Why Did The UK Abandon Australia??

reply to post by eletheia


So was it Australias "choice" to sacrifice thousands of its young men for a war not of its own? Your war?

You owed us for ww1 and many colonial conflicts, yet when we needed a helping hand Britain spat in our face. You may think I'm looking at this from a one sided point of view, but I have loooked at Britains perspective and can't find any reason other than their own selfish greed as to why they didn't send help.

They were sending the Soviet Union help, who were not even really an ally, how disgusting is that???
You will supply the enemy but not a loyal friend? Wow what great friends we have up north...

"Who do you save first"

You save your allies first, not enemies like the Soviet Union.

You can't change my mind on this, because no matter what bulls**t new age crap you want to tell me ie, "Its what the soldiers would have wanted, a better world", I still see the British retreat from Singapore as the abandonment of Australia as an ally, and many other Australians agree with me.

reply to post by CrimsonKapital




I asked YOU the question.........You the ONLY swimmer in the water with four members

of your family floundering in the water strong currents you can't save them all.......Who do

you save first......the weakest? the strongest? the youngest? the oldest? the women?

AN IMPOSSIBLE QUANDARY??

By the same context

You = Britain

Your family = Australia, France, Canada, India, USA, etc

AN IMPOSSIBLE QUANDRY??

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by CrimsonKapital

 

I asked YOU the question.........You the ONLY swimmer in the water with four members

of your family floundering in the water strong currents you can't save them all.......Who do

you save first......the weakest? the strongest? the youngest? the oldest? the women?

AN IMPOSSIBLE QUANDARY??

By the same context

You = Britain

Your family = Australia, France, Canada, India, USA, etc

AN IMPOSSIBLE QUANDRY??

Its simple I'll answer it.

Well Canada wasn't under threat of invasion so we don't need to save them from "drowning"

The US wasn't considered part of the Empire Family although they weren't under invasion and nor did they need a helping hand anyway.

India ws almost neutral with half fighting the Axis and the other half fighting the allies.

France was already taken as a puppet state well before Australia came under threat.

And New Zealand was under no threat at all in the entire war.

That leaves Australia a loyal friend, where they stood as the last ally against the Japanese. Britain had the time, the resources, the labour, and the weapons to help the Australians defeat the Japanese invasion.

But did they....

No they let us drown, where no other family members were drowning they let US drown.

Double post.

Well look, at the end of the day you probably came out better than the rest of us in the UK. You got a big country with lots of resources , nice beaches and good weather.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Well look, at the end of the day you probably came out better than the rest of us in the UK. You got a big country with lots of resources , nice beaches and good weather.

What does that exactly have to do with what we are talking about here??

reply to post by CrimsonKapital



*CHOICE*

The only ones who 'chose' to fight are the aggerssors.

The 'defenders' do not have a choice, they either 'surrender' or 'defend'


Have you seen (compared) the size of Britain to - Australia, Canada, USA, Russia, Germany?

Incredibaly tiny..........David and Goliath comes to mind!!


Sending the Soviet Union help ........I haven't come across that before, and as we were

depleted of money, men, arms, ships and air craft i don't know how we would have managed

to do that!!


And whilst you are being so overtly patriotic, Did you know that the true Australian is the

Aborigine - all others are from else where, but i would hazard a guess.....mainly England

William Dampier 1688/Captain James Cook populated firstly as a penal colony.



PS This makes me laugh came across it some where

*You can spot an Australian as being an individual with limitless personality and with

English ass kicking syndrome*

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by CrimsonKapital

 

*CHOICE*

The only ones who 'chose' to fight are the aggerssors.

The 'defenders' do not have a choice, they either 'surrender' or 'defend'


Have you seen (compared) the size of Britain to - Australia, Canada, USA, Russia, Germany?

Incredibaly tiny..........David and Goliath comes to mind!!


