This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There may be a problem with this page. The documentary record does not substantiate the claims that Blamey was highly concerned about the success of the Greek Campaign. This is a later confection by Blamey as he tried in late 1941 to distance himself from the unsuccessful campaign. It needs to be noted that Menzies had been in the Middle East immediately prior to the Greek campaign and met with Blamey on 10 February, 1941. Any attempt to play off Blamey and Menzies would have been undone in that meeting, and, what is more, the documentary record clearly demonstrates that Blamey deliberately withheld information from both Menzies and the Australian Government in relation to the intended Campaign. It is also notable, he never raised any concerns with Menzies over his fears about the campaign.

The Greek Campaign was also no surprise to the Australian Government as it had been sp[ecifically mentioned as a possibility in the Governor General's speech to Parliament in November, 1940.

John Fahey c/o john.fahey@cynergexgroup.com.au —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.128.64.219 ( talk) 05:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to Paul Hasluck, The Government and the People 1939 - 1941, Volume One, Australia in the War of 1939 - 1945, Civil series, Australian War Memorial, Canberra, 1965, pp.333 - 340 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.128.64.219 ( talk) 05:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Even allowing for the great difficulties in trying to condense a lot of information into a small space, I think this entry does not do justice to Blamey's remarkable career and the many contradictions in his character and actions.

There are comments with which to quibble and, more importantly, significant omissions.

Strictly, Blamey did not begin his soldiering career as a citizen soldier, in the sense of militia, but as a school teacher in charge of cadets before becoming one of the foundation staff of the Administrative and Instructional Corps (or Staff) in 1906, which ran a national army cadet scheme.

Although widely believed, there is no concrete evidence to prove the allegation that Blamey was involved in the LNS. There is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred on the basis of guilt by association with others who were, or who now are thought to have been, involved in it and similar inter-war organisations. There is much more evidence, from Australian security intelligence source documents, that he was involved in, and probably was the leader of, a similar anti-communist organisation known as The Association after WWII.

The badge [not card] 80 incident has never been unequivocally explained nor determined. The possibilities range from Blamey being the man found by police in the brothel raid who produced the Chief Commissioner's badge 80 to discourage them from arresting him to the man being a friend of Blamey's to whom he had, according to a curiously late and somewhat implausible explanation by Blamey, given his keys for an innocent purpose and the badge was on the key ring. Or perhaps the man was a random thief who took the badge from Blamey's office, given the findings of one of the more sympathetic investigations by police under Blamey's command.

The reference to Blamey's actions as Chief Commissioner of Police against demonstrating workers ignores his longer and much more destructive and bitter internal war with the police union, which perhaps reflected Blamey's antagonism towards communism as represented by trade unions generally as well as a contest for power over who actually ran the police.

The treatment in the main entry of his relationship with MacArthur casts him unfairly as gutless in dealing with MacArthur. He was in fact widely regarded a loyal deputy (which loyalty MacArthur did not return) but not a spineless one, in the difficult situation of trying to represent Australia's defence and military interests while maintaining a delicate balance with the difficult and even more egotistical and ambitious American general whose growing forces were perceived as critical to Australia's survival in 1942, although it is debatable whether MacArthur's forces mattered much, unlike the US Marines on Guadalcanal not under MacArthur's command who made a far greater contribution to the 1942-3 Allied land victories over the Japanese. At the same time Blamey's ambition and desire always to advance or protect himself at the expense of others led to some discreditable conduct after he realised that MacArthur had sent him to Papua during the Kokoda campaign to set him up as the scapegoat if the Allies lost. I do not see how the notorious "rabbit who runs" comment at Koitaki can be related in any way to MacArthur or Blamey's relationship with him. It certainly did not flow from any communication or order from MacArthur to Blamey nor was it relevant to anything else passing between them. It was just Blamey at his clumsy, or maybe nasty, worst. He has a long history before and during WWII of clumsy public and private statements which got him into unnecessary difficulties.

