Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
Busting the Anzac myth (Read 3815 times)
Laugh till you cry
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13519
In your happy place
Gender: male
Re: Busting the Anzac myth
Reply #15 - Apr 29th, 2019 at 3:56pm
 
How many Anzacs were born in Australia? I suggest 90% of 'Anzacs' were British born.

That should prick the Anzac bubble.
Back to top
 

Please don't thank me. Effusive fawning and obeisance of disciples, mendicants, and foot-kissers embarrass me.
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Moderator
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39377
Re: Busting the Anzac myth
Reply #16 - Apr 29th, 2019 at 4:15pm
 
Laugh till you cry wrote on Apr 29th, 2019 at 3:56pm:
How many Anzacs were born in Australia? I suggest 90% of 'Anzacs' were British born.


I believe the proportion was approximately 50%, LTYC.

Australia had a population of approximately of ~4.9 million people, of whom 22.6 per cent were born overseas in 1901.

420,000 Australians enlisted in the AIF during the First World War.

Of those, approximately 50% were born overseas, particularly but not exclusively the British isles.

Quote:
That should prick the Anzac bubble.


Not so much as you appear to believe, LTYC.

Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Spatchcock
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 480
Gender: female
Re: Busting the Anzac myth
Reply #17 - Apr 29th, 2019 at 4:22pm
 
Are politics and the mainstream media out of touch with the population?

From the following, make your conclusions.

Mass numbers of high school students are protesting climate inaction and adani

Liberal party supports adani and industry
Labor supports adani
Media support police and ASIO

Police and ASIO say stop and arrest environmental protesters. Potentially under anti terror legislation.

So are politicians, the media, police, ASIO et al massively out of touch with the electorate?

Are we experiencing significant political instability?

My answer is yes.

Repeat this experiment with the anti Iraq war protests. Same answer.

The government is creating political opposition to the established order. They are pushing back. They feel their voices are unheard.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Laugh till you cry
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13519
In your happy place
Gender: male
Re: Busting the Anzac myth
Reply #18 - Apr 29th, 2019 at 4:23pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Apr 29th, 2019 at 4:15pm:
Laugh till you cry wrote on Apr 29th, 2019 at 3:56pm:
How many Anzacs were born in Australia? I suggest 90% of 'Anzacs' were British born.


I believe the proportion was approximately 50%, LTYC.

Australia had a population of approximately of ~4.9 million people, of whom 22.6 per cent were born overseas in 1901.

420,000 Australians enlisted in the AIF during the First World War.

Of those, approximately 50% were born overseas, particularly but not exclusively the British isles.

Quote:
That should prick the Anzac bubble.


Not so much as you appear to believe, LTYC.



Most of those UK-born 'Anzac' recruits were probably not even Australian citizens.

Of those who were Australian-born, their parents may have been UK citizens thus rendering those 'Australians' to be poms.
Back to top
 

Please don't thank me. Effusive fawning and obeisance of disciples, mendicants, and foot-kissers embarrass me.
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Moderator
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39377
Re: Busting the Anzac myth
Reply #19 - Apr 29th, 2019 at 5:30pm
 
Laugh till you cry wrote on Apr 29th, 2019 at 4:23pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Apr 29th, 2019 at 4:15pm:
Laugh till you cry wrote on Apr 29th, 2019 at 3:56pm:
How many Anzacs were born in Australia? I suggest 90% of 'Anzacs' were British born.


I believe the proportion was approximately 50%, LTYC.

Australia had a population of approximately of ~4.9 million people, of whom 22.6 per cent were born overseas in 1901.

420,000 Australians enlisted in the AIF during the First World War.

Of those, approximately 50% were born overseas, particularly but not exclusively the British isles.

Quote:
That should prick the Anzac bubble.


Not so much as you appear to believe, LTYC.



Most of those UK-born 'Anzac' recruits were probably not even Australian citizens.

