The Japanese bombing of Darwin and northern Australia 1942 - 3

Lenbrazil · 28th September 2009, 09:38 AM

A person I am debating on another forum and I disagree about the meaning of two sentences from the text below. I would like to know with whom most of you agree.

Quote:

The Japanese bombing of Darwin and northern Australia

During the Second World War, the Japanese flew 64 raids on Darwin and 33 raids on other targets in Northern Australia.

On 19 February 1942, 188 Japanese planes were launched against Darwin, whose harbour was full of Allied ships. It was the largest Japanese attack since Pearl Harbour, 7 December 1941, and followed a reconnaissance flight on 10 February 1942. On that day there were 27 Allied ships in the harbour and approximately 30 aircraft at the Darwin Civil and RAAF airfields.

The USS Houston convoy departed Darwin on 15 February 1942, followed by a Japanese flying boat which later engaged in an air strike. The USS Peary returned to Darwin on 19 February after an encounter with a possible Japanese submarine. On 19 February 1942 there were 46 ships packed into Darwin Harbour.

From the first raid on 19 February 1942 until the last on 12 November 1943, Australia and its allies lost about 900 people, 77 aircraft and several ships. Many military and civilian facilities were destroyed. The Japanese lost about 131 aircraft in total during the attacks.

At the time, there were many rumours alluding to the Australian Government's suppression of information about the bombings - it was thought that reports of casualties were intentionally diminished to maintain national morale.

Local sources estimated that between 900 and 1100 people were killed. For many years, government censorship limited coverage of the event to protect public morale in the southern states of Australia.

[…]

You can read the rest in the link below but I ask that those of you who followed the debate on the other forum don’t participate.

http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov....darwinbombing/

[Note to moderators the excerpt above is about ¼ of the total text which 1) isn’t copy written and 2) comes from a government website.]

1) “From the first raid on 19 February 1942 until the last on 12 November 1943, Australia and its allies lost about 900 people” refers to the number of people killed…?

a) In all 97 raids
b) Just in the 64 raids on Darwin

2) “Local sources estimated that between 900 and 1100 people were killed” ” refers to the number of people killed…?

a) In all 97 raids
b) Just in the 64 raids on Darwin
c) Just in the first raid

Fnord · 28th September 2009, 09:07 PM

[x] On Planet-X, "Darwin" is the name of our "Holy" city!

a_unique_person · 28th September 2009, 09:22 PM

other forum?

Dave Rogers · 29th September 2009, 02:47 AM

I can't vote at all, because there's no way from the text to distinguish between meanings (a) and (b) for either sentence; indeed, the only way to discern that the first doesn't mean 900 lost to all causes, including but not limited to the Japanese air raids, is that the number is absurdly small for total Allied losses over nearly two years of WW2. I would think (a) is a little more likely than (b) because the text doesn't appear to draw a clear distinction between raids on Darwin and on elsewhere, but I think (b) isn't an absurd interpretation in either case. About the only meaning that I think isn't supported by the text is 2(c), but even that is inferred rather than stated.

What's the source of the text, what's the source of the numbers in it, and can you go back to that to resolve the uncertainty? If not, I think your argument seems rather pointless.

Dave

Akhenaten · 29th September 2009, 04:58 AM

The numbers refer to losses in ALL raids on Northern Australia, including places such as Broome.

Tolls · 29th September 2009, 05:46 AM

I voted for both (b) simply because the previous paragraphs appeared to focus on Darwin.
It isn't clear, it has to be said.
I was sort of hoping the 12th November 1943 raid would be "not Darwin", but that's not really the case, unless Parap on the outskirts could be classed as "not Darwin".

Lenbrazil · 29th September 2009, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

I can't vote at all, because there's no way from the text to distinguish between meanings (a) and (b) for either sentence; indeed, the only way to discern that the first doesn't mean 900 lost to all causes, including but not limited to the Japanese air raids, is that the number is absurdly small for total Allied losses over nearly two years of WW2. I would think (a) is a little more likely than (b) because the text doesn't appear to draw a clear distinction between raids on Darwin and on elsewhere, but I think (b) isn't an absurd interpretation in either case. About the only meaning that I think isn't supported by the text is 2(c), but even that is inferred rather than stated.

What's the source of the text, what's the source of the numbers in it, and can you go back to that to resolve the uncertainty? If not, I think your argument seems rather pointless.

