Is has always puzzled me how people think that WW2 led to a dramatic shift in Australia's relationship with Britain and closer links with America, when in fact the oppinion of the Australian military was as critical of America as it was of Britain in regards to its treatment and use of Australian soldiers. Sure after the war America was the new super power and Britain couldn't afford an empire anymore, and after 1970 there where no British forces left East of Cyprus other than the Gurkhas and a few garrison units in Hong Kong, so its obvious why Australia drew militarily closer to America.
But when war broke out in Europe it was logical to see why Britain used ANZAC troops as its own troops were tied up fighting the Germans and Italians, and it was very easy to to ship ANZAC reinforcements to North Africa and the Far East. The fact that Australian troops weren't immediately transferred back to Australia to defend the country when war broke out with Japan, and Singapore fell was due to poor political leadership in both Australia as well as Britain.
What is not logical is how America failed to fully utilise Australian troops in the Pacific from 1942. When MacArthur fled to Australia after the fall of the Philippines Australian troops accounted for nearly all the land forces under his command, as well as a substantial proportion of the air and naval forces present in the south Pacific. Although the US quickly started to build up its own forces in the area, Australian forces were only realy used for secondary roles such flanking US forces or mopping up operations once the US forces had been moved on to another assignment or battleground. This has always puzzled me as the Australian soldier had a very good reputation before WW2, with training levels as good as any British soldier and coming from a culture similar in many ways to the US soldier; largely white and superior in physical health and education to the majority of the brown or black troops from India and Africa that Britain used in Burma and the Middle East.
|