Intresting Iruzumi, I see your point, just didnt understand your original point that the Brits did nothing for the Ozis in WW2.
I have know many Englishmen men who fought the Japanese in Burma, thailand Malaya etc. & suffered throught there lives as a result. & without them Oz would have been taken.
It was the combined operations of English, Indians, Yanks, Ozis & Chinese that defeated the Japanese.
Well as for the surrendor of Singapore i have met Brit officers from that time who think Lt.Gen. Wavel was a coward who should have been executed for surrendering.
Most army are a hierachy that allow lower ranks to die, thats how it works, inlisted men are the most expendable, sadley if you add the Brit class system to that it can reach the stage it did in WW1 of 50,000 dying in a day because they orderd the men to walk across the battlefields {not run, or lie down.} towards machine guns. I hope they faced the Brit Generals consequnces of thier actions. {Rather than heros that they treated one another as..}
Politicians are generaly ruthless in war time. The English happily use thier own as cannon fodder. So yes they happily would use the Ozis as well.
Its moraly wrong but it has one a lot of battles.
Thre British have a history of face to face fighting, so do Gurkha & Ozis, Its still fairly true today even with air support. But its usfull in holding actions.
WW2 was hard on the Ozis but I think all those Brits , Indians, etc who died, helped your country a little bit as well.
Thanks for your repley.
Spiral