I’ve heard the audio clip several times in which then Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies found it his “melancholy duty” in 1939 to declare war on Germany.

It was a memorable speech, perhaps the one for which Menzies is best known, along with his adulation of the Queen (I did but see her passing by).

Here is the full transcript of Menzies’ speech:

Fellow Australians, it is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war. No harder task can fall to the lot of a democratic leader than to make such an announcement. Great Britain and France, with the cooperation of the British Dominions, have struggled to avoid this tragedy. They have, as I firmly believe, been patient. They have kept the door of negotiation open. They have given no cause for aggression. But in the result, their efforts have failed and we are therefore, as a great family of nations, involved in a struggle which we must at all costs win and which we believe in our hearts we will win.

What I want to do tonight is just to put before you, honestly, and as clearly as I can, a short account of how this crisis has developed.

The history of recent months in Europe has been an eventful one. It will exhibit to the eyes of the future student some of the most remarkable instances of a ruthlessness and indifference to common humanity which the darkest centuries of European history can scarcely parallel. Moreover, it will, I believe, demonstrate that the leader of Germany has, for a long time, steadily pursued a policy which was deliberately designed to produce either war or a subjugation of one non-German country after another by the threat of war.

We all have vivid recollections of September of last year. Speaking in Berlin on September the 26th 1938, Hitler said, referring to the Sudeten German problem, which was then approaching its acutest stage, ‘And now the last problem which must be solved, and which will be solved, concerns us. It is the last territorial claim which I have to make in Europe.’ Four days later, at Munich, when the problem had been settled on terms which provided for the absorption of the Sudeten country into Germany, and which otherwise professed to respect the integrity of the remainder of the Czechoslovak state, Hitler participated with the Prime Minister of Great Britain in a statement which went out to all the world.

It’s most important sentence was this: ‘We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other question that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible causes of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe.’

What a strange piece of irony that seems today, only 12 months later. In those 12 months, what has happened? In cold-blooded breach of the solemn obligations implied in both the statements I have quoted, Hitler has annexed the whole of the Czechoslovak state. Has, without flickering an eyelid, made a pact with Russia, a country the denouncing and reviling of which has been his chief stock-in-trade ever since he became chancellor. And has now, under circumstances which I will describe to you, invaded with armed force and in defiance of civilised opinion, the independent nation of Poland. Your own comments on this dreadful history will need no reinforcement by me. All I need say is, that whatever the inflamed ambitions of the German Fuhrer may be, he will undoubtedly learn, as other great enemies of freedom have learned before, that no empire, no dominion, can be soundly established upon a basis of broken promises or dishonoured agreements.

Let me now say something about the events of the last few days. The facts are not really in dispute. They are, for the most part, contained in documents which are now a matter of record.

On Friday August the 25th, that is, nine days ago, Hitler asked the British Ambassador to call on him, and had a long interview with him. Hitler said that he wished to make a move towards England, as decisive as his recent Russian move, but that first the problem of Danzig and the Corridor must be solved. He went on to indicate that he was looking forward to a general European settlement and that if this could be achieved, he would be willing to accept a reasonable limitation of armaments. On Saturday August the 26th, the British Ambassador flew to London to give a detailed account of his conversation to the British Government. On Sunday the 27th, the British Cabinet fully considered the whole matter and, incidentally, was apprised by me of the views of the Australian Government.

On Monday August the 28th, the British reply, which I may say was entirely in line with our own views, was taken back to Berlin and was delivered to Hitler in the evening. That reply stated that the British Government desired a complete and lasting understanding between the two countries and agreed that a prerequisite to such a state of affairs was a settlement of the German-Polish differences. It emphasised the obligations which Great Britain had to Poland and made it clear that Great Britain could not acquiesce in a settlement which would put in jeopardy the independence of a state to which it had given its guarantee. The government said, however, that it would be prepared to participate in an international guarantee or any settlement reached by direct negotiation between Germany and Poland which did not prejudice Poland’s essential interests. The note pointed out that the Polish Government was ready to enter into discussions and that it was hoped that the German Government would do the same.

