So do I.

I've nearly finished the history of the Kokoda Track campaign - and it is infinitely more complex, interesting, and revealing of Australia's military capabilities and profile than the Gallipoli fiasco that featured way more Brits than it did Australians (same as with the fall of Singapore).

The only reason the Kokoda campaign is so studiously ignored is that the top brass were utter imbeciles and should have been court martialled as War Criminals for their mishandling of their own troops.

Blamey and MacArthur should have been hanged at the end of the war. Their rampant idiocy cost 1000's of needless deaths among the Australian and American troops.

link

Must be nearing ANZAC Day, Herb has put up another anti ANZAC Post

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTIzM1gxNjAw/$T2eC16NHJI!E9qSO8F)TBQLbElviV!~~60_35.JPG

Herb's right about Tubby and Macca - no idea and no attempt to even find out the conditions in NG, but ready to blame the troops for slowness etc when they were up to their necks in Japanese and jungles...

Ever read the fiasco at the end of the Track? 

Blamey should never have been the boss.. ever...

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Mar 19^th, 2015 at 5:45pm:

Herb's right about Tubby and Macca - no idea and no attempt to even find out the conditions in NG, but ready to blame the troops for slowness etc when they were up to their necks in Japanese and jungles... Ever read the fiasco at the end of the Track?  Blamey should never have been the boss.. ever...

Paul Ham's excellent book on the Kokoda track saga and the fighting at Milne Bay, Gona, and Buna opened my eyes as never before.

Every page was packed with revelations that were a shocker to me.

It should be compulsive reading for every school kid in Australia.

The lower ranking officers who were in the combat zones were brilliant and courageous, but time and again they were very badly let down by grubby characters like Thomas Blamey and Douglas MacArthur whose main preoccupation were their egos and their hopes for a post-war political career.

An amazing book to read. I highly recommend it.

Also some great insights into the mindset of the Japanese foe.

Me old man was at Milne Bay, then transferred to 3rd Aerial Resupply Company, and flew over the Track many times... also did the 187th Airborne drop at Nadzab...

Buna and Gona were shockers and a waste of too many good men.

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 19^th, 2015 at 7:10pm:

It should be compulsive reading for every school kid in Australia.

Every school kid in Australia today is currently being taught that they are white colonialist scum that needs to be wiped out and erased by brown people, and preferably brown people that want sharia law, if todays education department was around when the japs were pouring down the kokoda trail they would have urged surrender. 

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Mar 19^th, 2015 at 7:13pm:

Me old man was at Milne Bay, then transferred to 3rd Aerial Resupply Company, and flew over the Track many times... also did the 187th Airborne drop at Nadzab... Buna and Gona were shockers and a waste of too many good men.

He was at Milne Bay? Jesus Christ. The Japanese atrocities committed there by the Japanese Special Naval Support mob were particularly horrific.

And the anopheles mosquitoes and other types of mosquitoes created wholesale malaria, dengue fever, dysentery, etc.

Never mind the fighting - just the diseases that quickly appeared among the men in those dank forests, swamps and misty mountain valleys was enough of a trial.

An interesting little footnote was the number of Australian survivors of the Papua campaign who said they couldn't have endured it all as well as they did without their government-issue cigarettes. It was their only 'little luxury' and personal comfort in those hellish climes facing a suicidally fanatical Japanese fighting force.

What particularly pissed me off were the mindless orders from headquarters that the troops must charge over open ground at well-defended Japanese bunkers where machine gun fire cut them down like daisies in a field. And this order was repeated again and again with hundreds dying for absolutely no strategic gain.

Those back in the Port Moresby and Brisbane HQs who gave these orders should have been executed after the war.

innocentbystander. wrote on Mar 19^th, 2015 at 7:29pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 19th, 2015 at 7:10pm: It should be compulsive reading for every school kid in Australia. Every school kid in Australia today is currently being taught that they are white colonialist scum that needs to be wiped out and erased by brown people, and preferably brown people that want sharia law, if todays education department was around when the japs were pouring down the kokoda trail they would have urged surrender.

Closet pom guilt complex?

Svengali wrote on Mar 19^th, 2015 at 7:59pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on Mar 19th, 2015 at 7:29pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 19th, 2015 at 7:10pm: It should be compulsive reading for every school kid in Australia. Every school kid in Australia today is currently being taught that they are white colonialist scum that needs to be wiped out and erased by brown people, and preferably brown people that want sharia law, if todays education department was around when the japs were pouring down the kokoda trail they would have urged surrender.  Closet pom guilt complex?

Did any of your family fight for Australia during the wars Svengali?

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 19^th, 2015 at 2:16pm:

So do I. I've nearly finished the history of the Kokoda Track campaign - and it is infinitely more complex, interesting, and revealing of Australia's military capabilities and profile than the Gallipoli fiasco .

Which shows your complete ignorance about why Gallipoli is revered by many Australians. It has nothing to do with how complex interesting or revealing it is.

Having said that I do believe Gallipoli is overrated. It has more to do with us Australians being so insecure that we desperately want to find some sort of national identity. It is perhaps fitting that it is an act of fighting someone elses war. Something we have been doing since we were colonised.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 19^th, 2015 at 8:17pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 19th, 2015 at 2:16pm: So do I. I've nearly finished the history of the Kokoda Track campaign - and it is infinitely more complex, interesting, and revealing of Australia's military capabilities and profile than the Gallipoli fiasco . Which shows your complete ignorance about why Gallipoli is revered by many Australians. It has nothing to do with how complex interesting or revealing it is. Having said that I do believe Gallipoli is overrated. It has more to do with us Australians being so insecure that we desperately want to find some sort of national identity. It is perhaps fitting that it is an act of fighting someone elses war. Something we have been doing since we were colonised.

For me it's a reminder to never fight under the British again. Landing our men in front of a series of crumbling cliffs and valleys was just stupid. Stupid British plans during WW1 and Singapore during WW2 killed a lot of good men. I suppose to many people it was our first instance of standing on our own 2 feet as a nation.

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 19^th, 2015 at 7:35pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Mar 19th, 2015 at 7:13pm: Me old man was at Milne Bay, then transferred to 3rd Aerial Resupply Company, and flew over the Track many times... also did the 187th Airborne drop at Nadzab... Buna and Gona were shockers and a waste of too many good men. He was at Milne Bay? Jesus Christ. The Japanese atrocities committed there by the Japanese Special Naval Support mob were particularly horrific. And the anopheles mosquitoes and other types of mosquitoes created wholesale malaria, dengue fever, dysentery, etc. Never mind the fighting - just the diseases that quickly appeared among the men in those dank forests, swamps and misty mountain valleys was enough of a trial. An interesting little footnote was the number of Australian survivors of the Papua campaign who said they couldn't have endured it all as well as they did without their government-issue cigarettes. It was their only 'little luxury' and personal comfort in those hellish climes facing a suicidally fanatical Japanese fighting force. What particularly pissed me off were the mindless orders from headquarters that the troops must charge over open ground at well-defended Japanese bunkers where machine gun fire cut them down like daisies in a field. And this order was repeated again and again with hundreds dying for absolutely no strategic gain. Those back in the Port Moresby and Brisbane HQs who gave these orders should have been executed after the war.

Yes - some nasty stuff went on at Milne Bay and elsewhere.. he was in over a hundred bombing raids.

That stupid order to charge etc cost a lot of lives for nothing... stupid... idiots back in Brisbane believed that somehow white men were superior to Japanese and also to bullets apparently.

Someone once said that whenever the higher-ups are talking about taking an objective at the point of the bayonet, the troops knew they were in deep trouble.

Bloody stupid.. criminally so.