Of those who were Australian-born, their parents may have been UK citizens thus rendering those 'Australians' to be poms.


Quote:
Until the passing in Australia of the Nationality Act 1920, Australia's nationality law, like that of other Commonwealth countries, was governed by the English common law concept of a British subject. ... The British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 codified the common law rules.

[Source]

So, until 1920, everybody in Australia was British subjects.  However it was not until 1948 that they become officially Australian citizens.  So your argument is really rather nonsensical.   Roll Eyes

Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Spatchcock
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 480
Gender: female
Re: Busting the Anzac myth
Reply #20 - Apr 29th, 2019 at 5:39pm
 
Big rooster has quoted his statistics and therefore is right.

However he has made no inference regarding them and is hoping you dont understand them.

In other words he is wrong again.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mr Hammer
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 25212
Gender: male
Re: Busting the Anzac myth
Reply #21 - Apr 29th, 2019 at 5:54pm
 
If China decided tomorrow that instead of forking out billions on our natural resources that it would just land it's massive army and take them, then without our  US alliance we would be farked. People need to understand that. We are pretty much a defenceless nation and way outnumbered. Be anti- American all you like but that would change in a second if a Chinese soldier kicked your door down. Our high standard of living and comfort has blinded us to the true realities of what's going on in the world and our true place in it.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mr Hammer
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 25212
Gender: male
Re: Busting the Anzac myth
Reply #22 - Apr 29th, 2019 at 6:05pm
 
If you want to really get down and dirty about WW1 right through to Vietnam then we should really talk about how our returned servicemen were treated. In fact they weren't. Many ended up in mental institutions, many destitute on the street, many died years later because their lungs were damaged by gas. They smoked and drunk themselves to death. I grew up in a suburb with loads of Vietnam veterans and many were dumped into government housing with very little support to stew on their troubles. War destroys people and destroyed families years after right through the generations. But alas, our leaders need something to bring us together because they are frightened at how divided we are.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mr Hammer
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 25212
Gender: male
Re: Busting the Anzac myth
Reply #23 - Apr 29th, 2019 at 6:07pm
 
Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 29th, 2019 at 6:05pm:
If you want to really get down and dirty about WW1 right through to Vietnam then we should really talk about how our returned servicemen were treated. In fact they weren't. Many ended up in mental institutions, many destitute on the street, many died years later because their lungs were damaged by gas. They smoked and drunk themselves to death. Many came back and their jobs was given up to people who didn't even fight. I grew up in a suburb with loads of Vietnam veterans and many were dumped into government housing with very little support to stew on their troubles. War destroys people and destroyed families years after right through the generations. But alas, our leaders need something to bring us together because they are frightened at how divided we are.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Spatchcock
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 480
Gender: female
Re: Busting the Anzac myth
Reply #24 - Apr 29th, 2019 at 6:14pm
 
Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 29th, 2019 at 6:05pm:
If you want to really get down and dirty about WW1 right through to Vietnam then we should really talk about how our returned servicemen were treated. In fact they weren't. Many ended up in mental institutions, many destitute on the street, many died years later because their lungs were damaged by gas. They smoked and drunk themselves to death. I grew up in a suburb with loads of Vietnam veterans and many were dumped into government housing with very little support to stew on their troubles. War destroys people and destroyed families years after right through the generations. But alas, our leaders need something to bring us together because they are frightened at how divided we are.


And not supporting another generation of ruined lives is unpatriotic.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Moderator
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39377
Re: Busting the Anzac myth
Reply #25 - Apr 29th, 2019 at 6:26pm
 
Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 29th, 2019 at 5:54pm:
If China decided tomorrow that instead of forking out billions on our natural resources that it would just land it's massive army and take them, then without our  US alliance we would be farked. People need to understand that. We are pretty much a defenceless nation and way outnumbered. Be anti- American all you like but that would change in a second if a Chinese soldier kicked your door down. Our high standard of living and comfort has blinded us to the true realities of what's going on in the world and our true place in it.


