DARDANELLES HISTORY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19764, 11 October 1927, Page 9

DARDANELLES HISTORY.

AUSTRALIAN COMPLAINT* DENIALS OF DISPARAGEMENT. PRESS COMMENT AT HOME. By Telograph—Press Association —Copyright. (Received October 10, 6.25 p.m.) A. and N.Z. LONDON, Oct. ID. The Daily NewE says Australians who are protesting so vehemently against certain passages in the draft history of the Dardanelles campaign have discovered a very considerable mare's nest. Words disparaging the conduct of the Australians are not in the document at all. It would have been astonishing if they were, in view of the characteristic tameness of official histories. Incidentally, continues the paper, the misunderstanding provoked General Sir John Monash to bring allegations against British soldiers as offensive as those which were never made against the Australians. It would be silly to pretend that no British or Australian soldier ever failed in his duty, but General Monash spoke a " little too soon. Brigadier-General J. E. Edmonds, officer-in-charge of the military branch, Historical section, in an interview published in the Observer, says General Monash must have been misrepresented. " I have read practically every book, magazine and article dealing with the war which has ever appeared," says General Edmonds. " There was nothing in tljem to justify what General Monash is represented as having said, namely: 'This is just ; another of those depreciations which appear periodically in Britain about the Australian soldiers.' " The attitude in Britain toward Australia is that of an intensely proud father, who is far more proud of the deeds of his children than of his own." The Observer remarks that any Australian who can imagine that the Anzacs' part in the Great War is a subject of depreciation in Britain must be extraordinarily out of touch with British opinion. The statements of General Monash and Major-General Sir John Gellibrand make readers in Britain rub their eyes. It is impossible that such disparagements as those officers indicate could have appeared, even in the roughest of drafts. The paper says it is astonishing that any responsible person should not immediately have detected the absurdity of the story. It is most regrettable that inflamed comment should have been passed upon it without investigation as to its origin-