Aussies Too Afraid in WW2..says UK historian

[Calanen]

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2007/12/01/1196530454561.html?s_rid=smh:top5

Diggers 'afraid to attack enemy'
Frank Walker | December 2, 2007


Australia's war veterans are furious at claims by noted English historian Sir
Max Hastings that they were too scared to fight the Japanese in 1945.
Hastings accused Australian soldiers of disobeying orders to attack, saying many soldiers were "embittered" and even on the edge of open mutiny.

He said regular volunteer troops felt bitter towards those who did not volunteer to serve and scorned conscript militia sent to New Guinea and Bougainville.

"The last year of the war proved the most inglorious of Australia's history as a fighting nation," he writes in the new book Nemesis - The Battle For Japan 1944-45.

Hastings appears to think not nearly enough Australians died fighting the Japanese.

He seems to belittle the 7384 Australians killed fighting in the Pacific War, by noting that this was fewer than the number of prisoners captured in Malaya and Singapore who died, and only slightly more than the number of US Marines killed on Iwo Jima.

He writes: "It seemed perverse that, having won so much honour far away in the Mediterranean, Australia's share of the Pacific War ended in rancour and anticlimax."

Hastings argues that Australian troops resented being sidelined by US commander Douglas MacArthur and being used only for irrelevant mop-up operations.

He argues that Australians believed the only reason for the pointless invasion of Borneo in July 1945 was to keep them away from America's final victory over Japan.

"Some 229 Australians died and 634 were wounded," Hastings writes.

"Once more it was impossible to believe anything worthwhile had been achieved and every man at Tarakan and Balikpapan knew it," Hastings writes.

Pacific War veterans reacted with fury yesterday.

The Reverend Roy Wotton, who buried 400 Australian troops during the Pacific War, was outraged.

"All those blokes died fighting the Japanese," the 94-year-old said. "How dare this Pom say they didn't fight. If they could talk today they would teach him a thing or two."

Joe Madeley, president of the Rats of Tobruk Association, who also fought in Borneo, was disgusted.

"It is an insult to all the blokes who served in the Pacific," Mr Madeley said.

"I lost good mates there. Who is this Sir Max who sits in England writing this stuff? He should talk to the blokes who were there."
RSL chief Bill Crews said Hastings's book was "offensive". "Veterans are maligned in this depiction of events in the Pacific," Mr Crews said.

"Australians did feel sidelined by the American command, but his claims about the fighting spirit and morale of the diggers is a sweeping assertion that we find quite offensive. There were many acts of extreme bravery and many diggers were exhausted after years of protecting Britain."
Australian War Memorial historian Dr Karl James said Hastings had overstated frustrations in the Australian army.

"There were some who were exhausted after years of fighting, but there was nothing like Hastings is suggesting. The veterans have reason to feel aggrieved."

Hastings could not be reached for comment. A former editor in chief of London's The Daily Telegraph, he has written 20 books, mostly about World War II.

[Calanen]

I spent a lot of time as a younger fella talking to my grandad and the guys in his unit, who spent all of their time in either New Guinea, Borneo or Timor. I never heard anything like this from them. They didn't like Macarthur particularly, and had rivalry with the Americans. And towards the end they were exhausted and glad it was over. But they knew that they had to fight tooth and nail, otherwise the Japanese would have been in Australia.

This sort of revisionist stuff giving Australia a kick, is not only historically incorrect, but morally wrong.

[goat89]

BULL****. I am from Singapore and I know damn well how hard these Diggers fought from the retreat back to S'pore after Malaya was lost. Without them, there wouldn't be a firm British presence with good jungle training and experience in South East Asia.

[gaijinsamurai]

I know Hastings is a respected author and historian, and I've read a couple of his books, but in this case, he is full of sh*t. It is a well known fact that Australian troops fought bravely, especially in New Guinea. They have a right to be angry.

[Opening Batsman]

He might be correct in saying that MacArthur was disliked by many Australians, and for good reason (wasting lives, stealing credit etc), but as far as I'm concerned he can get ****ed. Is he basing his statements on the number of KIA? That is a piss poor method - I hope he considered the type of operations we were used for, the number of soldiers involved, and most importantly, their effectiveness. A lot of the troops in question were already proven heroes from North Africa.