IYO, Hammer.  That does not necessarily equate to reality.   We have an alliance with the US.  However, whereas we have made it the keystone of our defence and foreign policies, to the US we were merely just another block in their containment wall against the fUSSR.   Our alliance was to placate us, against the possibility of a resurgent Imperial, militarist Japan.  Whereas we believe it guaranteed that the US would come to our aid, in reality, clause III of the alliance only requires a conference if any of our or their forces (or NZ's) were threatened in the Pacific region.

As to whether or not, the US would honour what they have agreed to, is another matter.   Howard, seizing on the opportunity that September 11 offered, convened a defence conference with the US in Washington, despite neither New York or Washington being on the Pacific coast of the US.   Bush Junior was delighted to have Canberra sign up to his crusade against al Q'aeda (and later Saddam Hussein).

When we have asked for American aid when we have felt threatened by other nations - namely Indonesia - in 1960, 1965, 1975 and in 1999, the US has been reluctant to honor what we believe was it's commitment was.   In 1960, it favoured Indonesia, because of the need for Polaris quipped submarines to transit Indonesia waters from Guam to the Indian Ocean to allow them to attack the fUSSR.  In 1965, it was becoming concerned with affairs in Vietnam and decided that as the UK was involved under the Five Powers Defence Agreement it was not required to act against Indonesia.   In 1975, it knew that Indonesia was no threat to Australia and believed Suharto's word that it was only going to invade East Timor.   In 1999, affairs in Europe distracted it.  So, on the four occasions we have felt the need for American support, in each case, Washington has decided otherwise.

Trump's attitude towards Beijing is reassuring to Canberra, even if Beijing is our biggest customer for our agriculture and mining.   Trump appears unwilling to bow to China's ascendancy to become the most powerful economy in the world.  China has no plans to attack Australia.  Why should it, as long as Australia is willing to sell it what it wants?  Why waste the manpower and the resources?  It would require a considerable retraining of a large part of the PLA and considerable re-equipping of the PLAN and PLAAF.   

Australia is a long, long, way from China.   China is more concerned with events in it's immediate neighbourhood and always has been.  Australia is a difficult nation to attack.  Time and distance play a significant part in our defence. Our neighbours are the outer rim of our defences.   As long as Indonesia remains hostile to China, the less like the Chinese are to gain bases closer to Australia from which they could mount an attack or an invasion.   If they did, they would still need to cross the air-sea gap.  A gap which we presently control and we would be able to attack their attacking force in and interdict their logistics in.  They then are faced with the invidious choice of where to attack?  The Top End or the SE Corner.   The Top End is closer but is still remote from where the majority of the population lives and where most of our industries reside and where our politicians are.   The SE Corner is where all those things are but you need to sail 'round the continent to reach it, thereby exposing your forces to greater attack and interdiction from naval and air forces.

The ADF has trained in Australia it's entire existence.  It knows how to live here, the PLA does not.   It knows how to use the resources here, the PLA does not.  The PLA would require approximately three to four times the forces the ADF presently has at it's command to make an adequate bridgehead.   That requires a lot of shipping and a large number of escort craft to ferry to where ever they are planning to attack.  Once ashore, it and it's logistics would be again vulnerable to the ADF which would attack and interdict it's supply train.   Like the Russians in the old joke, we can simply wait until the Chinese are tired out and lack the resources and then we could attack them.

