Re: Why wasnt the British army semi-elite?
- From: "Michele Armellini" <don'tspam.miarmel@xxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:25:51 +0000 (UTC)
"Don Phillipson" <dphillipson@xxxxxx> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:dihk0n$hsv$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Dan Ford "Cub Driver" <warbird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted Oct. 9:
>
> > I am speaking of pilots who carried American, Canadian, South African,
> > Australian, and New Zealand passports. They made up a majority of the
> > pilots on strength in the four RAF fighter squadrons in Burma in 1942.
>
> Two relevant catches:
> 1. There was no such thing as a Canadian passport during WW2.
> Canadian citizenship (thus documentation) was not defined by
> law until 1947. Passports carried during WW2 by Canadians
> identified them merely as British subjects.
The same goes for Australian citizenship (1949). Australians were British
subjects. Trying to put Australians in the same relationship to the BCE as,
say, Americans or Belgians is simply a mistake. I'd expect the same to hold
true for Kiwis etc.
--
.
- References:
- Re: Why wasnt the British army semi-elite?
- From: Don Phillipson
- Re: Why wasnt the British army semi-elite?
- Prev by Date: Re: Why wasnt the British army semi-elite?
- Next by Date: Re: Aircraft cannons vs. machineguns
- Previous by thread: Re: Why wasnt the British army semi-elite?
- Next by thread: Re: Balkowski on Utah
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
