Which German propagandist coined the term 'Scrap-Iron Flotilla'? [Rabbithole]

 The other day I asked y'all which nazi propagandist coined the term 'scrap-iron flotilla'. Well, that was because I was deep in a rabbit hole, caused by a friend on discord asking me 'is there a primary source for Goebbels saying it?' This thread is the answer to that.

To start, I had a quick perusal on Wikipedia. Obviously, this has issues, but it always helps to uncover potential additional 'crinkles' in the hole I'm digging. Checking the article for 'Scrap Iron Flotilla', it outright states "The name was bestowed... by Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels". Furthermore, and I couldn't believe my eyes, there was a citation! Now, it was to a 2011 website which is simply a reproduction of an earlier book (which we'll get to in time), so I didn't learn much. What I did learn though was that this didn't just start on Wikipedia, which is a boon.

Okay, so now we've got a starting point. I take my next step, and go straight to Trove. Surely, such an infamous title would've been news in Australia at the time? Of course not, y'all should know by now that these things can never be that simple (else I wouldn't need to be making this thread). There is no, and I mean not a single mention, of this title or any derogatory title given to the Australian ships in any newspaper in 1939. Same for 1940, 1941, and 1942. It is only in March 1943 that something even close to the title appears in the newspapers. It would be a Sydney Morning Herald article, describing a new work from the Admiralty about the five Australian destroyers, where this first appears. That article, out on the 20th of March 1943, would state that "Goebbels had contemptuously labeled [the ships] 'scrap iron from Australia'. However, it wouldn't even be until December 1943 when the title "Scrap Iron Flotilla" would appear in any newspaper. Another article from the Sydney Morning Herald would be the source, however, this ones peculiar. It is an *advertising* article, pushing a new book by John F Moyes (more on him soon). The article, from the 10th of December, advertises that he has written a history of the five Australian destroyers. Another ad the next day would go into more detail. This includes the first mention of Goebbels providing the ships the title of "scrap iron flotilla". 

So, I hear you asking, what is this book. Well, it's "Scrap Iron Flotilla" by John F Moyes. This is the exact book that website the wikipedia citation leads to had transcribed, so we've come full circle. However, I wanted to be certain of the books contents, so I requested it from my library. That request was going to be fulfilled over the weekend, so I was at a dead end. Except... I wasn't actually. There was a second book on the ships, written far more recently in 2022, which I could immediately get my hands on. That being, The Scrap Iron Flotilla by Mike Carlton. Its first few chapters don't mention the title at all, however, coming into chapter 4 I stumble across a rather significant sentence. Carlton writes "It was at around this time [early 1940] that Lord Haw-Haw’s sneer about scrap iron and ‘the consignment of junk’ began to percolate among them".

Huh. That's both a different person, and as we'll later see, time, than has previously been suggested. Furthermore, Carlton doesn't have a specific citation for this sentence.

So now I'm extra confused, which isn't helped by the fact that for some reason the Rats of Tobruk Wikipedia article also claims Lord Haw-Haw coined the term. We've now got two German propagandists who might've said this term, and no actual primary source to verify this information. This is where I decided to take a break. With no clear paths forward, and it rapidly reaching the weekend, I let the rabbit hole sit. I picked it up again today, Moyes' book ready for me to collect. Surely this must have the original source for the title, some hint as to where it came from. Right?

"Goebbels called the scrap iron. He welcome them to the Mediterranean in that bleak, cold December of 1939 as a 'consignment of junk' and 'Australia's scrap-iron flotilla', ridiculed their fighting power, scoffed at their age and infirmities."

That is how Moyes starts his first chapter. And as far as I can tell, this is where the written record ceases to exist. Even though both 'Titles' are in quotation marks in the book, no citation exists for them, nor does the book contain any references. To be fair to Moyes, I guess that does make sense. You see, the Moyes actually served on one of these vessels. As we can see by his file in the National Archives (digitised thankfully), he served on the Voyager, one of the five destroyers which made up the 'flotilla', in 1942.

Alas, this is where the trail finally runs cold. Moyes left us no hints as to where he learnt that Goebbels' said such a thing, and it is extremely likely that the term originated with Moyes work, considering it does not appear prior to the book's advertisement. I have even looked through Goebbels' many speeches and articles, searching to see if this was recorded anywhere. I could not find such a statement from him, the closest being the below statement from an article he wrote in 1941 titled, 'How not to do it'.

