# Diggers 'afraid to attack enemy'



## syscom3 (Dec 5, 2007)

Diggers 'afraid to attack enemy'

Diggers 'afraid to attack enemy' - National - smh.com.au

Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font 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 ed.

"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.


----------



## ccheese (Dec 5, 2007)

"It is an insult to all the blokes who served in the Pacific," 

I agree 100%. How about the aussie sailors that died in the Pacific ?

Charles


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 5, 2007)

The only thing right about max hastings coomments were Aussie and NZ troops were needlessly sent into battles (in 1945) against targets with zero military value.

MacArthur was a F***er at times.


----------



## Erich (Dec 5, 2007)

poor Max , more nonsense from his mouth

guess he needs to read up on his history again and see the contributions that the Aussies did in more ways than one and both in the Pacific and in Europe

in fact he better watch it or my avatar is gonna bite him on his big white A**


----------



## k9kiwi (Dec 5, 2007)

Once again "Max the Moppet" opens his gob and attempts to rewrite history to his version.

The plonker can not even get the basic facts right if they do not fit his ideas of history.


----------



## m kenny (Dec 5, 2007)

Just shows how newspaper reports distort facts to get 'shock stories'
Hasting's actualy says that the operations where Australian troops were used were completely uneccessary. They had no military value as the Japanese Units weren't going anywhere and posed no threat. They should have been left to surrender rather than engaged in pointless attacks.
The Australian troops realised this and were understandably reluctant to take risks for no good reason.
The Australians were shabbily treated by Macarthur who hogged all the glory for US troops.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 5, 2007)

m kenny said:


> Just shows how newspaper reports distort facts to get 'shock stories'
> Hasting's actualy says that the operations where Australian troops were used were completely uneccessary. They had no military value as the Japanese Units weren't going anywhere and posed no threat. They should have been left to surrender rather than engaged in pointless attacks.
> The Australian troops realised this and were understandably reluctant to take risks for no good reason.
> The Australians were shabbily treated by Macarthur who hogged all the glory for US troops.



The Aussie contribution in the Owen Stanley's was absolutely key at a crucial time when we (Allies) could have lost New Guinea. MacArther so states.

MacArthur also had the lowest losses of any Theatre Commander in the War. How does this denigrate Australian Contribution and glorify US? Could you cite an example of MacArthur 'shabbily' treating the Aussies - and perhaps contrast it with Brit treatment?


----------



## Wildcat (Dec 5, 2007)

If Australia didn't contribute enough in the PTO, what does this bloke say about his own country in the Pacific war??



drgondog said:


> MacArthur also had the lowest losses of any Theatre Commander in the War. How does this denigrate Australian Contribution and glorify US? Could you cite an example of MacArthur 'shabbily' treating the Aussies - and perhaps contrast it with Brit treatment?



Bill, during the Kokoda and Milne Bay campaigns MacArthur openly critised Aussie troops on what he saw as slow progress and implyed they lacked quality. At the time the man was complety ignorant of the conditions these guys were fighting under as he had yet to venture into New Guinea.To be fair Blamey was also guilty of this. Instead of taking the AIF (and the RAAF) to the Phillipines were the real fight was, he sent Australian soldiers to relieve US forces on Bougainville and what amounted to garrison duties in New Guinea. Then finally in '45 when all these combat experianced soldiers were being wasted in the rear and after pressure from the Aust. Government for more active participation of our forces, he cooked up the Borneo campaign which many high ranking Aust officers - and politicions at the time, thought was going to be a waste of time and lives.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 5, 2007)

Wildcat said:


> If Australia didn't contribute enough in the PTO, what does this bloke say about his own country in the Pacific war??
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, during the Kokoda and Milne Bay campaigns MacArthur openly critised Aussie troops on what he saw as slow progress and implyed they lacked quality. At the time the man was complety ignorant of the conditions these guys were fighting under as he had yet to venture into New Guinea.To be fair Blamey was also guilty of this. Instead of taking the AIF (and the RAAF) to the Phillipines were the real fight was, he sent Australian soldiers to relieve US forces on Bougainville and what amounted to garrison duties in New Guinea. Then finally in '45 when all these combat experianced soldiers were being wasted in the rear and after pressure from the Aust. Government for more active participation of our forces, he cooked up the Borneo campaign which many high ranking Aust officers - and politicions at the time, thought was going to be a waste of time and lives.




