Let us remember this battle 75 years ago, a battle that struck a fierce blow against Japan and forged Australian and American cooperation

Coral Sea: Overview (http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/asfaras/coralsea.html)

The big importance of this batte was that the Japanese used their planes up in the sea battle and did not have enough air cover for their attack of Port Moresby.The Japanese invasion force turned back. It also reduced the naval forces the Japanese had available for their attempted invasion of Midway .

From our perspective it was important that the Japanese could not gain the foothold they sought in Papua and the pacific islands and their forward momentum was checked

A tactical victory for the Japanese, and a strategic victory for the Australian and American allies by preventing the ultimate invasion of Australia.

I doubt the tactical victory for the Japanese, they effectively lost two carriers which restricted their capabilities, there was no danger of invasion to Australia but Papua couldn't be ceded and japanese plans for further expansion in the south pacific were shelved. The americans gained the initiative, allowing a successful defense of Midway. What did come out of it was how uncoordinated the americans were in this theatre, so many lessons learned

I doubt the tactical victory for the Japanese,

Of course, I wasn't there but most historians researched on the net agree that the Japanese Navy sank and damaged more tonnage than the allies did - hence the tactical victory. 42,000 tons vs. 19,000 tons.

Of course, I wasn't there but most historians researched on the net agree that the Japanese Navy sank and damaged more tonnage than the allies did - hence the tactical victory. 42,000 tons vs. 19,000 tons.

Yes but a hollow victory, they did not achieve their objective, they lost vital vessels and had to change their strategy, they won a battle, that is all. The tonnage came from the fact that they sank a capital ship, the Lexington and two other vessels, whereas they lost one aircraft carrier and several other vessels and another aircraft carrier damaged and useless for many months. The Battle of the Coral Sea deprived the Japanese of vital assets they needed for the assault on Midway meaning that american and Japanese air power was about equal in that battle and after that they never recovered

herr Donald is in town with Malcolm Turnbull doing a Coral Sea celebration on the USS Intrepid . I did a search and found that the Intreprid was not commissioned in time for the Coral Sea battle . But it did see some major action in WWII . It was part of the Leyte Gulf campaign and the battle of Okinawa . It was targeted 4 times by Kamikaze attacks and was struck once by a Japanese torpedo. Now it serves as a museum and evidently a very large banquet hall.

herr Donald is in town with Malcolm Turnbull doing a Coral Sea celebration on the USS Intrepid . I did a search and found that the Intreprid was not commissioned in time for the Coral Sea battle . But it did see some major action in WWII . It was part of the Leyte Gulf campaign and the battle of Okinawa . It was targeted 4 times by Kamikaze attacks and was struck once by a Japanese torpedo. Now it serves as a museum and evidently a very large banquet hall.

Yes it is unfortunate that no carrier from that battle survived, but then few did survive the war. It's a shame Enterprise was not preserved. I don't think commemorating the Coral Sea Battle was high on Dump's agenda, he found another battle closer to home more important

Listened to a historian yesterday . He said the Japanese strategy was flawed because taking Port Moresby would not achieve their goal of cutting off the US -Aussie pipeline. That could only be achieved by taking the New Hebrides .

The only way the Japanese were going to win the war was through a diplomatic conclusion. If they cut off Australia at the New Hebrides ,then they would have a bargaining chip at the negotiating table . At best ,Moresby was a stepping off place to achieve that goal. I actually think they could only achieve a diplomatic solution if they had occupied Hawaii.

Listened to a historian yesterday . He said the Japanese strategy was flawed because taking Port Moresby would not achieve their goal of cutting off the US -Aussie pipeline. That could only be achieved by taking the New Hebrides .

The only way the Japanese were going to win the war was through a diplomatic conclusion. If they cut off Australia at the New Hebrides ,then they would have a bargaining chip at the negotiating table . At best ,Moresby was a stepping off place to achieve that goal. I actually think they could only achieve a diplomatic solution if they had occupied Hawaii.

Do you really believe the american people would give in just because they lost Hawaii? Australia wasn't about to give up New Guinea and even without the experienced troops they fought and held the Japanese, Japan was very streached and had actually come up against people who would not give up, perhaps for the first time. The americans taught them a big lesson at Guadalcanal

Do you really believe the american people would give in just because they lost Hawaii?

No ,I said they could've achieved a diplomatic solution. The only way the Japanese could've taken Hawaii was after they had destroyed out carrier fleet at Midway. Then if they later captured Hawaii ,they could sue for peace . I'm saying that was their only hope.

No ,I said they could've achieved a diplomatic solution. The only way the Japanese could've taken Hawaii was after they had destroyed out carrier fleet at Midway. Then if they later captured Hawaii ,they could sue for peace . I'm saying that was their only hope.

What you are saying means the Japanese were stupid, the americans might have followed the Europe first policy and then turned their attention to Japan, but peace, can't see it

Maybe not .But what I am talking about were the Japanese plans . Not reality . They never thought they could defeat the US . But if they could negotiate a way to keep the US out of their side of the Pacific then that would be a win.All they wanted was the continuation of the immoral Taft -Katsura agreement ;the US honoring their sphere of influence.
James Brady (author of 'Flags of Our Fathers ' )wrote an interesting book on the subject .
Diplomacy That Will Live in Infamy - The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06bradley.html?_r=2&hp)

What can I say Tom, you have just supplied more evidence of american duplicity in diplomacy and international dealings

Brady did . But I am not sure about the accuracy of his account. There are many historians that dispute his conclusions . I was just looking at this from the Japanese pov at the time .

It seems to be an oriental point of view that if we occupy a string of islands then we own all the territory encompassed by them. My conclusion this that the japanese overreached themselves by the time they reached the south pacific. It is somewhat amazing the depth of naval power they possessed and their ability to set up naval bases in remote places like Rabaul and Truk