MYTHS

[Guest paddy]

Steve

GGGGGs mate! Itser long long way from footers cray 2 brizzie even 4 a free 4x.

Have you run into Matt Smith & his aussie war graves set up up there?

Mite con 1 outa him 2.

Typical! Eye came out via brizzie n r goin home frew Perth. Ovaway round and you

woodabeen on

ooRoo.

[Geoff S]

Just to add a bit to what Andrew & Steve have noted about the Official Histories.

John Robertson book ‘The Tragedy & the Glory of Gallipoli- Anzac and Empire’ makes some interesting comparisons between both the UK & Australian Official Histories of Gallipoli.

Will not quote the whole piece as it is quite long & am sure most, if not all of us have this book. Refer the Appendix/ Gallipoli: Continuing Historical Controvery (pge 274-275) for additional detail.- well worth a re- read. In fact the whole Appendix section makes some interesting observations of the historical works on this campaign.

The part I found the most interesting was that it notes that Bean, uniquely, insisted as a condition of writing that his analysis would not be censored. Whereas, Aspinall- Oglander & Edmonds had to ensure that it passed the CID subcommittee (Control of Official Histories) and the Naval History Volumes by Corbett were subject to cabinet approval before publication.

So perhaps the Australian government was more comfortable with Dr Bean's analysis, than what the UK government was with their respective authors work? Or perhaps it was still 'political dynamite' as so many of the key players were still trying to impose their own personal bias and blame on the errors that plagued that terrible campaign?

Regards

Geoff S