Dear Stephen
You obviously weren't there were you?
These guys were called "90 day wonders" by us poor sods in the ranks.
Scheyville was a kind of filter system. It went like this...

After about 4 weeks at basic training everybody with Matric. (Victorian Year 12) was called out, lined up in ranks at night and marched off to one of the class rooms. A form was thrust under your nose and you were ordered to sign it.

This was the first part of the filter. You had to have some kind of a decent education, back in those days having Matric was really something. You also had to have the highest rating on the military version of an IQ assesment(whatever that meant).

If anyone asked what was going on we were reluctantly informed that this form was an application for entry to officer training. It was made plain to us that anyone who signed would have to be in favour of the "Vietnam war" and of serving there. This was the second part of the filter. If you had any left leaning at all you were rejected. If you had any political, religious, moral or ethical doubt you were out. This was as far as I got. I refused to sign.

The third part of the filter was conducted at Scheyville. Anybody who showed they had the slightest inclination to individual thought was turfed out.

Hence your list of establishment graduates of the place. Politicians, Academics, Military men etc.
How mant ex-Scheyville lads became musicians, poets, artists, dancers, actors or any profession required creative sensitivity?
Every Scheyville "90 day wonder" I met was a dull, conservative insensitive dork with with only the slightest grasp on the issues surrounding our involvement in the American war on Vietnam. The same, I fear, is true today.

Thank you Priscillian - I really needed the input of your post.

Barton's article reads like a horror story - who wants men like this in power? No empathy, compassion here - just killing machines.

"Scheyville was designed to break the officer cadets and then remould them. It placed the cadets under horrendous time constraints and they were harassed - and bastardised - by both other cadets and staff. Extra duty parades, the standard punishment, were handed out for the most minor infractions. Cadets that failed to reach the required standard were ruthlessly removed from the course, sometimes sinisterly via helicopter mid-exercise."

This paragraph in particular fills me with dismay. No wonder the world is still at war. There are, no doubt, 'scheyvilles' throughout the world.

The truly appalling thing is Barton believes that men like this are a desirable achievement.

I wish I believed in god, because 'god help us all'.

Stephen has gone a little quiet.

Maybe he doesn't read posts on this site.

I am deafened by the silence in general. I thought the 'gung-ho' types would lerve to pontificate upon the captains of industry from the Scheyville mould.

V/strange

I'm not surprised really, Stephen looks like he might be a rugby player.
The whole thing about the American war on Vietnam is very difficult for those who were involved in some way. In fact when I am asked if I went to Vietnam I usually refuse to answer. Whichever answer you give seems to alienate somebody, especially those who don't know what they are talking about.......like Stephen.

Stick to WWI Stephen, there is no-one left to argue with you.

Priscillian have you thought about writing about your experiences? A follow up article to Stephen's would be interesting. I would really like to understand more. I had an uncle who went to Vietnam and became a mercenary - he also used to 'love' wrestling with my brothers - v/scary.

Cheers

Priscillian implies that those who undertook officer training at Scheyville lacked his moral, political courage and his independence of thought. Fine, whatever.
He also leaves the impression that selection for officer training was as easy as signing a form. Once again, fine whatever.
According to him graduates were 'dull, insensitive conservative dorks'. Yeah, okay. Whatever gets you through the night Priscillian.
He also makes the allegation that I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm happy to let the content of my article stand against the content of his posts anyday.
Suffice to say, given the breathtaking arrogance and ignorance of the above posts this discussion is completely and utterly pointless.

Pricillian and Xena,

At the outset I have to admit...I wasn't there either. However, as a former member of the military and graduate of the Royal Military College I feel my opinion is atleast worthy of some consideration.

With respect, Pricillian and Xena, you seem to have missed the point of Stephen's article. As I read the article, Stephen's point is twofold, as follows:

1. if Scheyville was a sinecure for privileged young men during the American incarnation of the ongoing Vietnam conflict...then it was a pretty damned uncomfortable one; and

2. whether or not you agree with Australia's involvement in he US led Vietnam War...it left atleast one positive legacy in Australia. Namely, the products of Scheyville that Stephen refers to.

