards to the Kokoda campaign it was a “fighting withdrawal”. The Australian army tactics are: attack, ambush, defence, withdrawal, & patrolling etc - SEE: Operations. Supplement to military training pamphlet (Australia) No. 23 XX Jungle warfare (Provisional) Notes for platoon and section commanders, (Melbourne, 1943) - REF  Vufors (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine with me, but I imagine that there were some cases where the Australian Army was retreating. Wikipedia obviously isn't bound by the Australian Army's style guide. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As an outside observer, can't see much wrong with that.

[2]. Battallion to BN

This is a common worldwide used simplification of the word. And in this changes the complexity of the text and is a space management tool. Thus BN is a long standing abbreviation of the word. Once the word Battalion has be noted in full it should has been summarised as BN.Vufors (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with that. 'BN' isn't normally used by military historians and other authors, who always use the full 'battalion'. For instance, if you read the text of the official history rather than just the glossary the official historians consistently use 'battalion' instead of BN/Bn, 'brigade' instead of BDE/Bde, etc. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nick - I've never seen BN used in wiki or in more than a very few history texts.
 * Agree with Nick. We are not writing for military historians and the use of a lot of abbreviations (especially in capital letters) will not improve the readability of the article. Bandwidth saved will be negligible. You'd need to use it 1,000 times to make up for the Wikipedia image. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

[3]. Track to Trail

The word TRAIL carries a greater accuracy & WP:WEIGHT. For the following citations for TRAIL are:

Vufors (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is the original name for the passage post 1950s. - Life and people in New Guinea - 'Kokoda Trail' memorial - Cu 1079/1 (Vol 4, page 49) Date : 1950 IMAGE National Archive & NAA
 * 1941 - [Military History Section (War Records) - Special Histories, Interviews and Narratives:] Studies in the History of the South West Pacific Area, Chapter I - Establishment of Command, Papuan Campaign; Chapter II - Halting the Japanese, Coral Sea, Kokoda Trail, Milne Bay; Chapter III - Clearing Papua - Series number AWM54 Control symbol 492/4/53 - Contents date range 1941 - National Archives of Australia
 * 1942 map
 * It was used on all Colours & Battle Honours Australian www.defence.gov.au - NO TRACK! For example  39th Inf BN Listed as - South West Pacific 1942-43, Kokoda Trail, Kokoda-Deniki, Isurava, Eora Creek-Templeton's Crossing I, Buna-Gona, Gona, Sanananda Road, Amboga River At bottom
 * DOC - Medals - Medals for Kokoda Trail - Series number MP742/1 - Control symbol 81/1/781 - Contents date range 1946 - National Archives of Australia
 * DOC - Public Relations Bulletin - RAAF flies new bomber - havocs blast Kokoda Trail - Series number A8681 - Control symbol 1942/1766 - Contents date range 16 Oct 1942 - National Archives of Australia
 * DOC - Evacuation of Sick and Wounded - From Front Line: New Guinea Campaign. Extract from medical appreciation, Capt Vernon on the Kokoda Trail. Collection and evacuation of wounded from the front line Series number AWM54 - Control symbol 29/2/4 - Contents date range 1943 - National Archives of Australia NOTE - Dr Veron was the BN Doctor for the 39th Inf BN.
 * BOOK - The first book on the Kokoda Trail Paull, Raymond. Retreat From Kokoda, William Heinemann Ltd, 1958, pp319 – uses the word TRAIL and has a chapter devoted to it Ch6 p34.
 * IMAGE 1960s - It was the TRAIL –
 * MAPS 1970s - [Owen Stanleys:] Maps and description of Kokoda Trail prepared by Department of Territories for use of intending travellers on the trail, 1970 - Series number AWM54 Control symbol - 577/1/2 Contents date range 1970 - National Archives of Australia
 * TODAY – It is still marked as the Trail – SEE
 * TOURIST SERVICES – Use Trail SEE www.kokodatrail.com.au/
 * MUD MAP – Of the Trail in PNG
 * Australian War Memorial (AWM) Collection -
 * OFFICIAL MEMORIAL – &


 * On the other hand the Macquarie Dictionary states that 'track' is the more common word and its also used in hundreds of references. The Oxford Companion to Australian History states that while it was commonly called the 'trail' after WW2 and this name was selected by the Commonwealth Battles Nomenclature Committee, 'track' has become common since the 1980s. The relevant guideline here is probably WP:NAME which calls for the most common name to normally be used, and this is probably 'track' based on the Macquarie Dictionary. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, support Nick, per WP:NAME. Skinny87 (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My recently deceased father had a collection of books (I suppose I have them now) from during and just after WWII. When I'm visiting Mum tomorrow I'll have a look and see how the track was referred to during the war. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Battles Nomenclature Committee

