It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Rob37n
reply to post by OpenSky
Who the hell were they going to send? We were at war on several fronts at the time, forces spread across Europe, Africa, India, the Far East and so on. The upper class idiots running the show managed to get huge numbers of British troops captured by the Japanese by having the guns pointing the wrong way, or just giving in too early and capitulating without putting up a decent fight. Although you never see a General being done for lack of moral fibre do you. British forces at the time were spread to breaking point, there wasn't the capacity to divert troops to another theatre of war.
Consequently the Pacific war was an American affair in the main. US Forces worked closely with Australia, I honestly don't think there was the ability for British troops to be committed to help Australia at the time.
I thought the main grievance in Australia was that the Australian government would fight to the last Queenslander? That if the Imperial Japanese Army invaded Australia then the Australian forces would withdraw to the New South Wales border to make a stand? Doesn't that still play a part in the bitterness at events like State of Origin?
It's shameful that a great country like Australia wasn't aided more by the British government at the time, and it's downright shameful that the country isn't a proper republic as a result of those events. But there isn't much to be done about it now I am afraid.
Thankfully those types of shooting wars have been over for a long time, and long may they continue to be, and it's best we now fight on the cricket pitch, footy (Rubgy League not Onion), and if the Aussies ever master it the Football (soccer) pitch. I would say AFL but sadly the game never seems to spread outside of Australia, it's an exciting sport, weird, but exciting.
Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
Greetings, first thread for me. I'll just say that I was always interested in alternative ww2 history, so I'm sure a lot of you will know the darker side to Churchill. Was he a warmonger? Did he inevitably escalate the situation in Europe to the point of actually somewhat contributing to causing ww2? I always viewed Churchill in an ambiguous light, he seems to me to be rather glorified. I personally believe the war could have been averted if it weren't for England's radical position towards Germany in the 30s and 1939,40. The war could have been stopped by 1940 in my opinion, there are a lot of things that aren't taught in school about the beginnings of the war, England was the first to pursue radically aggressive measures towards Germany in the UK-German conflict, like the bombing of civilian areas. The Blitz in fact was retaliation against the multiple times Churchill had ordered the bombing of Berlin and other cities. So what do you think? Did Churchill make the European situation worse? I believe so
WORLD WAR I broke out in the summer of 1914. Within two years Germany had won the war. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the British convoys from the Atlantic Ocean and leaving Britain without ammunition and food for her soldiers.
At that time the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme.
The Russian army was defecting. And the Italian army had collapsed. Not a shot had been fired on German soil yet Germany was offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis which means: “Let’s call the war off and let everything be as it was before the war started.”
England, in the summer of 1916, was considering Germany’s peace terms. They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was offering them or going on with the war and being totally defeated.
While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, led by the Jew, Chaim Weitzman, who later became the 1st President of Israel, went to the British War Cabinet and said: “Don’t capitulate to Germany. You can win this war if the United States comes in as your ally. We can arrange this. But in return, you must promise us Palestine once the tide turns in your favor.”
Originally posted by RizeorDie
and then Churchill comes alonge and made things worse with his fighting spirit.
Originally posted by OpenSky
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
I don't know about Churchill but you Britons ARE seen as traitors in the eyes of the Australians.
Originally posted by HelenConway
Originally posted by OpenSky
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
I don't know about Churchill but you Britons ARE seen as traitors in the eyes of the Australians.
what are you on about open sky ?
Peter Stanley—the former principal historian at the Australian War Memorial—argues that the concept of a 'Battle for Australia' is mistaken as these actions did not form a single campaign aimed against Australia. Stanley has also stated that no historian he knows believes that there was a 'Battle for Australia'.[4] In a 2006 speech, Stanley argued that the concept of a Battle for Australia is invalid as the events which are considered to form the battle were only loosely related. Stanley argued that "The Battle for Australia movement arises directly out of a desire to find meaning in the terrible losses of 1942"; and "there was no 'Battle for Australia', as such", as the Japanese did not launch a co-ordinated campaign directed against Australia. Furthermore, Stanley stated that the phrase 'Battle for Australia' was not used until the 1990s and this 'battle' of the Second World War is not recognised by countries other than Australia
Originally posted by OpenSky
Originally posted by HelenConway
Originally posted by OpenSky
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
I don't know about Churchill but you Britons ARE seen as traitors in the eyes of the Australians.
what are you on about open sky ?
After our sacrifices made for Britain, when we needed your help you spat in our faces. [/quote
.]
edit on 17-1-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)
editby]edit on 17-1-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by moonrunner
reply to post by OpenSky
What sacrifices are these then?
Originally posted by OpenSky
Originally posted by Rob37n
reply to post by OpenSky
When the battle for Australia began the Battle for Britain had already ended, you were not under siege at this point in time like we were. As well, the Americans hadn't even joined the conflict yet, so it was Australia who was having to take on the Imperial Empire.
The British basically said "f*ck you Australia, we don't give a sh*t about your sacrifices so good luck without our help", and ALLOWED Singapore to fall taking 15 thousand Australians prisoner (none of which will survive).
At this point in time, Australia had no armed forces left, our armies were fighting the Germans in North Africa. So instead, untrained militia were raised to fight off invasion.
By the time the Americans became involved the Battle for Australia was over, and the Aussies had BY THEMSELVES pushed the Japs from New Guinea.
Like I said previously, we sent our men to fight and die for Britain, we were with you during the Battle for Britain as the RAAF helped defend YOUR skies.
But when it came to return the favour, you just upped and left us naked...
The Battle for Australia ? That is made up = the Japanese did not invade Australia, they thought about it but they did, this term refers to battles clos eto Australia.
Britain could not have come to Australia's aid at this time even if they wanted to - they were fighting for their very survival. The battle of Britain refers to an aerial battle, only one part of the war that Britain was up to her neck in.
You clearly have no understanding of the situation Britain was in during those perilous years, her troops were in Europe, Africa and the middle East and in Asia, yes also Singapore. The cities were being bombed daily, London, Plymouth Hull, and many others were flattened, Australia was not flattened by German bombs at all !!!!
The British thought their island was going to be invaded and her citizens murdered and enslaved.
Singapore was lost due to the invasion of japan via lond not sea as expected, Lt Gen Percival surrendered prematurely .. he thought he was saving lives by doing this.
The 80,000 who were taken prisoners also included British personnel as well as Australian and Indians - who were a long way from home BTW.
The enslavement happened anyway and Britain lost in the long run circa 2013 but that is another story.
Your assertions are an insult to the Brave Australians who fought in WW2 and WW1 and to the British fighting men and their allies.