The Great Myth of Britain's "Great Betrayal"

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
Post Reply
Fatboy Coxy
Member
Posts: 872
Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 17:14
Location: Essex, UK

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

#91

Post by Fatboy Coxy » 28 Feb 2013, 00:11

It strikes me, re-reading this thread again, that what Australians didn't have was any history of their own about threats of invasion. Great Britain has always had periods of threats from other shores, from the Romans, Angles and Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Spanish, French, before finally it became the Germans. The thing that was firmly rammed home was a need to command the sea, and hence the British love of their Royal Navy. So no matter how bad things were re Germany, there was still the protection of the Royal Navy to be overcome. The idea that their shores HAD to be defended was firmly planted in the general populace, along with the idea that they had over 900 years of being successful at it.

I don't know the exact makeup of the ancestory of Australians in 1941, but I bet the majority hailed from Britain and Ireland, and so also had grown up with the same faith in the protection of the Royal Navy. The first world war had made them aware that the shipping lanes to Australia could be interdicted and so Cruisers were a necessity. But with the Royal Navy able to be based at Singapore, that wouldn't happen, and Australia could sleep safely. The world in 1941 was still a much bigger one than today in terms of distance, it took weeks to travel from the UK to Australia by sea, air transport was still in its infancy, the pioneers of the 20's and 30's still very much heroes of the new frontier. The concept that an enemy could be about to base itself at Port Moresby, its aircraft attacking Darwin, unthinkable. Given that, can the Australian populace be blamed for not showing more interest in their self defence, which is different to answering the call of defence of the "mother country and empire".

To me the loss of Singapore was as unthinkable to the Australians as the Royal Navy being defeated at Jutland would have been to the British. And if such a thing should happen, it would rock the very foundation of their society. So the betrayal could be seen as the Royal Navy not being there for them when it mattered. And the reason why the Royal Navy wasn't there was because Britain, who assumed responsability for Singapore, failed to hold it. Hence, to my mind, a feeling of betrayal.

I know people are going to say stratagists of the time were aware of the dangers, but things only really happen with the backing of the populace, and the technological changes that made our world a smaller place hadn't had time to sink in.

Steve
Regards
Fatboy Coxy

Currently writing https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/ ... if.521982/

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

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

#92

Post by Graham B » 07 Mar 2013, 09:59

Could be right Steve. Certainly the makeup of Australia in the 1940s was British - remember the white Australia policy. Even on passports, nationality was stated as British. News from the BBC led nightly news bulletins on ABC radio (preceding local news) and was not relegated until 1942 (and even that caused a bit of a stir). I think I've read somewhere that Curtin (who was PM when these changes occurred at the ABC) was criticised for it all, even changing the lead-in music to an Australian tune was not well received by all. My grandad, the son of an Irishman, spoke of Britain as the mother country (that one didn't pass down the generations).
From what I've read, Japan had long been identified as Australia's only real potential threat, and Australians had long feared a Japanese invasion, since before WW1. Some, including Billy Hughes (Prime Minster WW1), were quite vocal against the gains of Japan from WW1 (some former German territory in the Pacific), and about the reduction in naval (read RN) ships to placate the US and Japan in the 1920s.
The politics are difficult to discern, as so much reputation building and protecting goes on in political history, but I think it's fair to say that the Conservatives in Australian politics in the 1920s and 30s were very pro-British. So much so that they didn't want their independence from Britain (we didn't even have our own foreign policy, and didn't sign into law the Statute of Westminster that was the final step to independence) and were happy to run with things British, including Imperial Defence and the Singapore Strategy. They, the political leaders of the 1920s and 30s, are the ones who betrayed Australia, not Britain.
You might be interested in this interview http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/specials ... dennis.htm
and some of the other articles and interviews on this site. It dates back to 2002, but it's still quite good.
I like the Cornford interview in particular, and some of the papers presented. Cornford was identified as a (self confessed) Singapore deserter, by Peter Elphick (who also features).
Let me know if the link doesn't work.
Cheers,
Graham


Sizemore
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 03 Feb 2013, 00:49
Location: CT, now living in Europe.

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

#93

Post by Sizemore » 21 Mar 2013, 00:02

Fatboy Coxy wrote: I don't know the exact makeup of the ancestory of Australians in 1941, but I bet the majority hailed from Britain and Ireland, and so also had grown up with the same faith in the protection of the Royal Navy. The first world war had made them aware that the shipping lanes to Australia could be interdicted and so Cruisers were a necessity. But with the Royal Navy able to be based at Singapore, that wouldn't happen, and Australia could sleep safely. The world in 1941 was still a much bigger one than today in terms of distance, it took weeks to travel from the UK to Australia by sea, air transport was still in its infancy, the pioneers of the 20's and 30's still very much heroes of the new frontier. The concept that an enemy could be about to base itself at Port Moresby, its aircraft attacking Darwin, unthinkable. Given that, can the Australian populace be blamed for not showing more interest in their self defence, which is different to answering the call of defence of the "mother country and empire".

