Warfare and the acceptance of casualties

[chuck4]

Yes, the catholic analogy is inappropriate.

There can be communism outside Soviet control, just not ones that would survive past the imminent Soviet invasion, or in the case of one noted early communist, survive past an ice pick in the brain.

 

[Orionblamblam]

There wasn't any "direct" connection nor was one the instigation of the other as OBB is suggesting.

Am I?

Hmmm.

 

[Rickshaw]

Using your previously stated views, according to your logic, the Soviets were in control of Afghanistan, as Communism was a monolithic movement controlled from the Kremlin.

It's kinda hard to debate someone who makes such vast, and incorrect, leaps.

It is as equally as hard to debate with someone who says one thing and the next claims that wasn't what he meant...

 

[Rickshaw]

What exactly do you suppose is the invasion of Afghanistan, or the invasion of Hungray in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, and the threatened invasion of Poland in 1982, if not Kremlin's effort to assert and maintain direct and close control over all different flavors of communism? Obviously Kremlin succeeded in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. But for the fact that China was too big to invade, Mao wouldn't have survived the split with Kremlin either. Obviously, anologous to the Catholic doctrine of there can be no salvation outside the church, Soviet Union believes there can be no communism but that which is ruled from kremlin.

An interesting point. I would suggest that those cases were all on the periphery of the fUSSR and therefore of direct interest to the Kremlin. As a counterpoint, why didn't the Soviets invade those nations outside of the periphery of the fUSSR where usually against the direct orders of the Kremlin local revolutionaries established Communist governments through revolution, often working outside of the established Communist party?

No one could claim that Yugoslavia or Vietnam were under the control of the Kremlin, nor Nicaragua and Cuba, to name but a few examples. All pursued their own agendas, often to the embarrassment of Moscow.

No nation would not take an interest in it's neighbours. We've seen the USA directly intervene in many of it's, in similar ways to the fUSSR, establishing and maintaining friendly governments.

 

[Bill Walker]

The losses suffered by the Canadian Army under UK direction made even the recent immigrants realize that Canada had different goals that the Mother Country.

Canadian losses in WWI were en par with those of other combat corps engaged in the fighting. I’m not sure what the different goals were? Defeating the Germans seemed to still be the Canadian Govt’s commitment up until the end of the war.

The Canadian government was quite divided on what the their purpose was in this War. The English speaking politicans were predominately English born or English descendants, and just supported the King because he was the King. French speaking portions of the Parliament rightly asked how Canadians dying in France made Canada a better place, and never really got a good answer. By the end of the war, when government had to introduce a draft to replace losses in the trenches it came to massive public demonstrations,civic unrest, and riots in Quebec. This caused a lot of other Canadians to ask the same questions the Quebecois had asked since 1914: how does this benefit Canada.

The Canadian Army officer class at that time came predominately from well educated and well connected Canadian families, and many of them saw first hand that "Empire defence" really meant "UK defence of UK interests with Canadian casualties". They asked the same questions on their return to Canada. Some of them became quite vocal in their opposition to any future Empire defence unless it had a clear benefit to Canada. Quite a few of them also went into politics and civil service, locally and federally. This was the beginning of the end of UK influence on Canadian politics, especially foreign policy. It was also the beginning of joint US and Canadian planning for continental defence that came to fruition a few years later.

Many Canadian historians date the appearance of a Canadian "point of view" from the massive Canadian losses in France. Until today, our politicans realize they will not survive supporting any other nation in war without a clear definition of what advantage there is to Canada, or how Canadian principals are advanced. So, Canadians died and are dying in Afghanistan to help free a people from a repressive rule by an organization that killed large numbers of Canadians on 9-11 (the government's official line); Canadians went in harms way in the First Gulf War to free an enslaved nation; but we stayed home in the invasion of Iraq. No benefit to Canada, no advancements of Canadian principals (again, just the government's postion, don't shoot the messenger!)

