Talk:Max Hastings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces (general topics): Military biography task force Military historiography task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
	This article is supported by the Military work group.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

There seem to be a lot of Australians editing the page because of a remark Max Hastings made, as I am an inexperienced member I would ask that a moderator monitor this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portcullis (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There have been death threats made on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.53.142 (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australian "slur"

Followed today's editing with surprise and disappointment. First a parallel point. Although I find some of his description of Commonwealth troops and Montgomery in northern Europe unpalatable (eg, in Armageddon), Hastings has a point to argue and has sources to back up his point of view - as do those who take a contrary view (eg, Robin Neillands). Similarly, Beevor, has angered the Russians by bits of Berlin where new documents have punctured the Red Army's pristine self-image.

I haven't yet seen the offending book about the Aussies yet so I followed up one of the citations (Frank Walker in the Age). The situation Walker referred to wasn't that much different to northern Europe - war's end in sight and no one wanting be the last bloody hero. In Europe, British and American officers, in 1945, reported difficulties in getting their men to to be as "brave" as they had been a few months before. In addition, it's not the first time I've seen references to Australian forces being sidelined to peripheral, perhaps unnecessary, but still deadly situations as in Borneo (the Americans were creating a zone of influence). All-in-all, it's not "cowardice" in that situation, but unwillingness to sell one's life to little real purpose. It's not the front-line soldier who has failed, it's the "higher-ups".

Don't know whether Hastings comments are specific to a situation or are general to the war - he would need a ton of sources if it were the latter. Sources: if Hastings can back his statements up, and he's no hack so he must have found something, then rather than gunning for him from the hip (however angry) then it's better to retrieve and analyse sources and demonstrate weaknesses in the argument. Gets more respect and carries more weight than what has gone on today.

BTW, I don't agree that the undoubted guts and sacrifice of Aussie troops in one theatre (eg, north Africa, Singapore, New Guinea, etc) is an argument. As I've said, lack of belief in the objective or a feeling that "we've done our bit" will sap the morale of any force (apart from militaristic automatons). Even battle-hardened, proven troops can hold back. Similar situations happened elsewhere.

I think that the points in the article can be expressed better (more "encyclopedic"), I'll have a go at it soon and then take cover. Don't want to get my head blown off. Sorry to be so wordy. Folks at 137 21:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've had a go (see above). No offence is intended. Hope my firewall survives. BTW, one of the references (Fox) doesn't work for me. Folks at 137 22:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just removed this section. The 'controversy' lasted for about two days (a slow news Sunday and Monday) and it's inclusion in the article seemed to be a case of Wikipedia:Recentism. It might be worth including in an article on the book, but it doesn't seem significant enough to include in Hastings' biography. Most bookshops I've visited recently have multiple copies of the book, which tends to suggest that it's selling well and hasn't caused widespead outrage in Australia. --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I've chopped it back to one sentence as it is cited in reliable sources, caused a bit of a splash and, perhaps most significantly, led a historian at the Australian War Memorial to (mildly) criticise Hastings' work as a historian. I still suspect that it's not worth including though as it wasn't really that big a deal. --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)