Fathers and sons
Sir: I am reluctant to engage in a chain of correspondence of von Schlieffen propor- tions, but A.N. Binder's letter (7 February) about Englishmen as antipodean father- figures is ridiculous.
First, Fadden and Curtin were not Aus- tralians at all: they were Labour prime min- isters who were somewhat concerned at the juggernaut which had just rolled through Malaya and Singapore. By Mr Binder's logic, a true Australian of the time would have said, 'Bugger Darwin, let's save Suez.' Unfortunately, the first war had rather emasculated the number of true Aus- tralians of this type by 1941.
Secondly, contrary to Mr Binder's under- standing, quite a few Australians did stay (and die) at Tobruk. And they saved it (and Suez) in the process. All without much help from Father, too.
Thirdly, of course the New Zealanders stood fast in North Africa in 1941. They had no reason to be anywhere else. After all, who on earth would invade New Zealand? The locals are busy leaving it in droves as it is.
Fourthly, again contrary to Mr Binder's understanding, Anzus was the operative strategic alliance between the Anzacs and the United States from Britain's withdraw- al from the Far East until the Kiwis walked out in the late 1980s. So far as any- one in the United States or Australia is aware, there is still a very active alliance between our countries. As we learned in the 1940s, alliances which are of mutual benefit have rather more to recommend them. Lastly, am I paranoid, or does no one in Britain have an Australian frame of reference outside Sydney? Honestly, Dad, if only you hadn't dumped us for that European harlot in the 1960s, perhaps we'd be nicer. As it is, we just question your motives.
Martin Scott
Owen Dixon Chambers, 205 William Street, Melbourne, Australia
Previous page
