Winston Churchill...Australia's worst enemy?

Hi All,
as an keen reader of military history, something that becomes increasingly obivious to me is that as happy as he was to accept Australian aid, resources and troops to protect and enhance Britains' interests, the way Winston Churchill used the Australian forces, and his consideration of Australian interets, show little more than contempt for Australia. Just a few examples...
-the use of ANZAC troops in Gallipoli (ww1, Churchill's decision as lord of the admarilty)
-the use of the Aussie 6th Division in the pointless and unwinnable 'token' campaign in Greece
-resistance to the relief of the Aussie 9th Division in Tobruk after 9 months continious fighting
-The deliberate lying and deception to Aussie PM John Curtin regarding the situation in SWPA, namely singapore and Japanese intentions
-The deliberate diverting of Australian Divisions returning home from the midle east to defend Australia at a time when it was basically undefended, to defend India and Ceylon, without Australian approval.
Thoughts?

 

Why to Aussies get so upset over Gallipoli, the Canadians had suffered the terrible winter of 1914/15 in Wiltshire whilst training & it was decided to keep the ANZACs in sunny Eygpt to save shipping them to the UK .
When it was decided to attack Gallipoli they were already close by.
If you're going by casualties figures then he must have hated the French & British even more.
ANZAC - Casualties Figures Gallipoli WW1

He must have hated the Scots too as he sacrificed the 51st Highland Division in June 1940 to try & keep the French fighting.
They were surrounded & surrendered at St Valery-en-Caux.

That's just a few thoughts, don't know much about the other points.

 

I thought Hitler and Hiro Hito were on the podium.......The same has been said about many other countries and many other leaders. These counter arguments will not stand against postive ponts and I doubt you 'll find many people who'll agree with you I'm aftraid , (unless you are dealing with die hard non-smokers...)
Just one question: would we live in a free world be without Churchill? Chamberlain would certainly have been kinder to others, had he remained in power, he would have been kindler to Hitler too..... so my hats off to Mr Churchill.

 

Were the aussies not involved in the Singapore defence planning of 20;s and 30;s that led to the eventualy planning and manning of Singapore in 40;s. Did they not sign off the plans.. Did they not agree to the plans...They were well aware of the numbers of battalions, and aircraft needed to meet each rung of the ladder in interceading years. And aware of the reasons why in 40;s while Percival was shouting he didnt have the numbers required. What was their initial reaction to his shouting at the time? Take a look at Churchills own appendix of the Singapore disaster included in his own works. Written and investigated by Pownal I believe. With stats and figures included back to 20's. Also can you answer me why when even fdr of usa implored the diversion of Aussie returnee convoys stating us would make up the numbers to defend australia which they did..he too was ignored...Was FDR also trying to get Aussies killed on behalf of USA then...

 

Colonial historical interpretation at it's worst.

I live in Oz, (Darwin actually), and the number of Australian historians bashing the English are legion. Other incidents that spring to mind of a similar vein.....

Australian director Peter Weir's film of "Gallipoli" blaming the charge of the West Aussie Light Horseman at the 'Nek' on the bloodyminded insistence of British officers, when an Australian officer had ordered the charge.....

The fiasco of the Welsh Guards at Bluff Cove in the Falklands blamed on British officers, when the Welsh themselves refused to alight from transport vessels, not wanting to 'yomp' all the way to Stanley, and flying in the face of advice from the Royal Navy to the contrary....

I could quote a couple more, but would it convince the colonials that their troops are no more mis-used and abused than the average 'Tommy' was in both world wars? It brings to mind a comment made about the appearance of Currie's Canadian Corps to positions around Vimy Ridge in 1917. Local English officers were quick to put two and two together.

"The bloody Canadians are here, so theres bound to be trouble afoot! Glad our boys are pulling out of this one...."

 

Urqh, it's an honour to have a WW2 vet read my post, hats off and much respect, but i have to disagree with what you wrote. From what i'm aware of, Australia committed troops (3 divisions, the bulk of it's navy and majority of its airmen) to the middle east/Europe under the promise of the protection of Australia from the British fleet stationed at 'Impregnable' Singapore, where Australian troops were stationed under British command.

'Also can you answer me why when even fdr of usa implored the diversion of Aussie returnee convoys, stating U.S would make up the numbers to defend Australia which they did..he too was ignored'

FDR was ignored because he and Churchill agreed, without Australian input or consent, to divert Aussie troops and make up the numbers with American troops. And he was ignored because the Australian Prime Minister and Australian public wanted experienced, battle tried and tested Australian troops to defend Australia (not Ceylon), not inexperienced American troops, even though their presence in Aussie was a major relief and boost.

'Was FDR also trying to get Aussies killed on behalf of USA then'...No, MacArthur and Blamey were more than taking care of that for him

'Colonial historical interpretation at it's worst'...much closer to fact than Colonial interpretation.

 

He's not a WW2 Veteran he's a WW2Forum Veteran.
He's ex-Serviceman but not THAT old.

 

Me walking stick fair wobbled just then...They dont like it up em...

 

It could have been left completely undefended, the Japanese had no intention of invading it.
So if these Australian divisions had been sent back they would have sat around doing nothing, at a time when troops were desperately needed elsewhere.

 

<sigh> Another bl00dy Oz who simply ignores the fact that Aussies weren't KILLED by the British, but by Germans, Italians and Japanese troops.
Does he really think that WW1 and WW2 were fought solely to kill Australians?
Where had most of the Australians originated from? Why intentionally kill your own?

What would he have preferred? Let England be defeated and then watch as Hitler and Tojo carved up the remaining countries one by one? At least by having Allies there was a chance of turning the tide against Hitler, even at a tremendous cost, but not be picked off one by one..

The fact that you have the freedom to express an opinion that I personally disagree with doesn't preclude you from stating what I hope is just a "wind up" and not firm beliefs.

If you truly think that all Churchill intended was the eradication of Australians, then I think you've had too much 4X and sat in the sun.... (And why just Churchill, surely you should include ALL English people then, because we supported him in the War Effort)......

Please post something more sensible next time, like the World is flat or something....

 

are you sure?

Regards
Kruska

 

haha sorry URQH, new to the site and didn't see the little 'f' next to WW2 Vet, got a little excited

 

Hirohito probably had the least to do with the second world war as compared any other "leader" of any country involved. As the emperor of Japan, he missed many an opportunity to make a stand and not let the military take control. Probably the reason he was never executed as a war criminal.

 

Well, this seems to go nowhere and I think it's about time to start a new thread and end the misery here ....What about "Churchill the Axis worst enemy" for a change.....?

If you don't mind this thread is now closed