From the Australian War Memorial site - Australian Military Units - Kokoda Trail Campaign - ""Kokoda Trail" and "Kokoda Track" have been used interchangeably since the Second World War and the former [RE: preceding in place or arrangement & first in order of two ] was adopted by the Battles Nomenclature Committee as the official British Commonwealth battle honour in October 1957. &  Vufors (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (disclaimer: I was pointed to here from Australian Wikipedians' notice board). That (Australian War Memorial) sounds pretty convincing for "trail". While WP:NAME says to use the most common, we should also strive for correctness, and I think we should follow the most official name ("trail") when two are roughly equal in usage. FWIW, I thought "trail" and my 14 year old thought "track", but neither of us were certain. :) Peter Ballard (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the AWM is spot on:There has been a considerable debate about whether the difficult path that crossed the Owen Stanley Range should be called the "Kokoda Trail" or the "Kokoda Track". Both "Trail" and "Track" have been in common use since the war. "Trail" is probably of American origin but has been used in many Australian history books and was adopted by the Australian Army as an official "Battle Honour". "Track" is from the language of the Australian bush. It is commonly used by veterans, and is used in the volumes of Australia's official history. Both terms are correct, but "Trail" appears to be used more widely.
 * The AWM's page on the campaign is actually titled Kokoda Trail Campaign. For the record, I would have supported "track", since that's how I hear it referred to by the people who were actually involved but the AWM is a reliable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAME - News, Search & Scholar

Google Search
 * "Kokoda Trail" = 179,000
 * "Kokoda Track" = 77,600

Google Scholar
 * "Kokoda Trail" = 285
 * "Kokoda Track" = 139

AGE - Last 12 months
 * "Kokoda Trail" = 87 docs
 * "Kokoda Track" = 50 docs

Sydney Morning Herald
 * "Kokoda Trail" site:smh.com.au = 184 docs
 * "Kokoda Track" site:smh.com.au = 152 docs

TIMES (London)
 * "Kokoda Trail" = 10 docs
 * "Kokoda Track" = 5 docs

National Library Of Australia
 * "Kokoda Trail" = 55
 * "Kokoda Track" = 13

Monash University Australia - Library Vufors (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Kokoda Trail" = 21
 * "Kokoda Track" = 7

While I realise you're very keen for this change, including the result of Google searches is never a good idea. Google search results are not considered to be reliable sources. There are many reasons why this is the case but this is not the place to discuss it. The last entry on the first page of the search for "kokoda Trail" does give an insight though. It's titled "Map of the Kokoda Track". (emphasis added) --AussieLegend (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've always used "Kokoda Trail" to refer to the route (and military operations) in WWII, and "Kokoda Track" to refer to the route people hike on nowadays. As far as sources go, I think the Australian War Memorial is about as definitive as it gets and if they say it's the Kokoda Trail, I'm inclined to go with that. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Animation Link of the Kokoda Campaign
I had included an external link of a detailed flash animation that depicts the Kokoda Track Campaign including a news broadcast. The link is on the site is PacificWarAnimated.com and it was reviewed (and changes were made as a result) by James Bowen who has the Kokoda Campaign external link on the Wiki article. You may see the animation here Battle for New Guinea. The link was deleted stating it did not comply with Wiki link policy. I believe it does comply with policy as it is a non-commercial site which promotes nothing (it has the tiniest Google add possible to ensure that Google examines the site). I have carefully examined the Wiki policy and believe the link complies fully.

I would like undo the deletion if that is OK. I believe that an animation of the campaign adds greatly to the understanding. It is another way of viewing the material. I would be happy to just add the animation directly to the article, but there is no way to do so. James Bowen remarked to me when he reviewed it that he felt that it was the best way to depict a campaign.

Please consider and let me know if that is acceptable. RespectfullyGeorge11Williams (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for discussing this. However, I think that this link fails the first two criteria at WP:ELNO. This article should contain the same kind of content and your site doesn't cite its sources and contains some inaccuracies (eg, a photo of Japanese troops disembarking from trucks at Kokoda and a claim that Gona-Buna was defended by 'marines'). Other editors may have different views though. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Per the WP:ELNO comment: 1) The material does provide a unique resource beyond the article and does cover the same material. It covers it in a slightly broader context showing the overall situation as well as the specific campaign. The most recent issue of WWII magazine recommends the material describing it as "a bird's eye view of Japanese and American military units as they hopscotch around the great chessboard of the Pacific" and Armchair General magazine said in October that "You could read several books and never get the same comprehension of the overall battles as with these animations.".  A note from a high school teacher in Joplin, MO two days ago thanked me saying "it provides kids with a new way to look at history".  2) Per your good suggestion, I added a sources page to the introduction (a good idea). And to the two inaccuracies a) the photo is from a external link on the article at this time "The Kokoda Campaign" so that link should be deleted as well. And I corrected the "marines" word - a typo.  Any time a correction is suggested I validate it and immediately make the correction if it is correct.  The material is used by the US Navy and US Military Academny for traing as well as being used by dozens of universities (it is on the curriculum for the University of Singapore) as well as being used by hundreds of schools.  A recent Note from a teacher in France: "This is just what I needed to clearly show the Pacific theatre to my students, as an introduction to what they will produce in a geopolitics school project."  Please reconsider and take a second look. George11Williams (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes
As the Japanese withdrew it was found that many of the enemy had died of malnutrition with evidence that some Japanese had been reduced to eating wood, grass, roots and other inedible material. Australian soldiers were also confronted with evidence of cannibalism. Dead and wounded soldiers who had been left behind in the Australian retreat from Templton Crossing were stripped of flesh.
 * Moved from article:

Soldiers testified that the Japanese had not run short of rations having uncovered rice dumps and significant amounts of tinned food. The Japanese were also responsible for the execution of three nuns, a priest, layworkers and their children shortly after their arrival on the island. Witnesses stated that the Japanese executed the children last, after beheading their parents. There was not enough evidence to bring formal charges at the Tokyo War Crimes trial with regards to the claims of cannibalism.

There are two references bundled together, the book and the website, I only read the latter and would not regard it as RS for this extraordinary claim. It is common practice to claim that an enemy does monstrous things, for propaganda or sensationalist books after the event. The last line, also uncited, states "not enough evidence", but it is presented here as fact. Is the basis of this inclusion the still extant view that the "Japs" are 'not like us'? The almost universal abhorrence of cannibalism, especially as a preference, makes claims of it frequent when attempting to dehumanise an enemy; it is an effective motivator when asking someone to kill other people. These claims need better sources and careful wording if they are to be included at all. cygnis insignis 05:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is sufficient objective evidence of Japanese cannibalism on New Guinea during WWII to justify mention of the practice without demonizing the Japanese. I am reverting the change and adding a couple of what I believe are substantive references. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article did say that soldiers "resorted" to canabalism when starving ("malnutrition" was used as euphemism): at present it says that they "engaged" in canabilism. A subtle difference, but one that I think demonizes the Japanese.203.206.162.148 (talk) 09:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Kokoda Track campaign
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kokoda Track campaign's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "campbell": From George Marshall:  From 32nd Infantry Division (United States):  From Kapa Kapa Trail:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've manually fixed this, however, as with the bot I am not sure which is correct. I've taken a guess in order to get rid of the red cite error that was appearing in the references section, however, I don't know the page number that the reference was taken from as I didn't originally add the info or the in line citation. Please help if you can by adding the page number to Citation # 24 (Campell 2007). Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed
I've gone through the article and added citations where I could find them. I've also added citation needed tags where I feel a citation is needed in order to get the article up to B class standard, but for which I haven't been able to find anything yet. Please help if you can, cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The citations also need to be given a uniform style to make the article ready for GA status at some point. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Aaargh. It takes nearly as long to dig up a reference as to write it in the first place. If people must create start class articles, they should at least upload lots of pix. I can salvage them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I've completed adding in all the citations, formatting them, adding alt text, etc. There are two references that need page numbers, however. One is David Horner's book about Blamey and the other is Willmott's book. I've put a "page needed" tag near the citations in question. Can anyone help with this? Also does anyone have any more suggestions for improvements? I'm thinking of putting it up for a peer review and then maybe a GA or ACR, but I'm a bit wary of those as I'll be very busy soon. But anyway, does anyone object to putting the article through these processes? — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No objection from me, good work so far. Anotherclown (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Eora Creek battlefield found
Lost WWII battlefield found in Papua New Guinea. Cla68 (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Another article. Cla68 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Malnutrition"
The term "Malnutrition" has been used in this article to describe the frank starvation of Japanese soldiers in PNG. But then it's been linked to the Wikepedia article Malnutrition, which is explicitly about "an unbalanced diet" it's even got "overeating is also a form of malnutrion". Since I think we can agree that overeating was not a problem in the PNG campaign, could we please use an unambiguous term?218.214.18.240 (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

/* Background */ An Australian perspective on events leading up to the Kakoda trail
I (as others in the discussion) take issue with the idea that MacArthur "decided to build up forces in  New Guinea". There is a period of 6 months when Australia is on its own, and whether or not there was any intention by the Japanese of invading Australia, it certainly seemed like it at the time, and had the effect of bringing the troops back for Europe. The point of the Kokoda Trail legend is that the 39th was not a front line force by any means. Indeed MacArthur was seen as badly treating the Australian troops (via Blainey) for no purpose History of the Australian Army as the Japanese threat disappeared with the Corral Sea battle and hardened professional soldiers in large numbers were on the way. An orderly retreat was exactly what was needed. As MacArthur had lost all his American ground forces in the Philipines, his only option for glory was these poor bastards. Perhaps anotherclown could put back the references he/she has removed and work the text to reflect the concerns addressed by the original post on this subject.