[Ordie]

If anything the Fall of Singapore is a classic case study of an archaic chain of command and lack of any intelligence on part of British.

Overall, the Brits and the Commonwealth were at the war much longer than the Americans. By the time of Normandy, Monty and the British Army were battle tested and much more cautious than the Americans. That I could understand.

However, given the Aussies back's aginst the wall and holding on to Port Morsby for such a long time without outside help, Hastings assumptions are proven wrong.

[Eztyga]

Pfft, who gives a rats what one Pommy historian thinks, there are plenty of others who have backed the Australian digger.

Probably just another disgruntled Pom cricket fan...

Ezy

[velvet-cream]

He said regular volunteer troops felt bitter towards those who did not volunteer to serve and scorned conscript militia sent to New Guinea and Bougainville.

??? I didn't know we had conscripts in WWII.

[Opening Batsman]

??? I didn't know we had conscripts in WWII.

http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/conscription/ww2.htm

Like it says, conscripts only had to fight in Australian territories. I think only a small percentage of conscripts had to fight, however.

[Nige]

from http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/homefront/conscription.html
In 1943 the issue of conscription arose. :
As in 1916 and 1917, the government had the power to conscript men for home service, but not for overseas combat. 'Home', however, included New Guinea, where Australia had a protectorate, and therefore conscripted troops could be and were sent to the war front where they were needed most.

I still think what Max Hastings has said is crap though. I'm a new Aussie (2006) from UK, I know what the Australians did and they have my sincere appreciation.

[Tiger75]

Damn Pom's

[bersaglieri]

Hastings loves to revise history and put his own spin on it. He's an idiot , we should sentence him to transportation!

[Scotus]

Diggers 'afraid to attack enemy'
...
Hastings could not be reached for comment.So I wonder who it is who is really afraid! Typical of the likes of Hastings - deliver grandiose, pompous, wildly incorrect declarations and hide away.

I am personally insulted by Hasting's ridiculous suggestion. Having served with Australians in the British Army, I would be delighted to introduce some of them to Max - but I think he might be too afraid to have his trademark oversized glasses broken.

[T3ngu]

If anything the Fall of Singapore is a classic case study of an archaic chain of command and lack of any intelligence on part of British.

Overall, the Brits and the Commonwealth were at the war much longer than the Americans. By the time of Normandy, Monty and the British Army were battle tested and much more cautious than the Americans. That I could understand.

However, given the Aussies back's aginst the wall and holding on to Port Morsby for such a long time without outside help, Hastings assumptions are proven wrong.

Ordie has said what I was going to say. Singapore is a great piece of mirror work, this "author" should look in the mirror before thinking about pointing the finger at others.

Yes, towards the end of the war, the invasion of places such as Tarakan was seen as a waste as the Japanese could in effect be left there (ala Truk by McArthur). Can't blame hesitation in these circumstances, yet the Aussies went.

However, saying diggers were afraid to attack is utter nonsense. Have a look at what they did in the Gona/Buna/Sanananda campaign where they attacked (as ordered) without sufficient recon, knowing they were going up against fixed positions.

That is heroism IMHO.

[velvet-cream]

ignore:

1234567890

[EsoognomEhT]

Pfft, who gives a rats what one Pommy historian thinks, there are plenty of others who have backed the Australian digger.

Probably just another disgruntled Pom cricket fan...

Ezy

No, this is Max Hastings.
But I do wonder what he hopes to gain from this?!

[Eoin666]

Calm down our Ozzie brothers :hug:, it's not the first time good old Max has come out with something like this, and I think it may have been taken out of context. In his previous book Armageddon, he makes the same assumptions about the British/Canadian and US forces post-D-day to Berlin. Basically what he was reasoning was coming from free democratic countries with volunteer and conscripted armies the soldiers in 1945, with the end in sight, and no longer defending their homelands, the troops maybe didn't fight with the same "fanatisism", take the same risks as their German or the Red Army counterparts, where the fighting was always much more bitter, and the consequences more severe.

Relax, we in the UK all know what the ANZACs accomplished in both world wars and beyond, and gave for us half a world away.....don't rise to any media flames...leave that for cricket and rugby :)

[HollywoodMarine]

He might be correct in saying that MacArthur was disliked by many Australians...
Hell, even the US Navy and Marines disliked MacArthur.

But I do wonder what he hopes to gain from this?!
Book sales!

