BEST WE FORGET: POMMY INSULT TO WW1 DIGGERS

[Steven Broomfield]

Perhaps Steve would like to give us a list of approved books with which we should start.

History of the 9th Sherwood Foresters, of course.

[centurion]

History of the 9th Sherwood Foresters, of course.

Surprised that Horrible Histories haven't produced The Atrocious Aussies - or perhaps they have!

[stevem49]

I am sure that if she trawled amazon or abe books, she would find lots of good authoritive books on the subject. as would all others seeking a broad view.

A history of a battalion would be of little use to her, unless there is a wish to study the war in greater depth Saying that at least one Tory MP does have a copy of the 9th Bn history.

I took my granddaughter to see the Horrible WW1 and it was very interesting.

My point is that people speak out on the TV, and others, rightly or wrongly believe everything they say. Therefore the people in question should give a balanced reply if they want to comment.

Prior to the lady being called to the promised land, she always gave (in my humble opinion) balanced (though slightly leaning) views to every question or topic. In this case she did not.

Then again I am long enough in the tooth to realise that if you meet any of the 600 odd of her class, it is a good idea to take anything they say with a bucketful of salt

[hazelclark]

I really don't know what the fuss is about. We should rise above the huffings and puffings of the obviously ignorant.

My point exactly. Think my communication skills are a bit off!

H

[aconnolly]

It seems the paper is continuing the type of reporting on the war started by the father of the current owner...

David summed it up - media rubbish.

Some of the rhetoric around this piece of "journalism" who make a good CV for a role in the propaganda department of the war office

New Zealand will predominantly honour its servicemen and those of the Pacific whilst recognising our mates across the Ditch and the other allied servicemen & women of France, GB and the Empire - (and the stats do not support the NZEF being predominantly a southern suburb of London).

Australia, Canada/New Foundland, India, Africa will not doubt do their own things. The UK should commemorate its sacrifices how it sees fit and I'm sure it will not be as per the article.

There will be the usual statements from the ill-informed about the colonial sons dying for a war we were forced to fight in - again, rubbish. In Australia and New Zealand some "prominent citizens" (often self appointed to that title) will no doubt use the commemorations as a launching pad for republicanism etc. As Keith said :

It looks like being a very long five years. I just hope I can stick it out.

Keith

The best thing about the centenary will possibly be further scholarship of the sort in recent years where historians ignore the populist rubbish and recount history as it was.

Andrew

[Rayessex]

I was looking forward to this Centenary, I'm dreading it now!

Ray

[hazelclark]

I was looking forward to this Centenary, I'm dreading it now!

Ray

So was I, but I think SOME good stuff will come out of it.

H

[Steven Broomfield]

I'm going to ***** my finger on a poisoned loom and go to sleep for 5 years. Form an orderly queue to kiss me awake in 2019.

Edit: how jolly bizarre. I typed p r i ck and it cames up as asterisks. Teach me to fanny (f a n n y) about.

[centurion]

Well the Dirty Digger's Dad,wherever he is, would be laughing like a drain, I suspect that we are going to have to grit our teeth and clench appropriate parts of the anatomy from time to time as the same old nonsenses, prejudices and plain bigotries emerge again not to mention false sentimentalities and saccharine loaded insincerities (all done in the best possible taste) and political bandwagon leaping. Come on you know it's going to happen BUT it behoves us not to respond to the main madness with little lunacies of our own. Fight down the rising red mist and treat such inanities as this thread is discussing with the cold contempt they deserve by ignoring them. Difficult I know - the temptation to get your retaliation in is great. There will be posts that we think how can that moron believe that? But lets respond with some semblance of a rational reply, And if someone says you're wrong or mistaken treat it as an honest opinion (completely incorrect of course) but an opinion and not a deadly insult. In fact considering someone big enough to take being told they're wrong is really a compliment. Let's make the forum an island of sanity in what is going to be a mad mad world And perhaps some balanced rational views will emerge, some of which we may not like,Perhaps we will be able to say of those we are going to commemorate "they fought for something real"

[Rayessex]

*****, Mines OK!

Ha Ha, see what you mean now, it vanished!