Does this mean that the story of Goebbels, or even Lord Haw-Haw, naming the five Australian destroyers the 'Scrap-Iron Flotilla' was invented out of whole cloth? Not entirely. We do have to reach into the realm of speculation here now, but this isn't line of thought isn't a stretch by any means. It is possible, that sometime in late 1939 or early 1940, a German propagandist of some variety (whether it be Goebbels, Lord Haw-Haw, or someone else entirely), made a derogatory remark towards the Australian destroyers. This remark, likely heard by the British, may have been passed to the Aussies. If such a thing did happen, it is then highly likely that the story would've circulated throughout the men who served on the destroyers, gradually picking up steam until it was passed on to Moyes, who, as a journalist, decided to write about the 'Scrap-Iron Flotilla".

Now, I wanted to note, while the above is plausible, there are a few things working against it. Namely, Moyes gives no indication that he was told this by men on the ship. He simply states it as a matter of fact. Furthermore, if something had been said, surely we'd see mention of it before the book. As it stands, the title only appears as Moyes is advertising the book. And so, equally likely then, is that the term "Scrap-Iron Flotilla" was fabricated or invented by Moyes to increase interest for his book. And alongside terms like 'Rats of Tobruk' it seemed unquestionably real. I cannot verify if either case is true. But the fact remains that this title did not appear for years after it was said. So whether Goebbels or Lord Haw-Haw said it is less relevant now, when we cannot verify that it was ever said.

In any case, I think this demonstrates the dangerous nature of history. We've seen it before, where something gets accepted as fact despite a complete lack of evidence (hello Woolworths name dare). But normally, those are from Wikipedia. This is 'deep history', and a title known by many Aussies. In the end, maybe Goebbels did say it, oral history and personal testimony can't just be ignored. But since Moyes gives no indication from where he learnt about it, it is likely we'll forever be in the dark.

Original Bluesky Thread

The 2025 Western Australian State Election - Commentary and Thoughts

So the 2025 WA state election is done and dusted (besides a bunch of counting still to be done), and with a significant amount of results out now, I wanted to give my thoughts on the election as a whole. As this is the first one I'll be doing here, I'm still working out a format, but I'll probably give my general thoughts before going party by party. Let me know what you think!

General Thoughts

This election is interesting to look at, when you consider many people's expectations going in. 

While a Labor win was always the expected outcome, and honestly, anyone who thought otherwise probably wasn't paying attention, the current results were far better for the incumbent government (Labor) than most thought they would be. Having watched election coverage live, both pundits and members/candidates from both major parties believed that Labor was in to lose ~15-20 seats in the lower house, retaining its majority but making the Liberals and Nationals a competitive opposition. While results are still being counted, it looks likely that Labor will end with their numbers being anywhere between 45-50 seats, meaning that Labor will lose, at most, ~8 seats. Meanwhile, it is likely that neither the Liberals nor the Nationals, will have enough members each to support their own on-field soccer team (11 players/11 seats). In a general sense, that's a disaster of a result for both parties, so much so that even Antony Green said something similar on the ABC broadcast. 

Now, what does this mean for the future of the WA parliament? Well, at the very least, it means that the Liberals and Nationals will likely need another election to rebuild themselves before they can actually challenge for government, as at most they'll still be ~15 seats away from government by the end of the results being counted. So, unless disaster hits over the next 4 years, WA Labor can probably expect another term of 'safety' before truly having to fight in 2033. 

However, its not all roses for them. While the Legislative Council (Upper House) votes are still only just over half-counted, we can make a lot of conclusions from them. While Labor will have a healthy majority in the lower house, it'll have no majority in the upper house, and will therefore have to look to the Greens, or a group of completely unrelated minor party members, to pass any legislation they wish too. But, we'll talk more about that soon.

Before we get to the party comments, I know many are wondering what conclusion we can take from this election in regards to the upcoming Federal election. Based on the way in which many were pessimistic for Labor's results in WA, as they are federally, it is possible to suggest that Labor might actually do better than expected in the federal election as well. However, things aren't the same. While Roger Cook isn't the uber-popular Mark McGowan, he is still quite popular, something Prime Minister Albanese can't really claim (atleast, based on polling). Nonetheless, there are signs of hope for the Labor faithful, though I would remain cautious of extrapolating this election's results and making predictions based off of it.

Party by Party Thoughts

Below, you'll find my thoughts for each party, in order based on their first preference results. This is all subjective, so obviously take what you want from this, but do remember they are my thoughts and my thoughts alone.

The Labor Party

These guys are 100% the party most happy with the election. They kept their government, held onto far more seats than they seemingly expected, and will likely be some level of safe going into the next election. There's honestly not much to say about them, they won and won quite hard. The big challenge coming up than is whether the party can keep momentum across the next four years, and whether Roger Cook can magic up a success next election that doesn't just have them losing more seats.

