Altrav,

So your father-in-law had half of his stomach removed because of wharfies holding up the supply of foodstuffs?
The poor unloading facilities in New Guinea would not have caused a holdup?
The Japanese air raids likewise?

As I said food supply was complex and to blame strikes that held up non-perishable food, for your relative's condition is simplistic.

Food grows in profusion in New Guinea and much fresh food for the military was sourced locally.

Is Mise, we can debate the pro's and con's of food availability at the time. This information was a matter of record as described by the medical staff, surgeons, and whoever was involved in diagnosing his illness.

I vaguely remember snips of info such as he did not move from his hiding spot for fear of being detected. How he got the food I have no idea. He did try some vegetation within immediate reach, but I don't remember all the details.

I do remember something along the line of the stomach and corrosive and something like eating itself?

I don't know I might see if I can find out more. I don't reject your assertions but no matter how you twist it if the supplies had gotten there a week earlier, all the problems you speak of would have been allowed for a week earlier.

So we'll never know, except for what we know, and yes the problem was so serious the ships Captains both Australian and American had to restrain their seamen who were going to attack and kill the warfies, yes kill them.

So you believe your speculations. I choose to believe the truth from actual people who were there.

AL, your story about your father-in-law is interesting, but it is only a story. You offer no substantive documented proof to directly link industrial action in Australia with your F-I-L's end condition. Is Mise has repeatedly questioned your simplistic story telling, with what is well established documented facts.
With honesty you now admit to vague recollections of snippets of information, something along the lines, admitting you don't know, and you will never know. Interesting.

Special D, go blow it out your nostril, no one is asking your to contribute anything.

No Paul, my comments of 'snippets' and so on are in reference to 'more' information about 'his story'. I do not intend to 'prove' anything because what happened is a matter of record.

You on the other hand continually reject submissions that 'you' don't want to hear. What I have written is true accounts of a person/s who fell victims to enemy actions.

What happened to him IS a direct result of those enemy actions. It was real, it happened, and no matter what you say it is now a part of history.

You question the veracity of my words. I cannot think of why, unless you have some connection to these anti Australians.

Finding ANY material condemning or highlighting these types of activities, even today, will be difficult as the left will not want it revealed, in exactly the same way you are continually challenging me!

Just accept that these things happen and move on. Trying to debunk them now only gives rise to exposing these traitors only to encourage people to look into these accusations and finally bringing them to the fore.

Which is not what you and your lot want. So there's a good boy, stop stirring the pot or you will be doing yourself and your mates, a grave injustice.

LEST WE FORGET!

ALTRAV,

Only non-perishable food was sent by coastal freighters, crewed by members of a union generally considered to be communist controlled, yet these men went to sea knowing that they stood a chance of being sunk.
I've known some brave men in my time, including VC winners, but I'd rate the merchant seamen stokers as among the bravest.

Most of our coastal merchant ships in WWII were coal-fired and the stokehold was amidships, just where a torpedo would be aimed and most likely hit.
Stokers on duty had very little hope of escaping from the hell of scalding steam and burning coal, that is if they were not mercifully
killed by the initial explosion.
These men were not denying supplies but delivering them.

Many of them were probably card-carrying members of the Communist Party and were helping the war effort.

There is no way that your in law could have starved because of any actions of either wharfies or merchant seamen, as I said perishable food was sourced locally and the New Guineans were glad of the business.

For what the rations should have been see:
http://clik.dva.gov.au/reports-studies-research-papers-library/research-and-health-studies/animal-fat-australian-diet/attachment-2-service-ration-scales-world-war-2

Note that much of the meat ration is 'carcass weight' and not 'butchers' weight, i.e. the former includes bones and other inedibles.
The Government saved money by using carcass weight, only the troops suffered.

Is Mise, I must ask you review my previous comments. My anger has been directed at the warfies here in Australia. I absolutely did not and never have maligned the men who delivered the supplies.

As you say they were brave men, my FIL spoke well of them and the risk they took did not go un-noticed or without praise. I also knew about the local foods as well.

Is Mise, my anger is and has always been directed at those who were, for whatever reason, not fighting or putting their lives on the line and doing things like holding up the supply ships.

It was not a trivial matter when the seamen on those ships, both US and Aussie were prepared to kill the warfies, I would think it was a rather serious matter, in fact a matter of life and death.

If no-one is going to believe my story about my FIL, that's OK, I can't prove anything anyway, only what is on the record. But I will not back down on the antics that the warfies/unions/communists unleashed on our supply ships.

That was the point I started with and that is the point I finish with. As for my derogatory comments about Aussies and Australia, whether some like it or not, given the appropriate topic I will gladly elaborate, warts and all.

It's not a pretty story.