ps The attack on Darwin was bigger than that on Pearl Harbor btw (same force plus 40 or so land based aircraft) the threat was real even if it was a deception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.9.245 (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with AnotherClown's reversion of the material you added here. The material you added was full of errors (for instance, none of the AIF divisions were in Europe and the 8th Division had been in Malaya since mid-1941, MacArthur arrived in Australia in early 1942, as did two US Army divisions and some air units and the Brisbane Line as it's generally thought of is basically a myth invented by the Curtin Government to beat up on their political opponents). Through intelligence gained from code breaking the Australian Government was aware that the Japanese didn't plan on invading Australia from early 1942 onwards and by the time the Kokoda Campaign started the Allies were preparing to go on the offensive against the Japanese. The failings of the two Australian battalions first sent to the Kokoda Track didn't have anything to do with MacArthur - it was the Australian Army and Australian Government's fault that these two woefully under-trained units were sent into action. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the raid on Darwin (242 aircraft) was smaller than that on Pearl Harbor (353 aircraft). It involved only four of the six aircraft carriers used on the latter operation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I would still like to improve the article by explaining why the Australian Army and Australian Government sent two woefully under-trained units into action. Even if there was no intent by the Japanese forces to invade, it certainly looked like it. To say that the Australian Government knew about it through code breaking doesn't make any sense - why retrieve the two divisions from the European Theatre if there was no threat? Having a "Brisbane line" makes perfectly good military sense; as does sending the militia in. It does not make sense to leave them there as front line troops as MacArthur / Blaney wanted them to. An orderly withdraw - which is what happened ultimately - could have been more orderly if the command had been up to it. This is not just my opinion - it is the (possibly misguided) opinion of many Australians. lets document and clarify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.9.245 (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And .. correcting the errors: you are right; The 8th goes in 1941 with a perceived Japanese threat; The 6th 7yh and 9th divisions were in Egypt - the point being that there are only Australian Militia in SE Asia after Singapore falls and the baulk of American Forces were left in the Philipines; MacAuthur was put in charge of Australian Troops on April 18 after arriving in March 17 ref   Meanwhile the 39th Battalion was formed in Oct 1941, and Shipped to New Guinea in January. Singapore fell and Darwin was bombed in mid February. It is not until June that they are sent up the track. This, granted, is under MacAuthur's command. They arrive to defend the Kokoda air strip a week before "a large Japanese force lands in Gona" ref. The viet cong would have "melted into the jungle" to fight another day - a battle they could win - rather than having 80 men defend the air strip.143.167.9.245 (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer your questions in chronological order:
 * A series of conservative Australian Governments between the wars skimped on defence spending between the wars. The danger from Japan was appreciated, but they adopted the Singapore Strategy as a means of pushing the cost onto the British, and starved the Army and RAAF of resources, putting the majority of spending into the RAN. For ideological reasons, they also dismantled critical infrastructure like the Australian National Line. Even after the war began, the government dragged it feet on the production of new weapons, hoping that the Australian Army could be equipped on the cheap from British sources. Also, a switch to priority for the Army and RAAF would have been conceding that the Labor Party was right all along and the Coalition was wrong. The Labor Party was only in office for a short time in this period; its contribution to the unpreparedness was abolishing conscription in 1929.
 * When the war began, the Menzies government had a choice between building up the defence of Australia and sending an expeditionary force overseas. It chose to do both, although it was aware that the country had the resources to accomplish neither. What that meant was that while the conscript Militia was built up in numbers, it lacked equipment for some time, and the AIF cherry picked many of the best leaders. Units were left to their own devices, and quality therefore varied greatly, depending on what leaders remained. However, while it was easy to judge the state of a unit's stores and equipment, it was not so easy to measure its leadership, training or discipline. Later, Blamey would cross-post large numbers of veteran AIF officers to the Militia to correct this.
 * The 6th and 7th Divisions were sent from the Middle East to defend Indonesia.
 * After the fall of Singapore, there were still AIF units in SE Asia, the remaining parts of the 8th Division, defending Ambon, Rabaul and Timor.
 * Initially, the Allied posture was defensive, but this changed after the Battle of Midway. MacArthur then intended to attack Rabaul with three American and one Australian division (the 7th). There were a large number of logistical, practical and planning difficulties with this concept. In the end, the Japanese moved first, and the Allies lost the initiative.
 * To forestall the Japanese landing at Buna, and to commence using it as an Allied jump off point, the 39th Battalion was ordered to occupy it. There was a good possibility that this would have worked. However, the logistics of how to move a force, even such a small one, over the mountains had yet to be grappled with, and the appropriate degree of urgency was not conveyed to the men in the field. Because it was not done, they became involved instead in a long fight along the track and then a knock down, drag out battle to recapture Buna.
 * The air strips around Port Moresby had to be held. Without them, the Allied position in Papua was untenable. Melting away was not an option. Nor was the other plan that many Australians believed was the best option at the time, the "Tobruk strategy" whereby a tight perimeter was held around Port Moresby. The retreat looked to MacArthur much like the one in Malaya, with its abandoning of crucial logistical infrastructure like Kokoda airstrip. This reflected another flaw in the Australian Army's inadequate training between the wars. Fortunately, the Japanese broke off the drive down the Track.
 * All of this should be made clear in the article but it needs a lot of work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The point I think the article fails to make is why here it says "Today, many Australians acknowledge the Kokoda campaign and the 39th Battalion's involvement as an example of one of the finest moments in the nation's collective spirit, and a symbol of its modern nationhood" Lets agree that the government policy of relying on Singapore failed, and it failed very quickly. At that point the Militia were put in harms way without equipment or training. Ideally the 8th division would be fighting that war but what remained of them was thinly spread, and the 6th and 7th were in transit. If it was known that the Japanese were thinking Pt Moresby (if they won at Midway then the front line would have been Brisbane) then, unless the command were idiots, the 8th would have been put in to kokoda. As it was the 39th ended up front line troops and they did a surprisingly good job - a job that, given MacAurthur's island hopping strategy, they should not have needed to do. Running away and giving the Japanese the logistics hell that kokoda was, was the right strategy and it could have been done with far less cost than it was. 143.167.9.245 (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Defending Australia was always the Militia's role, not the AIF's. They were intended as front line troops.
 * 2) The Army's lack of training and equipment was the result of decisions taken by the government between the wars and was endorsed by the people at the time.
 * 3) The 7th Division was not in transit, it was in Australia, earmarked for the attack on Rabaul.
 * 4) Retreating down the track not the correct strategy; it merely meant that the fight was on the Japanese's terms.
 * 5) The command were not idiots; the armchair strategists are. Putting the 7th Division on the track was not logistically feasible.
 * 6) The Japanese did not intend to invade Australia.
 * 7) And MacArthur's strategy was not "island hopping".

