Now on Overnights, Professor David Flint analyzes the important offense of the week.

Now on Overnights, Professor David Flint analyzes the important offense of the week.

The good professor himself, how are.

The good professor himself, how are.

You very well?

You very well?

Thank you, Phil, And I'm very well. I'm reading the article that you've written here in the Spectator, Who's the King of Canada? Which I'm led to believe that it's a bit of tongue in cheek here.

Thank you, Phil, And I'm very well. I'm reading the article that you've written here in the Spectator, Who's the King of Canada? Which I'm led to believe that it's a bit of tongue in cheek here.

I think there is a degree of that.

I think there is a degree of that.

Yeah, let's talk about.

Yeah, let's talk about.

This certainly well.

This certainly well.

As you know, there's a wonderful cartoon in the London Telegraph which shares two kingly processions coming to one another at the Canadian American border, and they're both led by men who look.

As you know, there's a wonderful cartoon in the London Telegraph which shares two kingly processions coming to one another at the Canadian American border, and they're both led by men who look.

As they're they're kings, except one looks very much like Donald Trump.

As they're they're kings, except one looks very much like Donald Trump.

And underneath the caption is I am the King of Canada.

And underneath the caption is I am the King of Canada.

And of course this goes back to.

And of course this goes back to.

The Donald Trump's claims in relation to Canada, much of which is banter, but of course underneath it all is his interest in including Canada in.

The Donald Trump's claims in relation to Canada, much of which is banter, but of course underneath it all is his interest in including Canada in.

The United States.

The United States.

Of course, I don't ever believe that Donald Trump says anything or even throws out what could appear to be a joke without some underlying probe in it.

Of course, I don't ever believe that Donald Trump says anything or even throws out what could appear to be a joke without some underlying probe in it.

I think that's how he operates, and he certainly is very interested in beinging Canada in, but there's an overwhelming rejection of it, and they don't have I mean, if.

I think that's how he operates, and he certainly is very interested in beinging Canada in, but there's an overwhelming rejection of it, and they don't have I mean, if.

He were to ask us at least.

He were to ask us at least.

We're in a situation where we're completely defenseless due to Miss Dalbine Easy, and we desperately need defense, and there's.

We're in a situation where we're completely defenseless due to Miss Dalbine Easy, and we desperately need defense, and there's.

No guarantee under the.

No guarantee under the.

Anzas Treaty that the Americans will come to our defense. And one way to ensure that guarantee would be to not necessarily become a state, but ENGINETO a closer association with the United States, so that they are thereby committed. Interestingly, no American government has ever given the sort of guarantee that they give under the NATO Treaty to other countries. An attack in NATO, an attack on one country is an attack on all the All the Azas Treaty says is that in the event of an attack, each party will consider how to help in accordance with their constitutional requirements. So there's no guarantee that the Americans will wash to our aid. And as I say, it's quite evident that we've really run down our defenses, and mister Albanesi is rejecting, it seems the call by the Americans that they that we increase our spending on defense to three point three and a half percent of GZV and we're done round about two or a little lower than to at the present time.

Anzas Treaty that the Americans will come to our defense. And one way to ensure that guarantee would be to not necessarily become a state, but ENGINETO a closer association with the United States, so that they are thereby committed. Interestingly, no American government has ever given the sort of guarantee that they give under the NATO Treaty to other countries. An attack in NATO, an attack on one country is an attack on all the All the Azas Treaty says is that in the event of an attack, each party will consider how to help in accordance with their constitutional requirements. So there's no guarantee that the Americans will wash to our aid. And as I say, it's quite evident that we've really run down our defenses, and mister Albanesi is rejecting, it seems the call by the Americans that they that we increase our spending on defense to three point three and a half percent of GZV and we're done round about two or a little lower than to at the present time.

Do you think that this lack of guarantee is because of Donald Trump or do you think it's been withering away over the last few decades.

Do you think that this lack of guarantee is because of Donald Trump or do you think it's been withering away over the last few decades.

Well, it was never there.

Well, it was never there.

It was never a guarantee, and none of the Aws Treaty never gave that guarantee. Hence there was The policy of the Australian government has been a sort of insurance policy, and the belief has been if you help the United States, they will help you. So in some countries, in some of the American campaigns, we were almost the only other country desired the Americans, and that was done for the good purpose that this was the way to ensure that we had that guarantee. It was an insurance policy. But a lot depends on the president. And this president is much more open in relation to what he expects of other allies, for example their commitments to.

