The ANZACs- myth and reality

[NeilE]

Hi Pete

Here;s one to make your blood boil....

Saw a History Channel doco before Iwent on holiday that asserted that MacArthur was responsible for stopping the Japanese on Kokoda and that the war in Papua New Guinea was won by the US forces with everyone else (ie Australia) just looking on in admiration... No wonder actual knowledge of the war is low over there (and here)....

Cheers

neil

[Pete Hill]

Hi Neil,
That would be funny if it didn't grate so much! How about this one? I once saw in a US-publication that shall remain nameless, a writer say..."Many of the highest-scoring Aces in the First World War flew for countries other than the United States. This reflected the fact that the US was a late entrant into the War..."
Hows that for an inwardly-focused view of history!! Thankfully, the majority of American historians are more aware of the rest of the planet than this guy evidently was. Was he claiming that if the US had entered the war in 1914, instead of 1917, then the top-scorers of the air war would automatically have been American? I shoudl point out that there are plenty of Australian, British, French and German writers who can be just as guilty of nationalistic conceit and self-centredness. As one writer recently pointed out, today's French school-children are taught that their nation was liberated almost solely by the French resistance, with maybe a helping hand by the United States but no mention of the British or Canadians. And for many decades, most Australians and New Zealanders were firmly convinced that their respective forces were the sole-participants in the Gallipoli campaign. Many soldiers throughout history have tended to be on the selfish side when it comes to deciding who gets the credit for a successful military action. As Napoleon said.."Victory has a thousand fathers but defeat is an orphan..."
Their claims, observations and perceptions can sometimes cause later historians to have a slanted, or even a misleading view of an event. For a long time, the popular view of the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 was that most of the non-British units of Wellington's Anglo-Dutch army performed poorly and it was the English units that won the day. This has recently been proven to be false as it was created by the selfish recollections of British officers who wanted to gain glory and prestige for just themselves and their own units, leading them to dismiss the Dutch-Belgian troops as cowardly or in-ept. Recent studies of other source material has revealed that this was simply not the case. The Dutch, Belgian and Brunswicker regiments, for the most part, fought effectively and sometimes admirably. There were some desertions but no more than there were amongst the English units. Indeed, from the ranks of even the famous, elite and highly revered British 95th Rifles, there were nearly a hundred men who fled from the battlefield during the fighting, an incident that is rarely mentioned in many earlier accounts of the battle.
The recent TV documentary series 'Battlefield Detectives' revealed that at Balaclava in 1854, the Turkish infantry, allied to the British and French, played a crucial part in delaying the advance of the Russians until the English could organise themselves. But until recently, no British accounts have mentioned this.
Most British accounts of the Fall of France never really praise or even acknowledge the true efforts of the French army against the German Blitzkreig. It was largely due to the heroic rearguard actions of a small number of French units that enabled the evacuation at Dunkirk to succeed but how many English writers are willing to admit to this? Indeed, many histories of this campaign seem to halt after Dunkirk as if the later German campaign to capture the remainder of France was a walkover. It wasn't. In fact, of all the casualties suffered by the German army in the invasion of France, more than half of them were sustained AFTER Dunkirk when the bulk of the British forces had left the continent.
Many US-written histories of the Vietnam war rarely acknowledge the efforts of the Army of South Vietnam other than to dismiss them as second-rate, in-effective forces. However, as the late Australian film-maker Neil Davis pointed out, during the entire 10,000-day war, there were only three weeks in which US-Army casualties were higher than those suffered by the South Vietnamese. Hollywood's treatment of the war is no better. The lesser-known 1977 film- 'Go Tell the Spartans' which starred Burt Lancaster, remains perhaps the only post-war US film to portray South Vietnamese soldiers actually doing some of the fighting.
Hope you had a good break, Neil. Cheers, Pete.

[RussGannon]

Pete

There is an aweful lot of good stuff in both yours and Neil's posts - much I agree with, some I might quibble over. I know this is a WW1 air forum, but as Normandy is another of my pet subjects, I could not help being attracted to your comments on Max Hastings v Stephen Ambrose. I actually recently read the latter's 'Band of Borothers' - and like the mini series based on it - it left me cold. I think he plays a little fast and loose with facts. The now much vaunted attack led by Winters on the 105 battery, in my humble opinion could only have occured on the morning of 7 June and not 6 June as claimed. I get the feeling that many US researchers of jealous of the Brit 6 Airborn's succeesses on 6 June as compared to in truth, the 82nd & 101's rather ordinary efforts. I often wonder how these much vaunted formations would have gone if 12 SS Panzer Div had been moved into the Continten as was being planned?

