Blamey and the army. (Letters).(did Australian army lose confidence in General Blamey)(Letter to the Editor)

SIR: Without wishing to buy into the McDonald-Colebatch disputation (Letters, December 2002, January-February 2003), I have to wonder how Chester Wilmot could have justified his advice to Prime Minister Curtin that General "Blamey had lost the confidence of the Australian Army".

Who or what constituted this army? Was it the AIF or the other army, the AMF? Was Wilmot speaking for the 450,000-odd soldiers or the fifty or so generals of various grades? Assuming the latter, which faction of the generals persuaded Wilmot of this lack of confidence? And what was that faction's interest?

Wilmot's claim is both arrogant and silly. The general officer corps at the time was bitterly divided between the professionals (the Duntroon graduates) and the amateurs (the militia generals). Blamey, who was claimed by neither faction, had intensely loyal supporters and bitter enemies among both. Rowell's enmity was well known even if the reasons for it have never been satisfactorily explained. But Rowell, for whom Wilmot was clearly a spokesman, destroyed his own career solely by his own insubordination.

The matter of confidence or otherwise is impossible to measure in an organisation as large and diffuse as any army. By its very nature, an army, especially a citizen army, will reflect a myriad of views. Perhaps an Australian army, comprised of many highly individualistic characters, will be even more heterogeneous. Indeed, this has always been one of its strengths.

There is no doubt that Blamey ...