[RodM]

'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