Svengali wrote on Mar 19^th, 2015 at 7:59pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on Mar 19th, 2015 at 7:29pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 19th, 2015 at 7:10pm: It should be compulsive reading for every school kid in Australia. Every school kid in Australia today is currently being taught that they are white colonialist scum that needs to be wiped out and erased by brown people, and preferably brown people that want sharia law, if todays education department was around when the japs were pouring down the kokoda trail they would have urged surrender.  Closet pom guilt complex?

Do you have anything of value to add to this thread?

Or are you somehow satisfied by interjecting with some irrelevant commentary that further cements your position as a waste of space and an oxygen thief with a limited knowledge of anything worthwhile?

Why don't you tell us about the 39th Battalion or your own link to the contents of the OP?

As an apprentice Svengali, you're failing your practicals.

Just sayin'.

8-)

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 19^th, 2015 at 9:16pm:

Svengali wrote on Mar 19th, 2015 at 7:59pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Mar 19th, 2015 at 7:29pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 19th, 2015 at 7:10pm: It should be compulsive reading for every school kid in Australia. Every school kid in Australia today is currently being taught that they are white colonialist scum that needs to be wiped out and erased by brown people, and preferably brown people that want sharia law, if todays education department was around when the japs were pouring down the kokoda trail they would have urged surrender.  Closet pom guilt complex? Do you have anything of value to add to this thread? Or are you somehow satisfied by interjecting with some irrelevant commentary that further cements your position as a waste of space and an oxygen thief with a limited knowledge of anything worthwhile? Why don't you tell us about the 39th Battalion or your own link to the contents of the OP? As an apprentice Svengali, you're failing your practicals. Just sayin'. 8-)

You have very long toes and obviously are sensitive to space and oxygen competitors.

Here is a fact for you.

Poms are puzzled about Australia's focus on Gallipoli which was a disaster. Poms claim they lost six times as many people as closet poms did at Gallipoli.

The closest most Ozpolitic closet pom denizens have come to a fight is shaping up and mouthing off at their local bar.

That stupid order to charge etc cost a lot of lives for nothing... stupid... idiots back in Brisbane believed that somehow white men were superior to Japanese

I just spent some time searching for a link, but could not find it.

I am pretty sure an Australian politician described the Japanese defeat of the Chinese as "A triumph of monkeys over apes"

I may have the storey a bit crooked, but pretty sure it summed up our nations lack of respect for the sophistication of the Japanese war machine.

Underestimating your enemy is never a good idea.

As is overestimating them, apparently if the Allies had held out for a bit longer in Singapore the Japanese would have had to retreat.
( I read that at the Changi War Museum on a recent visit)

miketrees wrote on Mar 19^th, 2015 at 10:10pm:

That stupid order to charge etc cost a lot of lives for nothing... stupid... idiots back in Brisbane believed that somehow white men were superior to Japanese I just spent some time searching for a link, but could not find it. I am pretty sure an Australian politician described the Japanese defeat of the Chinese as "A triumph of monkeys over apes" I may have the storey a bit crooked, but pretty sure it summed up our nations lack of respect for the sophistication of the Japanese war machine. Underestimating your enemy is never a good idea. As is overestimating them, apparently if the Allies had held out for a bit longer in Singapore the Japanese would have had to retreat. ( I read that at the Changi War Museum on a recent visit)

The Japanese were the ones who thought themselves divine beings and better than everybody else on earth. I've never heard of the Australian Army underestimating the Japanese Army.

Svengali wrote on Mar 19^th, 2015 at 9:31pm:

You have very long toes and obviously are sensitive to space and oxygen competitors. ...

Perhaps so. If true, I find them very handy for keeping myself grounded and my head out of the rarefied atmospheres inhabited by oxygen thieves.


Svengali wrote on Mar 19^th, 2015 at 9:31pm:

... Here is a fact for you. ...

Careful, now. Facts are able to established, as opposed to opinions - which are slippery things.


Svengali wrote on Mar 19^th, 2015 at 9:31pm:

... Poms are puzzled about Australia's focus on Gallipoli which was a disaster. Poms claim they lost six times as many people as closet poms did at Gallipoli. ...

Link?

'Poms' are entitled to be puzzled about Australia's focus on Gallipoli because they have spent generations marching single-file, without question, into opposition gunfire. The transition from redcoat to khaki must have been very confusing for them. This appeared to especially true with regard to British officers.

As to the numbers, one can only put any relevance on such things when it is representative of population sizes and contributions, not to mention actual theaters of conflict.


Svengali wrote on Mar 19^th, 2015 at 9:31pm:

... The closest most Ozpolitic closet pom denizens have come to a fight is shaping up and mouthing off at their local bar.

You may be correct about the number of Ozpolitic members who have actually served, but I think you seriously underestimate the size of the fight in the dog.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 19^th, 2015 at 8:17pm:

Which shows your complete ignorance about why Gallipoli is revered by many Australians. It has nothing to do with how complex interesting or revealing it is. Having said that I do believe Gallipoli is overrated. It has more to do with us Australians being so insecure that we desperately want to find some sort of national identity. It is perhaps fitting that it is an act of fighting someone elses war. Something we have been doing since we were colonised.

Gallipoli allows You Aussies (YA) to say it was all Churchill /Britain's /and them Pommies fault ... whereas the Papuan campaign was a very different kettle of fish.

Ironically the Gallipoli campaign was fought by a huge contingent of immigrant Brits to Australia who at that time couldn't find work here. And then there were the iconic ones such as that fellow with his donkey ~ a Yorkshire man through and through.

For once the Poms couldn't be blamed for Aussie losses.

The whole Kokoda saga was a magnificent showcase of what You Aussies are capable of when push comes to shove and your backs are against the wall. 

Incredibly, War Criminals like Thomas Blamey even refused to give these jungle-fighting troops camouflaged uniforms of green, but made them wear the khaki of desert warfare.

Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 19^th, 2015 at 8:22pm:

For me it's a reminder to never fight under the British again. Landing our men in front of a series of crumbling cliffs and valleys was just stupid.

You forgot to read the footnote in the history books.

It was an Australian captain who misread the coastal map who then tragically dropped anchor in the wrong spot and caused the subsequent debacle under those towering cliffs.


Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 19^th, 2015 at 8:22pm:

Stupid British plans during WW1 and Singapore during WW2 killed a lot of good men. I suppose to many people it was our first instance of standing on our own 2 feet as a nation.

Nobody believed the Japs would take the hard route by coming down through the jungle tracks of the Malay peninsula. Same with Port Moresby - nobody dreamed the Japs would choose to take it by coming down through the hellish terrain of the Owen Stanley ranges.

Churchill got it wrong with Singapore ... and Australia's Thomas Blamey followed suit by getting it wrong with the defence of Port Moresby. They both thought the Japs would invade by sea.

Glass houses ...

And then at Gona on the northern end of the Kokoda track to the Papuan coastal region - Australia's Top Brass back at Port Moresby and Brisbane were ordering their junior officers in the field to order their men to make suicidal charges on open ground against Japanese machine gun positions - with huge loss of life.

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 19^th, 2015 at 2:16pm:

I've nearly finished the history of the Kokoda Track Trail campaign - and it is infinitely more complex, interesting, and revealing of Australia's military capabilities and profile than the Gallipoli fiasco that featured way more Brits than it did Australians

Paul Keating, in the words of the historian James Curran, attempted to ‘shift the epicentre of Australian nationalism from Gallipoli to Kokoda’.

Keating inaugurated a comprehensive program called Australia Remembers, with grants made to local communities to remember military history.

He interred the Unknown Soldier at the Australian War Memorial, and travelled to Papua New Guinea, where he delivered a landmark speech and, with a theatrical flourish, kissed the base of a memorial.

He declared Kokoda our neglected battleground, where 'Australians fought and died, not in defence of the old world, but the new’.

(Later, another Labor prime minister, Kevin Rudd, continued the Pacific War trend, choosing Kokoda and Long Tan for his most important commemorative activities.)