The Liberal Party

Once again, there's not much to say here. By far the party most unhappy with this election's results (besides maybe the Nationals), one would suggest while this cannot hurt more than the 2021 election, that it probably hurts more than 2017. Even despite Labor having a -18% swing against it, the Liberals could only pick up a 7% swing for themselves. And despite that, most of their biggest swings were in incredibly safe Labor seats, 'wasting' these swings and leaving far more marginal seats still in Labor's hands.

Now, there is one big thing coming out immediately from this election for the Liberals. Despite some touch and go moments, it seems ex-TV personality Basil Zempalis will be elected for the Liberals in the seat of Churchlands. Throughout the last night, ABC (mainly David Speers) were doing their best to ask multiple Liberal candidates, including Basil himself, whether he'd try to take leadership away from Libby Mettam. While some Liberals were supportive of Libby, many others were non-committal, with some even giving not-so-sutble indications that they believed Basil would be the better choice (including Liberal MLC Steve Thomas on the ABC broadcast table). The biggest clue regarding this was, when asked before her concession speech, Libby Mettam seemed incredibly disillusioned and suggested she'd take any position the party thought she deserved. 

I guess the only solace the Liberals can take from this election is that in the Legislative Council, they're only 5 members off Labor, and so bringing that to even in the next election isn't inconceivable. Though that's a rather thin silver lining isn't it?

The Greens

Coming off the hiding they received at last WA election, the Greens will be rather happy with this result. Despite taking no seats in the lower house, they are now, quite convincingly, the third party of the state, atleast in terms of vote numbers (10% to the Nationals 5.5%). Whether this will translate to seats in the future, its hard to say, but there is something now that the Greens are probably celebrating even harder.

The current Legislative Council results show that the Greens are going to have least 4 seats in the upper house. While this may not seem like a lot, it is enough to mean that they now have the definitive balance of power (although technically the 3 minor party members can also do so, but they will never really engage with each other). Essentially, while the Labor party may have a solid majority in the lower house, they cannot pass any legislation in the upper house without the support of the Greens. As such, I can only assume the Greens are quite happy.

The National Party

Here's the other most unhappy party. Before the election WA's official opposition, it now seems likely they'll be kicked from that spot by the Liberals. While Shane Love may suggest that he and his party is open to negotiating with their expected coalition partners, the talk last night made it seem like all Liberal members expect the Nationals in the state to simply capitulate, no talks needed. Whether Love, whose now gotten a good taste of the limelight (and resources) that being official opposition gets you, will rollover so easily is anyone's guess. But, gaining only one or two seats in the lower house, does not leave him or his party in any spectacular place to negotiate. 

While they are still the third party in lower house seats, it is hard to see a future where the Nationals maintain their relevance, especially considering the Greens holding a balance of power. A rather whimpering end to an unexpected period of WA politics.

One Nation

Now, some may suggest that One Nation would be happy with this result. Up to ~4% of the state's vote and a seat in the upper house is quite decent after all, no? And while one can't sneeze at that seat, the percentage of the vote gained is incredibly small when you consider what the polling looks like in every other state for the party. We're talking numbers between 7%-10%. Less than 4% can only be seen as abit of a let down, even if it isn't terrible. 

The gain of an upper house seat though does technically mean One Nation, alongside the next two minor parties, also hold a balance of power, although seeing any of them working together is quite unlikely. One Nation is often a wildcard though, and depending on the proposals Labor puts forth, they could always be a potential vote or even 'kingmaker'.

Australian Christians

Well, these guys kind of came out of nowhere. The remnants of a party that actually merged with Cory Bernadi's Conservatives in 2017, the Australian Christians did not feel like a party destined for 'greatness' at this election. And yet, with 3.1% of the vote and one upper house (based on current results), I'd suggest their members see this result as nothing short of a miracle. Getting a seat in any state legislative council is a massive step for many parties (hell, look at what getting into a city council did for the Victorian Socialists notoriety), and the party will likely take this as a way to try and push themselves more nationally. Furthermore, the amount of votes they got is quite close to One Nation, and so that may begin to scare the also right-wing party.

While they also combine with One Nation and the next party to technically form a balance of power in the upper house, it is incredibly unlikely that they'll ever vote alongside Labor (especially if the Greens are also involved). But, they may serve as an ally to the Liberals, or even moreso the Nationals, and that may be interesting to watch.

Legalise Cannabis

Ah, everyone's 'favourite' single-issue party. Now, looking onto their legislative council seats, they're the one party that probably isn't shocked to have a seat, considering they won one last election. However, this election has solidified that seat, and the number of votes to the party means that they now hold the seat on their own quota, without preferences. This, alongside an almost 2% increase in their overall votes in the lower house, is meaningful. This many voters voting for a single-issue party means that there is significant want for that party's platform to succeed, in this case, the legalisation of cannabis. We'll likely see this occur across the country over the coming years, but it seems likely that sooner, rather than later, that WA will actually have to come to terms with cannabis legalisation, whatever that would look like (or whether they actually do it). In any case, I doubt there's any complains from Legalise Cannabis on their results.