[oldsoak]

Damn Pom's

Oi - do you mind fella ? :-) Lots of us in the old country are damn glad of Aussie help - dont tar us with the same brush just because old Max is a bit gouty about the Pacific campaign.

I'm not sure what more could be expected of Australia given the numbers of male population availiable for war in what was a largely agrarian society. Theres a limit to the manpower she could provide and equip, plus WW1 had a negative impact on the idea of having your own troops running with someone elses master plan. :roll:

[Ed the bumbling fool]

I think in reflection you will be able to find many cases in a lot of armies about people questioning orders and not wanting to fight in some situations.
So what I'd probably do the same if presented with a pointless task near the end of a long war. In reality the people who say it didn't happen are kidding themselves. Don't take it personally and it's not an insult to those who died just an expression of the free speech they all fought to defend.
Also if you've never been under-fire or faced with such choices do not swagger around saying you'd have won a VC by 9 am on monday mourning since in reality you'd have shat yourself and hoped somebody else would do the job.
At the end of the day you don't have to believe mr Hastings but at least have think about it first.

[TheKiwi]

I too have read elsewhere that the last battles of the Pacific War down in the East Indies were not fought enthusiastically. That there was a sense that the war was coming to a close and that there was little point in being the last man to die in a war that was almost over. My comments (unlike Max's) are not a poke at the Diggers, I understand that this sentiment was to be found on any front as the war drew to a close.

[HrvatskaZoijak]

That's pretty disgusting thing to say, what a stupid ass.

[Eztyga]

I'm not sure what more could be expected of Australia given the numbers of male population availiable for war in what was a largely agrarian society. Theres a limit to the manpower she could provide and equip, plus WW1 had a negative impact on the idea of having your own troops running with someone elses master plan. :roll:

Exactly, we lost 60 000 troops in WW1, from as population of 4 million this was a huge loss.

In any case, most of the veterans I know (or knew), were keen to fight the Japanese if for no other reason than to protect Australia.

BTW, there was resentment from the regulars toward the conscripts, mainly due to the fact they were credited with defeating the Japs at Milne Bay. It was the 18th Brigade, and more specifically, the 2/12th Battalion that blunted the attack, despite being engaged by a CMF unit that thought they were the enemy!

Ezy

[TheKiwi]

Exactly, we lost 60 000 troops in WW1, from as population of 4 million this was a huge loss.

In any case, most of the veterans I know (or knew), were keen to fight the Japanese if for no other reason than to protect Australia.

BTW, there was resentment from the regulars toward the conscripts, mainly due to the fact they were credited with defeating the Japs at Milne Bay. It was the 18th Brigade, and more specifically, the 2/12th Battalion that blunted the attack, despite being engaged by a CMF unit that thought they were the enemy!

Ezy

I seem to recall that the conscripts were called Chocko's as "they melt in the tropics".

[Tiger75]

Oi - do you mind fella ? :-) Lots of us in the old country are damn glad of Aussie help - dont tar us with the same brush just because old Max is a bit gouty about the Pacific campaign.

I'm not sure what more could be expected of Australia given the numbers of male population availiable for war in what was a largely agrarian society. Theres a limit to the manpower she could provide and equip, plus WW1 had a negative impact on the idea of having your own troops running with someone elses master plan. :roll:


Just not aussie to say otherwise.....p-)

[Eztyga]

I seem to recall that the conscripts were called Chocko's as "they melt in the tropics".

Yes, it was short for 'chocolate soldier'. It was not possible to join the AIF until you were 20 years old but you could be conscripted at age 18. This led to much of the bitterness about the term "Chocko" with blokes that were labelled as 'not willing to fight in the AIF' but who could not legally join the AIF yet were in uniform, fighting, dying and getting wounded side by side with AIF blokes.

I take nothing away from their efforts in fighting the Japanese, they fought difficult actions in Kokoda and Milne Bay, but to say that they had defeated the enemy is hardly credible. They were poorly equipped, low on supplies and had few if any reserves. It was the combat veterans of North Africa that turned the tide ultimately, a combination of experiance, numbers and equipment. By the end of the Gona/Buna/Sanananda battles few original veterans would remain. Of the 2/12th, only 29 from the North African campaign remained.

Ezy

[Hunterhr]

What Hastings actually wrote...


