Talk:39th Battalion (Australia)/Archive 1

A work in progress

I have just started this page, and see it as a project that could take some months to input and cleanup.

If you wish to add to the text, please do, it would be helpful to run your ideas on this page first and then make the jump into the mainpage. Vufors 12:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC).

Statistics

Date	Citations	Images	Maps	Books	Sources	Links
2006 July 14	0	2	0	4	2	12
2006 July 15	2	1	2	0	0	7
Total	2	3	2	4	2	19

.

Merge

Hold off on the 'merge'.

[1]. No reason to rush. Wiki is not a race!

[2]. Use this page to discuss the change.

[3]. As stated in the past this page is still in a building phase, and will be developed.

[4]. Also please note that there is "NO" such unit called the 39th (Militia) Battalion. it is called the 39th Battalion. Vufors 14:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Stacked Images

Try to avoid staking images.

See: Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial

• • They will unstack as text is place into the fields. Vufors 13:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've done some style editing, restructuring and general cleanup. I'll remove the cleanup tag for now. Please post what needs to be done if you feel there is any reason the cleanup tag should be added.

If there are any concerns with my edits to this article these last hours, please contact me. Delta Tango • Talk 04:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• It looks a lot better now, a great job. Thanks for the input. Vufors

39th (Militia) Battalion

MacArthur

I don't see how you could not include discussion on MacArthur in this article. Most of the books I have read (including some American ones) lay the blame for how little troops were there to fight the Japanese squarely on Mac's shoulders. He ignored intel that didn't fit his grand plans, made up stories about the Australian troops to inflate his own, ego, etc etc etc. I think a section on Mac does fit in with the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wdywtk (talk • contribs) .

That information would better belong on the Douglas MacArthur entry, and not on this entry which discusses one of the hundreds of infantry battalion's under MacArthur's command. --Nick Dowling 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I am proposing that the 39th Battalion entry be merged with this article as this is the longer established article on this infantry battalion and the new page shouldn't have been created. This page is also longer and somewhat better written than the new entry. --Nick Dowling 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hang on chaps, your too fast. I need more time to finish my next page entry, I have that just about ready, and then we can work this out who goes and who stays.

Best Regards Vufors 14:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Oh I have one big issue with this page its the word (Militia) within the Wiki title page (REF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/39th_%28Militia%29_Battalion) and in the Battalion/Unit name set. No such thing - and other problems - I will follow up on this at a later date, at this time my efforts are on the other page. Vufors 14:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge and rename

Two months on there's been nothing added to the 39th Battalion entry and it's clearly time for a merge as its silly having two entries for the same unit. The entry should also be renamed to Australian 39th Battalion. --Nick Dowling 10:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I think "Australian 39th Battalion" should be purely about the WW1 unit. Personally I am opposed to combining military units from different periods and which have no continuity, in one article. There may have been a few people from the WW1 unit in the militia unit when it was formed in the 1920s, but who knows? It is usually referred to as the "39th (Militia) Battalion" or "39th Militia Battalion". So I think "Australian 39th (Militia) Battalion" would be more correct.Grant65 | Talk 16:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Grant. I don't see anything wrong with having a single page which deals with an Army or Air Force unit which has been formed and disbanded more than once (as is the case for most of the currently active Australian military units). This is especially the case for relatively small units such as battalions and aircraft squadrons. In terms of the Australian Army's lineage, the 39th Battalions of WW1 and WW2 and the modern 39th Battalion are exactly the same unit, albeit with gaps where the unit wasn't active, and so should be covered in the same article. --Nick Dowling 02:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I guess I'm not going to overturn a practice which is so well-entrenched (excuse the pun). But we have a unique problem in Australian military history because of the 2nd AIF. Some people also see the 2nd AIF units as the bearers of the WW1 traditions, i.e. the 2/39th is seen by some as a successor to the WW1 unit. Should we combine them? For example, until recently, List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients had Frank John Partridge as serving in the 2/8th rather than the 8th (Militia) Battalion. It may have been an inadvertent error, but it illustrates the point. Grant65 | Talk 01:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

