Three Royal Australian Navy officers have become the first in their service’s history to qualify as nuclear engineers in the UK, after completing nine months of intensive training delivered by the Royal Navy. The training, conducted under the AUKUS agreement—a pact between the UK, US, and Australia to develop a new generation of nuclear-powered submarines—took place at HMS Sultan in Gosport. The Australian officers trained alongside their Royal Navy counterparts.

Vice Admiral Mark Hammond, Chief of the Royal Australian Navy and a submariner, commented on the achievement: “The graduation marks another significant step forward for the Royal Australian Navy’s ability to operate, maintain, and support Australia’s future nuclear-powered submarine capability.”

The three officers, identified as Lieutenant Commander James, Lieutenant Isabella, and Lieutenant Steve, will now serve on Astute-class submarines with the Royal Navy to gain practical experience. Lt Cdr James will be assigned to the Royal Navy’s newest hunter-killer submarine, HMS Agamemnon, which is nearing completion in Barrow. “The experience of bringing her out of construction, going through trials, and training will be hugely important for our program,” he noted.

The training involved six months of intensive academic studies in subjects such as nuclear physics, thermodynamics, and nuclear safety management, followed by three months of practical training. During this period, they learned the inner workings of nuclear systems and completed control room simulations to prepare for potential incidents and emergencies.

Lieutenant Joe Roberts described the course as one of the most challenging in the Royal Navy, with many students dropping out. “It’s a course which demands the best and the brightest—and the Australians have sent three outstanding students who will go far,” he said. “It’s been an honor because these are the AUKUS pioneers. They will lead their country’s future nuclear submarine program.”

Their success represents a significant milestone in developing the skilled workforce needed for Australia’s future conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine capability under the AUKUS tri-lateral security partnership. This topic was high on the agenda during the Prime Minister’s first conversation with his counterpart, Anthony Albanese, during his inaugural weekend in office. The leaders also discussed regional challenges, including strategic competition and agreed to strengthen the AUKUS partnership.

Following China’s military joint training with Belarus, speculation arises about North Korea’s potential involvement, indicating a significant military buildup among four nations near EU borders.

North Korea’s military education delegation, led by Kim Kum-chol, has travelled to Russia. This visit marks the first announced military exchange since Putin’s visit to Pyongyang last month. The delegation hails from Kim Il-sung Military University, a prominent training institute for military officers.

During Putin’s recent visit to Pyongyang, a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership was signed with Kim Jong-un. This agreement includes a mutual defence pact, committing both nations to assist each other if attacked. This development has raised concerns in South Korea and the US about potential military repercussions. A minor border incident could quickly escalate into a broader military confrontation.

Any military exchange with North Korea violates UN sanctions, which prohibit member nations from providing military support to Pyongyang. Despite these sanctions, both North Korea and Russia have denied accusations of military cooperation in the Ukraine war.

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol has urged Russia to avoid military assistance to North Korea, describing it as a “distinct threat and grave challenge” to security.

Ever so slowly, people around the world are waking up to the fact they’ve been deceived over the past 20 to 30 years by the biggest, most costly, most environmentally destructive fraud in the history of mankind. This deception, which has permeated every level of society, has been orchestrated with unparalleled precision and effectiveness.

Yet, so effective has the brainwashing propaganda of the deceivers been, that even those who are beginning to understand the deception still use the key words implanted into their minds through the relentless repetition of certain phrases. Terms like “global warming,” “carbon footprint,” and “greenhouse gases” have been drilled into public consciousness, shaping perceptions and beliefs without people even realizing they are being manipulated. This insidious method continues to spread deceit and illusions, fuelling the false alarms associated with the so-called Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change theory.

The media, educational systems, and even some scientific communities have played pivotal roles in perpetuating this narrative. They have created a sense of urgency and fear, convincing people that drastic measures are necessary to avert an impending climate catastrophe. This has led to the implementation of costly policies and regulations that have significant economic and social impacts, often without delivering the promised environmental benefits.

The truth continues to resonate with those who are willing to question the prevailing narrative. As more evidence emerges and more people begin to see through the propaganda, the tide is slowly turning.