Prime Minister John Howard returned the emphasis firmly to World War I.


http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/james-brown/2014/02/17/1392601420/anzacs-long-shadow-cost-our-national-obsession




http://cdn.nortiapress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Australian_assault_on_pillbox_January_1943_Papua_Giropa_Point-449x270.jpg

Gallipoli is now an Australian founding myth.

Like all founding myths, adhering to the letter of the truth is not required.

Those truths that detract from a founding myth are always expunged from the narrative and are relegated to 'unpatriotic heresy'.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 8:23am:

Gallipoli is now an Australian founding myth. Like all founding myths, adhering to the letter of the truth is not required. Those truths that detract from a founding myth are always expunged from the narrative and are relegated to 'unpatriotic heresy'.

Well said.

It wasn't all gung ho Hollywood heroism. There were cowards, and deserters, a bit of looting and some rape here and there: all reflective of the human condition.

Kokoda had it all.

One thing that surprised me and was in total contrast to the firing squads of WWI were the outright mutinies in which American soldiers at Gona on the coast of Papua simply dropped their weapons and sat down in the grass because the orders they were given were patently suicidal with not a chance of survival. You couldn't blame them.

And so Blamey told MacArthur - "no worries mate - I'll order MY fellows to go charging to their deaths in open ground for little or no gain".

Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 19^th, 2015 at 10:30pm:

miketrees wrote on Mar 19th, 2015 at 10:10pm: That stupid order to charge etc cost a lot of lives for nothing... stupid... idiots back in Brisbane believed that somehow white men were superior to Japanese I just spent some time searching for a link, but could not find it. I am pretty sure an Australian politician described the Japanese defeat of the Chinese as "A triumph of monkeys over apes" I may have the storey a bit crooked, but pretty sure it summed up our nations lack of respect for the sophistication of the Japanese war machine. Underestimating your enemy is never a good idea. As is overestimating them, apparently if the Allies had held out for a bit longer in Singapore the Japanese would have had to retreat. ( I read that at the Changi War Museum on a recent visit) The Japanese were the ones who thought themselves divine beings and better than everybody else on earth. I've never heard of the Australian Army underestimating the Japanese Army.

Happy.. my son.. we re talking here about Sir Thomas Blamey, a man who went through WWI as a staff officer and thus had no clear idea on what actual combat demanded of men, and his ilk ... not the frontline troops.

He was, in my long-standing view, a very poor choice as commander of Australian troops in WWII, and was placed in that situation primarily due to politics.

Sir Thomas is characterised in one of my book series as a ranking Detroit police officer who perpetually clashes with my principal character.

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 6:23am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 19th, 2015 at 8:17pm: Which shows your complete ignorance about why Gallipoli is revered by many Australians. It has nothing to do with how complex interesting or revealing it is. Having said that I do believe Gallipoli is overrated. It has more to do with us Australians being so insecure that we desperately want to find some sort of national identity. It is perhaps fitting that it is an act of fighting someone elses war. Something we have been doing since we were colonised. Gallipoli allows You Aussies (YA) to say it was all Churchill /Britain's /and them Pommies fault ... whereas the Papuan campaign was a very different kettle of fish. Ironically the Gallipoli campaign was fought by a huge contingent of immigrant Brits to Australia who at that time couldn't find work here. And then there were the iconic ones such as that fellow with his donkey ~ a Yorkshire man through and through. For once the Poms couldn't be blamed for Aussie losses. The whole Kokoda saga was a magnificent showcase of what You Aussies are capable of when push comes to shove and your backs are against the wall.  Incredibly, War Criminals like Thomas Blamey even refused to give these jungle-fighting troops camouflaged uniforms of green, but made them wear the khaki of desert warfare.

That's not true, for a start. The soldiers at Kokoda did wear jungle green.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 9:27am:

That's not true, for a start. The soldiers at Kokoda did wear jungle green.

Only very later in the campaign were these made available.

I'll try to fish out the section on this in the book.

****

Update:

p153: Quote: "It is strange that 6 months after the return of General Blamey there should be no green uniforms in Australia".

p128: Quote: "... their uniforms were khaki - not jungle green ..."

p250: Someone asked Blamey the question: "Were jungle green uniforms superior to the regulation khaki?"

Blamey: "They were not. The khaki had been designed in India as the ideal camouflage for the jungle".

p278: (referring to Wilmot) "... Wilmot had to go (be sacked). He dared to ask (Blamey) irritating questions about the lack of jungle greens"

There are a lot more referrences.

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 9:29am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 9:27am: That's not true, for a start. The soldiers at Kokoda did wear jungle green. Only very later in the campaign were these made available. I'll try to fish out the section on this in the book.

Don't bother with the book. I'd prefer to believe people who were there...like my father and uncle..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 9:30am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 9:29am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 9:27am: That's not true, for a start. The soldiers at Kokoda did wear jungle green. Only very later in the campaign were these made available. I'll try to fish out the section on this in the book. Don't bother with the book. I'd prefer to believe people who were there...like my father and uncle..

There was a mad attempt to dye khaki with anything that would turn it green once it was noted that the khaki stood out like a neon sign against the jungle, and long trousers and sleeve came in to keep out bugs - and also for warmth in the high country.....

The Militia had khakis which was partly responsible for their casualties in the fallback phase of the campaign.

One of my uncles suffered an allergic reaction and was shipped home.

Some say the arrival of 25 pounder artillery pieces hauled up the mountains by hand didn't affect the outcome, since the Japanese drive had run already out of steam - but I can imagine the effect those shells would have on tired and sick troops...

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 9:35am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 9:30am: Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 9:29am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 9:27am: That's not true, for a start. The soldiers at Kokoda did wear jungle green. Only very later in the campaign were these made available. I'll try to fish out the section on this in the book. Don't bother with the book. I'd prefer to believe people who were there...like my father and uncle.. There was a mad attempt to dye khaki with anything that would turn it green once it was noted that the khaki stood out like a neon sign against the jungle, and long trousers and sleeve came in to keep out bugs - and also for warmth in the high country..... The Militia had khakis which was partly responsible for their casualties in the fallback phase of the campaign. One of my uncles suffered an allergic reaction and was shipped home. Some say the arrival of 25 pounder artillery pieces hauled up the mountains by hand didn't affect the outcome, since the Japanese drive had run already out of steam - but I can imagine the effect those shells would have on tired and sick troops...

Oh, well yeah the Chockos weren't very well equipped, or trained.
I was referring to the regular AIF troops.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 9:30am:

Don't bother with the book. I'd prefer to believe people who were there...like my father and uncle..

It's all been researched and sourced, gizmo. The Milne Bay knees-up happened a little while after the start of the Kokoda campaign. Keep your mind open and your gunpowder dry.   :P

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 9:35am:

There was a mad attempt to dye khaki with anything that would turn it green once it was noted that the khaki stood out like a neon sign against the jungle, and long trousers and sleeve came in to keep out bugs - and also for warmth in the high country.....

Correct.

Eventually air-drops delivered some improvised 'stained-green' uniforms that were bloody uncomfortable because the cloth didn't breathe. So hot they were soon tossed aside by many of the troops.


Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 9:35am:

The Militia had khakis which was partly responsible for their casualties in the fallback phase of the campaign. One of my uncles suffered an allergic reaction and was shipped home. Some say the arrival of 25 pounder artillery pieces hauled up the mountains by hand didn't affect the outcome, since the Japanese drive had run already out of steam - but I can imagine the effect those shells would have on tired and sick troops...

General Horii (the supreme commander of the Japanese forces in this campaign) suffered defeat for the same reason Napoleon did at the gates of Moscow: His supply line became so stretched and depleted that the men at the front were starving and short of ammunition.

The Japs could actually see the lights of Port Morseby at night from their hilltop position - they had come that close. Starvation, sickness, and lack of ammunition meant they could go no further.

General Horii eventually drowned off Buna beach. 

