I was a conscript in 1971/72. The conscription system was immoral, a "lottery for your life". Those who "drew the short straw", based on their birth date, bore all the costs while their compatriots bore none. Even the odds weren't consistent from one draft to the next. The size of the drafts varied according to the Army's/government's demand for "heads" and they kept pulling marbles until they hit the number required. The pay was appalling, an utter insult when one considers the total hours worked. You were paid more if you were married! What a joke! Conscripts who were seriously injured on duty in Australia are ineligible for a Service pension unlike regular soldiers injured in identical circumstances. The basic training, which all recruits underwent, was harsh & brutal. The specific infantry training, which I underwent, was similar but it was held out to us that life would be easier once we were posted to our battalions. That proved not to be the case in "my" battalion, 3RAR, where the C.O. was a tyrannical megalomaniac. The "men" hated him and he blatantly despised us.

"Undertaking studies or skills training" did not exempt those who "drew the short straw"; it merely enabled them to defer the commencement of their conscription until they had completed their studies. At basic training, there was a conscript in my platoon who was in his late twenties. He was a medical graduate who by that time had married and had two children. That did not exempt him.
Marriage could be an exemption, but only if one was married before the period in which one had to "register".

Conscription is the wrong philosophy, the wrong mentality. A National Service on the other hand would be the most positive move to rescue our society. No-one excempt, all have the same opportunity, rights & responsibility.
Ask any responsible person.

My birth date came up in the birthday ballot . Deferred for 3 years owing to studies , on completion of studies in 1968 , I was required to attend for interview to see whether I was suitable to be conscripted .

At Townsville recruiting centre , my blood pressure was taken . Doctors doubted that anybody of 23 could have such a reading , unless he had deliberately inflated it .

I had not deliberately inflated it . I was rejected , much to my relief .

The level of hypocrisy in the community at that time was appalling . Persons who were not subject to conscription said they envied me and would have loved to do national service . However , they could not join the regular army , because they were married at 19 , and / or had to help their National Party father around the farm .

Old soldiers said that their army years were the best of their life and conscriptees should be grateful for being given the same opportunity . There was more likelihood of being killed on the roads , than in Vietnam .

We had to fight the commos in Vietnam to prevent them from invading Australia , so we were told . When the war ended and anti - communist Vietnamese sought to come to Australia , those same persons who urged 20 year olds to fight in Vietnam , said that the Vietnamese should stay in their own country .

I do not agree with Bruce Haigh that we need an apology . The air is already thick with apologies to just about everybody about everything , and there should be no more of them . By all means , give proper benefits to those who served in Vietnam , whether conscripts or regular soldiers .

I am fascinated at the opposition of the left to conscription, as the whole purpose of it was to spread the load across the whole community, and not just to have army recruits come mostly come from the underclass, as happens today. As far as I can make out, the left's opposition to war overrides the idea of equality of sacrifice. Again, because the army only contains voluntary recruits, losses in combat areas don't have the media interest that conscripts would have, but they still try. Until nations find another way to settle their differences I am afraid war will always be with us, and the need for an army to defend us. After all, if you have a great shortage of some resource, the usual way to work out the distribution is not the socialist way of rationed equal shares for all, but to have a little war in which the winner takes all and the losers get nothing. To think that this will ever change is a dangerous utopian idea.

Plerdsus, "Spread the load across the whole community"! Put all the load on those who draw the short straw, you mean; treat 'em like slaves and pay 'em peanuts! Your remark about an "underclass" is a gross and shameful insult. It's clear that you weren't in the Army, certainly not as an infantry conscript.
Conscription enabled a Army on the cheap, at a time when the nation was prosperous, at the expense of the regular soldiers as well as the conscripts. How do you justify that, having not experienced it? Servicemen today are well paid and have decent conditions, as they should have.

I won’t enter into a discussion of the central thrust of Bruce Haigh’s article, but I think it is worthwhile to question the accuracy of certain issues he addresses in passing.

As Bruce Haigh states, conscripts did fight in Papua, on the Kokoda Trail, and Papua was Australian territory. However, conscripts were required to serve in a much broader area known as the South West Pacific, which extended North from Australia to the Equator and included many islands which had no formal connection to Australia.

Bruce Haigh comments that they ‘… fought … stopping the Japanese just short of Port Moresby …’. Militia conscripts were certainly there, but Bruce Haigh ignores the far more numerous volunteer AIF battalions which also fought there.