It was never a guarantee, and none of the Aws Treaty never gave that guarantee. Hence there was The policy of the Australian government has been a sort of insurance policy, and the belief has been if you help the United States, they will help you. So in some countries, in some of the American campaigns, we were almost the only other country desired the Americans, and that was done for the good purpose that this was the way to ensure that we had that guarantee. It was an insurance policy. But a lot depends on the president. And this president is much more open in relation to what he expects of other allies, for example their commitments to.

Defense, and is it also a case of what we expect from America as well, because we've always thought, well, we're going to be there for you and as a result, you know, whenever you call us will come running, and as a result we expect the same from you. Do you think that that argument's no longer balid?

Defense, and is it also a case of what we expect from America as well, because we've always thought, well, we're going to be there for you and as a result, you know, whenever you call us will come running, and as a result we expect the same from you. Do you think that that argument's no longer balid?

Well, the problem about our expecting America to do anything is that we can expect it, we don't necessarily get it. We're not in that position where we can enforce. There's no way of enforcing what we believe.

Well, the problem about our expecting America to do anything is that we can expect it, we don't necessarily get it. We're not in that position where we can enforce. There's no way of enforcing what we believe.

To be the moral obligation.

To be the moral obligation.

What we're really saying is you have a moral obligation to help us because we've helped you. But that doesn't that contains really no commitment. There's a commitment there to consider helping us in accordance with their constitutional provisions, but that means, for example, a declaration of war that you might not held the support of other members of the Senate, for example. It is nothing like the guarantee which is contained in NATO, and it's nothing like the non guarantee that or the virtual non guarantee that they gave the Ukraine when the Ukraine was separated from the Soviet Union. It ends up with an enormous amount of nuclear weapons and American Britain persuaded the Ukraine to hand those over to Russia in return for some sort of protection, and that protection produced was eventually shown to be completely or extra work list that neither the United States nor Britain was going to rush in to defend the Ukraine, and they might send them some weapons, but they certainly weren't going to become involved when Russia attacked them.

What we're really saying is you have a moral obligation to help us because we've helped you. But that doesn't that contains really no commitment. There's a commitment there to consider helping us in accordance with their constitutional provisions, but that means, for example, a declaration of war that you might not held the support of other members of the Senate, for example. It is nothing like the guarantee which is contained in NATO, and it's nothing like the non guarantee that or the virtual non guarantee that they gave the Ukraine when the Ukraine was separated from the Soviet Union. It ends up with an enormous amount of nuclear weapons and American Britain persuaded the Ukraine to hand those over to Russia in return for some sort of protection, and that protection produced was eventually shown to be completely or extra work list that neither the United States nor Britain was going to rush in to defend the Ukraine, and they might send them some weapons, but they certainly weren't going to become involved when Russia attacked them.

So we have this expectation that we've got Pine Gap, and that's a result of us having that. That's given us the expectation that America will come to our aid or even the sort of collateral perhaps if you like that, you know they'll come to our aid. But as you say, some things are worthless. Do you think there's anything in that, any bargaining chip in there?

So we have this expectation that we've got Pine Gap, and that's a result of us having that. That's given us the expectation that America will come to our aid or even the sort of collateral perhaps if you like that, you know they'll come to our aid. But as you say, some things are worthless. Do you think there's anything in that, any bargaining chip in there?

I think you point to a very important thing. And if you if you do have something which can be used in a war, then that is valuable.

I think you point to a very important thing. And if you if you do have something which can be used in a war, then that is valuable.

Right.

Right.

Although in Afghosa that had they had that wonderful base which might have been abandoned and didn't worry about, and that would have been a wonderful thing to have kept the military. The air Force base, which was the biggest base in the biggest military airports in Asia, and something which would have been very valiable to have kept. And I think that was that is what Trump claimed he wanted to do, that is keep the base, but not keep Afghanistan, And that would have been a valuable then, but mister Biden was not interested in keeping that.

Although in Afghosa that had they had that wonderful base which might have been abandoned and didn't worry about, and that would have been a wonderful thing to have kept the military. The air Force base, which was the biggest base in the biggest military airports in Asia, and something which would have been very valiable to have kept. And I think that was that is what Trump claimed he wanted to do, that is keep the base, but not keep Afghanistan, And that would have been a valuable then, but mister Biden was not interested in keeping that.

Do you think with the Golden Dome initiative, then the Pine Gap installation becomes less worthy to any kind of you know, collateral agreement, any kind of agreement we have with them.

