British and Commonwealth (or other allies) ratios

[Six Nifty .50s]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[Six Nifty .50s]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by Smudger Smith

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.
:

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.

[Franek Grabowski]

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.

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.

[RodM]

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

[Smudger Smith]

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. The Americans if any have this habit of slightly distorting history.

[Ruy Horta]

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.