[hazelclark]

,Perhaps we will be able to say of those we are going to commemorate "they fought for something real"

Well, I suspect that SOME of them thought they did. As for the "saccharine insincerities" i am with you there, but at the risk of having to dive below the parapet, I would add "mawkish sentimentality"

Hazel

[centurion]

,Perhaps we will be able to say of those we are going to commemorate "they fought for something real"

Well, I suspect that SOME of them thought they did. As for the "saccharine insincerities" i am with you there, but at the risk of having to dive below the parapet, I would add "mawkish sentimentality"

Hazel

I would think most of them did but that's not always the perception today.

[aconnolly]

I appreciate some may take ANZAC to refer only to Australia and I also appreciate the general "tension" between GB and Australia, but given some questions and quotes in this and other threads that NZ and Australian soldiers were "Brits in our uniforms", how about some facts:

Indeed, and how many of those ANZAC's were born and bred in the UK before emigrating?...

Ian, you're quite right and illustrate some important points. Many of the ANZACs were in fact recent "pom" migrants. This is a fact that a certain clique of republican oriented, anti British, Aussie hacks choose to ignore. They are the same school who extend anti Brit feeling onto every field; the cricket field, the rugby field and the battlefield!

Chris C

The following stats refer to the New Zealand Main Body, raised and despatched by October 1914 - a further force of similar % had captured German Samoa in August. I do not have the Australian stats but I have no reason to believe they would any "worse" and they could be perhaps even stronger in the naturally born category given Australia was populated significantly earlier than New Zealand. These stats were contemporary - published in 1915 in the NZEF War Diary, 1914 appendix 31

NZEF Main Body 15/11/1914: Total compliment 8147

NZ Born Officers 72%

NZ born Other Ranks 74.4%

Of those not born in New Zealand a sizeable number were schooled here indicating they emigrated as children (exact figure not known). If "recent pom immigrant" figures to the contrary exist, I'd appreciate seeing them posted and referenced.

As the war progressed the % of servicemen born in NZ increased even further

Consider also that these men and those that followed came from:

Total Male Population of NZ of military age 1914: 250,000.

By the Armistice 124,211 had signed up, 100,444 had left New Zealand. Based simply on the 1914 stats, that was at least 75,000 New Zealand born men. Of the total who served 91,941 were volunteers

New Zealand suffered some 53,000 dead or wounded. A staggering proportion second only by a whisker behind our Anzac cousins. This is perhaps the one event in our history we were grateful to score less than Australia.

New Zealanders and Australians - born in these lands - signed up, served, died etc. in their thousands. A little understanding of the numbers involved (especially given the small populations) and respect for the natural born sons of these two nations wouldn't hurt.

It is also timely to remember that every single one of the 330,000 Australians who served were volunteers. Every single one.

Lest We Forget

Andrew

[Khaki]

I had always believed that the NZers had always considered themselves as British, not so much ,the Aussies?

khaki

[Derek Black]

I can't imagine who would.

I appreciate some may take ANZAC to refer only to Australia

[jacksdad]

I appreciate some may take ANZAC to refer only to Australia and I also appreciate the general "tension" between GB and Australia, but given some questions and quotes in this and other threads that NZ and Australian soldiers were "Brits in our uniforms", how about some facts:

The following stats refer to the New Zealand Main Body, raised and despatched by October 1914 - a further force of similar % had captured German Samoa in August. I do not have the Australian stats but I have no reason to believe they would any "worse" and they could be perhaps even stronger in the naturally born category given Australia was populated significantly earlier than New Zealand. These stats were contemporary - published in 1915 in the NZEF War Diary, 1914 appendix 31

NZEF Main Body 15/11/1914: Total compliment 8147

NZ Born Officers 72%

NZ born Other Ranks 74.4%

Of those not born in New Zealand a sizeable number were schooled here indicating they emigrated as children (exact figure not known). If "recent pom immigrant" figures to the contrary exist, I'd appreciate seeing them posted and referenced.

As the war progressed the % of servicemen born in NZ increased even further

Consider also that these men and those that followed came from:

Total Male Population of NZ of military age 1914: 250,000.

