Why Did The UK Abandon Australia??

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by CrimsonKapital

 

If the British had decided to send Australia help, the history of the world would be a LOT different today.

Yip, can't disagree with you there.....the UK would probably have been defeated by Htiler's Germany and who knows how things would have turned out then?

Sigh another idiot.
No Britain would not have been defeated by Germany as the Battle of Britain was already over long before the Battle for Australia had even begun. Meaning there was no threat to Britain anymore.
The Soviet Union at this time was now beginning their own push towards Berlin all the while being armed by massive amounts of weapons by the British.
What did you send Australia? Nothing...

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Grifter81
My my this has decended into a bit of an anti-British triade hasn't it? I was only gone a couple of hours.

I didn't know Austrailians had such strong feelings toward the British?

Aussies are really nice, fair, down to earth people.

They have been fed so much republican propoganda over the years however that it is very difficult to have a rational conversation with them about either WWI or WWII.

Interestingly, the Kiwis are not like that at all yet they proportionately made a greater effort and lost more men than the Aussies in both world wars.

I suppose the difference is that NZ doesn't have a republican movement churning out anti-British propoganda.

LOL I know you have NEVER met an NZer, they are far more up themselves than ANY Aussie. They have flags in their front yard, and they always tell us Australians how much Australia sucks yet they move here in there thousands!!!
Truth is the only reason NZ lost the most people overall was because their population was soooo tiny back then. They lost about ten thousand men in the 1st war ( which isn't much) but their population at the time was like 100 thousand so they lost 10% of their population.
It seems high, but its not really its just because they had a tiny population at the time.

But for you to say NZ did more in the world wars than Australia, is not only pathetic but HIGHLY offensive. Not only do you not acknowledge Britains traitorous betrayal of Australia, but you say NZ did more of the work than US>|????

Who were the first to defeat the Japanese in WW2? Australians
In fact Australians were the first army in over 400 years to have defeated the Japanese in battle.
Over 1 million Australians served in WW2, out of a population of 7 million. Meaning 1 in 7 Australians fought in the war, while the other 6 were used to supply the war.

In other words, Australia had a higher percentage of work done than America or Britain.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by SNAFU38
Back that up !

You never will because you never can. Oh so typical, Holier than thou, the ignorance & arrogance still stuns me. That is why your Empire has crumbled & abandoned you, you just dont & never will understand. Go salute your irrelevant queen, she perfectly represents your empire.

Can I give you one example of the divorce between perception and reality of Aussies?

You will notice that Aussies present the Gallipoli campaign as an ANZAC operation.

Yet 52% of the casualties were British, 20% were Australian, 19% were French and 5% were NZ.

Gallipoli

To read the Aussie accounts of Gallipoli, you would think that they were the only people there.

You insentive idiot, and I thought you were actually beginning to realise your mistake.

The reason Gallipoli means so much to Australia is because it was our defining moment, our first true character of nationhood was forged in the battles of Gallipoli.
The reason why there aren't many British accounts is because British historians aren't interested in it, its not a defining moment in British history.
For many Australians the terrible British command which cost almost 10,000 Australians their lives was a tragedy which all blame can be put to the British.
After the campaign, it was a "never again shall the British command our men" sort of vibe, and guess what? John Monash came in and won WW1, an AUSTRALIAN commander.

reply to post by CrimsonKapital

Sigh another idiot.

Lol....another cyber warrior whose full of it behind a monitor but I suspect in reality something quite different.

I assure you, I am neither an idiot nor a coward.

No Britain would not have been defeated by Germany as the Battle of Britain was already over long before the Battle for Australia had even begun. Meaning there was no threat to Britain anymore.

Of course there was still a threat.
What do you think Hitler would have done if we had sent any substantial forces, which we didn't have anyway, to Australia and left the home front unguarded?

And we had a small matter of re-arming and rebuilding getting ready for the D-Day landings.
And we couldn't send any arms etc because we didn't have any....I'm guessing you have heard of the lend - lease agreement with the US and how they were screwing us blind supplying us with old and outdated weapons and machinery.
It wasn't until Germany declared war on them that they committed to the war, and were in turn committed to aiding Australia as well.

I suggest that on your weekend break from school you read about the war in the North Atlantic, The Blitz etc and think what a devestating effect it had on the UK.

