Talk:Military history of Australia/Archive 1

Focus
Since this is really about land operations rather than the "military" as a whole, I think it should be merged into the very similar material on the Australian Army page.Grant65 (Talk) 05:54, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree, this article should stay the way it is, with Air Force, Army and Navy references. --Commander Keane 10:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with the first comment. There is a lot of material that is just duplicating other pages on the particular conflicts, campaigns, unts etc. It could probably be shortened and simplified.--Affentitten 04:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There are some problems with the opening paragraph: Military history of Australia refers to the long history of Australia's involvement in war. Australian troops were involved in many of Britain's wars from the late nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century, including World War I and World War II. Australians later supported American troops in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and other places. Australian troops have also served on peace keeping missions.

The reference to long is subjective. Australia has a consistent history of involvement in conflict but a little over 100 years could not be considered a long history with a global perspective. The reference to involvement in Britain's wars seems a little strange particularly in relation to World War I and II but we did certainly follow Britain's lead at least in World War I. Australia supported the UN in Korea, not the US. I'm also a bit surprised at the lack of talk on the talk page..... 58.179.134.156 10:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Oops that was me Lumberjack Steve 10:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

1st allied shots WWI and WWII
These events should rate a mention in this article http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/03/1091476490096.html?from=moreStories individually they probably wouldnt but given the circumstances. Anyhow I'll leave to the main editors the artcile to decided Gnangarra 00:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

East Timor
Is INTERFET not part of Australian military history? --Mrg3105 23:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the coverage of it is limited to two words in the 'peacekeeping' section of the article. Given the importance of this deployment it should definetly be expanded. --Nick Dowling 07:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done now. ChoraPete (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:7 RAR Vietnam (AWM EKN-67-0130-VN).jpg
Image:7 RAR Vietnam (AWM EKN-67-0130-VN).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Autriservice.gif
The image Image:Autriservice.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --10:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Expansion of Creation of the Royal Australian Navy section
I believe this section should be expanded and renamed. It should really include the formation of all the armed forces at federation in 1901, and not just the creation of the RAN. Anotherclown (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on how to develop this article
At present this article is in a mixed condition. Some parts are very good, some parts are bad, some are too short and others too long. My suggestions, in no particular order, are:
 * The article currently has too great a focus on the wars the Australian military has been involved in, and not enough on the development of the Australian military
 * The First World War section needs to be expanded ✅
 * The sections on the Second Boer War✅, Russian Civil War ✅, Spanish Civil War ✅ and Indonesian Confrontation ✅ are much too long and these should be split into their own articles.
 * Some mention of the development of Australia's defence industry should be made, though its suprisingly hard to find comprehensive and accessible sources on this. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah I agree entirely, its just finding the time for such a re-write... In regards to industry the 2nd Edition of The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History (2008) has a fairly good overview for anyone that wants to make a start. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Another task that needs to be completed: update the Afghanistan and Iraq sections with references. Anotherclown (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC) ✅


 * I'm working on a draft of a separate article on the Frontier Wars at User:Nick-D/Drafts3. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have completed a few of these tasks now and have started drafts for the following articles in preparation of separation:


 * Military history of Australia during the Second Boer War – Drafts1
 * Military history of Australia during the Malayan Emergency – Drafts2
 * Military history of Australia during the Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation – Drafts3
 * Australian military involvement in peacekeeping – Drafts4