I believe he recanted in Manchester's American Caesar. Excellent (objective) book written by former MacArthur hater and USMC Raider.

Forgot to mention that Aussie SAS (and Brit) were the most professional troopers I met offshore - equally as good as any I worked with. I did not have the pleasure of working with USN Seals but caught the rest. I respect 'em all.

Both my Jarhead sons floated to asia pac twice each and were most impressed with their Aussie 'bro's in joint manuevers. Glad to have them at our backs despite new 'management'


----------



## Watanbe (Dec 6, 2007)

as an Australia i can proudly say that this ****s me off royally...its a bias insult on Australian pride. Australians take great pride in never giving up and fighting with courage and conviction. Who is this guy to doubt Australians committment and courage to the war?

I would love to see him untrained and poorly equipped last on the Kokoda trail against heavy numbers of trained jungle fighters!

Im sorry if this seems like a senseless rant!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2007)

Another fine example of how so called "experts" in the Press prove they dont know what they hell they are talking about. 

I hate the press...


----------



## Watanbe (Dec 6, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Another fine example of how so called "experts" in the Press prove they dont know what they hell they are talking about.
> 
> I hate the press...



yeh but sadly most people...me included still rely on them grrrr...I cannot stress enough the importance of reading multiple sources and looking at a variety of views


----------



## Heinz (Dec 13, 2007)

this has pissed me off to say the least.
Insulted my family members who served along with anyone else who has protected Australia.

As for the press he is a blood sucking leech of the profession there are genuine and non snake like writers around  hard to believe though.


----------



## Emac44 (Dec 22, 2007)

Just another Pommy Journo who never had seen or heard the bang of a Rifle or even ventured into territory outside the comfort of his London Bedsit and make disparging remarks about ANZACs 62 years after WW2. Yes the Borneo Campaign was a complete and utter useless campaign towards the end of WW2 and yes Aussie Diggers felt betrayed in this campaign. But Aussie Diggers had done their duty as they had been instructed too do in Borneo regardless of what High Command had set about in Borneo Campaign. If all this boofheaded journalist can say to disparge ANZAC Troops would he consider the same of Tommies who ran the quartar mile in Malaya Singapore and Burma Campaign to escape the Japanese? Of course he wouldn't. And neither would I as that would disparge the fine contribution of our British Cousins fighting in S E Asia during WW2. Sir Max Hastings can claim what he likes but the reputation of the Australian Fighting Man will not be tarnished by the likes of him. It is a well known fact that British Troops fighting and serving in the European Theatre of War towards the end of WW2 perferred not to engage the enemy so valiantly to avoid higher casualities rates but by no means is this a disparging remark towards the British Tommy as more of a case of those Troops knowing the war in Europe was nearing its end that their minds were on survival and wanting to get home unscarved from a bloody war nearing its conclusion. Is there a difference of the British Tommy wanting to finalize WW2 in Europe to get home safely as to what Sir Max Hastings in drawing a conclusion of Australian Troops reluctance in doing the same in Borneo? Only Sir Max Hastings would draw a conclusion that Australian Troops were reluctant to attack the Japanese in Borneo and were cowardly towards combat in Borneo. It appears Sir Max Hastings wanted higher casuality rates from Australian Troops in 1945 to warrant him accrediting those same Troops with acts of bravery and service to the Commonwealth or the Allies in S.E Asia during WW2. My reply to Sir Max Hasting is this. If British Generalship and Military Intelligence was as effective as Sir Max Hastings Typewriter and mouth. The loss of Singapore Malaya and Burma would have never occured. There would have been no Changi Prison No Burma Thailand Death Railway. No Sandarkan Death March and No Prisoner of War Miltary or Civilian Atroscites committed by the Japanese. In other words Sir Max would be best remembering these basics of British Military and Intelligence failures before lobbing stones at ANZAC Troops in Borneo in 1945


----------



## Aussie1001 (Dec 23, 2007)

to f#ckin right i'm pissed what a thing to say..... 
He just scorned every man and woman who served in that theater under the Aussie flag.
ignorent Prick.