The Soviet Union at this time was now beginning their own push towards Berlin all the while being armed by massive amounts of weapons by the British.

At the time of The Battle Of Australia the Soviet Union was fighting a bitter and rearguard action in places like Stalingrad etc and didn't have Germany on the run for quite some later.

Massive amounts?

I think not.
We didn't have enough to feed or arm ourselves....we were wholly reliant on Lend-Lease and supplies etc from Canada as well via the North Atlantic convoys.

What did you send Australia? Nothing...

Possibly not, some have spoken about three squadrons of Spitfires but to be honest I don't know about that....but the simple fact is that we had NOTHING to send.

I have nothing but respect and gratitude for the assisstance and sacrifices Australia has made over the years.

Perhaps you should try and have a look at things from a British perspective to give you a more balanced and informed viewpoint.

Originally posted by David291
Completel British hatefest.


Anyway, what do you say to the fact that Britiain had 10x more casualties than Austrlia in WW1? I would say it is Australia that didn't commit to the war as much as she should have.

Oh well...

en.wikipedia.org...

We lost a hell of a lot more than you and you dare complain about us not helping you as much as we could? I say you should of helped us more. I say you should of helped europe more.

Oh well, carry on.

Um we had only 7 million people at the time, of which 1 million served in the army. By percentage its far more than what Britain contributed....

Wait what did Britain contribute??? Oh thats right, nothing!!!! They abandoned Australia even though they owed us for our sacrifice in ww1, boer war, sudan conflict, nz wars, crimean war, and so on.

This isn't about who lost more, this is about why Britain betrayed Australia.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by CrimsonKapital

 

more to the point - before answering your loaded question , when exactly was australia " abandoned " as you alledge

despite your claim - ther was no actual threat of invasion - the bitishsh knew it , the australians knew it - heck even the japanese knew it

japan was halted in PNG - they had neither the troops or logistics to push further

and any invasion of australia would extend them beyond breaking point - they could not create , support or sustain any invasion force

thus australia was never in any true peril

FFS!!!!
Seriously did you watch those videos?
Did you read those links?

Go back and look at them then tell me Australia wasn't abandoned. You have no basis to back up your claim, I do.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by CrimsonKapital

 

more to the point - before answering your loaded question , when exactly was australia " abandoned " as you alledge

despite your claim - ther was no actual threat of invasion - the bitishsh knew it , the australians knew it - heck even the japanese knew it

japan was halted in PNG - they had neither the troops or logistics to push further

and any invasion of australia would extend them beyond breaking point - they could not create , support or sustain any invasion force

thus australia was never in any true peril

FFS!!!!
Seriously did you watch those videos?
Did you read those links?

Go back and look at them then tell me Australia wasn't abandoned. You have no basis to back up your claim, I do.

reply to post by eletheia


I don't consider Britain an ally, if the were an ally they would have helped us. But they chose not to, you can't hide the facts. Britain is not a loyal or courageous country, Australia is and that is our downfall.

what have you given the uk? fosters and neighbours?
why are you complaining?

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by CrimsonKapital

 

I'm doing something I really don't like doing here by posting a reply after only reading your OP, but that is because it's something I feel so passionate about.

If the UK did abandon Australia then it's unforgivable.
Most of us here in the UK hold our Australian, New Zealand and Candian cousins in the highest possible regard, even though we love beating you at cricket, and know and respect the sacrifices so many of your citizens paid in both World Wars.

But you must realise that the UK and it's Empire was under attack on all fronts at the time.

The UK had just achieved a hard fought victory in The Battle Of Britain and stood alone in the fight against Hitler in Europe.
It was imperative to safeguard the home borders and to build up and prepare for the eventual invasion and liberation of mainland Europe.

British forces pressed to their limit in the North Africa and Mediterranean arena's and to be fair Japan had given us a bit of thumping in Asia.

I don't know if many non-UK citizens realise just how much alone and under constant threat the UK was here in Europe.

I can only say that I genuinely hope the UK did not abandon Australia or any of our Commonwealth partners and if in the unlikely event that Australia ever needs any support and assistance in the future the UK will not be found wanting.

