WAR HISTORY

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 14, 11 October 1927, Page 9

WAR HISTORY

NO DISPARAGEMENT OF AUSTRALIANS MONASH TAKEN TO TASK FOR ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ENGLISH SOLDIERS By Telegraph.—Press association. Copyright. (Rec. October 10, 7 p.m.) London, October 10. The “Daily News” says: “The Australians, who were protesting so vehemently against certain passages said to be in the draft history of the Dardanelles' campaign, discovered a very considerable mare’s nest. The words disparaging to the conduct of Australians were not in the document at all. It would have been astonish ing if they were, in view of the char acteristic tameness of the official histories. Incidentally, the misunderstanding provoked General Monash to bring allegations against <nglish soldiers as offensive to those never made against the Australians. It would be silly to pretend that no English or Australian soldier ever failed in his duty, but General Monash spoke a little too soon.” BRITISH OPINION OF ANZACS’ PART IN WAR London, October 9. General Edmonds, director of the Historical Section, interviewed in the “Observer,” said: “General Monash must have been misrepresented. I have read practically every book or magazine article dealing with the war which has appeared, and there is nothing to justify what he is represented as saying, namely, ‘this is just another of those depreciations appearing periodically -in England about Australian soldiers.’ The attitude of Great Britain towards Australia is that of an intdnsefly proud father, who is far prouder of the deeds of his children than he is of his own.” The “Observer” editorially says:— “Any Australian who can imagine the Anzacs’ part in the Great War to be the subject of depreciation here must be extraordinarily out of touch with British opinion. ' The statements of Generals Monash and Gellibrand .make readers here rub their eyes. It is impossible that such disparagements as they indicate could have, appeared in the roughest of drafts, and it is astonishing that anv responsible person should not immediately have detected the absurdity of the story. It is most regrettable that inflamed comment should have been passed thereon ' without an investigation of their origin.”