john jerome mcmanus Posted 12 January , 2014 Author Share Posted 12 January , 2014 G'day all Back again. I would like to thank MG for his enlightening post. I wasn't considering the entire four years of commemoration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 I fear Andrew, that you have replied using too many words of three syllables or more for your target audience... Target audience being whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksdad Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 Do I need to spell it out? Anyone who foolishly feels the need to diminish another nations valour and sacrifice by claiming that 'most' weren't really New Zealanders, or Aussies, or Canadians, or Tongan - its an ill thought out and unnecessary claim that adds nothing but dribble and drone (like the newspaper link in the original post), and in the same ranks as those who claim that every British General was a bungling donkey. The graves of New Zealanders who paid the ultimate price don't read "possibly New Zealand -maybe really some other country". several of my great uncles paid that price, to sit in a comfy chair and dribble out 100 years later - "well yeah, but were they really Anzac's?"... is a bit self indulged and does them a great disservice. IanW - post #32, on the other hand is completely different, shows respect to both. whilst giving a bit of a friendly ribbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aconnolly Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 Very well put Roger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
judy7007 Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 Do I need to spell it out? Anyone who foolishly feels the need to diminish another nations valour and sacrifice by claiming that 'most' weren't really New Zealanders, or Aussies, or Canadians, or Tongan - its an ill thought out and unnecessary claim that adds nothing but dribble and drone (like the newspaper link in the original post), and in the same ranks as those who claim that every British General was a bungling donkey. The graves of New Zealanders who paid the ultimate price don't read "possibly New Zealand -maybe really some other country". . Oh to reach a much much wider target audience. Well said Roger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 Just thinking about the Imperial content of Lloyd George's war cabinet Bonar Law - Canadian Smuts - South African Curzon - former Viceroy of India Milner - former High Commissioner of South Africa (although born in Germany!) Geddes - born and later worked in India In addition Milner had experience in Egypt Only Chamberlain, Henderson and Barnes had no Imperial experience or connection, But no Antipodeans - was this pure coincidence or did LlG have some darker motive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David B Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 I had the feeling that Billy Hughes (PM of Australia at the time) was invited to join the war cabinet but declined because it would mean being out of the country for too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 I had the feeling that Billy Hughes (PM of Australia at the time) was invited to join the war cabinet but declined because it would mean being out of the country for too long. I think he was invited to join the Imperial War Cabinet in 1919 for the peace negotiations but not Lloyd Georges Coalition War Cabinet (If David French's account is correct) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clarke Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 Disappionting, Indeed so. I had a lengthy conversation with a middle aged Aussie in a museum during my recent Malta trip, and although an educated man with a degree he did not actually know that a single French soldier served at Gallipoli, or that his country's casualties were so much less than those of the British or French troops. It surely belittles all those who served to take a one nation view. I do think that Keith Murdoch in particular has much to answer for. Keith I think this is disappointing. I too have read a post that reflects the views of one as the views of an entire nation. Surprised that Horrible Histories haven't produced The Atrocious Aussies - or perhaps they have! centurion, when your posts are not anti-Australian then I'm surprised. I respect your ancestors who served for freedom, how about you start doing the same.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 Hughes reached London in June 1918, according to his entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography, and appears to have stayed until the end of the Paris Peace Conference. He, along with the other Dominion Prime Ministers or their representatives, was a member of the Imperial War Cabinet, which wasn't the same body as the War Cabinet. My impression is that the Imperial War Cabinet was more of co-ordinating body, with decision making being left to the [british] War Cabinet, but I'm not certain of this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 Disappionting, I think this is disappointing. I too have read a post that reflects the views of one as the views of an entire nation. centurion, when your posts are not anti-Australian then I'm surprised. I respect your ancestors who served for freedom, how about you start doing the same.... A sense of humour is a useful thing to have - I think you should get one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Filsell Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 I have come to the firm conclusion that we just have to stand back from all the froth blowing during the next four years, "just get over ourselves", ignore those who are climbing on the bandwagon, and keep calm and quietly carry on pursuing our interest in the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 Mr Filsell, I tend to agree with you. For myself I am booked on the London Jocks' centenary trip to messines in October/November this year. That aside i shall avoid pretty well everything else and carry on ploughing my own sweet furrow. Indeed, the centenary has already proved a negative effect - my lady wife had intended a surprise trip to Gallipoli for my 60th birthday ... until she realised that 2015 is going to find Gallipoli alive with centenary groupies. Might make it for my 65th (if I'm spared). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