This is a good post and I understand what you mean.
All I can really say to that is, why was Britain sending massive amounts of weapons and so forth to the Soviet Union at this time, when Australia was desperately trying to arm its own militia? Shouldn't these weapons have gone to Australia?
And why did Britain take priority over India to Australia? Its something I will never understand, the trust Australians held for Britain was demolished after their betrayal.

Britain had every chance to send reinforcements to Singapore, but they chose not to. Instead Australia was forced to send its own reinforcements, already overstretched since its main fighting force the AIF was fighting alongside the British in North Africa.

"I don't know if many non-UK citizens realise just how much alone and under constant threat the UK was here in Europe."

And I don't think many Britains know just exactly how they abandoned us, they did not care what happened to the Australian people. They did not care we would be enslaved or worse.
And when we tried to bring home the AIF to defend our northern reaches the British PM Churchill attempted to stop us???

How can we be so sure the British would come to our aid in the future?
They didn't in the past, and like the old saying goes "Those who forget the past are condemed to repeat it".
We should not forget Britains betrayal, instead we should end the alliance and leave the commonwealth.

reply to post by Freeborn


I agree with what you wrote, however, why was Britain sending tonne of weapons to the soviet union when Australia was desperate to arm its militia? Shouldn't these weapons have gone to Australia?

Many Australians trusted the British and felt the "mother country" would heed our plea for help, but did she? The British didn't care about the Australia people, they didn't care they would become enslaved or worse.

And whos to say Britain will help us in the future if they didn't in the past? I think its time we left the commonwealth.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by CrimsonKapital

 

Sigh another idiot.

Lol....another cyber warrior whose full of it behind a monitor but I suspect in reality something quite different.

I assure you, I am neither an idiot nor a coward.

No Britain would not have been defeated by Germany as the Battle of Britain was already over long before the Battle for Australia had even begun. Meaning there was no threat to Britain anymore.

Of course there was still a threat.
What do you think Hitler would have done if we had sent any substantial forces, which we didn't have anyway, to Australia and left the home front unguarded?

And we had a small matter of re-arming and rebuilding getting ready for the D-Day landings.
And we couldn't send any arms etc because we didn't have any....I'm guessing you have heard of the lend - lease agreement with the US and how they were screwing us blind supplying us with old and outdated weapons and machinery.
It wasn't until Germany declared war on them that they committed to the war, and were in turn committed to aiding Australia as well.

I suggest that on your weekend break from school you read about the war in the North Atlantic, The Blitz etc and think what a devestating effect it had on the UK.

The Soviet Union at this time was now beginning their own push towards Berlin all the while being armed by massive amounts of weapons by the British.

At the time of The Battle Of Australia the Soviet Union was fighting a bitter and rearguard action in places like Stalingrad etc and didn't have Germany on the run for quite some later.

Massive amounts?

I think not.
We didn't have enough to feed or arm ourselves....we were wholly reliant on Lend-Lease and supplies etc from Canada as well via the North Atlantic convoys.

What did you send Australia? Nothing...

Possibly not, some have spoken about three squadrons of Spitfires but to be honest I don't know about that....but the simple fact is that we had NOTHING to send.

I have nothing but respect and gratitude for the assisstance and sacrifices Australia has made over the years.

Perhaps you should try and have a look at things from a British perspective to give you a more balanced and informed viewpoint.

edit on 4/5/12 by Freeborn because: spelling

Australia didn't have any substantial forces either since we had our armies positioned in North Africa, ie the Rats of Tobruk. Yes there was still a threat for Britain but they were no longer fighting for their very survival, Australia was fighting for their very survival and Britain had a policy of Germany first than the Japanese second.

They had no connection of empathy of the Australian situation, they merely viewed us as a colony that could be reconquered. I have tried looking at it from a British perspective and I still see no reason why the shouldn't have sent help. I hope the next time YOU have the enemy on your doorstep Australia sits back and watches from the sidelines.

Originally posted by lacrimosa
what have you given the uk? fosters and neighbours?
why are you complaining?

We have sacrificed thousands upon thousands of young men for Britain, thats what we have given you. We trusted you and you abused that trust, you are a traitor,

reply to post by CrimsonKapital

We trusted you and you abused that trust, you are a traitor,

70 yrs ago, nothing to do with me.

Originally posted by lacrimosa
reply to post by CrimsonKapital

 

We trusted you and you abused that trust, you are a traitor,

70 yrs ago, nothing to do with me.