Dave

I agree the text is unclear but since the author mentioned the raids in the same sentence as the 900 it seems clear that the number is limited to people killed during the air raids. But since the first and last air raid were both on Darwin I'm not sure if it was for all 97 raids on northern Australia of just the 64 on Darwin. I originally understood both numbers to mean the former; the person I was debating originally understood it to mean the latter.

The text was from an Australian government website. No source was cited for the 900 figure. The cited source for the 900 – 1100 estimate indicates it refers to just the people killed in the 1st two raids on Darwin both on Feb 19. That was an example of sloppy writing because no one here chose c). After realizing the source refereed just to people killed on Feb 19, 42 the guy I was debating claimed that was his interpretation all along. But that clearly wasn’t the case. Below is the link to the thread on the other forum. What do you think?

Based on the evidence how many people do you think were killed in Darwin that day?

If you agree with Greg (the other guy) that it was probably over 900 do you think he presented any evidence that the Lowe Commission covered it up?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/in...dpost&p=171938

Dave Rogers · 30th September 2009, 05:08 AM

I think your problem is a step or two back from here. You've let yourself be drawn into a discussion in which it's being seriously suggested that the Australian government downplaying reports of the number of casualties from a Japanese air raid in 1942 has some bearing on whether the US government conspired to bring about the death of JFK. You're so far down the rabbit hole, all you're going to find is rabbit poo.

Ask yourself this: Did you ever actually produce the argument, "JFK's assassination could not have been a conspiracy because there are no undetected conspiracies" yourself? If not, why are you even bothering to address such a classic example of conspiracy theorist's strawman fallacy?

Dave

a) in both cases	9	75.00%
b) in both cases	2	16.67%
a) for the first b) for the 2nd	0	0%
a) for the first c) for the 2nd	0	0%
b) for the first a) for the 2nd	1	8.33%
b) for the first c) for the 2nd	0	0%
Voters: 12. You may not vote on this poll

28th September 2009, 09:38 AM	#1
Lenbrazil Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: BKAC Posts: 144	The Japanese bombing of Darwin and northern Australia 1942 - 3 A person I am debating on another forum and I disagree about the meaning of two sentences from the text below. I would like to know with whom most of you agree. Quote: The Japanese bombing of Darwin and northern Australia During the Second World War, the Japanese flew 64 raids on Darwin and 33 raids on other targets in Northern Australia. On 19 February 1942, 188 Japanese planes were launched against Darwin, whose harbour was full of Allied ships. It was the largest Japanese attack since Pearl Harbour, 7 December 1941, and followed a reconnaissance flight on 10 February 1942. On that day there were 27 Allied ships in the harbour and approximately 30 aircraft at the Darwin Civil and RAAF airfields. The USS Houston convoy departed Darwin on 15 February 1942, followed by a Japanese flying boat which later engaged in an air strike. The USS Peary returned to Darwin on 19 February after an encounter with a possible Japanese submarine. On 19 February 1942 there were 46 ships packed into Darwin Harbour. From the first raid on 19 February 1942 until the last on 12 November 1943, Australia and its allies lost about 900 people, 77 aircraft and several ships. Many military and civilian facilities were destroyed. The Japanese lost about 131 aircraft in total during the attacks. At the time, there were many rumours alluding to the Australian Government's suppression of information about the bombings - it was thought that reports of casualties were intentionally diminished to maintain national morale. Local sources estimated that between 900 and 1100 people were killed. For many years, government censorship limited coverage of the event to protect public morale in the southern states of Australia. […] You can read the rest in the link below but I ask that those of you who followed the debate on the other forum don’t participate. http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov....darwinbombing/ [Note to moderators the excerpt above is about ¼ of the total text which 1) isn’t copy written and 2) comes from a government website.] 1) “From the first raid on 19 February 1942 until the last on 12 November 1943, Australia and its allies lost about 900 people” refers to the number of people killed…? a) In all 97 raids b) Just in the 64 raids on Darwin 2) “Local sources estimated that between 900 and 1100 people were killed” ” refers to the number of people killed…? a) In all 97 raids b) Just in the 64 raids on Darwin c) Just in the first raid
	Last edited by Lenbrazil; 28th September 2009 at 09:59 AM. Reason: Improved wording of the quetions

28th September 2009, 09:07 PM	#2
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Pantopia Posts: 3,909	[x] On Planet-X, "Darwin" is the name of our "Holy" city!
	__________________ "When I say, "Evidence, Please?" I am not asking for another statement of faith. I am asking for the evidence that supports that faith. Faith proves nothing." -- Fnord, Pointing Out the Obvious to the Oblivious Since 1957.

