The Great Myth of Britain's "Great Betrayal"

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
Post Reply
User avatar
Markus Becker
Member
Posts: 641
Joined: 27 Apr 2005, 18:09
Location: Germany

Re: The Great Myth of Britain's "Great Betrayal"

#31

Post by Markus Becker » 29 Oct 2010, 01:40

The original Prussians were a heathen slavic tribe that was gradually assimilated, just like many, many Vikings settled in what would become Russia one day. So much about the arian master rance and the slavic sub-humans.

About the Vikings, they not only settled in many places in Europe but also "obtained" hot women from literally every place in Europe, making the pure Nordic race the Nazis held in such a high regard a textbook example of race mixing.

Graham B
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 30 Sep 2010, 10:00

Re: The Great Myth of Britain's "Great Betrayal"

#32

Post by Graham B » 29 Oct 2010, 02:36

I think far too much is being made of David Day's references to racism in his book The Great Betrayal, and of Australia's and New Zealand's choices in September 1939.
Day simply includes racism in Australia's characteristics as he puts forward his argument of betrayal. He doesn't overstate it, nor does he ignore it when discussing Japan, Britain or other countries. Most books of this ilk and era avoid the issue - bravo to Day for being honest. I can only repeat that it is not significant (in his argument about betrayal) as the foreign affairs review above implies.
As to choices in September 1939. For Australia and NZ, the British Empire pre-war was more than a simple treaty or piece of paper that all signed. It was much deeper, about 'kith and kin' to steal words of the era.
The reason Australia's prime minister Bob Menzies declared 'Great Britain is at war and as a result, we too are at war' in September 1939 was that he, and most of his generation, saw themselves as one with Britain. Heck - even my own Irish grandad talked about the 'mother country' and home. Hard for us to comprehend now - but that's how it was.

Interestingly though, Menzies did hold off at least a few days before committing the AIF to the European war. He expressed concerns about Japan and regional defence (and got assurances about the RN and fortress Singapore in return) and sought (and received) a trade deal for wheat exports to Britain. He was trumped a little by NZ who announced a contribution (Div I guess) before Australia. NZ apparently was less concerned about regoinal defence.
My point though, is that Australia didn't really see that it had any choice but to assist Britain. Commitment was automatic. Compare this to the events of December 1941. By then attitudes (and the government) had changed so there was no waiting by Curtin for Britain's lead on declaring war on Japan.


stulev
Member
Posts: 510
Joined: 14 Feb 2007, 15:54
Location: San Jose California

Re: The Great Myth of Britain's "Great Betrayal"

#33

Post by stulev » 29 Oct 2010, 13:02

The winners write the history - myth or not.

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: The Great Myth of Britain's "Great Betrayal"

#34

Post by Graeme Sydney » 30 Oct 2010, 00:58

Graham B wrote: Day simply includes racism in Australia's characteristics as he puts forward his argument of betrayal.
I thought the supposed 'Betrayal' was between Australia and Britain. I would like to know the logic or analysis that includes Racism as a factor in the relationship between Oz and UK.
Graham B wrote: He doesn't overstate it, nor does he ignore it when discussing Japan, Britain or other countries. Most books of this ilk and era avoid the issue - bravo to Day for being honest.
To add what I would consider such a minor factor into the equation I would think was more confusing and distracting rather than helpful or insightful.

User avatar
Robert Rojas
In memoriam
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002, 05:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.
Contact:

RE: The Great Myth Of Britain's "Great Betrayal".

#35

Post by Robert Rojas » 30 Oct 2010, 01:45

Greetings to citizen Graeme Sydney, the forum's British Commonwealth constituency and the community as a whole. Howdy Graeme! Well sir, in light of your installment of Friday - October 29, 2010 - 11:58pm, old Uncle Bob is also more than a wee bit mystified over the relative importance of the so-called issue of "RACE" that purportedly existed between the British Isles and the Dominion of Australia. After all, the entire notion of the so-called "WHITE MAN'S BURDEN" was a universally accepted social concept by the greater Anglophonic speaking world right through the era of the 1940's. As an outsider looking in, given Great Britain's "enlightened" colonial governance of India and elsewhere, crucifying the Dominion of Australia for its unsavory ethnic policies was tantamount to the pot calling the kettle black. Have I misconstrued or taken something out of its proper context here? Well, that's my latest two Yankee cents worth on this expansive topic of interest - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in the proverbial DOWN UNDER. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN - not to mention everybody else.