By the Armistice 124,211 had signed up, 100,444 had left New Zealand. Based simply on the 1914 stats, that was at least 75,000 New Zealand born men. Of the total who served 91,941 were volunteers

New Zealand suffered some 53,000 dead or wounded. A staggering proportion second only by a whisker behind our Anzac cousins. This is perhaps the one event in our history we were grateful to score less than Australia.

New Zealanders and Australians - born in these lands - signed up, served, died etc. in their thousands. A little understanding of the numbers involved (especially given the small populations) and respect for the natural born sons of these two nations wouldn't hurt.

It is also timely to remember that every single one of the 330,000 Australians who served were volunteers. Every single one.

Lest We Forget

Andrew

I fear Andrew, that you have replied using too many words of three syllables or more for your target audience...

[Guest]

The huge contribution by the countries of the Commonwealth has been acknowledged by the British Government during the War, immediately after the war and every year since the war, and will continue to be acknowledged. There are monuments of stone in London acknowledging the debt. The definitive British Govt study on the contribution of the British Empire is contained in the 880 page tome "Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 1914-19120" Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, Newfoundland and India all have separate sub-chapters laying out each country's contribution in minute detail. It provides data on Expenditure, War Funds, materiel, munitions as well as manpower and casualties.

Manpower and casualties are only one way of measuring the contribution. They are also the measures that trigger the most extreme emotions for understandable reasons. League tables of casualties and casualties as a per cent of population etc are a highly emotive but one-dimensional measure and can on occasion be misleading. As just one example the Scottish statistics from the Scottish National War Memorial include tens of thousands of Canadians, Australians, Newzealanders, Englishmen, Irishmen, Welshmen and South Africans, many of whom had no connection with Scotland other than to have served in a Scottish unit. By this qualification, if one took the raw data at face value, the Scots lost twice as many men as a proportion of those enlisted than any other nation. It is a nonsense. Sadly, this inflated information is used on a regular basis by the Scottish press (and some authors) to build a false history. There is no need to exaggerate the butcher's bill. The real numbers are bad enough and stand as testimony to Scotland's contribution.

Comparisons of the slaughter are sometimes an unfortunate but necessary exercise, but we need to be mindful that higher casualties or higher casualty ratios can be hugely distorted by other factors. The British Army was supporting a gigantic logistical chain to supply the front, as well as policing India, Ireland and many other outposts and maintaining an Army for home defence in the shape of the 2nd and 3rd line Territorials - most of who were never within a hundred miles of the Central Powers. In addition it built a gargantuan labour corps. Combined these demands took hundreds of thousands of men away from the front in vastly disproportionate numbers to other forces of the British Empire. This inflated the denominator of the data and in the hands of a journalist with an agenda could be (mis)construed to 'prove' the British casualty ratios (casualties as a proportion of enlistments) were proportionally lower and in some imagined history based on this distorted data 'prove' that Britain contributed less than other nations. It is also a nonsense.

Journalists such as the one quoted in the OP will doubtless continue to see insult when the hard evidence suggests otherwise. Sadly their ill-informed comments gain a wide audience among those easily influenced by attention-grabbing headlines. MG

[stevem49]

I'm going to ***** my finger on a poisoned loom and go to sleep for 5 years. Form an orderly queue to kiss me awake in 2019.

Edit: how jolly bizarre. I typed p r i ck and it cames up as asterisks. Teach me to fanny (f a n n y) about.

Not being allowed to use the word p r I c k for things such as injections does seem a bit silly - I was zapped on a previous thread by some p****k

[centurion]

Yes similarly you cannot mention a b a s t a r d file or even a half b a s t a r d one nor the old field gun which was known as a b a s t a r d (and not just by the gunners who had to push it back into its firing position after each shot) Nor one of the main characters in King Lear (and a minor one in Troilus and Cressida) Or even part of William the Firsts title! If it's good enough for the Conqueror and the Bard then who are the prudes at Invision to interfere

[judy7007]

Yes similarly you cannot mention a b a s t a r d file or even a half b a s t a r d one nor the old field gun which was known as a b a s t a r d (and not just by the gunners who had to push it back into its firing position after each shot) Nor one of the main characters in King Lear (and a minor one in Troilus and Cressida) Or even part of William the Firsts title! If it's good enough for the Conqueror and the Bard then who are the prudes at Invision to interfere

Nor any of the WW1 soldiers with that surname

[NigelS]

Don't think today's Daily Telegraph (UK that is, 11th January) piece has been mentioned Click; the 10 Downing street Press briefing - what there is of it - can be found Here

NigelS

[john jerome mcmanus]

G'day, once more.

