The Aerodrome Forum - View Single Post - The ANZACs- myth and reality

NeilE · 12 February 2008, 04:54 AM

Confused:

Whilst the Australian infantryman in World War II was a hard, dogged, and sometimes ruthless soldier, your comments that "we cut to bits everyone the enemy threw against them" way overstates the case and reflects a lot of the mythology regarding the fighting prowess of the 2nd AIF and that of the Australian soldier in general.

Whilst we were at times able to make an effective rearguard action during the retreat from Greece and were able to inflict significant casualties (at times) on the advancing Germans (As did British and New Zealand troops) there were certainly times where we took a serious beating from the self same Germans. The same goes for Crete. Well sited defensive positions in these actions were anther factor in these actions with the kill ratios being higher for the attacker than for the defenders.

The defence of Tobruk was a mighty achievement but there were plenty of examples prior to El Alamein where the Afrika Korps inflicted significant losses (of lives, material and ground) on our troops, .

Pretty much the same scenario exists in relation to The Great War. Many of our finest moments in that war were in fact defeats. But both defeats and victories in that war involved heavy losses brought about by a well trained and determined opposition who on many occasions was able to throw us back or fight us to a standstill.

Australians were trusted assault troops but they certainly were not the key assault troops of the Commonwealth forces. That honour clearly went to the Canadians. Canadian successes and thorough planning led to the Canadian Corp becoming an

independent force under Gen. Curry with its own command from April 1917. It was this force that was responsible for the successes at Vimy Ridge, Messines, the final battle of Passchendaele and others. The Australians didnt achieve that independent status until mid 1918. Even at Amiens the Canadians played a key role in the planning and execution of that battle.

Australian planning, preparation and training was always inferior to that of the Canadians though I believe the fighting qualities of both groups were very close - though the Australian infantryman was considered more slapdash in their approach than the Canadians.

One thing I find again and again in reading Australian accounts of Australian actions in The Great War is the blinkered nature of much of it. Australian successes are always emphasised but the performance of other troops in the same battle (unless they are British and unsuccessful) are rarely mentioned. Take Amiens for example - reading many Australian accounts of the battle, you'd think that the Battle was conducted by primarily Australian troops with a few unsuccessful British troops (holding back the left flank until a few Australians come and help them) with a few admiring Americans along for the ride. What is never mentioned in these accounts is the fact the Canadians had the right flank and advanced farther than the Australians during the push.

Thsi happens time and again. Villers-Bretoneaux is a similar story. The Australians were very successful in their attacks but the role of the British troops in the action is rarely mentioned.

I've heard that Blamey story before. Blamey was not well liked by any of the troops under his command. Most likely he only retained his position because he was one of MacArthur's yes men.

One other point, the myth that the fighting qualities of Australians was due to his tough living rural background is by and large a myth originally constructed by C.E.W. Bean. Statistically both in The Great War and WW2, the majority of Australian troops were from urban backgrounds. This was as true in 1915 as it was in 1918, and the same for the 2nd AIF and Militia.

There is no doubt that the achievements of the Australian fighting men and women should be recognised and celebrated. But this needs to be done realistically so as to avoid creating uncritical panegyrics such as other countries pass off as the history of their achievements in the two World Wars. That sort of military history can teach us nothing about the nature of our fighting men and women, their experiences, and how those things translate to us as modern Australians.

Cheers

Neil

PS I don't remember that Gillies piece, it looks as if he was (as usual) being pretty satirical in it.

12 February 2008, 04:54 AM	#8 (permalink)
NeilE Forum Ace Contributor Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Reservoir, Melbourne, Aust Posts: 938	Confused: Whilst the Australian infantryman in World War II was a hard, dogged, and sometimes ruthless soldier, your comments that "we cut to bits everyone the enemy threw against them" way overstates the case and reflects a lot of the mythology regarding the fighting prowess of the 2nd AIF and that of the Australian soldier in general. Whilst we were at times able to make an effective rearguard action during the retreat from Greece and were able to inflict significant casualties (at times) on the advancing Germans (As did British and New Zealand troops) there were certainly times where we took a serious beating from the self same Germans. The same goes for Crete. Well sited defensive positions in these actions were anther factor in these actions with the kill ratios being higher for the attacker than for the defenders. The defence of Tobruk was a mighty achievement but there were plenty of examples prior to El Alamein where the Afrika Korps inflicted significant losses (of lives, material and ground) on our troops, . Pretty much the same scenario exists in relation to The Great War. Many of our finest moments in that war were in fact defeats. But both defeats and victories in that war involved heavy losses brought about by a well trained and determined opposition who on many occasions was able to throw us back or fight us to a standstill. Australians were trusted assault troops but they certainly were not the key assault troops of the Commonwealth forces. That honour clearly went to the Canadians. Canadian successes and thorough planning led to the Canadian Corp becoming an independent force under Gen. Curry with its own command from April 1917. It was this force that was responsible for the successes at Vimy Ridge, Messines, the final battle of Passchendaele and others. The Australians didnt achieve that independent status until mid 1918. Even at Amiens the Canadians played a key role in the planning and execution of that battle. Australian planning, preparation and training was always inferior to that of the Canadians though I believe the fighting qualities of both groups were very close - though the Australian infantryman was considered more slapdash in their approach than the Canadians. One thing I find again and again in reading Australian accounts of Australian actions in The Great War is the blinkered nature of much of it. Australian successes are always emphasised but the performance of other troops in the same battle (unless they are British and unsuccessful) are rarely mentioned. Take Amiens for example - reading many Australian accounts of the battle, you'd think that the Battle was conducted by primarily Australian troops with a few unsuccessful British troops (holding back the left flank until a few Australians come and help them) with a few admiring Americans along for the ride. What is never mentioned in these accounts is the fact the Canadians had the right flank and advanced farther than the Australians during the push. Thsi happens time and again. Villers-Bretoneaux is a similar story. The Australians were very successful in their attacks but the role of the British troops in the action is rarely mentioned. I've heard that Blamey story before. Blamey was not well liked by any of the troops under his command. Most likely he only retained his position because he was one of MacArthur's yes men. One other point, the myth that the fighting qualities of Australians was due to his tough living rural background is by and large a myth originally constructed by C.E.W. Bean. Statistically both in The Great War and WW2, the majority of Australian troops were from urban backgrounds. This was as true in 1915 as it was in 1918, and the same for the 2nd AIF and Militia. There is no doubt that the achievements of the Australian fighting men and women should be recognised and celebrated. But this needs to be done realistically so as to avoid creating uncritical panegyrics such as other countries pass off as the history of their achievements in the two World Wars. That sort of military history can teach us nothing about the nature of our fighting men and women, their experiences, and how those things translate to us as modern Australians. Cheers Neil PS I don't remember that Gillies piece, it looks as if he was (as usual) being pretty satirical in it. __________________ "There's something wrong with our bloody ships today." - Adm. Beatty, Jutland, 1916. Last edited by NeilE; 12 February 2008 at 05:06 AM. Reason: paragraph added.