Mick’s Churchill pretensions are just pie in the sky

David says:

12:39pm | 22/04/10

Tell me about it. The umpires at the gabba regularly manage to miss blatant holding, pushes in the back, high contacts, tackles after a mark is taken etc if the penalty goes against the visitors. The umpiring at the Gabba of late has been disgusting.

Jenni says:

11:20am | 22/04/10

@Amused “Furthermore, “I’d have decked him” is sheer stupidity. Would you deck Milne if he insulted you our your seuxal orientation?”

Malthouse did not insult the player’s sexual orientation,though that still would have been deplorable. Malthouse called this young man a RAPIST. This is not only a disgusting thing to call another human being, but without a basis of fact, is actually slander for which Malthouse could actually be sued. If I were the young man in question, I may well have been tempted to deck him myself.

Willy K says:

11:51am | 22/04/10

A dose of reality - you need a dose of reality!

Britain was under full attack from Germany at the time, their economy was on its knees and they had lost tens of thousands of men and thousands of planes/warships/merchant ships.  Britain had fronts under attack all over the planet and against two immensely powerful foes and with ZERO help from the USA for almost two years.

Get some perspective you goose.  The Brits did what they could - they were fighting for their very survival and we would have done the same in the same circumstance.

Churchill was and is held in very high regard and helped massively to boost morale in Britain and win the war.  Of course he wasn’t perfect - no military leader ever has been.

Get the chip off your shoulder and see the big picture.

A Dose of Reality says:

02:42pm | 22/04/10

Willy K,

Read up a bit.

You’ll find that when Curtin wanted Aussie troops to come home the war in North Africa (where those Aussie troops had served with distinction, earning high words of praise from Rommel himself) had already been won, as had the Battle of Britain.  The USA had entered the war and the allies were planning the offensives in Italy and Normandy.  The Russians were starting to hold their own, demanding huge resources from Germany to stop an outright reverse.

Churchill wanted to sacrifice Australia to the Japanese while Australian troops were sent to Greece, AS A DIVERSION, in a repeat of the “Dardanelles Underbelly” strategy that cost so much in WWI - but with a less lofty objective. 

He was also lobbying the USA to forget about the Pacific, in which he succeeded to some degree.  A real US presence in this war came about a little later.  Australia was cast alone, virtually defenceless but for the “chocolate soldiers” - clerks manning desks, with its’ regular army held up on the other side of the world.  As a result of this situation the “Brisbane Line” concept was rumoured to have developed (are you familiar with this?).

Do you have any kind of idea where the British navy was, or what it was doing?

Read up, fool.

Sean Williams says:

03:03am | 23/04/10

Churchill is a great British hero, so show some respect “A Dose of Reality” - you don’t see British people going around belittling the great figures Australia has procuded like Rolf Harris, Harold Bishop and…. errr help me out here. The anti-Churchill thing in Australia seems to be mainly down to 1) jealousy that they have never produced such an inspiring globally-admired leader; 2) a belief that Australians were sacrified at Gallipoli to protect “cowardly Brits drinking tea back on the boats” when the casualty figures show that Britain lost more than three times the amount the ANZACs did during the Dardanelles campaign. Finally, you’re correct to point out that Aussies performed admirably in North Africa. Maybe if they had stayed they could have earned more plaudits, perhaps even a supporting role at D-Day. Instead, back home the Australian army descended into a drunken rabble. MacArthur refused to use them in the front-line of the Pacific campaign because they were so hopeless.

A Dose of Reality says:

01:25pm | 23/04/10

Sean Williams

1) learn to read, you have not read my post. 

I never claimed that the Gallipoli campaign was a loss for ANZAC troops only - I simply pointed to the fact that it was a disastrous campaign (”.. idiot decision..”, to be exact).  I am well aware that British troops (along with the French) also suffered terribly.  I am also aware (and you may not be) that Indian troops also fought there, and in most dispatches were described as “British” (much as the Australians were described as “British” later when in France).

2) “back home the Australian army descended into a drunken rabble. MacArthur refused to use them in the front-line of the Pacific campaign because they were so hopeless.”

Are you for real?  One word - Kakoda. 

The above claim is nonesense.  MacArthur used his own troops over which he had an absolute authority - he did not like the fact he had to consult the Australian Government in the use of Australian troops (nor did he think he was answerable to the US government, for that matter).  There is also the fact that most of the US troops used in the Pacific (essentially a naval campaign) were marines, and came “equipped” for island hopping as they were part of ships’ contingents.  This showed through in his planning.  Australian troops, as well as other army contingents were used in other aspects of the war.

His reluctance in political co-operation also showed through in his military demise (you might like to research him a little - it makes interesting reading, from a number of viewpoints).

On the factual side of this point British commanders have also referred to Aussie troops as “undisciplined, drunken rabble”.  Only to have their bacon saved at Bersheeba, Trobuk, Villers-Bretonneux, Hamel etc, etc.

3)“Maybe if they had stayed they could have earned more plaudits”

Please name a fighting force that has earned MORE “plaudits” from both enemy and ally than has the Australian Army over the past 100 years.  Go through the facts and figures.

4) “great figures Australia has procuded like Rolf Harris, Harold Bishop and…. errr help me out here.”

