joseph Posted 27 April , 2006 Share Posted 27 April , 2006 Bob, That certainly answers my question; the Governor General at the time must have been a strong willed man. If 100+ men had been charged with mutiny someone may have took a bullet. Regards Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzie Posted 27 April , 2006 Share Posted 27 April , 2006 A cable from Gen Dodds (AIF HQ), to Gen Birdwood, dated 15/10/18, presented to Birdwood as a draft of a cable to be sent to Australia: "Majority of the men of the 21st and 37th Bn showed much resentment and were disposed to be mutinous when ordered to be distributed amongst other Bns, and practically demanded to be retained in their own units with which they expressed their determination to continue fighting. Serious aspect was suggestion made by men that by eliminating Bn and thereby increasing others to full strength result would be that they would be continuously forced to take part in operations whereas with weak battalions authorities would be compelled to withdraw them from the field for an extended period. This was really the principal argument which was used in the conscription referenda and resulted in the adverse vote." The cable then goes on to say that, as this happened on the eve of the battle for the Hindenberg Line, Monash put off the battalion disbandments temporarily, and no disciplinary action was taken or threatened. Furthermore, it recommended that these 'mutinies' not be made public knowledge at this stage of the war. It is useful to note that when the second order to disband came, after the Beaurevoir battles, the Battalions obeyed the order to disband without further argument. Source: Black over Blue: the 25th Battalion at War, 1915-1918. That quote is somewhat contradictory. 'and practically demanded to be retained in their own units with which they expressed their determination to continue fighting.' 'Serious aspect was suggestion made by men that by eliminating Bn and thereby increasing others to full strength result would be that they would be continuously forced to take part in operations whereas with weak battalions authorities would be compelled to withdraw them from the field for an extended period. ' Two questions. Is there a 'the' missing in of 'suggestion made by men' and, how long had these Bn's been in the frontline and involved in what battles? Cheers kim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted 27 April , 2006 Share Posted 27 April , 2006 Kim, I can’t open the link on your previous post so can not read the article about Patriotism. What had these particular battalions done that would put them above the laws of the day or was it all political? Regards Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzie Posted 27 April , 2006 Share Posted 27 April , 2006 It was a link to the DiggerHistory/firstaif website and History of the 42nd Battalion. None of the links are working today. Possibly try again later? It is a very interesting site full of info. The guy who runs it must not sleep, there is so much info on it. Cheers Kim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Doneley Posted 28 April , 2006 Share Posted 28 April , 2006 That quote is somewhat contradictory. 'and practically demanded to be retained in their own units with which they expressed their determination to continue fighting.' 'Serious aspect was suggestion made by men that by eliminating Bn and thereby increasing others to full strength result would be that they would be continuously forced to take part in operations whereas with weak battalions authorities would be compelled to withdraw them from the field for an extended period. ' Two questions. Is there a 'the' missing in of 'suggestion made by men' and, how long had these Bn's been in the frontline and involved in what battles? Cheers kim Kim, No, no missing words - that's how she's writ. I don't think it's contradictory - rather, I think it's complementary. While I'm sure - I've read their diaries - that the men in the disbanded battalions were heartbroken over the news, at the same time their senior officers were seeing/hearing different reasons. Remember, when the order was repeated in October, the affected battalions did not demur. Did they see the end in sight? I'm not convinced of that. The 2nd Division was mnmoving back up to the front after a brief rest when the Armstice was signed. Did they see the futility in further resisting the order? I don't know. All I know is that, on October 12th, they went quietly into history. I'm not sure why the cable only singled out the 21st & 37th Battalions. The 25th Battalion at that time numbered only a few hundred men, but there were other battalions in the 7th Brigade in the same position. Why the 25th? Why the 42nd? Who knows how the selection was made. I don't think it had anything to do with how long the battalions had been in the line and how many battles they had been in. I apologise for hijacking this thread. If others think it's more appropriate to stop here, and start another thread, I'd be more than happy to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Doneley Posted 28 April , 2006 Share Posted 28 April , 2006 Kim, I had a look at that 42nd Battalion website. I knew it was there, but handn't realised how comprehensive it was. A little jingoistic in places? Anyway, one of his pages contains an excellent essay that pretty much sums up this discussion. See: http://www.firstaif.info/42/level2/referen..._discipline.htm Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzie Posted 28 April , 2006 Share Posted 28 April , 2006 Bob, It