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 8:23am:

Gallipoli is now an Australian founding myth. Like all founding myths, adhering to the letter of the truth is not required. Those truths that detract from a founding myth are always expunged from the narrative and are relegated to 'unpatriotic heresy'.

The Gallipoli, or ANZAC myth is actually an extension of the Bush Legend - a largely manufactured mythology created by the likes of Patterson and Lawson to promote federation. The same themes of mateship and egalitarianism spill over, and like the Bush Legend was basically propaganda for a political agenda.

Interesting also that the ANZAC myth became largely dormant in the decades after the war, and really only revived as a central part of our national ethos from about the 1980s. Probably in conjunction with the rise of republicanism.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 10:39am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 8:23am: Gallipoli is now an Australian founding myth. Like all founding myths, adhering to the letter of the truth is not required. Those truths that detract from a founding myth are always expunged from the narrative and are relegated to 'unpatriotic heresy'. The Gallipoli, or ANZAC myth is actually an extension of the Bush Legend - a largely manufactured mythology created by the likes of Patterson and Lawson to promote federation. The same themes of mateship and egalitarianism spill over, and like the Bush Legend was basically propaganda for a political agenda. Interesting also that the ANZAC myth became largely dormant in the decades after the war, and really only revived as a central part of our national ethos from about the 1980s. Probably in conjunction with the rise of republicanism.

Mix Gallipoli and beer and you have a powerful mix of dogma. The proletariat get tanked up, tired and emotional. Imagine what would happen if an actual military victory was being celebrated.

Does Australia have any military victories to celebrate?

Gallipoli was a military failure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign


Quote:

Russia's allies Britain and France launched a naval attack followed by an amphibious landing on the peninsula with the eventual aim of capturing the Ottoman capital of Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul).[7] The naval attack was repelled and, after eight months' fighting, with many casualties on both sides, the land campaign also failed and the invasion force was withdrawn to Egypt. The campaign was one of the greatest Ottoman victories during the war and a major Allied failure. In Turkey, it is regarded as a defining moment in the nation's history: a final surge in the defence of the motherland as the Ottoman Empire crumbled. The struggle formed the basis for the Turkish War of Independence and the declaration of the Republic of Turkey eight years later under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who first rose to prominence as a commander at Gallipoli. The campaign is often considered as marking the birth of national consciousness in Australia and New Zealand and the date of the landing, 25 April, is known as "Anzac Day" which is the most significant commemoration of military casualties and veterans in those two countries, surpassing Remembrance Day (Armistice Day).

Svengali wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 11:30am:

Does Australia have any military victories to celebrate?

You raise an interesting point. In my school history classes I learned that:

- the ANZACs would have marched into Constantinople if it wasn't for the inept British
- Australian diggers single handedly turned the tide of the entire war at Villers-Brettoneux
- The final victory of the allies in WWI was all due to a single General - Australia's Sir John Monash
- Aussie diggers turned the tide of WWII in Europe by halting Rommel's advance at Tobruk
- Australians single handedly turned the tide of the war in the pacific on the Kokoda trail

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 11:40am:

Svengali wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 11:30am: Does Australia have any military victories to celebrate? You raise an interesting point. In my school history classes I learned that: - the ANZACs would have marched into Constantinople if it wasn't for the inept British - Australian diggers single handedly turned the tide of the entire war at Villers-Brettoneux - The final victory of the allies in WWI was all due to a single General - Australia's Sir John Monash - Aussie diggers turned the tide of WWII in Europe by halting Rommel's advance at Tobruk - Australians single handedly turned the tide of the war in the pacific on the Kokoda trail

Its unfair that Australia is not the leader of the free world after those successes.

We wuz robbed.

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 6:51am:

Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 19th, 2015 at 8:22pm: For me it's a reminder to never fight under the British again. Landing our men in front of a series of crumbling cliffs and valleys was just stupid. You forgot to read the footnote in the history books. It was an Australian captain who misread the coastal map who then tragically dropped anchor in the wrong spot and caused the subsequent debacle under those towering cliffs. Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 19th, 2015 at 8:22pm: Stupid British plans during WW1 and Singapore during WW2 killed a lot of good men. I suppose to many people it was our first instance of standing on our own 2 feet as a nation. Nobody believed the Japs would take the hard route by coming down through the jungle tracks of the Malay peninsula. Same with Port Moresby - nobody dreamed the Japs would choose to take it by coming down through the hellish terrain of the Owen Stanley ranges. Churchill got it wrong with Singapore ... and Australia's Thomas Blamey followed suit by getting it wrong with the defence of Port Moresby. They both thought the Japs would invade by sea. Glass houses ... And then at Gona on the northern end of the Kokoda track to the Papuan coastal region - Australia's Top Brass back at Port Moresby and Brisbane were ordering their junior officers in the field to order their men to make suicidal charges on open ground against Japanese machine gun positions - with huge loss of life.

My problem with Singapore was that the British Army failed to supply adequate air cover. That's the reason they got smashed. They failed in that crucial judgement.

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 6:23am:

Incredibly, War Criminals like Thomas Blamey even refused to give these jungle-fighting troops camouflaged uniforms of green, but made them wear the khaki of desert warfare.

... giving the Nippon Imperial Army the upper hand

http://g03.s.alicdn.com/kf/HT1L1fCFTtdXXagOFbXl/116894159/HT1L1fCFTtdXXagOFbXl.jpg

Svengali wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 11:40am: Svengali wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 11:30am: Does Australia have any military victories to celebrate? You raise an interesting point. In my school history classes I learned that: - the ANZACs would have marched into Constantinople if it wasn't for the inept British - Australian diggers single handedly turned the tide of the entire war at Villers-Brettoneux - The final victory of the allies in WWI was all due to a single General - Australia's Sir John Monash - Aussie diggers turned the tide of WWII in Europe by halting Rommel's advance at Tobruk - Australians single handedly turned the tide of the war in the pacific on the Kokoda trail Its unfair that Australia is not the leader of the free world after those successes. We wuz robbed.

Quote:

Myth: Bumbling British to blame for failed landing Another myth is that British generals were to blame for the failure of the Gallipoli campaign. Wrong again, says Professor Stanley. "The first landing was opposed by only about 80 Turks, and the defenders were soon massively out-numbered, but the invaders failed to advance inland as they had been ordered," he says. He says the Australians' orders were to push on and capture a hill called Maltepe, seven kilometres inland. But the Australian brigadiers got nervous and told their men to dig in on the second ridge, and that's where they stayed for the rest of the eight-month campaign. Professor Stanley says Australians wanted to blame somebody else for a failure that was basically a failure of Australian command

Quote:

Myth: The Anzacs landed in the wrong place According to military historians including Professor Peter Stanley of the University of NSW, one of the most persistent myths about the Anzac landing at Gallipoli is that the troops came ashore at the wrong spot. Professor Stanley says the journalist and historian Charles Bean helped generate this myth by quoting a naval officer, Commander Dix, as saying, "the damn fools have landed us in the wrong place!" Professor Stanley says this is "not correct". "For decades people have tried to explain the failure at Gallipoli by blaming it on the Royal Navy, but the Royal Navy did land the troops in approximately the right spot. It was what happened after the landing where things went wrong," he says. The head of military history at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra, Ashley Ekins, agrees. "It's a common misconception," he says. "In fact, the Anzacs landed pretty well right in the centre of the originally selected landing zone

Quote:

Myth: The Anzacs were bushmen and natural athletic soldiers Historian Joan Beaumont from the Australian National University says the reality was that the Anzacs were "not really a race of athletes as they were sometimes called". Professor Beaumont says that although official war correspondent Charles Bean described them as being considerably fitter and taller than the men from the British working classes, in fact some of the physical standards weren't high by modern standards

Myth: Simpson and his donkey

Professor Stanley, author of the book Simpson's Donkey, says the Simpson story is a very confused one. For one thing, he says, it's probable there was more than one donkey.