----------



## Wayne Little (Dec 23, 2007)

agree with all the sentiments voiced.....Wanker!!


----------



## Rich46yo (Dec 28, 2007)

I dont think Ive ever seen a more ridiculous theory so poorly supported.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 28, 2007)

Rich46yo said:


> I dont think Ive ever seen a more ridiculous theory so poorly supported.



Stay in this forum long enough and you will see some classics.


----------



## m kenny (Dec 28, 2007)

Rich46yo said:


> I dont think Ive ever seen a more ridiculous theory so poorly supported.



Hastings did an interview on Radio 4 where he discused the book and it's conclusions with an Australian General. It was all very good natured and once Hastings explained what he actualy wrote (rather than the distortions - repeated here) the two of them more or less agreed that it was all a media induced hype.


----------



## Emac44 (Jan 1, 2008)

m kenny said:


> Hastings did an interview on Radio 4 where he discused the book and it's conclusions with an Australian General. It was all very good natured and once Hastings explained what he actualy wrote (rather than the distortions - repeated here) the two of them more or less agreed that it was all a media induced hype.



I can understand that Kenny it was a media hype. But he claimed Australian Troops in his book (Hastings) that Australian Troops were reluctant to carry out assigned missions in Borneo. The Australian General would have countered Hastings claims and to come up with the evidence. However Veterans from the campaign in Borneo and elsewhere dispute Hastings as well Kenny. And I would take the word of the Veterans who took part in the Borneo Campaign over that of Hastings who hadn't taken part in Borneo. Hastings is virtually saying that due to the low figures of Casualties in Borneo that Australian Troops were reluctant to take part in Battle and forgets that Australian Troops had held and beaten back the Japanese in PNG Campaign. And somehow Hastings equates figures of deaths of Australian POWs in Thailand Death Railway as higher then casualty rate in Borneo. I don't care how you want to debate this Kenny but Hastings insulted Australian Servicemen who served in Borneo during WW2 and there was no reason for him to do so but him having knowledge that the media would have made his book contriversal and enhance his books sales for his own monetary gains


----------



## Wildcat (Jan 2, 2008)

Emac44 said:


> Hastings is virtually saying that due to the low figures of Casualties in Borneo that Australian Troops were reluctant to take part in Battle



I think the fact that Australian land, sea and air forces had overwhelming and complete superiority over the Japanese was the main factor in our "low" casualty figures. I wonder if he states this in his book.


----------



## Heinz (Jan 2, 2008)

A case of selective hearing, or rather selective writing this case.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 2, 2008)

I have one of Hastings' books _Armageddon - The Battle for Germany_ and it is a good read, really informative as long as you ignore his opinions on the subject. In Armageddon he does mention the unwillingness of Western Allied troops to risk their lives in the dying days of the war because they wanted to make it home. If his observation of the Australian soldiers in the PTO in 1945 had been the same it probably would have been true, it's only natural to want to survive. To call them cowards though is a disgrace and I'll certainly avoid buying any other books by the man. 

I do have to mention that Hastings' was a war correspondent in Vietnam, Mid-East and Falklands ... and we all know how right they are, all the time.


----------



## m kenny (Jan 2, 2008)

plan_D said:


> To call them cowards though is a disgrace and I'll certainly avoid buying any other books by the man.



That assumes that they are actualy called 'cowards' somewhere in the book.
I do not believe this is the case but perhaps someone could clear it up?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2008)

You buy the book and tell us.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Jan 3, 2008)

i aint gonna waste money to buy **** so someone else can tell me i would be much obliged.


----------



## Emac44 (Jan 5, 2008)

m kenny said:


> That assumes that they are actualy called 'cowards' somewhere in the book.
> I do not believe this is the case but perhaps someone could clear it up?



