[Graham Boak]

I see this as a representative case of thesis followed by antithesis leading to synthesis.

The thesis is the wartime propaganda that the Spitfire achieved wonders.

Evidence that the wartime claims (tactical and strategical) were overinflated led to the antithesis that the aircraft was useless and achieved nothing. This has a clear attraction to that section of Australian opinion which delights in criticism of the poms.

We are perhaps overdue for a synthesis that recognises that the introduction of the Spitfire into the North Australian theatre led to results falling well short of expectations: but results none the less.

My questions were aimed at testing the following suggestions:
1. That the Spitfire suceeded in shooting down Japanese reconnaissance aircraft, where previous fighters had failed.
2. That the Spitfire led to changes in Japanese fighter tactics in an attempt to neutralise the new threat.
3. That the Spitfire led to an alteration in Japanese tactics from daylight raiding to the less accurate night bombing
4. That the Japanese decision to move their limited bomber strength to a theatre where they could be put to greater use, was not influenced by any reduction in the importance of Darwin as a target, or any new threat elsewhere that was not present at the time the bombers began their Darwin raids.

The first is I believe strongly suggested by the acknowledged successes of the Spitfire against the Dinah: the questions were aimed at giving a quantitative measure, set into a proper context, rather than simply a set of claims. Numbers speak louder than opinions, and can indeed change opinions. Sometimes even those well-rooted in prejudice.

The second is, I believe, uncontroversial, and was suggested by your own statements. The questions were aimed to remove any ambiguity or misunderstanding: was this fighter sweep you mentioned a previous tactic or a new one?

The third is derived from the actual change in Japanese bombing tactics. Elsewhere changes from daylight bombing to night bombing has been as a result of the successes or the opposing fighters: why should the Japanese be any different?

The fourth was meant to enquire into the changing strategic position. Other targets were always an attractive alternative for the limited Japanese bomber forces. If there was no reduction in the value of Darwin as a strategic target, then the actual or extrapolated power of the defence must have been an influence - if not the only one - in the decision to stop the raids. This is clearly not open to quite the same level of qualititative analysis as the other points, but some approach can be made,

I am aware of your personal animosity to my suggestions. I had hoped that we could genuinely move the discussion forward. That is why I attempted to gain a set of factual information that a neutral could use to determine any effect - or lack of effect. Clearly I believe that the answers would support my position: but that position was, and is, at risk from contradictory hard evidence. If such exists, the questions should have brought it out. As the evidence from the combats and real losses have demolished the wartime propaganda.

I'm sorry that you have not chosen to support your opinions with answers that would permit anyone to test the opposing arguments. You claim to have superior access to specific information - I do not argue with that - but choose instead to rely upon personal insults rather than logic. We can both play at that game, but where would that get either of us, or anyone who might be following this thread?