While there is no shortage of material supporting the view that Blamey was ruthless and mean-sprited in dealing with rivals, the main entry about this should be balanced by reference to contradictory material from those, such as Ned Herring, who achieved high rank and served under Blamey, for whom they had the highest regard. While there is much about Blamey to dislike, and even to condemn, the received view of him seems to have been clouded by a rather small quantity of negative events and opinions which obscure his many and fine achievements during a long and highly productive career. It is unfair to the man and unbalanced history to perpetuate this.

The summary of his military career could pay more attention to his outstanding work as a staff officer in WWI and to his excellent work between the wars in helping shape the Australian military forces, although this was not without deficiencies such as his widely shared pre-WWII assumption that Britain's Singapore defence should ensure Australia's defence against Japan, in the absence of other major conflicts, and the failure he shared with other military leaders in various Allied nations to recognise the supremacy of air power in sea and land actions. Equally, the summary does not balance his excellent work commanding Australian forces in North Africa against his deficiencies as a field commander (but not his previous strategic and operational assessments) in the failures in Greece and Crete, nor questions about his personal conduct, or misconduct,during that era, including allegations of cowardice and nepotism in evacuating his surviving son from Greece with much more senior officers. His failures as a field commander in Papua also need to be understood, as do his later successes as a commander in New Guinea.

Despite being the commander, Blamey consistently failed to view the forward positions in Papua (anywhere much north of Port Moresby during the long and critical Kokoda campaign while he tamely relayed MacArthur's ill-informed orders to press on quickly in atrocious conditions which neither he nor MacArthur had seen nor understood, although both of them popped up on the battlefield towards the end at the Gona-Buna battles). In Papua his failure to go forward certainly led to him failing to appreciate the battlefield and its conditions, resulting in unreasonable demands on his subordinate commanders and unfair penalisation for failing to carry out impossible orders.

At every juncture of his career after, and perhaps during, WWI Blamey seems to have put his personal advancement against the interests of others. He was certainly seen as vicious and relentless in getting rid of rivals, although in some cases at least he might well have been correct in his assessments of the weaknesses of others whose advancement he blocked, nothwithstanding that Blamey himself suffered from some of the same problems in the eyes of others.

Like MacArthur, who in a baseless imputation of cowardice was unfairly called Dugout Doug by his troops but for whom he tried to provide well and for whom he probably had genuine concern, Blamey was often held in poor regard by his troops although he was constantly concerned to ensure that they were well supplied. Making sure it actually happened was sometimes a different issue as shown by the consistent and critical supply failures on the Kododa retreat and advance.

Blamey was a great Australian military leader in trying, against often arrogant British superiors and their political masters up to Winston Churchill and later under MacArthur, to maintain the unity and integrity of Australian forces under British command in both world wars, and notably in WWII.

Like many of his contemporaries, I have little regard for Blamey as a man in many of the events in his life and often a great distaste for him as a political general and a lifelong sychophant remoreselessly seeking self-advancement at the expense of his equally well-qualified but politically less able rivals. Nonetheless, unlike many of his contemporaries and later critics, I think that one needs to look at the vast and great range of work he did from shortly before WWI until the end of WWII. It represents one of the greatest positive contributions to Australia by any person, and probably the best contribution by any military person although this was perhaps as much a consequence of the positions which, by a mixture of luck, cunning and scheming, he occupied at ideal times as much as of his undoubted ability in staff, strategic, and political, as distinct from combat command, areas.

No person is perfect on all fronts, and Blamey definitely was not, but despite his many faults he was a highly talented military administrator, strategist, and an outstanding staff officer whose sometimes unpleasant and generally self-centred personal qualities probably gave him the strength and independence to stand against quailing Australian politicians and, to a lesser extent, the self-seeking arrogance, scheming and bluster of MacAthur in Australia's desperate days in 1942.

For all his faults and virtues, Blamey perhaps stands with John Curtin as one of the only stolid leaders who recognised and responded fully to the threats when Australia had its back to the wall for the only time in its history when others were less resolute in the face of advances towards Australia by the seemingly invincible Japanese. Regardless of the many criticisms which can be levelled at him, and MacArthur, from their initial failure to appreciate the significance and strength of the Japanese advance through Kokoda towards Port Moresby and their deplorable command and neglect, in every respect, of the retreat and advance in the Kokoda campaign, the fact remains that victory was won under Blamey's and MacArthur's commands. Whether that victory and the victories at Gona, Buna and Sanananda were because of or in spite of Blamey and MacArthur is a debate to which there can never be a definite conclusion.