He also speaks about the conscripts being ‘ … abused by the head of the army, General Blamey … ‘. I presume that referred to Blamey’s infamous ‘running rabbits’ speech. However, that speech was addressed to volunteer AIF soldiers, and about their performance.

Bruce Haigh contends that conscription was introduced to support the commitment to Vietnam. Was he aware of conscripts serving overseas in Malaysia during and after Confrontation, and in Papua New Guinea?

Bruce Haigh is completely in error when he refers to some being allowed to join the Citizen Military Forces (now the Army Reserve) because they were in reserved occupations. There were no reserved occupations. However, anyone could opt to serve six years in the CMF as an alternative to two years full time service, as long as they enlisted a year before the conscription ballot, and served six years whatever the result of that ballot.

I would agree with any contention that these issues are not critical to the main thrust of Bruce Haigh’s article. However, he chose to mention these issues, and his argument is not stronger for errors of fact.

I'm a Veteran and was a Regular (joined in July, 1960), I certainly don't agree with the Author's views at all. However, I don't propose to resurrect any discussion on the merits or otherwise, of whether or not, we should've been in South Vietnam.

My only comment really, more of an observation if you like, the majority of people who represent the most vocal on the entire Vietnam War issue, never actually served there. In fact many were never in the Armed Forces, yet they're prepared to lecture even pontificate on just about every issue associated with the War.

I couldn't give a damn if they discuss the broader issues, the policy etc, and similar, that's fine, but when they make these vague unsubstantiated claims, asserting them as facts, it does tend to annoy me appreciably !

Hi there RATTLER...

You speak with a great deal of venom from your
days in 3 RAR, a very proud and noble Regiment
to be sure. What tour was yours may I ask ?

Surely, you would've been associated with some
great blokes, provided of course, you 'fit in'
and was accepted. Sure, in my time, there was
the odd bloke who wouldn't or couldn't mix with
other members of his section, even platoon, as
such, you'd never put him on the M60 eh ?

Anyway, I guess having drawn the short straw,
you'd be pretty angry, nevertheless you weren't
alone, and I had some terrific 'nasho's with us !
Equally as good, and efficient, and reliable, as
any regular or other 'Nasho' ? Still, I just can't
understand your enormous acerbity towards
both the system or the Regiment ?

Personally I think it would be a good idea to reintroduce it, especially for anyone who is unemployed longer than 12 months.

A great thought JAMES H, trouble is many wouldn't
or couldn't accept military discipline in any of it's
forms. Nor do I suspect the sparten, though very
healthy, way of life.

Nevertheless, a really good idea though JAMES H. !

The rule of the army is "You don't think, we think for you".
So because a person is unfortunate to find a regular job, they should be persecuted, by having their independence taken from them.
Having had my own freedom taken from me for two years, after graduating from Uni and forced into the British National service system, in the first six weeks made to walk like a prat, shown how to shoot somebody dead and accept demeaning bullying by the NCO's, plus receive a pittance in payment.
The remainder of my National service time was painting kerbs, washing windows and serving "officers" in their mess.
No gentlemen those less fortunate than others should not be persecuted because of their circumstances, but respected.

Hi, oh sung wu,

I joined 3RAR in roughly Mar/Apr '72 when they'd just returned from Vietnam. The C.O.; Peter Scott was then transferred and the "tyrannical megalomaniac" took over. You couldn't have been in 3RAR then; he was hated; at least by the grunts.

I greatly admired and respected my Sgt; Brian Payne, who ended his Army career as RSM of the entire Army. There was no real socialising or "mateship" at that time; we just wanted to get out of there, and the minute Whitlam was elected, we did, despite the inducements to finish our "time". Loved your remark re the M60!

Give me a call if you wish.
Allan Thomas. 0410747691

Bruce Haig,

why don't you move on from the 60's. It's 50 years ago.

The big defence issue facing Australians now is whether to support Israel in it's proposed war against Iran and whether we should remain neutral in a Palestinian war on the illegal Israeli settlers.

If you think neither possible check out the current status and probable intent of Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and all the other mid eastern nations that abhor the illegal Israeli land theft.
Also check out the current positions of Australia (Foreign Minister), Britian, France, Russia and China.

Your opinion on those topic's might actually do some good.