Shooters, Fishers, Farmers

I doubt this is the result SFF wanted. Only 0.7% of the vote, and currently, the second lowest amount of votes in the Legislative Council, is not a sign of a growing party. Especially when you consider that, as of now, the party hasn't gained in percentage compared to last election. Whatever way you spin it, its not a good look for the party, especially considering gun laws were a topical issue at this election. Whether its because parties like One Nation and Australians Christians have cornered the right-wing market, or because of a stronger Nationals contingent than in many other states, the SFF just can't find a market for itself it seems. For a minor party, stagnation often equals death, so one would suggest that a lot needs to be done before next election.

Animal Justice

Now, 0.4% of the vote is not good. Let's say that right out of the gate. However, there are some bright spots for the Animal Justice party. Firstly, that 0.4% is entirely new voters, as the party did not contest the lower house last state election. More interestingly though is that the party saw a similar increase to its upper house vote, leaving it only a single percentage point behind gaining a seat there (or around half of the quota needed). While, again, this isn't good news, its growth, and so one could suggest that if this continues, it isn't unlikely that AJP gains an upper house seat within the next one or two elections.

Stop Pedophiles! Protect Kiddies!

What a horrible name. Ignoring the obvious dogwhistle going on, the ex-Democratic Labor Party did not do great, with only 0.1% of the state voting for them. There is the easy joke to make that this means only 0.1% of Western Australians want to stop pedophiles, but that's too low hanging for me to make... The party did technically get more votes in the upper house than SFF, which must be a dagger to the heart for that party, and technically they did gain nearly a whole percent there, so that's not bad news. But, lets be real, there's only so much room for an incredibly niche party with a horrid dogwhistle name to grow.

Libertarian Party

Oh god, the Libertarian Party. Their election platform was a horrific bargin bin grab bag of American far-right culture war policies. And so, seeing them at the bottom of both the legislative council and lower house (not even likely to gain over 1,000 votes in the lower house), is quite the relief. However, this probably isn't an uncomfortable spot for the party, considering that in many of the seats they contested at the last federal election (under the name, the Liberal Democrats), they also came last. Not much more to say about these guys, technically, they managed to lose 0.4% votes this election, so like, they're literally in a pit.

Conclusion

The 2025 WA state election was super interesting to watch live. While nothing was really a surprise, its always interesting to see how these things go. There's some definite winners and losers this election, looking at both ends of the results sheet, and it'll be interesting to see whether the minor parties (and Greens) continue their ascension across the next election, or whether that is a one election phenomenon. I guess we're asking something similar to the federal election than, though once again, I don't think many answers for that can be gained from this.

A Japanese Pirate in 1600s Australia?? - The alleged story of Yamada Nagamasa and his claimed $100mil treasure [Rabbithole]

So, it's that time of the month when I fall down a rabbit hole again. This time, I was talking to u/Fijure96, another flair from r/askhistorians, about a Japanese adventurer in the 1600s whose Wikipedia claims he buried treasure in Australia (spoilers: there's no source).

The star of our rabbit hole today is Yamada Nagamasa, a Japanese 'adventurer' whose life is super interesting even ignoring this whole 'mystery'. The big claim that his article makes is that stories of Yamada burying treasure on/around Magnetic Island, Australia "persist".

Now, as always with these rabbit holes, there is of course no citation. Having learnt from my previous rabbit hole (the Woolworths name dare), I immediately checked Yamada's Wikipedia article history, to see when this part of the article came to be. The claim did not exist when the article was first created in December 2004, and would not be on the article for the next 3+ years. However, in late December 2008, a guest user with no other edits before or since would add the claim in its entirety and leave no citation. The claim has remained there for over 16 years, uncited, essentially untouched. And when I went to look through google for blogs/forums/sites that mention Yamada and his arrival in Australia, I quickly realized that the Wikipedia article was in fact the earliest 'source' for the claim.

Atleast, on the internet. I quickly made my way to trove and searched up Yamada's name. It only appears 19 times in Australia's digitised newspaper history, so that made my life easier. And lo and behold, the first two articles were key to understanding this rabbit hole. These would be a November 1933 and a January 1934 article, both in Brisbane's Courier Mail. Both were written by a Dr W.G. Goddard (who I'd later figure out was William George Goddard). He has a lot of claims (check the pictures below), but, he seems to be the first to claim much of this story.

