Australia WW1 vs WW2

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
Post Reply
Larso
Member
Posts: 1974
Joined: 27 Apr 2003, 03:18
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Australia WW1 vs WW2

#1

Post by Larso » 08 Aug 2004, 01:41

This is perhaps not wholly suited to this section and my Subject is a bit clumsy but I think the people with relevant opinions are most likely found here. Anyway, I recall reading once about the tension when Vietnam vets started becoming involved in the RSL, which didn't surprise me but it was pointed out that there had been similar feelings when WW2 vets started to join the WW1 blokes following 1945.

The issue was that the Great War vets felt the younger men's war not to have been as hard as theirs. So I'm wondering, if this was indeed the case, whether they had a right to feel this way? Was the Western Front worse than Alamein? Or was it that the Western Front was Alamain every day of the week? Given that only one Aust Div featured in this battle how do the Pacific, Greek, Syrian campains etc compare to the WW1 battles?

Michael Tapner
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 24 May 2004, 02:06
Location: Sydney, Australia

#2

Post by Michael Tapner » 08 Aug 2004, 06:13

Perhaps the best book you can look at is one by John Barrett entitled "We Were There".

In summary it would seem that the soldiers of WWII very quickly entered the ex-servicemens life, with 94% of all serving people joining at least 1 organisation. The weight of personnel that served in WWII quickly surpassed the numbers of members surviving from WWI. (1,000,000 served in WWII, v 400,000 in WWI (Of whom about 25% had died by the end of WWII). Over the next few years most of the unit organisations merged - For example the 1/10th battalion and 2/10 battalion ex servicemans organisation merged in 1951.
The fact that the soldier had fought for the liberty of the country seemed to out weigh other concerns. I think it was also helped by the fact that many WWI vets also served in WWII.

Most resentment was felt within the ranks of the WWII service personnel for those who had only served domestically and had not fought overseas (For those that do not know, prior to December 1941, enrolment in the Australian army was voluntary. To complicate matters if one did enrol, one had the option of choosing to serve in the AIF or stay in the home army. There was also the issue that the home serviceman received a higher pay.)


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

#3

Post by Andy H » 08 Aug 2004, 18:06

To complicate matters if one did enrol, one had the option of choosing to serve in the AIF or stay in the home army. There was also the issue that the home serviceman received a higher pay.)
Was this the basic pay and then combat/dangerman money was added to the AIF soldiers paypacket, or was it just less full stop than a member in the Home Army?

Andy H

Michael Tapner
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 24 May 2004, 02:06
Location: Sydney, Australia

#4

Post by Michael Tapner » 09 Aug 2004, 13:34

Was this the basic pay and then combat/dangerman money was added to the AIF soldiers paypacket, or was it just less full stop than a member in the Home Army?


Andy,

The paypacket for the AIF was less - period. The view of the Army, was that the AIF soldier was getting the benefit of travel and seeing the world. The situation was not resolved until some time in 1943!

It was one of the major factors that caused a great deal of conflict between AIF personnel and those of the citizen army.

In the end the Australian high command went to great lengths to encourage soldiers to 'convert' to AIF status. Soldiers could be converted by choice OR the unit could be reclassified as AIF if 66% of the manpower were AIF. (Now of course the high command were quite keen to reassign manpower in order to pass the 66% mark...) Those who didn't 'convert' were often weeded out or assigned to the more mundane jobs - such as Wharf laboror.

Cheers,

Mike

Larso
Member
Posts: 1974
Joined: 27 Apr 2003, 03:18
Location: Brisbane, Australia

#5

Post by Larso » 10 Aug 2004, 01:55

Thanks again,

Yes it's just bizarre about the pay scales and it would have certainly rankled me. I had thought that the First War vets were a bit slower to take up things like the RSL. I thought I'd read, in Gammage I think, that only a half of the blokes who came back did so. Perhaps though he was only referring to his sample. I do think though that there would have been a lot more war weariness amongst those First War guys as a far greater proportion of them would've had front line or near front line jobs compared to the logistics heavier WWII forces.

User avatar
Phil V
Member
Posts: 1635
Joined: 21 May 2002, 13:18
Location: Australia (usually)
Contact:

#6

Post by Phil V » 10 Aug 2004, 08:15

Many Australians fighting in WW1 were fighting for "King and Country". Mother England etc.

Many Australians fighting in WW2 were fighting because Australia was under actual threat of Invasion.

Many Australians fighting in Vietnam were fighting because they had to.

This may have some bearing on your original point.

MB

Larso
Member
Posts: 1974
Joined: 27 Apr 2003, 03:18
Location: Brisbane, Australia

#7

Post by Larso » 12 Aug 2004, 08:18

Good point Max, the variety of motives mustn't be discounted, as these would have had an effect on the latter attitudes of veterans.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”