The ANZACs- myth and reality

[NeilE]

Originally Posted by Taz

Pete, Jenny- No doubt the "Spanish Lady" would have had a great impact if the war had continued into 1919. I forget how many times I have read of a British officer surviving four years of warfare only to die in the epidemic of Winter 1918/1919. I believe it killed quite a few famous Germans like Bernert, as well.

The extra casualties who would have missed their future greatness or infamy caused by extending the war is another interesting thought. Possibly no Churchill, no Hitler, no Roosevelt etc. We have several novels on what would have happened if the Confederacy had won our Civil War with very interesting outcomes, some affecting relations with GB, still not too good in the 1860s with the War of 1812 only 50 years ago.

The US went through another isolationist period following WWI and did not even join the League of Nations. If we had remained neutral longer and come into the war later, would the Treaty of Versailles have been different with the US having a bigger say? We had virtually no impact on that treaty. As written, it was so punishing it gave the far right a chance to take over in Germany, helped by the worldwide depression and run-away inflation. Maybe there would have been no Great Depression and no WWII. Who knows, but makes for interesting speculation. With no WWII, the Russians might have remained mired in the 19th Century and possibly there would have been no cold war. No WWII and there might have been a much later development of nuclear weapons and nuclear power generation.

Better get back to looking at Triplane photos and get something done. Thanks for the insights.

Taz
Terry Phillips

Perhaps not, given the theory it may have originated in the US in the first place... and may not have reached Europe until sometime later if not carried to Europe by the AEF. It certainly had nothing to do with Spain. I'm not sure on the mortaility rates on combat soldiers - any figures anyone? - given their somewhat hardened immune systems, would it have much affect on the armies' functioning? On the civilian population yes but not so sure on the other? Anyone know?

[Taz]

Neil- You should write a novel based on your scenario. I was typing while you were posting, but your scenarios are very plausible and the outcomes, to say the least, are very interesting. I had not heard of the possibility the flu epidemic originated in the US. Last I had heard, nobody knew where it originated. I forget where the term "Spanish Lady" originated, but it was commonly used in the 1918/1919 timeframe.

Conscription in Australia and in the US in 1918/1919 would have just about drowned the Germans in manpower. Tank and aircraft technology and maneuver warfare were rapidly advancing and American production of aircraft would have finally come on line, giving the Entente forces even more overwhelming numerical superiority. The naval blockade was still working, gasoline was in extremelyshort supply and the Germans were fed up with war. So most likely the war would have ended in 1919 regardless of whether we entered the war after 1917.

Taz
Terry Phillips

[mustang]

Conscriptiom in Australia during WW1 was twice rejected by referendum,even the majority of front line combat troops opposing it. In any event, there would not have been a big reserve of manpower in a country with a population at that time of less than 5 million that already had suffered about 330,000 casualities.

Mustang

[NeilE]

Originally Posted by mustang

Conscriptiom in Australia during WW1 was twice rejected by referendum,even the majority of front line combat troops opposing it. In any event, there would not have been a big reserve of manpower in a country with a population at that time of less than 5 million that already had suffered about 330,000 casualities.

Mustang

A referendum late 1918-early 1919 may have had a different result, given the closeness of results of the two previous referenda. The depletion of the Australian battalions may have led to a different vote from the soldiers themselves, particularly if it was known fighting would continue. Without some input of fresh troops, the Australian battalions, given their casualty rates would have ceased to be functional by early 1919. In light of that, conscription may have been seen as the lesser of two evils by the men, with a different vote outcome from them as a result.

A base of available men varied from state to state and region to region. Country Victoria was certainly depleted. The urban areas less so. It is likely that a conscription draft could have brought the battalions as they existed, to full strength. Also the conclusion of the war in the Middle East by 1918, woud have allowed the transfer of the experienced troops from that theatre to be transfered to the Western Front. However, the effectiveness of repeated drafts would have declined because as you say, the long term reserves of manpower just werent there.