What is indisputable is that if Blamey and MacArthur had been more in touch with the battlefield in Papua, and if MacArthur had been less concerned with forcing quick results to gain future advantage in Washington's eyes, the Kokoda - Buna - Gona - Sanananda campaigns would have been better fought with better supplies with better results with fewer casualties among, predominantly, the Australian forces who bore the brunt of the fighting.

Blamey's subsequent career, or lack of it, is more a consequence of MacArthur's own huge self-centred ambition which side-lined Australian forces rather than any deficiency in Blamey as a military leader or commander.

The main entry reference to Blamey receiving his field marshal's baton "on his death bed" is a little florid. He was certainly quite ill at the time he received it on 16 September 1950 at the Repatriation General Hospital at Heidelberg, but he did not die until 27 May 1951 of a stroke which, although he had had one before getting his baton, was a new event unrelated to the earlier illnesses.

To fill in the gap in the main entry about the date of his promotion to major general, according to David Horner in "Blamey" (pp. 107-8) he was promoted around March 1931 upon becoming commander of the 3rd Division, which was a militia unit.

To get a fuller picture of Blamey, David Horner's excellent, detailed and well referenced "Blamey" 1998, Sydney, Allen & Unwin should be read in conjunction with John Hetherington's work mentioned as a reference in the main entry. Among the many other books worth reading to obtain a rounded picture of the complex man who was Blamey, Frank Legg's "The Gordon Bennett Story" 1965, Sydney, Angus & Robertson, provides insights into Blamey's activities, conduct and development from WWI to the end of WWII from the perspective of his rival Gordon Bennett. Damian Walsh

28 June 2006

Why don't you incorporate some of this into the article, with appropriate sourcing? Adam 11:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't contributed to anything on Wikipedia before so I was reluctant to edit someone else's work. I've amended my initial comment with more material so it can be commented upon with a view to identifying the parts which could be added to the entry. Damian Walsh 9.50 p.m. AEST 29 June 2006

Ah, editing other people's work, indeed totally rewriting other people's work, is more than half the fun. If you get it wrong, others will correct you. Adam 11:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Damian, you should:

• Become a registered user.
• Rewrite this article as you see fit. You obviously know the subject, so get on with it. If others disagree with you, they will say so, and then you can debate it. It's fun. Adam 09:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Adam Thanks for the encouragement. I'll do it progressively as I need to check some sources and be more precise, and concise. Damian

I have moved the extensive note from the article regarding the "context" in which one should understand Blamey to the talk page, as it is overlong and does not fit well with the article as it now stands. I feel this should be a note to the Australian Army page, perhaps, with a link there to explicate the issues raised. The passage, though long-winded, has a good deal of merit — this is merely the wrong place for it. Wally 21:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A Note on Staff versus Other Officers

To understand Blamey's skills; criticisms of him; and conflicts between him and other army officers, it is necessary to understand the difference between staff officers and those commanding combat units. It is also necessary to understand an entirely different distinction between Australian Staff Corps officers and Australian militia officers.

Staff versus Combat Commands.

All armies are arranged in similar ways, with the smallest group of about ten to fifteen infantrymen under low level command being incorporated into larger and larger groups with increasingly high levels of command, up to commands which may control hundreds of thousands of soldiers.

A relatively small proportion of soldiers in any army is combat troops, primarily those in infantry, artillery, and armour. For every combat soldier there are many more providing a huge range of support services in the field and in rear areas from communications, ammunition, transport, catering, and medical services to pay and general administrative services.

Staff officers control and support very large combat units, typically of at least 10,000 soldiers, but at policy and planning rather than detailed combat levels which, certainly in the Australian Army in Blamey's time, are left to the commanders of the combat units. Staff officers determine and plan the operations in which combat and combat support units engage. They decide the strategy and objectives to be achieved, and then plan all the support steps and requirements, from the general movements of troops to the last bullet and bandage required and how those items will reach the combat units at the requisite time.