If Britain didn't help us then what makes you think they would help in a future war?

The reason why I say this is because "Those who forgot the past are condemmed to repeat it". It has everything to do with today as it did in ww2.

Originally posted by CrimsonKapital
Then it took an Australian general John Monash to end the stalemate in North Africa which led to the allies winning the war a few months later.

Monash was a WWI general who fought on the Western front. Ended the stalemate in North Africa? North Africa was a WWII campaign. What are you on about?

Originally posted by CrimsonKapital
Funny, because in those battles it was recorded the Americans cowered in the brush as the Australians charged.

Perhaps the Americans were not quite as cowardly as you suppose and the Australians not quite as heroic?

Originally posted by CrimsonKapital
The British were cowards too, after Singapore was bombed the British command quickly waved a white flag leaving up to 15,000 Australians to be captured, none of whom would survive the Japanese prison camps.

Perhaps the British were not quite as cowardly as you suppose and the Australians not quite as heroic?

Originally posted by CrimsonKapital
You might want to watch what you write before you make yourself look like a fool.

Look. I am happy that you are proud of Australian soldiers of the past, but no one could accuse you of being impartial or balanced in your perspective.

Originally posted by CrimsonKapital
John Monash came in and won WW1, an AUSTRALIAN commander.

Didn't the French, British, Americans, Canadians, South Africans, Kiwis and Indians have anything to do with winning WWI?

I didn't realise it was the Australians who won WWI on their own.

I am happy that you are proud of Australian soldiers of the past but your pride is somewhat excessive.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by CrimsonKapital
Then it took an Australian general John Monash to end the stalemate in North Africa which led to the allies winning the war a few months later.

Monash was a WWI general who fought on the Western front. Ended the stalemate in North Africa? North Africa was a WWII campaign. What are you on about?

Originally posted by CrimsonKapital
Funny, because in those battles it was recorded the Americans cowered in the brush as the Australians charged.

Perhaps the Americans were not quite as cowardly as you suppose and the Australians not quite as heroic?

Originally posted by CrimsonKapital
The British were cowards too, after Singapore was bombed the British command quickly waved a white flag leaving up to 15,000 Australians to be captured, none of whom would survive the Japanese prison camps.

Perhaps the British were not quite as cowardly as you suppose and the Australians not quite as heroic?

Originally posted by CrimsonKapital
You might want to watch what you write before you make yourself look like a fool.

Look. I am happy that you are proud of Australian soldiers of the past, but no one could accuse you of being impartial or balanced in your perspective.

I know Monash was a ww1 general, thats why I mentioned him and yes he ended the stalemate on the western front (north africa was a mistake) beginning with the black day of the german army AKA Battle of Amiens.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by CrimsonKapital
John Monash came in and won WW1, an AUSTRALIAN commander.

Didn't the French, British, Americans, Canadians, South Africans, Kiwis and Indians have anything to do with winning WWI?

I didn't realise it was the Australians who won WWI on their own.

I am happy that you are proud of Australian soldiers of the past but your pride is somewhat excessive.

That was my quite emphatic response to a British person claiming Australians did nothing in the world wars. I never said "Australians" won ww1. BUT John Monash was the turning point in ww1, of which ended the war.

Now stop trying to go off-topic. This thread is about Britain and how they abandoned Australia (quite selfishly) in ww2.

reply to post by CrimsonKapital



You are looking at this from a singular point of view, but there were MANY countries

involved and i'm sure none of them acted independently, otherwise it would have been

utter chaos. Leaders and commanders would have been i constant contact, and

working towards the benefits and best outcome for ALL!! I think you need to take a wider

view point and read from all the different countries their input and out come of WW11 and

some where in the middle is the truth.


"Hindsight is a wonderful thing it's always very easy to second guess after the fact"


As for your reply to my post that you don't consider Britain an ally that they 'chose' not

to help - well Britain had other allies to consider besides Australia and it was NEVER

a choice............Let me ask you this

You are in a family of five and only you can swim, a boat you're in sinks, and the

currents are stong who will you save first ??..............

This all happened 70 yrs ago, your knowledge of the subject is second, third fourth

hand and slightly biased by the nationality of the authors you have read. Time to put

things into perspective, and draw a line under the past and make a BETTER future

because thats what all those brave men fought and gave their lives for...........