“ONLY A MARE’S NEST.”

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 17775, 11 October 1927, Page 9

“ONLY A MARE’S NEST.”

Recent Australian Protests.

NO CRITICISM IN OFFICIAL

RECORDS

By Cable—Press Association —Copyright* Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. (Received October 10, 7.30 p.m.) LONDON, Octdber 9.

The “Daily News” says “The Australians who were protesting so vehemently against certain passages, said to be in the draft history of the Dardanelles, discovered a very considerable mare’s nest. The voids disparaging to the conduct of tne Australians were not in the document at all. It would have been astonishing if they were, in view of the characteristic tameness of the official histories. Incidentally, the' misunderstanding provoked General Monash to bring allegations against English soldiers, as offensive as 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 Monasli spoke a little ico soon.”

[A cable message from London, dated October 6, said: “A cable from Canberra appears in the “Daily Express,” stating that Mr C. E. Bean, Australian official war correspondent, convened a conference of generals at Sydney to refute the allegations contained in a proof copy of the War Office History of the Dardanelles Campaign, to the effect teat the Anzacs were ill-trained and badly led, and herded together on the beach, while a few adventurous spirits braved the heights. This ..statement r.Tsed a storm of protest in \ustraiia, and among those who voiced their indignation was General Monasli (mentioned in the. cable messages this morning) who said: “There were no other people at the Anzac beach to do the fighting, but the Australians and New Zealanders. They were the only troops there for weeks, so it is impossible that others fought for them while they were huddled on the beach. There is no question that the landing was a magnificent and unparalleled feat of arms.” General Mini ash added: “If there could be any comparisons drawn between the Dominion and English troops on Gallipoli I may say that the Dominion generals were unfortunately comnc-lled to form a very poor opinion of the British troops, with the exeeptin of the Twenty-Ninth Division at Cape Helles. which was a magnificent formation of veteran regiments of the British Army. I refer particularly to the British troops which attempted to land at Suvla on August 6, 1916, and to such troops as Territorials. Noue of these were comparable in efficiency, discipline, or leadership with the Australians and New Zealanders. I have the best reason for knowing these facts, as I had many of these British units under my command at various times.”]

REPLY TO GENERAL MONASH. AMAZING STATEMENT REFUTED. By Cable— Pratj As joc Union—Copyrleht. Australian and N.Z. Cab!. Association. LONDON, October 9. General Edmonds. Director of the Historical Section, interviewed by the “Observer,” said General Monash must tiav« been misrepresented: “T #ead practically every book and magazine article dealing with the war which has appeared, and there is nothing to justify what he has been 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 intensely proud father, who is tar prouder of the deeds of his children than of his own.” The “Observer” says editorially: “Any Australian who can imagine the Anzacs’ part in the Great War is a subject of depreciation here must be extraordinarily out of touch with British opinion. The statements of Sir John Monash and Mr Gellibrand make readers here rub their eyes. It is impossible that such disparagements as they indicate could have appeared in even the roughest of drafts, 'it is astonishing that any responsible person should not have immediately detected the absurdity of the story. It is most tegiettablo that inflamed comment should have been passed thereon without investigation of the origin.”