Addressing each point:


 * 1) yes but only "idiots" would deliberately put them up against a professional army.
 * 2) agreed if you replace "The Army" with "The Militia"
 * 3) By "in transit" I mean they were in the European Theatre as part of the British Empire, and the intention was to put them up against the Japanese. at some point there was a decision to attack Rabaul, but not until it was clear Japan was not going to attack Australian mainland
 * No, you do not want to try and supply an army over a track that was previously occupied by the enemy. The idea of fighting "battles" on a track is thought up by armchair generals - and historically, Americans from MacArthur to westmoreland
 * 1) agreed
 * But, while Australia was in charge of its own military, that was not known unless you can cite sources
 * 1) Yes it was - an excellent strategy by the way according to this armchair strategist - the "waste" was bothering to fight kokoda when the poor japanese soldiers there were cut off.

As you seem to know the time-line, when were each of the Australian divisions recalled, and when did they arrive/deployed? 143.167.9.245 (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) The Japanese Army was no more professional than its American or Australian counterparts. All were conscript mass armies. Read Drea, Miller and Grey.
 * 2) The PMF was very small and under-resourced. The AIF suffered from all the same problems as the Militia. Read through the Battle of Bardia article. Or better still, read Stocking.
 * 3) They did successfully supply a force over the Kokoda Track. And fight battles. And even win some. It was all a matter of proper organisation. Read Moremon.
 * 4) Peter Stanley has written a whole book on the subject of the purported Japanese invasion of Australia.
 * 5) The Japanese were not cut off. They withdrew down the track to Buna.
 * 1) Peter Stanley has written a whole book on the subject of the purported Japanese invasion of Australia.
 * 2) The Japanese were not cut off. They withdrew down the track to Buna.

The British government obtained permission from its Australian counterpart to send I Corps to Indonesia on 6 January 1942. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The 6th Division technically reached Fremantle on 10 March 1942, and proceeded to Darwin; but the 16th and 17th Infantry Brigades were diverted to Sri Lanka, and did not reach Australia until 4 August 1942
 * The 7th Division arrived in Adelaide on 14 March 1942
 * The 9th Division arrived at Fremantle on 18 February 1943