Russ

[alex_revell]

I think the best I've heard is this, reported in an article in OTF,Vol 20 No.2, reputedly a serious historical journal. The article is an interview with a Jeffrey Shaara, known for his 'historical fiction' novels. Talking of the reseach he had done for his latest novel, he was asked. 'What was the most surprising thing that you found out. What was the one thing that really grabbed you.
Shaara: 'Throughout it all was the significance of the Americans. I went into this when I was touring round. I mean, you're in France for the most part, and the French of course spent three years fighting the war before we got there, losing millions of men, and yet you don't get a sense there of what the Americans accomplished for them until you get away from it and step back. Once I really got into the research I was shocked to learn how important Black Jack Pershing was to the history of the First World War. Beyond being the American Commander, this man was responsible for the Allies winning the war, and that I will debate with any historian. That really surprised me when I began to realise it.' After more, which I can't be bothered to type out, in which he accuses Gilbert and Keegan of only mentioning the Americans at the end of their books, he goes on. ' Pershing is described as obstinate, stubborn, and uncooperative - and that is exactly right!. He was, and it was a good thing. Had he not been the Allies would probably have lost the war, That was an amazing surprise to me. What Pershing brought to the war, besides the energy and the influx of men and material, was a whole different spirit. The idea that the American soldier isn't trained to sit in a trench and defend himself. He's trained to move on a battlefield and trained to aim and fire a rifle, which is something the British and French were not trained to do.' Then, a little later, 'Had Pershing not arrived when he did and perform, along with the soldiers under his command, as he did, I think how the whole history of the world would be different.'
What amazing ignorance, and how insulting to the British, French and Belgian troops who had fought and died in over four years of war. Makes me wonder at the depth and quality of his research. He really should read a new book which has just come out: 1918. by Peter Hart. This covers, mainly in first hand accounts held at the IWM, the German offensives of the spring and early summer of 1918 and then to the end of the war. Some of the accounts of the attitude of the newly arrived Americans towards the people who had been fighting since 1914, need to be read by Mr Shaara. God knows what his novels are like.

[RussGannon]

Alex

Another good example of how OTF has lost its way. I caught one of their luminaries on TV a little while back being touted as an expert on the WW1 air war on a military show on the History Channel called Roll Call. One of his expert comments was that the plywood fuselage of the Albatross provided German pilots more protection from fire than the canvass fuselages of the Allies. Having myself fired literally thousands of rounds through machine guns at plywood figure targets - you might as well stand in the open as seek protection behind plywood. In turn I'm drawn to the example of the Js 5 ace, Kurt Schnieder who was wia on 5 June 17 (I think) - wounded in the thigh. He went on to die of blood poisoning on about 14 July. In this I'm drawn to the fact that wood splinters were the greatest cause of blood poisoning in regards the wounds suffered by naval personnel in the sea battles of the 17th & 18th centuries.

And of course, I'll dig the actual figures up - but in the last three months of WW1, the British Army took nearly as many guns and prisoners as the US, French & Belgians combined!


Cheers Russ

[Taz]

The magnificent wingmen at work again. Take a very thoughtful, scholarly and well researched thread by Neil, Pete, and others and turn it into another parochial attack. One literate and one illiterate critic. I leave it to the rest of you to figure out which is which. One is good for something (56 Sq, RFC, RAF) and the other is good for nothing I have seen. One is a master of the English language and the other is incapable of using the same language. The scribe and the mouth.

My apologies, Neil and Pete. Just a case of revulsion about the last two posts from my point of view.

Taz
Terry Phillips

[alex_revell]

'Googled' Pershing and found this in his bio.

'In the spring of 1918, the Germans began their last desperate drive on Allied positions. Realizing that a united front was necessary to stem this attack, Pershing placed the American troops under the command of General Foch of France, who had assumed the Supreme Command of Allied armies in Europe. Under the weight of the superior and brilliantly led fighting force, the German were crushed. Celebrations and decorations heralded the return of General Pershing and his Army to his country.'