Do you think with the Golden Dome initiative, then the Pine Gap installation becomes less worthy to any kind of you know, collateral agreement, any kind of agreement we have with them.

I think it's very valuable.

I think it's very valuable.

And I think having more bases of the United States here is very important because even if a current American administration forgets what we did in the past, for example, are involved in Vietnam, If they forget that, they won't forget the fact that at this very time there is a base there which is being used by the United States. So a cunning Australian government would make sure that we have of very big installations of the Americans here and that we don't do silly things like Lis Darwin to Beijing. I mean, that was extraordinary that we ever did that.

And I think having more bases of the United States here is very important because even if a current American administration forgets what we did in the past, for example, are involved in Vietnam, If they forget that, they won't forget the fact that at this very time there is a base there which is being used by the United States. So a cunning Australian government would make sure that we have of very big installations of the Americans here and that we don't do silly things like Lis Darwin to Beijing. I mean, that was extraordinary that we ever did that.

Yeah, now you mentioned the Golden Dime system in your article and the spectator as well. How advantageous is this with any kind of agreement with Canada.

Yeah, now you mentioned the Golden Dime system in your article and the spectator as well. How advantageous is this with any kind of agreement with Canada.

I think it's very important for Canada because Canada needs Canada's being offered the same sort of protection. The Americans are going to do what was done in relation to Israel. That is the Iron Dorm. That is a system of various protections which will stop most of the missiles coming in and the air force attacks coming in onto Israel. That's the whole purpose of it, and it seems to have worked very well so far, and they're going to do a similar thing over the United States. The incredible thing is that there was this protection over Israel done with American help, but there's not the same protection over the United States. Now, what America is saying was we can bring Canada into this.

I think it's very important for Canada because Canada needs Canada's being offered the same sort of protection. The Americans are going to do what was done in relation to Israel. That is the Iron Dorm. That is a system of various protections which will stop most of the missiles coming in and the air force attacks coming in onto Israel. That's the whole purpose of it, and it seems to have worked very well so far, and they're going to do a similar thing over the United States. The incredible thing is that there was this protection over Israel done with American help, but there's not the same protection over the United States. Now, what America is saying was we can bring Canada into this.

We'd like to bring Canada into.

We'd like to bring Canada into.

This, but that will cost you money, and under President costs there would be about six hundred billion. But President President, our president today is saying, look, if you became the fifty first state, of course that would be just included. We wouldn't send you a separate bill. Yeah, so it's a very valuable He's making it valuable.

This, but that will cost you money, and under President costs there would be about six hundred billion. But President President, our president today is saying, look, if you became the fifty first state, of course that would be just included. We wouldn't send you a separate bill. Yeah, so it's a very valuable He's making it valuable.

But the rejection of that is enormous.

But the rejection of that is enormous.

According to opinion polls, some of the opinion polls are saying ninety percent of the Canadians don't want to become a fifty first state. Well, there is a lesser way of becoming involved. That is to be an associated state where you hand over certain matters the United States. Whether the America would agree with that, and whether Canada would want that as another thing.

According to opinion polls, some of the opinion polls are saying ninety percent of the Canadians don't want to become a fifty first state. Well, there is a lesser way of becoming involved. That is to be an associated state where you hand over certain matters the United States. Whether the America would agree with that, and whether Canada would want that as another thing.

But where probably where we're in a more dangerous situation than Canada is.

But where probably where we're in a more dangerous situation than Canada is.

I think Canada is going to be protected because it's contiguous to America.

I think Canada is going to be protected because it's contiguous to America.

Our problem is in the.

Our problem is in the.

The engaging demonstrated it not so long ago when they sent some ships around Australia and started doing tests within the waters of Australia or close to the waters of Australia. And there's nothing we could do about it because the Albanizer government has run down the defense forces so much that we just don't have the we don't have the ability to do anything about that sort of thing.

The engaging demonstrated it not so long ago when they sent some ships around Australia and started doing tests within the waters of Australia or close to the waters of Australia. And there's nothing we could do about it because the Albanizer government has run down the defense forces so much that we just don't have the we don't have the ability to do anything about that sort of thing.

Well, I want to ask you about that. Get you to hang on here a second and we'll come back and we'll discuss that some more. Coming up to nineteen minutes to three, that's continue our chat with the professor David Flint. We were talking before about what if we find ourselves in a position where we're up against China. What's it for them? Would it be our minerals, do you think? Or is it more for them to gain a strategic base?

