Skip to comments.British plan ANZAC whitewash
Posted on 01/08/2014 2:13:41 PM PST by naturalman1975
A PC push by British politicians is threatening to downplay the role of Aussie diggers in WW1 in favour of developing nations.
The ANZAC whitewash comes despite the 62,000 Australians who died in the Great War fighting for the British Empire and another 156,000 wounded, with no 100-year anniversary events planned by Britain recognising the sacrifice.
British government sources have confirmed internal briefings on WWI commemorations have not mentioned Australia or New Zealand once, instead staff from departments and cabinet offices have been briefed to concentrate on other British Empire contributions by soldiers from countries such as Nigeria and other dominions in West Africa, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
But failing to acknowledge the contributions of countries like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand isn't necessary to do that.
Right you are. Perhaps we will see this once the
anniversery gets here.
Wish I could tour the battlefields.
The Battle of Hamel - 4th July 1918 - marked the first time Australian and American troops went into battle together. Four American companies (originally more, but some were sent elsewhere before the battle began) were incorporated into the Australian Corps under Lieutenant General John Monash.
Well after General Hamilton had so many ANZAC troops needlessly slaughtered on the beaches and hills of Gallopi, I would not be surprised if Australia and New Zeland would really want to be recognized.
I guess it is time to kiss the mother country goodbye
In his “History of World War II” Churchill often mentioned his fear that the Australian Prime Minister would pull Australian troops from the ETA and return them to Australia because of the Japanese threat.
He managed to keep them but I could understand the Australians position.
Monash University in Australia (founded 1958) is named for Sir John Monash.
They might be reminded that this was planned by Chuurchill. There was an interesting aftermath between Turkey and Aust.and N.Z. This was led by Ataturk.
Before the disease of political correctness runs its course around the world, we will have history books teaching children that African blacks developed the nuclear reactor, Mexicans won the war in the Pacific in WWII, muslims put the first man on the moon and homosexuals built the transcontinental railroad.
More PC writing of history to meet current political goals. Maybe Australia and New Zealand can find a creative way to express their displeasure ... if they even care what the remade, non-British, Britain thinks.
Churchills fear was generated by British mistreatment of ANZAK and Canadian forces during WW1.
Hmmmm...on the first day of the Somme, the ANZACs were the only ones who carried their objectives. Seems like a grotesque omission to me, as well as of the Canadians.
The Turks even have a memorial dedicated to The Anzacs.
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, President of Turkey, in a message to the families of British Empire servicemen who died at Gallipoli and who are buried there. Atatürk had commanded Turkish troops during the battle. It's an incredibly graceful statement considering he was talking about foreigners who tried to invade his country.
And it is why a memorial to Atatürk stands opposite the Australian War Memorial in Canberra - on ANZAC Parade.
At a dinner of the ABCA (America Britain Canada Australia) Armies Cooperation Group at the Royal Artillery Mess in Larkhill, I offered a toast that included this event among others where our armies fought and bled together. New Zealand was includes as well as they are members, but in an adjunct status at the time due to political considerations.
I did not mention Brandywine, Lundy’s Lane, or New Orleans as they were not in keeping with the spirit of the occasion.
(From World War II, but you can recognise both types of contributions together)
I suppose they were all carrying Enfields.
No South African of non-European ancestry would have been allowed to join the military in WWI or WWII. Just so you know.
And yes by the time the PC illness further ravages the Western world it will be taught that blacks invented everything and whites are backwards racists worshiping and ancient tribal god of all that is unholy - greedy and wrong.
What a world that would accept this.
> ...despite the 62,000 Australians who died in the Great War fighting for the British Empire and another 156,000 wounded... staff from departments and cabinet offices have been briefed to concentrate on other British Empire contributions by soldiers from countries such as Nigeria and other dominions in West Africa, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
I think you’ll find the 36th Ulsters also reached their objectives, although damn all use it was to them if there was nobody to their left and right.
This isn’t Murdoch’s press stirring the old pommie-bashing up just a wee bit is it?
There seems to be a conflation of two things; an idea about showing how colonial troops (there was no such thing as the “New Commonwealth” back then, isn’t today either if it comes to that) also served, as you say yourself that’s fair enough.
Then asking is there a going to be a specific mention of the ANZACs and the official replied nothing as such yet but it’s a four-year commemoration so they’re bound to come up. Jeez you’d be hard-pressed to discuss WWI and not mention the ANZACs. It’s a bit of a stretch to then say Britain is going to “whitewash” out the Diggers.
A storm in a teacup, not assisted by the sloppy journo-speak, no-one in Britain refers to the New Commonwealth anymore, not since about 1970 anyway and there will be no “federal” election in the UK next year.
I’ve treated Murdoch’s press on Aussie history with a large lump of salt since The Australian said in its editorial on ANZAC Day 2003 something to the effect that hard as it is to imagine now, but back then Australians regarded themselves as British. Hard for whom? No one with two functioning brain synapses and the slightest grasp of Australian history would have difficulties understanding that basic fact.
