 |
| Some of 5 Platoon B Coy June 1970 |
Regular readers of this blog will remember this post, which explained the fun I had setting the record straight about the "Volunteer Nasho" myth that had persisted for nearly fifty years at the time I encountered it.
The simple exercise of discerning and disseminating fact is essential if we are to tell the truth about our history, military or otherwise.
Truth-telling is, after all, the first step towards reconciliation, and I'm aware that there is still a way to go to to achieve real reconciliation amongst Vietnam veterans, given the comments I get whenever I post on the topic. Three years of research doesn't seem to make a difference to some of the enduring mythology.
The barnacle metaphor springs to mind.
I'd written about the need for reconciliation before.
Last month I came across a page on the State Library of Queensland website devoted to national service. It regurgitated the old myth that national servicemen who served in Vietnam were for the most part volunteers. Once you ignore the logical impossibility that conscripts could be classified as volunteers, the next step is to consult the literature, something that I spent three years doing prior to my thesis.
I made phone and email contact with the library about a month ago, sending them my thesis, together with a reading list on the topic, much of which has been around for ten years at least.
Today on revisiting the site I found that the reference to "many" volunteers on the website has been altered to -
The 1965 amendment to the Defence Act stated 'conscripts could be obliged to serve overseas' and in March 1966 then Prime Minister Holt announced, National Servicemen would be sent to Vietnam to fight in units of the Australian Regular Army. Consequently, most National Servicemen (Nashos) were not given the choice of active service once allocated to a regular army unit, especially infantry units. As a result, 2 died in Borneo and in the Vietnam War 210 were killed and more than 1200 were wounded.
This is gratifying because the reference to infantry units not being given a choice is precisely what my interviews with Nashos revealed. Once posted to infantry, manpower was all that mattered to the army.
The courteous head librarian told me that they had relied on material from the National Service Association to provide content. I then contacted the NSA who told me that they had not updated their information for years, mainly because the people tasked with maintaining their website were infirm as a result of age.
So the myth has remained on the NSA website more out of neglect than malice, a very sad state of affairs.
Most but not all units gave National Servicemen the choice of active service and most volunteered.
So the next step in my quest is to contact the NSA and suggest that they rejig their website to reflect the historical reality.
Everyone has to have at least one obsession.
Wish me luck...
Update -
I posted this email to the NSA after many unsuccessful attempts to talk to them, with copies to the Australian War Memorial, and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs -
____________________________________________________________
Dear Sir
I draw your attention to the following statement on your history of national service as it refers to the second national service scheme on your website –
All Battalions were rotated through Vietnam between 1966 and 1971. Most but not all units gave National Servicemen the choice of active service and most volunteered.
This statement is misleading, especially the “most volunteered” reference, and is not based on fact. In the first place, national servicemen (including myself who served in 7RAR in Vietnam in 1970) were conscripts. We were in the army because our birthdates were drawn in the various national service ballots. If we had wanted to volunteer to fight in Vietnam, we could have done so by enlisting in the ARA.
Secondly, historians who have researched national service, including Mark Dapin, Jeffrey Grey, and Ben Morris (the latter a Vietnam veteran) have shown through their research that most units did not offer options regarding operational service. Once enlisted, we were members of the ARA and amendments to the National Service Act of 1965 specified that we were to be treated as such. My own research has made it clear that most national servicemen allocated to Infantry, were not given an option. There were examples of Nashos going directly from recruit training to battalion postings, in the knowledge that those battalions were likely to be deployed but describing that process as “volunteering” is an abuse of the English language. These men were in the army because they were conscripts, not volunteers.
The best example of this practice was the fate of Stanley Larsson, a member of my unit who was killed in a mine incident on June 6th, 1970. Reference to this incident is made on P 132 of my recently completed thesis.
All Battalions were rotated through Vietnam between 1966 and 1971. Occasionally, unit commanders gave National Servicemen the choice of avoiding active service, but this practice was in breach of the National Service Act and was discouraged at a political level. Most national servicemen simply made the best of their situation.
Whilst this history is not a good fit with the Anzac legend, it is the reality, and if you respect our service, especially those who gave their lives, you will tell the truth about it in your publications. Those who died are honoured by the truth, not convenient mythology.
Please acknowledge this email and correct your webpage.