To me the loss of Singapore was as unthinkable to the Australians as the Royal Navy being defeated at Jutland would have been to the British. And if such a thing should happen, it would rock the very foundation of their society. So the betrayal could be seen as the Royal Navy not being there for them when it mattered. And the reason why the Royal Navy wasn't there was because Britain, who assumed responsability for Singapore, failed to hold it. Hence, to my mind, a feeling of betrayal.

I know people are going to say stratagists of the time were aware of the dangers, but things only really happen with the backing of the populace, and the technological changes that made our world a smaller place hadn't had time to sink in.

Steve
Not really, and even this way of thinking didn't exist in 1914. By that time the Aussies had helped Britain in South Africa - and were paid for their services there. There were real debates in that country about helping the UK just as there had been in America and indeed Canada. They voted not to have conscription also. They were an independent nation, although didn't need a war to get there, as the Brits had learned their lesson on the Continental USA. I believe also the Australian states had independent legislatures by the mid 19th Century, something the US states didn't have. There were people in those states (pre Independence) from all over Europe, and even America. None of them considered themselves "Brits" but rather Sth Australian, Qlders etc just like pre Independence America where they were Virginians or NYers. What happened in Qld had nothing to do with England. The environments were different and there was no way they would wait for directions or 'advice' from someone on the Strand. So they got their independent govt without a shot fired (well, there were Rebellions, I'm sure).

So by 1942, after having US and UK and other fleets (Including Imperial Japan) have Fleet Visits/Displays with the Australian Navy for some 40 years, and the Aussies having their own independent submarines in the Med way back in WWI, there was no real dependence or interdependence on the UK but rather an arms length alliance like any other. Even in WWI they knew the Brit generals were not always competent and demanded their own chains of command.

I also believe they contributed much in the way of food (not just helping with men and ships etc) to the UK in WWII because the UK couldn't feed itself. Betrayal isnt the word. It was more of a "Meh" moment "Here we go again, the Brits are having another civil war with their cousins in Europe". I dont think the average Aussie savored the thought of having to go over again to help, but they did anyway to their credit even though the Japanese were on their territory in the Pacific (NG). More of a "So?" than a "Betrayal". England simply couldnt help the Aussies as they had helped the English - because it was weak.

Sizemore
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 03 Feb 2013, 00:49
Location: CT, now living in Europe.

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

#94

Post by Sizemore » 21 Mar 2013, 00:05

There were pro British politicians in the US and Australia too, for sure. But the Aussies respected competence. So they decided to adopt a competent strategy. I think they also saw through Churchill better than our leaders did back in the day.

Watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8a3dlJVQq8

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

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

#95

Post by Andy H » 25 Mar 2013, 15:11

Sizemore wrote:There were pro British politicians in the US and Australia too, for sure. But the Aussies respected competence. So they decided to adopt a competent strategy. I think they also saw through Churchill better than our leaders did back in the day.

Watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8a3dlJVQq8
Hi

Like all Politicians they always think the grass is greener elsewhere.
The UK was relatively weak in relation to the group of (military) forces raged against it, though it was still economically strong during the opening years of the war.
Australians politicians naturally gravitated to the US after the beginning of the war in the Far East, but as the war dragged on, Australian politicians found that they had relatively less sway over policy/strategy when they cozied up to the Americans than they had had with the UK. In fact as the war entered its final yr, the Australia Government came back more into the UK camp as they realised the scope of US post war plans concerning, would be detrimental to Australia national interest.

Regards

Andy H

Sizemore
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 03 Feb 2013, 00:49
Location: CT, now living in Europe.

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

#96

Post by Sizemore » 30 Mar 2013, 22:59

Well I'd disagree with you there Andy as the US always allowed Australian generals joint command or even 'Task Force' command during operations. Compare that to say the way the Brits handled things. There were plenty of similarities between the two forces too - both Pacific nations, both reliant on Naval Power, and both had experiences in WWI helping Britain fight its European civil war on the continent and then wondering why they did so given the distance that Britain was to them politically, socially and geographically - but did so anyway. And after the war Australia continued as it had from 1900 (or earlier if you think for instance that their states had their own legislatures etc) to look after itself and certainly was not in anyones camp (perhaps except SEATO and a strengthened US alliance). There's no better example of this trend than what happened in 56 in the Suez and in Nam where Britain was too good to get involved.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”