British and Commonwealth (or other allies) ratios
 

Lately when reading material on various subjects of WW2 I'm caught by a feeling that I hope isn't misunderstood, but which I'd love to see either refuted or substantiated. The focus is ground forces btw.

How were the force ratios of British, their Commonwealth and other allies (ex. USA and USSR) in their main battles?

I cannot escape from the feeling that in many a battle the bulk of the forces was not of UK origin, but from an ally.

France in 1940
South Africa, India, Australia and New Zeeland in the Med/Africa and Middle East
Australia, India and New Zeeland etc in Asia
Canadians in 1943/1944.

How did the actual ratios stand, are there ready sources on the subject?

If it is proven to be true (a noncommital of forces), could that be explained by WW1 trauma?

Ruy ,
The Strength of the 21st Army Group in Normandy
has been qoted as:-
2nd British Army 737,384
Ist Canadian Army 92,616
Each Indian Army Infantry Division had 1 British Brigade.

Thanks Terry there is no substitute for hard numbers, but these surprise me when set against the initial assault (source is L.F. Ellis Vol.1).

Gold 24.970
Juno 21.400
Sword 28.845

Does this mean that roughly a third of the spearpoint was Canadian?

I must add that the wording of my initial post could have been better, or at least more tactful, since its not my intention to belittle the British fighting man!!

So please accept my apology if any of you've been offended by the general tone of the previous writing.

Re: British and Commonwealth (or other allies) ratios
 

Yes, the 'Britain stood alone' propaganda was and still is very offensive to their Allies. Look at the Order of Battle for Norway, Malaya & Singapore, Burma, Greece, Crete, North Africa, Dieppe, etc.

Even if we subtracted ground forces, the RAF contained a large number of foreigners and their ranks swelled steadily until 1945.

Hallo Ruy ,
No not offended at all. I feel that the contribution of the Commonwealth during WWII , more especially the ground forces is often overlooked .

Six Nifty .50s (like that name)

Although I must bare the responsibility for setting the tone for this thread, I would like to ask that its continuation be conducted in an objective manner.

Terry's example is clear enough, these numbers do show a full commital and disproof my argument.

It might also be an error of judgement. How did a Canadian, South African or Australian perceive himself when looking at the Britain, how did Brittons look upon these commonwealth men (and women)?

The distinction was blurred in the Dutch empire, judging by what I've read the Indo-Europeans regarded themselves as loyal dutch citizens, and I believe that by 1940 they were viewed in the same light by the native dutch. Certainly their mixed race didn't seem to bar them from high rank within the service.

At least the ML had a mixed race compliment, including Chinese and native Javanese. BTW this seemed to have caused some problems in Australia because of the local color bar.

So how British was an Australian?

Well Ruy , The "Establishment" may have regarded them as "Colonials" , but at the grass roots level they were regarded as just Brits living elsewhere .
At the time there were strong ties to the "Old Country" and nationalistic feelings were'nt as strong as they may be today. But Remember that Queen Elizabeth II is not only Queen of the UK & Nth Ireland, but also of Australia , Canada, New Zealand and one or 2 other places.
As a child I lived in Malta for a while and went to school with Australian , New Zealand and other Commonwealth children from service families. We all got on well together.
Churchill saw India as the Jewel in the Crown of the then British Empire - seeing any moves for
independance as a sell out . He also hated the Indian Army - one of the reasons he replaced Auckinleck in the 8th Army was the fact He was from the Indian Army.
When during the War Churchill faced a vote of no confidence , there were plans to replace him if the need arose by Robert Menzies the then PM of Australia
An illustration of how popular Britain still was in those days was when the British Pacific Fleet arrived in Australia . The Yanks already there really got their noses pushed out .

Before you solicit opinions, I must ask if you are you seeking them from certain civilians, or veterans of Malaya and Dieppe.

Which Britons?

The distinction was also blurred in the British Empire, which is the main reason why it no longer exists as it did before World War II. The British, French and Dutch defeats at the hands of the Japanese convinced the natives that Europeans were not invincible. For Europeans there were two basic directions to stop insurgency in the colonies; negotiation and compromise, or violence.

Either way, the days of the old colonial administrations were numbered.

Which Australians?

The British
 

Ray,

I may be mistaken but I sense a anti British undertone in your posts. I have yet to read anything positive from you relating to the RAF. Any serious research is perfectly aware of the tremendous debt we owe our Commonwealth and Dominion brothers-in-arms. not forgetting the Poles, Czechs, Norwegians and French.