 * Just to add to Hawkeye's good response, the Australian government was informed in April 1942 that intercepted Japanese radio messages stated that they did not intend to invade Australia, though due to the secrecy around this source of intelligence this information was only disseminated to Curtin, Blamey and Shedden (Stanley 2008, p. 158). Following the US victories in the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway Curtin told the Advisory War Council on 16 June 1942 that he didn't think that the Japanese would invade, though raids remained possible (Stanley 2008, p. 181). The Japanese objective in the Kokoda Track campaign was to capture Port Moresby as a defensive bastion against Allied attacks on Rabaul, and not as the jumping off point for any attacks on Australia. Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * To elaborate a bit, the capture of Port Moresby would protect the flank of the planned Japanese thrust towards Fiji that was one prong of the "Second Operational Phase." These Japanese plans got shut down by the marginal defeat at Coral Sea and crushing defeat at Midway. --Yaush (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay so, the Australian government knew that the threat had gone in April, but the threat was there and real from the fall of Singapore to the time of Midway. It is well after the threat materialized that the remaining divisions are returned. This is independent of whether the Japanese intended to attack or not. Hawkeye how can you say that the 39th was as well equipt and trained as the main body of the Australian army. That is rediculous. And Okay, the Japanese withdrew down the track to Burma but the point is that the island hopping policy worked well and threatend to cut them off.

Thanks Yaush for the elaboration and that is fine for the point I would like this article to make: The Australian military did not know that Pt Moresby was an actual Japanese objective. This is why the 39th was put in there rather than battle hardened and equipt remaining elements of the 8th.

So the time line?:


 * 1) Singapore falls, effectively loosing the 8th division Feruary 15th, 1942
 * 2) Darwin is bombed.   Seriously - this is not simply harrassment February 19th, 1942
 * 3) The threat to Australia is perceived, if not real, and The Chocolate soldiers are sent off, some to Pt Moresby, a line is drawn somewhere out of Brisbane, and the trained troops are ordered back from the European theatre (Earliest - 6th and 7th - arrive March; 9th Feb 1943)
 * 4) MacAuthur takes control April 18th 1942
 * 5) Midway happens June 4-7 1942
 * 6) MacAuthur lands US troops on the north of PNG, bypassing Pt Moresby and making the losses in this campaign pointless.  November 1942
 * 7)  American "island hoping" continues until Hiroshima  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.9.245 (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that you should read a history of the Pacific War, as your chronology is rather flawed. You could start with the Military history of Australia during World War II article and follow up on its references (I recommend Gavin Long's summary of the official history The Six Years War as being the best single-volume work on Australia in the war, though it's a little outdated in some regards now). Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

My complaint is that this article does not explain why the Kokoda trail campain is so important to Australian identity as quoted and cited above. You all could help fix this omission. Nick-D I have added dates so you can check your own chronology. 143.167.9.245 (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, can I have another go at editing the background bit? As a first pass I won't remove any text, but will look much like the original that was removed. 143.167.9.245 (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course you can have a go, but please make sure that any material you add is accurate and cited to reliable sources (please see Citing sources for advice on how and when to add references). The material you added here contained a large number of inaccuracies, so re-adding it wouldn't be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Article length
I was wondering whether the article is starting to get too big and deals with all the battles along the track in one article rather than deal with the battles in periods or link to expanded individual battles or periods (if notable to warrant)? Seeing as this is a significant campaign within the scope of the Pacific campaign (especially for Australia), I would also like to see this article become GA and later FA. Comments. Newm30 (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The short answer is that the article is not too long. That is the least of its problems. The article is however still a long way from being GA. It still has a lot of problems with sourcing (a number of refs still have no page numbers), comprehensiveness, and general intelligibility. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Flanking manoeuvre fails
Should the title of this section be changed? it does not seem to suit Wikipedias style.Retrolord (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably - what wording do you suggest? Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal from the significance of the Kokoda Track campaign section
I've just removed a new para which was added to the 'Significance of the Kokoda Track campaign' as it was inaccurate. The campaign wasn't "the first time their invasion of an island had been resisted, stopped and repelled in contact" - the Japanese forces got ashore entirely successfully (and held a fair bit of New Guinea beforehand), and at the end of the campaign still held almost all of New Guinea's northern coastline, which took 18 months of campaigning by the Allies to partially liberate (with significant combat continuing until August 1945). It also wasn't the Allies' first land victory against the Japanese - there had been several important (but short-lived) tactical victories during the defensive fighting in Malaya and the Philippines, not to mention the bulk of the fighting in Guadalcanal Campaign also being conducted in this period. The claim that the terrain at Kokoda was as hostile as that around Stalingrad is impossible to prove or disprove (certainly the Germans and Soviets were capable of moving very quickly across that area when they got going), and the implied comparison of the results of this campaign to Stalingrad or El Alamein is dubious: both of those battles shattered significant parts of the Axis armies, while this engagement cost the Japanese the equivalent of a small division. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, there do seem to be a number of issues with that paragraph. Support removal for now as it would require significant revision and references before it would be suitable for inclusion here. Anotherclown (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A lot of problems in one small paragraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Spinning off child articles
G'day all, I am considering spinning off an article about the Battle of Brigade Hill, and was wondering about the thoughts of others regarding spinning-off child articles from this one? It seems to me that there would be scope for articles on the Battle of Ioribaiwa Ridge, Battle for Templeton's Crossing, as well as the Battle of Kokoda, Battle for Isurava, and possibly the withdrawal to Eora Creek. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea to me. There's a huge literature on these engagements which can be drawn on. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, PM, I had planned to have a crack at this myself later in the year as it has been something I've been meaning to do for years, but I think I will probably be too busy to do a good job of it. So, I'd be very keen to see what you can come up with. Thanks for taking this on. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 20:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes this is a good idea given the depth of literature available in the area and would certainly improve our coverage of the topic. Anotherclown (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have just scored a copy of The Path of Infinite Sorrow (Collie and Marutani) at the local market today, which should be helpful with these articles. I also have Bastard of a Place (Brune), Blood and Iron (McAulay), and Pacific Fury (Thompson), and, of course, Keogh's South-West Pacific. Please ping me when you are comfortable with whatever draft you are developing and I will see if I can help out. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day all, I've created Campaignbox Kokoda Track. Not completely wedded to the battles selected, and would welcome any feedback. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day all, I've created Battle of Mission Ridge – Brigade Hill now. To be honest, it was a bit of a rush job, so it can definitely be improved/expanded. I am thinking about working on the other articles in the template over the next few weeks or so. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've done Ioribaiwa and Oivi–Gorari now also. I have a busy three to six weeks or so at work coming up, so I'm not sure how much writing I will get done in that time, but my intention is to eventually create Battle of Kokoda to encompass both the first and second battles; the Battle of Isurava (removing the redirect) and the Battle of Eora Creek – Templeton's Crossing, with the last article covering both the fighting during the Australian withdrawal, and then during the Japanese withdrawal/Australian pursuit. If anyone is keen to work on one or more of these, please feel free. I haven't started drafts of any of these, so there's no need to worry about duplicated effort. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I've finished this now, having completed Battle of Kokoda and Battle of Isurava. I will probably take a break from them for a while, and then maybe look to work on one or two for GA. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Better Map needed
The discussion is almost impossible to follow without a passable map. Even if someone annotated the existing maps that would be great.Tuntable (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've replaced one of the Japanese maps with File:Kokoda trail NE at top.jpg now. Does that help? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