They're certainly not beyond doing that, but, no, I don't think it is just that. This is the first source I've seen discussing this publically, but I've heard about it in recent weeks from other sources as well - including some I would consider very reliable. The problem isn't just that Australia, New Zealand (and Canada - news.com.au is itself remiss in not mentioning them) aren't being mentioned - we've had reports that deliberate efforts are being made to 'downplay the white' nations (not my phrasing - what I've been told) and emphasise others.
Ive treated Murdochs press on Aussie history with a large lump of salt since The Australian said in its editorial on ANZAC Day 2003 something to the effect that hard as it is to imagine now, but back then Australians regarded themselves as British. Hard for whom? No one with two functioning brain synapses and the slightest grasp of Australian history would have difficulties understanding that basic fact.
Speaking as an Australian-born historian with English heritage who holds both Australian and British citizenship, I think the Australian got it right if that is what they said. It is hard in modern Australia, which has its own sense of national pride for people to understand that as late as the 1950s, and to some extent in the 1960s, Australians still saw themselves as British first and Australian second. It's not about understanding it intellectually, it's about understanding it on an emotional basis. If you read 'On the Beach' by Neville Shute, it has a passage where one of the women is lamenting the fact that she will never be able to 'go home now'. Home is England, a place she's never ever been before. She's Australian born, and she's never left Australia, and she sees England as home. That's a mindset that's gone now (except for cases like myself where as I said, I'm a dual citizen), and it is a massive change in my lifetime.
True in World War II, but not in World War I. Black soldiers did serve in the Army in fairly considerable numbers during that conflict. They were not deployed to anywhere they would be likely to fight Europeans, but served in campaigns against German territories in Africa. At the time (only a little over a decade after the Second Boer War), the South African government was far more concerned about the pro-German sympathies of many of the Afrikaaners than they were about much else. It was also masked a bit by the fact that, as was true, of many British Imperial Forces, soldiers could be considered to be serving in the British Army, rather than in the South African.
I believe that while the designated "combat" jobs were reserved for whites, the South African Army used what they termed "coloured" troops extensively, as pioneers, transport troops, and the like.
Rommel PO'd the South African Army by refusing to provide racially segregated POW camps for his prisoners.
Until well into the American Revolution many of its leaders, especially the wealthier and/or better educated, maintained that they were not revolutionaries at all, but simply fighting to "maintain their rights as Englishmen."
On a more ANZAC note, about a decade ago my wife and I vacationed in England. We stayed at a bed and breakfast where an elderly Australian was a fellow guest. He said that he had been in Spitfire pilot in WWII, and that the British Government gave him a trip to London (a few years before) in 1990, as part of the 50th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain. When he got to Heathrow all the West Germans on the flight strode past customs and immigration flashing their West German EU passports, while he and his fellow ANZACS had to be wait in line to have their luggage examined and be closely question about just what the purpose of their visit was. He said something like "I was so glad that my mates and I had saved the home country from the bloody Germans."
Thanks for the correction. In looking up on this in a historical account of S.A. initially most of the war involved securing Southwest Africa and East Africa from the German threat and securing British communication lines. I found that there was an armed Cape Colored Corps that served overseas (Europe) and that Africans joined in the thousands in the Native Labour Corps to dig trenches and other noncombatant roles in many battlefields. The text I refer to written by Freda Troup states they were not allowed to carry arms. Apparently 600 at one time drowned on the Mendi in 1917 in the English Channel. Upon their return they were disbanded and not honored with any ribbons or metals or acknowledgment really other than memories of false promises by recruiters and new ideas.
I take your point that the paper might have meant that many Aussies might not understand the mindset rather that not being aware of the mindset so perhaps I was being overly critical.
I did write a letter to the editor in which I pointed out that of course the Aussies regarded themselves at that time as “British” for the blindingly obvious reason that most of them were British. About 90% of Aussies at that time were either born in the UK or were directly descended from people born in the UK, they spoke English with a British dialect and wrote in the British idiom, used British weights measures and currency, had a British monarch and were guarded for most part by the British Navy, whilst they might have been citizens of the proud young nation of Australia they were overwhelmingly “culturally British”. I don’t think the paper published it.
I would be outraged if what you say about a deliberate attempt to downplay the “white” dominions in WWI turns out to be true and probably typical of the apologetic nature of modern Britain. I mentioned the 36th Ulsters above, it is noticeable that when the real tough fighting had to be done in British campaigns, the Diggers, Kiwis, Canucks, Saffers, Jocks and Paddies were usually shoved to the fore. I have a friend from Belfast who works in a bank in the City of London he and his colleagues from the dominions regularly dismiss the ex-public schoolboy English guys in the office as “empire losers”.
One last point I seem to recall reading somewhere that one South African officer faced with an advance by Rommel handed rifles to his black drivers etc and admonished them slightly tongue-in-cheek not to shoot any white Germans.