He writes: "It seemed perverse that, having won so much honour far away in the Mediterranean, Australia's share of the Pacific War ended in rancour and anticlimax."

Hastings argues that Australian troops resented being sidelined by US commander Douglas MacArthur and being used only for irrelevant mop-up operations.

He argues that Australians believed the only reason for the pointless invasion of Borneo in July 1945 was to keep them away from America's final victory over Japan.

"Some 229 Australians died and 634 were wounded," Hastings writes. "Once more it was impossible to believe anything worthwhile had been achieved and every man at Tarakan and Balikpapan knew it," Hastings writes.Judge for yourself, but the title of the thread seems to be a bit sensationalist. I don't have a real dog in this fight, but he seems to be saying something more along the lines of 'Australian troops were misused' rather than they were 'too afraid'.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Yes, it was short for 'chocolate soldier'. It was not possible to join the AIF until you were 20 years old but you could be conscripted at age 18. This led to much of the bitterness about the term "Chocko" with blokes that were labelled as 'not willing to fight in the AIF' but who could not legally join the AIF yet were in uniform, fighting, dying and getting wounded side by side with AIF blokes.

I take nothing away from their efforts in fighting the Japanese, they fought difficult actions in Kokoda and Milne Bay, but to say that they had defeated the enemy is hardly credible. They were poorly equipped, low on supplies and had few if any reserves. It was the combat veterans of North Africa that turned the tide ultimately, a combination of experiance, numbers and equipment. By the end of the Gona/Buna/Sanananda battles few original veterans would remain. Of the 2/12th, only 29 from the North African campaign remained.

Ezy

Many of the 39th would beg to differ. Little known fact is that the 39th also launched a counter attack to retake Kokoda which they successfully did until due to problems of communication they did not receive the air reinforcements needed to hold the airfield.

Yes the attack was untimely a failure but how a few hundred, tired, hungry and battle worn chokos managed to outflank a few thousand Japanese without air and artillery support without the logistical support needed it quite astonishing.

It was also the soldiers of the AIF not the CMF that were on the receiving end of Blameys "Running Rabbit Incident"

Also at the Gona/Buna/Sananda beachhead when having the option to use a full American division Blamey sent in the 39th again who defeated the Japanese at Guna and took part at Sanananda with these words written to Curtin.


It has revealed the fact that the American troops cannot be classified as attack troops. They are definitely not equal to the Australian militia, and from the moment they met opposition sat down and have hardly gone forward a yard. Australian Archives; A 5954, Box 532

After this Macarthur brought in General Eichelberger who was told "Bob I want you to take Buna or don't come back alive"

Needless to say that Papua did show Australian's could fight and could fight extremely well across both the AIF and CMF. Yes some militia battalions did "melt away" most notably the 53rd who in all honesty considering how they were formed in Sydney the military authorities should of been court martialed. a lot of these guys were made up of vagrants, blokes living in the ghetto's of The Rocks, Kings Cross and so forth. The military police went out and just grabbed blokes off the street, gave em a uniform and guess what. Your in the army and your boat is leaving for New Guinea this afternoon.

[Eztyga]

Many of the 39th would beg to differ. Little known fact is that the 39th also launched a counter attack to retake Kokoda which they successfully did until due to problems of communication they did not receive the air reinforcements needed to hold the airfield.

Yes the attack was untimely a failure but how a few hundred, tired, hungry and battle worn chokos managed to outflank a few thousand Japanese without air and artillery support without the logistical support needed it quite astonishing.

It was also the soldiers of the AIF not the CMF that were on the receiving end of Blameys "Running Rabbit Incident"

Also at the Gona/Buna/Sananda beachhead when having the option to use a full American division Blamey sent in the 39th again who defeated the Japanese at Guna and took part at Sanananda with these words written to Curtin.

Australian Archives; A 5954, Box 532

After this Macarthur brought in General Eichelberger who was told "Bob I want you to take Buna or don't come back alive"

Needless to say that Papua did show Australian's could fight and could fight extremely well across both the AIF and CMF. Yes some militia battalions did "melt away" most notably the 53rd who in all honesty considering how they were formed in Sydney the military authorities should of been court martialed. a lot of these guys were made up of vagrants, blokes living in the ghetto's of The Rocks, Kings Cross and so forth. The military police went out and just grabbed blokes off the street, gave em a uniform and guess what. Your in the army and your boat is leaving for New Guinea this afternoon.

