The Singapore Strategy, The Great Betrayal
1. What substance is there in the charge that Britain betrayed Australia in 1942 I.E Historically accurate is such a view To what extent was Britain responsibity for the failure of the Singapore strategy To what extent must Australian governments of the time accept responsibility?2. What do the enduring controversies in Australia about the Singapore campaign tell us about the relationship between memory of war, national identity and politics.World War Two created a new world order. The balance of power shifted from, a strong British power to an even stronger American and Russian power. The collapse of the Singapore was a sharp reminder of this new world order for Australia. Before World War Two Australia had a very strong link with Britain. This imperial link was well received in both Britain and Australia. The strong belief expressed by Australians in the years after 1945 was that Australia was betrayed by Britain when they could no longer support plans for the Singapore strategy, which resulted in the collapse of Singapore. This popular myth does not represent Australia's significant role in this Historical event. The gaping holes in the Singapore strategy should have be
Paul Keating was selective with the information he provided to persuade Australians that we should become a Republic. 'External policy remained, in effect, largely the prerogative of Whitehall. The memory of this event is therefore based on different interpretations of the truth 'memories and identities are not fixed things, but representations or constructions of reality' . 'The British Chiefs of Staff (COS) had suggested that while the Singapore strategy was still theoretically feasible, its practical limitations were shining through. When you betray somebody, or a group of bodies you are generally being disloyal and deceiving the party involved. ' Australia was not betrayed by Britain. en addressed extensively by both Britain and Australia. The failure of the Singapore strategy was a historical event in the Second World War. There is enough documentation to indicate that Britain had become conscious of the practical limitations concerning the Singapore Strategy. ' Australia's international relations and international politics was very much intertwined with Britain. " The picture Keating paints through this speech is largely about the concept of: us (Labour, Australia for Australia) and them (Opposition, afraid to leave Britain's side). 2002 for various reasons a different story. Politics, policies and all that's related, is based on a group of opinions/ interpretations of what is in the best interests of Australia.
Common topics in this essay:
National Identity,
Strategy Australia,
Keating's Singapore,
Whitehall' Australia's,
World War,
Australia Zealand,
East Appreciation,
Britain Australia,
Singapore Strategy,
Royal Navy,
singapore strategy,
collapse singapore,
world war,
national identity,
singapore collapse,
failure singapore strategy,
failure singapore,
national identity politics,
australia betrayed,
britain australia,
memory identity,
didn't australia,
question didn't australia,
australia equal responsibility,
australia betrayed britain,
|
Acceptance Essays