 

[Rickshaw]

Similar debates occurred in Australia at the same time. Two bitterly fought referenda, both narrowly defeated occurred with massive political and social division at home (and amongst the troops on the Western Front [with "compulsory voting"{actually attendance at the polling station} even soldiers on active service were required to vote]). As the call for conscription coincided with the aftermath of the Easter Uprising in Ireland, the division tended be primarily on sectarian and/or ethnic lines, with the largely Irish and/or Catholic voters tending to side with "No" case under the leadership of Archbishop, later Cardinal, Daniel Mannix. It eventually caused a split in the government and the defection of the Prime Minister Billy Hughes "the little Digger" and a rump of his MPs to the opposition.

This opposition to conscription to fight in foreign wars resurfaced during the Vietnam War when conscription was reintroduced specifically for service over-seas in that war. Again, massive social upheaval division however that tended not to be so much on sectarian lines as class/age lines. Eventually the unpopularity of both conscription and the Vietnam War would also lead to the defeat of the conservative government by the ALP under Gough Whitlam.

Australians tended to fighter for several reasons in WWI, with patriotism being only one factor. A chance at adventure, to become "ten bob a day tourists" was also high on the agenda of most recruits, whom against myth and legend were not primarily from "the Bush" but rather urban dwellers as was most of the population at the time where they were drawn from. "Tommy Longstalks" as he had been nicknamed in the 2nd Boer War was not that different to "Tommy Atkins" in source, experience and ability as has been found since the enlistment rolls were fully analysed by Dr. Peter Dennis, et al, when they started digitising them in the mid-1980s. About the only major difference was usually nutrition and consequent health.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

A few mistakes; as per usual in any backwards analysis:

Compulsory voting wasn’t enacted in Australia until the 1920s. Voting amongst soldiers was very high because they had ease of access to the polling stations (they went to them) and like all government employees had obvious high personal stake in the decisions of the governments of the day so always voted.

While Australians might have been as urbanised as the British in the 1900s it was a very different sort of urbanisation. Australian cities have much lower urban density with much more access to the bush compared to British cities. The British countryside was enclosed and it wasn’t accessible to working class people. In Australia on the other hand everyone spent time in the bush except a handful of squalid inner city poor in a few cities.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This caused a lot of other Canadians to ask the same questions the Quebecois had asked since 1914: how does this benefit Canada.

How much of this argument like similar in Australia has been generated by post war revisionists? I don’t doubt there were people back then strongly opposed to the war. It had a bitter cost and was physically a long way away. But there is no way if the Germans won that everything would be hunky dory for Canada, Australia and so on. And people in America, Australia, Canada and even Japan knew it and were willing to fight it.

They would have closed the free market of Western, Central and Southern Europe and taken control over the Middle East and no doubt a hefty slice of Africa. It would be German manufactured goods and German wheat grown in the Ukraine and German oil from Iraq and later (Saudi) Arabia that would be dominating these markets. Not British and American goods and Canadian and Australian food. And this Germany would be anti democracy, anti free trade and anti liberalism. The world might be saved from Hitler, Stalin and Mao but the less radical and more efficient Imperial German oppression would stifle the lift out of the post WWII global growth and international liberalisation.

While life in the Anglosphere would not be so bad it would not have the global markets to leverage the kind of growth typified by the 1950s that saw a huge growth in working and middle class wealth. Can you imagine how bad life would be with the styles of the 1960s with the wealth of the 1920s!

 

[chuck4]

Japan fought in WWI mainly because Japan had a treaty obligation to fight, thought the British would win, or didn't think britain would collapse totally even if britain lost, and thought she would still have to deal with Britain, and Russia, more than Germany in the postwar world. The war also presented golden opportunity to snap up German colonies in Asia and pacific, and enhance her own political, military and commercial influence in Asia at the expanse of her allies.

In any case, Japan didn't fight very hard against the Germans. Where she did fight, she did the minimum consistent with aggrandizing herself in asia and didn't risk a finger to do more to hurt the Germans beyond Asia. She could have contributed substantially to the overall allied strategic position by loaning the British some of her capital ships like the Kongos. But she refused every such request.

 

[Bill Walker]

This caused a lot of other Canadians to ask the same questions the Quebecois had asked since 1914: how does this benefit Canada.

How much of this argument like similar in Australia has been generated by post war revisionists? I don’t doubt there were people back then strongly opposed to the war. It had a bitter cost and was physically a long way away. But there is no way if the Germans won that everything would be hunky dory for Canada, Australia and so on. And people in America, Australia, Canada and even Japan knew it and were willing to fight it.

