Talk:Vernon Sturdee

Islands campaigns

Given how controversial the Australian Army's 1944-45 campaigns in New Guinea, New Britain and Bougainville were, it would be interesting if the article covered Sturdee's views on their value and/or how the controversy impacted on the strategy he implemented. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I included a quotation from a letter to Savige giving some details about how the political controversy was affecting operations. Sturdee hated both major parties and believed that generals should be free from political interference. I haven't got anything too frank about the value of the campaigns but perhaps there might be something in the comments on the official histories. What the record shows is that he allowed the fighting at Aitape and on Bougainville to ramp up and then protected it from being cut. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I just added a bit from Peter Charlton's book about Sturdee being concerned about Blamey's instructions, but he doesn't have much more. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

He took it from Long, p. 26. Even so, there are a couple of things that come out of this exchange of instructions. Being a typical regular, Sturdee always wants clarification of his instructions. The historian then gets to see Blamey's brain in action, and we find him incisive and uncannily accurate. He's both cautious and aggressive, and in exactly the right places. But he keeps Sturdee on a tight rein; he doesn't delegate authority to launch offensives to Sturdee.

At one point Sturdee asked for legal advice on whether he had to obey orders from the Prime Minister. The answer came back that no, orders come from the chain of command, which originates from the Governor General. Who can sack you on on the advice of the Prime Minister. Sturdee caved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding 2nd AIF

I was just wondering where the 2nd AIF should be sent when withdrawn from the Mediterranean? First it is said that their destination would be Java but in Wigmores conclusion the destination is Burma. --Bomzibar (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The original destination was Java. The advance party did arrive there. When it became clear that Java could not be held, the British chiefs suggested that the AIF be diverted to Burma (it being in the Indian Ocean at the time). There was an argument between the British and Australian Prime Ministers over this. In the end, the Australians won (although much of the 6th Division was diverted to Sri Lanka). Subsequent events vindicated Sturdee's judgement.

Another thing from the Island Campaigns section: For me it reads as if Blamey wanted to get rid of Sturdee and sent him to Washington for this reason, using the rest only as a justification. In my eyes this becomes only clearer as Sturdee accepted this only with the promise of a new command after one year. Is there any literature handling this case from authors outside the Australian military complex? --Bomzibar (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No, of course not. Who else would be interested? There's a huge volume of anti-Blamey literature. He did get rid of people on flimsy pretexts. Lavarack's supporters have a lot to say about his appointment to Washington in 1944. In Sturdee's case, though, this has to be balanced against the fact that he was in Washington for exactly one year, and Blamey kept his promise and appointed him to a senior field command. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response, Im still thinking if I should try to get the German translation awarded after a review. Furthermore, when exactly did Blamey decide to send Sturdee to Washington and when did he go there? I wonder because he did not return before Beginning of 1944 but the actual time of the sentences in which Blameys decision is covered can be regarded as still being 1942. So at first I thought he remained longer than one year in Washington. --Bomzibar (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

He was head of the Military Mission to Washington from 10 September 1942 to 29 February 1944, so that is a little over year, but part of that would have been travelling time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyediting question

"providing and supporting the Australian contingent": I don't follow. providing for? - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You have split the subject:

"providing and supporting the Australian contingent of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force in Japan." Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article.

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vernon Sturdee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110305222703/http://www.adfjournal.adc.edu.au/UserFiles/issues/41%201983%20Jul_Aug.pdf to http://www.adfjournal.adc.edu.au/UserFiles/issues/41%201983%20Jul_Aug.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091030143930/http://www.adfjournal.adc.edu.au/UserFiles/issues/81%201990%20Mar_Apr.pdf to http://www.adfjournal.adc.edu.au/UserFiles/issues/81%201990%20Mar_Apr.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Liberal with the truth and accuracy of sources -- FA delist / review required?

I'm surprised to read this article and not find mention of the doubts cast over Sturdee's competence; both during wartime and following (in Historian accounts). One such example is the dissertation by Dr David Evans, which dedicates an entire chapter to Sturdee's incompetence.