I am convinced we are nearing a critical turning point. Even the most hesitant conservative politicians, those currently lacking the courage to make a complete about-face on the issue, will soon take the vital step of declaring the original demonization of CO2 to be at the very heart of this fraud. The vilification of carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring and essential component of life on Earth, has been one of the greatest deceptions. Understanding this will be key to dismantling the entire fraudulent structure.

As awareness grows, we can expect to see more voices joining the call for a reevaluation of climate policies. This will involve challenging the assumptions and motives behind the climate change narrative and demanding greater transparency and accountability from those who have promoted it. The journey to uncovering the full extent of this deception will be arduous, but it is a necessary step towards restoring scientific integrity and public trust.

ED: I have not reprinted the pictures in this article as they are all covered by copyright.

• WEEKEND AUSTRALIAN MAGAZINE

The truth behind the ‘spitting myth’ that divided Vietnam veterans and anti-war activists

MARK DAPIN

18 hours ago

The Weekend Australian Magazine

59 Comments

Australian Army troops march during a parade for returned Vietnam War soldiers in King William Street, Adelaide in 1969. Photo: Unidentified photographer

Everybody knows that Vietnam veterans are desperate, ­damaged men, haunted by memories of wartime atrocities and demonstrations against their homecoming at Sydney Airport, where they were spat upon by women and branded “baby killers”. Like many things that everybody knows, this is not true.

I first became interested in military mythology while writing The Nashos’ War, a history of the national service scheme during the ­Vietnam era. I had read about attacks on veterans by protesters and I wondered how they might have been organised. The story that interested me most of all – because it was the most dramatic and violent, and would have ­required the highest level of planning and ­commitment – was published first in a collection of veterans’ writings to mark the National Reunion and Welcome Home Parade in 1987, and more widely showcased in Paul Ham’s bestselling Vietnam: The Australian War in 2007. The account is credited to “Mike” from Perth, a national serviceman who served in the Royal Australian Artillery and flew home, ­relieved, in January 1970.

“At Mascot [airport], the relief turned to anger,” wrote Mike. “We were pelted with tomatoes and spat on. But we got our satisfaction afterward: 150 toey, angry lads from Vietnam versus 400 demonstrators – they didn’t stand a chance. The cops were very good about it. They seemed to be otherwise occupied for a while. It’s impossible to describe what it feels like to have been away at war for your country and come home to that kind of treatment. It’s something you never forget. Feeling as I do now about the whole thing, I guess I could have been on the opposite side of the fence. But to be spat on and treated like shit, that’s something else.”

As well as never forgetting this incident, Mike never remembered it – because it did not happen. Mike’s essay came out of a veterans’ creative-writing class, whose participants were invited to create either fiction or memoir. Mike’s story is clearly fiction.

Australian soldiers parade past St Mary’s Cathedral in Sydney.

A riot involving 550 people would have been one of the worst incidences of political violence in post-war Australian history, and the only time a large number of returned soldiers ever fought with demonstrators – at the country’s major international airport, no less. Mike’s story received no coverage in any newspaper, and nor did any story remotely like it. It is not mentioned in any history or memoir of the Left. There is no trace of the organisation behind the demonstration, the logistics of which would have been fantastically difficult, given that the flight arrived last thing at night in the presence of military police. No other veteran has ever claimed to have been involved. The Qantas flight crews who manned the returning aircraft do not remember the battle. The official historian of Sydney Airport has never heard of it. There is no record of any participant having been arrested or injured.

In a few short lines, Mike’s story encapsulates the majority of popular untruths about the anti-war movement and presents their sum as a cautionary tale. We read that returned men were pelted with food (they were not, but ­certain anti-war demonstrators were); that they were spat on (they were not, but certain anti-war demonstrators were); that there were demonstrations against returning soldiers at airports (there were not, ever, anywhere in the world); that the anti-war movement in Sydney had the capacity to secretly mobilise 400 demonstrators last thing at night to confront troops in a security area (it never tried); that demonstrators blamed the troops for the war (they did not); and that returned men took revenge upon demonstrators by beating them up in a massive brawl (they did not, although soldiers who had not yet been to Vietnam once attacked a peaceful protest in Adelaide).

What lies beneath Mike’s unreliable narrative is the idea that the anti-war movement was much larger, more militant and more logistically capable than contemporary reports suggest, and that its target was returned men.