National service commenced in 1951, we as conscripts were being trained to kill, it must be remembered the Cold War was on between Russia and America, also the Korean War was waiting in the wings, Robert Menzies was having all 18 year olds trained to be on the ready for any war that may eventuate at this time, keep in mind WW11 had just ended a few years earlier and Menzies was jittery, we as conscripts were always told we were there to defend the country in war.
We unlike the lottery system which eventuated later due to the then Vietnam war were still being trained as cannon fodder, regardless of any lottery system that came about later, we were not there for fun, I feel the writer should have included all conscripts from 1951 to 1972.. I do agree the lottery system was wrong at that time.
I feel National Service did not make me a better or worse person contrary to what a lot of people think it should, resurrecting it again now to train all the present day hoons, a prison sentence was always hung over our heads if we did not do as we were told by the Government, and we never queried this issue at all, present day 18 year olds would query the rights and wrongs of what we went into, that is National Service, like little lambs to be salute red at the whims of Robert Menzies.
I feel disgusted that Harry Windsor was bragging about how many men he had killed in Afghanistan, these people treat Christianity as a joke, to kill someone myself is not something I would brag about whether in war or in my private life, but then again the Windsors have always been war mongering people.

Rattler, I didn't think the pay was all that bad - but then, maybe the rate didn't keep up appropriately between '65 and '71/2? And, are you taking into account that we all had full board, lodging and clobber (excluding civvies) thrown in - and limited opportunity to 'waste' all that filthy lucre on outside entertainments? And had cut-price grog and fags available on base - for those who partook. Not such a bad 'stint' - except for having to do some training, some exercise, and some yes-sir-no-sir, I suppose. (But, I was only coming out of a 'bridging' job as a storeman/packer, after so many non-paid years of education, and barely starting to look for my ultimate career 'niche'. Guess that made a difference to my 'expectations'.)

I was one of the 'lucky' ones, and went to Borneo (Sabah) with the RAE during the Indonesian Confrontation, and not to Vietnam. Luck of the draw. (Had some Core-training comrades who went to V, and didn't come home. Not a good scene.) During my OS stint we lost one Regular in a vehicle accident, and had a few serious injuries in our Nasho ranks, but no deaths, just some near misses. As far as I know, we didn't fire a shot in anger.

Some of my Borneo mates have been on disability, so it's not as one-sided as Bruce Haigh indicates. Not that provisions couldn't always be better, but everything is relative.

In 'basics' a few railed against the 'imposition', some relished the experience, and the majority accepted their lot and made the best of it. NCO's were a bit rough at times, but in everyone's best interests. A grand adventure? Yes for some, but generally just a new and different experience, and no harm done.

Made a few good mates; have a few laughs at our reunions; no scorched earth; no basket cases. We were, we are, and life goes on regardless. (But, those who went to Vietnam deserve the highest accolades and the best possible on-going provisions, irrespective of the efficacy, or otherwise, of that engagement.)

Good evening to you Allan...

God no, I'd finished my engagement before then, as you'd said they just returned from their second tour.

I was there during the first tour under Lt Col Jim Shelton, a bloke as good as you get, in my opinion. We're based at 'the Dat' where the ATF were located.

The only reason I picked up on your thread, you sounded so bitter about your entire two years in the Regiment. You must have had a very miserable time, for which I'm terribly sorry for you. You were in a Rifle Platoon I gather ? As you say your sergeant was a good bloke, there must've been many many more equally as good as your Sgt is/was Allen ?

You'd also appreciate, CO's come and go. Some terrific, others a real pain in the 'rear', but a CO is NOT the Regiment, it's all those in it. Often a CO is a lonely individual, he can never become 'one of the troops'. He must be approachable, through the chain of command, and generally through the door of the Adjutant, but at the same time, he must always remain aloof, and never drop that image, for obvious reasons. Thus, he's sometimes (mistakenly) regarded as a real pain ?

Anyway Allen, I sincerely wish you the best of luck ol' fella - and try to look at the Regiment in a positive way. Nothing wrong with the Army, it's the Politicians that should attract the bulk of your ire !

Many thanks for your mobile, I'll try and ring you one of these days.

That such a discussion is even necessary in this day and age, is a shame. Do we still need to discuss the fact that slavery was an abuse? that hunting and kidnapping Africans from their jungle-villages and chaining them into boats destined to America where half of them died on the way, is an abuse?

