on โ06-05-2014 11:16 AM
AS the Abbott government begins to take on union power and corruption, a timely new book reveals the union movement's role in one of the most shameful periods of Australian history.
What the wharfies did to Australian troops - and their nation's war effort - between 1939 and 1945 is nothing short of an abomination.
Perth lawyer Hal Colebatch has done the nation a service with his groundbreaking book, Australia's Secret War, telling the untold story of union **bleep**ry during World War 2.
Using diary entries, letters and interviews with key witnesses, he has pieced together with forensic precision the tale of how Australia's unions sabotaged the war effort, how wharfies vandalised, harassed, and robbed Australian troop ships, and probably cost lives.
One of the most obscene acts occurred in October, 1945, at the end of the war, after Australian soldiers were released from Japanese prison camps. They were half dead, starving and desperate for home. But when the British aircraft-carrier HMS Speaker brought them into Sydney Harbour, the wharfies went on strike. For 36 hours, the soldiers were forced to remain on-board, tantalisingly close to home. This final act of cruelty from their countrymen was their thanks for all the sacrifice.
Colebatch coolly recounts outrage after outrage.
In Adelaide, American soldiers fired sub-machine guns at wharfies deliberately destroying their aircraft engines by dropping them from great heights. Australian soldiers had to draw bayonets to stop the same Adelaide wharfies from stealing food meant for troops overseas.
You will read this book with mounting fury.
Colebatch offers various explanations for the treasonous behaviour of the unions. Many of the leaders were Communists obsessed with class warfare. Fervent "identity politics" led them to believe they were victims and servicemen and women were "puppets of capitalism whose lives were of no consequence". Contrary to popular belief, strikes and sabotage continued, even after the Soviet Union became an ally, writes Colebatch, who contends that the Australian Left may have wanted to undermine the military in preparation for revolution after the war.
Methinks that book will be very interesting reading.
on โ06-05-2014 03:55 PM
@lakeland27 wrote:'A planned rescue of Australian PoWs in Borneo late in the war apparently had to be abandoned, writes Colebatch, because a wharf strike in Brisbane meant the ships had no heavy weapons.'
there's that disclaimer in a word Again. Apparently being a word used when there is a lack of evidence or proof. the author came to this conclusion but cannot back it up . BZZZZT .. Dismissed .
didn't like that article at all did you Lakes, you're trying so hard to diss it. ๐
on โ06-05-2014 04:12 PM
i don't like biased conclusions. conclusions without proof from dubious sources i like a lot less. and with the use of one word 'apparently'
which means
synonyms: | seemingly, evidently, it seems (that), it would seem (that), it appears (that), it would appear (that), as far as one knows, by all accounts, so it seems;More |
the author leaves the door open for dispute, by design or so he doesn't state it as a certainty.. a deliberately worded 'my conclusion' 'what i think happened' statement. he doesn't know.
on โ06-05-2014 04:17 PM
@lakeland27 wrote:i don't like biased conclusions. conclusions without proof from dubious sources i like a lot less. and with the use of one word 'apparently'
which means
apparentlyษหparษntli/adverbadverb: apparentlyas far as one knows or can see."the child nodded, apparently content with the promise"
synonyms: seemingly, evidently, it seems (that), it would seem (that), it appears (that), it would appear (that), as far as one knows, by all accounts, so it seems;More
the author leaves the door open for dispute, by design or so he doesn't state it as a certainty.. a deliberately worded 'my conclusion' 'what i think happened' statement. he doesn't know.
deliberately worded slur on our Trade Union history from another right wing zealot who wouldn't have a clue - (meant for the "author" of the "article" not the poster who started the thread.)
on โ06-05-2014 04:23 PM
There is no dispute! this actually happened and the unions were responsible for ships sunk and deaths at sea of Australian soldiers. Do your history it's there for anybody who's interested.
on โ06-05-2014 04:28 PM
well we have a doubtful book from a biased and imaginative source. if you can point me to a few proper sources without (rather blunt) axes to grind SF i'd be grateful. but not holding my breath obviously ..
on โ06-05-2014 04:28 PM
lol there's one (1) example there with the word apparently in it and that's the one you've seized on for your defence.
Flimsy, Lakes, very flimsy.
on โ06-05-2014 04:47 PM
well yes. i seized on that knowing the reputation of colebatch that stemmed from his rather odd views on the vietnam war.
the blogger puts it quite well http://loonpond.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/pauline-hanson-hal-colebatch-andrew.html
on โ06-05-2014 04:53 PM
ah wer'e relying on the bloggers you would otherwise denounce are we?
on โ06-05-2014 04:57 PM
no i dont rely on the blogger, but he gives good background into the fellow colebatch. he also has a dig at certain labor figures as well as hanson bolt and smirk. he calls a Loon a Loon.
what i rely on is experience in sniffing out a rat. in this case my memory (and nose) stand me in good stead.
on โ06-05-2014 05:09 PM
@lakeland27 wrote:no i dont rely on the blogger, but he gives good background into the fellow colebatch. he also has a dig at certain labor figures as well as hanson bolt and smirk. he calls a Loon a Loon.
what i rely on is experience in sniffing out a rat. in this case my memory (and nose) stand me in good stead.
ah so we're relying on your nose, and memory (which you youself posted only recently has occasionally deserted you) to discredit a learned man an published author. Oh and a blogger, where you yourself have not accepted blogger's views in any other argument that didn't suit you.
nice one, Lakes, nice one.