HURR DURR THE ENGLISH SENT AUSTRALIANS TO DIE ON PURPOSE

>HURR DURR THE ENGLISH SENT AUSTRALIANS TO DIE ON PURPOSE
>In reality, more British homeland troops died than ANZAC Colonial troops.

Why does this meme persist?

Unironically Australians can't handle the banter

Are you retarded? Of course more British died overall. Australias population at the time of ww1 was tiny at around 4 million, compared to the UK which was approaching 50 million. New Zealand's population was even smaller. In terms of their total population they contributed massive amounts of manpower to world war 1 and their sacrifices and achievements should not be derided.

It mostly refers to Gallipoli and in all fairness plan decided on by Hamilton and Birdwood was garbage shit and sucked dick for literally everyone involved, but was a particularly shitty thing to do for a bunch of volunteers who'd never fired a shot in anger in their lives as a first assignment with no one bothering to map the fact there's a fucking current there that takes you to a completely different beach then the one you've been trained to land at

And neither should the British be hated, forgotten and derided for their sacrifice and achievements. Which is very often the case.

Gallipoli is seen as a purely ANZAC campaign when it isn't. British soldiers fighting there are forgotten in favour of Aussie and New Zealand soldiers.

The Brits just sent the Irish to die for them

There’s a similar ‘myth’ (dunno how true or not it is) in Newfoundland.

Canada as a whole doesn’t have any British betrayal stories except about the Alaska border dispute, but that’s pretty obscure.

probably because they feel that okay, if british fight british die. But since they take aussies from across the world to die a lot in the meat grinder of WW1 they get dragged in to wars "not about them" by british really.

Not saying this is totally true or false, but probably why this sentiment exists or whatever

For the same reason Americans think they were the most important in WW2, everybody tells themselves lies to build a national identity. That said, Anzacs/Canadians did die at disproportionate numbers although it could be because their forces were mostly combat troops and used British logistics.

The British are overrated when it comes to WW1 in mainstream media if anything

>the British sent men from an independent country they didn't control into battle for them
You wanna know how I know you're retarded?

>anglo's angloing their own
Do they have no shred of decency? Aussies best anglos btw.

>making coherent rational ontopic posts

No retard, just no

>LE ANGLO MAYMAY
go back to redd/int/

what he means is that far more british mainland troops were at gallipoli than anzacs and the anzacs got off no worse than anyone else.

taking their experience and using it as part of the cultural identity of a young nation is fine, it was a nasty fight and the anzacs proved themselves there.

but suggesting that it was in anyway callous or that they were deliberately sent to die or were exploited is unfair. they were not, at least not more so than any soldier is sent to die, the allied command believed the attack could work and wanted it to succeed

>You wanna know how I know you're retarded?
dont want to be mean but i hope thats bait, irish independence didnt come until after the first world war

I chuckled.

Ireland was a part of the British Empire in WW1. That's why there was the whole Easter Rising thing.

Yeah because we get shit done when the English send us, and we don't whine about it
We get betrayed by the Americans though. See: dieppe

t. Churchill

I don't know, but the British seems to have a have super boner for genocideing there English speaking cousins

>Le Churchill did Dardanelles meme
Yes, the chief of admiralty who insisted on forcing the straights with an entirely naval force consisting of aging and expendable ships was responsible for an army planned landing floated by Kitchener

Its because ANZACS were sent to the deadliest beach and the British sat on their asses when they could have flanked the position.

Sedd-el-Bahr was way more deadly than ANZAC on the first day user

My honours thesis was on the nationalisation of the Australian Imperial Force during WW1 and I'm doing a PhD on command in the British Empire during the war so this is kinda my jam.

10th and 16th Divisions were formed of Irish volunteers from outside the north. There was also the 36th Ulster Division, formed obviously from northern volunteers. It's only three out of about ~50 divisions, but it's still a considerable number of Irish volunteers.


>Anzacs/Canadians did die at disproportionate numbers although it could be because their forces were mostly combat troops and used British logistics.
Is a very important point. Often called the teeth to tail ratio. The AIF and CEF had many more "teeth" and far less "tail".

What? The Cape Helles landings cost something over 6000 casualties while Anzac was just over 2000. Despite Anzac having two divisions engaged while cape Helles was only a single division.