Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

...
Churchill's strategic imperatives did not include consideration of Australia. His disasters in Greece, Crete (against the advice of his military), and Singapore cost 20,000 Australian casualties killed or captured.

His defining strategy was the preservation of the Empire without compromise.
Therefor we Australians can be grateful for the heritage but we owe them nothing....

Chris

Churchill certainly made mistakes which cost Australian lives (e.g. Gallipoli) but you contradict yourself, though I think unwittingly.

Preservation of the Empire included protection of the Dominions, & fighting for Singapore (the right thing to do, but badly executed) was forward defence of Australia.

I think Churchill didn't see a divide between Australia (& the other Dominions) & the UK. He took it for granted that they would fight for each other. He didn't see himself as using Australians to fight for the UK, or vice-versa, but using soldiers of the Empire to fight for the Empire. The British sailors who died in the Java Sea, for example, were fighting for Australia as well as the NEI.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Churchill's strategic imperatives did not include consideration of Australia. His disasters in Greece, Crete (against the advice of his military), and Singapore cost 20,000 Australian casualties killed or captured.

worth reading the prev book reference i made earlier

churchill and the GHQ staff knew that crete and greece were on the line - as did freyberg. they weren't willing to sacrifice enigma as the belief was that showing their hand and prepping crete would have sacrificed val INT too early in the game in fact there was some resentment towards freyberg in that even though he knew that the paras were coming he didn't make a fist of it. freybergs views were why kill people unnecessarily?

so the army relevant G staff knew that crete was going to be sacrificial so as to protect Enigma

the book is a good read and worth getting if you're a history nut

 

[ASSAIL]

worth reading the prev book reference i made earlier

churchill and the GHQ staff knew that crete and greece were on the line - as did freyberg. they weren't willing to sacrifice enigma as the belief was that showing their hand and prepping crete would have sacrificed val INT too early in the game in fact there was some resentment towards freyberg in that even though he knew that the paras were coming he didn't make a fist of it. freybergs views were why kill people unnecessarily?

so the army relevant G staff knew that crete was going to be sacrificial so as to protect Enigma

the book is a good read and worth getting if you're a history nut

The decision by GHQ (at Churchill's behest) to send troops to Greece simply highlights the need for more national independence in future conflicts as I alluded previously.

Menzies sided with the War Cabinet suggesting that the majority Australian/NZ force has a "reasonable chance"

The Australian Commander Lt Gen Blamey belatedly wrote that the action was "extremely hazardous"

The RN felt that there was only ever going to be one outcome and that was evacuation and planned accordingly.

The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History describes the campaign as "the worst piece of Churchillian strategy of the war"

As a result the 9 battalions of the Australian 6th Div and the NZ Div bore the brunt of the fighting. The 6th Div took horrendous losses, 6,700 casualties, 39% of the 17,125 troops deployed.

My point is, would the GHQ send a 100% UK force knowing the risks despite what gf has said about ENIGMA? They could have, the Empire troops were well regarded in N Africa.
Would the result be acceptable to the British public in mid 1941?
Would Churchill have proceeded on this basis?

Anyway this is so far off topic it probably should go elsewhere, sorry for that

 

[Abraham Gubler]

We love off topic. Now I agree that operationally Greece was a disaster and it was unfortunate for us that ANZAC troops had to fight the battle. But I disagree that Greece was bad strategy.

In April 1941 it was still the UK vs Germany-Italy. The UK had no other powers allied with it just the Empire and the exiled remains of the countries that the Germans had defeated. As Hitler drew near Greece helping to defend it from the Fascist Axis was a vital gesture both to the remaining allies of the British and those countries still sitting on the fence. Especially the USA and most importantly Turkey: for the Western Desert Campaign and the Middle East it guarded. If the UK had just let Germany squash Greece then it would have sent the message that the UK was out of resources and was starting to cut and run.

A fighting retreat is hell on the rear guard but it’s much better than a rout.

 

[KiwiRob]

We love off topic. Now I agree that operationally Greece was a disaster and it was unfortunate for us that ANZAC troops had to fight the battle. But I disagree that Greece was bad strategy.

My Granddad fought in Greece and Crete, he was a gunner, did the desert campaign, family legend says he was seconded to the LRDG for a time, then was shipped back to NZ in 43. It's never talked about but Granddad was from the Waikato and I suspect he might have been one of the furlong deserters.

 

[ASSAIL]

I think Churchill didn't see a divide between Australia (& the other Dominions) & the UK. He took it for granted that they would fight for each other. He didn't see himself as using Australians to fight for the UK, or vice-versa, but using soldiers of the Empire to fight for the Empire. The British sailors who died in the Java Sea, for example, were fighting for Australia as well as the NEI.

But that's my whole point, he regarded the Dominions as his Empire troops without regard to their national sensitivities. Canada, Australia and NZ where independent nations who happened to be "helping". They had their own priorities and political challenges which were totally ignored.