"a lamentable error had been made in sending to Port Moresby in 1941 and early 1942 not the best battalions in Australia, but some of the least ready. In July 1941 the Chief of General Staff had described the 49th Battalion, then the only one in Papua,'as quite the worst battalion in Australia'. The 53rd when it arrived in January had had only three months training."

Gavin Long "The Six Year War"

"...it is remarkable that the 39th Battalion (A.M.F.), the advance elements of which met the Japanese near Kokoda about July 26th should have done as well as it did...It is perhaps fortunate that during the next month the Japanese were not in a position to make a serious assault on the 39th Battalion's positions in the Owen Stanley Range.

In the fatal four days the Japanese mounted an attack against the positions held by the 39th and 53rd Battalions and they were in a serious predicament before the A.I.F. Battlions could come to their aid."

Chester Wilmot "Observations on the New Guinea Campaign August 26 - September 26 1942"

Of the airfield action (Number 3 Strip), these comments were made by an 18th Brigade member,'Oh yes, those militia boys did a steadfast job that night, but they were greatly aided by the American Engineers and Anti-aircraft units. Had those very deadly 0.5 calibre heavy machine guns with unlimited ammunition not been on hand, then it may have been a very different story.'

With regards to 2/12th, at Buna after the major action at Giropa plantation General R. Eichelberger surveyed the scene of the battle and exclaimed,"Nothing is too good for these men."

Ezy

[Chieftain Jake]

Problem being looking at the book, the chapter is titled "Australians: Loafers and Bludgers" (I think loafers, but definetly bludgers). This is very offensive. I also looked at the referencing and it does not include any discussion with the men actually there. It even references the Daily Telegraph a tabloid for crying out loud.

The Australians trained the very green American soldiers in Jungle Warfare before Macarther headed off on his merry way of glory, no disrespect to American soldiers, Australians are thankful.

See the film Kokoda for a really quick idea of the picture of the Australia in the Pacific. Outnumber 10 to 1 under supplied and manned, riddled with malaria and were the first to definitively defeat the Japs on land and in mountainous wet jungle. While the yanks were still getting their stuff together and consolidating after Pearl Harbour and Churchill essential surrendered Australia (hence the creation of the Brisbane line to defend from) and severly delayed the return of regular Australian troops from Europe and Middle East even after years across several wars of fighting for Englands survival. My grandparents were in North Australia at the time and said they were bombed around 64 times. There was more oridnance than pearl harbour dropped. The papers played this down in the southern states that were seen as reasons for moral. The fight particularily around PNG has been described as a knife fight from the stoneage which at times included canbolism.

Sir Max Hastings should either come to Australia in person and apologise to the veterans or give up his knighthood. I have all of a sudden seen the value in becoming a republic.

Rommel to Hitler: "Give me two divisions of Australian troops and I will conquer the world."

[Buckeye67]

Max Hastings can kiss my pasty white arse. More importantly, he can kiss the arse of every Digger that fought in WW2.

Also, there's quite a few of us here in the US that think that MacArthur was a wanker.

(Edit: No, this post wasn't particularly constructive. Nor was it intended to provide any unique or valuable insight into the discussion. In short, **** that guy.)

[Chieftain Jake]

Buckeye 67, I second that. It is important to get things right no matter where history comes from. History is only the agreement between people of what happened. My Grandfather also says that they were thankful that American forces were there, as Britain couldnt do much more. It actually changed the view of Australian allegiances.

The main point is the commonwealth countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa etc. etc. want recognition of their contribution from the very beginning of the wars, especially where a large proportion of media and movies etc. where people can perceive that the whole victory was due to the England and the US efforts alone. This also goes for Korea and Vietnam. My work collegue is a SAS veteran of Vietnam, they were know by the VietCong as Ghosts of the Jungle and had a $5000 US bounty on their heads from the VietCong, and moved in groups of 5. There is a movie Directed by Bruce Beresford to be released in 2008 based on the actual events of the Vietnam battle of Long Tan, 2500 Vietcong attack 105 Australian troops and 3 New Zealand troops.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I think another reason for the misconception on the part of the British is that historically speaking up until the end of ww2 Australian soldiers were a pretty indisciplined bunch. And this stigma has stuck.

