FEATURE ARTICLE -
Issue 99: March 2025, Reviews and the Arts
Author: Peter StanleyPublisher: NewSouth PublishingReviewer: Brian Morgan
The rear cover of Beyond the Broken Years describes the author as [a] “provocative military historian”, a description that I find quite apt, having studied this fascinating book.
Let me ask you a rhetorical question. As a lawyer looking for probative evidence, would you prefer to rely on a contemporary document or an elderly witness’s memory? I suggest that the answer is obvious to us as our legal research on facts must focus on the best evidence. We, as lawyers, well know how memories can fade or be distorted by time. At page 24 of Beyond the Broken Years, the author comments on the differences between true historians and what some call “storians”. In the latter, a novel is made to appear to be based on history so as to attract the reader’s attention. While the claim may achieve its purpose, its validity does not withstand detailed investigation.
Under the heading, “Blood on the Wattle”, the author raises the question as to whether the deaths by white violence of First Nations People could or should be considered as part of a war. When one realizes that estimates of such deaths run to between 40,000 and 60,000 over a century of conflict, perhaps, we should think of these events in the context of an Australian War.
There is much to question in so many of the books that I have read over the years where I have wondered whether I was really reading something historically accurate or whether the author had prevented the facts from getting in the way of a good story.
Allow me to refer to my family’s history. My mother was born in 1917. Her mother had remarried after the death of her first husband and my mother was a product of the second relationship. What I only discovered, well after she had died, was that I had two uncles who fought at Gallipoli, one of them dying on day 1. My mother never ever mentioned a half brother, much less two, nor the fact that one had been killed. The official record of service of those two uncles is the basis of my belief. But, as well, I have copies of correspondence from my grandfather seeking the return of my deceased uncle’s personal effects and payment of the wages due to his son.
My father-in-law was a fighter pilot who flew Spitfires, Kittyhawks and Mustangs in the RAAF in WW 2. Did he ever engage in dog fights with the Japanese? According to him, the closest he got was to see several fighters disappearing in the distance. His logbook, which we only found after his death, told a different story. Methinks that the logbook is more likely to be accurate.
I thought I was reasonably well read of books dealing with Australian military history from the Boer War to the two World Wars, Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan. Over the years, I have reviewed many such books.
What this author has done is to differentiate among true historical publications, those purporting to be such but lacking the vigour of substantial research and those written by “storians”. His knowledge of the numerous books is quite outstanding, as is the degree of his recognition of their core historical accuracy or inaccuracy. And he pulls no punches, nor, I suggest, should he.
A chapter entitled HMAS Australia refers, at pps 154-5, to the many publications (“almost an entire compactus bay”) surrounding the loss of HMAS Sydney to the actions of the Kormoran. The author is right, I suggest, to call out that another historical author had established “that the official account was ‘inadequate’ and (sic) contested ‘persistent rumours or distortions’ including one which suggested that Sydney was sunk by a Japanese submarine when records of those submarines’ locations “merely fanned further speculation”. We now know from the research by David Mearns: (The sinking of HMAS Sydney. How Australia’s greatest maritime mystery was solved), previously reviewed by me in this publication, where and how they were sunk.
As you would expect of a person summarizing Australia’s military history, publications concerning the army, navy and airforce, Vietnam, East Timor, Afghanistan. Etc, all receive his attention. I was surprised to find that, even today, there has been far less written about the RAAF than the RAN.
What does this book tell us? First, it emphasizes the gulf between true, detailed and analytical historical research, material relying on unreliable and unsubstantiated records and publications dressed up as historical accounts in a way that attracts a gullible audience to read the books or watch the films believing them to be accurate. Second, it gives us a thumbnail sketch of the hundreds of publications and in doing so demonstrates many areas that have not received much if any historical research. In addition, it invites some previous conclusions to be given additional attention!
This is an unusual book but it compels concentrated attention. I found myself left with lingering questions about some of the “historical” facts which most of us take for granted about Australia’s involvement in war.
