Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 1:26pm:


Nice piece of editorialising there, Grappler, but not true.

The term 'Pommy bastards' grew out of the mythology which taught generations of Aussie kids that 'the English' had no involvement in the Gallipoli campaign except as politicians and commanders.

How many generational Aussie kids since then have been told that nearly 3 times the number of Aussie Diggers who died in that very same campaign were your iconic 'Pommy bastards'?

I'll venture a guess: Sweet bugger all.

Such knowledge would have greatly diluted the general attitude that the English are 'Pommy bastards'.

Hitler needed the Jews, and Australia needed it's villains: The generic Britisher.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 12:33pm:

Is it not indirect attack- or passive aggressive- to isolate!??!

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 12:54pm:



I didn't know that.
It must have been a common procedure in those days.

[quote author=The_Grappler link=1398405363/64#64 date=1398490215]Well - it's proportional - Australia had the highest Allied rate of casualties...... that sort of tends to give us a privilege of looking down our colonial noses at others.

However - I will point out that the United states, in only three months or so of active combat - sustained 50,000 casualties... that's one hell of a lot...

This'll entertain yez while I go off to work...



The Yanks were late to the party, Germany was already on the point of collapse and the Yankee officer class wanted to get as much individual glory as they could as fast as they could, and they sacrificed their men wholesale to achieve that disgusting goal.
If you really want a twisted history, ask an average American about their nation's role in WWI. That they won it single-handed is just the start of their mythology!  Shocked

Bobby. wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 8:17am:

There were no such thing as commandos in 1914 in concept or fact, so that was going to happen.

You have to remember we are talking 100 years ago and the British Army was not a professional homogeneous force that meets that description today.

The British Army was a far flung organisation that was more a collection of individual regiments with very different traditions and standards and very little experience nor organisation at any level to work in large divisional, corp and army level operations.

And that description and realization to true for the BEF in 1914-15 as it does for the Gallipoli force.

Sparky wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 7:59pm:


Commando was in deed  first used to describe a military unit by the Boers but it did not describe any type of Special Forces. Boer Commandos were more militia/irregular/guerrilla type operation. The word probably moved in to the English language because of the long distance raiding done by the Boers.

The first steps towards Special Forces during WW1 was probably the German Storm Troopers who were specially selected, specially trained, specially equipped and specifically deployed from 1917 onwards.

There were no commando or special forces availble to Britain or any other military force in A[pril 1914. They didn't exist in concept or fact.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:16am:


I'm not so sure about the "unequaled" but most certainly there was grudging respect between the two foes. The Anzacs referred to the Turks as Johnny Turk or Abdul.

They also fraternized during truces and burial in no-mans land, and exchanged goods by throwing oranges and onions from the Turks for tins of jam and bully beef from the Aussies.

The common soldier on both sides recognised the shared agony of the conditions and climate of the trenches. They also recognised the bravery and stupidity and the discipline of the other in obeying mindless orders and charges.

But it didn't stop either side from cutting down the other and showing no quarter in battle.