Came across this reading some posts on the Axis History Forum - This from "PIPS" I thought Pops might find this interesting... Currently reading "Amiens 1918" by James McWilliams. Has provided an interesting take on the differences between the two, as perceived by the British. Quote follows: The decision to employ the Canadians and the Australians was vital to the success of the operation. Both corps were experienced and extremely battle-worthy. Many British and French units had by this time been battered and diluted by men less fit, both physically and emotionally, than had earlier been the case. Morale had slipped, and Allied troops in general had become cautious as a result of four years of slaughter during which the veterans had seen thousands of their comrades’ lives thrown away uselessly. The Americans, new to the front, had the 1914-style élan, but were totally lacking in experience. The Aussies, or “Diggers” as they called themselves, and “Canucks” still had much of that dash from another era, and they were thoroughly experienced. A friendly rivalry existed between the troops of the two dominions. Certainly they were dissimilar in almost every way. The Aussies were the darlings of the press and received constant publicity. Their wide-brimmed slouch hats seemed to typify their flamboyant style, and made for eye-catching photos. Beneath their “Digger hats” were bronzed, rugged men possessed in battle by a fierce joy and a readiness to take risks. They were crafty and clever and had an eye for the ground and for their foes’ weaknesses. To the rigidly disciplined British troops, the men from “down under” seemed incredibly individualistic and contemptuous of authority. “They were unlike any of our own divisions,” recalled P.J. Campbell M.C., a former mathematics scholar now a lieutenant in the Army-Brigade, Royal Field Artillery. “I was not attracted by them. They were noisy and swaggering, they did not march along the road, they just walked, they seemed to be without any kind of discipline.”16 The number of Australian soldiers in prison at any time was nine times that of the other British Empire troops.17 The Australians were not liable to get the death penalty for any criminal offence as were most other troops, and Field Marshal Haig, for one, thought that this accounted for their high rate of crime. Although they received much less publicity, the Canadian Corps had proven to be popular wherever they served. Unlike the Australians, whose style had never changed, the Canucks had undergone a gradual metamorphosis. In 1914 and 1915 they had been looked upon as virtually undisciplined. The most famous story was that of a Canadian colonel addressing his battalion: “See here, boys,” he had ordered, “an English general is coming around. Stand up straight in line, and quit spitting – and for Christ’s sake don’t call me ‘Alf’!” 18 These young colonels who had led from the front had become brigadiers, and divisional commanders – those who were not killed – and they were generally popular with their men. But early in the war the Canadians had voluntarily ex- changed their total democracy for an iron discipline. Nevertheless, this rigorous regime was not permanent; Canadians kept discipline in perspective. It would be difficult to imagine anyone other than a Canadian describing his regimental sergeant-major in the words used by a trouble-prone private of the 46th South Saskatchewans: “Bill Jones, our R.S.M., was a hell of a good pal. On parade he was real strict and gave his orders so clear it was like music. With him you could drill for hours and never make a mistake, ’cause everyone wanted to do his best. ’Course, at night Bill was one of the boys, and he would buy you a beer or give you a hell of a good poke – whichever you had comin’.” Canadians treated the war as a rotten job that had to be done. They had become deadly serious about the task and approached the enemy grimly with no display of enthusiasm. Their stubbornness and dogged refusal to give in had become proverbial, for they had never lost a gun, had never failed to take an objective, and had never permanently lost an inch of ground. For these reasons they were looked upon with awe by their allies.
As I understand it, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, although they had conscription, only sent volunteers overseas. This contributed to their success in comparison to the mostly draftee armies of their allies.
The US had to stop taking volunteers by 1943. We were losing too many skilled workers. After that point the draft boards screened their pool and issued deferments for people we needed here at home and called up their quota from the remainder.
thank you ace of spades, for the thoughts. i wonder - why were Australians less likely to be prosecuted?
yes. i missed the part where it says why they couldnt be given the death penalty. reading comprehension is not my thing.
I’d have to look into it...but if you Remember Breaker Morant...I’m guessing we outlawed the British or perhaps anyone executing a soldier.
looking into a mirror opana pointer opana pointer opana pointer were Australian troops less likely to be executed ?
Australian troops could only be executed for 4 offenses, as per the Defense Act 1903: Defence Act 1903
98. No member of the Defence Force shall be sentenced to death by any court-martial except for mutiny, desertion to the enemy, or traitorously delivering up to the enemy any garrison, fortress, post, guard, or ship, vessel, or boat, or traitorous correspondence with the enemy; and no sentence of death passed by any court-martial shall be carried into effect until confirmed by the Governor-General. Too late for Breaker...9 December 1864 – 27 February 1902 Australia (today) doesn't have the death penalty for anything - So even these crimes would no longer incur such a penalty.
Name rings a bell. I may have seen the movie. Based from my research and in speaking with a few who were at the front of the front, it seems that it is very poor form to kill civilians or POWs ............ unless there is a good reason.
Morant and Handcock have become folk heroes in modern Australia, representing a turning point for Australians’ self-determination and independence from British rule. Their court-martial and death have been the subject of books, a stage play, and an award-winning Australian New Wave movie by director Bruce Beresford. Upon its release during 1980, Beresford's movie both brought Morant's life story to a worldwide audience and "hoisted the images of the accused officers to the level of Australian icons and martyrs."[1] Many Australians now regard Morant and Handcock as scapegoats or even as the victims of judicial murder. Attempts continue, with wide public support, to obtain a posthumous pardon or even a new trial.
