British Army defends Australia- WWII

I vaguely recall from my research back in Australian hist in uni a cable in 1 collection of Australian foreign policy documents- from early 1942- which stated that Churchill was prepared to send to Australia 2 British Army divs (the 2nd Inf Div & 8th Armd) to assist in Australia's defence, in the event that the returning AIF divs were diverted to Burma or India. Now, WI the British army had indeed been able to spare some manpower to help defend Australia during that time of dire crisis after the fall of Singapore ? How would Empire relations have been affected ?
 
I'd think the danger would want to be a bit more acute before the Brits would send us a pair of divisions. Perhaps if Moresby fell around Coral Sea then these divs would be sent.

If they did then perhaps the whole betrayal myth wouldn't have formed.
 

Markus

Banned
If they did then perhaps the whole betrayal myth wouldn't have formed.

Be....what?

I´m aware that pre-war plans were based on the premiss that the UK would send weapons, troops , a fleet .... But from May 10th 1940 onwards things stop going according to plan and the UK obviously had next to nothing it could have send. I´m a bit surprise that had been construed as betrayal.

*thinking* The UK might have send one of the divisions that participated in the East-Africa Campaign but its not like the Aussies needed it. Apparently their Militia(=National Guard) was sufficiently strong but wrongly deployed.
 
The fall of Singapore is known, rightly or wrongly, as the Great Betrayal in Australia. Personally I think it's wrongly, Singapore fell due to the incompetence of people much lower than the British govt, primarily Percival. But I digress.
 
Markus said:
Be....what?

The fall of Singapore is known, rightly or wrongly, as the Great Betrayal in Australia. Personally I think it's wrongly, Singapore fell due to the incompetence of people much lower than the British govt, primarily Percival. But I digress.

I don't think it's the actual Japanese conquest of Malaya & Singapore that's thought of as a betrayal (if the word 'betrayal' is ever used by people other than ultra-nationalists here), rather the collapse of British power in the region.

Australia was more cogniscant of 1942 being the end of the British Empire (English hegemony, motherfuckers!:p*) than any other society.

Anyway, Churchill's attempt to divert the AIF divisions to Burma is the thing the really rankles. Ever since it was revealed postwar that's the event that has been considered an obvious betrayal.

It's also the thing that makes it unlikely that the British would ever have sent major landforces to Australia in the event of the invasion scare becoming more substantial. That, plus the presence of the US...


*Just a little shout out to AH's resident Scottish-Anglophile-who-insists-he's-really-a-Unionist. Of course he probably has me on ignore.
 
Melvin Loh said:
which stated that Churchill was prepared to send to Australia 2 British Army divs (the 2nd Inf Div & 8th Armd) to assist in Australia's defence, in the event that the returning AIF divs were diverted to Burma or India.

Ah, there's the problem.

Curtin rejected this deal as he was deadset against the 6th & 7th AIF divisions being sent to Burma (to Rangoon before it fell). He didn't want them remaining in India, either.

Menzies supported him on this.

There's no possibility of any Australian PM in early 1942 allowing AIF forces to be sent as reinforcements to another doomed campaign. Not after Singapore, Java, and the earlier defeats in Greece and Crete.

I'd be surprised if Churchill ever reiterated this offer after those forces finally made it back to Australia.
 
Top