 |
| 7RAR - loading up for Operation Finschaffen |
Today I publish a letter read out in Federal Parliament on June 11th 1970 by Norm Foster, member for Sturt, as part of a grievance debate. He wrote to John Gorton, Prime Minister at the time.
The letter was written by Stan Larsson, whose son had been killed in a mine incident in Vietnam on 6th June 1970. He was a member of 7 RAR, my unit in Vietnam. Stan had written to Andrew Peacock, the Minister for the Army, prior to 7 RAR's embarkation, in an attempt to have his son posted to a non-operational unit as he had poor eyesight, requiring him to wear very thick glasses.
Although records of the incident show it wasn't Stan Jnr who actually triggered the mine, like the other three soldiers involved (two who were killed, and one seriously wounded) he didn't see it. There had been heavy rain the night before the incident, and the humidity was very high. In those conditions, it was almost impossible to prevent glasses from misting up.
Thirty years ago you and I were engaged actively in a conflict on an issue that was beyond doubt. We fought for freedom from individual oppression and tyranny, and I was proud to be an Australian.
A short while ago, I was informed that my son was killed in action in Vietnam.
In Vietnam there emerged a terrible armed struggle between the peoples of one race - father against son, brother against brother, each fighting desperately for principles I no longer understand, but it was a family struggle, which in the final event will only be resolved between the people of Vietnam.
Yet, into this conflict, Mr Prime Minister, powerful neighbours intruded, and so you committed Australia. You felt that by armed force, your ideals might be thrust upon these people. Through your intrusion, you and your colleagues introduced into Australia, the very principles against which I was prepared, with others, to die if necessary.
This is your Australia, Mr Prime Minister, and I no longer have pride in being an Australia.
Into the conflagration that is Vietnam, you sent my son, a man whom you knew without his glasses, could not see a hand held four feet away , or a car at 30 feet, and whom you told could see reasonably well with glasses. You advised him to keep them clean, yet in the torrid humidity of Vietnam, you could not tell him how.
He went, Mr Prime Minister, because you told him it was right and honourable.
Was it, Mr Prime Minister? Why? For Whom? A thousand questions flood my mind.
How do I answer his young widow, or my children? Did he die to further the political ambition of yourself or your colleagues? Or was it to ingratiate yourself upon the leaders of the most powerful, yet most hated and feared nation in the world today? Do I answer them that it is the cowardice of men too proud to admit to a horrible tragic error? Wherein lies the truth, Mr Prime Minister, and how long must this carnage of Australian manhood continue? How many more must die under the conditions you have chosen to impose. What is the truth? Why? For what? In the depthless horror of sorrow and grief I turn to my friends and ask, but none can tell me, none can answer, so I must turn to you.
Perhaps if in the interests of human justice, and of truth, the news media and journals of our day can find the courage to publish my letter to you, I may find truth, or perhaps, Mr Prime Minister, time may show that my son did not die in vain.
Stan Larsson
Shortly after this letter was read on the floor of parliament, and reported by the media, all soldiers with glasses in front line service were removed to rear echelon postings. One of them was Keith Connell from my rifle section, who was posted to 1 ALSG at Vung Tau as a clerk.
Keith died last year, in August, from multiple myeloma, a well-know outcome of Dioxin exposure. Agent Orange was used heavily around ALSG to remove vegetation from the perimeter of the airstrip.
Comments closed.
57 comments:
Since you bring Stan into your postings I have some questions.
Is it true that Stan's record at Canungra indicated that he was above average in his use of the rifle, suggesting that his spectacles enabled him to have normal vision, or close to it?
Is it true that Stan sought and was granted a parade before his C.O. and voiced a desire to not accompany the battalion to Vietnam and requested to be assigned duties in Australia?
Is it true that Ronald Grey granted Stan's request to leave the Battalion and remain in Australia?
Is it also true that as a result of the Ministerial enquiries initiated prior to Seven going overseas that Stan was deemed fit to accompany his fellow Pigs in South Vietnam?
As a result of that investigation Stan rejoined his unit in Vietnam about three months after they left Sydney and a matter of weeks later, as the result of a mine detonated by another member of his section, Stan tragically was taken from us. Do you believe the fact that he wore spectacles contributed to his demise, if so, on what basis?
The incident did in fact lead to bespectacled soldiers being removed from patrol duties. They did not all return to rear echelon duties and I know of one who could use a 60, from the shoulder unsupported like an SLR, that remained actively engaged, although not on patrol duties until Grey sent his unit out on patrol immediately prior to leaving SVN.
Stan, like thousands of others from overseas, lost his life in a war that we probably could have avoided taking part in. As long as there is one member of the Battalion or member of his family living he will never be forgotten. As part of the military and those lost in action his efforts and subsequent loss of life will never be forgotten.
"John Grey, you are an absolute pain in the arse. Most of your posts have nothing to do with the topic and are simply an opportunity to have a go at the blog. You have no idea. I don't know why you are allowed to post.
Ex-digger"
I am allowed to post because my banning would remove 25% of the readership. You, me, maree, and anonymous are the only ones in this echo chamber.
The blogger needs to keep his blog attracting clicks or else the scantily clad women in his ads would be pulled due to low readership.
John Grey.
I acknowledge your questions about Stan Larsson, and thank you for the information. All that is certain is that he didn't embark when the rest of us did, and it's reasonable to assume that he was separated from the rest of the unit for some reason.
The point about glasses is that even if they corrected sight to the point that they made the wearer an excellent marksman, they were prone to misting up in humid conditions. Reports of the tragic incident record that it had rained very heavily the night before the clearing patrol was sent out. I will go back to the parliamentary Hansard, and look for the original representation, which was probably made early in 1970.
He will never be forgotten - Amen to that.
Why post this letter now?
Perhaps the blogger is getting smashed over on the Catallaxy web site by intelligent posters and needs the sanctuary of his own vanity blog.
John Grey.
I posted it as a reminder of the moral failure of the Gorton government. You admire a politician who was prepared to send soldiers to fight on foreign soil during peacetime in a civil war to secure a grubby deal with DLP preferences. Gorton has Stan Larsson's blood on his hands.
Mind you, he became disenchanted with his party, especially Fraser. He would not be in the same room as him.
The Menzies/Holt/Gorton/Era was a a stain on our past.
No capital required on Era.
Just here to help.
John Grey.
The Vietnam war was fought to stop communism, not to make a deal with the DLP.
In the real world away from your narrow minded focus, other countries were fighting in Vietnam too.
Against communism.
Whilst your bitterness against democratically elected governments is equal in strength to your love of totalitarian powers, you'll never see the truth.
John Grey.
"was a a stain on our past."
1. Why WAS a stain? All good now?
2. a a stain is redundant. Just here to help.
John Grey.
"Gorton has Stan Larsson's blood on his hands."
A horrific slur on a great Australian.
But well in keeping with the blogger's myopic and multiple hatreds.
John Grey Gorton is worth several battalions of this site's fearful blogger.
John Grey.
The actual point about the glasses is that they had no input into the incident that was fatal for Stan. One of the other members of his section triggered the mine. You claim that humidity fogs up glasses and yet there were members of the forces active in SVN that did not experience, or at least did not complain of the difficulty presented. I knew two men who wore specs at the time and one I described above. If they had complained, the withdrawal of sight assisted diggers from patrol duties would have taken place sooner, or spectacle wearers would not have passed muster as fit for service in the tropics. It is not as if SVN was the first tropical war zone Aussies visited. Whether it rained or not the night before has little to do with anything. Humidity and rain were a constant in the funny farm. The questions I raised were based on information that was common knowledge within Seven at the time we were over there. Your refusal to acknowledge that would indicate that either you were not as well informed as you think, or it does not sit well with some information you have been putting around over the years.
It's Time....to reintroduce conscription.
Give those unemployed youth a sense of duty, and the thrill of achieving something positive for their efforts.
Plenty of projects in Australia to keep them busy, and it would ensure a couple of generations of Australians would be taught to handle weapons properly.
John Grey.
Any comment on the powerful actions of President Trump in bringing peace to the middle east and removing American troops from conflict areas? His actions today are surely praiseworthy.
You know, the sort of thing you say should have happened 50 years ago.
John Grey.
Blogger, as a self-described God-botherer do you actually have a belief in God or is your church attendance all for show?
John Grey.
"The Menzies/Holt/Gorton/Era"
Crazy old commo gets his list of Australian Prime Ministers wrong.
He left out Fadden, Curtin, Forde, Chifley, McEwan and McMahon.
Such a big mistake!
John Grey.
Gorton was clever. He saw the approaching Socialisation of fraser and his inability to run Conservative policies in Australia.
Unfortunately the disaster of the Whitlam years was just around the corner.
John Grey.
Still no answers from the blogger to the many questions asked by anonymous.
The only real question is - is the blogger incapable of answering or is he afraid the answers will ruin his narrative?
Whichever, it is clear that facts are inconvenient to the blogger's made-up stories.
That's very sad to see in an old man.
John Grey
Gorton was clever. He saw the approaching Socialisation of fraser
He must have also been clairvoyant. What a man!
Is it true that Stan's record at Canungra indicated that he was above average in his use of the rifle, suggesting that his spectacles enabled him to have normal vision, or close to it?
I have no idea. I don't have access to his service records. Do you?
Is it true that Stan sought and was granted a parade before his C.O. and voiced a desire to not accompany the battalion to Vietnam and requested to be assigned duties in Australia?
All I know is that he did not want to be deployed. What led up to that is unclear, but the fact that he was marched out of the battalion prior to embarkation indicates that some process must have been followed.
Is it true that Ronald Grey granted Stan's request to leave the Battalion and remain in Australia?
Again, I've seen no written evidence of that, but it is a reasonable assumption. It was overruled.
Is it also true that as a result of the Ministerial enquiries initiated prior to Seven going overseas that Stan was deemed fit to accompany his fellow Pigs in South Vietnam?
Again, that was the course of events. It was, of course, blatant political interference, but that was par for the course in Vietnam.
As a result of that investigation Stan rejoined his unit in Vietnam about three months after they left Sydney and a matter of weeks later, as the result of a mine detonated by another member of his section, Stan tragically was taken from us. Do you believe the fact that he wore spectacles contributed to his demise, if so, on what basis?
I have no idea. I wasn't there. I was in B Coy at the time. In any case, it's beside the point. If there had not been political interference with R A Grey's decision, Stan Larsson would probably be alive today.
The incident did in fact lead to bespectacled soldiers being removed from patrol duties. They did not all return to rear echelon duties and I know of one who could use a 60, from the shoulder unsupported like an SLR, that remained actively engaged, although not on patrol duties until Grey sent his unit out on patrol immediately prior to leaving SVN.
Another example of political interference, which probably contributed to Keith Connell's multiple myeloma. Vung Tau was heavily sprayed, and Dioxin is a proven instigator of blood cancer.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018313928Stan,
Like thousands of others from overseas, lost his life in a war that we probably could have avoided taking part in. As long as there is one member of the Battalion or member of his family living he will never be forgotten
Couldn't agree more...
Your refusal to acknowledge that would indicate that either you were not as well informed as you think, or it does not sit well with some information you have been putting around over the years.
What "refusal to acknowledge?"
Everything I've posted is on the public record.
I don't pretend to have any knowledge not available to anyone else.
Any comment on the powerful actions of President Trump in bringing peace to the middle east and removing American troops from conflict areas?
Except that it hasn't actually brought "peace".
Ask the millions of Palestinians kicked off their land.
And in case you haven't noticed, Iran still considers itself at war with Israel, and there's a nasty conflict underway in Yemen.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War_(2014%E2%80%93present)#cite_note-163
The Palestinians have made it quite clear they don't want peace.
In the last 100 years they have denied any form of Jewish sovereignty in the region.
They have denied peace a chance on seven different occasions, including their rejection of the 1914 Balfour Declaration which "mandated that nothing be done to prejudice or disrupt any exiting Arab communities."
So much for the blogger's false statement that Palestinians were kicked off their land.
John Grey.
President Trump has also smashed the blogger's fandom of totalitarian regimes by bringing North Korea to heel.
John Grey.
I see on Catallaxy that the blogger has been mocking people who lisp.
Over many years.
So much for his false cloak of morality and his allegedly caring attitude to people with disabilities.
It took a while but he couldn't keep up the pretence of nobility.
True colours shining through....
John Grey.
The blogger is happy that peace is hard to achieve.
Probably paid by Soros to say so.
John Grey.
Funny how the blogger's support of the labor party deliberately ignores the introduction of conscription to Australia by the ALP in 1911.
He also looks the other way at any mention of Labor PM Billy Hughes and his attempt to introduce full conscription for overseas service.
Again, the double standards on this vanity blog are wonderful theatre.
John Grey.
So much for the blogger's false statement that Palestinians were kicked off their land.
Approximately 750,000 Palestinians were displaced and became refugees as a result of the 1948 war which led to the founding of Israel. Later, around 280,000 to 325,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from the territories won in the Six-Day War by Israel, including the demolished Palestinian villages of Imwas, Yalo, Bayt Nuba, Surit, Beit Awwa, Beit Mirsem, Shuyukh, Jiftlik, Agarith and Huseirat, and the "emptying" of the refugee camps of Aqabat Jabr and Ein as-Sultan.These people, numbering over a million in total, were indeed "kicked off" their land.
President Trump has also smashed the blogger's fandom of totalitarian regimes by bringing North Korea to heel.
Really?
These ICBMs paraded last Friday must be a figment of everybody's imagination.
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/10/922618623/kim-jong-un-puts-new-missiles-on-display-at-military-parade-in-north-korea
The blogger really is thick.
He thinks no-one remembers the recent Abraham Accord, a history-making agreement that sees two Muslim nations formally normalize their relationship with the world's only Jewish state.
John Grey.
The blogger now celebrates North Korea's militaristic imperialism.
No longer pretending to be anti-totalitarian.
Come the revolution he will be first to celebrate. Before being sent to the gulags for being a war mongering white man.
John Grey.
I see the blogger has not resiled from "his fandom of totalitarian regimes".
Proof he is a communist at heart.
Taking advantage of a democratic society to publish his jaded opinions on this vanity blog.
Quite the hypocrite.
John Grey.
"“Elected” by a minority of voters."
The blogger, Catallaxy, October 13th.
Still trying to insinuate, against all logic and facts, that President Trump lost the 2016 election.
Anyone would think the blogger doesn't understand the US system of voting.
They'd be right of course.
John Grey.
No comment by the blogger about Jewish minorities expelled from Arab countries.
Deliberate and selective blindness obviously.
John Grey.
Well done to President Trump for bringing the troops home, eliminating the world's worst terrorists, crushed ISIS, and fixed the Dept of Veterans Affairs.
Surely even the communist who writes this blog would have to acknowledge those are magnificent achievements.
John Grey.
Well done to President Trump for bringing the troops home, eliminating the world's worst terrorists, crushed ISIS, and fixed the Dept of Veterans Affairs.
He did none of these things.
The US military is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, with approximately 165,000 of its active-duty personnel permanently assigned outside the United States and its territories excluding Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.
ISIS was well on the way out when Trump came to office -
Trump claimed: “As you know, we captured 100% of the ISIS caliphate. When I took office, we had almost nothing. It was as though they were just forming again, and now it’s 100%.”
It’s not true that “we had almost nothing” when Trump took office. According to figures provided by Trump’s own administration, about half of the territory held by the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, had been regained under his predecessor, Barack Obama.
In a Dec. 21, 2017, briefing, Brett McGurk, then-special presidential envoy for the global coalition to counter ISIS, said that about 98% of the Islamic State land had been recovered by coalition forces, and 50% of that recovery had happened in 2017. “And significantly, 50 percent of all the territory that ISIS has lost, they have lost in the last 11 months, since January,” McGurk said.
About a month before Trump was sworn in, the U.S. commander of the coalition operation — Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve — said that “almost three million people and more than 44,000 square kilometers of territory have been liberated” from ISIS in 2016. That’s nearly 17,000 square miles.
The Dept of Veterans Affairs in the US is not "fixed". I have a subscription to the Vietnam Veterans of America website. Here is a recent press release -https://vva.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/PR-20-05-Silence-is-not-an-Option-1-1.pdf
No comment by the blogger about Jewish minorities expelled from Arab countries.
Jewish minorities have been fleeing a range of countries since before the Holocaust. The difference is they have a country to return to. The Palestinians no longer have that privilege. Until they do, there will never be peace in the Middle East despite Trump's announcements.
Still trying to insinuate, against all logic and facts, that President Trump lost the 2016 election.
I have never written that. What I have drawn attention to, is that he was elected by a minority of voters. I don't know what you call that, but I doubt "democracy" is the appropriate descriptor.
I see the blogger has not resiled from "his fandom of totalitarian regimes".
There are plenty of totalitarian regimes, but they're not exclusively Communist. Start with Putin's Russia, nominally a democracy, and work backwards. Don't forget to include Afghanistan, a country we are supposed to be liberating.
John Grey, you are being made to look silly. The blogger has a much better grasp of his topic than you do. You're just sniping, but I do enjoy his well-researched responses.
Speaking of looking silly, who was it that wrote a political letter to Craig Kelly, made it public, but tragically made the egregious error of mis-spelling the name of the local conservative candidate?
Why it was the blogger of course, that writer who constantly corrects the spelling errors of others in the public domain.
The sanctimony is strong in this one.
John Grey.
"I see the blogger has not resiled from "his fandom of totalitarian regimes".
There are plenty of totalitarian regimes, but they're not exclusively Communist. Start with Putin's Russia, nominally a democracy, and work backwards. Don't forget to include Afghanistan, a country we are supposed to be liberating."
Avoidance of my well-made point is no way to rebut the argument.
If that's all you've got, I'll chalk that one up as another win of logic over indoctrination.
John Grey.
"The blogger has a much better grasp of his topic than you do"
Yes. 50 years of pro-communist and anti-USA posturing should lead to some degree of awareness, even if it is just a re-hash of leftist web sites.
John Grey.
Blogger, re-post your political stunt letter to Kelly here on your vanity blog.
There's so much that needs to be debated.
But I guess with only 4 people reading it that would be a waste of time for you.
John Grey.
To anonymous - how much is the blogger paying you to support his dalliance with fake news, poor logic, and myopia?
John Grey.
Re: Stan Larsson
The manner in which Stan was marched out prior to embarkation was common knowledge among those of us in Charlie. I don't need army records to know how Stan performed at the rifle range in Canungra. Your claim of political interference in re-assigning Stan to his battalion defies logic. It would appear, that the investigation initiated with correspondence to the Government of the day, led to the finding that Stan was fit for purpose. I doubt that the investigation was conducted by politicians, but rather that they duck shoved it over to the military, and reported on the findings to whomever initiated proceedings. Subsequently, finding no flaw in his fitness to serve, Stan was flown beck to join the ranks. Hardly political interference when they followed standard procedure to address a matter raised by a constituent.
Parading before the C.O. was granted. As you say the decision was overturned. If the ministerial process had not begun prior to Grey's decision we would not be chatting about this. Gives paid to your incessant claim that such parades were not an option.
Your remark about not knowing if Stan's wearing of spectacles contributed to the tripping of a mine by another member of his clearing patrol beggars belief. You have lost another reader. I hope your wife is doing well. Never forgotten.
Your claim of political interference in re-assigning Stan to his battalion defies logic.
Not really.
The sequence was -
1. Somebody (apparently Stan's father) made representations to his local member of parliament.
2. As a consequence, R A Grey granted a compassionate transfer.
3. This decision was reviewed, although we don't know what triggered the review.
4. Stan was found fit to serve, and he was reinstated in 7 RAR.
To get to the bottom of the situation, we'd have to know what triggered the review, but the earlier representations were reported, so you'd assume that once the Defence Department became aware of the compassionate transfer, they insisted that Stan go before the medical board. The process of review was not political, but the trigger was. It would not look good politically, if an exception had been made on the basis of the intervention of the local Labor member.
As for opt-out parades, I have never said they were not an option. What I've always believed is that they were standard procedure in some units, but not universal.