There is also the situation of the army between the wars. Whilst the UK still had a professional army the Australian army only had a a couple of thousand regulars and was made up of part timers. Even Blamey had time to take on the job as Victorian Police Commissioner whilst being in the army part time. Let alone his reputation as being a womanizer, drunk and somebody who would stab you in the back at the first instance. Morsehead is another general who despite successfully holding Tobruk against Rommel was considered but untimely not offered the command of the British army in Africa and we all know who that went to.

Another factor is the lack of an Australian general who could foster good relations with the British and later on the Americans. As we all know having a officer who can wade through the political minefield of high command is paramount. In WW2 Australia lacked such a general. The death of General Sir Cyril Brudenell Bingham White, KCB, KCMG, KCVO, DSO in the Canberra air disaster did more damage to the Australian war effort then what is realised. This was a guy who at the expense of his own career stood up to the likes of Haig yet fostered the relations needed and ensured Australian interests were properly protected. Had he lived who knows what the AIF would of done post 43. Needless to say he would of done a better job then Blamey.

Then the final piece of the puzzle is the mistakes and actions of the Australian government by both governments (Menzies and Curtin) during the course of the war. It was due to Australia's insistence that the Battleship Prince of Wales, Battle Cruiser Repulse and further British reinforcements were sent to Singapore for example even though even then the likely hood of garrison holding out was remote at best. Churchill was furious. I could write a book on this part alone.

Needless to say all these factors do play a part. Stigma sticks. Reputations become tarnished. The sad part of all this is that Australian soldiers have once again being used as a scapegoat when this so called historian has failed to look into the facts as why.

If he was such a good historian he would of known all about what I have written surely?

[Doublethinker]

These editors/reporters/journalists suddenly turning into history experts.

I just love this crap. It seems that they think history is not science and history books should look like a Gone with the wind novel, without any scientific method of analysis or anything of the 'nerdy' kind.

[Eztyga]

Max Hastings can kiss my pasty white arse. More importantly, he can kiss the arse of every Digger that fought in WW2.

Also, there's quite a few of us here in the US that think that MacArthur was a wanker.

(Edit: No, this post wasn't particularly constructive. Nor was it intended to provide any unique or valuable insight into the discussion. In short, **** that guy.)

Well put...woot

[domokun]

Max Hastings can kiss my pasty white arse. More importantly, he can kiss the arse of every Digger that fought in WW2.

Also, there's quite a few of us here in the US that think that MacArthur was a wanker.

x2, but i'm not american. Somehow i think that MacArthur was willing to sacrifice troops to build his own cult of personality.

BTW shouldn't this thread be in history & tactics instead of politics.

[Calanen]

Had he lived who knows what the AIF would of done post 43. Needless to say he would of done a better job then Blamey.


So would've Bubbles the Chimp. My grandfather was full of loathing for Blamey, and remembers being told on parade something to the effect of 'Most of you men are going to die in battle. Cant be helped really. That's just the price we pay.' My grandad thought that was a stupid thing to tell everyone, even if it was true.

And then there was his famous 'It is the rabbit that runs that will get shot!'. Someone apparently shouted out in the ranks 'It will be you who gets shot mate!'.

[omis]

As i sit here and scrape the Max Hastings from my boots i wonder if i give a Max Hastings about what he says, he's just talking Max Hastings anyway. He should stop talking Max Hastings and stick to his job of bull Max Hastings

[Kaplanr]

x2, but i'm not american. Somehow i think that MacArthur was willing to sacrifice troops to build his own cult of personality.

BTW shouldn't this thread be in history & tactics instead of politics.

I agree with the Ozzies and other Commonwealth members on this, official British histories (and American) aren't as complimentary or detailed on non-British participation as they should be. In Israel at least those old enough to remember still have a great sense of respect, admiration and warm feelings for the ANZACs who came through the Palestine Mandate during the war.

On the MacArthur comment, see what you want about him - and he was an egotisitical horse's ass beyond doubt, after Bataan he fought a smart war, taking nowhere near the casualties the marines took. Mac had serious personality issues (I'm reading Halberstam's Coldest Winter now) and political ones, but some of that could have been allayed had the US general staff and / or the President shown the firmness that Truman finally had to.