Good staff work can win battles with average troops but bad staff work can deprive excellent troops of victory or subject them to defeat by the enemy. In the simplest example, if the bullets aren't there the best troops at the front can't fire them, and the best troops can then be killed or be forced to retreat because poor staff work deprives them of offensive or defensive capacity.

In WWI, Blamey was regarded by everyone as an excellent staff officer. He consulted with, rather than merely gave directions to, every major combat and combat support unit involved in an attack to ensure that all units involved understood the aim of the attack and that he understood what they needed to achieve the aim. His attention to detail ensured that every aspect of an attack and its prosecution was properly planned and supported. Nowhere was this better demonstrated than at Amiens where, over initial British opposition to the attacks, Australian and Canadian forces punched the first serious and sustained hole in the final German defences in an extraordinarily aggressive and successful advance which was the beginning of Germany's defeat.

Blamey's reputation in WWII is less consistent. This is due partly to his exercise of high command, staff, and occasional and sometimes ill-defined combat commands at the same time, which results in some critics failing to distinguish between his failures and achievements in these different capacities. His work at staff level in North Africa and Greece was at best excellent and at worst competent. His combat command in Greece has been criticised but this ignores his strategic predictions at high command and staff levels beforehand that the campaign was doomed; his preparations alone among all senior officers to identify evacuation points in case of defeat; and the successful evacuation of the bulk of his force from those points in what otherwise would have been a mass surrender of Allied troops desperately needed elsewhere in the Mediterranean theatre and, ultimately, in the defence of Australia after Japan entered the war. Conversely, there is ample evidence of serious failures by him in every capacity during the Papuan campaign (primarily the critical Kododa retreat and advance, and to a lesser extent Gona, Buna, and Sananda) when he professed to be operating at high command levels but was perceived by some of his immediate subordinates as attempting to operate as a combat commander. Subsequently, he was quite competent in a better defined capacity as overall commander during the subsequent New Guinea campaigns. Later, his allegedly unnecessary wastage of Australian troops in the latter part of WWII in seemingly pointless campaigns against contained Japanese troops as the Americans advanced towards Japan attracted contemporary and subequent criticism that he was fighting campaigns for political rather than military purposes. Unlike the Americans who were replaced by Australian troops in areas where the Japanese were contained without aggressive action by either American or Japanese troops, Blamey considered that the enemy should be fought with a view to defeat wherever he was found. During this same time General Douglas MacArthur was conducting his famous "Island Hopping Campaign", in which Japanese forces at places such as Rabaul were isolated and allowed to "whither on the vine" without Allied casualties. Nonetheless, it may seem odd to criticise a soldier for wanting to defeat the enemy wherever he is found, but Blamey's career at the end of the war is clouded by somewhat paradoxical criticisms that he kept Australian troops fighting unnecessarily against the undefeated and still fighting Japanese. A fuller understanding of these issues revolves around complicated issues of Australian versus American control of the war in the South West Pacific.

Australian Staff Corps versus Militia Officers Between WWI and WWII Australia's army was based on a small group of full time professional army officers (the Staff Corps) whose function was to be the backbone of the army and especially to train the part time militia. The militia was to be the basis of an active army if war occurred. Many militia officers, such as Blamey and many of the officers who would be in conflict with him during WWII, had served in demanding and senior positions during WWI. Many of the Staff Corps officers felt that the militia officers were out of touch with developments in warfare, tactics and equipment since WWI. Throughout WWII, there was a perception by some Staff Corps officers that Blamey was preferring militia officers over Staff Corps officers, which led to some bitterness and political intrigue against, and by, Blamey.

There is no point in providing well-informed content which can be edited by people with no understanding of the subject. Damian Walsh 8 August 2006

Latest Updates

I probably should have my head examined for attempting this, but I have incorporated more information into the article. I feel that many people will never read this discussion, much less a book on the subject, so it is best if the article covers the subject well. The best we can do, given that the subject is controversial, is explain the controversies. If Blamey is considered a great general, then explain why this is so. I have also added some of the requested balance.

