PDA

View Full Version : Britain - Australia/NZ is not amused.


Ozgrade3
9th Jan 2014, 20:47
Britain accused of airbrushing out the role of Anzac troops in WWI in favour of New Commonwealth nations to 'promote multicultural UK' | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2536107/Britain-accused-airbrushing-role-Anzac-troops-WWI-favour-New-Commonwealth-nations-promote-community-cohesion.html)


There is some growing anger in Australia this morning with this news in the veterans community.

Lonewolf_50
9th Jan 2014, 20:49
Why would the Brits ever care about the opinions in their former colonies, or their feelings? :E

(equipment: one pot, one stirring utensil ... )

tony draper
9th Jan 2014, 20:53
It wont be Britain it will be a few fluffist arsoles at the top,tiz the kind rewriting of history those ringpiece scumbags go in for.
:suspect:

John Hill
9th Jan 2014, 20:57
Hell, nothing new, Hollywood has been doing that for decades..:confused:

brickhistory
9th Jan 2014, 21:00
Er, I don't recall Hollywood asking for or receiving help from the ANZACS and blood being shed for Errol Flynn to appear even more swashbucklier...

Oh, if you mean making fictional tales to turn a profit, then I see your point.

But as to shunting aside stalwart allies in favor of bright, shiny new things, let Obama be your guide.

It's working out so well as, apparently, this latest PC blitz is for the UK.

sitigeltfel
9th Jan 2014, 21:04
When I lived in Normandy I visited this war cemetery at Arques-la-Bataille (http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead.aspx?cpage=1&sort=name&order=asc). At the time it struck me that all the victims were non-white and I wondered if there was a policy that meant they were not worthy enough to have been buried alongside white casualties?

John Hill
9th Jan 2014, 21:30
Brickhistory, Australians and Kiwis have fought alongside Americans in every significant war the US has been engaged in since 1917 (I think the ANZACs let America handle Grenada alone) but I dont recall any mention of that in any Hollywood blockbuster although there surely must have been some mention somewhere?

cavortingcheetah
9th Jan 2014, 21:49
It's a British tradition to airbrush away those who won the battles and wars for them. After all Waterloo was only won because Blücher the Prussian turned up at tea time.

Andu
9th Jan 2014, 21:54
I saw a "documentary" (!) made by the Americans about the New Guinea campaign some years ago, (a campaign where the US Army, mostly un- acclimatized and under trained National Guard units, how shall I put this?.... did not particularly "shine"). Of course, that's not the way the docu. "remembered" it.

The Americans did it all. Australians got one, one sentence mention - "Reeling back under the Japanese onslaught, the Australians retreated to the very gates of Port Moresby." Everything else was American, American, American.

When the Yanks showed Australian War Correspondent Damian Parer's - for the time - amazing front line film of the New Guinea campaign, they overdubbed his voice with a deep, US-accented Hollywood voice - that's before they shot him (in a blue on blue 'incident') when he was filming US troops in the Pacific islands a year or so later.

As for the Poms... I'm surprised that anyone is surprised. Max Hastings, in a book he released only a couple of years ago, wrote the Australian war effort in WW2 off as half-hearted and ineffectual, and I don't think they've ever forgiven Australian General Sir John Monash in WW1 for being (a) a Colonial, (b) a civilian-soldier (he was an engineer, not a professional soldier), (c) a Jew, and (d) (the greatest sin of all) the only general on the Allied side in 1918 who consistently won every battle he put his men into.

con-pilot
9th Jan 2014, 21:57
but I dont recall any mention of that in any Hollywood blockbuster although there surely must have been some mention somewhere?

Never saw the movie 'The Longest Day' then did you? Which, by the way, was a huge blockbuster.

But I see you are another that confuses the clap that Hollywood puts out as real history.

Andu
9th Jan 2014, 22:02
...forgot to add: and don't blame Australia for Errol Flynn. He wasn't Australian - he was Tasmanian. :)

John Hill
9th Jan 2014, 22:23
Never saw the movie 'The Longest Day' then did you? Which, by the way, was a huge blockbuster.

Was Australia or New Zealand mentioned in that film? I dont think so.

rh200
9th Jan 2014, 23:39
This makes a good case study on why the polys and movie makers etc. do as they do. Again every one just reverts to tribalism.

At the time it struck me that all the victims were non-white and I wondered if there was a policy that meant they were not worthy enough to have been buried alongside white casualties?

When this story brke at the beginning of the week with the usual media beat up and howls of how could they I wondered about the stats.

We never really get to hear about what we regard as third world countries and there contribution. It would be good to know, I mean its easy to find out how many yanks/aussies or poms where killed.

As for burials, interesting point, wouldn't be surprised due to the times. But there could have been other cultural practicalities as well?

Loose rivets
10th Jan 2014, 01:18
Mr 200, shock, horror. You left a comma out of your first sentence!

teeteringhead
10th Jan 2014, 10:19
ISTR being told that in both World Wars, the Kiwis lost a greater proportion of their adult male population than the US, UK or any other Commonwealth/Empire nation.....