From my understanding, the 2 in front of 2nd AIF battalions was added because there were existing militia battalions with the same number at the time, and the 2nd AIF battalion was technically an expeditionary off shoot of that battalion. The NZ Army's infantry battalions are currently 1 RNZIR and 2/1 RNZIR, with the 2/1st Bn being raised as a home service battalion during the decades 1 RNZIR was located in Singapore. --Nick Dowling 09:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand the formalities. The problem I have with this is that it will be very confusing to people with lttle knowledge of the subject if we combine 2nd AIF units and Militia units in single articles, especially since they served in different divisions and theatres. Grant65 | Talk 09:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The 2nd AIF battalions were clearly new and seperate units and should be treated accordingly by having their own articles. --Nick Dowling 10:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is in error, it should flow the other way - also the two units should have their own pages, with say a small entry listing the other War unit in each. A redirect to the other page 39th Battalion would be a better idea.220.240.249.134 13:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree, a re-direct is the best change. This page is full of errors. Vufors 01:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The 39th was not part of the 2nd AIF

And as such, I have removed references to it being so and replaced them with references to the AMF, which the 39th was part of. 124.182.202.193 14:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Correct, my mistake... However it should be noted that 80% of the active 39th, when they crossed over to combat had come from AIF units or had now enlisted in the AIF. Austin, Victor. To Kokoda And Beyond - p231 para 4 -But yes, when you take in all the names on the roll, about half of the privates still held their CMF number.Vufors 05:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Opening Para

I've stumbled onto this article while doing some research. Very good, but the opening section reads like some kind of medal citation. I'm sure the unit was extremely brave, tenacious and courageous, and that the conditions on the trail were deplorable etc.., but the way it's written isn't very encyclopaedic. It needs to be neutral and less opinionated, and stick with facts. Admittedly I don't have the references at my disposal so these descriptions might be taken from them, but they are still a bit too much. How about this as an alternative? It gives the same info and sources and links to the appropriate page describing the battle where the reader can find out more about the actions of the unit.

The first 39th Battalion, First Australian Imperial Force (39 BN 1 AIF) was an element of the 10th Brigade of the 3rd Australian Division during World War I. Formed in February 1916 the battalion served on the Western Front and was disbanded in March 1919.

The second 39th Australian Infantry Battalion, Australian Military Forces (39th BN) was raised on 1st of October 1941 and assigned as a Citizens Military Forces/Militia (reserve) unit. The battalion was mainly manned by young volunteers and in early 1942 was designated for garrison duty at Port Moresby, Papua. As such the unit was one of the first to engage the Japanese during the Kokoda Trail Campaign. Between July and August 1942 the battalion was heavily engaged in the defence of the trail before being withdrawn. Although poorly equipped and trained, the 409 man strong unit and local Papuans (nicknamed fuzzy-wuzzy angels) fought several gallant actions against a far larger and battle hardened enemy . Such was their involvement in the battle that by the time they were withdrawn they could only muster 32 men, and in January 1943 they were disbanded.

Today Australians acknowledge the 'Kokoda Trail Campaign' and the 39th Battalion's courage and commitment, as an example of one of Australia’s finest moments in its collective spirit and modern nationhood.

The final reference is also no longer available at that page. Does anyone know if a new link can be found? Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made the change. The opriginal was way too POV. Psychostevouk (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the date of disbandment of the WWII battalion from January 1943 to July 1943 as I do not believe this is correct. The AWM information indicates July 1943. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Citations

This article needs more in line citations. There are large amounts of work that are not referenced at all. Without these it leaves the article open to question as copyvio. I have not been involved in writing this article so I do not know where the majority of the information came from, however I have added a few citations where I could. If you can help with this, please feel free to do so. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WWI & Date of Disbandment

The information on the battalion's involvement in WWI probably needs to be expanded a bit in my opinion. For example, casualties, decorations, commanding officers, etc. This is as per other battalion articles on Wiki, for example 17th Battalion or 26th Battalion. Other than that I think the article has had a lot of good work done on it. Well done to everyone who has contributed. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten the WWI narritive and added citations from the AWM Unit Information. One question arises though, the date of disbandment is given as March 1919, however, the last date in the War Diary is 30 April 1919. AWM says that the battalion was disbanded in March 1919, however. Confusing. Can anyone help? AustralianRupert (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

WWII Casualties

The article mentions the following casualties: "403 casualties, including 118 killed, 13 Died Of Wounds, 5 Died other cause, 266 wounded and one missing." I have added a citation needed tag beside this as it conflicts with the information available on the AWM Unit Information page (see http://www.awm.gov.au/units/unit_11908.asp). This page has 388 casualties, including 135 died/killed, 253 wounded. Can anyone who was involved with adding the information about casualties originally, please provide the citation of where they obtained the information stating 403 casualties? If this is not forthcoming, I believe it should be changed to the AWM information as that can be referenced accordingly. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now changed these figures to the AWM figures, as no one added the citation as requested and over a month past since I added it. If anyone disagrees they can be added back in, but there needs to be a source. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Taken from AWM Unit Information?