As to the contents of this discussion page, I cannot accept the notion that Blamey was a sycophant who remorselessly sought promotion. He was promoted more rapidly than his peers, but on his merits. The notion that "Japanese forces at places such as Rabaul were isolated and allowed to "whither on the vine" without Allied casualties" is a myth. So too is the one that MacArthur pushed the fighting at Buna to gain favour in Washington. Inf fact, he was concerned that the Japanese would reinforce and he'd never get them out. So too is the the one about Australian troops being sidelined. (A new book on MacArthur's operations in SWPA is desperately needed.) The notion that the Japanese should be fought wherever was not Blamey's but the Australian government's. At the level of command that Blamey and MacArthur exercised, politics mixes with military considerations. Blamey was not too senior to be sacked by the government. He could stand up to it, but not disobey it.

Hawkeye7 12:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now rewritten and referenced the whole article. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 18:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What a terrible shame that this unbalanced eulogising of Blamey became a Featured Article. Every negative thing about Blamey (and there were very many) has been either minimised or explained away as the actions of an honourable man. In particular, the men of the 39th Battallion and its senior officers would be incensed by the treatment of the Koitaki Rabbits Who Run episode.

I was one of the early starters of this article back in Wikipedia's infancy, and none of the referenced sources I provided have survived. Indeed, none of the critical re-evaluations of Blamey which have surfaced in recent years, especially by way of the biographies of his contemporaries, get so much as a mention.

A review of other comparable tertiary sources, such as the Australian Dictionary of Biography entry for Blamey, shows the clear bias of the current Wikipedia article.

This article exemplies the worst aspect of Wikipedia - those with the greatest stamina win, regardless of whether or not they are right.

What suggestions do you suggest be made to the article's text? Alternately, you can jump in and make them yourself. Nick-D ( talk) 11:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Nick - the problem is that I have already done that, and provided referenced sources, including Honner's, Morshead's, Lavarack's and Potts' bigraphies. Every one of them has been removed. When confronted with people who are convinced of the rectitude of their view, and dismissive of any source that does not support it, what do you do? As I said, Wikipedia has become survival of the most persistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.31.194 ( talk) 08:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The 39th Battalion might be especially incensed at being associated with the Koitaki Rabbits Who Run episode when they had nothing to do with it. The only critical re-evaluation in recent years has been David Horner's book, which was extensively used in the article. He also wrote the ADB article. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 09:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

OK Hawkeye7, - why then the dramatic difference in tone between the ADB article and the Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.31.194 ( talk) 13:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

In the ADB article Horner (who wanted to raise a statue to Blamey) can voice expert opinions and make generalisations. We cannot do that; each one would have to attributed to a reliable source. The wikipedia article is therefore less defensive in tone, and not as argumentative. The wikipedia article also has more space to work with (but not so much as the book), which allows for a more detailed explanation of military matters. So the fundamental distinction lies in the difference between a wikipedia article and an ADB one. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

So in a Wikipedia article, there should be more nuance, not less? Then why have the opinions of current and contemporary detractors been so assiduously purged, even to the point of presenting a frankly bizarre smmary of Koitaki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.31.194 ( talk) 23:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It's safe to work on the assumption that Hawkeye and others involved with this article want it to be of a good standard. Suggesting (or adding) some text supported by reliable sources would be the best way forward. If there's some such text which you think was wrongfully removed, you can easily find it via the article's history (see http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_Blamey&action=history) and start a discussion about re-adding it. Nick-D ( talk) 23:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"The British Army saw no little use in the concept", is that really correct? HandsomeFella ( talk) 06:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Is your concern with the prose or the fact? If the former, perhaps "little value" is an improvement. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 06:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

