Dinkum Diggers

[Guest stevebec]

Paddy,

Looks like it will be 4 XXXX's after the loss of Collingwood to our great Brisbane team. Three in a row not bad.

The beers are on me.

S.B

[Guest paddy]

Speechless!

[Peter Beckett]

Steve

dont forget that 4X was like Fitzroy, originally a VICTORIAN

Peter

[Charles Fair]

I had a look for some reviews of this book. There is a review here in the Journal of the AWM.

The website of Melbourne UP (the publisher) contains the following quote:

'. . .this book succeeds in its honest and balanced assessments, and should be recommended reading for any journalist writing a feature on Anzac or Gallipoli.'

'Blair's book gives a jolt to Australia's pathology of discovering a unitary identity for itself. It is just not that simple.' (Martin Ball, Australian Review of Books, July 2001)

I would be interested to read the whole review, not just this selective quote.

Also, I found a transcript of a three-way discussion with the author, an interviewer, and another journalist/author here. Some of the transcription looks a bit ropey. Apparently Monash did something at a place called 'Village Britainer'!

[Peter Beckett]

I had a look at the transcript and I quote from it

JONATHAN KING: I think we, over the years, have interpreted it in that light.

But Dale's right -- they were just ordinary blokes.

But the one thing you've got to remember, and Ted Matthews, who I interviewed, is the last bloke alive to land on the first day, said we were volunteers, never forget that.

We were the only volunteers in any of the armies.

And, therefore, they had the guts and they had the courage and they had that sporting will to win.

I think that's critical.

No other army had volunteers.

Make me wonder about my Grandfather rushing to join the Manchester Pals, leaving his job at the mills in Nelson. Could'nt have been a volunteer

Peter

[Guest stevebec]

I beleive what is meat by that statment was that the AIF didn't introduce Conscription so our Army was made up and maintained of all vollenteers.

The UK had its Vollenteers but did like all others intro conscription to keep these numbers up.

S.B

[Peter Beckett]

Steve,

I know what you mean. It was lucky Billy Hughes was'nt around in the sixties and early seventies. He would have been pleased with government of the day. They introduced conscription for a war that was officially a "police action".

My best mate actually volunteered and died in a US chopper on 31 dec 1970 in Nam

Peter

[Guest paddy]

G'day David

On past performance, you might have expected a more immediate response to your last submission. I do realise that it should not matter to me what opinion of the ANZACs you eventually reach. You mention an open minded study of the War, and co-incidently Charles Fair has today made an entry commenting on Village [no] Britonsthere. I would like to make a FRIENDLY suggestion.

Rather than getting bogged down in Myths, Holy Cows & microcosoms, how about us both concentrating on what actually happened. If you do have an interest in the AIF, what did happen at Villers-Bretonneux during April 1918 should be relevant. Depending on what accounts you source, you may even hear about my, and Annette's, Pompey Bloody Elliott.

What Dale Blair "concludes" about the ANZACs, however, is of concern to me. Although suspecting it, I had not known that he was a "Doctor of History", and is in a position to influence students. And that's another can of worms!

ooRoo

Pat

[munce]

Some of the criticism of Blair seems to be that he is taking one battalion and forming conclusions about all ANZACS as a result. I can understand that criticism, but it seems to me -- and again I should stress that I haven't actually read the book -- that what he's doing is rather the reverse: taking a conclusion that has already been formed (the traditional ANZAC legend stuff), and looking in detail into 1 battalion to see if that conclusion holds true. I gather he decides that it doesn't, for this battalion. Unless his sources are all incorrect, or he's deliberately leaving things out, or he's making things up, then we have to accept his conclusion that the traditional ANZAC legend doesn't really apply to the battalion he looked at. If this is the case we then need to ask whether there was something which set the 1st Btn apart from all the other Australian units, or whether the whole of the traditional ANZAC legend needs to be adjusted. I understand from steve and paddy that there was a difference -- 1st btn was recruited from Sydney, whereas other units were recruited from country areas. Does this imply, therefore, that the tradional ANZAC legend only applies to country-recruited units? What other units were recruited in the city and therefore also need to be seen differently from the rest?

If on the other hand we assume that the 1st btn was not significantly different from any other randomly selected Aussie unit, then we'd be forced into accepting that the traditional ANZAC legend is a little like God, ie if it didn't exist we'd have to invent it (for the purposes of nation building, etc). Doing this would in no way, in my opinion, alter the purely factual part of the history of the AIF, which speaks for itself and of which Australians should be rightly proud.