On the night of Tuesday August the 29th, Hitler communicated to Sir Neville Henderson his reply to the British note. In it he reiterated his demands, but agreed to accept the British Government’s offer of its good offices in securing the dispatch to Berlin of a Polish emissary. In the meantime, it was stated, the German Government would draw up proposals acceptable to itself and would, if possible, place these at the disposal of the British Government before the arrival of the Polish negotiator. Astonishingly enough, for the German proposals were not then even drafted, the note went on to say that the German Government counted on the arrival of the Polish emissary on Wednesday August the 30th, which was the very next day. Sir Neville Henderson pointed out at once that this was an impossible condition, but Hitler assured him that it was only intended to stress the urgency of the matter. On the Wednesday, Hitler’s communication was received by the British Government and their reply was handed by Sir Neville Henderson to von Ribbentrop, the German Foreign Minister, at midnight.

At the same time the British Ambassador asked whether the German proposals which were to be drawn up were ready, and suggested that von Ribbentrop should invite the Polish Ambassador to call and should hand to him the proposals for transmission to his government. I would have thought this was a very sensible suggestion. But von Ribbentrop rejected it in violent terms. Von Ribbentrop then produced a lengthy document containing the German proposals, which you subsequently saw in the newspapers, and read it aloud in German at top speed. Sir Neville Henderson naturally asked for a copy of the document but the reply was that it now was too late as the Polish representative had not arrived in Berlin by midnight.

You see what a travesty the whole thing was. The German Government was treating Poland as in default, because she had not by Wednesday night offered an opinion upon, or discussed with Germany, a set of proposals of which, in fact, she had at that time never heard. Indeed, apart from the hurried reading to which I’ve referred, the British Government had no account of these proposals until they were broadcast in Germany on Thursday August the 31st. On the night of August the 31st, the Polish ambassador at Berlin saw von Ribbentrop and told him that the Polish Government was willing to negotiate with Germany about their disputes on an equal basis. The only reply was that German troops passed the Polish frontier and began war upon the Poles at dawn on the morning of Friday September the 1st.

One further fact should be mentioned and it is this. In the British Government’s communication of August the 30th, it informed the German Chancellor that it recognised the need for speed and that it also recognised the dangers which arose from the fact that two mobilised armies were facing each other on opposite sides of the Polish frontier, and that accordingly, it strongly urged that both Germany and Poland should undertake that during the negotiations no aggressive military movements would take place. That being communicated to Poland, the Polish Government on Thursday August the 31st, categorically stated that it was prepared to give a formal guarantee that during negotiations Polish troops would not violate the frontiers provided a corresponding guarantee was given by Germany. The German Government made no reply whatever.

My comments on these events need not be very long. The matter was admirably stated by the British Prime Minister to the House of Commons in these words: ‘It is plain therefore that Germany claims to treat Poland as in the wrong because she had not by Wednesday night entered upon discussions with Germany about a set of proposals of which she had never heard.’

Let me elaborate this a little. You can make an offer of settlement for two entirely different purposes. You may make your offer genuinely and hoping to have it accepted or discussed with a view to avoiding war. On the other hand, you may make it, hoping to use it as window dressing and with no intention or desire to have it accepted. If I were to make an offer to my neighbour about a piece of land in dispute between us, and before he had had the faintest opportunity of dealing with my offer, I’ve violently assaulted him, my offer would stand revealed as a fraud. If Germany had really desired a peaceful settlement of questions relating to Danzig and the Corridor, she would have taken every step to see that her proposals were adequately considered by Poland and that there was proper opportunity for discussion. In other words, if Germany had wanted peace, does anybody believe that there would today be fighting on the Polish frontier, or that Europe would be plunged into war? Who wanted war? Poland? Great Britain? France? A review of all these circumstances makes it clear that the German Chancellor has, throughout this week of tension, been set upon war and that the publication of his proposals for settlement was designed merely as a bid for world opinion before he set his armies on the move.

