British and Commonwealth (or other allies) ratios

[Ruy Horta]

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.

[Six Nifty .50s]

Originally Posted by coll

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’

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

[Ruy Horta]

Originally Posted by Terry McGrady

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.

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.

[Martin Giles]

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.

[Graham Boak]

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.

[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

[Nick Beale]

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)"

[Six Nifty .50s]

Originally Posted by RodM

'

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%)

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.

Originally Posted by RodM

'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

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.

[Martin Giles]

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

[Smudger Smith]

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