Now, I cannot fully verify or deny Goddard's claims due to a lack of sources provided, but the fact that this seems to be the only time he talks about this suggest his evidence is not strong. Fijure and I both agree its probably more 'wishful' thinking and mistranslation than anything concrete. However, this provides us with a clear source regarding Yamada's 'arrival' to Australia. Some Australian academic in 1933 wrote about it twice, it was parroted a few more times in the coming decade, and somehow entered into local legend right? Well, most likely, but there is abit more. 

You see, a 1977 article titled "A Short History of Thursday Island in Six Parts" from Torres News mentions Yamada in a more specific context. It suggests that Yamada used Booby Island, just north of Cape York Peninsula, as a base and saw 'substantial' success from it.

Well, as you probably just thought, this makes it sound like Yamada not only 'touched' Australia, but was here for a decent while. And yet, this article is the only source I can find anywhere claiming this. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article mentions Magnetic Island, which is over 1000km away. You'll also note that none of these 'sources' even mention a buried treasure, despite some 2010s sites claiming that this treasure was worth over $100mil (yep, that's what sites like this claim in anycase).

Furthermore, as far as I can tell, Yamada's Australian 'adventures' are not mentioned at all from 1977 until 2008, when it arrives on Wikipedia, no longer just a visit to Australia but a full-blown pirate mystery attached, with no evidence, to Magnetic Island.

And so, one would believe that to be it right? Except its not. An obscure TV documentary, called "Search for the Sunken Treasures", makes mention of not only Yamada, but the $100mil treasure. So that must be the source for the wikipedia article? Right???

The keen eye of you probably spotted this, but of course not! That clip came out in April 2009, and the whole documentary was out in 2010 according to IMDB. If you'll remember, the Wikipedia section was added in December 2008. If you'll note though, that article doesn't mention the amount of money, a claim that only appears with the documentary (atleast, it seems that way). This disconnect is telling, in my opinion. Is it possible that Ben Cropp, the documentary maker who did basic nature films, made it up?

In any case, we're left with a fragmented story. The Wikipedia article's origins seem certain, stemming from a couple old newspaper articles. The treasure part, likely massively exaggerated later on, is probably a local legend that has little basis beyond "pirate=treasure", as Fijure put it. In the end, we see how things added to Wikipedia early on, with no citation, can grow and shift far beyond the initial premise. Did Yamada Nagamasa visit Australia? Highly unlikely. Did he bury $100mil in treasure? Certainly not. Will we ever know more? I doubt it.

Original Bluesky Thread 

How many members make a guard? - The mystery of the New Guard/Centre Party's candidates in 1935 [Rabbithole]

Back from holidays (thank you Perth and Carrickalinga), and I've flung myself into some preparations for my PhD topic, the New Guard. To start, I am making a list of all known members... and the 5th person I put on it already sent me down the rabbit hole that is this thread.

Now, to start, I guess I should quickly explain what the New Guard is. Essentially, they were a fascist paramilitary group based in NSW during the 1930s. Led by the erratic Eric Campbell, the group rose to prominence in opposition of the ever-controversial Premier, Jack Lang. 

The rabbit hole then started as I searched through Wikipedia to see the names that came up. Obviously, these names won't be entirely accurate, especially for such a niche group, but it provided a good base. And a few names did appear for the Centre Movement/Party, the New Guard's 'political party'. Running in the 1935 NSW state election, it achieved no real results and was essentially the last death rattle of the already terminal group. Now, while I can't say that all members of the Centre Party were New Guardsmen, as it wasn't an official party arm, I doubt many were exclusive to only it. In any case, I, as a 'good student' of history, did my due diligence and checked newspapers from the time to ensure these members, candidates for the 1935 election, were actually part of the Party. And for 4 of them, including Campbell, there were no issues. But, of course, it's never that simple.

One, an Aubrey Frederick Carlile Murphy, stood out. Now, the official NSW parliament site, which contains all information for state electoral nominations and elections, and is run by none other then Antony Green, notes Murphy as a Centre Movement member. Case closed, right? 

Except it wasn't. Many newspapers discussing nominations for the 1935 election, such as the 18/04/35 edition of 'The Sun', presented Murphy, running for Concord, as an Independent. Now, one might that it could be an error, these newspapers simply linked a minor party as being Independents.

But, as you can see from the image above, other candidates such as Enoch [E.] Jones, running for Arncliffe, were presented as Centre Movement members. And this is present across multiple papers, by a tiny few which do make the mistake of labelling the Centre Movement as Independents. 

So now I've got an issue. The NSW parliament site says Murphy is a Centre Movement candidate while the newspapers of the time say he isn't. I could've left it here, Murphy isn't that relevant to the story of the New Guard. I instead let myself be swallowed by the rabbit hole. 