We all know that without the Americans the war in Europe would have taken an altogether different course. What do you want us to do Ray, continuously thank everyone for coming to our aid. We as a nation could not have continued the fight on our own. The “British Stood Alone” propaganda so aptly mentioned by six nifty.50’s was just propaganda. Is this not the same propaganda machine that had the citizens of America and Britain believing that the US bombers could put a bomb in a pickle-barrel from 20,000ft or above.

I have had the honour and pleasure of talking with and meeting dozens of former RAAF, RCAF and RNZAF airman, I for one have never heard any of them say they were ‘offended’ by such a claim especially when you consider it in relation to the period it was actually said. They had plenty of constructive criticism relating to the ‘British’ but then again we the British are not perfect.

You may want to read John Hammond Moore, Over-sexed, Over-paid and Over Here.

The British were very unpopular in Australia after the fall of Malaya and Singapore. This had followed a string of defeats against Germany and so naturally, Australians had lost confidence in the British government and their ability to protect Australia.

Americans were very popular in Australia until they started plying their affluence and dating Aussie girls. The Yanks were better dressed and had far more money to spend on travel and entertainment. Aussie servicemen, many of whom were still in Australia at the time, were simply jealous. Like most others in the animal kingdom, Aussie men were territorial and often got drunk and started fights when someone else 'moved in on their territory'.

However, British servicemen were relatively cash poor and therefore less a threat to steal the girlfriends of Australian soldiers. That is definitely one reason they were eventually welcomed back.

Col
I probably deserve that last comment, I hope that some of my comments today will serve to dispell any ideas of anti-British sentiments on my side. Although for the record, I am half Dutch half Portuguese and live in the Netherlands.

Terry
Thanks for your understanding and trying to explain the British Commonwealth.

Six Nifties
You ask some good questions.
Most valued are the opinions of veterans, although being close to the fighting, they may not always be fair in terms of the full picture. French soldiers fighting rearguard action in Dunkirk 1940 will have a different view than Canadians on the beaches of Normandy 1944 (or so I assume).

To repeat myself, the wording of the original topic was wrong.

Re: The British
 

I don't doubt it, but not all of their countrymen agreed.

Although this is off topic, I find this a facinating remark, since it reminds me of Thomas Pakenham's The Boer War and the fact that (at the time of the Boer War) there were two camps within the British Army, one the regular (or African, I don't remember that well) the other the Indian Army and these dominated the appointments of high command. I didn't realize this still played some role in WW2, although Churchill was of course an active particpant in the Boer War, and probably a number of the highest ranking officers (?).

Does show the complications of Empire.

Cannot provide the information you seek but these figures may shed some light (or not)

Military losses 1939 Popn %
UK 299-326,000 46 million 0.71
Canada 37-42,000 11.5 m 0.37
India 36,000 -
Australia 29-31,000 7.7 m 0.40
NZ 12-13,000 1.7 m 0.76
RSA 9,000 -
UK Colonies 6900 -

I cannot disentangle the data for the significant numbers of Poles, French etc etc serving with the British from their losses in the invasions of their own countries.

Assuming that the average Brit was not more or less likely to go for a Burton than his collonial/dominion/allied mate then the casualties should give a feel for the relative sizes of the forces involved ie around 70% UK. Obviously these statistics can hide wide fluctuations in a particular place or a particular time they always can, by their very nature.

Living in the 21st century "Empire" seems very strange and slightly tarnished. Thank goodness it still worked back then.

percentages
 

In the context of the air forces, I would point out that in Western Europe (at least) many of the Commonwealth and European squadrons relied upon RAF ground crews to support their fighting men. Plus, of course, the logistic tail was predominately UK British. This would imply a rather higher UK British contribution than the statistics of dead would suggest.

This may be less true for the armies, though it might apply to the navies. This discounts the massive contribution of the Commonwealth to the RAF's training programme, which perhaps only goes to show that there is no easy answer.

The Down Under Colonials and the British
 

'just to add to this thread from a 'down under' perspective:

1. firstly - you may be interested to know that at least for the application forms for both the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal New Zealand Air Force during WWII, the applicant's nationality was considered 'British' (i.e. not Aussie or Kiwi). I have seen numerous examples and they are all the same.

In fact, here are two examples:

RNZAF -

(8) State whether you are pure European Nationality - 'Yes'
(9) Nationality 'British'
(11) Nationality of parents at their birth:-
(a) father 'British'
(b) mother 'British'

RAAF -

(3) Are you a British Subject or a Naturalized British Subject 'British Subject'

I think that this is consistent with attitudes of the time in that both Australia and New Zealand considered themselves a part of the British Empire, with Britain as the mother country.