Well, I want to ask you about that. Get you to hang on here a second and we'll come back and we'll discuss that some more. Coming up to nineteen minutes to three, that's continue our chat with the professor David Flint. We were talking before about what if we find ourselves in a position where we're up against China. What's it for them? Would it be our minerals, do you think? Or is it more for them to gain a strategic base?

I don't think even even the strategic base, they provided that we are well behaved, a well behaved tributary, like a colony, that would that would probably satisfy the Beijing government. They'd be encouraging a lot of a lot more people moving here, but and they would be probably checked before they went to make sure that they were pro Beijing. They wouldn't want people as many of the present immigrants from from China and our anti communists, they wouldn't want them coming here. But they could take control of this because what they want are mineral resources and agricultural wealth.

I don't think even even the strategic base, they provided that we are well behaved, a well behaved tributary, like a colony, that would that would probably satisfy the Beijing government. They'd be encouraging a lot of a lot more people moving here, but and they would be probably checked before they went to make sure that they were pro Beijing. They wouldn't want people as many of the present immigrants from from China and our anti communists, they wouldn't want them coming here. But they could take control of this because what they want are mineral resources and agricultural wealth.

We can offer them clean food, the.

We can offer them clean food, the.

Providers of that we were docile power might well accept what we're doing without having to go to the trouble the costs and the weaknesses of invasion. Because if you have if you invade this country, you've got to take at least Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. And what would the purpose be, what what advantage would there be?

Providers of that we were docile power might well accept what we're doing without having to go to the trouble the costs and the weaknesses of invasion. Because if you have if you invade this country, you've got to take at least Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. And what would the purpose be, what what advantage would there be?

Well, that's what I was wondering. I mean, what's in it for them?

Well, that's what I was wondering. I mean, what's in it for them?

Yes, the advantage is to keep us quiet and obedient and doing the things that they want us to do, and certainly not being a hostile power associated with the United States, in other words, making us neutral.

Yes, the advantage is to keep us quiet and obedient and doing the things that they want us to do, and certainly not being a hostile power associated with the United States, in other words, making us neutral.

Because Terran professor out de terrent is nothing like Taiwan's deterrent militarily, is it.

Because Terran professor out de terrent is nothing like Taiwan's deterrent militarily, is it.

No, we have we've we're so run down our defenses that we really have nothing. When when the Americans invited us to send her, they wanted to send us a ship to the Middle East to be seen with the Americans against the hooties who were attacking shipping, we didn't. We I think was the first time we've ever refused an American request. And the reason, the rumored reason was we just didn't have a ship to send them.

No, we have we've we're so run down our defenses that we really have nothing. When when the Americans invited us to send her, they wanted to send us a ship to the Middle East to be seen with the Americans against the hooties who were attacking shipping, we didn't. We I think was the first time we've ever refused an American request. And the reason, the rumored reason was we just didn't have a ship to send them.

But I mean that we I would see that request by America really is just a perfunctory request that.

But I mean that we I would see that request by America really is just a perfunctory request that.

And Johnson did the same in Vietnam. He tried to get the British. He said to the British. His alleged that said to Wilson, lookd just send us a send us a Scottish pipe band. But so as we can say this is a you know, a force of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australian, a few other countries, whereas essentially it was the United States and US and the South.

And Johnson did the same in Vietnam. He tried to get the British. He said to the British. His alleged that said to Wilson, lookd just send us a send us a Scottish pipe band. But so as we can say this is a you know, a force of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australian, a few other countries, whereas essentially it was the United States and US and the South.

Of yeh, because I mean, I can't see what we could offer apart from a couple of you know, warships. Like you said, it's just a it's a coalition of the willing in name, yes, And.

Of yeh, because I mean, I can't see what we could offer apart from a couple of you know, warships. Like you said, it's just a it's a coalition of the willing in name, yes, And.

I think America authorities like that. They just they don't want it to be just an American operation.

I think America authorities like that. They just they don't want it to be just an American operation.

But we are in a.

But we are in a.

Perilous situation because we just we just don't have the forces, but we should have. We should be able to be like say Switzerland or other countries, which at least in Singapore, Singapore has a better forces than ours. No, I'm not criticizing the people in the forces, it's they are.

Perilous situation because we just we just don't have the forces, but we should have. We should be able to be like say Switzerland or other countries, which at least in Singapore, Singapore has a better forces than ours. No, I'm not criticizing the people in the forces, it's they are.

So run down.

So run down.

So what will it take to bring us up to date?

So what will it take to bring us up to date?