I do abit more digging and find that Murphy, had, in 1932, actually put himself forward to run for the UAP in that seat back in that year's state election, though was obviously not nominated in the end. Does this mean he wasn't a New Guardsman? Hard to tell, but it does show his changing of sides. I would soon after stumble into a pretty clear indicator that Murphy had no connection to the Centre Party. A campaign ad for the party, in the 05/05/35 edition of 'Truth', would note only 4 candidates as part of the party. Campbell, Jones, J.B.Fowler, and F.F.Munro, no Murphy. 

There is another rabbit hole that image provides, mainly in trying to figure out who G.F.Pearce is, as, while being the campaign director, he only appears twice more in newspapers and no where else. The well-known George Foster Pearce is active at this time, but its certainly not him. 

Diversionary rabbit hole aside, the ad is a pretty good piece of evidence that Murphy wasn't a member of the Centre Movement. But I still couldn't be certain, maybe the party just didn't have room to add his name. So I kept digging, certain something would appear. And it did. The final piece of the puzzle, the smoking gun if you will, was a tiny article, tucked away in the 22/04/35 edition of the Sydney Morning Herald. Plainly titled "Concord Electorate", it put the entire mystery to bed. In it, Murphy himself directly refutes being a member of the Centre Movement. 

The smoking gun is quite clear. Murphy, likely seeing previous articles labeling him as a member of the Centre Movement, refuted such claims and directly stated his Independent status. I could strike him off the list... 

Two questions remain though.

1) Why did newspapers label him as a member of the Centre Movement in the first place? The Movement itself seemingly never claims him, so was it just miscommunication or a mistake? 

2) What source was used on the NSW parliament's site to have him labelled as a Centre Movement candidate there?

These are questions, so far removed from my topic, that I shouldn't really keep digging for their answers. And yet, I am certain they're out there. I won't find them today, but maybe another day. In any case Murphy was an Independent, and likely never a New Guardsmen.

Original Bluesky Thread

Tasering an Australian Politician?? - The story of taser use in South Australia [Rabbithole]

Did you know that in 2009, the SA opposition leader, Liberal MP Isobel Redmond, let herself be tasered to prove a point? It sounds insane, but its true! The point she was trying to prove was that SA police should get tasers. This thread takes us down that rabbithole!

Let me take you back to the magical, mystical time that was 2008. At this time, tasers were, in many Australian states, used by all police officers. However, in SA, tasers remained limited to STAR (Special Tasks & Rescue) Group officers since 2003. This was to change in June 2008. A small trial would begin in 'two suburban local service areas', Elizabeth and the South Coast, as well as at Port Augusta, initially pledged for six months. Given to a limited amount of officers, they were only to be used in situations with people using a weapon. Despite the 6-month trial, Police Minister and MLC Paul Holloway, and Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, would both see it pertinent to begin talks of an expanded trial in September 2008. Hyde, in particular, would state this expanded roll-out was due to the 'weapons' effectiveness.

Although it seemed likely that tasers were to become a standard issue-'weapon' for SA police officers with relatively little fanfare, 2009 would see it become a hot-topic political issue. The Liberal Party, led by Martin Hamilton-Smith, would go all in regarding a push for general use tasers. Such a push would lead to some funny exchanges in parliament, as Holloway, who was cautiously pro-taser use, would fend questions from Liberal MLCs who were also pro-taser use. Such a reality can be seen in this Hansard transcript of a March 2009 parliament sitting.

Now, Hamilton-Smith would end up giving up the leadership of the SA Liberal party over poor polling, a bad by-election, and weirdest of all, accusing Labor of accepting Scientology donations based on documents he didn't realise were forgeries. He would be replaced by the aforementioned Redmond. Redmond, taking over in July, would immediately pick up on the trail of tasers. As the issue was debated in parliament and select committees, Redmond would decide on the ultimate publicity stunt. In October, she would offer herself up to be tasered, as to 'prove the worth' of tasers for the police. Such an offer led to hilarious news article titles, including "Taser me, says SA Opposition leader" by the ABC and "SA Liberal leader offers to be tasered", both titles leaving alot to the imagination as to why this person 'wants' to be tasered. Mike Rann, then-SA premier, was not impressed.

Now, a major roadblock would appear in the way of Redmond's offer. In November 2009, the SA police would be provided 300 tasers for 'high risk' cases. The issue was now a political non-factor. However, not one to be deterred by the small matter of reality, Redmond would push on. She'd accuse the government of being 'too slow' on rolling out tasers, since she pledged 500 tasers to the police, and would state that despite the rollout she was still going to get tasered. I'm not exactly certain why she wanted to continue, seeing as though there was no point to prove? 