His story also addresses the central problem with the spitting myth – that spat-upon soldiers would have been likely to batter their spitters into cracks in the ground: in this revenge ­fantasy, they do just that.

This picture was taken soon after the 6th Battalion of The Royal Australian Regiment was involved in Operation Bribie in South Vietnam in February 1967. Photo: Jan Chisholm

The foundation myths of victimised Vietnam veterans in Australia were born, like so many other myths, out of Hollywood movies. The pivotal role of two particular films in helping to form the imagined memory of US veterans was first identified by the sociologist and Vietnam veteran Jerry Lembcke. When Lembcke ­returned from Vietnam, he joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War, an organisation probably best known for an action in April 1971, when it mustered 800 veterans to throw their medals onto the steps of the Capitol building in Washington DC. Among the apparent medal throwers was future politician John Kerry, who later claimed to have only tossed his ribbons.

Veterans began to join movements against the Vietnam War. Credit: Denver Post via Getty Images

Members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War Al Hubbard, a former Air Force Captain, and John Kerry a former Navy Lieutenant appear on Meet the Press in 1971.

In Lembcke’s book, The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam, he traces the idea that Vietnam veterans were spat upon back to the slurring invective of the fictitious John Rambo, played by Sylvester Stallone in the 1982 movie First Blood; and he ascribes the notion of airport demonstrations against returning soldiers to the 1978 Jane Fonda movie Coming Home. In a later book, Lembcke argued that Hollywood movies “made Vietnam veterans into political props for slandering the anti-war movement”, and that the diagnosis of PTSD was formulated to pathologise dissident veterans. (Look at those long-haired soldiers throwing away their ­medals! They must be mad!)

In Australia, there was no real movement of anti-war Vietnam veterans. While activists in the US attended demonstrations in military uniform, some Australian veterans have ­complained that they could not wear their uniforms in the streets for fear of being attacked by protesters, often women. And this did happen, but only once, in June 1966, when 21-year-old Nadine Jensen, a typist from Campbelltown in NSW, doused herself in red paint and kerosene and ran at the leaders of a homecoming march for 1RAR in Sydney, smearing two officers with ersatz blood. An estimated 300,000 Sydneysiders had turned out to cheer on the battalion, and only Jensen and a handful of banner-­wavers in the crowd protested what was at the time a very popular war. Jensen, who belonged to no political party and was acting alone, was thought to be insignificant, if not insane. “My action was not so much against the soldiers but against authority itself,” she told a court. “My action may have been wrong in that it should have been protesting against the Australian attitude of complacency.” She was fined £6, then disappeared from history.

Parades for Australian Army soldiers who fought in the Vietnam War. Photo: Australian Army

Although there was never another photographed demonstration at any one of the next 15 welcome-home parades, nor one single ­verified account of veterans being accosted by protesters during the war itself, Jensen’s actions later became seen as representative of the anti-war movement. According to Gary McKay, a decorated veteran who has written a dizzying number of books on Australia’s Vietnam war, “The wearing of military uniform in Canberra was actually stopped for a long period of time when it was felt that the presence of uniforms in public would invite violence or embarrassing demonstrations against service personnel.”

McKay is mistaken. As my doctoral supervisor at UNSW@ADFA, the late Professor ­Jeffrey Grey, wrote in 1991, it was not felt that the uniforms might “incite violence”; rather, ­officers were encouraged to come to work in suits since they were not permitted to wear ­uniform outside an army base in a social or commercial setting, and they might want to stop off for a drink on the way home, for example. Jeff had no particular time for the antiwar movement. His father, Major General Ronald Grey, had been Commanding Officer of the Seventh Battalion Royal Australian Regiment (7RAR) in Vietnam.

As for the idea that veterans might be spat upon, Lembcke ascribes it to a closing scene of First Blood, when former Green Beret John Rambo, holed up after his spree of justified vengeful violence, is cornered by his former commanding officer Colonel Troutman, who tells him, “It’s over, Johnny. It’s over!”

“Nothing is over!” replies Rambo. After the war, he says, “I came back to the world and I see all those maggots at the airport. Protesting me. Spitting. Calling me baby killer, and all kinds of vile crap. Who are they to protest me, huh?”