Funny, I always thought the British armies were in there somewhere. I must be mistaken.

Isn't it strange, and indicative, how Taz always has to be so personal in his comments. Must be something to do with losing the argument, even though he is the only one making the discussion into an argument. There's no attack, parochial or otherwise, just a little annoyance that history can be so blatantly falsified. Must be the Hollywood influence. Rather like the latest, which told how the Enigma machine on a U boat was captured by the crew of an American destoyer. When the son of the commander of the British destroyer, which actually did the deed, was asked what his father would have thought of that, he made a typical British reply. 'He would have been awfully amused'.
It seems to have escaped Taz's notice, in his haste to have a pop at Russ and myself, that Neil and Pete have posted exactly the same viewpoint, regarding the Americans always winning the war by themselves. As for being 'good for something (56 Sqdn RFC/RAF)' better that than for just looking at photographs of Fokker Triplanes. I'd bet a pretty penny that Russ has more records of the airfighting over the western front, from the perspective of both sides, than Taz even knows exists. As to who is illiterate and who is not, how can he judge.?

[Taz]

Alex- One nice post between us, one nasty post between us. About par for the course, I would say. Literacy is indeed in the eyes of the beholder. "..than Taz even knows exists." You are literate, so typos are allowed. Tell your wingman there is only one "s" in Albatros.

I could have sworn this was a thoughtful, introspective thread on the ANZACs and Australians until you and your wingman turned it into an OTF rip. I do remember friends of mine in the special forces in SE Asia saying there were two groups they were especially happy to have on their side, and that was the Australians and the Turks. They did not want to tangle with them in the jungle or in a bar, even though there were many Turks who did not drink. Not too many Australians did not, for sure.

I worked with the Australian F-111C aircrews at McClellan AFB in the 1980s and they were a fun, professional group. They actually flew a C-130 all the way from Australia with wives, girlfriends, sisters, and a huge load of beer. A long trip, but a great party afterwards. Still have a plaque from them.

The offer of the Triplane photos for HITEB is still open, even if you think efforts in collecting them and a few other aircraft types are beneath you. Typical liberal arts vs hard science attitude. You are touchy-feely and I am hardware oriented. A little more money and effort involved on the hardware side than spending time at the PRO/National Archives with a copying machine. You did spend a lot of time, and I assume money, interviewing people, however.

Seems like I do have several thousand pages of documents with PRO stamps on them. Do not need to use them often because fine historians like Graeme Neal are so much more familiar with them than I am and can provide accurate and unbiased details.

Always a pleasure Alex. Wy no little smiley faces for me this time?

Taz
Terry Phillips

[RussGannon]

Alex

As I know the likes of Taz hang on every word I write; here are those figures for the final months of WW1:

As you no doubt know yourself; the British captured 188,700 POW & 2840 guns. The French US and Belgians combined took 196,700 POW & 3775 guns.

We used to have an anual firepower demo at Puckapunyal in Victoria, which I was involved in many a time. After the armour, arty and infantry had strutted their stuff, Ronnie RAAF used to come in and obliterate a hill or two. On one occasion in 1988 they had an attached USAF F111 crew who bombed a hill 2km NE of the target hill - a bit of a worry as spectators were in the open 3km south of the target hill. I will always remember the words of the officer on the PA - "No wonder Gadaffi is still alive."

Cheers to all my fans.

Russ

[Taz]

Gannon- For once I will break my own rule and respond to one of your droolings. There were no attached USAF crews with the Australian F-111C unit, so, as usual, your facts are conveniently biased and bent. There were exchange USAF crew members and they were crewed with Australians. I knew almost all of them and one of my friends was killed flying there, with an Australian crew-mate. So if an F-111C missed a target, the crew was at least half Australian, and mathematically, most likely all Australian. Try and do a little better job with the comeback next time. As usual your response was petty and ill-informed.

Incidentally, Qadhafi was in a tent in the courtyard of the building attacked. His tent was actually visible on Pave Tack IR tape, but nobody knew he was there and the tent was not the target. Two 2000 lb GBU-10s going off less than 100 yards from where he was sleeping scared him so badly, he never supported organized terrorism again. So laugh it up. Two of my friends were killed on that raid.

Your only fan besides your wingman is yourself.

Taz
Terry Phillips