Mr Ekins adds that most Australians probably don't realise Simpson was an Englishman who joined up in Australia in an effort to get back home

He says contrary to the popular belief, Simpson may not have saved any lives.

"He did very brave work, he went into the gullies, he rescued men who were wounded, but mostly men with leg wounds," Mr Ekins says. "He may not have actually saved a single soldier who was going to die[/quote]


Read in full here:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-25/five-anzac-myths-put-to-the-test/5393750iiiiiiiii

PZ547 wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 1:02pm:

Svengali wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 11:57am: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 11:40am: Svengali wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 11:30am: Does Australia have any military victories to celebrate? You raise an interesting point. In my school history classes I learned that: - the ANZACs would have marched into Constantinople if it wasn't for the inept British - Australian diggers single handedly turned the tide of the entire war at Villers-Brettoneux - The final victory of the allies in WWI was all due to a single General - Australia's Sir John Monash - Aussie diggers turned the tide of WWII in Europe by halting Rommel's advance at Tobruk - Australians single handedly turned the tide of the war in the pacific on the Kokoda trail Its unfair that Australia is not the leader of the free world after those successes. We wuz robbed. Quote: Myth: Bumbling British to blame for failed landing Another myth is that British generals were to blame for the failure of the Gallipoli campaign. Wrong again, says Professor Stanley. "The first landing was opposed by only about 80 Turks, and the defenders were soon massively out-numbered, but the invaders failed to advance inland as they had been ordered," he says. He says the Australians' orders were to push on and capture a hill called Maltepe, seven kilometres inland. But the Australian brigadiers got nervous and told their men to dig in on the second ridge, and that's where they stayed for the rest of the eight-month campaign. Professor Stanley says Australians wanted to blame somebody else for a failure that was basically a failure of Australian command [quote]Myth: The Anzacs landed in the wrong place According to military historians including Professor Peter Stanley of the University of NSW, one of the most persistent myths about the Anzac landing at Gallipoli is that the troops came ashore at the wrong spot. Professor Stanley says the journalist and historian Charles Bean helped generate this myth by quoting a naval officer, Commander Dix, as saying, "the damn fools have landed us in the wrong place!" Professor Stanley says this is "not correct". "For decades people have tried to explain the failure at Gallipoli by blaming it on the Royal Navy, but the Royal Navy did land the troops in approximately the right spot. It was what happened after the landing where things went wrong," he says. The head of military history at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra, Ashley Ekins, agrees. "It's a common misconception," he says. "In fact, the Anzacs landed pretty well right in the centre of the originally selected landing zone

Quote:

Myth: The Anzacs were bushmen and natural athletic soldiers Historian Joan Beaumont from the Australian National University says the reality was that the Anzacs were "not really a race of athletes as they were sometimes called". Professor Beaumont says that although official war correspondent Charles Bean described them as being considerably fitter and taller than the men from the British working classes, in fact some of the physical standards weren't high by modern standards

Myth: Simpson and his donkey

Professor Stanley, author of the book Simpson's Donkey, says the Simpson story is a very confused one. For one thing, he says, it's probable there was more than one donkey.

Mr Ekins adds that most Australians probably don't realise Simpson was an Englishman who joined up in Australia in an effort to get back home

He says contrary to the popular belief, Simpson may not have saved any lives.

"He did very brave work, he went into the gullies, he rescued men who were wounded, but mostly men with leg wounds," Mr Ekins says. "He may not have actually saved a single soldier who was going to die[/quote]


Read in full here:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-25/five-anzac-myths-put-to-the-test/5393750iiiiiiiii





[/quote]To get men back to medical help from the battlefield while dodging snipers deserves the myth around Simpson. 

.
.

Quote:

Professor Manning Clark, in his influential work A History of Australia, suggested a contrasting image of the innocent and honourable Anzac soldier. From a range of sources he provided evidence of the soldiers' bad behaviour. For example, he documented that, as recruits, some indulged in sex orgies with an 18-year-old girl at the Broadmeadows camp before being shipped to war.[21] Others confronted police in violent scuffles on the streets of Melbourne.[21] Clark also recorded that in Egypt some soldiers burned the belongings of local people, brawled, got drunk and rioted, and spent sufficient time in the local brothels for many of them to contract venereal disease.[21] Other scholars such as professor of politics at La Trobe University, Robert Manne, have also questioned the veracity of the Anzac legend, arguing that it is more accurate to describe the concept as a mythology.[3]

Quote:

According to Blair, the official war historian Charles Bean "advanced an idealised view of sacrifice to provide the nation with higher meaning and comfort as compensation for the death of its soldiers".[24] Bean wrote in his diary that the "rule of censorship forbids criticism", and that the war correspondent should avoid "needlessly distressing their families at home". Professor Verity Burgmann of the University of Melbourne argues that the prevailing picture of Anzac and later battles on the Western Front as the highest representation of national unity and shared sacrifice is a misrepresentation, because two conscription referenda were defeated in Australia, and many Australians were totally opposed to any participation in the war

Quote:

In 2008 an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald stated: But why should Australians now, 90 years later, be still so eager for some stereotypical reaffirmation of their character? Why the self-doubt? The danger in the transformation - as remembrance replaces memory, and nationalism replaces remembrance - is that the solemnity and the serious purpose of Anzac Day will be lost in an irrelevant search for some kind of essence of Australianness.[27] Similarly, historian Mark McKenna disputes the notion that the character traits that supposedly define the Anzac spirit are uniquely and demonstrably Australian, arguing that these virtues are in fact universal, being "found in Palestine and Iraq, in Darfur and East Timor, in Afghanistan and Zimbabwe."[28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzac_spirit

.
.


Quote:

In Australia, there was a great deal of pressure on young men, and their families, to enlist. Fierce debates over the issue of conscription raged, and a referendum was held on the issue in 1916. A pro-conscription poster produced in 1916 focuses on how Australia's contribution was perceived by other nations: " VOTE YES! Unless you want the world to think that Australians are a set of miserable cowards who are content to have their lives and liberties saved for them by the sacrifices of better men" Interestingly, the service records of men and women who were born in Australia state that they were 'British born'. At the time, the feeling was that one's duty was to serve the 'mother country'—a reality for most Australians whose parents or grandparents really were British born. Thousands of women journeyed to the battlefields to work officially as army nurses or with the Red Cross as members of the VAD (Voluntary Aid Detachment). Many more had no official role at all but worked setting up canteens to distribute food to soldiers travelling to and from the front and as ambulance drivers and volunteers in the casualty stations, assisting doctors and nurses. Leave was almost unknown except in special circumstances Some nurses and VADs were wounded from shrapnel. Australian Sister Rachel Pratt received the military medal for gallantry for staying at her post and continuing to work, despite being wounded. Others died young. Most women suffered from severe infections, especially to their hands, from the suppurating wounds they trended ... The women too caught the diseases of the trenches: typhus, dysentery, measles, mumps and influenza

http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/australians-on-the-western-front

.
.


Quote:

At least a quarter of the Australian volunteers were born in Great Britain and Ireland, Robert Rhodes James's estimate being 35 per cent. About 98 per cent of the rest were of British or Irish origin. The immigration rate from the United Kingdom was exceptionally high between 1910 and 1914. 'Simpson' - 'the man with the donkey' was John Simpson Kirkpatrick, a recent Geordie emigrant

Quote:

When Australian units were photographed in Egypt they usually chose themselves to wear the standard British pith helmet. Most Anzac units landing at Anzac Cove wore British-issue caps, but when after the war George Lambert was commissioned to paint that scene  he was instructed to show them with slouch hats.

(see photo)



Lots of information here:

http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-battles/ww1/anzac/gallipoli-facts.htm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 11:40am:

- The final victory of the allies in WWI was all due to a single General - Australia's Sir John Monash

Did you know Monash was a Jew ... ?