 

[alexsa]

But that's my whole point, he regarded the Dominions as his Empire troops without regard to their national sensitivities. Canada, Australia and NZ where independent nations who happened to be "helping". They had their own priorities and political challenges which were totally ignored.

Sadly MacArthur treated them no better and they simply fodder to his ego. The sidelining after New Guinea was pretty poor.

Australia was not helped by the performance of some of it senior commanders (Blamey was not a pretty sight in the latter half of the war) and its politicians. While they stood up to Chruchill they fawned to MacArthur.

PS: We are WAY off topic

 

[Raven22]

But that's my whole point, he regarded the Dominions as his Empire troops without regard to their national sensitivities. Canada, Australia and NZ where independent nations who happened to be "helping". They had their own priorities and political challenges which were totally ignored.

Canada, Australia and NZ were sovereign nations who each declared war on Germany and had the same goal as Britain - defeating Germany. The knowingly placed their troops under British high command to achieve this goal. Why shouldn't British commanders use Dominion troops to achieve war goals? Why shouldn't they send them on hazardous operations where heavy casualties were expected? Should only British troops be expected to fight those hazardous operations and bear the brunt of the conflict? To be sure, British troops placed under the command of Canadian, Australian or NZ officers were expected to follow orders without first checking with Whitehall. What's the difference?

To be sure, British high command could have been more sensitive with how they treated the various whims of the dominion governments, but British commanders shouldn't be hamstrung by treating willing allied troops any differently than there own.

 

[ASSAIL]

To be sure, British high command could have been more sensitive with how they treated the various whims of the dominion governments,

This is the crux of my argument. The exchanges between Churchill and Curtain regarding the withdrawal of our troops from the Middle East are illustrative.
I don't disagree with your first paragraph

 

[Goknub]

For an Empire man like Churchill (along with the bulk of at least the conservative side in Australia at the time), the Empire's relationship with the various nations was little different than a nations relationship with its states.

An Australian govt would be reluctant to change strategy or alter a deployment if Queensland or Victorian state govts demanded troops raised from their states be used in particular ways.

I would counter that while Churchill and the Brits in general have come under a lot of heat for their actions re the Dominions during the war it is mostly misguided modern Nationalism.

 

[Volkodav]

It strikes me that one of the big differences during WWII is Australia lacked leaders of the calibre of Monash and Chauvel, the sort of leaders who innovated and excelled where others had failed, the sort who earned recognition for their skills and were granted commands including allied forces as well as Australians.

Had there been an equivalent of either would we have tolerated MacArthur? For that matter would Australia have been so un-prepared in 1942?

 

[swerve]

But that's my whole point, he regarded the Dominions as his Empire troops without regard to their national sensitivities. Canada, Australia and NZ where independent nations who happened to be "helping". They had their own priorities and political challenges which were totally ignored.

They didn't just 'happen' to be helping. They joined in because they believed there to be links of mutual loyalty, & because they believed their interests to be aligned with those of the UK. They believed (rightly) that the UK would fight to protect them & they were willing to fight to protect the UK. And as the war progressed, both of those things happened.

They were independent, but didn't regard themselves as separate to the extent they do nowadays - & nor were they regarded as separate by the UK to the degree they are now. I'm afraid you're seeing the past as if it was the present.

 

[swerve]

...
My point is, would the GHQ send a 100% UK force knowing the risks despite what gf has said about ENIGMA? ...

Probably.

I'm a little uncertain what your argument is. Do you think that Churchill had insufficient regard for the independence of Australia & the other Dominions, or that Dominion troops were treated worse than British troops?

I'd say that the first is probably right. Churchill - & the rest of the British government, & GHQ - were, as Raven22 says, lacking in awareness of Dominion sensitivities. But I'd say that the second is wrong, & that for it to be right would be incompatible with the reasons for the first. Churchill et al didn't really see the Dominion troops as distinct from UK troops, & therefore they were used much the same.

In the case of Greece, therefore, assembling a force consisting entirely of UK (or ANZAC) troops, selected on that basis, probably wouldn't have occurred to them, or made sense to them. They chose units for Greece based on availability & readiness for battle, & that meant a high proportion of ANZACs, because they were nearby & ready for action.

Don't assume that the officers planning the operation knew of the existence of Ultra.

 

[Volkodav]

They didn't just 'happen' to be helping. They joined in because they believed there to be links of mutual loyalty, & because they believed their interests to be aligned with those of the UK. They believed (rightly) that the UK would fight to protect them & they were willing to fight to protect the UK. And as the war progressed, both of those things happened.

They were independent, but didn't regard themselves as separate to the extent they do nowadays - & nor were they regarded as separate by the UK to the degree they are now. I'm afraid you're seeing the past as if it was the present.