Pricillian...i agree that the men Stephen describes are not poets, actors, dancers etc. But just because Scheyville didn't produce great "artists" for want of a better term does not mean that it hasn't contributed to other facets of Australian society. Just as institutions such NIDA and many of the Universities have contributed to the Arts.

Pricillian, I admire your moral and political courage both in relation to your service and to your views that you presently convey. However, I feel it is hypocritical of you to deride Stephen Barton as as a 'rugby player' simply because his views differ from yours. Paradoxically, the military applies a similar type of stereotyping.

Stephen may well have it wrong but cheap name-calling will not make it right.

Danny

All fair comments Danny but my quip about Stephen looking like a rugby player was because he does. I was not stereotyping or saying he behaved like one or sounded like one, he just simply looks like one. This was not "name calling" just an unrelated observation said for the amusement of Di. Sorry if it wasn't funny, I'll try harder.
I am not convinced Scheyville had any positive legacy. There is no evidence from Stephen's article that the experience of these men at Scheyville had any positive effect on their later lives. In fact maybe the converse is true. Scheyville was not Duntroon it was a crude machine for turning out short term first Lieutenants and the training regime apparently was not any more difficult than say, Canungra jungle training where I spend far too much of my life.

I was explaining that the "filter" effect of the place was sure to produce fine upstading members of the conservative establishment....and that is what it did.
Did this period have any positive effect on anybody who was involved? My whole 2 years was spend counting down the days until discharge, a hippy in uniform........not a positive experience.

Recently I had staying in my house a friend of my wife from Hue in Vietnam (the ancient historical capital flattened by the Americans). This is the reason I refer to the war as the "American war" because this is what the Vietnamese call it. After the stories she told me I wanted to hang my head in shame. She had an uncle killed, her father is permanently disabled and a number of relatives suffer the effects of Agent Orange. The suffering of the Vietnamese people due to America and its allies causes me to get a little prickly when somebody attempte to "revise" history. Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with the Australian Army only the lying politicians that gave it orders. Instead of Stephen crowing about legacy of Scheyville he should be reminding us of the tragic legacy we left behind in that unfortunate country.

I get the feeling that we are on the same team Pricillian. Albeit a generation apart and as such I dont have the benefit of your experience.

Whilst, I dont wish to continually argue the point on behalf of someone else whose intentions I cannot be certain of...I still think you have missed the point of Stephen's article.

As I read it, it wasn't written to support the decisions to commit troops to the conflict but was rather a comment on the postive products of one small institution created within the context of a much wider issue...Now, I concede that you aren't convinced that an institution which contributed so many men to the "conservative establishment" probably shouldn't be reffered to as a positive legacy. But if there weren't any conservatives...Who would you engage in debate Pricillian? Me?...I think that would be boring.

No one (even Stephen) can refute the devastating effects that decades of conflict had on Vietnam and its people. But that was hardly Barton's point.

Danny, Of course you are right.
I'm just a bitter middle-aged "Grumpy old Man".
just a parting anecdote:-
Australia withdrew the troops in 1972 and I was sent to Watsonia barracks for discharge. There were guys there that had had it tough. Nobody told stories, discussed the war or the politics. We just talked about what we were going to do when we "got out".
The big day came. A group of us was called to the pay office. The officer behind the desk stamped my pay book, I signed something, he gave me some cash and said "next". I stepped aside for the next guy not knowing what to do. "What do I do now sir?" I asked. "Just piss off", he said, "you've been discharged"
I wandered down past the gaurdhouse onto Greensborough road and stepped into the street. As I walked on to the station It stuck me.

No "Thanks digger, you've done a good job", No prime minister with an Akubra hat, no brass band, no speech....nothing.

They did give me a little medal however. A few years ago I got it out of its box for the first time and proudly showed it to my mother. "What did you do to deserve that?" she asked.