We have of course been deluged with propaganda from Berlin. We have been told harrowing stories of the oppression of Germans. We have been told that Poland invaded Germany. We have even been told, somewhat contradictorily, that Germany was forced to invade Poland in order to defend herself against aggression. The technique of German propaganda, of carefully fomented agitations in neighbouring countries, the constant talk of persecution and injustice – these are all nauseatingly familiar to us. We made the acquaintance of all of them during the dispute over Czechoslovakia, and we may well ask what has become of the Czech minority and the Slovak minority since the forced absorption of their country into the German state. It is plain, indeed it is brutally plain, that the Hitler ambition has been not, as he once said, to unite the German peoples under one rule but to bring under that rule as many European countries, even of alien race, as can be subdued by force.

If such a policy were allowed to go unchecked there could be no security in Europe and there could be no just peace for the world. A halt has been called. Force has had to be resorted to, to check the march of force. Honest dealing, the peaceful adjustment of differences, the rights of independent peoples to live their own lives, the honouring of international obligations and promises, all these things are at stake. There never was any doubt as to where Great Britain stood in relation to them. There can be no doubt that where Great Britain stands there stand the people of the entire British world.

Bitter as we all feel at this wanton crime, this is not a moment for rhetoric. Prompt as the action of many thousands must be, it is for the rest a moment for quiet thinking, for that calm fortitude that rests not upon the beating of drums but upon the unconquerable spirit of man created by God in his own image. What may be before us we do not know, nor how long the journey. But this we do know: that truth is our companion on that journey; that truth is with us in the battle; and that truth must win.

Before I end, may I say this to you – in the bitter months that have come, calmness, resoluteness, confidence and hard work will be required as never before. This war will involve not only soldiers and sailors and airmen, but supplies, foodstuffs, money. Our staying power, and particularly the staying power of the mother country, will be best assisted by keeping our production going; by continuing our avocations and our business as freely as we can; by maintaining employment and, with it, our strength. I know that in spite of the emotions we are all feeling, you will show that Australia is ready to see it through. May God in his mercy and compassion grant that the world may soon be delivered from this agony.

Comment

As the curator of the National Archives notes: “The Prime Minister’s words are statesman-like, his voice thick and low. His English is refined and reminiscent of a time when the British Empire lived on in the voices of the Australian people. Menzies’s language is grandiose: ‘Whatever the inflamed ambitions of the German Führer may be, he will undoubtedly learn, as other great enemies of freedom have learned before, that no empire, no dominion, can be soundly established upon a basis of broken promises or dishonoured agreements.’

Menzies mostly speaks in the third person, as though he plays no personal part in the story but knows all the facts. This technique enhances the sense of objectivity and reliability of the information being given but also creates distance between the audience and the story. To overcome this disadvantage, Menzies occasionally switches to first person, personalising his views to relate to his audience: ‘Your own comments on this dreadful history will need no reinforcement by me.’

Menzies denounces the need for rhetoric but arguably uses it to support the ideal of Australia fighting for her motherland: ‘There can be no doubt that where Great Britain stands, there stands the people of the entire British world. Bitter as we all feel at this wanton crime, this is not a moment for rhetoric … I know that in spite of the emotions we are all feeling, you will show that Australia is ready to see it through. May God in his mercy and compassion grant that the world may soon be delivered from this agony.’

My comment

Menzies did what he had to do, delivering a message that Australians were unhappy to hear after the celebratory start and ultimate catastrophe of the First World War.

There was no dispute that Australia should enter the Second World War, but the country was still hurting from the earlier conflict.

Menzies captured the public mood through his speech, but failed to hold his Coalition Government together, losing power in 1941 when two independent MPs switched their support to Labor.

