Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
commonwealth troops WW2 histories
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Elkstone (U3836042) on Friday, 18th January 2008
Are Canada, Australia New Zealand and South Africa the make up the Empire and Commonwealth forces in WW1 and WW2?
The other thread about WW2 history being too biassed towards America, raises another important point. How come there is little, if not at all reports of the non white commonwealth troops on D Day and other theatres in films or documentaries? I heard one account that the singl country which provided most troops from the Empire/Commonwealth was India, and they had least attachment to goings on in Europe. At least the Can, Aus NZ, SA had family, and cultural connections. The same with troops from Africa, Caribbean the far east.
There was no mention of them in the major war films. Bridge on the River Twai, overlooked them. Didnt Britain utilise large numbers of the Indian Army who were closer?
Isnt their sacrifice seen as less important, which is why it is overlooked? -
Message 2
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Friday, 18th January 2008
Quite right - the Indian contribution was immense both in the Middle East and Burma - there were three Divisions of 4th - 8th and 10th
which had most Indians from Ghurka's - Pathan - Rajputnanis from every corner of India within the 8th Army long before El Alamein.
They served with great distinction in the first great victory at Beda Fomm - led by Gen O'Conner- who spent time as a POW before leading V111 in NW Europe - from there they went to Abysinnia - Syria - back to the advance into Tunisia - then on to Italy through Cassino - Gothic Line - then the 4th went on to Greece - the 8th to Venice and the 10th broken up for spares as by then the Burma campaign took all the reinforcements available.
They were truly unsung and I have only ever found a report of their activities in a programme called " The Tiger" which covers most of their contributions
Each Brigade had one British Battalion with two Indian Battalions and they always worked very well together - the 4th Divs. actions at Montecassino - particularly - is heartbreaking -
Message 3
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Friday, 18th January 2008
Australian Aboriginals also faught in the AIF in both WWI & II, and this was most certainly not taught during history lessons during my time at school there. They were also denied housing & pensions on retirement from service, unlike the white returned serviceman.
My father faught on the Kododa Trail campaign in New Guinea and he speaks with great respect for the native New Guineans who, against all odds, carried injured soldiers (on strechers or their backs) out of the mountains for treatment. They undoubtedly saved the lives of many and became affectionately known as the Fuzzy Wuzzy Angles. There is still great reverence and appreciation in Australia for their contribution & help.
Two very conflicting stories from Australia regarding attitudes towards indigenous peoples. -
Message 4
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Friday, 18th January 2008
Sorry that should be the Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels.
Fuzzy Wuzzy is a reference to the native New Guineans hair. -
Message 5
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 18th January 2008
Fellow I used work with in the 70s commanded a Sudanese Defence Force Regiment in North Africa as part of the 8th. Was a boy soldier, then an N C O in India before getting a commission in the above. Then worked up to C O
-
Message 6
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 18th January 2008
the probable reason that they are anonomous is that the war films thay were involved in werent actually made
us involvement = us films
indian army involvement was not a good film lol
st -
Message 7
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 18th January 2008
Are Canada, Australia New Zealand and South Africa the make up the Empire and Commonwealth forces in WW1 and WW2?Β
You can also add Newfoundland to that list.
Newfoundland had recinded its independence and returned to UK colony status owing to its banckruptcy during the economic depression of the early 1930s. Ironically during the Second World War Newfoundland's economy had returned to surplus and the country was economically a net contributor to the war effort.
During the First World War Newfoundland had organised and funded its own army regiment. Due to its altered status during the Second World War, however, Newfoundlanders served in either the UK or the Canadian armed forces. -
Message 8
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Friday, 18th January 2008
Yes - the "Newfies" did their share with the "Blue Puttees" at Gallipoli 1915 - and again in WW2 with not only Army regiments of Infantry and Artillery but the Lumber Corps - who cut and replaced many forests in Scotland and elsewhere plus their contribution to the Navy and Air Force.