Best Regards From My Side Of The Pacifc Rim,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

Graham B
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 30 Sep 2010, 10:00

Re: The Great Myth of Britain's "Great Betrayal"

#36

Post by Graham B » 30 Oct 2010, 09:55

Graeme Sydney
I can only repeat my earlier comments. Day simply includes racism in Australia's characteristics, as he does for many other countries he describes. He doesn't include it as 'a factor in the relationship between Oz and the UK' and nor does he bring it in to the 'equation' as you say. I hope my preceding posts have not implied that - if they have I most certainly retract them.
I believe, as I've said above, that 'far too much is being made of his references to racism' both in this blog and in the foreign affairs review posted earlier.
It's apparent to me that you haven't read The Great Betrayal. It is a major work, around 100 000 words, and provides a far greater insight than what you might find in short summaries of history on internet websites. While its theme is 'betrayal', it has numerous sub-themes and sub-plots (as is the case in any book). References to the economy, politics and many other factors including social attitudes are to be expected. Indeed, they enrich the book, just as the foreign affairs review above implies, and help the understanding of Australia's history. But they are not central in his case of betrayal and, likewise, in no way detract from it.

Uncle Bob
Yes, I think you've misconstrued the relationship as regards racism, though that's understandable as 'far too much is being made of the references to racism' in David Day's book. As you would expect in a book that describes the politics and policies of various countries, he includes their social attitudes.
There was no 'issue of race' existing between the British Isles and Australia - at least none that Day raises. He simply describes the racial attitudes of both countries, which were alike.
The differences or conflicts if you like, that he does describe are matters of policy stretching over many years. (interesting asides, dare I include these for fear of encouraging this blog to continue off on its tangent - Day does describe how Britain sought Australia's advice on how to handle African Americans when they began to arrive in the UK, and of course, the common belief among British elite of the time that we (Australians) are of poor stock, our forebears having been shipped in chains from their shores, though these are not in his central case and I would have to check the latter one for Day but it does appear in several historical accounts covering this era).

The review of David Day's book has misplaced this blog somewhat. I'm keen to hear any comments on the original post, a review of a much more recent book by Meaher which apparently argues that there was no betrayal, that Britain was ready to save Singapore and that David Day, and other writers and all the Aussies who have believed them for the past twenty and more years, have got it all wrong.

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: The Great Myth of Britain's "Great Betrayal"

#37

Post by Graeme Sydney » 30 Oct 2010, 12:20

I'm sure it's an interesting read but neither you, the review nor the title instill me with confidence to seek out and wade through 100,000 words to find out.

Where as "Meaher which apparently argues that there was no betrayal, that Britain was ready to save Singapore" would fit with my current, knowledge, understanding and expectation.

No betrayal, just lack of resources and competence by a wide range of politicians, policy makers, colonial administrators and military officials both in Australian and Britain. Plenty of blame to go around.

Any mention of Betrayal or 'shock horror surprise' at the Fall of Singapore has more to do with 'spin' and afterthought than any historical analysis IMHO.

Graham B
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 30 Sep 2010, 10:00

Re: The Great Myth of Britain's "Great Betrayal"

#38

Post by Graham B » 30 Oct 2010, 12:59

Thanks Graeme Sydney. I guess there are as many opinions on this as there are words in a book.
I'd be keen to hear your recommended or preferred reads on the fall of Singapore, which helped form your opinion.
I must admit, most of my opinions come from Australian authors though I have read a few British including Churchill's series, two of Kirby's books and one by Max Hastings plus the Canadian Brian Farrell, so I haven't quite rejected all non-Australian views.

User avatar
Robert Rojas
In memoriam
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002, 05:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.
Contact:

RE: The Great Myth Of Britain's "Great Betrayal".

#39

Post by Robert Rojas » 30 Oct 2010, 18:50

Greetings to citizen Graham B., the forum's British Commonwealth constituency and the community as a whole. Howdy G.B.! Well sir, in reference to your installment of Saturday - October 30, 2010 - 8:55am, old Uncle Bob would like to convey his appreciation for your unique perspective on the thorny matter of "RACE" within the context of Anglo-Australcentric history. I had a gut feeling that old yours truly was losing something in the broader interpretation of the racial aspect of this expansive discussion. That is always one of the problems of an outsider looking in. Well, that's my latest two Yankee cents worth on this subject rich thread - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in the DOWN UNDER. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN - not to mention everybody else.

Best Regards From My Side Of The Pacific Rim,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: The Great Myth of Britain's "Great Betrayal"

#40

Post by Graeme Sydney » 30 Oct 2010, 20:57

Graham B wrote:Thanks Graeme Sydney. I guess there are as many opinions on this as there are words in a book.
I'd be keen to hear your recommended or preferred reads on the fall of Singapore, which helped form your opinion.
I must admit, most of my opinions come from Australian authors though I have read a few British including Churchill's series, two of Kirby's books and one by Max Hastings plus the Canadian Brian Farrell, so I haven't quite rejected all non-Australian views.
So I take it your extensive reading has you agreeing with Day's characterisation of the British decision making relating to the Fall of Singapore as a Betrayal.