From the lede: "Blamey also planned and carried out the significant and victorious Salamaua–Lae Campaign." In the article on the Salamaua–Lae Campaign he is hardly mentioned at all: only a neutral to somewhat negative mention in the aftermath section. Can some fine historian determine which of these articles is BS? (Sarcasm intended.) CactusFlower ( talk) 22:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The Salamaua-Lae campaign article is currently under-developed and needs a lot of work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe you have missed my sarcasm. Both of the articles appear to me (a non-military historian admittedly) as puff pieces. Please keep your puff pieces consistent mate. CactusFlower ( talk) 22:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). Nick-D ( talk) 08:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I am as you know quite new. But yet I have seen this duplicitous ploy of "then you fix it" in other places. I am not a historian. I do not have access to the sources required. But you are quite happy to see a one sided (and perhaps untruthful) article because of that? Okay mate. Take a look at what a "military historian" responsible for a lot of these articles lied about or misinterpreted on Charles Moses. Then tell me I am wrong to suspect puffiness. CactusFlower ( talk) 17:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

If you aren't enough of an historian to help fix it then I'm not sure how you're enough of one to so easily spot alleged puffiness and falsehoods. Also, just in passing, if you go round making unsubstantiated accusations re. editors supposedly lying in articles you could find yourself blocked before long. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 22:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at what I referred to or are you just piling on? CactusFlower ( talk) 18:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thomas Blamey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727231258/http://www.rydehistory.org/assets/applets/21_december_font_A11.pdf to http://www.rydehistory.org/assets/applets/21_december_font_A11.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Thomas Blamey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120720054000/http://www.army.gov.au/artc/genInfo.cfm to http://www.army.gov.au/artc/genInfo.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330102032/http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/3DRL/6643 to http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/3DRL/6643
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120708042131/http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/100141/ to http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/100141/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello and nice article. I don't know if it has come up or been discussed but was wondering if the "Bibliography" could be changed possibly to "Notes". The reasoning is that such a named section is many times used on biographies as works or publications, even though discouraged, and other articles regularly use a combination or "Notes", "References", and "Sources" like William Bostock, Thomas Baker (aviator), Don Bradman, and others. MOS:NOTES states: "Bibliography" may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography ("Works" or "Publications"). -- Thanks, Otr500 ( talk) 10:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed Changed to "References" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 14:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The League of National Security was an Australian group opposed to a Marxist takeover of the country - the Marxist habit of describing anyone opposed to them as a "Fascist" is utterly absurd. 2A02:C7E:1CD7:8C00:851:C6A0:2802:7E12 ( talk) 23:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Provide a source to back up this claim. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"Provide a source to back up this claim" - the "claim" that not all people opposed to Marxism are "Fascists"? It is people who claim that Blarney was a "Fascist" (which he was not) who need to prove their claim - you would not do it if he was alive, because you know he would take you to court for defamation and would win. But because Blarney is dead you think you can call him a "Fascist". The article even associates the Catholic Church with the Communists - which is absurd as, in the 1930s, the Roman Catholic Church was anti Communist. Do you want me to provide a "source" to show you that the Roman Catholic Church was not pro Communist in the 1930s? Calling Blarney a "Fascist" is a lie, and providing a "source" that repeats the lie, does not make it any less of a lie. This is becoming a standard Wikipedia tactic - lie about someone, smear them, and then say "well this SOURCE says it". 2A02:C7E:1CD7:8C00:6CCC:61F5:73C4:B388 ( talk) 09:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The sources are cited to support the claim; the article merely states that the White Army was opposed to both Catholics with Communists:

In the wake of the Democratic Labor Party and the National Civic Council, the Catholic Church in Australia is generally thought of as a conservative institution. The role of the DLP during the Vietnam years, the Church's hostility to radical women's issues, the patriarchal values which are sanctified in a leadership of celibate males, and the unpopularity of Christianity in the new secular Australia have all tended to place the Church in opposition to radicals. But this is an extremely recent development. Since the early Nineteenth Century, Australian Catholicism, as the advocate for rebels, underdogs and the One True Faith, posed a challenge to the supremacy of established Protestantism. In colonial Australia, there were many reasons why a culture which had its roots in Ireland, Rome and trade unionism should come into conflict with a culture which looked to England, Scripture and capital for its legitimacy and salvation.

Provide your sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)