Kevrumbo(Offline)

With absolutely no help or material support from the United Kingdom, it was the all-volunteer AIF who fought and died to protect Australian soil; it was the Aussies in 1942 who first stood up to and finally repelled the Japanese Army Juggernaut, and started the Allied turnaround ending in the ultimate defeat of the Japanese Empire. . . Long live the survivors and remembrances of the fallen on the Kokoda Track (and of WWI Gallipoli as well). . .

Hail to the Diggers! Stand by your Mates! --the best Jungle Fighters of WWII. . . Better than any Marine, Royal or US (The Marines on Guadalcanal only had the better publicity. . .)

__________________
"Live never to be ashamed if anything you do or say is published [or posted] around the world --even if what is published is not true. . ."

Gareth Burrows(Offline)

ive picked you up for the bollox you spout about war before and I'll do it again. Let's do WW1first. Australia lost 20,000 men at Gallipoli. The UK lost 52,000, over half the allied losses, so please dont publicise the impression that australia faught alone.

Now let's examine WW2. Australia was never going to be invaded by the Japanese - they never had plans to do so. However, by capturing the solomon islands they intended to isolate Australia from their American supporters, a plan scuppered by the Americans in their victory in the battle of the coral sea.

Australia also did not "start the allaid turnaround". The Americans did that at Guadalcanal when for the first time they took land held by Japanese forces. Following that battle, the Japanese were constantly on the defensive. As for "help or material support from the United Kingdom" let's not forget that complete control of Australian military was handed over to Mcarthur in 1942, who immediately the entire Australian command structure, leaving on epuppet commander, and almost no senior Australians in the al;lied command system governing the area. How exactly was the UK supposed to assist at this point bearing in mind we had lost all military power in the area, and handed over control of the seas forever more to the USA.

So let's just cut through the crap shall we. 50 million people died in WW2. Everyone fought bravely, including the Germans and Japanese, and indeed the Australians, but at the end of the day it was just the madness of a few men that led to 50 million wasted lives, and it was a group of countries all weighing in together that resolved the issue, not one single group or country.

This comment "Better than any Marine, Royal or US" is likely to earn you a slap if you are daft enough to speak like that around ex-forces types face to face. Even the booties I know have enough pride and self respect to be thoroughly insulted by bullshit like that. Try to remember that for every 1 Australian marine that lost their lives, 9 UK men perished, 10 american boys did not come home, and 200 Russians, which is the one no one metions.

By all means celebrate a nations history, but don't do it at the expense of other countries. Especially not ones that gave lives for the same cause.

__________________
Garf
Amusing and Clever Signature under construction.

Kevrumbo(Offline)

This is their Day of Honor . . .not yours nor for your irreverent revisionist histrionics Garf. . .

How ironic that an American of Filipino Heritage has a better appreciation and respect for Commonwealth Military History in proper context than you and your idealist & minimalizing rants: tell us something we don't know already besides general casualty statistics and the obvious inference that war is really bad and kills a lot of people. . .

BTW, 1 in 26 civilian merchant mariners serving aboard merchant ships in World WW II died in the line of duty, suffering a greater percentage of war-related deaths than all other U.S. armed services --and they sacrificed it all in the Battle of the Atlantic, for the survival of the British Isles (and for you too Garf). . .

__________________
"Live never to be ashamed if anything you do or say is published [or posted] around the world --even if what is published is not true. . ."

David Martin (Online)

Indeed

Kevrumbo(Offline)

Indeed, for your info ... this is Australia's/New Zealand's Day.

__________________
"Live never to be ashamed if anything you do or say is published [or posted] around the world --even if what is published is not true. . ."

base615(Offline)

Quite frankly I think there's way too much glorification of war these days. If we were that worried about not forgetting peoples "sacrifice" we would be trying to avoid war at all costs rather than rushing headlong into it. Where's the day of rememberence for all the Iraqi civilians killed over the last few years?

The people who faught and died at Galipoli or the Somme weren't heroes, they were people who would face a firing squad if they didn't go over the top. People should be saying what a tragedy and a waste it is to rather than going on about fallen heroes.

Same goes for the Kokoda Track. I guarantee a fair few of those volunteers wished they hadn't volunteered once they realised what they had got themselves into but if you were stuck out in the arse end of nowhere with no support expecting to be killed at any moment you would step up to the plate too.

I'm an ex soldier myself and have experienced the whole "let's go and do what we're trained for" feeling but looking back that was when I was 18 and now I'm damn glad that in the end Northern Ireland was the only place I ever went where it was possible to get shot at.

Craig

Kevrumbo(Offline)

Craig, IMHO --it's more glorification of the esprit de corps, and the idea of the "Australian Mateship" -- ". . .a relationship in which social status and breeding fall by the wayside and looking after your mate, your true friend, is of utmost importance. And what's more, you can expect them to do the same for you. . ."

As a soldier under fire, you well know that fear can be contained or compartmentalized, but it cannot be banished. Most commanders know that their best hope is to channel fear, so that men are not paralyzed but rather motivated. It has long been recognized that men fight, not for God or country, but out of fear --fear of being killed and fear of showing fear. The military uses the buddy system knowing that men do not want to shame themselves by showing cowardice to their buddies.