Yes, someone really *needed* that number of slaves in order to pick the vast amount of cotton...

Conscription is slavery and there is no worse atrocity. Myself a victim of conscription, having suffered immensely in my country of origin, it was the first thing I checked about Australia, making sure that conscription is illegal here before deciding to immigrate, that my children will never undergo the same.

Well said, yuyutsu. "Conscription is immoral, it is unjust, it is a violation of human rights" (1966 election speech, Arthur Calwell, then leader of the ALP). Having just finished reading a biography of Whitlam covering the period up to 1972 only, I was actually surprised to learn of the completely consistent and virulent opposition of the ALP to both the Vietnam war and to conscription through this period. My 15 year old offspring, however, studies this period in Australian history at school, so she was more aware. As the article states, several referendums on conscription were defeated, but Menzies snuck it through parliament. Given the history, I would go as far as to say that conscription was "unAustralian"' in the sense that it has consistently and over a long historical period been rejected by the Australian people.

Actually, the majority of Australians have usually been opposed to conscription for overseas service, but not necessarily to conscription for home defence.

Conscription for home defence was in force from 1911 until the end of WW2, and then from 1951 to 1959. 'Home defence' was fairly broadly interpreted in WW2 to include the islands to Australia's North.

Conscription was suspended in 1929, mainly for economic reasons, but not abolished.

When conscription for overseas service was introduced in 1964, it was therefore an extension of conscription schemes for home defence which had been a normal part of Australian life for decades.

This part of Australia history has faded from popular memory, but its easy to check. The Australian Encyclopedia and Wikipedia had summaries of varying accuracy.

I'm a little surprised to see how broadly Bruce Haigh has brushed in painting his picture of military conscription in Australia. In saying "Australia twice voted against the introduction of conscription during WWI", he fails to mention that such proposed conscription as was the subject of the 1916 and 1917 conscription plebiscites was for military service OUTSIDE Australia.

It is my understanding that conscription for military service within, or in defence of, Australia has always been, and remained, constitutionally legitimate. Those WW1 conscription plebiscites were not referenda proposing alteration of the Constitution, and were not subject to the provisions of Section 128 with respect to the counting of votes and the 'double majority' requirement made of alteration proposals.

Witness to the historic acceptance within the ALP of the legitimacy of military conscription for Australian defence is perhaps borne by the wording of the Chifley government's proposed 'Social Services' alteration to the Constitution of 1946 that was to become placitum (xxiiiA.) of Section 51. The wording in question was the parenthetical "(but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription)" that formed part of the placitum.

It is perhaps an interesting footnote to the selective national service legislation of 1964 that 20-year-olds were required to register and become subject to the birthdate ballot. http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/viet_app/ That meant that by the time those who were called up had completed their basic, and subsequent corps, training, all within Australia, virtually all NSM would be 21 years old, the then age of majority.

I suspect that the circumvention of any implicit prohibition of conscription for foreign service was intended to be achieved by being able to represent that NSM, having attained their majority, had effectively VOLUNTEERED for service in Malaysia or Viet Nam. With better than a full year of their two-year full time obligation remaining, 21-year-old NSM could be deployed for the relatively standard 12 month posting overseas. They were certainly old enough to have volunteered in their own right.

Upon return there was an entitlement under the War Service Home Loan Scheme awaiting claim.

A few further points and questions if I may. Plerdsus, were you in the Army? What corp? o sung wu, I strongly agree with your point re those who talk about Army life when they've never experienced it, or not at the relevant time or circumstances, i.e.; full time conscription for the Vietnam war. I can't agree that "the C.O. is not the regiment". The arsehole at 3RAR when I was there was a vengeful and nasty prick. His character traits percolated down through the entire battalion. "A fish rots from the head". I didn't do two years in 3RAR, I did 3 months at Puckapunyal, basic training, 3 months at Singleton, infantry training, and 9 months at 3RAR, Woodside, a dump of an old reffo camp. I got out just before Christmas '72 when Whitlam was elected. ojnab, conscription prior to 1964/5 was only part time, 3 months then occasional weekend camps etc. Saltpetre, "full board" rubbish food; you'd be mad to pay for it, "lodging", in an old dump of a reffo camp with the most basic amenities imaginable, "clothing" only initial issue free, we had to purchase all replacements out of our pittance. There was most definitely no cut price grog or cigs in my time. All due respect to you, but you weren't in the infantry ( the hardest yakka). Forrest Gumpp, in 1972 the War Service Loan was as good as useless as the maximum loan was far too small to purchase a decent house. They were offered to we conscripts as an inducement to complete our time but I don't know one person who took it up. Incidentally, second mortgages were not available where WSH held the first mortgage.