They would have closed the free market of Western, Central and Southern Europe and taken control over the Middle East and no doubt a hefty slice of Africa. It would be German manufactured goods and German wheat grown in the Ukraine and German oil from Iraq and later (Saudi) Arabia that would be dominating these markets. Not British and American goods and Canadian and Australian food. And this Germany would be anti democracy, anti free trade and anti liberalism. The world might be saved from Hitler, Stalin and Mao but the less radical and more efficient Imperial German oppression would stifle the lift out of the post WWII global growth and international liberalisation.

The philosophical opposition to war in Canada was quite real and wide spread. Newspaper articles of the day tried to cover both view points, and record some thought out opposition to supporting the UK just because it was the UK.

While life in the Anglosphere would not be so bad it would not have the global markets to leverage the kind of growth typified by the 1950s that saw a huge growth in working and middle class wealth. Can you imagine how bad life would be with the styles of the 1960s with the wealth of the 1920s!

I'm not sure Germany in 1914 intended to occupy France or the UK if they won. They didn't occupy France when they defeated them in the 1870s. By 1914 Canada was trading more and more with the US, with the share of trade into Europe dropping every year. If the UK had been defeated (and even occupied) there would have been a faster shift to US and Pacific rim trade.

Canada actually grew quite nicely in the 1920s, partly as a result of industrialization and establishment of foreign trade connections that occurred during the war. The immigration from central and eastern Europe continued during this time, contributing both to economic growth and a shift away from Anglophilia. I think this would have continued whoever won the First War.

 

[chuck4]

Part of Germany's stated war aim in 1914 was to effectively annex Belgium, and the eastern coal basins and the channel coast of France. If this had transpired Germany would be hegemonic on the continent and master of all Atlantic trade of the most industrialized part of Europe.


As the war progressed, German idea of acceptable peace terms increased in harshness with increasing German casualties, and by 1916 included the complete surrender and British and French fleets, leaving Germany the sole European naval power on the Atlantic. If this had transpired it can easily be seen how Germany could be in position to directly threaten North America.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/Why-Americas-Military-Must-Be-Strong.html

http://www.prageruniversity.com/History/Hiroshima-Why-America-Dropped-the-Bomb.html

 

[Bill Walker]

Part of Germany's stated war aim in 1914 was to effectively annex Belgium, and the eastern coal basins and the channel coast of France. If this had transpired Germany would be hegemonic on the continent and master of all Atlantic trade of the most industrialized part of Europe.


As the war progressed, German idea of acceptable peace terms increased in harshness with increasing German casualties, and by 1916 included the complete surrender and British and French fleets, leaving Germany the sole European naval power on the Atlantic. If this had transpired it can easily be seen how Germany could be in position to directly threaten North America.

Big changes in Europe maybe, but no big deal in North America. The Atlantic is a lot wider than the Channel. America and Canada could have and would have continued their economic growth. The Canadian response after Pearl Harbor suggests that any serious German threat across the Atlantic would have resulted in a more unified Canadian response than the German invasion of France (in either War).

 

[Rickshaw]

A few mistakes

"A few mistakes"? Really?

Compulsory voting was first used in 1915 for the Queensland State election. In addition to elections, compulsory voting is used for a federal referendum (a proposal to alter the Commonwealth Constitution). A third instance of compulsory voting in Australia has been a plebiscite (a yes or no vote on a particular issue). For example, in 1916 and 1917, the government held two plebiscites on conscription. Both times the Australian population voted against conscription. The Compulsory Voting Act 1915 (Cth) was passed before these plebiscites were held. This legislation aimed to ensure that the plebiscites recorded a true indication of the opinion of the populace.

[Source]

According to the ABS, in 1908, 51.6% of the Australian population lived in urban centres of 3,000 or more people. Australia has, for a very long time, been one of the most urbanised societies. To give some idea of how fast that has increased, "The proportion of Australians living in major urban areas (those with 100,000 persons or more) increased from 33.6% to 62.7% over the 1906-96 period." [Source] Even in 1914, we were heavily urbanised and of course most recruits for the AIF were drawn from the major population centres. The density of suburban areas has little do to with it.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

"A few mistakes"? Really?