Newfoundland and Labrador finally re-joined the Federation of Canada as late as 1949 - now enjoying the benefits of off shore oil ! -
Message 9
Posted by JB (U569100) on Saturday, 19th January 2008
And never forget the contribution of black Africa. Ten thousand Tswana volunteered to fight for the king over the water and played a part in the campaigns in North Africa & Italy, all the way into Austria which, with a nice touch of irony, they helped liberate in 1945.
-
Message 10
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Saturday, 19th January 2008
JB - "Ten thousand Tswana's - volunteered for service in North Africa - Italy and liberated Austria in 1945 "
Really - and to which division were they attached ...?
There was a bunch of Sudanese troops as Pioneers up near the Gothic line at Fabriano at one point - were they the Tswana's... ? -
Message 11
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 19th January 2008
Tom
They were part of the South African Armoured Division, and supporting forces.
I would agree with JB that we shouldn't forget the Imperial African contribution. An East African Division fought against the Italians, and then went to Burma. Two West African Divisions (including Caribbean troops) also fought in Burma - one brigade was part of Wingate's "Special Force".
We Brits tend to know about the Indian Army contribution (the Raj and all that, old boy), but the African contribution rarely gets mentioned, except in specific histories.
LW -
Message 12
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Saturday, 19th January 2008
Question for islanddawn or anyone else to may know:
Are the natives of New Guinea of the same human lineage as the Aboriginies of Australia or are they slightly different in overall appearance and/or background? -
Message 13
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Saturday, 19th January 2008
Lost W/end -
my questions to JB were - which Division were they attached - and were they part of the Sudanese group - Fabriano of course being in 8th army sector !!!
The 6th S.A. Div took over from us at Anagni at the top of the Liri valley - but I don't recall seeing too many Black troops in their midst - they went on with X111 corps up the west side of the Mountains with 5th US army and consequently never got near to Austria that I'm aware of - unless of course they slid up the other sde and went up via Innsbruck to Salzburg .... always thought Patton's army held those areas - Berchtesgarten et al
The only 8th Army troops in Austria were the 78th - 6th Armoured and 46th Divs, which entered via Udine - Villach - Klagenfurt - Vienna... -
Message 14
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 19th January 2008
Tom
No, you wouldn't have done. Those well-known multi-racialists the South Africans wouldn't give their "black" troops firearms (might set a dangerous domestic precedent). They were employed on support duties. Exchanging handshakes with your SA tankie counterparts, you probably wouldn't have seen them, but they were still part of the effort.
As to Austria - the campaign ended up with British troops entering Austria. Are you sure there wasn't an SA contingent in the British team that went to Vienna (even though the rest were packing their bags and heading South)? -
Message 15
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Saturday, 19th January 2008
Lost W/end
wasn't aware that that 78th Div had passengers on their way to Vienna - all of us were held up near Knittelfeld in the central area when the Russians wouldn't move back to the Semmering Pass - close to Vienner Neustadt - for three weeks - and when they did the Yugoslavs of Tito's mob moved in - they finally moved out and the 78th Div. made their way to Vienna taking over the Northern sector while we in 6th Armoured held on to the Knittelfeld - Judenburg Leoben area and the 46th Div were sent to Graz and the SE area, where they found a corps of Cossacks escaping from the Russians !
Ron's 4th Hussars nicked some of their horses.
My impression was that the 6th SA's hung about around Bologna for a while prior to heading South although my friend Peter - helped them out for a while as a translator and he has many good words to say about them and their friendship -
Message 16
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 19th January 2008
read a really good book about the conflict in the arakan - there were black african troops involved and they did very well (nigerian ?)
st -
Message 17
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 19th January 2008
Tpr Tom
Not denying it was an awkward time, but the big war was over (not that that changes the tactical situation on the ground).
But the ultimate objective of British Commonwealth forces turned out to be Vienna, and it is a little churlish to deny the SA troops that flourish in their recollections. (And, seriously, I am sure there was an SA contingent in the Victory Parade in Vienna. But you were there, so I'll accept your word).
st
Yes. Which book? -
Message 18
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Saturday, 19th January 2008
Lost W/end
Without being churlish - I was referring to the initial entry into Austria - they may very well have had a representation at the Victory Parade -- but I was not even booked for that event as I was probably on some course or other - I did a few of those from Austria - happily I was involved in the Vienna Tattoo in June of '46 - again I only met the 78th and the 46th there - and the 4th Hussars sent a contingent up from Trieste for that one - plus all the Generals from all over the place owing to the free booze... I suspect !