In fact, I gave the man $5 and he handed over four poppies, so I gave two of them to Jim and Maggie.

I always get a little reflective and melancholy around Remembrance Day.

It really is a fitting reminder of the horrors of World War One and a chance for me to ensure the memory of my great uncle James Gorey (pictured below) lives on.

The Anzac Day website contains this information about the red poppy symbol:

November is poppy month, the time of the year when by the wearing of a simple emblem, a red poppy, we salute the memory of those who sacrificed their health, their strength, even their lives, that we might live in a free country.

The red Flanders’ poppy was first described as a flower of remembrance by Colonel John McCrae, who was Professor of Medicine at McGill University of Canada before World War One. Colonel McCrae had served as a gunner in the Boer War, but went to France in World War One as a medical Officer with the first Canadian Contingent.

At the second battle of Ypres in 1915, when in charge of a small first-aid post, he wrote in pencil on a page torn from his despatch book:

In Flanders’ fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row
That mark our place, and in the sky
The larks still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

Take up our quarrel with the foe,
To you from failing hands we throw
The Torch: be yours to hold it high!
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders’ fields.

I knew Uncle John had served in the navy, including in the Korean War, but I didn’t know about the ships.

The internet is good for researching things like that. John died in 1997 and I only ever met him a handful of times.

According to the government’s nominal roll of Korean War veterans, John served on HMAS Tobruk and HMAS Sydney.

I’ll look up those ships later, but today I’ll focus on HMAS Shropshire.

I think Shropshire may have been his first ship, because she was placed in permanent reserve in 1947.

The ship was launched as HMS Shropshire on July 5, 1928 by the Countess of Powis, Baroness D’Arcy de Knayth and served with the British Mediterranean Fleet until the outbreak of war in September 1939.

Shropshire was ordered to take up patrol in the South Atlantic and for the next four months she was almost continuously at sea on trade protection duties.

In 1941 the cruiser operated against Italian Somaliland, bombarding Mogadishu and Kismaya during the advance of the South African Army from Kenya to Abyssinia.

A refit back in Britain was followed by more patrol and escort work in the Atlantic.

Following the loss of the heavy cruiser HMAS Canberra on August 9, 1942 in the Battle of Savo Island, the British Government approved the transfer of Shropshire to the Royal Australian Navy as a replacement.

She was formally handed over to the RAN on June 25, 1943.

On July 1, the cruiser sailed for Scapa Flow in the Orkney Islands, where she was visited by King George VI and Admiral Sir Bruce Fraser, Commander-in-Chief of the Home Fleet.

HMAS Shropshire sailed for Australia in August and arrived at Fremantle on September 24. The press came aboard and marvelled at the ship’s cafeteria-style messing, library and recreation room, cinema and shipboard radio station.

On Christmas Eve 1943, as part of the US Seventh Fleet, Shropshire sailed for the invasion of New Britain, where she covered the landings at Arawa and Cape Gloucester.

The ship saw service until the end of the war and was in Tokyo for the official Japanese surrender.

In May 1946 Shropshire left Australia for the United Kingdom, carrying the Australian contingent for the Empire Victory celebrations, returning to Australia in August.

After being placed in reserve, Shropshire spent several years in Sydney Harbour.

On October 9, 1954 she left Sydney in tow of the Dutch tug Oostzee bound for the shipbreakers in Scotland. Shropshire was broken up at Troon and Dalmuir.

Later this week I’ll look at the HMAS Tobruk and HMAS Sydney.

I started this search because I wanted to rediscover a reference I found several years ago that John had served during British nuclear testing at the Monte Bello Islands.

