Australian command independence

[Captain Canuck]

Well, the newbie rises up to pester ye vererable grogs once again. First, a shameless plug for CM. I like it a lot, got to order that puppy ASAP! Now, on to my question.

I was trying to remember something the other day, and it was about WW1 (I know, TOTALLY unrelated to CM..forgive me please). I had heard that there was an incident in Africa(?) where Australian troops under British command were ordered to execute Turkish (Ottoman) prisoners of war. Apparently when they attempted to refuse, the Aussies were threatened with execution for failing to follow orders, so they did it, under extreme protest. After the war, charges were laid, and the British officers were not held accountable, but the very Australian officers that had protested this despicable deed were punished and executed. As a result of this, the Australian government, justifiably outraged, passed a law (or maybe they just issued a public statement of intent...not sure) that stated that Australian troops were not allowed to come under direct British command ever again.

I may have some of this mixed up, so I apologize in advance for any confusion. Can anyone verify this incident for me and point me in a direction for some more info?

This sounds like such a despicable, cowardly deed (the fact of blaming the Aussies instead of the British officers). I guess I'd like to know because of some morbid fascination with the truth (no matter how unsettling) or something

Thanks

Captain Canuck

------------------

We took Vimy,

we fought the Atlantic War almost by ourselves, we were slaughtered at Dieppe so that Normandy would go smoother, and got farthest inland on D-Day

[Simon Fox]

Geez, I think you've got your wires crossed there somewhere.

There was a political decision made in WW1 to ensure Australian troops fought together right up to Corps level if possible to ensure that they were not employed piecemeal by the British. This carried on into WWII though it wasn't always adhered to unfortunately. Churchill was told to shove it a few times much to his chagrin, hehe. Unfortunately that seriously emotionally crippled individual MacArthur didn't get the same treatment.

[Captain Canuck]

Eeeep! Before anyone goes ballistic on me, I didn't mean to imply that the purported execution of the Turks was acceptable, by the way! That act was inexcusable, but I kind of assumed people would understand I felt that way. But upon reading it again, even I felt I had trivialized the execution (if it actually did occur).

Please don't start up the Crocodiles on my account! Save the flamethrower fuel for something else

Captain Canuck

[Simon Fox]

I've never heard of the incident to which you refer and I don't think any Aussies were executed in WW1 since the Australian army did not have corporal punishment at all.

I suspect you are thinking of the Boer war and the events shown in the movie "Breaker Morant" which did involve the execution of prisoners. These events led to the Australian decision that in any future wars which involved Australians, discipline would be administered by the Australian army alone.

Where did you find this story?

[Speedy]

Must agree with Simon here, sounds like the Boer war incident.

My understanding is that it was not all that uncommon to execute Boer Commando Pow's.

The three Australians were picked as scapegoats to be executed as a sop to German anger over the treatment of Boer prisoners and civilians.

This is just off the top of my head, I don't have any references with me so I could be wrong.

P.S.- Simon I think you mean capital punishment as opposed to corporal punishment.

------------------

Work is the curse of the drinking class.

[This message has been edited by Speedy (edited 08-23-2000).]

[Captain Canuck]

Maybe it was the Boer War after all. Can't imagine where I got the Ottoman Empire reference...I might be chatting with the person who told me about this sometime today, so maybe I can get it a little straighter. It's been a long time, so I blame my memory first...

Capt. Canuck

[Phil the Dill]

You were right Capt. Canuck yes there was an incident where Australian troops refused orders from a British commander an WWI (somewhere in Gallipoli) who actually shot the Australian soldier who refused. There was an outcry in Australia and after many protests to the queen, passing acts etc. it was ruled that no Aussie troops were allowed to be executed for refusing orders.

Im not positive but I think it had something to do with the Aussies being a totally volunteer army (this may not be the case but boasting never hurt anyone - Im Australian if you havn't guessed )

------------------

"Your Mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries"

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Captain Canuck:

This sounds like such a despicable, cowardly deed (the fact of blaming the Aussies instead of the British officers). I guess I'd like to know because of some morbid fascination with the truth (no matter how unsettling) or something

Thanks

Captain Canuck

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seemed to be a bit of a trait of the Poms to try to blame some of their disasters on the Aussies. Take the fall of Singapore for instance. There was a particularly vicious theory going around (promulgated by the "motherland") that the Australian 9th Infantry Division (from memory) stationed on Singapore was the catalyst for Allied units surrendering prematurely to the Japanese due to their poor performance in action and propensity to lie down in the face of enemy action. What fails to get mentioned is that the idiotic British commanders who decided where to defend on the island overlooked the fairly critical fresh water storage tanks which were basically left undefended. Once the Japanese captured these it was all over red rover for the defenders as they had nothing to drink and couldn't possibly hold out for any length of time.