Give me a call, o sung wu Cheers all

The pay. Some years ago, Peter Scott, the C.O. of 3RAR before my time, told me that the "brass" were well aware that the pay for the lower ranks was so low that it had become a major issue in the ranks. He told me that the "brass" were attempting to pressure the govt to do something about it. I had reasonable savings when I went in and was penniless when I got out. Indeed, I was in debt as I had to catch up my superannuation contributions as if I'd been on my normal salary while conscripted. I had 12 months to do it and it was a considerable sum. No holiday break for me; I went straight back to work; I had to!
Our "civil liberties". Upon arrival at Puckapunyal, we were told in no uncertain terms we were not to go to our M.P., the press, or any lawyer with any complaint re our treatment in the Army. We were also told that we were not to go to a civilian doctor except in an emergency where we were unable to access an Army doctor. We were told that if we did any of the above, we'd be locked up. I kid you not!

Oh Allen Allen, my friend...

Unfortunately much of what you say is true when it comes to matters of kit, food, access to your own member of parliament, and your own Doctor et al ! I went through Kapooka initially and whether it was because we were ARA I don't know. Discipline though inordinately severe, was at an acceptable level, with little or no real bastardization.

Though, through no fault of my own, I ended up in cells, after I'd received a real 'flogging' in the main street of Wagga one rare Saturday night we're allowed leave. The circumstances were not of my making, but my willingness to 'box on' was ! Thus the Provost's placed me, and one other (my 'corner man') in the 'go slow' for the remainder of the weekend, with our appearance before the RTB Adj. listed for the following Monday morning.

I'm now an old man Allen, and reflecting back to my days in the military, they were good. Who knows, without my initial engagement (six years), I may well have ended up serving a much longer sojourn in the 'go slow', only in Long Bay this time. As it was, I missed the regimentation and uniform so much, I joined the coppers. Spending the rest of my working life with 'em !

Even after spending two years 'wearing blue', I often wonder whether I should've re-engaged for another three, even six years ? The coppers, though a reasonable job, I did miss the individual respect that was always accorded you, when in the Army. The police, there was always a hint of hostility.

Personally, I reckon you should just take the best and most positive lessons and elements the Army taught you. They would've taught you plenty too ? Rather than unnecessarily ruminating upon those negative aspects from your Army days.

Finally, I bid you good luck my friend, it's now time to put the worst aspects of those days, well and truly to bed !

Well said, oh sung wu. I give up; at least I survived it
I'm keen to have a yarn with you but you seem reticent. I'll leave it to you.

Cheers,

Allan

We do seem to have chased each other about the place o sung. When were you in Kapooka?

The navy sent it's prospective fly boys off to the RAAF to learn the art of flying. Thus I was at Uranquinty in late 58 & 59.

Do you recall "the blood house"? I can't recall it's propper name, but it was a dance hall in Wagga famous for the brawls between the Forrest Hills RAAF apprentice school trainees, & the Kapooka recruits.

As there were only 7 navy types in the area we tended to be rather circumspect when in Wagga for a night, usually attending Romano's pub for a quiet drink.

As a regular conscription did not effect me, but now as then, when defence force folk are so poorly paid, it is one of the few ways of getting enough boots on the ground.

An even better system would probably be that anyone in the public service should have to serve 2 years in every 5 in the defence force. This would also be a good way of finding out how many bureaucrats are interested in serving their country, & which of them are only serving themselves.

Hell with all those Ba's wandering around Afghanistan, we'd have the most highly educated, if not the smartest army around.

Brilliant, hasbeen!

I've often thought that there should be a statute to the effect that those who advocate conscription, must first send their spouse, children and grandchildren "to the wall" without exception! That'd slow 'em down!

Unfortunately that would not happen Rattler, but a very good idea, but lets include also all those Government wackers who send you, but they make sure they are not on that list, it is always the same in any war situation, the plebs can be shot, as long as we the Government are not in the front line, being in Robert Menzies era it would have done him good to have been conscripted to the front line, but then he was too busy watching her pass by and remembering her (the Windsor lady) until I die.

