Royal slip

Sir: Philip Murphy’s ‘Sir’ Bob Carr of Italy article (Spectator Australia, 7 February) refers, in relation to Prince Philip being made a Knight of the Order of Australia (AK), to bringing his Australian award into line with that of his son. What seems to have been missed in the commentary regarding Prince Philip’s AK is that the amendments to the letters patent made to grant it give his AK precedence over the AK granted to Prince Charles in 1981. Did Tony Abbott understand that royal protocol would dictate that an AK be awarded to Prince Philip when he reinstated Knights and Dames in the Order of Australia?
Grant Parker
Neutral Bay NSW

Defending Churchill

Sir: I think Terry Barnes is being completely unreasonable about Churchill (Spectator Australia, 31 January).

Just a few points , starting with Singapore.

I was under the impression that the attack from the landward side by the Japanese took the Allied forces by surprise as if anything they expected an attack from the sea. The heavy cannon faced out to sea and they did not have artillery facing landwards for this reason. Situation reminiscent of Aqaba in WW1 which enabled Lawrence of Arabia`s Arab forces to attack and achieve victory from the landward side. If the British had artillery on landward side then things would probably have been different, but I don’t see how more naval vessels would have helped that much anyway seeing as those that did come were quickly dispatched by the Japanese air force and any more might have just led to more losses. I don’t know how effective naval vessels would have been against a landward attack.

Mr Barnes said Churchill abandoned them to their fate. What did Mr Barnes expect him to do at that point? He had to face the danger of a potential German invasion of Britain—if that disaster happened that would have prolonged the war by a long way and who can be sure of the outcome? At that time he could not afford the troops to send to Singapore, and what other planes etc. Then the USA might have been pre-occupied with rescuing Britain instead of concentrating on the Japanese. As it was the British just got their army out of France in time. It took predominantly the USA to defeat the Japanese and that was not easy even for them. Trying to rescue Singapore could have lost the war.

The harshness of the Versailles treaty on Germany was predominantly due to the French, not the British who thought it was too severe, but the French insisted. The Japanese were not squeezed out by the treaty of Versailles—they always wanted to take over much more of China than those German concessions in China from the beginning—later they did invade China in 1937—as a result the USA placed the oil embargo on Japan then Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. Is Mr Barnes suggesting that the Allies should have immorally handed more of China over to the Japanese at the end of WW1 like they wanted? Even then, given their behavior during WW2, does he think they would have stopped there and not invaded the rest of Australasia? Why doesn’t Mr Barnes go on TV and air that view? I’m sure our major trading partners would be very impressed. Even the Japanese might be embarrassed.

In the Gallipoli campaign there is a story that the Turkish side had run out of ammunition.

So Ataturk told them to aim their rifles at the Allied troops and pretend—the bluff was successful and the Allied troops did not charge the Turkish positions—if they had then the Turkish side would have been overrun and the Allies would have been victorious and Churchill’s plan would have worked. As it was the delay allowed the Turks to call up ammunition and re-inforcements. It reminds me of the battle of Crete in WW2 when the Allies would have won if not for one Allied commander losing his nerve when he thought his position was untenable and ordering a retreat ,when he was in fact winning.

During WW1 the military strategy had not adapted to the machine gun yet and losses were terrible everywhere, not just in Gallipoli. Churchill was largely responsible for the invention of the tank to save lives.

Mr Barnes seems to be implying Britain should have stayed neutral in WW1, but Britain had pledged to guarantee Belgium’s neutrality under the longstanding Treaty of London of 1839 when they declared war in 1914. Mr Barnes complains of Churchill leaving Singapore troops to their fate in WW2. Would he have Britain leave Belgium to it’s fate in WW1? Similarly, Britain had no choice but to honour it’s treaty with Poland when Hitler invaded.
Geoffrey Archos
Melbourne, Victoria

A vandalistic proposal

Sir: Igor Toronyi-Lalic (Farewell, ENO, 7 February) displays a lack of judgment in advocating ENO’s demise and in suggesting that opera needs no opera houses, companies or subsidy. That its new arts editor should plead for the closure of England’s great repertory opera company is unworthy of The Spectator.

Toronyi-Lalic is wrong to think that the hundreds of thousands of English opera-goers will be content with performances by itinerant ensembles only. Small-scale performances presented anywhere can be moving, but the public demand productions of a scale that befits the art form as it has grown over the last four centuries. An orchestrated ‘farewell’ to ENO would be an act of cultural vandalism on a company that is admired throughout the world and which (contrary to what Toronyi-Lalic says) gave the world premiere of Benjamin Britten’s Peter Grimes, which it commissioned.

John Berry’s era has kept ENO at the cutting edge of interpretations of the classics and the new. There have been a few failures, as risk demands, but such risk must be supported. It is the successes that are in the majority, leading ENO productions to be seen in 42 countries and in operatic centres from New York to Munich.

As the former general director of the Opera Theatre of St Louis and the Santa Fe Opera, I fought battles for this art form for decades. The ENO was always a model for us, and it remains an inspiring example of what an opera company should be.
Richard Gaddes
New York