I wish people who weren't there would get their facts straight. I am a Scheyville graduate who only completed year 11 prior to call up. The course was 154 days not 90. The so called "bastardization" was minimal and a very minor part of proceedings which hardly bothered anyone, but boy do the detractors and lefties seize on it and beat it up.
I too went to Canungra and its silly to try and compare the two, they as different as apples and oranges.

I have lived a very full life and I have to say the Scheyville experience was the most well organized and best run course (civilian or military) that I have ever been involved in. I reagard the benefits to myself as invaluable.

I have heard comments like Pricilians before. Always seem to be made by "couldabeens " who either failed the Scheyville entrance tests or made it into the course and failed to complete it. They all have the same story "coulda made it, but I really didn't want to"

It never ceases to amaze me how much people that weren't there seem to think they know.

Skipper. You obviously didn't read my posts correctly. I didn't fail anything or even apply for Sheyville. I refused to even apply because I had an objection to invading somebody elses country and blowing their heads off. I recognise my mistake in saying the course was 90 days. I thought this because we used to call you guys "90 day wonders" because of the general pretentiousness, ineptitude and the poor leadership skills of the graduates. I'm glad you had a good time there and found the experience rewarding. Some of the Sheyville graduates I met actually thought killing stangers in their own land was actually a good idea. As then, I still don't share this view....Sir.

Just clearing up a few more MYTH-conceptions by someone who was there.

Quote "Scheyville was designed to break the officer cadets and then remould them. It placed the cadets under horrendous time constraints and they were harassed - and bastardised - by both other cadets and staff. Extra duty parades, the standard punishment, were handed out for the most minor infractions. Cadets that failed to reach the required standard were ruthlessly removed from the course, sometimes sinisterly via helicopter mid-exercise." Unquote

I can't recall being broken at any stage, let alone remoulded ! The time facotr was hardly "horrendous" It was however too tight to allow any spare time for any real "bastardisation" in the true sense of the word. Extra duty parades were in fact extra TRAINING parades, so poor me who ended up with more extra training parades than most ended up fitter, stronger and better trained. As for being sinisterly removed ,those who were failing were counselled on at least 3 occasions prior to posted out (removed). It was not a surprise to those concerned.
Also no one was there against their will, any of us could have requested our removal at any stage.

As for the selection process I can recall five separate and different tests we were put through.

The course was tough and our remaining National Service was not made any easier by the fact that we were officers, the responsiblity was enourmous butI doubt that you will hear any complaints or major criticisms from those graduated from the course.

Almost all of us were National Servicemen, NOT polititians, law or policy makers. If you disagree with the politics of the day don't blame the soldiers, although this seemed to be the oppositions tactic at the time.

Scheyville should also be looked at in the context of the time, it was an ARMY training course during a WAR!

Hope this clears up more misconceptions.

I also hope this makes more sense than the name calling, rash generalisations and wild accusations by some of the previous contributors.

Skipper

Skipper, They obviously got the right guy in you. A marriage made in heaven!
Did at any stage of your military career have a doubt about what they had you doing?

I had the distinction of being the only person to (unsuccessfully) apply for discharge due to conscientious objection to the war while actually in the army. There may have been others but I'm the only one I know about. The story is rather entertainig and if I had more than 350 words I could entertain everybody for quite a while. Stuff like the anti war article I wrote for the Sunday Australian that got me charged with "Conduct contrary to the predjudice of good order and military discipline" ... remember that one? 10 days CB and $100 fine (2 weeks pay)
There was the reg. corporal chasing me all over the camp at Canungra with half a brick swearing he was going to "kill the commie bastard", he was a pathetic runner and stupid to boot.
I remember standing in the mess kitchen washing dishes in Enoggera with a "nintety day wonder" abusing me for not being "patriotic" by requesting a transfer to a battalion that was not going to Vietnam.
What a load of fun it was! too bad about those 500 dead diggers and god knows how many brave Vietnamese patriots/civilians we killed.