In any case, the big day would come on the 15th of December. Redmond, at the Liberal Party SA HQ, would be shot with a taser by ex-police officer George Hateley. Such a tasering would provide us with another hilarious, but detail-lacking title, "Liberal leader shot with Taser". According to Hateley, Redmond took the tasering like a champ. "She didn't fall down at all, and she didn't make a murmur." Meanwhile, Redmond rated the pain 9.5/10. The SA Government, still unimpressed, would state that "good government was about making the right choices, not about gimmicks." 

Tasers, as a police weapon, have now become ubiquitous in SA. In 2014, rules would be changed significantly. While police were meant to keep their taser locked in their patrol car's boot, only for use against an armed offender, the 2014 changes would allow police to wear tasers on their belt. In addition to now keeping the tasers on themselves, SA police were now allowed to use the weapon on unarmed offenders as well. Training requirements remained, and remain, in place, but taser-use had essentially reached the 'logical' endpoint for police.

While Redmond was the first elected politician to willingly be tasered, such a 'stunt' had occurred previously in NSW. There, in 2006, now-disgraced police minister Carl Scully would get a volunteer, Raff Del Vecchio, to be tasered in parliament. Shame on Scully for not doing it himself.

That stunt, which caused uproar due to the bringing in of a weapon to parliament, has video evidence readily available (see here). Redmond's stunt though, despite readily available textual evidence, does not seem to have a video. Redmond has talked about the stunt in more recent years. She'd do an interview in 2010 (see here), as well as evidence of a Port'n'Talk, a type of sit-down interview event held at St Mark's College, from the St Mark's newsletter.

However, an Advertiser article from 2010 claims, "the Tasering was eventually done in private at Liberal Party headquarters on Greenhill Rd, and not even people in the next room knew it was happening." As such, perhaps a video does not exist at all? Despite this, a friend of my claims to remember watching the incident as a kid, it being one of their 'formative' political memories. In any case, Redmond was tasered, and despite the hilarity around the event, I don't think it ever did much for, or against her, politically.

To end, I am putting a small request out there. If anyone happens to have the video, or knows of its existence, I would be incredibly grateful for it/the information! Of course, it may very well not exist, in which case, I still hope you enjoyed this SA history thread!

Original Bluesky Thread

UFO sightings throughout colonial and early modern Australia [Rabbithole]

With all the news and hype around the New Jersey UFO flap, I figured I'd do a little digging through trove and find some historical 'UFO' sightings throughout Australia's earlier history, pre-WW1. No particular rhyme or reason for many, just a fun thread.

Perhaps the earliest newspaper reference to an 'unknown' object in Australia's skies, this 1839 column details an earlier sighting of a 'mid-day' star, one which is presented as Venus. While it is unclear if this is a UFO sighting, it demonstrates the characteristics of some modern-day sightings.

This 1842 sighting of a "strange phenomena" in Portland describes, in decent detail, an oddly moving faint light. The observer describes it like many modern UFO sightings, with erratic, stop-start movements. Besides the language used, this could pass as something from modern-day New Jersey.

Sightings of strange lights in the sky seem to die down from here, but pick back up in 1909, when the people of Victoria seem to be accosted by what could be a 'UFO flap'. More likely, these sightings were simply meteor showers, but so many articles in a single week make you wonder.

Not only were these seen in Victoria, but the northern coast of Tasmania. These sightings in Tasmania are far more detailed, and describe even weirder lights, such as a "strange body travelling along at a high altitude" with "two bright lights attached". Weird, although likely not unexplainable.

This 1909 flap seems to encompass the entire country by the middle of August, with "phantom airships" nearly hitting chimneys being reported in Western Australia and "Strange Lights" in NSW. Some attributed this to stars and planets, while an 'astronomer' suggested a hoax using a kite and a light.

This 'flap' seems to have ended with that article. Other minor sightings would occur, such as this one in Queensland in 1910. Here, oddly moving, flashing lights would be spotted in February around Milbong, though apparently the light had been seen since January.

A single light, seen around Adelaide in 1911. This short sighting is fairly detailed, describing the light as "tadpole"-shaped. In addition, the observer seems to know the easy explanations for UFO, as he preempts suggestions of meteors and searchlights. Interesting, although a singular account.

Heres the final sighting, this time in Gympie, Queensland. This seems to suggest a trend, as this light, like the previous one, is not just a strange light/circle, and instead has a different shape. In fact, this one changes shapes, from sparking meteor to comet tail to triangle and semi-circle.

There are likely plenty more sightings, however, finding them isn't the easiest as you can't just search up 'UFO' like you can nowadays. In any case, these showcase the way early colonial Australians dealt with sightings, with wonder, with fear, with confusion, similar to the modern-day I guess. It also, weirdly, shows a sort of evolution, going from 'angels' to 'strange circular lights' to phantom airships and shape-changing meteors, things which may not seem out of place in New Jersey, or any other more modern UFO 'flap'. ‪In the end, whether you believe or not, I think these are super interesting, just in the way they tell us how people, over a hundred to two hundred years ago, dealt with unknown things in the sky. And how, like us, they viewed these things with awe.