Well, I would say, as missus Reinhardt says, five percent of GDP but sensibly spent. And sometimes we spend money on the most exotic things and then say, oh, but we want it to be adjusted to our needs because they're different from.

Well, I would say, as missus Reinhardt says, five percent of GDP but sensibly spent. And sometimes we spend money on the most exotic things and then say, oh, but we want it to be adjusted to our needs because they're different from.

What we're buying off the shelf.

What we're buying off the shelf.

And then it goes on for several years and several trials, and it comes much later than that it should come. Well, I think we've got to be much more sense in our acquisitions than we have been. Senator Stacy will be talking let out about this. The new he will become. He's the One Nation Senator, but he's he after after Andrew Hasty is now off in another portfolio, and of course he's subject to all the restrictions of the Shadow Cabinet. Senator Stacy, the new One Nation Senator will be the only one virtually in the Parliament who has military experience and experience at a high level.

And then it goes on for several years and several trials, and it comes much later than that it should come. Well, I think we've got to be much more sense in our acquisitions than we have been. Senator Stacy will be talking let out about this. The new he will become. He's the One Nation Senator, but he's he after after Andrew Hasty is now off in another portfolio, and of course he's subject to all the restrictions of the Shadow Cabinet. Senator Stacy, the new One Nation Senator will be the only one virtually in the Parliament who has military experience and experience at a high level.

So is that the issue?

So is that the issue?

Then?

Then?

We just don't have enough people with that kind of experience.

We just don't have enough people with that kind of experience.

I think it's more than that, it's we don't have enough people with the well, certainly in the governors of Australia who have an understanding of our situation. For example, mister Albanisi has said, the Americans have said, through Pete Hexath that we must increase our expenditure to three and a half percent of GDP, and mister Biden and mister Hawden, mister Albanezi is saying we will decide how much we will spend on defense got into our needs.

I think it's more than that, it's we don't have enough people with the well, certainly in the governors of Australia who have an understanding of our situation. For example, mister Albanisi has said, the Americans have said, through Pete Hexath that we must increase our expenditure to three and a half percent of GDP, and mister Biden and mister Hawden, mister Albanezi is saying we will decide how much we will spend on defense got into our needs.

Of course, he is not.

Of course, he is not.

Spending much on defense. They are projecting in the future that they'll be spending a lot when they're not in office, which is meaningless because you can make all the projections you want about what the government will be spending in ten years time, but the governments in ten years time won't necessarily do what you say now to do. And we are depending so much on the Orcus submarines, and that's something we shall be spent in significant amounts by future governments.

Spending much on defense. They are projecting in the future that they'll be spending a lot when they're not in office, which is meaningless because you can make all the projections you want about what the government will be spending in ten years time, but the governments in ten years time won't necessarily do what you say now to do. And we are depending so much on the Orcus submarines, and that's something we shall be spent in significant amounts by future governments.

Not by this government.

Not by this government.

And the government is really spending very little on defense. And there's also the question of morale. The serious errors I think have been made in the sense that when there have been problems as there have been alleged to be against Robert Smith, for example, why weren't these dealt with at the time when these arose. Why weren't they dealt with by the high command at the time. Why are they delayed many years? Why are there these inquiries that go onto years, nothing happens, And we're dealing with our former soldiers, not only him, but the rest of them because they were going to change their decorations zone they're leaving a nasty taste in their mouths for people who have served the country. And then in relation to getting people to fight, they've got these ridiculous rules. For example, in combat, they're saying, well, we've got to have something like fifty percent of women and men, and in combat things are different. In combat, you have to have the physical strength of men. It's like playing a rugby league and you don't have you don't mix.

And the government is really spending very little on defense. And there's also the question of morale. The serious errors I think have been made in the sense that when there have been problems as there have been alleged to be against Robert Smith, for example, why weren't these dealt with at the time when these arose. Why weren't they dealt with by the high command at the time. Why are they delayed many years? Why are there these inquiries that go onto years, nothing happens, And we're dealing with our former soldiers, not only him, but the rest of them because they were going to change their decorations zone they're leaving a nasty taste in their mouths for people who have served the country. And then in relation to getting people to fight, they've got these ridiculous rules. For example, in combat, they're saying, well, we've got to have something like fifty percent of women and men, and in combat things are different. In combat, you have to have the physical strength of men. It's like playing a rugby league and you don't have you don't mix.

The sexes in a.

The sexes in a.