Better to quote an Australian here today . . .In a speech given in London, November 2003, Prime Minister John Howard said:

Quote:

The two world wars exacted a terrible price from us - the full magnitude of that lost potential, of those unlived lives can never be measured. And yet, some of the most admirable aspects of Australia's national character were, if not conceived, then more fully ingrained within us by the searing experiences of those conflicts.

None more so than the concept of mateship - regarded as a particularly Australian virtue - a concept that encompasses unconditional acceptance, mutual and self respect, sharing whatever is available no matter how meagre, a concept based on trust and selflessness and absolute interdependence. In combat, men did live and die by its creed. 'Sticking by your mates' was sometimes the only reason for continuing on when all seemed hopeless.

That's the kinship, the camaraderie I venerate today. . .

__________________
"Live never to be ashamed if anything you do or say is published [or posted] around the world --even if what is published is not true. . ."

Hassan Adly(Offline)

Hello,

To be honest I don't like how this thread has developed at all. The thread starter made some comments in celebration of ANZAC day, an important commemorative day for Australians and New Zealanders, with some (perhaps misguided) statements glorifying Australia's role in the second world war. I don't think he deserved the reaction he got.

More importantly, as an Australian I am insulted that a thread with the title "on this ANZAC day" ended up serving as a soapbox for couch historians. This irreverent bickering only serves to marginalise those who are the actual theme of the thread - the ANZACs and their struggle. As Kevrumbo said: It is their day of honor - not yours!

I appreciate Kevrumbo's sentiments regarding ANZAC troops, although I would kindly suggest reading a bit more about the history of the famed Australia & New Zealand Army Corps, especially their First World War history, and furthermore about what are known as ANZAC spirit and the ANZAC legend. Knowledge of these subjects will help understand what ANZAC day is all about, and what it means to Australians and New Zealanders.

Garf, thanks for the impromptu history lesson, but I find it necessary to make some comments and corrections. I still think it inappropriate to discuss it here - and furthermore it is long, so I will print it in small text:

Regarding Allied losses at Gallipoli: Your numbers are incorrect (you were probably referring to the injured casualty figures). Allied killed at gallipoli: Britain 21255, France 10000, Australia 7594, NZ 2701, India 1358, Newfoundland 49. Does this somehow prove your point? No, it only gives the impression that you don't care enough about this important historical event to get your figures straight.

Regarding WWII: 1942 saw the invasion of New Guinea, which was Australian territory at the time. Japanese bombing of the Australian mainland caused large scale destruction and took many lives, especially the massive bombardment of Darwin. The Japanese push into Fiji and the Solomon Islands put Australia at risk of strategic isolation from the USA, effectively its only source of military support at the time. The Japanese government publicly threatened an invasion of Australia. Perhaps today's historians (even real ones) may doubt that the Japanese intended to invade; I for one can only wonder what Australians must have felt or thought at the time.

Regarding the "turning of the tide": If we work hard enough nitpicking who is responsible for reversing the Japanese advance in WWII, I'll bet we could narrow it down to one person, or maybe even one person's pet goldfish. War is vastly more complex than that. For example: The battle of the coral sea prevented the Japanese capture of Port Moresby in New Guinea (the first time an invading Japanese force had been defeated). This caused the Japanese to attempt capture of Port Moresby overland, which provided enough time for elite Australian infantry to arrive and wage the Kokoda Track campaign, the battle of Isurava, and the battle of Milne bay. All this kept a huge number of Japanese forces busy and hence was a huge relief to US forces at Guadalcanal. So, who is responsible for the US victory at Guadalcanal? I think that the complexity of how the war unfolded makes the question irrelevant.

Base 615, The theme of this thread is ANZAC day, which commemorates the struggles and sacrifices of ANZAC soldiers in the World Wars 1 & 2. It doesn't glorify war - it honors those who fought, for whatever reason, and commemorates the meaning of their battles in Australian and NZ history. As for your reference to Iraqi civilians, it is totally inappropriate. Current tragedies such as the ongoing war in Iraq do not reduce the honor earned by the ANZACs, and bringing them up in this context can be regarded as disrespect towards those who deserve only respect.

Thanks for your attention,
Hassan

__________________
Hassan Adly

Red Sea Discovery

"Today I will finally see the sea again, which will smell of salt, wind, sand - and the cold of winter. Finally I will not only travel on it but dive in it, again I will become water, a bird - and I will remember the feeling of gliding above the abyss"
Elena Sundukova, tragically lost at sea, January 2007

base615(Offline)

Hang on mate, I wasn't saying that Anzac day itself glorified war. I was having a go at what I percieved as the original posters glorification ie. "the best jungle fighters". That to me is totally innapropriate to not consider other people who died just because they were on the other side and that seems to be what a whole bunch of people over here do on Anzac day.

base615(Offline)

Well if that's what you meant then I agree however to me your original post read as a glorification of how great the Aussie and Kiwi troops were at killing Japanese.

Also, the guy you just quoted wouldn't know the idea of mateship if it jumped up and bit him on the arse.