Since I initiated this thread there have been many editorials, readers' comments, and other articles on this topic in the Sydney Daily Telegraph.

The latest ( 12/1/14 ) contains this quote:

"During a briefing at Westminster yesterday, Mr. Cameron's official spokesman said it was wrong to suggest ANZAC soldiers would be overlooked.

"The government is working very closely with the Australian and New Zealand governments on that event (Gallipoli)" he said. "I think the focus should be entirely around these very important commemorations rather than anything else ."

Does anyone have the full text of the comment? If he is only referring to the ANZAC contribution at Gallipoli he has missed the point. If it is a misleading comment by the journalist(s) involved I can understand the misinformation.

I am rather hoping to put this issue to bed so I can concentrate on more immediate issues (eg my health).

I originally posted this to try to gauge the different national responses to the original article by an Aussie in the Old Dart.

Sadly, jingoistic biases, as I foresaw, prevailed.

Everyone should take a deep breath and remember a few things.

The Centenary of the Great War is not about us, but about those that served, those that died, the wounded, and the terrible suffering endured by individuals, parents, wives, siblings, and children. It further extends to the enormous aftermath that saw the collapse of empires, the financial imposts and the reasons for a repeat performance in 1939!

Lest We Forget

Regards,

Pop

(Sean McManus)

[Guest]

Sean

It wasn't a separate press-release. It was a response to a specific question at the daily briefing..... see here .

The commemorations will span at least 4 years and there will be a number of events, including ANZAC Day on the 100th Anniversary of Gallipoli in 2015. The Gallipoli anniversary is one of hundreds of events commemorating participants of the Great War. I believe it was cited as just one example rather than being the only event.

As we know ANZAC day is more than just about remembering Gallipoli, but because Gallipoli has traditionally been the focal point it tends to overshadow subsequent events. The historical choice of 25th April as the date of ANZAC commemorations by the Australian and NZ Govts has unintentionally created a legacy of disproportionate focus on Gallipoli at the expense of the ANZACs' huge contribution in subsequent campaigns. The British commemorations by contrast have always traditionally focused on Remembrance Sunday - the end of the War, rather than the beginning of the war - as a suitable way of remembering everyone who made the sacrifice. It is a subtle but important difference. It seems that the Govts have decided that during the 100th Anniversaries Gallipoli will again be the main focus for ANZAC Day. I have little doubt that whoever represents the British Govt at Gallipoli in 2015 will pay appropriate respects to the men who made sacrifices in subsequent campaigns.

I sense that whatever the British Govt does, someone somewhere will be offended. If the British Govt took the lead at the Gallipoli commemorations in 2015, it might be accused of elbowing out the ANZAC ceremonies which have always had a historically dominant commemorative role at Gallipoli. If the British Govt steps back and the Australian and NZ Govts take the lead in 2015 doubtless someone will accuse the British Govt of not showing enough interest. It is clearly a sensitive issue.

The dominance of Gallipoli in the history of the ANZACs is so strong that most Britons are amazed to hear the British were there too. I think it is understandable why the British Govt wants to carefully coordinate with the Australian and NZ Governments for the 2015 commemorations.

MG

[Steven Broomfield]

I can see myself, with my children playing with their toy soldiers, and a little girl sitting on my lap ... "What did you do in the Great war Centenary, Daddy?" (OK, my littlest girl is 21 and taller than me, but you get my drift).

[Guest]

I can see myself, with my children playing with their toy soldiers, and a little girl sitting on my lap ... "What did you do in the Great war Centenary, Daddy?" (OK, my littlest girl is 21 and taller than me, but you get my drift).

I will be a conscientious objector for the centenary.