The American war on Vietnam is over and we lost.
Did we learn anything Skipper...Sir?

Hi all

I know of another soldier that tried to get a discharge because he was a conshy, but they were pretty rare. I can’t recall his name but the digs called him “the Grub” cos he didn’t wash. This poor bloke was a genuine conshy ( or so he said). But didn’t have the street smarts to avoid his NS obligation. There were several ways to fail on med grounds and these were all well known at the time, but not to the poor ol Grub. He also coulda joined the CMF and seen out his time there cos the chocos couldn’t be sent overseas or get called up could they, but he was just unaware, you know. He was definatenly too thick for Uni so deferring was outa the Q for him, But if he was a real martyr of course he coulda burnt his draft card and gone to jail instead, but he didn’t have the guts for that. The digs all reckoned he shoulda volunterred for Vietnam as a non combatant an yer shouda seen the commotion. Anyow he tried to get a discharge on conshy grounds and failed.

So unless Prikillian is actually the Grub then their may have been two of em.

Gaz389

QED

[Deleted for attempted profanity and breaching site rules]

If anyone gets to read this post, they will probably wonder why I’ve bobbed up here, so long after the thread has fallen asleep.

Well, another search got me here by accident, but sheer intrigue compelled me to read on.

I was there…yes me…a relatively poor kid with nothing beyond a Junior Public Examination (Qld) qualification. So much for a “sinecure for the privileged”!

I can only respond to this disappointing collection of rhetoric with a simple comment that I didn’t subscribe to the notion of war either – naivety wasn’t an issue - but I did have the intelligence to distinguish between the politics of the era and the personal commitment required under the National Service scheme. I certainly would never be able to get more out of it (for me or anyone else) than what I was prepared to put in...I figured as a platoon commander, I would at least be in a position to be able to help others.

Today, having enjoyed a successful business career, and a loving and balanced family life (singing and dancing included), I am happy to admit that my time at Scheyville remains one of the greatest personal development experiences of my life. I, like many of my fellow graduates, am hardly the product of some “conform or else sausage factory”!

Yes I was there…yes, I did understand what it was all about…and yes, I then had to step up the mark as a “snotty-nosed” second lieutenant. Despite the ill-informed put-downs appearing through this thread, to this day I have the utmost respect for those who shared that Scheyville experience. Those with whom I have remained in contact have proven that they were not just fine young men then – they have grown to be even finer older men now, sharing the enduring riches of that experience with family, friends, colleagues, and in some cases, a very wide public.

I am enormously proud to one of them, my only regret being that the “wannabees” weren’t up to doing it with us. How much better human beings they might have become

Charlie1, A slightly arrogant, self satisfied post but yes I see your point. I think you are a bit unkind to say "my only regret being that the “wannabees” weren’t up to doing it with us". I was encouraged at rookie training to do officer training. I turned down the offer because it was made plain to us that to do so required us to be enthusiastic about service in Vietnam. As I was opposed to invading other countries and killing the population I thought that officer training was not the way to go. I wasn't a "wannabe" I was a "notwannabe". If you think that Scheyville did something positive for your life and turned you into the fine upstanding citizen that you claim to be then good on you. If you still think that the American war on Vietnam was a good idea then it that is a sad, sad thing.

It is unfortunate that any discussion about Scheyville graduates seem
to always end up as an anti-Vietnam debate. Stephen's main point is the
contribution the Graduates made to Australian society as a spin off from the training and development of leadership skills at Scheyville and later at other establishments. The only comments I make about Vietnam is that of the 1800 plus graduates, only a minority of them actually served
there. The remainder filled various postings throughout the Service and
where possible, to a branch of their choice if vacancies exist.
I am personally very proud of these young men when they graduated and how they developed confidence in their ability to withstand the extreme
pressures they faced during the course at Scheyville. Skipper and Charlie 1 have dealt with the misconceptions stated in some posts
about the course. I will only concur that "bastardisation" was almost non-existent during my time there and at all times we tried not to take any action which may infringe on a man's dignity. This year I had the privelige to meet up with the Class of 1/71 and after 35 years
they proved to be fine men who have, in the main, had successful careers. They all paid tribute to the part their Scheyville experience had in their chosen careers, although they probably would have succeeded without Scheyville. If nothing else, Scheyville enabled them to know their inner strengths. Yes, Scheyville did have an unintended benefit to our society.