Opposition to conscription on the home front, could have been overcome, given the divisions in the anti-conscription groups outside of the referendum. By 1918, many of the Anti-war Labour supporters and members were out of power on a local level in a lot of regional centres (usually due to local issues), depriving them of an organisational base that was used effectively during the previous referenda. This may have effected the outcome in a number of regional/rural areas, particularly in Victoria.

Of course the point is moot, given the whole thing is speculative, however, given that margins were narrow for the two previous referenda, it is possible that some changing factors to the forces contesting the referendum may have led to a narrow victory for the Yes case.

Cheers

Neil

[Pete Hill]

To Russ
thanks for the mention of the Waterloo book. Have you read "Wellington's Smallest Victory" which is about Siborne's building of the large diorama of the battle some years after it took place. The book presents the Duke in not-so-favourable light as it alleges he pressured Siborne to alter the model to downplay the role of the Prussians and thus preserve all the credit and glory for Wellington himself. If it is true, I did not know Wellington had such a vain, petty side to his personality. Siborne must also shoulder some of the blame for the twisted, incomplete version of the battle of Waterloo that has been passed down to us as he also under-valued or even ignored the role played by the non-English units of Wellington's 'infamous' army.
regards Pete

[NeilE]

Originally Posted by Pete Hill

To Russ
thanks for the mention of the Waterloo book. Have you read "Wellington's Smallest Victory" which is about Siborne's building of the large diorama of the battle some years after it took place. The book presents the Duke in not-so-favourable light as it alleges he pressured Siborne to alter the model to downplay the role of the Prussians and thus preserve all the credit and glory for Wellington himself. If it is true, I did not know Wellington had such a vain, petty side to his personality. Siborne must also shoulder some of the blame for the twisted, incomplete version of the battle of Waterloo that has been passed down to us as he also under-valued or even ignored the role played by the non-English units of Wellington's 'infamous' army.
regards Pete

Post Waterloo, Wellington became a much derided, even hated figure in Great Britain. His opposition to extensions of suffrage made him a highly unpopuar figure in English politics. He was also disliked by the liberal Kiing William IV and Queen Victoria also. Though an arch-conservative and a protestant supremacist, Wellington was forced to extend civil rights to Catholics, after a Catholic Irish politician was voted to the House of Commons and was unable to take his seat because of laws preventing Catholic representation. This also made him unpopular with some of his protestant constituency.

Wellington was reported to be a very vain man as well as being highly Anglo-centric. The account that he sought to slant the account of Waterloo in his favour seems to be in character I think.

[RussGannon]

Pete & Neil.

Most people who have pretentions to greatness are vain - as you know you you hear with Patton, Monty even Rommel. Pete I can't agree the view collated by Siborn is twisted - but I would agree it panders to British sensiblities. One of my pet interests in Waterloo is the period between the end of the Cavalry attacks and that of the Imperial Guard - I still don't think modern historians have got it right. This was the real moment of crisis -this is when there was a moment of disorder in Halkett's brigade and not is as is so often claimed: the result of the attack of the Imperial Guard (I know for the purists the Middle Guard). In my view, this notion panders to French sensibilities, that the Old Imortals could not be turned back so easily. A sort of consolation prize.

On matters WW1, being an ex-Tank soldiers, I always feel that Bean and those who seized his legacy, rather unfairly blame the tanks for the disaster of the First Bullecourt. Bean would have it that the Aussie's broke into the Hindenberg line in spite of the tanks, but I once read the full German divisional history reference the attack - which Bean only selectively quotes - and this was of the opinion that it was the tanks that caused the break in.

Must rush as always

Russ

[Pete Hill]