(I'm just testing your Islamic automatic reflexes).

Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 12:23pm:

My problem with Singapore was that the British Army failed to supply adequate air cover. That's the reason they got smashed. They failed in that crucial judgement.

I believe the planes were actually on their way to Singapore before they were then diverted to what was considered a more urgent engagement.

You probably know that Singapore's heavy guns were all set in concrete and facing out to sea.

Prime Minister John Curtin should be celebrated far more than he is. He was the only one in the Australian military and in politics who stood up to Churchill and demanded the return of Australian troops from the Middle East to defend the homeland against the Japs.

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 1:43pm:

Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 12:23pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 6:51am: Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 19th, 2015 at 8:22pm: For me it's a reminder to never fight under the British again. Landing our men in front of a series of crumbling cliffs and valleys was just stupid. You forgot to read the footnote in the history books. It was an Australian captain who misread the coastal map who then tragically dropped anchor in the wrong spot and caused the subsequent debacle under those towering cliffs. Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 19th, 2015 at 8:22pm: Stupid British plans during WW1 and Singapore during WW2 killed a lot of good men. I suppose to many people it was our first instance of standing on our own 2 feet as a nation. Nobody believed the Japs would take the hard route by coming down through the jungle tracks of the Malay peninsula. Same with Port Moresby - nobody dreamed the Japs would choose to take it by coming down through the hellish terrain of the Owen Stanley ranges. Churchill got it wrong with Singapore ... and Australia's Thomas Blamey followed suit by getting it wrong with the defence of Port Moresby. They both thought the Japs would invade by sea. Glass houses ... And then at Gona on the northern end of the Kokoda track to the Papuan coastal region - Australia's Top Brass back at Port Moresby and Brisbane were ordering their junior officers in the field to order their men to make suicidal charges on open ground against Japanese machine gun positions - with huge loss of life. My problem with Singapore was that the British Army failed to supply adequate air cover. That's the reason they got smashed. They failed in that crucial judgement. I believe the planes were actually on their way to Singapore before they were then diverted to what was considered a more urgent engagement. You probably know that Singapore's heavy guns were all set in concrete and facing out to sea.

I suppose they needed all their planes for the Battle Of Britain. Yeah, I know about the big guns. It whole thing was a debacle. Galipoli was a debacle too. Whoever planned those two should have been put in prison. I know Winston Churchill planned one of them. I never question the British fighting man but the private school generals  they used.

PZ547 wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 1:31pm:

Most Anzac units landing at Anzac Cove wore British-issue caps, but when after the war George Lambert was commissioned to paint that scene  he was instructed to show them with slouch hats.

;D ;D ;D

What do they say is the first casualty of war ... ?

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 1:50pm:

PZ547 wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 1:31pm: Most Anzac units landing at Anzac Cove wore British-issue caps, but when after the war George Lambert was commissioned to paint that scene  he was instructed to show them with slouch hats. ;D ;D ;D What do they say is the first casualty of war ... ?

What rubbish hey Herbert!! ;D ;D ;D ;D

Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 1:49pm:

I suppose they needed all their planes for the Battle Of Britain.

No. I'll check it up, but it might have been to Burma or Thailand.

Incidentally have a look at the death-by-accident rate of the pilots who trained for the RAF before the Battle of Britain. A staggering number died in training accidents.





Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 1:49pm:

Whoever planned those two should have been put in prison.

I like the idea of firing squads and People's Courts.



Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 1:49pm:

I know Winston Churchill planned one of them. I never question the British fighting man but the private school generals  they used.

They could buy their commissions ...

Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 1:51pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 1:50pm: PZ547 wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 1:31pm: Most Anzac units landing at Anzac Cove wore British-issue caps, but when after the war George Lambert was commissioned to paint that scene  he was instructed to show them with slouch hats. ;D ;D ;D What do they say is the first casualty of war ... ? What rubbish hey Herbert!! ;D ;D ;D ;D

Nice painting, but ......  ::)

Simpson-"He did very brave work, he went into the gullies, he rescued men who were wounded, but mostly men with leg wounds," Mr Ekins says. "He may not have actually saved a single soldier who was going to die [/quote]

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Why would they put a man on the back of a donkey with a serious wound??? He'd bleed out!!! Stretchers are meant to lie men down so they don't lose all their blood. What rubbish.

Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 1:59pm:

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Why would they put a man on the back of a donkey with a serious wound??? He'd bleed out!!! Stretchers are meant to lie men down so they don't lose all their blood. What rubbish.

You've got that wrong.

Hundreds of make-shift stretchers were used in the Kokoda campaign to carry the wounded to the rear of the combat zones. Just as with Gallipoli  - the terrain was all on a slope.

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 2:05pm:

Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 1:59pm: Simpson-"He did very brave work, he went into the gullies, he rescued men who were wounded, but mostly men with leg wounds," Mr Ekins says. "He may not have actually saved a single soldier who was going to die ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Why would they put a man on the back of a donkey with a serious wound??? He'd bleed out!!! Stretchers are meant to lie men down so they don't lose all their blood. What rubbish. You've got that wrong. Hundreds of make-shift stretchers were used in the Kokoda campaign to carry the wounded to the rear of the combat zones. Just as with Gallipoli  - the terrain was all on a slope.

Should the donkey's wound be teated first?

Australias self proclaimed greatest closet pom lip service warrior Herbert has spoken.

Svengali wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 2:17pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 2:05pm: Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 1:59pm: Simpson-"He did very brave work, he went into the gullies, he rescued men who were wounded, but mostly men with leg wounds," Mr Ekins says. "He may not have actually saved a single soldier who was going to die ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Why would they put a man on the back of a donkey with a serious wound??? He'd bleed out!!! Stretchers are meant to lie men down so they don't lose all their blood. What rubbish. You've got that wrong. Hundreds of make-shift stretchers were used in the Kokoda campaign to carry the wounded to the rear of the combat zones. Just as with Gallipoli  - the terrain was all on a slope. Should the donkey's wound be teated first? Australias self proclaimed greatest closet pom lip service warrior Herbert has spoken.

Small penis yellow man with an inferiority complex.

Once again a discussion is hijacked by Freediver and gandalf's sponsored idiots.

British historian questions why Australia places such significance on Gallipoli landing
Sir Hew Strachan said the Australian death toll on the Western Front was more significant than at Gallipoli.
PHOTO: Sir Hew Strachan said the Australian death toll on the Western Front was more significant than at Gallipoli.
A leading British military historian has questioned why Australia places such significance on the landing at Gallipoli when the nation suffered worse loss of life on other World War I battlefields.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-19/british-historian-questions-why-australia-focuses-on-gallipoli/6331192



I would question why any Australian would give a flying fat rats what some pommie historian has to say about our history and how we choose to commemorate it.

Friggen civilians sitting back and passing judgement on those who serve, are friggen waste of oxygen and food.

None of your business, so sit in the safety of your home and keep quiet.

Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 1:59pm:

Simpson-"He did very brave work, he went into the gullies, he rescued men who were wounded, but mostly men with leg wounds," Mr Ekins says. "He may not have actually saved a single soldier who was going to die

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Why would they put a man on the back of a donkey with a serious wound??? He'd bleed out!!! Stretchers are meant to lie men down so they don't lose all their blood. What rubbish.[/quote]

It's a little difficult for one man to carry a stretcher, across the sort of terrain around Gallipoli cove.

Noneofyourbusiness wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 6:12pm:

British historian questions why Australia places such significance on Gallipoli landing Sir Hew Strachan said the Australian death toll on the Western Front was more significant than at Gallipoli. PHOTO: Sir Hew Strachan said the Australian death toll on the Western Front was more significant than at Gallipoli. A leading British military historian has questioned why Australia places such significance on the landing at Gallipoli when the nation suffered worse loss of life on other World War I battlefields. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-19/british-historian-questions-why-australia-focuses-on-gallipoli/6331192 I would question why any Australian would give a flying fat rats what some pommie historian has to say about our history and how we choose to commemorate it. Friggen civilians sitting back and passing judgement on those who serve, are friggen waste of oxygen and food. None of your business, so sit in the safety of your home and keep quiet.