Graham B
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 30 Sep 2010, 10:00

Re: The Great Myth of Britain's "Great Betrayal"

#41

Post by Graham B » 31 Oct 2010, 08:39

Graeme Sydney,
I don't necessarily agree with the great betrayal contention. Australia's politicans were very gullible in their reading of the many assurances Churchill gave about Singapore and Australia, and Churchill was very tricky in his wording of those assurances.
There are a lot of contentious issues regards Australia's defence capability leading up to WWII, not least being its air defence capability. Great Britain played a major role in Australia not having an air defence capability in 1939, but so too did a number of Australia's (pro-British) politicans and you could say that the state of air forces in Malaya contributed somewhat to the fall of Singapore. Meaher claims that Australia ignored local defence because it didn't contribute to the Royal Navy. Strange that he sees raising our own navy instead is seen as ignoring local defence. Strange also that he doesn't seem to understand Britain's role in the non-development of our air force.
Churchill saw Australia as a provider of good fighting men to be used at his whim, and he didn't like it when Australia itself got a bit tricky about their use. He didn't even like it when Australia asked to be consulted about their use.

Australia could (and should) have been much stronger willed with Britain before the war (and during, pre Curtin). I don't think our politicans really believed the line they were fed for decades, but they went along with it anyway is how I read it largely. So in my mind it's difficult for Australia not to share some blame regards any betrayal.
But I am amazed at some of the claims that Meaher makes in his book, at least according to the review above. Most of Day's argument comes from primary sources, that is from cables and the like (not other people's books), so it's difficult to disagree with most of what he writes. You can draw different conclusions but there's only so many ways to interpret a cable.
Maybe Meaher uses other sources that nobody else has quoted yet.
Cheers anyway,
Graham B

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: The Great Myth of Britain's "Great Betrayal"

#42

Post by Graeme Sydney » 01 Nov 2010, 19:43

Graham B wrote: Day simply includes racism in Australia's characteristics as he puts forward his argument of betrayal. He doesn't overstate it, nor does he ignore it when discussing Japan, Britain or other countries. Most books of this ilk and era avoid the issue - bravo to Day for being honest. I can only repeat that it is not significant (in his argument about betrayal)
I would have thought being 'not significant' would be a very good reason not to include race as an issue. As I said earlier it adds nothing to insight and could only be a distraction to any historical argument (as exampled here and the review).

If Day was going to include Racism in Australia's characteristics I hope he also had a discussion about Dr Mannix and the Irish Catholic vote and the effects of the Masons 'old boys network' on the efficiency of the Public Service and Military. All would have been as interesting, valid, significant and 'brave' to discuss.

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: The Great Myth of Britain's "Great Betrayal"

#43

Post by Graeme Sydney » 01 Nov 2010, 20:22

Graham B wrote:Graeme Sydney,
I don't necessarily agree with the great betrayal contention. Australia's politicans were very gullible in their reading of the many assurances Churchill gave about Singapore and Australia, and Churchill was very tricky in his wording of those assurances.
'Gullible' is not the word I would have chosen. I would have chosen from, self-serving, unsophisticated, naive or parochial.

Of these I would forgiven them for unsophisticated, naive or parochial, it is the self-serving that I would hold most condemning and unforgivable. And I think self-serving was very much 'in play'. In other words they got good advice but the Australian politicians didn't want to make the hard unpopular choices and they willfully and knowingly passed on reassurances about Fortress Singapore. And they willfully and knowingly acted surprised at the Fall of Singapore and the consequential vulnerability of Australia's defences. And they willfully and knowingly put 'spin' on the accounts of history, muddying the waters and blaming every one, from the Poms, to Bennett, to avoid the responsibility falling to the politicians, the policies and the political decision making process 1920-41.

Graham B wrote:There are a lot of contentious issues regards Australia's defence capability leading up to WWII, not least being its air defence capability.
This is an argument I'm not familiar with. It would have been a big call for Australia to develop an effective Air Defense deterrent in the 1930's. It would have been an anti-shipping capacity that was required and even as a concept, let alone the technology, it hadn't been fully developed, proven or accepted.

Graham B wrote:Churchill saw Australia as a provider of good fighting men to be used at his whim,
I think he likes us for our wheat and wool and resources as well.
Graham B wrote: and he didn't like it when Australia itself got a bit tricky about their use. He didn't even like it when Australia asked to be consulted about their use.
I think Churchill got a 'bit tricky' whenever he didn't have complete control. But Australia keeping political control over it's military was well established and settled during WW1 I would have thought. I know there were a few tussles for power in establishing an Australian Corp under an Australian commander in the Middle East but I didn't know it run too deep nor that it run back to Whitehall and Churchill.
Graham B wrote:Australia could (and should) have been much stronger willed with Britain before the war (and during, pre Curtin). I don't think our politicans really believed the line they were fed for decades, but they went along with it anyway is how I read it largely. So in my mind it's difficult for Australia not to share some blame regards any betrayal.
We agree, see my earlier comments about self-serving. In fact, if there was complicity Betrayal is an oxymoron.