According to Wikipedia:
HMAS Shropshire

Displacement: 9750 tons standard; 13,315 tons full load
Length: 633 ft (193 m)
Beam: 66 ft (20 m)
Draught: 21 ft (6.4 m)
Propulsion: Eight Admiralty 3-drum boilers, four shaft Parsons geared turbines, 80,000 shp (60 MN)
Speed: 32 knots (59.3 km/h)
Range: 4715 kilometres (2930 mi) at 31.5 knots (58.3 km/h) knots
Complement: 650 (peace), 820 (war)

He was presented with the country’s highest military honor for his rescue of a wounded Afghan interpreter from heavy fire in Afghanistan in September.

Congratulations to Trooper Donaldson, pictured above with his wife.

Governor-General Quentin Bryce presented the medal today.

Ms Bryce described Trooper Donaldson as an inspiration.

“We gather around you to distinguish your actions, and to honor the individual they speak of, the person you are, your undertaking, your way of living,” she said.

“We are here to dedicate your contribution, your unconditional surrender to duty and humanity, your abandonment of your own necessity so that others may be secured.

“By your doing and knowing, you will shoulder more than most. You are the finest example and inspiration.

“Trooper Donaldson, VC, I salute you.”

I applaud the presentation and the comments.

I found it interesting however, the Victoria Cross was replaced in 1991 by the Victoria Cross for Australia.

In effect, the imperial honor was replaced by an Australian honor with the same name.

That would have been roughly the same time knighthoods, Orders of the British Empire (OBE) and Members of the British Empire (MBE) were abolished in this country.

Different states had different policies in that regard for several years.

I had no problem with “imperial” honors. They were shared with several countries, therefore being international. People still relate better to an OBE than an AO and knighthoods carried more respect than Aussie gongs.

The honors were decided by Australian governments, so there was nothing subservient about them.

Critics objected to the symbolism, as they do to the constitutional monarchy.

It’s interesting they retained the Victoria Cross among those awards that were changed.

I’m pleased they did.

Journalist Darren Linton did a great job compiling the information with photographs and putting it all into historical context.

The Gorey family at war, part 1

The Gorey family at war, part 2

The Gorey family at war, part 3

I agree with Tim Fischer that Sir John should be posthumously promoted to Field Marshal.

As we near the 90th anniversary of the end of World War I it seems appropriate to further recognise Sir John’s achievements. He was a brilliant strategist and proved himself one of the best generals of his time.

Growing up in the Latrobe Valley, I knew of him as the head of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria (SECV). He was an engineer and designed many bridges in Victoria.

His parents were of German-Jewish origin, which Fischer believes is partly responsible for Sir John being held back in rank.

I don’t know about that. The fact he came from a Militia background doesn’t sound a strong reason either, but may be true.

Possibly his greatest military achievement was the Battle of Hamel, which defied previous history and lasted just 92 minutes.

“Monash’s detailed planning of the battle as well as the briefing of all troops on their objectives were instrumental in the victory. It also marked the novel use of a number of tactics such as aerial resupply (parachute drops) and advanced coordination between infantry and armor.”

Some interesting trivia:

• On August 12, 1918 Sir John was knighted on the battlefield by King George V. It was the first time a British monarch had honored a commander in such a way in 200 years.
• A contingent of four companies of American troops from the 131st and 132nd Infantry regiments participated in the Battle of Hamel under Australian command. This was the first time American troops had served under a foreign commander.

Jim was my grandfather Michael’s youngest brother.

I’m disappointed with myself for missing the anniversary before now. With commemorations looming for the 90th anniversary of some famous battles on the Somme, and of course the Armistice, my mind is getting back to reflect on the First World War and my family’s contribution.

A journalist from the Shepparton News, Darren Linton, contacted me this week, having discovered material I published online.

He found it a compelling story that five brothers had their lives changed by war, and in Jim’s case ended.

I’m glad Darren said that, because he’s reviewing the material dispassionately from a distance.

When writing the family history some years ago I found the war to be the biggest influence on the lives of my great-grandparents’ children and subsequent generations.

Overall it was a negative influence, I believe. We ended up losing the family farm and all the boys had to start from scratch after their lives had been shattered in one way or another.