Certainly ... during churchills’ time in fact… ever heard of Monash?  you know, the general commander on the western front who actually achieved an objectives using military planning and initiative and not on the wholesale expenditure of “dispensable” troops.  (the allied high command was of the opinion that in the end, if there is 3 allied soldiers and only 1 german soldier, then the allies have won - Read up on Haig, if you like).

Two allied general commanders stand out in WWI; Monash and Currie (and I’ll bet you have no idea of Currie, either).

Howard Florey
Albert Jacka
Sir Ernest Edward ‘Weary’ Dunlop
John “Simpson” Kirkpatrick
This is getting boring - I’m not the schoolteacher you never listened to - your determined ignorance is astounding

Sean Williams says:

05:35pm | 23/04/10

First of all may i beg the indulgence of the moderators on what is, after all, a “football” thread to give my final right to reply to my friend ADoR.
All i was responding to was the snide sneering tone we always get from certain Australians whenever the world wars are raised. Sometimes you would wonder if we were on the same side!  I simply do not understand it.

1) More British troops were killed in the first hour of the horrendous Somme assault than ANZACs were killed in the whole Dardanelles campaign (at which, as I have said,  three times as many Brits were killed) so please stop pleading special victimhood.

2) I stand by my comments about the Australian forces descending into an undisciplined rabble, you seem to be an avid reader on this subject ADOR so i’m sure you’ll know this already. Kokoda was July-November 1942 i believe, and effectively represented Australia’s last significant impact on WWII. By the last years of the war, by most accounts Australian forces were no longer of any use in the sharp end of Pacific operations.

3) I reckon the Scots of the British Army take your honours. To bring things up to date the best phrase our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan could direct at our Aussie cousins is surely “Where the bloody hell are you?” No matter, we didn’t need you in the Falklands either (much to your chagrin, no need for our “bacon to be saved” there cobber)

4) I vaguely know of Monash, helped break the German lines in 1918 by bombarding them with gas, very noble, and I seem to recall Currie was Canadian. As for the rest I plead ignorance, forgive me.

To conclude, you may have your quibbles with some of Churchill’s policies (us “doff the cap” Brits certainly weren’t shy either, he was voted out of his seat because of the Dardanelles fiasco and turfed out of office as PM in 1945) but now in 2010 he is rightly, for all his faults, seen as a true British hero. Imagine how furious you would be if on a UK web thread to a sporting discussion which, for some reason, mentioned great Australian Rolf Harris in the title, a beastly Pom had laid into the wondrous wobble board-wielder? Your patriotic honour would surely have compelled you to respond, as I have here

A dose of Reality says:

01:08pm | 24/04/10

Read up on Monash again, you’ve got it wrong.  Currie was a Canadian.  If the war had continued for another year Currie would have been appointed by the allies as the High commander (rather than the butcher, haig) with Monash as his deputy.  Their co-ordinated use of the different elements at their disposal set them way ahead of the British and French generals.  Far fewer of their commands died while achieving far greater results.

Scots troops have been very effective for the English, so true for a number of centuries.  However over the past 100 years (Boer, WW!, WWII, Korea, Vietnam) There is strong argument that Australian troops have performed better (In iraq, that oil grab for bush that neither the UK nor Aust should be in, there is only the one, small battle group in a relatively quiet province - and are doing a good job - I have never claimed that they are the most numerous!).

Again, MacArthur used his own troops because he had absolute command of them.  He resented that he had to consult the Australian government in the use of Australian troops.  (Almost as much as he disliked being answerable to the US government).

It is also true that as the Pacific War was essentially a naval one (island hopping to get within reach of Japan), Army troops without sea-going transport and/or protection are of little use, and actually a drain on resources already integrated elsewhere.  His own forces were overwhelmingly naval in composition, the “footsoldiers” were mainly marines, the strike forces were capital in nature (warship and aircraft).  It could be argued that he only saw a sustained land assault as a way to further deplete japanese resources in any given area - or to draw out their rapidly diminishing naval assets.  His strategies in the Korean war again placed emphasis on the use of naval power.

To reiterate, I have never denied that British troops suffered at Gallipoli - I have said it was a stupid idea.  I have also stated “idiot decision to have thousands slaughtered at Gallipoli”. Nowhere did I claim that Australia suffered more.  The French died there too, so did a great number of Indians (who were often mentioned as “British”).  It was an idiotic idea to persue an already failed strategy (a previous naval attempt failed).  And one that was unnecessary, the Ottoman was occupied in Arabia and Persia.  Australia holds it in some regard as it is the first time Australians fought such a large battle under the auspice of their own country.  It is not so much that many died, it was that it was the first time so many died “as Australians”.  Far more were to die in France.

Whether or nor churchill is venerated in England is not the question, he should be seen different here, simply for the disregard in which he abandoned this country to the Japanese and particularly how he sent Australian troops into Japanese waters without an escort (which he did have available) after firstly denying them the right to defend their parents, wives and children.

He did this AFTER Australia had gone straight to the defence of his England without question, without regard for itself, for the second time, as a loyal and unswerving ally. 

PS - while I think he is a very talented man, I can readily accept that some people may not like the entertainer, Rolf Harris.  I draw your attention however, to the fact that Rolf Harris has never betrayed a nations’ trust nor has he put the lives of tens of thousands of Englishmen in danger.

dave says:

12:44pm | 22/04/10

On the contrary, there can never be too many articles about AFL anywhere   =)

acker says:

02:34pm | 22/04/10

@Moses…this forum has to many poser posters with aka’s that suggest they can part the sea IMHO