The last Australian troops came home from Vietnam in 1973. The first Rambo movie, First Blood, was released in 1982. There was not one single reported, recorded or otherwise publicly aired comment or complaint about an Australian veteran being spat upon until 1982. Where did the fictional character Rambo get the idea that there were demonstrations against Vietnam veterans at airports? None were ever reported in the US until the movie Coming Home, in which Bruce Dern plays a paraplegic veteran coming home (in this case) from the airport with his wife, played by Jane Fonda. “Where’s all the demonstrators?” he asks. “An asshole on the plane told us there was going be a bunch of flowerheads out here.”

“Well, there are some kids out there,” says his wife, “but they can’t come on the base.” Meanwhile, a small group of anti-war protesters circle the gate, chanting, “One, two, three, four, we don’t want your rotten war.”

American actors Jane Fonda (on the ground) and Jon Voight (in a wheelchair) starred in war film Coming Home. Photo: Steve Schapiro via Getty Images

There were no reports of demonstrations at Australian airports until 1982, either, four years after the release of Coming Home. Just to make myself clear – because I am sometimes thought to be using the wrong words by people who do not make much of an effort to choose their own – I am not saying that no Vietnam veteran today claims to have been spat on or demonstrated against at any airport during the war, because they do. I am saying that there is no ­record of these allegations being made in ­Australia in newspapers, in broadcasts, in ­letters, in diaries, in airline records, in Qantas records or in police records at any time between the beginning of Australia’s commitment in 1964 until the local release of First Blood in 1982. Then the spit gates opened.

Actor Sylvester Stallone as John Rambo in First Blood. Photo: CBS via Getty

The spitting stories multiplied around the ­period of the National Reunion and Welcome Home Parade in October 1987, when about 22,000 men marched through Sydney to the ­respect and applause of a crowd estimated at 100,000-110,000. History had already been turned on its head in the reporting of the 1987 parade. According to a Canberra Times correspondent, “Fourteen years after the last Australian soldier returned from Vietnam, the Australian community finally gave veterans of the war the welcome home they had been waiting for.” It was as if there had been no previous parades or, if there had, they had been attended largely by protesters. In fact, a total of about 11,000 soldiers had marched in the 16 battalion welcome-home parades during the war years, and the turnout at the 1987 reunion was only a little more than one-third of the size of the crowd that had supported the famous 1RAR parade in 1966 – and only about one-fifth of the half a million people who had cheered for 7RAR in Sydney in 1968.

A larger mythologising role may have been played by the popular Australian TV miniseries Sword of Honour, which first aired on Channel Seven in October 1986, one year before the ­National Reunion and Welcome Home Parade. The second episode opens with angry Duntroon graduate Tony Lawrence marching proudly in his battalion’s welcome home ­parade in 1967, applauded by a small crowd of respectable spectators and harangued by what appears to be an equal number of anti-war ­protesters. A nervous and deranged-looking man slips out of the crowd and hurls a bucket of viscous red liquid, which splatters the face of Lawrence, who falters but marches on as police brawl with the demonstrators.

Great Australian war myths: a selection

Myth: Gallipoli was essentially a battle between Anzacs and Turks. Fact: There were far more British troops (27,500) than Anzacs (18,100) and almost as many French (16,800). And the French suffered even more deaths (8000 as against 7800)

Myth: John Simpson, the great Australian soldier, and his Donkey. Fact: Simpson was not Australian, rather he was a British merchant sailor who jumped ship in Australia in 1910. He joined the AIF for a free trip home.

Myth: Changi was a death factory for Australian POWs. Fact: There were 850 men (fewer than one per cent of those captured in WW2) who died in Changi, the running of which was left largely to the Allies.

Myth: the bridge over the River Kwai. Fact: There was no such bridge. One in Thailand is named for the film – but only to please tourists.