Funny how the Aussies suddenly became the scapegoats for that particular sorry chapter in the Britich Empire.

Jim R.

------------------

Whoa mule, WHOA!.....when ah sez Whoa ahz mean WHOA!!! ....Whang....

Ya flea bitten varmit...

Ah hate dat Wabbit! (or Gerbil or Hampster or Rattus Rattus...insert preference)

[dumbo]

"It seemed to be a bit of a trait of the Poms to try to blame some of their disasters on the Aussies. "

Actually I have seen the opposite to be true. Gallipoli is a good case in point, most Aussies to this day are convinced they took the worst casualties in this operation (they didnt the lancs did). There is also the theory that Aussie troops were "thrown away" wheras in fact the Brit high command sent the Australian Troops to Gallipoli to avoid the meat grinder of the Western Front.

This is a shame given the incredible sacrifice and high quality of the Australian Troops in both WW1 and WW2 most of whome were volunteers, this anti-pom sentiment is generally a revisionist history and does a disservice to their patriotism for Empire which was quite real.

By the way for what its worth I have NEVER heard the Aussies blamed for Singapore, that blame lies soley with its British commander. So you can rest easy on that score.

By the way if you want to know what the Brits DO remember about the Aussies in WW2 thats answerable in one word - Tobruk.

cheers bro,

_dumbo

[This message has been edited by dumbo (edited 08-23-2000).]

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

...the Australian 9th Infantry Division (from memory) stationed on Singapore...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It may have been the 8th. that was in Singapore. In any event, the 9th. remained in Egypt until after the Second Battle of Alamein, where they had a vital and honorable role in the victory. They didn't make it back to Australia until a year after Singapore fell, and so could not have been involved in that catastrophe.

Michael

[Darstand]

"By the way if you want to know what the Brits DO remember about the Aussies in WW2 thats answerable in one word - Tobruk."

Not familar with that one please elaborate

[Degrees of Frost]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dumbo:

Actually I have seen the opposite to be true. Gallipoli is a good case in point, most Aussies to this day are convinced they took the worst casualties in this operation (they didnt the lancs did). There is also the theory that Aussie troops were "thrown away" wheras in fact the Brit high command sent the Australian Troops to Gallipoli to avoid the meat grinder of the Western Front.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't whether they were sent to Gallipoli to avoid the meatgrinder. But as an australian I continue to find it bizarre that Gallipoli is celebrated and revered to the degree it is given more Australians died or were maimed on the Western front - it is also where Australian troops won some of their most impressive victories by the standard of the first world war.

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Degrees of Frost:

True - but lots and lots of Australians participated in the Battle of Britian.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Almost every 'white' part of the empire had people in the RAF during the Battle of Britain; Canadian, New Zealand, Aussie even South Africans. Head of fighter command was a Kiwi; Park.

[PD]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dumbo:

"It seemed to be a bit of a trait of the Poms to try to blame some of their disasters on the Aussies. "

Actually I have seen the opposite to be true. Gallipoli is a good case in point, most Aussies to this day are convinced they took the worst casualties in this operation (they didnt the lancs did). There is also the theory that Aussie troops were "thrown away" wheras in fact the Brit high command sent the Australian Troops to Gallipoli to avoid the meat grinder of the Western Front.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I don't know about avoiding the meat grinder

The reason most Australians celebrate Gallipoli is that the fight for the peninsula was where the different stated fought together as one nation. Not that the Poms were smacked out worse or better. The only thing most people agree on Gallipoli is that it was a pretty operation.

Australia is a nation of states, that federated in 1901. Until 1915, this country felt more a part of Britain, than a cohesive whole. Gallipoli showed us that we were one people, who could stand up and fight and die together, the Victorians didn't run away, neither the NSW'ers or the Queenslanders.

That's why we remember Gallipoli. It's not an anti-british thing.

[dumbo]

"That's why we remember Gallipoli. It's not an anti-british thing."

Good to hear and rightfully so.

Good thread all.

Oh and in answer to the question about Tobruk the Aussies were pretty much responsible for it holding out. Do a web search about Tobruk and Australia for more details its an impressive story.

_dumbo

[Simon Fox]

Phil you Dill you've gotta be more specific. I've never come across the incident you describe in my reading but I am pretty sure that the absence of capital (thanks Speedy) punishment precedes Gallipoli. Also there was no queen then it was a king.

Yes, there were the 'Rats of Tobruk' long before the lesser denizens of this board even conceived of their rodent armies. Filthy plagiarists as they are.

------------------

"More German prisoners were now arriving. There were well over 150 of them, with a lot more yet to be brought in. I watched them sitting in the dust, knowing they must have been in a state of shock. This was something that had never happened before. They couldn't bring themselves to admit that this was their first defeat of the war. Not only that, but it was suffered at the hands of Australian infantrymen, who were vastly outnumbered and fighting their first battle of the war."