is an interesting point. They had seen their mates die, blown up, wounded. After that, who would wan their battalion to lose it's place in it all. They died as part of that battalion. The men, as the men on Gallipoli felt at the evacuation on leaving their dead on those shores, that to leave behind the name of the battalion, was to leave those who had died? I am sure that there is a lot to this question, one that I am not qualified to debate. I just see it as Australian. You don't pull apart something that has worked well and has very deep emotional ties. After all, what the army is after is Espirit de Corps. These battalions had it, big time, then, they were asked to give it up. Hard, unjust, but necessary? See, I raise more questions for myself. Regards Kim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Saunders Posted 28 April , 2006 Author Share Posted 28 April , 2006 I apologise for hijacking this thread. If others think it's more appropriate to stop here, and start another thread, I'd be more than happy to do so. As the bloke that started the thread I say dont concern yourself about hijacking. Keep the discussion going whether here or if you think more appropriate, under a separate thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Doneley Posted 29 April , 2006 Share Posted 29 April , 2006 Bob, It is an interesting point. They had seen their mates die, blown up, wounded. After that, who would wan their battalion to lose it's place in it all. They died as part of that battalion. The men, as the men on Gallipoli felt at the evacuation on leaving their dead on those shores, that to leave behind the name of the battalion, was to leave those who had died? I am sure that there is a lot to this question, one that I am not qualified to debate. I just see it as Australian. You don't pull apart something that has worked well and has very deep emotional ties. After all, what the army is after is Espirit de Corps. These battalions had it, big time, then, they were asked to give it up. Hard, unjust, but necessary? See, I raise more questions for myself. Regards Kim Kim, I am sure that there was a deep emotional committment to their Battalion. In fact, it still exists today. You don't ask an ex-digger what unit he served in, you ask "Who were you with?" A battalion is a difficult thing to describe in your mind. Easy to say "4 rifle companies, a support company and admin company", but difficult to describe the sense of 'family' that belonging to a Battalion gives you. Every infantryman, past or present, is convinced HIS battalion is the very best, has done more, and can still do more than any other battalion. To see that attachment threatened with destruction by the disbandment of the battalion, particularly in war time, is VERY difficult. I still maintain that the 25th Battalion, Royal Queensland Regiment, was the best led and most efficient Battalion in the 7th Brigade, if not the entire Australian Army Reserve - and I retired 10 years ago! But, we have to keep in mind that there are different levels of thought. The concept that disbandment meant more operational service with newly strengthened battalions does not detract from the very real emotional attachment to their Battalion. And who knows which thought was uppermost in their minds? We don't - and perhaps even senior AIF officers didn't know. So which is more accurate - the eulogistic prose found in the Battalion histories, or the more cynical phrasing of an official cable? I doubt that we'll ever know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenbecker Posted 29 April , 2006 Share Posted 29 April , 2006 Mates, Just to add to a question about the death penalty was in given. Yes it was as stated by Bob, a number of soldiers were sentenced to death but none were carry out and the sentence was comuted to imprisonment. These men at the end of the war were released as per the amnesty in 1920. There are a few that didn't escape the death penalty, one comes to mind of an aussie soldier who was hanged for murdering his mate in camp in the UK. The soldier was turned over to the British civil authorities who gave him the trial and hung him. There was also a LH soldier charged with murdering a French soldier in Egypt, but recorded only imprisonment and again relesed after the war. Cheers S.B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzie Posted 29 April , 2006 Share Posted 29 April , 2006 There are a few that didn't escape the death penalty, one comes to mind of an aussie soldier who was hanged for murdering his mate in camp in the UK. The soldier was turned over to the British civil authorities who gave him the trial and hung him. Steve, Can you give any more details on this one? What would drive a man to kill his mate? Regards Kim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Doneley Posted 29 April , 2006 Share Posted 29 April , 2006 Kim, Have a look in the AWM magazine "Wartime", Issue 21 - the story is in there. I haven't got it handy, but I found it on the AWM shop website. If you haven't got it, let me know & I'll copy it and snail mail it to you. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzie Posted 29 April , 2006 Share Posted 29 April , 2006 Ta Bob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzie Posted 29 April , 2006 Share Posted 29 April , 2006 Took the tip and then googled the heading. Came up with this. Very interesting about the forensics. http://www.wiltshire.police.uk/publication...veny_murder.pdf And yes, it appears to have been over a woman. Ta Kim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now