Peter Yule, author of The Long Shadow: ­Australia’s Vietnam Veterans Since the War, has written, “For many Vietnam veterans, the ­rejection of their service has played as great a role as the trauma of war in their subsequent mental health struggles.” And today, widespread blood-throwing, spitting and airport demonstrations are popularly believed to have occurred. But these incidents are not history, because they did not happen. If the incidents generally held to express the rejection were not real, but the perception that they were real was real, and if this perception has contributed to veterans’ PTSD, then the responsibility for that trauma must surely fall upon those who have propagated the myths that veterans were spat upon and so on. But even Yule, who was tasked with giving a voice to the veterans, discounted the airport-protest stories. So, while I was writing Lest, I laboured under the pleasant and highly ­motivating delusion that I had at least put to bed the myth of arrivals-hall demonstrations. But then came Fitz.

In the lead-up to the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the end of Australia’s ­commitment to Vietnam, the journalist and “storian” Peter FitzSimons interviewed an SAS veteran who served in Vietnam for nine months in 1971, in a question-and-answer session presented as an opinion piece. FitzSimons asked the veteran about the anti-war protests before he left, and the veteran claimed that he had read in the paper of a “big demonstration” about to happen in Sydney, so he and a few mates made the journey into town: “We turned up in uniform, so it was red-rag-to-a-bull stuff, and they were yelling at us in Martin Place and Angel Place. We deliberately placed ourselves in front of them, I guess, to provoke them. And we got into a bit of a rumble, a bit of biff, and the police were there and they broke it up.” There is no report of an incident anything like this ­occurring in Sydney in 1970, 1971 or any other time. And it would have been front-page news if the SAS – the SAS! – had blocked and attacked a street march in Martin Place: not only in the middle of the city but in front of the police.

Peter FitzSimons who recently said Michelle Obama would make a “great candidate” in the US presidential race. Photos: Channel 9, Getty

Later, FitzSimons asked the veteran about the homecoming, and he said he was flown back to Sydney via Darwin on a flight for US troops taking R&R in Australia. His mother and father were waiting for him at the airport, and he kissed his mum. FitzSimons pushed the point: “The story always goes that Vietnam vets were often greeted by protesters calling them ‘baby killers’,” he said. “Was that your experience?” “Well, there was a hardcore of protesters at the airport when I got there,” the veteran ­replied, “shouting abuse, even though it was one o’clock in the morning.”

But Sydney ­Airport was not even open at one o’clock in the morning. No flights ever arrived at that time. A search of Department of Veterans’ Affairs Nominal Roll of Vietnam Veterans shows that FitzSimons’ veteran arrived home on October 7 1971. No protests were reported at Sydney Airport on October 6, 7 or 8, or any other date. The steam had gone out of the anti-war movement as well as the war by then, and there is no conceivable reason why peace protesters should demonstrate against the final withdrawal of troops, or why the press would not report on their bizarre and eccentric behaviour if they did. And even if protesters had chosen to turn up – for the first and only time – they would not have had access to the schedule for Pan Am’s R&R flights and would not have known there would be troops in the airport. Which was closed.

“Some of those protesters at the airport and at Angel Place, all those years ago, are likely reading this,” said FitzSimons to his interviewee. “What do you say to them?” This is one of the stranger questions in journalistic history: asking a third party to address people who do not exist about something that did not happen. “Well, we live in a democracy and you’re ­allowed to demonstrate,” said the veteran to nobody, “but I think you had it wrong. You don’t demonstrate and throw abuse at the ­soldiers or the servicemen. You throw abuse and demonstrate against the government.”

Mark Dapin, journalist, historian and author of Lest. Photo: Supplied

By the 1960s, veterans of the Second World War could be ridiculed by the young as old, drunk and out of touch. Fifteen years after 1945, playwright Alan Seymour was able to portray them as pathetic caricatures in his drama The One Day of the Year, about which much has been made by historians. But Vietnam veterans have experienced this process backwards. There is no doubt that in the years after the war they were mocked and ignored by some people, and thought of as gullible and culpable by others. But by the Sydney welcome-home march in 1987, 15 years after Australia’s withdrawal from Vietnam, the veterans were widely accepted as misunderstood, brave, honest men. This is a tribute to the strength of the narrative they have collectively evolved. They have become a victim group: their claims need not be verified, their truth should not be questioned.

And this is a tragedy, because myths exist in part to give flesh to feelings – and the feelings of persecution are real, albeit heightened by being validated by folklorists, mythologists and journalists. Many veterans feel that the antiwar demonstrations were directed against them. Some returned men feel that their service was spat upon. When they say they had no welcome home, they mean they did not feel welcome at home. They are not lying. But we cannot accept their truth as history.