We are not assured of a victory but we would have a good chance, even without direct US involvement.   If the US did become involved, then the Chinese would have no chance at all.
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mr Hammer
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 25212
Gender: male
Re: Busting the Anzac myth
Reply #26 - Apr 29th, 2019 at 6:35pm
 
Spatchcock wrote on Apr 29th, 2019 at 6:14pm:
Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 29th, 2019 at 6:05pm:
If you want to really get down and dirty about WW1 right through to Vietnam then we should really talk about how our returned servicemen were treated. In fact they weren't. Many ended up in mental institutions, many destitute on the street, many died years later because their lungs were damaged by gas. They smoked and drunk themselves to death. I grew up in a suburb with loads of Vietnam veterans and many were dumped into government housing with very little support to stew on their troubles. War destroys people and destroyed families years after right through the generations. But alas, our leaders need something to bring us together because they are frightened at how divided we are.


And not supporting another generation of ruined lives is unpatriotic.

You mean like our males. Feminism boosted females and destroyed males.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Moderator
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39377
Re: Busting the Anzac myth
Reply #27 - Apr 29th, 2019 at 6:41pm
 
Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 29th, 2019 at 6:05pm:
If you want to really get down and dirty about WW1 right through to Vietnam then we should really talk about how our returned servicemen were treated. In fact they weren't. Many ended up in mental institutions, many destitute on the street, many died years later because their lungs were damaged by gas. They smoked and drunk themselves to death. I grew up in a suburb with loads of Vietnam veterans and many were dumped into government housing with very little support to stew on their troubles. War destroys people and destroyed families years after right through the generations. But alas, our leaders need something to bring us together because they are frightened at how divided we are.


Oh, dear, another rewriting of history, according to Hammer?

Vietnam Veterans were treated very differently to WWI and WWII and Korean War veterans.   They received considerable help upon their return.  The Repatriation Dept. was set up to handle their immediate and ongoing health problems.  The Solder-Settler schemes were created to settle them on the land in their own farms and help them to learn to become farmers (despite the majority having come from within the cities).   Housing was provided by a grateful nation and society.   The overwhelming majority resettled into Australian life perfectly OK.  Soldier-Settlers were a problem, primarily because the land they were settled on was marginal and because of the inexperience of the settlers.   However, there were some successes even there.

The Vietnam Veterans were however treated differently.  The war was not popular  because of the use of conscripts to fight it.  The veterans were basically demobilised overnight after their return from combat, whereas in previous wars they waited several months before returning home.  This resulted in small amount of time to readjust to peacetime living.   Whereas in WWI and WWII demobilisation included training in new skills and careers.  The RSL did not welcome them amongst their ranks.  Society as a whole turned their backs on them.  They did not have a welcome home march through the cities of Australia.  This left a lot of disgruntled diggers.  Many in turn become involved in crime, drugs and other bad things in reaction but the rest were just left to their down devices.   The Repat department contested a lot of their claims for compensation, which had not occurred to previous generations.  Overall, they had a bad deal of it.

They finally got a welcome home parade in 1987.  I remember it well, attending the one in Sydney on the sidelines.  A lot of satisfied diggers marched, believing they were once more accepted by society.   However, many still had their demons, their problems with drugs and drink and so on.  They didn't go away.

The experience of the Vietnam Veterans taught Australian society a valuable, if somewhat costly lesson.  You don't blame the diggers for doing their job because of the bad decisions of politicians.  Today, diggers are honoured for their service, as they should be.  They march proudly on ANZAC day and wear their medals with pride.   The Repat Department are still bastards though.  Sad

Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mr Hammer
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 25212
Gender: male
Re: Busting the Anzac myth
Reply #28 - Apr 29th, 2019 at 6:41pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Apr 29th, 2019 at 6:26pm:
Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 29th, 2019 at 5:54pm:
If China decided tomorrow that instead of forking out billions on our natural resources that it would just land it's massive army and take them, then without our  US alliance we would be farked. People need to understand that. We are pretty much a defenceless nation and way outnumbered. Be anti- American all you like but that would change in a second if a Chinese soldier kicked your door down. Our high standard of living and comfort has blinded us to the true realities of what's going on in the world and our true place in it.