Respectfully yours
XXXX
_____________________________________________________________
I'll keep you posted.
7 comments:
your premise that a conscript no longer has the ability to volunteer or choose to serve in a war zone is seriously flawed, Bobby. Many conscripts from the second intake of 1969, when given a choice to join Seven RAR, knowing that the battalion was in line to go overseas, did so willingly... using a term you dislike, they volunteered for service knowing they were going to Vietnam. They went straight from recruit training to the Battalion bypassing the infantry training centre. It says more about you than you will admit, that only four came forward when you sought to discredit and subsequently altered the history of that intake. There were busloads of us and like me there were those who volunteered early for National service and were classified as conscripts.
your premise that a conscript no longer has the ability to volunteer
Here's a challenge - Find me (say) fifty Nashos who after having their birthdates drawn (i.e. being enlisted as conscripts) joined 7 RAR to go to Vietnam. Whilst you're at it, ask them this very simple question - "How did you end up in the army?" You should have no trouble.
when you sought to discredit and subsequently altered the history of that intake
History can't be "altered", unless it's through mythology. The myth that has been conclusively debunked is this one - "Every national serviceman who went to Vietnam was a volunteer". Unless you have a problem with the English language, and apply a weird meaning to "every", that is a lie, and has been conclusively proved to be so.
What you allege in relation to 7RAR has nothing to do with history, and everything to do with convenient rationalisation. For some, being identified as a volunteer, despite the fact that they were in the army only because they were conscripted, is a comfort, and makes them feel better in hindsight. That's OK, but it's not history to be taught in schools. It's actually indoctrination, and as a teacher I never accepted that.
The only thing I have "discredited" is the myth.
You denigrate the service of those who volunteered for service with 7RAR following recruit training where the option was given to them. The fifty you speak of would only be a part of the group who travelled by a number of buses to Holsworthy, but you were unable to get participants for your study. Like most of the likely volunteers, I had not heard of your study prior to reading of your bleating on your site after seeing a reference to 1735099 on the 7 RAR site. Your attempts to get "volunteers " to take part in your study was either deliberately restricted or you really didn't try very hard. At a guess I reckon 1/2 of the men who made up the three platoons of C Company were nashos from 2nd intake 1969 and the same went for most of the other companies where corp training was done within the Battalion. Prove me wrong.
You denigrate the service of those who volunteered for service with 7RAR following recruit training where the option was given to them.How does establishing that the narrative that "Every national serviceman who went to Vietnam was a volunteer" is a myth denigrate anyone's service.? It's simply setting the record straight. Your attempts to get "volunteers "to take part in your study was either deliberately restricted or you really didn't try very hard. If you had read the 7RAR newsletter you would have noted my invitation for ex-members to participate. I specifically asked for both ballotted men and volunteers. That notice went out in the newsletters of 7 RAR, 5 RAR, 4 RAR, 2 RAR and 3 RAR. I received the bulk of responses from 7RAR perhaps because people knew me, but there were members of other units involved. Very few volunteers reciprocated, and those who were interviewed with the exception of one digger (who was actually in my section) expressed regrets that they had volunteered. All of this information is available in the appendix to the thesis. As for your assertion that half those who made up the three platoons of C Company were volunteers, that is arrant nonsense. Over half of 7 RAR of rank below corporal were Nashos. Nashos were conscripts, not volunteers. Some may have accepted an invitation to go straight to the battalion after rookies, but that doesn't make them volunteers. That makes them conscripts who made decisions based on what they knew at the time, most of which was wrong. If you read the appendix you'll note three of the four volunteers expressed regrets for their decision, and these were men who volunteered for national service, not conscripts who elected to go straight to a battalion. You obviously don't understand the difference between an actual volunteer who joined of his free will, and a conscript who once enlisted, took a decision to go to war because at the time it looked like the best option. Until you read (and understand) my thesis and what I was researching, there's not really any point in further discussion. Prove me wrong.
I bet you voted "Yes" at the last referendum.
It appears that you did not approve of the lengthy reply in answer to your attempt at rebuttal and insults. I am not surprised, Bobby. After all, if nothing else, a bloke who admits voting for one party over another because it may give him more credibility, that is to be expected.
I have absolutely no idea what you're on about.
Post a Comment