Australia and Canada - parallel World War histories?

[lodestar]

I am surprised that Australia's World War II experience did not produce a writer of the stature and calibre of Canada's redoubtable Farley Mowat.

Who not only produced a great piece of war history covering his unit's war record in 'The Regiment' (1955) and a marvelous autobiographical opus on his war experiences 'My Father's Son' (1993) but wrote memorable and at times very controversial works about the enviroment, wildlife, native Canadians and children's books.

Amazingly this iconic figure was at one time banned from entering the USA!
He was stopped intially from entering the US in 1985 for a promotional tour because he "(shock, horror!) may have been associated with some archetypal 'radical groups.
Resulting publicity did wonders for him apparently and the Reagan Administration eventually relented. But he stayed out by choice.

He covered this experience in 'My Discovery of America'.

Honorable veteran, great writer, and marvelous advocate for progressive causes.

Australia's World War II literary scene produced no-one really comparable.

Regards lodestar

[the ace]

In some ways, Australia really got it in the neck in WW2.

After a general mobilisation and most of her able-bodied men sent off to Europe and North Africa, she suddenly faced a direct attack from Japan and little to fight with.

While the Kokoda Trail and the intense jungle fighting in New Guinea may not have amounted to much in the great scheme of things, they were vital to Australia's survival, and her fighting men can be justifiably proud of their role there.

Both countries aided the UK without a second thought, joining two wars on the other side of the world that had little direct effect on them, and served with a courage and distinction rarely matched in military history. The debt we owe to our brothers half a world away can never be repaid.

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by lodestar

When discussing military history nothing is more uncouth, blinkered, ungentlemanly and an indication of lack of breeding and class than over-emphasising one’s own countries contribution to any conflict they were involved in.
On the other hand having a proper perspective on one’s own country’s efforts is very much in keeping with the ‘the way of lodestar. Something, of course you should all be striving for.

I loath national navel gazing, smug military triumphalism (of the ‘our Aussie Boys were really special’ type) or chest thumping of any kind when it comes to Australia, unless of course it’s about me!

However, having said that, I find on the odd occasion some aspects (usually eclectic ones) of national military history worthy of a lodestar expression of interest. In short, a merest thought occurs to lodestar, he posts on the matter, all other posts are relegated to irrelevance.
Once again part of ‘the way of lodestar’.

Looking at Australia’s role in World War II (and WWI for that matter) I’ve been struck with similarities with its experiences, attitudes and approaches in those wars and those of the other major player from the ‘white’ British Empire / Commonwealth, Canada (what do they call Canadians ? Canucks? I despise nicknames unless I approve of them so I’ll call these men ‘Canadians’ ie: citizens of the nation of Canada).
It is possible that at some time in the past some other person has engaged in the same line of thinking but as we all know a so-called ‘other person’ is not lodestar – there is simply no comparison!

Well, I could go on and on. The sound of my own prattling is simply the sweetest sound in the world but enough of lodestar preamble (feel it necessary to do these introductions simply to reiterate my own sense of unique, inherent superiority).

Let’s get to my points about Australia and Canada’s parallel war(s)

. Both nations have history buffs (and some historians) who to put it bluntly, tend to have ‘tickets on themselves’ regarding their nation’s roles in both Wars.

I found this tendency irritating way back in the 70’s and it is surprisingly getting a little worse in Australia with some Aussies jingoists suddenly ‘discovering’ such battles as Fromelles (WWI) and Kokoda (WWII) and some historians to putting out some thinly disguised chauvinistic, almost embarrassing missives about our role (Ronald Perry in ‘Monash: The Outsider Who Won a War’ for example). I’m sure my Canadian colleagues can point to similar attitudes and examples from their knowledge of the Canadian experience.

So to start with let’s get one thing quite clear. Despite all their sacrifices, undoubted heroism in many instances and the fact that they were in the allied lists in the First World War One from day 6 and the Second World War from day 3 to the end in both wars, neither Australia nor Canada played a so-called ‘vital role’ in either world war.

This needs to be stated before those Australian and Canadian flag-waving, chauvinist, nationally blinkered amateur historians start up with ‘We did this, we did that’ pie in the sky wishful thinking.

Well okay, most posters here are not like that and can keep a national effort in perspective but you know the sort of thing I mean: exaggeration, ignoring or minimising the efforts of other countries,
Focussing on a small action that just happened to involve some of ‘our boys’.
In reality and in OVER ALL TERMS, Australian and Canadian efforts were simply far too small in the BIG PICTURE scheme of things to be even remotely considered as vital to allied victory in either war.

. Both provided excellent army contingents (the best man for man out of the Empire / Commonwealth? –now there’s a debate!) to the western allied side.
These were often used, especially in WWI, as the spearhead, in offensive ops (Gallipoli, Vimy Ridge, Amiens 1918, Wavell’s 1940-41 Western Desert offensive, Syria 1941, Dieppe, El Alamein, Monte Cassino, Normandy) and as a ‘fire-brigade’ in defensive battles: Ypres salient 1915, German March 1918 Offensive’ (Australia’s only ‘crucial’ battle in either war), Crete, Tobruk, , Hong Kong, Malaya/Singapore.

. Both provided naval/ air force contingents.
]. Both had major conscription and ‘where their armies’ should / could be deployed controversies / crises during both wars. I’m more familiar with the Australian issues but the Canadian ‘deployment’ experience was a sort of reverse image of Australia’s:
Australia deployed and engaged early in the war in regards to major ground ops (if you can call anything the Western Allies undertook pre-1944 ‘major’ compared to the Eastern Front) with small scale but intense fighting in North Africa, Greece, Crete, Syria and New Guinea but her effort languished comparatively, from late ’43 onwards.
Max Hastings in his book ‘Nemesis’, about the last months of the war in the Pacific has upset some Australians by calling his chapter about Australia’s war in this period (44-45) ‘Bludgers and Moping up’ and referring to 1945 as “the most inglorious year in Australia’s history as a fighting nation”.

Canada’s army by contrast had a generally very quite first three years of war until August 1942 when the Dieppe raid occurred.
It (the Canadian Army) has been described by the historian Douglas Bottin in ‘The Second Front’ (Time-life Books 1978) as having “gained a reputation as the most overexercised and underemployed army in the War. The Canadian government knew its men were frustrated and demoralized by inactivity and was pressuring the British government to send them into action at the earliest opportunity. Dieppe provided that opportunity.”
Which proves the old contention ‘be careful what you wish for’

There followed another period of relative quite for the Canadians until 1944 when they went in ‘boots and all’ in Italy and NW Europe.

[]. Both countries had a testy and at times truculent relationship with their ‘great and powerful friend’ and strategic master the United Kingdom. Australia’s always had a ‘blame the poms’ (the English rather than the ‘British’) for supposed blunders the British high command had foisted upon them: Somme, Passchendaele,
Greece / Crete, Malaya.
I’m sure the Canadians had a similar ‘mindset’ regarding Ypres, Neuve Chapelle, Somme, PasschendaeleDieppe, Cassino, Caen.
Endless ink has been spilt on the complex issue of the relationship with the United Kingdom with views ranging from jocular good-natured ribbing to outright accusations of national betrayal.

. Both countries suffered similar levels of loss in both world wars.

Anyway this mini-essay has gone on long enough, brilliant as it is.
I’m sure other posters can think of more similarities and/or contrasts between Australia and Canada in World War Two.. or between other nations as well.

“Lodestar’s stupidity and ignorance amazed virtually everyone: for the first twenty years of his life he believed a Manilla Folder referred to a Filipino contortionist!!”

Hi ls,Cannot speak for battles before my time mate,conceed that the Canadians were used in that atrocious ball up known as Dieppe but draw the line at your comment they were 'used as the spearhead in Normandy' they were PART OF the spearhead which included a number of nationalities,including that unspeakable word to some people....The British!! lcm1

[BELGRAVE]

Originally Posted by the ace

In some ways, Australia really got it in the neck in WW2.

After a general mobilisation and most of her able-bodied men sent off to Europe and North Africa, she suddenly faced a direct attack from Japan and little to fight with.

While the Kokoda Trail and the intense jungle fighting in New Guinea may not have amounted to much in the great scheme of things, they were vital to Australia's survival, and her fighting men can be justifiably proud of their role there.

Both countries aided the UK without a second thought, joining two wars on the other side of the world that had little direct effect on them, and served with a courage and distinction rarely matched in military history. The debt we owe to our brothers half a world away can never be repaid.

There's much discussion currently ,in some circles, about exactly how vital the fighting in New Guinea really was for Australia's survival.

BTW It's Kokoda "Track", rather than "Trail":- more Aussified y' know.

[lodestar]

Originally Posted by BELGRAVE

There's much discussion currently ,in some circles, about exactly how vital the fighting in New Guinea really was for Australia's survival.

BTW It's Kokoda "Track", rather than "Trail":- more Aussified y' know.

I like to be smart-arsy and difficult and always call it the Kokoda 'Walking Path'.

[Roadkiller]

As can be expected, the Canadians had a love/hate relationship with the major powers that they had to deal with at the time; the US and the UK. I expect Australia had the same dual dynamic.

To this day, there are those in Canada that attempt to "blame" some element of the British command structure for the tragedy at Dieppe.

The destroyer HMCS ATHABASKAN was torpedoed and sunk with great loss of life during a running battle in the English Channel with German torpedo boats in the run up to D-Day. A popular conspiracy in Canada is that the ship was actually accidentally sunk by British torpedo boats engaged in the action.

WTF? It seems an affront to national pride to admit that sometimes our guys just lost. It happens, no conspiracies necessary. (There are other examples)

Canada's relationship with the US at the time was quite different than with the UK. From what I have read and heard from veterans, senior British officers treated senior Canadians as 'children who should be seen but not heard' (especially the navy). The US was more open to dialog.

In fact, about mid-war, with Canada providing most of the escorts to convoys headed to the UK, the Royal Canadian Navy began to push to have operational control of naval forces from it's shores out to the "mid-ocean meeting point". The Royal Navy would hear none of it, but was supportive of the USN taking control when, at the time the discussion started, the USN had three escorts in the area (Canada had hundreds!).

The USN actually championed the Canadian cause and this led to the establishment of what today is known as "CANLANT" (Canadian Atlantic) Command, a seperate NATO region still commanded by a Canadian.

Sorry about the lengthy, meandering post, Lodestar does inspire these sorts of wanderings

[Half Pint John]

Originally Posted by At ease

I do believe that the RCN played an EXTREMELY important role in the Battle of the Atlantic. It was probably the most important contribution of any of the Commonwealth countries

Ditto

[lodestar]

Originally Posted by Roadkiller

As can be expected, the Canadians had a love/hate relationship with the major powers that they had to deal with at the time; the US and the UK. I expect Australia had the same dual dynamic.

To this day, there are those in Canada that attempt to "blame" some element of the British command structure for the tragedy at Dieppe.

WTF? It seems an affront to national pride to admit that sometimes our guys just lost. It happens, no conspiracies necessary. (There are other examples)

Sorry about the lengthy, meandering post, Lodestar does inspire these sorts of wanderings

It's not at all lengthy (read a few of mine if you have a spare lifetime!), it does't meander but stays on basic topic and thanks, the whole reason behind my posts (apart from being monuments to my staggering vanity and self-absorption) is to get people to wander and explore and see things in new perspectives.

Back to uni for me with any luck next year so expect more.

Regards lodestar

[lodestar]

Originally Posted by BELGRAVE

There's much discussion currently ,in some circles, about exactly how vital the fighting in New Guinea really was for Australia's survival.

Quite so. It needs to be remembered that the Japanese Army was massively committed in 1941-45 in it's war with China and also had an enormous army in Mancuria tied down watching the Soviet border.

Japan's army fought the entire pacific campaign on a total shoestring virtually from start to finish, being only capable (because of the extremely successful US Submarine campaign aginst it's shipping lanes - one of the great unsung US success stories of the war) of hazardous reinforcment of isolated island outposts at critical.

The tiny force in New Guinea was NOT going to conquer Australia

Regards lodestar

[BELGRAVE]

Originally Posted by AFLis overrated

ANZAC day and that isn't about our (negligent) contribution it's about the bravery of our men rushing out into battle and getting shot to bits. If the Brits didn't want us to steal their credit they shouldn't have asked us. As for World War 2 the Japanese would have flattened us and thanks be to the Yanks for bailing us out.

I've just noticed: who was "negligent" ?

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by BELGRAVE

I've just noticed: who was "negligent" ?

I think AFL is very negligent in getting his facts right. Australia was not asked to join in,in those days it was a case of 'What daddy does,we all do'. lcm1

[Soothesayer]

Actually I thought the army commandos 'went in first' at Dieppe; an operation designed to cover an attempt to snatch a new Enigma machine that turned into a very useful learning experience. A Canadian corps landed in Italy in 1943, this corps moved to NW Europe end 44/early 45.

It's also useful to remember that UK had to sustain a large industrial base, lots of men in reserved occupations. Australian industrail base was vey small, and Canada's seemingly propotionally less than UK's. This had an impact on the available manpower pool. Not forgetting the pressure on the British officer pool to officer the Indian army.

While I'm about lets correct the Dardanelles myth as well. The landing beaches on 25 Apr were S, V, W, X, Y, Z plus the French. Only Z beach was ANZAC.

[clackers]

The Canadian navy grew from 15 ships to be perhaps the third largest in the world on raw numbers by 1945, ASW its specialty.

From a slow start to combat, Canada was able to field an army size unit that was in pretty much continuous combat in NW Europe from June '44 onwards (albeit half its units were from other nations). A talented commander was unearthed in the form of Guy Simonds.

Pilots from all over the Commonwealth received their flight training there, too.

WWI has more similarities in deployment and service, and from both countries emerged excellent generals - Arthur Currie and John Monash.

[Soothesayer]

Originally Posted by the ace

In some ways, Australia really got it in the neck in WW2.

After a general mobilisation and most of her able-bodied men sent off to Europe and North Africa, she suddenly faced a direct attack from Japan and little to fight with.

Eh, the 2nd AIF, like the first, was all volunteer, it was the 2nd AIF that went to N Africa. It was nowhere near 'most of her [Australia's] able-bodied men' this is a gross and exceedingly inderinformed exaggeration. Most able bodied men were in the Militia and only some of these volunteered for the AIF and RAAF.

[tigersqn]

Originally Posted by clackers

From a slow start to combat, Canada was able to field an army size unit that was in pretty much continuous combat in NW Europe from June '44 onwards (albeit half its units were from other nations).

It was also probably the most "international" of the Allied Armies in NW Europe; consisting of it's own nationals, British units, 1st Polish Armd Div, Belgian, Dutch and Czech troops. It even had, for the clearing of the Scheldte, the US 104th Inf Div under command.

Pilots from all over the Commonwealth received their flight training there, too.

Yep.
The British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (BCATP) trained over 131,000 personnel of various nationalities in Canada.