Sorry to be the bringer of bad news, but some of the text of this article looks the same or very similar to that on the AWM Unit Information site. For example, the Kokoda Track section seems almost word for word in some places. This is a violation of copyright and needs to be re-written otherwise it is liable for deletion.AustralianRupert (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have re-written most of the Kokoda section now. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

WWII Information needs expanding

Additionally, the WWII information does not include the part that the 39th Battalion played after the stand at Kokoda. The article leads people to believe that they were disbanded due to the losses they suffered at Kokoda, but this is not entirely true, as the 39th Battalion was attached later to the 21st Brigade for their attack at Gona and surrounds in Nov-Dec 1942. After that they were sent back to Moresby with only 7 officers and 25 men fit for duty. In February 1943 they stood to for an attack around Wau that never came and then in March they were returned to Australia for home leave. Later, in July 1943, the battalion was disbanded and the militiamen absorbed into 36th Infantry Battalion, whilst volunteers for overseas service were absorbed into the 2/2nd Infantry Battalion.(see the AWM Unit Information at http://www.awm.gov.au/units/unit_11908.asp). AustralianRupert (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've now added a bit on the fighting around Gona. It is not comprehensive, though, so it might need a tweak from someone else. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hawthorn-Kew Regiment

The Hawthorn-Kew Regiment was raised in 1921 and was part of the lineage of the WW2 39th Battalion, does anyone believe that this information should be added? As the article currently stands it makes it seem that the battalion did not exist before 1941, but this is not exactly accurate (See the AWM Unit Information at http://www.awm.gov.au/units/unit_11908.asp). If no-one disagrees with this, I will look to add some information on this over the next couple of days. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Final stages of work to get article to a B Class

I'm fairly confident that this article is close to a B Class now. There are still four "citations needed" tags, most of which need to be found before it can be assessed as a B. Also it will need a copy edit. I am probably a bit too close to the work now (having rewritten most of the Kokoda section) and working on other bits, too, so if anyone feels like they want to have a go at a copy edit, please go for it. I suspect that the introduction needs to be reworked, I think it has too much specific detail to be an introduction. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have gone through and added what citations I could. I was able to get a couple from the Austin book by viewing it through the snippet view on Google books, however, I suspect that I could get a couple more if I could get the hardcopy. Without being able to do this, however, I fear that the remaining couple of citations needed tags will remain for some time. Can anyone help with these?

Also, I have rewritten the introduction and done a minor copy edit on the article. It could probably still use a fresh set of eyes if anyone is interested. I'd say that the article is almost up to B class now - just those pesky last couple of citations needed tags that are holding it back, in my opinion. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Due to a concern about problems with the parents of the men objecting to their deployment, the militiamen were not informed of their destination before departure as Australian law forbade soldiers under twenty-one years of age from serving overseas" sounds like nonsense; Australian Papua wasn't 'overseas' and it wasn't unusual for troops to not be told where they were being sent before they boarded their ship on the grounds of security. Nick-D (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Nick. It doesn't sound correct to me, or perhaps it was someone's erroneous perception at the time as to why they weren't told. I didn't write it, though, hence why I added the citation needed tag. I was hoping that whoever added it might help by adding in the citation, so it could be checked. I think, however, that if the citation is not forthcoming, or if others agree that it is wrong, then it should probably be removed. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've found a few more citations and done a few more tweaks, but still can't find that last citation about the concerns about parents. I am seriously considering removing this statement from the article as the tag has been there for a while and no one has responded. There must surely be someone who knows where this statement came from? I want to take this article to B class review soon (hoping to have it done before Anzac Day when this page is likely to get a lot of hits), and this last citation is holding that up. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed the uncited statement; it looks like nonsense and has been without a cite for a while now. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, mate. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)