Single sex rugby league team. And that these things are being done for ideological reasons, and they're weakening the armed forces. And that's not to say that women don't have a wonderful place in the armed services, but I wouldn't say in the hand to hand combat.

Single sex rugby league team. And that these things are being done for ideological reasons, and they're weakening the armed forces. And that's not to say that women don't have a wonderful place in the armed services, but I wouldn't say in the hand to hand combat.

We've spoken about this before. The decisions like this aren't being allowed to be made by the people that have the experience. They're being made by civilians who just don't have the acumen to understand what really is required on the battlefield.

We've spoken about this before. The decisions like this aren't being allowed to be made by the people that have the experience. They're being made by civilians who just don't have the acumen to understand what really is required on the battlefield.

Yes, and we must make many more acquisitions, including acquisitions of clever things like the drones or she we should be having in our own satellite system, which they decided not to go ahead with, which the opposition had determined that we should have. We need to have some independence of being able to do things. At the present time, we just do not have the armed forces which we should have if we're going to put up a decent position in relation to any problems which created for us, and we.

Yes, and we must make many more acquisitions, including acquisitions of clever things like the drones or she we should be having in our own satellite system, which they decided not to go ahead with, which the opposition had determined that we should have. We need to have some independence of being able to do things. At the present time, we just do not have the armed forces which we should have if we're going to put up a decent position in relation to any problems which created for us, and we.

Know that there are going to be pro problems.

Know that there are going to be pro problems.

We have mister Haigsath, the Defense Secretary, saying that he fears that the Communists have decided that they will take Taiwan and that the Americans will resist that. Well, if that's the case, that's going to be a very serious matter, and it's will be very difficult for us not to be involved in that.

We have mister Haigsath, the Defense Secretary, saying that he fears that the Communists have decided that they will take Taiwan and that the Americans will resist that. Well, if that's the case, that's going to be a very serious matter, and it's will be very difficult for us not to be involved in that.

That's right. I did read some interesting research done by think tanks, and it might have even been the Rand Corporation as well, who said when it came to issues like Pearl Harbor and even nine to eleven, it wasn't so much the lack of prepar it was more the lack of imagination on behalf of America, not having the imagination as to what might happen.

That's right. I did read some interesting research done by think tanks, and it might have even been the Rand Corporation as well, who said when it came to issues like Pearl Harbor and even nine to eleven, it wasn't so much the lack of prepar it was more the lack of imagination on behalf of America, not having the imagination as to what might happen.

Yes, and you have to have so right that they should have been really ready for the Imperial Japanese to have done something like that, it was surprising that they did.

Yes, and you have to have so right that they should have been really ready for the Imperial Japanese to have done something like that, it was surprising that they did.

They did it.

They did it.

To neutralize the American fleet, but they should have realized that this would be a time delay, that the American economy was so strong that they would soon develop a fleet of similar strength. And that was a serious error on the part of the Imperial Japanese to have done that. And of course they then extended their supply lines, and they had the advantage in Singapore of I think a general, a British general who foolishly surrendered when he shouldn't have surrendered, to the great sufferings of Oursehoulder. And it became obvious later that the Japanese force was smaller than General Personal believed, and his wish to look after the civilians, the Chinese civilians in Singapore, to protect them against the Japanese, was of course of no worth whatsoever, because the Japanese treated the Imperial Japanese treated the civilian populations as harshly as they would have anyway.

To neutralize the American fleet, but they should have realized that this would be a time delay, that the American economy was so strong that they would soon develop a fleet of similar strength. And that was a serious error on the part of the Imperial Japanese to have done that. And of course they then extended their supply lines, and they had the advantage in Singapore of I think a general, a British general who foolishly surrendered when he shouldn't have surrendered, to the great sufferings of Oursehoulder. And it became obvious later that the Japanese force was smaller than General Personal believed, and his wish to look after the civilians, the Chinese civilians in Singapore, to protect them against the Japanese, was of course of no worth whatsoever, because the Japanese treated the Imperial Japanese treated the civilian populations as harshly as they would have anyway.

Professor, it's always an absolute pleasure to talk to you. Have a good weekend. I know that's strange to be offering somebody that on a Wednesday morning, but hell, you never know. Time gets away.

Professor, it's always an absolute pleasure to talk to you. Have a good weekend. I know that's strange to be offering somebody that on a Wednesday morning, but hell, you never know. Time gets away.

We do have to think of the future.

We do have to think of the future.

Good to talk to you. Thank you so much, thank you, thank you,

Good to talk to you. Thank you so much, thank you, thank you,