- 22-04-2012, 09:53 #11
The casualties were 2.245% of the population for NZ, 1.435% for Britain, 1.23% for Oz and 0.78 for Canada. If the NZ casualties per head of population were applied to the USA the yanks would have been looking at something like 2.2 million casualties.
At the time of WW1 only about 1 million people lived in NZ, they really did lose a generation.
- 22-04-2012, 10:18 #12
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- The Mainland, Noo Zild.
The radio show was probably a bit of a wind up and it's worked a treat by the look of things"Tho' I've belted you and flayed you, By the livin' Gawd that made you, You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!" Mr Kipling Poet and baker.
- 22-04-2012, 10:28 #13
I to have had words with both Aussies and Kiwis who have insisted the only Brits at Gallipoli were thick officers. Ironically one was a 2nd cousin of mine. At least two Great grandfathers of his were at Gallipoli. One with the lancashire Fusilers and one with the Connaught rangers.
Regarding figures involved off the top of my head Allies (Brits Anzacs Indians and French) had about 440,000 all told involved with a casuilty rate of nigh on 50% with 40 odd thousand being killed. Of that total about 10,000 were Anzacs.
One fact that is often overlooked is that a majority of Anzacs were still British subjects and not Aus or NZ citizens. I.e they Had emigrated but had not changed citizenship.
That is a piece of information lodged in my brain from somewhere and will try and back it up when I get time as it is bugging me.Haven't had an accident in years. See a lot in my rear view mirror though.
It's very unlucky to be superstitious.
Only my dog can judge me.
- 22-04-2012, 10:40 #14
I 've just thought of Max Hastings brilliant book "Nemesis" published a few years ago Amazon.com: Nemesis: The Battle For Japan, 1944-45 (9780007219810): Max Hastings: Books ,
Theres a chapter that focuses on Australia's role in the later stages of the Pacific War he justly commends the early campiagns in PNG but is highly critical there after mentioning the industrial disputes at home and the mutinies that took place with some of the units in the field (You can't blame em to be honest)
Interestingly enough the chapter is called "Bludging and Mopping up".
I remember the RSL went ballastic at him for it (even though its recorded archived history) and looks like they've done the same this time though you're right it is a bit of a wind up!
Last edited by 18.Platoon_in_Oz; 22-04-2012 at 10:55.
- 22-04-2012, 10:49 #15
pot calling the kettle black.I get enough sex, life fucks me everyday.
- 22-04-2012, 10:52 #16
I know there is a whole load of new books coming out soon ready for the centenary debunking alot of the myths
- 22-04-2012, 10:52 #17
Not really the Ozzies fault the lack of participation in the latter stages of the Pacific war, King and Macarthur had there own little fiefdoms going on and didn't want any commonwealth interferance in their War. Roosevelt was concerned with a "Germany first" policy so let them get on with it. The Kiwi's had 16 RNZAF sqns kicking around for awhile because the yanks wouldn't use them. The NZ Div in Italy was probably more useful to the war effort than the Ozzies in Borneo.
- 22-04-2012, 10:59 #18
- 22-04-2012, 11:02 #19
Very true, I think Thomas Blamey wasn't a great help also. King was a proper Anglophobic (sorry theres that word again!), He was eventually forced by FDR to have the British Pacific fleet to come and pitch in. All happy allies together!
- 22-04-2012, 11:05 #20
What the fuck is 'bludging' and who or what is a 'bludger'
We gave them the bloody language and look what they're doing with it!!!RAC(TA) - 2006-2009
Royal Navy - 2009 +
Sir Walter Raleigh declared in the early 17th century that "whoever commands the sea, commands the trade; whosoever commands the trade of the world commands the riches of the world, and consequently the world itself." This principle is as true today as when uttered, and its effect will continue as long as ships traverse the seas."