On a different subject, I read the transcript of the interview which Charles pointed out earlier. Jonathan King, on the traditional side, basically says that proof that Australians were better fighters than everyone else lies in the fact that a. the surviving Australian verterans say so, and b. the Australians at Gallipoli suffered 8709 casualties while the Turks suffered 86,000 -- as if there were no other Allied nations there at all, and that the Australians were single handedly responsible for killing ten Turks for every 1 Aussie! We were talking earlier about denigrating the memory of those who fought; well that really does denigrate the memory of those thousands upon thousands of non-Aussies who also fought (my great-uncle included) and died at Gallipoli.

[Charles Fair]

You mention an open minded study of the War, and co-incidently Charles Fair has today made an entry commenting on Village [no] Britonsthere.

Paddy, I didn't mean to make any comment on the performance of the AIF and Monash at Villers-Bretonneux in 1918. I'm sorry if what I wrote came across in a derogatory way, it certainly wasn't meant like that. To me, the achievement of the AIF there speaks for itself and Australians should be rightly proud of it.

I was merely trying to draw attention to the interview transcript that is a bit of a ding-dong between Blair and Jonathan King. Some of the transcription is rather dodgy:

JONATHAN KING: Village Britainer, Battle of the Somme, it goes on and on, under Monash.

I am appalled that the ABC could so totally misspell the name of one of the AIF's most important battles. Don't TV companies have researchers and editors to check this kind of thing? It would be like the BBC misspelling Waterloo.

[Guest stevebec]

Can I also add that before going to Vietnam we all had to sign a document that said we wanted to go.

This document was because of the Nasho's we had with us and there use outside Australia.

No Australian soldier went to Vietnam unless he wanted to. Or so the reasoning goes.

I beleive some did miss the signing for some reason and it was done for them by the clerks. You know clerks and Admin.

Of cause we didn't have the problems as the Yanks it was only post war that most of these started to show up.

S.B

[Guest stevebec]

Munce,

Yes your right.

But what I mean by my statements are that by taking Generaliztions of the AIF and then applying them to this one Bn is in it self fraut with problems.

Because you are now tring to fit your static's to fill your concusions.

In this case it is hard not to prove your case and give false evidence thus proveing your original superssion.

In other words he knew the outcome before he started to write the book then fitted the static's to his own concussion.

Weather this was a book on the AIF or a British Bn, I could also say the same thing.

Historians like this are not true Historians they are maths teachers.

S.B

[Guest paddy]

G'day Charles.

Thanks for the kind words,and thanks for the "leads" to that interview. That the interview was aired, and the transcript was so dodgy, MIGHT help dispel the Myth that Australians are force fed on Ripping Yarns every ANZAC Day.

Sorry if I appear to have assumed the role of Thought Police for the ANZACs. I do wish that I had the knowledge required for that job, though.

"Your" reference to Villers-Bret, was the catalyst for my re-joining this debate, but not by way of retaliation. The pun was intentional, and was in very poor taste. I apologise!

It was just another of the co-incidences that have happened lately. I have no family connection with V-B, yet was overwhelmed by a recent, but extremely brief, visit there. Pompey Elliott had been there. That he is my "hero" stems from his being the first commanding officer of a relative who joined the 7th Bn AIF,and this status resulted from private reading, not any form of indoctrination.

At V-B I was handed a mystery photo that "spooked" me slightly. This week a niece gave me a copy of the UK novel "Liams War". On the cover was a cameo of a Digger who looked a bit like one of the Shadgetts in that photo.

Nearby, at Le Hamel is an AIF memorial. It contains a quote from Doctor Bean. Poorly translated, it reads:- "Think what you like about them, what they did is indisputable"

Wish I had said that.

Although I cannot share any of the glory, real or mythical, earned by the ANZACs,

I openly admit to holding an "illogical" emotion surrounding the name, the Day and the places they fought.

That emotion may translate to illogical reactions to persons whom I perceive to be denigrating them. That a whole community can use the facilities provided in memory of them, and from subscriptions from grieving relatives, to denigrate them, does make my blood boil.

I am not qualified to comment on the qualities of other Armies. My interest is limited to the ANZACs, and concentrated on the individual soldier. The technical and tactical knowledge is extremely limited, as is the overall appreciation of their actual WW1 involvement.

Thanks again,

ooRoo

Pat

[Guest paddy]

G'day Munce

Please read this in the spirit [amicable] in which it is written. It is not intended as a history or any other lecture.

But you have raised again a number of points that are pertinent to the uniqueness of the 1st AIF.

The first is the "localisation" of Battalions and other smaller units, some of which were even known as say "Albury's or Ballarat's own.