Until Japan attacked there was no question that Australians should be serving along side our empire allies and fighting the Germans. Had Japan not entered the war until later or not at all there would have been an increased Australian contribution including armoured divisions to North Africa.

The UK encouraged Australia to look towards supporting the war against the Germans rather than building our own defences however it was Australian politicians who elected not to mobilise the economy to a war footing and not to expend any effort towards national defence not Churchill or his Government.

It is our own political leaders who should be held to account for the decisions they made that left us vulnerable.

 

[weegee]

Anyway getting back to a closer topic, I see that LHD 2 was floated down to her loading area with the idea to be loaded on the Blue Marlin between the 9-16 of Dec all things going to plan with a delivery around Feb. (Fingers crossed it will)

Secondly I also noticed this morning a couple of articles about the RAN changing the ships colour from storm grey? I was only saying to my father during the fleet review how much I liked the RAN grey compared to all the other greys during the review and now they are bloody changing it!!!!! I just hope they don't go like the colour that is on HMAS Choules.

 

[drjn]

Anyway getting back to a closer topic, I see that LHD 2 was floated down to her loading area with the idea to be loaded on the Blue Marlin between the 9-16 of Dec all things going to plan with a delivery around Feb. (Fingers crossed it will)

Secondly I also noticed this morning a couple of articles about the RAN changing the ships colour from storm grey? I was only saying to my father during the fleet review how much I liked the RAN grey compared to all the other greys during the review and now they are bloody changing it!!!!! I just hope they don't go like the colour that is on HMAS Choules.

I seem to recall that the RAN "experimented" with a blue colour on one of the PB's ........ It was effective AFAIK but too much of a bold move to have the rest of the fleet painted in blue.

 

[ASSAIL]

They didn't just 'happen' to be helping. They joined in because they believed there to be links of mutual loyalty, & because they believed their interests to be aligned with those of the UK. They believed (rightly) that the UK would fight to protect them & they were willing to fight to protect the UK. And as the war progressed, both of those things happened.

They were independent, but didn't regard themselves as separate to the extent they do nowadays - & nor were they regarded as separate by the UK to the degree they are now. I'm afraid you're seeing the past as if it was the present.

You fail to recognize the demographic reality of Australia in the first half of the 20th Century.
40% had roots as Irish Catholics, their charismatic leader Archbishop Mannix was anti war and definitely anti British and fervently preached independent action.
The conservative leadership and the financial, agricultural and civil leaders were slavishly pro Empire.
The former had a view that Australians were a convenient source of manpower for the war effort in Europe and questioned the validity of out participation.

I'm seeing the past as it was and despite being from a conservative, middle class, protestant background, I recognise (now) the anti Empire view held by many in the first half of the 20th Century.

 

[alexsa]

Can we move the geopolictical WWII topic to another thread?

 

[RobWilliams]

Secondly I also noticed this morning a couple of articles about the RAN changing the ships colour from storm grey? I was only saying to my father during the fleet review how much I liked the RAN grey compared to all the other greys during the review and now they are bloody changing it!!!!! I just hope they don't go like the colour that is on HMAS Choules.

IIRC the new paint includes compounds which reduce the IR signature of the ship, so it's not just a cosmetic thing WRT the shade of grey being used.

Still, the articles I read were talking about all the different shades of grey used around the world which was interesting, I never really gave it much thought. Grey is grey, so to speak.

 

[Astute]

Hi to all
I have to say many of the points made about Australian deployments during ww2 fail to take into account that these were the darkest years of the war , Europe was under German control , the evacuation at Dunkirk had left the British army a mess , German u boats were sinking transport ships faster they could be built ,the blitz of British cities was underway around 40.000 civilians had been killed in the uk and thousands more wounded , the ports and factories were being smashed day and night, rationing was in place and The Battle of Britain was being fought , Britain as a island was basically under siege waiting the anticipated invasion, these were desperate times,

The deployment of Australian forces to the Middle East was decision that had to be made at the time as fresh troops were in short supply until the troops which were able to return from France had time to rearm and reorganise to rejoin the fight, the Middle East campaign was just as important to Australia as it was to Britain ,the Suez Canal could not fall to the Italian/German forces as this was the gate way to the east for supplies and troop movements.

Many decisions made during any war in hindsight might be disputed later but looking back is different than being there at the time and having to make them tough calls .

Thousands of British troops fought in the pacific during the war many never returned the argument could be made why did we send troops to the pacific when we needed them to defend the uk from a very possible invasion , why did we send weapons to Russia when we desperately needed them ourselves , the answer is we were all in it together ,we had the same determination to stand up and fight for the right to be free, but tough unpopular decisions had to be made .

And if the question was would the uk support Australia today of course we would 100% yes I have no doubt , you could say we already are helping with Australia's defence there's so many ex RN/RAF/British army personnel in the Australian armed forces and make no mistake the Australian government is recruiting hard in the uk for more ,