G'day Allen...

Good man ! As you say, you survived it ! I would just say one other thing to you my friend. As much as you found your two years to be an indeterminable bore and a dehuminising experience, you DID it Allen, you did your duty, you turned up on the day specified, and you did your duty for two long years !

There are many, who did everything possible to avoid their obligations. Including objecting to the concept of National Service per se, most on moral grounds ? Even saying they're against the war in Vietnam. Or their Mum and Dad don't agree with them doing military service ?

A very well known TV star, rather then report on the alloted day, preferred to spend some time in 1 MCE, Holsworthy, until some 'intellectual boofhead', ordered his release. I wonder though, while he was prancing around on TV, perhaps blokes he could've served with, had he done his duty (like you did Allen), may well have died in the humid bloody jungles at...? Perhaps, Dat Do, the Long Hai's, none all that far from the Task Force, at Nui Dat.

Just one question if I may ?...Those people I've referred to herein; How exactly, can any one of them manage to FACE their wives, girlfriend, siblings, parents, friends, and neighbours - in fact anybody when asked ? Why didn't they do their National Service, and receive the Nasho's gong ?

What possible answer can they give, and retain even a modicum of self respect ? My little theory. All the excuses given by many of these blokes, were essentially untrue ? They were given purely to utterly conceal even obfuscate the REAL reason. And I reckon most people can deduce what that REAL reason was ?

Telephone ? No Allen, probably not, I'm sorry. I spent several stints in the Repat. with some issues, as well as attending their PTSD Programme. Thus, an early exit from the cops on invalidity grounds. You know what I mean ? Sorry ol' man ?

Gentleman, Gentleman, please...

How could anyone of you expose one of our beloved political leaders to such a draconian activity, as National Service ?

Which one of them, would consent to change a barrel on an M60 after a 'cook off' ? They'd probably want to either 'Ban it' or submit it under the 'Gun Buy Back' scheme ? No, you always send one of us from the masses to do such dirty work.

G'day HASBEEN...

Yes I do jump about a bit. July 1960 to be precise. A very very cold place to be, sunny Wagga Wagga mid winter. Sounds like you're a little older then I ? I had no idea the RAAF trained you blokes at Uranquinty ? I was aware they had a large training base at Forest Hill, but I didn't know they conducted Pilot Training there.

NO I don't know of the 'bloodhouse' ? Surprisingly, while there, we at Kapooka never had all that much strife with the RAAF. But as I was telling 'RATTLER' (Allen) I received a decent 'flogging' from a bloke, behind the first Picture Theatre, in Bayllis Street (sorry for the spelling error) while there. Ended up in cells for my trouble even though I was the 'floggee' ! Gotta say, I loved my time at 1 RTB !

Sorry, my eyes are tired, so please excuse me gentlemen. I'll bid you all good night.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the condemnation of our National Service Scheme '64 to '72 contained in this thread - on the basis that, for better or for worse, the scheme was introduced to enable Aus to meet commitments, as determined by our legitimate government of the day, to support our Allies in an overseas theatre of war. Whether that war, or our participation in it, was justified, or not, is not the question, only whether Aus had good reason to support its Allies when called upon to do so. (And, just hollering "go for it, mate" doesn't actually cut the mustard in such instances.)

Given that Aus, and the world, owes a great debt of gratitude for the U.S. participation in WWII, and that, ever since then, the U.S. has remained our most important and most staunch Ally (most tellingly for our ongoing security ever since - given our relative geographical isolation from our real 'friends', and the relatively modest scope of our own ongoing defence capabilities), it can reasonably be argued that Aus has had no alternative but to support its Ally.

Although the U.S. has proven to be pretty paranoid ever since WWII (seeing 'Reds under the beds' all over the place, including per the now seen to be infamous 'Domino Theory'), Aus has continued to support this Ally where deemed appropriate by our government - viz Iraq and Afghanistan.

How would we now sit, in terms of our overall national security, had we chosen not to participate in any, or all, of those engagements? (And thereby having 'reneged' on what would reasonably be seen as a national obligation.) I suspect either rather poorly, defence-wise, or having had to greatly enhance our defence commitment and associated expenditure over the relevant period - with consequent impacts on other, and possibly more progressive aspects, of our national development programs, including Health, Education, Industry, and Welfare.

Hence: A friend in need is a friend indeed. (And, not just a 'fair weather' one.)