Throughout the British Empire, men and women of 'British' descent answered the call (along with many 'natives' of those lands, I might add).

I have never picked up a sense of 'Britain fights alone' and even at the time the contribution of non-Commonwealth countries was widely acknowledged, especially for propaganda purposes.

2. The post-Pearl Harbor sentiments re: the British were similar in New Zealand as to Australia. However, I have always got the sense from my readings that Australia felt a little more independant than New Zealand did at that time.

Probably the biggest rift concerned support for Australasia in 1942/43 when the threat of Japanese invasion existed. Of course, Singapore was the fortress that would stop the Japanese in times of aggression and much of the pre-Pearl Harbor doctrine supposed that Singapore (paid for with Australasian contributions) would keep Australia and New Zealand safe. After the fall of Singapore, Britain refused to send substantial reinforcements to Australia or New Zealand while, for example, still requiring that the commitments of the Empire Air Training Scheme (sending airmen for service in Europe or the far-east) be met by these two countries. In fact Australia insisted that its army divisions in the Middle East be returned home. New Zealand, after much deliberation, did not. Many RAAF men also requested transfer back home.

Both Australia and New Zealand were expected to solicit (and, of course, they did receive)American help - this single factor probably lead to the post-war shift in strategic alliance from Britain to the US.

3. I have never read of anti-British feelings by the man on the street in New Zealand although the jealousy over the Americans wooing the women did exist! In fact, when the New Zealand Divisions returned on extended leave from the Mediterrean, a big street brawl between the Kiwis and Yanks did erupt over this issue in Wellington. In the Pacific war zone, it was generally a different issue with the RNZAF receiving good and much appreciated support from the in-theatre Americans.

4. I cannot say that I have seen much 'Britain alone' attitudes in modern documentaries (although it would not surprise me) but then for the true historian, much of what the 'History Channel' shows is rubbish anyway - I mean that in the sense that the explosion of cable history has lead to many poorly made and poorly researched docos about events of the last 60 years. I don't want to get started on this subject!

5. For the record, here are some official casualty statistics that will give a general indication of non-UK involvement in RAF Bomber Command:

Deaths -
RAF 38,462 (69.2%)
RCAF 9,919 (17.8%)
RAAF 4,050 (7.3%)
RNZAF 1,679 (3.0%)
PAF 929 (1.7%)
Other Allied 473 (0.9%)
SAAF & Other Dominions 61 (0.1%)



Cheers

RodM

Standing Alone
 

In RAF Operations Record Books, the contribution of other nations is always clearly acknowledged because after anyone's name who is not from the British Isles the nationality is stated in brackets, e.g. "F/O S.R. Rees (AUS)"

Re: The Down Under Colonials and the British
 

Your figures are misleading.

A large portion of foreigners served in RAF squadrons -- e.g. not all Canadians were in RCAF units, not all Aussies were in RAAF units, and so on.


Consider the source.

Many of the documentaries shown on the History Channel are British-made. Most of these programs are badly researched. They contain outdated information and numerous factual errors.

I don't think the figures are misleading. If you read the operational record books for each unit they nearly always set out the airforce the person belonged to even if the squadron was nominally "British", same as for Australian, Canadian etc sqns. Therefore the totals are real, except for the relatively few men from the Dominions that joined the pre-war RAF, rather than their home airforce

If the figures were based on the origin of the squadron then they would look something different

six niffty.50's

You seem to be trying rather too hard making a point on this subject, if you have something to say, say it.

My preferred research area is RAF Bomber Command and specifically No.3 Group. The contribution, professionalism, and courage of Commonwealth and Dominion aircrew cannot be overstated. It was No.3 Group’s fortunate to have amongst it ranks the highest percentage of RNZAF aircrew in Bomber Command.

The obvious pride felt by the group in having such a cosmopolitan force is easily recognised throughout the pages of No.3 Groups Records Book. Their contribution and sacrifice was then and still is today recognised and appreciated. REGARDLESS OF WHAT ANYONE THINKS

Smudger Smith :shock:

If you're implying that 70% of the Bomber Command deaths were aircrew from the UK, I would challenge you to prove it.

I do not think that was the case in RAF Fighter Command. In March 1942, No. 66 Squadron (RAF) was represented by nine different nationalities, including one American. The standard strength of the squadron was twelve Spitfires.