If anyone is interested in adding to them, please be my guest. Anotherclown (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * More work complete. Anotherclown (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I didn't see that you'd started a draft of the Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation article Nick-D (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Its no problem - I haven't done much anyway. I'll look at merging the two at some stage.Anotherclown (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead Para
I got told to "discuss changes on talk page". The lead paragraph is a disaster from a writing perspective. It is completely un-encyclopedic in tone, starting with the comment that Oz's military history is "comparatively short" -- compared to what? The United States, whose military history stretches back a similar length? It then sees the need to remind people that the first and second World Wards were in the 20th century (duh, and also, they're hyperlinked!). It's a mess! I left in the ludicrous statement that Oz soldiers are "fighting and humanitarian qualities", since the reference is not available for scrutiny, yet it is a silly statement, like "known for their bravery and colorful uniforms". I am sorry to cross those who control this article, but the writing is simply bad, and it needs a thorough copyedit. Iosefina (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems fairly obvious what 'comparatively short' means (perhaps as I wrote it): Australia's history is short compared to that of most other nations (for instance Europe or even the United States and Canada). I think this is a valid point as when one examines Australia's military history one finds that Australia has been involved in a large number of conflicts over a relatively short period. What this may or may not say about Australians is important. Equally your assertion that the reference 'is not available for scrutiny' is hardly fair comment. If you want to check it go to the library - its a very common work. Or perhaps you are suggesting that we should only cite from sources available on the internet? Anotherclown (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok looks like there are a few editors that are taking this page fairly seriously (myself included). For my part I apologise if my edits have struck a raw chord. As such I propose a few changes as they make the point I made above, whilst at the same time the previous edits by other uses have distorted my original prose (especially to do with my reference to the 'core' and the 'pheriphery' which clearly have been misunderstood). My proposed changes are as below:


 * The military history of Australia  spans the nation’s 220 year modern history, from the early frontier clashes between Aborigines and Europeans to the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although this history is short when compared to that of many other nations, Australia has been involved in numerous conflicts and wars. As a British colony, Australia participated in Britain's small wars of the 19th century, and again in the First World War and Second World War, as well as in the wars in Korea, Malaya, Borneo and Vietnam during the Cold War. In total, during the course of these conflicts nearly 103,000 Australians have died. In the Post Vietnam era Australian forces have been involved in numerous international peacekeeping mission, through the United Nations and other agencies, including in the Persian Gulf, Rwanda, Somalia, East Timor and the Solomon Islands, while more recently they have also fought as part of multi-lateral forces in the Iraq and Afghanistan. During these conflicts, Australian soldiers—known colloquially as Diggers—have often been noted for both their fighting and humanitarian qualities.


 * For most of the last century military service has been one the single greatest shared experiences of white Australian males, and although this is now changing, it continues to influence society to this day. As such war and military service have been defining influences in Australian history, and a major part of the national identity has been built on the idealised conception of the Australian experience of war and soldiering. Arguably the myth of Anzac involves two enduring aspects of Australian strategic culture: that of bandwagoning with a powerful ally, and of expeditionary warfare. Australian defence policy was closely linked to Britain until the Japanese crisis of 1942, however since then Australia has relied on its alliance with the United States. These strategic behaviours are enduring themes and reflect the circumstances of a middle power geographically removed from the centres of world power. During threats to the core, Australia has often found itself on the periphery and perhaps as a result, it has frequently become involved in foreign wars. A parallel trend, however, has been strategic complacency and for this reason Australia has often found itself unprepared for major military challenges.

Right now lets discuss and test and adjust. If of course you are actually interested in doing so... Anotherclown (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Grey 1999 is highly suspicious, there is a counter tradition within Australian military history that reveals that diggers revelled in both unsoldierly conduct (rape of Cairo), and war crimes (primarily trophies, systematic failure to accept surrender, and attacks on civilians politically aligned to opposing forces). Due to controversy, recommend remove from lede and institute a section on conduct of Australian soldiers at war to present both narratives.


 * Your second paragraph is a mess. "has been one the single". Redundancy and tautology (one / single), lack of "of".  Requires cite.  "As such" redundancy.  Defining influences requires cite.  "Arguably" redundant, poor style, weaseling.  "During threats to the core" the core of what?  "an perhaps as a result" speculation, weaseling, unnecessary, poor style.  If they're facts (or rather, commonly held opinions by academic historians and military historians) then say them without prevarication, proudly, and with citation.  Single sourcing the lede through Grey is a bit bah. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to see Fifelfoo weighing in -- it is better to have more eyes on these things. For my part, my commentary regards the writing itself, not the underlying content, except when they collide, such as the Grey reference noted above. In general I think the whole thing looks much better now, and it is much easier to simply make a proposed edit on the page itself and then either improve that or revert and discuss, than to try to mock-up the article here. I do think that the article still too often speaks in a authorial tone, rather than an encyclopedic one (i.e. one quoting other authors), and that should be guarded against. For example, I still find this statement a problem: "War and military service have been defining influences in Australian history. A major facet of Australian national identity has been built on the idealised conception of the Australian experience of war and soldiering." -- the article doesn't even have a section on the military impact on national identity or any such thing. Whatever the citations, this is poor use of "summary style", and there isn't a good place in the article for a deeper discussion. So in short, I think it makes sense to strip down the lead, then build it up again from the solid building blocks of the article itself. Iosefina (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As per Fifelfoo: (1) insert 'of'; (2) already has a cite, Grey is a widely accepted reference... (3) 'Defining influences' is a continuation of the first sentence, and as such I guess the cite should be moved to that sentence. (4) 'Core' relates to the centres of world power, see previous sentence in para (5) Accept controversy of 'fighting and humanitarian' qualities - I guess in reality what I was trying to highlight is the contradiction itself. Lets add to it... suggestions?


 * As per Iosefina: (1) I agree the article doesn't have a section on the impact of war on the national identity, but it should. At this stage including these comments in the lead is surely better than not having them at all? If we stick to the 'summary only' format then the article is going to lose context, and in my opinion its value. Anotherclown (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For core-periphery see World-systems approach. I will add a wikilink to the lead to explain these concepts. Anotherclown (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, Anotherclown, I think that this "Oz has been in more wars than typical for a 220-year-old country" thread is both wrong and also original research. Has it been more militaristic than the similarly-aged United States? That its history is short compared to European countries is an accident of geography, not an insight. I must say (though I'm not going to revert) that I don't think your edits here do not improve the lead paragraph. And while I can agree that the lead can contain some (well-sourced) commentary on the impact of militarism on the Australian identity, until a proper section is created, the edits you made push a much broader agenda. I don't think this agenda is particularly bad, mind you, but it certainly makes the article lead read like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. Iosefina (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Taking a World systems approach to a military history topic, where world systems theory isn't discussed in the article is perverse and hobby horsing. It needs to exit the lede, and a simple description of the imperial role of Australian military deployment discussed. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree - I think it is a tool to understand the context that led to these events. Do we want articles on wiki that merely say x,y,z happened or do we want to provide a context as well? Re the statement about Australia's short history - is it original research or synthesis, of course I contend that it is the latter. Regardless no where do I say that 'Australia is more militaristic' than any nation... merely that over a relatively short history it has been involved in numerous wars - surely a fact. On a more minor point American history is actually quite abit longer than Australia's - indeed the first European settlements date from the early 1600s (as oppossed to 1788 for Australia). Anotherclown (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that within Wikipedia, original research and synthesis (at least "synthesis that advances a position") are equally prohibited. That is the essence, I suspect, of the disagreement here.  Personally, I don't have a position on the facts at hand, I came here because I thought the writing wasn't very good.  I really don't want to pick a fight, so I'll leave it at that. Iosefina (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

War and Australian society
I have removed some parts of this section which are more based on incorrect perceptions and referenced to a POV article. The reference to the "anzac myth" was wrong to start with, as it has never been a myth, rather its called the anzac spirit. I also removed the small section here that refers further to this spirit as this was based on a reference from a pov paper written by one person and is completely oppiosite to the beliefs and ideals of the majority. Theloneoutsider (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. While the article 'Anzac myth' may or may not be POV the bulk of the information you removed from the article is factual and cited to well established academics - Evans and Grey. Perhaps the section could be re-written but to remove the information seems unjustified. Both bandwagoning and expeditionary warfare have been a part of Australian strategic behaviour - what about this do you disagree with? If you would like to suggest a way of re-writting this section then please do so. Anotherclown (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made a few changes now: changed 'Anzac myth' to 'Anzac spirit' which is the name of the article anyway, also added reference to Gallipoli and 'Anzac' traits and made a few tweaks to the paragraph itself. I have retained the information from Evans and Grey as I believe it is both factual and relevant as discussed above. Likewise I have retained ref to 'white Australian males' as while this may seem a little vulgar I believe it is necessary and is the language used in the reference (to be sure military service has in the past been primarily a white male activity, and in many ways it continues to be so, even if many females and new Australians also now serve in the ADF.) Anyway, please let me know what you think. Anotherclown (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That all looks good to me, and it's great that the article covers this topic. I'm a bit wary about using the Evans paper by itself though to state that "A parallel trend, however, has been strategic complacency, and for this reason Australia has often found itself unprepared for major military challenges" though - this paper is his personal views on Australia's strategic policy, which is basically an emphatic rejection of the Defence of Australia Policy in favour of maintaining larger standing military forces which can be deployed overseas at short notice. Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries Nick. I'll see what I can do to find an additional cite to support this. I am a bit surprise though: Evan's views about DoA aside I don't think the notion of complacency as a trend in Australian strategic culture is really all that controversial. We need look no further than the crisis of 1942 to demonstrate that (or indeed the 1999 East Timor crisis for that matter). Anotherclown (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * its the complacancey and bandwagoning parts that are the innapropriate parts to begin with. I removed all those references in the hope it would be better rewritten. The idea that the anzac spirit is bandwagonning in any form is extremely offensive to my own eyes, but I understand that is simply my POV, however, there is no basis in fact that corelates bandwagoning to the anzac spirit. While militarily, there would definately be an amount of bandwagonning in our history (iraq/mid east, vietnam being the most prominent), it is nothing to do with what the anzac spirit si about. The whole anzac spirit page that this references is hogwash to begin with and does not reflect any true sense of it, rather reflecting whaqt people want to interpret it as. the ANZAC spirit is about how australians react in a tough situation, not about jumping on someone elses coat tails —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theloneoutsider (talk • contribs) 21:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * having reread this again a few times, I can narrow it down to the one area that I believe should properly be altered (the rest of the rewrite was quite good). "Equally, the spirit of Anzac has found expression in two of the more enduring aspects of Australian strategic culture: bandwagoning with a powerful ally, and expeditionary warfare.[3] Indeed Australian defence policy was closely linked to Britain until the Japanese crisis of 1942, while since then the alliance with the United States has underwritten its security. A parallel trend, however, has been strategic complacency, and for this reason Australia has often found itself unprepared for major military challenges." since this article should be about the verifiable facts, then i suggest removing only the parts highlighted above and rearranging into a more logical fashion. The first part, because it is simply opinion with no fact to support the claim, the second aprt, i disagree with the idea of complacency. being unprepared for a war is not complacency. being ignorant of the issues around you is, and australia does nto have a track record in that regard.

forgive my not signing... only new to all this. Theloneoutsider (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reworded it again to remove the link between the 'Anzac spirit' and Australian strategic culture which seems to be at the centre of what you are saying. In regards to the rest: bandwagoning, expeditionary warfare and strategic complacency are factually established Australian strategic behaviours, they are not opinion. Consider WWI - bandwagoning (with Britain) and expeditionary warfare (Gallipoli for one) are fairly obvious, while there can be little argument that Australia was unprepared (a very small standing force and limited defence spending prior to the conflict). Consider WWII - bandwagoing (with Britain and then the US) and expeditionary warfare again (we sent forces to the Middle East etc), while the crisis of 1942 clearly highlighted Australian unpreparedness (Fall of Singapore, Japanese landings in New Guinea). The wars of the Cold War were examples of bandwagoning and expeditionary warfare as well. Finally if we need any additional examples of strategic complacency consider East Timor in 1999 - the ADF was so under resourced it struggled to deploy a Brigade (and that was in a low operational tempo on our own doorstep). References for these facts have been provided and I will track down a few others. Anotherclown (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Added Millar reference now. Anotherclown (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Cheers for that, it reads much better. I dont have a problem with australia being labelled bandwagon jumpers, but it was the association of that with the anzac spirit that was my real concern. The complacency issue reads much better now, previously, to me, it read that we didnt give a damn what was going on and didnt care.Theloneoutsider (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries, it was lazy writing on my part. It wasn't my original intention to infer the connection anyway. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)