Hi Guys,
Getting back to the alternative history senario, Its one of my favourite indulgences. I like Neil's possibilities, especially. Don't let guys like Harry Turtledove see them! I actually had some fun writing a short novel based on an alternative history scenario a few years back, based on the WW2 Pacific war. I had the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbour a day later than they did so they sink the carrier USS Enterprise. Then most things go disastrously wrong for the allies. The US carrier Hornet is detected en route to deliver the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo in April 1942 and is sunk by a Japanese submarine. At the Battle of the Coral Sea in May 1942, the Japanese get in the first blow and sink the USS Lexington and damage the Yorktown but their own main carrier fleet escapes un-harmed, forcing the Americans to withdraw. As a consequence, the Japanese invasion of Port Moresby goes ahead successfully, meaning the Australian army units at Kokoda are cut off and surrounded. The US PT boat that is intended to rescue General Douglas MaCarthur and his wife from the besieged Philippines is intercepted and sunk and the famous US Commander is captured by the Japanese.
Finally on June 4th 1942, the one remaining seaworthy US carrier, the Yorktown, sallies forth to do battle at Midway but is not surprisingly overwhelmed, especially since Japanese Admiral Yamamoto has also committed the two fleet Imperial carriers that were at Coral Sea the previous month meaning Admiral Fletcher is facing six enemy flattops instead of four. After the Yorktown goes down in a heavy air attack, taking Admiral Fletcher with it, the surviving American surface ships desperately attempt to close in on the Imperial fleet on June 5th. Out of nearly 20 ships, only a single cruiser, the Northampton, and a couple of destroyers escape to the east, making Midway the worst US Naval defeat in history. Admiral Spruance, commanding one of the cruiser squadrons, also loses his life along with most of the famous US pilots of the battle such as Max Leslie & Wade McCluskey. A few pilots such as George Gay and Jimmy Thach manage to escape to Midway island and are evacuated back to the mainland before the island falls to the Japanese after a massive bombardment. Aghast at the disaster, Admiral Nimitz offers his resignation which Washington accepts.
The stage is set for a final showdown and it happens in December 1942 when Yamamoto, frustrated and worried that the Americans still won't sue for peace, assembles every ship he has and launches a massive attack on Hawaii. US Admiral Halsey, now recovered from the illness that kept him from Midway, meets him with a fleet comprising nearly every ship the US Navy can scrap up including the just repaired carrier Saratoga with the carrier Wasp, newly arrived from the Atlantic, a handful of 'Jeep' escort carriers, half-a-dozen Battleships, every cruiser and destroyer they can assemble and even a handful of British, Dutch, New Zealand and Australian ships. The Battle of Hawaii becomes the largest Naval battle of Modern times.
Needless to say, it is a mighty Allied victory, albeit a costly one. Nearly every Japanese carrier goes down and Admirals Nagumo and Yamaguchi meet their demise. Even Yamamoto himself perishes when the huge Battleship Yamato is sunk in a duel with three US Battle-wagons (two of which are sunk also). Torpedo 8 survivor George Gay, now commanding a TBF Grumman Avenger squadron, torpedoes the Japanese flagship carrier Akagi. Australian ace Clive Caldwell, leading an RAAF Spitfire unit operating from Hickam airfield on Oahu, distinguishes himself by despatching four Zeros. In true Nelson-style, US Admiral Halsey is killed at the last moment as a burning Zero makes a final strafing run over the bridge of the Saratoga.
With the Imperial Navy virtually destroyed, I outlined a postscript which has the Pacific war ending seven months earlier in January 1945, minus Naval battles such as the Marianas and Leyte Gulf, as the Allies sweep north-westwards. With no A-Bomb available yet, the conventional bombing campaign fails to subdue Japan so an Allied invasion is staged in late 1944. Without MaCarthur in charge, other Allied troops, such as Australians and British, are allowed to participate.
The Allied troops advance inland through heavy fighting but the rest of Japan is spared devastation as the government capitulates, following a precision bombing attack on the Japanese army headquarters.
Well, it was a lot of fun to write but it was God-damn bloody awful so I didn't even bother to keep it. Besides, I have heard that US author Newt Gingrich is shortly bringing out a new historical series based on the Pacific War. I enjoyed his alternative history trilogy on the Civil War so I am looking forward to reading this one.
Pete

[Taz]

Pete- I think that was a marvelous alternative history and it just goes to show how history turns on very small events and tight timelines that result in very large consequences. I would have loved to read it.

Taz
Terry Phillips

[alex_revell]

Gents.
I'm just about to start a book. The Man who Broke Napoleon's Codes. The story of George Scovell by Mark Urban. Does anyone know this book. Am I in for a treat?