Many Canadian, Aussie, New Zealander, South African, Rhodesian, Polish, Czech, French, Dutch, etc., served in RAF Squadrons but they were not members of their own air forces. Some never served in the dedicated Allied squadrons. Others did, but later transferred into regular RAF squadrons.

More than 8,000 Americans joined the RCAF, and the vast majority served in RAF or Allied squadrons. Several hundred were members in one of the three Eagle Squadrons, at one time or another.

I think you are just trying too hard to deny it.

Fine. I'm sure that most of those still alive today would rather not see another British documentary which insists that Britain Stood Alone. I've seen quite enough, thank you very much.

I cannot say for other air forces but Polish airmen were always part of the Polish Air Force even if flying in other units rather than Polish. They were on Polish payroll to say it simply. Of course there were Poles who joined other air forces, I know personally one who joined RCAF but transferred to PAF, but on the other hand we had Americans, Czechoslovaks, Estonians and French in our Air Force.

Casualty Figures
 

Hi,

for those that think the Bomber Command casualty figures are misleading, firstly, they are OFFICIAL figures but, of course, only refer to the service joined.

Yes, many other nationalities served in the RAF but then again many other nationalities served in the RAAF, RCAF and RNZAF (There are many NZers who died serving with the RAAF and many Aussies who died serving with the RNZAF). However, I doubt if this would affect the casualty figures by more than around 5%. Reading some of the posts above, I am not sure if there is a misunderstanding about what service with an RAF squadron meant. Any member of the RAAF, RCAF, RNZAF, PAF, SAAF could serve in any RAF/RAAF/RCAF/PAF/SAAF squadron without affecting their status. For example, almost all pre-Pearl Harbor US deaths would have come under either RAF or RCAF statistics. However, when viewed in terms of overall RAF casualties '39-45, such a statistical abnormality would be a drop in the ocean.

Casualty figures for other Commands of the RAF will probably provide different statistics BUT I would believe the overall trend would be the same - mostly British deaths followed by Canadians, Aussies and Kiwis/Poles (that is just a reflection on the contingent size of each country's contribution).

In terms of modern history documentaries, I speak in generic terms not national terms. I don't care what country made a documentary when it is unbalanced and filled with error. Stating that such-and-such a country produces bad documentaries is, in itself, a biased and unbalanced view.

A common theme, for example, is an over-emphasis of the war against Germany in the West. Look at any set of statistics and it is obvious that the bulk of the ground fighting, in terms of manpower and machinery and casualties was in the east.

Another modern misconception is that the USAAF only precision-bombed and the RAF only area-bombed in the European theatre. I won't argue on this point; I only suggest that any one in disagreement with this broad statement does some basic research.

I would find a 'Britain stood alone' documentary every bit as offensive as the 'America won the Pacific war alone' documentary (of which I have seen many and they are not British-made).

Just remember that the researchers of such documentaries just use other people's research materials (and mistakes). I doubt that you will find many exploring original archival documents (and I speak as someone who does do original research with all the inherant problems of reconciling contradictions).

For anyone with axes to grind, back up your assertations with facts...

Cheers

Rod

Come on mate what’s your real beef. If you have something to say, say it.
.50's

I have set-out my case in relation to Bomber Command, the figures given relating to RAF Bomber Command casualties are official figures. Are you disputing them?

Regarding the History Channel, I can’t say I take this too seriously. What I have watched mostly originates from America, the last documentary I viewed ( this week ) concerned D-Day. Over the entire hour, the British contribution, either on land, sea or air was only mention three times. The Canadian Army was not mention once. A true and unbiased overview of the greatest invasion in WW.II. :o The Americans if any have this habit of slightly distorting history.
:roll:

I started this thread, so I might as well throw in my 2c. now and then.

Do some of these totals distort the picture?

Johnny Johnson, AVM Parks, Sailor Malan, Al Deere...all RAF, but all of them (might have goofed one) colonials.

Perhaps as pointed out in the thread the lines blurred. Certainly the dutch viewed colonials as dutch (albeit sometimes with a difference).

Also totals might even out things, but as I pointed out earlier, did the same hold for all theatres etc.

West 1940 - numerically large French superiority

Med. / North Africa 1941/42 - probably more than 30% colonials (that I would like to see answered).

Singapore 1941/42

Burma 1941/42

Dieppe was a Canadian Op, wasn't it?

Normandy 1944 was roughly two thirds British, one third Canadian on the initial assault? I believe this innitial assault counted a little under one hundred thousand men, does anyone have the US number ready at hand?

The prolonged RAF campaign appears to be two thirds British.

But as I've been rightly pointed out, this should not be about an accusing finger nor based on personal bias.