Fiction beats fact for propaganda purposes.

Noneofyourbusiness wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 6:12pm:

I would question why any Australian would give a flying fat rats what some pommie historian has to say about our history and how we choose to commemorate it. Friggen civilians sitting back and passing judgement on those who serve, are friggen waste of oxygen and food. None of your business, so sit in the safety of your home and keep quiet.

Wrong.

Every critique from whatever source is worth evaluating for what truths and insights it might contain.

Leave the book-burning to Hitler.

Most Australians are 'British' anyway. Just check out the surnames.

Svengali wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 6:36pm:

Fiction beats fact for propaganda purposes.

Do a little research, Sunshine, Google doesn't bite.

The Australian soldier is highly regarded, often referred to as some of the best shock-troops in the world - that is, the ordinary regular soldier.

" ... During Third Ypres lieutenant P. King of the 2/5th Btn. East Lancashire Regiment, was stuck with a small left-over of his company in the mud near Poelcapelle. The men were exhausted, had been under constant fire for two days and desperate for relieve. But no one seemed even to know that they were there.

LT. King already began to wonder whether his company had been secretly chosen to be a suicide force. King:

    "Suddenly, to my great surprise, I heard voices behind me and I looked back and there were three very tall figures, and one was actually smoking. I could hardly speak for astonishment. I said, 'Who the hell are you? And put that cigarette out, you'll draw fire!' He just looked back at me. 'Well, come to that, who are you?' I said, 'I'm lieutenant King of the 2/5th East Lancashire Regiment.' At which he said: 'Well, we're the Aussies, chum, and we've come to relieve you.' And they jumped down into the shell-hole.

    Well, naturally, we were delighted, but of course there are certain formalities you've always got to carry out when you hand over, and I was a bit worried about that. So I explained, 'There are no trenches to hand over, no rations, no ammunition, but I have got a map. Do you need any map references?' He said, 'Never mind about that, chum. Just bugger off.'

    They didn't seem to be a bit bothered. The last I saw of them they were squatting down, rifles over their shoulders, and they were smoking, all three of them. Just didn't care! ...." http://www.greatwar.nl/frames/default-australians.html

And:

" ... In relation to matters technology and skill levels, the U.S. views many of its allies as being somewhat backward, the exception being the U.K thus for Australia, the Afghanistan operation, known as Anaconda provided an opportunity to demonstrate the effectiveness of its own special forces, which were up to worlds best practice, highest state of readiness, in possession of there own equipment and superbly trained. Anaconda proved just how enormously capable the Australian SAS is, and represented another defining moment in the history of the U.S. – Australia alliance; in that single operation the SAS saved the U.S. a significant loss of troops. Former U.S. Secretary of State and Special Forces officer himself, Richard Armitage and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, also a decorated former soldier noted that the regiment is as good as any such formations the world, said Armitage,

    “The Australian SAS are poo-hot and our people love to work with them. ... ” http://americasinterests.blogspot.com.au/2008/02/australian-special-air-service-regiment.html


Facts beat opinions when push comes to shove.

8-)

PZ547 wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 1:11pm:

. . [quote]Professor Manning Clark, in his influential work A History of Australia, suggested a contrasting image of the innocent and honourable Anzac soldier. From a range of sources he provided evidence of the soldiers' bad behaviour. For example, he documented that, as recruits, some indulged in sex orgies with an 18-year-old girl at the Broadmeadows camp before being shipped to war.[21] Others confronted police in violent scuffles on the streets of Melbourne.[21] Clark also recorded that in Egypt some soldiers burned the belongings of local people, brawled, got drunk and rioted, and spent sufficient time in the local brothels for many of them to contract venereal disease.[21] Other scholars such as professor of politics at La Trobe University, Robert Manne, have also questioned the veracity of the Anzac legend, arguing that it is more accurate to describe the concept as a mythology.[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzac_spirit

"Historians" like Manning and Manne are leftists. Therefore, their primary interest is to paint Australians in the worst light possible.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 6:33pm:

Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 1:59pm: Simpson-"He did very brave work, he went into the gullies, he rescued men who were wounded, but mostly men with leg wounds," Mr Ekins says. "He may not have actually saved a single soldier who was going to die ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Why would they put a man on the back of a donkey with a serious wound??? He'd bleed out!!! Stretchers are meant to lie men down so they don't lose all their blood. What rubbish.

It's a little difficult for one man to carry a stretcher, across the sort of terrain around Gallipoli cove. [/quote]A British historian stated that Simpson only took leg wounds and probably didn't save anybody. My argument is that a man jerking about on the back of a donkey would be bad for a person with a serious wound. If it is true that Simpson took lighter wounds then that might be the reason why.

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 6:56pm:

Noneofyourbusiness wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 6:12pm: I would question why any Australian would give a flying fat rats what some pommie historian has to say about our history and how we choose to commemorate it. Friggen civilians sitting back and passing judgement on those who serve, are friggen waste of oxygen and food. None of your business, so sit in the safety of your home and keep quiet. Wrong. Every critique from whatever source is worth evaluating for what truths and insights it might contain. Leave the book-burning to Hitler. Most Australians are 'British' anyway. Just check out the surnames.

Horse sh1t is horse sh1t no matter how you try to dress it up

Yeah I get it, you hate poms, unless they support your personal views of course

Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 7:14pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 6:33pm: Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 1:59pm: Simpson-"He did very brave work, he went into the gullies, he rescued men who were wounded, but mostly men with leg wounds," Mr Ekins says. "He may not have actually saved a single soldier who was going to die ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Why would they put a man on the back of a donkey with a serious wound??? He'd bleed out!!! Stretchers are meant to lie men down so they don't lose all their blood. What rubbish. It's a little difficult for one man to carry a stretcher, across the sort of terrain around Gallipoli cove.

A British historian stated that Simpson only took leg wounds and probably didn't save anybody. My argument is that a man jerking about on the back of a donkey would be bad for a person with a serious wound. If it is true that Simpson took lighter wounds then that might be the reason why.
[/quote]

Lying on the ground, waiting for the enemy to kill him (or take him prisoner) wouldn't have been the wounded soldiers preference though..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 7:26pm:

Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 7:14pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 6:33pm: Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 1:59pm: Simpson-"He did very brave work, he went into the gullies, he rescued men who were wounded, but mostly men with leg wounds," Mr Ekins says. "He may not have actually saved a single soldier who was going to die ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Why would they put a man on the back of a donkey with a serious wound??? He'd bleed out!!! Stretchers are meant to lie men down so they don't lose all their blood. What rubbish. It's a little difficult for one man to carry a stretcher, across the sort of terrain around Gallipoli cove. A British historian stated that Simpson only took leg wounds and probably didn't save anybody. My argument is that a man jerking about on the back of a donkey would be bad for a person with a serious wound. If it is true that Simpson took lighter wounds then that might be the reason why.

Lying on the ground, waiting for the enemy to kill him (or take him prisoner) wouldn't have been the wounded soldiers preference though..[/quote]I'm just trying to make sense of that douchebag English historians view of Simpson. I've only read small pieces on him so I'm not sure if this historian is correct. The ones they couldn't get to were in no mans land. The others were either stretchered or donkeyed or carried out by man. I believe Simpson took heavily wounded men.

Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 7:30pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 7:26pm: Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 7:14pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 6:33pm: Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 1:59pm: Simpson-"He did very brave work, he went into the gullies, he rescued men who were wounded, but mostly men with leg wounds," Mr Ekins says. "He may not have actually saved a single soldier who was going to die ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Why would they put a man on the back of a donkey with a serious wound??? He'd bleed out!!! Stretchers are meant to lie men down so they don't lose all their blood. What rubbish. It's a little difficult for one man to carry a stretcher, across the sort of terrain around Gallipoli cove. A British historian stated that Simpson only took leg wounds and probably didn't save anybody. My argument is that a man jerking about on the back of a donkey would be bad for a person with a serious wound. If it is true that Simpson took lighter wounds then that might be the reason why. Lying on the ground, waiting for the enemy to kill him (or take him prisoner) wouldn't have been the wounded soldiers preference though..

I'm just trying to make sense of that douchebag English historians view of Simpson. I've only read small pieces on him so I'm not sure if this historian is correct. The ones they couldn't get to were in no mans land. The others were either stretchered or donkeyed or carried out by man. I believe Simpson took heavily wounded men.
[/quote]

From what I've read, I agree with you. According to the contemporary histories and reports, he did bring in some seriously wounded men.

That was one of the reasons he became famous.....going into no-man's land and bringing out wounded men that no-one else would go after.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 7:35pm:

Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 7:30pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 7:26pm: Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 7:14pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 6:33pm: Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 1:59pm: Simpson-"He did very brave work, he went into the gullies, he rescued men who were wounded, but mostly men with leg wounds," Mr Ekins says. "He may not have actually saved a single soldier who was going to die ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Why would they put a man on the back of a donkey with a serious wound??? He'd bleed out!!! Stretchers are meant to lie men down so they don't lose all their blood. What rubbish. It's a little difficult for one man to carry a stretcher, across the sort of terrain around Gallipoli cove. A British historian stated that Simpson only took leg wounds and probably didn't save anybody. My argument is that a man jerking about on the back of a donkey would be bad for a person with a serious wound. If it is true that Simpson took lighter wounds then that might be the reason why. Lying on the ground, waiting for the enemy to kill him (or take him prisoner) wouldn't have been the wounded soldiers preference though.. I'm just trying to make sense of that douchebag English historians view of Simpson. I've only read small pieces on him so I'm not sure if this historian is correct. The ones they couldn't get to were in no mans land. The others were either stretchered or donkeyed or carried out by man. I believe Simpson took heavily wounded men.

From what I've read, I agree with you. According to the contemporary histories and reports, he did bring in some seriously wounded men.

That was one of the reasons he became famous.....going into no-man's land and bringing out wounded men that no-one else would go after.[/quote]He was a great man and his bravery killed him.

Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 7:36pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 7:35pm: Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 7:30pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 7:26pm: Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 7:14pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 6:33pm: Happy Lucky wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 1:59pm: Simpson-"He did very brave work, he went into the gullies, he rescued men who were wounded, but mostly men with leg wounds," Mr Ekins says. "He may not have actually saved a single soldier who was going to die ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Why would they put a man on the back of a donkey with a serious wound??? He'd bleed out!!! Stretchers are meant to lie men down so they don't lose all their blood. What rubbish. It's a little difficult for one man to carry a stretcher, across the sort of terrain around Gallipoli cove. A British historian stated that Simpson only took leg wounds and probably didn't save anybody. My argument is that a man jerking about on the back of a donkey would be bad for a person with a serious wound. If it is true that Simpson took lighter wounds then that might be the reason why. Lying on the ground, waiting for the enemy to kill him (or take him prisoner) wouldn't have been the wounded soldiers preference though.. I'm just trying to make sense of that douchebag English historians view of Simpson. I've only read small pieces on him so I'm not sure if this historian is correct. The ones they couldn't get to were in no mans land. The others were either stretchered or donkeyed or carried out by man. I believe Simpson took heavily wounded men. From what I've read, I agree with you. According to the contemporary histories and reports, he did bring in some seriously wounded men. That was one of the reasons he became famous.....going into no-man's land and bringing out wounded men that no-one else would go after.

He was a great man and his bravery killed him.
[/quote]

I wouldn't worry too much about the opinions of UK historians, Simpson was, after all technically a deserter from the British Merchant Navy..

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 7:11pm:

"Historians" like Manning and Manne are leftists. Therefore, their primary interest is to paint Australians in the worst light possible.

Correct.

They are the academic version of traitors to their country - not because they may tell uncomfortable truths, but because they deliberately make omissions and indulge in 'journalistic licence' in order to present Australians in the worse possible light.

Keith Windschuttle is probably Australia's most reliable historian if one is looking for an unbiassed view.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 7:35pm:

That was one of the reasons he became famous.....going into no-man's land and bringing out wounded men that no-one else would go after.

Precisely.

Like Dr Charlie Teo being willing to do brain surgeries that no other neurosurgeon dare attempt.   :)

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 8:08pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 20th, 2015 at 7:11pm: "Historians" like Manning and Manne are leftists. Therefore, their primary interest is to paint Australians in the worst light possible. Correct. They are the academic version of traitors to their country - not because they may tell uncomfortable truths, but because they deliberately make omissions and indulge in 'journalistic licence' in order to present Australians in the worse possible light. Keith Windschuttle is probably Australia's most reliable historian if one is looking for an unbiassed view.

Windshuttle is good. I remember reading the transcript of an academic conference he was at with a bunch of lefty "historians". He questioned them on the validity of their claim that thousands of Aborigines were massacred in one particularly conflict (I forget which one). He traced the footnotes provided by the lefties and they revealed that only about 6 Aboriginal deaths could be verified. When confronted with this, the lefty "historians" claimed something to the effect that at one point there were thousands of Aborigines that occupied that area. Now they can't be found. So, instead of being cautious about making such claims, as an academic should, the lefty made the jump that they were all killed.

I'll have to find that transcript. It was very interesting to see someone give it to the lefty monopoly in academia.

No one cares what them fine folks from the Wilds of Neo Soweto think about our fine country friends.

They are wallowing in the bad decisions they made in the WWI and WWII and we were busy with the fine folks from Dixie and Yankeeland saving their sorry asses - and Comrade Stalin's too - and frankly, the historian should have taken a lesson from this man. There's a whole thread on this somewhere but I ain't finding it. I did keep the video and such in my bookmarks though.

Here it is friends

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUHIZQLMo-0


All I know is that the them folks from the Wilds of Neo Soweto need to rename their historical books and movies and such "Saving Comrade Stalin", because their wars with Germany and such about who had the bigger Hee Haw gave rise to Communism after WWI and let it flourish friends.

And it makes me sad.

All I know is that no one in this fine country cares what some pasty buck toothed man from the wilds of Neo Soweto thinks. They should be thankful we helped save their sorry asses. They sure is good at picking fights with much stronger countries and such and then running away like little girls. Dunquerqe comes to mind friends.

Well, they gots to live with the results now. All them dead men mean they had to import the fine folks from the Wilds of the Middle East and such, and nows they gots thmemselves the biggest Neo Soweto in the world.

Bigger than Soweto isself!

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 20^th, 2015 at 10:22pm:

Windshuttle is good.

Yes indeed.

Interestingly Windschuttle was himself once a card-carrying Leftie with a keenness for wagging the finger at the British for their early years in the colony.

But then he one day heard an eminent 'historian' stating during an interview that where there are gaps and inconclusive evidence in the early history of the European settlement of Australia it was the job of historians to 'fill those gaps' with what they think might be the most plausible 'narrative' to insert into those gaps of documented history.

That was Windschuttle's epiphany moment that had him abandon the Leftwing history viewpoint and concentrate exclusively on documentary evidence. 

He was then declared an outcast by the history fraternity of hand-wringers, pillow-biters, latte-sippers, chardonnay socialists, transvestites, and butt-buddies. He was sent to Coventry for no longer wishing to contribute to the culture of Brit- and Aussie-bashing.

   

You de man Billy Jack.

You is like a Voice in the Wilderness - but some of us is listenin'. Yessir.