Yep.

Compulsory voting wasn’t across the nation until the 1920s. I didn’t know it was used in federal referendums in the 1910s so thanks for that you learn something new every day.

Even in 1914, we were heavily urbanised and of course most recruits for the AIF were drawn from the major population centres. The density of suburban areas has little do to with it.

Garbage, the density of urbanisation is the most important issue. Because the common perception expressed during WWI was that the Dominion and Colonial soldiers (and American) were better on average than the UK sourced soldiers because they were more grounded in rural life therefore better soldier material. Since then revisionists with a limited detail understanding of statistics have held up gross urban/rural population figures as proof this wasn’t so.

But the most important thing is understanding that while at the time many Australians (and other settler states) lived in urban areas these urban areas were very different to those in Europe. The Australian cities and towns were geared towards supporting the agricultural economy and were much smaller and of lower density. Even the major cities most of the urban areas except a few slum pockets were like country towns clustered together in the Sydney basin or along the Melbourne Yarra and tributaries. This is totally unlike the urban experience in Europe.

The key statistic is the percentage of population employed in agriculture. Before WWI in Australia this figure was 30% while in the UK it was 9% (which also included a much larger fishing industry). This is only the numbers directly employed in agriculture and doesn’t take into account the comparative figure of people employed in supporting the agricultural industry. All of these people lived closely with the bush. An Australian was 3-4 times more likely to be working in or associated with agriculture than in the UK no matter what the urban statistics say.

Further those that didn’t work associated in agriculture in Australia and the other settler states had easy access to the bush for leisure activity. There was no such access for the working class in the UK as virtually all rural land was either enclosed farming estate or limited access forest. Whereas you could live in most of Sydney or Melbourne in Australia and have totally untamed bushland a few km away from your front door.

 

[Rickshaw]

"A few mistakes"? Really?

Yep.

Compulsory voting wasn’t across the nation until the 1920s. I didn’t know it was used in federal referendums in the 1910s so thanks for that you learn something new every day.

I'll accept that as an apology, shall I?

Even in 1914, we were heavily urbanised and of course most recruits for the AIF were drawn from the major population centres. The density of suburban areas has little do to with it.

Garbage, the density of urbanisation is the most important issue.

No, actually it's the type and location of employment coupled with the type of habitation which is important. Remember we are discussing "urban" - none-rural - society. Doesn't matter if the houses are on a 1/4 or a 1/2 acre block, as long as they are inside the defined municipal boundaries, it is "urban".

Someone living in an urban sitting, employed in urban type employments is not automatically going to be a crack horseman nor a crack shot or a great bushman. The debate of the superiority of "Tommy Longstalks" over "Tommy Atkins" started before WWI and even then was based on tenuous myths about the nature of Australian society. Some Australians were great bushmen, the majority weren't - they had little or no experience of living off the land or even riding a horse, let alone firing a rifle. They were more accustomed to buying their good in stores and riding the tram. The enlistment statistics show that the physical stature of Diggers wasn't that much different to that British soldiers, either, so there goes the claim that they were all "superior physical specimens".

30% of the population may have been employed in agriculture but as ~40% of the population lived in settings of 3,000 or fewer people, even a large proportion of those 30% would have been drawn from "urban" society. It is unlikely that 100% of the AIF was drawn from that 30% either. I note that the AIF enlistment database is presently down so I cannot verify that but once it is back up again, then we'll see.

Returning to the original point of the thread, Australia society has never been really prepared to accept massive casualties. In WWI, after the news of the first campaigns filtered back, with their slaughter, recruiting fell off dramatically after 1916, which in turn brought about the conscription debate, with the two bitterly fought referenda. In WWII, questions were increasingly asked, particularly in the last 12 months of the war, as to the necessity of casualties in the Islands, after the US high command deliberately worked to prevent further participation of Australian forces in the ongoing offensive against the Japanese. In Korea, similar questions started being asked after 1951 and then again when conscription was reintroduced in 1965 and particularly 1968 about Vietnam. As long as there appeared to be a point to accepting the casualties then they were accepted, when they weren't, dissension set in.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I'll accept that as an apology, shall I?