Must do some research........

MTOW
10th Jan 2014, 10:28
It's often said that Australia suffered the highest per capita casualties of any nation in WW1, but I think the Kiwis just beat us to the post for that doubtful honour. My history lecturer said, quite accurately I think, that it set Australia back 100 years.

Lon More
10th Jan 2014, 10:49
I wondered if there was a policy that meant they were not worthy enough to have been buried alongside white casualties?

They weren't allowed to fight alongside them either. The Tuskagee Airmen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Airmen)

MagnusP
10th Jan 2014, 10:49
Right. So, being a Tazzie and therefore upside down, does that explain why he put the cocaine . . . Oh, never mind.

teeteringhead
10th Jan 2014, 11:34
Must do some research........ Which I did - only quick and dirty (and Wiki!) so usual caveats on accuracy. It's often said that Australia suffered the highest per capita casualties of any nation in WW1, but I think the Kiwis just beat us to the post for that doubtful honour Beat by by quite a bit actually.

Oz suffered 61 966 military deaths from a population of 4.5M, which is 1.37%, whilst the Kiwis lost 18 052 from a much smaller population of 1.1M - that's 1.64%.

Surprisingly, the UK "beats" both with 886 939 from 45.4M - 1.95%. And that's just the military; there were about 2 000 UK civilian casualties directly attributable to military action (including a 6 year old Teeters relly, killed when a Zeppelin bombed her school in East London ..... :()

But the "baddies" mostly fared worse. The German Empire lost over 2M military from a 65M population, and the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire 772 000 from a population of 21.3M - both figures are about 3.6%.

The worst figures seem to have been suffered by the Serbs (who were our allies), who lost 275 000 military from a population of only 4.5M - that's more than 6% ........ :( the poor Serbs probably lost 150 000 civilians to military action, and maybe up to another 300 000 from consequent disease and famine. A total of 725 000 deaths - that's more than 16% of the entire population ..... :(:(:(

racedo
10th Jan 2014, 13:37
Its something I did for littlies school where myself and friends have visited WW1 graves in France...........included photos of different countres WW1 graveyards in France / Belgium including Axis because school is relatively mixed so avoiding a one side

There are graveyards memorials to
Indian
Chinese
Polish
Portugeese
African etc

Claiming its discrimination so they can't be alongside Whitey is crap.

Cemetries for other nations are done to commemorate their nations contribution in a national style to that country.

Its like saying Yanks should be in same graveyard as Brits.

I do however think the Govt actions is a snub and not a good one.

MTOW
10th Jan 2014, 19:34
Agree the outrage over separate graveyards is a beat up. If they'd mixed everyone together, the same people would accuse 'them' of trying to hide the Third World casualties among the Whities dead. I don't know about war cemeteries, but it's still common practice in Oz to have Jewish, Protestant, Catholic etc sections of a cemetery.

Re the Oz/kiwi claims of the highest casualty rates, it might be percentage casualties to number of troops in their armies. This would ale sense, as both the Kiwis and the Ozmates relied to a large degree on The British Army for rear echelon support, thereby allowing them to commit more of their troops to front line units. I understand there was one small town in NZ that lost every young man who enlisted. I sincerely hope no other town - on either side - anywhere else can 'one up' the Kiwis on that claim,

rjtjrt
10th Jan 2014, 22:14
I have always thought the contribution from the Indian troops in WW1 was largely unrecognised. This includes Gallipoli and Western Front.
Having said that it would be wrong to ignore or down play the role played by Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa, and incredibly disrespectful to those who fell or were crippled for life.
I wonder if the role of the US will be air brushed out as well.
Thankfully, there seem to be many decent people in UK who are willing to speak out about this, and I thank them.
John

John Hill
11th Jan 2014, 02:38
I understand there was one small town in NZ that lost every young man who enlisted. I sincerely hope no other town - on either side - anywhere else can 'one up' the Kiwis on that claim,

There are many places in NZ and I expect Australia too that were once little rural towns and are now no more than a name on a map or a tiny, lonely pub, church or district hall. These little towns did not all die just because of WWI casualities but I expect that was a significant contributing factor in many.

Tankertrashnav
11th Jan 2014, 09:08
It is invidious to set of a league table of losses, but this table does give a reasonable idea, and may expel some myths.

World War I casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties)

UK casualties as a percentage are a little higher than Australian and NZ (which are in themselves bad enough) but how many of us knew of the massive losses sustained by the Serbians, or indeed know anything much about their part in the war?

Its quite natural for all of us to concentrate on our own country's participation, but this was a war that affected far more than those armies facing each other on the Western Front.

airship
11th Jan 2014, 09:34
Every other UK pub appears to have at least 1 Ozzie barman or barmaid working there today. Surely that should be adequate recognition of their country's sacrifice to the Empire...?! :E