I just watched that movie last Sunday on the MGM or Sony channel (I can't remember and get the two confused anyway) and I didn't catch any of this anti-British sentiment. The "diggers" weren't sent to their deaths by the British, but by their own nitwit officers trying to impress the British and an Australian spotter who fucked up and claimed he saw "markers" in the Turkish trenches, encouraging the dipshit senior officer (who sounded pretty Australian to me) to assume the charge went well and to press the attack. Did I miss something?

It makes more sense in the context of Australian culture. Gallipoli as a military campaign is presented as our first campaign as a federation (federated in 1901, individual colonies contributed soldiers before then), and as a "coming of age." And part of "coming of age" for an adolescent is rejecting their parents in some way. The movie has fictional characters based on the work of the historian Charles Bean, who was all about "Aussie larrikins and gallant soldiers being betrayed by British stupidity."

There are all sorts of myths about it. For example, that they were all good Aussie country boys - most were urban, and 30-40% were born overseas. The number is uncertain because for example some Aboriginals signed up, which legally they couldn't, so they got written in as being from Vanuatu or something. But at least 25% were born in the UK - the film, along with the various other tellings, absolutely never presents a common soldier of the ANZACs with a British accent, at best there might be a rebellious Irishman who hates the English like poison.

In Australia we tend to have three accents, not regional but social. There's a nasal one we'd call "ocker", a general one probably 80% of people have, and a faux-English accent associated with higher educations. To American or British ears all three accents would sound about the same, to Australian ears the educated Aussie sounds English. This was used to deliberate effect in the film, to perpetuate the myth that "we landed on the wrong beach" and that British officers were indifferent to casualties, and so on.

The Gallipoli campaign was also the brainchild of Churchill, then Lord of the Admiralty, and in WWII Churchill as PM basically abandoned Australia to the Japanese once Singapore fell - to his mind, the main war was in Europe, Asia could wait. It's notable that the US once it came in concurred in this view, but still there's a sense of betrayal, "our boys were fucking about in North Africa while the Japs were coming," etc. Aussie historians are wont to portray Churchill as an incompetent idiot, and again Aussies as gallant larrikins, blah blah.

And there's the fact that the ANZACs weren't exactly alone there, but there were British, French and Indian soldiers, all of whom vastly outnumbered the ANZAC force. But according to Australian history Gallipoli was invaded by 6 Aussies and their donkey.

And so on and so forth. There's a lot of context to it, so that Aussies will get the message even if foreigners don't.

It's the usual self-serving nonsense most countries engage in. And to take it back to roleplaying, well every group has the guy who keeps fucking up but blames everyone else...

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;970358"The rules can't fix stupid, and the rules can't fix asshole."

And most of the last forty years of bad D&D rules writing is the result of trying to break those two laws.

Insightful!

A lot of the indie game movement seemed to me to be a function of this, too.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;970850...to his mind, the main war was in Europe, Asia could wait. It's notable that the US once it came in concurred in this view...

How do you figure that? I seem to recall a bitterly fought Pacific Theater.

Quote from: Dumarest;970926How do you figure that? I seem to recall a bitterly fought Pacific Theater.

The Allies didn't focus on the Pacific Theater until after the war was won in Europe.

Quote from: Baulderstone;970943The Allies didn't focus on the Pacific Theater until after the war was won in Europe.

Huh? The USA seemed to devote quite a bit to it, and by the time the war was won in Europe, it was also pretty much won in the Pacific.

Yes, but the official strategy was "germany first", and Europe had priority for weapons and men.

Lots of fleet battles in the pacific (by 1942 the german navy was effectively reduced to submarines) and some island storming, but IIRC the allocation of men and material was divided roughly 2/3 and 1/3.

Quote from: EOTB;970948Yes, but the official strategy was "germany first", and Europe had priority for weapons and men.

Lots of fleet battles in the pacific (by 1942 the german navy was effectively reduced to submarines) and some island storming, but IIRC the allocation of men and material was divided roughly 2/3 and 1/3.