Lest: Australian War Myths by Mark Dapin, Australian War Myths.

Lest: Australian War Myths by Mark Dapin is out now through Scribner Australia ($34.99).

The command of the Australian Defence Force has transitioned from General Angus Campbell, AO, DSC, to Admiral David Johnston, AC, RAN, during a ceremonial parade in Canberra.

General Campbell, who became the Chief of the Australian Defence Force on 7 July 2018, led significant strategic shifts towards the Indo-Pacific region and fostered critical relationships to enhance Australia’s security cooperation with regional partners. He concluded his duties on 10 July 2024.

“It has been an honour and privilege to be the Chief of the Defence Force. But I am even more proud of Defence – who we are and what we are achieving,” stated General Campbell.

“I wish to acknowledge the men and women of all ranks, musters, and services who wear our nation’s uniform. Whether for a year or half a century, your service is deeply appreciated and of consequence to the future security, wellbeing, and prosperity of Australia and its people.”

Admiral Johnston assumes the role of Chief of the Australian Defence Force at a critical time, tasked with delivering the objectives of the National Defence Strategy and ensuring the ADF’s readiness for the future.

With extensive experience in senior operational roles and interagency appointments, Admiral Johnston brings a deep strategic understanding of Australia’s national security challenges. As the former Vice Chief of the Defence Force, he is well-prepared to lead the ADF forward.

“I pay tribute to General Campbell for his determined focus on building a better ADF and his personal example and leadership during a challenging period,” said Admiral Johnston.

“We face increasingly challenging strategic circumstances, placing a great responsibility on Defence to meet our nation’s security needs. This requires a force that is well-equipped, trained, confident, strong, and resilient.

“My priority is the ADF workforce. I am very conscious of the responsibility I have to the extraordinary men and women serving in the ADF, our veterans, and the families who support us. It is a great honour to be in your service, and I commit to giving you my all, every day, as your CDF.”

The Drone Coalition urges additional funding to further its goals and invites new allies and partners to join its efforts.

The group has announced plans to supply a wide range of drones to Ukraine to support its military success.

“We, the nations of the Drone Coalition, recognize the importance of supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russia’s aggression,” stated the joint announcement.

The coalition aims to provide Ukraine with drones and components produced by the industries of UDCG countries and seeks ways to support Ukrainian manufacturers. This will ensure the Ukrainian Defence Forces have the most effective capabilities.

Coalition members have already delivered significant drone support to Ukraine. Latvia is offering a drone testing training range for industry and military use to continuously improve drone technology. Additionally, the coalition has launched an industry competition for first-person view (FPV) drones, with 265 bids received and evaluations underway. The first contracts are expected to be signed in August.

It’s an ill wind

A bone chilling westerly blew from the snowcapped Brindabella Ranges, enveloping Australia’s national capital in its icy grip.

On Canberra’s southern outskirts on the property established by pioneer merchant Robert Campbell, Cyprus pine trees, bent from centuries of such winds, bowed before it’s relentless blast.

Campbell’s vision for the place named after his family seat, Duntroon, included a grand huis, wi’ a wee maze wi’ hidden pathways where later generations discovered otherwise horizontal entertainments could be pursued vertically, though safe from public scrutiny.

Tennis courts and a rotunda added to Duntroon’s pleasures.

CLICK LINK to continue reading

It’s an ill wind | Australian Defence History, Policy and Veterans Issues (targetsdown.blogspot.com)

First and foremost, I want to thank all of you for the wonderful wishes. Julie read every single one to me. On Thursday, I had a delicate eye operation that saved the sight in my right eye. We were quite worried, but I was referred to an amazing surgeon who expedited my surgery and performed it early Thursday morning. Yesterday afternoon, I had a post-op examination, and I’m thrilled to report excellent results. My sight has been completely restored, though I still have some healing to do, which should take a couple of weeks. During this healing period, I need to be cautious and follow the surgeon’s instructions. He knows about my work with Frontline and has advised me to limit my computer time to about an hour until at least next Tuesday. So please bear with me as I follow his instructions.