Remember, what motivated me to begin the research I'm currently pursuing was the statement on the ANZAC Day Commemoration Committee website that "Every national serviceman who went to Vietnam was a volunteer".
We know now that is untrue. (Mark Dapin, Australia's Vietnam, Myth Vs History, p41). What I'm trying to establish is the extent to which these parades occurred and the circumstances under which they were conducted. So far, I have not come across any 7 RAR veteran (2nd tour) who recalls such a parade. If you are aware of such an event, please email me on 1735099@gmail.com, and I'll send you an invitation to participate in the project.
I wasn't present when the soldier in Stan's clearing patrol triggered the mine, and nor, I assume, were you. I have heard that Stan was in the lead at the time, and had walked past/over the mine. Now this may not have been the case, but you and I know that you didn't need anything interfering with your capacity to see and hear when patrolling. His specs may have been a factor, and to surmise that, does not "beggar belief". It is simply one possibility in a range of possibilities.
The other tranche of my research is identifying volunteer national servicemen and examining their motives. As it happens, Stan was one of those, which makes his story all the more poignant.
I have no motive for my research other than setting the record straight. We owe those who paid the ultimate price, like Stan Larsson, the truth.
My wife is doing well, thank you. She has more than enough courage for both of us.
It's amazing how the blogger can list a bunch of facts and then pretend they lead to a out-of-left-field conclusion.
He just did so in trying to justify his "political interference claims.
That technique is only marginally better than making stuff up.
It certainly doesn't make his argument correct.
Sorry to see Anonymous of 12.18 Oct 14 go. He added much-needed class to this site.
Back to 4 readers now.
John Grey.
Crazy old commo strikes again.
Now the blogger is drawing a parallel between Allied airmen being shot out of the sky by German fighters, with catching Wuhan Flu whilst wearing masks.
This is what passes for academic rigour in 2020.
John Grey.
Interesting stuff.
It's a pity that you have to weed out the irrelevant comments posted by the goose who has a thing about the blogger.
To Anonymous:
A thing about the blogger you say?
No, I'm just here as a public service.
Calling out his bullshit takes no effort at all. Actually, I'm thinking about submitting an invoice for all the extra clicks my posting brings. A retainer you could say.
After all, a vanity blog is useless if readers don't see the blogger's posts.
John Grey.
"All that is certain is that he didn't embark when the rest of us did, and it's reasonable to assume that he was separated from the rest of the unit for some reason."
Thanks Captain Obvious.
John Grey
The blogger is almost the same age as Biden.
Similar errors of interpretation are evident in the two men.
Biden is of course off the Richter Scale senile.
I would never accuse the blogger of being that bad.
John Grey.
"Crazy old commo strikes again.
Now the blogger is drawing a parallel between Allied airmen being shot out of the sky by German fighters, with catching Wuhan Flu whilst wearing masks."
Where does he mention Allied airmen?
You're hallucinating.
Logic escapes the blind totalitarian ideology of the blogger.
Tragically, four of our soldiers die or are injured in a land mine explosion.
One of whom was wearing glasses.
So what does the blogger imply caused the explosion - why fogged up glasses of course.
He delivers no explanation as to why the others didn't see the mine.
Perhaps the enemy hid the damm thing too well.
It is evident that the blogger is wrapping himself in the valour and sacrifice of others to cover for own inadequacies in engineering his way back to the safety of "rear echelons".
John Grey.
"Where does he mention Allied airmen?"
The blogger's attempts to shut down Catallaxy files include stupid comments like the one I mentioned.
You are right - nothing here indicated that item. I was referencing his stupidity elsewhere. He knows that and by not responding to my post he led you up the garden path.
John Grey.
To Anonymous:
You query my statement about Allied airmen, but say nothing about the other statement "crazy old commo".
Does your silence on this indicate support for my assessment of the blogger?
John Grey.
John Grey
You want to know my assessment?
The only crazy on display here is yours.
You're a rolled gold idiot.
Go away.
"You're a rolled gold idiot."
Now I'm confused.
Rolled gold is inferior to solid gold so are you saying I'm an inferior type of idiot i.e. quite clever?
John Grey.
Post a Comment