Sending the Soviet Union help

........I haven't come across that before, and as we were

depleted of money, men, arms, ships and air craft i don't know how we would have managed

to do that!!


And whilst you are being so overtly patriotic, Did you know that the true Australian is the

Aborigine - all others are from else where, but i would hazard a guess.....mainly England

William Dampier 1688/Captain James Cook populated firstly as a penal colony.



PS This makes me

laugh

came across it some where

*You can spot an Australian as being an individual with limitless personality and with

English ass kicking syndrome*

Now that you know I have defeated you in argument you resort to the "Australia belongs to the Aboriginals" card. Why don't you English go back to Germany since that is where YOUR ancestors came from, Briton belongs to the Welsh, they are the true owners of the British Isles, not you invaders. How do you like that?

reply to post by CrimsonKapital


The UK did not supply any substantal arms or machinery to Russia, we had nothing to send!
That is why we recycled anything and everything and indebted the whole country through the Lend-Lease agreement - a debt so large we didn't finish paying it off until 2006!

Some FACTS

The Germans maintained an exceptionally large force to protect it's Western front as it rightly feared an invasion from the UK.
If the UK had sent any sort of significant force to help Australia Hitler would have been able to redeploy those forces to The Eastern Front and would have probably defeated The Soviet Union.
He would then have been able to have returned his attention to the invasion of the UK which would have been completely at his mercy as what forces we would have had would have been in Australia.

Stalin was continuously attempting to negotiate a peace with Hitler up to the point that he actually hoped for an Allied defeat on D-Day.
He felt Hitler would have then agreed a peace with him gaining vast stretches of land in western Russia etc.
Then he would have turned his attention back to the UK.

Either scenario would have been disastrous for the UK and would have probably resulted in our defeat.

The UK was under quite severe rationing at the time and nearly every major city and military settlement had suffered enormous damage during The Blitz - Britain was in no position whatsoever to send arms and forces anywhere - be it Australia or Russia.

Of course Churchill could and should have been slightly more diplomatic and understanding in his dealings and handling etc of Australian forces.....but diplomacy was hardly one of his strengths and sensitivity was hardly a war time leaders primary concern.

Anzac forces played a massive role in both the North Africa campaign and The Pacific War and they deserve our respect and gratitude, but Australia did not win the war alone and as far as I can determine was not abandoned by the UK.

I assure you, after the UK itself Australia, New Zealand and Canada are viewed as our closest and most respected allies by the vast majority of Brits and would undoubtedly and we would do whatever is necessary to help our friends if ever the need arose.

reply to post by CrimsonKapital


Just saying you were hardly Abandoned. Maybe we should have given up the defense of the UK to protect Australia. It was about priorities. Defend the homeland or divert resources to Australia.

reply to post by Freeborn


I don't care about facts, this is about morals those of which many believed Britain would protect her most loyal dominion.
A future conflict may very well redeem Britain and may even put the "Great" before her name once more.

reply to post by CrimsonKapital


We were having trouble defending ourselves let alone a country on the other side of the world. Imagine if the UK had have been left vulnerable. The only defense against Hitler in western Europe.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by CrimsonKapital

 

Just saying you were hardly Abandoned. Maybe we should have given up the defense of the UK to protect Australia. It was about priorities. Defend the homeland or divert resources to Australia.

edit on 5-5-2012 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)

So how come Britain took priority of India to Australia?
India was extremely corrupt and full of conflict in those times and was a weak ally at best, Australia proved itself tht it would die fighting to defend Britain but when worse came to worse Britain bailed out.

reply to post by CrimsonKapital


I don't know, maybe it had something to do with the tea?

Also many Indians died for the allied forces during both world wars.

reply to post by CrimsonKapital




Basically....bottom line...YOU WERE NOT THERE....


Heads of state and military of ALL involved countries were in communication and as such

must have ALL agreed to strategy and priorities, needs and requirements of ALL involved in

the conflict to each of their own satisfaction.