judy7007 Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 A sense of humour is a useful thing to have - I think you should get one Well as we know, every sense of humour is different. However I have to say I did have a laugh about the Horrible Histories - I think it would actually be quite hilarious. Perhaps one has to know about Horrible Histories to appreciate this. However, I do think that standing back from froth blowing is an excellent idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 I was always taught to never slag off your team mates if you won. I intend avoid all major commemorations in France for the next 4 years. Although I said that in July 2006, now that was a nightmare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedCoat Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 My Australian brother-in-law looked at me as though I were a mad man when I explained to him that my GG Uncle was killed during the Gallipoli campaign serving with the Wilts Reg. Apparently there were other troops on the Peninsula other than the Anzacs! In all fairness the Anzacs contributed more to the Western Front than they did at Gallipoli but I suppose Gallipoli is more fashionable and nostalgic. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Underdown Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 Is it really derogatory to point out that the relationship between the UK and what were then the dominions was rather different than the relationships between the UK and today's Commonwealth Realms? Australia itself was only 13 years old (as a single entity) in 1914, and a far greater proportion of the populations were first and second generation migrants than would now be the case. If nothign else there legally no separate nationalities, everyone was a British subject, whether or not they also (or even primarily) identified as a New Zealander, Australian, Canadian etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevem49 Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 Surely all of those who suffered and died should be remembered. I believe they probably are but some people seem to have no sense of humour As my old Sgt said 'If you cannot take a joke, then you should not have joined up' Like every day of every year, I will remember them no matter what. I doubt I will be visiting the battlefields until the 100 year war is over though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 Hughes reached London in June 1918, according to his entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography, and appears to have stayed until the end of the Paris Peace Conference. He, along with the other Dominion Prime Ministers or their representatives, was a member of the Imperial War Cabinet, which wasn't the same body as the War Cabinet. My impression is that the Imperial War Cabinet was more of co-ordinating body, with decision making being left to the [british] War Cabinet, but I'm not certain of this point. The Imperial War Cabinet met for the first time in Spring 1917 and did not meet again until mid 1918. It was not a prime minister gathering. The 2nd IWC agreed the setting up of a war council of prime ministers and this is what Billy Hughes appears to have attended. This was part of the price of the Dominions etc agreeing to supply more men in 1919. AFAIK Hughes was not invited to join LlG's war cabinet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 Is it really derogatory to point out that the relationship between the UK and what were then the dominions was rather different than the relationships between the UK and today's Commonwealth Realms? Australia itself was only 13 years old (as a single entity) in 1914, and a far greater proportion of the populations were first and second generation migrants than would now be the case. If nothign else there legally no separate nationalities, everyone was a British subject, whether or not they also (or even primarily) identified as a New Zealander, Australian, Canadian etc. If they were British subjects, the countries did have some considerable autonomy. Australia had no conscription (along with the Irish) yet the remainder of Britain, New Zealand and Canada had conscription. Also British Army Reservists who had emigrated still had to fulfil their obligations (and needed permission to emigrate in the first place). Princess Patricia's Light Infantry was almost entirely manned by British Army, Royal Marine and Royal Navy reservists at the beginning of the war. I am still unsure how French Canadians were treated as they seemed to be rather under-represented despite conscription. I assume they had other legislation. MG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 If they were British subjects, the countries did have some considerable autonomy. Australia had no conscription (along with the Irish) yet the remainder of Britain, New Zealand and Canada had conscription. Also British Army Reservists who had emigrated still had to fulfil their obligations (and needed permission to emigrate in the first place). Princess Patricia's Light Infantry was almost entirely manned by British Army, Royal Marine and Royal Navy reservists. I am still unsure how French Canadians were treated as they seemed to be rather under-represented despite conscription. I assume they had other legislation. MG Perhaps being picky but Ireland did have conscription in that the necessary legislation had been passed allowing men in Ireland to be conscripted - it was just never used but in 1918 they were getting close to doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksdad Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 Just thinking about the Imperial content of Lloyd George's war cabinet Bonar Law - Canadian Smuts - South African Curzon - former Viceroy of India Milner - former High Commissioner of South Africa (although born in Germany!) Geddes - born and later worked in India In addition Milner had experience in Egypt Only Chamberlain, Henderson and Barnes had no Imperial experience or connection, But no Antipodeans - was this pure coincidence or did LlG have some darker motive? well who did the BBQ then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin spof Posted 13 January , 2014 Admin Share Posted 13 January , 2014 I believe that South Africans can do a pale imitation.....its called a"brai" :ph34r: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Ridgus Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 I have come to the firm conclusion that we just have to stand back from all the froth blowing during the next four years, "just get over ourselves", ignore those who are climbing on the bandwagon, and keep calm and quietly carry on pursuing our interest in the subject. I couldn't agree more. I intend to enjoy all the extra programming on TV and Radio, read all the extra books that will be published, and ignore any hoopla or "commemorations" engendered by politicians. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksdad Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 yeah - but is that done on a Masport five burner gas BBQ... I think not SPOF - or should I say Stop Posting Offensive Froth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts