Quote:
Originally Posted by raj-rif
you have to be kidding don't you, britain never thought of asia as secondary as we were relying on the india for men and material, if britain could have she wopuld have sent more help but when you are losing ground hand over fist on your doorstep and need every available man to maintain your base of operations and protect you means to wage war (middle east oil) you have to prioritise. once america was in the war and fighting in the pacific chruchill knew that australia was safe.
|
Churchill was outraged when he heard that Curtin asked for help from the americans, he himself said to curtin europe is more important then Australia. Which fine he looked after his own country first but we needed our troopes for the defence for our country, and the 9th inf div was the best force we had, well trained and lead and importantly experinenced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raj-rif
my area of knowledge is 4th indian division and the western desert, i have spoken to many british vets who have all said that the aussies were marvelous troops who you could rely upon at any time, not once has friction been mentioned amongst the men. you will actually find too that all commenwealth and dominion troops were regarded as suspect fighters until they actually won the respect of the commanders on the battle fields, despite having already fought with extreme bravery in three campaigns when montgommery arrived he didnt take a liking to the 4th indians, after el alamain he left them on battlefield clear up duties, finnaly General Tucker there C.O went to monty and said he wanted to be replaced as co if his troops were not to be used, within a week they had been called forward to the mareth line.
|
I am in noway saying 'dominion' troops are less effective then other troops, in my readings and research, I have found that many dominion troops of the commonwealth were great fighters and able to rival even the best of the africa corps and the militia held the japanese. Dominion troops always prasied each other such as the New zealands and Australians hence the name (ANZAC), and the indians. The friction I am referring to is in the lower ranks, such as the example I showed earlier. Or an account I have about australians wanting to lead themselcves not by the british, they wandted 'indepence' you could say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raj-rif
I am pleased to say that 4th indians forget an excellant partnership with 2nd New Zealand division and shared many battle honours.
|
As did many 'dominion' troops as i said before just look at the Australia New Zealand Army Corp (ANZAC) thats how close they were.