Graham B
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 30 Sep 2010, 10:00

Re: The Great Myth of Britain's "Great Betrayal"

#44

Post by Graham B » 02 Nov 2010, 08:54

I hope he also had a discussion about Dr Mannix and the Irish Catholic vote and the effects of the Masons 'old boys network' on the efficiency of the Public Service and Military
I'm not sure of the relevance of these internal factors to Day's subject, but I'd certainly like to know more. I wasn't aware that the Masons affected military effectiveness but look forward to more, with references please.
self-serving, unsophisticated, naive or parochial
I'm not sure that fits. Parochial and self-serving for Britain yes, but for Australia? They went along with Britain and many were strongly pro-British (disruptively so), so how can that be parochial? I really do need to see some evidence. References please.
willfully and knowingly put 'spin' on the accounts of history, muddying the waters and blaming every one, from the Poms, to Bennett, to avoid the responsibility falling to the politicians, the policies and the political decision making process 1920-41
It's not an area I've seen much on Graeme, and I truly do look forward to your references on this. I've only read where Curtin praised Bennett, not criticised him as his peers did. Similarly, I've read a few accounts with spin, especially about Menzies, but none from the politicans of the day. Books on Menzies, for example, or his party, give him a positive spin, and likewise for Curtin. But these are written by others, years later. I'm looking forward to reading what they actually wrote as I haven't been able to find any records or books. References please, and include something on Bruce for me if you can. He's one of my favourite, and he certainly dealt in spin, but regards the fall of Singapore? I've never seen anything from him on this subject.
It would have been an anti-shipping capacity that was required and even as a concept, let alone the technology, it hadn't been fully developed, proven or accepted.
Yes, much work was done on the anti-shipping policy. You are no doubt aware of the Concepts developed by Bostock as the Deputy Chief of Air Staff, and by Burnett (Chief of Air Staff, seconded Brit), and the raids policy for Australia pushed by Britain. They were developed. Such was the policy that it killed Australia's air defence (fighters didn't have a place in that concept) and orders for aircraft from Britain were subject to such delays over ten years that Australia went to war with US aircraft, and a trainer as its front line fighter. Suggest you read up on this one Graeme.
I know there were a few tussles for power in establishing an Australian Corp under an Australian commander in the Middle East but I didn't know it run too deep nor that it run back to Whitehall and Churchill.
You could be right, they may have been labelled an Australian Corps in the Middle East during WWII, but if so it is misleading. They never, repeat never, fought as a Corps. And the Australian Commander in the ME (Blamey) was more often left out of the loop in British plans. The three Divisions were more often sent to separate battles - read up on Greece and Crete, Syria and (to include the RAN) Dakar. The piecemeal use of the Australian army was a particularly sensitive subject to the Australian government (Menzies and Curtin), but not so the RAN or RAAF it seems. And it did run back to the leaders, military and political. Both Blamey and Bennett in the Far East complained about the piecemeal use of their forces. It is the reason that the Aust Corps was formed, and successfully under Monash, in WWI.

Pleased to see we're starting to agree on something. I'm on the move in the next few weeks but will try to keep tabs of any further developments on this topic.
Regards,
Graham B

User avatar
Markus Becker
Member
Posts: 641
Joined: 27 Apr 2005, 18:09
Location: Germany

Re: The Great Myth of Britain's "Great Betrayal"

#45

Post by Markus Becker » 03 Nov 2010, 13:03

Such was the policy that it killed Australia's air defence (fighters didn't have a place in that concept) and orders for aircraft from Britain were subject to such delays over ten years that Australia went to war with US aircraft, and a trainer as its front line fighter. Suggest you read up on this one Graeme.
To be fair. What did Australia need air defense for? In 1939 between them and Japan were the Indies, Indo-China and the PI. That would mean in order to threaten Australia Japan also risk war with France, the Netherlands and the USA. The same Japan that had so far failed to defeat China. I can understand why your politicians did not loose sleep over their inability to stop Japanese air raids, because they had good reasons to be convinced the Japanese would never get within striking distance in the first place. Only the freakish combination of the Fall of France AND Italy´s declaration of war changed that, so IMO one can only blame them for steps they did not take after mid-1940. Before that building up the Navy and developing a long range search and strike capability(Beaufort) were reasonable.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”