"Playing the Kokoda Track" Topic

"As play begins, the Japanese begin their march, only to run into delays as small units of Commonwealth troops ambush us along the jungle trails."

Commonwealth troops??? I think you'll find it was an Australian only effort.

Cheers,

Pro…

---As the Japanese pressed inland from Gona, they were opposed by soldiers of the Papuan Infantry Battalion and a company of militiamen of the 39th Battalion. Indeed, for the first month after the Gona landings the young Victorians of the 39th were virtually the only Australian force resisting the enemy drive towards the Owen Stanleys. During this period the Australians moved back to Kokoda village, which fell after a sharp engagement on 29 July.---

kakoda-216.tripod.com/id2.html

I only read one book on the Kokoda Track, and that was years ago, but wasn't most of it a lot more hilly than the game photos suggest?

Yes, but some of the early battles were fought on the coastal plains.

actually Pro..several members of that company of the 39th were Boer war veterans..and they had Lewis guns..

But still Australians, Your Em. ??

Good to see you again at MOAB mate.

Cheers,

Pro…

you too ,Cancon next..

Technically the gallant soldiers who held off the Japanese advance, serving in the Australian Militia were not Australians per se because there was no such thing as Australian nationality until the 1960's…But that's hardly the point.

For me what is of far greater significance is that they were Militiamen, ie volunteer territorial soldiers who had been trained in their own time, whilst living and working as citizens. Derisively refered to as 'Chocolate Soldiers' by the Regulars, 'cos they would melt in the sun if called upon to serve in a real campaign, they proved their worth in this campaign, as all the regulars were away fighting in the Middle East.

I'll bite, what is the basis for your claim that there was no Australian nationality until the 1960s?

I think you'll find 2/14 and 2/16 battalions were involved fairly early on as well – 2nd AIF Battalions fresh from the Middle East. The militiamen of the 39th had been serving full time for some period before Kokoda. They also benefited from key positions being filled by AIF men. Contrast them with the poor sods of the 58th who were thrown to the wolves.

Bill Bryson in 'Down Under' states that technically there was no such thing as Australian nationality until the 1960's. Its hardly an important point, though, clearly they considered themselves Australian. But I'll stand corrected on the experience of these militaimen. However, I still think its remarkable that the first soldiers, of any nationality, to be able to bring the Japanese onslaught to a halt were these 'Chockos'. I wonder if they were inspired by a kind of 'We'll show 'em' mentality?

I think it was more in the knowledge that there was little chance of mercy and no one to fall back on but each other. The terrible thing is that the Battalion was destroyed not by the Japanese but their own government. The 58th Militia are the true tragedies, treated as bad as any troops dragooned in Soviet Russia some were packed on the troop ship the same day they arrived at the enlistment office and sent to New Guinea. Then they were denied the opportunity for meaningful training before being thrown down the track in front of the Japanese advance.

I'll bow to the wisdom of Bill, at least until I have an opportunity to do my research.

Thats some story – shades of 'Enemy at the Gates'! Unfortunately I can't see Hollywood turning this epic giant-killing tale into film.

I'm now starting to doubt myself on the nationality question, since reading that Australia was a founder member of the UN in 1945, and so must have been an independent sovereign nation in name as well as in reality, and thus presumably possessed citizens of its own! Also, in 1947 4 "Australian" officers were specifically requested by the UN to act as peacekeepers (The first ever Blue Berets) in a dispute whose protagonists would have precluded the use of British officers.

Australia gained 'independence' with Federation as a nation in 1901, and from memory (not memory of 1901 of course, but my reading) with our own flag. While we had the Union flag in the top left corner, it was, and is, OUR flag. Despite the fact that all these bloody republicans and foreigners living here want to change it.

But friend Sparker, they were Australian soldiers, even the Papuans, as Papua and New Guinea were Australian protectorates given to us to administer after WWI.

Bill Bryson, while a good author has other errors in his work.

Cheers,

Glynn

OK, I consider myself thoroughly 'rebriefed'!

I think the reference to Australian nationality refers to the Australia Act 1986. See

link

Until then the British parliament could legislate for the states and there could be appeals all the way to the British Privy Council. This represents the last break from British colonial status of Australia (adding to the Constitution 1901 and the Statute of Westminster 1931).

Tony

Australia was formed by an Act of Federation in 1901 as Procopius has pointed out. Interestingly New Zealnd nearly joined the Federation of former Colonies. in 1914 at the outbreak of World War I the 1st AIF was formed (Australian Imperial Force)and the Royal Australian Navy was already in existance. So I think we can say the term Australian was widely used even in a military sense since the early 20th Century. With respect to the flag though the 1st AIF actually fought under the British Union Jack and the modern Australian flag, with the Union Jack in the corner of a blue field with the Southern Cross and the multi-pointed States & Teritories Star, is … well "modern".

It's almost 10 October 2009 – can this thread be moved off the front page?