49th Battalion
The only involvement of the 49th I have been able to find is the attempted landing of a Company (and mortars of the 39th) at about 27th July, during the first engagement at Kokoda. Intend deleting other references to 49th. A platoon of D Coy 39th arrived earlier but further landing next day did not occur after Owens prematurely abandoned Kokoda (just before first engagement at Kokoda. 2 companies of 53rd preceded Honnor's arrival in advance of HQ 30th Brigade with balance of 53rd but this was after Deniki? Intend making changes per this. Comments pls Cinderella157 (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, can you please specify exactly which references to the 49th you are talking about removing? Brune p. 108 also mentions the 49th on 9 August during the second engagement. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * A search for"49th" returns 4 hits. Two of these refer to the 49th being deployed along the track as part of 30th Brigade.  It is these two specifically.  The other two refer to almost two identical incidents during the first and second engagements.  I have confirmed the first in the NGF war diary.  I am a little concerned that these are not, in fact, the same incident. I am looking into this a bit more though. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, removal of those two mentions seems fair enough to me, thanks for pointing this out. I believe that the 49th was largely employed in patrols between the Goldie and Laloki Rivers during this time. I agree there are distinct similarities regarding the two mentions of the abortive flying in of the 49th Bn. I've ordered Williams' The Kokoda Campaign 1942: Myth and Reality from the library and will check the ref to the 49th during the first engagement when it arrives in a week or two, but Brune 2003/2004 p. 108 does mention an attempt to fly the 49th in during the second engagement on 9 August. Thompson's Pacific Fury p. 326 also mentions this incident on 9 August (but does not mention the 49th Bn specifically). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can confirm an NGF op order for the first attempt and in McCarthy. I am seeing an attempt to resupply A Coy by air in NGF diary and 39th diary but no reference to attempt to land reinforcements nor any ref in 49th diary. A drop was made on the 11th(?), after A Coy had withdrawn. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Keogh p. 180 mentions the drop of supplies which fell straight into the hands of the Japanese. Collie & Marutani p. 77 also mentions this drop of supplies following the withdrawal. Regarding the mention of the 49th Bn in the second engagement, I agree it seems very unclear in the sources if there was a second attempt. Brune uses the words "...when a plane circled the village and airstrip during mid-morning the following day and dropped nothing, and worse, reported to Port Moresby that the enemy were in close proximity...any hope Symington had of the 49th Battalion reinforcing hm from that centre was dashed". I've attempted to reword now. Please feel free to adjust further if you think it needs more. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems a more appropriate circumspect was of dealing with this. I note that there was an air recce conducted am(?)) of 10th to try to establish Symington's situation. McCarthy's account appears out by a day, stating A Coy occupied Kokoda midday 9th - not 10th.  Still looking into this more. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I have removed other references to 49th having been deployed up the track. Wasn't certain as to when the strength of 400 was. It probably doesn't include 53rd coys and certainly doesn't include any of the 49th. Adjust further if you think it needs more. I am assuming that this remains consistent with references already in place. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The plot thickens
@AustralianRupert, When I originally confirmed the flight in the NGF diary, I had not confirmed exactly who was on it. Please see where I am working on this. If I am reading the sources (such as McC p 128-129; Anderson p34) state that the flight occurred on the 28 July.

The primary sources are consistent. The flight that did not land (as barricades were being removed) did not occur on 28 July as 39th Bn was reoccupying Kokoda but on 27 July, as Owen was abandoning Kokoda. The flight did not contain the 49th but D Coy 39th Bn. The arrangements for the 49th Bn were to occur on 29th July - after Owen was killed and Kokoda was abandoned in the early (dark) hours of 29 July. NGF war diary indicates arrangements made for coy of 49th Bn to reinforce were made after dusk 28 July. Next entry: report from maroubra 0210-0400 29 July that Maroubra abandoned Kokoda. Next entry: 29 July arrangements for air transport of reinforcements to Maroubra "again suspended". Simply, the 49th Bn company and 39th mortars (is 3 platoon mortars?) didn't fly. There was no attempt to reinforce by air during the second battle.

I understand it is appropriate to consult primary sources on matters of fact (ie dates etc) but not opinion. The points raised are matters of fact and all(?) of the secondary sources are inaccurate in respect to the date and some, in other respects (ie regarding the 49th Bn). It would be useful to confirm exactly what each of the sources quoted have to say.

The following are authors cited wrt this material. I have Mc C and Anderson.

Anderson 2014, p. 34: 2 planes on 28 July near midday. Those on board watched the barricades being moved.

McCarthy 1959, p. 127:2 planes on 28 July near midday. The barricades were being moved.

McAulay 1991, p. 53 Blood and Iron: sometime after 1100 on 28 July, barricades slow to be removed, pilots returned to base (also miffed that someone smashed a window in their new aircraft)

Keogh 1965, p. 176: Sometime after 1130 on 28 July, two planes, barricades being moved, but pilots were unable to see what was going on and who held Kokoda, were recalled by Morris Brune 2003, pp. 102–103: shortly after Owen deployed his force, two planes containing a platoon from Bistrup's D Company (39th Bn) overflew while obstacles were removed...heated exchange...returned to Port Moresby. Williams 2012, p. 55. "Ogawa might have seen the two Australian aircraft that circled on 28 July but did not land. They contained 30 men of D Company, 49th Battalion"

I am guessing that one of the early authors got this muddled (either Paull or McCarthy - or both) and it has just been replicated ever since. Initially, when I looked at the NGF diary and the entry for 27 July flight I thought that McC was just out on his dates and the 39th troops it mentioned were the mortars from the 39th that was to go with the 49th Bn company. I was, earlier, working from the premise that what was reported in the secondary sources was essentially correct. It now appears that it is essentially incorrect.

The question is, how to deal with this? @User:Hawkeye7, thought you might have a professional interest in this? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * PS Milner (p64-65)is IAW the primary sources wrt the planes. Some of his times appear a little out - ie withdrawal was after dawn on 29th July. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like everybody is copying McCarthy (p. 128 btw). Paull does not mention it. Ethically, we should go with the primary sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My error re McC. Thankyou for checking Paull. I agree re the ethics.  Did you happen to check the primary sources.  I think I have this right but a review of the detail would be appreciated - just as a double check since it is going against so much that has been written.  Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * PS, does Paull concur or is he silent? Could you pls provide a citation and brief details if he concurs. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, he is silent. There is no mention of planes circling and turning back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Added some of what McAulay, Keogh, Brune and Williams say, above. It's a tricky situation as I think its a bit of damned if you do, damned if you don't...I'd defer to Hawkeye's guidance here, but think that it would be best to clarify with a footnote that mentions the discrepancy/ies. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * AR, Thankyou for the detail. I agree with Hawkeye's guidance.  Just wondering how to handle this.  Do I put it in Kododa 1 that the planes landed and then make a note that everybody was wrong or do I put it back to the Japenese advance section and then say that everybody was wrong abour what they claim happened in the future.  Still thinking abot it but opinions welcome. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we need to avoid saying that something is categorically "wrong". I would just say that there is a discrepancy and then (very briefly) describe it. I'd probably put it in the First Kokoda section. Anyway, I have to get to bed, sorry. Long day tomorrow. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not shot (sorry) but then. it does deal with three issues - not just the date. However, I don't say that anybody is categorically wrong ... I just clearly lay out the sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)