Jim enlisted when he was 20 years old and never married or had children.

I feel a connection with him and his legacy is a reason why I named my second son James, along with my uncle Jim, who served in the Second World War and also died without children.

I will never forget them.

That’s a little surprising when you consider that journalists are writers. But when you think about it, we are craftsmen while novelists are artists. We ply a trade while they follow their creative spirits. We have responsibilities, they don’t.

Three good books about newspapers come readily to mind. PG Wodehouse wrote Psmith, Journalist in 1915; Evelyn Waugh wrote Scoop in 1938 and Terry Pratchett published The Truth in 2000.

In Wodehouse’s classic, Psmith arrives in New York on a cricket tour and becomes involved with the home entertainment weekly “Cosy Moments” which he transforms into a hard-hitting investigative journal. He rides the bumps of organised crime and American politics along the way.

In Waugh’s story, scribe William Boot is mistaken by the publisher of the Daily Beast for a war correspondent. He is uprooted from writing country garden features to covering the civil war in Ishmaelia. Both novels are cleverly satirical.

Pratchett’s The Truth is a typically fantastic work from the author of the Discworld series. The hero in this case is William de Worde, who teams up with dwarfs to print the first newspaper in Ankh-Morpork.

As usual, Pratchett offers some tremendous insights into human nature. His observations of the newspaper profession are also very sharp, suggesting excellent research or personal knowledge. For instance, he offers a rare literary tribute to the unsung work of sub-editors.

I’ve just finished reading The Truth for the second time. I found the focus on hired assassins to be distracting and kept wanting the story to get back to the trials and tribulations of The Times.

There are some great one liners, like when the dwarfs make a typesetting error with the newspaper’s logo, which becomes: “The truth will make you fret”.

I related personally to the serial pest who kept coming into the office with remarkable vegetables. Anyone who has worked on a country newspaper will know there are people in most towns who like to show off their giant tomatoes or funny-shaped parsnips.

I admit it’s one of my long-term ambitions to write a satirical novel about newspapers. I started taking notes of strange but true incidents last year, like when one of my reporters disappeared while on the trail of visiting Mongolian detectives.

I have heaps of material; just need the time to write it.

I remember attending April 25 parades as a cub scout in Traralgon where the returned soldiers outnumbered the spectators. There were Boer War veterans in the earliest march that I can recall.

Today it is fashionable to observe Anzac Day, which is great, but I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard people talk about “celebrating” the occasion.

There is nothing to celebrate.

And while it’s encouraging that more young people are getting involved, they need to understand what the First World War means in the context of Australian history.

I’ll be attending an Anzac Day service, as I generally do, but I wonder how many people really know the facts apart from those which have been made popular in the media.

Australia was British to the bootstraps in 1914 and our young men marched away without a thought for the consequences; the same as the young men of Canada, South Africa, Ireland and New Zealand. It would be wrong to portray this as a turning point in our nationhood, because these young people did their duty.

Some people like to suggest it was the defining moment of Australian nationalism. I disagree.

The Second World War was the turning point in Australian history because we realised Britain could no longer protect us and we turned to the United States instead.

Young people should be taught about the great division which occurred in Australian society during WW1 regarding the conscription debate. The government wanted compulsory military service but this was rejected by the people. The Catholic Irish were prominent in defeating the proposal.

That said more about the Australian character than our courageous military endeavors, which many other countries can also claim.

As mentioned, four of my great-uncles served in the war and one was killed. My grandfather didn’t go.

I’m told he received white feathers as a consequence. That is shameful considering he had proper employment, a pregnant wife and an infant daughter. It’s the equivalent of anonymous hate mail today. Students should know that some people behaved in this disgraceful manner.

I’m afraid though that Anzac Day is being glorified. I consider it a solemn occasion for serious prayer and reflection. I don’t accept there is anything to celebrate.

We drove to Cape Le Grande National Park, about 60km from the town, and I took this photo of Lucky Bay.