28th September 2009, 09:22 PM	#3
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Sitting in the ghostly glow of an LCD screen Posts: 27,434	other forum?
	__________________ "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." SH Roberts " Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it." Monbiot "I am not the fine man you take me for"

29th September 2009, 02:47 AM	#4
Dave Rogers The Unbanned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Notlob Posts: 8,013	I can't vote at all, because there's no way from the text to distinguish between meanings (a) and (b) for either sentence; indeed, the only way to discern that the first doesn't mean 900 lost to all causes, including but not limited to the Japanese air raids, is that the number is absurdly small for total Allied losses over nearly two years of WW2. I would think (a) is a little more likely than (b) because the text doesn't appear to draw a clear distinction between raids on Darwin and on elsewhere, but I think (b) isn't an absurd interpretation in either case. About the only meaning that I think isn't supported by the text is 2(c), but even that is inferred rather than stated. What's the source of the text, what's the source of the numbers in it, and can you go back to that to resolve the uncertainty? If not, I think your argument seems rather pointless. Dave
	__________________ "I guess for Truthers the great thing about Google is that it abolishes context automatically, thus saving your precious reserves of stupid for more important tasks." - Dr. Adequate GENERATION 6: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Last edited by Dave Rogers; 29th September 2009 at 02:49 AM.

29th September 2009, 04:58 AM	#5
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford Australia Posts: 6,284	The numbers refer to losses in ALL raids on Northern Australia, including places such as Broome.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon Last edited by Akhenaten; 29th September 2009 at 04:59 AM.

29th September 2009, 05:46 AM	#6
Tolls Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 185	I voted for both (b) simply because the previous paragraphs appeared to focus on Darwin. It isn't clear, it has to be said. I was sort of hoping the 12th November 1943 raid would be "not Darwin", but that's not really the case, unless Parap on the outskirts could be classed as "not Darwin".
Tolls Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 185

29th September 2009, 01:01 PM	#7
Lenbrazil Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: BKAC Posts: 144	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers I can't vote at all, because there's no way from the text to distinguish between meanings (a) and (b) for either sentence; indeed, the only way to discern that the first doesn't mean 900 lost to all causes, including but not limited to the Japanese air raids, is that the number is absurdly small for total Allied losses over nearly two years of WW2. I would think (a) is a little more likely than (b) because the text doesn't appear to draw a clear distinction between raids on Darwin and on elsewhere, but I think (b) isn't an absurd interpretation in either case. About the only meaning that I think isn't supported by the text is 2(c), but even that is inferred rather than stated. What's the source of the text, what's the source of the numbers in it, and can you go back to that to resolve the uncertainty? If not, I think your argument seems rather pointless. Dave I agree the text is unclear but since the author mentioned the raids in the same sentence as the 900 it seems clear that the number is limited to people killed during the air raids. But since the first and last air raid were both on Darwin I'm not sure if it was for all 97 raids on northern Australia of just the 64 on Darwin. I originally understood both numbers to mean the former; the person I was debating originally understood it to mean the latter. The text was from an Australian government website. No source was cited for the 900 figure. The cited source for the 900 – 1100 estimate indicates it refers to just the people killed in the 1st two raids on Darwin both on Feb 19. That was an example of sloppy writing because no one here chose c). After realizing the source refereed just to people killed on Feb 19, 42 the guy I was debating claimed that was his interpretation all along. But that clearly wasn’t the case. Below is the link to the thread on the other forum. What do you think? Based on the evidence how many people do you think were killed in Darwin that day? If you agree with Greg (the other guy) that it was probably over 900 do you think he presented any evidence that the Lowe Commission covered it up? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/in...dpost&p=171938

30th September 2009, 05:08 AM	#8
Dave Rogers The Unbanned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Notlob Posts: 8,013	I think your problem is a step or two back from here. You've let yourself be drawn into a discussion in which it's being seriously suggested that the Australian government downplaying reports of the number of casualties from a Japanese air raid in 1942 has some bearing on whether the US government conspired to bring about the death of JFK. You're so far down the rabbit hole, all you're going to find is rabbit poo. Ask yourself this: Did you ever actually produce the argument, "JFK's assassination could not have been a conspiracy because there are no undetected conspiracies" yourself? If not, why are you even bothering to address such a classic example of conspiracy theorist's strawman fallacy? Dave
	__________________ "I guess for Truthers the great thing about Google is that it abolishes context automatically, thus saving your precious reserves of stupid for more important tasks." - Dr. Adequate GENERATION 6: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.