Considering you’ve used this forum to falsely suggest you are a combat veteran:

I have several medals to show that indeed I have "humped this stuff downrange" on a two-way rifle range, thank you very much.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,15079.msg152234.html#msg152234

A disgusting act that you: “Brian, Rickshaw, Kadija_Man”; have yet the decency to apologise for and edit out of the forum record.

Therefore I will never tolerate your presence anywhere with anything other than the bare minimum needed to discuss and debate ideas.

However I am more than willing to admit a mistake as in this case where the general adoption of the compulsory vote in Australia implemented in the 1920s clearly did not mean that it had been used in a few elections beforehand. Though I very much doubt it had any significant impact on the voting of soldiers in such an important ballot nor does it effect the mainstay of this discussion.

No, actually it's the type and location of employment coupled with the type of habitation which is important. Remember we are discussing "urban" - none-rural - society. Doesn't matter if the houses are on a 1/4 or a 1/2 acre block, as long as they are inside the defined municipal boundaries, it is "urban".

The issue is not about gross block size but the way of life access to the bush land allows and how that effects the stock of soldiers more so than just nutrition intake. Nor is it an issue of the handful of crack bushman vs the mainstay of soldiers. The rural soldier is acclimatised to life in the field whether they live in a country town or a farmhouse. This acclimatisation has a range of positive benefits from self-reliance to toughness that is a noteworthy benefit below that of the full bore hunter type. This is why the figure of employment in agriculture is so much more important than urban vs rural. Why Australian military units (and those of Canada, America, South Africa, etc) had access to far higher proportions of recruit’s acclimatised to bush life.

 

[Rickshaw]

[However I am more than willing to admit a mistake as in this case where the general adoption of the compulsory vote in Australia implemented in the 1920s clearly did not mean that it had been used in a few elections beforehand. Though I very much doubt it had any significant impact on the voting of soldiers in such an important ballot nor does it effect the mainstay of this discussion.

An admission of error was all I was seeking. An adult apology was obviously too great a hope.

As to the effect, the 1916 Referendum saw, "133,813 votes by members of the Australian Imperial Force, of which 72,399 were for, 58,894 against, and 2,520 informal."[Source] The 1917 Referednum saw, "199 677 votes by members of the Australian Imperial Force, of which 103 789 were for, 93 910 against, and 1978 informal."[Source] In each case, out of a total voting population of ~2,776,440 of which some 1,015,159 voted for the affirmative, those exact ~70-90,000 votes were important representing between ~7-9% of the affirmative votes, not a value to be sneezed at IMO. Of course, that wasn't sufficient to carry the day though, as a majority of the states had to vote in the affirmative as well as the majority of the voters for the referenda to pass. If attendance at the polling station had been voluntary, the affirmative case would have lost a sizeable proportion of it's votes.

No, actually it's the type and location of employment coupled with the type of habitation which is important. Remember we are discussing "urban" - none-rural - society. Doesn't matter if the houses are on a 1/4 or a 1/2 acre block, as long as they are inside the defined municipal boundaries, it is "urban".

The issue is not about gross block size but the way of life access to the bush land allows and how that effects the stock of soldiers more so than just nutrition intake. Nor is it an issue of the handful of crack bushman vs the mainstay of soldiers. The rural soldier is acclimatised to life in the field whether they live in a country town or a farmhouse. This acclimatisation has a range of positive benefits from self-reliance to toughness that is a noteworthy benefit below that of the full bore hunter type. This is why the figure of employment in agriculture is so much more important than urban vs rural. Why Australian military units (and those of Canada, America, South Africa, etc) had access to far higher proportions of recruit’s acclimatised to bush life.

Yes, every Australian digger was a super soldier. Everyone of them was seven feet tall and could kill one hundred of the enemy with a single blow. One can lead a horse to water but when personal animosity intervenes, it's obvious that it won't drink.

You live in an urban environment, you are not a bushman. You're unlikely to be a good horseman or a good shot. You simply do not need those skills in your day-to-day living. I am unsure why you're unwilling to accept this.

 

[Jemiba]

Although it's a pity, as this thread brought up several interesting information, I think, it's time to close it.
Those of you committed to this them can easily continue via PM, I think ! :