(Cont'd):
In hindsight, and in due course of time, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan engagements (and our involvement therein) may well be judged to have been gross errors of judgement. Be that as it may, this is a pretty tough world, and we are only one of the smaller fish therein, and small fish have need of staunch and reliable friends.

I grieve the loss of our fellows, in all conflicts, and can only pray that we, all of this world, may learn the error of our ways and learn to live together in peace, sooner rather than later. ('God' is not on anybody's side, and the sooner we all learn and accept that, the better off we'll all be.)

After writing an article for OLO I would normally let the posts take their course. By some comments are so far way off the mark that I feel constrained to bring the discussion back on track.
The point of the article is to highlight the illegality of what Menzies and his cabinet engaged in. All along he knew he was introducing conscription not just for overseas service but for service in a specific war, namely Vietnam. And forget the rights and wrongs of that war, my essay does not seek to canvas that.
What I am arguing is recognition of that illegal act and the effect it had on many people and through that recognition we might avoid acting in such a manner again.
Menzies did not seek volunteers before embarking on the path of conscription. What I would also like to see is recognition that, despite the circumstances of our entry into the army, we served well and loyally. And as such it would be nice now we are approaching old age to recieve some assistance with inevitable medical costs - on the basis that most got very little if any financial gain out of their time in Nashos.
For the record I was conscripted in the 3rd Intake at Pukka in 1966.
Became a tank gunner and radio operator and later volunteered for Vietnam and became an M113 driver. Typically the army did not get their act together and my time ran out. Whilst in the army I studied for and got my mature age matriculation, so the time was not wasted.
I made some really good mates, with whom I remain close.
One mate was killed on Exercise Barrawinga.
Bruce Haigh

As mentioned in my earlier post Bruce we were all conscripted for the war machine from 1951 to 1972 when Whitlam dropped this conscription fiasco set up by Menzies, you were the ones who unfortunately ended up under the now illegal lottery system, which was wrong, but I would appreciate a comment of the earlier conscripted years, although not sent to battle we were there definately for the same reason as yourself, that is if war broke out we were there to be sent post haste to that area to be shot at, it wasn't to make me at 18 years a nicer person.
Many years passed before we all were recognised and allowed to march in Anzac Parades as soldiers of that era and to join their meetings.
I know you are concerned with the Vietnam era, and rightly so, but please give thought to us others who were there for the very same reason as yourself, but luckily, although some Nasho's did end up in the Korean War, but the rest of us escaped by the skin of our teeth.

Hi there BRUCE...

I more or less thought this bland topic of yours should've faded into it's inexorable oblivion by now. However, your addendum seeks to further clarify the point you're making ? That is, people who did their two years of National Service, deserve further recognition then what they've already received ? Including benefits similar to that which eligible Veterans receive in terms of a graduated disability pension (10% thru to the TPI special rate) and other concessions ?

I'm sorry, but I didn't do my National Service, so I'm not sufficiently appraised of the full suite of benefits they (NASHO's) may currently receive ? I was aware they did receive a National Service Medal, but other benefits and concessions, I don't know ?

Is it your contention, they should receive that, which are currently enjoyed by existing eligible Veterans ? Or benefits of a lesser value then existing Veterans ? If you're suggesting they receive the same level of assistance as those who served in a war zone, I would think you may well generate some real resistance even hostility to that proposal.

Conversely, if you say they should receive some sort of perfunctory or symbolic benefit, then aren't you creating an underclass of Veteran ? And I reckon that's patently unfair to our Nasho's ! Remember, the only initial difference between a National Servicemen and a Veteran, was a Travel Warrant, and they all bleed when they're cut.