I know you are playing devils advocate on this issue Kenny and quiet frankly you are entitled to do so. But are you supporting the claims of This Gutter Snipe Journalist about Australian Troops in Borneo


----------



## m kenny (Jan 5, 2008)

Emac44 said:


> I know you are playing devils advocate on this issue Kenny and quiet frankly you are entitled to do so. But are you supporting the claims of This Gutter Snipe Journalist about Australian Troops in Borneo


I just think it is all a storm cooked up by 'gutter press' papers. 
They took a serious book and twisted the authors conclusions to make a story.
Not one single poster here has seen the book yet they castigate Hastings for something he did not say.
I heard the radio interview where Hastings was asked to explain the problem and it turned out all he said was there was no great enthusiasm to be the last man killed in a campaign that had no real military value. I took that as a tribute to the good sense of the soldiers rather than a slur on their character.


----------



## Emac44 (Jan 7, 2008)

m kenny said:


> I just think it is all a storm cooked up by 'gutter press' papers.
> They took a serious book and twisted the authors conclusions to make a story.
> Not one single poster here has seen the book yet they castigate Hastings for something he did not say.
> I heard the radio interview where Hastings was asked to explain the problem and it turned out all he said was there was no great enthusiasm to be the last man killed in a campaign that had no real military value. I took that as a tribute to the good sense of the soldiers rather than a slur on their character.



Thank you Kenny I had to clarify in my mind what you were actually saying, Now I understand


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 7, 2008)

German troops and pilots, American servicemen, British troopers and aircrew, they ALL knew the War was comin to an end and didnt want to get nailed right before Germany surrendered...

I dont call that cowardice, I call that intelligence...

And as far as the Aussies go with their desire not to be "wasted" in ineffectual combat situations, I myself have been in this neck of the woods before.... There were several times when we would sit around in a brief and look at each other, wondering why we were being sent in to do something so idiotic, questioning our higherups and their judgement on what constitutes a "quality" mission objective....

Didnt really make a difference, as we went in where and when we were told, but it didnt negate the fact that sometimes we thought we were being underultilized.....


----------



## Negative Creep (Jan 10, 2008)

plan_D said:


> I have one of Hastings' books _Armageddon - The Battle for Germany_ and it is a good read, really informative as long as you ignore his opinions on the subject. In Armageddon he does mention the unwillingness of Western Allied troops to risk their lives in the dying days of the war because they wanted to make it home. If his observation of the Australian soldiers in the PTO in 1945 had been the same it probably would have been true, it's only natural to want to survive. To call them cowards though is a disgrace and I'll certainly avoid buying any other books by the man.
> 
> I do have to mention that Hastings' was a war correspondent in Vietnam, Mid-East and Falklands ... and we all know how right they are, all the time.




I noticed this as well. He's also very critical of American training meothds and suggests the troops were often poorly motivated


----------



## Nostalgair (Jan 11, 2008)

Mmmmm. 

My father served as a Commando in New Guinea out of Wewak in 1945. I have spoken to Dad and a number of his contemporaries and they were certainly kept 'busy' through this period.

They did express some frustration at some of the patrols which seemed to be of minimal purpose, but that did not detract from their commitment and vigour.

I've tended to find that all-encompassing, broad statements such as _"Diggers afraid to attack enemy"_ tend to serve as headlines rather than history.

Cheers

Owen


----------



## bigZ (Jan 11, 2008)

Most detailed review I could find:-

"In this his latest book Max Hastings aims not so much to write another history of the war in the Pacific but to describe ‘a massive and terrible experience, set in a chronological framework’. It is a companion volume to his Armageddon which did much the same for the last phase of the war in Europe; but the experiences he describes are yet more terrible, and the framework will be even less familiar to British readers. The book does indeed concentrate on the truly terrible experiences of those caught up in the war, whether they were American marines, British prisoners of war, Chinese peasants, Japanese kamikaze pilots, or even Russian soldiers rushed across Siberia from a war they had just won to fire the last shots in one they had never even heard about; for one of the many merits of this book is that it gives due attention to the war on the mainland of Asia as well as the far better known campaigns in the Pacific. But the strategic framework that gave rise to these experiences is equally striking and if not terrible, then certainly bizarre.