Additionally, the comment within the East Indies campaign that When there were doubts about the morale of one commander, Sturdee replaced him with a staff officer from Army Headquarters who volunteered for the position despite being well aware of the odds., is grossly inaccurate. The commander in this case, being Lieutenant Colonel Leonard Roach MC of the 2/21st Battalion, was dismissed chiefly because he raised strategic and tactical concerns directly to ABDACOM which undermined to competence of the Australian Command in the region and the flaws of the defensive strategy; it's a bit of a stretch to simply say it was a moral issue; effectively he was a whistle-blower of ABDACOM and Sturdee that was pushed aside at great expense. But this articles doesn't even mention Sturdee's association with ABDACOM either.

I think given the weight of this article, and noted the FA Review was done back in 2013, I don't believe it is at the current FA benchmark, the content has significant gaps in his career, the sources are at times, too scarce and at other times, singular and unreliable. I have limited time to help improve the article, but I do have a trove of potential references that could be used by a motivated editor.

Aeonx (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The article pre-dates Evans's thesis, which I had not read before; thanks for bringing it to my attention. I will revise the article. If you had additional sources or issues, post them here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 Any progress since April? I noticed that this article is still appearing in FAs with cleanup tags listing. (t · c) buidhe 03:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nick-D and AustralianRupert: Can I trouble you for a second opinion? I have read through the PhD thesis cited and feel that "incompetent" is too strong a word here. Unfortunately, the thesis passes over the relatively common but not well studied situation where a defence must be mounted against overwhelming odds. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

G'day, it's not really a topic I know much about, I'm sorry. However, I'd be reluctant to use the word incompetent as it seems a subjective and loaded term; it certainly should not be used without attribution. However, it might be possible to rework the tagged section a little to include some of Evans' observations/criticisms for balance albeit using neutrally worded language. I'd also suggest maybe removing terms like "spirited defence" and "as best he could" from that section. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

As the author of what remains a standard work on Australia's war strategy in World War II, High Command, David Horner's views should carry a lot of weight. Unfortunately the saga of the 'barrier line' isn't covered in that book, but his judgements in a biography are important. A PhD thesis is also a reliable source, and it would also be good to draw on this to provide a more rounded view, alongside the official history and other works. It's fair to say that no-one involved in the deployment of token forces to the 'barrier line' came out of it looking good due to nature of this fiasco and its disastrous consequences for the Australian POWs. However, they were far from being alone in making such mistakes - the British also threw away two brigades at Hong Kong and sacrificed the 18th Division at Singapore, the Dutch also scattered small forces all over the NEI and the first phases of MacArthur's attempted defence of the Philippines are generally considered to have been utterly incompetent. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe, Hog Farm, DrKay, and Hawkeye7:, this article is still showing on the list of FAs needing cleanup as having HarvRef errors. I can’t find them. Can we get this sorted and can this article be marked “satisfactory” and taken off of WP:FARGIVEN? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't find what's causing the error. My only thought is that {{Australian Dictionary of Biography}} is used to cite a ref. There's nothing wrong with that whatosever, but the HarvRef errors category sometimes can't recognize that the template is an error. I've had this happen with {{Cite Kennedy 1998}} and {{Cite Collins 2016}} in some of the article's I've written. I think there's a list it can be added to so things don't freak out because of the template, but I don't remember where that is. Hog Farm _Talk 19:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what to do next, but DrKay may know. If you have time to review the rest of the article, it is now sitting near the top of WP:FARGIVEN, but doesn’t appear to be anywhere near FAR territory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It was the ADB reference. I've suppressed the warning category with {{Sfn whitelist}} Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Removing from WP:FARGIVEN, as this is nowhere near FAR. Not an expert in this subject matter (of the two WWII books I have with me, neither mentions Sturdee). If Hawkeye7 and Nick-D are okay with the criticism/evaluation material, I'd trust that and be willing to mark as satisfactory at URFA/2020. Hog Farm _Talk 03:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)