Talk:Kokoda Track campaign

This article is interesting, but misses several important things:

firstly there is not much mention of the terrain and only a passing mention of Malaria.
There is almost nothing from the Japanese perspective and the whole campaign is told from the POV of the (eventually victorious) Australian and American side.
There is no mention of the extensive criticism of Brisbane HQ and MacArthur, who only turned up once and most times implied that he was handling things from the front line (which he was not).
There is no mention of how supplies were dropped without parachutes and the disasterous consequences to the troops (ala damaged munition - dropping them without parachutes caused the death of several men on the campaign).
No mention of Japanese atrocities (raping and killing Kokoda natives, bayonetting Australian troops for "exercise"). The Webb report was created after the campaign and extensively investigates this
No mention of how the fuzzy-wuzzy angels were often enforced labour and often treated badly by both sides
No information on the incredible censorship of the press. In early 1942 Osmar White, a war journalist, wrote:

In my belief the present oppressive censorship is the illogical outcome of many months of official bungling and confusion. Censorship officers in the field are tired of trying to make sense out of an insane censorship literature … every time a new problem arises, it seems that a new instruction is promulgated to solve it. Individual interpretations of these instructions are almost as varied as the instructions themselves. [Consequently] when I first arrived in Moresby no reference could be made to it as an operational base for attacks in New Britain. But within a week of my arrival Moresby was referred to as an operational base by the Minister for Air. Reference to spotting stations and observation centres in New Britain was forbidden yet a reference to them was published on the mainland and in a broadcast. At least one spotting station was [then] promptly bombed by the Japanese. [Finally] the military censor at Port Moresby [became] so confused and agitated by the censorship anomalies that he refused to pass any message unless he had been present at the interviews in which the information had been obtained. [1]

Lots of problems. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ham reading

Will find the info and add it later... I seem to have misplaced the book! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kokoda. Paul Ham, HarperCollins (Australia) published 27-10-2002 ISBN: 0732276934 [2]

What If?

A book in this series argued that it saved the Pacific from Japanese dominiation and was highly critical of MacArthur's attitude towards the Aussies. Please find Ham's book and fill in all the points you listed, and I'd be delighted to make my own contributions if you don't mind. Very much looking forward to seeing what you come up with. Fergananim 24.8.05.

- noting the lack of Japanese POV. This would be rather difficult considering the Japanese suffered pretty much a 100% death rate during this campaign.

Continuing the Myth

In addition to the isssues stated above, the article continues several other myths:

- that the Kokoda campaign saved Australia. There probably wasn't a campaign to invade Australia (see the article by Australian War Memorial Principal Historian Peter Stanley [3]). Even if there was a plan, it was thwarted by the Battle of the Coral Sea.

- that all the Aussies bravely fought against the odds. The fate of the 53rd Battalion is often ignored. As Paul Ham writes:[4]

"At the sight of the enemy, a whole company of these men threw down their weapons and ran into the jungle. Some were found by the side of the track quaking with fear and unable to move. The same happened to hundreds of American troops who later landed at Buna. Scores hid in the jungle refusing to fight."

"One doesn't judge these men; it was a gross failure of military leadership, which neglected adequately to train them or lead them. A soldier, if he is expected to kill, must be properly trained, and properly led. But my discovery of the 53rd Battalion's court martial documents - yes, four Australian officers were court-martialled for cowardice and desertion - showed the other side of the Anzac legend."

There are also papers in the Australian War memorial which show that sone soldiers injured themselves so that they would be evacuated.

Of course it deserves mention but really - it's not a huge point to make. For instance, it's quite common for soldiers to ehh... poo themselves the first time they come under artillery fire. It's perfectly human and dosn't reflect upon courage - pure instinct. If you haven't been trained adequately as is the case with these millitia troops even less can be expected. The point is there is a lot of stuff in war you don't hear much about - a lot of stuff hollywood glosses over. In this case it should probably be noted since the courage of the Aussies are linked to some myths and so on - just do it in the right context, with adequate explanations and - respect. Celcius 12:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Naming

The "Kokoda Trail" is constantly being incorrectly called Kokoda Track ! In the excellant book "The South West Pacific 1941-1945" by Colonel E.G.Keogh, MBE.,ED. R. Aust. Inf. (retd.) used as an official text book for many years to train Officers in Military History, the word "Trail" is used. "Kokoda Trail" was adopted by the Battles Nomenclature Committe in Oct. 1957 as the official British Commonwealth battle honour. It was officially Gazetted as "Kokoda Trail" in 1972.

Why is it that you do not use the correct terminlogy when portraying such an important historic event in Australian History !

Clive Whelan, Glen Waverley.Australia.

Clive, in the first place we aren't obliged to use official names, especially when they fly in the face of common usage. My understanding is that it was called the "Kokoda Track", or simply "the Track", both before the campaign and during the campaign, by the soldiers concerned; i.e. "Kokoda Trail" was devised in official/media circles to engage the American public, who would have assumed a "track" to be a railway and understood a rough thoroughfare through forest to be a "trail". Has anyone heard a different explanation for the renaming? Grant65 | Talk 14:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

I must say, I am very impressed with this article, considering most of the rubbish I encounter on wikipedia. It is a credit to the contributors. I have read two of the books referred to at the bottom of the article and I would thoroughly reccomend Paul Ham's book Kokoda to anyone with an interest in the topic. He is thoroughly readable and very gives a very balanced view. If you are looking to include some Japanese perspective this book contains quite a bit of info. aussietiger 16:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]