[California Joe]

I've never heard a single thing said about the ANZACs from other soldiers that wasn't complimentary with regards to their fighting ability. My friend that was a SEAL in Vietnam worked with them quite a bit and was impressed by their skills. It's a shame when "historians" start interpreting with a broad brush or introduce personal issues into their writing.

[kongman]

As i sit here and scrape the Max Hastings from my boots i wonder if i give a Max Hastings about what he says, he's just talking Max Hastings anyway. He should stop talking Max Hastings and stick to his job of bull Max Hastings


well said my good man ............us aussie may be a band off missfits but we fight hard and we get the job done ..and max can stick that up his pipe and smoke it ...........

[oldsoak]

@minardiau

- the term "whingeing pom" may have had its origins when the AIF were billeted next to BEF forces. ( WW1 or maybe even earlier - Boer war ) The Aussies having a more relaxed attitude to discipline were always being ticked off by British officers - hence the expression that the Brits were always complaining.

The problem with a lot of events in WW1 & 2 from the British historians perspective is that Australia, NZ, Canada India etc were seen as part of Empire, mostly under British command and therefore "British". For instance - we all know that the Battle of Britain was won by the RAF - which happened to have Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis, Saffies - not to mention the Poles and French - swelling its ranks ! - and we talk about the RAF bombing campaign despite the prescence of the RAAF, RCAF AdA ( Free French ) etc.
I personally would like to see the term Empire forces - because that is that what was at the time - used more often than it is. We dont like the idea of the Empire being anything more than supressive nowadays, so we could use the term commonwealth.
Back to the point - the title is, if I may say so, sensationalist. The Aussies may not have had the best choice of pitch because they were nearly always the junior contributor in the vast scheme of things - but I dont think many complaints can be levelled at their efforts.

[Kant]

Revisionism on the part of a historian who didn't even serve there.
I don't mean to cast aspersions on his character or motives for writing his book, but he seems a dead set goose.Fair enough, that's life. But at the end of the day, if what he writes upsets you, just don't read the bloody thing.

[lightfire]

Wow, su much ranting and accusations for a one phrase, some nearly sound like megapatriotic turkish members. Chill ppl. I'm quite sure Sir Max Hastings did not mean, that aussies were all cowards and words taken out of context may sound sensational, but do not take that so personal.

[Eztyga]

But at the end of the day, if what he writes upsets you, just don't read the bloody thing.

Don't worry, I for one won't be buying this book. Up yours Max, ummm, whoever... p-)

Ezy

[Indiana Jones]

By Jove.:-(
I have not yet read the book in question, but given Mr. Hastings other publications, there is good reason to consider the quality of Mr. Hastings scholarship shaky- at best. It must be mentioned in his defence, however, that he does not write for an academic audience. That said, a couple of points:
Firstly, what I find irritating is the inflationary and unreflected use of the word "revisionism". The word seems to have acquired a pejorative connotation in public discourse that betrays a misunderstanding of a historians core business- which is, according to Rankes dictum, to wipe oneself from the equation and establish the actual course of events. This means in consequence to constantly challenge our knowledge of any given historical topic.
Of course, such activity, if it bears controversial fruits, will always result in friction to what I will call, for the sake of the argument, the official narrative(- I do not use "official" in reference to any governmental authority- but to designate the version of events that is passed on and accepted by the mainstream of society), as in many cases, the official narrative (which may be accurate, or a myth) is in many ways constitutive for particular institutions, may have considerable sociocultural significance, offer a convenient boogeyman, or may even make up the very fabric of society. This is, as evidenced on this very forum, particularly ****ounced in military matters, (and especially questions of military performance) where tempers are easily aroused and where many perceive pride to be at stake. If such dearly held misconceptions are publically challenged, altooften the messenger is unceremoniously shot, even though the particular point may be old news to specialists and largely part of scholarly consensus. On the other side of things, it is an interesting phenomenon that historians (both actual and self-styled) that cater, often against better knowledge, to the image and desires of a society as its manifests itself in the "official narrative" will more often than not be particularly successfull with the public while their scholarship goes dramatically down the toilet, as illustrated by the notorious case of the late Prof. Ambrose.

Alright, enough rambling for tonight. English language-diffikolt language.

Post scriptum: I would not recommend anybody endowed with anything less than a fanatical affinity for history to make this hobby or trait into a profession- it is surprisingly hard, absolutely unglamourous and poorly paid work.