The Aust Government undertook to raise a force of 12,000 Infantry, with 6,000 others such as Artillery,Engineers and Transport, for its 1st Division; and a Brigade of 2,200 Light Horse, for despatch to Europe within 6 weeks of War being declared.

The Infantry comprised 12 Battalions, 1-4 from NSW, 5-8 Vic, 9 -12 Other Aust.

The Light Horse Brigade had 3 Regiments, 1- NSW, 2- Qld, 3- Sth Aust & Tas. [ The 4th from Vic was part of the !st Infantry Division ]

The Recruiting Booths were opened on August 10, but only in the State Capitals.

Although most Battalions resulted from 'fleshing-out' Militia units, it COULD follow that 1st & 5th Bns had a heavy Sydney & Melbourne bias.

Given that it was sometimes possible for a journey to the Capitals to take several weeks, even after deciding to enlist, it is not surprising that the "typical" outback worker was poorly represented in the initial NSW & Vic Battalions, 1 & 5.

That person is indisputedly the character around which most of the stories are woven.

However, there has never been general acceptance of there being a pre-requisite that any Hero be Australian, or Australian country, born & bred. Simpson was perhaps the Greatest, and most respected, ANZAC, and to use one of their terms, "he was no Robinson Crusoe".

From my personal reading etc, I have not gained the impression that the ANZACs

considered themselves to be heroes. There was certainly an inter State rivalry which I don't fully comprehend, but little evidence of city versus country rivalry.

Some people may be surprised by the actual numbers of City men in the Light Horse, and country men in the later battalions of Infantry.

Again not wishing to fall for the trap of generalisations, they did appear proud of the fact that they were all volunteers. My hostility to Dr Blair has something to do with the title he chose. The "Fair Dinkums" was the name given by the originals to those who enlisted in May & June 1915, after the Gallipoli casualty lists had come out, as they could have no illusions about being in Berlin for Christmas.

I know it was not your intention to belittle Mr Matthews, Munce, but I am sure he was only expressing his pride in belonging to the only totally Volunteer Army of the War. Without knowing his personal case, my thoughts are he is entitled to that comfort, because in very many cases the individuals were given, and expected, very little reward.

Back again to the line "Lies, damn lies and statistics". I am unsure of any reliable statistics for the Turkish dead. Admittedly some were quoted on the ABC, but I personally have not been aware of Turk/ANZAC ratio being quoted to support the Myths.

It does seem ironic that Turkey, Australia and New Zealand can all meet and talk about Gallipoli with genuine pride and affection, yet many of the former allies continue to denigrate each others, and consequently their own, participants.

GUARANTEED FINAL WORD FROM PADDY

ooRoo

[Alan Lines]

My interest is limited to the ANZACs, and concentrated on the individual soldier. The technical and tactical knowledge is extremely limited, as is the overall appreciation of their actual WW1 involvement.

Paddy, no offence intended, I urge you to read a little on the achievements of the others members of the Commonwealth. Forget about the blimps who were in charge and focus on the ordinary Tommy and I'm sure you will find he was a pretty good bloke.

Very few people over here denigrate the ANZAC efforts and the amount of people who research their part in the U.K. is almost certainly out of all proportion to their contribution. I personally take no special interest in them but have only been to one parade/ceremony of any kind in England this year and that was an ANZAC Day one! Plenty of people out there knocking the English though.

As I said no offence intended but I feel you Aussies get more than a fair deal compared to us English.

[munce]

Thanks Steve and Paddy for your replies. I take your point, steve, about how it can be difficult not to prove something if you set out with that intention. In a perfect world no historian or scientist would begin with an assumption and then look into the facts to try to prove his case; in the real world I suspect that happens about 95% of the time (I have been guilty of it myself ). But unless his sources are actually wrong, then we do need to accept them and add them in to our more wider understanding of what went on. Blair's work needs to be seen and judged in the context of the wider historical and social climate, no more and no less than Bean's does.

Thanks Paddy for the information. I said before that up to now I have had no special interest in the AIF, so all of that was new to me. You're right in saying that I had no intention of belittling Ted Matthews - anyone who fought in WW1 gets my utmost respect, as does indeed anyone who has ever volunteered to serve his country. I was, though, trying to belittle the guy in the interview, Jonathan King, as I thought that he was trying to make big historical points from what Ted had told him. I'd be fascinated to hear Ted talk about his memories, just as I'd be fascinated to hear first hand accounts from some of the guys in Iraq today. But I wouldn't expect to get much insight into the wider strategic or political environment from personal memories, either from today in Iraq or from events of 90 years ago.

I've written a lot about this book, and I haven't even read it!! I guess I should go out and find a copy, and one of the official history as well to compare it with.