IYO, Hammer.  That does not necessarily equate to reality.   We have an alliance with the US.  However, whereas we have made it the keystone of our defence and foreign policies, to the US we were merely just another block in their containment wall against the fUSSR.   Our alliance was to placate us, against the possibility of a resurgent Imperial, militarist Japan.  Whereas we believe it guaranteed that the US would come to our aid, in reality, clause III of the alliance only requires a conference if any of our or their forces (or NZ's) were threatened in the Pacific region.

As to whether or not, the US would honour what they have agreed to, is another matter.   Howard, seizing on the opportunity that September 11 offered, convened a defence conference with the US in Washington, despite neither New York or Washington being on the Pacific coast of the US.   Bush Junior was delighted to have Canberra sign up to his crusade against al Q'aeda (and later Saddam Hussein).

When we have asked for American aid when we have felt threatened by other nations - namely Indonesia - in 1960, 1965, 1975 and in 1999, the US has been reluctant to honor what we believe was it's commitment was.   In 1960, it favoured Indonesia, because of the need for Polaris quipped submarines to transit Indonesia waters from Guam to the Indian Ocean to allow them to attack the fUSSR.  In 1965, it was becoming concerned with affairs in Vietnam and decided that as the UK was involved under the Five Powers Defence Agreement it was not required to act against Indonesia.   In 1975, it knew that Indonesia was no threat to Australia and believed Suharto's word that it was only going to invade East Timor.   In 1999, affairs in Europe distracted it.  So, on the four occasions we have felt the need for American support, in each case, Washington has decided otherwise.

Trump's attitude towards Beijing is reassuring to Canberra, even if Beijing is our biggest customer for our agriculture and mining.   Trump appears unwilling to bow to China's ascendancy to become the most powerful economy in the world.  China has no plans to attack Australia.  Why should it, as long as Australia is willing to sell it what it wants?  Why waste the manpower and the resources?  It would require a considerable retraining of a large part of the PLA and considerable re-equipping of the PLAN and PLAAF.   

Australia is a long, long, way from China.   China is more concerned with events in it's immediate neighbourhood and always has been.  Australia is a difficult nation to attack.  Time and distance play a significant part in our defence. Our neighbours are the outer rim of our defences.   As long as Indonesia remains hostile to China, the less like the Chinese are to gain bases closer to Australia from which they could mount an attack or an invasion.   If they did, they would still need to cross the air-sea gap.  A gap which we presently control and we would be able to attack their attacking force in and interdict their logistics in.  They then are faced with the invidious choice of where to attack?  The Top End or the SE Corner.   The Top End is closer but is still remote from where the majority of the population lives and where most of our industries reside and where our politicians are.   The SE Corner is where all those things are but you need to sail 'round the continent to reach it, thereby exposing your forces to greater attack and interdiction from naval and air forces.

The ADF has trained in Australia it's entire existence.  It knows how to live here, the PLA does not.   It knows how to use the resources here, the PLA does not.  The PLA would require approximately three to four times the forces the ADF presently has at it's command to make an adequate bridgehead.   That requires a lot of shipping and a large number of escort craft to ferry to where ever they are planning to attack.  Once ashore, it and it's logistics would be again vulnerable to the ADF which would attack and interdict it's supply train.   Like the Russians in the old joke, we can simply wait until the Chinese are tired out and lack the resources and then we could attack them.

We are not assured of a victory but we would have a good chance, even without direct US involvement.   If the US did become involved, then the Chinese would have no chance at all.
Good chance? We'd get obliterated Brian. China is dredging up the bottom and making sand islands with bases and them. The tyranny of distance is shrinking by the day. I'll tell you why China would love Australia- space. Lebensraum. People in China are living like caged chickens on top of each other. If the US had a civil war we'd be defenceless and other countries would start making their move. The stability of the US is our stability. It's just a fact.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Moderator
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39377
Re: Busting the Anzac myth
Reply #29 - Apr 29th, 2019 at 7:34pm
 
Double post.  Had problems with browser.
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print