ST - the East African Rifles of Nairobi did a good job at Abyssinia as well as other African Regiments alongside the 4th Indian Div. They all did their share... just as well as we could not have done it all alone ! -
Message 19
Posted by Charles Babbage (U2239092) on Saturday, 19th January 2008
<QUOTE/> Are the natives of New Guinea of the same human lineage as the Aboriginies of Australia or are they slightly different in overall appearance and/or background? </QUOTE><BR /><BR />The Australian Aborigines probably came via New Guinea on foot roughly 40,000 years ago. As such they can lay claim to being the Worldβs first great explorers as Asia, Africa and Europe were landlocked and inhabited and so Australia was the first βnewβ continent to be discovered. Roughly 10,000 years ago sea levels rose such that Australia and New Guinea were separated by sea.<BR /><BR />I know nothing about the natives of New Guinea and their origins but suffice to say that there was definitely no interaction between the two groups for a period of 10,000 years and the two groups are quite different in overall appearance<BR />
-
Message 20
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Sunday, 20th January 2008
"Are the natives of New Guinea of the same human lineage as the Aboriginies of Australia or are they slightly different in overall appearance and/or background"
Hi Erik,
Frankly I can't remember if the New Guineans & Aboriginals are genetically linked or which country was populated first, however I do know that there is no link between the Aboriginal and Maori of NZ.
As Charles has already stated the Aboriginals first arrived in Australia around 40,000yrs ago, and like everyone, genetically they have been linked back to Africa. Although Aboriginals usually reject this, they believe through tribal stories & legends that they were the first peoples and the world was populated through migrations from Australia and not Africa.
However whether Aboriginals arrived in Australia via Papua New Guinea or directly down from the Asian Peninsula is unknown. As far as I know no archaeological evidence has been found to suggest which route was taken, although whatever evidence there may have been was probably submerged long ago. There is evidence that the Aboriginals did have contact with traders from Asia, in this way (for instance) the Dingo was first introduced to Australia and used by Aboriginals as domestic dogs.
Physically there is no resemblence between New Guineans & Aboriginals. Generally New Guineans are taller, darker, have tighter curled hair, different skull shape and different facial features. Whilst Aboriginals are a fairly gentle people, nomadic/gatherer/hunters, the New Guineans were quite fierce and warrior like. Cannibalism and head hunting was also practiced by many tribes. Amongst the photographs that my father bought back from New Guinea there is one of a New Guinean man, tall & fierce with a feathered headdress and he is holding two human heads by the hair, one in each hand. Used to scare the daylights out of me as a child!
TG -
Message 21
Posted by Elkstone (U3836042) on Sunday, 20th January 2008
Interesting point but there are some similarities between PNG's and Aborigines. Some Aborigines have wooly 'afro' type hair like them. I recall the early european arrivals discribed them as such. Some may have had 'dreadlocks', one writer described hair like rat tails.
However if the Papua New Guineans generally look different to Aborigines, how come the Tasmanians (who unfortunately have died out) look similar to the PNG's hair and features, and they are to the island far south of Australia? Were they later arrivals? Their language and culture is diferent to mainland aborigines -
Message 22
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Sunday, 20th January 2008
Hi Elkstone,
I'm certainly no expert, but there would more than likely have been contact between New Guineans and Aboriginals as there was with Asians over the centuries. In the present day Torres Straight Islanders you can see a clear mixture of the two peoples.
You've raised an interesting point regarding the Tasmanian Aboriginals, and I'm ashamed to say I know almost nothing about their history or origins. And it has been many years since I've seen photographs so I can't remember their features too well. That their language was different is to be expected as the mainland Aboriginals have many different languages also, and some tribal cultural differences. Aboriginal children growing up in traditional communities today would already know 4 or 5 languages before learning English.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.