Hi again, o sung wu; I can answer that one for you! Conscripts from the Vietnam era receive no benefits, per se, at all. The only exception is if they were injured on overseas service. Shameful! You know yourself that plenty were killed or severely injured during training and exercises in Australia. What's the f'n difference?
It's occurred to me that my view is particularly jaundiced by the specific experience of 3RAR at that time, but that was the only battalion I knew. Here's a laugh! The AWOL situation was getting considerably worse as time went on, mainly due to the grunts being worked incredible hours with no time off in lieu. They'd just got back from 'Nam and thus were they "rewarded". Marriages & relationships were failing at an increasing rate. If you fronted the C.O.; he handed out the maximum penalty every time, no matter what. That was $40 (roughly a weeks pittance), 14 days CB and 10 days in the slammer. You weren't paid for time in the slammer and the 10 days was added to your service period. Anyway, in the end, some bright spark refused to accept the C.O.'s "justice" and demanded a Court Martial for some trivial offence. Other blokes then jumped on the same bandwagon. This must have alerted the powers that be at Keswick Barracks, if not in Canberra, that the C.O. had lost the plot and effective control of his Battalion. I never saw the outcome of this as I was discharged before all these "Courts Martial" commenced but I reckon it would have been pretty funny. Imagine my shock when I ran into a fella who'd been posted to a different Battalion. He told me that in his battalion, if they worked on the weekend, they were given two days off during the week, a week in the scrub, a week off, guard duty, a day off etc. We were never given an hour off in lieu, let alone a day!

Cheers mate,

Allan

Bruce Haigh, with respect, you contend that the '64 Conscription introduction was an 'illegal' act by the Menzies' government - but, do you mean technically (being contrary to the Aus Constitution, or to some prior Act of parliament, or notionally contrary to the much earlier plebiscites in a similar regard - but which were conducted in quite different circumstances)? Or, morally?

I take it that Aus must have declared war on North Vietnam (or at least against its incursion into the South) before committing troops to that engagement - or am I wrong in this regard? Or does our parliament not 'declare war' on anyone anymore, but only agrees to a troop deployment to an area of conflict of concern to our national security interests?

The Aus government of the day must surely have considered our engagement in the Vietnam theatre to be justified (in the National interest), and accordingly approved the deployment of our Regular troops to that theatre (just as it must have approved our engagements in Korea and Malaya, and in Sabah - although this latter was described as a Columbo Plan exercise, coinciding with the Indonesian Confrontation)?

Having approved our 'engagement' in South Vietnam, and finding our capacity failing to meet ours, or our Allies' expectations, regarding our reasonable commitments to that escalating conflict, was it unreasonable, in the circumstances, to introduce Conscription as a potentially 'fair and equitable' way to bridge the gap? Or, do you take exception to there not being a call for volunteers, or perhaps a national plebiscite, before acting?

Is it the fact or the means, to which you take such exception?

We provide assistance to near neighbours in distress - PNG, East Timor, etc - and support our traditional Allies when called upon (in our national interest), but it is almost certain that a call for volunteers would have been pitifully short of the mark in the Vietnam era - era of flower-power, Woodstock, peace, love and drugs, remember? So, what options, other than Conscription?

Saltpetra, of course you wouldn't have got volunteers under those conditions and pay; you'd have to be a masochist or mentally ill.

Hi there SALTPETRE...

In answer to one of your questions; was there ever a declaration of war ever made against North Vietnam ? I'm not positively sure, but I think not !

My reason being, about nine or ten weeks after my repatriation from SV, and mainly at the behest of my dear old Grandfather (he was, 30th Bn.,lst AIF, in WWl) I attended the Burwood (Sydney) RSL for the purpose of joining. About five or so minutes later, I was sent on my way with the clear understanding, the RSL accepted only 'RETURNED' serviceman. And Vietnam was only a 'police action' not a war ? Apparently, for it to be decleared a 'war', our government must first, make that declaration. Well good on 'em ! Since then, I've always harboured a great deal of antipathy toward the RSL, and everthing it (allegedly) stood for.

G'day Allen...

Mate, I'll have to 'roll over' on that one I guess. You really DID have a maggot for a CO ! As you're aware, there're limitations of what expressions may be uttered herein Allen ?

Post your National Service days, you've obviously made good by the sound of it ? Landed on your feet so to speak ? I can only hope so.

Look, I've kept your number. Since my 'closest' friend died six and a bit years ago, I've never sought to confide on the 'specifics of SV' with anyone else. Spent some time (sessions) at the 'Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service', didn't do me much good. My friend Dave ALWAYS did, we'd talk, b.....t together, laugh heaps....................?

Remarkably, he survived FSB 'Coral', then FSB 'Balmoral'! Endured and survived many more contacts then I had breakfast's. And I joined the job a couple of years before him, we served together (off and on) over the years. The VC and NVA couldn't touch him. But a Brain Tumor did. He's dead, I'm still alive, now an old man without the best and closest mate/friend/buddy a bloke could've had. Thus I no longer encourage any friendships now Allen.