Probably so, though that pretty much matches the situation faced on each front. The Pacific needed the fleet, naval air, marines and not a whole lot of ground troops because of the situation and what they faced from the Japanese, and Europe didn't require the aircraft carriers.

Quote from: EOTB;970948Yes, but the official strategy was "germany first", and Europe had priority for weapons and men.

Lots of fleet battles in the pacific (by 1942 the german navy was effectively reduced to submarines) and some island storming, but IIRC the allocation of men and material was divided roughly 2/3 and 1/3.

Exactly. I said "focus". I wasn't suggesting the Allies completely ignored the Pacific.

Ok, right, never mind,.

Quote from: Baulderstone;970943The Allies didn't focus on the Pacific Theater until after the war was won in Europe.

That's just utterly incorrect.

Edit: Never mind, saw your follow-up clarification.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;970850It makes more sense in the context of Australian culture. Gallipoli as a military campaign is presented as our first campaign as a federation (federated in 1901, individual colonies contributed soldiers before then), and as a "coming of age." And part of "coming of age" for an adolescent is rejecting their parents in some way. The movie has fictional characters based on the work of the historian Charles Bean, who was all about "Aussie larrikins and gallant soldiers being betrayed by British stupidity."

There are all sorts of myths about it. For example, that they were all good Aussie country boys - most were urban, and 30-40% were born overseas. The number is uncertain because for example some Aboriginals signed up, which legally they couldn't, so they got written in as being from Vanuatu or something. But at least 25% were born in the UK - the film, along with the various other tellings, absolutely never presents a common soldier of the ANZACs with a British accent, at best there might be a rebellious Irishman who hates the English like poison.

OK, that makes sense. It also explains how an Australian like Simon Wincer can do a movie like Quigley Down Under where the villain is British (the late great Alan Rickman).

QuoteIn Australia we tend to have three accents, not regional but social. There's a nasal one we'd call "ocker", a general one probably 80% of people have, and a faux-English accent associated with higher educations. To American or British ears all three accents would sound about the same, to Australian ears the educated Aussie sounds English. This was used to deliberate effect in the film, to perpetuate the myth that "we landed on the wrong beach" and that British officers were indifferent to casualties, and so on.

Yeah, white southerners are often perplexed when foreigners think we sound "black" and vice versa -like both groups pronouncing all four Es in the word shit. We think we sound very different but from outside, not so much.

QuoteThe Gallipoli campaign was also the brainchild of Churchill, then Lord of the Admiralty, and in WWII Churchill as PM basically abandoned Australia to the Japanese once Singapore fell - to his mind, the main war was in Europe, Asia could wait. It's notable that the US once it came in concurred in this view, but still there's a sense of betrayal, "our boys were fucking about in North Africa while the Japs were coming," etc. Aussie historians are wont to portray Churchill as an incompetent idiot, and again Aussies as gallant larrikins, blah blah.

Churchill was an incompetent idiot. The Gallipoli campaign was a pooch-screw, as was Churchill's decision 25 years later to ship Wavell and his forces off to Greece to prop up the monarchy instead of finishing off the Axis in North Africa and so on and so forth. His brilliant decision to try to hit at Germany through the Alps was another dick-fumble. Finally, when he proposed an Allied invasion of Rhodes, George Marshall had to tell him "I'm not sending a single GI to die for that goddamned rock".

As for the Australians feeling abandoned by the British in WW2, I guess that explains why they were so nice to the US Marines (like my late grandfather) after Guadalcanal. He said the 1st Marines got a more enthusiastic welcome in Melbourne than they ever got back home.

QuoteAnd there's the fact that the ANZACs weren't exactly alone there, but there were British, French and Indian soldiers, all of whom vastly outnumbered the ANZAC force. But according to Australian history Gallipoli was invaded by 6 Aussies and their donkey.

And so on and so forth. There's a lot of context to it, so that Aussies will get the message even if foreigners don't.

It's the usual self-serving nonsense most countries engage in. And to take it back to roleplaying, well every group has the guy who keeps fucking up but blames everyone else...

That kinda sailed so far over my head that I didn't notice at all..