The anti-Vietnam war aspect of this thread is by and large my fault. Mia Culpa.
The advantage that some people got out of Scheyville is to me of little importance compared to the misery caused by the war so I'm sorry if I harped on about this aspect..enough said.
Remember, that to graduate from Scheyville in the first place your had to be.
1. Physically fit
2. Compliant to authority
3. Educated
4. Socially conservative
5. Middle class
These traits almost guarantee a person "success" in the kind of world we live in. I think you are right Alamo in assuming that these people would have been "successful" in any case.
Did Scheyville benefit society in general?
I guess this would depend on your personal model of reality. If you are a Scheyville graduate or a person who admires the above attributes then the answer is probably yes but I would still argue that military training in any form is only intended to make you a better soldier, not a better citizen. If you still think it made you a better member of society then I would like to know how this process came about

Thank you all for the preceding debate- I could not stop reading it as I enjoyed the honesty and liveliness of the comments! I came to the website after reading about "RMC,Portsea and Scheyville" officer graduates, in Peter Cosgroves book "My Story". I had heard of the first two, but only read an oblique reference to the latter on the OCS Portsea webpage, where they were bemoaning the loss of any significant sign [I presume in terms of buildings etc?]of the place and were worried that a similar fate would befall Portsea, which closed in the 80s, I believe. I was an officer cadet at OCS in 1962, but could not handle the pace and took discharge at my own request after completing the required 3 months.So, whilst I have had a successfull career in social work [including 6 years with Army Community Service in a civilian capacity] , I have often wondered how it might have been if I had soldered on, as Cosgrove did....

Just stumbled onto the forum after Googling Scheyville. I would like Priscillian to know that I was selected for officer training there after a series of very rigorous tests, despite being a tradesman with a Year 10 education.
I didn't notice too many privileged people when I was there. I doubt they were even in the army. I didn't graduate, I didn't end up bitter and the experience did make me a better person.
On the wider issue of Australia's involvement in the Vietnam war, I would like to contribute to the debate. Militarily it was an undoubted failure. Our decision to be involved was the correct one at the time. When Menzies and Hasluck made that decision in 1962 they had the responsibility for the security of this nation. Just 21 years earlier in 1941, in their recent memories, we had nearly lost this country with Japanese troops all through the islands to the north, Townsville and Darwin being repeatedly bombed and submarines successfully making it into Sydney Harbour. In this context, a strong American presence in south east Asia was very desirable for Australia's security. Yes the domino theory may have been flawed, but the 40 batallions of North Vietnamese that sacked the French from Dien Bein Phu had formed up and trained north of the Red River in China.

Magoo,
You obviously didn't read the cabinet papers released 30 years after Australia's committment to Vietnam. Although I don't dispute your recollection of your Scheyville experiences your reasons for our entry into the war are a reflection of the propaganda and outright lies of the time. The Viet. Vets Association had a great paper posted on this topic on their website but it strangely disappeared. In a nutshell, Australia's enthusiasm in rushing to Vietnam to kill people had more to do with Indonesia that anything else.
Also I recently challenged the Australian Defence Association who erroneously claim that only "volunteers" were sent to Vietnam (apparently historians say this is true, being there doesn't seem to count). I am detecting a bit of historical revisionism creeping into the record.

I thought Stephen Bartons article okay. I went through Scheyville 1969 and it was tough but I thought the staff (NCOs, Captains and Majors) were excellent trainers and I sure learnt a lot about myself, teamwork, management and strategy (and military stuff!). Also made some great mates. I later got thrown into Indochina with Americans and Laotians and my views and politics grew up quick, but no regrets on Scheyville.