I repeat...as YOU WERE NOT THERE your in 'hindsight' bias is superfluous!!

reply to post by CrimsonKapital




India was NOT in conflict at that time...India at that time was VERY British.

The conflict with Britain and India didn't start till 1947. Long after the war

reply to post by CrimsonKapital

I don't care about facts,

Not a lot I can say about that, it really speaks volumes all by itself.

You choose to ignore the cold, harsh reality that the UK had no forces or material to send to Australia, didn't have the means to do so and would have left themselves completely exposed if they could have done and prefer to dwell upon sentiment and wishful thinking.

this is about morals those of which many believed Britain would protect her most loyal dominion.

Unfortunately morals don't win wars.

War's aren't nice things, people endure immeasurable suffering and DIE.

Morals didn't win The Battle Of Britain, morals didn't enable the UK to come through The Blitz and morals would not have transported imaginary forces and ammunition to Australia.

And Hitler certainly wouldn't have considered the morality of invading an undefended and exposed Britain whilst what little resources it had were thousands of miles away helping defend Australia.

A future conflict may very well redeem Britain

Let's hope it never happens, war must be the last resort.

and may even put the "Great" before her name once more.

Being 'Great' relies on far more than fighting ability etc.

There are issues we have to address domestically before we can ever begin to consider ourselves 'Great'.

Oh, and as an aside, the Great in Great Britain is a geographic description of the island that comprises of England, Scotland and Wales and was intended to differentiate it from Brittany in mainland France.

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by CrimsonKapital




Basically....bottom line...YOU WERE NOT THERE....


Heads of state and military of ALL involved countries were in communication and as such

must have ALL agreed to strategy and priorities, needs and requirements of ALL involved in

the conflict to each of their own satisfaction.


I repeat...as YOU WERE NOT THERE your in 'hindsight' bias is superfluous!!

Thankyou for reminding me of something that I already know!!

This has been an unexpectedly *long* discussion, I didn't think it would get past the first page to be honest. Yet after 6 pages I'm going to give in, if you Britons feel like you did everything possible to save Australia than I will stubbornly agree with you.
Was Britains priorities in the Pacific, of course not.
But it did have the moral responsibility to protect their loyal peoples half a world away.

I can agree somewhat that Britain had been too "hard-hit" to make much of an impact to the war its ally was fighting. Could it have done more? Yes I think it could have. But with Hitler still at large in Europe it probably was not the smartest thing to send reinforcements to aid in Kokoda.
Not the smartest thing, but morally the correct thing.

Many peoples suffered in the Great War, but Australia was not one that had too. We came to defend Britain and through our sacrifice and many others the war was won.
It is a sacrifice that is regularly visited upon in France but in Britain people like to make the all too common "Does Australia even have an army?"

If the British retreat of Singapore was not a "abandonment", than I don't know what is. Many British officials were fully aware of the consequences of that so called fortress, yet they allowed it to fall. Perhaps they did not realise their mistake?

But like the famous John Curtin once said, "The Fall of Dunkirk arguably opened the way for the Battle of Britain, the Fall of Singapore is our Dunkirk which has opened the way for the Battle for Australia."

I don't have anything left to say, you have swayed my opinion a little. Britain was in no way ready to send aid half way across the world, but neither should they have surrendered Singapore so easily...

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by CrimsonKapital

 

India was NOT in conflict at that time...India at that time was VERY British.

The conflict with Britain and India didn't start till 1947. Long after the war

During WW2 India was battling guerilla rebellions who had allied themselves with the Axis powers because they wanted India to be free from Britain. There were also large scale mutinies across Asia where the Indian soldiers refused to fight for the British with some even turning onto the Japanese side.
However, the Japanese viewed them as inferior so they were left to do menial tasks like carrying the Japanese supplies.

reply to post by CrimsonKapital


Some common ground.

Singapore was definately NOT the UK's greatest moment.