In the first place, the victorious allies in this conflict were united by little except mutual contempt. The Americans despised the British whom they believed, with some justification, to be simply fighting for the restoration of an empire that they themselves were equally determined to destroy. The US navy did its best to exclude the royal navy from any participation in the Pacific war; though it has to be said that its contribution, when it ultimately made one, was rather pathetic. For the US army the only point of the British campaign in Burma was to open a route to help Chiang Kai-shek whose armies, they believed, would liberate the Chinese mainland and provide the necessary launching pads for an invasion of Japan: their commanders in south-east Asia, first ‘Vinegar Joe’ Stilwell and then the anglophobe Albert Wedemeyer, were explicit in their loathing of their British colleagues and their contempt for the Chinese. In Washington the illusion reigned that Chiang Kai-shek was a great democratic leader who could make China one of the four policemen of the post-war world. The British saw him as a brutal and corrupt warlord interested in nothing but feathering his own nest.

As for the Australians, they resented both the British who had abandoned them and the Americans who neglected them: their co-operation with both was minimal.

Relations between the American armed services were equally acrimonious. The navy believed that no invasion would be necessary, and that Japan could be brought to her knees by blockade. The US army air force believed that she could be defeated by bombing, and would need to be if the huge investment in B29 bombers was to be justified and they were to win their spurs as an independent arm. Independent of both, the megalomaniac General Douglas MacArthur fought a separate war to fulfil his pledge to liberate the Philippines. The US Joint Chiefs of Staff, themselves barely on speaking terms with one another, made no attempt to impose any strategic priorities on these squabbling paladins. They did not need to: American wealth and industrial productivity was great enough to pour resources into all of them. Meanwhile on the peripheral stage of Burma General Bill Slim, one of the few really human figures in this grand guignol theatre, fought a campaign that had little to do with defeating Japan and everything with the restoration of British face after the humiliation of the surrender of Singapore. But even that he was only able to do thanks to the facilities provided by the United States air force.

The key element in American strength, according to Hastings, was the least spectacular — their submarine force, whose blockade had indeed, by the end of 1944, rendered Japan incapable of carrying on the war. But her armies were still in place, fighting with the loyal support of a fully indoctrinated population and a ferocity that awed their antagonists; and neither the American people nor their armed forces were in a mood to lie back and wait for them to surrender. So the marines battled ashore on what Hastings calls ‘the bloody handkerchiefs’ of Iwojima and Okinawa so that Curtis Le May’s B29s could lay waste the cities of Japan and would have gone on doing so indefinitely if the dropping of the atomic bombs had not at last persuaded the emperor to speak out and bring the war to an end. Hastings gives a full and fair account, both of the decision to drop the bomb, and of the prolonged process by which the Japanese government ultimately surrendered; arguing, to my mind conclusively, that the decision saved many more lives than it cost.

Brilliantly though Hastings lays out the strategic context, his real talent lies in his account of ‘the terrible human experience’ that it involved. British readers will know about the ordeals of jungle campaigning and the sufferings of Japanese prisoners of war; less about what it was like to serve on a warship in the Pacific with its months of tedium and moments of nightmare when the vessel was hit by shellfire or worse, a kamikaze bomber; or what was involved in piloting a B29, especially in the early days before the innumerable bugs had been ironed out of it; or the horrors involved in attacking or defending one of those ‘bloody handkerchiefs’ that now rank so high in American mythology. Even less do they know of the ordeals of the Chinese people under Japanese occupation. As for the Japanese themselves, even Hastings recoils baffled from the attempt to enter into the mind of a people whose soldiers were so infinitely courageous, whose officers could be so literate and civilised, but who behaved with such systematic brutality to those whom they had defeated and ruled: a brutality that they still deny.

This is a book not only for military history buffs but for anyone who wants to understand what happened in half the world during one of the bloodiest periods of the blood-soaked 20th century."

Michael Howard'

Unfortunately dosen't clarify what was written about the Aussies.

I too would be horrified if Max Hastings implied the Australians were cowards. But I think guys this may have more to do about being lead by your nose by the gutter press who want to sell newspapers(You know they talk crXp most of the time so why believe them now). 

I have read a couple of Hastings books and found that he shows an empathy for serviceman and is one of the better authors to describe the difficulties and horrors of wartime to us civies. I will be ordering a copy from the library just in case hes turned all David Irving.


----------