Original Bluesky Thread

Whats in a name? - The Story of Woolworths' name and whether a dare led to its existence [Rabbithole]

While submitting an answer to r/Askhistorians regarding why the US and Australian Woolworths have the same name, I fell down a rabbit hole of decent proportions. This post is that rabbit hole, all started because of a 'possible' dare made exactly 100 years ago.

One of the first things I found while researching was an article by news.com titled "Woolworths is only called ‘Woolworths’ because of a cheeky dare in 1924". In it, it states that the Australian Woolworths got its name through a dare made to use the already-extant US brand's name. Simple enough right? Except it wasn't. Woolworths' site doesn't mention the dare at all, not even in their 'about us' section which specifically discusses their name's origin. Even weirder, the news.com article states that its source was Stephen Ward, "manager of the Woolworths Heritage Centre".

So now we have a dilemma. Woolworths doesn't mention the dare, an interesting tidbit that'd 100% fit a corporate 'about us' page, and yet the news.com article, whose source is a person in charge of Woolies history, does. And instead of just letting this lie, I fell deep into the rabbit hole. You see, Wikipedia's article for the Australian Woolworths Group also mentions the dare. It states that "according to Ernest Robert Williams, Percy Christmas dared him to register the name Woolworths". Even if it is Wikipedia, surely this must corroborate the news.com article, right?? Nope! Not only is the Wikipedia article lacking a citation (more on that soon), but the person taking the dare is completely wrong. In the news.com article, it is Cecil Waine who Percy Christmas dared, not Ernest Williams. Both men were partners in the original Woolworths, but not the same at all.

Okay, so now we've got three variants. No dare, Ernest dared, Cecil dared. Trying not to be dragged further in, I did a direct search for the stated line from the Wikipedia article, hoping to find an original source. This however, led me down deeper into the rabbit hole. Most of the hits which weren't from post-2020s were blogs during a period between 2007-2010. All of them contained the exact same line from the Wikipedia page, and most actually linked back to the Wikipedia article. While this was annoying, I assumed that it meant there existed a common 'ancestor'. This seems certain by the fact that another news.com article, this one from 2018, titled "How SPC, Milo and other iconic brands really got their names", mentions the dare. Only this article mentions the Percy-Ernest dare, not the Percy-Cecil one.

Determined to find this ancestor, and answer the r/Askhistorians question in the proper way, I began searching through some academic sources. The Australian Dictionary of Biography entry for Percy Christmas mentioned nothing of the dare, which seems to line up with the 'about us' page. Going onto Trove and searching a myriad of phrases and words throughout the 1900s for a decent while also came up with no hits. At the very least, the newspapers Trove has digitized never mention a dare, but that is not conclusive proof that such a dare never existed. However, this left me at my wits end. No clear common source made me believe that the answer may have just been out of my reach.

Throwing one final hail Mary, I checked the Wikipedia page's version history. And that's when I found it. While the original article for Woolworths Group (Australia) is just a stub, the first major update completely expanded the page. Amongst this expansion, a single line appeared, the same one regarding Percy and Ernest's dare. And shockingly, it still lacked a citation. That version of the article was created in AUGUST 2004! That line, uncited for 20 years now, has sat there, untouched. And through it, dozens of blogs have taken up this as 'fact', all the way up until 2018 where news.com reported it as truth. 20 years, and not a single time has it been questioned.

Based on this find, I have an idea of what probably happened. This is mostly conjecture though, so take it with a huge grain of salt. The user who updated the Woolworths page in 2004, had, at some point, gone to the Woolies Heritage Centre and knew of the 'dare', but had misremembered the names involved. They added it, without a citation as would regularly happen with Wikipedia 20 years ago, and likely thought little of it. This line than trickled down throughout blogs and articles, before finally being put to rest in 2019, with the more recent news. com article which, unlike anything else, seems to have a concrete source.

That leaves us with a massive question, though. Did a dare actually occur? The answer is, most likely, probably.

While I think there is misinformation which needs to be cleaned up, I doubt the Woolies Heritage Centre and Stephen Ward lied to news.com. So, at the very least, they presumably have some sort of evidence for the dare (which I cannot get to right now). Whatever the case, it seems the dare probably occurred. What did occur, though, was this rabbit hole, of which I had been stuck for hours in while answering that question. Out now, I am simply struck with curiosity about how much other history has ended up wrong due to a Wikipedia article.

Original Bluesky Thread