Affentitten Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Interesting to see the treatment of these two versions of the same story: that footage of NZ troops at Gallipoli had been wrongly identified as depicting Aussies by the official Australian war correspondent of the time. Note the small man syndrome NZ version: from the NZ Herald And the slightly more academic and humble take From the SMH I find it quite remarkable that given the paucity of footage, this hasn't been worked out before. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Well, yeah, what do you expect Actually, I thought the Harold story was for more enlightening. It has way more details and explanation in it. The SMH one is basically "huh. Bean stole some footage. Whoops" (and the denialist quote from Ekins at the War Memorial is priceless ). The Harold story goes into how they figured it out, and gives other examples of Bean playing fast and loose. As for not figuring it out earlier, I take it that Bean's editing sufficiently muddied things such that it was basically impossible to tell until the uncut footage resurfaced, which was only very recently. Speaking of over turning long held beliefs, there was a story running about here last week that Malone was shot by one of his own men as he approached a trench while bringing in some wounded. Whether that is to be considered better or worse than being killed by British naval artillery is left as an exercise for the reader. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Sounds like the precursor of the history channel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Irish ..... don't mention the Irish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 lol - I love how the "slightly more humble and academic" SMH version includes a coupel of lines stunchly defending the editor who foisted this great lie upon the world - apparently you only do this sort of thing if you are a stickler for painstaking accuracy. He went for the dull, unvarnished truth, always." - oh yeah - Aff's an Aussie..... The irish are used to it - we've only had 150 years of having an obnoxious big brother next door who's always full of himself. And they never actually invaded us.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted April 26, 2010 Author Share Posted April 26, 2010 I was interested in the denialist (as JonS puts it) quote as well. Especially when Ekin's old boss and mentor, Peter Stanley, pretty much bitch slaps that version. I'm surprised that someone like Ekins would jump to the party line of defending Bean when it is well known that his version of the truth (and his comprehension of the fighting man) was at times quite bogus. eg. His campaign against Monash. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 I was interested in the denialist ... quote as well. Especially when Ekin's old boss and mentor, Peter Stanley, pretty much bitch slaps that version. I'm surprised that someone like Ekins would jump to the party line of defending Bean when it is well known that his version of the truth (and his comprehension of the fighting man) was at times quite bogus. eg. His campaign against Monash. The really odd thing is, to me, that that quote just kind of sits there, like a smelly fart in the middle of the article. There's no attempt to explore that the heck Ekins meant, or why he believes it, or whether Ekins thinks that Bean made an honest mistake, or anything really. Just an isolated and contradictory quote floating free. Weird reporting, if you ask me 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 For a minute there I thought this was going to be about the Melbourne Storm having cheated their way to 2 premiership victories in the National Rugby League over teams like the NZ Warriors! Regards KR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 nah - that's more a rip off of other aussies...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convicts_in_Australia interesting read. : ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REVS Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 Poor old C.E.W. Bean. There he was, second in line to Mary McKillop for an Aussie sainthood, and now the steady but inexorable trashing of his reputation has begun. It happens to the best of them. His Gallipoli accounts will eventually be considered worthless fiction, while secret documents unearthed by a keen Kiwi investigative reporter in 2023 seem to show that, very probably, at the time of the invasion, Bean was actually on top of the hill buggering a Kurdish youth in a sauna while spotting artillery for Ataturk in his spare time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 I think you will find that we will find that he was the buggeree rather than the buggerer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 I'm not sure why you're being so precious REVS. Stanley is the one who's really laying in to him. Speaking of reputations going down the toilet: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2010/04/26/100426ta_talk_rayner 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convicts_in_Australia interesting read. : ) Worth noting from the article that South Australia was the only Australian state which didn't receive convicts from 'the old country' seeing as we were established by free settlers. Hence, our widely held regard within the country as the state of refinement. Regards KR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 I don't know if 'regard' is quite the right word, is it ... ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Fair point. 'Awe' would be an acceptable substitute. Regards KR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Mmm, more like 'awful' I think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted April 28, 2010 Author Share Posted April 28, 2010 The location so awful that Britain wouldn't even send condemned men there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2010/04/26/100426ta_talk_rayner someone should start a thread on it! ooops! http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=91835 BTW I borrowed a couple of Ambrose books from a friend just to remind me why he is not on my like list. It even has the Panther with the 88mm in it uncorrected. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 It even has the Panther with the 88mm in it uncorrected. Ah yes. That must be Citizen Soldiers. I stumbled upon several mistakes in the first couple of chapters and that was one of the more glaring ones. I closed the book and gave up reading it and anything else by Ambrose after that. Anyone who can make an uncorrected error that egregious does not deserve to be called a historian; at least not a historian of the Second World War. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 Bean was actually on top of the hill buggering a Kurdish youth in a sauna while spotting artillery for Ataturk in his spare time. You heard it first here from a reliable source! **runs off to tell everyone** 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 Somewhat in the same vein: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8670531.stm There has been an angry reaction in Australia after television producers cast a Caucasian man in the role of a Chinese-Australian war hero. Who in their right mind didn't see a faecesstorm coming when you do that. Can't find a 60 year old Chinese actor to play the dad? Look harder, you dolts! You'd get in trouble if he was just a walk on part but no, the series is specifically about the guy! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 Tangentially related, Ashley Ekins has a new book out: http://www.amazon.com/1918-Year-Victory-Shaping-History/dp/1921497424/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273545240&sr=1-2 I saw it briefly in a book shop today, and though I can't comment on his bit(s?) the list of contributors he's put together is fairly impressive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.